You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Didn't Conservatives staple teabags to their faces because of this very thing?
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Your problem is that you think you have to side with one party and to make that palatable you have to create an evil and good dichotomy.
All you're really doing with this is telling the world that you can't be bothered to recognize distinctions and differences, so we must lower our expectations of you.
Clinton said that "offhand" and in 1999, vetoed a GOP tax cut that would have reduced revenue by $800B.
Does "offhand" mean he did not believe his own statement? Now you are going to change the issue of whether Clinton said he raised taxes too much by saying it was "offhand" as if that means he did not say it. He said it on television because I saw the remark.
Clinton said he raised taxes too much--whether it was "offhand," whether he was serious, whether he meant it or all irrelevant. He said it which was my only claim. When a person proves his point you try to change the issue rather than admit he was right (other than admit I was not Stretch).
And you fall for all the phony arguments made by Democrats
What phony argument am I making?
Did Conservatives not staple teabags to their faces to prove their sincerity over the deficit and debt?
Did those same Conservatives not just pass a tax cut 15 months ago that expanded the deficit and debt to record highs?
What does that have to do with Democrats?
How is it a "phony argument"?
Explain yourself.
All you're really doing with this is telling the world that you can't be bothered to recognize distinctions and differences, so we must lower our expectations of you.
I recognize differences--everything is not black or white to me while you think everything Democrats do is good and everything Republicans to is bad. You fail to make any distinctions. Plus you are an angry hater.
That is the way they attract our votes--you don't have to fall for the phony "us or them" arguments.
No, you think that's how we attract your vote.
But guess what?
I don't want your fucking vote.
I don't want to owe you anything.
This is the same bullshit mentality that gave life to #Walkaway last year; where people like you said that if liberals continued to be mean to Conservatives in public and on social media, that it would turn off Democratic voters. Concern trolling is what you did.
What actually happened?
Record midterm turnout and a 10,000,000 vote margin shellacking.
If it upsets your delicate sensibilities so much that I'm pointing out Conservative hypocrisy, then withdraw yourself from this conversation.
I don't believe their claims, I only stated that there are conservatives who are critical.
Nope.
There aren't.
There was ONE GUY.
The other links you posted didn't prove that.
Since you aren't concerned about the debt or deficits you shouldn't care what those Republicans are saying or stapling to their faces.
Ah, but I do care because they are posturing to trick people like you into voting for them.
They're not "fiscal Conservatives", they're "fecal Conservatives", and they have you eating out of their hand because of your bothsiderism.
Pointing out Conservative hypocrisy and policy failures doesn't mean I share their beliefs.
Yes you do!
You literally did a lazy Google search to show you did!
Wow, man.
I was showing there were conservatives criticizing the deficit. I did not say I take them seriously or agreed with them. However, I do like Robert Samuelson because he destroys all the liberal-conservative BS with some good economics.
Again, you are diverting from the issue. You changed the issue of whether they are conservatives critical of the debt with claiming I agreed with their positions.
Does "offhand" mean he did not believe his own statement?
Actions speak louder than words.
That's the theme of what I've been saying this whole time.
When given the choice to lower taxes in 1999, what did Clinton do?
Now you are going to change the issue of whether Clinton said he raised taxes too much by saying it was "offhand" as if that means he did not say it. He said it on television because I saw the remark
Did you? Your link didn't have that video.
Furthermore, what Clinton may or may not have said in 1995 doesn't matter when his actions four years later prove the opposite.
What did he do in 1999? He vetoed a tax cut that would have reduced rates.
So what Clinton said "offhand" in 1995 has no relevance because of what Clinton did in 1999.
Ah, but I do care because they are posturing to trick people like you into voting for them.
They're not "fiscal Conservatives", they're "fecal Conservatives", and they have you eating out of their hand because of your bothsiderism.
Pointing out Conservative hypocrisy and policy failures doesn't mean I share their beliefs.
BS. I did not vote for Trump. "Bothsiderism" means I think they are both full of BS and not letting either trick me into voting for Hillary or Trump by believing their phony arguments.
I recognize differences--everything is not black or white to me
Yes it is!
You even said so when you argued both sides are the same.
That's you not recognizing differences, instead drawing false equivalence with bothsiderism.
Let me tell you, you don't appear thoughtful when you do that; you appear lazy.
You fail to make any distinctions.
Now you're just projecting.
My entire argument here has been about distinction...I've made the distinction that pointing out Conservative hypocrisy and policy failures doesn't mean I share their phony concerns.
Your natural instinct was to accuse me of that, and you even pressed me for an answer on my deficit and debt concern. I told you that neither concerns me, but rather what concerns me is the posturing Conservatives do on both.
For some reason, you can't recognize that distinction because it doesn't fit in the bothsiderist narrative you're trying to impose on my thread.
I was showing there were conservatives criticizing the deficit.
By posting links where they didn't actually do that.
Only one of your links made mention of the deficit induced by the tax cut.
I even took apart one of your links in Post #90 on this thread. You chose to not reply to that post. Pretty obvious why.
I did not say I take them seriously or agreed with them
Ah, but you did say you took them seriously because you did a lazy Google search and didn't even read the links you posted!
A couple of the links you posted that supposedly prove Conservatives railed about the deficit caused by their tax cuts didn't even mention the deficit!
So how could they rail about the deficit when they don't even mention it? Square that circle.
Did you? Your link didn't have that video.
Furthermore, what Clinton may or may not have said in 1995 doesn't matter when his actions four years later prove the opposite.
What did he do in 1999? He vetoed a tax cut that would have reduced rates.
So what Clinton said "offhand" in 1995 has no relevance because of what Clinton did in 1999.
Again, changing the subject. I simply said he made that statement and you obviously did not believe me. When I proved my point you bring up new issues like a tax cut veto having no relevance to whether he said he increased taxes too much.
There was not a video attached to the New York Times article and I did not say there was. I said I saw it on television.
However, I do like Robert Samuelson because he destroys all the liberal-conservative BS with some good economics
ONE GUY.
The other five links didn't address the subject.
Rand Paul railing about deficits after voting for a tax cut that expanded the deficit doesn't count.
You changed the issue of whether they are conservatives critical of the debt with claiming I agreed with their positions.
Fine. Then I apologize for assuming you shared the same shitty, stupid beliefs of the people expanding the deficit today, who spent the last 10 years with a teabag attached to their faces because of the deficit.
"Bothsiderism" means I think they are both full of BS and not letting either trick me into voting for Hillary or Trump by believing their phony arguments.
Right, and that doesn't make you thoughtful, or genuine, or above it all...it makes everyone else have to lower their expectations of you.
If you truly, honestly believe that Clinton would be as bad as or worse than Trump, then you've been suckered by bothsiderism because you're too lazy to do the work of recognizing distinctions and differences.
Ah, but you did say you took them seriously because you did a lazy Google search and didn't even read the links you posted!
A couple of the links you posted that supposedly prove Conservatives railed about the deficit caused by their tax cuts didn't even mention the deficit!
So how could they rail about the deficit when they don't even mention it? Square that circle.
That is a lie. I read all of each article and it was no lazier than any Google search although it was quick to prove the poster wrong.