Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 221

Thread: Oh YEA! ITS ON!

  1. -161
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,258
    vCash:
    1222
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Not at all, you apparently didn’t understand me.


    You listed off the names of a bunch of government agencies as Paul’s biggest contributors, but when I pointed out that such a thing legally can’t happen you changed it to private contributors who used to or currently belong to such agencies.

    That he isn’t bought and paid for by corporate interests.


    Corporations create jobs and wealth for everyone else, I see no problem here.

    Isn’t Romney GOP as well?


    Yup, and that’s why veteran’s support him over Obama by 24 percentage points.

    “Athiest- A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.”


    That’s the more traditional definition; the New Atheists such as George Smith define atheism as simply the lack of belief in a God or gods, which means they would certainly claim you. I don’t really care whether you consider yourself atheistic or agnostic, you’re still anti-Christian which is all that concerns me.

    I’m not saying their isn’t a God, but unlike yourself I’m not going to claim to be able to prove he exists through the use of circular reasoning.


    Its statements like this that really demonstrates your philosophical ignorance, all reasoning is inherently circular, which is completely fine. I believe you are trying to refer to a circular argument which doesn’t actually prove anything; of course my argument was not a circular argument because the conclusion was not simply a restatement of either of the two premises. You just didn’t like it; which is completely fine, but you simply not liking something is a bit irrelevant to me.


    Also a key note in that definition Statler, is the word BELIEVE, as in, a BELIEF in God. Want me to define belief while were at it?


    Are you really trying to say you in fact do not lack a belief in God? So you do believe in God?

    What part of “it goes both ways”, escaped you?


    You never said that, you simply posted a video of Romney. If that is really your position then your argument is moot, both candidates make promises they can’t keep, ok I still support Romney between the two because I support his overall position and philosophy more.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  2. -162
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    442
    vCash:
    2269
    Thanks / No Thanks
    [QUOTE=Statler Waldorf;1064456276]

    This isn’t even a complete sentence. Revenues actually increase when you reduce the tax rates on the upper incomes, that’s a historical fact.



    I don’t need one, he said he’d eliminate whatever loopholes it takes to be deficit neutral; so he may need to eliminate that one he may not. You simply said such loopholes didn’t even exist, and I proved you were full of it.
    First, the Bush Tax Cuts raised the deficit, so your "historical fact" is anything but.

    Second, I initially stated that there aren't any loopholes that will offset the tax rate decreases that he wants to put in place. It's cute that you can google tax loopholes and then cut and paste. But the example you gave wouldn't even put a dent into the amount it would take to offset the revenue loss from his new rates. I believe I asked you to provide a loophole and then provide me a source stating he'd get rid of that loophole. You might have caught that if you didn't cut my posts into 1 sentence quotes. Is it so hard to keep my 3 to 4 sentences in one quote?

    Weren't republicans the ones complaining about the whole "we have to pass the bill so we can see whats in it." Yet, when it comes to Mitt Romney's tax plan, they're perfectly fine with absolutely no details until he gets elected.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -163
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    [QUOTE=JackFinfan;1064456735]
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    First, the Bush Tax Cuts raised the deficit, so your "historical fact" is anything but.

    Second, I initially stated that there aren't any loopholes that will offset the tax rate decreases that he wants to put in place. It's cute that you can google tax loopholes and then cut and paste. But the example you gave wouldn't even put a dent into the amount it would take to offset the revenue loss from his new rates. I believe I asked you to provide a loophole and then provide me a source stating he'd get rid of that loophole. You might have caught that if you didn't cut my posts into 1 sentence quotes. Is it so hard to keep my 3 to 4 sentences in one quote?


    cue 8:47 - for the long version
    cue 10:11 -11:06 - for the short version



    cue 1:16 - explanation on how how making cuts offsets reduction in taxes (which in turn stimulates economic growth)

    RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent. You haverefused - and, again - to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20
    percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics?
    Or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?

    RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to

    have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the...

    ***
    RADDATZ: Do you know exactly what you're doing?
    RYAN: Look - look at what Mitt Romney - look at what Ronald
    Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework
    to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to
    fix that.

    What we're saying is, here's our framework. Lower tax rates 20
    percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We
    forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what
    we're saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income
    taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader

    base of taxation...
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ential-debate/

    @ Jackfin- The general ideas are there. By lowering tax rates, more companies will want to do business in the United States and thus make our country more globally competitive. When more business is done in the United States more jobs are created. Since more people will be employed, more citizens will be able to contribute more in taxes and consequently help alleviate our debt crisis.

    As for your comment on loopholes. The "framework" is there, but the specifics are not because Romney-Ryan want to get feedback from Democrats, and gain bipartisan support on which loopholes and deductions need to go. In doing so, Progressives won't be able to accuse the GOP of putting forth a plan that is self-serving or benefits the "rich" and punishes the middle-class because they too will have had a hand its creation.

    Weren't republicans the ones complaining about the whole "we have to pass the bill so we can see whats in it." Yet, when it comes to Mitt Romney's tax plan, they're perfectly fine with absolutely no details until he gets elected.
    Comparing the Romney-Ryan Economic Plan to that of Obamacare is laughable, because Obamacare was a finished product (no severance clause even for changes to be made) that was being pushed through Congress through a partisan effort. Many of the Congressmen that voted on it, didn't even get the full grasp of what was in it because people like Pelosi (famous for said quote)were rushing to get it passed before they lost their super-majority in Congress.

    Comparatively, the Romney-Ryan plan wants the full support of Congress, so both parties can again decide loopholes/deductions/exemptions should be done away with so everyone comes away happy. A great analogy would be a house that is waiting to be furnished. The details (decorations) are not as important as knowing that it is a fiscally (structurally) sound policy.

    Ryan assures us that enough of these loopholes/deductions/exemptions will be gotten rid of to justify the tax reductions. What is more, lowering taxes helps the middle-class retain some of their hard earned money whereas the reduction in loopholes/deductions/exemptions has more of an impact on the "rich". The main benefit is that it simplifies what has become a complicated tax process, and everyone pays their fair share.
    Last edited by TrojanFin; 10-12-2012 at 06:22 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -164
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,479
    vCash:
    6984
    Thanks / No Thanks
    [QUOTE=TrojanFin;1064456820]
    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post



    cue 8:47 - for the long version
    cue 10:11 -11:06 - for the short version



    cue 1:16 - explanation on how how making cuts offsets reduction in taxes (which in turn stimulates economic growth)



    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ential-debate/

    @ Jackfin- The general ideas are there. By lowering tax rates, more companies will want to do business in the United States and thus make our country more globally competitive. When more business is done in the United States more jobs are created. Since more people will be employed, more citizens will be able to contribute more in taxes and consequently help alleviate our debt crisis.

    As for your comment on loopholes. The "framework" is there, but the specifics are not because Romney-Ryan want to get feedback from Democrats, and gain bipartisan support on which loopholes and deductions need to go. In doing so, Progressives won't be able to accuse the GOP of putting forth a plan that is self-serving or benefits the "rich" and punishes the middle-class because they too will have had a hand its creation.



    Comparing the Romney-Ryan Economic Plan to that of Obamacare is laughable, because Obamacare was a finished product (no severance clause even for changes to be made) that was being pushed through Congress through a partisan effort. Many of the Congressmen that voted on it, didn't even get the full grasp of what was in it because people like Pelosi (famous for said quote)were rushing to get it passed before they lost their super-majority in Congress.

    Comparatively, the Romney-Ryan plan wants the full support of Congress, so both parties can again decide loopholes/deductions/exemptions should be done away with so everyone comes away happy. A great analogy would be a house that is waiting to be furnished. The details (decorations) are not as important as knowing that it is a fiscally (structurally) sound policy.

    Ryan assures us that enough of these loopholes/deductions/exemptions will be gotten rid of to justify the tax reductions. What is more, lowering taxes helps the middle-class retain some of their hard earned money whereas the reduction in loopholes/deductions/exemptions has more of an impact on the "rich". The main benefit is that it simplifies what has become a complicated tax process, and everyone pays their fair share.
    Wow, so you just trust someone on basically no details. I think anybody can stand there and 'claim' we will reduce taxes and make them 'debt neutral/revenue neutral'. If there is a magic formula to it then I would say many Presidents would have taken that approach before.

    Further, I wish the new generation Republicans especially Ryan would not invoke Reagan.

    During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981[128] which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%, however other tax increases passed by Congress and signed by Reagan, ensured that tax revenues over his two terms were 18.2% of GDP as compared to 18.1% over the 40 year period 1970-2010.[129] Then, in 1982 the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 was signed into law, initiating one of the nation's first public/private partnerships and a major part of the president's job creation program. Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Labor and Chief of Staff, Al Angrisani, was a primary architect of the bill. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, another bipartisan effort championed by Reagan, further reduced the top rate to 28%, raised the bottom bracket from 11% to 15%, and, cut the number of tax brackets to 4.
    Even Reagan saw that he could not cut taxes without raising taxes to offset the cuts. There is many ways you can raise taxes. Just ask Romney as he had increased 'taxes' in MA as a governor by simply increasing simple things like marriage license, driver license, property taxes etc. It hurt the lower income people and the middle class as some of these fees were doubled.

    And if you look at Reagan he also created a public/private cooperation for the job training market much like Obamacare in the healthcare sector which at this point is a public/private venture as well but heavily shifted towards the private sector. Reagan must have been a socialist.

    Before any of you including Romney and Ryan invoke Reagan you may want to re-read his Presidency. Reagan has become a buzzword without knowledge for the new Republican generation - just like 'Socialist' and 'Communist'.

    And if Ryan would love to involve Democrats in the process why not propose it now or in the last year. He is a member of Congress which creates law. It would be of great benefit for him to stand up and say "look, this is what I have done in Congress'. It would be a great campaign tool. I can tell you why neither Romney nor Ryan give you details. It would disfranchise most political supporters across the board. They are playing the 1% as well as the 99%. At the end it will be the 1% which will win out because it will be either stand as is or it will be shifted even more heavily towards the 1%.

    Have you looked at the economic chart of the last 4 years and how much the 1% has increased its wealth (despite the economy) and how much the middle class and poor has lost their little bit?

    Romney and Ryan are there to protect the 1%. But they can't win elections with the 1% only. That's why they are fuzzy about tax plans, economy, foreign policy and that's why they change positions almost daily. Because in all that confusing information and lack of details everybody will find something they like and not knowing what their current position on issues is the voter sticks with what he/she heard and liked (regardless if it has changed or not).

    If Ryan is such an idealist why hasn't he given up on all his government entitlements, i.e. healthcare benefits (government supplemented), huge car allowances. Ryan is as much a normal person to most of us like Romney is. His estimated wealth lies between 3 Million and 7.7 Million. So he has an interest on keeping the taxes for the 1% low. His government income was nearly $200,000 last year. He went to college with government money because he collected social security benefits after his father passed away. With a brief moment in a family business Paul Ryan lived on government funds and became rich through government: Public high school (government), college through social security benefits (the very same program he wants to dismantle), congressional staffer with extra service jobs (government), speechwriter, member of congress. Ryan voted for the bailout of the auto industry and banks, he voted for Medicacare Part D which is considered one of the biggest enacted entitlement programs voted on (during the Bush administration). If you look to government then Mr Ryan is Mr Government. Unfortunately he is exactly one of these people everybody is screaming against.

    Ryan of course would benefit from his own policies as well - unproportionally heavy, i.e. His proposed tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas company and drilling rights give-away are tied to some Oklahoma business where he is holding shares in.

    Paul Ryan is a scumbag. I categorize him as one of the worst in Congress.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -165
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,070
    vCash:
    5699
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Quote  

  6. -166
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,258
    vCash:
    1222
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    First, the Bush Tax Cuts raised the deficit, so your "historical fact" is anything but.


    Wrong, the United States Government brought in more revenue in 2007 than in any other year in American history thanks to the Bush tax cuts; it was out of control spending that raised the deficit. Cutting taxes increases revenue, it worked when Kennedy did it, it worked when Reagan did it, and it worked when Bush did it.

    Second, I initially stated that there aren't any loopholes that will offset the tax rate decreases that he wants to put in place.


    uh oh! Someone just caught you in a lie, you really shouldn’t try and claim you didn’t say something when your very own words are still available…

    “Please name me some of these loopholes and provide me a source where Romney says he'll specifically eliminate that loophole. Cause I do audits and tax returns for a living, many of them for rich people, and I can tell you that there's a reason why Romney won't be specific about the loopholes. It's because at the individual level, they really don't exist.” -JackFin on 10-05-2012, at 08:16 AM

    It's cute that you can google tax loopholes and then cut and paste.


    Why didn’t you use Google before you claimed such loopholes didn’t even exist?

    But the example you gave wouldn't even put a dent into the amount it would take to offset the revenue loss from his new rates.


    Sure it would.



    I believe I asked you to provide a loophole and then provide me a source stating he'd get rid of that loophole.


    I provided you with an example of a loophole you claimed didn’t exist, and I just caught you lying about what you in fact did say. Why does Romney need to say which loopholes he would eliminate? That’s your own ridiculous standard, not mine. Romney knows that in order to effectively lead and work with both parties the leader needs to provide a goal and a framework for reaching that goal, the specifics can be dealt with during party negotiations, and it’s something Obama should have tried doing four years ago.

    You might have caught that if you didn't cut my posts into 1 sentence quotes.


    I did catch it, I simply rejected your standard, that’s all.

    Is it so hard to keep my 3 to 4 sentences in one quote?


    When you obviously don’t understand the purpose of a paragraph you force me to cut your paragraphs up in order to address your different points. If your paragraphs were written like paragraphs are supposed to be written, focusing on one key idea, I wouldn’t have to break them up, so I blame you :-P

    Weren't republicans the ones complaining about the whole "we have to pass the bill so we can see whats in it." Yet, when it comes to Mitt Romney's tax plan, they're perfectly fine with absolutely no details until he gets elected.


    …but you were fine with Democrats passing a bill into law without anyone knowing what was in it but you are not ok with electing a president who proposes a tax plan you don’t know everything about? Nice double standard. The problem with your analogy is that we will see what is in Romney’s tax plan before congress passes it; we never saw what was in Obamacare until AFTER it was law.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -167
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,479
    vCash:
    6984
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    When you obviously don’t understand the purpose of a paragraph you force me to cut your paragraphs up in order to address your different points. If your paragraphs were written like paragraphs are supposed to be written, focusing on one key idea, I wouldn’t have to break them up, so I blame you :-P



    Says the right person.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -168
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Wow, so you just trust someone on basically no details. I think anybody can stand there and 'claim' we will reduce taxes and make them 'debt neutral/revenue neutral'. If there is a magic formula to it then I would say many Presidents would have taken that approach before.
    I believe Obama ran on the platform of "Hope & Change" in '08 if you were to ask my many Progressive friends. Talk about trusting someone on basically no details, or much of a past record for that matter. If you listened to the VP debate last night, Ryan said that he even went to the CBO to find out the details of Obama's budget plan only to be disappointed that it was merely a speech with no details. At least Ryan has a plan for getting us out of this mess instead of merely empty rhetoric.
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Even Reagan saw that he could not cut taxes without raising taxes to offset the cuts.
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    And if you look at Reagan he also created a public/private cooperation for the job training market much like Obamacare in the healthcare sector which at this point is a public/private venture as well but heavily shifted towards the private sector. Reagan must have been a socialist.
    And you are concerned with present day Conservatives invoking Reagan. Taking an over-reaching program like Obamacare and comparing it to anything the Reagan has done is ridiculous. Reagan would never have stood for the monstrosity that is Obamacare, because he was trying to help businesses grow, and not penalize business owners with tons of regulations. Check this out... http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...ously-thought/
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    And if Ryan would love to involve Democrats in the process why not propose it now or in the last year. He is a member of Congress which creates law. It would be of great benefit for him to stand up and say "look, this is what I have done in Congress'. It would be a great campaign tool. I can tell you why neither Romney nor Ryan give you details. It would disfranchise most political supporters across the board. They are playing the 1% as well as the 99%. At the end it will be the 1% which will win out because it will be either stand as is or it will be shifted even more heavily towards the 1%.
    Wrong again. You see there is this guy called the President (Obama), and you would need to get him on board. He rarely if ever reaches across the aisle, and the last thing he would want to do is make the Republicans look good. Ryan has proposed his ideas to the President, and was simply ignored.
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Have you looked at the economic chart of the last 4 years and how much the 1% has increased its wealth (despite the economy) and how much the middle class and poor has lost their little bit? Romney and Ryan are there to protect the 1%. But they can't win elections with the 1% only. That's why they are fuzzy about tax plans, economy, foreign policy and that's why they change positions almost daily. Because in all that confusing information and lack of details everybody will find something they like and not knowing what their current position on issues is the voter sticks with what he/she heard and liked (regardless if it has changed or not).If Ryan is such an idealist why hasn't he given up on all his government entitlements, i.e. healthcare benefits (government supplemented), huge car allowances. Ryan is as much a normal person to most of us like Romney is. His estimated wealth lies between 3 Million and 7.7 Million. So he has an interest on keeping the taxes for the 1% low. His government income was nearly $200,000 last year. He went to college with government money because he collected social security benefits after his father passed away. With a brief moment in a family business Paul Ryan lived on government funds and became rich through government: Public high school (government), college through social security benefits (the very same program he wants to dismantle), congressional staffer with extra service jobs (government), speechwriter, member of congress. Ryan voted for the bailout of the auto industry and banks, he voted for Medicacare Part D which is considered one of the biggest enacted entitlement programs voted on (during the Bush administration). If you look to government then Mr Ryan is Mr Government. Unfortunately he is exactly one of these people everybody is screaming against.Ryan of course would benefit from his own policies as well - unproportionally heavy, i.e. His proposed tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas company and drilling rights give-away are tied to some Oklahoma business where he is holding shares in.Paul Ryan is a scumbag. I categorize him as one of the worst in Congress.
    This whole last part can summarized as typical liberal talking points. Characterize Romney-Ryan as the evil rich, and how they oppress the poor. I get it... you hate Ryan and will do anything to tear down his reputation. Guess what, it's not a zero-sum game like the Progressives would have you believe. Case in point, Bill Gates became wealthy, and through his wealth he created a company that made a lot of other people wealthy when he started Microsoft. His being rich did not make other people poor as a consequence. As for Ryan being big government, he voted to help those he represented. However, he doesn't believe in the way in which the funds were ultimately allocated. Ryan even admitted that the taking on the "super majority" of Progressives was an impossible task, and when he voted in favor of it, he was optimistic that the Democrats would be judicious in their distribution of stimulus funds and not use it for a their own "slush fund". Ultimately, that's what it became. http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/pa...n-aig-bonuses/ Lastly, I would rather have my gas prices come down and assist oil companies in making that happen then to invest more of that previously stated TARP money on green energy companies that will ultimately go bankrupt ala Solyndra. If a green energy company is so amazing and profitable, it will find private investors to fund it without tax dollars needing to be put towards getting it off of the ground.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -169
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    442
    vCash:
    2269
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    Wrong, the United States Government brought in more revenue in 2007 than in any other year in American history thanks to the Bush tax cuts; it was out of control spending that raised the deficit. Cutting taxes increases revenue, it worked when Kennedy did it, it worked when Reagan did it, and it worked when Bush did it.



    uh oh! Someone just caught you in a lie, you really shouldn’t try and claim you didn’t say something when your very own words are still available…

    “Please name me some of these loopholes and provide me a source where Romney says he'll specifically eliminate that loophole. Cause I do audits and tax returns for a living, many of them for rich people, and I can tell you that there's a reason why Romney won't be specific about the loopholes. It's because at the individual level, they really don't exist.” -JackFin on 10-05-2012, at 08:16 AM



    Why didn’t you use Google before you claimed such loopholes didn’t even exist?



    Sure it would.





    I provided you with an example of a loophole you claimed didn’t exist, and I just caught you lying about what you in fact did say. Why does Romney need to say which loopholes he would eliminate? That’s your own ridiculous standard, not mine. Romney knows that in order to effectively lead and work with both parties the leader needs to provide a goal and a framework for reaching that goal, the specifics can be dealt with during party negotiations, and it’s something Obama should have tried doing four years ago.



    I did catch it, I simply rejected your standard, that’s all.



    When you obviously don’t understand the purpose of a paragraph you force me to cut your paragraphs up in order to address your different points. If your paragraphs were written like paragraphs are supposed to be written, focusing on one key idea, I wouldn’t have to break them up, so I blame you :-P



    …but you were fine with Democrats passing a bill into law without anyone knowing what was in it but you are not ok with electing a president who proposes a tax plan you don’t know everything about? Nice double standard. The problem with your analogy is that we will see what is in Romney’s tax plan before congress passes it; we never saw what was in Obamacare until AFTER it was law.
    I didn't realize Gov't Revenue was solely determined by the marginal tax rates. I'm sure there are no other factors that could influence how much money we bring in.

    I said they "really don't exist", like they basically don't exist, or they pretty much don't exist. This implies that no individual loophole exists that has any significant impact on revenue loss. I didn't say "they don't exist." Perhaps my word usage could have been better, but I think my context was pretty clear. Although, we already know, you are the king of ignoring context.

    Funny how Romney doesn't want to be specific with what he'll eliminate because he wants to hear the ideas on the other side, but he's perfectly fine with being specific with how much he'll cut taxes (20%).

    You claiming I don't know how to cut my paragraphs is like Michael J. Fox calling someone jittery.

    I wasn't fine with Democrats passing Obamacare. I don't approve of Obamacare. We needed at the very least a public option, but really what we need is a single payer system. Once again, you assume that because I don't agree with Republicans that I automatically agree with everything the Democrats do. I am a registered independent, and I've voted for both a Republican and Democrat in presidential races. This election I'll be voting for Johnson. It's so sad that your whole world is in black and white. We saw that in the religion forum and we're seeing it here.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -170
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post
    You claiming I don't know how to cut my paragraphs is like Michael J. Fox calling someone jittery.
    Stay classy now.
    Quote Quote  

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •