Republican candidates for 2012

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Republican candidates for 2012
IggyPride00's avatar

IggyPride00

Senior Member

6,482 posts
Jan 24, 2012 3:51 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;1063711 wrote:"They are enraged he only paid 13.9% in taxes."

Then they don't understand how dividends and corporate taxation works, the majority of that 13.9% has already been taxed at least once. Then again, why bother? The American Left is fiscally incompetent, all they want is all mortgage principal reduced, all student loans forgiven and the government to print enough money such that everyone is a millionaire, which in reality means no one is.
Alot of them understand it, they just don't think its fair.

I have read though that many in the private equity world are quite uncomfortable about Willard's candidacy (especially if he is the nominee) in the sense that it will shine a light on the carried interest loophole in the tax code that they paid good money to have their lobbyists carve out.

Most people don't have any clue what it is, but it is the kind of thing when they do find out that is ripe for political attack in a populist environment.
Jan 24, 2012 3:51am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Jan 24, 2012 4:07 AM
Let them think it is unfair, at least with the "loophole" (note that many people, including myself, think that the American corporate tax should be zero, and let the investor pay ordinary tax on gains and distributions - get rid of the C corp and S corp/LLC/partnership differences, it might mean a loss of a few thousand tax attorney and accountant jobs but it would simplify the tax code) the money is taxed at some level.

Fairness to these people means everyone's lives suck. What has happened since the One's election? Only just the worst fiscal period in most of our lifetimes. We want to continue it so that Michelle can get her Prada handbag and US$3,000 dress for their Johnny Depp parties while the rest of the electorate are proles?

The ex-pats are very p.o.'ed. Populism might work in the dregs of society, but it ain't working here.
Jan 24, 2012 4:07am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jan 24, 2012 7:02 AM
O-Trap;1063700 wrote:...

Nothing at all wrong with it. I'm just saying modern Libertarianism is more conservative than modern Republicanism.



....
This is sadly very true.

The biggest difference in my mind between pure libertarianism and pure conservatism exists on the social side of things.

The current differences fiscally show libertarianism to be more conservative than the present Republican party.
Jan 24, 2012 7:02am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 24, 2012 8:11 AM
majorspark;1063669 wrote:He was detained long enough to miss his flight. That is the definition of detained. Rand says it hindered him from getting to Washington to make a scheduled vote. The idea that a known US senator could possibly be detained from getting to a scheduled vote is exactly what the constitution was meant to protect. It could be used politically by the executive branch which controls the TSA.

He is not the average airline traveler. He is a well known US senator. If by some reason the idiot did not know who he was Rand would just provide his credentials and move on. Congressman are not above the law but are provided certain protections under the law to prevent political interference in there duties. If we are at the point in this country where we fear US congressman are a threat to blow up planes. God save the republic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46101744/?ocid=ansmsnbc11
He missed his flight because he refused the patdown, and hence was not permitted into the gate area...just like anyone else. While I appreciate the effort you're putting forth to spin this into a constitutional violation, it's a fail. Sorry.

What we do have is a politician being a dick and grandstanding in order to make a political point. It really isn't any more complex than that.
Jan 24, 2012 8:11am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 24, 2012 8:47 AM
fish82;1063755 wrote: What we do have is a politician being a dick and grandstanding in order to make a political point. It really isn't any more complex than that.
What a novel idea! A politician standing up for what he believes in!
Jan 24, 2012 8:47am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 24, 2012 8:52 AM
WebFire;1063773 wrote:What a novel idea! A politician standing up for what he believes in!
It's not really novel at all. Lots of them do it every day...I'll wager almost all of them manage to do it without inconveniencing the 50 people behind them in line.
Jan 24, 2012 8:52am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 24, 2012 9:03 AM
fish82;1063778 wrote:It's not really novel at all. Lots of them do it every day...I'll wager almost all of them manage to do it without inconveniencing the 50 people behind them in line.
I see. So he should have just been a puppet and played along with something he believes is wrong.
Jan 24, 2012 9:03am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Jan 24, 2012 9:08 AM
fish82;1063755 wrote:He missed his flight because he refused the patdown, and hence was not permitted into the gate area...just like anyone else. While I appreciate the effort you're putting forth to spin this into a constitutional violation, it's a fail. Sorry.

What we do have is a politician being a **** and grandstanding in order to make a political point. It really isn't any more complex than that.
Agreed 100%. I don't like the TSA rules but I follow them when I travel in U.S. airspace. That Rand Paul is in Congress is a maguffin, I don't care about who he is or what he is. Many other Americans travel so much that it is obvious they aren't terrorists. I guaran-damn-tee that my wife has traveled more in calendar year '11 than Rand Paul has in his lifetime, if nothing else the three times on the Singapore Airlines flight to Newark back and forth makes his protest look very puny. If he doesn't like the pat-down take it up with Congress, don't make a rear-end of yourself.
Jan 24, 2012 9:08am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Jan 24, 2012 9:33 AM
fish82;1063778 wrote:It's not really novel at all. Lots of them do it every day...I'll wager almost all of them manage to do it without inconveniencing the 50 people behind them in line.
You seem to believe in a right not to be inconvenienced that I regret to inform you that you simply do not have.
Jan 24, 2012 9:33am
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 24, 2012 9:53 AM
Just shut up and live with it. Our founders would be so proud.
Jan 24, 2012 9:53am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 24, 2012 10:06 AM
Yeah that attitude is disgusting.
Jan 24, 2012 10:06am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 24, 2012 10:20 AM
pmoney25;1063825 wrote:Just shut up and live with it. Our founders would be so proud.
I don't really think causing a fuss at the airport for principle reasons is the way to handle it. I'm hoping Rand Paul introduces legislation to eliminate the TSA because that's the only way change is going to happen, albeit slowly.
Jan 24, 2012 10:20am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 24, 2012 10:29 AM
sleeper;1063861 wrote:I don't really think causing a fuss at the airport for principle reasons is the way to handle it. I'm hoping Rand Paul introduces legislation to eliminate the TSA because that's the only way change is going to happen, albeit slowly.
That's all I'm sayin.
pmoney25;1063825 wrote:Just shut up and live with it. Our founders would be so proud.
Bonus points for drama. Well done.
queencitybuckeye;1063805 wrote:You seem to believe in a right not to be inconvenienced that I regret to inform you that you simply do not have.
I'm at a loss how you come to that conclusion. I inferred no such thing.
Jan 24, 2012 10:29am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 24, 2012 10:35 AM
I think it's as simple as the fact that he didn't want to be sexually assaulted by some government thug for no reason. They have no legal right to do it. I don't even know where you get the idea that people had this long wait because of it. They took him over to a cubicle and made him stay there. He wasn't holding up the line.
Jan 24, 2012 10:35am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 24, 2012 10:42 AM
Cleveland Buck;1063882 wrote:I think it's as simple as the fact that he didn't want to be sexually assaulted by some government thug for no reason. They have no legal right to do it. I don't even know where you get the idea that people had this long wait because of it. They took him over to a cubicle and made him stay there. He wasn't holding up the line.
Like I said earlier...I get the treatment at least once a week. To call it "sexual assault" is at best epic Drama Queen, and at worst...just plain farking stupid. Is it five minutes of my life I won't get back? Yes. Annoying? Hell yes. Sexual assault? Gimme fuggin break, dude. :rolleyes:
Jan 24, 2012 10:42am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 24, 2012 2:51 PM
fish82;1063885 wrote:Like I said earlier...I get the treatment at least once a week. To call it "sexual assault" is at best epic Drama Queen, and at worst...just plain farking stupid. Is it five minutes of my life I won't get back? Yes. Annoying? Hell yes. Sexual assault? Gimme fuggin break, dude. :rolleyes:
I get that our society doesn't think of it in terms of sexual assault, but it DOES equate to unwelcome touching of one's own body, and I would suggest that it would indeed fit the definition. If someone was to brush my back versus checking for a balloon of cocaine in my anus, the only difference is the public perception of body parts. Letter of the law, if written to be non-fluid, isn't based on societal whims and notions, which are ever-changing.

Ultimately, unwelcome physical contact is unwelcome physical contact. The body part doesn't matter.
Jan 24, 2012 2:51pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 24, 2012 3:00 PM
O-Trap;1064212 wrote:I get that our society doesn't think of it in terms of sexual assault, but it DOES equate to unwelcome touching of one's own body, and I would suggest that it would indeed fit the definition. If someone was to brush my back versus checking for a balloon of cocaine in my anus, the only difference is the public perception of body parts. Letter of the law, if written to be non-fluid, isn't based on societal whims and notions, which are ever-changing.

Ultimately, unwelcome physical contact is unwelcome physical contact. The body part doesn't matter.
When was the last time you were on a crowded dance floor? No difference.
Jan 24, 2012 3:00pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 24, 2012 3:59 PM
Charitable giving will have no part of Obama's state of the campaign speech tonight. It will be all about evil corporate fat cats like Willard skate by at lower tax rates than the rest of us. Complete with props like Warren Buffet's secretary. And ridding government of influence peddlers like Newt.
Jan 24, 2012 3:59pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jan 24, 2012 5:04 PM
majorspark;1064324 wrote:Charitable giving will have no part of Obama's state of the campaign speech tonight. It will be all about evil corporate fat cats like Willard skate by at lower tax rates than the rest of us. Complete with props like Warren Buffet's secretary. And ridding government of influence peddlers like Newt.
No doubt; it will be class warfare at its best with the King of Divisiveness going all out in his FINAL SOTU.
Jan 24, 2012 5:04pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 24, 2012 5:39 PM
fish82;1064222 wrote:When was the last time you were on a crowded dance floor? No difference.
1. It's been a long time. Not really my scene.

2. Not an authority doing it at a dance club.

3. If it is established to have been done intentionally, particularly if the contact has been said to be unwelcome (think sexual harassment), then it is just as wrong.
Jan 24, 2012 5:39pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 24, 2012 5:52 PM
majorspark;1064324 wrote:Charitable giving will have no part of Obama's state of the campaign speech tonight. It will be all about evil corporate fat cats like Willard skate by at lower tax rates than the rest of us. Complete with props like Warren Buffet's secretary. And ridding government of influence peddlers like Newt.
Republicans would crush Obama if his solution to certain things was to cut them and replace them with "charitable giving". 100% it would be "so he just assumes/expects working Americans to give money to...".
Jan 24, 2012 5:52pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 24, 2012 6:00 PM
O-Trap;1064433 wrote:1. It's been a long time. Not really my scene.

2. Not an authority doing it at a dance club.

3. If it is established to have been done intentionally, particularly if the contact has been said to be unwelcome (think sexual harassment), then it is just as wrong.
I'm speaking to the level of contact...it's similar to what you would find on a dance floor. Hence, if "unwanted contact is unwanted contact," then I'd assume you'd hear a lot more bitching about people getting their stuff brushed up on in that setting.
Jan 24, 2012 6:00pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 24, 2012 6:17 PM
Jan 24, 2012 6:17pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 24, 2012 6:24 PM
Obama is going to reveal in his state of the campaign address his "blueprint" for the economy. It took 3yrs to get the blueprint done. We are all on the edge of our seats. Will it include a budget? When do we break ground?
Jan 24, 2012 6:24pm