This has exactly the same validity as smiling bandit’s drivel.
It’s on the government to tell us what we have to pay. An individual is under no obligation to not maximize their own earnings, and a single person’s contribution sure as hell wouldn’t do any good anyway.
I’d guess not, since he’s not a moron. Since somebody else already made the same idiotic point in this thread, let’s say it again: Frank doesn’t think raising his taxes alone is going to have any effect. He’s saying everybody’s taxes should be raised, and that those who whine about having to pay more are out of touch with economic reality. Which you’ve already proven with your response.
Oddly enough yes. I deliberately set my withholdings too low, giving the government an interest free loan, and I don’t maximize my deductions out, meaning my refund isn’t as high as it could be.
Not that I think there’s a moral obligation to do so just because you believe taxes should be higher, but what’s your next point?
Jesus fucking Christ, do you retards all hang out at the same irradiated playground?
What percentage of the federal budget do you think is made up of earmarks?
Anyway, every time someone says we should fund public roads I become furious. If you want the country to have roads so badly, why aren’t you out there on weekends laying down pavement in your spare time?
The Democrats controlled the Senate when the Iraq AUMF was voted on.
Unlike some here, I think this is a good idea. We should get organized to increase our own taxes and pay down the debt. We’ll call our organization the Government of the United States of America.
Pointless nitpick noted.
You, and smiling bandit, and Rand Rover, and all the other members of your collective of nitwits are exactly demonstrative of why the United States will crash and burn without changing our ways.
This country needs to cut spending; this country needs to raise taxes.
Your side is all about refusing to pay your fair share to support our government, our nation; a government and nation that you benefit from every single moment of your life.
America: pay for it, or leave it.
That’ll never work!
It’s a “nitpick” to note that your premise is false? Got it.
I have no false sense that the Iraq war was not the baby of the Bush and the GOP, but the Dens could have stopped it if they wanted to. Hell, the GOP can stop whatever they don’t want with 41 Senators.
You deny his premise then agree with it. Come on, John.
And yeah, the Dems are assholes. It’s galling that they’re still a better choice on the whole than Republicans. It’s like choosing diarrhea over vomiting.
My premise is that the Republicans are completely responsible for us going to war in Iraq. They created the idea out of whole cloth, and rammed it through using the raw emotions and fear of 9/11. Yes, fictitious non-pussy Democrats could have stood firm and tried to stare them down, but between the direct allegations of an immediate threat, the hints that the Administration didn’t technically need Senate authorization (since they could pretend the first Gulf war resolution still counted) but were just asking to be polite, and the brimstone rhetoric being leveled at anyone at the time who didn’t march in lockstep with the Administration of being traitors and cowards, the idea that 50 Senate Democrats ever had a chance of uniting against the war resolution is laughably stupid.
If you’re a Republican, your party and your party alone is the reason we pissed a trillion dollars into killing a few hundred thousand people and handing Iran control of the Middle East on a silver platter. Be proud.
This is actually pretty typical. If 95% of Republicans vote in favor of a special interest or for a pointless war and 40% of the Democrats do the same – some poster here will blame both sides equally. Heck, the percentages can be 100% Republican and 10 or 20% Dem, and you’ll find modern conservatives doing the same thing.
Iraq War Resolution, 2002:
House of Rep:
97% of Republicans support, 3% do not.
39% of Democrats support, 61% oppose.
“Both sides are to blame!”
Admittedly in the Senate, they at least have a point:
98% of Republicans support, 2% do not.
58% of Dems support, 42% oppose
…but I seriously doubt whether any Democratic administration would get the sort of hardon for war that George Bush/Dick Cheney had – nor would a Republican administration that wasn’t led draft dodgers.
There’s also the little point that one side was lying to the other to get them to go along. One side had liars and dupes, the other side just dupes. A liar is a worse person than a dupe.
To be fair jsgoddess, not all Dems who voted for the AUMF were dupes. Some may have disbelieved the evidence but believed the threat of military force was appropriate for other reasons, and some may have disbelieved and thought the authorization was bad policy but were moral cowards.
So on the scale of “bad to worse”, I’m not sure where that latter group lies.
Although I’m culpable in continuing the hijack, could we fuck off with this retarded little history lesson and get back to raising Frank’s taxes?
No. Now’s the time in dopeland where we bring up abortion.
Wait, I paid for a meta argument. Is this the right room?
Back when Clinton was about a quarter as active in pursuing foreign wars as Bush was, Republicans called it foreign adventurism and wagging the dog.
So all that should have to happen to get the GOP to suddenly become peaceniks is to get a Democrat president. And yes indeedy, lots of republicans are suddenly pointing fingers and saying “HAHA! Your guy did something slightly similar! Obama didn’t magically bring peace to the middle east and release everyone from Gitmo on an executive order! Your argument is invalid!”