Bored of Pisteon Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 This is why these threads should be in the employees section. No moderator was over there, that's why they got moved and now you see why you guys have been put on notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocheese Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 This is why these threads should be in the employees section. Why do you think this should be in the "Employees Only" section? Because I have to be honest Aces, now that the Mods are fully aware of your gimmick, it won't take them long to wonder why you can't answer a simple question about a plant you claimed to have worked in for 37 years 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) I see you left out most of my post ...how convenient. How about these lines? We need to look at entitlements...but not just individual ones. Why do we subsidize certain things? Both through direct subsidies and "tax expenditures"? Do we need to subsidize big oil, big agriculture, rich peoples mortgage interest etc? If subsidies were targeted to increase the tax base (job creation) and were short term they might be worthwhile. Why is mortgage interest deductible? Why does ethanol get subsidized and lower our MPG? Why do highly profitable oil companies need a tax break and a depletion allowance? Why do huge agriculture corporations need a subsidy since the Reagan days? Why do corporate jet owners need a subsidy? I'm sure I missed many more. Obviously you see what you want. Many posters here post links The Obama's failure thread is full of links...some really dumb ones too....but that is OK? Why did you leave that thread with all of the insults to the President? I bolded the ones that are nothing of substance and nothing more than a setup for the link you posted. Like I said, I don't CARE if you link to stories. Just make them relevant to a topic that is more than one sentence of setup with zero personal thought or opinion in it. You sure ask a lot more questions than you answer. And no, linking to a story is not an answer. What is YOUR answer to those questions? Certainly you have an opinion that differs from what the talking heads in your links say, right? Links and sources are fine to augment and support a position, but they can't make the argument entirely for you. Your ask-and-answer method provides nothing new, and as some have mentioned, nothing to discuss. Edited October 5, 2011 by NickF1011 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Well, since you like using blanket terms. Let's tell you where I stand on some things: I am favor of eliminating tax loopholes. I am in favor of shrinking the federal government. I am in favor of stronger border security. I am pro-choice. I believe in some forms of gun control. I support marijuana legalization. I believe in a strong military. I support some forms of government oversight on business. I believe in the complete separation of church and state. Feel free to ask me my position on anything else while we're at it. I'll gladly share...AND explain why. Am I "right winger"? That's why such terms should not be used. You can say "those who don't believe in this particular point I am making", but simply labeling anyone who disagrees with that particular point with one label, you instantly label them as someone who disagrees with everything else you might say as well, which is ridiculous. I will disagree with you on some things and agree with you on others, but if I disagree with you on one point and you label me a "right winger", I'm going to be far less inclined to want to defend your perspective when I do agree with you. All attributes of the Libertarian party. http://www.lp.org/platform Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I like this video Seems like Reagan and Obama agree. Today's far right controlled Republican party worships "St. Ronnie" but if he were running today he would be condemned as a liberal. Try watching the entire Reagan speech. If you're impatient, start watching about 8:00 and go from there (give it at least 7 minutes). If you really think you're going to lose you lunch, start at 13:50, then see how much you believe they agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1rhgjG0zyc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I'm a "raft" dodger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Fantastic video. It is good to be reminded that America is a good place to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) ... Edited October 6, 2011 by NickF1011 No posting of private messages in the forums. Last warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) I bolded the ones that are nothing of substance and nothing more than a setup for the link you posted. Like I said, I don't CARE if you link to stories. Just make them relevant to a topic that is more than one sentence of setup with zero personal thought or opinion in it. You sure ask a lot more questions than you answer. And no, linking to a story is not an answer. What is YOUR answer to those questions? Certainly you have an opinion that differs from what the talking heads in your links say, right? Links and sources are fine to augment and support a position, but they can't make the argument entirely for you. Your ask-and-answer method provides nothing new, and as some have mentioned, nothing to discuss. What crap. I see that you and the right wingers don't want to have to think or get some knowledge on an issue. Just like talk radio...he who talks loudest wins. Time this forum was renamed as "the Republican Times" I am told how to post I am told what words to use I am told not to link Where is the guidance for the Right wingers that slander? Where is the guidance for the Right wingers that link? Where is the guidance for the Right wingers that use blanket term? Oh sorry ...too many question marks. Why not just ban me and be done? Edited October 6, 2011 by Aces 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I'm a "raft" dodger. I'm an old "codger". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 What crap. I see that you and the right wingers don't want to have to think or get some knowledge on an issue. Just like talk radio...he who talks loudest wins. The problem with many of your posts, Aces, is that they only include "SOME knowledge" on an issue. The sources you cite (of the ones I've bothered to consider) omit pertinent facts of an issue. People like myself--now that I'm free to respond to them outside the Employee Forum---will call you on it when you don't include all the facts; particularly those that refute your argument. Case in point, the last post on the previous page of this thread. You'd posted a video that includes an excerpt of a Reagan speech intending to make Obama sound more similar to Reagan than the actually are. I provided the entire Reagan speech video, so people can decide for themselves if they want to believe your "Seems like Reagan and Obama agree" statement. (I'd guess, "No" to that one) Your posts can be boiled down to the following assertions: Republicans..... are stupid. ("stupid" meaning not only are they ignorant, they can't learn) are racists. are the party of the Rich. want to destroy all working people. hate all people who aren't like themselves. ...and you "link bomb" (read: post articles without any original thought) over and over again with articles intended to distort (by deliberate omission or deception); and your method of debating an issue using the same "go back and read" or "why can't Republicans comprehend" or "sad small minds" retorts is indicative of someone either incapable of sustaining a cogent argument or whose purpose is not to debate at all. Everyone gets tired of watching/hearing the same thing after a period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Why not just ban me and be done? Because it's too easy for the Mods. (Give them credit for not being so easily manipulated) That is, until you decide to call them "scum" or worse. And as a "right-winger", I'd prefer you stay around; because it allows others (outside the Employee Forum) to respond to your daily (hourly?) blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 We need to look at entitlements...but not just individual ones. Why do we subsidize certain things? Both through direct subsidies and "tax expenditures"? Do we need to subsidize big oil, big agriculture, rich peoples mortgage interest etc? If subsidies were targeted to increase the tax base (job creation) and were short term they might be worthwhile. Why is mortgage interest deductible? Why does ethanol get subsidized and lower our MPG? Why do highly profitable oil companies need a tax break and a depletion allowance? Why do huge agriculture corporations need a subsidy since the Reagan days? Why do corporate jet owners need a subsidy? I'm sure I missed many more. I bolded the ones that are nothing of substance and nothing more than a setup for the link you posted. Like I said, I don't CARE if you link to stories. Just make them relevant to a topic that is more than one sentence of setup with zero personal thought or opinion in it. You sure ask a lot more questions than you answer. And no, linking to a story is not an answer. What is YOUR answer to those questions? Certainly you have an opinion that differs from what the talking heads in your links say, right? Links and sources are fine to augment and support a position, but they can't make the argument entirely for you. Your ask-and-answer method provides nothing new, and as some have mentioned, nothing to discuss. I believe you are wrong and need to read this thread from the start to understand. I did not refer to a link. I was having a real discussion...something rare here where sniping is the norm...... and was expressing my thought on entitlement reform. There are many entitlements we wont look at ...for political reasons. In subsequent posts I backed up these opinions with some links. Real discussion should not be stifled because of slander and intimidation. It seems to me that you have taken the easy course of agreeing with the slanderers and joined in piling on. They do it because they have no counter arguments to the truths they don't like. Why do you join in? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I believe you are wrong and need to read this thread from the start to understand. I did not refer to a link. I was having a real discussion...something rare here where sniping is the norm...... and was expressing my thought on entitlement reform. (Something else that's rare.) There are many entitlements we wont look at ...for political reasons. In subsequent posts I backed up these opinions with some links. Real discussion should not be stifled because of slander and intimidation. (Huh? Real discussion IS stifled because of slander and intimidation. Or are you implying you should be able to slander and intimidate as a part of real discussion?) It seems to me that you have taken the easy course of agreeing with the slanderers and joined in piling on. (Seems to me that he has not taken sides as much as agreed that links are not your comments.They may be the source of the discussion. They may invite discussion due to the nature of the topic. but, when you simply introduce a link, essentially you are saying, "I've got nothing to add to this. It says it all." Whether I agree or not, I cannot pick apart the authors comments for deeper review. Your comments can be. Otherwise you are just another "Drudge Report", but you are using BON bandwidth and their audience.) They do it because they have no counter arguments to the truths they don't like. (Or you refuse to hear or accept differing opinions. As I've said before, you have the right to be wrong. As I do as well. I hope you will one day open my eyes to the errors of my thinking. Are you willing to concede you could be wrong, as well?) Why do you join in? (You invoked him!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocheese Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) *REMOVED* Edited October 6, 2011 by NickF1011 NO personal attacks. Period. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) *REMOVED* Edited October 6, 2011 by NickF1011 No responses to personal attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) Mods... can we put this up for a vote? Edited October 6, 2011 by NickF1011 GRRRR. NO! :-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 All attributes of the Libertarian party. http://www.lp.org/platform To a point. Yes. But only so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 You can't say D raft dodger. It will get the thread closed. No need to stoke the fire now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 i was being funny. It was a typo. i missed the D and made a joke about it. Lighten up brother. I know, I know. I'm the one who has to clean up all the posts when people react to it though. :lol: Let's just not go there anymore if we can help it, m'kay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocheese Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) ... Edited October 6, 2011 by NickF1011 Let's try responses that don't use the words "you" or "Aces". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Look people, if you can't make your point about the topic without having to belittle someone else, then don't post at all, okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 So are some Republicans escaping from the cult? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/us/politics/anti-tax-pledges-lose-their-sheen-as-eyes-turn-to-reform.html?_r=1&ref=politics The Tax pledge craziness of Grover Norquist has harmed America. It led to the downgrade of the nations credit rating as a result of the obduracy of the pledgers over the debt ceiling fiasco. It has made any agreement on closing some of the ridiculous tax loopholes impossible. It has led to huge and ever increasing deficits. If Republicans want to show they are for America and not just their party they must turn their back on this destructive pledge and it's cult like followers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 While I do not agree with the concept of any type of pledge, your statement : It has made any agreement on closing some of the ridiculous tax loopholes impossible. Is factually incorrect. Here is the actual pledge, note the second paragraph. ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income taxrates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. Had you actually read the story you liked to you would have read the following: Mr. Norquist said that those who raise questions about the pledge often do not understand it. “The pledge specifically says you can eliminate tax deductions if you bring rates down at same time,” he said. “The people who say that the pledge would get in the way of tax reform, well their point is they want a tax increase.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) While I do not agree with the concept of any type of pledge, your statement : Is factually incorrect. Here is the actual pledge, note the second paragraph. Had you actually read the story you liked to you would have read the following: Of course I read the story. (why are you attacking the poster?) The effect of the pledge is to stifle debate on tax reform. To have an unelected person such as Norquist influencing the elected representative by his interpretation of their action and whether it suits his opinion of what they pledged is undemocratic and just blocks any progress toward any meaningful reforms The fact that some are starting to turn their back on the Norquist cult is a hopeful development. I stand by my statement above: "It has made any agreement on closing some of the ridiculous tax loopholes impossible." It is correct.... as has been proven by the actions of the far right cult members in the house. Edited October 7, 2011 by Aces 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.