Liberal Violence: Five Names You Should Know

Liberal Violence: Five Names You Should Know

John Hawkins
Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Unfortunately, there are dangerous kooks, trigger-happy wackos, and lone gunmen out there. Bad people exist. Crazy people exist -- and every so often, one of them snaps and there's a resulting body count. To most people, this is just a tragic fact of life.

However, to liberals in the media who are forever baffled by events that the average person has grasped since he was a child, these killers tend to break down into three groups. If they're devout Muslims and are connected to terrorists, then they must have killed for some reason OTHER than their religion. If they're conservative murderers, then they must have killed because of Glenn Beck, talk radio, the Tea Party movement, or whoever the hot conservative villain of the moment is and they're obviously part of a wider trend. On the other hand, if they're liberal, well then, at best the killer in question must be some random wacko who should immediately be forgotten. At worst, liberals try to paint leftward leaning killers as conservatives. They did this with Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell, who was a registered Democrat and the Holocaust museum shooter, James Von Brunn, who was an "anti-Christian, 9/11 'truther' who hated the Bushes and 'the neo-cons'".

This is actually quite ironic given that openly violent groups have been tolerated, if not embraced by the Left. ELF, ALF, the Black Panthers, G8 rioters, the black bloc at anti-war rallies, and even the Weathermen are looked upon favorably by liberals.

Still, it's not enough to simply point out that liberals wink at leftist groups that engage in violence. When the next nutjob kills someone -- and regrettably, there will always be a next time -- conservatives need examples to point towards when the MSM tries to once again convince the public that only right-wing wackos do that sort of thing. Here are a few worthy examples to throw back at them when they try it.

1) The Earth Liberation Front: Usually, when you point a finger of blame at domestic terrorist groups like ELF and ALF, liberals fall all over themselves to say that, "Nobody has proved that they've killed anyone yet." Well, as long as they're just engaged in arson and bombings, I guess they're just peachy!

John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.

...The ELF has been linked to fires set at sport utility vehicle dealerships and construction sites in various states, while the ALF has been blamed for arson and bombings against animal research labs and the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry.

Well, certainly no one could support the actions of a group like this, right? Maybe you can ask the people at the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network about that.

2) James Chester Blanning: Do you remember James Chester Blanning? You probably don't because his bombs didn't go off. But, just to prove a point, I'm going to post an entire story about Blanning from the SFGate so that no one can claim I left anything out:

Gift-wrapped bombs rattle tony ski enclave

Aspen, Colo. — A onetime resident of this city who had been bitter over its transformation into a playground for the rich left four gift-wrapped bombs downtown in a bank-robbery attempt, turning New Year's Eve celebrations into a mass evacuation, police said Thursday.

The dangerous bombs were made of gasoline and cell phone parts and came with notes warning of "mass death." The 72-year-old man suspected of placing them in two banks and in an alleyway on Wednesday shot and killed himself a short time later, police said.

Now, here's a detail that would have been everywhere in the press had the politics been reversed. Here's Blanton's note:

Do not f*** with us or there will be mass death like we have all been part of over in that f***ing quicksand trap that rove and chaney's monkey bush put us into where so many of our soul mates and brothers died very horrible deaths.

Funny how they didn't think the Rove and "chaney's monkey bush" comments were worthy of publication, isn't it?

3) The Weathermen: There's no need to go into depth about the Weathermen because you heard it all during the 2008 presidential campaign. But here's what is worth noting about the Weathermen: They claimed to be involved with 25 bombings, they intended to kill members of the military, and in 2001 Bill Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

What is the moral equivalent of allowing a man like Bill Ayers to teach college students and become such a big wheel in politics that he is able to befriend the President of the United States? There simply is no comparison on the right. It would be like Eric Rudolph being let out of a jail, given a teaching position at Liberty University, and running fundraisers for Mitt Romney. Conservative readers are undoubtedly grimacing in disgust at the very idea. Liberals haven't batted an eye at doing something just as morally abhorrent.

4) Carol Anne Burger: Burger wasn't just any old leftie -- she was a writer for the Huffington Post who stabbed her roommate 222 times with a screwdriver before she killed herself. Burger's last story for the HuffPO before she went down the memory hole? "Christian School Teacher Takes Female Students to Palin Rally." Yes, those Christians and Palin fans -- they're the ones you have to watch out for.

5) The Animal Liberation Front: If the world were a high school class, the crazies at ALF would be voted most likely to deliberately wipe out the human race with a bioweapon to make the world safe for snail darters:

In 1993 the Departments of Justice and Agriculture issued a report to Congress on the "effects of terrorism on enterprises which use animals," naming ALF as the most significant "radical fringe" animal rights group in the United States. The report stated that between 1979 and 1993, more than 300 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts had been committed in the name of animal rights nationwide. After some ALF members set a fire causing $3.5 million in damages at a veterinary lab in California in 1987, the FBI officially added ALF to its list of domestic terrorist organizations. According to the FBI, between 1995 and 2005 ALF committed some 700 criminal acts.

If some wacko goes to a Tea Party and shoots up a McDonald’s, every conservative in America is to blame, but we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about modern liberalism from left-wing domestic terrorist organizations? Give me a break.

Seeing that we have a problem like this in Germany, I will address the fact that left wing violence is very much present, just like right wing violence.

Whereas most of the left-wing violence is directed at the government because they lack to follow some kind of demand, most of the time they're humanitarian/"animaltarian", or it is directed at the police when demonstrations, etc. turn into all out brawls.

I have several friends who are in local Antifa groups, and they are in no way violent or even agree with the violence that is taking place. When demonstrations do turn violent, it is because of the 'black block' is full of frustrated, violent people who just want violence. The Antifa groups do not connect themselves to the 'black block' in any way, they have actually condemned them because they are the reason why demonstrations break out into violence.

The same goes for rightist groups comparable to Antifa groups. Most of those people want to achieve their goal by peaceful means, it's only the extremists who are in the extreme minority that use violence.

However, even at demonstrations, for example the G8 demonstrations, the police is forced to use force in order to keep the situation under control and ensure the safety of bystanders and non-demonstrators. That's how things get out of hand most of the time.
Another example is the fact that when leftist groups march to blockade neo-nazi demonstrations, the police HAS to protect the Neo-Nazis from harm because they have gone through the legal process of being allowed to march and demonstrate whereas the leftist groups have not.

I think it is dangerous to lump these people together like this article did because it takes the voices of many and drowns it out with the actions of few.

What Carol Anne Burger has to do with left-wing terrorism is beyond me. Just because she worked for the HuffPo and killed somebody makes her a left-wing terrorism?

So pretty much what the author is saying that when a tea-party member shoots up a McDonald's not every Conservative is to blame but there is a lot to learn from left-wing terrorism?

How animal rights and environmental groups classify as 'leftist terrorist' groups is also beyond me.

This article is practically oozing with bias.

BubbleBliss wrote:What Carol Anne Burger has to do with left-wing terrorism is beyond me. Just because she worked for the HuffPo and killed somebody makes her a left-wing terrorism?

I think the guy added that in for a dig at HuffPo. But it's hypocritical what she wrote as her last article and doing what she did.

BubbleBliss wrote:So pretty much what the author is saying that when a tea-party member shoots up a McDonald's not every Conservative is to blame but there is a lot to learn from left-wing terrorism?

A TP member shot up a McDonald's? Yeah, right. Ya see, now you're lumping in every TP member as a fringe right wing kook. That would be like me saying every environmentalist is a ELF member.

BubbleBliss wrote:How animal rights and environmental groups classify as 'leftist terrorist' groups is also beyond me.

They go for leftist causes. They're not conservative. They're leftist extremists like abortion bombers on the right.

And i dunno.... maybe because the FBI said: After some ALF members set a fire causing $3.5 million in damages at a veterinary lab in California in 1987, the FBI officially added ALF to its list of domestic terrorist organizations.

Or maybe because more than 300 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts had been committed

BubbleBliss wrote:This article is practically oozing with bias.

Because it doesn't fit your ideological view.

The point of the article is how the media in this country is so quick to label an abortion bomber or the dude who flew the plane into a building in Texas a few weeks ago as right wingers. Of course, the media left out parts of his suicide letter that pretty much placed him at odds with conservatives.

Plus, there was that professor who shot someone a few weeks ago. Turns out she was a left winger.

But hey... why bother reporting all that to be fair. No point in that.

You see, this is why people aren't watching the regular news anymore. No matter what excuses you come up with, it's true. The media bias in this country is at it's worst ever. I've never seen such sludge in my 46 years. And one network that caters to conservatives gets everyone left of center in a tizzy. Unreal.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:What Carol Anne Burger has to do with left-wing terrorism is beyond me. Just because she worked for the HuffPo and killed somebody makes her a left-wing terrorism?

I think the guy added that in for a dig at HuffPo. But it's hypocritical what she wrote as her last article and doing what she did.

An insane mind doesn't accept such a thing as hypocrisy.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:So pretty much what the author is saying that when a tea-party member shoots up a McDonald's not every Conservative is to blame but there is a lot to learn from left-wing terrorism?

A TP member shot up a McDonald's? Yeah, right. Ya see, now you're lumping in every TP member as a fringe right wing kook. That would be like me saying every environmentalist is a ELF member.

Last paragraph of your article:

"If some wacko goes to a Tea Party and shoots up a McDonald’s, every conservative in America is to blame, but we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about modern liberalism from left-wing domestic terrorist organizations? Give me a break."

That's what I was talking about/referring to.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:How animal rights and environmental groups classify as 'leftist terrorist' groups is also beyond me.

They go for leftist causes. They're not conservative. They're leftist extremists like abortion bombers on the right.

Since when has the left every stood for environmentalists and animal rights groups? To me, that doesn't fit on the political scale because it's not really a political act, more of a scientific one.

TexasBlue wrote:

And i dunno.... maybe because the FBI said: After some ALF members set a fire causing $3.5 million in damages at a veterinary lab in California in 1987, the FBI officially added ALF to its list of domestic terrorist organizations.

Or maybe because more than 300 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts had been committed

How does that qualify them as being 'leftist'?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:This article is practically oozing with bias.

Because it doesn't fit your ideological view.

Nope, because it complains about the fact that when a TP member shoots up a McDonald's everybody blames ALL the conservatives and at the same time says that the US can learn a lot about Leftists from leftist terrorist groups.

TexasBlue wrote:

The point of the article is how the media in this country is so quick to label an abortion bomber or the dude who flew the plane into a building in Texas a few weeks ago as right wingers. Of course, the media left out parts of his suicide letter that pretty much placed him at odds with conservatives.

The media reported on the guy that flew his plane into that IRS building that he had problems with taxes and that he was fed up with the IRS, it never labeled him as a Conservative or anything of that matter. It also said that he was fed up with the lack of health care in this country.

His act was also politically motivated whereas.....

TexasBlue wrote:

Plus, there was that professor who shot someone a few weeks ago. Turns out she was a left winger.

....her's was not.

TexasBlue wrote:

But hey... why bother reporting all that to be fair. No point in that.

So you're telling me that an insane woman who shoots up a room full of professors should be labeled as a leftist or a rightist when the news is reporting on her crime? Are you insane?
Once again, the media never labeled the IRS 'bomber' as a Conservative, it just pointed out his problems with the IRS and the lack of health care. Things he left in his note.

TexasBlue wrote:

You see, this is why people aren't watching the regular news anymore. No matter what excuses you come up with, it's true. The media bias in this country is at it's worst ever. I've never seen such sludge in my 46 years. And one network that caters to conservatives gets everyone left of center in a tizzy. Unreal.

Bias because they don't report on a criminal's political standing?

How else is the media bias?

BubbleBliss wrote:Last paragraph of your article:

"If some wacko goes to a Tea Party and shoots up a McDonald’s, every conservative in America is to blame, but we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about modern liberalism from left-wing domestic terrorist organizations? Give me a break."

That's what I was talking about/referring to.

It's because the media makes it an issue when it's a conservative. I've seen it many, many times.

BubbleBliss wrote:Since when has the left every stood for environmentalists and animal rights groups? To me, that doesn't fit on the political scale because it's not really a political act, more of a scientific one.

It ain't "scientific." That's an excuse. What is it with you? You don't like this bunch being lumped in with the left? I never said these people were liberals. They're hard-core far-left extremists!

BubbleBliss wrote:How does that qualify them as being 'leftist'?

It's not what they do. It's not how they do it. It's what they stand for. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's like Guido was saying in another thread.... you like splitting hairs. You seem to want an answer for everything even if it's presented right in front of your face on a silver platter.

If you really want hard proof, i can go dig up tons and tons of stuff on these groups. Part of me doesn't want to waste the time because you'll just ignore it.

BubbleBliss wrote:Nope, because it complains about the fact that when a TP member shoots up a McDonald's everybody blames ALL the conservatives and at the same time says that the US can learn a lot about Leftists from leftist terrorist groups.

It's because these groups are terrorist groups. They're criminal organizations! An individual shooting up a Mickey D's is an individual nut case. The guy blowing up abortion clinics is a nut case. If it was an organization called Abortion Clinic Liberation Front, then i'd say they were a terror organization and a bunch of criminals.

You see, i can tell it like i see it. If it's a conservative, i have no mercy on them either. You appear to want to protect the left from any derogatory remarks or affiliation.... instead of just calling these creeps what they are.

This is why i despise leftist bullshit. Because there's a quarry of excuses when it relates to that side. That's what you've done; deflect, split and excuse.

BubbleBliss wrote:The media reported on the guy that flew his plane into that IRS building that he had problems with taxes and that he was fed up with the IRS, it never labeled him as a Conservative or anything of that matter. It also said that he was fed up with the lack of health care in this country.

Naw. The media never ever would do that. Nawwwwww.

http://www.mediaite.com/print/new-york-times-columnist-refuses-to-brand-joseph-stack-a-terrorist-ok-with-conservative/

http://conservative-compendium.com/wordpress/2010/02/frank-rich-dishonestly-associates-joseph-stack-with-tea-party/

http://habledash.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=505:media-tries-to-connect-austin-plane-crash-to-tea-party-movement-&catid=47:newsflash&Itemid=65

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2454743/posts

Oh! Oh! Oh! In his suicide note about health care, he condemns health care reform obstructionists;

Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

Sounds like a real conservative to me. LMAO!

BubbleBliss wrote:His act was also politically motivated whereas.....

....her's was not.

Doesn't matter. Blowing up an abortion clinic isn't political motivation. That's religious and social motivation. Wrong, none the less.

But why let a left winger get in the way of reporting on eeeevil conservatives? It's easier to vilify the right than the left.

BubbleBliss wrote:So you're telling me that an insane woman who shoots up a room full of professors should be labeled as a leftist or a rightist when the news is reporting on her crime? Are you insane?

That professor came from a well-connected liberal family and was a leftwinger who was 'obsessed' with Obama to the point of being "off-putting." These are the reports i've read. If Stack (plane crasher) were a registered Repub or Tea Party supporter, those facts would've led the MSM’s reporting of the individual incidents themselves.

The NYT described every detail of professor’s life, but failed to even address her political leanings on bit. This glaring omission of reporting by the NYT as compared to the NYT’s relentless pushing of the "right wing extremist" bullshit regarding the Stack case demonstrates the left-wing bias the NYT applies to its reporting.

BubbleBliss wrote:Once again, the media never labeled the IRS 'bomber' as a Conservative, it just pointed out his problems with the IRS and the lack of health care. Things he left in his note.

See links above. If you want more, i can give you 15 or 20 more. Just ask. Ye shall receive.

BubbleBliss wrote:Bias because they don't report on a criminal's political standing?

How else is the media bias?

Yeah. The media had a hey-day with Tiller's killer up in Kansas. They had a hey-day with the abortion dude from N. Carolina. Oh yeah. The evil conservative movement. Painting the right in one broad brush while ignoring their own. Don't make me dig up more. I will if you want to push it. There's a ton of info that ridicules your position.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Last paragraph of your article:

"If some wacko goes to a Tea Party and shoots up a McDonald’s, every conservative in America is to blame, but we're not supposed to draw any conclusions about modern liberalism from left-wing domestic terrorist organizations? Give me a break."

That's what I was talking about/referring to.

It's because the media makes it an issue when it's a conservative. I've seen it many, many times.

I was simply responding to your comment that I am lumping in every TP member with criminals, which I was not, I'm simply referring to what the author said.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Since when has the left every stood for environmentalists and animal rights groups? To me, that doesn't fit on the political scale because it's not really a political act, more of a scientific one.

It ain't "scientific." That's an excuse. What is it with you? You don't like this bunch being lumped in with the left? I never said these people were liberals. They're hard-core far-left extremists!

Well, you and Dbl argued that Neo-Nazis aren't classifiable as extreme right wingers, so I'm simply asking how environmental groups classify as left wingers. Unless of course, the left stands for environmental protection whereas the right does not. In that case, I would understand.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:How does that qualify them as being 'leftist'?

It's not what they do. It's not how they do it. It's what they stand for. Why is that so hard to understand?

I was asking how this comment made by you:

"And i dunno.... maybe because the FBI said: After some ALF members set a fire causing $3.5 million in damages at a veterinary lab in California in 1987, the FBI officially added ALF to its list of domestic terrorist organizations.

Or maybe because more than 300 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts had been committed"

Classifies a group as leftist. I realize they're environmentalists and they get grouped in with the left, my question is how.

TexasBlue wrote:

It's like Guido was saying in another thread.... you like splitting hairs. You seem to want an answer for everything even if it's presented right in front of your face on a silver platter.

I'm sorry but if you're having a discussion about an internal illegal arms trade and you try to deflect with the question "Do you even know who supplies most of the weapons circulating in the global illegal arms trade", I can't help but to try to get back on topic.
Also, if you're talking about WWI and then one starts talking about the Wall and Soviets while quoting the original debate about WWI, I have to ask myself whether that's on purpose, accidental or just not knowing the difference between WWI & WWII.

TexasBlue wrote:

If you really want hard proof, i can go dig up tons and tons of stuff on these groups. Part of me doesn't want to waste the time because you'll just ignore it.

Go ahead, I know enough about these groups. My question was simply how an environmental group classifies as leftist if even a Neo-Nazis don't classify as rightist according to you and Dbl.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Nope, because it complains about the fact that when a TP member shoots up a McDonald's everybody blames ALL the conservatives and at the same time says that the US can learn a lot about Leftists from leftist terrorist groups.

It's because these groups are terrorist groups. They're criminal organizations! An individual shooting up a Mickey D's is an individual nut case. The guy blowing up abortion clinics is a nut case. If it was an organization called Abortion Clinic Liberation Front, then i'd say they were a terror organization and a bunch of criminals.

And from these terrorist groups one can learn a lot about Liberal politics??
See, that was my original problem with this article. Pointing out how the left lumps every conservative together with violent extremists and how wrong they are, but then he goes on to say that one can learn a lot about liberal politics by studying the leftists extremist groups.

TexasBlue wrote:

You see, i can tell it like i see it. If it's a conservative, i have no mercy on them either. You appear to want to protect the left from any derogatory remarks or affiliation.... instead of just calling these creeps what they are.

Bullshit. I know these people are terrorists and far left extremists, but I disagree with the suggestion that one can learn a lot about liberal politics from those groups just like I disagree that one can learn a lot about conservatives by studying abortion clinic bombers and all those other nut cases.

TexasBlue wrote:

This is why i despise leftist bullshit. Because there's a quarry of excuses when it relates to that side. That's what you've done; deflect, split and excuse.

Bullshit, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the article.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The media reported on the guy that flew his plane into that IRS building that he had problems with taxes and that he was fed up with the IRS, it never labeled him as a Conservative or anything of that matter. It also said that he was fed up with the lack of health care in this country.

Naw. The media never ever would do that. Nawwwwww.

I'm calling it like I saw it on the news. Where did you see the original news cast?

TexasBlue wrote:

http://www.mediaite.com/print/new-york-times-columnist-refuses-to-brand-joseph-stack-a-terrorist-ok-with-conservative/

http://conservative-compendium.com/wordpress/2010/02/frank-rich-dishonestly-associates-joseph-stack-with-tea-party/

http://habledash.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=505:media-tries-to-connect-austin-plane-crash-to-tea-party-movement-&catid=47:newsflash&Itemid=65

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2454743/posts

Seeing that you're always one to dismiss sources because of the website they're posted on, you'll excuse me if I do as you do and ask for some original sources, not some right wing websites.

But to address the content of those websites, most of them talk about liberal columnists and only a few link to actual news websites. Yet on the websites, I have yet to find something that would label him as a conservative. The news concludes again and again that he was mentally disturbed and flew his plane into the IRS building not to kill people, but to harm the IRS, that's what friends of the terrorists say.

TexasBlue wrote:

Oh! Oh! Oh! In his suicide note about health care, he condemns health care reform obstructionists;

Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

Sounds like a real conservative to me. LMAO!

I already pointed out that when I heard the story being told by the news, it included this part and said that he had a grudge against the IRS as well as the lack of health care in this country. Clearly that's not a conservative.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:His act was also politically motivated whereas.....

....her's was not.

Doesn't matter. Blowing up an abortion clinic isn't political motivation. That's religious and social motivation. Wrong, none the less.

Yet it's motivated by ideology whereas stabbing your co-workers is not.

TexasBlue wrote:

But why let a left winger get in the way of reporting on eeeevil conservatives? It's easier to vilify the right than the left.

Of course, the right is always the exclusive victim.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:So you're telling me that an insane woman who shoots up a room full of professors should be labeled as a leftist or a rightist when the news is reporting on her crime? Are you insane?

That professor came from a well-connected liberal family and was a leftwinger who was 'obsessed' with Obama to the point of being "off-putting." These are the reports i've read. If Stack (plane crasher) were a registered Repub or Tea Party supporter, those facts would've led the MSM’s reporting of the individual incidents themselves.

So what? If Bush's daughter killed her co-workers it wouldn't be labeled as an act of political motivation. Just because you belong to a party and are politically motivated doesn't mean that every crime you commit was in the name of your ideologies.

TexasBlue wrote:

The NYT described every detail of professor’s life, but failed to even address her political leanings on bit. This glaring omission of reporting by the NYT as compared to the NYT’s relentless pushing of the "right wing extremist" bullshit regarding the Stack case demonstrates the left-wing bias the NYT applies to its reporting.

Was the reporting of her life maybe focused on such things as mental disorders, the fact that she shot her brother, and the fact that she was going to lose her job?
Once again, her crime was not politically motivated whereas an abortion bomber's crime is. What would you label someone if the crime has nothing to do with that label?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Bias because they don't report on a criminal's political standing?

How else is the media bias?

Yeah. The media had a hey-day with Tiller's killer up in Kansas. They had a hey-day with the abortion dude from N. Carolina. Oh yeah. The evil conservative movement. Painting the right in one broad brush while ignoring their own. Don't make me dig up more. I will if you want to push it. There's a ton of info that ridicules your position.

Once again, those crimes were politically motivated and stand for a CLEAR stance whereas flying your plane into an IRS building doesn't automatically identify you with either party. Nobody likes the IRS.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, you and Dbl argued that Neo-Nazis aren't classifiable as extreme right wingers, so I'm simply asking how environmental groups classify as left wingers. Unless of course, the left stands for environmental protection whereas the right does not. In that case, I would understand.

That's factually incorrect. We had debated with others on the Nazi's back in the 30s and 40's. We never spoke of today's Neo-Nazi's.

So, who do the environmentalists identify with? It certainly isn't the conservative movement. Are you denying that these people are leftists?

BubbleBliss wrote:I realize they're environmentalists and they get grouped in with the left, my question is how.

Those statements don't make them leftists. That's the FBI's take on them... what they've done. Everyone this side of Mars knows that these people are leftists. You need some proof? Again?

BubbleBliss wrote:Go ahead, I know enough about these groups. My question was simply how an environmental group classifies as leftist if even a Neo-Nazis don't classify as rightist according to you and Dbl.

Again, i, nor Dbl, ever said the Neo's weren't right wingers. We were speaking of the Nazi's during WWII. To refresh your memory, we were debating whether they (German Nazi's) were right wingers or socialists. Let's not get into that debate here either. Just clarifying your statement.

HAHAHA!! You think the environmental movement isn't ideologically driven? It's a mainstay of the Democrat party these days! Gawd. Again, if i have to pull out the dozen links to "prove" it, then i will. The fact is that these people are far to the left of the Dems but pump plenty of money into their coffers. They make small gains every year.

[quote="BubbleBliss"]And from these terrorist groups one can learn a lot about Liberal politics??
See, that was my original problem with this article. Pointing out how the left lumps every conservative together with violent extremists and how wrong they are, but then he goes on to say that one can learn a lot about liberal politics by studying the leftists extremist groups.

It's because these politics are driven into law today. There's laws put in place by the left (in California for example) that make a dog a companion, not a pet. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of environmental laws in place. I'd say that 80% of them were put in place by the left.

Yeah, one can earn about liberalism that way. It's pretty easy. Google is your friend on this issue. I've read tons of sites on this stuff. There's hundreds of them out there.

BubbleBliss wrote:Bullshit. I know these people are terrorists and far left extremists, but I disagree with the suggestion that one can learn a lot about liberal politics from those groups just like I disagree that one can learn a lot about conservatives by studying abortion clinic bombers and all those other nut cases.

One just look at policies of the Democrat Party and one can find many issues that environmentalists and animal rights groups have pushed into legislation. Look man, it's a huge movement. It's more concentrated on the left and East coast. Ask anyone and most would classify them as left wingers.

The only things that the left tie to the right is the Neo-Nazi's, the Klan and abortion crazies. None of those three have influence in politics in these modern days. You can make the case that they did 50 years ago and would be correct.

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm calling it like I saw it on the news. Where did you see the original news cast?

What i saw on the original newscast is irrelevant. It's a pointless question. In the days following that incident is where things came to light. It was then that the "media" started tagging this guy as a right winger or Tea Party guy.

BubbleBliss wrote:Seeing that you're always one to dismiss sources because of the website they're posted on, you'll excuse me if I do as you do and ask for some original sources, not some right wing websites.

Yeah. Like DailyKos, the NYT or HuffPo is going to let those cats out of the bag. But since you didn't look at those articles, you won't find links proving the accusations.

BubbleBliss wrote:But to address the content of those websites, most of them talk about liberal columnists and only a few link to actual news websites. Yet on the websites, I have yet to find something that would label him as a conservative. The news concludes again and again that he was mentally disturbed and flew his plane into the IRS building not to kill people, but to harm the IRS, that's what friends of the terrorists say.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/the-first-tea-party-terrorist/

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=12350

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/298687.php

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2010/20100303103209.aspx

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100224050609.aspx

BubbleBliss wrote:I already pointed out that when I heard the story being told by the news, it included this part and said that he had a grudge against the IRS as well as the lack of health care in this country. Clearly that's not a conservative.

And his quote of the Communist Manifesto at the end of his suicide letter. The media conveniently left that out. I found out about those omissions 2 days later (after the incident).

BubbleBliss wrote:Of course, the right is always the exclusive victim.

No, we leave that to the Democrat Party. They're party of victims. One under every rock.

BubbleBliss wrote:So what? If Bush's daughter killed her co-workers it wouldn't be labeled as an act of political motivation. Just because you belong to a party and are politically motivated doesn't mean that every crime you commit was in the name of your ideologies.

No, you can't label that way. It's the OMISSIONS by the media! You're playing games again. This is why you people hate the right wing news... because they can find and prove media bias. I can post stuff daily on bias by the rest of the media. Maybe i should start doing that.

BubbleBliss wrote:Was the reporting of her life maybe focused on such things as mental disorders, the fact that she shot her brother, and the fact that she was going to lose her job?
Once again, her crime was not politically motivated whereas an abortion bomber's crime is. What would you label someone if the crime has nothing to do with that label?

I'm not making it a political motivation. The whole fµqqing point of this discussion is how the media is quick to label a conservative when one of them does something. They never do when it's someone on the left.

Again, an abortion bomber is doing his bullshit out of religious extremism. I classify them in the same boat as ELF and other leftist crazies that destroy sh!t. They're one and the same to me. The media doesn't see it that way.

BubbleBliss wrote:Once again, those crimes were politically motivated and stand for a CLEAR stance whereas flying your plane into an IRS building doesn't automatically identify you with either party. Nobody likes the IRS.

I love the IRS. I love having my money taken away by force.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well, you and Dbl argued that Neo-Nazis aren't classifiable as extreme right wingers, so I'm simply asking how environmental groups classify as left wingers. Unless of course, the left stands for environmental protection whereas the right does not. In that case, I would understand.

That's factually incorrect. We had debated with others on the Nazi's back in the 30s and 40's. We never spoke of today's Neo-Nazi's.

We were debating both, Nazis and Neo-Nazis. It all started with Dbl saying that if he wanted to read some books that I suggested (all of them not even 'leftists' books) he'd read the Communist Manifesto. I then said that if I wanted to read something from the right I'd read Mein Kampf. And from there the debate went from Nazis to Neo-Nazis.

TexasBlue wrote:

So, who do the environmentalists identify with? It certainly isn't the conservative movement. Are you denying that these people are leftists?

Nope, I already said that they were leftists several times.

[quote="TexasBlue"]

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I realize they're environmentalists and they get grouped in with the left, my question is how.

Those statements don't make them leftists. That's the FBI's take on them... what they've done. Everyone this side of Mars knows that these people are leftists. You need some proof? Again?

Well I was asking how they qualify as leftists and you gave me those statements so I thought that maybe somehow they qualify them as leftists.

[quote="TexasBlue"]

TexasBlue wrote:

HAHAHA!! You think the environmental movement isn't ideologically driven? It's a mainstay of the Democrat party these days! Gawd. Again, if i have to pull out the dozen links to "prove" it, then i will. The fact is that these people are far to the left of the Dems but pump plenty of money into their coffers. They make small gains every year.

I never said they're not ideologically driven. Where did you get that from? Every political/religious movement is ideologically driven, obviously.


[quote="TexasBlue"]

BubbleBliss wrote:And from these terrorist groups one can learn a lot about Liberal politics??
See, that was my original problem with this article. Pointing out how the left lumps every conservative together with violent extremists and how wrong they are, but then he goes on to say that one can learn a lot about liberal politics by studying the leftists extremist groups.

It's because these politics are driven into law today. There's laws put in place by the left (in California for example) that make a dog a companion, not a pet. There's hundreds, if not thousands, of environmental laws in place. I'd say that 80% of them were put in place by the left.

And terrorists forced those laws through?
That's like saying abortion bombers got their way if abortion is ever to become illegal. Unreal.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, one can earn about liberalism that way. It's pretty easy. Google is your friend on this issue. I've read tons of sites on this stuff. There's hundreds of them out there.

Well I guess then one can learn from Neo-Nazis, religious extremists, White Power groups, anti-immigration terrorist groups, etc. about Conservatism. Unbelievable!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Bullshit. I know these people are terrorists and far left extremists, but I disagree with the suggestion that one can learn a lot about liberal politics from those groups just like I disagree that one can learn a lot about conservatives by studying abortion clinic bombers and all those other nut cases.

One just look at policies of the Democrat Party and one can find many issues that environmentalists and animal rights groups have pushed into legislation. Look man, it's a huge movement. It's more concentrated on the left and East coast. Ask anyone and most would classify them as left wingers.

The only things that the left tie to the right is the Neo-Nazi's, the Klan and abortion crazies. None of those three have influence in politics in these modern days. You can make the case that they did 50 years ago and would be correct.

One can argue that. If environmental extremists have success by having laws passed to protect wildlife (which is pushed by common sense, not extremist groups) then one can argue that abortion crazies have success by outlawing abortion after a certain stage of the pregnancy.

Are you actually suggesting that environmental and animal laws that are in place are extremist? I would be ashamed if I belonged to a party that didn't care about either one!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm calling it like I saw it on the news. Where did you see the original news cast?

What i saw on the original newscast is irrelevant. It's a pointless question. In the days following that incident is where things came to light. It was then that the "media" started tagging this guy as a right winger or Tea Party guy.

I have yet to see the words 'conservative' and 'TP guy' anywhere in any credible newscasts you've presented me with.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Seeing that you're always one to dismiss sources because of the website they're posted on, you'll excuse me if I do as you do and ask for some original sources, not some right wing websites.

Yeah. Like DailyKos, the NYT or HuffPo is going to let those cats out of the bag. But since you didn't look at those articles, you won't find links proving the accusations.

I did look at the articles, that's why I wrote about them below.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:But to address the content of those websites, most of them talk about liberal columnists and only a few link to actual news websites. Yet on the websites, I have yet to find something that would label him as a conservative. The news concludes again and again that he was mentally disturbed and flew his plane into the IRS building not to kill people, but to harm the IRS, that's what friends of the terrorists say.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/the-first-tea-party-terrorist/

Look at the Post Script of that article:

"Postscript (added after reading a few dozen angry comments): Just to clarify a few things: 1) When I said in this column that you could in principle follow my logic to conclude that Joseph Stack was a Tea Party terrorist, I should have added the explicit reminder that this logic depended on accepting the somewhat squishy definition of “Tea Party” ideology that, I argue, is appropriate given the still-inchoate nature of the movement; 2) I’m of course not saying that Stack has much in common with the average law-abiding Tea Partier (any more than Osama bin Laden has much in common with the average law-abiding Muslim or law-abiding Islamist) — even though I do think that intense rage, which Stack evinced so violently, can be found on the movement’s fringes; 3) I’m definitely not, as some commenters seem to think, saying that Stack is a conservative terrorist. Indeed, my point is that the Tea Party movement is still undefined enough to accommodate ideologically eclectic people. However, I think commenters who take the Stack manifesto’s closing reference to the Communist Manifesto as a sign of communist sympathies are misreading his intent; and I suspect his closing characterization of capitalism isn’t meant as a rejection of free-market economics but rather as a complaint that capitalism has become corrupted in America. I think the overall point of those two references is that capitalism, as it’s being corruptly practiced, is no better than communism, and may be worse. But there will never be any way of knowing for sure what he meant."

One of the articles you linked to even said that the author of this column didn't even conclude that the guy was a TP terrorist. They actually said that the title turned out not to be true of the column at all.

TexasBlue wrote:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=12350

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/298687.php

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2010/20100303103209.aspx

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100224050609.aspx

These are all about opinion articles. We're talking about real news here.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I already pointed out that when I heard the story being told by the news, it included this part and said that he had a grudge against the IRS as well as the lack of health care in this country. Clearly that's not a conservative.

And his quote of the Communist Manifesto at the end of his suicide letter. The media conveniently left that out. I found out about those omissions 2 days later (after the incident).

No matter, it still didn't qualify the guy as left wing or right wing. It explained his trouble with the IRS which is obviously the main concern when somebody flies his plane into an IRS building.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Of course, the right is always the exclusive victim.

No, we leave that to the Democrat Party. They're party of victims. One under every rock.

Right. Since it's always the Democratic Party that wants to ruin America, get the US closer to the terrorists, indoctrinate american children, brainwashes children from grade school all the way to Universities, and of course they want to take your pets, remember that, Tex? Give me a break. I hate how both parties try to play themselves of as the victims but always accuse the other party of doing so.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:So what? If Bush's daughter killed her co-workers it wouldn't be labeled as an act of political motivation. Just because you belong to a party and are politically motivated doesn't mean that every crime you commit was in the name of your ideologies.

No, you can't label that way. It's the OMISSIONS by the media! You're playing games again. This is why you people hate the right wing news... because they can find and prove media bias. I can post stuff daily on bias by the rest of the media. Maybe i should start doing that.

What omissions? You are actually claiming that the media should put a political tag on every criminal, I can't believe it!

Yeah, they're finding news bias while dismissing the fact that they're bias themselves. They should be proud of themselves!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Was the reporting of her life maybe focused on such things as mental disorders, the fact that she shot her brother, and the fact that she was going to lose her job?
Once again, her crime was not politically motivated whereas an abortion bomber's crime is. What would you label someone if the crime has nothing to do with that label?

I'm not making it a political motivation. The whole fµqqing point of this discussion is how the media is quick to label a conservative when one of them does something. They never do when it's someone on the left.

I have yet to see a murderer be labeled a conservative when his crime is not politically motivated.

TexasBlue wrote:

Again, an abortion bomber is doing his bullshit out of religious extremism. I classify them in the same boat as ELF and other leftist crazies that destroy sh!t. They're one and the same to me. The media doesn't see it that way.

How do they not?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Once again, those crimes were politically motivated and stand for a CLEAR stance whereas flying your plane into an IRS building doesn't automatically identify you with either party. Nobody likes the IRS.

I love the IRS. I love having my money taken away by force.

You also love the benefits you get from it.

How the gov't allows the IRS to hold so much power is beyond me. They can find an error on your tax return from 10 years ago, wait 5 more years to tell you, and then they can decide on what the interest rate is going to be. Unbelievable! That's criminal!

BubbleBliss wrote:We were debating both, Nazis and Neo-Nazis. It all started with Dbl saying that if he wanted to read some books that I suggested (all of them not even 'leftists' books) he'd read the Communist Manifesto. I then said that if I wanted to read something from the right I'd read Mein Kampf. And from there the debate went from Nazis to Neo-Nazis.

Maybe you and him were talking about it but you never had me talking about the left/right thing on the neo's. That's the point i was driving. You may have had that discussion and i might have been in it (as far as the Nazi's of the past) but i never ever got into the modern day guys.

BubbleBliss wrote:And terrorists forced those laws through?
That's like saying abortion bombers got their way if abortion is ever to become illegal. Unreal.

HAHAH!!! I never said that. My point (as usual) was the implementation of laws we have today that these extremists take to the hilt. Abortion bombers wouldn't have gotten their way because the abortion lobby hasn't succeeded in abortion laws except maybe the partial-birth law.... which is a sensible law no matter what one's beliefs are.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well I guess then one can learn from Neo-Nazis, religious extremists, White Power groups, anti-immigration terrorist groups, etc. about Conservatism. Unbelievable!

You take so much of what i say and go the other way with it. That's the unbelievable part. The thing most uneducated people (uninformed) think of when they think of conservatism is religion and racism. Those are so yesterday. Today's conservatism (the real thing) is about smaller gov't, low taxes, enforcement of laws on the books. Conservatism of yesteryear is about racism and religion more than anything. That's what i think of when i read about cons of the early 1900's to the mid-1950's.

Liberalism has been growing for decades and we're seeing it on our doorstep. You like it because you subscribe to it. "Progressive" taxation, lax immigration, bigger gov't, etc. Conservatism isn't growing in that regard. It actually has taken a step backward thanks to Bush and his bunch. But i guarantee you, it's going to come back with a vengeance due to this crop we have running the show now. More on this as this post unfolds (on other quotes).

BubbleBliss wrote:One can argue that. If environmental extremists have success by having laws passed to protect wildlife (which is pushed by common sense, not extremist groups) then one can argue that abortion crazies have success by outlawing abortion after a certain stage of the pregnancy.

Are you actually suggesting that environmental and animal laws that are in place are extremist? I would be ashamed if I belonged to a party that didn't care about either one!

Yeah, but the abortion laws are upheld. The only exception is the partial birth abortion law. The USSC sided with the makers of that law and it stands. That means you can't terminate a baby that's is half out of the womb. It's a grisly procedure, imo.

But you're comparing extremists that blow up a clinic once every two or three years (or murder an abortion doc) to people who burn down an entire apartment complex or business development and cost thousands if not millions of dollars to whomever was at the root of it? Both are dispicable, imo.

Now, don't try and lump me in (not that you have) with the abortion debate because i have no cause in it. I don't support or not support it. Yeah, you could say i'm a fence-sitter on that subject.

BubbleBliss wrote:No matter, it still didn't qualify the guy as left wing or right wing. It explained his trouble with the IRS which is obviously the main concern when somebody flies his plane into an IRS building.

A number of left wingers labeled the guy as a con and/or a TP'r. That was bullshit. One will never know. I never have seen (nor heard) anything on his past records indicating otherwise.

BubbleBliss wrote:Right. Since it's always the Democratic Party that wants to ruin America, get the US closer to the terrorists, indoctrinate american children, brainwashes children from grade school all the way to Universities, and of course they want to take your pets, remember that, Tex? Give me a break. I hate how both parties try to play themselves of as the victims but always accuse the other party of doing so.

Many liberal policies are part of our problems. Don't go asking what they are. We've been down that road 20 times now. Liberalism is in our social policies far more than con ones. But the reverse can be said on economic issues.

Yeah, i remember the pet thing real well. I did a bunch of research on that bill. I was partly wrong on the issue originally. Other parts i was right on.

BubbleBliss wrote:What omissions? You are actually claiming that the media should put a political tag on every criminal, I can't believe it!

Yeah, they're finding news bias while dismissing the fact that they're bias themselves. They should be proud of themselves!

You never see bias anywhere except when it comes to right wing news (FNC). Everything else is suspect but right on.

BubbleBliss wrote:I have yet to see a murderer be labeled a conservative when his crime is not politically motivated.

Again, there's noting wrong with tagging someone if it's factual. But to label everyone associated with it is wrong. Seriously, it'd be like me labeling every Obama supporter a Marxist. My WHOLE POINT is that if you're going to label one, then you had best label the other in all fairness.

BubbleBliss wrote:You also love the benefits you get from it.

How the gov't allows the IRS to hold so much power is beyond me. They can find an error on your tax return from 10 years ago, wait 5 more years to tell you, and then they can decide on what the interest rate is going to be. Unbelievable! That's criminal!

Makes me wonder how we got by before the federal income tax.

I never ever have said we should have no taxes. Yep, there are those who do, but a majority of conservatives will tell you that the tax code needs to be overhauled and simplified. There's far too many taxes on things that don't need to be taxed (i know... like what?).

That's my point; the IRS is so powerful that it's scary. I've been reading reports that if this HC bill passes and isn't found unconstitutional, there's going to be over 5,000 new IRS employees to make sure you have your insurance. If that's true, that's insane. But that's another subject.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:We were debating both, Nazis and Neo-Nazis. It all started with Dbl saying that if he wanted to read some books that I suggested (all of them not even 'leftists' books) he'd read the Communist Manifesto. I then said that if I wanted to read something from the right I'd read Mein Kampf. And from there the debate went from Nazis to Neo-Nazis.

Maybe you and him were talking about it but you never had me talking about the left/right thing on the neo's. That's the point i was driving. You may have had that discussion and i might have been in it (as far as the Nazi's of the past) but i never ever got into the modern day guys.

Well it wasn't really anything out of the ordinary for Dbl to overtake debates for both of you.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And terrorists forced those laws through?
That's like saying abortion bombers got their way if abortion is ever to become illegal. Unreal.

HAHAH!!! I never said that. My point (as usual) was the implementation of laws we have today that these extremists take to the hilt. Abortion bombers wouldn't have gotten their way because the abortion lobby hasn't succeeded in abortion laws except maybe the partial-birth law.... which is a sensible law no matter what one's beliefs are.

You'd never stop to think that these extremists have a point but just take it to an extreme?? It was common sense that forced certain laws, not an extremist agenda by some terrorist group.
Every extremist has a point, it's just that they take it way past that point and take it to an extreme. Most of the time, the point they have is what gets passed because everybody stands for it, for example animal rights.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well I guess then one can learn from Neo-Nazis, religious extremists, White Power groups, anti-immigration terrorist groups, etc. about Conservatism. Unbelievable!

You take so much of what i say and go the other way with it. That's the unbelievable part. The thing most uneducated people (uninformed) think of when they think of conservatism is religion and racism. Those are so yesterday. Today's conservatism (the real thing) is about smaller gov't, low taxes, enforcement of laws on the books. Conservatism of yesteryear is about racism and religion more than anything. That's what i think of when i read about cons of the early 1900's to the mid-1950's.

Bullshit. You're the one who calls extremist liberals communists, marxists, etc. as if that's any more modern than calling somebody a Neo-Nazi or a KKK member.
Yeah, I go the other way with it because you claim that one can learn about liberal politics from terrorist groups but one can't learn anything about conservative politics from terrorist groups.
Sure, Conservatism is about smaller gov't bla bla bla, but liberalism is about controling the people, taking their rights away and all that bullshit.

TexasBlue wrote:

Liberalism has been growing for decades and we're seeing it on our doorstep. You like it because you subscribe to it. "Progressive" taxation, lax immigration, bigger gov't, etc. Conservatism isn't growing in that regard. It actually has taken a step backward thanks to Bush and his bunch. But i guarantee you, it's going to come back with a vengeance due to this crop we have running the show now. More on this as this post unfolds (on other quotes).

And back to speculation and blowing up the bubbles while the average American doesn't benefit from any of it.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:One can argue that. If environmental extremists have success by having laws passed to protect wildlife (which is pushed by common sense, not extremist groups) then one can argue that abortion crazies have success by outlawing abortion after a certain stage of the pregnancy.

Are you actually suggesting that environmental and animal laws that are in place are extremist? I would be ashamed if I belonged to a party that didn't care about either one!

Yeah, but the abortion laws are upheld. The only exception is the partial birth abortion law. The USSC sided with the makers of that law and it stands. That means you can't terminate a baby that's is half out of the womb. It's a grisly procedure, imo.

Like I said, it's a common sense law, just like animal rights and environmental laws. However, those laws are supported by terrorists who are "supported" by the liberals so you think that these laws are because of terrorist activities. But certainly the abortion law isn't because that's just a grisly procedure. Unbelievable.

TexasBlue wrote:

But you're comparing extremists that blow up a clinic once every two or three years (or murder an abortion doc) to people who burn down an entire apartment complex or business development and cost thousands if not millions of dollars to whomever was at the root of it? Both are dispicable, imo.

And how often does that happen? Are you saying that leftist terrorism occurs more than rightist terrorism?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:No matter, it still didn't qualify the guy as left wing or right wing. It explained his trouble with the IRS which is obviously the main concern when somebody flies his plane into an IRS building.

A number of left wingers labeled the guy as a con and/or a TP'r. That was bullshit. One will never know. I never have seen (nor heard) anything on his past records indicating otherwise.

Yeah, columnists, people that give their opinions! These people do the same thing as Beck and O'Reilly, but it's okay for them to constantly point fingers at the other side and accuse the liberals of this and that but when somebody else does it, you cry bloody murder!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Right. Since it's always the Democratic Party that wants to ruin America, get the US closer to the terrorists, indoctrinate american children, brainwashes children from grade school all the way to Universities, and of course they want to take your pets, remember that, Tex? Give me a break. I hate how both parties try to play themselves of as the victims but always accuse the other party of doing so.

Many liberal policies are part of our problems. Don't go asking what they are. We've been down that road 20 times now. Liberalism is in our social policies far more than con ones. But the reverse can be said on economic issues.

I just ask myself how Europe can have so much more of these 'liberal' laws and still be as rich and economically successful even though those laws are in place.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, i remember the pet thing real well. I did a bunch of research on that bill. I was partly wrong on the issue originally. Other parts i was right on.

Like I said back then, just because the bill was proposed that way doesn't mean that anything one interprets from it is going to happen.
Why would they want to take your pet away anyways? It just doesn't make sense.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:What omissions? You are actually claiming that the media should put a political tag on every criminal, I can't believe it!

Yeah, they're finding news bias while dismissing the fact that they're bias themselves. They should be proud of themselves!

You never see bias anywhere except when it comes to right wing news (FNC). Everything else is suspect but right on.

Sure don't, since I've never 'admitted' that NBC is bias among other new outlets.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I have yet to see a murderer be labeled a conservative when his crime is not politically motivated.

Again, there's noting wrong with tagging someone if it's factual. But to label everyone associated with it is wrong. Seriously, it'd be like me labeling every Obama supporter a Marxist. My WHOLE POINT is that if you're going to label one, then you had best label the other in all fairness.

Yeah, but that's only if you label 1 murderer who wasn't politically motivated. Like I said, you can't compare the IRS bomber and the Professor because they're completely different crimes/motivations for them.

But IF they would label any murderer a Conservative, then they'd have to label any murderer with a political tag. I have yet to see this come up though!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:You also love the benefits you get from it.

How the gov't allows the IRS to hold so much power is beyond me. They can find an error on your tax return from 10 years ago, wait 5 more years to tell you, and then they can decide on what the interest rate is going to be. Unbelievable! That's criminal!

Makes me wonder how we got by before the federal income tax.

You mean when the government was spending little to nothing and before they had to pay for things such as an extensive military, homeland security, FBI, CIA, etc.?

TexasBlue wrote:

I never ever have said we should have no taxes. Yep, there are those who do, but a majority of conservatives will tell you that the tax code needs to be overhauled and simplified. There's far too many taxes on things that don't need to be taxed (i know... like what?).

I don't like paying taxes, but claiming that life would be better without taxes is something I don't agree with. Everybody enjoys benefits that they get from paying taxes, and that's how it's supposed to be. I think that if one would abolish taxes, the private sector would become way too powerful for the people's well being.
Not to mention that all the things that the Constitution mandates the government to pay for wouldn't be able to be paid for anymore.

TexasBlue wrote:

That's my point; the IRS is so powerful that it's scary. I've been reading reports that if this HC bill passes and isn't found unconstitutional, there's going to be over 5,000 new IRS employees to make sure you have your insurance. If that's true, that's insane. But that's another subject.

Well, it seems like nobody likes the IRS but nobody is doing anything about it. Politicians are your represenative, so if you don't like something, tell them and if enough people tell them the same thing, it's their obligation to take care of that!

I'm not going to parse each quote. I'll address it one by one.......

First, Dbl doesn't speak for me. If he took over a debate, then he took over. If he brought up points that i was going to post.... why post them again?

Second, i have no issue on environmental protections for the most part. You just can't go plow down 300 acres of trees just because you want to build something. I support certain animal rights. I don't support California's laws on your dog being an equal to you. I do support a ban on whale hunting. I do support not importing species like fish that would cause massive aquatic damage (like the Lion fish is doing off the east coast). I don't support idiots who don't want cows made into hamburger meat.

Third, you can't find me calling liberals Marxists or communists anywhere. You can't. I dare you to find a quote where i've labeled all liberals as such. You can't. If you find me tagging an individual, then that's different. Your statement is putting words into my mouth of things i've never said or implied. The reason i don't do that is the same as when i get irritated when lefty's label all conservatives as rich, religious or war mongers. It just isn't true. And modern day liberalism is about control. Control means more gov't. More gov't means more dependence and laws which in turn restrict things for the individual. That's a hallmark of modern day liberalism. Notice i don't tag Democrats with that. Liberalism! Conservatism is supposed to be about personal rights and small gov't. It's why the GOP has taken so much heat from their own.... because they abandoned it. We got 8 years of big gov't Republicans. It's why i left.

Fourth, you're trying to equate abortion opponents to ELF or ALF. There's no comparison. Unbelievable.

Fifth, i never said one side commits more "terrorism" than the other. You implied that i think that.

Sixth, if a columnist or opinionist backs up his statements with facts, then what's the problem? Just because you don't agree with it is the problem. Ya know... it just hit me! You people make more bones about O'Reilly or Beck than the right makes about Olbermann. The way i see it is that the left feels more threatened by these other guys because they're telling you what's going on. Of course, i know where this is going to lead....

Seventh, this ain't Europe. This is America. Another thing, laws you guys have have to be voted on to pass here. Our gov't can't say say "this is the way it is. Deal with it, people." If it doesn't go thru congress, then it's moot pint to bring up.

Eighth, i never said they were going to take your pet away. What i was reading was talking about not allowing you to buy a bird that wasn't native to America... like my cockatiels. It also talked about forbidding one from breeding them. Bwah. One of my cockateils is the baby of my other two.

Ninth, taxes were paid for by a consumption tax. That's how 9 states do their state taxes right now. The same could apply to this gov't. Then our gov't relied on tariffs on imports. That wouldn't work now. A consumption tax would. That or a flat rate of 17%. No deductions for the rich on that plan. Btw, when Reagan took office, the highest tax rate was 50%. Before JFK, it was 90%.

Tenth, you talk about people saying life would be better without taxes. There's not one conservative that says that (much to your chagrin). That's a made up implication. Find that one.

Eleventh, talking to a politician about reining in the IRS or abolishing it would be futile. They're all in love with the dough that the IRS collects. I believe that the IRS should be eliminated and the Fair Tax law be implemented.

TexasBlue wrote:I'm not going to parse each quote. I'll address it one by one.......

First, Dbl doesn't speak for me. If he took over a debate, then he took over. If he brought up points that i was going to post.... why post them again?

Well how am I going to know what points are yours and his if you don't further participate in the debate?

TexasBlue wrote:

Second, i have no issue on environmental protections for the most part. You just can't go plow down 300 acres of trees just because you want to build something. I support certain animal rights. I don't support California's laws on your dog being an equal to you. I do support a ban on whale hunting. I do support not importing species like fish that would cause massive aquatic damage (like the Lion fish is doing off the east coast). I don't support idiots who don't want cows made into hamburger meat.

Like I said, those are common sense laws. Saying that they were passed because of extreme lefitsts or the fact that Liberals support them is nonsense.

TexasBlue wrote:

Third, you can't find me calling liberals Marxists or communists anywhere. You can't. I dare you to find a quote where i've labeled all liberals as such. You can't. If you find me tagging an individual, then that's different. Your statement is putting words into my mouth of things i've never said or implied. The reason i don't do that is the same as when i get irritated when lefty's label all conservatives as rich, religious or war mongers. It just isn't true. And modern day liberalism is about control. Control means more gov't. More gov't means more dependence and laws which in turn restrict things for the individual. That's a hallmark of modern day liberalism. Notice i don't tag Democrats with that. Liberalism! Conservatism is supposed to be about personal rights and small gov't. It's why the GOP has taken so much heat from their own.... because they abandoned it. We got 8 years of big gov't Republicans. It's why i left.

You've pointed out more than once that Obama and his lot are Socialist in comparison to the US Constitution.

It's not about control, it's about finding the balance between control and freedom. The less control the government has, the more control the private sector has, as the past has proven. And I would rather have somebody I ELECT to have some power over me than somebody I don't elect.

TexasBlue wrote:

Fourth, you're trying to equate abortion opponents to ELF or ALF. There's no comparison. Unbelievable.

No, I equate abortion bombers aka terrorists with ELF/ALF who are ALSO terrorists. Never once did I lump in ALL abortion opponents.

TexasBlue wrote:

Fifth, i never said one side commits more "terrorism" than the other. You implied that i think that.

Well it sounds a lot like it when you point out all the leftist terrorist groups and when I point out the KKK and Neo-Nazis you say that that's old school and that modern conservatism doesn't stand for that.

TexasBlue wrote:

Sixth, if a columnist or opinionist backs up his statements with facts, then what's the problem? Just because you don't agree with it is the problem. Ya know... it just hit me! You people make more bones about O'Reilly or Beck than the right makes about Olbermann. The way i see it is that the left feels more threatened by these other guys because they're telling you what's going on. Of course, i know where this is going to lead....

Because those facts are subjective a lot of the time. Not to mention that these people exaggerate beyond belief, for example the ones that say that Obama is going to kill off all the old people or that the TP is a terrorist party in the making, etc. It's all just for the ratings. The more outrageous your claims/theories are, the more people will be interested in them.
Well let's see. The left has Olbermann whereas the right has O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, and the list goes on. So there's not much room to make a fuss about Olbermann about when you have 10 times the amount of people just like Olbermann on your side, is there?

TexasBlue wrote:

Seventh, this ain't Europe. This is America. Another thing, laws you guys have have to be voted on to pass here. Our gov't can't say say "this is the way it is. Deal with it, people." If it doesn't go thru congress, then it's moot pint to bring up.

Here you go again. We're not debating whether laws like that are legal in this country, we're debating whether they drive up prices or not and Europe clearly shows that these laws do NOT drive up prices.

TexasBlue wrote:

Eighth, i never said they were going to take your pet away. What i was reading was talking about not allowing you to buy a bird that wasn't native to America... like my cockatiels. It also talked about forbidding one from breeding them. Bwah. One of my cockateils is the baby of my other two.

If I remember correctly, the title of the thread you posted this 'bill' in was titled something like "Now they're going after your pets".
And I remember very clearly that you were concerned about them taking away your cockateils because you could potentially breed them.

TexasBlue wrote:

Ninth, taxes were paid for by a consumption tax. That's how 9 states do their state taxes right now. The same could apply to this gov't. Then our gov't relied on tariffs on imports. That wouldn't work now. A consumption tax would. That or a flat rate of 17%. No deductions for the rich on that plan. Btw, when Reagan took office, the highest tax rate was 50%. Before JFK, it was 90%.

You think a flat rate tax of 17% would bring in enough money to pay for everything the gov't is paying for now?

TexasBlue wrote:

Tenth, you talk about people saying life would be better without taxes. There's not one conservative that says that (much to your chagrin). That's a made up implication. Find that one.

"TexasBlue wrote:

I never ever have said we should have no taxes. Yep, there are those who do, but a majority of conservatives will tell you that the tax code needs to be overhauled and simplified. There's far too many taxes on things that don't need to be taxed (i know... like what?). "

TexasBlue wrote:

Eleventh, talking to a politician about reining in the IRS or abolishing it would be futile. They're all in love with the dough that the IRS collects. I believe that the IRS should be eliminated and the Fair Tax law be implemented.

Ha! And conservatives make a stink about the coal companies losing jobs yet you'd be more than happy to put thousands of IRS employees out on the streets. Unbelievable.

If someone takes over a debate with points i was going to bring up, then why contribute further? But if you debate him on neo-nazi's and him trying to say that they're socialist left-wingers, then that's one between you two. Basically, if you want to know where i stand on an issue, ask me. I'll answer you.

I've never said Bama was a socialist. I'll tell you he's the most left wing president we've had since Roosevelt. By European standards, he's probably not. Matt and i discussed that once. He stipulates that he's centrist by Euro standards. That's fine. But by our standards, he's not centrist. Bill Clinton was centrist and was good at being centrist. My Dem representative is a centrist and walks that walk.

I can choose to not buy a corporations product. I can choose to not work for any given corporation. I can't choose to not obey laws that a controlling politician puts forth into law. This is the difference between you and i. I don't want gov't controlling my life beyond it's constitutional role. It's just a conservative/liberal difference. There's noting i can say or do to sway you or make you understand. We will disagree on this issue till we die.

The KKK and/or Neo-Nazi's are closely watched by authorities.. 90% of Americans (if not more) shun them and all they stand for.

If they (Olbermann, Beck, et al) put forth opinions and those opinions are bunk, they'll be exposed quickly. It doesn't matter which side does it. The opposition will debunk it quickly. If they put forth pure documented facts, then there's noting one can say to rebut it.

Yeah, i was concerned about my pets. They're mine. They were born here. They weren't imported. They're not a f*cked up species. The bill had plenty of stuff in it that i was concerned with. I even went back and read it again while i was replying to you. There's plenty to not like about that bill. If one wants to include alligators or Boa Constrictors in it, then i'd be in agreement. Nobody needs those for pets.

A flat rate tax of 17% would bring in enough money. There would be no deductions that the rich could use. Nobody would get deductions. Deductions are what keeps money out of gov't hands. My uncle's farm makes over $400,000 a year. He pays no taxes. None! His deductions bring him to zero. Under a 17% plan, he'd pay taxes.

TexasBlue wrote:If someone takes over a debate with points i was going to bring up, then why contribute further? But if you debate him on neo-nazi's and him trying to say that they're socialist left-wingers, then that's one between you two. Basically, if you want to know where i stand on an issue, ask me. I'll answer you.

Well if you let him take over, how am I supposed to know when you agree with him and when you don't agree with him? But alright, I see how you stand on the issue and I apologize for accusing you of something you're not.

TexasBlue wrote:

I've never said Bama was a socialist. I'll tell you he's the most left wing president we've had since Roosevelt. By European standards, he's probably not. Matt and i discussed that once. He stipulates that he's centrist by Euro standards. That's fine. But by our standards, he's not centrist. Bill Clinton was centrist and was good at being centrist. My Dem representative is a centrist and walks that walk.

But being centrist and a flat out Socialst are 2 completely different things. Hell, even being a leftist and a Socialist are 2 different things. This is what I don't like, it's only black or white, there is no in between. While Obama is certainly no centrist, he's not a Socialist in any regard. The definition of Socialist doesn't change according to ones constitution, it is only the term 'leftist' or anything of that sort that changes depending on the country.

TexasBlue wrote:

I can choose to not buy a corporations product. I can choose to not work for any given corporation. I can't choose to not obey laws that a controlling politician puts forth into law. This is the difference between you and i. I don't want gov't controlling my life beyond it's constitutional role. It's just a conservative/liberal difference. There's noting i can say or do to sway you or make you understand. We will disagree on this issue till we die.

And that's exactly where the problem lies. Sometimes you CANNOT decide not to buy a corporation's product. Oil & Gas for example, also College tuition, insurance, and all other goods/services necessary to live in this world.

I don't want the government controlling my life, I just want them to ensure my freedom for corporations and give me alternatives to overpriced or unreachable corporate services. This doesn't mean driving corporations out of business, only offering an alternative to their service, for example public transportation.

TexasBlue wrote:

The KKK and/or Neo-Nazi's are closely watched by authorities.. 90% of Americans (if not more) shun them and all they stand for.

As are all terrorist groups and gangs, left or right.

TexasBlue wrote:

If they (Olbermann, Beck, et al) put forth opinions and those opinions are bunk, they'll be exposed quickly. It doesn't matter which side does it. The opposition will debunk it quickly. If they put forth pure documented facts, then there's noting one can say to rebut it.

And you're okay with that? The problem is that while Beck may put forth some false facts/opinion, Democrats expose this opinion as false, but a large amount of Beck listeners/watchers will never know the fact that his facts have been proven wrong because they don't pay attention to Democrat news or still plain believe Beck even if the Dems have solid proof. This goes for both sides.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, i was concerned about my pets. They're mine. They were born here. They weren't imported. They're not a f*cked up species. The bill had plenty of stuff in it that i was concerned with. I even went back and read it again while i was replying to you. There's plenty to not like about that bill. If one wants to include alligators or Boa Constrictors in it, then i'd be in agreement. Nobody needs those for pets.

Well, it was the perfect example of exaggeration and scare tactics.

TexasBlue wrote:
A flat rate tax of 17% would bring in enough money. There would be no deductions that the rich could use. Nobody would get deductions. Deductions are what keeps money out of gov't hands. My uncle's farm makes over $400,000 a year. He pays no taxes. None! His deductions bring him to zero. Under a 17% plan, he'd pay taxes.

I doubt that very much. Think about how much the middle class pays in taxes along, then add to that the lower class and the upper class. That would never be replaced by a flat 17% tax across the board.

I don't let someone take over for me. If they jump in and reply and make points i was going to make, it makes no sense to repeat it. If this happens in the future and you think you want clarification from me on how i stand... just ask.

Obama is no centrist. He's no socialist in certain terms. Is he Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro? Hell no. Not even close. Is he a social democrat? Probably. More so that than anything else. You have to remember, Seb, that this country is a center-right country. A center-right American will tolerate certain left wing ideas (Clinton). In other cases, they don't tolerate far-right sh!t. That's why Bush failed with his own voters.

The gas/oil monopoly is insane in this country. O'Reilly railed on that 3 or 4 years ago. He sided with the left big timer on that (gas prices going thru the roof). College is somewhat the same but not quite. I can't really explain that.

I don't want the government controlling my life, I just want them to ensure my freedom for corporations and give me alternatives to overpriced or unreachable corporate services. This doesn't mean driving corporations out of business, only offering an alternative to their service, for example public transportation.

I agree with you. Surprise!

If Beck offers up his opinion or, better yet, a point on something and shows you irrefutable facts, then what? He exposed Van Jones big time. He did it by posting videos of the guy. He posted audio of the guy. He posted records of his past. There was no bullshit on that. Not even the left could spin it the other way.

I doubt that very much. Think about how much the middle class pays in taxes along, then add to that the lower class and the upper class. That would never be replaced by a flat 17% tax across the board.

You better crunch the numbers then. I'll do it for you after this week is over with. I'll start another thread on this point. I want t5o wait so i can put time into it and i don't have time right now unless i want to do it half-assed. But the fact remains.... my uncle isn't rich by any means. That figure is his business income. But if he pays absolutely no taxes after all his deductions. I pay more taxes than he does.

TexasBlue wrote:I don't let someone take over for me. If they jump in and reply and make points i was going to make, it makes no sense to repeat it. If this happens in the future and you think you want clarification from me on how i stand... just ask.

Well what I'm saying is that I understand that you don't repeat points somebody else already made for you, but then you've gotta clarify when that person makes a point you don't agree with.

TexasBlue wrote:

Obama is no centrist. He's no socialist in certain terms. Is he Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro? Hell no. Not even close. Is he a social democrat? Probably. More so that than anything else. You have to remember, Seb, that this country is a center-right country. A center-right American will tolerate certain left wing ideas (Clinton). In other cases, they don't tolerate far-right sh!t. That's why Bush failed with his own voters.

Socialism is NOT the same thing as Communism, Tex, and Castro is a Communist.
I realise that the term liberal and conservative varies from country to country, but what I was saying is that the definition of Socialism and Communism does not change. In order to be a Socialist or Communist, you have to do certain things in office and so far, I've seen nothing done that'll classify Obama as either one. Once again, it's not all black and white. I wouldn't even call Obama a Social Democrat.

TexasBlue wrote:

The gas/oil monopoly is insane in this country. O'Reilly railed on that 3 or 4 years ago. He sided with the left big timer on that (gas prices going thru the roof). College is somewhat the same but not quite. I can't really explain that.

College is worse than gas and oil because there is a little competition in the gas and oil business but to a lot of people there is almost no competition of College education.

TexasBlue wrote:

I don't want the government controlling my life, I just want them to ensure my freedom for corporations and give me alternatives to overpriced or unreachable corporate services. This doesn't mean driving corporations out of business, only offering an alternative to their service, for example public transportation.

I agree with you. Surprise!

TexasBlue wrote:

If Beck offers up his opinion or, better yet, a point on something and shows you irrefutable facts, then what? He exposed Van Jones big time. He did it by posting videos of the guy. He posted audio of the guy. He posted records of his past. There was no bullshit on that. Not even the left could spin it the other way.

To me, that doesn't make it better that he doesn't always use solid facts on his show. Not to mention the fact that he's very quiet when it comes to conservatives and pointing out their faults.

TexasBlue wrote:

I doubt that very much. Think about how much the middle class pays in taxes along, then add to that the lower class and the upper class. That would never be replaced by a flat 17% tax across the board.

You better crunch the numbers then. I'll do it for you after this week is over with. I'll start another thread on this point. I want t5o wait so i can put time into it and i don't have time right now unless i want to do it half-assed. But the fact remains.... my uncle isn't rich by any means. That figure is his business income. But if he pays absolutely no taxes after all his deductions. I pay more taxes than he does.

Well your uncle is an exception because he's an ethanol farmer, they get tax breaks in order to get more people to farm for ethanol production.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well what I'm saying is that I understand that you don't repeat points somebody else already made for you, but then you've gotta clarify when that person makes a point you don't agree with.

Sometimes it just fun watching two people beat each other up with their own ideological redundancy.

BubbleBliss wrote:Socialism is NOT the same thing as Communism, Tex, and Castro is a Communist.
I realise that the term liberal and conservative varies from country to country, but what I was saying is that the definition of Socialism and Communism does not change. In order to be a Socialist or Communist, you have to do certain things in office and so far, I've seen nothing done that'll classify Obama as either one. Once again, it's not all black and white. I wouldn't even call Obama a Social Democrat.

Never said it was. Spain has a socialist president. That's the difference. I know what the difference between socialism and communism is. I know Castro is communist. He calls his gov't socialist though. Chavez is a hard-core socialist. He's a raindrop away from communism.

Redistribution of income is socialist.

BubbleBliss wrote:College is worse than gas and oil because there is a little competition in the gas and oil business but to a lot of people there is almost no competition of College education.

Yeah, but nobody is going after the colleges themselves like they do with the oil barons. They just b!tch about the politics.

BubbleBliss wrote:

You like that smiley, huh? lol

BubbleBliss wrote:To me, that doesn't make it better that he doesn't always use solid facts on his show. Not to mention the fact that he's very quiet when it comes to conservatives and pointing out their faults.

This here is what irritates me. You complain that he's quiet about cons and their faults but at the same time you don't watch him. That's insane. I watched him when Bush was president and he hammered the piss out of him and the GOP. But the left wingers won't post that stuff. It'd make them look stupid on down the road.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well your uncle is an exception because he's an ethanol farmer, they get tax breaks in order to get more people to farm for ethanol production.

He's not an ethanol farmer. He grows corn, beans and wheat. He sells his product to Cenex. Cenex does many things with his product. Some corn goes to Ethanol and some doesn't. But you avoid the point; he makes a ton of money yet pays no taxes due to his deductions. If he had to pay the flat 17% tax, he'd have no deductions and would have to pay in $68,000 (give or take) each year in tax to the feds.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well what I'm saying is that I understand that you don't repeat points somebody else already made for you, but then you've gotta clarify when that person makes a point you don't agree with.

Sometimes it just fun watching two people beat each other up with their own ideological redundancy.

haha Yup, I enjoyed watching you and Tgas go head to head the other day on SP.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Socialism is NOT the same thing as Communism, Tex, and Castro is a Communist.
I realise that the term liberal and conservative varies from country to country, but what I was saying is that the definition of Socialism and Communism does not change. In order to be a Socialist or Communist, you have to do certain things in office and so far, I've seen nothing done that'll classify Obama as either one. Once again, it's not all black and white. I wouldn't even call Obama a Social Democrat.

Never said it was. Spain has a socialist president. That's the difference. I know what the difference between socialism and communism is. I know Castro is communist. He calls his gov't socialist though. Chavez is a hard-core socialist. He's a raindrop away from communism.

Well I was just saying since you said that Obama is no Fidel/Chavez. Castro calls his government a lot of things, he's gone and turned his country into exactly what him and Che were fighting against. Primary example of how corrupting power is! Marx himself was for a Democratic Communist government, not the kind of government you saw/see in the Soviet Union, N. Korea and Cuba. Chavez has improved certain aspects of Venezualan life and the people of Venezuela support him very much, even though his whole military argument with Columbia is silly and useless.

TexasBlue wrote:

Redistribution of income is socialist.

Well to a certain degree, redistribution of income is only fair, IMO.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:College is worse than gas and oil because there is a little competition in the gas and oil business but to a lot of people there is almost no competition of College education.

Yeah, but nobody is going after the colleges themselves like they do with the oil barons. They just b!tch about the politics.

Yup, but that's something that needs to be fixed. The College system here needs work. It can't be that a large amount of students graduate with $50,000-$100,000 worth of debt and start working jobs that will pay them $30,000-$50,000 a year.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:

You like that smiley, huh? lol

When it fits, it fits!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:To me, that doesn't make it better that he doesn't always use solid facts on his show. Not to mention the fact that he's very quiet when it comes to conservatives and pointing out their faults.

This here is what irritates me. You complain that he's quiet about cons and their faults but at the same time you don't watch him. That's insane. I watched him when Bush was president and he hammered the piss out of him and the GOP. But the left wingers won't post that stuff. It'd make them look stupid on down the road.

Now hold on. Conservatives constantly blast Bush as a RINO and claim that he's not conservative enough. The same is happening to McCain right now. And most commentators tend to subscribe to hardcore conservatism a la Palin, not the more centrist approach that McCain and Bush had.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well your uncle is an exception because he's an ethanol farmer, they get tax breaks in order to get more people to farm for ethanol production.

He's not an ethanol farmer. He grows corn, beans and wheat. He sells his product to Cenex. Cenex does many things with his product. Some corn goes to Ethanol and some doesn't. But you avoid the point; he makes a ton of money yet pays no taxes due to his deductions. If he had to pay the flat 17% tax, he'd have no deductions and would have to pay in $68,000 (give or take) each year in tax to the feds.

Oh, I thought I remembered you telling me he was an ethanol farmer.
But didn't you say that his $400,000 is before he pays of workers, that's it's just the net income? Because then that wouldn't be income tax but corporate tax.

BubbleBliss wrote:haha Yup, I enjoyed watching you and Tgas go head to head the other day on SP.

And he bailed on the debate.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well I was just saying since you said that Obama is no Fidel/Chavez. Castro calls his government a lot of things, he's gone and turned his country into exactly what him and Che were fighting against. Primary example of how corrupting power is! Marx himself was for a Democratic Communist government, not the kind of government you saw/see in the Soviet Union, N. Korea and Cuba. Chavez has improved certain aspects of Venezualan life and the people of Venezuela support him very much, even though his whole military argument with Columbia is silly and useless.

Chavez isn't that popular anymore. He's schmoozing with Iran and Cuba. That tells one plenty right there.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well to a certain degree, redistribution of income is only fair, IMO.

That's one thing i will vehemently disagree with you and the left on at any time.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yup, but that's something that needs to be fixed. The College system here needs work. It can't be that a large amount of students graduate with $50,000-$100,000 worth of debt and start working jobs that will pay them $30,000-$50,000 a year.

What's your debt going to be in relation to your projected income down the road? I don't buy into those numbers.

BubbleBliss wrote:Now hold on. Conservatives constantly blast Bush as a RINO and claim that he's not conservative enough. The same is happening to McCain right now. And most commentators tend to subscribe to hardcore conservatism a la Palin, not the more centrist approach that McCain and Bush had.

Now Bush is a centrist? HAHAHAHA!!! He was a neo-con, plain and simple.

There's a difference between being a sell-out and a conservative. There's ideals that the right has that are common sense issues. When they get into the abortion bullshit, i'm out. Same with religion. But fiscal issues is what carries the conservatives. Bush wasn't fiscally responsible at all. Bama is even worse. It sunk Bush and will sink Bama.

BubbleBliss wrote:Oh, I thought I remembered you telling me he was an ethanol farmer.

No such thing. Farmers sell their corn to a company like Cenex here in Minn and they do what they do with it. Some corn goes to ethanol plants. Some goes to feeding cattle, etc. There's many uses for it.

BubbleBliss wrote:But didn't you say that his $400,000 is before he pays of workers, that's it's just the net income? Because then that wouldn't be income tax but corporate tax.

He has no workers. He's a one-man operation. He has no livestock. He used to have a pig farm at one time. But he deals in agriculture exclusively. His $400,000 is the income of his business. His business pays NO taxes. He pays no taxes on his personal income either. In fact, 2 years ago, he got back $10,000. He didn't explain what that was but he got back money even after paying no taxes. It's all about how many deductions you can claim. A flat tax wouldn't have any deductions. He'd have to pay in. Right now, he doesn't. A flat tax would make more wealth. The gov't would get more revenue. It's so asinine as to why they won't do it. Dbl is a pusher of the Fair Tax. I can't remember the details but it's also a good thing.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:haha Yup, I enjoyed watching you and Tgas go head to head the other day on SP.

And he bailed on the debate.

He got in the last post, Tex.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well I was just saying since you said that Obama is no Fidel/Chavez. Castro calls his government a lot of things, he's gone and turned his country into exactly what him and Che were fighting against. Primary example of how corrupting power is! Marx himself was for a Democratic Communist government, not the kind of government you saw/see in the Soviet Union, N. Korea and Cuba. Chavez has improved certain aspects of Venezualan life and the people of Venezuela support him very much, even though his whole military argument with Columbia is silly and useless.

Chavez isn't that popular anymore. He's schmoozing with Iran and Cuba. That tells one plenty right there.

Yeah, he's making allies on the other side since most Latin American countries are pro-America and he's not. He's still popular with his people though, but some of that is probably due to media censorship.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well to a certain degree, redistribution of income is only fair, IMO.

That's one thing i will vehemently disagree with you and the left on at any time.

Well to me it's a moral issue, really. It's just a cultural/moral difference, I guess. A lot of Conservatives have no problem seeing the average American family suffer financially while the insurance CEO makes 100x as much as a school teacher and doesn't provide them with the service he promised them, but still collects their premiums.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yup, but that's something that needs to be fixed. The College system here needs work. It can't be that a large amount of students graduate with $50,000-$100,000 worth of debt and start working jobs that will pay them $30,000-$50,000 a year.

What's your debt going to be in relation to your projected income down the road? I don't buy into those numbers.

I pay about $2,000 a semester.
At UK, it's a little more than twice that for the semester. If you add boarding and food to that, it'll become about $6,000 a semester. So for a 4 year degree, that's $48,000. Some people get scholarships, some people have their parents for it, and some people only take out a loan for part of that money. But the fact remains that with a 4 year degree, you could potentially have $48,000 worth of debt and after you graduate, you'll make about $27,000 a year as a teacher or about $40,000 as an engineer. But nowadays, you need a Masters degree in pretty much every field of work. As an engineer, you need a masters if you want to carry any kind of responsibility at work.

This table shows you the average debt depending on your college and other things. Remember, this is only tuition and doesn't include boarding and living expenses.

http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12610

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Now hold on. Conservatives constantly blast Bush as a RINO and claim that he's not conservative enough. The same is happening to McCain right now. And most commentators tend to subscribe to hardcore conservatism a la Palin, not the more centrist approach that McCain and Bush had.

Now Bush is a centrist? HAHAHAHA!!! He was a neo-con, plain and simple.

No, but he's more of a centrist than Palin or any other hardcore Conservative.

TexasBlue wrote:

There's a difference between being a sell-out and a conservative. There's ideals that the right has that are common sense issues. When they get into the abortion bullshit, i'm out. Same with religion. But fiscal issues is what carries the conservatives. Bush wasn't fiscally responsible at all. Bama is even worse. It sunk Bush and will sink Bama.

The point of the 2 party system is for the 2 parties to come together, it's not for 1 party to impose its extreme will on the other, as you see now with Obama. This is provided, of course, the public didn't vote for that to happen.
Extremes don't work. Extreme Socialism/Communism doesn't work just like extreme Capitalism doesn't work. It's the balance that will guarantee success of everybody.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Oh, I thought I remembered you telling me he was an ethanol farmer.

No such thing. Farmers sell their corn to a company like Cenex here in Minn and they do what they do with it. Some corn goes to ethanol plants. Some goes to feeding cattle, etc. There's many uses for it.

Yeah, but he's considered an ethanol farmer. He sells his corn to Cenex, the main producer of ethanol, so he's considered an ethanol farmer.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:But didn't you say that his $400,000 is before he pays of workers, that's it's just the net income? Because then that wouldn't be income tax but corporate tax.

He has no workers. He's a one-man operation. He has no livestock. He used to have a pig farm at one time. But he deals in agriculture exclusively. His $400,000 is the income of his business. His business pays NO taxes. He pays no taxes on his personal income either. In fact, 2 years ago, he got back $10,000. He didn't explain what that was but he got back money even after paying no taxes. It's all about how many deductions you can claim. A flat tax wouldn't have any deductions. He'd have to pay in. Right now, he doesn't. A flat tax would make more wealth. The gov't would get more revenue. It's so asinine as to why they won't do it. Dbl is a pusher of the Fair Tax. I can't remember the details but it's also a good thing.

What kind fo things does he deduct?
You could just take away some of the deductions instead of overhauling the whole tax system. My mom works at H&R Block during Tax season and she sees people walking out with thousands of dollars in tax deductions and the more money they make, the more they can deduct. Children, Cars, Furniture, Gas, Mileage, etc.

BubbleBliss wrote:He got in the last post, Tex.

What i meant is that he never made a good case for his viewpoint. My viewpoint is almost impossible to argue.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, he's making allies on the other side since most Latin American countries are pro-America and he's not. He's still popular with his people though, but some of that is probably due to media censorship.

You'll never know what people really think. His gov't will twist the polls. He's taken more freedoms in the last 4 years than even i thought he would. He arrested another t.v. station owner yesterday. Of course, the guy was critical of Chavez. Can't have that.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well to me it's a moral issue, really. It's just a cultural/moral difference, I guess. A lot of Conservatives have no problem seeing the average American family suffer financially while the insurance CEO makes 100x as much as a school teacher and doesn't provide them with the service he promised them, but still collects their premiums.

Who sets the pay of a CEO? The company board and it's membership... whom are elected by stockholders. They have to report their stuff to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and abide by it's regulations. As a stockholder, you can get rid of members who appoint CEO's that aren't worth a sh!t. It's funny how people make beans about this but rarely b!tch about athletes making comparable pay.

Two, who decides what a teacher makes? Plus, teachers know what they're in for going into the job.

Three, it isn't constitutional for the gov't to make a law on how much someone can make. They can tax it, but not regulate it.

BubbleBliss wrote:I pay about $2,000 a semester.
At UK, it's a little more than twice that for the semester. If you add boarding and food to that, it'll become about $6,000 a semester. So for a 4 year degree, that's $48,000. Some people get scholarships, some people have their parents for it, and some people only take out a loan for part of that money. But the fact remains that with a 4 year degree, you could potentially have $48,000 worth of debt and after you graduate, you'll make about $27,000 a year as a teacher or about $40,000 as an engineer. But nowadays, you need a Masters degree in pretty much every field of work. As an engineer, you need a masters if you want to carry any kind of responsibility at work.

This table shows you the average debt depending on your college and other things. Remember, this is only tuition and doesn't include boarding and living expenses.

http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12610

A person buys a car for $30,000 and has it paid for in 6 years max (sooner in other cases). You're making it sound like someone who has that amount of money tied up is never going to pay it off. If you were talking about an associates degree, i'd side with you.

How do you plan on lowering these costs, Senator Bubbles? I'm all ears.

BubbleBliss wrote:No, but he's more of a centrist than Palin or any other hardcore Conservative.

Bwah.

BubbleBliss wrote:The point of the 2 party system is for the 2 parties to come together, it's not for 1 party to impose its extreme will on the other, as you see now with Obama. This is provided, of course, the public didn't vote for that to happen.
Extremes don't work. Extreme Socialism/Communism doesn't work just like extreme Capitalism doesn't work. It's the balance that will guarantee success of everybody.

I understand all that. So what makes Palin extreme? What makes the GOP extreme?

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, but he's considered an ethanol farmer. He sells his corn to Cenex, the main producer of ethanol, so he's considered an ethanol farmer.

He's an ag farmer. He's not classified as what you said. You can make that assumption. Cenex does more with corn than just produce ethanol.

BubbleBliss wrote:What kind fo things does he deduct?
You could just take away some of the deductions instead of overhauling the whole tax system. My mom works at H&R Block during Tax season and she sees people walking out with thousands of dollars in tax deductions and the more money they make, the more they can deduct. Children, Cars, Furniture, Gas, Mileage, etc.

Anything he can deduct for the business. You should know this. Hell, he buys a new pickup every year. It's a business deduction. His fuel at home is deducted.

Yep, you can deduct a lot of sh!t even as a private individual. Kids, house, furniture... maybe even the wife.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:He got in the last post, Tex.

What i meant is that he never made a good case for his viewpoint. My viewpoint is almost impossible to argue.

Seems to me like he has a good argument in his last post...

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, he's making allies on the other side since most Latin American countries are pro-America and he's not. He's still popular with his people though, but some of that is probably due to media censorship.

You'll never know what people really think. His gov't will twist the polls. He's taken more freedoms in the last 4 years than even i thought he would. He arrested another t.v. station owner yesterday. Of course, the guy was critical of Chavez. Can't have that.

Yeah, but general attitude does show by people waving Venezuelan and Cuban flags together and what not. The power has obviously gone to his head.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well to me it's a moral issue, really. It's just a cultural/moral difference, I guess. A lot of Conservatives have no problem seeing the average American family suffer financially while the insurance CEO makes 100x as much as a school teacher and doesn't provide them with the service he promised them, but still collects their premiums.

Who sets the pay of a CEO? The company board and it's membership... whom are elected by stockholders. They have to report their stuff to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and abide by it's regulations. As a stockholder, you can get rid of members who appoint CEO's that aren't worth a sh!t. It's funny how people make beans about this but rarely b!tch about athletes making comparable pay.

That's because athletes don't provide the average American citizen with an absolutely necessary service or good like insurance or oil companies.
Athletes also make money off of people who can choose to purchase something, unlike people who have to purchase insurance or Oil.
The 2 just aren't comparable!

TexasBlue wrote:

Two, who decides what a teacher makes? Plus, teachers know what they're in for going into the job.

And that's a reason to pay them nothing? What about cops? If everybody thought the way you do, we wouldn't have any teachers or cops or anything that doesn't pay very much.

TexasBlue wrote:

Three, it isn't constitutional for the gov't to make a law on how much someone can make. They can tax it, but not regulate it.

Well we're talking about financial security nets issued by the government here, not regulating income.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I pay about $2,000 a semester.
At UK, it's a little more than twice that for the semester. If you add boarding and food to that, it'll become about $6,000 a semester. So for a 4 year degree, that's $48,000. Some people get scholarships, some people have their parents for it, and some people only take out a loan for part of that money. But the fact remains that with a 4 year degree, you could potentially have $48,000 worth of debt and after you graduate, you'll make about $27,000 a year as a teacher or about $40,000 as an engineer. But nowadays, you need a Masters degree in pretty much every field of work. As an engineer, you need a masters if you want to carry any kind of responsibility at work.

This table shows you the average debt depending on your college and other things. Remember, this is only tuition and doesn't include boarding and living expenses.

http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12610

A person buys a car for $30,000 and has it paid for in 6 years max (sooner in other cases). You're making it sound like someone who has that amount of money tied up is never going to pay it off. If you were talking about an associates degree, i'd side with you.

Why would you side with me on an associate degree, that's only 2 years. An associate degree also doesn't really mean squat nowadays unless you want to go into fields like nursing, automotive, criminal justice (and even that is starting to require a 4 year degree), and other low paying jobs.
That person who bought the car has been able to save his/her money without having to pay off student debts!

TexasBlue wrote:

How do you plan on lowering these costs, Senator Bubbles? I'm all ears.

Well a main reason why tuition has gone up recently is because state funding has slowly been cut. KY for example was going to slice the budget across the board, meaning that they were going to cut funding for the Kentucky Community College System just like they were cutting funding for UK. KCTCS is heavily reliant on state funding to keep tuition down whereas UK is not. Luckily, an online petition made the state change its mind and it did not cut KCTCS funding as much as it did UK funding.

Also the fact that the Dean/President of a University makes several million a year is just unacceptable to me. They carry responsibility, but not enough to make millions a year. Of course their salaries don't go down when our tuition goes up. So if I was going to provide them with funding, I would negotiate with the President and higher staff on some of those ridiculous wages. It just can't be that students are graduating with so much debt while the President of the school makes money like he owns a large corporation.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:No, but he's more of a centrist than Palin or any other hardcore Conservative.

Bwah.

Would you possibly argue with me on that? Conservatives are complaining about all these RINOs and Conservatives-gone-soft...

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The point of the 2 party system is for the 2 parties to come together, it's not for 1 party to impose its extreme will on the other, as you see now with Obama. This is provided, of course, the public didn't vote for that to happen.
Extremes don't work. Extreme Socialism/Communism doesn't work just like extreme Capitalism doesn't work. It's the balance that will guarantee success of everybody.

I understand all that. So what makes Palin extreme? What makes the GOP extreme?

I'm not saying every Republican is like that, but most people who Limbaugh and Beck classify as REAL conservatives are like that. Palin? Let's see... no regard for wildlife sanctuaries or its inhabitants, no interest in renewable energy, 100% against abortion, against the regulation of financial institutions, against 'big government' aka Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc. and just in general pro pure Capitalism.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, but he's considered an ethanol farmer. He sells his corn to Cenex, the main producer of ethanol, so he's considered an ethanol farmer.

He's an ag farmer. He's not classified as what you said. You can make that assumption. Cenex does more with corn than just produce ethanol.

Yet they are the biggest ethanol producer.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:What kind fo things does he deduct?
You could just take away some of the deductions instead of overhauling the whole tax system. My mom works at H&R Block during Tax season and she sees people walking out with thousands of dollars in tax deductions and the more money they make, the more they can deduct. Children, Cars, Furniture, Gas, Mileage, etc.

Anything he can deduct for the business. You should know this. Hell, he buys a new pickup every year. It's a business deduction. His fuel at home is deducted.

And there lies the problem. Just cut all those deductions, not need to overhaul the whole tax system.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yep, you can deduct a lot of sh!t even as a private individual. Kids, house, furniture... maybe even the wife.

I'm sure the wife will count as a dependent in certain cases.

BubbleBliss wrote:Seems to me like he has a good argument in his last post...

How do you come to that conclusion?

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, but general attitude does show by people waving Venezuelan and Cuban flags together and what not. The power has obviously gone to his head.

It's like Iran... they show you what they want to show you.

BubbleBliss wrote:That's because athletes don't provide the average American citizen with an absolutely necessary service or good like insurance or oil companies.
Athletes also make money off of people who can choose to purchase something, unlike people who have to purchase insurance or Oil.
The 2 just aren't comparable!

What do i care about what a CEO makes for a corporation that i don't buy from? I don't. Athletes pay is what drives the cost of going to a game these days. It's bad enuff now that the average Joe can't afford to go to an NFL game.

BubbleBliss wrote:And that's a reason to pay them nothing? What about cops? If everybody thought the way you do, we wouldn't have any teachers or cops or anything that doesn't pay very much.

You didn't answer me. Who decides what teachers make?

BubbleBliss wrote:Well we're talking about financial security nets issued by the government here, not regulating income.

No, we're talking about regulating what CEO's make. The gov't has no constitutional right here to do that.

BubbleBliss wrote:Why would you side with me on an associate degree, that's only 2 years. An associate degree also doesn't really mean squat nowadays unless you want to go into fields like nursing, automotive, criminal justice (and even that is starting to require a 4 year degree), and other low paying jobs.
That person who bought the car has been able to save his/her money without having to pay off student debts!

C'mon.... if you accrue a debt of $50 grand for school, you can best believe that the salary is going to be top notch. I'd understand if it paid a paltry amount.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well a main reason why tuition has gone up recently is because state funding has slowly been cut. KY for example was going to slice the budget across the board, meaning that they were going to cut funding for the Kentucky Community College System just like they were cutting funding for UK. KCTCS is heavily reliant on state funding to keep tuition down whereas UK is not. Luckily, an online petition made the state change its mind and it did not cut KCTCS funding as much as it did UK funding.

Also the fact that the Dean/President of a University makes several million a year is just unacceptable to me. They carry responsibility, but not enough to make millions a year. Of course their salaries don't go down when our tuition goes up. So if I was going to provide them with funding, I would negotiate with the President and higher staff on some of those ridiculous wages. It just can't be that students are graduating with so much debt while the President of the school makes money like he owns a large corporation.

Here again... it's all about funding from gov't entities. Unreal. I'm not blaming you, so don't get that idea. It's just that once an entity relies on the gov't to fund things, it's a recipe for disaster. The recession is proving that because states are cutting back to keep their budgets in the black.

Yeah, that's insane.... those salaries. I can maybe understand a prestigious school like Harvard but a regular college?

BubbleBliss wrote:Would you possibly argue with me on that? Conservatives are complaining about all these RINOs and Conservatives-gone-soft...

Yeah, i would. Bush was no conservative. It's why the GOP took a sh!t. His policies were not right wing on a lot of gov't issues. He lost his followers.

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm not saying every Republican is like that, but most people who Limbaugh and Beck classify as REAL conservatives are like that. Palin? Let's see... no regard for wildlife sanctuaries or its inhabitants, no interest in renewable energy, 100% against abortion, against the regulation of financial institutions, against 'big government' aka Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc. and just in general pro pure Capitalism.

Explain the wildlife bit. Hopefully, it won't be a bunch of left-wing drivel.

Renewable energy? http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/011809/loc_378660723.shtml

You lefty's make abortion such a standard bearer just like the right. It really irritates me. I'm so sick of people using this subject as a political issue. She can't change abortion law. No president can. If you believe that, you need to study up on that.

Again, show me concrete proof of her being against the other entitlement issues above.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet they are the biggest ethanol producer.

Cenex owns no ethanol refineries. They own two oil refineries. Try again.

BubbleBliss wrote:And there lies the problem. Just cut all those deductions, not need to overhaul the whole tax system.

Just that easy, huh? You're talking about congress now. They write tax laws. Ain't gonna happen with this bunch.

I wrote a big,long reply to this and it all got deleted so just keep that in mind if this one is a little short!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Seems to me like he has a good argument in his last post...

How do you come to that conclusion?

Well he points out several things about the Constitution and a past event/trial....

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, but general attitude does show by people waving Venezuelan and Cuban flags together and what not. The power has obviously gone to his head.

It's like Iran... they show you what they want to show you.

Exactly.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:That's because athletes don't provide the average American citizen with an absolutely necessary service or good like insurance or oil companies.
Athletes also make money off of people who can choose to purchase something, unlike people who have to purchase insurance or Oil.
The 2 just aren't comparable!

What do i care about what a CEO makes for a corporation that i don't buy from? I don't. Athletes pay is what drives the cost of going to a game these days. It's bad enuff now that the average Joe can't afford to go to an NFL game.

Because the CEO supplies something you desperately need, well some do at least. Oil, Gas, Electricity, etc.

The NFL does not supply you with something you need, just something you want. Just like the CEO of Lays Chips, I don't take issue if Chips prices remain high because the CEO stuffs his pockets with everything he gets and exploits the consumer because I don't HAVE to buy chips. I do have to, however, buy oil, gas, etc.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And that's a reason to pay them nothing? What about cops? If everybody thought the way you do, we wouldn't have any teachers or cops or anything that doesn't pay very much.

You didn't answer me. Who decides what teachers make?

The government. What difference does it make? We're not talking about salaries here, we're talking about financial security to a certain degree for those that choose to serve society in a lower paying manner.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well we're talking about financial security nets issued by the government here, not regulating income.

No, we're talking about regulating what CEO's make. The gov't has no constitutional right here to do that.

Nope, we're talking about financial security nets. I only used the comparison to the CEO as an example of how people look at the CEO and say that he's doing just fine whereas the teacher/janitor/plumber/police officer is struggling because the cost of living is rising and their income is not.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Why would you side with me on an associate degree, that's only 2 years. An associate degree also doesn't really mean squat nowadays unless you want to go into fields like nursing, automotive, criminal justice (and even that is starting to require a 4 year degree), and other low paying jobs.
That person who bought the car has been able to save his/her money without having to pay off student debts!

C'mon.... if you accrue a debt of $50 grand for school, you can best believe that the salary is going to be top notch. I'd understand if it paid a paltry amount.

Yea, right! If you get a Masters degree in education, you'll still earn around $30,000 a year but the Masters degree will cost you just as much as a Masters degree in engineering or business would!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well a main reason why tuition has gone up recently is because state funding has slowly been cut. KY for example was going to slice the budget across the board, meaning that they were going to cut funding for the Kentucky Community College System just like they were cutting funding for UK. KCTCS is heavily reliant on state funding to keep tuition down whereas UK is not. Luckily, an online petition made the state change its mind and it did not cut KCTCS funding as much as it did UK funding.

Also the fact that the Dean/President of a University makes several million a year is just unacceptable to me. They carry responsibility, but not enough to make millions a year. Of course their salaries don't go down when our tuition goes up. So if I was going to provide them with funding, I would negotiate with the President and higher staff on some of those ridiculous wages. It just can't be that students are graduating with so much debt while the President of the school makes money like he owns a large corporation.

Here again... it's all about funding from gov't entities. Unreal. I'm not blaming you, so don't get that idea. It's just that once an entity relies on the gov't to fund things, it's a recipe for disaster. The recession is proving that because states are cutting back to keep their budgets in the black.

So you'd rather have the individual pay for ALL college tuition without any gov't funding? Unbelievable! And then you say that increasing taxes would put a strain on the economy! A tax increase would be a blessing compared to your tuition DOUBLING for next semester.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, that's insane.... those salaries. I can maybe understand a prestigious school like Harvard but a regular college?

Regular old community college.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Would you possibly argue with me on that? Conservatives are complaining about all these RINOs and Conservatives-gone-soft...

Yeah, i would. Bush was no conservative. It's why the GOP took a sh!t. His policies were not right wing on a lot of gov't issues. He lost his followers.

I never said he was a Conservative, I said he was too much of a non-conservative aka centrist for Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh to like him and support him.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I'm not saying every Republican is like that, but most people who Limbaugh and Beck classify as REAL conservatives are like that. Palin? Let's see... no regard for wildlife sanctuaries or its inhabitants, no interest in renewable energy, 100% against abortion, against the regulation of financial institutions, against 'big government' aka Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc. and just in general pro pure Capitalism.

Explain the wildlife bit. Hopefully, it won't be a bunch of left-wing drivel.

Aerial wolf hunting, oil drilling in national wildlife refugees, etc.

http://www.eyeonpalin.org/learn_more/index.php


I wrote a big,long reply to this and it all got deleted so just keep that in mind if this one is a little short!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Seems to me like he has a good argument in his last post...

How do you come to that conclusion?

Well he points out several things about the Constitution and a past event/trial....

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, but general attitude does show by people waving Venezuelan and Cuban flags together and what not. The power has obviously gone to his head.

It's like Iran... they show you what they want to show you.

Exactly.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:That's because athletes don't provide the average American citizen with an absolutely necessary service or good like insurance or oil companies.
Athletes also make money off of people who can choose to purchase something, unlike people who have to purchase insurance or Oil.
The 2 just aren't comparable!

What do i care about what a CEO makes for a corporation that i don't buy from? I don't. Athletes pay is what drives the cost of going to a game these days. It's bad enuff now that the average Joe can't afford to go to an NFL game.

Because the CEO supplies something you desperately need, well some do at least. Oil, Gas, Electricity, etc.

The NFL does not supply you with something you need, just something you want. Just like the CEO of Lays Chips, I don't take issue if Chips prices remain high because the CEO stuffs his pockets with everything he gets and exploits the consumer because I don't HAVE to buy chips. I do have to, however, buy oil, gas, etc.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And that's a reason to pay them nothing? What about cops? If everybody thought the way you do, we wouldn't have any teachers or cops or anything that doesn't pay very much.

You didn't answer me. Who decides what teachers make?

The government. What difference does it make? We're not talking about salaries here, we're talking about financial security to a certain degree for those that choose to serve society in a lower paying manner.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well we're talking about financial security nets issued by the government here, not regulating income.

No, we're talking about regulating what CEO's make. The gov't has no constitutional right here to do that.

Nope, we're talking about financial security nets. I only used the comparison to the CEO as an example of how people look at the CEO and say that he's doing just fine whereas the teacher/janitor/plumber/police officer is struggling because the cost of living is rising and their income is not.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Why would you side with me on an associate degree, that's only 2 years. An associate degree also doesn't really mean squat nowadays unless you want to go into fields like nursing, automotive, criminal justice (and even that is starting to require a 4 year degree), and other low paying jobs.
That person who bought the car has been able to save his/her money without having to pay off student debts!

C'mon.... if you accrue a debt of $50 grand for school, you can best believe that the salary is going to be top notch. I'd understand if it paid a paltry amount.

Yea, right! If you get a Masters degree in education, you'll still earn around $30,000 a year but the Masters degree will cost you just as much as a Masters degree in engineering or business would!

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well a main reason why tuition has gone up recently is because state funding has slowly been cut. KY for example was going to slice the budget across the board, meaning that they were going to cut funding for the Kentucky Community College System just like they were cutting funding for UK. KCTCS is heavily reliant on state funding to keep tuition down whereas UK is not. Luckily, an online petition made the state change its mind and it did not cut KCTCS funding as much as it did UK funding.

Also the fact that the Dean/President of a University makes several million a year is just unacceptable to me. They carry responsibility, but not enough to make millions a year. Of course their salaries don't go down when our tuition goes up. So if I was going to provide them with funding, I would negotiate with the President and higher staff on some of those ridiculous wages. It just can't be that students are graduating with so much debt while the President of the school makes money like he owns a large corporation.

Here again... it's all about funding from gov't entities. Unreal. I'm not blaming you, so don't get that idea. It's just that once an entity relies on the gov't to fund things, it's a recipe for disaster. The recession is proving that because states are cutting back to keep their budgets in the black.

So you'd rather have the individual pay for ALL college tuition without any gov't funding? Unbelievable! And then you say that increasing taxes would put a strain on the economy! A tax increase would be a blessing compared to your tuition DOUBLING for next semester.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, that's insane.... those salaries. I can maybe understand a prestigious school like Harvard but a regular college?

Regular old community college.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Would you possibly argue with me on that? Conservatives are complaining about all these RINOs and Conservatives-gone-soft...

Yeah, i would. Bush was no conservative. It's why the GOP took a sh!t. His policies were not right wing on a lot of gov't issues. He lost his followers.

I never said he was a Conservative, I said he was too much of a non-conservative aka centrist for Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh to like him and support him.

TexasBlue wrote:
Explain the wildlife bit. Hopefully, it won't be a bunch of left-wing drivel.

Aerial wolf hunting, drilling in national wildlife refugees, etc.

http://www.eyeonpalin.org/learn_more/index.php

TexasBlue wrote:
Renewable energy? http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/011809/loc_378660723.shtml

That's for Alaska, yet what was her and McCain's campaign promise? More offshore drilling instead of investing in renewable energy sources!

TexasBlue wrote:

You lefty's make abortion such a standard bearer just like the right. It really irritates me. I'm so sick of people using this subject as a political issue. She can't change abortion law. No president can. If you believe that, you need to study up on that.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still a political issue.

TexasBlue wrote:

Again, show me concrete proof of her being against the other entitlement issues above.

Well, since Obama is a Communist/Socialist for implementing health care and other government entitlements, I'm sure that the entitlements are also what makes a 'big government'.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet they are the biggest ethanol producer.

Cenex owns no ethanol refineries. They own two oil refineries. Try again.

http://ethanol.e85flex.com/ethanol/ethanol_companies.html

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And there lies the problem. Just cut all those deductions, not need to overhaul the whole tax system.

Just that easy, huh? You're talking about congress now. They write tax laws. Ain't gonna happen with this bunch.

But they're more likely to pass a 17% flat tax?

I just spent 30 minutes rebutting you and i hit a button that made the page go back one page and i lost everything (as you probably did) that i had typed. I'm not going thru it again.

The last thing (and freshest rebuttal) was that those aren't Cenex owned. My uncle said that Cenex has two refineries. One in Kansas and one in Montana. Both do diesel and gasoline. Now, if you want to rebut that further, i may have to get him to come in here and slap you. He is on the local Cenex board and he knows what he's talking about. also, if you go to their Wiki page, you'll see.

If you want to parse the other arguments and make a new thread on them, go ahead. These quotation replies can get cumbersome going point by point. I actually feared losing what i typed and there it went. I need to figure out which button on my keyboard made the page go back one.