Fiscal Cliff

I'd say we're already over the cliff. Now we're just waiting to crash into the ground below.

gatorfan wrote:

I'd say we're already over the cliff. Now we're just waiting to crash into the ground below.

We've got a long way down... and I don't think we've even started to see the decline yet. Much of the country still has housing prices that far exceed their true value and unemployment that's in the double digit percentages. Unless we find an industry to drive employment all industries will continue to decline as unemployment climbs and demand drops.

My opinion is that the two best option are:

1) Stop all the stimulus (qualitative easing, extended unemployment benefits, etc) and allow the economy to truly bottom out. It's going to hurt a lot of people, including me. It's also going to result in the rich getting richer... even more so than they already are with the QE policies allowing them to profit from interest free government funding. Once we bottom, pricing on everything would have to adjust (stagflation) and a new industry driver (real estate tried and failed last time) will have to be established. Best case would be a 10-15 year recovery.

2) Open offshore drilling on both coasts. The oil industry is one of the reasons the gulf coast hasn't been as impacted by the recession as badly the rest of the country. California and the NE are the two worst areas with the exception of MI/OH area. Both those places would benefit hugely from the oil industry expansion. Cheaper oil/gas/energy would also drive other segments of the economy to expand substantially. I think this would be the quickest recovery with the least damage to the middle and lower class households. It would also be the least likely to transfer large volumes of money from tax payers to bankers. I think this would see a quick enough recovery to be an effective tool in the next election cycle. 4-8 year turn around is feasible.

I honestly believe that we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. I also honestly believe that we need to adapt our industry to green energy. I do not, however, feel that green energy is the immediate solution to our foreign oil problem. I also feel that green energy is far from the solution we need for creating jobs right now. Green energy should be a gradual evolution, not a government funded leap from petroleum.

Arkmage wrote:

Much of the country still has housing prices that far exceed their true value

The "true value" of a house is what you can sell it for today. It has nothing to do with how much you paid or how much you owe. No more, no less. If you are smart enough to know that housing prices are certain to go up more than inflation in the coming years than you should already be filthy rich.

Arkmage wrote:

I honestly believe that we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Oil is 100% fungible and American oil is more expensive to produce than "foreign" oil because it's deeper and dirtier (requiring more refinement).

In fact, the current boom in American energy production is the direct result of high crude prices (and the expectation they will stay high) making American oil profitable again. If crude prices drop, American crude could not be sold without some degree of US government market manipulation (ie; tariffs).

I watched Boehner on TV yesterday.

The fiscal cliff was created by Obama, aided and abetted by Boehner "compromising" on the debt ceiling, because essentially he lacked the balls to stand up and fight.

I don't see a different Boehner now - in fact, I think he's now even worse.

Meaning they are going to take millimeter steps to address this, when giant strides are needed.

And the bills for Obamacare haven't even really started arriving yet.

I wonder if anybody is surprised?

Could just stop all imagration.That would stop the states and the fed from giving everything away,houses ,healthcare,college and all the people who run all the programs bolth state and fed.
And for the record they dont ask if you entered the usa legally in Mass for housing and healthcare or college.

dtx wrote:

Could just stop all imagration.That would stop the states and the fed from giving everything away,houses ,healthcare,college and all the people who run all the programs bolth state and fed.
And for the record they dont ask if you entered the usa legally in Mass for housing and healthcare or college.

Racist!! Just kidding.

The biggest victims of illegal immigration are not taxpayers - it's unskilled and low skilled Americans. Illegal immigrants have flooded the unskilled labor market resulting in a collapse of wages (when supply goes up, price goes down).

The sanctimonious wealthy lefty assholes creating "sanctuary cites" are blissfully unaware of this while at the same time benefiting from low cost services.

Funny,look acrossed a "rate" job and see them working as prefered hire. They dont just get a leg up,its an unfair advantage. I got to stop as this pisses me off so much.

Ok, near 90% of the oil we pump through the Alaska pipeline gets sold to Japan, China, and Korea, where they refine it into clean diesel fuel and gasoline. Sure it take more to refine it, but why? The refineries here are ancient in design by comparison. Federal regulators have not allowed newer refineries to be built in years, aside from facilities that refine corn into ethanol. Ethanol as it turns out is no where as efficient as pure gasoline. The grain industry is lining their pockets big time turning it into fuel ... more so than food.

Corporate America doesn't want immigration laws changed or enforced. It's the bottom line (profit margins) that count...it's just business. Just ask Tyson...not the biting boxer.

DragonNester wrote:

Corporate America doesn't want immigration laws changed or enforced. It's the bottom line (profit margins) that count...it's just business.

Really? So... the health care industries are about 1/7th of our total economy. How, exactly, are they jumping for joy at all the illegal immigrants they either end up treating flat-out for free (see EMTALA), or at Medicare/Medicaid rates of payment set by the government? Care to take a guess at how many hospitals just in California have gone into insolvency from the burden of treating illegal immigrants? Think they might kind of like to see immigration laws enforced?

BTW, care to take a guess at what kind of legal sanctions illegal immigrants will face for not having mandatory health care under Obama's regime, compared to what old white guys like myself will face for also not buying insurance?

How, exactly, do banks and other financial institutions make more money off the loans they have to give otherwise unqualified borrower illegal immigrants under CRA - instead of loaning that money to a guaranteed creditor with equity, usually at a higher rate of interest?

My wife and I are (I think) part of "Corporate America", whatever that is, albeit a very small part. I keep hearing about all these freebees and goodies we're supposed to be getting, but when I ask for more specifics so we can get in on it too, everybody suddenly seems to have a fuzzy memory of the specifics.

"My wife and I are (I think) part of "Corporate America", whatever that is, albeit a very small part." It's the part that gives the illegal immigrants reason to come here...jobs. The other perks are the freebies., but without the hope of work they wouldn't come in the first place. Stop the hiring for greater profit by punishing the companies that knowingly do it and watch the borders have less illegal traffic.

DragonNester wrote:

Stop the hiring for greater profit by punishing the companies that knowingly do it and watch the borders have less illegal traffic.

That's fine, but this is what you said:

Corporate America doesn't want immigration laws changed or enforced. It's the bottom line (profit margins) that count...it's just business.

You figure we employ illegal immigrants? You figure the HMOs are full of illegal immigrants? Banks and financial institutions are full of illegal immigrants?

Give us your ball park guess of what percentage of illegal immigrants are employed by non-corporations - the private individuals who employs them as gardeners, house cleaners, doing their new siding at a great price, etc?

Class warfare is stupid. But, given that Obama was reelected, the population is obviously very receptive to being dumbed down.

DragonNester wrote:

Stop the hiring for greater profit by punishing the companies that knowingly do it and watch the borders have less illegal traffic.

Here's a radical idea: Enforce current immigration laws. Or does the mere suggestion make me a raaaacist!

gatorfan wrote:

Here's a radical idea: Enforce current immigration laws. Or does the mere suggestion make me a raaaacist!

Yes, apparently it does make you a racist. But as our current president has decided that the oath of office he swore is meaningless, while he chooses which legislation he will and won't direct federal employees to enforce, and while the House sits doing nothing about that as they've apparently lost their balls, the only meaningful discussion is apparently whether or not you're a racist.

After all, last week when some Republicans found a set of balls long enough to criticize Susan Rice for telling Americans for nearly a week that the Benghazi murders were a spontaneous response to a video, they were promptly labelled as misogynists and racists by by Democrats like Jim Clyburn. Apparently, words like "incompetent" are now considered "racial code words" by Democrats. More of that "meanness" of the conservative portion of the population, you see.

In other words, apparently, if you're a female and a "person of color" - and a Democrat - criticism is racism. On the other hand, if you're a conservative black Republican like Herman Cain... well! Then you can be called an Uncle Tom and all kinds of other crap.

You'll never see immigration laws enforced by Democrats as long as they know they're importing more Democrat voters - along with their families due to chain migration, who for the most part will vote Democrat as well.

But that isn't even a blip on the radar when you look at the philosophy that has brought the US to the brink of fiscal collapse. All it does is guarantee an unending supply of socialists and statists setting policies that lead to fiscal collapse.

Jäger wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Here's a radical idea: Enforce current immigration laws. Or does the mere suggestion make me a raaaacist!

Yes, apparently it does make you a racist. But as our current president has decided that the oath of office he swore is meaningless, while he chooses which legislation he will and won't direct federal employees to enforce, and while the House sits doing nothing about that as they've apparently lost their balls, the only meaningful discussion is apparently whether or not you're a racist.

After all, last week when some Republicans found a set of balls long enough to criticize Susan Rice for telling Americans for nearly a week that the Benghazi murders were a spontaneous response to a video, they were promptly labelled as misogynists and racists by by Democrats like Jim Clyburn. Apparently, words like "incompetent" are now considered "racial code words" by Democrats. More of that "meanness" of the conservative portion of the population, you see.

In other words, apparently, if you're a female and a "person of color" - and a Democrat - criticism is racism. On the other hand, if you're a conservative black Republican like Herman Cain... well! Then you can be called an Uncle Tom and all kinds of other crap.

You'll never see immigration laws enforced by Democrats as long as they know they're importing more Democrat voters - along with their families due to chain migration, who for the most part will vote Democrat as well.

But that isn't even a blip on the radar when you look at the philosophy that has brought the US to the brink of fiscal collapse. All it does is guarantee an unending supply of socialists and statists setting policies that lead to fiscal collapse.

One quibble with this. It's not only our current President but the previous two have also refused to uphold their oaths of office.

In the state of mass you do not have to give a ss# on any of the states forms.This state set it up so you cannot ask if you entered into the country legaly. What our governer wants is to give a drivers lisence to ileagles.Gotta help them get jobs dont ya know. Now why would anyone want to do that you ask ? Well if you have a number,any number, you can use it for state bennies,home loans or public houseing,health care,college loan ect...

Well that so called Obama care started with Mitt Romney as mass health care and this is now in 47 states !! I pay for health care for people in 47 other states. All they had to do is show up at a E.R in mass and the fourms get filled out,make the minum payment (if any) and keep the mass healthcare currant.

The Springfield Union News paper just ran a report the Mass now wants to give student loans to ileagle immigrant students -why ? Ya know you have always lived in the good ol USA. You always worked, Got married and raised you kids,saved you money and sent the off to school and then college.
Now someone sneeks in gets health care,housing and now there kid is going to college on you tax dollars. Then they get hired at a job your kid cannot have. The whole thing is an unfair competive advantage,and thats wrong and costs everbody $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

dtx wrote:

What our governer wants is to give a drivers lisence to ileagles.Gotta help them get jobs dont ya know.

What your governor wants is more Democrat voters. Illegal immigrants vote Democrat - often, even before they have the citizenship required to legally vote. The dead have been known to come to life to vote Democrat - they feel so strongly about it that they often vote early and often! Which is why the Obama administration has been so busy fighting tooth and nail fighting states' attempts to clean up their voter lists, require proof of citizenship at polling stations, picture ID, etc. Democrats as early as Ted Kennedy in the 60's when he was the driving force between allowing chain migration knew that they would reliably get 60+% of Hispanic votes in elections. They've been doing everything they can ever since then to import as many future Democrat voters as possible, one way or the other.

In the end, it is just a small part of the problem. While Boehner is trying to look like he represents working people by discussing which tax increases he will and won't agree with, the fact remains that if ALL the "Bush tax cuts" are allowed to expire - not just the "tax cuts for millionaires" portion - the government will collect enough taxes to run the US government for EIGHT WHOLE DAYS.

That's it: eight whole days, maximum.

So what's going to cover the cost of running the government for the other 357 days of the year??? Have you heard of Obama and the Democrats talking about significant cuts to even ONE entitlement program?

The trouble with the Democrat Santa Claus is that these goodies are coming with the bill for them, which is going to be suddenly due in the very near future. And it is going to be so big, that even those who vote for a living because they don't pay income taxes are going to find that they too are going to bear the hardship of paying them for a change.

gatorfan wrote:

One quibble with this. It's not only our current President but the previous two have also refused to uphold their oaths of office.

That's quite true. While Motokid, Mucker, et al seem to think that "Republican" and "conservative" are mutually inclusive, the fact remains that conservatives were very displeased with the Bush presidency, including acts like taking TARP funds to bail out companies that Congress had explicitly refused to agree to provide money to bail out. Clinton, of course, was impeached, aside from his wheeling and dealing around the enumerated powers of the president.

However, neither of them ordered a federal agency to NOT enforce legislation passed by Congress. Neither of them simply declared Congress to be in recess so they could sidestep the appointments clause. And neither of them said that if Congress didn't do what they wanted Congress to do, then they would simply do it themselves - ignoring the separation of powers contained in the Constitution.

Stepping on the edges of the Constitution isn't new for presidents. Balling it up and throwing it into the garbage and then doing whatever you feel like is. Nixon was impeached for less.

Jäger wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

One quibble with this. It's not only our current President but the previous two have also refused to uphold their oaths of office.

That's quite true. While Motokid, Mucker, et al seem to think that "Republican" and "conservative" are mutually inclusive, the fact remains that conservatives were very displeased with the Bush presidency, including acts like taking TARP funds to bail out companies that Congress had explicitly refused to agree to provide money to bail out. Clinton, of course, was impeached, aside from his wheeling and dealing around the enumerated powers of the president.

However, neither of them ordered a federal agency to NOT enforce legislation passed by Congress. Neither of them simply declared Congress to be in recess so they could sidestep the appointments clause. And neither of them said that if Congress didn't do what they wanted Congress to do, then they would simply do it themselves - ignoring the separation of powers contained in the Constitution.

Stepping on the edges of the Constitution isn't new for presidents. Balling it up and throwing it into the garbage and then doing whatever you feel like is. Nixon was impeached for less.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Conservatism is a philosophy...Republicans are a party.
I agree with many conservative ideals...though a duck surely wouldnt recognize that.
Now a days ...I feel the conservative flag wavers have lost their way...and chose to push perverted ideoligies under their banner.
The philosophy is sound...their current supporters( squeeky wheels) are just sounding off.
If someone were that naive to think that supporting the under dog...means they are all out against the big dog...
...Well, some people just can't see beyond their own ego...plain and simple.

Some have accumulated alot of knowledge on this subject, obviously.
But knowledge alone does not make one wise...so don't confuse the two.

mucker wrote:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Conservatism is a philosophy...Republicans are a party.

Given that approach of "if it quacks like a duck"... I guess that would make Democrats and their supporters all communists and fascists (depending on whether they were seeking control of the means of production or seizing and redistributing wealth on any given day), eh?

Let's see if we can increase your knowledge base a little. Because, again, I don't think you have a clue of what a conservative is.

You are partially right in one area: conservatism is a system of values and principles, while Republicans and most especially Democrats are not principles-based, but rather oriented towards fighting over who holds the reins of power.

Conservatives (and many pragmatic constitutionalists and libertarians) vote Republican not because they identify with the GOP leadership, but because the GOP is immensely closer to their values than Democrat socialists and statists. In fact, they'd probably vote for Kennedy instead of the GOP if he were the Democrat candidate today.

There has been an internal struggle within the Republican party going back to the late 60's - Reagan was opposed and defeated by the GOP RINOS (the Bush family most prominently) three times before finally winning the Republican nomination in spite of their deliberate and organized opposition. The Tea Party, as you no doubt don't recall, didn't begin when Obama was elected. It arose out of conservatives pissed off with George Bush's extravagant spending, immersing the US deeper in debt, and violating the limits of his powers and oath of office by taking huge amounts of money and sinking it into car companies despite Congress refusing to extend that funding.

In other words, it was conservatives involved in an open battle with the GOP leadership over GOP policy that was everything BUT conservative. That led to more than a few RINO incumbents being turfed for the 2010 midterms for a conservative candidate - who more often than not won their seat in the midterm.

The GOP has responded by withdrawing funding from conservative candidates in the last election, apparently believing that it is better to lose the seat to a Democrat than have the seat held by a conservative Republican who won't "get your ass in line" when Boehner, or McConnell, or the GOP leadership tells them how to vote. In other words, the Republican RINO leadership is much closer to the Democrat party of today in their philosophy than they are with conservatives.

Quote :

I agree with many conservative ideals...though a duck surely wouldnt recognize that.
Now a days ...I feel the conservative flag wavers have lost their way...and chose to push perverted ideoligies under their banner.

I think you've gone a step further than ever before. Now you're blowing smoke up your own ass and trying to convince yourself it's pixie dust. Please do tell us what conservative ideals you identify with - and probably more revealing, what "perverted ideologies" conservatives are pushing under the conservative banner that you don't agree with.

Quote :

The philosophy is sound...their current supporters( squeeky wheels) are just sounding off.
If someone were that naive to think that supporting the under dog...means they are all out against the big dog...
...Well, some people just can't see beyond their own ego...plain and simple.

The biggest ego in Washington is Obama - I don't believe any president has used the words "I" and "me" more often in their entire term in office than that man does in one week.

But of course, you probably had something else in mind, having apparently completely forgotten that when the GOP had a wide slate of conservatives in the midterms, it resulted in a landslide that had Obama saying Democrats "got a shellacking". Then the RINOS regained control of the finances and candidate selection, ran Romney the RINO in the last election while freezing out or defunding many conservative GOP candidates - and how did that turn out for the GOP?

Curious about how "tax the rich" might turn out? Look offshore...

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate

By Robert Winnett

6:47PM GMT 27 Nov 2012

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.

Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

“Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax and come clean about whether they would reintroduce this failed policy if they were in power.”

Mr Osborne argued earlier this year that the 50p rate was deterring entrepreneurs from coming to Britain.

The Chancellor wanted to scrap the top rate altogether for those earning more than £150,000 a year – and return to the previous system of a basic and top rate of tax.

This was blocked by the Liberal Democrats without a new mansion tax being introduced.

Labour will hold a parliamentary debate today to criticise the decision to reduce the top rate, which Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has described as a “tax cut for millionaires”.

Senior Coalition figures are locked in negotiations over next Wednesday’s Autumn Statement which will set out government tax policies for next year.

The Tories wish to freeze out-of-work benefits. The handouts usually rise in line with inflation, which has meant that the unemployed are likely to receive a higher rise than most workers can expect.

It is understood that the Lib Dems will only allow the benefits freeze if taxes on the rich are increased.

The Lib Dems have long cherished an increase in taxes for multi-million pound properties. David Cameron has ruled out changes to council tax.



As UK millionaires flee country over tax hikes, British treasury loses billions

Shortly after the United Kingdom’s latest big tax hike, Great Britain’s millionaires started voting with their feet. And the result hasn’t been pretty for the British treasury.

Raising the country’s top income tax rate to 50 percent has cost the UK 7 billion pounds — about $11.2 billion — since 2010, according to London’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, as wealthy taxpayers have intentionally worked less, deferred income to future years, moved their earnings overseas or left the country entirely.

Whatever the reason, the British treasury has been the big loser.

“Tax paid by the top earners fell from 13.4 billion pounds before the top tax rate came in to 6.5 billion pounds in 2010/11,” The Daily Mail reported on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown pushed the tax increase through Parliament before the 2010 elections swept his liberal Labour Party from power. During the 2009-2010 tax year, more than 16,000 Britons claimed annual incomes of more than 1 million pounds.

After the tax increase, that number plunged to just 6,000.

But in 2012, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne — part of the new Conservative Party majority — announced that the 50 percent rate will drop to 45 percent by April 2013, for people who earn more than 150,000 pounds.

Since that announcement, reports the Telegraph, the number of tax-filing British millionaires has climbed back to 10,000.

While current Labour leader Ed Milliband complained about a “tax cut for millionaires,” Conservative MP Harriet Baldwin on Tuesday called the previous tax hike a “cull of millionaires” from the British tax base.

“Labour now needs to admit that their policies resulted in millionaires paying less tax,” Baldwin said.

Daily Telegraph columnist Nile Gardiner, based in Washington, D.C., wrote Wednesday that the British tax debate parallels the current “fiscal cliff” stalemate in the United States, and is “a wake-up call to Barack Obama’s high tax America.”

“Driving many of the country’s most successful people, as well as their money, out of the United States is sheer economic suicide,” Gardiner wrote.

“The American dream rests upon the foundations of economic and individual liberty, a dream that has attracted millions of entrepreneurs to the land of the free for centuries. President Obama’s big government agenda is not only generating more debt, but it is also strangling wealth creation. This is a path to decline, not renewal.”

“As tax rates rise,” the British observer warned, “there will be every incentive for overseas businessmen to put their money elsewhere, rather than invest in big government America.”

“It is also an illusion to believe that high earners in America do not contribute enough money to the coffers of the federal government. … [W]hat Obama refers to as ‘the wealthiest Americans’ already pay more than their ‘fair share’ in taxes.”

Gardiner cited Congressional Budget Office numbers showing that “the top 1 percent of US earners already pay 22.3 percent of all federal income taxes (based on 2009 figures), even though their share of total income earned is just 13.3 percent.”

Jäger wrote:

mucker wrote:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Conservatism is a philosophy...Republicans are a party.

Given that approach of "if it quacks like a duck"... I guess that would make Democrats and their supporters all communists and fascists (depending on whether they were seeking control of the means of production or seizing and redistributing wealth on any given day), eh?

Let's see if we can increase your knowledge base a little. Because, again, I don't think you have a clue of what a conservative is.

You are partially right in one area: conservatism is a system of values and principles, while Republicans and most especially Democrats are not principles-based, but rather oriented towards fighting over who holds the reins of power.

Conservatives (and many pragmatic constitutionalists and libertarians) vote Republican not because they identify with the GOP leadership, but because the GOP is immensely closer to their values than Democrat socialists and statists. In fact, they'd probably vote for Kennedy instead of the GOP if he were the Democrat candidate today.

There has been an internal struggle within the Republican party going back to the late 60's - Reagan was opposed and defeated by the GOP RINOS (the Bush family most prominently) three times before finally winning the Republican nomination in spite of their deliberate and organized opposition. The Tea Party, as you no doubt don't recall, didn't begin when Obama was elected. It arose out of conservatives pissed off with George Bush's extravagant spending, immersing the US deeper in debt, and violating the limits of his powers and oath of office by taking huge amounts of money and sinking it into car companies despite Congress refusing to extend that funding.

In other words, it was conservatives involved in an open battle with the GOP leadership over GOP policy that was everything BUT conservative. That led to more than a few RINO incumbents being turfed for the 2010 midterms for a conservative candidate - who more often than not won their seat in the midterm.

The GOP has responded by withdrawing funding from conservative candidates in the last election, apparently believing that it is better to lose the seat to a Democrat than have the seat held by a conservative Republican who won't "get your ass in line" when Boehner, or McConnell, or the GOP leadership tells them how to vote. In other words, the Republican RINO leadership is much closer to the Democrat party of today in their philosophy than they are with conservatives.

Quote :

I agree with many conservative ideals...though a duck surely wouldnt recognize that.
Now a days ...I feel the conservative flag wavers have lost their way...and chose to push perverted ideoligies under their banner.

I think you've gone a step further than ever before. Now you're blowing smoke up your own ass and trying to convince yourself it's pixie dust. Please do tell us what conservative ideals you identify with - and probably more revealing, what "perverted ideologies" conservatives are pushing under the conservative banner that you don't agree with.

Quote :

The philosophy is sound...their current supporters( squeeky wheels) are just sounding off.
If someone were that naive to think that supporting the under dog...means they are all out against the big dog...
...Well, some people just can't see beyond their own ego...plain and simple.

The biggest ego in Washington is Obama - I don't believe any president has used the words "I" and "me" more often in their entire term in office than that man does in one week.

But of course, you probably had something else in mind, having apparently completely forgotten that when the GOP had a wide slate of conservatives in the midterms, it resulted in a landslide that had Obama saying Democrats "got a shellacking". Then the RINOS regained control of the finances and candidate selection, ran Romney the RINO in the last election while freezing out or defunding many conservative GOP candidates - and how did that turn out for the GOP?

I think why you feel that I have stepped further than before...is because you have always prejudged me, right from the get go. Only now have I mentioned my right side in a comment to you. Every post we made is recorded ya know.You seem so eager in that regard. Anywho, your EXTREME right wing rantings often leave little room for discussion...especially in regard to say...mine...or even MK's philosophy. Mostly because, ANY single view that deviates from yours, is LEFT wing nut jobs...as apposed to the , PARTICULAR, right wing nut jobs that have been criticized on this forum. That's a far cry from the critques the right has received here.
Do you realize that one only has to critique left wing ideas, to have right wing ideas? Do you know how many of my left wing peers I have criticized?...or I suppose its easier to jump on the first, opposing image you come across, and prejudge someone by that.
I honestly don't know how anyone could have a neutral point against someone so extremely swayed in one direction
Anywho, maybe if you asked better questions, you'ld receive better answers...but I'm not holding my breath for a better question...
I guess if you feel you are the prime example of conservative philosophy...who could possibly critique that perfection?
Never, ever have you mentioned a positive liberal idea, ever, even in the smallest regard...so, I guess we can assume you are incapable of such flexible thinking...
You certainly feel free to express yourself, I guess you are not capable of any other expressions?....kinda sad really.
I truly never meant any disrespect to you...but I guess we learned respect from different places.
Good luck with that passionate, narrow view of the world.

P.S. Sorry for the thread hijack

For a guy who time to time bitches about the length of my posts, you sure don't have a problem with quoting my posts - and any of your previous posts they quoted - in their entirety. Haven't figured out how to cut and delete content you don't intend to address just yet, or what? It's not like your post you prefaced with that long quote had ANYTHING to do with what was quoted.

But let me guess... this is a sign you aren't going to give us a list of who you consider to be conservatives, any more than you're going to identify what you see as conservative "perverted ideologies". You're going to just aimlessly wander about I take it, avoiding dealing with those issues by talking about something else?

So be it.

mucker wrote:

I think why you feel that I have stepped further than before...is because you have always prejudged me, right from the get go.

This, coming from the guy who just said "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." You've been walking and squawking like a socialist/statist since you showed up here.

In your entire time here, have you ever put ONE comment up in support of a conservative principle. You're active enough in topics dealing with US issues and situations, so what have you posted that would lead one to think "Geez, this guy has some conservative values as well".

Aside from which, you did describe yourself back when you first showed up here as a laissez-faire socialist, or something similar, did you not? Given that description, how can anyone take you as some sort of a conservative.

Quote :

Only now have I mentioned my right side in a comment to you. Every post we made is recorded ya know.

Yeah, you have claimed to have one. What you've failed to do is demonstrate that it is actually a conservative side - rather than socialist-lite.

And you're correct - posts do stand for posterity here. So please, do dredge up your conservative comments from posts past.

Quote :

Anywho, your EXTREME right wing rantings often leave little room for discussion...especially in regard to say...mine...or even MK's philosophy.

This is how you work when you're a whacked out socialist, operating right from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

If you aren't a statist/socialist drone, then it is declared that you must be an extreme right wing ranter. If for no other reason than you assume your far left socialist/statist leanings are somehow or other middle of the road.

Let's try and ignore you can't make a rational defense of your position. Let's pretend that 30 years ago people would have been wondering if you were a supporter of the Weathermen, the SLA, and other similar far left radical left revolutionary groups.

Quote :

Mostly because, ANY single view that deviates from yours, is LEFT wing nut jobs...as apposed to the , PARTICULAR, right wing nut jobs that have been criticized on this forum.

Why don't you - just for once - try and make an intelligent defense of your position.

You make pronouncements, and they're supposed to be accepted as fact. Like MotoKid, solemnly telling us the tea party is based around Bible thumpers trying to enshrine their religious beliefs in the Constitution. When you point out that Wikopedia or any other source pretty much shows that is total bullshit, you flop around complaining that posts like that are "EXTREME right wing rantings".

You mention "honour" occasionally, and yet the truth doesn't seem to have a lot of value to you. Why is that?

I gather you're operating under the assumption that conservatives are supposed to operate like RINOS, running around apologizing and trying to convince people they're almost like Democrats when they're attacked with bullshit and stupidity. Well sweety, I don't operate that way. If you post stupid, you'll get treated stupid - not a fawning apologetic correction.

Quote :

Do you realize that one only has to critique left wing ideas, to have right wing ideas?

No, I don't realize that at all, because it is false. Criticizing socialism and statism doesn't automatically make you conservative, any more than joining the Republican party makes you conservative. The Bush family have been Republicans their whole lives, generation to generation, and they sure as hell aren't conservatives.

Quote :

Do you know how many of my left wing peers I have criticized?

I guess we're supposed to take your word on that, because you certainly don't demonstrate that here, do you now?

Quote :

...or I suppose its easier to jump on the first, opposing image you come across, and prejudge someone by that.

Ignoring for a moment your describing yourself as a casual socialist, let me remind me of your own methodology you used just a few posts ago:
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

Or is that methodology reserved exclusively for your use?

Quote :

Anywho, maybe if you asked better questions, you'ld receive better answers...but I'm not holding my breath for a better question...

What you really want is questions that don't take your legs out from under you.

Asking you to identify who you see as conservatives was too vague and difficult for you?

Asking you what, specifically, you see as conservative "perverted ideologies" is too vague and difficult for you?

Maybe if you didn't talk shit all the time, the questions related to your comments wouldn't be so difficult to respond to.

Quote :

I guess if you feel you are the prime example of conservative philosophy...who could possibly critique that perfection?

Bluntly put, you aren't sufficiently equipped to discuss conservative philosophy. Your knowledge of the Federalist Papers, Madison's papers, Locke, etc is pretty much nonexistent. And given that, how can you discuss whether my position is conservative philosophy or not in the first place?

Simply put, you can't. Possibly, just possibly, you might be able to discuss conservative views in Canada. I doubt that too, but just possibly. But when the topics are about the US, you are totally lost.

Quote :

Never, ever have you mentioned a positive liberal idea, ever, even in the smallest regard...so, I guess we can assume you are incapable of such flexible thinking...

Yes, you've complained about that before.

And like I did before, I'll again ask you another one of those questions you apparently find too difficult or too low in quality: name a liberal idea that I should find positive, and which is constitutional. That was apparently too difficult a question the first time around; perhaps you're more capable of handling it now?

Quote :

You certainly feel free to express yourself, I guess you are not capable of any other expressions?....kinda sad really.

There you go, dumbing down the conversation again.

Apparently you haven't notice that I express my freedom of religion, my right to bear arms, my right to serve my country in uniform under arms, etc.

And it's kinda sad, really, that you are so intellectually dim that you only notice the freedom of expression. Which, you're damned right I exercise.

Quote :

I truly never meant any disrespect to you...but I guess we learned respect from different places.

Yeah, you're always surprised when you call people NRA nutbars and similar comments that those of us your comments include take it as disrespectful. Leaves you scratching your head every single time, I'm sure.

Quote :

Good luck with that passionate, narrow view of the world.

Try getting your meds changed so you can hopefully wake up and take a look around you.

Quote :

P.S. Sorry for the thread hijack

More BS. No you're not.

If you're looking for a hand wringing apologist, you aren't going to find one here.

Mucker, Jager is a lot smarter than you. Watching you two spat is like watching a cat toy with a wounded bird.

Simply labeling Jager as an "extremist" or "close minded" is not an argument ... it's an evasion. As are cheap claims to moral superiority.