It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP-ED: The last refuge of a liberal

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Oh yes, he soooo hates the private sector sooooo much that he sent 46 million new customers to the insurance companies.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
One of the main reasons progressives are starting to distance themselves from Obama is he panders to Wall St. and corporations way too much.

You went straight into attack mode...even after your rant about how people just give nutty reasons, which I did not, about President Obama. Your condescending writing style comes off snobbish. Nonetheless I will attempt to have a rational debate with you.

Slight clarification: When I referred to the 'private sector' my main crux of people were small businesses.

Yes it is true, but to lay claim that President Obama believes the private sector is the true engine of economic growth for both individual and State is missing the complete story and what all he has pushed to be done. While forced 46 million people into an insurance pool will provide a slight bump to the insurance companies, this in no way shows love for small business.

What you have done is portrayed yourself as one who only looks for information that suits your views and will never accept a counter argument that proves otherwise:

ObamaCare vs. Small Business

Specifically the point that was made about the following:

This law is death by a thousand cuts for small business owners. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the overhaul will cost about $115 billion more than first projected, bringing the total to more than $1 trillion. Small businesses will also now have to deal with an onslaught of new taxes and burdensome paperwork.


Do you think that small businesses, just in case you didn't know, the Government refers to companies with typically fewer than 500 employees as 'small'. There are far fewer "Mom & Pop" shops than 500 employee companies. It is those that will feel the brunt of new taxes and regulations from specifically ObamaCare.

The icing on the cake though is the 'father' of the bill probably didn't even read it and it was written up by 'experts'.


“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the healthcare bill,” Baucus said, according to the Flathead Beacon. “You know why? It’s statutory language. ... We hire experts.”
Source


Boo-effing-hoo for them. I raised 3 kids on $37,000. How many kids do they have, 27? And how exactly do you make 250k out of necessity? I want to learn that trick.
Your wealth envy shows and your proceeding argument is riddled with inaccuracies, misconceptions or flat out lies.

A matter of fact I do remember those days. But to equate it down to a tax issue is forgetting about inflation in terms of the standard of living, people living within their means, an insanely less amount of regulations upon nearly everything which leads to more taxes in our products we buy and consume. A dollar was worth almost a dollar because we had a more fiscally conservative government that wasn't pouring mass amounts of money into unsustainable and unfunded social engineering programs.



As these figures make clear, the richest Americans are not being “overtaxed” relative to other Americans or relative to their share of national income."
The top 1% pays 30.9% of their income in taxes.
The next 4% pays 32.1%
the next 5% pays 32.2%
the next 10% pays 31.5%
the next 20% pays 30%
the next 20% pays 27%
the next 20% pays 22.3%
and the poorest of the poor with an income of $12,000 or less pays 18.7%.


This is a typical view upon taxes that people tax when trying to claim that the poor pay so much in taxes while the rich get away with just paying a little. This chart also doesn't show just how much that bottom 40% gets back in federal 'tax credits', which equates to a negative tax rate. See the following: CBO Tax Report 2007

Note the table on page 6 and read the line that states "Individual Tax Income" The bottom 20% receive 6.8% back in such credits and the next 20% receive 0.8% back. That means that the bottom 40% of this country effectively are being paid by the Federal Government, funded by the top 60% to be citizens.

So yes, I will complain about how my sister, who is talented and gets paid well for what she does (something that you obviously envied in your reply), who also lives a comfortable life style and well within her means will be punished for her ability to produce wealth.



Because in my America, we don't walk around like the GD Nazi SS asking for papers. Is that what you want? Then who will be next? The Irish? The Italians? You?


How is the law, before being put on hold in some aspects any different than what a legal alien would have to do to be within this country? Papers for those that fully naturalized were required to carry the appropriate papers.

My beef overall is the Federal Government wanting to dig their hands into everything EXCEPT the things that they are Constitutionally required to do so with. I am for immigration, but that of old, in which we put quotas on the numbers of persons entering the country, we selectively sought out competent and resourceful people looking to provide for a life here within the United States. Poor or wealthy, I don't care, you come here illegally and work harder at avoiding the laws of this country than actually becoming a citizen, that is a criminal no matter what side of the coin you look at.

Overall you became exactly what you bemoaned about earlier, in which I whole heartedly agree with in terms of people going for the nutty claims; may it be President Obama or any other president.




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Horseshi...
er, crap.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

Nope. This is how the liberal media is portraying it, but there are no real thinking liberal people that believe this. You have have a sheepish poster or two here that believes it, but it really is just a nonsensical argument injected by the lamestream (oh I bet you love that one, should I get a chalkboard?) media to keep the country nicely divided. "Vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt," strangely enough, four years ago the LIBERALS were against this stuff and the conservative argument against them was that they were unpatriotic.

What actual liberals believe about conservatives in this case would be, "where the hell were you four years ago?"


-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.


Yawn. The Arizona law needs to be re-written so that my friends don't get asked for their ID. There is too much in there that is "interpretable" to let it slide.

Liberals think there are good intentions here, but with an extremely poor implementation that unfortunately has a racist appearance.
Conspiracy theorists believe this racist appearance is intentional so the law can be struck down and everything can go back to being status quo.


-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.



Unfortunately this really is homophobia in many cases. It's just a shame that conservatives forgot that homos can be judges

Homophobia is still legit to many people. I suppose the line gets blurry because it's religiously inspired homophobia, but guess what, you're religion means nothing to the government. If I started a religion that wanted to bring back an interracial marriage ban, and the majority of the people converted, and voted on it, should that be the law of the land?

If your answer is yes than you don't know what a constitutional republic is.
If your answer is no but you still support a gay marriage ban then I suggest you get away from your computer and sign up for a biology class at your local community college.


-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

1. The majority cannot take away constitutional rights (see above)
2. The majority doesn't even support taking away their right to build a mosque. I live in NY, and the majority opinion seems to be that although the Muslims are being insensitive douchebags, they have a right to build a mosque there, and THAT is what the USA is all about
3. Most Liberals think that if you can prove that there is a connection to radical Islam, do so, serve warrants, and make arrests.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


All right I’ll explain the obvious.

1) Nationalized healthcare: Here’s a 2000 page bill that orders a citizen to acquire insurance or be fined and have the IRS enforce. Secondly, it is scandalous that anyone could believe a government takeover of anything will result in reduced costs or a budget deficit. Please name one thing the government has run that has not resulted in waste, fraud and corruption.
2) Cap & Trade: This is a tax scheme that will only result in more revenues for hedge funds and the government at the expense of the tax payers. Have you forgotten BHO’s own comment that electricity rates with necessarily “sky rocket”. All based upon fraudulent science at worst and incomplete data at best. BHO appears to be fully willing to give up American sovereignty to allow the UN to enforce a policy which only appears to be an attempt at wealth redistribution from the Northern to the Southern hemisphere as even the “glue heads that have gone organic” admit it will do nothing to reduce CO2.
3) Border Policy: Not only have the Feds made no effort to limit an influx of democratic voters (the apparent ultimate goal), but has actually sided with foreign governments (Mexico & now the UN) to prosecute a sovereign American state for simply enforcing federal law.
4) Financial Overhaul bill: Another 2000 page monstrosity that no one really knows what it entails to theoretically will prevent another meltdown. The primary cause of which was sub-prime mortgages issued by Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac which are conspicuously absent from the bill.
5) Taking over Businesses: Not only the banks, but the biggest travesty has been the Car Industry. Anyone who looks at the transactions can easily perceive that this was a government payoff to union supporters. Bond holders and shareholders were hosed while the unions were covered 100% by $50 billion of tax payer debt. Also love that AIG funded with Tarp moneys was able to pay off Goldman Sachs (a major campaign contributor) on their mortgage derivative swaps to the tune of one-hundred cents on the dollar, while the rest of the world is imploding.

There are a litany of other instances that I could mention of obvious attempts to reduce individual liberty and expand the state. Please note that not one of the preceding has anything to do with religion or race.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
And When i read his article, I found his descriptions fit what many liberals post here ad nauseum - everyone that disagrees with liberals is some combination of racist, bigot, or stupid.

As a comparison, conservatives call liberals none of those things. Worst you get is "misguided", or under the influence of the "kool-aid".


Really? "None of those things"?

Do you honestly mean to say that you've never seen a "conservative" call a "liberal" stupid?

You're smarter than that. You're either purposefully playing dumb to further an agenda, or far more partisan blinded than you realize. :shk:



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by billyjack
All right I’ll explain the obvious.

1)Nationalized healthcare:


The new healthcare law is not nationalized heathcare. It does the exact opposite, it requires citizens to register with private insurers. If you had half a mind to look beyong your own blinded partisanship you'd figure that out. Nationalized healthcare is when the government completely assumes ownership for healthcare which has never and will never happen. Private healthcare companies hold the cards in congress.



Here’s a 2000 page bill


Strawman.


Secondly, it is scandalous that anyone could believe a government takeover of anything


Whats 'scandalous' is this notion that we are not being ripped off by the healthcare corporations.



2)Cap & Trade:


I believe we have a great environmental problem to address globally however I do not believe Cap and Trade will change anything.


3)Border Policy: Not only have the Feds made no effort to limit an influx of democratic voters


Where is the evidence that illegal immigrants vote? Mind you though even when we take illegals out of the picture (they have been decreasing over the last 2 years) the rate of growth form immigration still continues. By 2025 hispanics, legal immigrants, will assume the majority population in Texas, Colorado and Arizona. So irregardless of what illegal immigration rant you wish to make, the growth of immigrants in this country, legal ones at that, does not fit to well with the GOP's and the tea parties current agenda. Mind you most of the immigrants, hispanics, Iv met are conservative catholics who would otherwise be loyal Republican and tea party voters. But over the years the rightwing have proven themselves to the extent that most these immigrants would voting anything but GOP.

There is a need of change in attitude by people like you if you wish to survive as a movement.


Taking over Businesses: Not only the banks,


You seriously think the governments actions in 08' was them taking over private businesses? Why don't you get the picture? Private industries and corporations control the government. They have done so for over 30 years now and thats the fact.



edit on 9-9-2010 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip



Likewise, conservatives need to move on from the birther controversy to also debate those same issues.


That is the crux of the problem, isn't it? With all the nutty accusations of Obama being a Stalinist, Marxist, Communist, Nazi, socialist, reverse racist, elitist, Muslim, Kenyan, anti-Christ. What rational debate do you expect us to have? And with who? And about what? What are the REAL issues with Obama? Can conservatives come up with a specific issue that is based in reality?

It is like trying to comfort a 4 yr old that is afraid of a dragon under his bed.


Did you read the article? What I am hoping for from liberals is something more substantial than insults and name calling as these very important to the nation are debated. I said conservatives should do the same. Are you still stuck there? Seems like it from your post.



Perhaps a reasonable way to begin a debate about substance would be to offer up a substantive argument.

In the health care debate we got posters depicting the POTUS as an African Witchdoctor with a bone through his nose or with a Hitler mustache...When pressed for real, specific concerns we got fear mongering not seen since Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare...."Socialism!!!!" or dishonest propaganda "Micro-Chips" and "Death Panels"...

Looking to the Media Organizations that inform the right wing we got "Black Agenda" "He hates white people" Ad Nauseum..

"Liberals" have consistently offered debates about "Substance" only to have the far-right accuse him of forging his birth-certificate...It's exhausting...

I am all for substantive debate...Lord...I dream about intelligent political discourse in this country...but have arrived at the depressing conclusion that as long as a factual debate about "substance" does not favor the GOP agenda, they will appeal to emotions that over-ride reason.

It is a sound tactic given their lack of a genuine defined political platform beyond obstructionism, the inconvenient division in their ranks between the incumbents and the radicals and frankly the facts not often working in their favor.

It is also IMO a grotesque affront to our political process.

Substance? From the far-right?...It is not an advantageous tactic for them and many (not all) seem to lack the moral fortitude to engage in a substantive debate in light of it not being to thier advantage.

Leo from the "West Wing"
"If we're going to walk into walls I want us running into them full speed. We're going to lose some of these battles, and we might even lose the White House, but we're not going to be threatened by issues. We're going to bring 'em front and center. We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country, and let that be our legacy."

Before you ask…YES I read the OP Ed. As far as “Substance” the clue is in OPED…opinion, I found no substance to respond to.

Bartlett from the show West Wing..If only it wasn't just a television series.

“When I sleep, I dream about a great discussion with experts and ideas and diction and energy and honesty. And when I wake up, I think, 'I can sell that.'"



edit on 9-9-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join