Turnabout Is Fair Play

[thejuggernaut]

It's cool how eanax has to keep reminding everybody that ugmo is mattbro.

Dude, we know. Really, we do. But hey, feel free to throw it in every post you quote him from.

LOL

I didn't.

[thejuggernaut]

He hangs around with communists, appoints communists and he's a liberation theologist. He sure seems a fabian socialist and his first step in trying to implement it is having the government preside over everyone's medical history.

[Ugmo]

It's cool how eanax has to keep reminding everybody that ugmo is mattbro.

Dude, we know. Really, we do. But hey, feel free to throw it in every post you quote him from.

LOL - it's alright. I guess he thinks he's scoring points or something, but it doesn't bother me. I outed myself a year or so ago anyway, which is the only reason anyone knows that Ugmo is Mattbro.

All of them were far more Progressive/Socialist-oriented than they were Federalists -- in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, who would not have supported a Federal income tax.

That level of taxation was insane. And JFK, who would have been a fiscal conservative by today's standards, dropped that level to 70%. His famous phrase was "a rising tide lifts all boats." And he was right.

You're right, I am not in favor of a progressive income tax system. And, you're wrong because a progressive income tax has everything to do with getting to Socialism. It's soaking the rich and redistributing the proceeds to those whose votes can be bought. Soak the rich and create a disincentive to make money. Thus, eventually and effectively, tightening the tourniquet on capitalism. It's a different path to get to Socialism, but it's still effective.

And they are all Socialist countries. Socialism is just one step from Communism -- the supposed ideal. You should know that. Seeing how you claim to know so much about Marxist philosophical thought.

And just because every other "first-world country" has it does not mean the U.S. should. Applying your logic in another scenario, just because all of your friends jumped out of the second floor window and didn't get hurt, doesn't mean you should do the same thing thinking you won't get injured.

You should read America Alone by Mark Steyn. He points out why Socialist states in Europe will eventually fall into ruin.

Your hyperbolic claims of victory ring hollow and show an immaturity rivaled by an 8th grader. The difference is an 8th grader sometimes listens.

1) I really am not interested in the Founding Fathers. Most of them owned slaves fer chrissakes, and things have changed a little over the past 250 years, you know? It's a little strange to be basing your entire political philosophy on a time when the world was completely different than it is today.

2) You still haven't answered my question. If Obama is a "Marxist" due to his progressive tax policies, doesn't that mean every other president since Wilson is also a Marxist? Or insert the word socialist if you prefer. Are they all socialists?

3) It's fascinating how the wealthy have managed to con a sizeable portion of the great unwashed into taking up their cause for them. You keep babbling about redistribution of the wealth - do you realize the wealth has already been redistributed since the 1970s - toward the wealthy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ine ... ted_States

Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[9][10][11][12][13] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.[14][15] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[16] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.[17]Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[9][10][11][12][13] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.[14][15] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[16] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.

That includes the Clinton years, by the way, whose tax rates Obama is reinstating. So don't worry, even under Obama the wealth will continue to be redistributed out of your pocket and into Bill Gates' pocket. No reason for you to get all hysterical, because things aren't going to change much under Obama.

4) You cannot be serious. So every other first-world country except the United States is a socialist country? If they are socialist countries, then why isn't the U.S. also a socialist country, considering its progressive income tax rate and broadly-based entitlement programs?

5) Your problem is you are not willing to admit when another country is doing something better. I'm willing to bet you have never been to another first-world country (except possibly Canada) - so how can you be so sure America's tax and healthcare policies (since those are the two aspects we are currently addressing) are better?

6) Has Mark Steyn ever been outside the U.S. either? Because the European welfare states are in much better shape right now than the U.S. in pretty much every category you could list - except for redistribution of income toward the wealthy of course, which the U.S. is doing a great job of.

7) I'd listen to you if you weren't just spouting complete nonsense about how Obama is a Marxist. You disqualified yourself really early in this bout, and you've done nothing to redeem yourself and show that you have the first clue about any of these issues.

[Ugmo]

He hangs around with communists, appoints communists and he's a liberation theologist. He sure seems a fabian socialist and his first step in trying to implement it is having the government preside over everyone's medical history.

Yeah yeah, he also pals around with terrorists, we know.

And he wants the government to take over healthcare! Which is weird, because he also dropped the public option (not even a more sweeping proposal like single payer, but just a public option to compete with private insurance companies) like a bad habit as soon as he realized Joe Lieberman wasn't going to support it, yet somehow he is a Marxist.

So much idiocy in this thread.

[thejuggernaut]

He hangs around with communists, appoints communists and he's a liberation theologist. He sure seems a fabian socialist and his first step in trying to implement it is having the government preside over everyone's medical history.

Yeah yeah, he also pals around with terrorists, we know.

And he wants the government to take over healthcare! Which is weird, because he also dropped the public option (not even a more sweeping proposal like single payer, but just a public option to compete with private insurance companies) like a bad habit as soon as he realized Joe Lieberman wasn't going to support it, yet somehow he is a Marxist.

So much idiocy in this thread.

So he didn't appoint communists ??

[Ugmo]

I don't know, did he? Actual communists, or the type of people Eanax thinks are communists (i.e. everyone who isn't a Teabagger lunatic)?

And if he did, who gives a shit? Has it influenced his policy so far?

[Ugmo]

Who is this about - Van Jones?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... communist/

More complete lunacy from the extreme right wing.

[tin00can]

Once a communist, always a communist. People don't change.

[Ugmo]

Eurabia
Mark Steyn believes that Eurabia — a future where the European continent is dominated by Islam — is an imminent reality that cannot be reversed. "The problem, after all, is not that the sons of Allah are 'long shots' but that they're certainties. Every Continental under the age of 40 — make that 60, if not 75 — is all but guaranteed to end his days living in an Islamified Europe."[25] "Native populations on the continent are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic."[26] Steyn claims that Muslims will account for perhaps 40 percent of the population by 2020, but Globe and Mail correspondent Doug Saunders labels the assertion false:

Slightly more than 4 percent of Europe's population is Muslim, as defined by demographers (though about 80 per cent of these people are not religiously observant, so they are better defined as secular citizens who have escaped religious nations). It is possible, though not certain, that this number could rise to 6 percent by 2020. If current immigration and birth rates remain the same, it could even rise to 10 percent within 100 years. But it won't, because Muslims don't actually have more babies than other populations do under the same circumstances. The declining population growth rates are not confined to native populations. In fact, immigrants from Muslim countries are experiencing a faster drop in reproduction rates than the larger European population.[27]

What a maroon. Was that from his book too?

[Tommy]

1) I really am not interested in the Founding Fathers. Most of them owned slaves fer chrissakes, and things have changed a little over the past 250 years, you know? It's a little strange to be basing your entire political philosophy on a time when the world was completely different than it is today.

And THAT right there is why people give you shit.

[Ugmo]

And THAT right there is why people give you shit.

Oh, is that it? Seriously - they got a lot of things right back in 1787 or whatever, but basing modern policy strictly on what the Founding Fathers believed over two centuries seems like a dodgy idea to me. They themselves provided for amendments, because they realized circumstances change, you know?

In other words, I think a lot of people wrongly invoke the Founding Fathers to justify their own loony beliefs, especially nowadays with all these Tea Party lunatics around. I have very little doubt that the Founding Fathers would look at those guys and go "Man, what a bunch of morons."

[Tommy]

And THAT right there is why people give you shit.

Oh, is that it? Seriously - they got a lot of things right back in 1787 or whatever, but basing modern policy strictly on what the Founding Fathers believed over two centuries seems like a dodgy idea to me. They themselves provided for amendments, because they realized circumstances change, you know?

In other words, I think a lot of people wrongly invoke the Founding Fathers to justify their own loony beliefs, especially nowadays with all these Tea Party lunatics around. I have very little doubt that the Founding Fathers would look at those guys and go "Man, what a bunch of morons."

They also made it hard as fuck to pass an amendment...for a reason.

So, you admittedly don't know much about the people who started this place but you have every idea in the book on how to change it. Gotcha.


"Most" of them didn't own slaves BTW.

[Ugmo]

So, you admittedly don't know much about the people who started this place but you have every idea in the book on how to change it. Gotcha.

"Admittedly" - when did I admit I don't know much about them?

Seriously, if you think the world should be run in 2010 the way it was in 1787, then I question your sanity.

[Tommy]

So, you admittedly don't know much about the people who started this place but you have every idea in the book on how to change it. Gotcha.

"Admittedly" - when did I admit I don't know much about them?

Seriously, if you think the world should be run in 2010 the way it was in 1787, then I question your sanity.

Are you that fucking dense? No one is saying that. What people ARE saying is that they are the ones who laid the foundation for how OUR GOVERNMENT should be run.


Funny you would use the word "world" when in a convo about the US and the founding fathers. It's starting to make sense now.

[Ugmo]

Dude, no need to get hysterical or paranoid or whatever is happening to you right now. There are no black U.N. helicopters flying overhead. Both the world and the U.S. are much different places than they were in 1787. It's just a friggin expression - like "the world is a scary place" or whatever. Capiche? (Maybe I shouldn't use foreign words so as not to insult your sensibilities.)

The discussion in this case pertains to a federal income tax. Eanax maintains it's a bad idea because he believes the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted one. Well that's just grand, because the Founding Fathers probably also wouldn't have forseen trying to balance a 3.8 trillion dollar budget without one. Hence this is an example of how completely inane it would be to base all policy decisions on what the Founding Fathers would want (or more accurately, on what some interpret the Founding Fathers to have wanted based on what they themselves want).

[Tommy]

Dude, no need to get hysterical or paranoid or whatever is happening to you right now. There are no black U.N. helicopters flying overhead. Both the world and the U.S. are much different places than they were in 1787. It's just a friggin expression - like "the world is a scary place" or whatever. Capiche? (Maybe I shouldn't use foreign words so as not to insult your sensibilities.)

The discussion in this case pertains to a federal income tax. Eanax maintains it's a bad idea because he believes the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted one. Well that's just grand, because the Founding Fathers probably also wouldn't have forseen trying to balance a 3.8 trillion dollar budget without one. Hence this is an example of how completely inane it would be to base all policy decisions on what the Founding Fathers would want (or more accurately, on what some interpret the Founding Fathers to have wanted based on what they themselves want).

If you read a book you'd know that people aren't assuming what the FF's would want.

I hate to break it to you but the FF's wouldn't want an income tax at all. It's an American thing to not want to pay your taxes.


Again, playing Monday morning QB from 5000 miles away is bad for your arguments.

[Ugmo]

If you read a book you'd know that people aren't assuming what the FF's would want.

I hate to break it to you but the FF's wouldn't want an income tax at all. It's an American thing to not want to pay your taxes.

Which is why I said I'm not interested in "what they'd want", because it's not very realistic in the 21st century. They probably wouldn't want to invade a Middle Eastern country either, but tough shit, it's already happened and there's a 3.8 trillion budget to be paid for.

Again, playing Monday morning QB from 5000 miles away is bad for your arguments.

LOL - that's the only argument you've got. I can just as easily read the news over here as you can over there, and apparently I spend more time doing it than you.

[Tommy]

If you read a book you'd know that people aren't assuming what the FF's would want.

I hate to break it to you but the FF's wouldn't want an income tax at all. It's an American thing to not want to pay your taxes.

Which is why I said I'm not interested in "what they'd want", because it's not very realistic in the 21st century. They probably wouldn't want to invade a Middle Eastern country either, but tough shit, it's already happened and there's a 3.8 trillion budget to be paid for.

Again, playing Monday morning QB from 5000 miles away is bad for your arguments.

LOL - that's the only argument you've got. I can just as easily read the news over here as you can over there, and apparently I spend more time doing it than you.

The fact that you don't actually live here is kind of an issue bro.


I don't go spouting off about how other nations should be run. You know why? Because I don't live there and wouldn't know what I was talking about. Kinda like....oh, never mind.

[Ugmo]

Tommy, you keep bringing that up, but this isn't the 18th century. I don't have to wait six months for the boat to show up with the news, you know? I have the exact same access to the exact same news you do. It's just a matter of being willing to follow it.

Whether or not you like me spouting off is another issue. I submit that I care even less about that than about whether the Founding Fathers were in favor of a federal income tax.

[Tommy]

Tommy, you keep bringing that up, but this isn't the 18th century. I don't have to wait six months for the boat to show up with the news, you know? I have the exact same access to the exact same news you do. It's just a matter of being willing to follow it.

Whether or not you like me spouting off is another issue. I submit that I care even less about that than about whether the Founding Fathers were in favor of a federal income tax.

I keep bringing it up because it's a fact.



You don't live here and yet by your own words you "hate" the GOP. What kind of sense does that make? You come off as intolerant yet you really only know what an American Republican is by what the internet tells you.

I don't know, I don't think it's something you can just brush aside.


And it's not just a matter of following the news. Perspective is kind of important, don't cha think?

[Hames Jetfield]

Tommy, you keep bringing that up, but this isn't the 18th century. I don't have to wait six months for the boat to show up with the news, you know? I have the exact same access to the exact same news you do. It's just a matter of being willing to follow it.

Whether or not you like me spouting off is another issue. I submit that I care even less about that than about whether the Founding Fathers were in favor of a federal income tax.

I keep bringing it up because it's a fact.



You don't live here and yet by your own words you "hate" the GOP. What kind of sense does that make? You come off as intolerant yet you really only know what an American Republican is by what the internet tells you.

I don't know, I don't think it's something you can just brush aside.


And it's not just a matter of following the news. Perspective is kind of important, don't cha think?

Yeah, the Republican Party has changed lots in the last two decades.

[Ugmo]

I keep bringing it up because it's a fact.

You don't live here and yet by your own words you "hate" the GOP. What kind of sense does that make? You come off as intolerant yet you really only know what an American Republican is by what the internet tells you.

I don't know, I don't think it's something you can just brush aside.

And it's not just a matter of following the news. Perspective is kind of important, don't cha think?

Wait, is this about you being personally insulted about the way I think of the GOP? If so, let me reiterate once again that I am not talking about regular Joes like you and me, for whom I have no hard feelings at all (in fact, a majority of the people I consider myself to be friendly with here at Sluge probably lean more to the right than the left). I'm talking about national elected officials. And those fuckers have earned my contempt. They spent eight years fucking things up not just for the country, but in many cases for the rest of the world as well. And now, sore losers that they are, they are devoting all their energy to making sure nothing gets done at all. It is effortlessly easy to observe what they're up to, even from over here.

For that matter, I grew up in America and all of my immediate family members still live there. AND I vote in America, so not only am I well within my rights in despising the Republican Party for its greed and selfishness, I express that democratically every two years.

As well as vociferously for hours a day on the Internet!

[Tommy]

I keep bringing it up because it's a fact.

You don't live here and yet by your own words you "hate" the GOP. What kind of sense does that make? You come off as intolerant yet you really only know what an American Republican is by what the internet tells you.

I don't know, I don't think it's something you can just brush aside.

And it's not just a matter of following the news. Perspective is kind of important, don't cha think?

Wait, is this about you being personally insulted about the way I think of the GOP? If so, let me reiterate once again that I am not talking about regular Joes like you and me, for whom I have no hard feelings at all (in fact, a majority of the people I consider myself to be friendly with here at Sluge probably lean more to the right than the left). I'm talking about national elected officials. And those fuckers have earned my contempt. They spent eight years fucking things up not just for the country, but in many cases for the rest of the world as well. And now, sore losers that they are, they are devoting all their energy to making sure nothing gets done at all. It is effortlessly easy to observe what they're up to, even from over here.

For that matter, I grew up in America and all of my immediate family members still live there. AND I vote in America, so not only am I well within my rights in despising the Republican Party for its greed and selfishness, I express that democratically every two years.

As well as vociferously for hours a day on the Internet!

People have called you out on this before. You say you've lived here, you can vote here.....then why don't you understand that the GOP didn't block anything because they COULDN'T? How do you not understand this point?

[JakeYonkel]

Here we go again.

[Ugmo]

Do I have to explain this AGAIN? You are shitting me. Yeah, people have "called me out for it", and I explained in great detail exactly how the Republicans succeeded in blocking progress and watering down any meaningful legislation: because the "supermajority" only existed on paper. As long as the Republicans threaten to filibuster every single solitary bill proposed by the Democrats (which they did), the Democrats are forced to work with assholes like Joe Lieberman who cares about one thing only, himself. Get it? The only reason why you can't understand that is because you don't want to understand it.

But hey, forget that, because now the Dems no longer have a so-called supermajority, and we can truly witness the Republicans blocking absolutely everything. I swear to fucking god, the Democrats could take a Republican proposal, put it up completely unchanged for a vote, and 41 Republican senators would vote against it - because that's their strategy until November.

[Ugmo]

LOL - too late Jake!

[Ugmo]

Speaking of Joe Lieberman and the supermajority, another interesting side effect of the Republican's victory in Massachusetts is that Joe Lieberman is now irrelevant, thank god, because the Democrats don't have to kiss his ass for a fragile 60 votes.

[lerxstcat]

If you read a book you'd know that people aren't assuming what the FF's would want.

I hate to break it to you but the FF's wouldn't want an income tax at all. It's an American thing to not want to pay your taxes.

Which is why I said I'm not interested in "what they'd want", because it's not very realistic in the 21st century. They probably wouldn't want to invade a Middle Eastern country either, but tough shit, it's already happened and there's a 3.8 trillion budget to be paid for.

Again, playing Monday morning QB from 5000 miles away is bad for your arguments.

LOL - that's the only argument you've got. I can just as easily read the news over here as you can over there, and apparently I spend more time doing it than you.

The American thing about taxes is simply that taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is tyranny. The Ff initially simply wanted voting delegates in Parliament in accordance with population, as citizens of the Home Isle had. The King said "Fuck off, I own you, you don't have the same rights citizens of Britain itself do."

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to make change possible, but not so easy that we would blow with every political wind. But the world we live in is SO different from the one they lived in that I would have to think they would reach some different conclusions about today's world than th one they lived in.

Also, they espoused separation of church and state so a stratified state religion wouldn't end up strangling the governmental process. I'd say that is good evidence that they would also NOT want a QUASI-religion established with themselves as demigods, cited by their quasi-priests at every turn to block change. They would want their influences duly respected, not used as an excuse to not adapt to changing conditions.

[vlad]

I hate to break it to you but the FF's wouldn't want an income tax at all. It's an American thing to not want to pay your taxes.


Again, playing Monday morning QB from 5000 miles away is bad for your arguments.

Heh.....the FF didn't want to tax? Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion? And the way the Whiskey act was structured, small producers wound up being dunned for a lot more....the large producers only had to pay a flat fee, the smaller ones, taxed by the gallon. Guess who one of the larger whiskey producers was? The father of our country.

note: I still admire GW a lot, as well as the other FFs, but let's not pretend they were any better or were more wiser....or less greedy. We can read anything we want back onto them (I do it myself!)....they may not have liked taxes, except the ones they liked, but then they probably didn't like the idea that a Black man could be President either...or even some low-life dirt White dirt farmer either...or Sludge posters...

As for the distance that Ugmo is, big fucking deal. Do you get your info by town crier? There's this thing called the TV and this other thing called the Intertubes....what makes you think you know more than he just because your ass is plopped nearer to the action? Are you actually attending Congress, sitting in on the WH meetings? If not...then you are no more informed than he...one doesn't absorb the information by osmosis or proximity.

This would be like saying that someone in Dutch Harbor couldn't discuss something going on in Washington, DC...because they are so far away! Never mind those folks in Hawaii or any of the US bits in the western Pacific, American citizens all!

And when Battle was posting from overseas, would you have told him he was less informed and too far away? Any soldier, whether in the ME, Korea, or Europe? Or is it only people who disagree with that you say this to?

[tin00can]

Most of the time when people invoke the founding fathers, I want to cock-punch them. Sure, we can make reasonable assumptions about what they wanted and how they possibly would have reacted to certain things, but we can't be sure how accurate those assumptions are. We're just making a wild guess.