Actually, as the OP makes quite abundantly clear, a big part of this election is about taxes. You want to pretend people give a shit about future taxation when really they think their taxes have already been increased and that's what they're pissed about.
Fascinating Poll: Likely Voters Don't Know Squat
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Actually, as the OP makes quite abundantly clear, a big part of this election is about taxes. You want to pretend people give a shit about future taxation when really they think their taxes have already been increased and that's what they're pissed about.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
neither is there in claiming it was 100% necessary
its really funny how you so strongly believe everyone you dont' agree with is a hack, but yet you're never wrong and are always right and certaintly not a hack...
what a strange world your mind lives in
Yurt, real people - people who are sane - are having an actual discussion here.
My "R" and "D" thing was a take on Damo, in case you missed it. He's the one who went for "hack" here, though you seemed to have missed that.
You must still be smarting from that embarassing thread about Ford....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
why do you have to continually convince yourself that you are sane?
why do you continually obsess about past threads and why do you falsely claim i am embarrassed by them? seriously, stop living in a fantasy world and claiming everyone else is a hack except you
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
considering obama has repeatedly run around the campaign circuit claiming most of his agenda has not been accomplished....i think its fair to say people are concerned about the future as well.....
The paragraph with the quote put it in context. You remove the context then add whatever meaning you want it to have. And whether or not you want to argue the "nonsense" that you feel compelled to apologize for Bennet tells us much.
I don't argue that they come to the right conclusion through good information. I simply point out that the spending gives them the belief that their taxes have been raised. IMO, they are right, just wrong in time line. You can pretend that spending like we've done in the past two years could not possibly have anything to do with why they "feel" this way, then you are in for a long ride. I hope you continue to promote out of control spending to the detriment of the future, it's worked so well for both of the major parties... Causing Americans (the same ones you now say are stupid) to vote out the R party because suddenly Ds sounded like they might have more fiscal responsibility.. elections have consequences, as do promises like the "never more than 8% unemployment" pledge...
Stop projecting.
Past threads are relevant, as is sanity; when someone establishes a pattern of dishonesty, lunacy & wild contradictions, that is certainly relevant in the context of a current debate.
And I understand why you would want to forget about that thread.
And just a reminder - Damo went for "hack" and tried to dodge the issue. I merely called him on that. I wouldn't expect you to.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
anyways...back to the thread, enough of onceler's thread derailing....
Damo, why do you think anyone is "apologizing" for Bennet?
You brought him up; and you seemed to think it added a lot of heft to the idea that all of the stimulus spending was wasted that this one politician who is in a fight for his political life said that....
LOL
Obama's pseudo tax cut wasn't enough to cover the raise in gasoline prices, school taxes, or any number of other increases that occurred....
it was a once and done apparition that appears and disappears in the night. As a stimulant for the economy, it a sham...to help pay a small part of existing and ongoing bills....
Oh, it is possible.....I didn't claim it was sustainable for any length of time.
If we had a relatively static economy and people were working, there would be much less public discontent ....
Right, because you remove the context provided by the article. I'm good with that. It makes my point well.
There is no context in which a reference to $13T of debt relates merely to the stimulus, which is what you were claiming.
You are wrong. The paragraph with the quote directly tells you the context, which I also provided her in this thread. You can work hard at ignoring it if you'd like, but it is there. As I said, I'm good with that. It really doesn't matter to me. It wouldn't ever matter what he said, you'd vote for Bennet anyway.
Against, Buck certainly. Likewise, it wouldn't matter to you what Bennett actually said, you wouldn't vote for him.
I usually vote for the libertarian, in this case though, Buck is good enough. It's true I wouldn't vote for Bennet, because his answer is, "We didn't get anything from this spending, so we need to spend still more!"
There comes a time when people want you to stop digging. I voted for Campbell when he was a D for the Senate... It isn't the party affiliation that makes the difference there Nigel. At least not for me.
The party designation is simply a convenient shorthand for the guy that I agree with on policy matters. It isn't really a matter of party but policy.
By the way, who was the last Democrat you actually voted for in an election for national office?
Ben Campbell, he later changed parties to R. It was in the previous post, more evidence that you only see what you want. I also voted against Pat Miller for Congress... That would be David Skaggs.
I agree it is a policy thing. I believe, along with most Americans (as we'll see on Tuesday), that the current policy plans are detrimental to our future.