Democrats versus Republicans

[sck5]

PB

Maybe you missed the part about the "Southern Strategy"? Dont take my word for it. Google "southern strategy" and you will see plenty of facts

Wind Magic - you are totally right. but my point wasnt a north/south one, nor did it have anything to do with how southern whites vote. It was that there is a reason the repubs dont get much support from african americans and part of that reason is the repub "Southern Strategy" which is not a figment of my imagination, and which has been part of the repub. strategy in the South for decades. That it doesnt work on voters in Dem primaries is no surprise. The people it was aimed at are voting in the Repub. primary.

Hard to see how noticing this constitutes arrogance.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I thought you Blocked me -- welcome back.

If this refers/co-refers to me, I assure you that if I had something to say to you, I'd say it directly to you. There's plenty of evidence to support this -- evidence, a low-flame "controlled" moth could ONLY set aside by pigeonholing a person it knows nothing about (I include my affection for Rand here as you've managed to not only not get one of the clearest, bluntest writers around, but have filed a thoroughly pro-Reason, couldn't-be-more-antithetical-to-mysticism system under the cliche label of "religion." Even the uber-Left and panicked Right have set that cheap tag aside.)

No Rags, had nothing to do with you so all I can say is WTF are you talking about? Your abstract writing sometimes gets so abstract I can’t find the canvas, yet along the picture you are drawing.

I referred to getting drawn back into this silly thread. And you talk about me presuming.. check the mirror please.

I’ve never blocked anyone on this site, I just choose to ignore them

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I

So while I appreciate you posting on this, I don't get why you feel you were baited. I can see how you "drew" this conclusion. I just don't get why you allow yourself to "think" this way.

I think again you presume I– again, had nothing to do with you other than a overstated case of facts. If you have failed to notice let me point out one thing about me – I always comment when a poster posts a comment that is unbalanced of non-factual. I do that to either side of a discussion without bias on either side. Its who I am, have always been and will always be – on that point please presume away. If I see a post of that nature I will counter post, if I have time and care about the subject.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I don't care that he's a PhD -- I have less and less confidence in academia as I study them -- and have no interest in feeding the masses. (Not doing well with the presumptions, are you? A mainframe with the wrong programming can be outdone by a 5th grader with pen and paper. We pick the ideas that run our "hardware," so if the chosen ideas are off, the higher speeds/capacities of those who test well work against their efficaciousness, not for it.)

My comments were on him and his article, and it’s purpose - so still you presume that my post had anything to do with you other than you felt you had to post a quote from it.
Why do you think I need to worry.
WTF does a mainframe and programming it have to do with anything else in this post? Just as a BTW, pen and paper can’t be used to program computers, it takes a keyboard and knowledge of programming – something most 5th graders don’t have. I know, it’s what I do for a living.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

No matter his or anyone's job, title, affiliations, etc., "motives," MO, etc., honest minds still need to look at the arguments put forth. Anything else is a waste of time.

BTW: how is it that writing on big oil disqualifies said writings from the Economics umbrella?

THAT WAS PRECISELY MY POINT – it seems to me you took his article on face value, did no checking at all and posted it as gospel truth. I offered a researched counterpoint – something I do not find at all in your response to my point is a single point of fact addressing any inaccuracies on my part.
Why is that?


As to the big oil comment it doesn’t disqualify him, it helps the honest mind understand his leaning and direction.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Equivocation: the individuals they pay are taxed as you and I are. The Q is: why should successful teams of individuals be subjected to the additional, anchor-around-the-economy's-neck Corp tax?

Because that is the tax system? As I said it’s not the best, but I have no better one to recommend.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Further, while I appreciate your post, I see a huge, typical omission:

The whole reason corps are taxed as corps is because they're afforded liability protection under the Corp structure. But this is no more the proper realm of Gov than anything else Gov does.

If a concern offers to sell a product/service only under the condition that they're only willing to assume X amount liability, the market can access that offer and respond -- right of contract.

To say that corps need to pay a staggering tax in order to exercise the right to offer products and services as they like to a [vibrant] market is the stuff of fantasy.

Sorry, I had not intention of writing a book about corporate law (hence my inexplicable (in your opinion) failure to mention corporate liability protect). Sorry if that is typical, and again, I fair to see how it is relevant to the purpose of my post.
I was addressing the overstatement of taxes paid by Exxon as addressed by Dr. Perry. I think I’ve stated my position on stifling corporate profits and how that’s detrimental – do you need a link to my posts?

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Why not stop the Gov's vig, taxing corp owners like everyone else?

What? Jesus man, sometimes I can’t follow you at all. I’m going to go burn a certain membership card if I can find it.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Again, I don't see how you reach this split between economics and taxation. Letting them earn and then taxing them for whatever programs you approve of sets aside the injustice of taxing them twice, the injustice of taxing them for being successful, and ignores the almost incalculable impact taxation has on productivity. (If anyone on that ladder needs corporations to be able to push forward 101% it's those on the bottom -- not the guy that has to chose between a Swan 130 and a Swan 100.)

What split do you presume I make? Man, for someone who hates presumption I think you really need to look in the mirror.
I’ll say it again – I was addressing Dr. Perry’s non-factual summation of Exxon’s tax bill. Everything else is your presumption. Re-read my post if you would.

Sometimes this is fun  Sometimes it’s a real PITA. Guess which?

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

Wind Magic - you are totally right. but my point wasnt a north/south one, nor did it have anything to do with how southern whites vote. It was that there is a reason the repubs dont get much support from african americans and part of that reason is the repub "Southern Strategy" which is not a figment of my imagination, and which has been part of the repub. strategy in the South for decades. That it doesnt work on voters in Dem primaries is no surprise. The people it was aimed at are voting in the Repub. primary.

Hard to see how noticing this constitutes arrogance.

This is the off topic forum, so why not ....

Democrats I have really gotten to know normally think that they are smarter, better educated, as a result more successful, more open minded, less superstitious, more objective, and in general just better than their rural cousins who live out in the "red states". This arrogance knows no bounds.

Fortunately we in the country are perfectly content to let city people keep thinking that.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[PBzeer]

Nope sck5, just because a bunch of admittedly bias people invent meanings for things, isn't proof of anything. Show me something that the GOP has done that is demonstrably racist, not ASSUMED to be. And just to show ya I'm not all bad, I'll give you some help ..... show me EVERYTHING that George Allen has done that makes him a racist (you're the one who called him that)

[chucklesR]

Speaking of math not adding up; Obama on this one:

From : http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07...ama_factsheet/
"

# Calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2022 and 60 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2030.

In 2005, the U.S. consumed 4 billion gallons of ethanol, and 140 billion of oil.
We also produced about 11 billion bushels of corn that year.
Calculators anyone?

We don't make enough corn, in fact it would take about 36% of the U.S. land mass to make enough corn at current bushel per acre yields (okay, it can get better with more chemicals and such, but isn't it supposed to be green?).


The entire corn yield of these the United States (11 billion bushels) would yield a bumper crop of exactly 24.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Hope you southern democrats aren't too hooked on corn bread.
No more corn chips, corn dogs etc...

Oh, and ethanol is only 10-15% better than using fossil fuels in the production of greenhouse gas.

Maybe I should double post this to the GW thread.

[sck5]

search for george allen and macaca on youtube. It was enough for me to conclude he's racist since his mother comes from a country where the word is used. I have travelled in Africa and that word is the equivalent of the N word here. Just as vulgar. Just as derogatory. Used in exactly the same way. Nobody who has ever heard it used would mistake it for anything else and if you tried to tell anyone there that applying it to someone with a dark skin meant anything other than what it does, they would laugh at you.

Just imagine what would happen if a politician called somebody with dark skin a "N......". Would you have any doubt whether they were a racist? WOuld it matter if their first language were something other than English?

[sck5]

this democrat thinks that the ONLY reason ethanol is getting a big push is because Iowa comes first in the election calendar. Probably doesnt hurt with votes in other farm states either. Wont solve the problem. Could create others in fact with food prices on the rise. I am in favor of doing whatever we can to find alternatives to middle eastern oil but ethanol in my opinion anyway, is a political and not an economic or environmental fix.

[PBzeer]

I know this is a waste of time, but I'll do it once.

So, one word makes a person racist? In that case, I would guess about 98% of the population is. Though I'm sure you've never personally used any such terms, right? Never used a derogatory word about anyone, right?

As to your use of the "Southern Stragey" as "proof", let me remind you, that words have meanings, and when one uses words to express an idea or opinion, then logical conclusions can be drawn from these ideas and opinions (you must believe that, since you draw conclusions from merely one word). Take the term "state's rights". In your lexicon, this is a code word for segregation and other forms of discrimination against blacks. If we accept that definition as accurate, what you are then saying is, that anyone who doesn't believe in bigger government (the opposite of state's rights) is a racist.

I won't bother to go into the less than inspiring results of the Democratic Party's concern for blacks. You might though, do some research on the issues that matter to the black population and where they stand on them. I think you'll find the results somewhat suprising.