[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Rick Perry just announced that he is dropping out and is backing Gingrich. I’m sure next will be Santorum in a month, then Paul. [/quote]
Paul will never drop out.
He also wants no job in a Romney administration.
He wants a clash at the convention and he will get one.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Rick Perry just announced that he is dropping out and is backing Gingrich. I’m sure next will be Santorum in a month, then Paul. [/quote]
Paul will never drop out.
He also wants no job in a Romney administration.
He wants a clash at the convention and he will get one. [/quote]
A week after the Virginia debate, I think he will. Since the other candidates didn’t meet specific guidelines, it will only be him and Rommney on stage. He will get his chance then but will be crushed. He can’t debate as well as Rommney.
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
He can’t debate as well as Rommney.[/quote]
Is you crazy!
Romney doesn’t say anything.
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray from answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.
Tu ne cede malis…
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Since the other candidates didn’t meet specific guidelines, it will only be him and Rommney on stage. He will get his chance then but will be crushed. He can’t debate as well as Rommney.[/quote]
He can’t do anything as well as Romney. But that won’t stop the old coot from staying in the race. He picks up leverage for the convention that way. Unless of course there is a deal cut and as we all know anything can happen in politics.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.[/quote]
One more, of the many, many reasons that he will never become President, or get the nomination.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.[/quote]
One more, of the many, many reasons that he will never become President, or get the nomination.
[/quote]
That may be so, but its still a sign of the mans integrity regardless if he is unelectable.
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Rick Perry just announced that he is dropping out and is backing Gingrich. I’m sure next will be Santorum in a month, then Paul. [/quote]
Paul will never drop out.
He also wants no job in a Romney administration.
He wants a clash at the convention and he will get one. [/quote]
A week after the Virginia debate, I think he will. Since the other candidates didn’t meet specific guidelines, it will only be him and Rommney on stage. He will get his chance then but will be crushed. He can’t debate as well as Rommney.[/quote]
And convert another 1 or 2 % of the under 40 crowd.
He is doing this for 30 years now, he will be great to warm up the crowds for his son too.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Rick Perry just announced that he is dropping out and is backing Gingrich. I’m sure next will be Santorum in a month, then Paul. [/quote]
Paul will never drop out.
He also wants no job in a Romney administration.
He wants a clash at the convention and he will get one. [/quote]
A week after the Virginia debate, I think he will. Since the other candidates didn’t meet specific guidelines, it will only be him and Rommney on stage. He will get his chance then but will be crushed. He can’t debate as well as Rommney.[/quote]
And convert another 1 or 2 % of the under 40 crowd.
He is doing this for 30 years now, he will be great to warm up the crowds for his son too.
[/quote]
Sounds about right
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.[/quote]
One more, of the many, many reasons that he will never become President, or get the nomination.
[/quote]
That may be so, but its still a sign of the mans integrity regardless if he is unelectable.
[/quote]
Not so much his integrity as the fact that unlike his naive followers he knows he could never win and he’s simply pushing an agenda.
And by the way Florelius how have you been?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.[/quote]
One more, of the many, many reasons that he will never become President, or get the nomination.
[/quote]
That may be so, but its still a sign of the mans integrity regardless if he is unelectable.
[/quote]
Not so much his integrity as the fact that unlike his naive followers he knows he could never win and he’s simply pushing an agenda.
[/quote]
He may not win.
But if he gets another 2-3% of the under 40 year olds, he will have won.
Watch for the first younger pundits to come around in order to pander to the future of the Republican party.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.[/quote]
One more, of the many, many reasons that he will never become President, or get the nomination.
[/quote]
That may be so, but its still a sign of the mans integrity regardless if he is unelectable.
[/quote]
Not so much his integrity as the fact that unlike his naive followers he knows he could never win and he’s simply pushing an agenda.
And by the way Florelius how have you been? [/quote]
May I ask what agenda you are talking about? Is it purely a aganda of ideology or are you pointing towards a more “darker” agenda( special interrests who backs him etc )?
ps. I am doing fine at the moment, how are you ZEB?
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.[/quote]
One more, of the many, many reasons that he will never become President, or get the nomination.
[/quote]
That may be so, but its still a sign of the mans integrity regardless if he is unelectable.
[/quote]
Not so much his integrity as the fact that unlike his naive followers he knows he could never win and he’s simply pushing an agenda.
And by the way Florelius how have you been? [/quote]
May I ask what agenda you are talking about? Is it purely a aganda of ideology or are you pointing towards a more “darker” agenda( special interrests who backs him etc )?
ps. I am doing fine at the moment, how are you ZEB?[/quote]
No, I don’t think there is anything “dark” about Ron Paul. I think he’s a very straight forward person who is touting what he actually believes. And that agenda is bring us back to the constitution as we have wondered. With that said he’s smart enough to know, unlike the majority of his young naive supporters that he has no chance of winning. But if he can change, even somewhat the republican platform at the convention he will call that a win. In addition to that he may be interested in a cabnet post in a republican administration. Or, setting up his son for a possible run for the Presidency. Any way you look at it it’s all above board.
I’ve been fine Florelius, working quite a lot, making money and giving the majority of it to the federal and state government so that they can give it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it. It’s the Obama way. And I fear that with all this fighting in the republican party we are in for four more years of Obama. (eye roll) So, I’ll soon be busy planning to roll back my investments and cut employees in my business and honker down for another four years until we have a President who does not want to declare war on business people. Gee…do you think when business people do what I’m going to do (and many will) that it will help or hurt the economy? And that’s why high taxes and class warfare hurts everyone. We all have to learn to work together each according to his skills and being rewarded according to those skills as well. What a crazy idea! The morons of Occupy Wall street would have my head for relying on such logical wisdom.
In short our country is going to hell—And that is sad.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul, on the other hand, does not stray answering questions but rather faces them head on even when they are politically “dangerous”.[/quote]
One more, of the many, many reasons that he will never become President, or get the nomination.
[/quote]
That may be so, but its still a sign of the mans integrity regardless if he is unelectable.
[/quote]
Not so much his integrity as the fact that unlike his naive followers he knows he could never win and he’s simply pushing an agenda.
And by the way Florelius how have you been? [/quote]
May I ask what agenda you are talking about? Is it purely a aganda of ideology or are you pointing towards a more “darker” agenda( special interrests who backs him etc )?
ps. I am doing fine at the moment, how are you ZEB?[/quote]
No, I don’t think there is anything “dark” about Ron Paul. I think he’s a very straight forward person who is touting what he actually believes. And that agenda is bring us back to the constitution as we have wondered. With that said he’s smart enough to know, unlike the majority of his young naive supporters that he has no chance of winning. But if he can change, even somewhat the republican platform at the convention he will call that a win. In addition to that he may be interested in a cabnet post in a republican administration. Or, setting up his son for a possible run for the Presidency. Any way you look at it it’s all above board.
I’ve been fine Florelius, working quite a lot, making money and giving the majority of it to the federal and state government so that they can give it to those who have not earned it and do not deserve it. It’s the Obama way. And I fear that with all this fighting in the republican party we are in for four more years of Obama. (eye roll) So, I’ll soon be busy planning to roll back my investments and cut employees in my business and honker down for another four years until we have a President who does not want to declare war on business people. Gee…do you think when business people do what I’m going to do (and many will) that it will help or hurt the economy? And that’s why high taxes and class warfare hurts everyone. We all have to learn to work together each according to his skills and being rewarded according to those skills as well. What a crazy idea! The morons of Occupy Wall street would have my head for relying on such logical wisdom.
In short our country is going to hell—And that is sad.
[/quote]
Reagarding paul: Well okay, just had to ask if he maybe where more like other canditates( backed by big money or other interrests )
Regarding the other: Good to hear that you are doing fine Zeb and hopefully the political and economical climate in your country gets better so you dont have to lay people off etc.
Now I dont buy into the hypothesis that Obama are waging a classwar in your country, but you allready knew that I dont share youre wiew on that one, but I get that its hard for small companys to pay high taxes in a recession, so no argument from me there.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I dont share youre wiew on that one, but I get that its hard for small companys to pay high taxes in a recession, so no argument from me there.
[/quote]
Then what would you call it? As soon as he gets rid of the Bush tax cuts (a 5% cut for all Americans) that is going to be hurt small businesses like mine and also put the entire country in the tank. And when he says “the rich” are not paying their fair share I think the man is taking some kind of drug. The top 1% of all tax payers pay almost 37% of all federal taxes! So I guess he’s right they’re not paying their fair share THEY’RE PAYING MORE THAN THEY’RE FAIR SHARE! And the top 5% pays almost 60% of all taxes. These are not billionaires but small business people who employ about 67% of all workers in the US.
HE IS WAGING A WAR ON THOSE OF US WHO HAVE WORKED HARD FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND I RESENT IT!!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I dont share youre wiew on that one, but I get that its hard for small companys to pay high taxes in a recession, so no argument from me there.
[/quote]
Then what would you call it? As soon as he gets rid of the Bush tax cuts (a 5% cut for all Americans) that is going to be hurt small businesses like mine and also put the entire country in the tank. And when he says “the rich” are not paying their fair share I think the man is taking some kind of drug. The top 1% of all tax payers pay almost 37% of all federal taxes! So I guess he’s right they’re not paying their fair share THEY’RE PAYING MORE THAN THEY’RE FAIR SHARE! And the top 5% pays almost 60% of all taxes. These are not billionaires but small business people who employ about 67% of all workers in the US.
HE IS WAGING A WAR ON THOSE OF US WHO HAVE WORKED HARD FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND I RESENT IT!!
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html[/quote]
I understand that you resent paying more taxes, but that doesnt make it classwarfare. If Obama started to nationalize private companys, extending workers right etc, Then yes that would resemble him waging a “war” against capitalists and capitalism in its self. Class antagonism do exist and thats very natural in a society with classes, if you resent the struggle between the classes I suggest that you work for a classless society or ignore the fact that it is a reality. strikes, lock outs, big business influence in politics, union influence in politics are all products of the classwar that are raging in the world as we speak. The destruction of the welfare systems across europa now is a prime example of a blow from the big money interrests against the average joe in europa and its “classwar”.
I do think however that a tax system should not hurt small companys and if it is correct as you say that the current tax system of America is causing unemployment, then yes the tax system should be changed. You where talking about a flat income tax in some threads ago( months or years ago ) and thats not a terrible idea, especially if it eliminates all loopholes. + it is probably cheaper in terms of bureacracy needed to enforce it.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I dont share youre wiew on that one, but I get that its hard for small companys to pay high taxes in a recession, so no argument from me there.
[/quote]
Then what would you call it? As soon as he gets rid of the Bush tax cuts (a 5% cut for all Americans) that is going to be hurt small businesses like mine and also put the entire country in the tank. And when he says “the rich” are not paying their fair share I think the man is taking some kind of drug. The top 1% of all tax payers pay almost 37% of all federal taxes! So I guess he’s right they’re not paying their fair share THEY’RE PAYING MORE THAN THEY’RE FAIR SHARE! And the top 5% pays almost 60% of all taxes. These are not billionaires but small business people who employ about 67% of all workers in the US.
HE IS WAGING A WAR ON THOSE OF US WHO HAVE WORKED HARD FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND I RESENT IT!!
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html[/quote]
I understand that you resent paying more taxes, but that doesnt make it classwarfare. If Obama started to nationalize private companys, extending workers right etc, Then yes that would resemble him waging a “war” against capitalists and capitalism in its self. Class antagonism do exist and thats very natural in a society with classes, if you resent the struggle between the classes I suggest that you work for a classless society or ignore the fact that it is a reality. strikes, lock outs, big business influence in politics, union influence in politics are all products of the classwar that are raging in the world as we speak. The destruction of the welfare systems across europa now is a prime example of a blow from the big money interrests against the average joe in europa and its “classwar”.
I do think however that a tax system should not hurt small companys and if it is correct as you say that the current tax system of America is causing unemployment, then yes the tax system should be changed. You where talking about a flat income tax in some threads ago( months or years ago ) and thats not a terrible idea, especially if it eliminates all loopholes. + it is probably cheaper in terms of bureacracy needed to enforce it.
[/quote]
I must correct you my friend. Whenever you deliberately transfer wealth by taking it from those who earned it and give it to those who did not earn it that is a direct assault on one class of people. And that IS the war that Obama is conducting. He is in fact the food stamp President as that program and many others have hit a high under his “leadership”. It began with his health care system, and should he have a second term it will end in higher tax rates for those of us who propel the economy forward.
If that is not war on one class of people I don’t know what is.
And I can assure you, him and any other liberal who is reading this that the business class will respond in kind by grinding to a halt. Some from shear fear others from hatred of the system.
So you are against taxes all togheter then, because whenever someone is taxed, the money go to someone else.
It could be to a new road, public education, war, welfare, bailouts etc.
I am myself not against taxes on principal grounds and dont belong to those who believe in the “taxation equals stealing” paradigm. What matters to me is that those who are taxed are taxed an amount that doesnt
hurt them, meaning that if a guy who earns 1million dollars a year are taxed 370 000 dollars I could not care less, because he still has a large sum of money and can live a life better than the mayority of the worlds population or americas for that matter. And I dont see it as a war against the likes of him because he himself are as we all are benefiting from the labour and taxation of others. To keep a modern society running, taxation are needed and then everyone should pay after their ability without getting bancrupt or becoming poor because of the taxation. In that context a rich man pays more cash than the poor man because he can without getting bancrupt. As I said a flat income tax around 25% is in my eyes fair.
I dont expect you to agree with me on this since you and I even though we are able to discuss in a civil manner, are very far apart politicaly and especially on matters of tax and the welfare state we are on the opposit side of the isle.
ps. Probably some mispelling from my side, but hope everyone are able to understand my post regardless.
Florelius.
Bring on the debate!
[quote]florelius wrote:
So you are against taxes all togheter then, because whenever someone is taxed, the money go to someone else.
It could be to a new road, public education, war, welfare, bailouts etc.
I am myself not against taxes on principal grounds and dont belong to those who believe in the “taxation equals stealing” paradigm. What matters to me is that those who are taxed are taxed an amount that doesnt
hurt them, meaning that if a guy who earns 1million dollars a year are taxed 370 000 dollars I could not care less, because he still has a large sum of money and can live a life better than the mayority of the worlds population or americas for that matter. And I dont see it as a war against the likes of him because he himself are as we all are benefiting from the labour and taxation of others. To keep a modern society running, taxation are needed and then everyone should pay after their ability without getting bancrupt or becoming poor because of the taxation. In that context a rich man pays more cash than the poor man because he can without getting bancrupt. As I said a flat income tax around 25% is in my eyes fair.
I dont expect you to agree with me on this since you and I even though we are able to discuss in a civil manner, are very far apart politicaly and especially on matters of tax and the welfare state we are on the opposit side of the isle.
ps. Probably some mispelling from my side, but hope everyone are able to understand my post regardless.
Florelius.[/quote]
This is just intellectual dishonesty. You realize fully that wealth redistribution is a crime but make ridiculous excuses to justify it to yourself. The same logic that you use to excuse taxation “it doesn’t hurt him because he still lives a better life than the majority of people” proves to much. You may be unfamiliar with this term but it’s often used for arguments that might seem justified on the surface but are in reality deeply flawed. Your argument proves to much because it can be used to justify the occasional beatings of citizens as well, among other awful things. You’d still live a much better life than almost everyone in China or India or Africa if once a year you’d get beaten by a police officer but we both know that doesn’t make it okay. Wealth redistribution IS stealing and you know it.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
So you are against taxes all togheter then, because whenever someone is taxed, the money go to someone else.
It could be to a new road, public education, war, welfare, bailouts etc.
I am myself not against taxes on principal grounds and dont belong to those who believe in the “taxation equals stealing” paradigm. What matters to me is that those who are taxed are taxed an amount that doesnt
hurt them, meaning that if a guy who earns 1million dollars a year are taxed 370 000 dollars I could not care less, because he still has a large sum of money and can live a life better than the mayority of the worlds population or americas for that matter. And I dont see it as a war against the likes of him because he himself are as we all are benefiting from the labour and taxation of others. To keep a modern society running, taxation are needed and then everyone should pay after their ability without getting bancrupt or becoming poor because of the taxation. In that context a rich man pays more cash than the poor man because he can without getting bancrupt. As I said a flat income tax around 25% is in my eyes fair.
I dont expect you to agree with me on this since you and I even though we are able to discuss in a civil manner, are very far apart politicaly and especially on matters of tax and the welfare state we are on the opposit side of the isle.
ps. Probably some mispelling from my side, but hope everyone are able to understand my post regardless.
Florelius.[/quote]
This is just intellectual dishonesty. You realize fully that wealth redistribution is a crime but make ridiculous excuses to justify it to yourself. The same logic that you use to excuse taxation “it doesn’t hurt him because he still lives a better life than the majority of people” proves to much. You may be unfamiliar with this term but it’s often used for arguments that might seem justified on the surface but are in reality deeply flawed. Your argument proves to much because it can be used to justify the occasional beatings of citizens as well, among other awful things. You’d still live a much better life than almost everyone in China or India or Africa if once a year you’d get beaten by a police officer but we both know that doesn’t make it okay. Wealth redistribution IS stealing and you know it.[/quote]
No it is not, the western societys as we know them would not function with out a active state nor would the modern western world exist as we know it with out it and that very same state are funded by taxes. Wealth distribution I guess is another word for public social programs of various sorts and they are necesarry for a functioning society. You dont think providing education for every child is a good thing, you think that society dont gain from that? I would venture to say that a functioning democracy are dependent on a educated population that can read, no basick history etc and that are able to think critical. Also the economy benefits alot from skilled labour. You dont think that it is good for a society to reach out and help its members when they are lying down aka welfare programs etc. I promise you that a society in a economical recession would have more crime if there where no aid for the unemployed. I used to be like you, I where a dogmatic marxist with crystal clear principals for everything, but when it comes to day to day politics its important to be pragmatic and be able to see that something that perhaps doesnt fit 100% with your principals can be whats needed to help the society further.
When it comes to the comparison of physical punishment and taxation, well its stupid.
violence are far worse than being taxed, the first leaves you physically injured or dead, the second leaves you a tad less wealthier, but you are probably seing it again in form of free education for your children or a nursery home for your old mother or national security. Ergo you probably benefit some for being taxed, while physical punishment leaves with nothing, but scares. Meaning it was a bad analogy.
ps. Interesting to know how you want to fund youre government without taxation or are you a anachist. If you are the latter then fine you are atleast consistent, but if you arent I would like to hear your proposition.
florelius.