21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyNorway, which has a significantly higher employment rate than the U.S., also has vastly higher taxes. How come?
Why have a tax rate at all, they are no where near a gazillion dollars in debt?
Low tax rates attracts business which then creates jobs.
I think you will find that once the US lowers it's tax rates other countries will feel compelled to do the same in order to compete globally.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @great-king-ratNo acting involved.
He wasn't speaking to you, Suzianne.
No need to act "offended".
"So you think you're straight, do you?", 30 December, Page 1.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147477
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @suzianneso the left leaning SCOTUS (at the time) ruled to help the right? Ignorance is bliss!
This Article 5 nonsense is a ruse for the political right to completely gut the Constitution, removing its rights for citizens and replacing them with rights for corporations. The right merely wants a Constitution made in their image and screw the rest of us. Yes, whodey even people like you who are stupid enough to advocate their agenda, even though you'll suffer too, just like the rest of us.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @great-king-ratDepends how you define "hypocrisy".
Weak reply.
He wasn't speaking to you, Suzianne.
No need to be "offended".
"So you think you're straight, do you?", 30 December, Page 1.
Would you agree that hypocrisy damages the feminist goals of equality?
If you just mean "disagreeing with you", then no.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleRuled? What ruling are you blathering about?
so the left leaning SCOTUS (at the time) ruled to help the right? Ignorance is bliss!
"(At the time)"? At what time?
Look, I know you cannot read, as you demonstrated in the USPS thread, but at least try to be a little more clear when you write.
22 Jan 18
Originally posted by @suzianneHaha. I remember all the times you got angry at atheists in the Spirituality forum asking for definitions of whatever concepts theists would present.
Depends how you define "hypocrisy".
If you just mean "disagreeing with you", then no.
Anyway, no, that is of course not a definition of hypocrisy. Don't be so silly, Suzi. Hypocrisy is well defined.
It's what you did earlier.
It's when you made blatant sexist remarks, shrugged it off because it wasn't aimed at "me", then called Whodey a PoS for making a sexist remark even though it clearly wasn't aimed at you.
Suzi, you crazy gal. Why you swing so much between being fairly logic and bat-sh|t crazy? Why you even do that? Why?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
22 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyNo, what you're suggesting is pumping the water out of the swamp periodically, and waiting for new water to run in - without noticing that your swamp is still being fed by a sewer, and is low-lying and muddy.
A better question would be, how does doing the same thing over and over again achieve a different result?
What I'm suggesting is a change. What I am suggesting is doing what Trump promised to do but could never deliver, which is drain the swamp.l
What you need isn't new personnel, what you need is to get rid of the influence of big business, and change the rotten fundament of the system.
Do that, and the water will clear over time, automatically. Refuse to do that, and you'll only change the swamp to an open sewer.
Originally posted by @shallow-blueI think it less of a chance that Congress will make the nation a sewer knowing they will soon be back in the society to live.
No, what you're suggesting is pumping the water out of the swamp periodically, and waiting for new water to run in - without noticing that your swamp is still being fed by a sewer, and is low-lying and muddy.
What you need isn't new personnel, what you need is to get rid of the influence of big business, and change the rotten fundament of the system ...[text shortened]... over time, automatically. Refuse to do that, and you'll only change the swamp to an open sewer.
I also think it more democratic to have more people serving which will give a larger demographic of the population at large. They will also be less apt to be so out of touch with the society they are governing.
I still maintain it would be far harder to buy off a never ending flow of Congressmen than it would career Congressmen.
Case in point is when Arlen Specter ran in the primary in the state of PA. Obama was fearful that another democrat might beat him in the primary, so Obama sent his goons to buy him off. The only problem was, he did not take the bait. Moreover, he told the public that his own party tried to pay him off to go away. Why? It's because Arlen was Obama's boy. He had him in his back pocket and knew exactly how he would vote and did not want to take the risk with someone else or perhaps bother with retraining him.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/100067-issa-sestak-scandal-could-be-obamas-watergate
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147477
22 Jan 18
Originally posted by @shallow-blueMe thinks shallow blue doesn't have a job. Care to explain why these businesses "in the real world' are returning, and the reason workers are getting raises and bonuses?
You libertarians keep repeating that neo-con mantra as if it's your Lord's Prayer, but in the real world, real evidence proves that it's humbug. Profitable humbug for the Upper 1%, but still humbug.
22 Jan 18
Originally posted by @shallow-blueSo why have corporations been leaving the US in droves?
You libertarians keep repeating that neo-con mantra as if it's your Lord's Prayer, but in the real world, real evidence proves that it's humbug. Profitable humbug for the Upper 1%, but still humbug.
