Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

  1. #1
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    I am wondering if any of the Conservative, Republican or conservative Libertarians (which seems like the wrong party for that... but whatever) posters are able to point out ANYTHING on the liberal or Democrat platform that they agree with ......If so , what are those issues or platform positions ?

    I have begun to wonder because it appears to me from reading this section from cover to cover over that (for the most part anyway) this is not the case. It looks like if an issue is part of the liberal or Democratic point of view then it is immediatly unacceptable to the Conservative or Republican people posting here. While I have not noticed the same thing from the liberal leaning posters which is why my question is geered towards conservative leaning people.

    Personaly, I can pick out things from all three political parties in the US which I can agree with but I am not seeing the same thing from many of the more conservative folks

    So it leaves me asking : Can they find some middle ground ?
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  2. #2
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Middle ground is usually apologia for statism.
    You can't love something you think is flawless - me


  3. #3
    Veteran Member Eques's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    I'm a 'conservative' Libertarian. For me taxes, trade deficit and the fact that China is ever increasing its power and sway over American debt worries me far more than whether gays can marry, the status of abortion or religious Christians taking over and imposing moral codes on the country at large. I've got no problem with gay marriage, support abortion and would tell the authoritarian Christians to bug off but those issues matters less to me than the fiscal course of this country.

    I vote Republican and Libertarian because there at least I can maintain hope for fiscal discipline, while with the Democrats I know it will simply not happen. Even if it seems to have disappeared entirely. I'd likely vote Democrat if they could show themselves to understand a budget, but then it seems that no politician understands the concept of a budget.
    Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.

    The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity.

    Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)

  4. #4
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
    It looks like if an issue is part of the liberal or Democratic point of view then it is immediatly unacceptable to the Conservative or Republican people posting here. While I have not noticed the same thing from the liberal leaning posters which is why my question is geered towards conservative leaning people.
    I'm sure the conservatives here (who by my estimate are more libertarian than conversative) could make an equally compelling case for the opposite conclusion.

    To be truthful, most people I meet in real life derive their viewpoints from what life has taught them makes the most sense, or what they feel depending on their socio-economic stature would be in their best interest. Its unfortunate that the advent of political media (namely shows like Crossfire or Hannity and Colmes where a liberal is pitted against a conservative every time) or propagandists like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore that have led so many in our country to take stock in this antagonistic left v. right, liberal v. conservative, red state v. blue state bullshit. They make it seem as though you have to pick all your viewpoints from one basket or the other. Dare to not think like an ideologistic sheep and pick from both sides and you're labeled wishy washy.

    Mind you that in these oversimplified presentations, libertarians are seldom if ever represented (and when they are, they're usually presented as kooks who want to legalize all drugs, or put an end to the public school system).
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  5. #5
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    I resemble one of those kooks.

    And proud of it. Public school is child abuse. And drug laws are far more harmful than drugs.
    You can't love something you think is flawless - me


  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    IMHO the 'core' principle of Libertarianism is 'you let me live my life the way I choose, and I'll let you live your life in the way YOU choose'. While neither republicans or democrats come close to that 'core' principle, in general the democrats support more gov't intrusions into my purse and my chosen activities.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Well I am not sure how wanting to ban gay marriage, agreeing with the war, or supporting the racial and religious profiling of Muslims is "live and let live" or anything even close to a Libertarian stance but whatever....

    And just a reminder, the question and intent of this thread is: What issues or platform policies can you find agreement with in a party other than your own.

    This is not meant to be thread about what is wrong with the other parties views but rather a thread to find some middle ground with posters of opposite party affiliation.

    I'm trying to find some things we can agree rather the things we disagree.

    An example: I agree with Republicans on drilling for oil in our own country. I agree with Dems on abortion. I agree with Libertarians on censorship.
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  8. #8
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    It looks like if an issue is part of the liberal or Democratic point of view then it is immediatly unacceptable to the Conservative or Republican people posting here. While I have not noticed the same thing from the liberal leaning posters which is why my question is geered towards conservative leaning people.
    You're not being at all objective then. This commonly held, fallacious notion that somehow liberals are uniquely cooperative and open-minded is just that--a fallacy.

    It's also not unique to this period of history. Does anyone think there was no partisan vitriol or obstructionist machinations during the terms of Lincoln, Jackson, FDR, or any number of other administrations?

    Above all, the most successful politicians tend to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic.

    Dogmatism is not unique to the right end of the political and ideological spectrum.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    IMHO the 'core' principle of Libertarianism is 'you let me live my life the way I choose, and I'll let you live your life in the way YOU choose'. While neither republicans or democrats come close to that 'core' principle, in general the democrats support more gov't intrusions into my purse and my chosen activities.

    I agree 100%.

    I am a right-leaning libertarian. I agree more with the Constitution Party on most issues over any other group. I see Republicans and Democrats as authoritarian scum.

    I am:

    pro-gun rights
    pro-abortion rights
    anti-Affirmative Action
    anti-Welfare
    pro-state's rights
    anti-imperialist
    anti-Eminent Domain
    anti-UN
    pro-capitol punishment
    pro-capitolism
    pro-border control


    I believe the government has no authority to regulate our daily lives to the degree they already do. You do your business and let me do mine. Want to drugs? Go ahead. Want me to register my firearms so you can feel safer? Tough shit. Want to strip? Fine by me. Want to have an abortion? That's your right. Want me to move so you can put in an interstate highway? FUCK OFF.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    fallacious notion that somehow liberals are uniquely cooperative and open-minded is just that--a fallacy.
    I didn't say all liberals CO. I knowthat isn't true of any political party or it's members. I was just making an observation of what I have seen on this BB.

    And once again I would like to remind everyone the intent of this thread is: What issues or platform policies can you find agreement with in a party OTHER than your own.

    This isn't meant to be a thread where we point out what we like about our own chosen party or what is wrong with another party but a thread about what we can find to agree with in OTHER political parties than our own.

    Can't we find some common ground ? Come on, hey I have faith that we can so lets see some
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    pro-gun rights
    pro-abortion rights
    anti-Affirmative Action
    anti-Welfare
    pro-state's rights
    anti-imperialist
    anti-Eminent Domain
    anti-UN
    pro-capitol punishment
    pro-capitolism
    pro-border control
    You're 11 for 11 as far as I'm concerned ! Obviously in terms of democratic versus republican platforms, those 11 points tend to favor the republican side of the aisle, with maybe 2 of the 11 being supported by democrats.

    There also appears to be a lot of misunderstanding in regard to gay marriage versus Libertarians. Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no objection to the personal principle of gay marriage. What I DO object to is the gay rights lobby's intention to use legalized gay marriage plus the 'full faith and credit' clause, plus existing labor contracts, as a means to once again reach into my pocket to pay for granting extremely expensive increased benefits/subsidies to a select group i.e. gay spouses. Liberals tend to overlook the pragmatic argument and automatically assume that anybody who objects in any way must be objecting on a personal/moralistic level, which for Libertarians in general is not the case at all.

    Dogmatism is not unique to the right end of the political and ideological spectrum.
    You have my official nomination for 'understatement of the year' !

  12. #12
    God/dess Silverback's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    On board the Kobayashi Maru
    Posts
    2,387
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Quote Originally Posted by doc-catfish
    I'm sure the conservatives here (who by my estimate are more libertarian than conversative) could make an equally compelling case for the opposite conclusion..
    That's the problem; they're so damn "conversative".

    I think dubya would like that one.
    "He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

  13. #13
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    8,031
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 143 Times in 42 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hef
    pro-capitol punishment
    does that mean you want to hurt the Capitol?

    Not to be a crank, but, well, I am totally one of those elitist liberals who thinks that redneck Pentecostal Christians will drag this country back into the Middle Ages given a chance. There are few things I find to agree with in the Republican Party platform, especially their tendency to let the bills of this country be paid on the backs of the middle class. You profit in this country, you render unto Caeser.

    But just for fun, I'm looking at the GOP's 2004 platform.

    "When America was struck by terrorists on September 11, 2001, President Bush
    immediately realized that it was an act of war, not just a crime."

    Okay, I can agree with that statement.

    "Thanks to President Bush’s leadership, the skill of the American military, and the
    commitment of our allies, today there are more than 50 million newly free people in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq – and America is safer."

    I don't think we're safer. I don't think there is any less risk of a terrorist attack today than there was in August 2001 when they warned him in the first damn place.

    "The President’s leadership has also been bold and visionary at home. When the
    President came to office, our economy was faltering, seniors were having trouble paying for their prescription drugs, and schools were stuck in a pattern of low expectations and poor results."

    And you're trying to tell us this is all fixed?

    Anyhow, the most disturbing part of the platform is the section titled "Protecting Our Familes," which supports the questionable policy of using abstinence as a reasonable means of sex education/contraception, and the continued fight against gay marriage. This section is the worst, as the government should stay the fuck out of everyone's private life. No government in the bedroom, no Jesus in the schools; that's the way I think it should be.

    No offense to fiscal conservatives, but it scares the shit out of me to contemplate the running of this country by religious nutbags (and by nutbag I don't mean anyone practicing a religion, I mean a conservative Christian who is delusional enough to think the Bible has a place in government). What I'd like to know is how you intend to rein them in. Then we can talk about points of agreement.

  14. #14
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Kingman, KS
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
    And once again I would like to remind everyone the intent of this thread is: What issues or platform policies can you find agreement with in a party OTHER than your own.

    I tend to agree with Susan Wayward on many issues but then again there could be some biases involved.
    Last Edit: September 28, 1996, 12:58:29 PM by Element Edited 156 times

  15. #15
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Susan Wayward
    does that mean you want to hurt the Capitol?
    Oops. I misspelled it. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Not to be a crank, but, well, I am totally one of those elitist liberals who thinks that redneck Pentecostal Christians will drag this country back into the Middle Ages given a chance. There are few things I find to agree with in the Republican Party platform, especially their tendency to let the bills of this country be paid on the backs of the middle class. You profit in this country, you render unto Caeser.
    As it's always been, the middle class bears the burden. The rich run the government and the poor get a free pass. We get fucked. I think the elimination of the personal income tax, Social Security, and the IRS is long overdue.

    But just for fun, I'm looking at the GOP's 2004 platform.

    "When America was struck by terrorists on September 11, 2001, President Bush
    immediately realized that it was an act of war, not just a crime."

    Okay, I can agree with that statement.
    Me too.

    "Thanks to President Bush’s leadership, the skill of the American military, and the
    commitment of our allies, today there are more than 50 million newly free people in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq – and America is safer."

    I don't think we're safer. I don't think there is any less risk of a terrorist attack today than there was in August 2001 when they warned him in the first damn place.
    Again, I agree.


    "The President’s leadership has also been bold and visionary at home. When the
    President came to office, our economy was faltering, seniors were having trouble paying for their prescription drugs, and schools were stuck in a pattern of low expectations and poor results."

    And you're trying to tell us this is all fixed?
    Unfortunately, I didn't believe Bush or Kerry to be capable of fixing those problems.


    Anyhow, the most disturbing part of the platform is the section titled "Protecting Our Familes," which supports the questionable policy of using abstinence as a reasonable means of sex education/contraception, and the continued fight against gay marriage. This section is the worst, as the government should stay the fuck out of everyone's private life. No government in the bedroom, no Jesus in the schools; that's the way I think it should be.
    I'm cool with that.

    No offense to fiscal conservatives, but it scares the shit out of me to contemplate the running of this country by religious nutbags (and by nutbag I don't mean anyone practicing a religion, I mean a conservative Christian who is delusional enough to think the Bible has a place in government). What I'd like to know is how you intend to rein them in. Then we can talk about points of agreement.
    I am as much afraid of religious nuts running things and cramming their church crap down my throat, as I am of left-wing socialist whackjobs legislating their fucked up concept of morality through affirmative action, welfare, sensitivity training, gun control, bussing kids to different school districts, etc. I don't want either extreme in charge.

    Too far right is fascism. Too far left is communism. I want to stay right in the middle at the representative democracy called a republic.

  16. #16
    Veteran Member Eques's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    The Middle class does not bear the burden in the United States. The Rich do.

    Fiscal Year 2002
    Top 1% : Pay 33.7% of our nations tax burden
    Top 5% : Pay 53.8% of our nations tax burden
    Top 10% : Pay 65.7% of our nations tax burden
    Top 25% : Pay 83.9% of our nations tax burden
    Top 50% : Pay 96.5% of our nations tax burden
    Bottom 50% : Pay 3.5% of our nations tax burden

    For 2005 it is expected that more of the tax burden will be shifted onto the higher earning classes.

    Consider this next time you contemplate who bears the burden in America.

    source
    Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.

    The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity.

    Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Eques, that depends on how you define 'middle class'. For example, someone with a $100,000 gross income pays around a 21% effective income tax rate. Someone like John and Theresa Kerry with a $5 million dollar income pay around a 14% effective income tax rate. So in that sense i.e. as a percentage of gross income, the taxes on the 'middle class' wage-earners and business owners are higher than on the rich.

    The main reasons for this outcome are that the millionaires can afford the 'minimum buy-ins' to take advantage of tax advantaged investments like muni bonds, wind farms etc. where the hundred thousandaire cannot. Similarly the millionaires can afford to hire accountants and attorneys to set up trusts, offshore accounts and other tax friendly niceties which the hundred thousandaire cannot afford to do. Also, a large portion of a millionaire's income generally comes from capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than the ordinary income of hundred thousandaires.

  18. #18
    Veteran Member Eques's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Follow the link. The Top 1% pay 33.7% of taxes and have a 16.1% share of income. IE, they pay roughly twice as much of the tax burden compared to the percentage of income they get.

    Meanwhile top 50% pay 96.5% and have a total of 85.8% of the income. IE, if you're ‘middle class’ you're in much better shape.

    The basic point is that no matter how you slice it or try to rationalize it the top 1% pay the lions share and the top 5% pay the majority of the taxes in this Country. How much of a 'personal burden' this is to each person is beside the point. They also facilitate a lot of the borrowing we do by buying said bonds and investments. As far as off-shore accounts, Good. I support any method one takes to avoid taxes, from under-reporting income to hiding it.
    Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.

    The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity.

    Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)

  19. #19
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Meanwhile top 50% pay 96.5% and have a total of 85.8% of the income. IE, if you're ‘middle class’ you're in much better shape.

    The basic point is that no matter how you slice it or try to rationalize it the top 1% pay the lions share and the top 5% pay the majority of the taxes in this Country.
    Again, it DOES matter what sort of incomes those brackets represent. For example, the 'top 50%' of taxpayers who cumulatively pay 96% of all tax dollars represents anybody earning over about $32,000 (it was $29,000 for a fact in 2001). Also the 'top 20%' of taxpayers who cumulatively pay 80% of all tax dollars represents anybody earning over about $80,000 per year (it was $75,000 for a fact in 2001).

    I'm still having difficulty accepting the premise that John and Theresa Kerry paying 14% of their $5 million dollar income out in taxes is carrying 'more' of a tax burden than say myself paying out 21% of my $80,000 income. True in absolute dollar terms John and Theresa are paying a lot more dollars than I am. But in terms of tax 'burden', a significantly larger share of my income is being confiscated by taxes, and the same thing is happening to every other 'middle class' American earning between $80,000 and $250,000 per year.

  20. #20
    Veteran Member Eques's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    John and Theresa Kerry represent not the top 1% but the top .001%. The Top 1% need only make ~285k. And the top 1% pays, on the average a tax rate of 27%.

    Meanwhile you at ~80k fall rather close to the top 10% (which starts at 92k).

    If you earn 80k-250k you are not ‘middle class’.

    source
    Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.

    The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity.

    Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)

  21. #21
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    378
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eques
    If you earn 80k-250k you are not ‘middle class’.
    Well that's a pretty wide range to group together. And you're right, someone making 80,000 in New York is certainly not considered middle class. Closer to somewhere between poverty and lower-middle. National averages are wonderful for theoretical discussions, but not too useful in practical terms.

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    And you're right, someone making 80,000 in New York is certainly not considered middle class. Closer to somewhere between poverty and lower-middle. National averages are wonderful for theoretical discussions, but not too useful in practical terms.
    My point exactly ! Well said, PanDah ! And you didn't even add in the effects of a 7% NY state income tax, the 3% NY City income tax, or an 8.75% sales tax !

  23. #23
    Veteran Member Eques's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Regional variance is something implied and known. Bringing it up doesn't really matter when being concerned with whom carries the 'burden' of this country. Whether you say 'national upper class' or 'New York middle class' makes no significant difference.
    Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.

    The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity.

    Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)

  24. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    378
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Sorry, but if you can't define a group accurately you can't describe group characteristics, which for this discussion includes relative tax burden, so the semantics do make a difference. You can't determine the burden borne by the upper class if you include certain lower- to middle-class groups in your definition of upper.
    But I think I'll stop now. We seem to be hijacking this thread for a totally unrelated discussion. Sorry H~K.

  25. #25
    Veteran Member Eques's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Cons or Rep. posters~ can you agree with ANY liberal or Dem stance ?

    Regional variance is apparently not understood...

    The group hasn’t even been defined in any way. So I’ll give you one. Top 10% wage earners = Upper Class. Middle from 50-10.

    Being 'middle class New York' and 'Upper Class' mean the exact same thing. You can split hairs claiming that 'being middle class in New York makes you middle class' and you would be wrong. It likely places you in the top 5% or more of the nation, most definitely making you upper class.
    Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.

    The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity.

    Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Drinkin and druggin at work: whats your stance on it
    By tempest666 in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-13-2010, 01:24 AM
  2. Do you agree?
    By pookie in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2007, 10:27 AM
  3. Russian President Toughens Nuclear Stance
    By Adelina in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 07:50 PM
  4. Who Agree's?
    By tampafldancer in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 08:01 AM
  5. do you agree? If not, why? If so, why?
    By discretedancer in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 05-10-2005, 10:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •