The democrats

[Boges]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to tax the evil rich to punish them for success. I'm sure you're correct and they'll just let you do that rather than moving their assets elsewhere...safe.

So why tax anyone anything if you see it as a punishment? Oh, we need it to fund society? 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

19 minutes ago, Boges said:

So why tax anyone anything if you see it as a punishment? Oh, we need it to fund society? 

 

Tax everyone...at a flat rate.   Then everybody has some skin in the game.

AOC ideas wouldn't even fly in Canada.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No problem, Comrade.

Don’t forget Globalist.  I think such policy should be international to prevent rich flight to low tax jurisdictions.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Don’t forget Globalist.  I think such policy should be international to prevent rich flight to low tax jurisdictions.  

I'm afraid the globalists likely beat that to the punch with globalism.  Installing a global economy before putting a global government in place to deal with it will probably go down as one of the most ass-backward things an intelligent species has ever done.

We're probably a laughing stock on a Galactic Exchange Index somewhere.

[Shady]

On 1/23/2019 at 9:31 AM, Boges said:

Which is why scoffing at AOC is fool-hearty. She's the future of the party. 

If she is, it's pretty scary.  She says that any system that allows people to become millionaires and billionaires is immoral and has to change.

[BubberMiley]

14 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

If she is, it's pretty scary.  She says that any system that allows people to become millionaires and billionaires is immoral and has to change.

So you made up the part about millionaires because most people would agree about the billionaires and you wanted a leg to stand  on?

[BubberMiley]

Her actual words were that a system that allows billionaires to coexist alongside "parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health" is  "wrong." Most people would agree with her, so Shady includes millionaires in the hopes that he can get someone on his side by misrepresenting the truth. Very, very dishonest, but also very typical.

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

So you made up the part about millionaires because most people would agree about the billionaires and you wanted a leg to stand  on?

Sorry my mistake, I only heard it.  Fine, so millionaires are ok?  Billionaires aren't?  You think that's reasonable?  What if somebody pays 70% of their income in taxes but still is able to earn enough to become a billionaire?  Should the feds seize their property?

[BubberMiley]

So extreme poverty is okay? People working full time for less than subsistence wages while their bosses make billions is fine to you? Because that's the actual context of what she said, not the BS that you're trying to make it out to be.

[WestCanMan]

On 1/22/2019 at 8:07 AM, BubberMiley said:

If he refused to disavow Steve King and doesn't do anything to kick him out of the party, then their words are completely and totally accurate. If that's the only example of them lying you can come up with, I rest my case. They are truthful, you are not. See you in hell.

Billshit Bubber. I didn’t say anything inaccurate. They did. And now so did you. 

 

[WestCanMan]

On 1/22/2019 at 7:17 PM, Jimwd said:

Of course  trump is a racist

settling  lawsuits for denying blacks rentals 

Central Park five

Birtherism 

Charlottesville 

Retweeting white supremacists  to Britain 

Mexicans are r*pists 

Sh^thole countries 

 

 

Etc

Lol. If I had your level of understanding I’d be gullible enough to believe everything I saw on CNN too. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by WestCanMan

[BubberMiley]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Billshit Bubber. I didn’t say anything inaccurate. They did. And now so did you. 

 

No they didn't. By refusing to disavow King, he is supporting him. And if that's the only example of their bias you can come up with, then it's clear who is being misleading.

[BubberMiley]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Lol. If I had your level of understanding I’d be gullible enough to believe everything I saw on CNN too. 

Still can't come up with a real example of them lying, eh?

The Quebec guy tried to make the same claim in the status updates, and all he could come up with was a heavily edited James O'Keefe video. Hopefully you have something that is actually credible?

Edited January 24, 2019 by BubberMiley

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

No they didn't. By refusing to disavow King, he is supporting him. And if that's the only example of their bias you can come up with, then it's clear who is being misleading.

That was Mitch McConnel’s job. It was done instantly. 

[BubberMiley]

You'd think if they were such lying liars that you would have something better than...what was it again? A little blurb about Trump's verifiable refusal to disavow King? Surely if they are so dishonest, you have lists and lists of verifiable falsehoods.

Don't you?

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Still can't come up with a real example of them lying, eh?

The Quebec guy tried to make the same claim in the status updates, and all he could come up with was a heavily edited James O'Keefe video. Hopefully you have something that is actually credible?

I did, in less than five minutes, just like I said I would.

Just because you choose to say that they didn’t lie doesn’t mean anything, it just proves your bias. Trump was accused of “embracing” King and that’s not the least bit accurate.

Does CNN ever say that Obama and the black caucus embrace Louis Farrakhan’s religious bigotry and racism? They say on Fox that those people should denounce him and that they are skeptical of their back-channel dealings with him but they never say they “openly embrace” his more disgusting bigotry. 

Do they talk about how Hillary actually did openly embrace what Margaret Sanger stood for? Nope. That’s an actual thing. 

So, in short, CNN does lie and you just back them. You’re as bad as they are  

 

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

You'd think if they were such lying liars that you would have something better than...what was it again? A little blurb about Trump's verifiable refusal to disavow King? Surely if they are so dishonest, you have lists and lists of verifiable falsehoods.

Don't you?

Like I said before, everything they say is either a lie or it’s so skewed that it doesn’t resemble the truth. 

You pick a show in advance. I’ll pvr it and give you the rundown. 

[BubberMiley]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Like I said before, everything they say is either a lie or it’s so skewed that it doesn’t resemble the truth. 

You pick a show in advance. I’ll pvr it and give you the rundown. 

We tried that already and all you could come up with was a lame semantic argument. There must be something they've already done that you can point to. Don't you have anything? You're really losing credibility here by just dwelling on that one questionable example that you weren't even able to provide proof of.

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Like I said before, everything they say is either a lie or it’s so skewed that it doesn’t resemble the truth. 

You pick a show in advance. I’ll pvr it and give you the rundown. 

In the meantime, if you’re bored, just look for a pic of Anderson Cooper kneeling in a ditch to report on flooding lol. 

“I couldn’t stand on the road because emergency vehicles were constantly going by!” Lol but his cameras were set up there, and it’s so much easier to move the cameras than it is for him to move his lying ass ten feet. 

CNN is a joke. You can’t see it. That’s not good Bubber. 

Just out of curiosity, how accurate do you think they are, on a scale of 1-10? I’m just asking you for your honest opinion on that. 1-10. Super easy question to answer. 

[BubberMiley]

If all you can come up with is where Anderson Cooper stood during a weather report, I'd say 10.

Because, you know, that attempt at discrediting Cooper by your fake news sources was long ago exposed as false.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anderson-cooper-hurricane/

Edited January 24, 2019 by BubberMiley

[Jimwd]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Lol. If I had your level of understanding I’d be gullible enough to believe everything I saw on CNN too. 

So nothing ? You can’t argue with facts can you..? Chuckle

[Boges]

3 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

If all you can come up with is where Anderson Cooper stood during a weather report, I'd say 10.

Because, you know, that attempt at discrediting Cooper by your fake news sources was long ago exposed as false.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anderson-cooper-hurricane/

Clearly Snopes is a Deep State Dem Fake News Propaganda Tool. WAKE UP!!!

[Shady]

On 1/24/2019 at 2:13 PM, BubberMiley said:

So extreme poverty is okay? People working full time for less than subsistence wages while their bosses make billions is fine to you? Because that's the actual context of what she said, not the BS that you're trying to make it out to be.

No.  That’s a false choice.  Extreme poverty doesn’t exist because somebody else is wealthy.  Extreme poverty is a result of poor education, mental illness, or addiction.  I’m not sure what you mean by less than subsistence.  Subsistence is a subjective term.  Wages are set by supply and demand.  The demand for certain skills vs the supply of people that can do them.  I understand that this is basic economics which doesn’t get taught in schools much anymore.  What you and she are suggesting are the same policies that exist in places like Venezuela.  How did that work for addressing extreme poverty there?  There’s a reason why she’s on Maduro’s side right now.  Btw, the same side as Russia, China, Iran, etc.  I understand that people have strong feelings regarding the need to address poverty.  Unfortunately feelings don’t fix problems.  Facts don’t care about feelings.

[BubberMiley]

22 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

No.  That’s a false choice.  Extreme poverty doesn’t exist because somebody else is wealthy.  Extreme poverty is a result of poor education, mental illness, or addiction.  I’m not sure what you mean by less than subsistence.  Subsistence is a subjective term.  Wages are set by supply and demand.  The demand for certain skills vs the supply of people that can do them.  I understand that this is basic economics which doesn’t get taught in schools much anymore.  What you and she are suggesting are the same policies that exist in places like Venezuela.  How did that work for addressing extreme poverty there?  There’s a reason why she’s on Maduro’s side right now.  Btw, the same side as Russia, China, Iran, etc.  I understand that people have strong feelings regarding the need to address poverty.  Unfortunately feelings don’t fix problems.  Facts don’t care about feelings.

Extreme poverty has been successfully eliminated in societies like the formerly great USA, where fair taxation of extreme wealth was used to build infrastructure and a social safety net, thereby creating a strong middle class.