What's the chance of Ted Cruz becoming president?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Did you just make this up on your own...or did you have help. If you made it up on your own...my compliment. You have an excellent imagination.

I didn't make nothing up Frank, but I just did my taxes, and the program clearly ask me specifically in deduction section: "did you hire any minorities"

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I don't know. Are there. And are there incentives to hire gays? What is that law...I'd like to read the language.

Omg, Frank what world you are leaving in, it call WORK OPURTUNITY TAX CREDIT. Google it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I don't know. Are there. And are there incentives to hire gays? What is that law...I'd like to read the language.

Omg, Frank what world you are leaving in, it call WORK OPURTUNITY TAX CREDIT. Google it.
Also you can read this:

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tax-incentives-using-minorityowned-business-30659.html

2 Replies

@andy31,

You can't win because you have no facts andy31. The 2009 bill did not give gays rights others did not have.

Here is the text of the bill..... It was part of a larger bill. Just search for gender to find the relevant parts.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/2647

The bill clearly states that it concerns crimes committed because of any of the following conditions -

Quote:

because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person

So in order for gays to have rights you don't have, you must have no race, no color, no religion, no gender, no ethnicity, no national origin, and no sexual orientation. I can think of no one that is not covered under that law but if you want to argue you have none of the characteristics described, go ahead. It will make for some fun times.

2 Replies

@andy31,

Really? Which specific tax form asked that question? What tax credit would you have been eligible for if you had hired a minority? What specifically states the minority status applies only to gays?

Edit - hadn't read your other post... but so far it seems you were not correct on your statement since it refers to minority owned businesses and not minorities.

0 Replies

@andy31,

The funniest part of that is it clearly states this...

Quote:

"Minority," as defined by federal statutes related to business, includes people who are African-American, Alaskan Native, American Indian, Asian-American, Hispanic and women.

There is nothing in the law about gays getting any status from being a minority and owning a business. So once again, we see you making a claim that turns out to be untrue. Are you purposely lying to us andy? Or are you that confused that you can't tell the difference between one minority and another?

And this particular law seems to have been around since the 1970s.

0 Replies

@andy31,

andy31 wrote:

Quote:
People like you, Andy, are more help to a progressive initiative and agenda...than most liberals.

Frank, please explain to me exactly what initiatives and agendas, in your view, would describe progresivism. I am NOT trying to be sarcastic or funny here at all. Honestly I don't think I know as much as you in this respect. So if you would educate me, just from your perspective of course, because there's always Google, I would highly appreciate that. I would like to compare to what I know so far about this movement.

My personal main considerations in the "progressive agenda" sphere, Andy...is to preserve and protect the safety net programs now in effect... to expand them...and to initiate new programs of that sort to cover the people who are not able to reasonably compete in this dog-eat-dog capitalistic structure of ours.

I do not want to see Social Security lessened in any way...I do not want to see later retirements, I want to see EARLIER retirements...I do not want to see benefits lowered, I want to see them increased.

I do not want Medicare and Medicaid lessened in any way...I do not want to see fewer people enrolled...I want to see more. I want to see that EVERY person in the United States has adequate medical care...and I want to see Obamacare expanded as a means to that end. I want to see that EVERY person in the US has palliative care when needed...and for EVERY person to have an adequate way to care for needs as one gets older.

They are the essentials.

I do not want to see the 1% having, as they have now, 40% of the nation's wealth...while the bottom 80% have, as they have now, only 7% of the nation's wealth. And I want to see legislation that will head toward that end.

I reiterate...that is my personal consideration...and other individuals seeking a progressive agenda may have something else in mind.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, have you notice by any chance the name of the bill, and the history of it?

1 Reply

@andy31,

Yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that it didn't give gays rights that no one else has. You started by claiming this bill gave gays rights no one else had. It turned out you are wrong. Care to admit that or are facts still just a liberal conspiracy?

1 Reply

@andy31,

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit doesn't target any minority group.

It targets underprivileged and veterans.
The form is here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f5884--2012.pdf

It does not ask if you hired any minorities. It only deals with a "targeted group" which includes the following:

Long-term family assistance recipient
Qualified recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF),
Qualified veteran,
Qualified ex-felon,
Designated community resident,
Vocational rehabilitation referral,
Summer youth employee,
SNAP recipient, or
SSI recipient.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Thank you for explaining to me your ideas of progresive movement, Frank, as I honestly had only very foggy knowledge about this. Every system presumably can be good if it will in fact work. Communism for that instance is proven to feiled time after time. However, despite the striking similarities, progresivism, as far as I'm aware, was never put to test, therefore we don't know if it would hold the water.
Overally ideas are noble and very ambitious, but how you would propose to achieve that? Meaning, where the money would come from to accommodate all that? You can only robe the rich, the 1%, or take from them one time, what after that? I'm just speculating, Frank, not that you are wrong.
I am trying to understand the whole concept and not just one part of it.

I do understand however your idea behind Ted Cruz nomination. You think Hilary, as progressive (not because of it) will have less trouble to winn presidency then when running against any others.
But I would strongly disagree here, Frank. Ted Cruz is grossly underestimated by the speculators on the left, making very same mistake as they did with Bush: treating him as a dummy.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Care to admit that or are facts still just a liberal conspiracy

?

You putting words in my mouth again. I never said that. We disagree on the facts and I can't help it. You obviously have different interpretation of it he bill from that of mine.

2 Replies

@andy31,

The means of protecting and expanding safety net programs, Andy...starts with preventing Republicans from getting into office as much as possible. Conservatives, in my opinion, are to safety net programs what small pox was to native Americans. May not wipe them out altogether, but they sure aren't going to help.

Getting things back on track with regard to wealth distribution will not be an easy job...but it is not an impossible one. Electing people who support the notion that government has a legitimate and reasonable function in society will help head us in that direction...which once again means: Stop the Republicans as much as possible.

As for Cruz...with every ounce of strength in my body and mind...I hope the Republicans nominate him. That is why I hope as many people like you as possible influence the nomination process. I would love for Cruz to be at the top of the ticket...and to help the Republicans gain ground with the women...that Sarah Palin takes the second spot again.

I am STRONGLY on your side on this one, Andy...and I would not be surprised to find that many here are also.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't think enough Republicans are that stupid, frank. Even if they are teabaggers.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Unfortunately, neither do I.

But I can hope! Wink

0 Replies

Lemme see…in 1964 Johnson carried 44 states (plus DC) and the “real Republican”, Barry Goldwater carried 6.

Johnson’s popular vote percentage was 61.1 to Goldwater’s 38.5. Johnson got 486 electoral votes to Goldwater’s 52.

And Goldwater was relatively sane…and might be mistaken as a moderate by today’s crazies.

GO CRUZ!

0 Replies

@andy31,

I don't have a different interpretation of the bill. I have the actual words in the bill. There is no way to interpret those words to grant gays special rights held by no others when the words mean there is no one that is not covered by the exact words.

No, you didn't say facts were a liberal conspiracy. You posted something about not being able to argue with a liberal because they wouldn't believe your prove[sic]. The problem you have andy is that you are completely ignoring the facts in front of your face. I post links because anyone can follow those links and read the source materials themselves. Anyone that does so with an open mind will see they destroy your argument.

I am curious as to what fact we disagree on? Do you disagree that the bill and ultimately the US Code states this?

Quote:

Offenses involving actual or perceived religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or disability.--

Do you disagree that offense a crime that is prohibited under the law?

Quote:

by definition and grading of offenses to give fair warning of what is prohibited and of the consequences of violation;

Since the US Code states both of those things, how can any person claim it is fact that it applies only to gays? This isn't about us disagreeing on facts. This is you denying facts.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I kept thinking about this what you wrote. I am determined to isolate the differences between comunism and progresivism. I know that much, that both systems began to develop on late 19th century. Both talking about redistribution of wealth. I would be happy to hear your take on this subject. The main reason for my curiosity is, that ... well, first I don't know and would like to learn something about that, and second, of course you might have red, I was born and raised and got some of my educatin in a comunist country. So, obviously, I know first hand what that system is all about since we ALL HAD TO learn everything about it since early childhood and... nobody like it, trust me on this one. A BIG failure. That's why we dropped it like a bad habit.
Also that's why I'm here, and always wondering why in the God's world would anybody want anything even remotely similar to that misery, that's beyond... any comprehension.
So, that's why for me it's so interesting talking to people like you and find out what drive you to be progresive, what are your expectations and motivations, how did that began, where did you get those ideas from, and of course how different is that from comunism. None of my questions have purpose to blame you or argue about your beliefs. It is pure curiosity. Thank you ahead for your patience with me.

1 Reply

@andy31,

andy31 wrote:

We disagree on the facts

you can't disagree on the facts.

The facts are just that - facts. They are not a matter of opinion.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Befhy, the interpretation of facts by you guys is questionable.

1 Reply

What's the chance of Ted Cruz becoming president?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know