For 8 years the right has been called racist.

[HnL]

BTW, was Texas horrible racist when it voted for Jimmy Carter more than ten years after the Goldwater campaign?

Yes, do you actually think a governor of Georgia could win without being racist?

 

[OKTexas]

How's the kool-aid today?

Name one black person who has been elected to statewide office in Texas in the last 130 years.
After you find that judge you've never heard of, then go back to pretending white Texans aren't overwhelmingly racist, oppressive morons.

I guess our current Hispanic senator doesn't count.

Is he black?

Being of Cuban heritage he could easily be part black, just like your dear leader. But you see we look at qualifications not race, in fact Cruz was elected over a very white establishment guy.

No, it is not. We didn't have people shackled and brought here as slaves from Spain, or subsequently from Cuba.

Seriously, are you saying there are no blacks in Cuba?

Slavery in Cuba - Wikipedia

 

[LaDexter]

Yes, do you actually think a governor of Georgia could win without being racist?

So Jimmy Carter is racist....

Evidence?

None exist, but he is white, so that'll do for the KEEP RACISM ALIVE movement

 

[HnL]

Um ... you think that guys imagining female nurses is about "sexism?"

Yes

 

[LaDexter]

There is also a KEEP SEXISM ALIVE movement that has just as retarded conclusions...

 

[HnL]

Slavery in Cuba - Wikipedia

Cruz’ ancestors were not slaves in Cuba. And we aren't Cuba, regardless. I couldn't care less if Cubans were oppressed 200 years ago. That is Cuba’s problem

 

[HnL]

You never voted Republican in your life. I was a Republican, I left in 1990. The difference between my story and yours is mine isn't a lie

I'm from Nebraska. Do you honestly think we would vote for Mondale, Dukakis or Clinton?

 

[kaz]

Um ... you think that guys imagining female nurses is about "sexism?"

Yes

So are you gay or just not really interested in sex?

You're dumb as shit, dude. Even if you don't have any testosterone, you may have heard other guys do ...

 

[kaz]

You never voted Republican in your life. I was a Republican, I left in 1990. The difference between my story and yours is mine isn't a lie

I'm from Nebraska. Do you honestly think we would vote for Mondale, Dukakis or Clinton?

You're also a Marxist

 

[HnL]

Oh right, like the proof the WI shooter provided, of course he lied and voted in 3 elections. BTW the EAC reversing itself in just 3 States in Jan of this year will have zero effect on this election. Also I'm very sure their decision will be challenged by you regressives.

You were wrong. And regardless, you were conflating not being able to put the onus for proof of citizenship on the voter, with the state being allowed to prove a voter is indeed a citizen of its state, before allowing them to vote.

 

[HnL]

You're dumb as shit, dude. Even if you don't have any testosterone, you may have heard other guys do ...

If you think being a sexist jerk makes you somehow cool, you should guess again.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Now if Hillary is elected that meme will change to sexist.
Liberals just can't fathom that people vehemently disagree with their positions. Their tunnel vision blinds them completely to the fact that their train of thought is but one narrow view of the world.

They don't have tunnel vision. They are well aware of their deviance.

 

[HnL]

You realize there are millions of lefty numbskulls like you in Texas too, right moron? Throwing your brothers in brainlessness right under the bus?

There aren't enough to sway a statewide election.

 

[Unkotare]

You realize there are millions of lefty numbskulls like you in Texas too, right moron? Throwing your brothers in brainlessness right under the bus?

There aren't enough to sway a statewide election.

So your fellow loons mean nothing to you? They go under the bus while you (and who the fuck are you again?) denigrate one of our great states? You are an un-American, low-life POS.

 

[AntonToo]

I see you are committed to proving me 100% correct by displaying that you conservatives are operating on blatant falsehoods.



Tax cuts have not "historically increased revenue". The claim is nothing but a rightwing myth based on piss-poor understanding of revenue drivers (out of which long term economic growth, not minor tax-rate adjustments is a primary factor).

We've had record high revenues in 1990s and record LOW revenues since early 2000. Are you going to tell me that Clinton passed tax cuts and Bush expired them?

I know you won't take MY word for it, but I do urge you to read up on what SANE, NON-IGNORANT conservatives sound like when it comes to tax-cut effects:

Greg Mankiw's Blog: On Charlatans and Cranks

Here is what Bush's former chair of economic advisors, conservative and tax-cut suporter had to say to after Bush made the tax-cuts-increased-revenues claim in his SoTU speech:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. - Andrew Samwick

There is only one group of people that believes that tax-cuts at current rates increase revenues - FAR RIGHT POLITICOS. That's what it takes to believe that nonsense. Conservative economists reject it and high profile Republicans no longer try to claim it.

As a percentage of GDP? That is a very odd standard to use. Why not actual revenue, perhaps per capita?

ODD? Because you think it is odd? %GDP is the standard adjustment for economy size and inflation. It is the norm of historic spending and revenues comparison. Per capita revenue (which still doesn't adjust for avg. income growth) trend was also way down by the way, if you look it up, this time yourself perhaps.

Like I said, this is the problem with conservatives, you make up your own facts. Economists? Professional experts? Studies? Fuck that, you know it all in your gut because you heard some rightwing politicos like Rush say it and you really liked the way it sounded.

%GDP makes sense comparing spending in different times or comparing revenues from different times.

But.

If an economic policy leads to tremendous economic growth, and only moderate tax revenue growth, to call the a decline in revenue and a failure is misleading.

It's not perfect, it is simply the best comparison standard we have. Your alternative proposal that we use unadjusted dollar revenues is MUCH worse. If you have another, better standard I would certainly consider it, but you don't.

I will quote you again a CONSERVATIVE, Chair of Economic Advisors to Bush and a tax cut supporter:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.


Are you a thoughtful person? Then THINK. Why would anyone object paying less taxes while government collects more revenues? Why would I object to it? Why would conservative economists reject such wonderful free lunch for everyone? THINK

I already suggested what a better standard would be, ie adjusted per capita. AND pointed out why the standard you used was not just imperfect but actively misleading.

And I ALREADY TOLD you that

1a. It is worse because unlike GDP it doesn't adjust for average income growth.
Lets also note that on top of that shortcoming it also has the very same shortcomings you complain about in %GDP measure.

2. Finally, I also told you that ACCORDING TO THAT MEASURE TREND IS CLEARLY DOWN SINCE 2000.

Since you cannot be persuaded to do ANY research on your own I will do it for you:

You can see that this graph is not historically compatible due to constant growth of avg. per-capita income and you can also clearly see high revenues in 1990s followed by significant downward drag since early 2000.

Correlation is very clear here - higher tax rates, more revenues, lower taxes, less revenues, so your claim that tax-cuts where historically followed by more revenue is false. Thit is while saying nothing about how correlation is not nearly the same as causation.

Conservatives object to paying more taxes because we believe that no matter how much taxes are paid that politicians can and will spend EVERY single cent given to them and more.

Have you noticed that other first world nations without what the US would call conservatives have similar budget issues? Almost as though that cause is something else.

US Federal spending is just less than FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. Hardly a cut to the bone miser budget.

That is a deflection and I could go on discussing this with you, but don't feel like diluting the thread further.

You asked me to show you an example of conservatives operating on factual falsehoods and I did. Self-financing tax-cuts at around current rates is a blatant falsehood you and another conservative here confirmed to believe.

 

[OKTexas]

Slavery in Cuba - Wikipedia

Cruz’ ancestors were not slaves in Cuba. And we aren't Cuba, regardless. I couldn't care less if Cubans were oppressed 200 years ago. That is Cuba’s problem

Of course you have his genealogy to prove that assertion, RIGHT?

 

[OKTexas]

Oh right, like the proof the WI shooter provided, of course he lied and voted in 3 elections. BTW the EAC reversing itself in just 3 States in Jan of this year will have zero effect on this election. Also I'm very sure their decision will be challenged by you regressives.

You were wrong. And regardless, you were conflating not being able to put the onus for proof of citizenship on the voter, with the state being allowed to prove a voter is indeed a citizen of its state, before allowing them to vote.

And you're full of shit. Run along, I'm done with your lying ass.

 

[Correll]

You mean the ethnic group that overwhelmingly identifies as Democratic in the deeply Republican state?

Right. Because the Republican Party is the Jim Crow über racist party. So, of course.

Jim Crow was enacted by Democrats, moron

Republicans took the mantle of racism and Jim Crow in 1964, moron. Try looking at a fucking election map. You're just another black oppression denier.

You're just babbling

No, you are no different than a Holocaust denier. And just as there are a bunch of purblind nitwits who deny the Holocaust, there are idiots who deny oppression of black Americans, and who was most responsible for that over the years.

YOu have presented as "Evidence" of this racism, the lack of black democrats being elected in the most republican state in the Union.

That shows how credible your analysis is.


NOT!

 

[Correll]

BTW, was Texas horrible racist when it voted for Jimmy Carter more than ten years after the Goldwater campaign?

Yes, do you actually think a governor of Georgia could win without being racist?

You mean like Jimmy Carter who won the governor's race in 1970 with 59 % of the vote?

 

[Correll]

Um ... you think that guys imagining female nurses is about "sexism?"

Yes

My God, you are stupid.