Barack Obama Wants U.S. Economic Failure

canndo

Well-Known Member
Shouldn't point be that we subsidize all charitable giving? At least when they claim it on their taxes anyway.

If you don't claim your charitable giving, then you should.


Correct! we all subsidize charitable giving. Now, how is that significantly different than any other government giveaway/social/welfare type program?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
begging for money from the fed gov.

Winna winna chicken dinna! Give that man a cigar. And of course,the very venue the "we built that" crowd are in this week was heavily subsidized by none other than that government.


And every single small business speaker who stood up talking about how they built their business - got government help. Republicans are either ignorant, stupid or lying.
 

Krayven Sumhead

Well-Known Member
I'd have to go with all 3 of those choices.

Mostly lying, tho.

But, lying is a harsh word.

Let's just say they distort reality.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I'd have to go with all 3 of those choices.

Mostly lying, tho.

But, lying is a harsh word.

Let's just say they distort reality.

I can't agree. they construct their own. I switched between MSNBC and FOX all evening. It was fascinating. Now I can't say that MSNBC was unbiased as they certainly are, but they addressed things that I saw. Romney not giving us a wife sized view of her husband, her giving a very nice performance, incorporating women but also making Romney into a real person - and she failed but FOX claimed she did just fine.

They also seemed to think that Chrisiti helped Romney - hell, you could see Romney calculating the damage in his head during the speech but Fox thought it was wonderful. Are they that tone deaf or..... are they actually confined to their own reality?
 

ink the world

Well-Known Member
I did the same thing, switching back and forth. It was amazing, almost like 2 different events.


I got what I expected from Fox, cheer-leading. MSNBC seemed to be more balanced in their assessments of the speeches. I thought Ann was OK as did most of the MSNBC people. I thought Christie came off as a self promoting hack, he did little to sway moderates for Romney the few times he even mentioned Mitt. Not much of a plus on that first night.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I did the same thing, switching back and forth. It was amazing, almost like 2 different events.


I got what I expected from Fox, cheer-leading. MSNBC seemed to be more balanced in their assessments of the speeches. I thought Ann was OK as did most of the MSNBC people. I thought Christie came off as a self promoting hack, he did little to sway moderates for Romney the few times he even mentioned Mitt. Not much of a plus on that first night.

I was ready to write Christi in. It is the highest synicism to use the technique of telling Americans "the truth - that things are tough and we can rise to the occasion" while lying about what that truth is.

The short of it is that Romney is just an aside so far, a two dimensional movie stand-up, a place holder of a candidate and the right, deep down, knows it or someone on that stage would have actually promoted the guy.

This is all the GOP has to offer, which is why they are seeking to steal the election.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I was ready to write Christi in. It is the highest synicism to use the technique of telling Americans "the truth - that things are tough and we can rise to the occasion" while lying about what that truth is.
angry and divisive in addition to dishonest.

he says he knows the truth, which is that "our policies" will make america great and "their policies" have failed america.

that kind of divisive partisanship is not going to reach anyone in the middle.

not to mention it's way more complicated than that.

that kind of divisiveness flies around here, but won't work in a general.

fail speech.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I was ready to write Christi in. It is the highest synicism to use the technique of telling Americans "the truth - that things are tough and we can rise to the occasion" while lying about what that truth is.

The short of it is that Romney is just an aside so far, a two dimensional movie stand-up, a place holder of a candidate and the right, deep down, knows it or someone on that stage would have actually promoted the guy.

This is all the GOP has to offer, which is why they are seeking to steal the election.
Are you actively trying to invoke nostalgia for Reagan? He's just far enough into the past that that is a real danger ... cn
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
angry and divisive in addition to dishonest.

he says he knows the truth, which is that "our policies" will make america great and "their policies" have failed america.

that kind of divisive partisanship is not going to reach anyone in the middle.

not to mention it's way more complicated than that.

that kind of divisiveness flies around here, but won't work in a general.

fail speech.

I didn't see the anger, I saw earntestness in a very fat man. they said on MSNbC that he isn't half as sucessful in NJ as he seemed to claim but the fact is that he delivered fire where everyone else just presented another set of the same old talking points, in the same old way. I grew tired of the "and guess what"'s and "and by the way"'s each stating something that was blatantly false. I also grew tired of each speaker grinning in gleeful satisfaction when the nasty anti-obama line that they calculated to have an effect from the audience did so.

I very much hope the convention gets better, I doubt it will.
I very much hope the dem convention is better.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
I did the same thing, switching back and forth. It was amazing, almost like 2 different events.


I got what I expected from Fox, cheer-leading. MSNBC seemed to be more balanced in their assessments of the speeches. I thought Ann was OK as did most of the MSNBC people. I thought Christie came off as a self promoting hack, he did little to sway moderates for Romney the few times he even mentioned Mitt. Not much of a plus on that first night.
we have a "real" marriage
 

SSHZ

Well-Known Member
Why do we start with the assumption that the taxes that Bush cut somehow belong to the government to begin with?

I call bullshit...

Well, once the government gets their hands on it, they believe it should always be theirs. No turning back...........


The Dem's arguments these days are terrible...... anything but the real issues facing the country.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Actually we don't.

A tax break is not a subsidy.

Edit: that's how it's different.

I pay 100 dollars to a charity, after taxes I actually have only taken 85 dollars out of my bank account - that means that someone else has paid the other 15, that someone else is all of the rest of us. I have paid 15 dollars less toward government functions and the debt that everyone else has to pay in my stead.

I read an article that indicates that Corporations get a significant tax break when they pay CEOs performance incentives. Now, considering a corporation that winds up paying no taxes on their profit and includes a large payout to that CEO - who is Really paying the officer? You and I.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Well, once the government gets their hands on it, they believe it should always be theirs. No turning back...........


The Dem's arguments these days are terrible...... anything but the real issues facing the country.

Right or wrong, wasteful or not, the national debt is the people's debt and we cannot pay it down with anything but our collective money. Dems haven't framed the arguments as of late, it is the Pubs that have done that, it is they who are talking about medicare and rape and abortion and birth control and they are the ones who have forced the Romney tax return issue to the fore.
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
If you claim 100 bucks in charitable donations, you get to take that 100 dollars off your total income for the year. Then they tax that.

So you pay less in taxes...
 
Top