55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Nope. I frequently do. But when I do and they refer me back to the specific excerpt they posted and explain how that is relevant to the question asked, I generally accept that or ask specific questions about the material itself. And I don't post something utterly exaggerated and implausible as an example and then pretend that it is not exaggerated and is plausible either.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. I frequently do. But when I do and they refer me back to the specific excerpt they posted and explain how that is relevant to the question asked, I generally accept that or ask specific questions about the material itself. And I don't post something utterly exaggerated and implausible as an example and then pretend that it is not exaggerated and is plausible either.


Well, you see, to claim that Obama is anti-capitalism is in itself an exaggerated and implausible claim to make. So surely you understand when others want to see explicit evidence for why one would make such a claim.

Obama has provided zero evidence that he is anti-capitalism. He has provided lots of evidence that he is anti-Republicanism. To you, they are the same thing; but in reality, they are not the same thing.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Okay. As I suggested to Parados, go back to the excerpt of the letter I posted as a summary of the author's point with the letter.

Then go to the letter itself to see the correlation of the many points he makes that I see as included in that summary.

If you cannot see any comments attributed to Obama that the author of the letter identifies as anti-business or anti-capitalist, let me know. But I honstly think that anybody who can a) read and who b) seriously wants an answer to the question will see it there.

If you see something in the letter that doesn't support the summary, please post it and we'll discuss it.

I did my part. I posted what I believe was the summary and I posted the link to the letter. I said that I agree with the author.

I am not obligated to do any more than that for people who are obviously more interested in discrediting me rather than discussing the content of the letter. I've already acknowledged that I know I have no case and no standing (and/or am dishonest) in their eyes.

And frankly, I don't care.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:41 pm
@old europe,
Ican's comments are in purple.
old europe wrote:
And yet, you have never called the Bush administration "criminals" and "gangsters". You have never called for the impeachment of President Bush due to the alleged violation of the Constitution by enforcing a progressive tax code.

In July 2008, I finally decided after much research that Bush was violating the Constitution in several ways and deserved to be impeached. However, I did not advocate that here in able?know because I realized his 2nd term of office would end 6 months later--much less time than it would take to impeach him.

Obama on the otherhand, has been advocating and/or implementing a far greater magnitude of violation of the Constitution than did Bush. I think Bush's violations were born of ignorance. I think Obama's are intentional and therefore criminal. However, if I believed Obama was going to resign by July 2009, I wouldn't bother advocating he be impeached either.


For 8 years, you have accepted that a President, according to your interpretation, violated the Constitution.

I did not accept for 8 years that Bush violated the Constitution. I didn't decide that until July 2008.

However, for 8 years, I had become more and more opposed to an increasing number of Bush's domestic policies. By July 2008, I supported little more than his orders for invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and his tax cut.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
I personally am not interested in discrediting you, Fox. But you are putting forth ideas without providing support for them. It is incumbent upon you to pick out certain parts of long posts which support your position; it's just not good enough to tell people to go read the thing again if they want the answer.

What that does is attempt to put the work for supporting YOUR claim onto US. But it's your job to support your claim!

It's fine with myself and others here I'm sure if you don't wish to do that, but don't be surprised when we find that claim unconvincing. And don't accuse others of being unconvinced due to their partisanship, when really, the case as it has been presented is incomplete and lacks accurate documentation.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:46 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:


I did not accept for 8 years that Bush violated the Constitution. I didn't decide that until July 2008.


How convenient for you, wouldn't you agree? It removes any responsibility for criticizing someone you vociferously supported for years.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:48 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, Do you know the difference between one person's opinion vs supportable facts? Opinions without credible evidence is not worth the paper its written on.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 04:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Violation of this amendment by the federal government is a criminal act by the federal government. Failure of Obama-crats--or anyone else--to explicitly acknowledge they are violating this amendment when they know they are, is an act of fraud.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 05:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No, that piece supported the writer's claim and was offered as information for anybody interested. It did not ask or beg or demand or require ANYBODY to agree with it. I said that I agreed with the writer of the letter. That was the only claim I made. I posted an excerpt that in my opinion was a good summary of the intent of the letter and I posted a link to the entire letter.

Now you tell me. How do I go about supporting my claim other than by pointing to the letter and saying I agree with it?

And when others claim that the letter didn't say what the letter said, then why aren't THEY supposed to support their claim?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 05:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No it is not "convenient" for me to:
not accept for 8 years that Bush violated the Constitution. I didn't decide that until July 2008.

It is clear evidence of my fallibilty.

It is clear evidence of your fallibility not to now accept that Obama is now blatantly violating the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 05:19 pm
@Foxfyre,
The piece did not support the writer's claim, for it did not detail what Obama said in any specificity; it's just a rant against the evils of raising taxes.

Especially this part:

Quote:

Under your taxation plan, I may one day be in a position to no longer make any meaningful promises to our fantastic employees.

I need you to come to Dallas and join me some day in our bi-weekly company staff meeting and tell them why their hard work may not be rewarded with higher compensation, promotions and higher self-worth, which all should come from their successful efforts.

You need to explain to them why I may no longer be able to afford the 100% matching contribution in their 401(k) plan.

You’ll need to explain why I may no longer be able to afford top-tier group medical, eye care, and dental insurance for them.

You’ll need to explain why I may no longer be able to afford to continue our great personal development programs.

You’ll need to explain to them why their stock options may never be as valuable as they had hoped because the company is less profitable and less valuable.

You’ll need to explain to vendors why I may no longer be able to do business with them because our revenues may drop and corporate tax rates rise.

The mere threat of your policies is force enough to cause small businesses to react. You and the Congress do not even need to enact them into law.


I wonder if the writer will take any time to explain to his employees why he doesn't cut his personal profits as the owner in order to cover the difference. My guess is he won't take the time to do this.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 05:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
But in the letter he did explain some specific Obama policies that could create the scenario described in the excerpt I selected as a summary and which you have quoted here. The letter he describes as 20 pages long and evenso it would be ridiculous to demand that he expound on very detail that is already understood by those who have followed the news much at all. Some things in the letter can be understood by implication and expectation that the reader is knowledgeable of current events, the same current events that we have certainly touched on in this thread and/or the economy threads or elsewhere.

And no, he certainly wouldn't suggest cutting his personal profits to 'offset the difference' as you say because that concept, to accommodate destructive government policies, is anathema, destructive, and counter productive to capitalism as the imperfect but best vehicle known to produce the most good for the general welfare. But you can be sure that the government cutting his personal profits would be a huge factor in producing the scenario as described in the excerpt you quoted.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 05:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
[One] might find one businessowner's (A CPA) and employer's point of view to be rather interesting on the subject of 'demonizing capitalism'.

The link:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/memo_to_obama_you_will_not_out.html

Foxfyre, I wanted this link to be more conveniently accessible.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:22 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/memo_to_obama_you_will_not_out.html
A Letter to Senator Obama
By Tony Batman
...
You said in your response to Joe the plumber’s well publicized inquiry about how your tax policies would affect him, “I don’t want to punish you with higher taxes. I just want to spread the wealth around.” This says everything anyone needs to know about you.
...
I am a CPA and do not have to think very hard to see your personal income tax plan is a prime example of your duplicitous pandering.

The effective total tax rate on my income in 2007 was an incredibly high 31%. This includes federal income tax, payroll tax, and Medicare tax. My earnings are almost entirely from productive work with only negligible amounts from passive income from savings and investments.

You read that correctly. About one-third of the income I earn from my hard productive work is confiscated by the federal government. I gather from your rhetoric you still don’t think 31% of my income is enough to take from me.

This entrenched progressive confiscation of the fruits of my increasingly productive activities is wrong. I do not consume any more of the nation’s infrastructure, nor any more of its defense capabilities, nor any more of its judicial system than the masses of Americans who pay no taxes whatsoever.

I have calculated that through your proposal my total tax bill will soon be an astonishing 42% of my productive work. You plan to tax the entirety of my productive earnings for Social Security even though I wish never to be part of Social Security. You want to redistribute my tax proceeds to less productive non-taxpayers.

Where is the fairness in this?
...
I’ll suspend my emotional angle for a moment and speak to policy. Your proposed middle income tax cuts are larger than your proposed increases for families earning over $250,000. That math does not work. A 10% tax cut, not a tax increase, on incomes of over $250,000 frees up far more capital than a tax cut on income of $50,000. Your logic has it all backwards.
...
Americans should not be fooled when you say you will help the poor and middle class by taxing the rich. It is pandering. If you actually believe your policies, then you are committed to reducing the earnings of those not yet rich.
...
It is deceptive for you to say that small businesses will enjoy lower taxes under your plan. The reality is that because of the structure of sole proprietorships, s corporations, and partnerships, a significant number of small businesses pay individual rates of taxation on profits. So the reality is that an increase in top rates like you propose will actually harm a significant number of the small businesses you say you wish to wish to help. Astonishing!
...
I have experienced the wrath of big government impacting our own business. Since Enron, the financial services industry has become so overregulated that the onerous administrative and regulatory costs have caused us and most of our competitors to change the way we do business. Forced to raise prices to cover regulatory compliance costs, we have severely curtailed our services to average Americans, the middle class, the very families who now desperately need us and our 600 affiliated professional businesses. Instead of helping the mainstream of America, we now restrict our professional services to the more affluent tier of Americans. What a shame.
...
You are seemingly intent on making the federal government the source of everybody’s happiness. For us, your scheme will not work. It can only cause our unhappiness.

In summary, you and the Democrats wish to destroy the very same system which enabled me to not be a burden to the nation and to take care of those Americans who legitimately suffer and need help.
...
Senator Obama, your policies are an affront to capitalism and you demonize it with your subtle cynicism and your condescension.

Where capitalism appears to have failed is because of government intervention. This fact is not even debatable. Government intervention has created such deviant versions of capitalistic democracy that those variants should not even be called true capitalism.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has declared class war on capitalism and democracy in Latin America. Much of the Latin American form of capitalism should be called “capitalistic cronyism,” where true open and vicious head-to-head commercial competition was never allowed to take root and the best entrepreneurial minds were hamstrung by aristocratic legacies and corrupted governments.

Do not compare America’s capitalism to its failed imitators. Your plans for more federal government intervention and control of our economy will most assuredly lead to the same fate as the club of failed imitators.
...
Senator Obama, your promises of horrifying tax increases on me and on the company I run and your threats of even more burdensome regulation are, in your own words, “game changers.”

Higher corporate income taxes and payroll taxes rob and neuter all businesses great and small of their ability to make and keep essential promises to the people who depend on them. This is a shame and a consequence of idiotic and pander motivated ideas.

Under your taxation plan, I may one day be in a position to no longer make any meaningful promises to our fantastic employees.
...
I believe our nation can achieve greatness beyond our imagination only if salvation by federal government is erased completely from our consciousness. It is a toxic addiction - the heroin from which we must commence immediate withdrawal.

The federal government is dysfunctional beyond repair. Dysfunctional organizations are chaotic and grossly inefficient and you, amazingly, intend to make it bigger. Why?
...
The axiom, “Free people can never be equal, equal people can never be free,” lives forever.
...


0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:28 pm
@Foxfyre,
I read the whole letter, and it's pretty clear that the writer is simply an asshole. He typifies the worst stereotypes of the Greedy Conservative.

Cycloptichorn
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:41 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Fine OE. I have no leg to stand on in your opinion. I accept your opinion as your opinion. If you think that example you gave was a serious example, however, then we really have absolutely nothing to discuss further on this. That's the best I can do for now.

This is not a matter of opinion, less one poster's opinion. You make a claim, and you failed to support it. You, not OE, defined the game. OE filled every one of your requests, and you failed to meet that standard.

From quid pro quo to quid pro no.

Your actions, not other's discredit you. Your cowardice in the face of defending your ideas reveals how meritless they are. You should be so eager to meet the challenge. You're not.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Forgot to add,

How does this guy think people made money during times with higher tax rates? Does he pretend that businesses were not successful before Reagan came into office? He betrays a real ignorance in his posturing, claiming that raising taxes is akin to destroying his business. It is not.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:44 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

And I accept your opinon as your opinion too Joe which you show up to express at periodic intervals. I suppose the idiots, trolls, exercises in futility, numbnuts, and leftwing liberals--you probably fit in there somewhere--do view me as dishonest because I don't think as you do.

You're not intellectually dishonest because you disagree with me, you disagree with me because you're intellectually dishonest.

Foxfyre wrote:
But to avoid my terrible dishonesty or whatever else you find objectionable about me, all you have to do is not read my posts, put me on ignore, scroll right on past or just not show up to say something snotty. Okay? I don't do that to you or anybody.

Don't do what? Call people "idiots, trolls, exercises in futility, numbnuts, and leftwing liberals?" What makes you think that?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:47 pm
I see Foxfyre is still trying to convince herself that she's not a complete hypocrite and a liar. You go girl!
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 06:53 pm
@kickycan,
Something it almost seems to me as if you were not an American conservative, Kicky.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 11:31:44