Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Fact Checkers find that both Perry and Romney might have, perhaps, been not entirely forthcoming in the claims they made during last night's debate   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 232
    More: Obvious, romney, Michael Dukakis, median household income, hourly workers, Mitts, fact checking, scientific consensus, Massachusetts Governor  
•       •       •

14238 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Sep 2011 at 9:03 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-09-08 09:05:11 AM  
Um, I didn't see anything about Romney, actually:

"ROMNEY: "At the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. That's a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in the entire country."

THE FACTS: To be sure, 4.7 percent unemployment would be a welcome figure nationally. But Romney started from a much better position than President Barack Obama did. Unemployment was only 5.6 percent when Romney took office in 2003, meaning it came down by less than 1 percentage point when he left office in 2007. Obama inherited a national unemployment rate of 7.8 percent."

And that rate is at least 9 percent now. Exactly what is Romney distorting?
 
2011-09-08 09:05:12 AM  
Well, I'm shocked.
 
2011-09-08 09:05:40 AM  
Perry: I can eat 20 cheeseburgers!

Romney: I can eat 21 cheeseburgers!
 
2011-09-08 09:05:50 AM  
People would believe them on face value?
 
2011-09-08 09:06:04 AM  
Its not news its...what the hell is this anyway? We'll just start with 'its not very surprising'.
 
2011-09-08 09:06:04 AM  
Well, if I can't trust what any politician says as fact, what am I supposed to believe? If they say it on TV, it has to be true.

Right?
 
2011-09-08 09:07:18 AM  
Inference without implication.
 
2011-09-08 09:07:55 AM  
Remember, the thing to take home from this debate is that both sides are equally dishonest.
 
2011-09-08 09:08:29 AM  
img42.imageshack.us
 
2011-09-08 09:08:53 AM  
Paul Cellucci, even with fatassed Jane Swift in there for a short time, put MA on a solid footing, so the less Romney did, the better. The jagoff was out of state for half his term when he was running around trying to be president, anyway.
 
2011-09-08 09:08:59 AM  
They're politicians.

This surprise anyone?
 
2011-09-08 09:09:56 AM  
Were their lips moving? There's your problem.
 
2011-09-08 09:10:05 AM  
So apparently if minimum wage is $7.25 and the company pays $8.00 that is still a minimum wage job, because Perry sucks, thats why.
 
2011-09-08 09:10:41 AM  

uofwi92: And that rate is at least 9 percent now. Exactly what is Romney distorting?


I'm guessing it's that Romney was saying that the situation in Massachusetts when he assumed office and the situation in America when Obama assumed office are analogous.
 
2011-09-08 09:10:46 AM  

uofwi92: Um, I didn't see anything about Romney, actually:

"ROMNEY: "At the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. That's a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in the entire country."

THE FACTS: To be sure, 4.7 percent unemployment would be a welcome figure nationally. But Romney started from a much better position than President Barack Obama did. Unemployment was only 5.6 percent when Romney took office in 2003, meaning it came down by less than 1 percentage point when he left office in 2007. Obama inherited a national unemployment rate of 7.8 percent."

And that rate is at least 9 percent now. Exactly what is Romney distorting?/i>

That he actually has positions on things, for starters.

 
2011-09-08 09:11:21 AM  
I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

www.moviesonline.ca
 
2011-09-08 09:11:21 AM  
Did anyone else read this as "Fat Chicks"?
 
2011-09-08 09:11:41 AM  
Main page Derp.

I haz popcorms
 
2011-09-08 09:11:51 AM  
Woooo, politicians lie. Big news flash.
 
2011-09-08 09:12:20 AM  

jayg22: So apparently if minimum wage is $7.25 and the company pays $8.00 that is still a minimum wage job, because Perry sucks, thats why.


The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

Perry moved the goal posts because Perry sucks, that's why,
 
2011-09-08 09:12:54 AM  
Lying sacks of shiat in my republican debate? It's more likely than you think.
 
2011-09-08 09:13:01 AM  
Pon Raul
 
2011-09-08 09:13:20 AM  
Well, they was very upfront about da burrito coverings situation.
 
KIA
2011-09-08 09:13:21 AM  
They didn't show even one misstatement by Ron Paul. Not one!

/ yes, yes, it's a softball
 
2011-09-08 09:14:07 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [img42.imageshack.us image 318x707]


I love the fact that the argument about social security isn't if it is truly unsubstantial but if "ponzi" is the correct word for what kind of scheme it is. The goverment prefers to call it a "pay-as-you-go" system.
 
2011-09-08 09:14:30 AM  

jayg22: So apparently if minimum wage is $7.25 and the company pays $8.00 that is still a minimum wage job, because Perry sucks, thats why.



Yeah, I'm usin my giant 75 cents windfall to buy me a extra big ass fries for my kids. They is starvin.
 
2011-09-08 09:14:52 AM  

Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".


What is a low paying job?
 
2011-09-08 09:16:54 AM  
I was most proud of Perry for give propes to SEAL Team 6. I was all like, you go man, I am up with that music, for real, my white man. Lower the roof!
 
2011-09-08 09:17:17 AM  
Color me surprised.
 
2011-09-08 09:18:36 AM  
MICHELE BACHMANN: "Obamacare is killing jobs. We know that from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, but I know it firsthand from speaking to people. We see it this summer. There are 47 percent of African-American youth that are currently without jobs, 36 percent of Hispanic youth."

THE FACTS: The health care law that Obama pushed and Congress passed last year has long been labeled a job killer by Republicans, who often cite a Congressional Budget Office analysis to buttress their claims. But the CBO at no point said the law would result in job losses. Instead it made the more nuanced assertion that fewer people would chose to work.

"The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount - roughly half a percent - primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," the CBO said in an analysis. That's not job-killing, that's workers choosing not to work because of easier access to health care. The budget office said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

The Minnesota congresswoman also states the percentages of unemployment among minority youth. But there is no evidence that the health care law is responsible for that level of unemployment. In fact, the health care law is still largely unimplemented, with some of its key provisions not taking effect until 2014.


Michelle Bachmann is either massively ignorant, or a liar. What a surprise.
 
2011-09-08 09:18:53 AM  

jayg22: derp


Pathetic derp at that.
 
2011-09-08 09:19:15 AM  

jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?


just about anything you can get with only a GED.
 
2011-09-08 09:19:31 AM  
Wait, subby, you aren't suggesting that a politician lied or misrepresented during a debate are you? Say it ain't so!

Politicians lie, it's part of who and what they are. They make things up on the spot in debates. They use hyperbole to push their point or get their own way. The funniest part is that they do it bald faced and in public and people don't lynch them for it. So the question is, who is at fault for that, the politician or the public who elect them?

To paraphrase Hanover Fiste
They're nothing but low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worms!
Hangin's too good for em'
Burnin's too good for em'
They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive.

/Every single one of them.
 
2011-09-08 09:20:30 AM  

jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

[www.moviesonline.ca image 509x346]


I'm voting for Not Sure.
 
2011-09-08 09:20:31 AM  

ghare: jayg22: derp

Pathetic derp at that.


troll.me
 
2011-09-08 09:20:36 AM  
But... but... but Fartbongo Hope n Change!
 
2011-09-08 09:20:38 AM  

jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

[www.moviesonline.ca image 509x346]


Didn't that guy get elected already?
 
2011-09-08 09:22:09 AM  

jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?


A job with low pay.
 
2011-09-08 09:22:43 AM  

KIA: They didn't show even one misstatement by Ron Paul. Not one!


Ron Paul would have to had made a coherent statement to be criticized. I think the only thing he actually stood firm on was the price of silver.
 
2011-09-08 09:23:28 AM  

KIA: They didn't show even one misstatement by Ron Paul. Not one!

/ yes, yes, it's a softball


You know, I had this argument/discussion with my roommate last night.

There's no media blackout on Dr Paul, and here's why:

We've done this dance before. The American media (if not those of us who follow politics closely) has covered Paul campaigns for 25 years. He's got the same positions, and the same fervent support, so why not assume the result will be the same?

Take, for example, 2007. Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll, had the largest (IIRC) campaign war chest, and was able to get something like $4M out of a one-day moneybomb (which I think his campaign was the first to use). His support was well above McCain's, Romney's, Guiliani's, Thompson's, and people thought he was going to un-eventuate the eventual Hillary presidency.

In 2011, it looks about the same. His support is fervent (though not on par with Perry/Romney), and his positions are the same. The country is no more ready to elect him (even just to win the presidential nomination) than they are ready to elect Yelnick McWawa (I-Boston).

I wish some of his more civil-libertarian ideas made it into the mainstream, and chances are even that some of his ideas (the not-batshiat ones, even) will make it into the political mainstream. He will not be president, and it's not a media conspiracy.

// what about the media blackout of Herman Cain?
// the only things I read about him are that he's an also-ran, and used to own a pizza joint
 
2011-09-08 09:23:36 AM  

Jake Havechek: Paul Cellucci, even with fatassed Jane Swift in there for a short time, put MA on a solid footing, so the less Romney did, the better. The jagoff was out of state for half his term when he was running around trying to be president, anyway.


Obama's been running around politicing for a second term since he was elected. What's your point? They all do it. Every farking politician on the face of the earth. The farkers preach about their commitment but are committed to no one but themselves.

/rant off
//fark em all may they all DIAF
 
2011-09-08 09:24:02 AM  
I missed the part where Perry bragged about creating a 3-year-drought in Texas, then left the state to father an earthquake and hurricane in the northeast, followed by vast flooding.
 
2011-09-08 09:24:21 AM  

thurstonxhowell: A job with low pay.


Oh, so if your in a debate and some one says "How many low paying jobs did you create' you wouldn't look for a federally mandated bar on what a low paying job was?
 
2011-09-08 09:25:26 AM  

willwonk: Did anyone else read this as "Fat Chicks"?


I read it as "Fact: Checkers find that both Perry and Romney might have, perhaps...."

That's some old dog.

/probably has his head preserved like Nixon's
 
2011-09-08 09:25:36 AM  

sprawl15: KIA: They didn't show even one misstatement by Ron Paul. Not one!

Ron Paul would have to had made a coherent statement to be criticized. I think the only thing he actually stood firm on was the price of silver.


His on-stage presence makes 2008 John McCain seem like John F. Kennedy.
 
2011-09-08 09:25:51 AM  

sprawl15: KIA: They didn't show even one misstatement by Ron Paul. Not one!

Ron Paul would have to had made a coherent statement to be criticized. I think the only thing he actually stood firm on was the price of silver.


He did say that too many federal regulations caused 9/11.

/Then he had to pay Giuliani a quarter
 
2011-09-08 09:26:07 AM  

WTFDYW: Jake Havechek: Paul Cellucci, even with fatassed Jane Swift in there for a short time, put MA on a solid footing, so the less Romney did, the better. The jagoff was out of state for half his term when he was running around trying to be president, anyway.

Obama's been running around politicing for a second term since he was elected. What's your point? They all do it. Every farking politician on the face of the earth. The farkers preach about their commitment but are committed to no one but themselves.

/rant off
//fark em all may they all DIAF


Move to Somalia, farkface.
 
2011-09-08 09:26:09 AM  
Did anybody claim any facts last night? All I heard was "Obamacare bad. Republicans good."
 
2011-09-08 09:27:14 AM  

uofwi92: Exactly what is Romney distorting?


His own record.
 
2011-09-08 09:28:20 AM  

Lord_Baull: Did anybody claim any facts last night? All I heard was "Obamacare bad. Republicans good."


It was like a chicken coop of 'tard.
 
2011-09-08 09:28:34 AM  

jayg22: thurstonxhowell: A job with low pay.

Oh, so if your in a debate and some one says "How many low paying jobs did you create' you wouldn't look for a federally mandated bar on what a low paying job was?


Somewhere above the minimum. Just to ballpark it, let's say anything from the minimum to min+10% qualifies as "low-paying". Cool?

So a low-paying job would be anything that pays between $7.25 and ~$8/hour.
 
2011-09-08 09:28:42 AM  

Lord_Baull: Did anybody claim any facts last night? All I heard was "Obamacare bad. Republicans good." "Death penalty woooooo!"


I think I was a little bit sick.
 
2011-09-08 09:29:33 AM  

jayg22: thurstonxhowell: A job with low pay.

Oh, so if your in a debate and some one says "How many low paying jobs did you create' you wouldn't look for a federally mandated bar on what a low paying job was?


Do you need the federal government to tell you what a low paying job is? Christ, I thought it was the liberals who couldn't think for themselves.
 
2011-09-08 09:30:32 AM  

Jake Havechek: WTFDYW: Jake Havechek: Paul Cellucci, even with fatassed Jane Swift in there for a short time, put MA on a solid footing, so the less Romney did, the better. The jagoff was out of state for half his term when he was running around trying to be president, anyway.

Obama's been running around politicing for a second term since he was elected. What's your point? They all do it. Every farking politician on the face of the earth. The farkers preach about their commitment but are committed to no one but themselves.

/rant off
//fark em all may they all DIAF

Move to Somalia, farkface.


So you have no response except to attack me. You're no better than a politican.
 
2011-09-08 09:30:35 AM  

Hugh2d2: He did say that too many federal regulations caused 9/11.


I thought he blamed 9/11 specifically on the TSA? Time to dig up the transcript...
 
2011-09-08 09:31:01 AM  

jayg22: thurstonxhowell: A job with low pay.

Oh, so if your in a debate and some one says "How many low paying jobs did you create' you wouldn't look for a federally mandated bar on what a low paying job was?


You mean the federally mandated bar on what you can't pay less than.
 
2011-09-08 09:31:50 AM  
I'm not really into politics except for the fact I think it's all one big scam.
One day I emailed my congressman with a simple, "where do you stand on this issue" kind of thing without saying where I stood. I received back a very long email that was very articulate. After reading it I realized I still had no idea where he stood on the issue.. Very impressive. Do these guys go to some kind of school for this stuff?
 
2011-09-08 09:31:53 AM  

jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

[www.moviesonline.ca image 509x346]


Well, barring the political grandstanding and poor cabinet appointments, the man did listen to experts (well, "expert"), genuinely looked out for the good of his people, recognized when something unpopular started working, and allowed a better suited person to lead. So there's that.
 
2011-09-08 09:32:34 AM  

jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

www.moviesonline.ca


There are some GOPbaggers who think we already do.
 
2011-09-08 09:32:57 AM  

Aexia: Remember, the thing to take home from this debate is that both sides are equally dishonest.


I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

The only honest politician I can think of is Dennis Kucinich.

Are there any others?
 
2011-09-08 09:33:11 AM  

sprawl15: Hugh2d2: He did say that too many federal regulations caused 9/11.

I thought he blamed 9/11 specifically on the TSA? Time to dig up the transcript...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/07/ron-paul-tsa-gop-debate_n_95 3 175.html?ir=Travel
 
2011-09-08 09:34:58 AM  

jcooli09: The only honest politician I can think of is Dennis Kucinich.

Are there any others?


Senator James Traficant.
 
2011-09-08 09:35:06 AM  
gov perry is scary

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-09-08 09:39:05 AM  

sprawl15: jcooli09: The only honest politician I can think of is Dennis Kucinich.

Are there any others?

Senator James Traficant.


Maybe at one time, but not since he's gotten out of prison. I hear him on local talk radio sometimes, and his herp is derped.
 
2011-09-08 09:39:57 AM  

WTFDYW: ...except to attack me.


Wow. Sensitive much?
 
2011-09-08 09:40:16 AM  

willwonk: Did anyone else read this as "Fat Chicks"?


t3.gstatic.com

I did read that as fat chicks - disturbing

//GOP does not care about facts, they are just a pesky distraction
 
2011-09-08 09:40:34 AM  

jcooli09: sprawl15: Senator James Traficant.

Maybe at one time, but not since he's gotten out of prison. I hear him on local talk radio sometimes, and his herp is derped.


Oh, I'm not saying he's sane. But he is honest.

Hugh2d2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/07/ron-paul-tsa-gop-debate_n_95 3 175.html?ir=Travel


Yeah, close enough. Ugh.
 
2011-09-08 09:43:30 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Somewhere above the minimum. Just to ballpark it, let's say anything from the minimum to min+10% qualifies as "low-paying". Cool?

So a low-paying job would be anything that pays between $7.25 and ~$8/hour.



$8.25/hr is a pretty damn low paying job.
 
2011-09-08 09:44:58 AM  

letthepossumlive: Very impressive. Do these guys go to some kind of school for this stuff?


It's called "boilerplate" for a reason: it looks impressive and firm, but once it is cast it is too difficult to change what they say, so they make it bland, general, and broadly applicable. I learned all about it in the military, where we had both boilers and award citations that were rife with boilerplate.

The boilers were more impressive.
 
2011-09-08 09:46:31 AM  

jcooli09: Are there any others?


President Jimmy Carter. But he has had so much poo flung at him from the howler monkey, christian conservatives, does no wrong, rightwing-full-of-love crowd... you probably just forgot.
 
2011-09-08 09:47:28 AM  

sprawl15: jcooli09: sprawl15: Senator James Traficant.

Maybe at one time, but not since he's gotten out of prison. I hear him on local talk radio sometimes, and his herp is derped.

Oh, I'm not saying he's sane. But he is honest.


I concede the point.
 
2011-09-08 09:48:50 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Dr Dreidel: Somewhere above the minimum. Just to ballpark it, let's say anything from the minimum to min+10% qualifies as "low-paying". Cool?

So a low-paying job would be anything that pays between $7.25 and ~$8/hour.


$8.25/hr is a pretty damn low paying job.


I would say anything that pays less than $10/hour. $10/hour is only $20,800 a year gross. If you aren't grossing at least $20K a year I cannot fathom how anyone could categorize it as anything but low paying.
 
2011-09-08 09:49:22 AM  
i18.photobucket.com
 
2011-09-08 09:49:47 AM  
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-thi nk-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

Ron Paul 49.6%(58,414 votes)
Mitt Romney 17.5%(20,562 votes)
Rick Perry 14.6%(17,191 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9%(8,131 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.8%(5,600 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3%(3,942 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.3%(2,672 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.1%(1,250 votes

I watched Fox and MSNBC this morning...

Fox had Romney, Bachmann and Perry centered on their screen and never mentioned Ron Paul was even there.

MSNBC mentioned him but almost as a joke.. something like "of course on a very unscientific poll online, Ron Paul got the most votes, but let's get back to the debate"..

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?
 
2011-09-08 09:49:52 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Dr Dreidel: Somewhere above the minimum. Just to ballpark it, let's say anything from the minimum to min+10% qualifies as "low-paying". Cool?

So a low-paying job would be anything that pays between $7.25 and ~$8/hour.


$8.25/hr is a pretty damn low paying job.


Missed my point. The OP was incredulous as to why someone might consider $8/hr to be "low-paying", implying that the only federal standard is the floor of $7.25.

I counter that "low-paying" probably refers to a range of compensation levels, beginning at the $7.25 minimum, and that if one were to examine the range of minimum wage + 10%, we would find that $8/hr (or actually, $7.975/hr; sue me for rounding up 2.5 cents) still qualifies as "low-paying".

If you want my actual opinion, $10/hr is low-paying - $20,000 (pre-tax)/year? Trying feeding the kids on that. Maybe my perception is skewed, living in MD, but can anyone with liabilities beyond food and shelter (i.e. kids, a car, insurance, etc) really survive on that?
 
2011-09-08 09:50:09 AM  

N. A. Coffey: jcooli09: Are there any others?

President Jimmy Carter. But he has had so much poo flung at him from the howler monkey, christian conservatives, does no wrong, rightwing-full-of-love crowd... you probably just forgot.


I did forget Carter, but I think this should be limited to politicians in the past 30 years. Abe Lincoln was honest, too, but that doesn't really reflect on current politics. I think this is demonstrated by the fact that he was a republican.
 
2011-09-08 09:50:53 AM  

Lord_Baull: Did anybody claim any facts last night? All I heard was "Obamacare bad. Republicans good."


It was funny to see Ron Paul and Rick Perry blaming their previous administration.

/for...something
 
2011-09-08 09:51:27 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: $8.25/hr is a pretty damn low paying job.


In a right-to-work state, in a staunch-Republican-owned company that I used to work for, our lowest-skill position still made 9.25 and most started at 10.00/hr. Plus benefits kicked in after 3 months. I'm not saying that's high.

Consider how much you pay in gas to get from where poor people live to where poor people work. I figure some of my employees were eating an hour of take-home every day or two (depending on fluctuating gas prices) just on fuel alone. It is a pretty harsh reality check for educated people that earn far more than basic expenses demand.
 
2011-09-08 09:53:57 AM  

sprawl15: jcooli09: The only honest politician I can think of is Dennis Kucinich.

Are there any others?

Senator James Traficant.


Ron Paul honestly believe his crazy bullshiat.
 
2011-09-08 09:54:29 AM  

impaler: Michelle Bachmann is either massively ignorant, or a liar. What a surprise.



Can't she be both?
 
2011-09-08 09:54:31 AM  
Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honestwy on our candidates.
 
2011-09-08 09:55:08 AM  
I am shocked SHOCKED! I can't believe our elected officials would lie to us.
 
2011-09-08 09:55:13 AM  
I like how (allegedly) Merck's contribution to Perry's "re-election" fund happened right about the same time as his innoculation mandate...
 
2011-09-08 09:55:43 AM  

jcooli09: sprawl15: jcooli09: sprawl15: Senator James Traficant.

Maybe at one time, but not since he's gotten out of prison. I hear him on local talk radio sometimes, and his herp is derped.

Oh, I'm not saying he's sane. But he is honest.

I concede the point.


True, it's not lying if you actually believe the world is flat.
 
JTW
2011-09-08 09:56:04 AM  
No way! A politician lied? This must be a new day dawning on politics. What will the President do to stop this behavior?
 
2011-09-08 09:56:20 AM  

Dr Dreidel: I counter that "low-paying" probably refers to a range of compensation levels, beginning at the $7.25 minimum, and that if one were to examine the range of minimum wage + 10%, we would find that $8/hr (or actually, $7.975/hr; sue me for rounding up 2.5 cents) still qualifies as "low-paying".


I concur: 7.25/hr is the LOWEST-paying job. "Low" is a range, with minimum wage at the bottom. Analogy: you're breathing around 21.5% oxygen. On a submarine, we often dealt with 19% and the headaches and unpleasantness that went along with it. That was "low" oxygen, but humans can survive lower than that without being overcome by hypoxia. Just because we weren't dead, doesn't mean that we didn't run into low-oxygen situations.
 
2011-09-08 09:58:12 AM  

ursomniac: We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honestwy on our candidates.


Just keep the tele-strator away from John Madden, and I'm totally with you.
 
2011-09-08 10:00:46 AM  

Purdue_Pete: Fox had Romney, Bachmann and Perry centered on their screen and never mentioned Ron Paul was even there.

MSNBC mentioned him but almost as a joke.. something like "of course on a very unscientific poll online, Ron Paul got the most votes, but let's get back to the debate"..

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?


You know, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, it IS pretty disgusting how insidious the media has been in its attempt to sink him. There is something horribly unfair about it, and I can see how Ron Paul's supporters could be furious with the media.

On the other hand, to me, it's kind of nice to see that, even though he is largely ignored in the media, he can still poll as high as he does. It gives me a bit of hope that maybe the mainstream media doesn't play as big of a role as I thought.

Anyway, as for a shot to win, I don't know. I think he should just be given more respect than he's currently getting. Like I said, I don't like him, but what they are doing to him is a pretty shiatty thing to be doing.
 
2011-09-08 10:03:13 AM  

ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honesty on our candidates.


I endorse this idea. Maybe even have an overlay of horse shiat next to each candidate and watch it get higher as they go.
 
2011-09-08 10:05:14 AM  

jcooli09: The only honest politician I can think of is Dennis Kucinich.


The only politician with more followers totally bat-guano crazy than Ron Paul. Also the living epitome of failing upwards, what with driving an American city bankrupt and all.

On the other hand, you have to love the Mind Control Rays from Space legislation. Kucinich can try to run all he wants from that, but it lives forever in the Congressional Record, an eternal testament to his derptitude.

/anyone who expresses support for Kucinich is an escaped mental patient
//defend yourselves accordingly against the derp
 
2011-09-08 10:06:06 AM  

jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?


To use your example: $8/hr
 
2011-09-08 10:11:34 AM  

Irving Maimway: ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honesty on our candidates.

I endorse this idea. Maybe even have an overlay of horse shiat next to each candidate and watch it get higher as they go.


Obama's would be up to heaven, where he lives. Sure you want that?
 
2011-09-08 10:11:34 AM  

Purdue_Pete: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-th i nk-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

Ron Paul 49.6%(58,414 votes)
Mitt Romney 17.5%(20,562 votes)
Rick Perry 14.6%(17,191 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9%(8,131 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.8%(5,600 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3%(3,942 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.3%(2,672 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.1%(1,250 votes

I watched Fox and MSNBC this morning...

Fox had Romney, Bachmann and Perry centered on their screen and never mentioned Ron Paul was even there.

MSNBC mentioned him but almost as a joke.. something like "of course on a very unscientific poll online, Ron Paul got the most votes, but let's get back to the debate"..

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?


He doesn't have the onscreen charisma that a Perry or Bachmann has. It's almost like that debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Nixon was sick at the time, pale, washed out and old looking. Kennedy looked healthful, young, and handsome. Guess who the voters responded to?
 
2011-09-08 10:13:31 AM  

Purdue_Pete: I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?


RON PAUL might get more media presence if he stops saying FEMA controls the weather and air conditioning is the only reason troops are in Afghanistan.
 
2011-09-08 10:13:35 AM  

tomo12144: Main page Derp.

I haz popcorms


I can sit next to you pleeez thank you?
 
2011-09-08 10:13:42 AM  

ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honestwy on our candidates.


Run the whole thing on a 5 min delay?
 
2011-09-08 10:14:39 AM  

Dr Dreidel: KIA: They didn't show even one misstatement by Ron Paul. Not one!

/ yes, yes, it's a softball

You know, I had this argument/discussion with my roommate last night.

There's no media blackout on Dr Paul, and here's why:

We've done this dance before. The American media (if not those of us who follow politics closely) has covered Paul campaigns for 25 years. He's got the same positions, and the same fervent support, so why not assume the result will be the same?

Take, for example, 2007. Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll, had the largest (IIRC) campaign war chest, and was able to get something like $4M out of a one-day moneybomb (which I think his campaign was the first to use). His support was well above McCain's, Romney's, Guiliani's, Thompson's, and people thought he was going to un-eventuate the eventual Hillary presidency.

In 2011, it looks about the same. His support is fervent (though not on par with Perry/Romney), and his positions are the same. The country is no more ready to elect him (even just to win the presidential nomination) than they are ready to elect Yelnick McWawa (I-Boston).

I wish some of his more civil-libertarian ideas made it into the mainstream, and chances are even that some of his ideas (the not-batshiat ones, even) will make it into the political mainstream. He will not be president, and it's not a media conspiracy.

// what about the media blackout of Herman Cain?
// the only things I read about him are that he's an also-ran, and used to own a pizza joint


Herman Cain was the only one who seemed capable of giving a straight answer I like him but the rep establishment does not. I am hoping for a vp nomination.
 
2011-09-08 10:17:36 AM  

sprawl15: Purdue_Pete: I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?

RON PAUL might get more media presence if he stops saying FEMA controls the weather and air conditioning is the only reason troops are in Afghanistan.


Right? But somehow It is outrageous that he gets no coverage (even though we totally freeped the poll).
 
2011-09-08 10:17:48 AM  

jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?


Any job which leaves you and your family below the federal poverty line for annual income, aka any full-time job which requires you to also hold another job, or pretty much any job which does not provide benefits like access to health insurance.
 
2011-09-08 10:18:45 AM  

Aikidogamer: Herman Cain was the only one who seemed capable of giving a straight answer


Yeah, 9/9/9 is a great deal. The equivalent at Pizza Hut costs like 14 bucks.
 
2011-09-08 10:19:46 AM  
I'm starting to think the only way to tell who "wins" these debates anymore is to calculate who lied the least as a percentage of the questions they answered...and I'm saddened by this...
 
2011-09-08 10:21:58 AM  
No one brought up Perry is now begging for federal help for his fires after he cut the Texas budget for this at all did they?

He is begging for federal help that he has said is unconstitutional.
 
2011-09-08 10:22:40 AM  

sprawl15: k


Vote Ron Paul for President in 1912!
 
2011-09-08 10:29:21 AM  

Minus1Kelvin: I'm starting to think the only way to tell who "wins" these debates anymore is to calculate who lied the least as a percentage of the questions they answered...and I'm saddened by this...


However wins the debate is whoever appeals to the most people and swings the most voters in their favor. Truth is not a prerequisite or even a major factor as most of the lies won't be debunked until after the debate when most viewers have stopped watching. It's all about the charisma.

gis for charisma just because I'll use any excuse to look at pics of Charisma.
cdn2.holytaco.com
 
2011-09-08 10:30:01 AM  
How is a low paying job worse than a no-paying job (aka unemployed)? Regardless of claims by politicians, unemployment benefits do not add value to the economy. Productive work (at any rate) does.
 
2011-09-08 10:31:40 AM  

jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

[www.moviesonline.ca image 509x346]


Prefer him over Obama by a long shot. He's much smarter than Obama and was probably born here.
 
2011-09-08 10:33:48 AM  

Memoryalpha: Wait, subby, you aren't suggesting that a politician lied or misrepresented during a debate are you? Say it ain't so!

Politicians lie, it's part of who and what they are. They make things up on the spot in debates. They use hyperbole to push their point or get their own way. The funniest part is that they do it bald faced and in public and people don't lynch them for it. So the question is, who is at fault for that, the politician or the public who elect them?

To paraphrase Hanover Fiste
They're nothing but low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worms!
Hangin's too good for em'
Burnin's too good for em'
They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive.

/Every single one of them.


Except if you read the article you'll see there wasn't a single lie in there...

When did "butthurt biased blogger" get renamed "fact checker"
 
2011-09-08 10:35:19 AM  

1macgeek: jcooli09: The only honest politician I can think of is Dennis Kucinich.

The only politician with more followers totally bat-guano crazy than Ron Paul. Also the living epitome of failing upwards, what with driving an American city bankrupt and all.

On the other hand, you have to love the Mind Control Rays from Space legislation. Kucinich can try to run all he wants from that, but it lives forever in the Congressional Record, an eternal testament to his derptitude.

/anyone who expresses support for Kucinich is an escaped mental patient
//defend yourselves accordingly against the derp


He's a good urban politician and an extremely hard worker. It turned out he was right about CPP and the default.

But I think he's wasted on our national stage. In a multi-party, parliamentary system where fringe representation has a place, sure. But in the here and now he would be better fighting council and the school board.
 
2011-09-08 10:36:11 AM  

Mr. Right: How is a low paying job worse than a no-paying job (aka unemployed)? Regardless of claims by politicians, unemployment benefits do not add value to the economy. Productive work (at any rate) does.


unemployment < low-paying job < regular-paying job < hedge-fund manager < unionized schoolteacher

// OK, the last one's for funsies
// at least UI benefits help keep money moving
// they also keep people afloat until they get their next job
// they also keep people from resorting to drastic measures to get food/shelter
// not sure what point you're trying to make - other than "applied physicists should take that burger-flipping job" (which is dumb for other reasons)
 
2011-09-08 10:37:30 AM  

Purdue_Pete: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-th i nk-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

Ron Paul 49.6%(58,414 votes)
Mitt Romney 17.5%(20,562 votes)
Rick Perry 14.6%(17,191 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9%(8,131 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.8%(5,600 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3%(3,942 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.3%(2,672 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.1%(1,250 votes

I watched Fox and MSNBC this morning...

Fox had Romney, Bachmann and Perry centered on their screen and never mentioned Ron Paul was even there.

MSNBC mentioned him but almost as a joke.. something like "of course on a very unscientific poll online, Ron Paul got the most votes, but let's get back to the debate"..

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?


Let me introduce you to a new term: "Freep" v. to artificially alter the results of an online poll by massive repetitive voting by a small cadre of dedicated ideologues. The word originated with the website Freereupblic where users frequently organize such campaigns in favor of the favorite candidates, especially Ron Paul
 
2011-09-08 10:39:38 AM  
Why come the republicans have so much better teleprompters than Obama? I couldn't even see them. That's amazing.
 
2011-09-08 10:40:20 AM  

Mr. Right: How is a low paying job worse than a no-paying job (aka unemployed)? Regardless of claims by politicians, unemployment benefits do not add value to the economy. Productive work (at any rate) does.


MOSTLY agree with you
but some side tingly issues.
Unemployment benefits do add value (they reduce cost sometimes but rarely) but they often serve to improve any viable offspring of the unemployed parent. Of course those offspring often go on to be unemployed but sometimes the do well for society, giving them a chance is something I don't mind paying for. Productive low paid work often leads to outright exploitation. Stuff gets made, but not shared with the overall economy. That creates bubbles which burst and burst violently.
 
2011-09-08 10:43:59 AM  

factoryconnection: Satanic_Hamster: $8.25/hr is a pretty damn low paying job.

In a right-to-work state, in a staunch-Republican-owned company that I used to work for, our lowest-skill position still made 9.25 and most started at 10.00/hr. Plus benefits kicked in after 3 months. I'm not saying that's high.

Consider how much you pay in gas to get from where poor people live to where poor people work. I figure some of my employees were eating an hour of take-home every day or two (depending on fluctuating gas prices) just on fuel alone. It is a pretty harsh reality check for educated people that earn far more than basic expenses demand.


Year ago when I was in my fast-food worker stage (16-18 years old) I worked at Roy Roger's which was owned by Marriott, which actually treated all their employees very well. (The only minimum wage job I've ever heard of that offered stock options, to say nothing of being able to book a room at any Marriott in the country for $29/night by showing them a paycheck stub).

When they realized that many of their employees were running into the exact transportation dilemma you described, they bought a fleet of vans (or more likely converted old hotel ones) and started running shuttle service from the poorer neighborhoods where their employees worked to their job locations. Other fast food places in the neighborhood were amazed that Marriott never had the same hiring/retention issues they did, but apparently never connected the dots.

.
 
2011-09-08 10:48:15 AM  

sprawl15: Aikidogamer: Herman Cain was the only one who seemed capable of giving a straight answer

Yeah, 9/9/9 is a great deal. The equivalent at Pizza Hut costs like 14 bucks.


I mean a non apportioned direct tax is still illegal, but 9/9/9 is better. Less manipulation is a great thing. And the poor pay something too.
 
2011-09-08 10:49:48 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Unemployment benefits do add value (they reduce cost sometimes but rarely) but they often serve to improve any viable offspring of the unemployed parent


Also, low-paying jobs (that cannot cover healthcare, childcare, gas) drive poor outcomes for the kids of the worker, as there ends up being no time for child rearing, nutritious food, or discipline. These are things that help lift the next generation out of poverty, at least making them more apt to complete their education. Thus the cost to society rises from these ill-equipped kids growing up into mostly useless adults.

It is a pretty vicious cycle down at the lower SESs.
 
2011-09-08 10:50:16 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Purdue_Pete: Fox had Romney, Bachmann and Perry centered on their screen and never mentioned Ron Paul was even there.

MSNBC mentioned him but almost as a joke.. something like "of course on a very unscientific poll online, Ron Paul got the most votes, but let's get back to the debate"..

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?

You know, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, it IS pretty disgusting how insidious the media has been in its attempt to sink him. There is something horribly unfair about it, and I can see how Ron Paul's supporters could be furious with the media.

On the other hand, to me, it's kind of nice to see that, even though he is largely ignored in the media, he can still poll as high as he does. It gives me a bit of hope that maybe the mainstream media doesn't play as big of a role as I thought.

Anyway, as for a shot to win, I don't know. I think he should just be given more respect than he's currently getting. Like I said, I don't like him, but what they are doing to him is a pretty shiatty thing to be doing.


Because the polls that can't be weighted by busing in supporters or ballot-stuffing the poll never see him rise above his "hard core supporters" demographic. Because he is boring, not Mark Sanford boring but "been there, done that" boring; where his antics and plans and positions and scandals have been explored, forgotten, and explored again. Because like Lyndon LaRouche, he does this for a living and doesn't even seem to plan on winning. Because he *is* crazy, and in the "homeless guy in the street talking to god" sort of way. Because his supporters are ASSHOLES who will mail boxes of poop to your studio if you report unfavorably (and therefore honestly). Because there is cultural bias against "non-serious candidates" where "serious" is determined by the subjective whims of pretend-objective journalists. Because some folk in the business just hate him. Because the Republican Establishment hates him and he's actually to theocratic to survive jumping on the democrat bandwagon and too profit-motivated to go third party.

And most importantly, because you touch yourself at night.
 
2011-09-08 10:50:51 AM  

Lost Thought 00: jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?

Any job which leaves you and your family below the federal poverty line for annual income, aka any full-time job which requires you to also hold another job, or pretty much any job which does not provide benefits like access to health insurance.



And keep in mind that what a job is REPORTED to pay is often not what it actually pays. In Atchison KS, the best job available in town is at the broom factory where the jobs are listed as 25/hr with full benefits. Which, for a no/low skill manufacturing job is pretty damn good money (especially in a town where a decent house can be had for $40k and a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed mansion is on the market for $150k) BUT there's a huge catch: before you get that $25/hr salary you spend six months on "probation" for $10/hr, during which time you cannot be sick, or late, or have any other disciplinary problem, even once, or you are fired.

Weirdly enough, almost nobody ever makes it through the six month probation period without being fired. Though the factory IS more than willing to hire you on again to start the whole process over again, cause maybe this time you'll make it...
 
2011-09-08 10:51:14 AM  

jayg22: So apparently if minimum wage is $7.25 and the company pays $8.00 that is still a minimum wage job, because Perry sucks, thats why.


$8.00/hr is still crap.
 
2011-09-08 10:52:21 AM  

Magorn: Other fast food places in the neighborhood were amazed that Marriott never had the same hiring/retention issues they did, but apparently never connected the dots.


I'll tell you... retention and retraining is murder on companies that use unskilled labor. New hires are completely useless, and turnover keeps bringing more (temporarily) dead weight into the customer service and product quality streams. Long story short: That was a smart move by Marriott!
 
2011-09-08 10:54:18 AM  
In other news: The sky, it's blue.
 
2011-09-08 10:55:36 AM  
FYI - Anybody who says that Social Security is a ponzi scheme is NOT qualified to hold any public office, let alone POTUS...
 
2011-09-08 11:01:26 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Mr. Right: How is a low paying job worse than a no-paying job (aka unemployed)? Regardless of claims by politicians, unemployment benefits do not add value to the economy. Productive work (at any rate) does.

unemployment < low-paying job < regular-paying job < hedge-fund manager < unionized schoolteacher

// OK, the last one's for funsies
// at least UI benefits help keep money moving
// they also keep people afloat until they get their next job
// they also keep people from resorting to drastic measures to get food/shelter
// not sure what point you're trying to make - other than "applied physicists should take that burger-flipping job" (which is dumb for other reasons)


The article implies (but does not directly state) that job creation in Texas is illegitimate because so many of them are low paying jobs. Sure, it would be great if every job paid $40/hour. It would be even better if every worker was capable of adding $40 of value for every hour. The fact is that even low-paying jobs add more value than unemployment benefits. And no, I'm not advocating doing away with UI. As a matter of fact, I think unemployment insurance is a great idea since there are always going to be jobs that are seasonal or go away for one reason or another and that insurance is a great bridge for workers, especially lower paid workers until they can find another job. And it is an insurance program - employers must pay FUTA and SUTA taxes. But the fact remains that economic benefit is greater from even low-paying productive jobs than from no jobs or unemployment.
 
2011-09-08 11:01:33 AM  

Aikidogamer: I mean a non apportioned direct tax is still illegal


You may want to look a bit closer at the Constitution.
 
2011-09-08 11:02:18 AM  

sprawl15: You may want to look a bit closer at the Constitution



It's just a goddam piece of paper...
 
2011-09-08 11:06:37 AM  

ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honestwy on our candidates.


The "flaw" I see in this idea is that the moron majority would be swayed to believe that the fact-checkers are working for the other side so the facts can't be believed. Which would lead to assigning Democrat and Republican fact checkers to each debate, with the fact from each popping up in a blue or red box for the viewer to read. Of course, those fact bubbles would quickly dissolve into an Aiplane-esque "red zone/white zone" skit, which would be quite funny so I say on with the show.

/I may have been derailed for a moment there
//You and I know that facts are unbiased, but try telling Joe Six-Meth that
 
2011-09-08 11:08:04 AM  
Airplane-esque, dammit.

/Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue
 
2011-09-08 11:08:09 AM  

pwhp_67: sprawl15: You may want to look a bit closer at the Constitution


It's just a goddam piece of paper...


I have. The sixteenth ammendment only restated what the feds can do. Which is tax income. The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate activity. That is not the same as selling ones labor. That is called a wage. The constitution talks about apportionment and taxation when it talks about the poet congress has. Perhaps you should cozy up to some case law, and understand legal definitions are often quite different from common language.
 
2011-09-08 11:09:30 AM  

tommyl66: You and I know that facts are unbiased, but try telling Joe Six-Meth that



Hell, people try it on Fark every day and it fails like a gimp in a triathlon...
 
2011-09-08 11:09:38 AM  

Mr. Right: But the fact remains that economic benefit is greater from even low-paying productive jobs than from no jobs or unemployment.


That's obvious. I would think it goes without saying.

The problem is, if Texas lost X "high-paying" jobs (we'll use your $40/hr, which is a higher hourly rate than I've ever gotten), and replaced them with Y "low-paying jobs", we've removed a huge amount of earning potential from Texas' citizenry. If Y>X, the problem is only that much more magnified.

We've also reduced Texas' GDP. Not to mention the drains on per-capita income stats (obviously), tax receipts (and, if net unemployment rises, the tax base), income disparities, quality-of-life (things that taxes pay for, like Medicaid and infrastructure), and deepens the trough before recovery.

And Parry is PROUD of this?
 
2011-09-08 11:09:39 AM  

FTA:

...PERRY: "Ninety-five percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage."...

then.
...that does not account for low-wage jobs that may be barely above the minimum wage.


ohh it doesn't count because Perry said "above minimum wage" when in reality, it's "barely above" the minimum wage"

ohh what a horrible liar.

That the best you got moon-bats?

// won't be voting for any (R), but subby's an idiot.
 
2011-09-08 11:10:50 AM  

tommyl66: The "flaw" I see in this idea is that the moron majority would be swayed to believe that the fact-checkers are working for the other side so the facts can't be believed.


There's also the problem of context. People can say things that are technically correct but imply things that are wildly inaccurate. As an example, Bachmann's claim that the CBO has stated Obamacare would reduce employment is technically correct. The problem is she makes it sound like it's because it's a horrible job destroying bill, when in reality the CBO simply said that a fraction of a percent of the workforce only works to get insurance and easy access to insurance independent of employment would mean that fraction of a percent would stop working.
 
2011-09-08 11:14:18 AM  

Corvus: No one brought up Perry is now begging for federal help for his fires after he cut the Texas budget for this at all did they?

He is begging for federal help that he has said is unconstitutional.


Here is part of the problem. When you redirect vast sums of money at the point of acquisition to the federal government, you have less to work with. Many people become reliant on services that the government provides, but doesn't necessarily needs to provide.

Let's say there was a universal government food program. An extra 50% of your pay goes to fund it, but everyone now can go to the government food pantry and collect a sufficient amount of food to live.

If for some reason you didn't want to participate, you are still stuck with that extra 50% of your income being diverted, and so you have very little power to do anything but participate.



The food pantry is just an analogy, but it helps illustrate that it is possible to hold a belief that a government action is wrong, but be in a position where you need to utilize that government service because it is not financially possible to do otherwise.

It is how the Fed forces states to enact unpopular legislation like raising the drinking age. Many states didn't want to do it, but the Fed threatened to withold funds that the states became dependant on unless they agreed.

So the Fed has used this leverage to reduce the liberty of the citizens on multiple occasions because the citizens can't afford to say no.

Unfortunately, the republican candidates are too stupid to take the time to explain the basis for such a belief, or they just use the words to rally people who don't examine the politicians real motivations.
 
2011-09-08 11:14:29 AM  

Aikidogamer: The sixteenth ammendment only restated what the feds can do. Which is tax income. The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate activity. That is not the same as selling ones labor. That is called a wage.


Oh christ, I've listened to enough stupid for one week. Every sentence you have posted is factually and historically incorrect. Fix your shiat.
 
2011-09-08 11:16:24 AM  
Perry's problem with bragging about Texas is that Texans don't seem to realize what a shiathole the rest of the country thinks Texas is...
 
2011-09-08 11:18:14 AM  

TheBigJerk: Vodka Zombie: Purdue_Pete: Fox had Romney, Bachmann and Perry centered on their screen and never mentioned Ron Paul was even there.

MSNBC mentioned him but almost as a joke.. something like "of course on a very unscientific poll online, Ron Paul got the most votes, but let's get back to the debate"..

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?

You know, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, it IS pretty disgusting how insidious the media has been in its attempt to sink him. There is something horribly unfair about it, and I can see how Ron Paul's supporters could be furious with the media.

On the other hand, to me, it's kind of nice to see that, even though he is largely ignored in the media, he can still poll as high as he does. It gives me a bit of hope that maybe the mainstream media doesn't play as big of a role as I thought.

Anyway, as for a shot to win, I don't know. I think he should just be given more respect than he's currently getting. Like I said, I don't like him, but what they are doing to him is a pretty shiatty thing to be doing.

Because the polls that can't be weighted by busing in supporters or ballot-stuffing the poll never see him rise above his "hard core supporters" demographic. Because he is boring, not Mark Sanford boring but "been there, done that" boring; where his antics and plans and positions and scandals have been explored, forgotten, and explored again. Because like Lyndon LaRouche, he does this for a living and doesn't even seem to plan on winning. Because he *is* crazy, and in the "homeless guy in the street talking to god" sort of way. Because his supporters are ASSHOLES who will mail boxes of poop to your studio if you report unfavorably (and therefore honestly). Because there is cultural bias against "non-serious candidates" where "serious" is determined by the subjective whims of pretend-objective journalists. Because some folk in the business just hate him. Because the Republican Establishment hates him and he's actually to theocratic to survive jumping on the democrat bandwagon and too profit-motivated to go third party.

And most importantly, because you touch yourself at night.


He was against these stupid, useless, wasteful and murderous global wars though, right? And to say his supporters are more asinine than Obama or Palin supporters is a bit of a reach.

Paul wants to slash huge sections of our FEDERAL government. Guess what, I agree with him. The Federal Government is horribly bloated.
 
2011-09-08 11:23:44 AM  

TheWizard: The food pantry is just an analogy, but it helps illustrate that it is possible to hold a belief that a government action is wrong, but be in a position where you need to utilize that government service because it is not financially possible to do otherwise.


Your analogy fails because five out of the last seven years, Texas has taken in more Federal dollars than it has paid in. Then, this year, they cut STATE firefighting 75% so that they could rely MORE on the federal programs.

There's being against a federal program, and then there's being against it in public while being for it in private.
 
2011-09-08 11:24:20 AM  

Purdue_Pete: Paul wants to slash huge sections of our FEDERAL government. Guess what, I agree with him. The Federal Government is horribly bloated.


Where is it bloated, and why do you think thus?
 
2011-09-08 11:24:38 AM  

ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honestwy on our candidates.


Exactly! When you watch football, you usually get stats and bits of NFL history thrown at you throughout the game. I never understood why they couldn't do something like that for debates and other political events. Plus you'll already know what many of the players are going to talk about so the media can/should have the facts already in hand....
 
2011-09-08 11:25:12 AM  

Purdue_Pete: Paul wants to slash huge sections of our FEDERAL government



Paul wants to get rid of everything except the military and Congressional salaries...
 
2011-09-08 11:26:14 AM  
Dishonesty in politics? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
 
2011-09-08 11:27:07 AM  

Magorn: The word originated with the website Freereupblic where users frequently organize such campaigns in favor of the favorite candidates, especially Ron Paul


Wait.. Freeperville has Ron Paul as a favorite?!

.. I think I just lost even more respect for him.. I didn't know that was possible.

Purdue_Pete: Paul wants to slash huge sections of our FEDERAL government. Guess what, I agree with him.


While meanwhile kneecapping our economy and introducing legislation to eviscerate enforcement of the constitution on a state level.

Being a single issue voter nowadays is incredibly short sighted.
 
2011-09-08 11:29:04 AM  
I thought that debate was tonight! Wasn't the president's speech last night? Darn it, I really wanted to watch those guys.
 
2011-09-08 11:30:55 AM  

Aikidogamer: I mean a non apportioned direct tax is still illegal, but 9/9/9 is better. Less manipulation is a great thing. And the poor pay something too.


Really? You guys are still trotting out the "poor don't pay taxes" talking point that's been debunked over and over?
 
2011-09-08 11:32:18 AM  

sprawl15: Purdue_Pete: I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?

RON PAUL might get more media presence if he stops saying FEMA controls the weather and air conditioning is the only reason troops are in Afghanistan.


Not that I approve, but how is that any worse than the usual derp from the favored candidates?
 
2011-09-08 11:33:21 AM  
N. A. Coffey

>>> jcooli09: Are there any others?

President Jimmy Carter.


----------------
Invariably Carter introduced himself as a "nuclear physicist and a peanut farmer." He was neither: he held only a bachelor's degree, and he owned a peanut warehouse.
----------------

----------------
He invited listeners to write to him. "Just put 'Jimmy Carter, Plains, Georgia' on the envelope, and I'll get it. I open every letter myself and read them all." But Carter's press secretary admitted to Brill that all mail so addressed was forwarded to the campaign staff in Atlanta
----------------

----------------
Carter boasted that at the completion of his term as governor he had left Georgia with a budget surplus of $200 million, but Brill discovered that the true amount was $43 million, which was all that remained of a $91 million surplus Carter had inherited when he took office.
----------------

----------------
Carter described an innovative program he had pioneered, employing welfare mothers to care for the mentally handicapped. "You should see them bathing and feeding the retarded children. They're the best workers we have in the state government," he enthused to audiences. But there was no way to see them-they did not, in fact, exist, as Brill learned from state officials.
----------------

----------------
In Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, his recent book on the Middle East, Carter repeats the egregious lie that he set out twenty-odd years ago in his previous book on the subject-namely, that in the 1967 war Israel preemptively attacked Jordan. This is no small matter: it was from Jordan that Israel took the West Bank, the focus of most of today's controversy. But the record is abundantly clear that while preemptively attacking Egypt and Syria, Israel pleaded with Jordan (through American intermediaries) to stay out of the fray. King Hussein felt he could not do that, so he ordered his forces to attack Israel, and the Israelis fought back.
---------------- *Not a surprising lie as carter has never met a terrorist or dictator he didn't love.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=14&x_article=12 52



----------------
Jimmy Carter lied in an interview with NPR talk-show host Diane Rehm (2010) She ended the interview by asking about the Tea Party and he claimed he had never criticized them

In 2009 he called the Tea Party all racists.
----------------


----------------
Incessant lying about Israel
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=14&x_article=12 52
----------------
 
2011-09-08 11:35:28 AM  

OnlyM3: Jimmy Carter lied in an interview with NPR talk-show host Diane Rehm (2010) She ended the interview by asking about the Tea Party and he claimed he had never criticized them

In 2009 he called the Tea Party all racists.




That's not a criticism. In fact, most Tea Baggers are kind of proud of their racism and make no effort to hide it...
 
2011-09-08 11:35:31 AM  

Mr. Right: How is a low paying job worse than a no-paying job (aka unemployed)? Regardless of claims by politicians, unemployment benefits do not add value to the economy. Productive work (at any rate) does.


I think your question poses a false dichotomy; Yes low is better than none but there is also the GOP position that in order to succeed US corporations and govt employers need the ability to gut salaries and wages, thus the question of low paying jobs comes into play. Teachers are one of the most common targets so does our economic success require us cut pay or is this all a scam to attack organizations that traditionally support the other party? None of them are mentioning the fact that under the Homeland Security act thousands of govt employees have been hired away into the private sector for 3x their govt salaries which is then billed back to the taxpayers.
 
2011-09-08 11:39:48 AM  

sprawl15: Aikidogamer: The sixteenth ammendment only restated what the feds can do. Which is tax income. The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate activity. That is not the same as selling ones labor. That is called a wage.

Oh christ, I've listened to enough stupid for one week. Every sentence you have posted is factually and historically incorrect. Fix your shiat.


Proof I am wrong? Please post. As an undergrad I spent about a week going through Lexusnexus looking at litigation pertaining to income taxes.

Basically what it boils down to is taxing corperations is fine because to avoid a corperate income tax one just does not organize as a corperation. Therefore it is an indirect tax and thus perfectly legal. Sales tax is legal because you control how much you pay by buying less. Don't want to pay the tax don't buy stuff. Also indirect.

Wages are not income even though both parties have allowed almost 100 years of illegal precedent to continue because of the vast power this nations tax code affords them. One does have to file an income tax return. Even the working on the boxes you check on it is intereating. Something to the effect of I believe I had income tax liability last year and I believe I do this year. That is paraphrased. Notice it is a belief not a fact. The give has relied on his lie to continue their power.

I know this is surprising. It was to me too. Believe it or continue to drink the kool aide. Are red pill or blue pill. Your choice.
 
2011-09-08 11:41:12 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: TheWizard: The food pantry is just an analogy, but it helps illustrate that it is possible to hold a belief that a government action is wrong, but be in a position where you need to utilize that government service because it is not financially possible to do otherwise.

Your analogy fails because five out of the last seven years, Texas has taken in more Federal dollars than it has paid in. Then, this year, they cut STATE firefighting 75% so that they could rely MORE on the federal programs.

There's being against a federal program, and then there's being against it in public while being for it in private.


You miss the point. I'm nit defending the specific policy, I'm pointing out that you can be opposed to something and benefit from it without necessarily being a hypocrite.

Taking in more federal funds is part of my point as well. It's a corrupting effect on our country as the funds are often tied to specific actions the fed wants you to take. It is quite possible to take in billions of federal dollars, yet not be permitted to use them to address a specific item.

I don't think that's the case here, I think Perry is a terrible option. But that's not the point of my post.
 
2011-09-08 11:42:22 AM  

jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?


I'd have to say that I'd probably have a hard time figuring out policy differences between a President Perry and a President Camacho.
 
2011-09-08 11:44:35 AM  

Aikidogamer: Proof I am wrong? Please post. As an undergrad I spent about a week going through Lexusnexus looking at litigation pertaining to income taxes.


Article I section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
 
2011-09-08 11:44:55 AM  

Thunderpipes: Irving Maimway: ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honesty on our candidates.

I endorse this idea. Maybe even have an overlay of horse shiat next to each candidate and watch it get higher as they go.

Obama's would be up to heaven, where he lives. Sure you want that?


Every time, without fail, you are THAT guy.

The one who, while everyone else is lamenting on ALL politicians being generally douchecanoes, HAS to be the guy that says "Yeah, we'll yer side is worse durrrr."

Your mom must be proud.
 
2011-09-08 11:45:11 AM  

I Like Bread: sprawl15: Purdue_Pete: I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?

RON PAUL might get more media presence if he stops saying FEMA controls the weather and air conditioning is the only reason troops are in Afghanistan.

Not that I approve, but how is that any worse than the usual derp from the favored candidates?


Exactly. Perry and Bachmann are bat-shait crazy and Romney is as much an empty suit as Obama.
 
2011-09-08 11:47:13 AM  
Outside of Ron Paul....there is no difference between the GOP candidates and Obama on most of the issues. The only real difference between the GOP and the Democrats is "who gets the welfare checks"

No one group of voters are as dumb as Rick Perry supporters. They think he is some wunderkind conservative and George Washington....however the dude supports open borders, illegal aliens, forced STD immunizations of little girls, and using tax dollars to build highways for the Chinese. People actually think Rick "rhymes with" Perry is some kinda conservative
 
2011-09-08 11:48:34 AM  

joonyer: Every time, without fail, you are THAT guy




Which is why so many people have just quit responding to him...
 
2011-09-08 11:48:44 AM  

Aikidogamer: Basically what it boils down to is taxing corperations is fine because to avoid a corperate income tax one just does not organize as a corperation.


To bolster your arguments, please heed the red, squiggly lines. Also: LexisNexis, interesting, wording...

I mean, your writing is a freaking mess, and it distracts from your point.
 
2011-09-08 11:49:06 AM  

UCFRoadWarrior: here is no difference between the GOP candidates and Obama on most of the issues.


lolwut
 
2011-09-08 11:50:26 AM  
Also, Ron Paul didn't physically confront anyone last night like another candidate felt compelled to do....

How stable is Perry really?

img.ibtimes.com
 
2011-09-08 11:51:23 AM  

factoryconnection: Aikidogamer: Basically what it boils down to is taxing corperations is fine because to avoid a corperate income tax one just does not organize as a corperation.

To bolster your arguments, please heed the red, squiggly lines. Also: LexisNexis, interesting, wording...

I mean, your writing is a freaking mess, and it distracts from your point.


Sorry, typing on a touch screen still getting used to it. Big fingers small buttons. I do love my EVO though.
 
2011-09-08 11:52:39 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Aikidogamer: Proof I am wrong? Please post. As an undergrad I spent about a week going through Lexusnexus looking at litigation pertaining to income taxes.

Article I section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"


Doesn't say anything about wages. So you prove my point.
 
2011-09-08 11:52:43 AM  

Lando Lincoln: jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

I'd have to say that I'd probably have a hard time figuring out policy differences between a President Perry and a President Camacho.


One is prone to making rash, violent decisions that involve gunplay, and the other just wants the crops to grow again.
 
2011-09-08 11:52:54 AM  

pwhp_67: OnlyM3: Jimmy Carter lied in an interview with NPR talk-show host Diane Rehm (2010) She ended the interview by asking about the Tea Party and he claimed he had never criticized them

In 2009 he called the Tea Party all racists.



That's not a criticism. In fact, most Tea Baggers are kind of proud of their racism and make no effort to hide it...


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
 
2011-09-08 11:54:58 AM  

Mr. Right: Dr Dreidel: Mr. Right: How is a low paying job worse than a no-paying job (aka unemployed)? Regardless of claims by politicians, unemployment benefits do not add value to the economy. Productive work (at any rate) does.

unemployment < low-paying job < regular-paying job < hedge-fund manager < unionized schoolteacher

// OK, the last one's for funsies
// at least UI benefits help keep money moving
// they also keep people afloat until they get their next job
// they also keep people from resorting to drastic measures to get food/shelter
// not sure what point you're trying to make - other than "applied physicists should take that burger-flipping job" (which is dumb for other reasons)

The article implies (but does not directly state) that job creation in Texas is illegitimate because so many of them are low paying jobs. Sure, it would be great if every job paid $40/hour. It would be even better if every worker was capable of adding $40 of value for every hour. The fact is that even low-paying jobs add more value than unemployment benefits. And no, I'm not advocating doing away with UI. As a matter of fact, I think unemployment insurance is a great idea since there are always going to be jobs that are seasonal or go away for one reason or another and that insurance is a great bridge for workers, especially lower paid workers until they can find another job. And it is an insurance program - employers must pay FUTA and SUTA taxes. But the fact remains that economic benefit is greater from even low-paying productive jobs than from no jobs or unemployment.


I seem to remember several GOPers arguing last year that low paying 'McJobs" were not jobs.
 
2011-09-08 11:55:25 AM  

Aikidogamer: Doesn't say anything about wages. So you prove my point.


Right. It doesn't prevent the Congress from taxing wages. Also notice that in the second sentence, the word "taxes" is omitted from the requirement that they be uniform throughout the states.
 
2011-09-08 11:56:45 AM  

Aikidogamer: Doesn't say anything about wages.


The second amendment says nothing about ammunition. Problem?
 
2011-09-08 11:57:06 AM  

Aikidogamer: Doesn't say anything about wages.



Exactly. So why would you think they were excluded when they are not mentioned? Congress can "lay and collect taxes", you pay income taxes...
 
2011-09-08 11:57:06 AM  

Lando Lincoln: jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

I'd have to say that I'd probably have a hard time figuring out policy differences between a President Perry and a President Camacho.


(IMHO) Perry's much closer to Nehemiah Scudder (with added larceny goodness).
 
2011-09-08 11:59:58 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Purdue_Pete: Paul wants to slash huge sections of our FEDERAL government. Guess what, I agree with him. The Federal Government is horribly bloated.

Where is it bloated, and why do you think thus?


Defense. Homeland security (horrible duplication of effort across all agencies).

There is justifiable criticism that the compensation of government workers is overly generous and that it's difficult to fire these people. Part of that is to counter the abuses of the spoils system that would happen if government workers could easily be fired.

There is enough political momentum to push for a rethinking of the employment benefits for government workers. This is political suicide for a democrat, but it is what should be done. Still, that's not bloat.

If we want to talk about government being stupid, let's talk farm subsidies. We spend WAY more money that then any personnel problems we have in DC, yet somehow, we never talk about that little gem.
 
2011-09-08 12:00:03 PM  

pwhp_67: Aikidogamer: Doesn't say anything about wages.


Exactly. So why would you think they were excluded when they are not mentioned? Congress can "lay and collect taxes", you pay income taxes...


Maybe this guy can look up the definition of "taxes" on his EVO
 
2011-09-08 12:01:07 PM  

plewis: There is justifiable criticism that the compensation of government workers is overly generous and that it's difficult to fire these people


How much do you think "government workers" make, on average?
 
2011-09-08 12:03:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: plewis: There is justifiable criticism that the compensation of government workers is overly generous and that it's difficult to fire these people

How much do you think "government workers" make, on average?


Well, I watch NCIS, and considering the clothes they wear and the cars they drive, I'd say they make mid-to-high six figures a year.
 
2011-09-08 12:04:00 PM  

Purdue_Pete: Also, Ron Paul didn't physically confront anyone last night like another candidate felt compelled to do....

How stable is Perry really?

[img.ibtimes.com image 640x420]


Perry is riding the "new person" bounce right now. He's getting a lot of interest and he's fairly much blowing it. His past is about to catch up to him and he can't control his mouth any better than Palin or Bachmann.

The GOP has a couple of potentially good candidates that could beat Obama but they won't nominate them: Johnson and Roemer.

Instead they will likely pick Romney who is nearly an exact copy of the Reagenesce Obama. Worst, one of the Tea Partiers will likely join Ron Paul in refusing to drop out of the race. So despite all the job cutting to undermine the economy at the local, state, and Federal level the GOP has done to hurt Obama.. he'll still win due to this.

The great thing is that the GOP will again split as they did a few years ago. I expect that the Tea Partiers will be kicked out. The question will be whether they go to the Constitution Party that they mimic so much or form their own party and truly become independent?
 
2011-09-08 12:08:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Maybe this guy can look up the definition of "taxes" on his EVO




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.
 
2011-09-08 12:12:35 PM  

pwhp_67: Aikidogamer: Doesn't say anything about wages.


Exactly. So why would you think they were excluded when they are not mentioned? Congress can "lay and collect taxes", you pay income taxes...


Ummm really? Wage was not included because it was not inteneded to be a source of revenue.
 
2011-09-08 12:16:41 PM  

Aikidogamer: Wage was not included because it was not inteneded to be a source of revenue.


Wage is merely one form of income. It is a subset. There are many forms of 'income' that are supported by the 16th, including things like capital gains that the tax code treats separately from ordinary income.
 
2011-09-08 12:18:32 PM  

Cubs300: Well, if I can't trust what any politician says as fact, what am I supposed to believe? If they say it on TV, it has to be true.

Right?


Overfiend: They're politicians.

This surprise anyone?


Pants full of macaroni!!: Woooo, politicians lie. Big news flash.


Memoryalpha: Wait, subby, you aren't suggesting that a politician lied or misrepresented during a debate are you? Say it ain't so!


JTW: No way! A politician lied? This must be a new day dawning on politics. What will the President do to stop this behavior?




both sides are bad, so.... vote republican?
 
2011-09-08 12:18:47 PM  
Read my previous posts. I am not going to explain it again.
 
2011-09-08 12:20:34 PM  

Aikidogamer: Read my previous posts. I am not going to explain it again.


Thank god.
 
2011-09-08 12:20:49 PM  

Aikidogamer: Wage was not included because it was not inteneded to be a source of revenue



You can't be this stupid. There is no source of revenue in there. What were they supposed to tax then?


"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"


Where in there does it say anything about corporations or profits or any other source? All I see is that taxes do not have to be uniform but the others do.
 
2011-09-08 12:23:24 PM  

Aikidogamer: Read my previous posts. I am not going to explain it again.


Although maybe you can explain this:

Like this word?
in·come
[in-kuhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments


How, exactly, is a wage earned NOT the dictionary definition of "income"?
 
2011-09-08 12:25:15 PM  

Thunderpipes: Irving Maimway: ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honesty on our candidates.

I endorse this idea. Maybe even have an overlay of horse shiat next to each candidate and watch it get higher as they go.

Obama's would be up to heaven, where he lives. Sure you want that?


Yes - absolutely. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not to their own facts. If - as you claim - Obama would be exposed as frequently stretching the truth or misrepresenting reality, then that is something that the American people deserves to know. At a less dramatic level, it would inform us as to when compromises ought to be made and when battles should be fought.

But to point your question back at you - if through this sort of system Obama was consistently proved to be more honest than the other side, would it influence you to support him more?

Of course there are LOTS of things that can't be fact-checked in this way (since among other things a lot depends on how the relevant data is modeled) - but it would be a great start.
 
2011-09-08 12:26:03 PM  

PanicMan: ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honestwy on our candidates.

Run the whole thing on a 5 min delay?


It would be a start.
 
2011-09-08 12:28:07 PM  
Hang on here Skippy - you mean to say you believe the Associated Press???

Let me repeat that ... YOU BELIEVE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS????

WOW. Where's Sam Kinnison howling in outrage when we need him? Link (new window)
 
2011-09-08 12:29:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: How, exactly, is a wage earned NOT the dictionary definition of "income"?


He said he looked at some books one time, what don't you get about that? I mean, it's clear as day, your tax forms say 'believe' instead of 'fact' in some unexplained context, and that's proof of everything. Stupid dim.
 
2011-09-08 12:30:35 PM  

LasssiterBeRight: Hang on here Skippy - you mean to say you believe the Associated Press???

Let me repeat that ... YOU BELIEVE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS????

WOW. Where's Sam Kinnison howling in outrage when we need him? Link (new window)


Uh. What's wrong with the AP?
 
2011-09-08 12:34:11 PM  

jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?


Any job which does not permit the worker to replace him or herself just as the capitalist replaces his or her capital and the landlord his or her buildings, plant or land, is a low paying job (vide Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations). In the 1960s, a minimum wage worker earned enough to meet the most basic requirements of life and decency and to support a wife and children. A minimum wage job, especially a series of part-time minimum wage or low wage jobs, no longer allows this even if both parents work. At least one parent's wages will almost be consumed by child care and other additional expenses. The second bread-winner will be substituting fast food and babysitters for their own labour--this might actually be an improvement but not a money-making proposition.

Assuming a two income family, a low-paying job would be a job which fails to allow the couple in question to raise two point one children and educate them to perform the duties which support their parents. This includes not only basic support, but basic decency (which may include $200 sneakers and cellphones--again I repose my definition on Adam Smith's definition of poverty) and a modicum of entertainment, extra-curricular activities required by the school, etc.

In short, a low-paying job falls short of the minimum cost of living for a family of four during the family's lifespan.
 
2011-09-08 12:35:36 PM  

tommyl66: ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honestwy on our candidates.

The "flaw" I see in this idea is that the moron majority would be swayed to believe that the fact-checkers are working for the other side so the facts can't be believed. Which would lead to assigning Democrat and Republican fact checkers to each debate, with the fact from each popping up in a blue or red box for the viewer to read. Of course, those fact bubbles would quickly dissolve into an Aiplane-esque "red zone/white zone" skit, which would be quite funny so I say on with the show.

/I may have been derailed for a moment there
//You and I know that facts are unbiased, but try telling Joe Six-Meth that


I see that as a feature because at one extreme there are absolute answers (2 + 2 = 4 --- you can equivocate "but in base 3 it's 11", etc. but that sort of backpedaling is obvious to most observers).

As things go further from absolute facts to fuzzier interpretations of the available data, then FINE - let the involved parties offer independent fact checking - we do this already (FARK itself is an example), it just tends to lag from the events which decreases the likelihood that someone will see the analysis. My expectation is that easy-to-determine facts (e.g, 9-11 happened in 2001) can be retrieved more quickly than offering spin on how to interpret the candidate's actual words. So the other extreme where your "fact checking" is more convoluted and open to interpretation really can't be acted upon quickly and that will tend to play out in other formats.

But as we have NOTHING like this in common practice - just getting the low-hanging fruit would be a great improvement, even if entirely imperfect...

Though --- if you merge this with why-isn't-this-already-common-tech of interactive TV you could link to the appropriate citation. And REALLY going into the "alternate universe" world - wouldn't it be cool if your TV remote HAD a "Citation?" button to REQUEST background data for "what I just saw?"...
 
2011-09-08 12:37:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What's wrong with the AP?



They're not as much of a Republican mouthpiece as FOX...
 
2011-09-08 12:38:45 PM  

joonyer: Thunderpipes: Irving Maimway: ursomniac: Here's what irks me.

We can do live closed captioning.

Why can't we do nearly live fact checking? There are lots of programs that
do the "enhanced text" thing putting balloons up on shows giving background information. Why not:

"Perry: Texas is best at [claim]"
"Fact: Texas ranks 47th in [claim]"

We have the tech, and it would enforce greater honesty on our candidates.

I endorse this idea. Maybe even have an overlay of horse shiat next to each candidate and watch it get higher as they go.

Obama's would be up to heaven, where he lives. Sure you want that?

Every time, without fail, you are THAT guy.

The one who, while everyone else is lamenting on ALL politicians being generally douchecanoes, HAS to be the guy that says "Yeah, we'll yer side is worse durrrr."

Your mom must be proud.


... and so the honest (and best) answer is "Yes, Obama too. And Pelosi. And Frank. And all the other Dems/RINOs/Lefties/etc./etc./etc. Now what do you (i.e., Thunderpipes) say?"

Were there a sitting first-term Republican in the White House and the current free-for-all debates among Democrats, I'd DEFINITELY want the same fact checking happening. Maybe even more so. :-)
 
2011-09-08 12:43:31 PM  

Aikidogamer: Herman Cain was the only one who seemed capable of giving a straight answer I like him but the rep establishment does not. I am hoping for a vp nomination.


Just because one can give a straight, plain answer, does not mean that one is giving a smart or correct answer. I could say confidently and briefly that the number one method of job creation needed in this country is Marble rye toast. It would not make me correct, and anyone who thought I was refreshing or being kept down by the establishment for my plain-spoken ways should probably be beaten with hoses.
 
2011-09-08 12:44:54 PM  

Purdue_Pete: I am NOT a conspiracy guy, but Fox, CNN and MSBNC will not give Ron Paul a shot to win. WTH!?!?!?


If you think that online poll spamming has anything to do with reality, then yeah, you're a conspiracy guy. Here, have some colloidal silver.
 
2011-09-08 12:45:03 PM  
Anyone notice John Huntsman's face was about the same color of his tie?
 
2011-09-08 12:45:49 PM  

House of Tards: It would not make me correct, and anyone who thought I was refreshing or being kept down by the establishment for my plain-spoken ways should probably be beaten with hoses.



But what if you seemed like someone I would enjoy having a beer with?
 
2011-09-08 12:46:01 PM  

House of Tards: I could say confidently and briefly that the number one method of job creation needed in this country is Marble rye toast.


Marble rye toast is not in the Constitution.
 
2011-09-08 12:52:01 PM  
I am playing the world's smallest violin for Governor Perry while Texas burns.

It may be a bit off topic, but I would like to point out that the notorious Roman Emperor Nero never played the violin (which wasn't invented until about 1,500 years later) and that when the fires were announced, he interrupted his dinner party immediately to take note of the fact. My memory isn't what it was but he either 1) stopped the party in recognition of the crisis or 2) turned it into a relief fundraiser on the spot. And if it was the latter, you can be sure his guests gave until it hurt.

He spent large amounts of Imperial treasure to help fight the fires, assist victims and rebuild the city. Also, he held fund raisers. THAT was where he played the lyre and sang, God help his not so innocent victims and courtiers.

I'm not making excuses for the tyrant--he was an awful musician and a monster. I'm just saying you can't believe all the conspiracy theories, such as the one about Nero burning Rome so he could build himself bigger palaces with bigger gardens, or the one about the Jews slash Christians being behind it.

Rome was built by Italian contractors. It was a fire waiting to happen. Many of the apartment blocks (insula) were higher than ladders could reach and the only anti-fire technology was water buckets and buckets of sand--this in eight story wood buildings.

But back to our sheeple.

American Governors are as bad as Canadian Premiers when it comes to fiscal hypocrisy and blame-shifting to the Federal Government. Screw them all.

It's practically a job requirement for the Governor of Texas to be a great fool.

Bush was over-qualified. Perry may yet beat him.
 
2011-09-08 12:54:48 PM  

pwhp_67: Where in there does it say anything about corporations or profits or any other source? All I see is that taxes do not have to be uniform but the others do.


Basically he made up his own definition of income, then complained that nobody could rebut his made up definition.

/And I've yet to see any of you successfully prove that Obama is not kerplotzing.
 
2011-09-08 12:56:58 PM  

pwhp_67: House of Tards: It would not make me correct, and anyone who thought I was refreshing or being kept down by the establishment for my plain-spoken ways should probably be beaten with hoses.


But what if you seemed like someone I would enjoy having a beer with?


Well, that's different and important. Also, I do have presidential hair. None of this Thaddeus McCotter shiat for me.
 
2011-09-08 01:06:26 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Classical Bust of Ringo Starr
History's Greatest Monster and
Winner of the Olympic Gold Medal (All events, 67 A.D.)
 
2011-09-08 01:07:58 PM  

penguinfark: In other news: The sky, it's blue.


There's nothing we can do.
 
2011-09-08 01:09:59 PM  
Can some republican educate me on eliminating the min. wage law?

How is it that welfare recipients living on the government's dime are too lazy to look for a job, but somehow unemployment will be at 0% if those same people were offered jobs at less than minimum wage?
 
2011-09-08 01:12:37 PM  
The thing I like about this list is that the four loonies are way behind the four more mainstream politicians:

Ron Paul 49.6%(58,414 votes)
Mitt Romney 17.5%(20,562 votes)
Rick Perry 14.6%(17,191 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9%(8,131 votes)

Below the cut:
Newt Gingrich 4.8%(5,600 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3%(3,942 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.3%(2,672 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.1%(1,250 votes)

But it is a sad indictment of the Republican Party and Money Politics that there is nobody smarter or saner than Ron Paul, who would be an outlier in any other system. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for None of the Above, and so far Anonymous and I Didn't Do It are the front-runners in a race to the bottom of the cracker barrel.
 
2011-09-08 01:16:03 PM  

brantgoose: The thing I like about this list is that the four loonies are way behind the four more mainstream politicians:

Ron Paul 49.6%(58,414 votes)


No, it appears the craziest one of the bunch is leading.
 
2011-09-08 01:16:56 PM  

sprawl15: brantgoose: The thing I like about this list is that the four loonies are way behind the four more mainstream politicians:

Ron Paul 49.6%(58,414 votes)

No, it appears the craziest one of the bunch is leading.


I was just about to say that...
 
2011-09-08 01:18:22 PM  

pwhp_67: Perry's problem with bragging about Texas is that Texans don't seem to realize what a shiathole the rest of the country thinks Texas is...


Texans don't care.

pwhp_67: That's not a criticism. In fact, most Tea Baggers are kind of proud of their racism and make no effort to hide it...


But God help you if you ever call them on it!

cameroncrazy1984: Uh. What's wrong with the AP?


They're not owned by Murdoch.
 
2011-09-08 01:18:35 PM  

Purdue_Pete: He was against these stupid, useless, wasteful and murderous global wars though, right? And to say his supporters are more asinine than Obama or Palin supporters is a bit of a reach.


Not particularly. Like most false equivalence arguments this is bullshiat. Ron Paul supporters by the numbers and the crazy are assholes. Other candidate supporters are less troublesome.

Paul wants to slash huge sections of our FEDERAL government. Guess what, I agree with him. The Federal Government is horribly bloated.

No and no. Removing federal government controls in order to empower dominionist state governments (And he IS a dominionist) isn't really increasing liberty or getting rid of government. Further, Ron Paul is always wishy-washy about actually cutting the military-industrial complex, he's for slashing social spending first, business spending a distant second, and corporate tax breaks never at all. And finally the "horribly bloated" Federal Government isn't actually "horribly bloated," seeing as how Taxes are at historic lows.
 
2011-09-08 01:21:17 PM  
So far I like Herman Cain the best, but he doesn't get the coverage he deserves.
 
2011-09-08 01:25:56 PM  

jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

[www.moviesonline.ca image 509x346]


He's certainly classier.
 
2011-09-08 01:27:38 PM  
Here's a thought: instead of Primaries, the Republicans should hold a lottery. Let anybody who meets the requirements for holding the office of President buy tickets. The first ten tickets drawn confer the right to run off in the Semi Finals and Finals. That's basically the same system, but it would be open to everybody, even people disqualified by virtue of perfect mental health under the current first-past-the-billion-dollar-mark-system.

Or, since Americans insist on their President being somebody they'd like to sit down and drink a beer with, you could put golden tickets all American brands of beer (sorry, Heineken and Molsons) and the winners get a tour of the White House lead by that weird little troll, what's his name? James Carville, and a chance to live there.

Here's another thought: nobody can donate anything directly or indirectly to a campaign except 1) American citizens donating their own money in their own name. And they are limited to a total of $1,000 (all candidates) and per party, no more than $3,000 in total per election. Seeing as only 4% or so donate anything, and only a tiny proportion donate more than $1,000, the rich will still be privileged but corporations and unions will be locked out of funding campaigns. Seems to work in Canada, even if the Tories and the NDP seem to be the main beneficiaries despite the rules being laid down by the former Liberals.

No soft money. No corporate donations. No waffling. A chief electoral officer who is neutral and appointed for a period of seven years to over see all campaigns, funding, votes and vote counts instead of the partisans who run things now. The rules would make air-time and other access to the voters as fair and balanced as possible, possibly based on past party and candidate performance in previous elections.

IF EVERY LIVING AMERICAN WERE TO DONATE NO MORE THAN $3,000 TO A CAMPAIGN, THE TOTAL COST WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY WHAT IT IS NOW. OTHERWISE, THE COST WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILLING TO DONATE BETWEEN $0 AND $3,000 IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
 
2011-09-08 01:29:46 PM  

jayhawk88: Lando Lincoln: jayhawk88: I still say that we should just give up completely, and make these debates like an American Gladiator's episode. Seriously, at this point wouldn't you prefer to have this man in the White House?

I'd have to say that I'd probably have a hard time figuring out policy differences between a President Perry and a President Camacho.

One is prone to making rash, violent decisions that involve gunplay, and the other just wants the crops to grow again.


Sofullofwin.jpg
 
2011-09-08 01:37:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Aikidogamer: Read my previous posts. I am not going to explain it again.

Although maybe you can explain this:

Like this word?
in·come
[in-kuhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments

How, exactly, is a wage earned NOT the dictionary definition of "income"?


Legal definitions are established in case law not dictionaries.
 
2011-09-08 01:54:41 PM  

Lost Thought 00: jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?

Any job which leaves you and your family below the federal poverty line for annual income, aka any full-time job which requires you to also hold another job, or pretty much any job which does not provide benefits like access to health insurance.


You know, I was thinking about using the poverty line as a counter to the minimum wage line of thinking in a similar manner to what you are saying. Then, I did some research and found out the poverty line for a single individual with no children is $11,344 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html). Using a 50 week year and 40 hour work week, that equates to $5.67/hr.

Do you know of any full time jobs like that?
 
2011-09-08 01:59:02 PM  

mrbmp: So far I like Herman Cain the best, but he doesn't get the coverage he deserves.


Do you know why he doesn't? He's a bigot.
 
2011-09-08 01:59:44 PM  

Aikidogamer: Legal definitions are established in case law not dictionaries


What case law has overturned the tax on wages?
 
2011-09-08 02:06:12 PM  

mrbmp: So far I like Herman Cain the best, but he doesn't get the coverage he deserves.


A candidate with no funding, who has a platform consisting of three planks:

- Tax cuts
- I have secret solutions to our problems I will reveal once elected
- I will personally vet every Muslim in America.

is getting MORE attention than he deserves.
 
2011-09-08 02:42:02 PM  

Purdue_Pete: Also, Ron Paul didn't physically confront anyone last night like another candidate felt compelled to do....

How stable is Perry really?

[img.ibtimes.com image 640x420]


That photo is incredibly revealing.
 
2011-09-08 02:43:52 PM  

Dextro: Do you know of any full time jobs like that?


So is the chart wrong? It doesn't say whether these wages are gross or net. If we follow this math, it would mean that NOONE could be below the poverty line (in this case), since ALL jobs have a federally mandated minimum wage that would bring the person above the $5.67 mark...
 
2011-09-08 03:23:19 PM  

Aikidogamer: Wages are not income


This is the stupidest thing I've seen all day.

Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says that "gross income" (which is the starting point for determining "taxable income") means "all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items...."

As an undergrad I spent about a week going through Lexusnexus looking at litigation pertaining to income taxes.

You know how I know this isn't true? 1) Because your spelling and grammar are so atrocious I seriously doubt you finished high school, much less attended college, and 2) because if you had actually spent any amount of time at all looking, you would have found plenty.

"[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation."
-- Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert (1913).

"There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them...."
--Lucas v. Earl (1930)

"[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected."
-- C.I.R. v. Smith (1945)

"Wages usually are income ...."
-- Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States (1978)

"The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that 'gross income means all income from whatever source derived,' subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code. As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert 'the full measure of its taxing power,' [citation omitted] and to bring within the definition of income any 'accessio[n] to wealth.' [citation omitted] There is no dispute that the settlement awards in this case [for 'back wages' to compensate for sex discrimination] would constitute gross income within the reach of 61(a)."
-- United States v. Burke (1992)

"It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek' s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be."
-- Cheek v. United States (1991)
 
2011-09-08 03:30:56 PM  

Aikidogamer: I have. The sixteenth ammendment only restated what the feds can do. Which is tax income. The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate activity.


"Plaintiff argues 'income' should be interpreted as limited to corporate activities, and not include wages. He relies on a series of Supreme Court cases rendered shortly after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and which define the scope of corporate income. NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that only corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra, many of these cases state: "income may be defined as gain derived from capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED". See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918); Stratton's Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913) (emphasis added). In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as imposing a tax on "every person residing in the United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing from all sources". Thus, the plain language of the authorities upon which Plaintiff relies belies his position."

Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999).

In affirming, the 6th Circuit stated that, "Tornichio's legal assertions are patently spurious, as it cannot be seriously argued that an individual's taxable income is based solely on income derived from corporate activities," and imposed additional sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.
 
2011-09-08 03:33:28 PM  

Dextro: Lost Thought 00: jayg22: Wendy's Chili: The moderator said "low-paying jobs".

What is a low paying job?

Any job which leaves you and your family below the federal poverty line for annual income, aka any full-time job which requires you to also hold another job, or pretty much any job which does not provide benefits like access to health insurance.

You know, I was thinking about using the poverty line as a counter to the minimum wage line of thinking in a similar manner to what you are saying. Then, I did some research and found out the poverty line for a single individual with no children is $11,344 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html). Using a 50 week year and 40 hour work week, that equates to $5.67/hr.

Do you know of any full time jobs like that?


I didn't believe it was that low so I double-checked and sure enough that is what it is.

Canadian poverty line for one person is between $12K to $18K. It is lower in rural areas and is higher and higher dependant on the size of the city. $18K in cities greater than half a million people.

Taking your figure and the general rule of thumb that housing should be 25% of your income, what type of place can you get for $250 a month?
 
2011-09-08 03:37:39 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Aikidogamer: Wages are not income

This is the stupidest thing I've seen all day.


It's OK, he already knows he sefl-pwned and left the thread.
 
2011-09-08 03:38:22 PM  
Oh FFS, self-pwned.

/did it to myself, hur...
 
2011-09-08 03:43:53 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Aikidogamer: I have. The sixteenth ammendment only restated what the feds can do. Which is tax income. The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate activity.

"Plaintiff argues 'income' should be interpreted as limited to corporate activities, and not include wages. He relies on a series of Supreme Court cases rendered shortly after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and which define the scope of corporate income. NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that only corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra, many of these cases state: "income may be defined as gain derived from capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED". See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918); Stratton's Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913) (emphasis added). In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as imposing a tax on "every person residing in the United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing from all sources". Thus, the plain language of the authorities upon which Plaintiff relies belies his position."

Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999).

In affirming, the 6th Circuit stated that, "Tornichio's legal assertions are patently spurious, as it cannot be seriously argued that an individual's taxable income is based solely on income derived from corporate activities," and imposed additional sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.


Doesn't change the fact it is not apportioned and direct.
 
2011-09-08 04:05:09 PM  

Aikidogamer: The sixteenth ammendment only restated what the feds can do. Which is tax income. The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate activity.


Ctrl-Alt-Del: [citation demonstrating that this is patently false]


Aikidogamer: Doesn't change the fact it is not apportioned and direct.


blog.lextext.com

I know that it is very appealing to change the subject to some other talking point when you are proven unambiguously wrong, but let's stick with the subject we were talking about, eh? Do you contend, despite my citation, that "The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate [sic] activity"?
 
2011-09-08 04:08:18 PM  

Aikidogamer: Doesn't change the fact it is not apportioned and direct.


"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
 
2011-09-08 04:21:04 PM  
Seems I missed something in my research. I think the court got it wrong. But it is what it is. Looks like the 9/9/9 is just fine.
 
2011-09-08 04:22:45 PM  

Aikidogamer: Looks like the 9/9/9 is just fine.


Other than being profoundly retarded, you mean.
 
2011-09-08 04:29:29 PM  

Aikidogamer: Seems I missed something in my research. I think the court got it wrong. But it is what it is.


I'm sorry, is that a response to me? if so, kudos to you for being man enough to admit you were wrong on Fark. it's a rare event, and I'm impressed.

If not, do you have a response? Do you still contend that ""The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate [sic] activity"? Or will you concede that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined?
 
2011-09-08 04:43:14 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Aikidogamer: Seems I missed something in my research. I think the court got it wrong. But it is what it is.

I'm sorry, is that a response to me? if so, kudos to you for being man enough to admit you were wrong on Fark. it's a rare event, and I'm impressed.

If not, do you have a response? Do you still contend that ""The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate [sic] activity"? Or will you concede that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined?


Yes it was to you. And I obviously thought I knew something I was mistaken on. Live and you learn. I am just glad someone was willing to point it out with evidence rather than internet derp. As stated above still getting used to my touch screen. My bad on the grammer. I did infact attend and graduate college.
 
2011-09-08 04:57:49 PM  

Aikidogamer: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Aikidogamer: Seems I missed something in my research. I think the court got it wrong. But it is what it is.

I'm sorry, is that a response to me? if so, kudos to you for being man enough to admit you were wrong on Fark. it's a rare event, and I'm impressed.

If not, do you have a response? Do you still contend that ""The legal definition of income is profits arising from corperate [sic] activity"? Or will you concede that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined?

Yes it was to you. And I obviously thought I knew something I was mistaken on. Live and you learn. I am just glad someone was willing to point it out with evidence rather than internet derp. As stated above still getting used to my touch screen. My bad on the grammer. I did infact attend and graduate college.


Yeah, doubtful.
 
2011-09-08 09:27:33 PM  

Vodka Zombie: You know, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, it IS pretty disgusting how insidious the media has been in its attempt to sink him. There is something horribly unfair about it, and I can see how Ron Paul's supporters could be furious with the media.


How else should the media handle a candidate with a base of about 50,000 fanatical screaming supporters and essentially zero support among the rest of the 199,950,000 voters in the country? Their obligation is to the (vast) majority of their audience, not a bunch of fringe cultists with poll-stuffing skills.
 
2011-09-09 12:24:03 PM  

letthepossumlive: I'm not really into politics except for the fact I think it's all one big scam.
One day I emailed my congressman with a simple, "where do you stand on this issue" kind of thing without saying where I stood. I received back a very long email that was very articulate. After reading it I realized I still had no idea where he stood on the issue.. Very impressive. Do these guys go to some kind of school for this stuff?


Yeah, Law School.
 
2011-09-09 01:40:23 PM  
I'm honestly more surprised Romney was honest even twice.
 
Displayed 232 of 232 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report