The Inevitable Conclusion

[ClosedCaption]

he's a disingenuous waste of bandwidth.

Actually, fella. I gave the information. You can read ALL about it. There is no "unlimited contributions from corporations into campaigns". As I said before.

Show me where I said the opposite since I was lying about it. You cant. I win.


Pick your face up

 

[bendog]

He's stuck with lying, so know he'll have to make accusations.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Republicans are for Citizen United. I understand, you are making this a freedom of speech issue. I get it. But when corps can donate unlimited money, and money is power. How is the bigger or biggest contributor viewed by the recipient?

Again, shit for brains. ONE LAST TIME. Corporations can not contribute unlimited money to campaigns. So, how would a recipient view the donor. Probably the same as any other PAC instance, or donation. I realize this is all complex n shit. Like elementary school type complex. But I trust....oh, no I dont. You'll never get it so fuck it.


UNLIMITED MONEY FER ALL!





later numbskulls.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So despite Republicans advocating limited government because politicians are corrupt, you are seriously going to try to claim that Republicans don't see that politicians are corrupt?

The inevitable conclusion of that rant is you don't have a freakin clue what you're talking about.

I knew you would have a simply translated question of confusion waiting.

Yes I said republicans dont see corruption. Yes, go with that. In fact, any conclusion you reach after reading my post dont ask just assume that what you believe is exactly what I was saying.

In fact, your whole thread is about jumping to conclusions.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Republicans are for Citizen United. I understand, you are making this a freedom of speech issue. I get it. But when corps can donate unlimited money, and money is power. How is the bigger or biggest contributor viewed by the recipient?

Again, shit for brains. ONE LAST TIME. Corporations can not contribute unlimited money to campaigns. So, how would a recipient view the donor. Probably the same as any other PAC instance, or donation. I realize this is all complex n shit. Like elementary school type complex. But I trust....oh, no I dont. You'll never get it so fuck it.

UNLIMITED MONEY FER ALL!


later numbskulls.

See the bolded? Show me where I said that...ever. Or dont. Thanks.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So despite Republicans advocating limited government because politicians are corrupt, you are seriously going to try to claim that Republicans don't see that politicians are corrupt?

The inevitable conclusion of that rant is you don't have a freakin clue what you're talking about.

I knew you would have a simply translated question of confusion waiting.

Yes I said republicans dont see corruption. Yes, go with that. In fact, any conclusion you reach after reading my post dont ask just assume that what you believe is exactly what I was saying.

In fact, your whole thread is about jumping to conclusions.

Thanks, about 4 other guys took your script while you were gone. Soo that we covered already

 

[ClosedCaption]

Great defense by the way guys.

Dems do it too!

Not all Republicans!

You're stupid!

Really compelling stuff to consider...really.

 

[bendog]

later numbskulls.

That's what I'm talking about. And honestly, he probably thinks he "won." Pathetic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Heres what I dont understand:

Republicans seem to be for things that inevitably leads to another thing they do not like.

I understand that they feel no one should be paid more than what people pay already (which is like...it's happening so just deal with it) but what happens after those people are paid wages that do not sustain them? This is the question republicans refuse to ask because it leads to the very thing they dont like = Welfare.

Sure someone could just go hungry and "tough it out" but they wont. Republicans should know this or at least KNOW its a possibility. But when it happens they howl like welfare is really bad while applauding lower wages which will lead people toward welfare.

Its sorta like throwing chum in the water the scream at the Sharks

They are against abortion. I understand. But when you are against abortion (pro birth) and oppose it in all circumstances you have to know or at least expect that some of the people are going to have a hard time. Again, they could just starve on principal but most will abandon principle when they're stomach starts growling (Ayn Rand). So they once again go for welfare and Republicans race to the inevitable conclusion to scream at the people who need it.

Republicans are for Citizen United. I understand, you are making this a freedom of speech issue. I get it. But when corps can donate unlimited money, and money is power. How is the bigger or biggest contributor viewed by the recipient? Republicans refuse to ask this questions because it will expose the next thing they dislike. Corruption. Since we all know that money is valuable promoting unlimited money in politics will inevitablely lead to corruption.

Again repubs say we should elect better people. Elect people who will represent us while promoting the candidates being bankrolled by special interests. How will they represent us when they've been propped up by cash that didnt come from you? Is there people that do not value money? Who can run for office on a shoestring budget?

No, but when we get the money grubbers in office and they start acting like....money grubbers. Republicans never saw it coming. Then complain about the corrupt after creating the environment that makes this possible.

Its really strange but you can go on and on...The Patriot Act, Torture, Income Inequality etc etc.

Let me thank Edge, Steph, Katz for calling me an idiot in advance of their comments on the topic at hand

It's simply an economic philosophy that cons have been duped into believing that says that keeping the wealthy super wealthy and giving them all the breaks will lead to greater economic growth for the rest of society. The problem is that we have seen the repercussions of that thinking and policies that have supported that thinking, and they have been devastating to middle and lower income earners. Eventually, if we stay this course, it will end up affecting even the wealthy. Economies grow when the lower 50% of income earners have plenty of money to spend. Businesses do not expand when there is no demand for new or more products, and that demand must come from the bottom up. This is why it is so important to raise wages from the bottom, because it will benefit everyone including the wealthy. Keeping wages low for the bottom half will keep us in a stagnant and declining economy.

It's simply an economic philosophy that cons have been duped into believing that says that keeping the wealthy super wealthy and giving them all the breaks will lead to greater economic growth for the rest of society.

Really now? And Democrats aren't showering themselves with money while poor people go without? That's news to me, auditor.

The problem is that we have seen the repercussions of that thinking and policies that have supported that thinking, and they have been devastating to middle and lower income earners.

But instead of coming up with an actual solution, the people who advocate wage equality are those bathing themselves in money. You have billions of dollars sitting in a great hall in Hollywood during the Oscars, they then have the gall to sit there and complain about wage inequality.

Economies grow when the lower 50% of income earners have plenty of money to spend.

Moreover, how does an economy grow when you continually subsidize it? Economies grow when those people have good jobs, not welfare checks or food stamps. How does an economy grow that way?

Businesses do not expand when there is no demand for new or more products, and that demand must come from the bottom up.

But then again, these businesses might be run by actual rich people. So, are they good or evil?

Keeping wages low for the bottom half will keep us in a stagnant and declining economy.

Actually, throwing money at the poor will not make them richer. The best way to limit a person's self worth is to subsidize them into oblivion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I knew you would have a simply translated question of confusion waiting.

Yes I said republicans dont see corruption. Yes, go with that. In fact, any conclusion you reach after reading my post dont ask just assume that what you believe is exactly what I was saying.

In fact, your whole thread is about jumping to conclusions.

Thanks, about 4 other guys took your script while you were gone. Soo that we covered already

So you admit you were jumping to conclusions then?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Great defense by the way guys.

Dems do it too!

Not all Republicans!

You're stupid!

Really compelling stuff to consider...really.

Coming from a troll like you, that's rich... whoops. So much pun.

 

[Avatar4321]

So despite Republicans advocating limited government because politicians are corrupt, you are seriously going to try to claim that Republicans don't see that politicians are corrupt?

The inevitable conclusion of that rant is you don't have a freakin clue what you're talking about.

I knew you would have a simply translated question of confusion waiting.

Yes I said republicans dont see corruption. Yes, go with that. In fact, any conclusion you reach after reading my post dont ask just assume that what you believe is exactly what I was saying.

I don't have to assume what you are saying. You spelled it out quite clearly:

No, but when we get the money grubbers in office and they start acting like....money grubbers. Republicans never saw it coming. Then complain about the corrupt after creating the environment that makes this possible.

There arent many posts in this thread to go through. Why do you feel the need to pretend you didn't say exactly what you said?

 

[bendog]

Well, it DID work in Reagans two terms. We did cut taxes, and the overall dollars collected went UP. There was a progressive effect in income taxes and a regressive effect in taxes that were more regressive to begin with. Of COURSE, Reagan spent like ... well, he spent a lot.

But, when you talk taxes and use phrases like "wage equality" I tend to move away.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the top earners paying more while at the same time the % of income paid in taxes goes down. That's the dems problem.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with using more overall dollars collected to pay for more HC for lesser earning workers. That's the gop's problem.

Both parties are skewed by orthodoxy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So despite Republicans advocating limited government because politicians are corrupt, you are seriously going to try to claim that Republicans don't see that politicians are corrupt?

The inevitable conclusion of that rant is you don't have a freakin clue what you're talking about.

I knew you would have a simply translated question of confusion waiting.

Yes I said republicans dont see corruption. Yes, go with that. In fact, any conclusion you reach after reading my post dont ask just assume that what you believe is exactly what I was saying.

I don't have to assume what you are saying. You spelled it out quite clearly:

No, but when we get the money grubbers in office and they start acting like....money grubbers. Republicans never saw it coming. Then complain about the corrupt after creating the environment that makes this possible.

There arent many posts in this thread to go through. Why do you feel the need to pretend you didn't say exactly what you said?

See meaning present tense. Saw meaning past tense.

Republicans SEE corruption (what you asked) but they defend things that lead to corruption and never SAW (what I said) it coming. Or maybe they do see it coming and are just pretending to be against the obvious conclusion