USA Society  USA social debate |
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
10-05-2010, 04:42 PM
|
#21 |
|
|
Ok Mr. Informed person. While watching the rally then, whos rally was bigger? The left says 10/2/10 was bigger or equalled 8/28 (29). Do you believe what they said? That is not the only thing the left flat out LIES about when it comes to the words they speak. The DC Police estimated the group – including those who stood on street corners around DC handing out flyers about the event – as being between 175,000 and 200,000, based on both Satellite Pictures and knowledge of the amount of space occupied. Furthermore, unlike Beck & Company who made it a point of honor that the DC People who live along the Green and Yellow Subway Lines should be shielded from the attendees, many of those self-same people were among the October 2nd Attendees. Also unlike Beck and Company, this event had lots of speakers from each of the contingents, some of them better speakers than others, but all of them representative of the groups who showed up to rally. As to whether or not I believed what they had to say, let me say that they stayed on point for the entire event – unlike Beck and Company who kept straying from the point. Besides, what was there not to believe? It was a Progressive event, of and for Progressives, and the speech that was projected was that of the Progressive Doctrine. I am an admitted Progressive, so – once again – what’s not to believe. October Second was specifically designed to support the 2010 Midterm Elections, and that remained the central point of all the speakers. It wasn’t designed as an Anti Tea Party event – the Tea Party hardly was mentioned the entire day, with the singular exceptions of when the above numbers were announced from the Podium, and by Harry Belafonte during his speech. In closing, let me say that I did not stay tuned for the entire thing myself, but I did watch it on C-SPAN’s website over the following days. Why didn’t I sit through the entire thing in one sitting? Because it ran for Four Hours, and I knew that there wasn’t going to be any really breaking news, and I knew that I’d get to it all eventually thanks to C-SPAN, and I felt that I could interpose it with other things I needed to get done. Unlike you Conservatives, older Progressives like me really have no need to be “Fired Up” by our leaders because we know that our goals won’t be met over the short term, but rather over the long term, and they will be realized a little bit at a time. It is for the benefit of the younger generation(s) that October Second was held. |
|
|
10-05-2010, 04:55 PM
|
#22 |
|
|
Youre right, it doesnt. That is why I can disagree with others on here and still respect their opinion. To me, it is all about how someone arrives at a particular conclusion that counts...in an exchange of ideas. I do not respect the opinion of someone who forms it based on whatever a particular group decides for them. Like I said, you read like a pamphlet and you show a lack of knowledge of even the most basic political terms. Its not that we disagree, its that you are clueless. Ask CrewChick if I have called her ignorant, or LOAL-D or some other pretty smart folks on these board who happen to subscribe to a different political ideology than I do. Just because you dont fit into the smart group doesnt mean I think everyone who shares your ideology to be stupid. If you actually read some of my posts (I know it is not your style to read disagreeing opinions) you would see that from time to time I ask my own questions of others to find out something I dont know. Do not confuse my confidence in my intelligence or my point of view with hubris or the assumption that I know everything or am at "the height of intelligence". That observation of yours again proves that you do not know what you speak of...again defining the word IGNORANT. |
|
|
|
10-05-2010, 04:58 PM
|
#23 |
|
|
First of all, Fox News itself admitted that the event was organized around 400 separate contingents representing the various wings of the Democratic... VW, have fun... |
|
|
|
10-05-2010, 05:02 PM
|
#24 |
|
|
200k?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lets...2-828-rallies/ Where is this satilite image you claim that shows a bigger crowd? Where is any picture of that day, WIDE-ANGLE, from a lefts camera? |
|
|
|
10-05-2010, 05:14 PM
|
#25 |
|
|
Speaking of 'Screw with Their Faith and They Will Kill You'
Here is a video of what some, but not all, people of the "One Nation" rally believe. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/back...ure-enviro-ad/ These people supported the 10/2/10 rally openly, and where openly greeted by One Nation. Their message bluntly is "Don't conform, we will kill you." |
|
|
|
10-05-2010, 06:08 PM
|
#26 |
|
|
First of all, Fox News itself admitted that the event was organized around 400 separate contingents representing the various wings of the Democratic Party, and that “Tens of Thousands” attended the event, so why should I contradict Fox News. The DC Police estimated the group – including those who stood on street corners around DC handing out flyers about the event – as being between 175,000 and 200,000, based on both Satellite Pictures and knowledge of the amount of space occupied. DC park police no longer do estimates…they haven’t since about 1991 so I do not know what is the REAL source you are getting it from but the police have repeatedly refused to even comment on estimates. Don’t lie. However, a picture is worth a thousand words.  And look how clean the union thugs, freeloaders and other progressives are…how respectful they are of the WW2 memorial. Furthermore, unlike Beck & Company who made it a point of honor that the DC People who live along the Green and Yellow Subway Lines should be shielded from the attendees, many of those self-same people were among the October 2nd Attendees. Also unlike Beck and Company, this event had lots of speakers from each of the contingents, some of them better speakers than others, but all of them representative of the groups who showed up to rally. How is that any different from the Beck Rally? Let me guess, you didnt watch the Beck Rally, you watched Countdown to get coverage of it. As to whether or not I believed what they had to say, let me say that they stayed on point for the entire event – unlike Beck and Company who kept straying from the point. Besides, what was there not to believe? It was a Progressive event, of and for Progressives, and the speech that was projected was that of the Progressive Doctrine. I am an admitted Progressive, so – once again – what’s not to believe. October Second was specifically designed to support the 2010 Midterm Elections, and that remained the central point of all the speakers. It wasn’t designed as an Anti Tea Party event – the Tea Party hardly was mentioned the entire day, with the singular exceptions of when the above numbers were announced from the Podium, and by Harry Belafonte during his speech. How did “Beck and Company” stray from their point? And you are either incredibly naïve or intentionally misleading if you think that the rally was not a response to the tea party rally on 8/28 or in contention with it. What on earth is wrong with you. Yes, it was a progressive rally: IE pro - big government, social “justice”, more government run social programs, more power to unions, ect. Funny that you can find some of the rhetoric at the 10/2 rally in the communist manifesto. In closing, let me say that I did not stay tuned for the entire thing myself, but I did watch it on C-SPAN’s website over the following days. Why didn’t I sit through the entire thing in one sitting? Because it ran for Four Hours, and I knew that there wasn’t going to be any really breaking news, and I knew that I’d get to it all eventually thanks to C-SPAN, and I felt that I could interpose it with other things I needed to get done. Unlike you Conservatives, older Progressives like me really have no need to be “Fired Up” by our leaders because we know that our goals won’t be met over the short term, but rather over the long term, and they will be realized a little bit at a time. It is for the benefit of the younger generation(s) that October Second was held. What planet are you living on? Progressives (especially the older ones) are the MASTERS of staging demonstrations and protests. We had COUNTLESS numbers of them during Vietnam, during the Reagan and GWB administrations. Remember the riots in Seattle? Progressive protests. You guys ALWAYS have to be fired up, what do you call the entire Obama campaign in 2008? Funny that such a “peace-loving” group that says it is for the greater good is always so radical and violent. Yet in the one major conservative rally with many people who treated each other (and the DC property) respectfully and acted mild-mannered…those people are the hateful racists? Please corney, you sound foolish. |
|
|
|
10-05-2010, 06:16 PM
|
#27 |
|
|
If I "read like a pamphlet", that's because I helped write and distribute that pamphlet. What did YOU contribute in your short life to the effort besides disparaging remarks? Everything you have said I've heard directly over the years from others, most of which you probably heard at their knee. I am curious, given your history of racebaiting, whose knee I heard this stuff from. I made my own career on my own, lived my own mild success in my short life, and thankfully havent become a thrall to useless rhetoric that resembles the chicomms more than the founding fathers...I cannot say the same for you. Seriously, Corney...you would probably be happier in some place like greece where the government and economy are based precisely on progressive values. Stop trying to change the country I belong to...we have our guidelines, we are not a socialist state, we are a free-market society and that is what has made us great. Thats part of why this place is called the land of opportunity. Not because people depend on the government for opportunity, but that they depend on themselves for it and the government stays out of the way. Your ideology really has ruined this country in so many ways. |
|
|
|
10-05-2010, 08:50 PM
|
#28 |
|
|
DC park police no longer do estimates…they haven’t since about 1991 so I do not know what is the REAL source you are getting it from but the police have repeatedly refused to even comment on estimates. Facts, schmacks.........such an inconvenience. |
|
|
|
10-05-2010, 09:19 PM
|
#29 |
|
|
……… Furthermore, unlike Beck & Company who made it a point of honor that the DC People who live along the Green and Yellow Subway Lines should be shielded from the attendees,…….. ….The entire city of Washington, DC was involved in the 1963 event, whereas Beck's organization did their best to steer participants away from those areas of DC that they viewed as inimicable to his message. Both events were held on the National Mall. Beck's gathering was advertised as being held on the National Mall. Where is the difference (with regard to geography only please, no diatribes on unrelated topics)? Where is the 'steering'? |
|
|
|
10-06-2010, 03:55 AM
|
#30 |
|
|
As to whether or not I believed what they had to say, let me say that they stayed on point for the entire event – unlike Beck and Company who kept straying from the point. Besides, what was there not to believe? It was a Progressive event, of and for Progressives, and the speech that was projected was that of the Progressive Doctrine. I am an admitted Progressive, so – once again – what’s not to believe. October Second was specifically designed to support the 2010 Midterm Elections, and that remained the central point of all the speakers. It wasn’t designed as an Anti Tea Party event – the Tea Party hardly was mentioned the entire day, with the singular exceptions of when the above numbers were announced from the Podium, and by Harry Belafonte during his speech. or... They were there to bash the tea party and never strayed off point when they bashed the tea party. I will remind you that Beck never strayed from their origional agenda of making their rally about getting back to "god". The only political part of the rally was when they prayed for the politicans (all of them) to be safe. So, every point that you try to make, is horribly shot down and has zero proof or facts to back it up, but you do make this fun because seeing someone that claims to be an old man get the smack down of proper knowledge is like seeing an old dog learn a new trick. |
|
|
|
10-06-2010, 04:33 PM
|
#31 |
|
|
Maybe because I have never really heard them from CorneliusSeaon himself, but I would like for you to tell me what you actually believe in Corn? Don't link an article of what you believe, or cut and paste from someones blog, but in your own words; |
|
|
|
10-06-2010, 07:16 PM
|
#32 |
|
|
Just incase you missed this Sean, I want to understand what your personal beliefs are on the all of this. I don't want you to cut and paste what someone else thinks and just parrot them, I want what you belive. Since you have been on the forum this morning, I just want to make sure you got to see this post and give you a chance to respond. |
|
|
|
10-06-2010, 09:33 PM
|
#33 |
|
|
Well, I guess after 24 hrs with no coment, I guess you are nothing more than a parrot that has learned to cut and paste. |
|
|
|
10-07-2010, 12:10 AM
|
#34 |
|
|
Just incase you missed this Sean, I want to understand what your personal beliefs are on the all of this. I don't want you to cut and paste what someone else thinks and just parrot them, I want what you belive. Since you have been on the forum this morning, I just want to make sure you got to see this post and give you a chance to respond. OK, challenge accepted. A. what do you believe we need to do for this nation? The plethora of political systems we Humans have tried over the centuries shows me that no single political system is altogether better than any other, not even here within the USA. The proof of this is the fact that if you read the 50 State Constitutions, and millions of Municipal Charters, no two are exactly alike, and they range from the centrally oriented variety to the small-“d” democratic variety. That said, we need to stop screaming at the top of our lungs about how one political group has the Political Truth, and another has Political Heresy, since we continually write political contracts we have no intention of living by when they prove inconvenient. We internally know this when we write those political contracts. Indeed, it is exactly that fact that permits us to write political contracts that otherwise seem crazy and unenforceable at the time of their writing, and it is this fact that has kept us from the kind of violent Balkanization that infected the earthly place that yielded that name and political definition in the first place. My suggestions for fixing this problem simply is to say: 1. We need to recognize that anomaly, and allow for it in all legislation. [We are finished “fixing” this law today; BUT, we are certain that we will need to come back and “fix” it again tomorrow, but tomorrow is another day.] 2. We need to accept that one persons’ solution is often another persons’ problem, and look for solutions that take multiple — often opposing — problems into account. Compromise should be the order of the day when issues arise, not both sides negating each other. The Founding Fathers recognized the problem and these two solutions when they wrote the Constitution, which is why they insisted on using the vague language we often fight over in the Constitution, and why they provided only bare negatives and affirmatives, leaving it up to us in the future to decide for ourselves just what those admonitions really mean in terms that fully apply to 2010. This is why I refer to the Supreme Court Annotations so often, because they are the record of the applications of the Constitution over the years to then-current events, and they reveal the trends that the various provisions are following as time proceeds. They are the proof that the Constitution is a live document whose application changes as Human development changes. They are the proof that it isn’t always advantageous to depend on what the Founding Fathers laid down as being the “Holy Gospel” of American Politics. B. What do you want to see for the US to get back to economically sound times? In the first place, America has never had “economically sound” times any time in its history. America had Depressions in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1893, and 1929-39. It had Recessions in 1974-75; 1980-82; 2001; and 2008-09. America has had National Debt — in serial form — since its inception, with US National Debt reaching 100 Million Dollars by the end of the Revolutionary War, and remaining at that level until the Jackson administration. President Jackson was the only one to deliver in any way, shape, or fashion on the promise to reduce National Debt, and he was only able to reduce it from 100 Million to 18,000, and that was a period of limited industrial expansion that was focused mostly on domestic consumption due to westward expansion. Otherwise, because of America’s progressive technological expansion, its increased International trade, and its wars, America has had National Debt that has been increasing at varying rates ever since. It reached over 1 Billion Dollars by 1863, over 10 Billion by World War One, over 100 Billion by World War Two, over 1 Trillion during Regan’s Administration, and so on and so on. So, you can see that the problem is not one of returning to “Economically Sound” times, but whether or not we really want so-called “Economically Sound” times at all, since America’s progress has been based entirely on the processing of National Debt. In terms of the processing of that debt, the real problem has been in how quickly we have been able to pay off the Bonds we have been issuing serially since the Revolution, and since our Export to Import Ratio has gone lopsided towards Import —due to our own deliberate planning, by the way — that seems to be an increasingly slow process. The imbalance we currently experience was started when American business woke up to the fact that they could make their profits in a much easier fashion if they pushed their Labor Intensive processes off shore to the parts of the Third World that were at an educational level sufficient to handle those processes, but not yet advanced enough to require salaries equal to those found in America. Interestingly enough, the rest of the Third World has learned that lesson, which is why The Philippines – which benefitted from the first round of transition of America’s Labor Intensive processes, lost out by the 1990s when they saw those same processes being moved to China for identical reasons. One needs to wonder just where those American processes are going to be moved now that China’s Laboring Class is gaining higher salaries. The partial answer to Question B, then is this: Prepare to receive those self-same Processes when the Labor/Salary Musical Chairs game comes back to America, and thus restore the Import/Export balance that existed prior to our starting this game at the end of World War Two. The only problem with that, of course, is the fact that these Third World Nations – having tasted “Progress” — won’t want to go back to Third World economic status quietly, which means that we will never regain 100% of that Import/Export balance no matter how hard we try. What will complicate the issue further, will be the fact that we will never regain 100% of the jobs we lost over that period of time because of Productivity, and the jobs we do gain to replace the lost jobs will be of higher technology than the old jobs, which means higher salaries, and higher education. That means that the rest of the answer to Question B is this: The American Community – as a whole – must be prepared to educate its offspring – at the Community’s expense – so that it can absorb those higher technology jobs here. The reason why I want the Community to finance that education, is because it will be the Community’s investment in increasing the number of Domestic higher Technology jobs in the Private sector that won’t get sent elsewhere because of the “Lie” that workers with that level of technological experience cannot be found here. Trying to do anything else in this area – especially those things that don’t involve investment – are counter-productive in the long term. C. Who is at fault and why, and How can we fix it? America “en masse” is at fault. Why? Because — to quote the Group “Dire Straits” — we all want our “Money For Nothing, and our Chicks For Free”. Everyone wants what money will buy, but no one wants to pay for it. This includes taxes. Raise the issue of raising taxes, and you have a fight on your hands. Talk about reducing services, and likewise you have a fight on your hands. Sorry, but I don’t mind paying taxes, especially when I get the service I champion. This is why I prefer a CONSUMPTION Tax for ALL Persons who buy something. That would raise a lot of money because EVERYONE would have to pay it, and it would take the fluff out of prices since American shoppers would use every ounce of strength they have to find the best deal. As for INCOME Taxes, I would prefer a flat tax rate for ALL American income, but you just cannot trust the better off to pay their share without trying to beat the game. I really wouldn’t mind that so much except that there is such a huge gap between Middle Class and Rich incomes so that the idea of the Rich working to beat the game really tickles me as the height of Hubris. Therefore, I would re-structure the tax rolls so that Income Tax would be aimed above the Middle Class level in all cases. The other questions were answered in the text above. |
|
|
|
10-07-2010, 12:17 AM
|
#35 |
|
|
I just posted my response to you original posting, and I am NOT on YOUR Time Clock!
|
|
|
|
10-07-2010, 01:08 PM
|
#36 |
|
|
I took my time writing this because I am a careful writer, and it wasn't the only thing I had to do today... |
|
|
|
10-07-2010, 01:45 PM
|
#37 |
|
|
"In terms of the processing of that debt, the real problem has been in how quickly we have been able to pay off the Bonds we have been issuing serially since the Revolution, and since our Export to Import Ratio has gone lopsided towards Import —due to our own deliberate planning, by the way — that seems to be an increasingly slow process. The imbalance we currently experience was started when American business woke up to the fact that they could make their profits in a much easier fashion if they pushed their Labor Intensive processes off shore to the parts of the Third World that were at an educational level sufficient to handle those processes, but not yet advanced enough to require salaries equal to those found in America. Interestingly enough, the rest of the Third World has learned that lesson, which is why The Philippines – which benefitted from the first round of transition of America’s Labor Intensive processes, lost out by the 1990s when they saw those same processes being moved to China for identical reasons. One needs to wonder just where those American processes are going to be moved now that China’s Laboring Class is gaining higher salaries."
Sounds like what I have been saying. 1: The CEOs and owners of big business get really greedy raising their own salaries before raising the workers salaries. (R) Views 2: The workers unionize to gain equal treatment and pay, but then get corupt and run the production out of the nation because they have labor sitting in break rooms for 8 hrs getting paid $45/hour. (D) views. Hand in hand, democrats and Republicans kill the production in America, but I think having jobs in America while having .01% of the populous being Gagilionairs and still having 1% unemplyment is better than driving production overseas due to government intervention into the lives of the private business. |
|
|
|
10-07-2010, 01:56 PM
|
#38 |
|
|
"That means that the rest of the answer to Question B is this: The American Community – as a whole – must be prepared to educate its offspring – at the Community’s expense – so that it can absorb those higher technology jobs here. The reason why I want the Community to finance that education, is because it will be the Community’s investment in increasing the number of Domestic higher Technology jobs in the Private sector that won’t get sent elsewhere because of the “Lie” that workers with that level of technological experience cannot be found here. Trying to do anything else in this area – especially those things that don’t involve investment – are counter-productive in the long term."
True, very, very true. But the "community" also needs to have the authority to punish and straighten out the kids that act up and not be hindered by government deciding what is appropriate for a parent to spank a child. Or if the parents are so insistive on the teachers being the "parent figures" for their children because they are too lazy, then the teachers should be allowed to actually punish the kids. Most kids will act like animals unless they are given strict guidance of behavior control. Not until we "mature" will we ever use our "logical" mind over our "primal" mind. There is the controdiction of both Dems and Repubs again. |
|
|
|
10-07-2010, 02:23 PM
|
#39 |
|
|
"Everyone wants what money will buy, but no one wants to pay for it. This includes taxes. Raise the issue of raising taxes, and you have a fight on your hands. Talk about reducing services, and likewise you have a fight on your hands."
You are right, but in no way is it fair to tax someone at a higher % or raise their taxes solely on the basis of being more "successful" with their business. Nor is it fair that when my parents die and leave all their hard earned possesions to my brother and I, should the gov, who has already taxed my parents the entire time they had been working, should be able to tax the stuff they leave behind. "Sorry, but I don’t mind paying taxes, especially when I get the service I champion. This is why I prefer a CONSUMPTION Tax for ALL Persons who buy something. That would raise a lot of money because EVERYONE would have to pay it, and it would take the fluff out of prices since American shoppers would use every ounce of strength they have to find the best deal. As for INCOME Taxes, I would prefer a flat tax rate for ALL American income, but you just cannot trust the better off to pay their share without trying to beat the game. I really wouldn’t mind that so much except that there is such a huge gap between Middle Class and Rich incomes so that the idea of the Rich working to beat the game really tickles me as the height of Hubris. Therefore, I would re-structure the tax rolls so that Income Tax would be aimed above the Middle Class level in all cases." Yes to consumption tax, everyone would pay the same and never get to write off expenses or claim BS for having 12 kids on a $0k/year income. The more you made, the more you spend, the more you pay in taxes. Yes, their food bill in Wal-mart is not going to be the same % of their budget as the people making $60k/year. But then again, we the little folk aren't looking to buy our own private jet. It is called a budget and everyone would make adjustments to theirs. No to income taxes at all. You let everyone have the money the EARNED, you allow them to spend it on what they want to spend it on, and then you get more from the consumption tax. I find it very distrubing that the top 1% earners, gather 98% on the nations wealth, but only pay 45% of the taxes. And 50% of the people in America do not pay any taxes. So that leave people making $50k/year to $200k/year (2% of the nations income) paying 55% of the taxes. Get rid of the income tax, then people can't get out of paying taxes with the consumption tax. You have every right to keep all the money you earn, but you don't have to spend it on the biggest, most expensive crap you WANT (not need, WANT). And no consumption tax on essential food items like milk, juice, bread, fruits and vegtibles and meat like chicken, steak, fish, or pork that is standard cuts, not "colby beef" specials. I did not say water because you can get that very cheap from your house. It is not just the rich that beat the system, the poor do it too, they have kids they can't afford so that they get huge refunds at the end of the year. A lot of the military get all excited around tax time cause they get back $10k because they have 5 kids and only paid in $5k for taxes, but the 5 kids cost a hell of a lot mroe than $5k in that year, so they really didn't win, but America sure as hell didn't recieve that money either. |
|
|
|
10-07-2010, 02:49 PM
|
#40 |
|
|
So Corn, in the end, it seems as you and I have close to the same views, it is just a matter of who you despise more...
The rich, successful, selfish people hoarding their money but providing work to their employees and most of America? And then you group in the very rich who give away millions and billions in their own money because they want to to charities, like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckaberg, and Oprah. And there are so many others you can name that choose to help out America and could do more if they were allowed to keep what they earn. There are people in this category that choose to raise their own salaries instead of spreading the profits to their employees who are the reason for the company’s success. Or the poor who sit on their asses and complain they can't have 2 more years of unemployment while turning down jobs to work in the fields, cleaning homes, McDs employees, janitors or anything they would yell at illegals because "they took our jobs" but yet no American really steps up and does that job, because the ones sitting on welfare for 2 years think those jobs are beneath them, but collecting a hand out isn’t. I wish I knew how to post pics on here, I have one of a guy at a soup kitchen of a guy getting a free meal from Michelle Obama and he is taking a picture of her on his $200+ phone that includes a service plan that would cost over $100 to maintain each month. But he is getting a free meal. And none of them pay any taxes and benefit society what so ever till they get a job again. But the really biggest killer for me is that the political party that gets in bed with the Unions that say they are for the "working middle class" but is far from it. Unions were good to begin with, but as most thing in human existence, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the Churches of pretty much all major faiths prove that their MEN can't resist the temptation of power, so how about earthly based unions without the basis of their organizations set on morality? Unions are only supporting the Democrats because they are the party that will allow them to keep their power. And this is the part that makes me hate the liberals, their straight lies. Kind of like how they claim more people were at their rally than Becks rally. They are either major, bold face liars, or so delusional, they should be in a loony been because they are schizophrenic. You can't provide a good economy by starting from the ground up, you need the capitol, the "top" if you will, and allow them to provide jobs. What good is it going to do if you keep giving the low end of the economy money, is someone going to start a business with their unemployment check? But like I said, who do you despise more when it comes to your actual political views? |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
