Repository for Uber Libtarded posts

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Re: capital punishment

it's cruel and unusual everywhere, fake sugar dick.

Standard libtard fair, 1) ignorance or disdain for the well settled law of the land, 2) sympathizes with and advocates for murdering criminals, and 3) fairly tale delusions of western europe.  Probably loves abortion and drones (only obama drones) too.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Corporate personhood

I have no problem with them having a voice.  I have a great deal of issue with them having the same Constitutional rights as a person.  Since the vast majority of corporations are closely held, the individuals controlling them don't need two voices.

Straw man arguments carry no weight. No one has asked for corps having "the same Constitutional rights as a person." My solution is to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. People vote - people get taxed. Simple.

And if you are going to tax high earners at a higher % than lesser earners, they should have more of a say in their governance. Solution =  flat tax.

WTF strawman arguments are you talking about?  Corps now have freedom of speech per Citizens United.  Corps now have religious beliefs transferred into them from their closely held owners per Burwell. The next step could be voting at the rate the Court is going. 


Still love the fact that all of you who tried to call me out are ducking the issue that any type of corporate personhood is a bastardization of the living constitution.  I guess it's only bad when that doctrine gives rights to minority groups and women.

Yeah, allowing an association, like a trade union, the Sierra club or a corporation, to contribute to a PAC is the gateway drug to the corporate right to vote.

Not allowing the federal government to dictate what health insurance coverage a business owner has to buy for its employees is a real infringement on liberty guys.

[star seed 7]

Yes, none of that stuff should be donating money to politics.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yes, none of that stuff should be donating money to politics.

This isn't very libtarded, lib. You're screwing up my thread.

Should we be concerned about Special Interest Group (SIG) Personhood?  Trade Union Personhood?  Limited Liability Company Personhood?

What if the LLC is taxed as a sole proprietorship or partnership? 

[star seed 7]

Imho contributions should only be allowed from individuals and capped at $50 or so (negotiable on amount, but very low)

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

This one is about those dirty, lazy, pant sagging corpos

I don't think it's new, definitely not wrong thread.

Wow this is like an epiphany moment in understanding why Fake and KSUW don't get the direction of politics and how our country really works.  They really don't understand the mechanisms at play for things like campaign spending.  They only hear that the SEIU spends a few million dollars on elections and that's un-'Merican by ads put on by AFP (Kochs) that cost 400 million.  Complete and total disconnect.

The Kochs are a corporation? 

It's generally a nice mix of unfounded claims, hypocrisy, paranoia and delusion. Standard libtard state of mind.

[gatoveintisiet]

This thread never disappoints, I would like to see more of our uber libtarded-self proclaimed moderates represented though.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

When I became of voting age, Reagan was just starting his first term. The country, led by the quasi-socialist Jimmy Carter the previous 4 years was awash in stagflation: double-digit unemployment, interest rates, and recession. I wasn't very political at the time, and had liberal professors trying to shove their crap along with their lectures. But I and those I knew in school at the time had minds of our own. I couldn't wait for 1984 and the chance to re-elect Reagan. What could possibly be fair about making the higher earners pay a greater percentage of their income for government than lower earners? The top marginal tax rate in Carter's years was 70%! What possible incentive is there to be productive and innovative if government takes 70% of it all? After Reagan's second term was over, the top rate was reduced to 28%. History was clear about the economic boom that results from such free market actions. The free market is why the U.S. economy leads the world.

What I don't get is how the youth of this era can give up all chance they have of earning things on their own and hitch their futures to a socialist that believes government is entitled to 90% of what you earn. Look beyond all the crony-capitalist crap that I can actually agree with most on and get back to the basis....socialism runs on envy. If someone else made more money than you, they need to be punished by having most of it taken from them (theft) and redistributed to those that didn't earn it.

Can any of you young people explain this?  Is it as simple as, "Hey I don't have to work as hard if I can have Bernie take it from someone else!"

What is it?

What's funny about all this is the greatest economic growth in our country's history happened when the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. And with that money the government with all its awfulness created the middle class with the GI bill.

What's funny is somebody was told this, took it at face value and then typed it out on the internet.

[chuckjames]

When I became of voting age, Reagan was just starting his first term. The country, led by the quasi-socialist Jimmy Carter the previous 4 years was awash in stagflation: double-digit unemployment, interest rates, and recession. I wasn't very political at the time, and had liberal professors trying to shove their crap along with their lectures. But I and those I knew in school at the time had minds of our own. I couldn't wait for 1984 and the chance to re-elect Reagan. What could possibly be fair about making the higher earners pay a greater percentage of their income for government than lower earners? The top marginal tax rate in Carter's years was 70%! What possible incentive is there to be productive and innovative if government takes 70% of it all? After Reagan's second term was over, the top rate was reduced to 28%. History was clear about the economic boom that results from such free market actions. The free market is why the U.S. economy leads the world.

What I don't get is how the youth of this era can give up all chance they have of earning things on their own and hitch their futures to a socialist that believes government is entitled to 90% of what you earn. Look beyond all the crony-capitalist crap that I can actually agree with most on and get back to the basis....socialism runs on envy. If someone else made more money than you, they need to be punished by having most of it taken from them (theft) and redistributed to those that didn't earn it.

Can any of you young people explain this?  Is it as simple as, "Hey I don't have to work as hard if I can have Bernie take it from someone else!"

What is it?

What's funny about all this is the greatest economic growth in our country's history happened when the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. And with that money the government with all its awfulness created the middle class with the GI bill.

What's funny is somebody was told this, took it at face value and then typed it out on the internet.

I made it!!!! 

[MakeItRain]

This thread never disappoints, I would like to see more of our uber libtarded-self proclaimed moderates represented though.

I would love to know who tubesock is referring to. Do you know how message boards work? You are allowed to copy and paste too, it isn't hard.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

This one is awesome on several levels

Do you guys get the political ads in Kansas? Rubio is running an ad where he tells three flat out lies, not loose interpretations of the truth, but just flat out lies. Rubio also has a super PAC that is infatuated with Jeb, dude is polling at like 4% but Marco's super PAC has a weird obsession with him.

Which lies is Marco telling the good people of Iowa?

He made six claims in a 30 second ad

1. Prisoners released from Gitmo (I'm assuming he means the ones released in the Bergdahl deal) are plotting to attack us. He didn't say anything like I think or, could be, he said "they are planning to attack us" without equivocation.
2. "Instead of fighting to fund our troops he's fighting to fund Planned Parenthood."
3. "His plan after the attack in San Bernardino, take away our guns."

One truth:
1. "He cut a deal with Iran." Which is mostly true, it was a coalition deal but whatever

Then there was this:
"He spies on Israel." This one isn't a lie but it's using a small part of the truth with the intent to mislead. Yes, our country spies on Israel, and our country will continue to do so no matter who the president is. They also spy on us.

Finally this:
"He says climate change is our greatest threat." I can't find this direct quote, I can only find right leaning blogs that claim that Obama said it but nothing directly attributing the quote to him. I won't put it in the out and out lie section but it smells funny.

So six claims; three lies, two questionable, one close to the unequivocal truth.

Here's the ad

I'm not certain, I don't have anything to specifically refute this, but if you add my personally biased context, I have a real problem with the statements in this political ad.

All of the demogogues repeatedly say climate change is the biggest threat to our society. It's rough ridin' crazy, and more of a lie than anything you're taking issue with.

[MakeItRain]

This one is awesome on several levels

Do you guys get the political ads in Kansas? Rubio is running an ad where he tells three flat out lies, not loose interpretations of the truth, but just flat out lies. Rubio also has a super PAC that is infatuated with Jeb, dude is polling at like 4% but Marco's super PAC has a weird obsession with him.

Which lies is Marco telling the good people of Iowa?

He made six claims in a 30 second ad

1. Prisoners released from Gitmo (I'm assuming he means the ones released in the Bergdahl deal) are plotting to attack us. He didn't say anything like I think or, could be, he said "they are planning to attack us" without equivocation.
2. "Instead of fighting to fund our troops he's fighting to fund Planned Parenthood."
3. "His plan after the attack in San Bernardino, take away our guns."

One truth:
1. "He cut a deal with Iran." Which is mostly true, it was a coalition deal but whatever

Then there was this:
"He spies on Israel." This one isn't a lie but it's using a small part of the truth with the intent to mislead. Yes, our country spies on Israel, and our country will continue to do so no matter who the president is. They also spy on us.

Finally this:
"He says climate change is our greatest threat." I can't find this direct quote, I can only find right leaning blogs that claim that Obama said it but nothing directly attributing the quote to him. I won't put it in the out and out lie section but it smells funny.

So six claims; three lies, two questionable, one close to the unequivocal truth.

Here's the ad

I'm not certain, I don't have anything to specifically refute this, but if you add my personally biased context, I have a real problem with the statements in this political ad.

All of the demogogues repeatedly say climate change is the biggest threat to our society. It's rough ridin' crazy, and more of a lie than anything you're taking issue with.

You're debating that those three statements are lies?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anyone who uses the phrase "without equivocation" when complaining about a political ad, probably isn't seeing straight.

Further, #1 is conjectural, not a lie. #2 and #3 are colorable and easily defensible as true.  The other 3 are obviously accurate.

None of this makes the post as libtarded as your naked hypocrisy on veracity of statements made by democrat politicians.

[MakeItRain]

Anyone who uses the phrase "without equivocation" when complaining about a political ad, probably isn't seeing straight.

Further, #1 is conjectural, not a lie. #2 and #3 are colorable and easily defensible as true.  The other 3 are obviously accurate.

None of this makes the post as libtarded as your naked hypocrisy on veracity of statements made by democrat politicians.

When in the hell have I advocated for any presidential candidate lying in a campaign ad? You just built quite a strawman, now you're going to deny doing it. I've been openly critical of democratic candidates and the democratic party, like a lot, you got me mumped up dude.

[gatoveintisiete]

Take it to the uber libtarded appeals thread.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anyone who uses the phrase "without equivocation" when complaining about a political ad, probably isn't seeing straight.

Further, #1 is conjectural, not a lie. #2 and #3 are colorable and easily defensible as true.  The other 3 are obviously accurate.

None of this makes the post as libtarded as your naked hypocrisy on veracity of statements made by democrat politicians.

When in the hell have I advocated for any presidential candidate lying in a campaign ad? You just built quite a strawman, now you're going to deny doing it. I've been openly critical of democratic candidates and the democratic party, like a lot, you got me mumped up dude.

How dare you build a strawman out of my ancillary observation!   

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

1. I was referring to King being a Republican. First, he didn't claim a party as he claimed feeling betrayed by both. Democrats pushed civil rights agenda not Republicans, and that's who he worked with. Even if you want to make the WEAK argument that King was a Republican it's not the same Republican party that exists today.

I love these.  Democrats, the Champions of civil rights and the KKK! We get to revise and erase history.

[bucket]

1. I was referring to King being a Republican. First, he didn't claim a party as he claimed feeling betrayed by both. Democrats pushed civil rights agenda not Republicans, and that's who he worked with. Even if you want to make the WEAK argument that King was a Republican it's not the same Republican party that exists today.

I love these.  Democrats, the Champions of civil rights and the KKK! We get to revise and erase history.

So when FSD can't back up political statements it goes in this thread. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

No, this is where we put uber libtarded posts, like that unfounded drivel you were forced to immediately back pedal from.  Try reading around, bucket.

[bucket]

No, this is where we put uber libtarded posts, like that unfounded drivel you were forced to immediately back pedal from.  Try reading around, bucket.

You appear to be the one backpedaling. Your response to showing proof of King being a Republican was putting my response in this thread. Sound argument.

[star seed 7]

Is bucket another edna sock

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

[ednksu]

This one is about those dirty, lazy, pant sagging corpos

I don't think it's new, definitely not wrong thread.

Wow this is like an epiphany moment in understanding why Fake and KSUW don't get the direction of politics and how our country really works.  They really don't understand the mechanisms at play for things like campaign spending.  They only hear that the SEIU spends a few million dollars on elections and that's un-'Merican by ads put on by AFP (Kochs) that cost 400 million.  Complete and total disconnect.

The Kochs are a corporation? 

It's generally a nice mix of unfounded claims, hypocrisy, paranoia and delusion. Standard libtard state of mind.

LOL this rube doesn't even know what AFP is. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

$400 million ad, guys.

Did they buy the super bowl half time show and spend the balance on 1000 consecutive hours of paid programming?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Bloomberg is going to roll this

Yay! Police state