24
   

"I don't trust him," is something people say to hide their racism.

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 12:03 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
the 2 people that seemed the most upset about obama redistributing the wealth, and taking from the rich and giving to the poor definately looked like they make 250K plus a year.


And what does that reveal to you?

Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 12:04 pm
It will be interesting to see if expressions of displeasure with the Obama Administration will also constitute racism.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 12:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It will be interesting to see if expressions of displeasure with the Obama Administration will also constitute racism.


Depends on whether or not they focus on his policies and actions, or the rather nebulous 'character issues' that the election saw put forward by the right-wing.

Cycloptichorn
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 12:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Negro, please....
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 12:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
...or the rather nebulous 'character issues' that the election saw put forward by the right-wing.


Like "I don't trust him?"
0 Replies
 
Draco-bkw
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 05:51 pm
@kickycan,
Personally I think that anyone who plays the race card at all is in some way racist. Race DOESN'T matter people are people. I personally thing that yes, Barack Obama's run as president will be historical. But it will have nothing to do with something as inconsequential as the color of his skin.
0 Replies
 
Draco-bkw
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 05:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It reveals to me that the majority of the "poor" that are supposedly going to get this money are too blinded by the fact that they're getting money to realize how bad it is.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 06:36 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
the 2 people that seemed the most upset about obama redistributing the wealth, and taking from the rich and giving to the poor definately looked like they make 250K plus a year.

And what does that reveal to you?


It reveals that they have no understanding that their wealth is not going to be "taken" away from them, and that in fact they are more like to be among those who benefit.

Why, what did you think it revealed to me?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 12:52 am
@chai2,
Quote:
It reveals that they have no understanding that their wealth is not going to be "taken" away from them, and that in fact they are more like to be among those who benefit.

Why, what did you think it revealed to me?


What it actually "revealed" to you: People making over $250,ooo a year are "selfish."

Your attempt to cover up your original position is ludicrous.

I make more than $250,00 a year.

Are you saying that, in reality, my taxes will not be increased and, as a result, some increased portion of my wealth will not be seized by the government?

Are you actually saying that somehow in this seizure of my wealth I will benefit?

How so?

I know, I will be able to sleep better at night knowing that some fetus machine in Poorland USA will be getting a bigger share of my ill-gotten gains.

Guess what? You and your leftist friends keep sucking at my teat for the low lifes in society and I'll simply stop producing milk.

Then what will you do?





Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:28 am
Kickycan asked a question, so I wonder if the answers change by turning the questions around. For instance, if Obama said he didn't trust McCainn, would that make him a racist ? I think not. I wish Obama well as I would any president the American people elected.
One thing I have noticed more and more, if somebody wants to shut somebody up, just call them a racist regardless if it's true or not. It works almost every time. One further point kickycan made, was the mention of negative feelings to Muslims being lumped in with racist remarks. For the record, a Muslim or Islam is not a race, it is a religion so lets be clear that it's not racist to agree or disagree with the views of Islam..
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:25 pm
@Deckland,
A good and accurate post. But when I am accused of being racist I fight back for the reasons you stated. I know my own mind others do not.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:04 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
It reveals that they have no understanding that their wealth is not going to be "taken" away from them, and that in fact they are more like to be among those who benefit.

Why, what did you think it revealed to me?


What it actually "revealed" to you: People making over $250,ooo a year are "selfish."

Huh? The whole point was that they did not look like they earned over $250k - she was being sarcastic.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:06 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I know, I will be able to sleep better at night knowing that some fetus machine in Poorland USA will be getting a bigger share of my ill-gotten gains.

Guess what? You and your leftist friends keep sucking at my teat for the low lifes in society

This is the ugliness of right wing politics in its bare nakedness. Poor people = "low life fetus machines". Jesus.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 04:25 am
@nimh,
That sure was revelatory.

Not surprising, but revelatory nonetheless.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:47 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Guess what? You and your leftist friends keep sucking at my teat for the low lifes in society and I'll simply stop producing milk.


No, you won't, finn. In a general view of things, america continued to thrive and expand and to increase economic well-being and justice throughout the years of New Deal legislation. In the more specific view, you'll likely continue doing exactly what you are doing now. How else would you go about demonstrating how much 'better' you are than the low lifes?
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:53 am
@nimh,
Quote:
Re: Finn dAbuzz(Post 3466991)
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
It reveals that they have no understanding that their wealth is not going to be "taken" away from them, and that in fact they are more like to be among those who benefit.

Why, what did you think it revealed to me?

What it actually "revealed" to you: People making over $250,ooo a year are "selfish."
Huh? The whole point was that they did not look like they earned over $250k - she was being sarcastic.


Thank you nimh.

I guess my rollie eye emoticon was too subtle for Mr. Abuzz Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

There, I put 3 of them in a row so he will know I was also being sarcastic with that statement.

BTW, those 2 people could possibly be making over $250K a year but I doubt it. I based that on my observation that someone making that much wouldn't be earning their living selling T-shirts off a card table, or if they were making that much by other means, probably wouldn't want to be spending their free time doing that. Also, it didn't add up to me by their appearance that they were "slumming". It takes time to "cultivate" that unkempt appearance.

That said, I'd wager these 2, if their net worth is under 1.5 million still believe the goverment is going to seize half their estate when they die.


Mr. Abuzz, have you obtained access to my tax statements? Have you done research on my net worth?

You have no idea how much income my household makes, or how much I am worth. So, until you can say with certainty what side of the $250,000 fence I reside on, I ask that you kindly shut your pie hole regarding my feelings on anything pertaining to taxes.

My opinion is that the ceiling on social security tax should be removed. That would remove a major problem with our social security program going under.

I also feel there needs no be a different tax system in place where low income earners keep a higher percentage of their income, and the high income earners pay their fair share of income tax.

Not having their income "seized" by the government, but pay their fair share.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 08:49 am
@blatham,
And on cue, Krugman and DeLong offer up some graphs...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 08:52 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Are you actually saying that somehow in this seizure of my wealth I will benefit?


Yes, absolutely. Think of it as "trickle up" economics. You see, if you give the poor people more money, then they have more money to spend, and when they do, people like you who run a business will make more. And if that sounds like bullshit to you, then just think how the poor people who have been listening to people like you tell them how Reaganomics works have felt for the past thirty years.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 09:16 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I had this same discussion with my sister the other day. She said basically the same things that you said. I asked her where she'd seen or heard that the 2% increase in her tax bill was purported to be used to ensure that those on welfare get to receive more benefits. That the intent is to let those who choose to live at the expense of others (yes, there are some) have a cushier time of it?

I'm a strong fiscal conservative, Finn. I don't think the government is the answer to funding societies shortcomings in any way. I'd much rather be told that I had to donate an additional 10% of my earnings to the charity of my choice than be told that the government has a better way of spending 2% more of my income, but I don't see what you see as the intent of these new funds.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 09:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

Guess what? You and your leftist friends keep sucking at my teat for the low lifes in society and I'll simply stop producing milk.

Then what will you do?


No, you won't. See, like most of those in your tax bracket, money matters and success matter to you, a lot. Doesn't it? You're proposing to us that you're simply going to stop working, stop producing money and the supposed jobs that come with it, all that. Bullshit.

Quote:

Are you saying that, in reality, my taxes will not be increased and, as a result, some increased portion of my wealth will not be seized by the government?


I won't pretend something different; your taxes will be increased and you will be paying more to the government. This probably won't trickle up to help you for some time, but it will help the US government and other citizens right away. If you don't like it, leave. Tax rates, even after the rise, will still be lower than in the vast majority of decades preceding them; your complaining is childish and shows a real misunderstanding of how taxes have worked historically. If you like, we can go back to the marginal rates found under some Conservative icons of the past, such as Nixon, or Eisenhower...

I was thinking of you the other night, when Obama won, Finn. Thinking of how you must have felt.

Cycloptichorn
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 01:53:12