Ted Kennedy has passed - Page 3

sterlingice · 08-26-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Regardless of political junk, I only have one thing to say: Fuck cancer.

I think that's something we can all agree on

SI

BishopMVP · 08-26-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't want to excuse his personal flaws, but it's a wonder he made much out of himself after all three of his brothers were tragically killed.

Who was the 3rd one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Who's left? His wife may get appointed as the placeholder (we've already got Tsongas' wife as my congressional rep), but I can't see her lasting long. I don't think anyone here could name a surviving male Kennedy other than the Skakel's, but they're probably not gonna be picked. It seems like the clan below John F./Bobby/Ted dispersed away from Massachusetts, at least to Greenwich-area CT.

(I may be biased because I hate political royalty family's, but I really do think the mystique is of a past generation. Most people under 30 would probably have a hard time even knowing who JFK Jr. was outside of Seinfeld.)

CNN is speculating one of his two sons may run for it, but one represents Rhode Island and the other has pretty much been in Connecticut for 30+ years. It does look to be shaping up like an interesting primary, and I guess the more names in the better chances of getting in on the Kennedy name alone, despite being a (reverse)-carpetbagger.

JonInMiddleGA · 08-26-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Who was the 3rd one?

Naval aviator Joe, Jr, killed in 1944 while taking part in an experimental flight as part of a program known as Operation:Aphrodite

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 08-26-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanGarion

OMG I'm sure those talking about Kennedy's faults are completely virtuous and perfect and have never done anything wrong that people will continue to bring up over and over after you are dead...

Isn't the retort to this so obvious that it doesn't need to be said?

Well, I'll say it. If my recklessness kills somebody, then I would expect people to remember that fact once I've gone.

Chief Rum · 08-27-2009, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanGarion

OMG I'm sure those talking about Kennedy's faults are completely virtuous and perfect and have never done anything wrong that people will continue to bring up over and over after you are dead...

This is a chickenshit card. People always play this card whenever they run out of a rational way to argue against someone criticizing another person, whether right or not. Dangarion won't be the first nor the last to play it.

Welcome to the Internet. Free speech is in the Constitution, and that includes opinions you don't agree with.

DanGarion · 08-27-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

This is a chickenshit card. People always play this card whenever they run out of a rational way to argue against someone criticizing another person, whether right or not. Dangarion won't be the first nor the last to play it.

Welcome to the Internet. Free speech is in the Constitution, and that includes opinions you don't agree with.

Well I'm not playing a card, as you can see I've never claimed a side. Just point out what I was seeing. Sure the guy did something really stupid and someone ended up dying, but how many times can this one incident be brought up? I mean sure the roads are safer, but if the only card you can play is this one it's time to play a new game.

Chief Rum · 08-27-2009, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Well I'm not playing a card, as you can see I've never claimed a side. Just point out what I was seeing. Sure the guy did something really stupid and someone ended up dying, but how many times can this one incident be brought up? I mean sure the roads are safer, but if the only card you can play is this one it's time to play a new game.

The quote I responded to you played exactly the card I am talking about. You made a "glass houses" argument. It's the same crap we always see from people when these situations come up, and I am calling it out. I think people need to stop "lionizing" others, and accept a little truth and reality into their lives. People proposing the argument you did look like they want to hide their heads in the sand and pretend everything about the guy was hunky dory.

And even if people are playing the same card, well, it's one heck of a card. Kennedy was no saint, and people have the right to point that out, however many times they like. If you think they're repetitive, than put them on ignore, skip past their posts, don't go into the thread, whatever. But don't tell them what they can and can't post.

larrymcg421 · 08-27-2009, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

This is a chickenshit card. People always play this card whenever they run out of a rational way to argue against someone criticizing another person, whether right or not. Dangarion won't be the first nor the last to play it.

Welcome to the Internet. Free speech is in the Constitution, and that includes opinions you don't agree with.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the first paragraph, your second is one of my biggest pet peeves. Unless Dangarion threatened to have you arrested for your opinion, then bringing up the First Amendment is pretty fucking stupid. Just as it protects everyone's rights to bash Kennedy, it also protects Dangarion's right to call people out for that.

Galaril · 08-27-2009, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Trolling is discussing a life-changing event for this woman? Someone in this thread said Kennedy paid a big penalty when he lost the presidency. That's an insane assertion. It's not even remotely similar to someone paying with their life.

Geez.........to bad you Republicans (Neo-Cons) don't have the same sympathy for all the innocent woman, and children in Iraqi that have been blown apart, turned into a refugees etc for the benefit of growing Dick Cheney's retirement fund

..........This also reminds me of the huge outcry mostly on Fox News and that hack Nancy Grace's show back when Natalee Holloway disappeared in the Carribbean. A young, pretty, white girl from a wealthy family goes missing and there is this huge uproar as opposed to when 100s of non-white girls disappear ever week in this country and not a peep from you guys? Anyways, MBBF don't fuck with dead Irish Catholics from Boston I have a great uncle that most of my family says still hunts a summer home our family has out on The Cape

Chief Rum · 08-27-2009, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

While I don't necessarily disagree with the first paragraph, your second is one of my biggest pet peeves. Unless Dangarion threatened to have you arrested for your opinion, then bringing up the First Amendment is pretty fucking stupid. Just as it protects everyone's rights to bash Kennedy, it also protects Dangarion's right to call people out for that.

You must be reading something in there I don't see, because nowhere do I say Dangarion can't say what he wants to.

Chief Rum · 08-27-2009, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril

Geez.........to bad you Republicans (Neo-Cons) don't have the same sympathy for all the innocent woman, and children in Iraqi that have been blown apart, turned into a refugees etc for the benefit of growing Dick Cheney's retirement fund

..........This also reminds me of the huge outcry mostly on Fox News and that hack Nancy Grace's show back when Natalee Holloway disappeared in the Carribbean. A young, pretty, white girl from a wealthy family goes missing and there is this huge uproar as opposed to when 100s of non-white girls disappear ever week in this country and not a peep from you guys? Anyways, MBBF don't fuck with dead Irish Catholics from Boston I have a great uncle that most of my family says still hunts a summer home our family has out on The Cape

Got it. Repubs == evil, ergo Teddy gets a free pass.

JPhillips · 08-27-2009, 06:54 AM

Kennedy fascinates me for many of the same reasons that Nixon does. He was a terribly flawed man who spent much of his life trying to live up to his family name. Cal Thomas had a nice column on Kennedy today:

Quote:

Over the years, I came to see Mr. Kennedy not as a symbol, but as a fellow human being who did not get up each morning seeking ways to harm the country. I know of things he did for the poor and homeless on his own time and in his own way without a press release or a desire for public approval. I know of other hurts and concerns he shared with the very few he could trust about which I would never speak.

Because he came from wealth, he felt a responsibility to give back. We can argue whether government or individuals do that best, but we can't say Ted Kennedy was inconsistent. He would compromise to advance his beliefs, not dilute them.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 08-27-2009, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril

Geez.........to bad you Republicans (Neo-Cons) don't have the same sympathy for all the innocent woman, and children in Iraqi that have been blown apart, turned into a refugees etc for the benefit of growing Dick Cheney's retirement fund

..........This also reminds me of the huge outcry mostly on Fox News and that hack Nancy Grace's show back when Natalee Holloway disappeared in the Carribbean. A young, pretty, white girl from a wealthy family goes missing and there is this huge uproar as opposed to when 100s of non-white girls disappear ever week in this country and not a peep from you guys? Anyways, MBBF don't fuck with dead Irish Catholics from Boston I have a great uncle that most of my family says still hunts a summer home our family has out on The Cape

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

DaddyTorgo · 08-27-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 08-27-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

.

flere-imsaho · 08-27-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What is it with people lately? This is like the third or fourth time in the past month that people have kindof forgotten who JIMGA is.

Subby · 08-27-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

With all due respect, the guy was responsible for the death of another person due to whatever reason you beleive, but that fact cannot be dissacciated with him. Imagine what pople would say if today Leonard Little had died. In his thread, someone would mention the cloud over his life, even in passing.

wot?

DanGarion · 08-27-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

Blue Dog Democrat? Is that what the dems are calling Libertarians now?

Dr. Sak · 08-27-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Blue Dog Democrat? Is that what the dems are calling Libertarians now?

No that's what Eagles fans call Vick.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 08-27-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Blue Dog Democrat? Is that what the dems are calling Libertarians now?

I guess. It's a person who carries liberal social views but takes a conservative stance towards spending. Otherwise known as a very confused person if you ask the far left or far right.

Galaril · 08-27-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

Ok point taken.

Galaril · 08-27-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

.

Not today boyz

DanGarion · 08-27-2009, 10:30 AM

larrymcg421 · 08-27-2009, 11:36 AM

Since when are the Blue Dogs socially liberal? I think you're more thinking of "New Democrats".

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 11:55 AM

I do think it's sad to lose a part of American history. Not necessarily just Ted, but the concept of Camelot. The Kennedys will always have a chapter in American history and with Ted's death it has finally closed. Not unlike Nixon who many people disliked. In the end, it's not just the death of a man but of someone who has been a part of American history.

His personal sin decades ago surely shouldn't be forgotten. I do think in the minds of many he has made efforts to atone for it with his work in Congress. I guess I find the constant bashing of him for it a bit hypocritical when Bush and Cheney both had DUIs on their record. Laura Bush actually killed someone out of negligience. I would hope if they died, we wouldn't be discussing their DUIs and other transgressions from decades ago and instead discussing their overall impact on our country.

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW, I'm certainly not a staunch Republican. I actually listed my beliefs on economic and social views and was shocked to find out I'm one of these 'Blue Dog Democrats' that we keep hearing about. Socially liberal, but economically conservative. I'd also note that I haven't given a single criticism of Kennedy in this thread that was political in nature. All were of his personal character faults.

The thing is that your views don't translate into equal actions to both sides. You are fiscally conservative, but never made daily posts about Bush's spending policy. You didn't post about the gigantic Medicare expansion he pushed through.

Perhaps your views are moderate, but your criticisms are not.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 08-27-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess I find the constant bashing of him for it a bit hypocritical when Bush and Cheney both had DUIs on their record.

I was highly critical of both for those events. I'll assume you're talking about another poster since you didn't specifically quote a poster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The thing is that your views don't translate into equal actions to both sides. You are fiscally conservative, but never made daily posts about Bush's spending policy. You didn't post about the gigantic Medicare expansion he pushed through.

I've been very critical of the increase in spending under Bush, especially late in his presidency. It only makes sense that I'm even more upset over the 4x increase of the deficit under the current administration.

I don't post any about the issues where I support Obama because it's not the topic at hand. The day that Obama preaches things like more stem cell research or legalizing marijuana or poker, I'll be right there behind him waiving the banner. I've already done that once when he rolled back the stem cell ban. Just because no one raised a fuss when I made a critical comment about a Republican or a positive comment about a Democrat doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that the board generally leans left and only raises a fuss when my comment goes against that grain.

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 08-27-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've been very critical of the increase in spending under Bush, especially late in his presidency. It only makes sense that I'm even more upset over the 4x increase of the deficit under the current administration.

I don't post any about the issues where I support Obama because it's not the topic at hand. The day that Obama preaches things like more stem cell research or legalizing marijuana or poker, I'll be right there behind him waiving the banner. I've already done that once when he rolled back the stem cell ban. Just because no one raised a fuss when I made a critical comment about a Republican or a positive comment about a Democrat doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that the board generally leans left and only raises a fuss when my comment goes against that grain.

I don't think anyone is buying the shit you're shoveling here. A quick search of your posts with "Bush" in them sees no criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm generally speaking a conservative and was a bit leary initially when I saw that he nominated an internal candidate, but after further reading concerning some democrats also suggesting her nomination and some of her qualifications related to her law and government careers, I'm at least open to hearing what she has to say in the hearings. I have no clue what kind of harassment this post will draw, but I thought I'd at least take a shot and finally make a post in a political topic. Who knows, it may be my last.

IF ONLY.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 08-27-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I don't think anyone is buying the shit you're shoveling here. A quick search of your posts with "Bush" in them sees no criticism.

I don't disagree with the first post you cited from me. I generally vote Republican because I value fiscal responsibility more than anything else. That even comes into play regarding my support of legalized marijuana and online poker. I see it as another revenue stream despite never smoking pot in my entire life. I'm not sure what the second post was about, so tough to comment on that.

I'd also note that my views have moderated considerably since 2004-2005. I'm a different voter than I was 5 years ago. There was a post someone dug up in another thread where I was surprised at how much I disagreed with my own post from a few years back. I must be getting old.

Enough about me. Back to your regularly scheduled Kennedy fluffing.

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I was highly critical of both for those events. I'll assume you're talking about another poster since you didn't specifically quote a poster.

As I've said before, where are the daily posts about him? You've been a member of the board a long time and I don't see much that is critical of his spending. It appears like selective criticism.

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't disagree with the first post you cited from me. I generally vote Republican because I value fiscal responsibility more than anything else.

Wouldn't that make you a Democrat though? Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in well over 30 years. The last 3 Republican Presidents ran up the debt to where it is today. The lone Democrat President we had up till Obama actually created a surplus.

DaddyTorgo · 08-27-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't that make you a Democrat though? Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in well over 30 years. The last 3 Republican Presidents ran up the debt to where it is today. The lone Democrat President we had up till Obama actually created a surplus.

ssssh...that's a dirty little secret the Republican party doesn't like to have brought up.

the myth of Republicans as fiscal conservatives is so overplayed it's almost comical. both parties are for increased spending. it's just one believes in increasing taxes (primarily on the rich and corporations) to fund it while the other believes in funding it by slashing social programs.

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

ssssh...that's a dirty little secret the Republican party doesn't like to have brought up.

the myth of Republicans as fiscal conservatives is so overplayed it's almost comical. both parties are for increased spending. it's just one believes in increasing taxes (primarily on the rich and corporations) to fund it while the other believes in funding it by slashing social programs.

I wouldn't say Republicans are for slashing social programs. They did massively increase Medicare and some educational programs a few years back. I would say the Dems are tax and spend while the Republicans are borrow and spend.

DaddyTorgo · 08-27-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I wouldn't say Republicans are for slashing social programs. They did massively increase Medicare and some educational programs a few years back. I would say the Dems are tax and spend while the Republicans are borrow and spend.

fair enough.

so i guess it's a question of how responsible do you feel continued deficit spending is, versus trying to pay for the spending

molson · 08-27-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't that make you a Democrat though? Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in well over 30 years. The last 3 Republican Presidents ran up the debt to where it is today. The lone Democrat President we had up till Obama actually created a surplus.

There's more fiscal conservatives in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. It doesn't always appear that way because the federal government is a disaster no matter who's in power, but the differences are more apparent at the state level.

My conservative western state, and its neighbors, are run very well from a fiscal responsibility standpoint.

You can't judge an entire party by its federally elected representives. Fiscal conservatives DO exist.

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

There's more fiscal conservatives in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. It doesn't always appear that way because the federal government is a disaster no matter who's in power, but the differences are more apparent at the state level.

My conservative western state, and its neighbors, are run very well from a fiscal responsibility standpoint.

You can't judge an entire party by its federally elected representives. Fiscal conservatives DO exist.

I'm sure they do. But if you go through the states with the biggest deficits, it's a solid mix of Democrats and Republicans running them. California which has gotten the biggest of the attention has had a Republican Governor for awhile.

You also have to factor in that many of the conservative (Red) states are nanny states. They take in more from the federal government than what they put in. California would have a balanced budget if they didn't have to support so many other states.

JPhillips · 08-27-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I wouldn't say Republicans are for slashing social programs. They did massively increase Medicare and some educational programs a few years back. I would say the Dems are tax and spend while the Republicans are borrow and spend.

Many Republicans have been quite open about the need to "starve the beast". The theory is that running huge deficits will eventually lead to the ability to convince the public that the government has to be drastically cut back. They don't mind spending, provided they get the credit, because a bunch of them are actually rooting for a crisis.

molson · 08-27-2009, 03:50 PM

My only point is that the fiscal conservatives sure ain't in the Democrat party. If they're not in public service, they're in neither party (and irrelevant), and if they are, they have to join the Repubilcans. The fact that they they don't have any power in the party at the moment doesn't mean that they don't exisit.

DaddyTorgo · 08-27-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Many Republicans have been quite open about the need to "starve the beast". The theory is that running huge deficits will eventually lead to the ability to convince the public that the government has to be drastically cut back. They don't mind spending, provided they get the credit, because a bunch of them are actually rooting for a crisis.

that's the most inane, illogical line of reasoning. it's almost comical actually. because we're not going to be able to declare bankruptcy as a country, we're still going to have to pay off all the borrowing we do in order to deficit-spend at the level that we are.

people that espouse that line of thinking shouldn't be let anywhere near positions of authority.

DaddyTorgo · 08-27-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

My only point is that the fiscal conservatives sure ain't in the Democrat party. If they're not in public service, they're in neither party (and irrelevant), and if they are, they have to join the Repubilcans. The fact that they they don't have any power in the party at the moment doesn't mean that they don't exisit.

didn't clinton balance the budget? weren't we running a surplus?

molson · 08-27-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

didn't clinton balance the budget? weren't we running a surplus?

I wouldn't consider Clinton a fiscal conservative. Better president than Obama though. And Bush. And the other Bush. Good president with the glaring flaw of not appreciating the threat of terrorism.

And I wouldn't give him credit for the tech boom. That would be a bit of a stretch.

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

My only point is that the fiscal conservatives sure ain't in the Democrat party. If they're not in public service, they're in neither party (and irrelevant), and if they are, they have to join the Repubilcans. The fact that they they don't have any power in the party at the moment doesn't mean that they don't exisit.

And my belief is that they aren't even in the Republican Party right now. That it's all just lip service. I mean even the great Ron Paul of fiscal conservatism had a shitload of crazy earmarks for his district.

The system is fucked because I don't see how we can ever get fiscal conservatism. Many people want it, but at the same time we want our representatives to bring home as much fucking bacon as they can.

RainMaker · 08-27-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

didn't clinton balance the budget? weren't we running a surplus?

He's been the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years.

DaddyTorgo · 08-27-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He's been the most fiscally conservative President we've had in 30 years.

and yet he was hmm...a Democrat?

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 08-27-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

And I wouldn't give him credit for the tech boom. That would be a bit of a stretch.

And yet, even with higher taxes, innovation and business boomed. People weren't afraid to make more money even if the taxes were higher.

molson · 08-27-2009, 04:05 PM

Funny to see Democrats bragging about other Democrats being fiscally conservative. Isn't that something you DON'T want to be?

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 08-27-2009, 04:09 PM

Just as you constantly point out that just because some Republicans are x, y, or z not all of them are, not all people who vote Democrat are tax and spend liberals.

molson · 08-27-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

And yet, even with higher taxes, innovation and business boomed. People weren't afraid to make more money even if the taxes were higher.

The economy goes in cycles. It's beyond silly to credit/blame every recession and boom time to whoever happens to be in power at the time.

Taxes weren't that much higher than they are now. And the best argument for lower taxes is NOT motvation of business and workers. I don't know why people make that argument. But it definitely creates a convenientstraw man.

A dollar in the hand of a company can become more dollars, which can create even more taxes. A dollar in the hand of the government just kind of dies there. So it's just a balance. Too high, and you're actually hurting your tax revenue. Too low, and you're not maximizing it either. It's not how Democrats try to frame the debate. (which is mostly just "its sad that people are poor, the rich don't need so money, so let's help out the poor people).

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 08-27-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

The economy goes in cycles. It's beyond silly to credit/blame every recession and boom time to whoever happens to be in power at the time.

Taxes weren't that much higher than they are now. And the best argument for lower taxes is NOT motvation of business and workers. I don't know why people make that argument. But it definitely creates a convienient straw man.

A dollar in the hand of a company can become more dollars, which can create even more taxes. A dollar in the hand of the government just kind of dies there. So it's just a balance. Too high, and you're hurting your tax revenue. Too low, and you're not maximizing it either. It's not how Democrats try to frame the debate.

I certainly understand your point. I only brought up the "straw man" because we heard it fucking all the time last October.

edit: I'm gonna stop mucking up this thread. My apologies.

Flasch186 · 08-27-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molson

Funny to see Democrats bragging about other Democrats being fiscally conservative. Isn't that something you DON'T want to be?

not during the worst recession ever.

08-27-2009, 10:30 AM	#123
DanGarion Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwest	__________________ Los Angeles Dodgers Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit! DON'T REPORT ME BRO!

08-27-2009, 11:36 AM	#124
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	Since when are the Blue Dogs socially liberal? I think you're more thinking of "New Democrats". __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

08-27-2009, 04:09 PM	#147
Ronnie Dobbs2 Pro Rookie Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Bahston Mass	Just as you constantly point out that just because some Republicans are x, y, or z not all of them are, not all people who vote Democrat are tax and spend liberals. __________________ There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think

08-27-2009, 11:55 AM	#125
RainMaker General Manager Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chicago, IL	I do think it's sad to lose a part of American history. Not necessarily just Ted, but the concept of Camelot. The Kennedys will always have a chapter in American history and with Ted's death it has finally closed. Not unlike Nixon who many people disliked. In the end, it's not just the death of a man but of someone who has been a part of American history. His personal sin decades ago surely shouldn't be forgotten. I do think in the minds of many he has made efforts to atone for it with his work in Congress. I guess I find the constant bashing of him for it a bit hypocritical when Bush and Cheney both had DUIs on their record. Laura Bush actually killed someone out of negligience. I would hope if they died, we wouldn't be discussing their DUIs and other transgressions from decades ago and instead discussing their overall impact on our country.

08-27-2009, 03:50 PM	#138
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	My only point is that the fiscal conservatives sure ain't in the Democrat party. If they're not in public service, they're in neither party (and irrelevant), and if they are, they have to join the Repubilcans. The fact that they they don't have any power in the party at the moment doesn't mean that they don't exisit.

08-27-2009, 04:05 PM	#146
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	Funny to see Democrats bragging about other Democrats being fiscally conservative. Isn't that something you DON'T want to be?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)