posted March 25, 2008 07:27 PM            

Now acoustic, let's review the actions of the juvenile leftist set...those of arrested development.

When Algore lost the 2000 election, they refused to accept the results of the election. They attempted to set aside the election results, even after losing recount after recount..and in voting districts where democrats were in charge, they called Bush an illegitimate President, they said Bush was "appointed" by the Supreme Court.

Even after the NY Times and other members of the press sent teams to go over the vote totals and examine ballots yet again, leftists refused to accept their findings that Bush won the Florida vote...and therefore the election...and these were fellow leftists looking hard to invalidate the election results.

In 2004, leftists whined about the Ohio vote and went through similar gyrations to make Kerry the winner. One leftist
entertainer threatened to leave the United States if Bush won the election.

They suffered from PEST and severe depression...over an election which didn't go their way.

Now acoustic, let's review conservative reaction to losing the 2006 mid-term elections. No reaction acoustic, they accepted the results and didn't whine, didn't stamp their feet in rage, didn't hold their breath, didn't screech, didn't shriek and didn't behave like pubescent preteens.

Those against the war have used every lie possible against Bush. They've compared Bush to Hitler...but Hitler was a socialist..one of the leftist set, they've posted pictures depicting Bush as Satan, called Bush the anti-Christ...some of this nonsense is the very reason I never let an opportunity go by to turn a blowtorch on leftist butts...they compared Bush to a monkey, called Bush a murderer, said Bush lied America into war, that Bush attacked the WTC and a long, long list of other juvenile bullshiiit.

Leftists whine, screech, howl and shriek whenever things don't go their way.

posted March 25, 2008 07:50 PM            

1.Jwhop disapproves of whining.

2.Jwhop complains about liberals and leftists in greater volume and intensity than anyone here at GU.

3.Jwhop complains more than anyone in general at GU, and possibly even the entire site.

The only conclusion is that Jwhop is a hypocrite. But that's not the case, the truth is that Jwhop just disapproves of whining that doesn't reflect his political views.

I can think of a few good whiners who I have a lot of respect for, the American patriots. I'm guessing Jwhop would have been one of the loyalists to the crown, accusing us of being insane and idiotic for refusing to bow to the King. Much like he accuses most of us of being insane and idiotic for not blindly following the half-witted bumbling of his beloved GW. Oh how assured that sheep are of their safety!

posted March 25, 2008 08:05 PM            

I'm just glad daddy jwhop is here to look into these issues and my crazy liberal comrades are here to question the heck out of them. Carry on hashing this out and let me know when you all take each other's opinions into account and actually come to some sort of middle ground that might someday make a difference.

Until then... *yawwwwwwwn* I think American Idol or something is on. Now thars some real votin'.

(ducking the flying politically responsible brains, blood, and skull shrapnel)

(you know...
from your heads exploding
after I made that crazy, immature, comment)

lighthearted love to all on this thread...

Great title jwhop! LOL Now, THAT'S a conversation starter!

By the way, I totally didn't read the thread. I have no valid opinion on the topic or anyone's responses. I have no business here!!!! and I deserve whatever I get
(which is why I am tossing in a crude effigy and running like hell)

awwww, now I missed 4 minutes of American Idol.

posted March 25, 2008 10:10 PM            

You can't really believe I complain about the 3 stooges act democrats are putting on...could you?

You can't really believe I don't enjoy watching Pelosi and Reid squirm and fulminate over their failure to enact their leftist legislative agenda...could you?

You can't really believe I'm not enjoying Hillary and O'Bomber tearing up the so called democrat coalitions....could you.

When I point out the hypocrisy, lying, support for terrorists, support for leftist dictators whom leftists embrace, that's not whining acoustic. That's a public service.

When I accurately describe the juvenile narcissistic tendencies of the leftist set, that's not whining acoustic. That's a public service too.

Now acoustic if I were a leftist I would be against all those antics of leftists which give socialism a bad name...if it's possible for reasonable people to have a worse opinion of socialism than they already do.

If I were a socialist leftist acoustic, then and only then could it be said I was complaining...whining.

As it is, it's better than a 3 ring circus...with clowns..lots of clowns. Nothing for me to complain/whine about acoustic. It's hugely entertaining.

posted March 26, 2008 12:14 AM            

Ohhhh, my mind is open to new knowledge and wisdom though. But I don't have all of the information or the time to learn it (that's some extensive study, good job to you all) so I just peek in from time to time to see if your great minds (who study the information wholly and critically) have figured it out yet. It's too difficult to sort through the body parts and the rubble all of the time though.

For instance... hypothetically, if it were true that all liberals were child-like people, wouldn't the smartest course of action be to calmly and sensitively educate them at their level of understanding? To gently raise their understanding so that they might pass on their wisdom to others who believed in the erroneous facts they until recently embraced? :^) Wouldn't this be like administering the vampire bite so that others might be converted more quickly which would bring about each side's purpose more quickly than calling each other names?
I mean, have any of you ever thought to yourself, "Hmm, this guy is really smart... I think I'll take a closer look at what he/she has to say, I might learn something from him/her" about someone who just called you weak or whiny or stupid (or whatever creative and witty and condescending variation someone comes up with at the moment) ?

I would just like to see everyone's wisdom, intelligence, and most of all passion used to advance the Truth, whatever that might be.

I would start a thread called "What I learned from the other philosophy" but I've probably already worn out my welcome. :^) That gives me an idea for Soul Unions though. :^D

posted March 26, 2008 12:38 AM            

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

***********

I see how the focus has been taken off what was said and onto who said it. No big. But whether or not these traits are signs of mental illness, they certainly are "liberal" ... at least the modern day extreme version of what liberal has been in the past.

Obviously minorities and women are inferior by nature and so require Affirmative Action to level the field for them.

Obviously the poor are intrinsically incapable of making a decent living so we should forcibly take money from those who have it (which is remarkably like stealing) and just give it to the poor ... nevermind the long-term dependency that behavior has been proven to support.

Obviously the "average" person is too stupid to understand or be responsible for their own health and safety so the government must regulate each and every action taken by other individuals on the chance that someone, through no fault of their own, of course, hurts him or herself.

Obviously, getting pregnant requires no personal effort and it really is an "accident" ... oops, I tripped on a rock and now I'm pregnant. Government, ie all other tax paying citizens, pay for my child's needs until they are fully grown because I had nothing to do with this situation and am in no way responsible for their needs because of this unfortunate and beyond my control, freak of nature accident. So many Immaculate Conceptions today ....

If you maim, rape, murder, or commit other atrocious crimes, there's always some "liberal" on your side trying to prove that you weren't in any way responsible for your actions. Society is to blame, don't forget it. You have no will, no choices, and you are the real victim. And instead of being "punished" you should receive, at no cost to you, the kind of treatment and benefits that would never even be offered to your victims or their loved ones.

In this "liberal" way of thinking, no personal failure is acceptable. No one is responsible for their actions. "Society" is to blame and should foot the bill. Money you earn is not your own but a collective resource even for those who are simply unwilling to work. And refusing to take steps to improve your own lot in life should some how have nothing to do with the "quality" of your possessions/experiences in life. I can't imagine how that idea, that you are completely not responsible for you and your life and the lives you create or destroy or injure, would be appealing to anyone.

posted March 26, 2008 11:24 AM            

quote:

---

That's a public service.

---

No, the public service is keeping you in check. There would be no reason to have to keep you in check if what? That's right: if you behaved. Someday you'll understand, though not likely in this lifetime.

________________________________________________________________________________________

quote:

---

at least the modern day extreme version of what liberal has been in the past.

---

I can't help but believe you've swallowed what people like Jwhop have been feeding you if you think there's something "extreme" about modern liberals. As Jwhop has pointed out for us Democrats are richer than Republicans, which means that all of those accountability/personal responsibility issues that Republicans like to project onto Democrats are simply a misleading stereotype. It also means that it's the richest amongst us who are into "stealing" from themselves for social programs.

posted March 26, 2008 11:57 AM            

You do err greatly acoustic. Those rich so called liberals...so called because they're not liberals at all...are not stealing from themselves when they propose expanding the welfare state.

Their fortunes are safely tucked away in trusts, including offshore trusts which are safe from the taxation they propose for everyone else. They are the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites on earth.

These hypocrites are also the very people resisting the elimination of the federal income tax, the provisions of which give them the means to escape even the "death taxes" which they wish to retain for everyone else.

Switching to the "fair tax"...a national sales tax would mean they would have to pay the 17-20% sales tax when they buy their private jets, their yachts and the other articles of consumption which are part of their ostentatious lifestyles.

posted March 26, 2008 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Their fortunes are safely tucked away in trusts, including offshore trusts which are safe from the taxation they propose for everyone else. They are the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites on earth.

---

posted March 26, 2008 08:45 PM            

I do think many liberals are crazy, but that's just my own personal political bias, and most of the examples I can think of I would consider to be of the fanatic variety.

I see the moral of this story being that if you allow yourself to get too emotionally wrapped up an ideology, it can drive you crazy. Or at least to do crazy things. And that crazy people are drawn to fanatics. LOL

posted March 26, 2008 09:39 PM            

My God are you still attempting to use the leftist "facts check dot org" to prove your points.

Facts check is a direct offshoot of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. The Annenberg family was in the "newspaper" publishing business. Even went so far as to punish politicians who opposed projects which would benefit them financially...and personally.

Hahahaha, there's even a "Norman Lear" Center at the USC Annenberg School for Communication. Got it acoustic? Annenberg is a "public policy center"...a think tank, a leftist think tank...attempting to influence public policy.

you need to wake up acoustic. It's not 1970 anymore and people have other news resources other than the leftist press organs....which Annenberg was and facts check still is.

Now to the numbers. 34% is a bs number. The real number is about 23% which would allow the federal income tax, social security tax, corporate and business taxes, estate taxes and all federal taxes to be thrown in the crapper..including employers shares of social security.

But the effective sales tax rate for those spending about $30,000 would be about 15%.

Now I know why leftists oppose the fair tax. First, it's fair and that doesn't sit well with leftists of any stripe. Second, everyone would pay the tax on consumption. 3rd a whole lot of leftists have been getting a very free ride paying nothing at all because they're not on the tax rolls anyway.

Gone would be all the compliance costs of the federal income tax and the "progressive" nature of the tax. I know this just kills leftists to think the Karl Marx inspired "progressive income tax" could wind up on the ash heap of history...along with the Soviet Union but that's exactly where both of them belong.

"Is the 23% FairTax revenue-neutral rate higher or lower when compared to income and Social Security taxes people pay today?

Most people are paying that much or more today -- much of it is just hidden from view. The income tax bracket most people fall into is 15 percent, and all wage earners pay 7.65 percent in payroll taxes. That’s 23 percent right there, without taking into account the 7.65 percent employer matching! On top of that, you have to add in the business taxes and associated compliance costs passed on to consumers in higher prices.

Effective tax rates vs. stated tax rates
Because the 23-percent FairTax rate of $0.23 on every dollar spent is not imposed on necessities, an individual spending $30,000 pays an effective tax rate of only 15.5 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law. See effective tax rates for a family of four at various spending levels in Figure 2."
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#5

Might as well throw in the towel acoustic. We're not going to stop until the Marxist income tax is flushed. If we have to keep throwing people out of office to get that done, then so be it.

posted March 26, 2008 10:17 PM            

Did you really think I would let you get away with trotting out Buffet or anyone else as your poster boy for those who think they don't pay enough in taxes? Tsk, tsk, tsk acoustic.

Now, let's talk about the limousine leftists who hide their assets offshore or in onshore trusts to escape taxation they want to impose on everyone else. What is it you don't understand about these hypocrites writing the tax laws to benefit themselves...with big loophole provisions to hide their own assets and income. They have armies of accountants and tax lawyers who "assist" them in writing tax legislation. Problem for normal wage earners is that they cannot afford the fees these tax attorneys charge...if they even know there are shelters available for their "income". I put income in parentheses because wages are not "income".

They have offshore trusts of all types. Kennedy, that great defender of the downtrodden has been reputed to have a trust account in Tahiti. There are tax havens all over the world who keep mum on deposits and accounts. Caymans, Canary Islands, Hong Cong, Panama and too many others to list.

posted March 26, 2008 10:23 PM            

The real definition of liberal doesn't come close to fitting the people Rossiter was talking about...at least not in the classical liberal sense.

posted March 26, 2008 10:44 PM            

quote:

---

Might as well throw in the towel acoustic.

---

He says as he uses Fair Tax's website to dispute independent analysis (by not only FactCheck, but also the bipartisan President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, and opinions from third-party scholars from think tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Cato Institute). Funny!

quote:

---

Now, let's talk about the limousine leftists who hide their assets offshore or in onshore trusts to escape taxation they want to impose on everyone else.

---

posted March 26, 2008 11:30 PM            

Facts check dot org is exactly what I said it is and it always has been. It's not politically neutral in any sense of the word and doing away with the federal income tax is the very last thing leftists..like the Annengerg Trust..want..not to mention the army of tax lawyers and accountants who make their money steering people towards the loophole...for big bucks.

I also know you and other leftists don't give a damn about the Constitution acoustic. The federal income tax and the Federal Reserve System which it supports are not a constitutional form of taxation and money supply...unless the tax is paid voluntarily...get it? Voluntary compliance and self assessment. But, when the government goes after those who do not volunteer and they have, then it becomes a unconstitutional act by the government.

Now tell me acoustic, What the hell do you care what system of taxation is in place in the United States...so long as it produces sufficient revenues to run the legitimate functions of government and is revenue neutral? Could it be the the brain child of Karl Marx you admire?

Or, are you one of those who has not been paying your own fair share of taxes...and under the "Fair Tax" you couldn't escape paying that "fair share"?

Yeah, I read the gobbledygook written on facts check where they used a fiction involving state sales tax to make a point which is not a point. And that's the answer acoustic to disproving what facts check had to say...they used a fiction to make a point instead of real data and real life analysis. Hahah, the old economist saw...imagine if everyone bought just one shoe. But, no one buys just one shoe and the state sales tax nonsense they set up is just as big a fiction.

Now the facts acoustic. In the price of every item we purchase are hidden taxes we never see hidden in the price of products and services. Those taxes include corporate taxes, accountants salaries, social security taxes for employees, fuel taxes and a very big number for tax auditing performed by outside auditors.

Those taxes and costs would disappear for corporations and businesses and permit them to lower their prices accordingly. It would also make American business more competitive in world markets.

posted March 27, 2008 02:43 AM            

quote:

---

Facts check dot org is exactly what I said it is and it always has been. It's not politically neutral in any sense of the word and doing away with the federal income tax is the very last thing leftists..like the Annengerg Trust..want..not to mention the army of tax lawyers and accountants who make their money steering people towards the loophole...for big bucks.

---

Factcheck.org has no stake in tax policy. Only a fool would think you have an argument there. One need only go there to find as much out.

quote:

---

I also know you and other leftists don't give a damn about the Constitution acoustic.

---

Unfounded... and frankly boring.

quote:

---

Yeah, I read the gobbledygook written on facts check where they used a fiction involving state sales tax to make a point which is not a point. And that's the answer acoustic to disproving what facts check had to say...they used a fiction to make a point instead of real data and real life analysis. Hahah, the old economist saw...imagine if everyone bought just one shoe. But, no one buys just one shoe and the state sales tax nonsense they set up is just as big a fiction.

---

You've had issues analyzing analysis previously, and I believe that's currently the case as well. Factcheck didn't use a "fiction" in their figure. They, in fact, posted their sources which includes far better economic analysis than either you or I can provide.

quote:

---

Now tell me acoustic, What the hell do you care what system of taxation is in place in the United States...so long as it produces sufficient revenues to run the legitimate functions of government and is revenue neutral? Could it be the the brain child of Karl Marx you admire?

---

That deserves the by-now customary roll of the eyes, but beyond that - you need to understand the difference between our positions:

• You are pushing something --something that's questionable enough that it's been brought up in President Bush's President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform and not acted upon.

• I am simply pointing out that there is some skepticism as to the "fairness" of Fair Tax.

As such, my stake in this conversation is immensely smaller than yours. In addition, I haven't stated an opinion other than to say that Fair Tax has already been shot down - not just by FactCheck.org, but also by the economists listed in the sources for that piece, the President, and the Congress. I think my position is pretty solid.

I don't care if the Fed goes away. You've never heard me argue for saving the Fed.

I also don't particularly care what tax system is used with the caveat that our government ought to be responsible, and not rely so heavily on borrowing (Yes, I notice that you consistently dodge the issue of this Economis Stimulus Package with it's associated borrowing for the sake of a welfare-like handout.)

posted March 27, 2008 10:44 AM            

quote:

---

Factcheck.org has no stake in tax policy. Only a fool would think you have an argument there. One need only go there to find as much out....acoustic

---

quote:

---

Unfounded... and frankly boring....acoustic

---

quote:

---

You've had issues analyzing analysis previously, and I believe that's currently the case as well. Factcheck didn't use a "fiction" in their figure. They, in fact, posted their sources which includes far better economic analysis than either you or I can provide.....acoustic

---

quote:

---

That deserves the by-now customary roll of the eyes, but beyond that - you need to understand the difference between our positions:

You are pushing something --something that's questionable enough that it's been brought up in President Bush's President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform and not acted upon.

I am simply pointing out that there is some skepticism as to the "fairness" of Fair Tax......acoustic

---

quote:

---

(Yes, I notice that you consistently dodge the issue of this Economis Stimulus Package with it's associated borrowing for the sake of a welfare-like handout.)...acoustic

---

posted March 27, 2008 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

Facts Check is nothing more than their propaganda outlet.

---

I think anyone visiting them will come to an alternate and opposite conclusion.

quote:

---

How about you find...in the law...in the US Code...the codified laws of the United States passed by legislative acts of the Congress of the United States and signed into law by Presidents..how about you find in the laws of the United States of America any law requiring individuals to file an income tax return on their wages or salaries.

---

How about we stay on point. We are not debating income tax. You are pushing an agenda to change our system of tax, and I am showing that it's been considered and ultimately hasn't been acted upon. If you had read my last link, you'd know that filing of tax returns would not disappear under a flat tax plan.

quote:

---

What facts check failed to say is that for most people in America the effective rate of taxes from all sources exceeds 50%. That's right acoustic; most "taxpayers work more than half the year to fund government".

---

posted March 27, 2008 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

So attempting to trot out a bunch of government economists to make your point to me is a total non-starter.

---

These economists were put together under a Republican Administration dear Jwhop. I don't believe (from reading your post) that you even looked at my last link. Here are some highlights:
[list]

posted March 27, 2008 02:09 PM            

The connection between facts check and Annenberg is "fact" acoustic. So is the "fact" Annenberg is a "public policy" advocacy group attempting to influence "public policy. It's also "fact" acoustic that Annenberg is lined up at the public money trough and receives government grants and funding. Nothing like having your hands in the public's pockets via the federal income tax..to make recipients come do a decision to continue their own little pipeline to the government pork. Anything associated with Annenberg and "facts check" most definitely is...anything coming out of either on the subject of taxation is immediately suspect.

As to your absurdity this is not about "income tax"...go see Rossiter...immediately. You must be slipping further out of reality. Pack a toothbrush, you're not going home anytime soon.

I notice you couldn't find any law requiring citizens to file an income tax return on their wages and salaries. Well acoustic, no one can, including federal judges, federal prosecutors, the IRS, the Justice Department or members of Congress.

The "Fair Tax" is the best option to do away with the insanity of the federal income tax and the bulk of the IRS. For the first time in about 70 years employees would get "their entire earnings". For the first time, people would make decisions on "how much tax they want to pay" by purchasing and consuming. For the first time in about 70 years citizens would not have their own "productivity" taxed...taxed which leads to less of anything taxes touch.

No more income tax returns. No more spending money to have income tax returns prepared. No more audits by the IRS fishing for more government revenue and no more "underground economy" whose practitioners escape taxation. Finally, no more income tax code which even the IRS doesn't understand...as proved when they've been called about specific provisions of the "code".

posted March 27, 2008 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

No more income tax returns. No more spending money to have income tax returns prepared. No more audits by the IRS fishing for more government revenue and no more "underground economy" whose practitioners escape taxation.

---

False. You don't read my posts, do you?

"A federal agency, such as the IRS, would be required to administer the tax in order to ensure adequate collection of federal revenues and uniform enforcement of the rules and regulations underlying the tax. Indeed, two types of administrations would be required – one to collect the tax and another to keep track of the personal information that would be necessary to determine the size of the taxpayer’s cash grant."

posted March 27, 2008 04:11 PM            

Second, I didn't say the IRS would disappear...though that's a damned good idea. This is what I said so, apparently, you're the one who didn't read...or perhaps understand.

"The "Fair Tax" is the best option to do away with the insanity of the federal income tax and the bulk of the IRS"

posted March 27, 2008 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

You're sounding desperate acoustic

---

It's impossible to sound desperate quoting legitimate expert's words.

quote:

---

The "bulk" of the IRS.

---

First of all, I posted what you said in my response. Secondly, you're wrong, and I've already posted why.

You believe you're making a new point, but the point has already been disproven. The IRS would be replaced by a bureaucracy as big or larger. Perhaps a different quote would quell this notion of yours:

"Although a program could be designed to reduce the burden of a retail sales tax on lower-income and middle-income taxpayers by providing cash grants, such cash grants would represent a new entitlement program – by far the largest in American history. Adjusting the distribution of the burden of the retail sales tax through a cash grant program would cost approximately $600 billion to $780 billion per year and make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government for a substantial portion of their incomes. The Panel concluded that such a cash grant program would inappropriately increase the size and scope of government.