How stupid are left wingers? This stupid.

[Avatar4321]

And yet Trump is telling you that a tax on goods from Mexico equates to Mexico paying for the wall.
How stupid are Trump followers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And many of us on the right are opposing tariff proposals for that exact reason.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm from Philly and soda is the last thing many Philadephians need. We have an obesity issue and cutting out soda would do wonders for us.

Who are you to decide what people need, fascist snowflake?

Its our business when obesity puts a strain on our society.

They can have soda all they want but they should pay more for it.

How is drinking soda putting a strain on our society?

 

[Freewill]

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

So, you were hoping for a different hair style and color of skin in the White House, and maybe more friction? Because Trump really isn't a change for America, he's just a temporary change.

The change I was wanted was a change away form Obama not more of the same as we would have had with Hillary.

Trump's administration will change the SCOTUS for a very long time. That was my sole reason for supporting him, especially over Hillary.

What you're saying doesn't mean anything. You just don't want Obama. Why? Because he's not your team and therefore whatever he does you don't like? Come on, what's that for nonsense?

So, Trump will change the Supreme Court somewhat, we don't know how much, and you might not like what you get. But the reality is, you voted for partisan politics and nothing more. That's not change at all.

Is it just me that voted partisan politics or do you judge everyone? Did you vote partisan politics? Did you vote for the status quo and vote for Hillary. THE only reason for vote for Hillary was partisan politics, she offered nothing else. She was a continuation of Obama and if you liked what he was doing then you truly are a partisan.

Trump was not liked by the RNC so to say he is partisan is a stretch of the imagination.

BTW, I am not a Republican or a Democrat.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

Did you see the hilarious tweet that politician made? That is hysterical.

View attachment 114100

I had this mental image of people jumping off a cliff, and some Democrat screaming that gravity is greedy for killing off his constituency.

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Pretending that consumers wouldn't know that a politician trying to hide a tax on them by placing it on a product they consume would not be figured out.

??? Say that again, your sentence is too long and at the end gets a little confusing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

So, you were hoping for a different hair style and color of skin in the White House, and maybe more friction? Because Trump really isn't a change for America, he's just a temporary change.

The change I was wanted was a change away form Obama not more of the same as we would have had with Hillary.

Trump's administration will change the SCOTUS for a very long time. That was my sole reason for supporting him, especially over Hillary.

What you're saying doesn't mean anything. You just don't want Obama. Why? Because he's not your team and therefore whatever he does you don't like? Come on, what's that for nonsense?

So, Trump will change the Supreme Court somewhat, we don't know how much, and you might not like what you get. But the reality is, you voted for partisan politics and nothing more. That's not change at all.

Is it just me that voted partisan politics or do you judge everyone? Did you vote partisan politics? Did you vote for the status quo and vote for Hillary. THE only reason for vote for Hillary was partisan politics, she offered nothing else. She was a continuation of Obama and if you liked what he was doing then you truly are a partisan.

Trump was not liked by the RNC so to say he is partisan is a stretch of the imagination.

BTW, I am not a Republican or a Democrat.

No, I didn't support Hillary. I told people to vote third party.

March 20th 2016

How many people will think like this? I think if they all got the cojones to vote third party, there might actually be some real positive change in the US for once.

October 4th 2016

The democrats just need a wedge to dispirit Trump voters. They can't tell you why Hillary should have your vote.

No, why would anyone tell you why either of them should have your vote? They're as bad as each other. What a great situation the US is in. Vote third party.

I could go on and on.

October 6th 2016

I have no intention of voting for Hillary.

Trump and Hillary aren't change. They're keeping things the same.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Clinton? Promoting subprime mortgages???

Take you your alt.facts and shove them up your ass. You clearly have little grasp on the real ones.

If Clinton did cobtribute it's because he was a big time financial de-regulator.

No. Sorry. Clinton pushed to increase home ownership through Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae.

Specifically, Freddie Mac in 1997 openly offered to guarantee sub-prime home loans.

This was done through Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia. Ironically two of the largest non-government bank failures. (Freddie and Fannie were the largest bank failures).

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages

This press release happened in 1997.

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.​

When this happened, Sub-prime loans began to be bundled in Mortgage Backed Securities, and sold to Freddie and Fannie, and the entire mortgage market.

Notice this happened before 1999, which Bill Clinton supposedly 'deregulated' the market. And the price bubble started before the 1999 so-called 'deregulation'.

So the sub-prime bubble had nothing to do with deregulation. It had to do with government policy supporting and promoting sub-prime loans.

Moreover, the administration specifically targeted and forced banks to make sub-prime loans, with law suits.



Now unless you consider forcing banks to make bad loans, and guaranteeing bad loans through government agencies.... is 'de-regulation' in your bonkers book....

I think I've made my point.

Grrr. I can see a situation where the banks profit triply.

They make bad loan, ends up in default.

Government guarantees it, They get paid, Bank forecloses, they have property they can sell later.

Housing prices plummet, banks buy more property.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why soda and not Krispy Kreme?

 

[ColonelAngus]

This is such a perfect snowflake story.

Snowflake says soda is bad.

Snowflake raises tax on soda.

Soda sales drop.

Sales drop leads to less demand for workers.

Snowflake blames immoral soda company for job losses.

Un ******* Real.

What was the real goal? Was it to reduce soda consumption because soda is bad? If it was, it ******* worked!! Be happy.

It seems the snowflake's plan worked too well.

If you reduce sales too much, there are no sales to tax.

Here is simple math that snowflakes seem to not grasp:

90% of $0 is $0
1% of $1 is 1 penny.

Higher taxes do not necessarily mean higher revenue.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why soda and not Krispy Kreme?

Why not increase the tax on Orange Juice that has as much sugar as soda?

Why not increase the tax on actual sugar, since that is the alleged enemy?

Is Gatorade included? Mountain Dew is basically carbonated Gatorade with caffeine added.

 

[Andylusion]

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Clinton? Promoting subprime mortgages???

Take you your alt.facts and shove them up your ass. You clearly have little grasp on the real ones.

If Clinton did cobtribute it's because he was a big time financial de-regulator.

No. Sorry. Clinton pushed to increase home ownership through Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae.

Specifically, Freddie Mac in 1997 openly offered to guarantee sub-prime home loans.

This was done through Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia. Ironically two of the largest non-government bank failures. (Freddie and Fannie were the largest bank failures).

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages

This press release happened in 1997.

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.​

When this happened, Sub-prime loans began to be bundled in Mortgage Backed Securities, and sold to Freddie and Fannie, and the entire mortgage market.

Notice this happened before 1999, which Bill Clinton supposedly 'deregulated' the market. And the price bubble started before the 1999 so-called 'deregulation'.

So the sub-prime bubble had nothing to do with deregulation. It had to do with government policy supporting and promoting sub-prime loans.

Moreover, the administration specifically targeted and forced banks to make sub-prime loans, with law suits.



Now unless you consider forcing banks to make bad loans, and guaranteeing bad loans through government agencies.... is 'de-regulation' in your bonkers book....

I think I've made my point.

Grrr. I can see a situation where the banks profit triply.

They make bad loan, ends up in default.

Government guarantees it, They get paid, Bank forecloses, they have property they can sell later.

Housing prices plummet, banks buy more property.

Not exactly. If what you said was the case, then we should not have seen a single bank anywhere, go broke. Yet they did. Here's why...

Take a mortgage lender bank. They find people and homes, and lend money to buy the home. They then bundle a bunch of loans into Mortgage Backed Security, and get Fannie or Freddie to guarantee the MBS, and then sell the MBS to investors.

Now who is protected by the guarantee? The bank? No. The investor is.

So how does the bank lose money?

When the market crashes, and sub-prime loans are not nearly as safe as people think, no one will stamp secure on them. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, no one will securitize the loan.

So instantly you end up with hundred of loans you thought you could sell... and you can't. Your stuck with them. And as people default on their loans, and the value of property falls.... you go bankrupt.

Countrywide Financial for example. That's what happened. They were doing fine, and went bust.

If you go to Bank of America today, and get a mortgage, that mortgage is still not guaranteed until it is bundled as an MBS, and stamped secure by someone.

Now BOA may not sell that loan to someone else, but they likely got the money to lend to you, from someone else. So investor Bob lends $900,000 to BOA at 2% interest. BOA lends you $900,000 for a home, at 3% interest.

That 1% interest difference, is the profit the bank makes.

You take that mortgage and buy a $1 Million dollar home, with $100,000 down payment.

You lose your job, and the home loses 15% of it's value.

The bank forecloses. They get the property. They sell the property not at 85% of it's value... that's how much it would be worth regular market value. $850K.... but remember this is a foreclosure. No one pays market value for a foreclosure. They end up selling it for $500K.

Keep in mind they still owe Bob $900,000 plus 2% interest. He doesn't care about you defaulting.

The bank comes and takes you to court for $400,000. You file bankruptcy, or you settle for 25¢ on the dollar, and pay back $100,000.

The bank ends up taking a $300,000 loss... plus 2% interest on the $900K. They lose tons.

So who does the guarantee from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and AIG.... who benefits from that?

Bob. The end investor that lent the money to the bank. Bob gets his money back with interest.

So who was Bob? Well many governments around the world, bought investments in US banks. Many international investors bought investments. Trade Unions, pensions, and local governments bought investments. It was a bunch of people, and almost half were foreign.

Also keep in mind that Fannie and Freddie only guaranteed a fraction of the MBS market. The rest were sold because investors said

"These loans are exactly like the loans Fannie and Freddie bought... they must be safe! The government wouldn't allow Fannie and Freddie to buy those loans if they were not safe!"

This is exactly why there should never be a government sponsored enterprise. It creates a danger.

Nonetheless, those MBS that were not guaranteed, simply failed, and investors lost their money.

 

[WheelieAddict]

This one of the reasons I remain an independent. Stupid social experiment laws and misplaced gun laws turn me away from the dems, not to mention the third way dems running the party that are far left on social issues and right on economics that have run the party into the ground.

 

[Nia88]

I'm from Philly and soda is the last thing many Philadephians need. We have an obesity issue and cutting out soda would do wonders for us.

Who are you to decide what people need, fascist snowflake?

Its our business when obesity puts a strain on our society.

They can have soda all they want but they should pay more for it.

How is drinking soda putting a strain on our society?

Because it is loaded with calories that contribute to weight gain which in turn increase healthcare cost.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm from Philly and soda is the last thing many Philadephians need. We have an obesity issue and cutting out soda would do wonders for us.

Who are you to decide what people need, fascist snowflake?

Its our business when obesity puts a strain on our society.

They can have soda all they want but they should pay more for it.

How is drinking soda putting a strain on our society?

Because it is loaded with calories that contribute to weight gain which in turn increase healthcare cost.

None of which are societies responsibility to deal with.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I'm from Philly and soda is the last thing many Philadephians need. We have an obesity issue and cutting out soda would do wonders for us.

Who are you to decide what people need, fascist snowflake?

Its our business when obesity puts a strain on our society.

They can have soda all they want but they should pay more for it.

How is drinking soda putting a strain on our society?

Because it is loaded with calories that contribute to weight gain which in turn increase healthcare cost.

So does alcohol.

 

[hadit]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

Wasn't the whole purpose of the tax to get people to drink less soda? Or is Philly the greed one?

No, I don't think that was the goal. If that was the goal, then they should not have increased spending based on the predicted income from the Soda Tax, to pay for people's health care.

Do you see the problem? "We're going to pay for our government health care by increasing taxes on soda!" and "Hopefully the increase in taxes will cause people to drink less soda"

These two goals are mutually exclusive. If people drink less soda, then you are not going to get tax revenue to pay for health care.

But the over all problem is that neither goal, included the resulting unemployment of workers. They just magically assumed they could tax something, and have zero economic impact. That's what is mind blowingly stupid.

Every single dollar that is collected in taxes, must come from somewhere. Someone in the economy must not get that dollar. It's either an employee that doesn't get that dollar in wages, or consumers who have to pay that dollar in higher prices.... which means it can't be used for something else.

They did the same stupidity with tobacco.

 

[hadit]

The liberals' reaction to this reminds one of the infamous yacht tax that was going to really "get" those rich guys. Yes sir, that was going to show 'em good and raise a lot of revenue for the gubmint.

Reality, however, has a different take. All it did was send American yacht buyers overseas and destroy the American yacht building business, throwing highly skilled, highly paid people out of work.

Why do tax freaks never think people will change their behavior when taxes go up?

 

[edward37]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

Did you see the hilarious tweet that politician made? That is hysterical.

View attachment 114100

I had this mental image of people jumping off a cliff, and some Democrat screaming that gravity is greedy for killing off his constituency.

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Also, one person is all Liberals?

these idiots didn't read about the oil company going to lay off 25000 while ceo makes 18 million

 

[Avatar4321]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

Did you see the hilarious tweet that politician made? That is hysterical.

View attachment 114100

I had this mental image of people jumping off a cliff, and some Democrat screaming that gravity is greedy for killing off his constituency.

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Also, one person is all Liberals?

these idiots didn't read about the oil company going to lay off 25000 while ceo makes 18 million

This is related to the soda tax because?

 

[edward37]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are ******* retards.

Did you see the hilarious tweet that politician made? That is hysterical.

View attachment 114100

I had this mental image of people jumping off a cliff, and some Democrat screaming that gravity is greedy for killing off his constituency.

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Also, one person is all Liberals?

these idiots didn't read about the oil company going to lay off 25000 while ceo makes 18 million

This is related to the soda tax because?

people here weren't talking about greed? so it's not greed in the soda industry but republican greed none the less

 

[Iceweasel]

And this is why I hate conservatives. They'll go hard for someone's right to eat junk that has nothing but adverse effects on the body but they'll shun something like marijuana that has shown multiple medical benefits and decrease the use of alcohol and opioids.

And this is why I laugh at liberals. It makes perfect sense to compare pot to junk food. Would you rather fly on a plane with the pilot eating a hamburger or smoking a joint?