Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How, exactly, has Obama failed?

How, exactly, has Obama failed? (Page 5)
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
See? You just can't do it. For whatever reason, like many others, you can't keep from being insulting and demeaning.
No he wasn't. There is nothing insulting or demeaning about the bolded section you quoted.

This is starting to come full circle in this election, coincidentally, as the average American is beginning to feel that Romney is getting harassed and seeing Obama and the mainstream media as bullies. Before long Romney will acquire the "common man" appeal that GWB had, and the Left will lose this election, if they keep it up.
This is not gonna happen. The average America does not feel Romney is being bullied, and they do not see Obama or the press as being bullies. I just can't fathom where you got this idea from.

And Romney will "acquire the common man appeal" ?? There is no way in hell that could ever happen. Not because he is rich, or well-educated, or even Mormon, but because he is smarmy and aloof.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I know you are merely Americans, and your tiny sliver a of political spectrum doesn't have any real leftists, so you get confused by what the word means. But if you call me a leftist, I'm gonna correct you, because words have real meanings. I'm a liberal, not a leftist. And like Shortcut above, I'm certainly not a leftist if I vote for the Conservative Party.
But this problem with terminology is simply typical of American conservative hysteria, screeching "OMG SOCIALIZM! OMG LEFT-WING RADIKALS!" at every little thing. And then claiming you're not being emotional or insulting when you do this.
and there it is again. Becoming directly hostile and letting it lead to being disrespectful doesn't help your position, it simply breeds more contempt. OAW does a fine job of discussing the issues and making solid points, snark free (most of the time ). On this forum, he's done more to cause me to evaluate my views than all of the rest of the self-identified Democrats combined.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:46 PM
 
Sorry if my joke about being "merely Americans" was too sly. Kinda like suggesting that mass bombings of the Muslim nations was really a joke might slip by someone who wasn't expecting it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
No he wasn't. There is nothing insulting or demeaning about the bolded section you quoted.
There's no point in arguing this.

This is not gonna happen. The average America does not feel Romney is being bullied, and they do not see Obama or the press as being bullies. I just can't fathom where you got this idea from.
And Romney will "acquire the common man appeal" ?? There is no way in hell that could ever happen. Not because he is rich, or well-educated, or even Mormon, but because he is smarmy and aloof.
It's already starting to happen. I had this same discussion down at the pub the other night, and at the market the next morning. Somehow, however mind-boggling it may be, it's starting to look like he's being oppressed. That's quite a feat.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Sorry if my joke about being "merely Americans" was too sly. Kinda like suggesting that mass bombings of the Muslim nations was really a joke might slip by someone who wasn't expecting it.
See, there it is. I made an off-hand comment about something or someone else entirely, but then you snap back with something much more personal. That doesn't help you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:56 PM
 
Lefties are snarky because they think they're better than you.

Righties are snarky because they think you're worse than them.

This is actually a huge distinction. The left is smug and self-righteous. The right is bitter and angry.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is actually a huge distinction. The left is smug and self-righteous. The right is bitter and angry.
Well said.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well said.
Well, I guess it is ok to be insulting and demeaning, as long as you insult and demean all sides equally.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
See, there it is. I made an off-hand comment about something or someone else entirely, but then you snap back with something much more personal. That doesn't help you.
You made a joke I didn't like, I made a joke you didn't like, but obviously I'm getting personal because, well, you say so.

You are right, of course. People should never make jokes. Sh!t be serious around here, yo!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Well, I guess it is ok to be insulting and demeaning, as long as you insult and demean all sides equally.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You made a joke I didn't like, I made a joke you didn't like, but obviously I'm getting personal because, well, you say so.
You are right, of course. People should never make jokes. Sh!t be serious around here, yo!
You're still not able to separate getting upset over ideological positions and directly insulting people. I made the joke, it was off-color, and you reply by calling me an idiot. How is calling someone an idiot a joke? Then there's the "merely Americans" jab, followed by more snark. Do you see what I'm talking about?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:24 PM
 
Sorry for the multiple posts, people.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I had this same discussion down at the pub the other night, and at the market the next morning. Somehow, however mind-boggling it may be, it's starting to look like he's being oppressed. That's quite a feat.
I was curious if people were saying this on line too, so I Googled "Romney is bullied" and "Romney is being bullied." Not quite the expected results. Perhaps this new feeling about "Romney the oppressed" is still too new for Google.

But it can't be. Complaints that the "lame-stream media" is prone to pick on conservatives has been part of the conservative persecution narrative for over a decade.

Remember the complaints about Palin being bullied in the last election? Did that help her side at all?

The fact is, Romney is bringing all this vitriol on himself. If people are condemning the stupid things he says, that's not being bullied. I don't know who these people you drink and work with are like, but they don't seem to know what bullying is. (Holding down a kid and cutting his hair at school, that's bullying.)

But I can't wait for the claims of persecution to make it to the airwaves. Listening to Romney and his surrogates whine about being bullied will totally make him look like a leader. Or not.

Palin was right about one thing: perceived whining is bad for your public image. She didn't listen to her own advice, but will Romney?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:28 PM
 
I think people will feel bad for Romney when they start feeling bad for the NFL replacement refs,
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You're still not able to separate getting upset over ideological positions and directly insulting people. I made the joke, it was off-color, and you reply by calling me an idiot. How is calling someone an idiot a joke?
Hold on, I didn't say calling you an idiot was a joke. I thought you were serious in your bombing remark at the time (I hear it all the time, since I work in the military, and people are deadly serious when they say it, since friends they had are dead or maimed from Islamic terrorism), so I called you an idiot. I didn't think it was a joke from you then, and I wasn't making a joke in response. Then you later said it was just a joke.

The joke from myself I referred just now to was my "merely Americans" quip. It was meant it as a play against purported "American Exceptionalism" I hear American conservatives blather on about. I really thought people here would know I was just kidding around.

Do you see what I'm talking about?
I guess not. I just can't grok what you're so upset about.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think people will feel bad for Romney when they start feeling bad for the NFL replacement refs,
Whom Obama still hasn't fixed.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:35 PM
 
I already feel bad for the refs, poor bastards were never prepared for what they were thrown into. However, that didn't stop me from cussing out my TV over the Green Bay debacle.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post

I guess not. I just can't grok what you're so upset about.
If it gets to the point where you're directly insulting another forum member, or calling them names, you're in the wrong. That's what it boils down to.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
If it gets to the point where you're directly insulting another forum member, or calling them names, you're in the wrong. That's what it boils down to.
Calling people names, yes that's obviously bad. It's the "directly insulting" bit that seems pretty vague to me. Telling someone they are being "willfully blind and obtuse" does not sound "directly insulting" to me.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Calling people names, yes that's obviously bad. It's the "directly insulting" bit that seems pretty vague to me. Telling someone they are being "willfully blind and obtuse" does not sound "directly insulting" to me.
I found it to be. Hold on a second...

"Honey! If someone said that you're 'willfully blind and obtuse', would you think that's insulting?"
"Yeah, of course. That's rude!"
"Thanks!"
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I found it to be. Hold on a second...
"Honey! If someone said that you're '', would you think that's insulting?"
"Yeah, of course. That's rude!"
"Thanks!"
Well, I don't have a wife, so I asked my two cats:

"If someone says the liberals at MacNN engage in personal attacks but the conservatives never do, would it be accurate to call that person willfully blind and obtuse?"

Neither cat said anything. Not even Sassy, the talkative one.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Well, I don't have a wife, so I asked my two cats:
"If someone says the liberals at MacNN engage in personal attacks but the conservatives never do, would it be accurate to call that person willfully blind and obtuse?"
Neither cat said anything. Not even Sassy, the talkative one.
I didn't say that. In fact that's a direct contradiction to what I said in a previous post:

no one side is blameless in this
Part of this, I believe, is how much contact you have with people face-to-face. I go out and talk with people every day, whether it's the farmer's market, my wife's business, the supermarket, the service station, etc.. It's much easier to be abusive and rude to people online, because, quite frankly, there's not much in the way of accountability. If I were to tell farmer Jim that he's "willfully blind and obtuse" he might just try to slug me. He's a big guy too, so that could get ugly. Even with people I can easily manhandle, I'd see their reactions and know I'd hurt their feelings, which in turn would make me feel like a heel. Perhaps people should behave the same way online as they do in public.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 03:19 PM
 
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You're being willfully blind and deliberately obtuse.
A very simple search reveals a multitude of posts by those generally regarded as "conservatives" which are highly and specifically derogatory towards posters who are not conservative. You are trying to re-write a clearly available history if you're claiming that Big Mac, Abe, Kevin, BadKosh, stupendousman, et al. have not regularly and repeatedly gravely insulted posters who are not of the same political persuasion or who do not hold the same "beliefs" as they do.
That is a simple fact. You can ignore it if you like, and pretend that it is not the case. However, I would argue that approach makes you part of the very problem you're pretending to be "above".
See? You just can't do it. For whatever reason, like many others, you can't keep from being insulting and demeaning.
There was absolutely nothing insulting or demeaning about that statement. It was an objective characterization of your actions.

A while back my wife told me I was becoming a real asshole. So I spent a good bit of time in introspection and looking at my past behavior objectively. She was right. It appears that as our wealth increased, so did my ego. I've always been fairly obnoxious, but it was in more of a friendly, self-deprecating way. Somehow along the way I'd piled on arrogance and obscured my humility. So I've spent some time re-identifying with who I was and working to get back to that place. Intellectual "wealth" often affects people in the same way. After I graduated from college I was much the same, and I had to deflate my head, now I'm having to do it again.
Congratulations.

This is starting to come full circle in this election, coincidentally, as the average American is beginning to feel that Romney is getting harassed and seeing Obama and the mainstream media as bullies. Before long Romney will acquire the "common man" appeal that GWB had, and the Left will lose this election, if they keep it up.
Yes. I think Obama will have to be careful about toning down his attacks - becoming magnanimous before it's due, in other words. I suspect they'll probably realize this. As a 3rd-party observer with no stake in this election (but with a ton of coverage available in our media), unless he does something absolutely stupid it would absolutely shock me if Obama lost this election, and IMO it would be a complete injustice. From a headline perspective, Romney seems like he's been one disaster after another.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I didn't say that. In fact that's a direct contradiction to what I said in a previous post: "no one side is blameless in this."
Riiiiight. Instead of saying "the liberals always insult and the conservatives never do," you actually say mostly. Much better.

This isn't isolated with you, or just the (D) people on this forum, but by and large, they're more hostile and confrontational by nature. It makes it harder to side with any of you of that ideology.
...and...
No, there is no balance. I'm bewildered that you're saying there is. All of the combined conservative posters you listed don't hold a candle to certain individuals on this forum who hail from the Left, much less all of them. It's difficult to find civil Lounge/Pol-War posts from them, at all.

That's pretty damn close to "most liberals are jerks." You even seem to blame the ideology, that it makes liberals "hostile and confrontational." That it is "difficult to find civil Lounge/Pol-War posts from them, at all."

At all. Gee, that's damn close to "liberals are always rude. Their ideology makes them rude."

Lemme tells you something: making blanket generalizations about people, and then complaining about insults in retort, makes you a hypocrite. Perhaps you should ask your wife if that's rude.

Part of this, I believe, is how much contact you have with people face-to-face.
Dude, I'm not a shut-in. Seriously, what a bizarre thing to say.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
There was absolutely nothing insulting or demeaning about that statement. It was an objective characterization of your actions.
That's exactly how I see it.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 04:35 PM
 
Well, I see that my attempt at being sincere was helpful. Instead of discussing this politely, you become extremely defensive and put words in my mouth. Quite frankly, no, I do not believe you talk with people in public the way you do online. You'd probably be in a fight every day.

So, can we all agree to be polite and attempt to embrace the Golden Rule around here?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So, can we all agree to be polite and attempt to embrace the Golden Rule around here?
I already do. I have no problem if anyone wants to call me out for something I've said.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2012, 05:21 PM
 
so, Shaddim

you never replied to me...how was i angry

and if i called you sunshine, would that be mean?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 03:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post

As I've noted many - many - times, I live in a country and vote for our ruling "Conservative Party"; what a nice name, huh? As a nation we're highly conscious of balanced budgets and constraining the growth of government. Socially we're likely as conservative or more conservative than the States on family issues - our marriage rates are higher, our divorce rates are lower, and percentage of single-parent families are lower and hasn't grown since the 90s - we've just trended towards that lovely libertarian-ish view of "let's not worry too much about regulating same-sex marriage or abortion", and wouldn't you know, we're pretty obsessed as a nation about balancing a strong safety net with budget surpluses caused by the reduction of government size and spending as a percentage of GDP using time-honoured and completely realistic methods such as, oh you know, setting taxation to an appropriate level to accomplish that goal.
If you're highly conscious about balanced budgets and constraining the growth of government only with regard to Canada, you're no good to me here. I've never read anything from you that had defended a decrease in bureaucracy or lower taxes and yet -- that seems to be the paradigm in Canada today. For example, the Corporate tax rate is half that of the US and has declined from 21% in 2008 to 15% this year and yet, somehow I'm certain if I were to advocate for such a rate in the US -- I'd be deemed by you as unrealistic and inappropriate. With regard to standard income taxes; Canada has a progressive tax structure not unlike the US, but your lowest rate is 5% higher than the US' lowest rate and your highest rate is 7% lower than the US' highest rate while maintaining an overall flatter scheme. If this is your model of realistic and appropriate, what is your problem with what folks are citing as US policy failure here?

I mean, this is exactly what conservatives in the US are trying to do with the exception of the increase on the lowest rate and yet, you seem remarkably opposed to the US candidates who advocate such a reasonable and appropriate rate of taxation. Why are lower taxes and less government good for Canada, but bad for the US that you would repeatedly take issue with the conservatives of this board in discussions of US fiscal policy? Our banking regulations are the reason we've not been able to emulate many of the successes of the Canadian economic model.

So don't give me sanctimonious speeches on the "zealous left": I'm "left" only...
... when arguing against Americans on the internet.

since I'm paid to, you know, review legislation and regulation on a daily basis. It's like any other tool - there's good uses and bad uses, and I see nutrient requirements on produced foods as a highly essential tool to promote healthy nutrition and education in a society that is increasingly sedentary due (almost entirely) to technology and the rise of white-collar employment.
What good is nutrition information if the problem is increasing technology and the rise of the service industry? This bit of sage wisdom should have to be stamped on all things, early and often. I mean, if a little is good then a lot must be so much better.

And pray tell, how will removing these labels help the situation? Given that the rise of incredibly high-intake "fast food" is a first or second major contributer to obesity in the developed world (in conjunction with lack of exercise as noted above), how does "removing nutrition labels on menu boards and vending machines and flyers" in any way help the situation? You're suggesting that it's better for people to just be completely ignorant about what they're consuming, rather than to give them that information up-front, and let them choose to simply eat it anyway, knowing - as your specific example with the ice cream girl showed - that it's "wrong"? How is the former in any way a more effective way to combat obesity?
Did I say we should remove nutrition labels or are you not continuing down a long, emotional road of reading comprehension problems again? No one is arguing for anarchy -- relax. I've even repeated myself. You're acting all heart and no head here.

So, yeah. To sum up...
greg is apparently a conservative unless he's arguing against Americans on the internet. Greg is incapable of acknowledging the sensible, reasonable, legitimate, and appropriate grievances of US conservative because he knows they're bad and deserve only his emotional best.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2012, 06:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you're highly conscious about balanced budgets and constraining the growth of government only with regard to Canada, you're no good to me here. I've never read anything from you that had defended a decrease in bureaucracy or lower taxes and yet -- that seems to be the paradigm in Canada today.
Errrr...I've stated many, many times, in threads that you post in, that I'm pro-limited government. But that's as a percentage of overall growth, i.e. GDP. As I've also noted, many times, our current government is aggressively cutting spending and government jobs to return to balanced budgets following stimulus spending during the recession.

For example, the Corporate tax rate is half that of the US and has declined from 21% in 2008 to 15% this year and yet, somehow I'm certain if I were to advocate for such a rate in the US -- I'd be deemed by you as unrealistic and inappropriate.
Well...that's because you're running in the red to such a massive degree that you have no other realistic way to get back to the black, no?

Also, as I understand it your effective corporate rate is amongst the lowest in the industrial world. You just have a higher posted rate. Lots of deductions which have been built in as a result of business lobbying, meaning that larger companies can more efficiently take advantage of them as a result of lower administrative overhead...something I hear you're concerned about.....

With regard to standard income taxes; Canada has a progressive tax structure not unlike the US, but your lowest rate is 5% higher than the US' lowest rate and your highest rate is 7% lower than the US' highest rate while maintaining an overall flatter scheme. If this is your model of realistic and appropriate, what is your problem with what folks are citing as US policy failure here?
You completely forget/ignore/don't account for much higher consumption taxes in Canada. Which are, as I understand, supposed to be quite efficient but scarcely used in the States....

I mean, this is exactly what conservatives in the US are trying to do with the exception of the increase on the lowest rate and yet, you seem remarkably opposed to the US candidates who advocate such a reasonable and appropriate rate of taxation. Why are lower taxes and less government good for Canada, but bad for the US that you would repeatedly take issue with the conservatives of this board in discussions of US fiscal policy?
...because what you're saying is not actually the case? Canadians pay much higher taxes, no way around it. There's a reason that even with our dollar well below par, it's still cheaper for Canadian consumers near the border to shop in the States....

Look, my understanding is that your tax system produces less revenue as a percentage of your economy than, like, any other modern developed country except for Mexico, or something. You really have no argument whatsoever to say that Canadians enjoy a lower or similar standard of taxation - we absolutely do not.

On the other hand, ours are supposed to be targeted to a level that allows us to pay off our national debt.....

Our banking regulations are the reason we've not been able to emulate many of the successes of the Canadian economic model.
And/or structure, agreed.

... when arguing against Americans on the internet.
...if by that you mean "Americans who don't believe in the validity of entire scientific disciplines, who support laws and regulations over the bedrooms of their nation, and who don't believe in raising taxes to a level that makes sound financial sense considering the nation's debt level"....then yes.

What good is nutrition information if the problem is increasing technology and the rise of the service industry? This bit of sage wisdom should have to be stamped on all things, early and often. I mean, if a little is good then a lot must be so much better.
I just signed out of Yahoo mail and noticed this timely headline on the effectiveness of nutirion education and labelling. In a shocking turn of events: education seems to matter.

Did I say we should remove nutrition labels or are you not continuing down a long, emotional road of reading comprehension problems again? No one is arguing for anarchy -- relax. I've even repeated myself. You're acting all heart and no head here.
Originally Posted by ebuddy, last page
Labels on containers = good, but of arguable merit when considering the obesity problem. Labels necessary on menu boards, on the outside of vending machines, and any flyers advertising food is ridiculous.
...great spin job...?
greg is apparently a conservative unless he's arguing against Americans on the internet.
"Americans who don't believe in the validity of entire scientific disciplines, who support laws and regulations over the bedrooms of their nation, and who don't believe in raising taxes to a level that makes sound financial sense considering the nation's debt level"

Greg is incapable of acknowledging the sensible, reasonable, legitimate, and appropriate grievances of US conservative because he knows they're bad
"Legitimate like complaining about the regulatory cost of nutrition labelling and education on businesses while 99% denying the tremendous benefit to consumers and society"

and deserve only his emotional best.
I noticed you keep referring to "emotional" lately in your arguments with other posters, as as though you can score points by characterizing the other side as "emotional", even though their argument style differs not a whit from yours.. Great entry-level debate tactic, really.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 03:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Errrr...I've stated many, many times, in threads that you post in, that I'm pro-limited government. But that's as a percentage of overall growth, i.e. GDP. As I've also noted, many times, our current government is aggressively cutting spending and government jobs to return to balanced budgets following stimulus spending during the recession.
Couple of issues here; assuming Canada also includes government expediture, production, and value as it does in the US -- stimulus spending grows GDP and blurs the picture. Even so... why are you arguing against me?
5805/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

The US is not aggressively cutting spending, but the current administration you're defending is calling for increased spending (called investment) and tax increases on the highest rates - those already 7% higher in the US than in Canada. Again, why is it good for Canada, but not the US? To clarify, I can understand why higher rates in the US might be good for Canada, but how is that good for the US?

Well...that's because you're running in the red to such a massive degree that you have no other realistic way to get back to the black, no?
Bzzt. A. Canada lowered the corporate tax rates in response to the recession. This is not something they did yesterday or after stimulus spending, it's something they began doing from 2008 as a stimulus policy. B. Your stimulus was half that of the US per capita. C. Your stimulus actually went into infrastructure and "shovel-ready" jobs while the US stimulus went to Unions.

Also, as I understand it your effective corporate rate is amongst the lowest in the industrial world. You just have a higher posted rate. Lots of deductions which have been built in as a result of business lobbying, meaning that larger companies can more efficiently take advantage of them as a result of lower administrative overhead...something I hear you're concerned about.....
This is not a US phenomena and while I'd be willing to bet the Corporate tax code in Canada is much simpler, you all allow advertising deductions, fees and licensing deductions, start-up cost deductions, capital cost allowances, deductions for salaries, wages, and benefits, etc... i.e. without a direct comparison of the actual tax codes, yours are also lower than the rate itself would suggest. This does cost US businesses hundreds of billions in compliance costs annually and is in fact a smaller, overall burden for the largest corporations so yes, I'm in favor of eliminating the loopholes and simplifying the rate to make compliance simpler and the tax code more predictable and manageable while enabling lower rates across the board, like in Canada; demagogued by those you're generally defending here.

You completely forget/ignore/don't account for much higher consumption taxes in Canada. Which are, as I understand, supposed to be quite efficient but scarcely used in the States....
Some Conservatives and libertarians recommend a flatter overall tax code and a consumption tax is the crux of their ideal; demagogued by those you generally support on this forum as unfair.

...
because what you're saying is not actually the case? Canadians pay much higher taxes, no way around it. There's a reason that even with our dollar well below par, it's still cheaper for Canadian consumers near the border to shop in the States....
Look, my understanding is that your tax system produces less revenue as a percentage of your economy than, like, any other modern developed country except for Mexico, or something. You really have no argument whatsoever to say that Canadians enjoy a lower or similar standard of taxation - we absolutely do not.
On the other hand, ours are supposed to be targeted to a level that allows us to pay off our national debt.....
Right, Canada shifts less burden on the Corporations and the rich than in the US and places more of that burden on the average Joe Canadian which greatly expands the tax base. There is a very good reason why this wouldn't happen in the US; these ideals are demagogued by the US Administration and those you generally defend here as unfair. That's exactly why I'm asking how it is you've come to argue against me on such matters.

And/or structure, agreed.
...if by that you mean "Americans who don't believe in the validity of entire scientific disciplines, who support laws and regulations over the bedrooms of their nation, and who don't believe in raising taxes to a level that makes sound financial sense considering the nation's debt level"....then yes.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I don't know what Americans you're talking about, but in terms of fiscal policy -- you and I would generally advocate such things until you get here to find it much more fashionable to argue with American conservatives. I'm not concerned with what goes on in bedrooms which is why I don't advocate Federal DOMA legislation, gay marriage bans, or paying for everyone's birth control. This election is about the economy, not your brand of AGW folly and social matters.


I just signed out of Yahoo mail and noticed this timely headline on the effectiveness of nutirion education and labelling. In a shocking turn of events: education seems to matter.
Hasn't education always mattered on such things? Even before labeling?

...great spin job...?
Don't be an a$$. I haven't spun a damned thing and you know it. My complaint in this regard has always been the breadth and volume of the regulations and I've said so from the very beginning; not this regulation or that.

"Americans who don't believe in the validity of entire scientific disciplines, who support laws and regulations over the bedrooms of their nation, and who don't believe in raising taxes to a level that makes sound financial sense considering the nation's debt level"
"Legitimate like complaining about the regulatory cost of nutrition labelling and education on businesses while 99% denying the tremendous benefit to consumers and society"
I noticed you keep referring to "emotional" lately in your arguments with other posters, as as though you can score points by characterizing the other side as "emotional", even though their argument style differs not a whit from yours.. Great entry-level debate tactic, really.
I bring up the emotional behaviors because that's what I see with regard to a large portion of the left on this board; all heart, bitterness, anger, defeatism, and no head. I believe consumers need to be protected and EUREKA -- so do businesses! There are multiple parties in this equation. To only see one side of this relationship is to approach a matter in a myopic fashion and not on sound reasoning or principle. I bring it up with regard to your arguments because you've repeatedly demonstrated the emotional problem. I'd offer your apparent bitterness over our last AGW exchange as exhibit A of the problem because it is apparent you're not able to control yourself. This thread would've been a perfectly good opportunity of solidarity between you and I, but you can't resist. You'll wholesale abandon all the principles you know are right just to be antagonistic. This is emotional nonsense of the highest order.
ebuddy
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I noticed you keep referring to "emotional" lately in your arguments with other posters, as as though you can score points by characterizing the other side as "emotional", even though their argument style differs not a whit from yours.
I've noticed that too. It's very slimy.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
5805/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
So spending as a % of GDP is at 1983 Reagan levels.

More proof that Pres. Reagan sucks and is a big fat deficit spender.

Pres. Reagan took Pres. Carter's 7.5% employment rate and turned it into a 10.8% unemployment rate in 2 years.


Looks like Pres. Clinton is the best president, and Pres. Reagan and Pres. Bush Jr are the worst.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So spending as a % of GDP is at 1983 Reagan levels. More proof that Pres. Reagan sucks and is a big fat deficit spender.
Have you violated the space-time continuum or something? Who cares?

Pres. Reagan took Pres. Carter's 7.5% employment rate and turned it into a 10.8% unemployment rate in 2 years.
You're just slobbering factoids. Anyone paying attention will immediately identify the flaws in your reasoning without facts to defend Reagan's record. Of course, Reagan is not running in this election and there is no Clinton/Bush Jr ticket, so...

Looks like Pres. Clinton is the best president, and Pres. Reagan and Pres. Bush Jr are the worst.
Okay. Let me know when it wears off.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 08:08 PM
 
hyteckit, I don't think you can compare presidents like you can compare baseball players by looking at their stats. If your point is that the narrative of Reagan being some sort of ultimate stingy spender is false, I think that's fair to say, I think you just might be going to far with your other inferences here.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2012, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
so, Shaddim
you never replied to me...how was i angry
and if i called you sunshine, would that be mean?
No love from Shaddim.... Yet

My Buttercup Shaddim
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 03:05 AM
 
^ Stalker --- Creepy
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2012, 01:45 PM
 
^ get back to work
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2012, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The US is not aggressively cutting spending, but the current administration you're defending
I think part of your problem is that you don't understand that I'm not - and have not - defended anything or anyone, including (importantly) the current administration. I've said that before, but I guess I have to say it again: you do understand that, right? I was taking umbrage solely with your out-of-context use of "nutrition labels" as an example of over-regulation.

My point, as I've already stated, is: there is good regulation, and bad regulation. The trick is to avoid the bad, and use the good. More regulations are not necessarily "bad", and not necessarily "good" - it all depends on the regulation. Your attitude - as well as others on here - is consistently a blanket rejection of "more regulations", without any contextual analysis of whether they are in fact helpful, needed, or necessary. Just like your use of "nutrion labels regulation" as a blanket example of how the FDA "burdens" businesses - without any nod to the potential for tremendous good these particular regulations may have, which could in fact outweigh any such burden.

(Similarly, I would advocate that there are good liberal policies and actions and bad liberal policies and actions, just as there are good and bad conservative policies/actions. But that may be too much for you Americans to take in at once. )

...is calling for increased spending (called investment) and tax increases on the highest rates - those already 7% higher in the US than in Canada. Again, why is it good for Canada, but not the US? To clarify, I can understand why higher rates in the US might be good for Canada, but how is that good for the US?
Errrr....because you're in a massive financial hole? I mean, I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You certainly need to cut spending, and you likely need to increase tax revenues, because your government is currently hemorrhaging money. I've already alluded to it, but my foggy memory tells me that the USA is at or near the bottom for most measures of taxation, and is considered "undertaxed", compared to most other OECD countries. (I know I should probably fact-check these items before writing them, and you're free to do so.) That in and of itself might not be a problem - but it is when you've been consistently running large deficits for many years.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Well...that's because you're running in the red to such a massive degree that you have no other realistic way to get back to the black, no?
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Bzzt. A. Canada lowered the corporate tax rates in response to the recession. This is not something they did yesterday or after stimulus spending, it's something they began doing from 2008 as a stimulus policy.
Wrong, insofar as the policy bit. (Generally, Americans should not talk politics about other countries. You guys never seem to understand how much of your news we get, and how little of ours you get.)

Corporate taxes in Canada have been trending downward for over a decade (I'm sure you'll avoid remembering that the first round of corporate tax cuts was implemented from 2000-2005 by a Liberal government, no less). The current administration has been angling for further significant corporate tax cuts since coming into power in 2006, and campaigned on that premise - that they were largely implemented around the time of the recession is mostly a function of politics that I don't need to get into.

It might be interesting for you to know that - although tax revenues have remained mostly flat, which is great - as I understand it, the data suggests that since 2000 companies have mostly stockpiled the extra cash generated from the lowered tax rates, and "done" little with it in terms of private-sector investment in machinery and equipment to increase productivity, which is arguably the entire goal. I imagine we'll see how it plays out down the road if/when the scare of the Great Recession wears off, but for now there is significant concern that it's just leading to "dead money" - which is a recent quote from our central banker.

B. Your stimulus was half that of the US per capita. C. Your stimulus actually went into infrastructure and "shovel-ready" jobs while the US stimulus went to Unions.
Lots of debate up here about where our stimulus went, and its effectiveness. But yes, 40% was alloted to infrastructure projects.

Again, I'm not sure what you're looking for, here. I completely agree that stimulus funds should be applied appropriately.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I bring up the emotional behaviors because that's what I see with regard to a large portion of the left on this board; all heart, bitterness, anger, defeatism, and no head.
It's funny you should say that - because you just flew off the handle and claimed in multiple instances that a) I "defend" Obama's administration and/or its policies, and impliedly b) I disagree with any of your other arguments...all based on my simple premise that I disagreed with your use of nutrition labelling as an example of burdensome regulation.

Think about that for a minute. If it doesn't meet your definition of emotional, then I don't know what does.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2012, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I find it interesting that those who took issue with my information saw the one thing they felt actually useful once and emotionally knee-jerked on it. You don't need to be literally surrounded by and enveloped in nutrition information. It's not making you or society more health-conscious.

Consumers aren't the only ones in need of protection here.

I know, I know... the evil corporations and anyone with an (R) after their name who'd serve you poison because they want you dead and a government and everyone with a (D) after their name wants to protect you from them. And all the other simpleton BS that comes with an issue framed this way.
sorry to break it to you but you and I are both consumers and since this is an Apple site, we probably buy a lot of the same stuff

as consumers, WE expect to get what we buy....THIS is the baseline

companies with products in the market must meet that baseline...period.

what's wrong with you?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 06:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I think part of your problem is that you don't understand that I'm not - and have not - defended anything or anyone, including (importantly) the current administration. I've said that before, but I guess I have to say it again: you do understand that, right?
You simply saying this doesn't mean you're not defending the current administration. See, the problem you're having here is that this is a thread about Obama's failures, many of which had been cited in this thread. You didn't take issue with any of those, but sat back and waited for a fellow conservative to say something; anything you could stretch into a strawman and in historic fashion proceeded to run about the place tearing down your caricature of that position.

What am I talking about?
I was taking umbrage solely with your out-of-context use of "nutrition labels" as an example of over-regulation.
From page 4 of this thread:
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Otherwise, this misses the concern over regulations entirely ironknee. The complaint isn't this regulation or that, it is the administrative burden of the sheer volume and breadth of the regulations.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Itemized calorie and nutrition listing requirements on vending machines and labels on printed menus, menu boards, and take-out menu flyers and mailings. Ambiguous modernization fees under FSMA for re-inspection and re-inspection rules not clearly defined leading to the need for an entirely new board and related fees with pages of multiple provisions on the fee and schedule imposed on small businesses.
What the emotional zealot found?
Originally Posted by strawman
Wow, really? Nutrition listing requirements? That's, like.....the greatest thing, ever.
What you did:
Otherwise, this misses the concern over regulations entirely ironknee. The complaint isn't this regulation or that, it is the administrative burden of the sheer volume and breadth of the regulations. Itemized calorie and nutrition listing requirements on vending machines and labels on printed menus, menu boards, and take-out menu flyers and mailings. Ambiguous modernization fees under FSMA for re-inspection and re-inspection rules not clearly defined leading to the need for an entirely new board and related fees with pages of multiple provisions on the fee and schedule imposed on small businesses.

If you have to ignore this much of what I say in order to argue with me, you're just being argumentative.

My point, as I've already stated, is: there is good regulation, and bad regulation. The trick is to avoid the bad, and use the good. More regulations are not necessarily "bad", and not necessarily "good" - it all depends on the regulation.
Here I'm waiting for a difference between this and anything I've said, but... you'll find something I'm sure. Let's see --

Your attitude - as well as others on here - is consistently a blanket rejection of "more regulations", without any contextual analysis of whether they are in fact helpful, needed, or necessary. Just like your use of "nutrion labels regulation" as a blanket example of how the FDA "burdens" businesses - without any nod to the potential for tremendous good these particular regulations may have, which could in fact outweigh any such burden.
Yep, just as I suspected. Of course there was no "blanket" anything in my complaint. You ran off into an emotional tirade, not based on anything I've said mind you, but your caricature of what you think my attitude is in spite of what I say.

(Similarly, I would advocate that there are good liberal policies and actions and bad liberal policies and actions, just as there are good and bad conservative policies/actions. But that may be too much for you Americans to take in at once. )
I'll wait for this to wear off before I respond. Otherwise, I'm not sure how your xenophobia is relevant to the topic.

Errrr....because you're in a massive financial hole? I mean, I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You certainly need to cut spending, and you likely need to increase tax revenues, because your government is currently hemorrhaging money. I've already alluded to it, but my foggy memory tells me that the USA is at or near the bottom for most measures of taxation, and is considered "undertaxed", compared to most other OECD countries. (I know I should probably fact-check these items before writing them, and you're free to do so.) That in and of itself might not be a problem - but it is when you've been consistently running large deficits for many years.
I've already cited the tax rates, you ignored them. Why would I fact-check a statement of yours that I've already established is not factual?

Wrong, insofar as the policy bit. (Generally, Americans should not talk politics about other countries. You guys never seem to understand how much of your news we get, and how little of ours you get.)
I'm trying to keep an open mind that xenophobia is not peculiarly Canadian, but you're making this increasingly difficult. Is it something in your water or are you just having trouble maintaining an argumentative edge here?

Corporate taxes in Canada have been trending downward for over a decade (I'm sure you'll avoid remembering that the first round of corporate tax cuts was implemented from 2000-2005 by a Liberal government, no less). The current administration has been angling for further significant corporate tax cuts since coming into power in 2006, and campaigned on that premise - that they were largely implemented around the time of the recession is mostly a function of politics that I don't need to get into.
Non-point. It doesn't matter which political persuasion found lowered rates advantageous. After all, even Obama argued that maintaining the Bush tax cuts was essential stimulus when he took office using numbers in many respects favorable to the numbers today. He's done a 180 on this, but unless you can cite how these lowered rates did not contribute to the overall health of the Canadian economy, I'm not sure why this paragraph was necessary -- other than to be argumentative of course. The point is enlarging the tax base, not simply taking more money. This is what Canada has learned and implemented that I'd argue has had a positive impact on your economy.

It might be interesting for you to know that - although tax revenues have remained mostly flat, which is great - as I understand it, the data suggests that since 2000 companies have mostly stockpiled the extra cash generated from the lowered tax rates, and "done" little with it in terms of private-sector investment in machinery and equipment to increase productivity, which is arguably the entire goal. I imagine we'll see how it plays out down the road if/when the scare of the Great Recession wears off, but for now there is significant concern that it's just leading to "dead money" - which is a recent quote from our central banker.
Agreed. One thing for certain in both economies is the amount of liquidity among Corporations, but this is not inconsistent with what fellow conservatives have been saying all along. The Canadian economy reacts to US and Euro activity just as the US economy reacts to Euro activity. It's a global economy. There are few economic indicators that give the type of rosy picture necessary to get off the dollar and there is no sign that leadership is willing to address the politically-destructive need to cut. In the US, the mere suggestion of cuts in the rates of increase are demagogued as an attack on ________.

Lots of debate up here about where our stimulus went, and its effectiveness. But yes, 40% was alloted to infrastructure projects.
Again, I'm not sure what you're looking for, here. I completely agree that stimulus funds should be applied appropriately.
Whew. That was mighty fair of ya. I mean, for a Canadian.

It's funny you should say that - because you just flew off the handle and claimed in multiple instances that a) I "defend" Obama's administration and/or its policies, and impliedly b) I disagree with any of your other arguments...all based on my simple premise that I disagreed with your use of nutrition labelling as an example of burdensome regulation.
Think about that for a minute. If it doesn't meet your definition of emotional, then I don't know what does.
There was no flying off the handle on my part here greg. Look, I understand your distaste for the accusation of emotional lunacy and while I don't expect you to concede the problem here, I would hope that you're able to employ enough introspect that you'd forego the next opportunity to lash out at me for prior conversations, instead accepting the fact that we might actually agree from time to time when you're not twisting my posts into something you can find objectionable.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
sorry to break it to you but you and I are both consumers and since this is an Apple site, we probably buy a lot of the same stuff
as consumers, WE expect to get what we buy....THIS is the baseline
companies with products in the market must meet that baseline...period.
what's wrong with you?
okay?

Yes, we buy Apple products because while they are generally more expensive than their competitors in the market -- we find a better value and user-experience in Apple products over all. We're not buying Apple products because we're hapless victims in need of protection against Apple's greed. If Apple were to all-of-a-sudden produce shoddy, expensive products found to be harmful to the public -- we wouldn't buy Apple products.

You are what's wrong with me and illustrative of what's wrong with your idealogical ilk; all heart, no head.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I think part of your problem is that you don't understand that I'm not - and have not - defended anything or anyone, including (importantly) the current administration. I've said that before, but I guess I have to say it again: you do understand that, right?
You simply saying this doesn't mean you're not defending the current administration. See, the problem you're having here is that this is a thread about Obama's failures, many of which had been cited in this thread. You didn't take issue with any of those, but sat back and waited for a fellow conservative to say something;
Errrr......yes. This is a thread about Obama's failures, of which there are many. Why would I "take issue" with people pointing out legitimate failures?

Unlike you, I'm not going to sit back and keep my mouth closed when BadKosh or stupendousman or hyteckit or....you say something stupid. So stop crying because a fellow conservative pointed out that your argument is a dumb one.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Otherwise, this misses the concern over regulations entirely ironknee. The complaint isn't this regulation or that, it is the administrative burden of the sheer volume and breadth of the regulations.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Itemized calorie and nutrition listing requirements on vending machines and labels on printed menus, menu boards, and take-out menu flyers and mailings. Ambiguous modernization fees under FSMA for re-inspection and re-inspection rules not clearly defined leading to the need for an entirely new board and related fees with pages of multiple provisions on the fee and schedule imposed on small businesses.
What the emotional zealot found?
Originally Posted by strawman
Wow, really? Nutrition listing requirements? That's, like.....the greatest thing, ever.
What you did:
Otherwise, this misses the concern over regulations entirely ironknee. The complaint isn't this regulation or that, it is the administrative burden of the sheer volume and breadth of the regulations. Itemized calorie and nutrition listing requirements on vending machines and labels on printed menus, menu boards, and take-out menu flyers and mailings. Ambiguous modernization fees under FSMA for re-inspection and re-inspection rules not clearly defined leading to the need for an entirely new board and related fees with pages of multiple provisions on the fee and schedule imposed on small businesses.

If you have to ignore this much of what I say in order to argue with me, you're just being argumentative.
Fixed. I took issue with that entire point related to food nutrition listing requirements. Rather duplicitous of you to "highlight" only a small portion of it just to make your point look better, no?

xenophobia
I love how you've recently seized on this term and now apply it to anyone making a statement about Americans. Hilarious. I think you really need to look up that word in a dictionary. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

I've already cited the tax rates, you ignored them. Why would I fact-check a statement of yours that I've already established is not factual?
No you didn't. You noted that we've "lowered our corporate tax rate" (and gave an incorrect reason why) and then noted a difference in our rate - you didn't even know that any such difference is made up by our use of consumption taxes. You "cited" incorrectly. Bottom line is, your taxes are too low by any measurable standard and your tax loopholes are far too complicated compared to other developed countries. Oh, and you're wallowing in red ink. Guess that means......you taxes are fine where they are?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 01:12 PM
 
Today



versus

45/47
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Errrr......yes. This is a thread about Obama's failures, of which there are many. Why would I "take issue" with people pointing out legitimate failures?
Unlike you, I'm not going to sit back and keep my mouth closed when BadKosh or stupendousman or hyteckit or....you say something stupid. So stop crying because a fellow conservative pointed out that your argument is a dumb one.

What the emotional zealot found?
Fixed. I took issue with that entire point related to food nutrition listing requirements. Rather duplicitous of you to "highlight" only a small portion of it just to make your point look better, no?
I love how you've recently seized on this term and now apply it to anyone making a statement about Americans. Hilarious. I think you really need to look up that word in a dictionary. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
No you didn't. You noted that we've "lowered our corporate tax rate" (and gave an incorrect reason why) and then noted a difference in our rate - you didn't even know that any such difference is made up by our use of consumption taxes. You "cited" incorrectly. Bottom line is, your taxes are too low by any measurable standard and your tax loopholes are far too complicated compared to other developed countries. Oh, and you're wallowing in red ink. Guess that means......you taxes are fine where they are?


There was no flying off the handle on my part here greg. Look, I understand your distaste for the accusation of emotional lunacy and while I don't expect you to concede the problem here, I would hope that you're able to employ enough introspect that you'd forego the next opportunity to lash out at me for prior conversations, instead accepting the fact that we might actually agree from time to time when you're not twisting my posts into something you can find objectionable.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Today

versus
Just out of curiosity, rather than the constant whining about Obama, how about explaining how Romney will bring global fuel prices down?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Just out of curiosity, rather than the constant whining about Obama, how about explaining how Romney will bring global fuel prices down?
The argument could be made that the mere threat of aggressive domestic production would bring down costs. In the least, this seems to be less a focus of Obama's... for better or worse.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 08:56 PM
 
Do you honestly believe that the untapped US domestic supply is enough to put a dent in the global supply that will force global costs to drop?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2012, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Today

versus
Why is the gas there a buck and a quarter more than in Los Angeles?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2012, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why is the gas there a buck and a quarter more than in Los Angeles?
Price gouging capitalist?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2012, 01:03 AM
 
You can only gouge effectively when there isn't a different option.

Usually prices are highest in metro areas. Isn't it unusual this is topping that by a whole $1.25?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2012, 03:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You can only gouge effectively when there isn't a different option.
Usually prices are highest in metro areas. Isn't it unusual this is topping that by a whole $1.25?
There's a gas shortage in California.

If your car needed gas, you option is to fill up at the closest gas station unless you want to risk running out of gas and having to walk or call a tow truck.

Some stations are just price gouging.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,