PDA

View Full Version : Liberals being liberals



imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 06:58 PM
LINK REMOVED seems to think doing something for charity means to give the bare minimum of 10% of the proceeds. When someone raises money and talks about donating to charity, especially when they are worth $40 mil, you would guess as most of the bidders on ebay did that they would give more than a paultry 10%. But, when personal generosity isnt part of your liberal make up, I guess 10% is good. But hey, democrat leaders barely give up their own cash voluntarily and proclaim "its the right thing to do" when they make laws forcing everyone else to give up money for the poor. BO and Biden didnt even start giving more than 1% to charity till a year before BO started running for POTUS. Biden still only gives around 3%.

Giant Voice
12-05-2013, 07:19 PM
The more I read about this, the more I'm like meh! At least she's giving something. I guess the only problem I have is, and this is what I heard on some of the morning radio programs(talk and regular morning shows) is that most of the stuff she's selling was given to her for free. Don't know if that's true though.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-05-2013, 07:24 PM
The more I read about this, the more I'm like meh! At least she's giving something. I guess the only problem I have is, and this is what I heard on some of the morning radio programs(talk and regular morning shows) is that most of the stuff she's selling was given to her for free. Don't know if that's true though.

Eh, could be. But you are right about the "meh". Just seems like its par for the dems always screaming about the greedy rich not paying their "fair share" when they do so much more. Especially conservative rich who consistently give to charities without a natural disaster. Glad she "always" gives 10% of normal salaries, but then why would this be considered a "special" charitable auction if she was going to be giving 10% anyways? Where is the extra effort to help those in dire need now. The $10 donations that you can give to redcross through a txt is above and beyond normal giving for most.

TJMAC77SP
12-05-2013, 08:20 PM
I am not 'meh' about giving 10% of the proceeds of a declared charity event and no one else should be either.

Having said that................I don't see this as a case of liberals being liberals. I don't think anyone in the Kardashian clan is smart enough to hold a cogent political thought never mind forming an overall moral stance. If anything, since the GOP is always painted as capitalists to a fault they would be in that camp since they would sell their own afterbirth to make a buck.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 12:06 PM
I am not 'meh' about giving 10% of the proceeds of a declared charity event and no one else should be either.The point about "meh" is that its kind of a "dog bites man" story. 10% is a great amount. But when you normally give 10% like Kim does, its seems exploitive to say its for charity using a current event and just doing your normal routine. Honestly, its why I find the charities that give nearly 100% to the needy like most of Glenn Beck's disaster response charity drives.


Having said that................I don't see this as a case of liberals being liberals. I don't think anyone in the Kardashian clan is smart enough to hold a cogent political thought never mind forming an overall moral stance. If anything, since the GOP is always painted as capitalists to a fault they would be in that camp since they would sell their own afterbirth to make a buck.
I say its "liberals being liberals" because its their stated position to "not let a crisis go to waste". Kim's parents are GOP supporters, Kim has claimed democrat which seems fitting for someone who gained a lot of wealth with no real skill set.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 12:54 PM
This is why I think celebrities of any variety giving individual contributions to private charities should also be kept private, it's not a whole heck of a lot better than getting out of a vehicle in short dresses without underwear on in my opinion, and I can at least privately enjoy the latter when my wife and son are not in the room.

If they want to use their celebrity to encourage others to donate to a worthy cause, or to do their jobs, (entertaining) of a worthy cause (Gary Sinise comes to mind), it makes sense to that. But whatever Kim Kardashian's political leanings I care very little about about how much of it she donates to charity. To cite such a thing is the very same mentality that has the more "progressive" variety harping about "millionaires and billionaires". Like her or hate her, Kim Kardashian has successfully turned her own name into a marketed brand and in that sense much of her earnings are actually her own. I don't particularly intend to emulate her actions, but the fact that she does live that way is certainly capitalism at work.

I prefer celebrities to keep their generousity low key, I don't think anyone knew about Paul Walker buying a returning Iraq veteran an engagement ring was known about until the cashier who witnessed it came forward just after his death. That is where I think the true generousity and integity lies.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 01:38 PM
This thread is just another one where WJ5 is being angry as usual, and capitalizing on an "A HA" moment after he feels that he found his smoking gun.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 02:02 PM
This is why I think celebrities of any variety giving individual contributions to private charities should also be kept private, it's not a whole heck of a lot better than getting out of a vehicle in short dresses without underwear on in my opinion, and I can at least privately enjoy the latter when my wife and son are not in the room.How is she going to keep it private AND sell something she wore for any amount of money?


If they want to use their celebrity to encourage others to donate to a worthy cause, or to do their jobs, (entertaining) of a worthy cause (Gary Sinise comes to mind), it makes sense to that. But whatever Kim Kardashian's political leanings I care very little about about how much of it she donates to charity. To cite such a thing is the very same mentality that has the more "progressive" variety harping about "millionaires and billionaires". Like her or hate her, Kim Kardashian has successfully turned her own name into a marketed brand and in that sense much of her earnings are actually her own. I don't particularly intend to emulate her actions, but the fact that she does live that way is certainly capitalism at work.Agreed, captalism works. And from those that believe in it, there is no good or bad way to make money as long as it doesnt harm others through direct actions of the ones that gain the money from it. But to point out her political leanings is to show who is actually aligned with the dems. Romney lost the election cause of his wealth of $250 million, but Obama wins with the backings of his billionaire friends like Oprah.


I prefer celebrities to keep their generousity low key, I don't think anyone knew about Paul Walker buying a returning Iraq veteran an engagement ring was known about until the cashier who witnessed it came forward just after his death. That is where I think the true generousity and integity lies.
And he was non-political.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 02:16 PM
This thread is just another one where WJ5 is being angry as usual, and capitalizing on an "A HA" moment after he feels that he found his smoking gun.

Not really a smoking gun here, she is not a big figure head in the dem party. Just something to talk about because it was slow yesterday.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 03:05 PM
Not really a smoking gun here, she is not a big figure head in the dem party. Just something to talk about because it was slow yesterday.

This is the stuff that really has no point to it except an extremely lame attempt to "stick it in someone's eye". It's precisely this form of rhetoric that is the reason a "left" and a "right" exist, paraphrasing what someone famous once said, they're both wings on the same damn bird!

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 03:35 PM
This is the stuff that really has no point to it except an extremely lame attempt to "stick it in someone's eye". It's precisely this form of rhetoric that is the reason a "left" and a "right" exist, paraphrasing what someone famous once said, they're both wings on the same damn bird!

True dat. But honestly, I would call out those on the "right" is I felt they were in the wrong on something like this.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 03:38 PM
True dat. But honestly, I would call out those on the "right" is I felt they were in the wrong on something like this.

For example? Ready, set, go!!!!

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 03:44 PM
For example? Ready, set, go!!!!

The only time I've EVER seen this happen is when the action of a Republican was done at the expense of a Libertarian.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 03:49 PM
The only time I've EVER seen this happen is when the action of a Republican was done at the expense of a Libertarian.

I wonder if he researches the original term that predates "Libertarianism" if he would have titled this thread as such?

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 03:54 PM
For example? Ready, set, go!!!!

Well, I seem to be having trouble googling or binging a story about a conservative or conservative celeberty doing something like this. Only thing i came up with was the story about a con-artist who gave to the GOP. But then there were sunsequent stories about those GOP members passing that donation onto a charity since the giver coned people by saying it was a Navy verterains charity they were giving to. So, please, if you have something for me to read, I will be all for it.

The only other thing I was finding was about how the religious right gives way more than the secular left.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 04:02 PM
Well, I seem to be having trouble googling or binging a story about a conservative or conservative celeberty doing something like this. Only thing i came up with was the story about a con-artist who gave to the GOP. But then there were sunsequent stories about those GOP members passing that donation onto a charity since the giver coned people by saying it was a Navy verterains charity they were giving to. So, please, if you have something for me to read, I will be all for it.

The only other thing I was finding was about how the religious right gives way more than the secular left.
Widen your search to things which may be interpreted as "Conservative Hypocrisy", find something that you would call out the "Conservative" individual in favor of the "liberal" making the argument, then you might gain a bit more credibility as someone who can separate themselves more from the rhetoric. Parroting Ron Paul from a standpoint of "Non-Interventionism" is hardly novel.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 04:04 PM
The only other thing I was finding was about how the religious right gives way more than the secular left.

...and if you exclude the offering plate at church (on BOTH sides), it ends up not being true. At least, according to news articles.

The reality of the situation, is that you can't go by news articles for that particular information. And this isn't me "media bashing," either. What has to come into question is the methodology for determining who is conservative and liberal, and how the people doing the research were able to track where their money is donated.

In other words... there are articles out there, but none that have been peer reviewed and published in an academic journal. THIS kind of information needs to be submitted for peer review before anyone can take it seriously.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 04:20 PM
Widen your search to things which may be interpreted as "Conservative Hypocrisy", find something that you would call out the "Conservative" individual in favor of the "liberal" making the argument, then you might gain a bit more credibility as someone who can separate themselves more from the rhetoric. Parroting Ron Paul from a standpoint of "Non-Interventionism" is hardly novel.

Oh, you mean like how the GOP condem homosexuality but are sometimes closet gay themselves? Yeah, I completely agree there are a lot of hypocrits in the GOP. I guess you want a specific example right now, so how about ... Reagan talking about cutting spending just to increase the military spending? Or McCain and more of the old guard talking about cutting spending, then stabbing the TEA party in the back when they had a chance to defund Obamacare?

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 04:24 PM
...and if you exclude the offering plate at church (on BOTH sides), it ends up not being true. At least, according to news articles.Well, do you have the current article? Last one I saw said conservatives still gave 30% more (3 times more including church) than the liberals who comparatively make more reported in 2006. But why do we exclude the offering plate? Is that not giving of ones own free will?


The reality of the situation, is that you can't go by news articles for that particular information. And this isn't me "media bashing," either. What has to come into question is the methodology for determining who is conservative and liberal, and how the people doing the research were able to track where their money is donated.IRS 1040? Along with polls?


In other words... there are articles out there, but none that have been peer reviewed and published in an academic journal. THIS kind of information needs to be submitted for peer review before anyone can take it seriously.
Ah, now "news" needs peer review when it shows libs in a very negative light?

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 04:27 PM
Oh, you mean like how the GOP condem homosexuality but are sometimes closet gay themselves? Yeah, I completely agree there are a lot of hypocrits in the GOP. I guess you want a specific example right now, so how about ... Reagan talking about cutting spending just to increase the military spending? Or McCain and more of the old guard talking about cutting spending, then stabbing the TEA party in the back when they had a chance to defund Obamacare?

That's a good start, now why not start a thread called " Conservatives being Conservatives" and complete the cycle. Then while you're at it start one on libertarians, independents, and any such label we could possibly generalize about. how about the Tea Party? Plenty of material there I'm sure.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 04:33 PM
That's a good start, now why not start a thread called " Conservatives being Conservatives" and complete the cycle. Then while you're at it start one on libertarians, independents, and any such label we could possibly generalize about. how about the Tea Party? Plenty of material there I'm sure.

Well, is it hypocritical for liberals to not really give to charities? Was she being hypocritical at all really or was it just about how she used a crisis to profit?

But I will follow your suggestion the next time I see a story with someone doing what we all consider hypocritical.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 04:37 PM
Well, is it hypocritical for liberals to not really give to charities? Was she being hypocritical at all really or was it just about how she used a crisis to profit?

But I will follow your suggestion the next time I see a story with someone doing what we all consider hypocritical.

I will hold you to that, and 10% of Kim Kardashian's level of earned wealth is not exactly insignificant by the way...

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 04:40 PM
I will hold you to that, and 10% of Kim Kardashian's level of earned wealth is not exactly insignificant by the way...

Oh, by no means. She deserves every bit that she gets when people are stupid enough to buy her crap. Just seems like if she would have put 10% of proceeds towards charity anyways, what made it special enough to put in the "charity section" of ebay and market it as something out of the ordinary? Was it jsut to drive up the awareness? That does mean that even though its still 10%, its a bigger number. But then again, so is the amount she would collect by 9 times.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 04:44 PM
Well, do you have the current article? Last one I saw said conservatives still gave 30% more (3 times more including church) than the liberals who comparatively make more reported in 2006. But why do we exclude the offering plate? Is that not giving of ones own free will?

You exclude it because one side is more religious than the other; you exclude it because many people who might donate do so because they feel under pressure; you exclude it because many people don't trust pastors do what they're supposed to do with the money. And mostly... people at church just do it because it's expected of them at church. Not out of genuine concern for the people who might benefit from that money.

I also will not donate to any religious organization, because they tend to require the people who receive their donations to be prosletyzed to. For example, the Union Mission homeless shelter here in Norfolk... they've gotta stay up late in the evening in Bible study before they're allowed to go to bed.

They can eat a fat dick if they think they're going to get a dime of my money.


IRS 1040? Along with polls?

Are you guessing, or are the articles actually stating this?

First off, your 1040 doesn't have your political affiliation on it. Even if it did, only the people with itemizable deductions that are greater than the standard deduction would be observable - which would rule out virtually all working class and most middle class taxpayers... thus making the remaining sample a poor one.

What's left is the polls, and that in and of itself won't fly in the peer review process.



Ah, now "news" needs peer review when it shows libs in a very negative light?

In my time on MTF, I've only mentioned the need for peer review one other time besides this; and it was in response to an assertion made by MM that the lack of sex leads to pedophilia. Before now, I've never said it about a news article.

...in other words, nice try. But try again.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 04:52 PM
Oh, by no means. She deserves every bit that she gets when people are stupid enough to buy her crap. Just seems like if she would have put 10% of proceeds towards charity anyways, what made it special enough to put in the "charity section" of ebay and market it as something out of the ordinary? Was it jsut to drive up the awareness? That does mean that even though its still 10%, its a bigger number. But then again, so is the amount she would collect by 9 times.

I have some other examples of "Liberals being Liberals", look at this list of cheapskates!
celebrity charity giving:
http://www.looktothestars.org/cause/disaster-relief

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 05:10 PM
You exclude it because one side is more religious than the other; you exclude it because many people who might donate do so because they feel under pressure; you exclude it because many people don't trust pastors do what they're supposed to do with the money. And mostly... people at church just do it because it's expected of them at church. Not out of genuine concern for the people who might benefit from that money.Those are some heavy accusations. Any peer reviewed investigations into what you said?


I also will not donate to any religious organization, because they tend to require the people who receive their donations to be prosletyzed to. For example, the Union Mission homeless shelter here in Norfolk... they've gotta stay up late in the evening in Bible study before they're allowed to go to bed.So, one example keeps you from donating to religions. Alright, I guess Goodwill, toy for tots, salvation army etc are out of the question too because the CEOs collect huge paychecks from what they get. Goodwill is an actual business, not a charity. Their CEO and founder gets free stuff donated to his store which he inturn sells for a profit.

All sarcasm aside though, it really is up to the individual making the donation to research how much of their donation will actually go to those intended to help. That includes churches. If I was part of Rev Wrights church, i would neve give anything to the offering plate considering the mansion he lives in. I would find another way to tithe.


Are you guessing, or are the articles actually stating this?Guess. I figure there is some way to tell how they got their data.


First off, your 1040 doesn't have your political affiliation on it. Even if it did, only the people with itemizable deductions that are greater than the standard deduction would be observable - which would rule out virtually all working class and most middle class taxpayers... thus making the remaining sample a poor one."Poor one"? Actually, it would include anyone with a house that has interest and taxes above the standard deductions. Plus at least 1%, or roughly 3.3 million people, which is way more than polls for who will win a presidential election.


What's left is the polls, and that in and of itself won't fly in the peer review process.
You're right, but a poll is used a lot in taking the temperature of American society.


In my time on MTF, I've only mentioned the need for peer review one other time besides this; and it was in response to an assertion made by MM that the lack of sex leads to pedophilia. Before now, I've never said it about a news article.

...in other words, nice try. But try again.
Well, you just dismissed this line of thought that conservatives give more to charity than liberals by 3 to 1 because its not "peer reviewed". And from your own addmission, you do it very selectively.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 05:10 PM
I have some other examples of "Liberals being Liberals", look at this list of cheapskates!
celebrity charity giving:
http://http://www.looktothestars.org/cause/disaster-relief

link doesnt work.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 05:15 PM
link doesnt work.

That's iPads for ya, I'll see if I can bring it up elsewhere.
Edit: Fixed the link on that post

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-06-2013, 05:34 PM
That's iPads for ya, I'll see if I can bring it up elsewhere.
Edit: Fixed the link on that post

So they have some charities they set up and endorse, but not necessarily give to? I dont get the site. I wasnt saying celebs dont give, i even gave credit to Obama and Biden. Does this charity say the percentage of income they give?

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 05:35 PM
Those are some heavy accusations. Any peer reviewed investigations into what you said?

Oh, are you really in denial of this? And now, you're trying to turn the tables; because you don't don't like the bluff of your stats being called? SMH...


So, one example keeps you from donating to religions. Alright, I guess Goodwill, toy for tots, salvation army etc are out of the question too because the CEOs collect huge paychecks from what they get. Goodwill is an actual business, not a charity. Their CEO and founder gets free stuff donated to his store which he inturn sells for a profit.

All sarcasm aside though, it really is up to the individual making the donation to research how much of their donation will actually go to those intended to help. That includes churches. If I was part of Rev Wrights church, i would neve give anything to the offering plate considering the mansion he lives in. I would find another way to tithe.

You also have to understand that donating outside of the offering plate requires one to go out of their way to do so, whereas donating to the offering plate merely requires one to show up at church... and the offering plate comes to THEM. Do you need a peer reviewed article for that?


Guess. I figure there is some way to tell how they got their data.

So... you're trying to convince someone of something with an article that you know nothing about?


"Poor one"? Actually, it would include anyone with a house that has interest and taxes above the standard deductions. Plus at least 1%, or roughly 3.3 million people, which is way more than polls for who will win a presidential election.

Funny. I owned a house in San Antonio valued at $165,000 in 2007; and the property taxes were about $4.00 per $100 in property value... one the the highest in the nation. Add that to my other deductible expenses, and I STILL didn't have a higher amount than the standard deduction.



You're right, but a poll is used a lot in taking the temperature of American society.

Which means nothing in proving your current assertion.


Well, you just dismissed this line of thought that conservatives give more to charity than liberals by 3 to 1 because its not "peer reviewed". And from your own addmission, you do it very selectively.

No, by my own admission, I don't throw around requests for peer reviewed articles at everything I disagree with - contrary to what you suggested.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 05:42 PM
So they have some charities they set up and endorse, but not necessarily give to? I dont get the site. I wasnt saying celebs dont give, i even gave credit to Obama and Biden. Does this charity say the percentage of income they give?

I offered a lifeline, essentially. You title the thread "Liberals being Liberals" where the implication, and I'm fairly positive I wasn't the only one reading this into it, the old adage of "Liberals" only being generous with other peoples money, I don't know or care what the actual numbers are, it's a stupid competition at best. Your base impulse was to try to rebut the point that some "liberals" can be indeed quite generous which speaks volumes in itself. If you wish to observe the world as one collective of individuals who are forever mostly wrong against one that is forever mostly right, your viewpoint will be forever narrowed by the assumption.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 06:47 PM
This thread is just another one where WJ5 is being angry as usual, and capitalizing on an "A HA" moment after he feels that he found his smoking gun.

A bit like your Sarah Palin thread

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 06:49 PM
I will hold you to that, and 10% of Kim Kardashian's level of earned wealth is not exactly insignificant by the way...

Then Mitt Romney's amount of tax paid would also not be insignificant (although it seems it was during the election).

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 06:50 PM
A bit like your Sarah Palin thread

Wrong. It wasn't an "A HA" moment, nor did I see it was a smoking gun. I posted a satire article - I knew it was a satire article, and I made it clear that it was in the thread. So how can I use an article that I knew was satire for the same purpose?

Aw, fuck it. I just remembered, you like to antagonize for its own sake.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 06:51 PM
I have some other examples of "Liberals being Liberals", look at this list of cheapskates!
celebrity charity giving:
http://www.looktothestars.org/cause/disaster-relief

How about a website that reports giving by everyone. Since the vast majority of 'celebrities' identify themselves as liberal citing that source only is a bit disingenuous.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 06:53 PM
Wrong. It wasn't an "A HA" moment, nor did I see it was a smoking gun. I posted a satire article - I knew it was a satire article, and I made it clear that it was in the thread. So how can I use an article that I knew was satire for the same purpose?

Aw, fuck it. I just remembered, you like to antagonize for its own sake.

You call it 'antagonizing'. I call it shining a light on bullshit.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 06:56 PM
You only call it bullshit when you disagree with it. The only bullshit on this thread is coming from WJ5 as usual. But you don't call him in it. Which means that you're just as much of a dumbfuck as he is.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 06:58 PM
You only call it bullshit when you disagree with it. The only bullshit on this thread is coming from WJ5 as usual. But you don't call him in it. Which means that you're just as much of a dumbfuck as he is.

Do you actually read the posts on the MTF? Read my very first frapping post on this thread. You displayed your typical hypocrisy....own it.

Now the name-calling. What's next? Some homoerotic insult?

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 06:59 PM
Then Mitt Romney's amount of tax paid would also not be insignificant (although it seems it was during the election).

And you're absolutely correct in that it shouldn't have been, and honestly I don't even remember what amount that even was myself because it held equal importance to me at the time. My reasons for not voting for him had absolutely zero to do with personal wealth, in fact it was a point in his favor.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 07:01 PM
How about a website that reports giving by everyone. Since the vast majority of 'celebrities' identify themselves as liberal citing that source only is a bit disingenuous.

Good luck finding that, the issue here is to refute any notion that "liberals" are only going to be generous with other people's money, or in this case celebrity liberals.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:01 PM
And you're absolutely correct in that it shouldn't have been, and honestly I don't even remember what amount that even was myself because it held equal importance to me at the time. My reasons for not voting for him had absolutely zero to do with personal wealth, in fact it was a point in his favor.

Unfortunately your viewpoint seems to have been a minority. At least a minority by three percentage points.

In the spirit of full disclosure (and I stated this during the election) I don't agree with Romney (or anyone) who supports the lower tax rate for capital gains. It is income and should be taxed accordingly. Of course of the two candidates only one of them had ever been in a position to actually change the tax code.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 07:01 PM
Do you actually read the posts on the MTF? Read my very first frapping post on this thread. You displayed your typical hypocrisy....own it.

Do you read your own? You said something to AJBIGJ, not WJ5. You're really protective of him.


Now the name-calling. What's next? Some homoerotic insult?

You resorted to profanity, and now you're complaining? Hypocrisy? YOU own it.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:02 PM
Do you read your own? You said something to AJBIGJ, not WJ5. You're really protective of him.



You resorted to profanity, and now you're complaining? Hypocrisy? YOU own it.

Oh come on Rusty. Is it too late on Friday? You leaning forward for the weekend? Certainly even you can do better than that.

Once again...........read my first post (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597486-Liberals-being-liberals&p=663247#post663247).............had nothing to do with AJ

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 07:06 PM
Oh come on Rusty. Is it too late on Friday? You leaning forward for the weekend? Certainly even you can do better than that.

I'm waiting for the combo that you're going to throw after I failed to connect that knockout punch. But maybe I shouldn't. I don't think it's coming. Because you don't have it.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:07 PM
I'm waiting for the combo that you're going to throw after I failed to connect that knockout punch. But maybe I shouldn't. I don't think it's coming. Because you don't have it.

So, no more discussion of what the actual topic is? Just lame irrelevant taunts? Ok.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 07:11 PM
Unfortunately your viewpoint seems to have been a minority. At least a minority by three percentage points.

In the spirit of full disclosure (and I stated this during the election) I don't agree with Romney (or anyone) who supports the lower tax rate for capital gains. It is income and should be taxed accordingly. Of course of the two candidates only one of them had ever been in a position to actually change the tax code.
Envy is an all-too-common driver of our society. Everyone seems to have some sort of arbitrary idea of some person not being "generous" enough, but you'd get an entirely indecisive response if you pressed for a quantifiable metric value.

This thread comes from such a place...

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 07:13 PM
So, no more discussion of what the actual topic is? Just lame irrelevant taunts? Ok.

That's what I responded to with that post, no?

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:15 PM
Envy is an all-too-common driver of our society. Everyone seems to have some sort of arbitrary idea of some person not being "generous" enough, but you'd get an entirely indecisive response if you pressed for a quantifiable metric value.

This thread comes from such a place...

I agree that envy is prevalent but the take away from the facts provided (as opposed to the emotion) in this thread is that Kardashian was a little sketchy with the amount of money given over from the proceeds of a declared charity event. I see the personal amounts celebrities give as a separate matter.

As to this thread ...truthfully I think it comes simply from WJ's animosity towards liberals (and Democrats whom I believe he sees as one and the same). Much like Rusty's thread I cited.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:16 PM
That's what I responded to with that post, no?

Actually no it isn't..........so "no" would be my answer.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 07:17 PM
Actually no it isn't..........so "no" would be my answer.

And it's a wrong anwer. "You can do better than that" qualifies as a lame taunt.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:20 PM
And it's a wrong anwer. "You can do better than that" qualifies as a lame taunt.

Actually I was being condescending.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 07:22 PM
Actually I was being condescending.

Same thing.

AJBIGJ
12-06-2013, 07:23 PM
I agree that envy is prevalent but the take away from the facts provided (as opposed to the emotion) in this thread is that Kardashian was a little sketchy with the amount of money given over from the proceeds of a declared charity event. I see the personal amounts celebrities give as a separate matter.

As to this thread ...truthfully I think it comes simply from WJ's animosity towards liberals (and Democrats whom I believe he sees as one and the same). Much like Rusty's thread I cited.

I wasn't able to see that part of the article unfortunately, the link was gone before I got to it, so I can't speak to the particulars. I caught the e-bay spiel which I presume is the questionable thing, but without the proper context I can't even begin to speculate.

But yeah, your assessment is my own about the nature of this thread.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:29 PM
Same thing.

No, actually it's not..........which is one reason I find myself often being so with you.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 07:45 PM
No, actually it's not..........which is one reason I find myself often being so with you.

...like I said, you like to antagonize for its own sake.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:54 PM
...like I said, you like to antagonize for its own sake.

I suppose I do antagonize the shyte out of you but it is hardly for its own sake.......which I am sure merely antagonizes you all the more.

You and WJ are cut from the same cloth and your hypocrisy is not exactly hard to spot. You try so very hard to work outside the toolbox God gave you but you are driven by emotion and thus very seldom able to present a cogent and original argument.

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 07:58 PM
I suppose I do antagonize the shyte out of you but it is hardly for its own sake.......which I am sure merely antagonizes you all the more.

You and WJ are cut from the same cloth and your hypocrisy is not exactly hard to spot. You try so very hard to work outside the toolbox God gave you but you are driven by emotion and thus very seldom able to present a cogent and original argument.

So..............explain exactly how this thread and its obvious attempt to bait liberals is ANY different than your lame attempt to do the same to conservatives with the Sarah Palin thread.

Which BTW is actually funny because to most conservatives Palin has become a joke and appeals mostly to the fringe. Of course in your mind all conservatives are racist, card carrying Tea Party members so of course all conservatives just love Palin.

This is what I meant by trying so hard to work outside the box God gave you.

Rusty Jones
12-06-2013, 08:22 PM
I suppose I do antagonize the shyte out of you but it is hardly for its own sake.......which I am sure merely antagonizes you all the more.

No, it's for its own sake. JB was your main target when he was here, and now I am.


You and WJ are cut from the same cloth and your hypocrisy is not exactly hard to spot. You try so very hard to work outside the toolbox God gave you but you are driven by emotion and thus very seldom able to present a cogent and original argument.

You're the only person I've heard that from. I've tried to keep up with WJ5 jumping around like a frog on lily pads from topic to topic numerous times when dealing with him, and I'm now observing Bunch trying to do the same thing in the immigration thread. You lumping me in with WJ5... is purely driven by your personal issues with me.


So..............explain exactly how this thread and its obvious attempt to bait liberals is ANY different than your lame attempt to do the same to conservatives with the Sarah Palin thread.

You know something? You're right. You know what the important thing is that both threads have in common? You came after ME in both threads. Not necessarily the author.


Which BTW is actually funny because to most conservatives Palin has become a joke and appeals mostly to the fringe.

Didn't I make a post in that thread specifically stating this, and that it was meant to be a thread where we can ALL talk shit? But, nope. You'd rather antagonize.


Of course in your mind all conservatives are racist, card carrying Tea Party members so of course all conservatives just love Palin. This is what I meant by trying so hard to work outside the box God gave you.

I neither said, nor meant to imply, that all conservatives love Palin. I specifically stated so many times that the GOP needs to shake off the Tea Party. As to conservatives being racist... did you or did you not admit to seeing it coming from conservative members here? I'm not saying all, but I do find myself having to defend minorities from people like WJ5 and Rainmaker here ALL THE TIME. Never from a liberal.

USN - Retired
12-06-2013, 08:50 PM
We need to get into the Christmas spirit. I'll start...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSK0-bFc2m4

TJMAC77SP
12-06-2013, 09:11 PM
No, it's for its own sake. JB was your main target when he was here, and now I am.

Actually I was calling you on your bullshit even when JoeB was around. Nothing’s changed.


You're the only person I've heard that from. I've tried to keep up with WJ5 jumping around like a frog on lily pads from topic to topic numerous times when dealing with him, and I'm now observing Bunch trying to do the same thing in the immigration thread. You lumping me in with WJ5... is purely driven by your personal issues with me.

Still ignoring my first post in this thread and others where I have called out WJ’s posts. I suppose that is an inconvenient truth in making your “you just don’t like me” defense but the truth is I have zero personal issues with you (and didn’t with JoeB either). Bullshit however is bullshit. I can differ with someone and their beliefs without hating the individual. That is what I meant by you being driven by your emotions. You have admitted that many times on the MTF in an attempt to justify your childish attacks and name-calling….”They did it first !!” Silliness, just pure silliness.



You know something? You're right. You know what the important thing is that both threads have in common? You came after ME in both threads. Not necessarily the author.

The first thing they had in common was their motivation…………….the rest was a result of that.



Didn't I make a post in that thread specifically stating this, and that it was meant to be a thread where we can ALL talk shit? But, nope. You'd rather antagonize.

But that wasn’t really the point of your thread any more than WJ’s concern for charity was in this one.



I neither said, nor meant to imply, that all conservatives love Palin. I specifically stated so many times that the GOP needs to shake off the Tea Party. As to conservatives being racist... did you or did you not admit to seeing it coming from conservative members here? I'm not saying all, but I do find myself having to defend minorities from people like WJ5 and Rainmaker here ALL THE TIME. Never from a liberal.

Good to see you concede your belief that all conservatives are racist regardless how completely ludicrous that premise is. In your mind two people make a whole group? Do you never see the fallacy in your arguments? Do you seriously believe that liberals are incapable of being racists?

BTW: those were rhetorical questions.