Is John Edwards a complete retard?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope those statements apply to Republicans too. Otherwise, you've been asleep for the last decade.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of bad republicans....but there are no good democrats.
With regard to hiding agendas, the Dems are the worst at it. The Dems like to talk about increasing govt "services' but they almost always hide their agenda to raise taxes to pay for it (Bill Clinton).

You have Dems like Hillary Clinton that will vote for a war in Iraq when the polls favor war but distance herself when the polls reverse. Radio shows are having a field day playing Hillary quotes about her bragging about her in depth research to come to the conclusion to authorize attacking Iraq and now she is claiming Bush tricked her. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Everybody on the intelligence committe has the same access to the intelligence that Bush has. The only difference is Bush gets smaller daily servings of intelligence while memmbers of the intelligence committee get larger servings of intelligence less frequently (three times a week, two times, once a week depending on the nature of the intelligence)...

I actually have more respect of the honesty of politicians like Dennis Kucinich who are very open and direct with their agenda. I think this man is a nut case but he is a honest nut case...

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ] seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?

[/ QUOTE ] Revenues have gone up under Bush. What else do you need to know? I am far from a Bush fan but the tax picture is hardly one of his failings. I can't even believe you or anyone could possibly think we need to raise taxes.


[/ QUOTE ]You MUST be getting paid..

[/ QUOTE ]you are embarassing yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

You make a completely ridiculous inference, have it exposed, then persist with the inference anyway....yeah, I'm the one embarrassing myself

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I warn you in advance, I'm not really interested in debating this point (taxes = theft)

[/ QUOTE ] Then stop making claims you're not even willing to back up.


[/ QUOTE ]

You made the claim that taxes = theft. YOU back it up.

With all the ACers on this forum, I'm sure there are probably already eighteen threads in existence about this very subject. I'm also sure I read very little of any of them. Sorry, just not interested.

[West]

[quoteMaybe I can help you understand. You see West is to politics what that obnoxious whiner at your table is to poker. You know the one, the complaining looser who plays like crap but can't STFU about bad beats? Everything comes down to luck of the draw for him and if it weren't for bad beats life would be perfect. You see none of the bad choices he or his "underprivileged" friends make matter. None of the oppressive regulation he proposes is unwarranted. Its all about the bad beat and making everything right.


NeBlis


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reading, oh great swami. Could you tell me more about the "oppressive regulations" I'm proposing?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenues have reached an all time high under Bush. What more do they want? I don't understand why certain people think it's not enough.

[/ QUOTE ] seriously, are you paid to post inane statements on bulletin boards on behalf of the administration? or are you just trolling?

inflation and population growth cause revenues to go up over time. would you like to give credit to Bush for the sun rising in the morning?

[/ QUOTE ] Revenues have gone up under Bush. What else do you need to know? I am far from a Bush fan but the tax picture is hardly one of his failings. I can't even believe you or anyone could possibly think we need to raise taxes.


[/ QUOTE ]You MUST be getting paid..

[/ QUOTE ]you are embarassing yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

You make a completely ridiculous inference, have it exposed, then persist with the inference anyway....yeah, I'm the one embarrassing myself

[/ QUOTE ]

My ridiculous inference is that tax revenues are up? Or that we don't need to collect more?

You think i have to be getting paid to think such a thing?

I repeat: You are embarassing yourself.

natedogg

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I warn you in advance, I'm not really interested in debating this point (taxes = theft)

[/ QUOTE ] Then stop making claims you're not even willing to back up.


[/ QUOTE ]

You made the claim that taxes = theft. YOU back it up.

With all the ACers on this forum, I'm sure there are probably already eighteen threads in existence about this very subject. I'm also sure I read very little of any of them. Sorry, just not interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I repeat: You are embarassing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

[West]

valtaherra,

I'm still waiting for you to tell me who more libertarians voted for, Bush or Gore, Bush or Kerry? Your silence is deafening.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
My ridiculous inference is that tax revenues are up? Or that we don't need to collect more?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your ridiculous inference is that the fact that tax revenues are up ("what more do they want", "what else do you need to know?") implies anything about whether we should raise or lower taxes.

In reply I posted a link that discusses a similar statement made by Bill O'Really:

"President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration.

Why? Because business is booming. That's why. Capitalism is working. And the more money corporations and workers make, the more taxes roll in, even at the reduced rate."

From the link:

"But how inane is our public discussion? Consider the claim that we have highlighted: “Federal tax revenues, up under Bush.”

How stupid is O’Reilly’s claim? Here are total federal revenues for the past ten years, straight from this basic CBO document:

1995: $1.35 trillion
1996: $1.45 trillion
1997: $1.58 trillion
1998: $1.72 trillion
1999: $1.83 trillion
2000: $2.03 trillion
2001: $1.99 trillion
2002: $1.85 trillion
2003: $1.78 trillion
2004: $1.88 trillion

It’s hard to learn a whole lot from those numbers. But for the record: By 2004, federal revenues had finally returned (under Bush) to roughly where they were in 1999 (under Clinton). They still hadn’t reached the 2000 level. This doesn’t necessarily tell you much, but it flies in the face of the pretty picture the dimwit O’Reilly was handing his viewers—and his dim-witted “analysis” left out a few basic facts. Here they is: Under normal circumstances, federal revenues will almost always go up because of inflation and population growth. Only a fool would be surprised to see revenues rise from one decade to the next—but O’Reilly was playing the public for fools, a process that has long been OK with America’s millionaire pundit class.

Will revenues in 2005 be higher than in any year under Clinton? That was O’Reilly’s carefully-parsed prediction; Media Matters showed that the claim falls apart if the current (projected) figure is simply adjusted for inflation. But the sheer stupidity of O’Reilly’s “memo” is a dagger aimed at democracy’s heart. But this has been accepted for year after year—and it leads on to evil claims like Rush Limbaugh’s.

But so what? The gut-bucket cowards who make up your “press corps” have stared into air for the past many years. Rush and Bill mock the people, democracy’s God—but millionaire pundits don’t care, won’t complain. Their lives are much too comfortable, thanks. They refuse to speak when we are all mocked. They apologize when they dare to say “stupid.”

FEDERAL REVENUES UNDER REAGAN: Here are total federal revenues for four years under Reagan. They are much lower than federal revenues under Clinton. If a fool applied O’Reilly’s “logic,” that would make Clinton better, by far:

1985: $734 billion
1986: $769 billion
1987: $854 billion
1988: $909 billion

Duh! Under Reagan, we never even broke a trillion! Only a fool would make a straight comparison between these budget numbers and Clinton’s. But on Monday night, O’Reilly was playing the public for fools—as Limbaugh has been allowed to do for decades, as he has been allowed to do, in the nastiest way, in his ugly, vile comments this week.

DUH—THEY ALWAYS GO UP: How stupid was O’Reilly’s “analysis?” Check that CBO table again. From 1962 through 2004, federal revenues went up every year except five. (They dropped in 1971, in 1983—and in 2001, 2002 and 2003.) A cruel person would say that they always go up—except in years when George Bush is president! But O’Reilly was playing his viewers for fools. He actually told unprotected viewers that the numbers prove Bush’s great genius!

How stupid is the American discourse? The fact that we have to discuss these pre-school points should be a matter of great astonishment. The gods on Olympus laugh till they cry—and “liberal” scribes take fat checks to the bank, dreaming of how they can spend them."

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
He actually told unprotected viewers that the numbers prove Bush’s great genius!

[/ QUOTE ]

What are "unprotected viewers"?

[NCAces]

Your point seems to be that the only reason revenues go up is because of inflation and population growth. Do you acknowledge there could be other reasons? Tax breaks for example?

FWIW, your arguemtn seems to be that those two indices are the only reason they go up, which is obviously false. We saw them go down due to recession caused by the dot.com bust, we saw them go down in the late 70s due to stagflation, etc.

In my mind, you are criticizing people for making simple conclusions, yet you are doing the same thing. Fact is that our economy/revenues go up and down for all sorts of reasons.

NCAces