Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners
- This topic has 145 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by
all.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 7, 2012 at 10:56 PM #747451July 7, 2012 at 10:58 PM #747452
all
ParticipantClinton decided to invade Serbia instead.
July 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM #747473briansd1
Guest[quote=squat250]I disagree that both sides suck equally. I think each one sucks in a uniquely horrible way.[/quote]
As long as the are unique they suck to different degrees. Depending on your view, one is always preferable.
If you budget is low, and you live in a expensive city, you’ll have to choose among houses that suck in horrible ways.
July 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM #747480Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Being the consummate politician, however, he did not.
[/quote]The key here is that Clinton did not invade Iraq. Therein lies the qualitative difference.
I never said that there is no proportional responsiblity. But I maintain that Democrats are preferable to Republicans.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Both sides suck equally and ALL politicians are lying shitbags. You’ll find that if you work from that premise, history becomes easily understood.[/quote]I don’t buy your argument that both sides suck equally.
Obviously you know a lot about history and you draw on your knowledge to make your points.
My beef is that “they are all the same” implies that you’re an impartial arbiter of history when you obviously are not. While you may not fully support the Republicans, you clearly prefer them.
You have obvious desdain for the left. And you often spring into action whenever there are criticisms of the right, not to defend the right, but to argue that “they are the same.”
Clearly they are not the same.
A person who dines using fine porcelain is not the same as one who barbeques in the backyard using paper plates. The act of eating is not even the same. It’s debatable who is better; pero no son iguales, son diferentes.[/quote]
Brian: History is completely impartial; History doesn’t give a shit one way or the other. But History does matter, as Santayana said about not learning from history and being doomed to repeat it.
You’re quite right about my disdain for Leftists: I revile them. I respect true Liberals, however, and there is no more beautiful word in the English language. The difference? Leftists hew to autocracy and autarky and seek to control every aspect of a person’s life and they do so with idiotic policies, Political Correctness and seeking to insert government in all areas possible.
You made a remark containing the words “that’s not what America is about.” Well, Leftism is not what America is about, either. Anyone or anything that seeks to constrain my liberty is completely unwelcome and should be eliminated from the body politic.
And, yes, Brian, ALL politicians are lying shitbags, that’s why they’re politicians. And politicians live to get re-elected and will do anything to get re-elected, which means selling out to whomever will bankroll their campaign.
If you think Obama is above the fray, Google “Gigi Gaston” and “We Will Not Be Silenced.” Very interesting stuff and FYI, Gaston is a lifelong Democrat and her grandfather was Governor of Massachusetts.
July 8, 2012 at 7:53 PM #747495Participant[quote=briansd1]But I maintain that Democrats are preferable to Republicans.
I don’t buy your argument that both sides suck equally.Clearly they are not the same.
[/quote]Brian: Thought you enjoy this from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html?_r=1
Apparently, conservatives are happier than liberals! Who knew? And from the NYT, no less! Wow. Just wow.
Time to come to the dark side, Brian…
July 8, 2012 at 9:25 PM #747500CA renter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Being the consummate politician, however, he did not.
[/quote]The key here is that Clinton did not invade Iraq. Therein lies the qualitative difference.
I never said that there is no proportional responsiblity. But I maintain that Democrats are preferable to Republicans.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Both sides suck equally and ALL politicians are lying shitbags. You’ll find that if you work from that premise, history becomes easily understood.[/quote]I don’t buy your argument that both sides suck equally.
Obviously you know a lot about history and you draw on your knowledge to make your points.
My beef is that “they are all the same” implies that you’re an impartial arbiter of history when you obviously are not. While you may not fully support the Republicans, you clearly prefer them.
You have obvious desdain for the left. And you often spring into action whenever there are criticisms of the right, not to defend the right, but to argue that “they are the same.”
Clearly they are not the same.
A person who dines using fine porcelain is not the same as one who barbeques in the backyard using paper plates. The act of eating is not even the same. It’s debatable who is better; pero no son iguales, son diferentes.[/quote]
Brian: History is completely impartial; History doesn’t give a shit one way or the other. But History does matter, as Santayana said about not learning from history and being doomed to repeat it.
You’re quite right about my disdain for Leftists: I revile them. I respect true Liberals, however, and there is no more beautiful word in the English language. The difference? Leftists hew to autocracy and autarky and seek to control every aspect of a person’s life and they do so with idiotic policies, Political Correctness and seeking to insert government in all areas possible.
You made a remark containing the words “that’s not what America is about.” Well, Leftism is not what America is about, either. Anyone or anything that seeks to constrain my liberty is completely unwelcome and should be eliminated from the body politic.
And, yes, Brian, ALL politicians are lying shitbags, that’s why they’re politicians. And politicians live to get re-elected and will do anything to get re-elected, which means selling out to whomever will bankroll their campaign.
If you think Obama is above the fray, Google “Gigi Gaston” and “We Will Not Be Silenced.” Very interesting stuff and FYI, Gaston is a lifelong Democrat and her grandfather was Governor of Massachusetts.[/quote]
Exactly right, Allan.
Signed,
A Liberal (but not Brian’s kind of “liberal”)July 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM #747506scaredyclassic
Participanti definitely believe in liberal sprinkling of certain condiments.
July 9, 2012 at 12:35 AM #747509Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Thought you enjoy this from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html?_r=1
Apparently, conservatives are happier than liberals! Who knew? And from the NYT, no less! Wow. Just wow.
Time to come to the dark side, Brian…[/quote]
Of course, Allan. Ignorance is bliss. But I’d rather be knowledgeable and aware of my circumstances.
To me, happiness is not buying what I want. It’s not even a state of well-being and satisfaction. But it’s knowledge of the world and experiencing things the way other people see them.
It’s examining myself and examining the world and the things that populate this world. Many times, reality is depressing. But I’m happy being aware of that depressing reality.
July 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM #747524Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Thought you enjoy this from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html?_r=1
Apparently, conservatives are happier than liberals! Who knew? And from the NYT, no less! Wow. Just wow.
Time to come to the dark side, Brian…[/quote]
Of course, Allan. Ignorance is bliss. But I’d rather be knowledgeable and aware of my circumstances.
To me, happiness is not buying what I want. It’s not even a state of well-being and satisfaction. But it’s knowledge of the world and experiencing things the way other people see them.
It’s examining myself and examining the world and the things that populate this world. Many times, reality is depressing. But I’m happy being aware of that depressing reality.[/quote]
Brian: I sent that article completely tongue-in-cheek, BTW. While the NYT gives me endless enjoyment (especially reading Krugman; that guy’s a hoot), it is painfully apparent The Paper of Record has taken a sabbatical from reality.
It would be interesting to note the number of times you’ve made assertions about past history that are completely unsupported by actual history (a good example being the US negotiating with the “Viet Congs” (sic) to end the Vietnam War. There were no Viet Cong left; they’d been decimated by the US during Tet ’68. The US was negotiating with the North Vietnamese Communist government), but you push them as truth because your dogmatic approach demands that you do. Thus, you’re not examining the world honestly, but through admittedly colored lenses. That would be my definition of ignorance.
You also don’t confront facts or data that don’t “agree” with your worldview. If someone asks a question that conflicts with what you hold as revealed truth, you either ignore it or attempt to answer around it.
But conservatives are the ignorant ones, eh, Brian?
July 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM #747525Participant[quote=CA renter]
Exactly right, Allan.
Signed,
A Liberal (but not Brian’s kind of “liberal”)[/quote]CAR: This is getting downright scary. First ocrenter and now you! What in the hell is going on? You start agreeing with conservatives, you might become one! Although, I think there is medication to prevent this…
P.S. You ARE a Liberal and one of the more thoughtful, intelligent variety (like SK, afx, etc). Like I said, there is a HUGE difference between Liberals and Leftists.
July 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM #747529Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The Paper of Record has taken a sabbatical from reality.
[/quote]The NYT is the establishment. That’s conservatism IMO.
The conservatives of today have moved to the right. The are no longer the buttoned down folks of polite society. They are the pitchfork, riled up peasants.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
(a good example being the US negotiating with the “Viet Congs” (sic) to end the Vietnam War. There were no Viet Cong left; they’d been decimated by the US during Tet ’68. The US was negotiating with the North Vietnamese Communist government),
[/quote]You argue semantics more than anyone else.
Le Duc Tho was as Vietcong as you can get. Remember, he’s the one who along with Kissinger go the Nobel for their negotiations.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You also don’t confront facts or data that don’t “agree” with your worldview. If someone asks a question that conflicts with what you hold as revealed truth, you either ignore it or attempt to answer around it.
But conservatives are the ignorant ones, eh, Brian?[/quote]
Conservatives are the ones who ignore news media accounts as biased. They mostly listen to talk shows that are opinion based.
Conservatives generally dismiss academics and the conclusion of their research. They retreat to ideological think tanks.
*
Back to the happiness bit. It’s much easier to be happy when you’re ignorant or delusional.
I know a couple who I believe are happier than me. The husband cheats on his wife and he’s perfectly happy to have his cake and eat it too. The wife is happy because she’s ignorant of the situation. They have a happy family life.
Praying to God is completely without facts. It’s a total waste of time that’s bordering on the delusional.
July 9, 2012 at 12:46 PM #747531Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The Paper of Record has taken a sabbatical from reality.
[/quote]The NYT is the establishment. That’s conservatism IMO.
The conservatives of today have moved to the right. The are no longer the buttoned down folks of polite society. They are the pitchfork, riled up peasants.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
(a good example being the US negotiating with the “Viet Congs” (sic) to end the Vietnam War. There were no Viet Cong left; they’d been decimated by the US during Tet ’68. The US was negotiating with the North Vietnamese Communist government),
[/quote]You argue semantics more than anyone else.
Le Duc Tho was as Vietcong as you can get. Remember, he’s the one who along with Kissinger go the Nobel for their negotiations.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
You also don’t confront facts or data that don’t “agree” with your worldview. If someone asks a question that conflicts with what you hold as revealed truth, you either ignore it or attempt to answer around it.
But conservatives are the ignorant ones, eh, Brian?[/quote]
Conservatives are the ones who ignore news media accounts as biased. They mostly listen to talk shows that are opinion based.
Conservatives generally dismiss academics and the conclusion of their research. They retreat to ideological think tanks.
*
Back to the happiness bit. It’s much easier to be happy when you’re ignorant or delusional.
I know a couple who I believe are happier than me. The husband cheats on his wife and he’s perfectly happy to have his cake and eat it too. The wife is happy because she’s ignorant of the situation. They have a happy family life.
Praying to God is completely without facts. It’s a total waste of time that’s bordering on the delusional.[/quote]
Brian: Well, being Jesuit educated, I don’t believe in intercessory prayer and I also don’t confuse spirituality with religiosity (which you frequently do in your condemnations of Christians.)
As far as conservatives and media and think tanks, that’s arrant nonsense. The breadth and depth of such organizations and agencies spans a wide ideological divide and it’s quite easy to find as many foaming-at-the-mouth Leftist groups as Rightist groups. You constantly attempt to frame arguments within the rubric of “thoughtful, intelligent Liberals” and “raving, rude Conservatives”, all while personally hewing to a rigid, dogmatic view that avoids all facts, data and logic that doesn’t fully support your position.
Lastly, Le Duc Tho was not a Viet Cong. Read your history. He was instrumental in establishing the Viet Minh, that much is true, but was very much part of the Vietnamese Communist Party (of North Vietnam) following. He sat on their Politburo and was an integral part of the North Vietnamese power structure. The North Vietnamese Communists liquidated what was left of the Viet Cong after their seizure of the South in 1975 and put the rest into “re-education” camps. The Viet Cong were not involved in the US – North Vietnamese negotiations and were already considered a threat to the North’s planned consolidation of power within Vietnam, post-hostilities.
July 9, 2012 at 1:44 PM #747534SK in CV
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As far as conservatives and media and think tanks, that’s arrant nonsense. The breadth and depth of such organizations and agencies spans a wide ideological divide and it’s quite easy to find as many foaming-at-the-mouth Leftist groups as Rightist groups. [/quote]I have to take a little exception to this. If you had limited the argument to conservatives and liberals, I wouldn’t mention it. But leftists in the media? I’ll acknowledge definitions of those terms have changed over the years, but I still think of the left/right spectrum as being socialism on the left and capitalism on the right. I can think of
onetwo media types that are clearly on the left, but only one of them foaming at the mouth. And a whole lot on the right, despite the fact that many of them don’t really know what the socialism that they assail really is.July 9, 2012 at 2:35 PM #747535Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As far as conservatives and media and think tanks, that’s arrant nonsense. The breadth and depth of such organizations and agencies spans a wide ideological divide and it’s quite easy to find as many foaming-at-the-mouth Leftist groups as Rightist groups. [/quote]I have to take a little exception to this. If you had limited the argument to conservatives and liberals, I wouldn’t mention it. But leftists in the media? I’ll acknowledge definitions of those terms have changed over the years, but I still think of the left/right spectrum as being socialism on the left and capitalism on the right. I can think of
onetwo media types that are clearly on the left, but only one of them foaming at the mouth. And a whole lot on the right, despite the fact that many of them don’t really know what the socialism that they assail really is.[/quote]SK: If we’re being correct in our definitions, then Left would include Communism as well as Socialism (considered by Marxist/Leninists to be a stepping-stone on the path to true Communism), and there are more than a few die-hard Communists in both the media and in think tanks. As far as the latter goes: There are think tanks and foundations that advance the agendas of both the Hard Left and the Hard Right and they’re not skewed overly Right or overly Left in terms of number or influence.
As to assailing “Socialism”, per Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, et al: I couldn’t agree more. I don’t subscribe, and never have, to the “Kenyan Muslim Socialist” archetype ascribed to Obama, preferring instead to view him as an over-educated urban liberal who believes unwaveringly in the power of Big Government to solve all ills. My problem with this is that, at some point, this worldview collides with personal liberty and thus we find ourselves where we are now.
July 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM #747536KSMountain
Participant[quote=SK in CV], but I still think of the left/right spectrum as being socialism on the left and capitalism on the right.[/quote]
Wait. What? So capitalism is the hard right now? What a shame if some people think that now.
I thought hard right was supposed to be Nationalism, Fascism, etc… -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.