Political 'Switchers' - New Errol Morris Ads for MoveOn.org [Archive]

kuyu

Aug 25, 2004, 12:43 PM

mischief

Aug 25, 2004, 12:50 PM

In response to Kuyu I add the following observation:

Elections of late are made more on the "three H's" than on anything else it seems:

* Hair

* Height

* Holiness

If you have good hair, are over 6 foot and can sound preferred by the Almighty... you're in.

blackfox

Aug 25, 2004, 01:02 PM

I've been scouring the web, and no one seems to believe that people like me exist. No news stories acknowledge my kind of switching. What's more, I know at least ten people who are doing the same thing as me. That is, about half of my pro-Gore friends (that could vote last time) have decided to vote for Bush this time. Weird...

Anyway, the reasons most given are...
1) Kerry seems like a nice guy, but I agree with Bush on more issues than Kerry.
2) Kerry shouldn't have won the primaries. I'd have voted for another candidate over Bush (usually they say they liked Wes Clark a lot, me included).
3) I don't know where Kerry stands except for against Bush. What's he going to do as President?

Thoughts???

Well, it boggles the mind for one...

seriously, might I ask the issues you agree on with GW?...with Kerry? Please bear in mind one thing...although you may agree with a particular candidates priorities or intentions , should you not ultimately judge them on what they have actually accomplished during their tenures? (or not accomplished.) Truthfully, how does GW fare in under such criteria? How does Kerry? ...do bear in mind their respective positions of power and influence also...

I was not particularily overjoyed by Kerry winning the Democratic Primaries either, but he is the most likely candidate to appeal to the largest segment of voters, and thus the most likely to beat Bush...it is just calculated pragmatism, however unexciting...I mean in 2000, I loved Bradley in the Dem. Primaries and McCan in the Rep. Primaries, but they were outgunned by the political establishment...

As for not knowing what Kerry stands for...do some research. While Kerry deserves some blame for not getting his platform more exposure, GW and Co. deserve some blame for distorting the contest and not arguing on relevant issues...the media also tend to gravitate coverage towards the scandalous and polemic vs the informative stuff also...I would also ask you to ask yourself what Bush stands for...this judged not by his words , but by his actions .

Do get back to me...I have always respected your opinion...

LeeTom

Aug 25, 2004, 01:22 PM

I agree that if you don't know what a candidate stands for, you should look it up before you make your decision.

I for one, know of almost no one that is voting for Bush. The older people in my family are almost all Republicans, and for the first time my Grandfather, great-uncle, and father are voting Democrat. Mainly because they are in banking & finance, and they feel the record tax cuts with record spending is leading to a record deficit that will hurt us in the long term.

I watched every one of these 'switcher' ads, and I think they're great. I only hope the country is moving in that direction.

Lee Tom

IJ Reilly

Aug 25, 2004, 01:57 PM

This thread has taken a slightly scary turn. It's never been easier to find out how a candidate stands on the issues. And yet, it seems some are still relying entirely upon media, and even more frighteningly, on the opposing candidate's campaigns, to understand their positions.

kuyu

Aug 25, 2004, 02:33 PM

Blackfox and IJ. My list reflected the views expressed to me in several political conversations, not necessarily my views in particular.

I, for one, have visited www.johnkerry.com several times. I know what his plan is, and I'm sure we'll all be just fine if he wins the election. However a lot of people haven't done their research and rely on speeches on TV for ALL of their info. In these appearances Kerry usually focuses more on what Bush is doing wrong than what he will do.

On the issues:
Economy: Kerry promises job growth, Bush promises ownership. I think Bush has a better long-run strategy for growth. Namely, encourage businesses to invest in new PP&E and jobs will follow.

Health Care: Kerry promises cheap drugs and nationalized health care, Bush has delivered HSA's and promised to lessen frivilous lawsuits against doctors. From speaking with people in health care who have said exactly what Bush is proposing, I've got to go with Bush here. I fear a government that owns my health.

Taxes: After 5 more years of college and poverty (8-9 years total) I'll likely be "the rich". I don't want to be penalized for pressing on when my peers quit. Plus, I like that Bush has expressed interest in www.fairtax.org .

Stem cells: Kerry is pro, Bush is con. I agree with Kerry here. Stem cells are the way to go.

Gay marraige: I disagree with Bush, but agree with Cheney's recent comments about individual states deciding.

Energy: Both candidates are the same here in my opinion. Both have called for new fuels and technologies. Kudos to both.

National Security: I am in the process of reading the 911 Commission report. Bush better listen to them. It's a great book by the way!!!

Actions: Bush hasn't accomplished a ton domestically, but neither has Kerry. I think Bush's actions overseas are good for America in the long run.

Summation: Kerry is a good short run choice IMO, but I feel that Bush offers more in the way of long-run strategies (not fact, mind you, just my opinion).

IJ Reilly

Aug 25, 2004, 04:01 PM

Kerry hasn't promised anything like "nationalized health care," but never mind that for the moment. You won't necessarily hear or read about the policy speeches made by the candidates in the mass media. Whenever possible, the media will nab the sound-bite and play up controversy. The policy stuff either doesn't run or falls to the back pages. That's one reason why ersatz issues like the SBVT are ginned up -- they suck the air out of the room, leaving nothing left over for talking about less sexy but ultimately more important issues. That's why so many people believe that Kerry is promoting "nationalized health care" and will raise their taxes.

Chip NoVaMac

Aug 25, 2004, 05:08 PM

On the issues:
Economy: Kerry promises job growth, Bush promises ownership. I think Bush has a better long-run strategy for growth. Namely, encourage businesses to invest in new PP&E and jobs will follow.

Bush has been promising jobs all the long, but hasn't yet delivered. His Labor Department recently made changes in the overtime requirements, that may end up hurting - more than helping.

Health Care: Kerry promises cheap drugs and nationalized health care, Bush has delivered HSA's and promised to lessen frivilous lawsuits against doctors. From speaking with people in health care who have said exactly what Bush is proposing, I've got to go with Bush here. I fear a government that owns my health.

But Bush has not help get costs lower. More are even finding harder to afford insurance, even if their company offers it, and having to choose between housing, food, gas, and other basics.

Taxes: After 5 more years of college and poverty (8-9 years total) I'll likely be "the rich". I don't want to be penalized for pressing on when my peers quit. Plus, I like that Bush has expressed interest in www.fairtax.org .

This is a tougher one. Lower taxes for me IMO would mean more than for someone earning two to three times that I am. Yet I can understand the way you feel. Though if I went into work tomorrow and was given an increase of 3x what I am earning, now - I would not be concerned about the extra taxes. But that is my value system.

While fairtax.org has a great sounding idea; I am afraid that the poor and middle class would still see a bigger hurt. Don't get me wrong, as being middle class by some measures, I am not looking for a handout, but being able to afford just a little more than the basics of life would be nice.[/quote]

Actions: Bush hasn't accomplished a ton domestically, but neither has Kerry. I think Bush's actions overseas are good for America in the long run.

IMO Bush has not lived up to his campaign promises of 2000. Kerry as a Senator is one of 100 voices. So IMO he has less "force" on policy.

On international issues, you and I are opposites. I believe that we are worse off internationally, in particular of the world view, now than before.

Summation: Kerry is a good short run choice IMO, but I feel that Bush offers more in the way of long-run strategies (not fact, mind you, just my opinion).

A question that I ask myself now is: Am I better of now than I was four years ago? Four years of Bush have made my general situation worse. My best years were under Clinton, at least for me.

kuyu

Aug 25, 2004, 05:21 PM

A question that I ask myself now is: Am I better of now than I was four years ago? Four years of Bush have made my general situation worse. My best years were under Clinton, at least for me.

That's fair. My situation was null and void under Clinton (being a minor and all). My life has been very stable under Bush, aside from the attacks on 9/11. Again, I think we'll all be just fine with either man as President. After all, both have the support of the countries finest minds at their disposal.

Take note: If John Kerry wins the Presidency, I will give him my support. I may not agree with everything he would do, but he would be my President and that deserves my respect and loyalty. Same goes for Bush. I don't fully agree with either man, but I respect them both equally.

blackfox

Aug 25, 2004, 05:43 PM

Take note: If John Kerry wins the Presidency, I will give him my support. I may not agree with everything he would do, but he would be my President and that deserves my respect and loyalty. Same goes for Bush. I don't fully agree with either man, but I respect them both equally.

That's nice of you, but be careful. I don't fully agree with either man either, but the respect issue is different for me.

I respect the Office of President, but I also implicitly expect the individual occupying that position (temporarily) to respect (a) the reputation of the Office and what it represents, (b) the people who put him (for now) there, and (c) himself (ie self-respect/be able to look in the mirror in the morning)...

So by those Criteria, I DO NOT respect GW Bush at all, although I still respect the Office of President...in fact, it is that latter respect that has pissed me off so much w/ regards to the current occupant.

As for Kerry, I am not commited one way or the other...if elected in NOV., he, like GW in 2000 will get the benefit of the doubt in the respect dept.

Respect, however, must be earned in my book...GW had his chances and failed miserably. Kerry may have his...we will see how he will fare.

Not trying to single you out Kuyu, BTW...but GW shouldn't get a free-ride in the respect dept. Nor should anyone, ultimately.

Chip NoVaMac

Aug 25, 2004, 05:47 PM

That's fair. My situation was null and void under Clinton (being a minor and all). My life has been very stable under Bush, aside from the attacks on 9/11. Again, I think we'll all be just fine with either man as President. After all, both have the support of the countries finest minds at their disposal.

Take note: If John Kerry wins the Presidency, I will give him my support. I may not agree with everything he would do, but he would be my President and that deserves my respect and loyalty. Same goes for Bush. I don't fully agree with either man, but I respect them both equally.

Though to be honest, if Kerry wins - if he did not live up to expectations and promises I would not fault you for the way i do about GW. Now going GHW bush, if he had won over Clinton, I would have supported him more than I have with his son.

Respect and support is something earned, not given.

skunk

Aug 25, 2004, 05:57 PM

So by that Criteria, I DO NOT respect GW Bush at all
Criterion: singular
Criteria: plural

MRGS :rolleyes:

wwworry

Aug 25, 2004, 06:19 PM

really the top 2% see the most benefit in Bush's fiscal policy. Since they do own about 40% of the country it only makes sense for Bush to talk about an "ownership" policy. However, most people are not in the top 2% (the top .5% is who really makes a killing). So it's sort of like playing the lottery. You have to believe you will eventully become super wealthy. You have to believe that by the time you become wealthy the US will not have become a bankrupt debtor nation (I think Bush has already run up about a trillion dollars in new debt). You have to believe that the middle class, who is going to pay for the debt that comes from the tax breaks the top .5% is getting, will not wise up and vote their pocketbooks.

You have to swallow the tuition increases that have come with the Bush administration policies.

You have to chance not having some terrible medical malady. I think Kerry wants to make catostrophic health care insurance more affordable.

You have to accept the logic that bans states from bargaining for cheaper drug prices.

You have to discount the higher fuel prices and the almost complete lack of support Bush has given to conservation, keeping the false hope alive that we will not run out of fossil fuels.

You have to hope that the Bush policies that have led to a dramatic increase in terrorism worldwide will not have an effect on you.

You have to hope that your entry level job in the big corporation will not have been shipped off to another country because of the high cost of US healthcare.

etc.
etc.

pretty risky. you might be better off with a lottery ticket.

LeeTom

Aug 25, 2004, 06:41 PM

Yeah, quite the opposite in my neck of the woods. Technically we're a battleground state, but we're by no means a toss-up state. Washington hasn't voted Republican since 1984. And if you put a Bush sticker on your car anywhere near Seattle, you're probably gonna get the bird.

It's too bad we're this divided, eh?
It seems like there's a better way...... . . . . . . . .

Lee Tom

mactastic

Aug 25, 2004, 06:45 PM

Oddly enough, I've seen a whole lot of Kerry/Edwards stickers around here this year. Odd because even though I am in California, the county I am in went something like 2-1 for Bush last time. In 2000 I saw nearly zero Gore/Lieberman stickers. It will be interesting to see the numbers this time. I highly doubt Kerry will win the county, but I betting it will be a much closer number this year.

macsrus

Aug 25, 2004, 10:01 PM

really the top 2% see the most benefit in Bush's fiscal policy. Since they do own about 40% of the country it only makes sense for Bush to talk about an "ownership" policy. However, most people are not in the top 2% (the top .5% is who really makes a killing). So it's sort of like playing the lottery. You have to believe you will eventully become super wealthy. You have to believe that by the time you become wealthy the US will not have become a bankrupt debtor nation (I think Bush has already run up about a trillion dollars in new debt). You have to believe that the middle class, who is going to pay for the debt that comes from the tax breaks the top .5% is getting, will not wise up and vote their pocketbooks.

First of all... BEFORE the tax cut the upper 2% as you say.... WAS paying 40% of the federal tax burden....
Now you can say that the middle class is paying it now... but the fact is noone is paying more than they did before the tax cut...(Not as federal taxes anyway)

Second while we have run up a much larger debt during the last 4 years...
What actually makes you think it would not have been worse if Gore would have been elected....
The stock market still would have crashed... people still would be out of work.. The corporate scandals still would have happened.... The recession still would be going on without any tax relief to the people...
AND
If as the Democrats would have done if they had the majority in both houses and the Whitehouse....Given us socialized medicine.... Then with the economic down turn we had... we would have plumeted further into a recession with no way to pay for the expanded Gov't services....

NOW....
Im not saying that BUSH is GREAT and that GORE would have destroyed us...
Im just saying that given what happened... we could have been as bad and more than likely worse off under Gore.

Neserk

Aug 25, 2004, 10:10 PM

we could have been as bad and more than likely worse off under Gore.

Totally wrong. The Clinton/Gore administration were keeping a close eye on Al Qaida. Bush dropped the ball - completely ignored them. It is unlikely 9/11 would have ever happened given Clinton's track record of thwarting attacks. I have no reason to belive Gore would have been any different.

LeeTom

Aug 25, 2004, 10:12 PM

Yeah, I can't think of a way to screw up any more than ignoring a security briefing that says "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S."

Lee Tom

macsrus

Aug 26, 2004, 06:26 AM

Totally wrong. The Clinton/Gore administration were keeping a close eye on Al Qaida. Bush dropped the ball - completely ignored them. It is unlikely 9/11 would have ever happened given Clinton's track record of thwarting attacks. I have no reason to belive Gore would have been any different.

That is Bull.....
The Clinton Administration's way of keeping track was by the successful attacks that Al Qaida performed...
US Cole, Somalia, First World Trade Center Bombing, Kenja, and Tanzania...
Yes they did a great job.... They just followed the bombings....

The Clinton Administration had a offer from Sudan to have bin Laden turned over to them.... They didnt act on it... (It can be debated that Sudan may not have been able to deliver... along with Saudia Arabia....BUT since Clinton didnt act we will never know)

Furthermore.... your post does not address anything about my last post...
My last post was about economic conditions not the war.
As usual when you reply to me you dont add anything useful... and just search for something to argue about....

MattG

Aug 26, 2004, 06:46 AM

It all depends on what part of the country you are in. I know of no one voting for Kerry. I suspect I could find one or two, but I haven't heard anybody say it. I also have only seen two Kerry bumper stickers, while i have seen dozens of Bush stickers.

Here's one more for you. :)

mactastic

Aug 26, 2004, 11:18 AM

First of all... BEFORE the tax cut the upper 2% as you say.... WAS paying 40% of the federal tax burden....
Now you can say that the middle class is paying it now... but the fact is noone is paying more than they did before the tax cut...(Not as federal taxes anyway)

Apples and oranges my friend. They make 40% of the income in this country, shouldn't they pay 40% of the taxes? Or would you prefer the head tax system where everyone pays the same amount?

macsrus

Aug 27, 2004, 08:11 PM

Apples and oranges my friend. They make 40% of the income in this country, shouldn't they pay 40% of the taxes? Or would you prefer the head tax system where everyone pays the same amount?

Not quite....

The wealthiest 1 percent those earning $293,415 and up paid over a third of the taxes, while their share of the nation's taxable income was 19 percent. They pay income taxes at the top rate, now 38.6 percent, compared with a maximum rate of 15 percent for the majority of lower-earning taxpayers.

mypantsaretight

Aug 27, 2004, 08:22 PM

The wealthiest 1 percent those earning $293,415 and up paid over a third of the taxes, while their share of the nation's taxable income was 19 percent. They pay income taxes at the top rate, now 38.6 percent, compared with a maximum rate of 15 percent for the majority of lower-earning taxpayers.

It's called "imperfect knowledge." Regressive taxation is the foundation of the commissar class and therefore the foundation of the American republican (small R) system.

The poorest 20% of America account for 3.4% of the nations total wealth. I think I'll choose to care whether they have enough food, clothing, shelter, medicine and education before I'll choose to care whether the wealthiest 1% can afford another vacation home.

I'm not voting as the entire election is a sham. When there is a candidate from a party other than the business party perhaps I'll think about it. Maybe they could put me in a switcher commercial ... I used to vote, but then I realized what the secret ingredient was in Soylent Green.

m

macsrus

Aug 27, 2004, 08:27 PM

It's called "imperfect knowledge." Regressive taxation is the foundation of the commissar class and therefore the foundation of the American republican (small R) system.

The poorest 20% of America account for 3.4% of the nations total wealth. I think I'll choose to care whether they have enough food, clothing, shelter, medicine and education before I'll choose to care whether the wealthiest 1% can afford another vacation home.

I'm not voting as the entire election is a sham. When there is a candidate from a party other than the business party perhaps I'll think about it. Maybe they could put me in a switcher commercial ... I used to vote, but then I realized what the secret ingredient was in Soylent Green.

m

Nice ingredient....
Really though vote anyway.... All choices stink but Politicians count on voter apathy.... Thats why they think they can get away with all the crap

Neserk

Aug 27, 2004, 08:35 PM

That is Bull.....
The Clinton Administration's way of keeping track was by the successful attacks that Al Qaida performed...
US Cole, Somalia, First World Trade Center Bombing, Kenja, and Tanzania...
Yes they did a great job.... They just followed the bombings....

I guess you are ignoring the 5 attacks (If I recall correctly) that they thwarted :rolleyes:

The Clinton Administration had a offer from Sudan to have bin Laden turned over to them.... They didnt act on it... (It can be debated that Sudan may not have been able to deliver... along with Saudia Arabia....BUT since Clinton didnt act we will never know)

That ************ has been discredited more times than I can count.... I'm sure Sayhet, et al will be happy to direct you to the appropriate thread.

Furthermore.... your post does not address anything about my last post...

<yAWn> I can respond to what I want to respond to. Others respond to certain parts, I respond to certain parts. I don't feel a need to respond to everything, especially when others have done an excellent job.

mypantsaretight

Aug 27, 2004, 08:36 PM

Nice ingredient....
Really though vote anyway.... All choices stink but Politicians count on voter apathy.... Thats why they think they can get away with all the crap

Mmmmmm. Tastes like chicken. :)

I see the elections as a sham designed to give a benign outlet to the masses who might otherwise turn on the business party. When people stop bickering about 30 year old war records they might start realizing the large shaft they're collectively getting from the business party. Best to give that frustration an outlet before it reaches a boiling point.

I do not see myself as apathetic, merely involved in a different manner. I could always vote for Bert. Ernie could be VP, Big Bird could be Secretary of State and Mr. Snuffaluffaguss could be Defense Secretary.

m

macsrus

Aug 27, 2004, 08:38 PM

Mmmmmm. Tastes like chicken. :)

I see the elections as a sham designed to give a benign outlet to the masses who might otherwise turn on the business party. When people stop bickering about 30 year old war records they might start realizing the large shaft they're collectively getting from the business party. Best to give that frustration an outlet before it reaches a boiling point.

I do not see myself as apathetic, merely involved in a different manner. I could always vote for Bert. Ernie could be VP, Big Bird could be Secretary of State and Mr. Snuffaluffaguss could be Defense Secretary.

m

Noooooooooo Snuffy for Prez all the way....... Just for his Hellllloooooo Biiiiirrrrrrd saying alone.

zimv20

Aug 27, 2004, 10:50 PM

Not quite....

The wealthiest 1 percent those earning $293,415 and up paid over a third of the taxes, while their share of the nation's taxable income was 19 percent. They pay income taxes at the top rate, now 38.6 percent, compared with a maximum rate of 15 percent for the majority of lower-earning taxpayers.
question for you: for someone making $20k/yr, what is their tax rate on their first $9k, deductions aside?

same questions for someone who makes $300k/yr.

Chip NoVaMac

Aug 27, 2004, 11:41 PM

question for you: for someone making $20k/yr, what is their tax rate on their first $9k, deductions aside?

same questions for someone who makes $300k/yr.

It comes down to who benefits from a tax cut. If you believe the RNC it is the rich since they create the jobs. If you ask the workers of the rich; those that jobs have been outsourced to India and other countries, or those that have been forced to take "temp" jobs. or even state and local employees that are being treated to benefits that sub par from what was offered even a year ago - one has to one wonder.

Though some may disagree, I feel that the middle class can drive the economy. Their desire for consumer goods can have a bigger effect.

mypantsaretight

Aug 28, 2004, 09:55 AM

It comes down to who benefits from a tax cut. If you believe the RNC it is the rich since they create the jobs. If you ask the workers of the rich; those that jobs have been outsourced to India and other countries, or those that have been forced to take "temp" jobs. or even state and local employees that are being treated to benefits that sub par from what was offered even a year ago - one has to one wonder.

Though some may disagree, I feel that the middle class can drive the economy. Their desire for consumer goods can have a bigger effect.

The silly thing about the tax cut nonsense is that you're both right. And yet you're both completely missing the point, just as each party wants you too.

The principal architects of the tax cut (and the Clintonian economic programs) are the private leaders of the huge transnational corporations. They control much of the economy and have the means to control policy formation and then to shape public perception of those policies. The only difference is that the pro-tax cut crowd represents one faction of business leaders and the anti-tax cut crowd represents another faction. But that does not change whom they are primarily looking after with their respective arguments.

In a true democracy, the people ARE the governement. So what does one faction of the business party mean when they call for a decrease in "government" interference? They're calling specifically and openly for a decrease in the interference of the population on the use and application of the national wealth.

Aristotle wrote about the fundamental problem of a pure democracy being that from it would arise a rich minority and a poor majority. He further arrived at the conclusion that in that circumstance the poor majority would logically seek to take property and wealth from the rich minority. The only solutions are to either reduce poverty or reduce democracy.

The American poverty rate is appalling for a country of our wealth. 20% of the population holds ONLY 3.4% of the country's wealth. 1% of the country holds over 85% of the country's wealth. Guess America didn't choose the reduce poverty solution.

m

--

The purpose of the American system is to "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." - James Madison (founding father, Constitutional author, beloved patriot)

"The people who own the country ought to govern it." - John Jay (founding father, Constitutional author, first Supreme Court Chief Justice)

macsrus

Aug 28, 2004, 11:46 AM

The silly thing about the tax cut nonsense is that you're both right. And yet you're both completely missing the point, just as each party wants you too.

The principal architects of the tax cut (and the Clintonian economic programs) are the private leaders of the huge transnational corporations. They control much of the economy and have the means to control policy formation and then to shape public perception of those policies. The only difference is that the pro-tax cut crowd represents one faction of business leaders and the anti-tax cut crowd represents another faction. But that does not change whom they are primarily looking after with their respective arguments.

In a true democracy, the people ARE the governement. So what does one faction of the business party mean when they call for a decrease in "government" interference? They're calling specifically and openly for a decrease in the interference of the population on the use and application of the national wealth.

Aristotle wrote about the fundamental problem of a pure democracy being that from it would arise a rich minority and a poor majority. He further arrived at the conclusion that in that circumstance the poor majority would logically seek to take property and wealth from the rich minority. The only solutions are to either reduce poverty or reduce democracy.

The American poverty rate is appalling for a country of our wealth. 20% of the population holds ONLY 3.4% of the country's wealth. 1% of the country holds over 85% of the country's wealth. Guess America didn't choose the reduce poverty solution.

m

--

The purpose of the American system is to "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." - James Madison (founding father, Constitutional author, beloved patriot)

"The people who own the country ought to govern it." - John Jay (founding father, Constitutional author, first Supreme Court Chief Justice)

You must read a lot of Noam Chomsky..... Because you sound just like him

IJ Reilly

Aug 28, 2004, 12:32 PM

You must read a lot of Noam Chomsky..... Because you sound just like him

Well, you certainly put him is his place...

mypantsaretight

Aug 28, 2004, 01:14 PM

You must read a lot of Noam Chomsky..... Because you sound just like him
While I can only aspire to be as literate and free-thinking, I accept this as a nice compliment.

That being said, ad hominen attacks do not dispute the veracity of my statements or dispute the accuracy of my references. You should be able to come up with something better in reply.

"When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate." - Addison Whithecomb

m

macsrus

Aug 28, 2004, 03:43 PM

While I can only aspire to be as literate and free-thinking, I accept this as a nice compliment.

That being said, ad hominen attacks do not dispute the veracity of my statements or dispute the accuracy of my references. You should be able to come up with something better in reply.

"When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate." - Addison Whithecomb

m

Why would you think what I said was an attack?....
I just made an observation that what you talk about in most of your posts sounds like the same stuff Chomsky writes about....

macsrus

Aug 28, 2004, 04:01 PM

question for you: for someone making $20k/yr, what is their tax rate on their first $9k, deductions aside?

same questions for someone who makes $300k/yr.

Look it up yourself..... I'm not you Secretary.

zimv20

Aug 28, 2004, 04:22 PM

Look it up yourself..... I'm not you Secretary.
<sigh>

how about this:

on their first $9k of earnings, how much more does the $300k/yr person pay in fed taxes than the $9k/year earner?

a) none
b) a little
c) a lot

Neserk

Aug 28, 2004, 04:30 PM

Look it up yourself..... I'm not you Secretary.

I think *you* need to look it up because *you* are the one throwing around ridiculous statements. You should have asked these kinds of questions and checked on these things before posting.

Rower_CPU

Aug 28, 2004, 04:57 PM

macsrus has been placed on time out for 7 days for rule infractions (post has been deleted) - further rule infractions will result in a permanent account banning.

skunk

Aug 28, 2004, 04:59 PM

Thanks for your prompt action, Rower.

Neserk

Aug 28, 2004, 07:11 PM

hmmmmm..... curiosity, curiosity...

skunk

Aug 28, 2004, 07:57 PM

hmmmmm..... curiosity, curiosity...
With an avatar like yours, you should stay away from curiosity...

Neserk

Aug 28, 2004, 09:38 PM

With an avatar like yours, you should stay away from curiosity...

True. Did you click on the "play with the kitty" In my sig?

skunk

Aug 29, 2004, 05:08 AM

Cute! :)

mypantsaretight

Aug 29, 2004, 09:47 AM

Why would you think what I said was an attack?....
I just made an observation that what you talk about in most of your posts sounds like the same stuff Chomsky writes about....

My apologies then. I have never in my entire life heard one conservative-minded person make a Chomsky reference that wasn't in the very least a back-handed attempt at an attack. I, however, stand corrected and apologize unreservedly.

As an aside there are a great many well-creditential writers who consider the same subjects as Chomsky. Unfortunately most are academics and the mainstream media would sooner eat their own children than allow them any outlet to express their opinions - the notable exception being the Toronto Star, which seems to publish a variety of opinions with regularity.

m