Why Democrats Are So Dangerous

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

The LOGIC of the LEFT

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Democrats are dangerous. They will say anything to win an election. They have run out of ideas. They neither share in our founding fathers' dream nor believe in it. They are dangerous because they are a dying party.

Why Democrats Are So Dangerous

By Ray DiLorenzo

Why Democrats Are So Dangerous Democrats are dangerous. They are not your fathers Democrats. They dont believe in anything your parents believed in. They scream and yell or sit on the floor if they dont get their way. What was once a small group of radicals in the sixties has now completely taken over the party. I dont think there is a lucid member left.

While the parents of todays Democrat leaders worked hard, remembering the depression, many of their children were a bored and spoiled group. They never knew the urgency to leave school at 16 to help put food on the table or defend their very existence from nations like Germany and Japan. Bernie Sanders was kicked out of a commune for not pulling his weight. Who gets kicked out of a commune?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I recycle those cups all the time. You're right though, we are producing way too much plastic and it is polluting our oceans and damaging the food chain at a macro level.

I'd be in favor of regulating limits on the use of plastic for disposable items, but that would go against peoples religion of letting the free market self-correct everything for us.

There are many examples of how well that has worked for us, but here is one of my favorites:

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Just reuse cups. Bring your own mug for coffee, container for a soft drink etc. Reuse grocery bags, get the cloth ones. I actually took grain bags (plastic) and sewed them into totes. Got chicken pics, birds etc. Came out very cool.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
I recycle those cups all the time. You're right though, we are producing way too much plastic and it is polluting our oceans and damaging the food chain at a macro level.

I'd be in favor of regulating limits on the use of plastic for disposable items, but that would go against peoples religion of letting the free market self-correct everything for us.

There are many examples of how well that has worked for us, but here is one of my favorites:

Actually shouldn't that be a picture of Bernie Sanders?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

There are plenty of good rich people out there. And there are plenty of ^^^ these guys. A persons bank balance isn't a good window in to their soul, but their actions usually are.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I don't get that warm and trusting feeling with Bernie Sanders... Sure I like this thoughts for healthcare but I'd be more interested in GOOD INSURANCE at a reasonable rate.

Part of the reason I try to avoid the doctors is because I am scared that I might get a diagnosis for something that is not covered (and I have coverage) - I am sure many people feel the same!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

There may be a flaw in your plan to avoid doctors Rex. Not knowing about a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it has plenty of time to fester and get worse.

I'm usually pretty healthy and haven't seen my general practitioner in years, actually he retired so I really don't have one at the moment. Last year when I got viral meningitis though I'm pretty sure the hospital doc saved my life. Just think, there was almost one less liberal asshole for you to deal with.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
There are plenty of good rich people out there. And there are plenty of ^^^ these guys. A persons bank balance isn't a good window in to their soul, but their actions usually are.

Like the actions of proposing a 52% income tax on the 1% that he who is in the 1% does not want to pay? those types of actions?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Ideally tax policy should be set by people who do not yet know how successful they will themselves become. But yes, the top 1% needs to pay more, and here is why...

"As of 2007, the richest 1% held about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States. while the bottom 90% held 73.2% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent."

That ^^^ is not an indication of a healthy economy, and is reminiscent of things just prior to the great depression. If the top 1% were taxed at 90% on annual income over $10 million, they would still live quite well thank you very much. My goal isn't to punish the rich, but to have a sustainable economy that works for everyone. The rich would be wise to share that goal.

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Bernie paid what "he owed". Not what he wants everyone else to pay though.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Bernie wants to change the law so that he will owe more, that's the difference.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Ideally tax policy should be set by people who do not yet know how successful they will themselves become. But yes, the top 1% needs to pay more, and here is why...

"As of 2007, the richest 1% held about 38% of all privately held wealth in the United States. while the bottom 90% held 73.2% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent."

That ^^^ is not an indication of a healthy economy, and is reminiscent of things just prior to the great depression. If the top 1% were taxed at 90% on annual income over $10 million, they would still live quite well thank you very much. My goal isn't to punish the rich, but to have a sustainable economy that works for everyone. The rich would be wise to share that goal.

We completely disagree...

While I am okay with a slightly progressive tax scale...

no one should ever pay more than 30% in any circumstance...

people at the bottom pay nothing...

the part the left does not grasp is all the stuff they want the government to pay for if you tax every individual who made over 10 million 90% on ONLY what they exceed 10 million you could not pay for anything...simply not enough people make that kind of money...

if fact VERY few make THAT kind of money...

top of the middle class is what gets killed under the LEFT WING plan...

this idea that the Trump tax cut was only for billionaires is ridiculous...every married couple saw their tax on the first $25K disappear....

everyone who ACTUALLY pays federal taxes got a substantial tax cut in 2018...

Why do you feel like you have some right to redistribute wealth?

Why do you get to decide what is FAIR...

What EXACTLY is so wrong with people earning according to their abilities?

three tier progressive scale....under 25K = ZERO

25K to 250K = sliding scale of 10% to 20%

over 250K = 25%

if you wanted to place a 30% on all earnings over 1M I would not argue...

but you never exceed 30% EVER...PERIOD regardless of how the money is earned...labor or capital gains...both should be taxed the same based on the amount earned in total...

and the reason why??? because it kills economic growth...

people simply will not produce or take risk at all if the government gets to heavy handed on taxation...

I know you WANT to believe they will just take it because they have no choice but history proves otherwise....

they take their business and jobs to where they're not taxed so heavily....

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:
Bernie wants to change the law so that he will owe more, that's the difference.

Please spare us the BULLSHIT, PowerStroker!

If Bernie wanted to pay more he could do that without making everyone else pay more! That suggestion is a total scam!

But here is a FACT - Trump donates 100% of his Presidential Pay to different government agencies and charities BY CHOICE, without being told to, and without asking anyone else to do the same!

There is a difference between the "talk" that Sanders is doing and the "action" that Trump is taking.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

And since Trump is not taking a paycheck, or should I say donating the proceeds of his Presidential salary, he is well within his rights to keep his tax returns private!

How many Presidents in the history of the USA of have donated their entire Presidential salary while in office?

That being said, it's a sad fact we are still paying Obama for the shit job he did! Obama will mooch off our system for decades to come!

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

PowerStroker wrote:
Bernie wants to change the law so that he will owe more, that's the difference.

Berniw couldn't change his shit stained shorts let alone the law. He has done NOTHING his entire political career if one could call it that. 1 stupid bill in how many decades?

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:

I'd be in favor of regulating limits on the use of plastic for disposable items, but that would go against peoples religion of letting the free market self-correct everything for us.

Start a company that only uses biodegradable paper products...

Then you will have to deal with all those against you cutting down the trees for your products...

We go to plastics and synthetics to not exhaust natural resources....

in the 70's companies were forced to adapt to plastic rather than use paper, they went from paper containers to styrofoam to plastic then back to paper...

using paper products is a bigger threat to the issues of carbon emissions than all the fossil fuels combined....

no matter what you do...people are bad for the planet...

difference is...I do not believe allowing democrats to take my money will change it in the least...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Do you have any suggestions that would?

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Do you have any suggestions that would?

Stop cutting down all the trees....

trees absorb all those carbon emissions...

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

People aren't bad for the planet!

I got news for you, all you fruits and vegetables are grown in shit! It's all recycled into this big planet that is constantly changing.

And while I agree that trees do help, they can be dangerous when they get old and thus need to be cut down before they reach that state! You can replant a tree, you can't replant a human!

It's time people started to act like they are at the top of the food chain before we're all enveloped in liberal fear giving them all our money so people like Sanders and the Democrats can once again live high on the hog and waste more money at tax payers expense!

Anyone who advocates the lunacy known as the liberal logic needs to be immediately rejected and dismissed before they can do further harm to society.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:

Stop cutting down all the trees....

trees absorb all those carbon emissions...

The FREE MARKET is the reason they are being cut down, and proves MY point that we need to intervene in the free market so this kind of stuff doesn't happen.

So if Democrats introduced a bill putting strict regulations on logging, and authorized taxpayer dollars to buy massive chunks of the rain forest in South America to then make a national park where logging would be banned, you would give your absolute support right? And since good policy is paid for up front, a tax would be levied to pay for this, and you wouldn't even blink right? Because it would be an awful shame if policy YOU suggest is something YOU aren't willing to pay for.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 21st of April 2019 11:11:16 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Sure PowerStroker, given all the crap going on there we might as well buy all of South America like we did with Alaska....

Fix everything in one fell swoop...

How much you figure we should offer them? lol

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Nuffan wrote:

Stop cutting down all the trees....

trees absorb all those carbon emissions...
The FREE MARKET is the reason they are being cut down, and proves MY point that we need to intervene in the free market so this kind of stuff doesn't happen.
So if Democrats introduced a bill putting strict regulations on logging, and authorized taxpayer dollars to buy massive chunks of the rain forest in South America to then make a national park where logging would be banned, you would give your absolute support right? And since good policy is paid for up front, a tax would be levied to pay for this, and you wouldn't even blink right? Because it would be an awful shame if policy YOU suggest is something YOU aren't willing to pay for.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 21st of April 2019 11:11:16 PM

Why do you assume a tax will somehow stop trees from being cut down?

Not EVERY regulation has a monetary price tag...

Just because YOU seem to believe we must levy a tax on EVERY issue under the sun does not mean the rest of us agree...

FTR...the free market created plastic so we could stop using so many paper bags and paper straws...

It actually WAS regulations that led to the FREE MARKET creating plastic products to replace paper products....

When I was a young boy grocery stores did not use plastic bags....it was all paper products...

I have never seen someone who is so hell bent on finding a REASON to tax people more....

-- Edited by Nuffan on Monday 22nd of April 2019 06:09:15 AM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Taxing people isn't my goal, but protecting the rain forest is a goal we apparently share. The difference is I want to find ways to pay for it, and you don't.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Taxing people isn't my goal, but protecting the rain forest is a goal we apparently share. The difference is I want to find ways to pay for it, and you don't.

The difference is you think money will solve it...and I DON'T

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Money can buy the land and protect it, I don't know what else will, but if you have a suggestion I'm listening.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Money only controls people PowerStroker, it doesn't control the natural order of things.

You'd be wise to remember that.

The universe could care less about your greenbacks...

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Buying the rain forest to protect it will cost MONEY fellas, and we will likely need to pay a premium because presently people are earning their living by cutting it all down.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I have always been an advocate of expanding the United States and you know this PowerStroker!

My issues with your suggestion that we buy the rain forest is that if we don't get the entire country/government that said rainforest resides, then buying it would just be another colossal waste of money since we could never really enforce any law there! If we could buy the rainforest like we purchased Alaska from Russia that would be a good idea! But even then it would result in part of your forest being cut down to make room for our government and people!

This is common sense, but I understand that common sense is not a flower that grows in a Democrats garden.

It's like I have always said, "Buy land because God isn't making any more of it".

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Well when I suggest buying the rain forest, I do mean that it would be sovereign US territory. Hell, we could even build a border wall around it and station a military base there to protect it. It would help save the planet for future generations.

Now, how much will you allow your taxes to be increased for this investment in the future?

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Buying the rain forest to protect it will cost MONEY fellas, and we will likely need to pay a premium because presently people are earning their living by cutting it all down.

So now you are trying to say the US government will use the money to buy the rain forest?

The bullshit you will spread to try and support your ridiculous agenda....

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

If a bill is passed and signed in to law that has a built in funding mechanism, then yes.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
If a bill is passed and signed in to law that has a built in funding mechanism, then yes.

and if and buts were cherries and nuts we would have ourselves a fruit cake...

YOU suggested that is how money could rectify climate change when I point out it can not be fixed with money YOU come up with the buying the rain forest bullshit...

when pressed on that YOU start with your if and buts....lol

talk about moving the goal post to try and defend a position....

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

You suggested we stop cutting down all the trees, I merely came up with a way that could be implemented. Feel free to come up with your own way and let us know.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
You suggested we stop cutting down all the trees, I merely came up with a way that could be implemented. Feel free to come up with your own way and let us know.

You are still trying yo justify a tax...

So you are desperately trying to find a solution that would actually call for money...

money is not going to stop trees from getting cut down...

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Current regulations require companies that cut down trees to replant the amount they are cutting down... While it might not be immediate results, within 5 years the new trees will being getting big enough where they can cut them down again..

Isn't that the very definition of sustainable? We cut down crops of every sort from corn to soy beans and everything in between without any issue... We are even making fuel out of corn..

We are talking about a PLANT here and a tree can be re-grown!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:
PowerStroker wrote:
You suggested we stop cutting down all the trees, I merely came up with a way that could be implemented. Feel free to come up with your own way and let us know.

You are still trying yo justify a tax...

So you are desperately trying to find a solution that would actually call for money...

money is not going to stop trees from getting cut down...

So what would?

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

PowerStroker wrote:
Well when I suggest buying the rain forest, I do mean that it would be sovereign US territory. Hell, we could even build a border wall around it and station a military base there to protect it. It would help save the planet for future generations.

Now, how much will you allow your taxes to be increased for this investment in the future?

You think they are going to just up and sell it to us? Let there be a wall and military?

Tax payer money is OK for that which you want but not Trumps wall, Oh forgot you libs need the illegals for a voter base.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Nuffan wrote:
PowerStroker wrote:
You suggested we stop cutting down all the trees, I merely came up with a way that could be implemented. Feel free to come up with your own way and let us know.

You are still trying yo justify a tax...

So you are desperately trying to find a solution that would actually call for money...

money is not going to stop trees from getting cut down...
So what would?

Not money...as stated in the FREE market the need for more trees forces those who survive on the resources trees provide have an interest in replanting...

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Ignored is the Pacific Northwest and Northern Maine central on on. Much is privatized. Simpson and Weyerhauser own most the Pac NW. Clear cut 100 acres and in 10 to 20 years you have to replant an acre or 2. Lived 30 years or more between the both.

Maine cut timber, loggin truck to Canada, cut it up and send it back. BUT WHO REPLANTS.

Anyone ever read or aware how Maine shipped logs down the river? I doubt it. Mucho arsenic, removed the bark, killed the streams and trout fishing.

PS focuses on Rain forest? How about out own abuse, which is huge.

Kinda like free everything for the illegals, Muzz and nothing for Vets or Citizens, makes sense if your a fukin lib I guess.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Don't worry Shawnee, have faith in the free market to solve all of those issues.

clarity101 · ABOVE AND BEYOND

PowerStroker wrote:
Nuffan wrote:
PowerStroker wrote:
You suggested we stop cutting down all the trees, I merely came up with a way that could be implemented. Feel free to come up with your own way and let us know.

You are still trying yo justify a tax...

So you are desperately trying to find a solution that would actually call for money...

money is not going to stop trees from getting cut down...
So what would?

In 1997, 302 million hectares or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States was in forest land. Today's forest land area amounts to about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630.

US Forest Facts and Historical Trends US Forest Facts

More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true! - Mother Nature ...

https://www.mnn.com Earth Matters Wilderness & Resources

Feb 9, 2011 - In the U.S., there are more trees than there were 100 years ago, according to ... By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent

very interesting info you really should do some research nakedpowerguy!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Nuffan wrote:

"Stop cutting down all the trees....

trees absorb all those carbon emissions..."

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nice research Clarity! But stopping trees from being cut down was Nuffan's idea for stopping global warming, it seems you debunked him... Assuming worldwide statistics mirror those of the US. Any data on that? I'm still more interested in trying to see how he plans to pay for any of his ideas... He seems to think policy changes don't cost anything and the free market can solve all of our problems, I'm not convinced.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 24th of April 2019 08:59:50 PM

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
Nuffan wrote:
"Stop cutting down all the trees....
trees absorb all those carbon emissions..."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nice research Clarity! But stopping trees from being cut down was Nuffan's idea for stopping global warming, it seems you debunked him... Assuming worldwide statistics mirror those of the US. Any data on that? I'm still more interested in trying to see how he plans to pay for any of his ideas... He seems to think policy changes don't cost anything and the free market can solve all of our problems, I'm not convinced.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 24th of April 2019 08:59:50 PM

FOLKS it is a global problem not a US only issue...

as stated in a free market there is incentive for those who need the resources tree provide to replant them...

the fact the US is doing well does not surprise me...now if all the other countries around the globe were in free markets like we have here...

Again there is no need to throw money at this...sorry you are too fucking stupid to understand that...

just because YOU think the only answer is monetary....does not mean that is correct...

-- Edited by Nuffan on Wednesday 24th of April 2019 09:39:23 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I think it's important to point out here that Liberals have long been regarded as "tree huggers", thus the reason this narrative has shifted to trees...

I think we can all agree that no one hits them trees harder than Sonny Bono... <///////////////////////#

Shawnee_B · FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Know how they found him? "sunny side up"