55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:51 am
@ican711nm,
Thanks for the good laugh ican...

"the plethora of evidence." That was a good one ican.

Your limited use of evidence while mangling the meaning of what you do present is not a "plethora of evidence" ican. It might be considered a "dearth of evidence" perhaps but not a plethora.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:55 am
@Foxfyre,
Your logic is flawed Fox.

Aspiring to be or do something is not a guarantee that one can. It doesn't even suggest there is a possibility. A person in a complete vacuum may aspire to breath air but that doesn't mean he will achieve it or ever have that possibility.

The top 1% has no incentive to let anyone else in that top 1%. Does money provide anything or not? Certainly it can provide the ability to keep others out of that top 1%.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 08:52 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

The truly relevant point made by both Snopes and Odom is that the signers of the Declaration of Independence displayed great courage in risking their lives and their property to support the Declaration of Independence.

No, the truly relevant point is that, while you criticize others for not be able to discern fact from fiction, you willingly swallow anything hook, line, and sinker so long as it conforms to your own political biases, and the facts be damned.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 08:59 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

you willingly swallow anything hook, line, and sinker so long as it conforms to your own political biases, and the facts be damned.


That's the perfect definition of all citizens that voted for Obama/Biden
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 12:15 pm
Okay, the challenge for today. Somebody explain this cartoon please:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/090705beelertoon_c20090704054929.jpg
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 12:20 pm
@Foxfyre,


The Washington Post has a rewards program that rewards people for things they already do.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24441.html
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 12:45 pm
@H2O MAN,
Ah okay. That's probably it. I posted an account of that scandal a few days ago, but just didn't make the connection with the cartoon. Thanks.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:08 pm
@Foxfyre,


Was I right?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:10 pm
Meanwhile we have another crisis that likely requires bypassing the peoples' elected representatives to "get it done" as there may not be time to do it by conventional means.

How much more of this will we accept before it becomes obvious that it is intentional and not based on 'emergencies' at all?

Quote:
US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
July 05, 2009 1:51 PM

MOSCOW -- With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.

"The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified," said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. "If we're not able to do that, we'll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty." . . . .
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negotiators-under-the-gun-might-temporarily-bypass-senate-ratification-for-treaty.html
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
How much more of this will we accept before it becomes obvious that it is intentional and not based on 'emergencies' at all?


[See what I said, Yankee, about how long it takes to get a conservative brain back up to speed. ]

Where were you from 2001 to 2008, Foxy?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:15 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev agreed to slash their nuclear arsenals and cooperate on military action in Afghanistan as the U.S. and Russia seek to “reset” ties at a Moscow summit.

The two leaders called for a reduction of nuclear warheads by as much as a third from current limits in a Kremlin meeting. Russia also agreed to allow the transit of U.S. arms shipments to troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

... ... ...
Sozrce
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:19 pm
@parados,
Prior to 2007, the population of income earners in the top 1% regularly changed as new members were added and some old members were displaced. Also, prior to 2007, the total number of people in the top 1% grew, because the total number of income earners grew.

In 2007, the Democrats obtained majorities in the Senate and House. After Obama and a majority of other Democrats persuaded Bush in 2008 to sign the TARP bill, the total number of income earners in the top 1% began to shrink, because the total number of income earners began to shrink. Also the total income of the top 1% began to shrink.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:34 pm
@parados,
Some of the sources of the plethora of evidence provided by ican:
www.cato.org
www.heritage.org
www.freedomworks.org
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product GDP 1965 to 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Employment & Unemployment Tables 1970 to 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Unemployed 1942 to 2008
http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade30.html
Unemployment 1930 to 1939
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Household_income_over_time
Household income
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2008
Table 2.1. Personal Income and Its Disposition
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=170&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2008
Corporate Profits by Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debt1929-50.jpg
National debt 1929-1950
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932
Revenue Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
Income Tax History of Rates 1913 to 2008
http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2003/factsfigs.html
Fiscal Facts & Figures
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=170&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2008
National Income Without Capital Consumption Adjustment by Industry
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
>>>>>Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html?CFID=46546947&CFTOKEN=17840460
Federal Government Tax Revenue
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C1-Federal-Spending-Is-Growing.html?CFID=46309161&CFTOKEN=15367246
Federal Government Tax Spending and Revenue
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif
Federal Tax Revenues 1980 " 1990
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm
Household Income
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
...
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:48 pm
The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is to first impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is violating the Constitution of the USA that he swore to support. He is leading the transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 02:01 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well, let's see. Government officials and lobbyists are in bed together after a "spirited conversation." The government officials ask how the lobbyists intend to pay for it. The lobbyists want to pay with "Post Points!"

What the hell are "post points?" Do they have anything to do with those blue <?pills?> on the floor?

Sorry, I cannot explain it!
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 02:21 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Well, let's see. Government officials and lobbyists are in bed together after a "spirited conversation." The government officials ask how the lobbyists intend to pay for it. The lobbyists want to pay with "Post Points!"

What the hell are "post points?" Do they have anything to do with those blue <?pills?> on the floor?

Sorry, I cannot explain it!


H2O I think correctly connected it to the scandal of the Washington Post scheme to hook up lobbyist with Obama administration officials. After it broke in the news though, the Post apologized and backed down I guess. At any rate it cancelled the event it had planned to make that happen. See H2O's link earlier today. When it first surfaced a few days ago, I posted it on this thread but it didn't generate any interest here. It certainly has generated interest on other forums however.

Anyhow.....the PostPoints in the cartoon almost certainly relate to this Washington Post program:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/registration/postpoints/

Not sure what the puddle on the floor represents though.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 02:25 pm
@ican711nm,
That's nice ican.

Now can you point to the "plethora of evidence" that doesn't contradict your statements?
For instance... the following all contradict your argument that the income tax is unconstitutional. Since the income tax has existed since 1913, on what basis can you possibly argue that something that has existed in law for almost 100 years is now unconstitutional even after being ruled constitutional by the courts?
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=170&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2008
Revenue Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
>>>>>Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1913 to 2007
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-

I would call this evidence of the "dearth of evidence" for your argument that the income tax as it exists is unconstitutional.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 02:44 pm
@Foxfyre,
In a similar vein with the MSM (Mainstream Media) being in bed with the Obama Administration and lobbyist was the following tidbit. It is beginning to be more and more obvious that Obama's handlers do not want him flying without a net, or, if he can't have a teleprompter, they at least want him to be able to carefully rehearse answers to what questions will be coming. And, they are shielding him as much as possible from having to handle any unexpected questions.

Quote:
June 23, 2009
Obama calls on HuffPost for Iran question

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

“Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of the " of what the demonstrators there are working towards?”

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about."

According to POLITICO's Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by deputy press secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.

(This post was rewritten shortly after the exchange and updated in the text. Initially, I wrote the exchange was "clearly coordinated," but have since put the question to a Huffington Post spokesperson and the White House for more elaboration. See updates: There was discussion between the White House and Pitney about asking an Iran question).

UPDATE: Deputy press secretary Bill Burton responds: "We did reach out to him prior to press conference to tell him that we had been paying attention to what he had been doing on Iran and there was a chance that he’d be called on. And, he ended up asking the toughest question that the President took on Iran. In the absence of an Iranian press corps in Washington, it was an innovative way to get a question directly from an Iranian."

UPDATE 2: Knoller, again via Twitter: "Huffington Post's Nico Pitney says the WH called him this morning and invited him to ask his Iran questions at the news conference."

UPDATE 3: Pitney says the White House reached out about his Iran coverage, but only said it was possible he'd get a question.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html


It would simply be amusing and fodder for late night comedians if it was not becoming increasingly obvious that the MSM and leftwing Internet Media are now both in bed with the Administration as willing accomplices to shill for the President's agenda. At the same time, how much necessary information are they withholding from the rest of us so that we can competently evaluate what the government is doing?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0706awj20090706040904.jpg




parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 02:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
That's funny Fox...

You wouldn't happen to remember a "reporter" called Jeff Gannon, would you?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 02:57 pm
@parados,
Parados, I didn't claim that the income tax was illegal. I claimed that a progressive--non-uniform income tax rate--income tax was illegal. I continue to claim that.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...
Definition of common
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=common&x=30&y=9
Definition of general
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

Uniform does not mean uniform non-uniformity. The courts have claimed uniform does mean uniform non-uniformity for 106 years. The courts have been wrong about this for 106 years.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 01:46:33