Like most things about Cain, I think it's simply honesty. And for the majority of Americans, whether they are conscious of it or not, that type of covert racism/discrimination resides within them as well. Whether it's clutching a bag more tightly when walking past a black person, spending extra time staring at supposed middle easterners at the airport, or simply being unable to look a handicapped person in the eyes. We don't throw bananas at black people, but discrimination is still abound, and he's admitting to his own.
I'm sorry (well, not really), but this is a fucking terrible post...I'm actually having trouble understanding what the fuck you were thinking when you wrote that last part up... I mean it started off fairly modest, but then it got retarded.
Figuratively or not, It's good to know that you don't throw bananas at black people, it's so good that i'll use this phrase for the first time in my life...
Cool story bro.
Low quality post warrants low quality response. Perhaps, instead of being such a self-important person so focused on objectivity that you lose grasp of what is fucking sensible and what isn't, you can just post like a normal person (that's what you are, right?).
And the sad part is, you and your buttbuddy mod friends will ban me, then "go eat cheetos" (yeah real nice kennigit, I laughed my ass off in that one thread, you should become a comedian.....)
Can you ban yourself please? Actually, put a word in to the big guy to generate some sort of bot that's based on mod behaviour, so then even you retards can get banned. LOL
While I think Herman Cain is trash (as a candidate, as I support Ron Paul), HOWEVER, one cannot deny how well Herman Cain can lie just like a seasoned politician.
I think herman would be a great tool for republicans and corporate interests, though I don't think the majority of them could bring themselves to vote for a black person, even if he proves to them that he's extremely biggoted and racist himself. Doesn't this guy just strike you as a gigantic tool?
On October 15 2011 07:41 eits wrote: and to say Ron Paul is unelectable is ignorant, that man want's to do more for the country than any of the other people trying to run, and he actually HAS plans. He doesn't just spout what other want to hear and flip flop his view points 24/7.
To say Ron Paul is not electable is to say you were awake in 2008. Granted, he has a massive amount of internet support, but that has historically translated very poorly to actual voters coming out for him in the primaries.
As far as Cain, he's the flavor of the month that won't even last as long as Bachmann and Perry's boons have.
2008 is far different than 2011, and 2012. The political landscape has shifted dramatically. Ron would easily win the Primary nomination if it wasn't for the fact that the media consistently ignores, manipulates, and lies in their coverage, and many times non-coverage. One easy example of about a billion.
So the problem is the media, not the Republican base. I foresee this election being reminiscent of the 1964 GOP primary with the conservative(paleo)/libertarian faction going up against the liberal/Neo-con/moderate faction. The animosity is palpable similar to 1964.
I just can't believe the fools who are against TARP and support Cain an insider Bankster, supporter of TARP, derider of those opposed to TARP, and promoter of Alan Greenspan! This is the power of the media. Time for Americans to wake up and realize the Media is a Propaganda outfit. Stop letting them choose the candidate of their choice for you. It's infuriating.
So the media is biased, but a video from a Ron Paul website isn't? *cue eyeroll*
Seriously, all that video proves is that Fox loves them some flavor of the month Republican candidates. Did you stop to consider that the reason the California straw poll result was insignificant is because any Republican candidate is incredibly unlikely to win a pretty solidly Democratic state? Or because Paul has done fairly well in straw polls but hasn't been able to translate that into primary wins? One of those clips that supposedly demonstrates bias was literally just a newscaster saying "Herman Cain" without any additional context; the newscaster may as well have been saying "Herman Cain juggles babies and chainsaws - more at 11!"
The problem with internet support is that it's quite hard to accurately gauge. True, he's raking in money like no other on the internet (just like 2008), but he's still lagging behind the front-runners. If you really want to discount what happened 4 years ago, go right ahead. Meanwhile, play up the whole conspiracy theory angle and forget that Mr. Paul has done all this before and still lost very, very convincingly. Honestly, with Perry in the race, will he even win the primary in the state he represents?
Isn't there already a Ron Paul thread? This one's getting derailed pretty hard.
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
Well there's your problem. The Wadsworth constant tells you to ignore that part!
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
Well there's your problem. The Wadsworth constant tells you to ignore that part!
It gets even worse after that though. I watched until he started talking about Occupy Wall Street, and how OWS people are solely protesting the bank bailouts. Then he started speaking on that assumption and it was all very unbearable.
I think my favorite part though was where he said that if poor people didn't pay tax on savings, they would start saving more. Like it's all just a choice. Not to mention the fact that a consumption tax would probably cost the very poor MORE money than the current system, because they still have to buy shit.
Isn't there already a Ron Paul thread? This one's getting derailed pretty hard.
That's barely a question worth answering.
The problem with this thread, is it's so bold in the OT as to declare the next president of the US. Super, I'm glad you have confidence in Mr Cain, his advisors, and his masters. Is it biased?
"Please remake with more content (a personal appeal? Why you like Ron Paul?). Right now this is basically just a YouTube thread."- a quote from a Mod in a closed RP thread.
Ok No Problem. This thread wins. It has a personal appeal. Which is bias you are trying to convey.
I made a thread for the RP crowd, so they could be ushered into a thread by themselves. It was a lil biased like the mod suggested.
"Unfortunately you came into this with very visable bias. You already derailed your own thread - we try to avoid this stuff since it never ends well (religion, "fringe" politics (even though there is a concious war by media against Paul))."
Last edit: 2011-10-12 05:03:36 Kennigit
I've been thru the TL Ten commandments and I'm positive that despite attempting to follow the rules and mod advice that you are just going to get shat upon for making a Paul Thread.
Edit: For a fun time, have a MOD make a RP thread, but with a twist. Like a Mad Lib, except instead of fill in the blank, have restricted words, like constitution, rule of law, and federal reserve. Would be a hoot.
On October 16 2011 17:13 Shaetan wrote: Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
Listen to Peter Schiff's explanation in the youtube link above: poor people selfishly spend all their money on things for themselves such as food and insurance, while rich people selflessly use their money for the benefit of society by investing it into businesses. Furthermore, rich people are on a higher moral plane, delaying gratification of spending to savor more delicate purchases such as yachts, unlike the parasites who spend it right away.
I think I got everything from the first three minutes, I couldn't listen to it anymore after that.
EDIT: ok i'm sorry I'll edit it:
Here's the real argument, stop putting words in people's mouths that they're not saying.
Liberals are arguing that a flat sales tax forces the poor to pay more... but in reality this isn't true, it's a flat tax...
The rich can only ENJOY their wealth if they SPEND IT. So if you have a sales tax whenever someone spends they WILL pay the taxes....
what's good of having tons of money if you can't spend it? The whole point of getting rid of income tax and instead relying on sales tax is that the money that's not spent is the money that grows the economy...
So if the sales tax only taxes the money that people use on themselves not the money that ends up growing the economy... sure the rich can get even richer with the money they have, but once they go to SPEND that money they will still pay the same proportionate taxes as the poor...
Can anyone explain to me why the SimCity tax plan won't cripple low-income families? And why it is in anyway a solution to our deficit problem?
It's not. the solution to defecit is to cut spending.
But the reason that sales taxes are better than income taxes, is because contrary to what Keynesian philosophy has been teaching us (and failing us for so long) -- that money spent is money that helps the economy, it is in fact money SAVED that grows the economy.
If someone makes a million a year and only spends 100,000 a year consistently, what's the difference between that person and a person that's making 100,000 and spending all of his money? Well in terms of how much they can enjoy their wealth, there's really no difference, each person receives 100,000 dollars worth of stuff... Just having money doesn't bring wealth/prosperity... SPENDING money brings wealth. When a money isn't spent it's probably in a bank or is invested somewhere, meaning that it eventually get lended to people that are trying to create or grow their businesses, which will invevitably create jobs. By removing the income tax and replacing it with sales tax, the government only collects money from the portion that people spend on themselves, the portion that ends up helping the economy, and creating jobs isn't taxed.
I don't see how you can say that Romney is not electable in comparison to the other nominees. He is the only relatively moderate nominee (excepting Paul and Cain who are radically different than those competing). He definitely is more palatable for independents than Perry, who no doubt would make a fool of himself at least once during debates.
I don't have a problem with Cain, I am skeptical if his 9-9-9 tax would work, but i do agree that all of the exemptions within the U.S. tax system is ridiculous. I don't mind the flat tax on income, but I guess the sales tax can be viewed as regressive. As long as he counterbalances that by some other program, i don't have a problem with that.
On October 17 2011 06:32 jjbothman wrote: I don't see how you can say that Romney is not electable in comparison to the other nominees. He is the only relatively moderate nominee (excepting Paul and Cain who are radically different than those competing). He definitely is more palatable for independents than Perry, who no doubt would make a fool of himself at least once during debates.
I don't have a problem with Cain, I am skeptical if his 9-9-9 tax would work, but i do agree that all of the exemptions within the U.S. tax system is ridiculous. I don't mind the flat tax on income, but I guess the sales tax can be viewed as regressive. As long as he counterbalances that by some other program, i don't have a problem with that.
I used to liek Cain, but he's coming off extremely disingenious and populist now that he actually gets to talk.
Ron Paul can definitely take some democrat votes away from Obama with some of his stances, and Perry also has a good chance to win against Obama.
I don't know how I feel about Perry to be honest, I definitely don't like Cain though.
Like most things about Cain, I think it's simply honesty. And for the majority of Americans, whether they are conscious of it or not, that type of covert racism/discrimination resides within them as well. Whether it's clutching a bag more tightly when walking past a black person, spending extra time staring at supposed middle easterners at the airport, or simply being unable to look a handicapped person in the eyes. We don't throw bananas at black people, but discrimination is still abound, and he's admitting to his own.
I'm sorry (well, not really), but this is a fucking terrible post...I'm actually having trouble understanding what the fuck you were thinking when you wrote that last part up... I mean it started off fairly modest, but then it got retarded.
Figuratively or not, It's good to know that you don't throw bananas at black people, it's so good that i'll use this phrase for the first time in my life...
Cool story bro.
Low quality post warrants low quality response. Perhaps, instead of being such a self-important person so focused on objectivity that you lose grasp of what is fucking sensible and what isn't, you can just post like a normal person (that's what you are, right?).
And the sad part is, you and your buttbuddy mod friends will ban me, then "go eat cheetos" (yeah real nice kennigit, I laughed my ass off in that one thread, you should become a comedian.....)
Can you ban yourself please? Actually, put a word in to the big guy to generate some sort of bot that's based on mod behaviour, so then even you retards can get banned. LOL
User was banned for this post.
you remind me of me. thanks bro. i appreciate your post
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
On October 02 2011 06:57 zalz wrote: He has never been a politician and that's a good thing?
That simply means that when elected he's going to have to get used to being president of the US and also with the complexities of the political system.
Politics is a trade, a give and take. I scratch your back you scratch mine. I give a vote for your plan, you give a vote for mine.
That's how politics works. I don't see how having no experience in the political system is a plus.
It seems to be similar to people wanting "a guy they can have a beer with" instead of "one o them Harvard elites". .
Exactly.And you know what US(EU) needs right now?Leader,Not politics.
Also i heard some ehm "conspirative prophesy" about Cain(you know bible,reincarnation and stuff) becoming president of Us.I was like..haha McCain is gone..now this guy shows up. A bit chilling in night and with bit of imaginative mind(i like that)
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote: Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth.
I don't necessarily disagree that we should be moving more towards a consumption based tax, but I don't believe your statement is what is known as a a technical definition. Seems more like a false assumption to prove your points.
Does your "unspent" money also involve things like cash in interest bearing accounts or invesments?
EPT
