Conservatives, the fight is not over!

[kaz]

[]Using wikipedia? LOL. I quoted what I was asking about. Didn't you see it? "Free markets are based on the economy?"

That's contrary to the meaning, that's why I asked. But as I said, there's no such thing as non intervention by government because it would be anarchy, which eliminates government. And you have to have your conversation with BOSS with BOSS.

Its not contrary to the meaning as the free market is a market economy. Wiki does use citations, if you have an issue with what I quoted from there, then take it up with them or prove what I quoted wrong.

I was having my conversation with BOSS until you decided to try to excoriate me for it.

I always like you idiots who object to other posters posting on conversations ... on a message board ... You want a one on one with Boss, PM him. I doubt he wants a private conversation with you, but that's up to him. You post on a public forum, the public can comment.

I always like explaining message boards to liberals, you're such simpletons

I always love dumbshits that enter a conversation or think they know whats going on after starting at the end of the topic, try reading from the beginning next time. Funny how you peg me for a liberal, do you even know what a Classic Liberal is? watadumbitch

I always love dumbshits who expect people to read entire threads before posting even when their post is a direct response to what you said

His first post to me wasn't a direct response to what I said, but nice try. SMFH

No, but my first post to you that you were whining about was a direct response to what you said, which is what I was referring to

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Guess it was over your head.

Nothing matters isn't over my head, it's a waste of my time

Like I said, it escaped you, nevermind.

All you said is no political term means anything. What is there to miss in that? You think you said something of content? Seriously?

Your labels for others are meaningless, self-assigned bullshit, instantly dispatched tripe; an emotional reaction leaving no space at all for a serious conversation.

It has nothing to do with a label, moron. Democrats want to expand government checks and tax the rich. We know that because they tell us. You don't know that, seriously?

And yet you are quick to label others based on your own ******* lazy ignorance, gofigure

 

[Boss]

Accept I haven't stated we need to "tax the rich" nor have I stated "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners". You seem confused over the entire discussion, I suggest you go back and re-read it, then start over. The rest of your incoherent rambling is nothing but static. I have provided links showing you that small business are not the 1%, nor are they even in the 1%. I have shown you how small business files their taxes on their NET income, yet you fail to comprehend even that basic knowledge. Who the **** is wanting to tax people at 91%, Trump never stated such a thing, nor have I. You keep up those strawmen though, it really helps you to look ignorant as all hell.

We're not discussing what YOU'VE said... Moron! You seem to be confused. I suggest YOU go back and read over.

You've not provided jack shit other than liberal left-wing propagandist talking points that free market conservatives have been refuting with fact for the past 40 years. You and Trump are sounding more and more like Bernie Sanders supporters. Maybe THAT is who Trump and you are attempting to appeal to?

We are discussing what Trump stated, and he didn't state what you are claiming. He didn't state he was going to "tax the rich", he never once stated "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners". This is all your projection based on his response to a question. You're the one providing liberal left-wing propagandist talking points to try to protect what you claim are free market conservatives, when you don't really seem to have a basic understanding of what the free market actually is, let alone what a conservative is.

Well yes he DID state it. You maybe missed it because you were busy doing your victory dance... but he said it. In fact, he has used the term "we're going to tax the rich" several times. It is one of the primary reasons I don't believe he is a conservative and I have problems with him as a candidate.

You can be his apologist, you can live in denial, you can make excuses... it's not going to change what the man has said. If you AGREE with what he has said, you're not a Conservative and you fail to recognize Marxist-Socialist propaganda.

Again, if you LIKE the ideas Trump is presenting for increasing the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich but you don't like Trump's personality... check out Bernie Sanders. Same thing, nicer guy saying it!

He stated he was going to "tax the rich" and that "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners"? Google must really be off today as I can't find him making those statements anywhere. What I did find was him saying he wanted to close loopholes which in effect would cause wealthy peoples taxes to increase yet their tax rates would be lower, doesn't that pretty much wash? I wasn't able to find him exclaiming to increase tax rates on anybody, in fact what was found was that he was cutting taxes rates for everybody, including the rich and the wealthy.

Because I agree with what Trump is claiming because I am able to understand his positions, now I'm not a Conservative? I stated before I am a Classic Liberal, just like you stated you were a social libertarian. Trump never stated he was going to increase the minimum wage. SMFH This is nothing but Marxist-Socialist propaganda that you are falling for, to you if it is in a headline or made up via interpretation of out of context soundbites, it must be true. As I have already stated, you don't seem to be able to do basic research let alone provide credible links that back up your inane claims.

I am not responsible for Google or what you can or can't find online. On Wednesday, he was asked about the minimum wage by Wolf Blitzer... the same old liberal whine about people not being able to live on what they make... Trump replied that "we'll have to look at it" talking about "looking at" increasing it, as he AGREED with the liberal Blitzer that people have to earn a living wage. Previously, as recently as the debates, Trump stated that raising the minimum wage kills jobs... I applauded him for that and defended his statements on this very board against liberals who had a conniption when Trump said "wages are too high in this country!" But apparently, that was Trump as he ran against Conservatives.... now that he has won the nomination, it's a different tune!

On Thursday, in an interview with CNBC, he was asked by a liberal about his tax cuts going mostly to the "Top 1%" which again, is textbook liberalism.... we've been battling this nonsense for years. 95% of ALL tax is paid by the Top 5%... so whenever you have a tax cut, MOST of it goes to the top earners... they pay most of the taxes! But again, instead of Trump making the Conservative case and correcting the Liberal meme... he agrees... He's not a big fan of his own tax proposal. Then he quickly covers that by claiming "you have to negotiate!" But he's NOT negotiating yet... he hasn't been elected yet... his plan hasn't even been challenged yet. He has just arbitrarily conceded the key aspect of his own tax plan because a liberal interviewer questioned him. And just like with his original position on the MW, I supported his tax proposal.

Now.... Let me get you straightened out here.... Wealthy people don't pay taxes. Their wealth was already taxed whenever they earned it. They will sometimes use their wealth to grow their wealth, through investments and such... and they pay taxes on the wealth they grow. But this is very important to remember... they don't HAVE to grow their wealth! It's purely THEIR choice! If you want to tax their investments excessively, they will simply choose not to invest.... it makes no difference to them. This "closing loopholes" meme is another Marxist propaganda rant that means eliminating investment incentives for the most part. Killing investment is not going to help the economy. Now, if you want to discuss specific "loopholes" you don't like, we can debate those... what are the pros and cons... why do we have those loopholes... what are they supposed to achieve? But this just mindlessly bowing up and being opposed to any and all loopholes is simply buying into Marxist propaganda.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Its not contrary to the meaning as the free market is a market economy. Wiki does use citations, if you have an issue with what I quoted from there, then take it up with them or prove what I quoted wrong.

I was having my conversation with BOSS until you decided to try to excoriate me for it.

I always like you idiots who object to other posters posting on conversations ... on a message board ... You want a one on one with Boss, PM him. I doubt he wants a private conversation with you, but that's up to him. You post on a public forum, the public can comment.

I always like explaining message boards to liberals, you're such simpletons

I always love dumbshits that enter a conversation or think they know whats going on after starting at the end of the topic, try reading from the beginning next time. Funny how you peg me for a liberal, do you even know what a Classic Liberal is? watadumbitch

I always love dumbshits who expect people to read entire threads before posting even when their post is a direct response to what you said

His first post to me wasn't a direct response to what I said, but nice try. SMFH

No, but my first post to you that you were whining about was a direct response to what you said, which is what I was referring to

Me whining about? LMFAO And there's your stupidity, putting your nose where it doesn't belong. Had you read this thread things may have been different, but I digress.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Nothing matters isn't over my head, it's a waste of my time

Like I said, it escaped you, nevermind.

All you said is no political term means anything. What is there to miss in that? You think you said something of content? Seriously?

Your labels for others are meaningless, self-assigned bullshit, instantly dispatched tripe; an emotional reaction leaving no space at all for a serious conversation.

It has nothing to do with a label, moron. Democrats want to expand government checks and tax the rich. We know that because they tell us. You don't know that, seriously?

And yet you are quick to label others based on your own ******* lazy ignorance, gofigure

Sure.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Accept I haven't stated we need to "tax the rich" nor have I stated "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners". You seem confused over the entire discussion, I suggest you go back and re-read it, then start over. The rest of your incoherent rambling is nothing but static. I have provided links showing you that small business are not the 1%, nor are they even in the 1%. I have shown you how small business files their taxes on their NET income, yet you fail to comprehend even that basic knowledge. Who the **** is wanting to tax people at 91%, Trump never stated such a thing, nor have I. You keep up those strawmen though, it really helps you to look ignorant as all hell.

We're not discussing what YOU'VE said... Moron! You seem to be confused. I suggest YOU go back and read over.

You've not provided jack shit other than liberal left-wing propagandist talking points that free market conservatives have been refuting with fact for the past 40 years. You and Trump are sounding more and more like Bernie Sanders supporters. Maybe THAT is who Trump and you are attempting to appeal to?

We are discussing what Trump stated, and he didn't state what you are claiming. He didn't state he was going to "tax the rich", he never once stated "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners". This is all your projection based on his response to a question. You're the one providing liberal left-wing propagandist talking points to try to protect what you claim are free market conservatives, when you don't really seem to have a basic understanding of what the free market actually is, let alone what a conservative is.

Well yes he DID state it. You maybe missed it because you were busy doing your victory dance... but he said it. In fact, he has used the term "we're going to tax the rich" several times. It is one of the primary reasons I don't believe he is a conservative and I have problems with him as a candidate.

You can be his apologist, you can live in denial, you can make excuses... it's not going to change what the man has said. If you AGREE with what he has said, you're not a Conservative and you fail to recognize Marxist-Socialist propaganda.

Again, if you LIKE the ideas Trump is presenting for increasing the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich but you don't like Trump's personality... check out Bernie Sanders. Same thing, nicer guy saying it!

He stated he was going to "tax the rich" and that "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners"? Google must really be off today as I can't find him making those statements anywhere. What I did find was him saying he wanted to close loopholes which in effect would cause wealthy peoples taxes to increase yet their tax rates would be lower, doesn't that pretty much wash? I wasn't able to find him exclaiming to increase tax rates on anybody, in fact what was found was that he was cutting taxes rates for everybody, including the rich and the wealthy.

Because I agree with what Trump is claiming because I am able to understand his positions, now I'm not a Conservative? I stated before I am a Classic Liberal, just like you stated you were a social libertarian. Trump never stated he was going to increase the minimum wage. SMFH This is nothing but Marxist-Socialist propaganda that you are falling for, to you if it is in a headline or made up via interpretation of out of context soundbites, it must be true. As I have already stated, you don't seem to be able to do basic research let alone provide credible links that back up your inane claims.

I am not responsible for Google or what you can or can't find online. On Wednesday, he was asked about the minimum wage by Wolf Blitzer... the same old liberal whine about people not being able to live on what they make... Trump replied that "we'll have to look at it" talking about "looking at" increasing it, as he AGREED with the liberal Blitzer that people have to earn a living wage. Previously, as recently as the debates, Trump stated that raising the minimum wage kills jobs... I applauded him for that and defended his statements on this very board against liberals who had a conniption when Trump said "wages are too high in this country!" But apparently, that was Trump as he ran against Conservatives.... now that he has won the nomination, it's a different tune!

On Thursday, in an interview with CNBC, he was asked by a liberal about his tax cuts going mostly to the "Top 1%" which again, is textbook liberalism.... we've been battling this nonsense for years. 95% of ALL tax is paid by the Top 5%... so whenever you have a tax cut, MOST of it goes to the top earners... they pay most of the taxes! But again, instead of Trump making the Conservative case and correcting the Liberal meme... he agrees... He's not a big fan of his own tax proposal. Then he quickly covers that by claiming "you have to negotiate!" But he's NOT negotiating yet... he hasn't been elected yet... his plan hasn't even been challenged yet. He has just arbitrarily conceded the key aspect of his own tax plan because a liberal interviewer questioned him. And just like with his original position on the MW, I supported his tax proposal.

Now.... Let me get you straightened out here.... Wealthy people don't pay taxes. Their wealth was already taxed whenever they earned it. They will sometimes use their wealth to grow their wealth, through investments and such... and they pay taxes on the wealth they grow. But this is very important to remember... they don't HAVE to grow their wealth! It's purely THEIR choice! If you want to tax their investments excessively, they will simply choose not to invest.... it makes no difference to them. This "closing loopholes" meme is another Marxist propaganda rant that means eliminating investment incentives for the most part. Killing investment is not going to help the economy. Now, if you want to discuss specific "loopholes" you don't like, we can debate those... what are the pros and cons... why do we have those loopholes... what are they supposed to achieve? But this just mindlessly bowing up and being opposed to any and all loopholes is simply buying into Marxist propaganda.

That's right, he said we'll have to look at that. At no point does he exclaim he is going to increase minimum wage as you have been exclaiming. And what was it I already stated in regards to this? The Fed Min. Wage is lower than almost every States Min Wage. So if for whatever reason the Fed Min Wage may or may not be increased, will it ever be more than every States own Min Wage? And to this you came back with Trump said he was going to raise the minimum wage, when the reality is he never once stated he would.

I have stated the specific loophole that Trump was talking about closing, Carried Interest.

Wealthy people don't pay taxes? Are you ******* kidding me? Do they not pay Capital Gains Taxes? Is that not an income tax? Do all not have an actual income?

They will sometimes use their wealth to grow their wealth, through investments and such... and they pay taxes on the wealth they grow. But this is very important to remember... they don't HAVE to grow their wealth! It's purely THEIR choice!​

You pointed to the few and labeled them as all. :YAWN:

All you keep reiterating are sounbites that you take out of context, or you take from headlines and incorrectly stated opinions of "journalists".

 

[Fenton Lum]

I always like you idiots who object to other posters posting on conversations ... on a message board ... You want a one on one with Boss, PM him. I doubt he wants a private conversation with you, but that's up to him. You post on a public forum, the public can comment.

I always like explaining message boards to liberals, you're such simpletons

I always love dumbshits that enter a conversation or think they know whats going on after starting at the end of the topic, try reading from the beginning next time. Funny how you peg me for a liberal, do you even know what a Classic Liberal is? watadumbitch

I always love dumbshits who expect people to read entire threads before posting even when their post is a direct response to what you said

His first post to me wasn't a direct response to what I said, but nice try. SMFH

No, but my first post to you that you were whining about was a direct response to what you said, which is what I was referring to

Me whining about? LMFAO And there's your stupidity, putting your nose where it doesn't belong. Had you read this thread things may have been different, but I digress.

Accept I haven't stated we need to "tax the rich" nor have I stated "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners". You seem confused over the entire discussion, I suggest you go back and re-read it, then start over. The rest of your incoherent rambling is nothing but static. I have provided links showing you that small business are not the 1%, nor are they even in the 1%. I have shown you how small business files their taxes on their NET income, yet you fail to comprehend even that basic knowledge. Who the **** is wanting to tax people at 91%, Trump never stated such a thing, nor have I. You keep up those strawmen though, it really helps you to look ignorant as all hell.

We're not discussing what YOU'VE said... Moron! You seem to be confused. I suggest YOU go back and read over.

You've not provided jack shit other than liberal left-wing propagandist talking points that free market conservatives have been refuting with fact for the past 40 years. You and Trump are sounding more and more like Bernie Sanders supporters. Maybe THAT is who Trump and you are attempting to appeal to?

We are discussing what Trump stated, and he didn't state what you are claiming. He didn't state he was going to "tax the rich", he never once stated "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners". This is all your projection based on his response to a question. You're the one providing liberal left-wing propagandist talking points to try to protect what you claim are free market conservatives, when you don't really seem to have a basic understanding of what the free market actually is, let alone what a conservative is.

Well yes he DID state it. You maybe missed it because you were busy doing your victory dance... but he said it. In fact, he has used the term "we're going to tax the rich" several times. It is one of the primary reasons I don't believe he is a conservative and I have problems with him as a candidate.

You can be his apologist, you can live in denial, you can make excuses... it's not going to change what the man has said. If you AGREE with what he has said, you're not a Conservative and you fail to recognize Marxist-Socialist propaganda.

Again, if you LIKE the ideas Trump is presenting for increasing the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich but you don't like Trump's personality... check out Bernie Sanders. Same thing, nicer guy saying it!

He stated he was going to "tax the rich" and that "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners"? Google must really be off today as I can't find him making those statements anywhere. What I did find was him saying he wanted to close loopholes which in effect would cause wealthy peoples taxes to increase yet their tax rates would be lower, doesn't that pretty much wash? I wasn't able to find him exclaiming to increase tax rates on anybody, in fact what was found was that he was cutting taxes rates for everybody, including the rich and the wealthy.

Because I agree with what Trump is claiming because I am able to understand his positions, now I'm not a Conservative? I stated before I am a Classic Liberal, just like you stated you were a social libertarian. Trump never stated he was going to increase the minimum wage. SMFH This is nothing but Marxist-Socialist propaganda that you are falling for, to you if it is in a headline or made up via interpretation of out of context soundbites, it must be true. As I have already stated, you don't seem to be able to do basic research let alone provide credible links that back up your inane claims.

I am not responsible for Google or what you can or can't find online. On Wednesday, he was asked about the minimum wage by Wolf Blitzer... the same old liberal whine about people not being able to live on what they make... Trump replied that "we'll have to look at it" talking about "looking at" increasing it, as he AGREED with the liberal Blitzer that people have to earn a living wage. Previously, as recently as the debates, Trump stated that raising the minimum wage kills jobs... I applauded him for that and defended his statements on this very board against liberals who had a conniption when Trump said "wages are too high in this country!" But apparently, that was Trump as he ran against Conservatives.... now that he has won the nomination, it's a different tune!

On Thursday, in an interview with CNBC, he was asked by a liberal about his tax cuts going mostly to the "Top 1%" which again, is textbook liberalism.... we've been battling this nonsense for years. 95% of ALL tax is paid by the Top 5%... so whenever you have a tax cut, MOST of it goes to the top earners... they pay most of the taxes! But again, instead of Trump making the Conservative case and correcting the Liberal meme... he agrees... He's not a big fan of his own tax proposal. Then he quickly covers that by claiming "you have to negotiate!" But he's NOT negotiating yet... he hasn't been elected yet... his plan hasn't even been challenged yet. He has just arbitrarily conceded the key aspect of his own tax plan because a liberal interviewer questioned him. And just like with his original position on the MW, I supported his tax proposal.

Now.... Let me get you straightened out here.... Wealthy people don't pay taxes. Their wealth was already taxed whenever they earned it. They will sometimes use their wealth to grow their wealth, through investments and such... and they pay taxes on the wealth they grow. But this is very important to remember... they don't HAVE to grow their wealth! It's purely THEIR choice! If you want to tax their investments excessively, they will simply choose not to invest.... it makes no difference to them. This "closing loopholes" meme is another Marxist propaganda rant that means eliminating investment incentives for the most part. Killing investment is not going to help the economy. Now, if you want to discuss specific "loopholes" you don't like, we can debate those... what are the pros and cons... why do we have those loopholes... what are they supposed to achieve? But this just mindlessly bowing up and being opposed to any and all loopholes is simply buying into Marxist propaganda.

Isn't everything Marxist to you?

 

[Fenton Lum]

We're not discussing what YOU'VE said... Moron! You seem to be confused. I suggest YOU go back and read over.

You've not provided jack shit other than liberal left-wing propagandist talking points that free market conservatives have been refuting with fact for the past 40 years. You and Trump are sounding more and more like Bernie Sanders supporters. Maybe THAT is who Trump and you are attempting to appeal to?

We are discussing what Trump stated, and he didn't state what you are claiming. He didn't state he was going to "tax the rich", he never once stated "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners". This is all your projection based on his response to a question. You're the one providing liberal left-wing propagandist talking points to try to protect what you claim are free market conservatives, when you don't really seem to have a basic understanding of what the free market actually is, let alone what a conservative is.

Well yes he DID state it. You maybe missed it because you were busy doing your victory dance... but he said it. In fact, he has used the term "we're going to tax the rich" several times. It is one of the primary reasons I don't believe he is a conservative and I have problems with him as a candidate.

You can be his apologist, you can live in denial, you can make excuses... it's not going to change what the man has said. If you AGREE with what he has said, you're not a Conservative and you fail to recognize Marxist-Socialist propaganda.

Again, if you LIKE the ideas Trump is presenting for increasing the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich but you don't like Trump's personality... check out Bernie Sanders. Same thing, nicer guy saying it!

He stated he was going to "tax the rich" and that "we need to increase the tax rate on the top marginal earners"? Google must really be off today as I can't find him making those statements anywhere. What I did find was him saying he wanted to close loopholes which in effect would cause wealthy peoples taxes to increase yet their tax rates would be lower, doesn't that pretty much wash? I wasn't able to find him exclaiming to increase tax rates on anybody, in fact what was found was that he was cutting taxes rates for everybody, including the rich and the wealthy.

Because I agree with what Trump is claiming because I am able to understand his positions, now I'm not a Conservative? I stated before I am a Classic Liberal, just like you stated you were a social libertarian. Trump never stated he was going to increase the minimum wage. SMFH This is nothing but Marxist-Socialist propaganda that you are falling for, to you if it is in a headline or made up via interpretation of out of context soundbites, it must be true. As I have already stated, you don't seem to be able to do basic research let alone provide credible links that back up your inane claims.

I am not responsible for Google or what you can or can't find online. On Wednesday, he was asked about the minimum wage by Wolf Blitzer... the same old liberal whine about people not being able to live on what they make... Trump replied that "we'll have to look at it" talking about "looking at" increasing it, as he AGREED with the liberal Blitzer that people have to earn a living wage. Previously, as recently as the debates, Trump stated that raising the minimum wage kills jobs... I applauded him for that and defended his statements on this very board against liberals who had a conniption when Trump said "wages are too high in this country!" But apparently, that was Trump as he ran against Conservatives.... now that he has won the nomination, it's a different tune!

On Thursday, in an interview with CNBC, he was asked by a liberal about his tax cuts going mostly to the "Top 1%" which again, is textbook liberalism.... we've been battling this nonsense for years. 95% of ALL tax is paid by the Top 5%... so whenever you have a tax cut, MOST of it goes to the top earners... they pay most of the taxes! But again, instead of Trump making the Conservative case and correcting the Liberal meme... he agrees... He's not a big fan of his own tax proposal. Then he quickly covers that by claiming "you have to negotiate!" But he's NOT negotiating yet... he hasn't been elected yet... his plan hasn't even been challenged yet. He has just arbitrarily conceded the key aspect of his own tax plan because a liberal interviewer questioned him. And just like with his original position on the MW, I supported his tax proposal.

Now.... Let me get you straightened out here.... Wealthy people don't pay taxes. Their wealth was already taxed whenever they earned it. They will sometimes use their wealth to grow their wealth, through investments and such... and they pay taxes on the wealth they grow. But this is very important to remember... they don't HAVE to grow their wealth! It's purely THEIR choice! If you want to tax their investments excessively, they will simply choose not to invest.... it makes no difference to them. This "closing loopholes" meme is another Marxist propaganda rant that means eliminating investment incentives for the most part. Killing investment is not going to help the economy. Now, if you want to discuss specific "loopholes" you don't like, we can debate those... what are the pros and cons... why do we have those loopholes... what are they supposed to achieve? But this just mindlessly bowing up and being opposed to any and all loopholes is simply buying into Marxist propaganda.

That's right, he said we'll have to look at that. At no point does he exclaim he is going to increase minimum wage as you have been exclaiming. And what was it I already stated in regards to this? The Fed Min. Wage is lower than almost every States Min Wage. So if for whatever reason the Fed Min Wage may or may not be increased, will it ever be more than every States own Min Wage? And to this you came back with Trump said he was going to raise the minimum wage, when the reality is he never once stated he would.

I have stated hte specific loophole that Trump was talking about closing, Carried Interest.

All you keep reiterating are sounbites that you take out of context, or you take from headlines and incorrectly stated opinions of propogandists.

propogandists. Pfffft, there's another one.

 

[EriktheRed]

Here's another idea: how about you post a link discussing the Obama Admin being taken to court over what you claim is "lawless". It's been done before, after all.

So that's your standard? You apply the same thing to W? He's only guilty of what has been proven in a court of law? So you defend him when leftists make accusations since he's been convicted of nothing? Funny, I don't see you doing that ...

I've personally never called for his impeachment or called his policies "lawless" and in some cases I actually have told others who were calling for impeachment of him wrong.

As far as this particular subjecting that were deflecting from is concerned, from what I've read about it, there isn't anything that legally obligated this current admin to act any way other than they did in disbursing the bailout money.

My point was regarding your inane argument that no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law as having committed. It's inane and obviously you don't follow that yourself

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

 

[Fenton Lum]

So that's your standard? You apply the same thing to W? He's only guilty of what has been proven in a court of law? So you defend him when leftists make accusations since he's been convicted of nothing? Funny, I don't see you doing that ...

I've personally never called for his impeachment or called his policies "lawless" and in some cases I actually have told others who were calling for impeachment of him wrong.

As far as this particular subjecting that were deflecting from is concerned, from what I've read about it, there isn't anything that legally obligated this current admin to act any way other than they did in disbursing the bailout money.

My point was regarding your inane argument that no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law as having committed. It's inane and obviously you don't follow that yourself

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Doesn't matter, same with Bush, they both walk. That's our exceptional system.

 

[Boss]

That's right, he said we'll have to look at that. At no point does he exclaim he is going to increase minimum wage as you have been exclaiming. And what was it I already stated in regards to this? The Fed Min. Wage is lower than almost every States Min Wage. So if for whatever reason the Fed Min Wage may or may not be increased, will it ever be more than every States own Min Wage? And to this you came back with Trump said he was going to raise the minimum wage, when the reality is he never once stated he would.

You don't "look at" something that you're not going to do because it kills jobs, you tell the ignorant liberal that you're NOT going to look at that because it would kill jobs.

I have stated the specific loophole that Trump was talking about closing, Carried Interest.

Wasn't what he was asked about and wasn't what he was talking about. Just like with the MW, it was an opportunity for Trump to correct the ignorance of the liberal and instead, he agreed with the liberal.

Wealthy people don't pay taxes? Are you ******* kidding me? Do they not pay Capital Gains Taxes? Is that not an income tax? Do all not have an actual income?

No, I am not ******* kidding you. To the extent wealthy people pay any tax at all, it is by their choice. Their WEALTH is not taxed... it was already taxed whenever they earned it. They may ELECT to invest and pay tax on their investment income... that's THEIR CHOICE! And no, Capital Gains taxes are not Earned Income taxes and have nothing to do with the earned income tax brackets Trump "is not a big fan of" giving cuts to.

They will sometimes use their wealth to grow their wealth, through investments and such... and they pay taxes on the wealth they grow. But this is very important to remember... they don't HAVE to grow their wealth! It's purely THEIR choice!​

You pointed to the few and labeled them as all. :YAWN:

All you keep reiterating are sounbites that you take out of context, or you take from headlines and incorrectly stated opinions of "journalists".

I labeled them as ALL because there are no rich people out there who don't make decisions on what to do with their wealth. They can invest it, they can hide it, they can sit on it, they can sock it away in tax-free municipals and securities... they don't HAVE to do any damn thing with it. What I am reiterating are the bytes of sound coming out of Trump's pie hole since he has secured the GOP nomination, and it ain't Conservatism.

Look... You and his sycophants can do the Trump Apology Tour all you like... I don't blame you.... you've gone to the mat for this man and it's a matter of pride now.... I expect that. But if you think for one minute that I am going to abandon my Conservative principles to support him, you need to go tug on your crack pipe some more. That ain't gonna happen. I will be here to point out everything he says from now until November that isn't Conservative and that flies in the face of Conservative principle... and if you don't like that, you can kiss my ass.

 

[kaz]

Nothing matters isn't over my head, it's a waste of my time

Like I said, it escaped you, nevermind.

All you said is no political term means anything. What is there to miss in that? You think you said something of content? Seriously?

Your labels for others are meaningless, self-assigned bullshit, instantly dispatched tripe; an emotional reaction leaving no space at all for a serious conversation.

It has nothing to do with a label, moron. Democrats want to expand government checks and tax the rich. We know that because they tell us. You don't know that, seriously?

And yet you are quick to label others based on your own ******* lazy ignorance, gofigure

Stop whining and tell me where I'm wrong. All I see so far is Hillary saying ***** and you saying ma'am and waiting for orders

 

[kaz]

I always like you idiots who object to other posters posting on conversations ... on a message board ... You want a one on one with Boss, PM him. I doubt he wants a private conversation with you, but that's up to him. You post on a public forum, the public can comment.

I always like explaining message boards to liberals, you're such simpletons

I always love dumbshits that enter a conversation or think they know whats going on after starting at the end of the topic, try reading from the beginning next time. Funny how you peg me for a liberal, do you even know what a Classic Liberal is? watadumbitch

I always love dumbshits who expect people to read entire threads before posting even when their post is a direct response to what you said

His first post to me wasn't a direct response to what I said, but nice try. SMFH

No, but my first post to you that you were whining about was a direct response to what you said, which is what I was referring to

Me whining about? LMFAO And there's your stupidity, putting your nose where it doesn't belong. Had you read this thread things may have been different, but I digress.

Yes, you whined that I didn't read the entire thread before commenting

 

[kaz]

So that's your standard? You apply the same thing to W? He's only guilty of what has been proven in a court of law? So you defend him when leftists make accusations since he's been convicted of nothing? Funny, I don't see you doing that ...

I've personally never called for his impeachment or called his policies "lawless" and in some cases I actually have told others who were calling for impeachment of him wrong.

As far as this particular subjecting that were deflecting from is concerned, from what I've read about it, there isn't anything that legally obligated this current admin to act any way other than they did in disbursing the bailout money.

My point was regarding your inane argument that no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law as having committed. It's inane and obviously you don't follow that yourself

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Obama has a complete disregard for the Constitution

 

[kaz]

I've personally never called for his impeachment or called his policies "lawless" and in some cases I actually have told others who were calling for impeachment of him wrong.

As far as this particular subjecting that were deflecting from is concerned, from what I've read about it, there isn't anything that legally obligated this current admin to act any way other than they did in disbursing the bailout money.

My point was regarding your inane argument that no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law as having committed. It's inane and obviously you don't follow that yourself

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Doesn't matter, same with Bush, they both walk. That's our exceptional system.

Agreed, Bush was just as bad. You never say anything specific, do you?

 

[EriktheRed]

I've personally never called for his impeachment or called his policies "lawless" and in some cases I actually have told others who were calling for impeachment of him wrong.

As far as this particular subjecting that were deflecting from is concerned, from what I've read about it, there isn't anything that legally obligated this current admin to act any way other than they did in disbursing the bailout money.

My point was regarding your inane argument that no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law as having committed. It's inane and obviously you don't follow that yourself

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Doesn't matter, same with Bush, they both walk. That's our exceptional system.

No, it does matter because if one's going to use the term "lawless", it oughtta mean something. In Shrub's case it doesn't appear that he himself ever broke any laws, either, so of course he "walked".

 

[EriktheRed]

I've personally never called for his impeachment or called his policies "lawless" and in some cases I actually have told others who were calling for impeachment of him wrong.

As far as this particular subjecting that were deflecting from is concerned, from what I've read about it, there isn't anything that legally obligated this current admin to act any way other than they did in disbursing the bailout money.

My point was regarding your inane argument that no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law as having committed. It's inane and obviously you don't follow that yourself

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Obama has a complete disregard for the Constitution

IOW, you really have no rebuttal. Ok, then....

 

[kaz]

My point was regarding your inane argument that no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law as having committed. It's inane and obviously you don't follow that yourself

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Doesn't matter, same with Bush, they both walk. That's our exceptional system.

No, it does matter because if one's going to use the term "lawless", it oughtta mean something. In Shrub's case it doesn't appear that he himself ever broke any laws, either, so of course he "walked".

Bush violated the first amendment (signed the so called campaign finance reform which is a flagrant violation of freedom of speech). He violated the fifth with the patriot act and holding American Citizens without trial inside the US. He violated the 10th repeatedly with things like the so called transportation bill, which was just a Christmas Tree of spending and the No Child Gets ahead program, neither had constitutional authority. He violated the 10th also by trying to overturn euthanasia laws in Oregon and the fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth in the war on drugs. And then there's the flagrantly Unconstitutional war on terror where he keeps engaging us in wars that are not for defense, the only Constitutional basis for using the military.

Obama did all that and more turning the Presidency into a dictatorship with his endless executive orders bypassing the legislature and judiciary. Executive actions legitimately only apply to his own powers in the executive branch, they were not to be a shortcut to bypass the other branches of government

 

[EriktheRed]

What is this "no one can criticize people you like for anything they haven't been convicted in a court of law" crap? He used the term "lawless" and I've challenged that assertion. Do you have anything else to add to this besides giving me crap over my posting history?

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Doesn't matter, same with Bush, they both walk. That's our exceptional system.

No, it does matter because if one's going to use the term "lawless", it oughtta mean something. In Shrub's case it doesn't appear that he himself ever broke any laws, either, so of course he "walked".

Bush violated the first amendment (signed the so called campaign finance reform which is a flagrant violation of freedom of speech). He violated the fifth with the patriot act and holding American Citizens without trial inside the US. He violated the 10th repeatedly with things like the so called transportation bill, which was just a Christmas Tree of spending and the No Child Gets ahead program, neither had constitutional authority. He violated the 10th also by trying to overturn euthanasia laws in Oregon and the fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth in the war on drugs. And then there's the flagrantly Unconstitutional war on terror where he keeps engaging us in wars that are not for defense, the only Constitutional basis for using the military.

Obama did all that and more turning the Presidency into a dictatorship with his endless executive orders bypassing the legislature and judiciary. Executive actions legitimately only apply to his own powers in the executive branch, they were not to be a shortcut to bypass the other branches of government

You can rehash all the reasons you believe President Obama to be a dictator all you want. In the case of the auto bailout, there was no compelling legal reason for him to do things any other way.

 

[kaz]

Exactly, your standard for him was for Obama to be lawless it had to be established in court. A standard you apply to your self and other leftists never, you make all the accusations you want

So was he being "lawless" in this case?

Doesn't matter, same with Bush, they both walk. That's our exceptional system.

No, it does matter because if one's going to use the term "lawless", it oughtta mean something. In Shrub's case it doesn't appear that he himself ever broke any laws, either, so of course he "walked".

Bush violated the first amendment (signed the so called campaign finance reform which is a flagrant violation of freedom of speech). He violated the fifth with the patriot act and holding American Citizens without trial inside the US. He violated the 10th repeatedly with things like the so called transportation bill, which was just a Christmas Tree of spending and the No Child Gets ahead program, neither had constitutional authority. He violated the 10th also by trying to overturn euthanasia laws in Oregon and the fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth in the war on drugs. And then there's the flagrantly Unconstitutional war on terror where he keeps engaging us in wars that are not for defense, the only Constitutional basis for using the military.

Obama did all that and more turning the Presidency into a dictatorship with his endless executive orders bypassing the legislature and judiciary. Executive actions legitimately only apply to his own powers in the executive branch, they were not to be a shortcut to bypass the other branches of government

You can rehash all the reasons you believe President Obama to be a dictator all you want. In the case of the auto bailout, there was no compelling legal reason for him to do things any other way.

Violation of the 10th amendment and rewarding marketplace losers for failure harms the winners as well as consumers. Let failures fail, that's how 5% of the world population because a third of the world economy until the leftist leaches started dragging us back