Do you happen to have a quote for how exactly he attacked Romney? I suspect he just threw whatever criticisms he could at Romney and saw what stuck, because it’s unlikely he’s going to get blow back for any of it, but without knowing exactly what he said it’s hard to know what he was going for.
I guess our experiences vary, but I’ve encountered extreme discipline amongst republican types as far as their talking points go. They’re all on the same page in my experience, so Gingrich probably made a mistake.
Red cars and ice cream are not causally connected to what the OP was complaining about, which is that Romney does not pay enough in taxes.
The OP said that Romney was not morally fit to be President, because Romney supported a system under which he (Romney) paid what he did in taxes. The system under which Romney pays his taxes is one where charitable deductions (and different rates on dividends vs. other kinds of income) affect how much tax one pays. The OP did not specify what parts of the system were morally fine and which were objectionable; he merely asserted that Romney should not be President because he did not push to change the system such that he paid more in taxes.
It is reasonable, therefore, to examine the reasons why Romney paid what he did in taxes, and see which are the ones the OP feels makes the system immoral.
There you are simply wrong. The factors that affect Romney’s tax payments are entirely relevant to discussions about Romney’s tax payments.
Do you understand that making 3m in charitable donations does not mean you get to pay 3m less in taxes? I’ve explained it.
Removing those deductions from the picture - as if he didn’t make any charitable donations - just means his tax rate goes from 14% to 16%. It’s not all that big a deal, because for the purposes of the OP’s argument, the difference is not really significant.
Even if you fail to understand this, there is no way that any intellectual honest, non-retard could possibly conclude that this means “liberals must hate charitable donations”.
Do you understand the difference? I mean, you could’ve dropped into the thread and said “well, part of his tax rate comes from the fact that he made charitable donations, which we all agree is good” like any fucking non-asshole might’ve. But instead you come in saying Y U GUYS HATE CHARITY, FUCKIN EVIL LIBRULS.
There is no angle from which your bullshit makes any sense. It’s both irrelevant (the issue of his charity is not the object of the thread) and even then you just make shit up.
Really, just try to justify this statement:
You’re saying that I, personally, made an argument that donating money to charity is bad. And furthermore, I made that determination when I heard a republican did it. Walk me through this, based on my posts to that thread, how you came to this conclusion. It will be difficult, because at no point did I fucking say anything remotely like anything you claim I did.
Well, I grew up in small-town central Pennsylvania, and most of the Republicans/conservatives I knew were people just like the ones you describe. There aren’t a lot of rich folks in central PA, to be honest, so rich people are definitely “the other” there. Gun control is a big issue in central PA–I don’t know if it’s got a higher proportion of hunters than any other area in the country, but it’s got to be close. My hometown has more churches than restaurants, banks, grocery stores, and any other meeting places put together. So, yeah, I get where you’re getting from on the small-town vote issue. I once heard a claim that if the parties kept every other platform plank but switched gun control, central PA would turn from solid GOP to solid Dem overnight, and I don’t doubt it.
My guess is that Newt’s trying to walk a tight line with it. I don’t think he screwed up, but he’s going to have to balance attacks specifically on Mitt not paying enough in tax (I should note here, in defense of Newt, that he himself paid about 25% in taxes, so that wasn’t mere empty talk) with his more general anti-tax message. That’s not going to be easy in sound-bite America. It’s not a point he’s come back to in the GOP debates, and I’m not sure he will. But he’s going to have to come up with a clearer argument if he’s the nominee, because Obama will pound him on it. (“Speaker, remember when Mitt released his taxes, and you said he didn’t pay enough? Well, I agree! What are you going to do as President to make sure it doesn’t happen in the future?”)
And GIMMIE, GIMMIE, GIMMIE is more mature? I think not.
Face it, it’s liberals who want to be protected, coddled and provided for, to be shielded from the negative consequences of their own actions, who insist they have a right to behave as objectionably as they want no matter what anyone else thinks, and who stomp their feet and yell that you’re stupid and mean when you won’t give them what they want.
This is why you find the greatest number of liberal adherents among naive impressionable college students and others of that age, and why many of them once they’re out in the real world and on their own begin to abandon it as they mature.
Some, however, continue to cling to that selfish, immature and willful mindset as they achieve middle age, wholly unaware of what an unattractive harpy their attitudes and unreasoned willfullness have caused them to become.
Shodan’s brand of conservatism isn’t about being childish. It’s about cowardice. Like how Shodan and SA are unable to face reality and learn when shown factual information.
How often has Shodan been shown to be utterly wrong and he just stops posting in the thread? He’s so afraid that his ideology might get challenged he just runs away and pretends it didn’t happen.
I wonder - let’s seperate this from stuff like entitlements for a moment. How do you feel about issues where liberals tend to believe what’s factually correct and conservatives don’t? For instance, evolution. Wait, no, you don’t really believe in evolution. Global warming? Ha. Okay, this is more difficult to ask than I anticipated, since you’re in the category of idiots who embraces a non-factual view of the world.
Do you believe the earth is more than a few thousand years old? Okay, if so, how does it make you feel that people who believe otherwise are overwhelmingly conservative?
I mean - this isn’t an issue of selfishness or sharing, or of value judgements - it’s simply a matter of accepting something that is provable and true. How do the conservatives come out as superior on these issues in your mind?
So if they’re young and liberal, it’s because they’re dumb, but eventually they won’t be liberal anymore, excpet when they are, in which case they’re dumb. Pretty well covered there.
Not just ideology. It was pointed out to him by multiple posters (including myself) that he doesn’t know what the phrase “de facto” means. (cite)
He chose to simply leave the thread than acknowlege he had been mis-using the term “de facto” because it meant the exact opposite of what he thought it meant.
Ouch. I forgot about that thread. That is embarrassing. It would have been less embarrassing if he copped to it, but he’d rather run away crying than face reality.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Removing those deductions from the picture - as if he didn’t make any charitable donations - just means his tax rate goes from 14% to 16%.
[/QUOTE]
Again, you are not making any sense. If a system is evil because it causes Romney to pay too low a tax rate, then wouldn’t the factors that reduce tax rates be evil? Charitable deductions reduce the tax rate.
The OP claimed that anyone who did not oppose the current system - including charitable deductions, and capital gains tax - was unfit to be President. You agreed. Therefore, you oppose the current system, including charitable deductions and capital gains tax.
That’s why it is so clear you simply oppose everything Romney does - because you contradict yourself in doing so, and blame it on others.
:shrugs:
This is like trying to explain table manners to a chimpanzee. I shouldn’t expect it to do much good.
