Romney

[heckofajobbrownie]

Heck, this is a good example of your over zealous desire to defend the president against any perceived slight.

You accused me of changing the goal post.

That's exactly what you have done by adding words to the statements that aren't there.

By adding an absolute ( every or all or in this case 100 percent) you can easily make any statement untrue.

Of course noone with any sense actually proposes making every american 100 percent equal.

And if your honest noone used the term 100 percent. Just you.

 

You certainly would not agree with someone who claims that the president is against americans being equal would you? Unless, of course, you changed the subject and moved the goalposts by Using the term 100 percent.

I have no doubt you can understand that though I don't expect you to admit it.

WSS

 

Are you serious? So Romney can say "equal outcomes", which means what it says, and is historically associated with communism, flat out explains what he means by it, and I have to pretend he doesn't really mean it because no one would be that stupid? Good God.

 

What reason do you think Romney is saying it - because you can interpret raising the top rates back to where they were in the 90s, which is far lower than historical averages, as a move toward equalizing outcomes? Do you even listen to yourself?

 

I can't believe you're taking this instance, where you're defending the Republican even though he's completely out-of-his-mind wrong, and then trying to use it as an example of me defending the president at any perceived slight.

 

Hey, Captain Wordsmith, it's not a "perceived slight." It's a real slight. It's a smear. And it's false.

 

You're the one defending the person who leveled a completely false charge. And then I get the partisanship lecture! You guys in here really are something.

[Westside Steve]

So Romney can say "equal outcomes", which means what it says, and is historically associated with communism, .

 

So is "leveling the playing field" Heck.

Hey, if you want to go on record opposing using the power of government to promote equality go ahead.

Maybe you can use the red circle and slash through an = mark for a bumper sticker.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

So is "leveling the playing field" Heck.

Hey, if you want to go on record opposing using the power of government to promote equality go ahead.

Maybe you can use the red circle and slash through an = mark for a bumper sticker.

WSS

 

NO!

 

"Leveling the playing field" refers to promoting equal opportunity! Are you serious? What's wrong with you? It means the attempt to have everyone playing on the same field, or being given the same starting point. As in, it'd be nice if some people didn't go to shitty schools and live in crime-ridden neighborhoods while others get to go to great public schools in safe neighborhoods - let's try and get everyone "on a level playing field" so that there are fewer disadvantages for some.

 

And then more definitional retreat. A HUGE retreat, in fact. Now we're talking about government efforts to promote equality somehow. Huh? "Equality" does not refer to "equal outcomes." It refers to legal equality, and equal access.

 

How much more wrong can you be in this thread? This is a truly awful performance.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Honestly, you think those bumper stickers with the yellow "equals" sign on a blue background are talking about equal outcomes?? You think that's what equality means? Jeez, no wonder you think the left is so dangerous. (Because you don't know what's going on.)

 

Thankfully, I'm here to help, Steve. That's a gay rights bumper sticker.

 

If I put a line through the "=" part, that'd be an anti-gay rights bumper sticker.

[Westside Steve]

NO!

 

"Leveling the playing field" refers to promoting equal opportunity! Are you serious? What's wrong with you? It means the attempt to have everyone playing on the same field, or being given the same starting point. As in, it'd be nice if some people didn't go to shitty schools and live in crime-ridden neighborhoods while others get to go to great public schools in safe neighborhoods - let's try and get everyone "on a level playing field" so that there are fewer disadvantages for some.

 

And then more definitional retreat. A HUGE retreat, in fact. Now we're talking about government efforts to promote equality somehow. Huh? "Equality" does not refer to "equal outcomes." It refers to legal equality, and equal access.

 

How much more wrong can you be in this thread? This is a truly awful performance.

 

Heck, just making things up doesn't make them true.

I know that might be what you wish were the case but it's really not.

 

I realize you might be embarrassed by the fact that your party has co opted the occupied wall street message.

But this 1 verse is 99 percent bullshit is your campaign tactic.

When the government is used to put the clamps on 1 demographic to boost another it's not about equality. It's about outcome.

Then again you claim your against equality anyway so I don't see why you're so angry.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Honestly, you think those bumper stickers with the yellow "equals" sign on a blue background are talking about equal outcomes?? You think that's what equality means? Jeez, no wonder you think the left is so dangerous. (Because you don't know what's going on.)

 

Thankfully, I'm here to help, Steve. That's a gay rights bumper sticker.

 

If I put a line through the "=" part, that'd be an anti-gay rights bumper sticker.

 

 

Actually I'm just giving you ideas for your new anti equality campaign.

Good luck.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And honestly old friend, if you are this furious that Romney said something that kind of sort of seems like he was calling Obama something less than a capitalist this is going to be a tough election year for you.

Wait until the gloves come off.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

God, this gets sadder by the hour. Now we're talking about Occupy Wall Street. And apparently what someone there said is now Obama's view. And you still don't seem to grasp the point about equality.

 

And then this:

 

"When the government is used to put the clamps on 1 demographic to boost another it's not about equality. It's about outcome.

Then again you claim your against equality anyway so I don't see why you're so angry."

 

You can't keep any of these terms straight. This is just a world salad. You're arguing with someone who doesn't exist, who thinks all people should make the same amount of money. It doesn't mean anything, or get us anywhere.

 

Stop digging.

[heckofajobbrownie]

If you want to go off on a tangent, try this: every time top end tax rates come up, you frame it as taking money from the rich to pay for programs for poor people.

 

Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners? Can you think of any other reason?

[Westside Steve]

If you want to go off on a tangent, try this: every time top end tax rates come up, you frame it as taking money from the rich to pay for programs for poor people.

 

Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners? Can you think of any other reason?

 

Sure I can.

I'll try to stay away from those absolutes we were talking about.

And besides taxpayer funded programs there are various forms of affirmative action and set asides.

And I suppose I could even think of some of those things that weren't all that bad. There are probably even plenty of programs I can live with. It's a matter of degree I suppose. So there's really no need to go into hardcore denial mode.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

You really are stuck in the 80s, aren't you? What do top end tax rate increases have to do with affirmative action programs?

 

Steve, try again: Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners?

[Westside Steve]

Plus it's a little cynical to assume that if you cut the top rated but leave the loopholes i place it's going to make anything any more fair. I mean go ahead raise it to 60 as long as I can deduct that money who cares

? We all know that top rate is just the poison pill you guys want republicans to swallow.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Contrary to what you think, some people think about these issues in a way other than, "Yeah, let's make the other side eat it!"

 

Because we're not 12.

 

You're still missing the point. But I'm getting tired of asking. There's no there here.

 

Hint: we spend a lot more than we take in, and it's about to get a lot worse.

[VaporTrail]

Contrary to what you think, some people think about these issues in a way other than, "Yeah, let's make the other side eat it!"

 

Because we're not 12 In Congress.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Westside Steve]

You really are stuck in the 80s, aren't you? What do top end tax rate increases have to do with affirmative action programs?

 

Steve, try again: Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners?

 

Well I know that some believe that it will increase much needed revenue. Others believe that the drag on the economy caused by those higher taxes will be a drag on the system aren't worth it.

 

But here we are talking about outcome based social engineering and making everyone more equal.

That's your campaign strategy 1 versus 99. I think it's stupid and no we are not 12. What I say about the top rated is that it's not so important if there are enough loopholes to get around paying that number.

 

But that's a completely different issue then trying to make americans equal.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

God, this gets sadder by the hour. Now we're talking about Occupy Wall Street. And apparently what someone there said is now Obama's view. And you still don't seem to grasp the point about equality.

 

And then this:

 

"When the government is used to put the clamps on 1 demographic to boost another it's not about equality. It's about outcome.

Then again you claim your against equality anyway so I don't see why you're so angry."

 

You can't keep any of these terms straight. This is just a world salad. You're arguing with someone who doesn't exist, who thinks all people should make the same amount of money. It doesn't mean anything, or get us anywhere.

 

Stop digging.

 

 

Heck I'm completely consistent.Your onkly defense is changing the subject denial and som epetty name calling.

 

Tell you what,. You give me examples of how to establish "equality."

Then you can tell me exactly why it doesn't involve some type of Robin Hood ism.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, again, when people speak of equality, they're talking about legal equality. Most of that has been achieved already.

 

You want to know what I would do to promote equality? Try and get states to recognize gay marriage.

 

Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was another positive step for equality.

 

As for economic equality, I don't believe in that, and nobody else does either. What you're trying to do is create equal opportunity, which is mostly about public safety, public health, public education, and access to higher education.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, again, when people speak of equality, they're talking about legal equality. Most of that has been achieved already.

 

You want to know what I would do to promote equality? Try and get states to recognize gay marriage.

 

Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was another positive step for equality.

 

As for economic equality, I don't believe in that, and nobody else does either. What you're trying to do is create equal opportunity, which is mostly about public safety, public health, public education, and access to higher education.

 

 

You're wrong Heck.

Your entire campaign so far is class warfare; in specific the gap between the 1 and 99%.

Maybe you wish it weren't the case but that's it.

And while we aren't 12 I'd say 90% or more of the voters can't see further than "sticking it to the rich" or "sticking it tio the poor.

It's reality time bud.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And while we're on the subject of equality in education, remember that the teachers in the nicest schools and the ugliest schools have the same teaching credentials.

No matter where the school is located in the system they all get paid much more than the average american.

And there's still a huge gap between the kids in a crappy school system and a pretty school system.

Basically the same teacher credentials the same textbooks the same curriculum...

So it looks as though the opportunity is there.

 

That means there must be something more to the inequality then simply legalistic differences.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

(Exhale.)

 

Steve, growing income inequality is a real issue, and all over the world. "Class warfare" is talking point. And you seem to have no interest or ability to talk about this in any real way. It's just angst. And no matter what I say, you'd rather argue with some dreadlocked fool with a Che shirt, and point out what he says. Like he represents me. Or like I care.

 

So go find someone like that and let loose. Tell them how much you hate moochers, union grifters, and whiny minorities. I'm not that interested.

[Westside Steve]

(Exhale.)

 

Steve, growing income inequality is a real issue, and all over the world. "Class warfare" is talking point. And you seem to have no interest or ability to talk about this in any real way. It's just angst. And no matter what I say, you'd rather argue with some dreadlocked fool with a Che shirt, and point out what he says. Like he represents me. Or like I care.

 

So go find someone like that and let loose. Tell them how much you hate moochers, union grifters, and whiny minorities. I'm not that interested.

 

 

Get as huffy as you wish.

It's your campaign dude.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, actually it's not. I have nothing to do with it. That's just another play from your sad bag of tricks. All this to defend Mitt Romney's statement that Obama wants everyone to make the same amount of money.

 

I enjoyed visiting your world. I'm going to go back to reality now. Have a nice weekend.

[Westside Steve]

No, actually it's not

 

 

 

. I have nothing to do with it. That's just another play from your sad bag of tricks. All this to defend Mitt Romney's statement that Obama wants everyone to make the same amount of money.

Well not really but if it gives you a reason to hate him......

 

I enjoyed visiting your world. I'm going to go back to reality now. Have a nice weekend.

 

You're always welcome.

Thanks for the coffee cake.

Wss

[heckofajobbrownie]

That didn't take long, did it, Steve?

[Teeebow]

No need to question the quote, Heck, because I take its truth and accuracy at face value

[Bob806]

It's official for sure now- Romney scares the hell out of me. Wake up Republicans.

[Westside Steve]

It's official for sure now- Romney scares the hell out of me. Wake up Republicans.

So what in particular frightens you so badly?

Romney isn't actually very scary at all. That's why the further right members of the party arent on board.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I have to agree with Steve here. There's very little that's "scary" about Romney. This man is about as vanilla as it gets. He's Ned Flanders with a MBA.

[Bob806]

So what in particular frightens you so badly?

Romney isn't actually very scary at all. That's why the further right members of the party arent on board.

WSS

 

I know these are sound bites, deemed for sensationalizing, but when you say "corporations are people too," & "I like to fire people who provide services to me," that gives one a glimpse of his makeup.

 

His second statement is something we all may do from time to time- whether it's looking for a cement contractor, yard service, furniture mover, etc., so it's forgivable to a degree. Tie it into the first statement however, and it appears he's all about the old saying "my way or the highway."

 

Will he be willing to budge? There's enough gridlock in Washington. He & Gingrich (aka "Captain Gridlock") are the leading contenders for a major political party? I used to lean to the right, I just can't buy into the "Rs" anymore. Just my 2 cents.

[Westside Steve]

For 1 thing bob, corporations really are people. It's not a machine it's not a building it's a group of hundreds if not thousands maybe more human beings. A tiny few are executives who might make a lot of money. The rest are the rank and file; guys that go to work every damn day, pay taxes and hope that they can live on savings and social security.

 

And I suppose everyone wants to hire people who provide good service.

Why wouldn't you?

WSS