Please do not bash liberal posters. Thank you. nm

• Please do not bash liberal posters. Thank you. nm - BuckeyeLil (Moderator)

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

\\

My word can you ever rant.  But you don't seem so great at sticking to facts.  I read the posts you paraphrased and do not agree with your synopsis.  She did not say you were a cliche, among other things....she said you were using a cliche.  Superior intellect?  Huh?  Where'd you get that?  She stated she liked western history.  Just because someone likes to read doesn't mean they are boasting that they are superior.  How silly!!!

Conservative board.

Never a problem there.

The right wing rag I got my figures from was the IRS:

Progressivity and the Tax Burden

Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one's income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.¹

• According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
  
• The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
  
• The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.

The bottom 50% referred to above includes the middle class.

The $6 billion figure came from one of your own posters down in a lower thread...from the tax institute who evaluated O's plan, and the fact that it would add about a trillion (literally) dollars to the deficit.  You can scroll down and find it yourself.

Yes, $250,000 in INCOME.  That is a small business owner's PAYCHECK.  That is what is left after they have paid all their small business operation bills, and he wants to RAISE the taxes on what they have left.  It HURTS small businesses.  IF they work hard, pay their people, keep their jobs on shore, what do they get for it?  After paying whatever business taxes they have to pay, he wants to tax their bottom line AGAIN.  In my opinion...that sucks.

Don't have time to run through the whole rant right now.  More later.

According to dictionary.com, the meanings of the N-word are “deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.”  They go on to say, conversely, “it is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way.”  Since he whispered the statement behind what he thought was a cold microphone, it is highly unlikely that Rev. Jackson intended to cause great offense and his use of the word probably falls into the latter category of usage. 

For example, the N-word can become much less offensive and even assume neutrality within historical discourse, literature, poetry, cinema theater and the like.  One could further argue that within certain contexts (i.e. rap music, conversations within the black households, neighborhoods and businesses, to name a few) connotations of the word can be construed so as to convey a sense of community…even a brotherhood, of sorts.  Language is fluid, dynamic and vital in its nature, not static or one-dimensional.  Context, message, intent, environment, speaker and audience all impact the ultimate nuance of meaning in all forms of communication. 

I agree with you and take deep offense at the use of the N-word, regardless of who says it.  However, I would like to comment on some of the other points you raised in your post.  A careful read of the actual statement shows that Rev. Jackson did not use this epithet to personally attack Obama.  Rather, he was referring to the black population as a whole.  Granted, his choice of words was extremely poor (at least from a white perspective), but the statement was not meant for public scrutiny.  It was spoken from one black individual to another, much the same was that Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s statements were made from black preacher to black congregation. 

As a white person, I do not believe I can sit in judgment one way or another regarding his choice of words when taken completely out of context, in the same way I am not qualified to criticize the sermons of Rev. Wright.  I would like to think that I am intelligent enough to understand that, having lived in the US as a white person both before and after the civil right eras (1948 to present), I have not experienced life in America the same way black people have.  They are entitled to their own “take” on their own lives.  Who am I to tell them how to “tell it like it is?”

One last point.  I am sure that much flap and bruhah will ensue over this unfortunate news.  However, the very fact that Rev. Sharpton, you, I, the media and countless others will be having this debate over our outrage and dismay is a testament as to just how effective Rev Jackson and other early leaders in the civil rights movement were in defining the key issues, defying status quo of his times, enlisting support for the cause, effectively engaging his opposition in ongoing bipartisan initiatives over nearly 4 decades and producing fruitful, far-reaching and substantial bodies of legislation from which today’s black community continue to reap bountiful benefits and blessings.  They weathered storms of protests, incarceration, series after series of setbacks and reversals, and buckets of bloodshed in their efforts to secure the civil liberties and rights that reach far beyond the black community to encompass other forms of discrimination against women, gays, immigrants and the poor, to name a few…all so casually taken for granted and so easily dismissed in the blink of an eye with one ill-chosen, unfortunate slip of the tongue. 

For those of us whose memories reach further back than the latest round of CNN sound bytes and chat room chatter, we probably would forgive Obama should he decide not to denounce Rev Jackson’s support, nor would we feel driven to force him to abandon his own pastor of 20 years for the sake of our own righteous indignation. 

This is near the bottom of the article I posted.  Maybe you just missed it.

"To gain access to the emergency loans, GM and Chrysler must also agree to a wide range of concessions, including limits on executive pay and the elimination of their private corporate jets. "

Everyone put it on Bush's shoulders to do some thing about this and now that he has, still he gets bashed.  He's not my favorite president by far, but I think he should be afforded some kind of recognition for doing something to help the economy.  As far as pay cuts for the UAW, the article says that they will have to bring their wages more in line with those of foreign auto makers, which is still a danged good salary.  Would the UAW rather have a pay check or be completely unemployed?  That is pretty much what it all boils down to.  I wouldn't particular want to take a pay cut either, but in light of the situation and the current economic picture, I think I would thank my lucky stars that I at least would HAVE a jo

Like the old saying goes "You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

Off . 

available.  For example, if you are a Conservative, please post on the Conservative forum.

Thank you,

Administrator

here about the liberal issues, the more we have, the more the bilge from the right will be diluted.  Don't be run off, now girl.

on this board ever consider that this country is lost to yokels and religious fanatics who actually enjoy the vittrole of the Fox nation?  That they elevate a corrupt, sarcastic shrew nobody to a Great New Candidate?  That they actually view anyone from any other country in the world as a scarey fur-i-ner and think that the fact other countries look down upon us is proof we are #1? Our schools have gone steadily downhill.  Our families are falling apart.  There are basically fewer and fewer educated and intelligent people around to see beyond the poison being spoonfed to us by the republicans.  Remember in the Frankenstein movies there was only 1 monster but dozens and dozens of ignorant village people whipped up in a frenzy chasing him with sticks and torches.  We will have the government we deserve.  You can bank on it. 

1. Bush ignored the advice of more than 450 economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council and his own treasury secretary, when they warned that his tax cuts would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook


2. Unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001 to 6.3% in the first 2-/12 years of the Bush administation.


3. During the first 6 years, income rose an abysmal 1.6%.  Though the inflation rate was at historic lows during those years, (2% to 3%), income failed rise at the same historically low rate.


4. Poverty rates rose from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.7% in the first 6 years.


5. When compared to business cycles from the previous 50 years (1949 to 2000), Bush policies underperformed in terms of GDP, jobs, income and consumption…especially in the jobs sector.  Go here and scroll down to the economic growth section for a really cool graph that illustrates this point.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration


6. Income inequality rose as the Bush policies benefitted the top 1% of the income earners.  The Congressional Budget Office, shows that "the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or a whopping 20 percent.  In 2005, the top 1% received its largest share of gross income since 1928. 


7. Total budget surplus for FY 2001 was $128 billion dollars.  Here's how W eliminated that and added to the US public debt: 

Fiscal Year                 Value                           %GDP

2001                            144.5 billion (B)         1.4%

2002                            409.5B                        3.9%2003                            589.0B                        5.5%2004                            605.0B                        5.3%2005                            523.0B                        4.3%2006                            536.5B                        4.1%2007                            459.5B                        3.4%

Notice how the value and %GDP trend reversed under the democratic congress.

8.    Pubs like to blame dems for opposing oversight on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  They fail to mention that the 2 times during the Bush administration the issue of an oversight agency was entertained occurred in 2003 and 2005…under republican majorities in both House and Senate.  Those dems must have had some help from somewhere. 

were from posters from within the U.S.