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.

(CNSNews)   From the Department of Money Well Spent: After almost 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, the US poverty level is the same as it was when war was declared   (cnsnews.com) divider line 413
    More: Obvious, poverty line, President Johnson, Earned Income Tax Credit  
•       •       •

1405 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



413 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-26 06:41:44 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration.


Also noteworthy:

[Kennedy] did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Link

So I'm glad we agree on Kennedynomics as a model for the nation. Demand side tax cuts, and a top marginal rate of 70% sounds about right to me.
 
2012-06-26 06:41:47 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: intelligent comment below: SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


No, the shades show a recession, idiot.

MY. POINT.

One started under Carter, the other under HW Bush. "B-b-b-but Reagan!!"


No, your point was a Democrat causing the drop and the great society not working.

When the economy is good and a Democrat is in office, poverty numbers drop. Imagine that
 
2012-06-26 06:49:01 PM

Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.


4th question down.

Funny, how the left always wants to credit Clinton for welfare reform, and claim that the GOP-led Congress had nothing to do with it. Clinton signed it, but not because he wanted to do so:

Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election.
 
2012-06-26 06:50:17 PM
There will always be poverty, it will just vary in degrees.
With human nature comes greed and sloth.
It's what's in between that we can affect a better outcome.
 
2012-06-26 06:52:09 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.

4th question down.

Funny, how the left always wants to credit Clinton for welfare reform, and claim that the GOP-led Congress had nothing to do with it. Clinton signed it, but not because he wanted to do so:

Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election.


Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Where do you think you are? Reddit?
 
2012-06-26 06:53:42 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.

4th question down.

Funny, how the left always wants to credit Clinton for welfare reform, and claim that the GOP-led Congress had nothing to do with it. Clinton signed it, but not because he wanted to do so:

Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election.


Clinton campaigned in 1992 on welfare reform.

"Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.
 
2012-06-26 06:56:25 PM

bugontherug: SouthernFriedYankee: The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration.

Also noteworthy:

[Kennedy] did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Link

So I'm glad we agree on Kennedynomics as a model for the nation. Demand side tax cuts, and a top marginal rate of 70% sounds about right to me.


If we make that 70% on folks who make over $1 mil, then yeah, maybe. Create another bracket to be the top bracket. That high of a rate on anyone making less than about $750 - $1mm/year is unreasonable. Those are the folks who own the small businesses (the upper middle class). The middle class are the folks who work for those businesses.

Right now, the middle and upper middle classes carry the whole damn country on their backs. The ultra wealthy skate out of the burden, percentage-wise, on top of having the biggest incomes in absolute dollars. And obviously the poor don't have any money by definition, so they can't be taxed.
 
2012-06-26 06:59:38 PM

casual disregard: I actually want the GOP to win the Presidency and both houses. I want them to eliminate all programs and to repeal all laws the Democratic party ever passed.

I will be the first person to laugh loudly when the world falls apart and millions of people die overnight. I will point and laugh and I will say that I told you so. I will be the first person to convict in the public square all conservative ideology and all people who claim to own it. I'm betting that instead of conscientious persons, I will instead face a wall of crickets.

I will drag you all to prison, and you will die there.


i must say, even though i'm a conservative, i like the cut of your jib.
 
2012-06-26 07:00:44 PM
Poverty is relative. If you can afford three hots and a roof over your head you're not poor.
 
2012-06-26 07:03:40 PM

Shaggy_C: Poverty is relative. If you can afford three hots and a roof over your head you're not poor.


Oh, don't start.
 
2012-06-26 07:04:34 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: If we make that 70% on folks who make over $1 mil, then yeah, maybe. Create another bracket to be the top bracket. That high of a rate on anyone making less than about $750 - $1mm/year is unreasonable. Those are the folks who own the small businesses (the upper middle class).


In my view, the top bracket should be somewhere below $750k/year. But I'm not interested in arguing that point. I am interesting in arguing the notion that anyone who pulls in $750k/year in personal income is "middle class" in any way whatsoever.

But I am pleasantly surprised to hear someone on the right agree to higher marginal tax rates. Kudos.
 
2012-06-26 07:05:37 PM

Shaggy_C: Poverty is relative. If you can afford three hots and a roof over your head you're not poor.


So it's okay if your teeth fall out and you croak from shiyat that was curable but there was no dough available to live?
Interesting world view you have there Shags.
 
2012-06-26 07:06:51 PM
Yes, but think of all the Vietnamese and Iraqis we've killed in that time frame, never mind how many of our own people we've sent off to slaughter for someone's idea of a social studies project. That was money well spent and will pay dividends until the end of time.

That is what makes me proud to be an American.

Hungry poor people? F*ck them. They aren't Real Americans.
 
2012-06-26 07:09:36 PM

bugontherug: I am interesting in arguing the notion that anyone who pulls in $750k/year in personal income is "middle class" in any way whatsoever.


750K is or isn't middle class? I must be stupid because I couldn't tell by your sentence.
It's a discussion worth having. Where is the class line?
We know the poverty line (19K?) but where is the actual divide betwixt the other "classes"?
 
2012-06-26 07:11:40 PM

bugontherug: SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi:

"Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"


Stop that immediately!
 
2012-06-26 07:12:38 PM

Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.


Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

Better?
 
2012-06-26 07:14:25 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
Better?



Sounds legit
 
2012-06-26 07:15:04 PM
Three words.

GAMING. THE. SYSTEM.

If you're doing the gaming, you've made out like bandits.

If you're being gamed, you've been conned and didn't even know it. And that's the best kind of a con.
 
2012-06-26 07:15:18 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
Better?


Mises? Oy vey.
 
2012-06-26 07:16:45 PM

bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.


I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.
 
2012-06-26 07:17:00 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: GAMING. THE. SYSTEM.


You do have a point. Both ends of the spectrum have gamers. Guess which ones ain't so bright?
 
2012-06-26 07:18:06 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.

I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.


You are claiming he didn't want Welfare Reform. Your own link shows they were only holding out for a better plan.
 
2012-06-26 07:19:24 PM

colon_pow: casual disregard: I actually want the GOP to win the Presidency and both houses. I want them to eliminate all programs and to repeal all laws the Democratic party ever passed.

I will be the first person to laugh loudly when the world falls apart and millions of people die overnight. I will point and laugh and I will say that I told you so. I will be the first person to convict in the public square all conservative ideology and all people who claim to own it. I'm betting that instead of conscientious persons, I will instead face a wall of crickets.

I will drag you all to prison, and you will die there.

i must say, even though i'm a conservative, i like the cut of your jib.


It's a thirteen-step program. For support, you can ask Weaver95 and Hubiestubart for aid. Ghastly fills in as our resident "Weird Canadian" cousin as required.

You just passed step one. Long road ahead of you.
 
2012-06-26 07:24:50 PM

smeegle: bugontherug: I am interesting in arguing the notion that anyone who pulls in $750k/year in personal income is "middle class" in any way whatsoever.

750K is or isn't middle class? I must be stupid because I couldn't tell by your sentence.
It's a discussion worth having. Where is the class line?
We know the poverty line (19K?) but where is the actual divide betwixt the other "classes"?


I fully admit I'm being a bit arbitrary here, but this is Fark and I see a lot of that from all sides. Anyway, I think that the cutoff line between the upper middle class and the actual upper class is somewhere between $750K and $1mm/year. When you take into account the total tax burden AND the rate of inflation, that sounds about right.
 
2012-06-26 07:28:17 PM

Sabyen91: You are claiming he didn't want Welfare Reform. Your own link shows they were only holding out for a better plan.


I expect he'd have held out forever, or until the plan had about as much reform in it as a pile of dirt, if re-election wasn't an issue. I went through my 20s in the 1990s, so I remember it very well.
 
2012-06-26 07:33:40 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
Better?


No. That PDF is full of suppositions and convoluted math/logic to support a bullshiat theory.

It's crap. Meanwhile, the study cited upthread by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities using actual hard numbers completely debunks that bogus libertarian POS you tried to pass off as proof of your ridiculous assertion.

Again, citing bullshiat does not help your case. You might be able to sell steaming piles like that over at Yahoo, but not here.
 
2012-06-26 07:34:54 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Sabyen91: You are claiming he didn't want Welfare Reform. Your own link shows they were only holding out for a better plan.

I expect he'd have held out forever, or until the plan had about as much reform in it as a pile of dirt, if re-election wasn't an issue. I went through my 20s in the 1990s, so I remember it very well.


So...you got nothin'.
 
2012-06-26 07:39:08 PM
I am upper middle class probably. Definitely not lower class and definitely not poor.

I don't own a refrigerator or a washer or dryer.

I live in an apartment that has these things. I could buy them, but I am a single father putting one kid through college with no help from anyone.

Where does Fox News feel I belong?
 
2012-06-26 07:39:39 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.

I do, and he did. But he vetoed it twice first, and only signed it after his advisors told him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he did so.


Well that was good of him, but it doesn't really negate the claim that was made.
 
2012-06-26 07:42:59 PM

Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...


Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.
 
2012-06-26 07:44:00 PM

whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.

I do, and he did. But he vetoed it twice first, and only signed it after his advisors told him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he did so.

Well that was good of him, but it doesn't really negate the claim that was made.


Yes, but he found a Newsbusters article quoting that paragon of truth Dick Morris.

So he's got that going for him.
 
2012-06-26 07:46:50 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.


So that makes the bullcrap you were trying to pass from the Von Mieses Institute and NewsBusters true?
 
2012-06-26 07:49:35 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.


Sorry, Mr. cite-tard. Neither the Mcardle opinion piece nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan. Over and above that though, neither disproves the findings of the study in question, which is the real point. Or was that just a really bad attempt at deflection?

You really suck at this.
 
2012-06-26 07:51:21 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.

I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.


The Wikipedia entry links to Bill Clinton talking about welfare reform in 1991. It was a major part of his 1992 campaign. This response here, to the objective fact of reality which contradicts your assertion hat Bill Clinton didn't want welfare reform, is why you deserved to be insulted. Anger at reality is ingrained in the morally defective conservative character. Hence, rejection of science, facts, etc.
 
2012-06-26 07:52:16 PM

bugontherug: SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.

I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.

The Wikipedia entry links to Bill Clinton talking about welfare reform in 1991. It was a major part of his 1992 campaign. This response here, to the objective fact of reality which contradicts your assertion hat Bill Clinton didn't want welfare reform, is why you deserved to be insulted. Anger at reality is ingrained in the morally defective conservative character. Hence, rejection of science, facts, etc.


Also: don't want to be insulted? Make the choice not to be a degenerate conservative. Accept reality, even when it angers you. Not that hard.
 
2012-06-26 08:05:10 PM
wilmatheater.org
"Well... Looks like my work is done here."

thewritepractice.com
 
2012-06-26 08:07:37 PM

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: [wilmatheater.org image 260x331]
"Well... Looks like my work is done here."

[thewritepractice.com image 640x429]


I miss my lung, Bob...
 
2012-06-26 08:31:28 PM

Tor_Eckman: nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan


All their donors are leftists. Try again.

You really suck at this.

No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.
 
2012-06-26 08:34:45 PM

bugontherug: Also: don't want to be insulted? Make the choice not to be a degenerate conservative.


I give two farks if you insult me. I'm merely pointing it out.

How about you make the choice not to be a disingenuous leftist, instead?

Accept reality, even when it angers you.

I'm not the one who doesn't accept reality.
 
2012-06-26 08:41:30 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan

All their donors are leftists. Try again.

You really suck at this.

No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.


Most of the "conservatives" on here have been chased away because they spout easily debunked pablum like you. You're full of nothing but boilerplate nonsense fed to you by Fox and Beck and Townhall and all of the other various righty propaganda delivery devices. You have done nothing to prove any of the ridiculous assertions you have made since showing up on here a few days ago after allegedly lurking for ten years.

People that have been around here for a while can sniff out obvious sock puppets like you from a mile away. You're not the first, the last, and you are certainly not even close to the best of the puke-spewers that have shown up here over the last five years or so.

Feel free to go peddle your nonsense to a more receptive audience. Nobody here is buying your tired old Fark independent act, and you shouldn't be selling it.
 
2012-06-26 08:46:20 PM

Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


It's just like that Republican attack on Obama about how gas prices were so low when he came into office (because of the recession) but were now high because of his evil socialist policies.
 
2012-06-26 08:46:29 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan

All their donors are leftists. Try again.

You really suck at this.

No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.


Now that's some big screen projection. You man bro?
 
2012-06-26 08:46:39 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.


What color is the sky in your world?
 
2012-06-26 08:52:46 PM
Also how can anyone claim Reagan reduced poverty when it went from 18.3 to 19.5 percent during the time he was in office.
 
2012-06-26 09:08:09 PM

Tor_Eckman: propaganda


What you believe is solemn fact, what you don't believe is propaganda. Got it.

Mises is propaganda; CBPP is "non-partisan." Got it.

You've "easily debunked me." Got it.

I get all my ideas from talk radio and Fox News. Got it.

Thing is, I can argue my points without name calling and condescension. You can't. (Calling you leftists is not an insult. The policies many of you advocate, and your unflinching support for Obama who is an outright leftist (except where Wall Street and the banks are concerned), are proof that a great many of you are leftists.) I attack your ideas, but I'm not constantly calling you evil, stupid, etc. for having them. And no, I could give a shiat that you insult me. But it's a sign of a weak argument, one that doesn't stand up to scrutiy.
 
2012-06-26 09:12:50 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: propaganda

What you believe is solemn fact, what you don't believe is propaganda. Got it.

Mises is propaganda; CBPP is "non-partisan." Got it.

You've "easily debunked me." Got it.

I get all my ideas from talk radio and Fox News. Got it.

Thing is, I can argue my points without name calling and condescension. You can't. (Calling you leftists is not an insult. The policies many of you advocate, and your unflinching support for Obama who is an outright leftist (except where Wall Street and the banks are concerned), are proof that a great many of you are leftists.) I attack your ideas, but I'm not constantly calling you evil, stupid, etc. for having them. And no, I could give a shiat that you insult me. But it's a sign of a weak argument, one that doesn't stand up to scrutiy.


I insult you because your ridiculous assertions and citations deserve nothing more.

I'm not going to try to have a serious conversation with someone that cites Newsbusters.
 
2012-06-26 09:13:58 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Obama who is an outright leftist


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-26 09:14:22 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Thing is, I can argue my points without name calling and condescension.


Blanket accusations and projection while ignoring the countless right-wing trolls on this site is a-ok, though.
 
2012-06-26 09:17:08 PM
 
2012-06-26 09:19:28 PM
Obama the outright leftist, killing people with drone strikes, including American citizens. Bailing out Wall St. and not going after criminal speculators. Handouts to health care companies with a watered down health care reform bill. That damn leftist.
 
Displayed 50 of 413 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report