Scratch

Not a great analogy, since going out for a few beers is a luxury, not a necessity.  The essential services paid for by taxes are similarly a necessity, not a luxury, so to improve your analogy, lets change the beers for a decent meal - perhaps the only decent meal that some of those attending get, and then lets play it out again.

The wealthy man goes to the resturaunt owner and says "Hey, I'm paying too much, you should reduce the cost."

"Well, you can't get something for nothing" responds the owner.  "If I reduce the costs, I'll have to reduce the quality of the meal.  It might not even be good enough quality to live on."

"No worries" says the rich guy.  "I and the others of us that have the money will just pick up a burger on the way home.  We'll still save money."

"But what about the poor people?  They won't be able to do that." responded the resturaunteer.

"Stuff 'em." responded the Rich guy.  "Not my problem.  Let 'em starve, as long as I'm getting my discount."

***

And that, my friends, is how the economy works when wealthy business owners "persuade" politicians that they should be given tax breaks.

Bear in mind, of course, that Obama's not planning on raising taxes per se, just returning them to the levels that the were before.  You know, a time when the US wasn't in financial crisis.  They worked then, why wouldn't they work now?

Last edited by Mayhem (2008-11-22 17:10:47)

Oh, and do you have one shred of evidence, just one, that suggests Obama is going to take away all your guns?

AFAIK his proposals are primarily to extend the existing ban on fully automatic assault weapons - something the average home owner (or even most avide hunter/shooting enthusiast) simply has no need of - and to close the "gunshow loophole" (a bit of a misnomer, but thats how it is usually refered to) which allows people to buy guns without any form of registration.

But please, pray continue repeating the stuff you "heard someplace" as being gospel truth, instead of actually finding evidence to back up your wild claims.  At this stage of the game, it just marks you out as being a sore loser - wheras the REAL Mcain was extremely gracious in defeat.

Last edited by Mayhem (2008-11-22 17:16:31)

Mayhem wrote:

Not a great analogy, since going out for a few beers is a luxury, not a necessity.  The essential services paid for by taxes are similarly a necessity, not a luxury, so to improve your analogy, lets change the beers for a decent meal - perhaps the only decent meal that some of those attending get, and then lets play it out again.

The wealthy man goes to the resturaunt owner and says "Hey, I'm paying too much, you should reduce the cost."

"Well, you can't get something for nothing" responds the owner.  "If I reduce the costs, I'll have to reduce the quality of the meal.  It might not even be good enough quality to live on."

"No worries" says the rich guy.  "I and the others of us that have the money will just pick up a burger on the way home.  We'll still save money."

"But what about the poor people?  They won't be able to do that." responded the resturaunteer.

"Stuff 'em." responded the Rich guy.  "Not my problem.  Let 'em starve, as long as I'm getting my discount."

***

And that, my friends, is how the economy works when wealthy business owners "persuade" politicians that they should be given tax breaks.

Bear in mind, of course, that Obama's not planning on raising taxes per se, just returning them to the levels that the were before.  You know, a time when the US wasn't in financial crisis.  They worked then, why wouldn't they work now?

Wait, some kid who, by the looks of it, doesn't understand what a college professor said (again, you failed to read the bottom), tries making an analogy, which is very wrong by the way. I'm gonna have to go with some guy who worked his butt off to get his PhD

Wow. By the looks I would have guessed 14 years old? And I actually was defending, saying I think the analogy by a college professor was more accurate than some adult apparently, who sits on his computer all day trying to defend Osama. I couldn't defend mine because I had to stop reading yours it was so off, how you are actually making stuff up! After re-reading, when do the rich say "who cares"? Now from what I understand, getting a drink isn't a necessity but going out for dinner is? Also, I don't get in yours how they go to the place to get a nice meal, but end up going to a burger king or something? What? You seriously need to think that over. See, the professor uses percents and actually numbers while you assume "the rich are snobby" probably because you don't have a lot of money (considering you're supposedly and adult who has to play on Scratch all day). So maybe next time, instead of assuming and making a story out of it, use facts and numbers. Here, lemme explain the Ph D professor's version:

So the richest is paying the most- 59 dollars. The four who have the least amount of money get a free drink. Now the bartender reduces the price of the beers. The richest is now paying 10 dollars less than before, saving him money, but the sixth guy only saves a buck. Now for yours, I don't know what you were trying to say. I don't know how reducing the price would make the rich say f-u… you really need a better education

DotsandStripes wrote:

McCain08 wrote:

Wow. By the looks I would have guessed 14 years old? And I actually was defending, saying I think the analogy by a college professor was more accurate than some adult apparently, who sits on his computer all day trying to defend Obama. I couldn't defend mine because I had to stop reading yours it was so off, how you are actually making stuff up! After re-reading, when do the rich say "who cares"? Now from what I understand, getting a drink isn't a necessity but going out for dinner is? Also, I don't get in yours how they go to the place to get a nice meal, but end up going to a burger king or something? What? You seriously need to think that over. See, the professor uses percents and actually numbers while you assume "the rich are snobby" probably because you don't have a lot of money (considering you're supposedly and adult who has to play on Scratch all day). So maybe next time, instead of assuming and making a story out of it, use facts and numbers. Here, lemme explain the Ph D professor's version:

So the richest is paying the most- 59 dollars. The four who have the least amount of money get a free drink. Now the bartender reduces the price of the beers. The richest is now paying 10 dollars less than before, saving him money, but the sixth guy only saves a buck. Now for yours, I don't know what you were trying to say. I don't know how reducing the price would make the rich say f-u… you really need a better education

Fix'd, for the lulz.

Calling Obama, Osama is like calling an Italian man named Mario a plumber. :[

Analogies are fun.

And I don't see why you're debating still.

Because my house is boring and I saw that the debate was still going on. But soon…� when I get my dog, PS3 and new Rubik's Cubes… (my dog is out a month long school)

Here is my opinion:

1. While Obama may or may not kill the "Right to bear arms and arm bears." Many people are thinking that he may and gun sales have gone up. I wish I just knew what type of guns they were buying.

2. Here is my opinion on the tax plan: Equal percentages for all people. Richer people still pay more but not by such a huge amount. That way it is fair for everyone. Now, the new president needs to cut government spending in several halfs and keep the taxes where they are for the next several years. I mean: Stop giving money to poor countries, Minimize government funded food drops in africa, Sell the Presidential Yacht, Plane, Batmobile  , and get something a bit cheaper to use, and finally only buy what you need at the cheapest price with the quality you need. They don't need to purchase a 100 dollar screwdriver that fits exactly when they can go to lowes/Home depot and get one that will work for about 5 dollars.

3. End the Lobbyist rien. Somehow, they should minimize the affect of the lobbyists money by making a maximum amount anyone or company can donate to them. Then, the president can worry about the country and not the companys.

4. The election is over, stop debating. Obama won fair and square and thats the end of that.

5. Someone really should reply to this post.

Obillary!!!

Mayhem wrote:

McCain08 wrote:

Wow. By the looks I would have guessed 14 years old? And I actually was defending, saying I think the analogy by a college professor was more accurate than some adult apparently, who sits on his computer all day trying to defend Osama. I couldn't defend mine because I had to stop reading yours it was so off, how you are actually making stuff up! After re-reading, when do the rich say "who cares"? Now from what I understand, getting a drink isn't a necessity but going out for dinner is? Also, I don't get in yours how they go to the place to get a nice meal, but end up going to a burger king or something? What? You seriously need to think that over. See, the professor uses percents and actually numbers while you assume "the rich are snobby" probably because you don't have a lot of money (considering you're supposedly and adult who has to play on Scratch all day). So maybe next time, instead of assuming and making a story out of it, use facts and numbers. Here, lemme explain the Ph D professor's version:

So the richest is paying the most- 59 dollars. The four who have the least amount of money get a free drink. Now the bartender reduces the price of the beers. The richest is now paying 10 dollars less than before, saving him money, but the sixth guy only saves a buck. Now for yours, I don't know what you were trying to say. I don't know how reducing the price would make the rich say f-u… you really need a better education

I'm sorry you found mine hard to understand.  Its difficult, I know, to use your brain to think about something instead of mindlessly repeating what you have been told by somebody else.  Some of us have had more practice at that than others.

And I hardly spend all day defending Obama, in fact, defending Obama is not my motivation at all.

My motivation is pointing out when people are lying to or deliberately misleading others.  I don't liek people who spread lies to further their own agenda, and have made many posts (and projects) pointing out when people are doing so - usually not in the political arena, of course- usually it has been in response to people making false claims about science.

Most of my responses to you have been to point out when you have said something actually untrue - such as "Obama is going to take you guns!", a statement which has very little basis in fact.

That going for beers story has been going around for years - long before Obama was a candidate - so don't be mislead into thinging it represents a specific analysis of Obama's tax plans - it doesn't, not by a long way.  It's merely an attempt to illustrate what would happen if you tried to tax the wealthy too much.

Now, since Obama is, in fact, only returning tax levels to their pre-bush era, a time when the economy wasn't in crisis, it is clear that your story (and I say "your" loosely, since all you did was copy and paste it without thinking about it) doesn't apply at all.  Either you don't understand that - in which case the failure is all yours - or you DO understand it but are still using it to try to mislead people into thinking Obama (who is also a professor, in case you had forgotten) is going to ruin the country.

Post some cold hard facts about Obama, and I'll get off your case.  Continue to mislead and misinform and I'll be right here.

***

And if you think that somebody who spends some of their free time correcting lies/defending truth is worthy of mockery, I suggest you think carefully about how much worse it is to spend your free time spreading lies and conducting smear attacks on the president elect, given that nothing you say can change the fact that he has been elected to lead the country by the american people.

No what, I'm done. You are so fed up about yourself. Heck, I could post links from CNN, ABC, FOX, World News, and other places, yet you will still accuse me of lying! You have no pride and can't have a good argument! You just sit there saying "you lied"! Than you just make pointless sentences to make it look like you actually know stuff! I wanna debate with someone who actually has pride in themselves and could do it for real

Did I call you a liar?  Yes.  Sorry you don't like it, but you see, thats simply waht we call people who tell lies.  If you don't like being called a liar, you have to not tell lies.  That's the way it works.

You lied about how long Obama has been in the senate.

You lied about how many bills he voted on.

You lied about how many bills he sponsored.

You lied about him wanting to abolish the 2nd ammendment.

You lied about him being a socialist.

You lied about him being a Muslim.
(though amusingly, you then implied that him being an atheist would be even worse, even though America is based upon the seperation of church and state)

McCain08 wrote:

I wanna debate with someone who actually has pride in themselves and could do it for real.

And I reckon that's another lie.  You don't want to debate "for real", you just want people to accept your lies without questioning them.

You want to debate for real, you have to post something debatable.  Posting a lie that can be fact checked by anyone with access to the internet isn't remotely close to debating for real.

McCain08 wrote:

No what, I'm done.

I hope that isn't another lie, I really do.

(Although you mispelled "know" but never mind.)

Freestylin_Monkey wrote:

big-bang wrote:

McCain08 wrote:

...Obama wants to get rid of the right to bear arms...

OMG!!! Can you live without a little violence?! It's called peace. Peace is the future. Do I sound like a hippy? I am (albeit a modern one). I can't think of any good reason to have a gun: Slaughtering others... No. Killing animals for the fun of it... No. Killing animals for FOOD... if you're in the US and care about the election then you probably have enough money to get by. Showing it off... Waste of money. I really think you should start reading most of the tabloid, instead of just the cover.

even though im not fond of guns either, we have no choice people will always have guns here in the U.S, it doesnt matter what laws we have, no hippy stuff wont do anything, police and military need guns, and because they need guns, they need factories to produce them, and there will always be people in these factories who sell them for money to terroists and crimnals and because they have guns, the police need guns!!!. even if we have people to protect these factories and give them orders to not allow guns to be sold to bad people, some of THESE people will sell guns to these bad people, its a never ending loop that i think will never stop. you've seen star wars, you've seen irobot, there has been guns in the past, there are guns now, and you better believe, no matter who we get as president, no matter how many factores we destroy, or how big our armies get, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE WILL HAVE GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

think about it, we've had guns since the streets of England and Britian, we had guns since Charleston and the age of the 13 colonies, we had them in the Wild West, and had them, during the Revolutionary and Civil War, and had them during all the World Wars, Vietnam and the cold War, we have them now, think about it, guns have a humungous role in our history, and without guns we would not be the U.S we would be Germany, or Japan, or North Korea, or Britian, dont you think we would look foolish charging the beaches of Normandy during D-Day with swords and shields, we would look like idiots! and Hippies think that we dont need violence at all, there will always be violence, no matter how many times U.S or any other country asks for Peace, another country will take advantage of the situation and attack, its been like that since the stone ages and it will remain that way in the future, no amount of hippies can stop it,  the greed, power, wealth, is overwheling in people's hearts and to be honest the only way to save the people, is to get rid of the people.

Last edited by Freestylin_Monkey (2008-11-24 10:57:34)

Mayhem wrote:

Did I call you a liar?  Yes.  Sorry you don't like it, but you see, thats simply waht we call people who tell lies.  If you don't like being called a liar, you have to not tell lies.  That's the way it works.

You lied about how long Obama has been in the senate.

You lied about how many bills he voted on.

You lied about how many bills he sponsored.

You lied about him wanting to abolish the 2nd ammendment.

You lied about him being a socialist.

You lied about him being a Muslim.
(though amusingly, you then implied that him being an atheist would be even worse, even though America is based upon the seperation of church and state)

McCain08 wrote:

I wanna debate with someone who actually has pride in themselves and could do it for real.

And I reckon that's another lie.  You don't want to debate "for real", you just want people to accept your lies without questioning them.

You want to debate for real, you have to post something debatable.  Posting a lie that can be fact checked by anyone with access to the internet isn't remotely close to debating for real.

McCain08 wrote:

No what, I'm done.

I hope that isn't another lie, I really do.

(Although you mispelled "know" but never mind.)

Still doesn't read… how sad Mayhem, thought you were better than that. And thanks for correcting a spelling error, which I wrote at 6:59 AM (yes, I leave at 7 and pay attention to the time). But let's see… it's misspelled, but the way, pointing out errors. And let's see:

Actually… let's see. When I get a magazine at school that is called "Upfront" with scientific fats, and it says Obama has been in senate for four years, I consider you the liar.

Whatever. Post a link to me than and I'll either admit it for find a different link that says it's true.

I give you links and proof, and you still don't believe me, or don't wanna. Hmm…� anyways, he is getting rid of it FYI

Actually, look up the word socialism, and than call me a liar. He's a socialist.

He was a Muslim, I don't know when I said being Atheist is worse, but yes, he was Muslim.

Thanks for listing them and calling me a liar when quite clearly you just don't want to know the truth about your Messiah. And I would be done but it is so amusing seeing what you have to post, I waited at school all day for it. Of course, each post you called me a liar, but that's besides the point.

Mayhem wrote:

Ah, so when you said "Know what, I'm done." you were lying again? I rather suspected as much.  Kinda set yourself up for that one.

So, here we go:

Career: You said 4 years:
The Biographical directory of the United States Congress says 10 years.
Illinois State senate 1997-2004
U.S. Senate 2005-2008
Link: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=o000167

Voting Record: You said no votes.
The US Congress Voter Database maintaind by the Washington Post says: Over 350 votes (feel free to count them)
Link: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Bills Sponsored:  You said zero.
Statesurge says 71 Sponsored and 434 co-sponsored.
http://www.statesurge.com/members/923-barack-obama-federal

Gun Control:  You said - "He's getting rid of the 2nd Ammendment"
Obama said "It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Link:  http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Dems_Las_Vegas_Gun_Control.htm

From dictionary.com
Socialist:
1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
2. (initial capital letter) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.
We can discount number 2, since we know he isn't a member of said party.
So We'd better follow up on 1:
Socialism: A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

So tell me, which means of production and distribution does Obama intend to seize? 

Or are you basing the entire claim on the fact that he plans to tax some people and spend that money on other people, which is EXACTLY what EVERY goverment has done since tax was invented - and is, pretty much, the whole point of taxes?

Career:
.gov website. Reliable. I have contradicting information from another valuable resource I might be able to show you online if they have a website.

Voting record:
washingtonpost… hmmm… i know some news stations are biased. I'll look this up.

Bills:
That site looks entirely unreliable and totally, excuse me as I hate this word, bogus, so I can't really believe that.

Gun Control:
Las Vegas? No, we are talking about the entire US, not just how he feels in Las Vegas

Yep. He is choosing what healthcare you can have, he is making sure you are giving healthcare with taxes, taxing the upper class, spreading the wealth- all are socialist.

I haven't actually clicked any links, only using knowledge I know. So, ones that I know I have to look for from a reliable source:

Career, Gun control.

The others only if I have time, which I might do over Thanksgiving break if time allotted

Mayhem wrote:

So, what you are saying is, you are making all of these claims without already checked them with a reliable source?

Hmm...

*? I said based on the website address. And you want these in print, so I'm going to find them. What? You have sites and now I'm going, yet you call me a liar? Apparently you are the liar, cause you didn't have any sources to back yours up. Maybe think before you type, as I posted links throughout my posts yet you still claim all our false. What a sour sport, obviously once Obama starts runnign America, you will see how bad he is, you