Republican candidates for 2012
-
IggyPride00
Alot of them understand it, they just don't think its fair.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.
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. -
Manhattan BuckeyeLet 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. -
Con_Alma
This is sadly very true.O-Trap;1063700 wrote:...
Nothing at all wrong with it. I'm just saying modern Libertarianism is more conservative than modern Republicanism.
....
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. -
fish82
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.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
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. -
WebFire
What a novel idea! A politician standing up for what he believes in!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. -
fish82
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.WebFire;1063773 wrote:What a novel idea! A politician standing up for what he believes in! -
WebFire
I see. So he should have just been a puppet and played along with something he believes is wrong.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. -
Manhattan Buckeye
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.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. -
queencitybuckeye
You seem to believe in a right not to be inconvenienced that I regret to inform you that you simply do not have.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. -
pmoney25
Just shut up and live with it. Our founders would be so proud. -
I Wear PantsYeah that attitude is disgusting.
-
sleeper
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.pmoney25;1063825 wrote:Just shut up and live with it. Our founders would be so proud. -
fish82
That's all I'm sayin.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.
Bonus points for drama. Well done.pmoney25;1063825 wrote:Just shut up and live with it. Our founders would be so proud.
I'm at a loss how you come to that conclusion. I inferred no such thing.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. -
Cleveland Buck
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. -
fish82
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: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. -
O-Trap
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.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:
Ultimately, unwelcome physical contact is unwelcome physical contact. The body part doesn't matter. -
fish82
When was the last time you were on a crowded dance floor? No difference.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. -
majorspark
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.
-
QuakerOats
No doubt; it will be class warfare at its best with the King of Divisiveness going all out in his FINAL SOTU.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. -
O-Trap
1. It's been a long time. Not really my scene.fish82;1064222 wrote:When was the last time you were on a crowded dance floor? No difference.
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 Wear Pants
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...".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. -
fish82
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.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 Wear Pants
-
majorspark
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?