so much for lord obama's class warfare gambit.
 

sorry barry,
there's already enough wealth distribution going on. That portion of the public you were counting on to steal from the producers isn't as big as you thought.

silly kid.:1orglaugh

did you forget you made this exact same post you made two weeks ago?

..........and it is still true!:Oh crap

Hey there, Mr. Clicks. Still worshiping at the feet of a supply-side Jesus I see. :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :2 cents:...

considering I'm a supplier of your governmental handouts, yes:thumbsup

reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh?

I'm laughing at obama and his idiot followers who actually thought you enabled him to steal from the rich and give it to you.

last post was more a lesson in economics.:1orglaugh

Obama doesn't read gfy. :2 cents:

but his rabble supporters do. :2 cents:

Republican poli-terrorists hold unemployment benefits and tax cuts for millions hostage until the top 2% who dont need it and wont create a single job with it, get a bonus tax cut that those same poli-terrorists set to expire back in 2001. Getting a tax cut on your first $250,000 just wasn't good enough for them upon reflection. Scorched earth terrorist politics. It's the new black for the party of no.

Enjoy your thread now that it has life in it.

Stop for a second and explore the reasoning behind your general view. We understand that the US is roughly divided into two political views of roughly equal size.

You believe that everyone who does not stand on your side of the line is only on the other side because they are greedy and selfish.

It can't possibly be because they have some core principles with regards to taxes and tax increases and that a large segment of the population agrees with and supports those views?

enter the trash of our country deciding who needs to keep their money and who doesn't.

hahahaha. here's a clue, dear trash, those of us who pay for almost all of the governmental benefits you receive deserve at least the same tax break that you societal leeches deserve.:thumbsup


bitter day for you, eh chump?

no reading comprehension isn't my strong suit. I live in a trailer park. I'm just trying to make some money. I could of used some of that money.

QFT.. Gotta love the emotional rambling of the unintelligent. People on this forum don't even attempt to be logical or objective.

nice comeback. I'm sure you saved face with it in troll world.

"You believe that everyone who does not stand on your side of the line is only on the other side because they are greedy and selfish."

I'll just pretend you were asking me a question "Do you believe that everyone who doesnt stand on your side is only on the other side because they are greedy or selfish?"

Answer: No of course not.

My comment stands by itself as simple political commentary. No tea leaves to read, just literal english.

Simple political commentary would have some logic and facts behind it, not incoherent, emotional jibberish.

At its core, politics is about branding and marketing. Each politician is building a brand (themselves) and marketing it. Every act is to build and market that brand. Every word spoken is to build and market that brand.

Politicians also do a great job at positioning the competition. "those greedy republicans" "those tax and spend democrats" etc. That keeps the focus off of the brand they are building and any missteps of their own marketing/brand or that of the master brand (the party).

A two party system is a battle between Coke and Pepsi. Taste is irrelevant. People have decided what they like and are extremely resistant to change no matter what the actual facts are. What matters is the perception of the product, not the actual realities.

A president is a brand. People didn't elect Obama because he was the perfect leader for the job. He had no leadership experience. He had no record of leadership. People elected Obama because he was a new, likable brand that at all incumbents do, properly positioned himself as the opposite and appealing alternative to an existing brand, which was very weak at the moment (Bush/Republicans).

He didn't need a convincing message to communicated his ability to lead. He didn't need it. He simply needed an appealing message that demonized the current leading brand and that both took advantage of its weak position and also worked to weaken it further. In a master stroke of brilliance, they distilled his message down to two simple words "hope" and "change". No one really knew what it meant. At the end of the day, no one wanted to know. The voting public only knew they wanted to buy into a concept that was the opposite of Bush.

I am conservative in my thinking. But I don't believe either side is better or worse than the other. Both sides are necessary to debate and discussion. I do believe that what Obama has done to get elected was incredibly brilliant - whether by deliberate design or accident. He got the whole world to buy into a vague and ambiguous message about nothing and no matter what he said wrong along the way (i..e closing Guantanamo immediately without addressing the obvious complexity of the issue, meeting any and all world leaders without condition, when thats a diplomatic impossibility and reflected an tremendous amount of naivety with respect to world politics), he was quickly forgiven because people are driven by emotion, not reason and his simple message trumped any argument to the contrary.

After all, who does't want hope and change when they are watching 2 wars and the economy collapse. What that means is about as relevant as "what is heaven specifically/what is hell specifically" to a dying man. Its easy to get him on board with the "heaven" concept and the specifics are irrelevant.

As attention spans decrease and as we live in an ever increasingly over communicated world, being bombarded with endless advertising messages each day in addition to the constant distraction of justin beiber, text messaging, cell phones, facebooks or whatever, this will only get worse. There is not going to be a point where we become less distracted. I suspect that in the future, the political messages will get more and more vague as peoples ability to properly absorb, intellectualize and process that information and all its complexities will diminish and we will all suffer for it as accountability will also diminish.

is this about the tax rates for the 1% of Americans making over 250k (individuals) going back to 39% (as it was from 1993-2002) from the current 36%?

So now anyone that makes over 250k is a terrorist?

characterizing one side as terrorists fighting only in the interests of 2% of the population at the direct expense of 98% with the sole motivation of "greed", is a very intellectually dishonest and factually dishonest commentary.

.. but perfectly consistent with a liberal characterization of the conservative position.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Nice troll attempts, guys. Not biting :) Enjoy your victory lap though.

So now, your remarks are just "commentary" and any questioning of those remarks is "trolling"?

The liberals on this forum are kings of delusion and denial.

is all this about the tax cuts that were put in place in 2001/2003 and are due to expire in Jan 2011?

meaning rates would go back up (on average) 2% for individuals?

oh that's right I forgot... you like to argue with failed gallery submitters, nm carry on. :1orglaugh

remember folks, 12clicks is voting palin / palin 2012

Do you have a question then?

It's all misdirection. I made a comment on how others see this victory for the right wing holdouts for the top 2% of Americans to receive an extension of the passed-because-they-were-supposed-to-expire Bush tax cuts. What exactly would you like me to expand on about it? So far you seem to just want to characterize me in some certain way. Well, you dont need more input for that.

No, its about your kind not being able to single out a small portion of the population and take away their tax break while keeping the tax break in place for the other 99% of the population.

Characterizing you as what? You entered a discussion with your remark by characterizing republicans as political terrorists driven by solely by greed within the context of this tax issue. In doing so, you've characterized yourself as unimaginative, uninformed, driven by simple / mindless / baseless bias in an issue you have yet to demonstrate you even understand, much less that you are capable of any form of well reasoned discourse on the issue. You don't need me to do that for you... you already did it.

I wasn't characterizing you, I was asking if you think everyone that makes above 250k is a terrorist?
Not misdirection, a question!

And tell me this, why should a small business that has a couple employee's that generates 251k a year for the owners family get treated differently?

Me, I just keep reading how they raised taxes on the wealthy during the depression and it made it worse.

Expand upon the differences between the tax cuts set to expire for everyone else being ok to renew but the tax cuts for those propping up the entire system are bad.

Expand upon the 3trillion dollar debt over the next 10 years created by keeping the tax cuts for the middle class in place.
Expand upon your poor upbringing that makes you so ungrateful to your betters

And remember folks, Richard is one lost job away from the fry-0-lator.

my kind? you're a funny guy!

I agree with you though, I think it is wrong to single out one tax bracket over another. I think the tax breaks should all expire, but I will probably just get called a name for having that opinion.

Is that what you call yourself these days?
Better get back to failing then. This conversation is over your head

Those of uswho pay taxes thing some spending should expire

I characterized those politicians responsible for holding unemployment extension benefits, and all of the tax cuts for 98% of americans hostage to be exchanged for giving the remaining 2% extensions. I also assert that they will not create a single job with that money. Thats hyperbole, granted. Maybe they'll create a single job with that money.

At no time and in no way do I mention greed, but I admit that I'm not sure that a difference is obvious. I guess I could say that I saw somewhere that during the 2001-present time period, upper level incomes have not been anywhere near "recession" or "almost depression" that we hear about on tv so much. Actually, through savings and wise investments, their incomes have grown at a rate of nearly +10% annually. A new record. The other vast majority have remained nearly flat. Less than 1% fluctuation in what are known as "middle class" incomes across the same time frame.

So how do you charaterize a politician who would refuse to give people their own money (unemployment compensation is a weekly withholding from paychecks, not a theft from the rich), and who refuse to help 98% of the people who actually, based on math factually need the money (and will spend it instantly on bills and goods, incidentally considered a far greater stimulus to the economy than tax cuts)? I called them poli-terrorists.

How did you know I think some spending should expire? Actually, not just "some", but rather "a lot".