The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread
- Thread starter Strell
- Start date
I don't think bob even knows what this ruling was about. The right said it was unconstitutional under the current text of the constitution, the left said it wasn't, so it was decided by the SCOTUS. That's it. It wasn't found to conflict with anything currently written as part of the constitution. Why is that so hard to understand? This was just a test of the law, it past the test, get over it. You don't need an amendment just to declare something constitutional.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clak - I fully get there was a disagreement over the idea of this bill (all or parts of it) being Constitutional.
Some folks felt it was in direct conflict with what the Constitution says. Other folks felt different.
Then, the Supreme Court rules one way or the other. Then Supreme Court ruling "becomes law".
That's well and good - but if you're of the mindset of "If the Supreme Court says so, then it must be right", then you're assuming that the Supreme Court is 100% infallible and can never, ever make a poor interpretation of the Constitution.
If that is the case, then, again - Plessy or Brown. Two completely different outcomes based on virtually the same case and the same Constitutional text. Either, somehow, both Supreme Courts were right (if this is the case, do please feel free to explain that to me with handpuppets) or one group of justices were gravely incorrect. Which shows that they can make a poor interpretation of the Constitution. Which shows that simply because the 6-10 folks sitting on the Supreme Court at the time of the ruling think "X", it doesn't mean "X" is true. Period.
Some folks felt it was in direct conflict with what the Constitution says. Other folks felt different.
Then, the Supreme Court rules one way or the other. Then Supreme Court ruling "becomes law".
That's well and good - but if you're of the mindset of "If the Supreme Court says so, then it must be right", then you're assuming that the Supreme Court is 100% infallible and can never, ever make a poor interpretation of the Constitution.
If that is the case, then, again - Plessy or Brown. Two completely different outcomes based on virtually the same case and the same Constitutional text. Either, somehow, both Supreme Courts were right (if this is the case, do please feel free to explain that to me with handpuppets) or one group of justices were gravely incorrect. Which shows that they can make a poor interpretation of the Constitution. Which shows that simply because the 6-10 folks sitting on the Supreme Court at the time of the ruling think "X", it doesn't mean "X" is true. Period.
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
Sigh.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
What is so confusing here? The Supreme Court has to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution was written by some well educated men over two centuries ago as they struggled to establish our nation's framework for freedom using unambiguous language. Unfortunately they weren't all linguistic scientists, and this isn't a mathematical process.
Therefore, it is possible to interpret something in different ways because the Supreme Court at any time must try to infer what they believe was meant originally by any particular phrase or statement in the Constitution. The founders were obviously not perfect with regard to human rights, so it's possible that their likely intentions are disregarded for a more egalitarian verdict if it doesn't seem to flout the original wording.
The Supreme Court is not perfect, of course, so members of it will have trouble remaining purely objective and will be influenced by their internal political beliefs into making a decision that benefits the party they side with on the issue at hand. It's possible to shoehorn a decision by calling it something that many think it's not (a tax, a fee, etc.), but could still technically apply, unlikely or not. It isn't a popularity contest, after all.
Therefore, two decisions might indeed be passable, but depending on the political and economic climate, one might be more appealing than another. Maybe a decision that is flagrantly incorrect could come about, but it doesn't seem super likely given the steps involved in getting to the Supreme Court.
Edit: Maybe one could think of the Constitution as a video game, an MMO perhaps. Try as they might, no developer can make such a complex work without there being some bugs, bugs that allow one to do things which were unintended but definitely possible within the faulty code that makes up the game, as well as bugs that halt one's progress. Some areas are better written than others, too. It can be patched afterward, but in this case, the developers have not only long since died, they also were not the most efficient in their writing. So anyone who picks up what's left will have to make changes and adapt it to their own style as best they can. Unfortunately, some works are monumental and would require an almost complete rewrite to perfectly satisfy the needs of modern systems, more time or budget than these newer guys have; not to mention a set of rules which limit how much they can change. The Supreme Court can be like top level tech support guys who respond to people having problems as well as reports of exploitation and newly discovered bugs. Not exactly how it goes, but I think this works a little.
Therefore, it is possible to interpret something in different ways because the Supreme Court at any time must try to infer what they believe was meant originally by any particular phrase or statement in the Constitution. The founders were obviously not perfect with regard to human rights, so it's possible that their likely intentions are disregarded for a more egalitarian verdict if it doesn't seem to flout the original wording.
The Supreme Court is not perfect, of course, so members of it will have trouble remaining purely objective and will be influenced by their internal political beliefs into making a decision that benefits the party they side with on the issue at hand. It's possible to shoehorn a decision by calling it something that many think it's not (a tax, a fee, etc.), but could still technically apply, unlikely or not. It isn't a popularity contest, after all.
Therefore, two decisions might indeed be passable, but depending on the political and economic climate, one might be more appealing than another. Maybe a decision that is flagrantly incorrect could come about, but it doesn't seem super likely given the steps involved in getting to the Supreme Court.
Edit: Maybe one could think of the Constitution as a video game, an MMO perhaps. Try as they might, no developer can make such a complex work without there being some bugs, bugs that allow one to do things which were unintended but definitely possible within the faulty code that makes up the game, as well as bugs that halt one's progress. Some areas are better written than others, too. It can be patched afterward, but in this case, the developers have not only long since died, they also were not the most efficient in their writing. So anyone who picks up what's left will have to make changes and adapt it to their own style as best they can. Unfortunately, some works are monumental and would require an almost complete rewrite to perfectly satisfy the needs of modern systems, more time or budget than these newer guys have; not to mention a set of rules which limit how much they can change. The Supreme Court can be like top level tech support guys who respond to people having problems as well as reports of exploitation and newly discovered bugs. Not exactly how it goes, but I think this works a little.
Last edited by a moderator:
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44'] Short statement of surprise and shock... insult that makes little to no sense...
[/QUOTE]
I never heard that one before. The point still stands however, neither this country nor its judicial system are adaptable, never mind highly adaptable (May I add that a cursory read of the federalist papers should demonstrate why that is. Also a decent understanding of the changing perception on the role of government post populist movement may help as well). But take care man.
I never heard that one before. The point still stands however, neither this country nor its judicial system are adaptable, never mind highly adaptable (May I add that a cursory read of the federalist papers should demonstrate why that is. Also a decent understanding of the changing perception on the role of government post populist movement may help as well). But take care man.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ID2006'][...]the Supreme Court at any time must try to infer what they believe was meant originally by any particular phrase or statement in the Constitution. [...] it will have trouble remaining purely objective and will be influenced by their internal political beliefs into making a decision that benefits the party they side with on the issue at hand.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
[quote name='UncleBob']Couldn't have said it better myself.[/QUOTE]
But you're not and you didn't despite being pressed to give a deeper explanation several times. Nice to see you try and take credit for it though. And by "nice," I mean it's pathetic. The point that you think you're making isn't the one you are making.
Harping on the unconstitutionality of any legislation is like tilting at windmills when you don't understand the purpose of government beyond nebulous proclamations like FREEDUMZ and LIBERTEES.
But you're not and you didn't despite being pressed to give a deeper explanation several times. Nice to see you try and take credit for it though. And by "nice," I mean it's pathetic. The point that you think you're making isn't the one you are making.
Harping on the unconstitutionality of any legislation is like tilting at windmills when you don't understand the purpose of government beyond nebulous proclamations like FREEDUMZ and LIBERTEES.
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not what? That doesn't even make sense.
And, yes, I did. (Say it, though not "better").[/QUOTE]
It doesn't make sense to you because you seem to think that you're making and made the same point, but you're not making it now and you didn't make it before. Doing a hack job on ID2006's post to make it seem that way doesn't make it true. I know you love to hack and twist people's posts out of context, but you're getting pretty
ing ridiculous.
You're making a semantic argument(your m.o.) and ID2006 is making a point about the process. This is why you're hung up on what to call everything without really addressing how it works. This is why, despite using similar language, your points are incongruent.
And, yes, I did. (Say it, though not "better").[/QUOTE]
It doesn't make sense to you because you seem to think that you're making and made the same point, but you're not making it now and you didn't make it before. Doing a hack job on ID2006's post to make it seem that way doesn't make it true. I know you love to hack and twist people's posts out of context, but you're getting pretty
ing ridiculous.You're making a semantic argument(your m.o.) and ID2006 is making a point about the process. This is why you're hung up on what to call everything without really addressing how it works. This is why, despite using similar language, your points are incongruent.
[quote name='UncleBob']So, you admit to doing it? That's awesome.[/QUOTE]
Not even close. But knowing you, this is just a mere distraction because you can't defend your positions.
Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing is different from taking a couple lines out of 20 to franken-quote it into something that supports your point. There's a huge difference between what I do and what you do. Only an imbecile or outright troll would argue that it's the same thing.
Not even close. But knowing you, this is just a mere distraction because you can't defend your positions.
Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing is different from taking a couple lines out of 20 to franken-quote it into something that supports your point. There's a huge difference between what I do and what you do. Only an imbecile or outright troll would argue that it's the same thing.
I demand that all Christians apologize for this numbskull. 
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/alabama-pastor-hold-whites-only-conference-162845760.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/alabama-pastor-hold-whites-only-conference-162845760.html
bigdaddybruce44
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
You know, if you're gonna burn crosses, just say you're burning crosses.
I Googled "Christian cross lighting," and the first link was to a KKK website...
[quote name='dohdough']Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing[/QUOTE]
Your idea of breaking down and summarizing is 'lolz republicans'. So, yay!
Do tell, though, DD - Do you believe that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of something, then it is Constitutional?
Your idea of breaking down and summarizing is 'lolz republicans'. So, yay!
Do tell, though, DD - Do you believe that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of something, then it is Constitutional?
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you believe that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of something, then it is Constitutional?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
By definition, if SCotUS declares a law constitutional, then the law *is* constitutional.
I stress the word "is" being that in the instant state of being, the law "is" constitutional. There is, however, no guarantee that said law "will always be" constitutional.
But I'm sure that's a concept everyone here can grasp.
Yes.
By definition, if SCotUS declares a law constitutional, then the law *is* constitutional.
I stress the word "is" being that in the instant state of being, the law "is" constitutional. There is, however, no guarantee that said law "will always be" constitutional.
But I'm sure that's a concept everyone here can grasp.
[quote name='dohdough']I already did. If you weren't such a pea-brained pedant, you would've noticed.[/QUOTE]
Really?
Every post you've made in this thread since the subject came up...
Not sure which one of those you're claiming answers the question.
Let me fake some surprise at your lack of an ability to answer a straightforward question.
Really?
Every post you've made in this thread since the subject came up...
[quote name='dohdough']How could I have ever been so wrong! Bob is the TRUE FIGHTER of racial equality here and I'm just a raging racially racist racister.
Between this and his defense of brown people, I have been shown the errors of my ways![/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']lolz[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']Free book rentals are an infringement on the free market and puts bookstores out of business because who can compete with free?
Oh, and it's also communism. Suck IT LIEberal scum!
Seriously though, they pulled that shit in Boston too, although, it was a local decision and not a state one. It boggles theing mind.
edit:
Probably. He wanted to change his user name, but it didn't happen. Or maybe he finally got banned, but mods generally completely scrub the person's posts history as if they never existed. I'm putting my money on the former and that he'll be back.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']This is a complete mischaracterization of sentiment on the issue. When asked in polls, you're mostly correct about how people feel about the bill, but when asked about individual aspects of the bill or if it was called something different, people are overwhelmingly in favor of it.
Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']But you're not and you didn't despite being pressed to give a deeper explanation several times. Nice to see you try and take credit for it though. And by "nice," I mean it's pathetic. The point that you think you're making isn't the one you are making.
Harping on the unconstitutionality of any legislation is like tilting at windmills when you don't understand the purpose of government beyond nebulous proclamations like FREEDUMZ and LIBERTEES.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']It doesn't make sense to you because you seem to think that you're making and made the same point, but you're not making it now and you didn't make it before. Doing a hack job on ID2006's post to make it seem that way doesn't make it true. I know you love to hack and twist people's posts out of context, but you're getting prettying ridiculous.
You're making a semantic argument(your m.o.) and ID2006 is making a point about the process. This is why you're hung up on what to call everything without really addressing how it works. This is why, despite using similar language, your points are incongruent.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']And who might that be? You were pulling this kinda shit long before I even joined this forum.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']Not even close. But knowing you, this is just a mere distraction because you can't defend your positions.
Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing is different from taking a couple lines out of 20 to franken-quote it into something that supports your point. There's a huge difference between what I do and what you do. Only an imbecile or outright troll would argue that it's the same thing.[/QUOTE]
Between this and his defense of brown people, I have been shown the errors of my ways![/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']lolz[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']Free book rentals are an infringement on the free market and puts bookstores out of business because who can compete with free?
Oh, and it's also communism. Suck IT LIEberal scum!
Seriously though, they pulled that shit in Boston too, although, it was a local decision and not a state one. It boggles the
ing mind.edit:
Probably. He wanted to change his user name, but it didn't happen. Or maybe he finally got banned, but mods generally completely scrub the person's posts history as if they never existed. I'm putting my money on the former and that he'll be back.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']This is a complete mischaracterization of sentiment on the issue. When asked in polls, you're mostly correct about how people feel about the bill, but when asked about individual aspects of the bill or if it was called something different, people are overwhelmingly in favor of it.
Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']But you're not and you didn't despite being pressed to give a deeper explanation several times. Nice to see you try and take credit for it though. And by "nice," I mean it's pathetic. The point that you think you're making isn't the one you are making.
Harping on the unconstitutionality of any legislation is like tilting at windmills when you don't understand the purpose of government beyond nebulous proclamations like FREEDUMZ and LIBERTEES.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']It doesn't make sense to you because you seem to think that you're making and made the same point, but you're not making it now and you didn't make it before. Doing a hack job on ID2006's post to make it seem that way doesn't make it true. I know you love to hack and twist people's posts out of context, but you're getting pretty
ing ridiculous.You're making a semantic argument(your m.o.) and ID2006 is making a point about the process. This is why you're hung up on what to call everything without really addressing how it works. This is why, despite using similar language, your points are incongruent.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']And who might that be? You were pulling this kinda shit long before I even joined this forum.
[/QUOTE][quote name='dohdough']Not even close. But knowing you, this is just a mere distraction because you can't defend your positions.
Breaking down an argument into it's component points and then summarizing is different from taking a couple lines out of 20 to franken-quote it into something that supports your point. There's a huge difference between what I do and what you do. Only an imbecile or outright troll would argue that it's the same thing.[/QUOTE]
Not sure which one of those you're claiming answers the question.
Let me fake some surprise at your lack of an ability to answer a straightforward question.
[quote name='UncleBob']Really?
Every post you've made in this thread since the subject came up...
Not sure which one of those you're claiming answers the question.
Let me fake some surprise at your lack of an ability to answer a straightforward question.[/QUOTE]
el oh el
So you're admitting that you're a pea-brained pedant? Funny how your childish bullshit works both ways innit?
We all know that none of your "simple" questions are looking for a "straightforward" answer and you already made your point about your obsession with the semantics of any legislation being "constitutional" while implying the immutability of constitutional framework. If you have a relevant point to make, just make it instead of acting like awad JAQ-off.
Either way, hostyl1 quoted you; not me. Now read all of my posts again and see if you can find the answer that you didn't really look for to begin with.
Every post you've made in this thread since the subject came up...
Not sure which one of those you're claiming answers the question.
Let me fake some surprise at your lack of an ability to answer a straightforward question.[/QUOTE]
el oh el
So you're admitting that you're a pea-brained pedant? Funny how your childish bullshit works both ways innit?
We all know that none of your "simple" questions are looking for a "straightforward" answer and you already made your point about your obsession with the semantics of any legislation being "constitutional" while implying the immutability of constitutional framework. If you have a relevant point to make, just make it instead of acting like a
wad JAQ-off.Either way, hostyl1 quoted you; not me. Now read all of my posts again and see if you can find the answer that you didn't really look for to begin with.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Hey, everyone, it's the nullification crisis of 2012!
Paco
CAGiversary!
Anyone see this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/bill-young-minimum-wage-get-a-job_n_1651809.html
Out of touch rich white republican tells
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/bill-young-minimum-wage-get-a-job_n_1651809.html
Out of touch rich white republican tells
On the subject of irrelevant replies, this article has some gems.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-t...tax-returns-052224653--abc-news-politics.html
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-t...tax-returns-052224653--abc-news-politics.html
Nice segue...
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']If only our government didn't adopt policies that encourage Mitt Romney and his ilk to keep their money off shore in the first place...[/QUOTE]
if only our government didn't tax, that's what you're saying.
derp.
if only our government didn't tax, that's what you're saying.
derp.
Tax law is unfair, so it's fine to break the law. At least that's what the bootlick bob seems to think.
You know what, if you give me an income of 1 mil a year, I'll let the government tax that shit at at least a 50% rate, how's that? Anyone can live comfortably on $500,000 a year.
You know what, if you give me an income of 1 mil a year, I'll let the government tax that shit at at least a 50% rate, how's that? Anyone can live comfortably on $500,000 a year.
[quote name='mykevermin']if only our government didn't tax, that's what you're saying.
derp.[/QUOTE]
Actually, any idiot with an IQ large enough to click a pen can read what I wrote and see it isn't what you attempted to rephrase it as.
Hey, look - Myke is taking someone's words and twisting them around into something they're not, then attacking the person based on his twisting of their words! Who would have thought that would ever happen?
derp.[/QUOTE]
Actually, any idiot with an IQ large enough to click a pen can read what I wrote and see it isn't what you attempted to rephrase it as.
Hey, look - Myke is taking someone's words and twisting them around into something they're not, then attacking the person based on his twisting of their words! Who would have thought that would ever happen?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
nyet. you specifically used the word "encourage" - that is, what drove him to avoid his civic responsibility to pay his taxes? Taxes themselves.
If you have used the phrase "adopt policies that *allow* Mitt Romney and his ilk..." then I wouldn't have been able to interpret your post in such a way. I'd have even settled for "permit."
But you used "encourage." As someone who gets anal retentive about phrasing and word choice, you certainly can't take it in return.
If you have used the phrase "adopt policies that *allow* Mitt Romney and his ilk..." then I wouldn't have been able to interpret your post in such a way. I'd have even settled for "permit."
But you used "encourage." As someone who gets anal retentive about phrasing and word choice, you certainly can't take it in return.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
so, amuse me.
what 'encourages' Romney to do such?
what 'encourages' Romney to do such?
Better question - how many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by Romney's off shore accounts
How many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by taxpayers
Or do you simply ignore that fact because it's a (D) signing off on the killing orders this round
You let the folks on the left play you like a one-string harp, Myke. You're letting them decide what the issues are - and that Romney's bank account is more important than what Obama actually does while in office
When Obama is reelected, know that the blood is on your hands.
How many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by taxpayers
Or do you simply ignore that fact because it's a (D) signing off on the killing orders this round
You let the folks on the left play you like a one-string harp, Myke. You're letting them decide what the issues are - and that Romney's bank account is more important than what Obama actually does while in office
When Obama is reelected, know that the blood is on your hands.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
straight the off the deep end, eh?Gee, thanks for answering the question. You're a real man of integrity.
It's almost as if the rich(wealthy or whatever the you want to call them) tend to have disproportionate power to influence politicians to lower their tax burden that the middleclass(and lower) don't benefit from and can't access...yet it seems as if any miniscule hike is seen as class warfare and no one really questions the increasing privatization of war(or every other industry) as being a bad thing and how all those problems are related.
you want to call them) tend to have disproportionate power to influence politicians to lower their tax burden that the middleclass(and lower) don't benefit from and can't access...yet it seems as if any miniscule hike is seen as class warfare and no one really questions the increasing privatization of war(or every other industry) as being a bad thing and how all those problems are related.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Better question - how many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by Romney's off shore accounts
How many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by taxpayers
Or do you simply ignore that fact because it's a (D) signing off on the killing orders this round
You let the folks on the left play you like a one-string harp, Myke. You're letting them decide what the issues are - and that Romney's bank account is more important than what Obama actually does while in office
When Obama is reelected, know that the blood is on your hands.[/QUOTE]
holy shit
How many innocent civilians are killed by unmanned drones funded by taxpayers
Or do you simply ignore that fact because it's a (D) signing off on the killing orders this round
You let the folks on the left play you like a one-string harp, Myke. You're letting them decide what the issues are - and that Romney's bank account is more important than what Obama actually does while in office
When Obama is reelected, know that the blood is on your hands.[/QUOTE]
holy shit
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']It's almost as if the rich(wealthy or whatever the you want to call them) tend to have disproportionate power to influence politicians to lower their tax burden that the middleclass(and lower) don't benefit from and can't access...yet it seems as if any miniscule hike is seen as class warfare and no one really questions the increasing privatization of war(or every other industry) as being a bad thing and how all those problems are related.[/QUOTE]
When shit gets bad enough people will figure it out.
you want to call them) tend to have disproportionate power to influence politicians to lower their tax burden that the middleclass(and lower) don't benefit from and can't access...yet it seems as if any miniscule hike is seen as class warfare and no one really questions the increasing privatization of war(or every other industry) as being a bad thing and how all those problems are related.[/QUOTE]When shit gets bad enough people will figure it out.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='camoor']When shit gets bad enough people will figure it out.[/QUOTE]
that's vague and too optimistic. Shit's gonna have to get to the levels of the poor eating the dead poor before the bulk of the public realizes what a sham it is.
that's vague and too optimistic. Shit's gonna have to get to the levels of the poor eating the dead poor before the bulk of the public realizes what a sham it is.
Golly gee, let's pretend we care about the "increasing privatization of war" while we continue to trumpet the folks who work towards it and vote for the main man who just spent his last three plus years in office continuing the same path of "privatization of war" that we're pretending to care about
But hey, he got us out of Iraq, right? I mean, sure... after he tried every trick in the book to keep us there and the Iraqi government virtually told him to sod off when he proved to be a failure at international negotiation... but I'm sure all those dollars some pretended to care about Bush spending each year in Iraq... I'm sure those were all rediverted towards great social programs, right?
But hey, he got us out of Iraq, right? I mean, sure... after he tried every trick in the book to keep us there and the Iraqi government virtually told him to sod off when he proved to be a failure at international negotiation... but I'm sure all those dollars some pretended to care about Bush spending each year in Iraq... I'm sure those were all rediverted towards great social programs, right?
So argument 1:
Raising income tax rates on the top bracket is a massive tax increase
Argument 2:
Raising the income tax rates on the top bracket wouldn't increase the revenue enough to fund the govt for (insert paltry amount of days here)
Is it, or is it not, a massive tax increase (scary) since it won't have much benefit (obfuscate)?
Having one's cake and eating it too is pretty neat.
At risk of being redundant:
Having one's cake and eating it too is pretty neat.
Raising income tax rates on the top bracket is a massive tax increase
Argument 2:
Raising the income tax rates on the top bracket wouldn't increase the revenue enough to fund the govt for (insert paltry amount of days here)
Is it, or is it not, a massive tax increase (scary) since it won't have much benefit (obfuscate)?
Having one's cake and eating it too is pretty neat.
So Romney's offshoring is a patriotic protest and not strictly the act of self interest?
At risk of being redundant:
Having one's cake and eating it too is pretty neat.
[quote name='camoor']When shit gets bad enough people will figure it out.[/QUOTE]
I used to think that, but now, I'm not so sure anymore. Union sentiment is in the shitter, there are no real alternatives to corporate mass media, and even what's left of our social safety net stands in the way. This forum might lean left of center, but all the bobs, Knoells, Spokkers, and slidecages are really the mainstream voices of this country. It's dumb, classist, racist, sexist and the power elite wants to keep it that way.
I used to think that, but now, I'm not so sure anymore. Union sentiment is in the shitter, there are no real alternatives to corporate mass media, and even what's left of our social safety net stands in the way. This forum might lean left of center, but all the bobs, Knoells, Spokkers, and slidecages are really the mainstream voices of this country. It's dumb, classist, racist, sexist and the power elite wants to keep it that way.
bread's done