The Al Realpolitik Institute of Sulfur Mining & Extraction

[minionofmidas]

'Taxed to Death' just seems to have a more relative meaning today. go figure...

Yeah, Americans are oppressed to death by taxes.  You should live in another country where even middle-class people pay far higher provincial and consumption taxes, and still live a decent life in exchange for the benefits they get in return, and see what you think then.

 Would that be the one that's debt free, open borders and they're own military defending that decent life? It can't be the one(s) that just where promised another bail out today.

While I applaud your sliding into coherence (software update?), I must say I liked you better when it was actually impossible to understand what you were actually saying.

Criminally easy target, of course. But beautifully done.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Context:

You're incapable of intelligent thought, certainly.

[Torie]

No prizes for guessing who this was aimed at:

Out of curiosity, is there any level of education that you actually support, considering your blistering hatred for public schoolteachers and belief that university professors are 'wacky'? If not, why are you able to compose English at even the level that you are, and do you realize that it's somewhat hypocritical to do so?

Sort of like criticizing the US while living in it?

Why, no. Not very much like that at all, as a matter of fact.

Nice to know you've still got it, though.

What's the difference then? If I understand your point correctly you mean that it is hypocritical to criticize a system one has benefited from. This seems very analogous to saying that one cannot criticize one's country of residence, for example.

I benefit from all sorts of things that I "hate:" Prop 13 (and the favorable taxation of real estate in general), a host of insane farm subsidy programs (hideously expensive to administer (like one full time government bureaucrat for about every 5-10 farmers), and in the case of Ethanol, the single most "effective" program in screwing the poorest of the poor on this planet), the pension system, largely non means tested social security (part of which is received tax free to boot, cross subsidies from the young for my medical insurance per state law, and now soon to be substantially exacerbated by federal law, the deductibility of state income taxes for federal tax purposes, and soon a pie in the sky Medicare System. Oh, and tax free municipal bonds. Add that to the list too. And then there is the step up in tax basis on your assets when you die, or even better, when your spouse dies, so you pay no capital gains taxes either.

So I agree with your point, Gustaf! 

[opebo]

And then there is the step up in tax basis on your assets when you die, or even better, when your spouse dies, so you pay no capital gains taxes either.

Those things benefit your heirs.  Nothing can benefit a person after they die.

[Torie]

And then there is the step up in tax basis on your assets when you die, or even better, when your spouse dies, so you pay no capital gains taxes either.

Those things benefit your heirs.  Nothing can benefit a person after they die.

You missed the bit about when you spouse dies, when you get a step up in basis of all community property, not just half of it. And if the surviving spouse owns real estate, he or she gets to start depreciating it all over again.

[opebo]

You missed the bit about when you spouse dies, when you get a step up in basis of all community property, not just half of it. And if the surviving spouse owns real estate, he or she gets to start depreciating it all over again.

Sorry I missed that.  Can you have a spouse in California?

[Torie]

You missed the bit about when you spouse dies, when you get a step up in basis of all community property, not just half of it. And if the surviving spouse owns real estate, he or she gets to start depreciating it all over again.

Sorry I missed that.  Can you have a spouse in California?

So far as I know, provided the spouse is of the other gender.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can't believe I'm posting this, but Winfield deserved that one:

Wish she'd been nominated. She's too funny to be wasted on Fox News.

Of course she would have won and she would beat the Kenyan in November. She is an American hero, bear her the respect she deserves.

We are giving her the respect she deserves.

[Joe Republic]

What is "normal" supposed to mean? Never got that.

You wouldn't....

[Oakvale]

The possibility exists that the world may not now be and may not twenty-nine years ago have been entirely divided into Ronald Reagans and Command and Conquer villains.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sorry, Carl, but it ought to be posted here:

My god, my head hurts.  Either it's the alcohol induced hangover, or this thread just really really f***ing sucks!

Seriously Jake dude, are you reading your arguments?  I mean, are you physically scrolling down on the page and looking at your arguments bro?

I was thinking today about why I chose to support Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson.

I definitely agree with Johnson more than I agree with Romney, so why support Romney? Well, because Romney has a better chance of winning.

First of all, might I ask what is even the point of bringing this up?  Most everyone by now has accepted the fact that you want to vote for the rabid flip-flopper because (like all liars and politicians do) he has the better chance of winning than say the principled not at all contradictory Gary Johnson, whose claim to fame was being Governor of a Mountain West state with (at the time) 1.5-1.8 million people.  You have repeatedly staken the claim to wanting to go with Romney due to his statistically higher chances of winning.
Big freaking whoop.  Again what is the point of repeat this bullschnooze?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WHAT THE FREAKING HELL DO YOU THINK THE JUDICIAL BRANCH DOES?  Sit around and play pool all day and smoke crack rock?  Why do you think that branch of government exists?  Too look pretty in freaking black robes and for men to fantasize about what 70 year old women look like naked?  My god man!  I'll just stop right there due to the sickening images coming into my head!
Anyway, now that I've calmed down, the reason Bush didn't go all the way with the gay (pardon the rhyming scheme) marriage ban or overturning Roe v. Wade is because he simply didn't have the ability to do so.  I mean, this is the Republican Party of 2004 you are talking about, not the one of 2012.  A party that still had quite a few pro-choice pro-gay moderates still left in it.  Sure, one could argue that the Republicans would have enough conservatives in the caucus to push for either of these two bills, but that disregards the pragmatism of an earlier era.  The Republican Party needs more than the South and Great Plains to have a majority in the House of Representatives and in the US Senate, a fact that is obviously not dawning on some people.  Anyway, I could imagine a number of Republicans, even a few conservative ones, being kind of iffy on either voting for a gay marriage ban or overturning Roe v. Wade.  The electorate could perceive either as being far far reaching and it could have dangerous consequences for Republicans in swing districts who care mostly about economics and could give a whiff about social issues like gay marriage or abortion.
Now onto Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, if you consider 256 House seats and barely having 60 Senate seats (made possible by the defection of one Arlen Specter) to be a "super-majority" for less than 180 days.
Anyways, it's ridiculous to assume that a party with a large white union base would be overly thrilled about passing either marijuana legalization or gay marriage.  Obama would quickly be painted as a radical by many of his own party members and he would likely face a primary challenge that wouldn't win against him, but weaken him enough in the long run to make defeat in the general pretty much a done deal.  Marijuana legalization, as much of a "you've got to be crazy to be opposed to it" issue it is, would be even less likely to pass through Congress, considering how much pandering Democrats do towards the "soccer mom" crowd.
Both issues are popular with Americans, however Congress is too much ruled by special interests to make it happen.
And I say this as somebody who supports drug legalization and gay marriage.
The problem here is that, Americans on average tend to not like the social issues boat being rocked.  Bush or Obama pushing for social issue legislation on the national level would've been rocking the boat being rocked quite a bit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And how would Romney handle the economy?

Because, given his record, I'm drawing blanks here.  Seriously, does this guy play lotto numbers with policy or something?  Were you even paying attention the past few years and have you even bothered to look at wikipedia to see how his principled campaign for Mass. Gov went?  Or how about his even more principled and not at all big spending liberal pro-universal healthcare term in office went?  Or how about his attempts to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994, insisting he was an Independent during Bush/Reagan?
How the hell am I supposed to know if he's going to operate like a communist or a libertarian?  Given his vicious record of blatant flip floppery (that keeps up the grand Massachusetts tradition nonetheless)?
.....Oh wait.  I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here as to why YOU think Romney is a good choice for President.  After all, Romney also seems to be of the mind "principles be damned!  Let's just get elected!"

I guess if I lived in Weimar Germany I would vote National Socialist.  After all, I disagree with like 98% of what they say, but hey at least they could operate the economy better than the Communists and have a chance to win, unlike the Conservative People's Party!

Yes, slippery slope.  And a bit a Godwin for you.  But necessary.

I hope you genuinely understand how dangerous this line of thought really is Jake.  Because, people who think like you do (aka "non-Democrat and non-Republican votes DON'T MATTER") are why it's gotten to the point where third party votes really don't matter anymore.  You know, I was thinking the other day that I'm a political apathetic, but the more I think about it people who vote "lessor of two evils" are the REAL APATHETICS.  Because, at least when I don't vote I'm doing it out of principle.

Just a closing thought for you.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

No I totally agree he handed me my ass and that's what this thread is for

[Lief 🗽]

Seems like the only Americans who were under that impression were partisan Republicans who wanted to use it as evidence of failure by their political opponent.

[opebo]

It is rare that someone snaps a majority of the forum with one casual backhand:

I think virgins paradoxically have a much higher standard for hotness than other people.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Simple and absolutely sufficient. Classic Al:

Democrats have influences... Che Guevar

Try harder, idiot.

[opebo]

Simple and absolutely sufficient. Classic Al:

Democrats have influences... Che Guevar

Try harder, idiot.

Oh come on.  I used to say that sort of thing virtually every other post the first 3-4 years of posting here.  There's nothing uniquely 'Al' about it - he can just still get away with it, while we mere mortals cannot.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, I've been infracted numerous times for comments like that. But I guess moderators are just above the law.

[bgwah]

Al isn't funny or clever. Fact.

[Phony Moderate]

Al isn't funny or clever. Fact.

Projecting again, are we?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

See, krazen, I totally get everything that you're saying, it's just that it's a cocktail of barely-relevant bullsh**t, astonishing leaps of logic, and mean-spirited spin none of which actually answers my question.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

For anyone that is a true Chelsea fan, you should be happy that they're in Philly.

I suppose it's actually quite appropriate given what Chelsea fans are like.

[Napoleon]

I had been warning Democrats since the day Obama was elected how seriously they needed to take the 2010 midterms due to the fact that it was a redistricting election.  They stupidly ignored me and now they will likely be locked out of the House and most state legislatures for a generation. 

Haha. Oh man you're so important.

[RI]

Oh so no more LDS?

Let us know how it goes. I hear Quaker meetings are actually rather boring.

Quakers reflect on their faith which you know, is a little more spiritual than waving your arms around like a tit.

Tell us how it goes Tweed.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If you're going to subscribe to the Austrian cult, MBD, you could at least recognize that it's a minority position rather than stating all your dogma as if it's indisputable fact.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I am now convinced that you are trolling. No one, not even a Canadian who identifies as an American Conservative, could be so fundamentally moronic...