Trump's latest ----------------

In Seoul, Trump said: “President Obama wanted to meet, and Chairman Kim would not meet him. The Obama administration was begging for a meeting. They were begging for meetings constantly. And Chairman Kim would not meet with him.”

This rated 4 Pinocchios as one of goofy's more outrageous lies.


The White House provided no evidence for Trump’s claim that Obama tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to meet with Kim. No public records or news articles show Obama tried to meet with Kim. Former U.S. intelligence officials and experts on North Korea said they knew of no evidence for Trump’s claim. Obama’s top advisers on North Korea said Trump’s claim was false.


“I don’t know where he’s getting that,” James R. Clapper Jr., who was director of national intelligence during the Obama years, said on CNN. “I can recall no instance whatever where President Obama ever indicated any interest whatsoever in meeting with Chairman Kim. That’s news to me.”

Not his latest ... this one is, from his 4th of July speech yesterday:

"In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York and named after the great George Washington, commander in chief.

The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware, and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown.

Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets' red glare it had nothing but victory.

And when dawn came, their star-spangled banner waved defiant."

In the meantime, unemployment is at historic lows.

Take your pick.

Everybody KNEW that whoever came after Obama would have a great economy. We dems knew that repubs would cut taxes because they always have in the past. Unfortunately the rich got richer, the middle class got a few crumbs and the poor got poorer, so the great economy with the low unemployment came with a huge price. The budget and debt ceiling in a few months looms large. Sanctions are eroding the gains of those tax cuts as prices are rising.

So who will pay the bills and how in this great economy?

Quote:

---

Everybody KNEW that whoever came after Obama would have a great economy.

---

After eight years of poor leadership, I guess a good economy was likely.

Quote:

---

We dems knew that repubs would cut taxes because they always have in the past. Unfortunately the rich got richer, the middle class got a few crumbs and the poor got poorer, so the great economy with the low unemployment came with a huge price. The budget and debt ceiling in a few months looms large. Sanctions are eroding the gains of those tax cuts as prices are rising.

---

When the top 20% of income earners pay 87% of taxes, then who do you think will profit from a tax cut? Not real complicated. Still we have the lowest black unemployment EVER. Amazing.

Quote:

---

So who will pay the bills and how in this great economy?

---

You never worried about that in the Obama admin. Why are you concerned now???

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D--QdEqX...g&name=900x900Caption: She's not my type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

After eight years of poor leadership, I guess a good economy was likely.

---

Let's say Hillary won, and she had a great economy, would she get credit for it?

Quote:

---

When the top 20% of income earners pay 87% of taxes, then who do you think will profit from a tax cut? Not real complicated. Still we have the lowest black unemployment EVER. Amazing.

---

I am well aware of the reasoning of trickle down economics. The favorite justification for unequal wealth distribution which allows the top one percent to CONTROL the flow of capital. We have argued and debated the merits here for years. Maybe you should browse those discussions and gain insights into the real affects of such economic disparities that are a bi product of such a policy. Your argument is but the same as Reagans without the flexibility of raising taxes when the deficit gets at a certain level, or more spending is needed. You should examine those dynamics so we can have an honest debate without the half logic.

Imagine the billions of dollars in circulation in America and the real economic boost without the economic inequality, and deficit spending, and spiraling debt. Imagine the improvements to our quality of life and the rewards to all of us who shower after work and work hard for decades. So go ahead and keep the faith that enough WEALTH will trickle down to YOU and make a difference, instead of circulating that wealth to people that actually power this economy.

I won't even comment to that "lowest black unemployment ever" insult! Like we should be grateful to repubs for whatever they allow us to have.

Quote:

---

You never worried about that in the Obama admin. Why are you concerned now???

---

You weren't here in this forum so how can you just drop in and say what the concerns were during the Obama administration, and how dare you compare the two in ways that are so totally not equal.

@Athos. Another great photo that says it all.

Quote:

---

Let's say Hillary won, and she had a great economy, would she get credit for it?

---

From me, yes, but from you, no. At least that would be the case if you are going to be consistent. It's all Obama's accomplishment, according to you.

As to the rest, I haven't said a word about trickle down economics. I have simply pointed out that you cannot cut taxes for those who are paying little to nothing in taxes. It's really common sense in its most simple form. The lowest 80% of income earners only pay a little more than 10% of the income taxes. As to the result, the economy has taken off like a rocket so it's kind of hard to argue with.

Quote:

---

I won't even comment to that "lowest black unemployment ever" insult! Like we should be grateful to repubs for whatever they allow us to have.

---

How is it that a very positive truth is insulting??? For instance, if Obama had come up with a reasonable way to raise my SS income, I would not have been insulted, I would have been grateful. What is your problem???

Quote:

---

You weren't here in this forum so how can you just drop in and say what the concerns were during the Obama administration, and how dare you compare the two in ways that are so totally not equal.

---

How dare I state something??? That made me laugh. Maybe Obama is some kind of a great hero to you, but neither he nor Trump is one to me. Now if you were critical of the 10 tril of deficit spending by Obama, then fine, but I've never seen you state that on this board. You are only critical when Trump does it. But hey, this is your big opportunity!! Go ahead and be critical of Obama's deficit spending now. Frankly, I don't think you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

From me, yes, but from you, no. At least that would be the case if you are going to be consistent. It's all Obama's accomplishment, according to you.

As to the rest, I haven't said a word about trickle down economics. I have simply pointed out that you cannot cut taxes for those who are paying little to nothing in taxes. It's really common sense in its most simple form. The lowest 80% of income earners only pay a little more than 10% of the income taxes. As to the result, the economy has taken off like a rocket so it's kind of hard to argue with.

---

NEVER said that at all, but giving the dufus ALL the credit is simply a bald face conservative fallacy which makes his claim another LIE! No you and the capitalists worshipers never say trickle down, instead using the who pays what marketing language. Same difference, same policy, same outcome, but never the acknowledgement of the reality that the poor get poorer, and have less options and opportunities to get out of being poor. Even the anecdotal person making it is but a distraction and false equivalency to the numbers of Americans in poverty growing in proportion to the country growing.

Heck if you are going to take all the money, at least pay all the bills! Simple logic which of course your brain cannot grasp!

Quote:

---

How is it that a very positive truth is insulting??? For instance, if Obama had come up with a reasonable way to raise my SS income, I would not have been insulted, I would have been grateful. What is your problem???

---

By LAW SS increases are tied to the COLA calculation so no president gives you a raise despite the dufus claim to the contrary. Of course repubs have been selling us about cutting the benefits and how unaffordable it is so we need to raise the age limits and such, but that is a lie also to obstruct EXPANSION of SS and its benefits. which are the lowest in the industrial world. As we speak the dufus is in court trying to repeal Obamacare with NO replacement with YOUR uninformed blessings! That's where I have a problem with you and failure to grasp in simple terms the nuance of what law and policy is actually about. Low black unemployment is no substitute for the centuries of abuse and institutional racism in law and policy suffered by minorities. If you cannot grasp that, or acknowledge it, then you can shove your finally giving the brother a job up your ….!

Quote:

---

How dare I state something??? That made me laugh. Maybe Obama is some kind of a great hero to you, but neither he nor Trump is one to me. Now if you were critical of the 10 tril of deficit spending by Obama, then fine, but I've never seen you state that on this board. You are only critical when Trump does it. But hey, this is your big opportunity!! Go ahead and be critical of Obama's deficit spending now. Frankly, I don't think you will.

---

It's real simple JL, you have only been here since the dufus got here. We discussed the pros and cons of the Obama presidency years ago. Try and keep up or reread those discussions and get caught up.

Quote:

---

No you and the capitalists worshipers never say trickle down, instead using the who pays what marketing language. Same difference, same policy, same outcome, but never the acknowledgement of the reality that the poor get poorer, and have less options and opportunities to get out of being poor.

---

It is not the same difference. It is such a common sense idea that a first grader can understand it. You cannot reduce taxes on people who do not pay taxes. People who pay a relatively small amount of tax cannot expect to receive an enormous tax break. It is very, very, very, very simple math.

Quote:

---

By LAW SS increases are tied to the COLA calculation so no president gives you a raise despite the dufus claim to the contrary. Of course repubs have been selling us about cutting the benefits and how unaffordable it is so we need to raise the age limits and such, but that is a lie also to obstruct EXPANSION of SS and its benefits. which are the lowest in the industrial world.

---

OK, first of all, note the words "for instance". It was just a hypothetical. As to the rest of your statement, no one, and I mean no one, who has knowledge of the SS crisis which is probably fifteen or so years down the road believes what you have said. Absolutely no one with knowledge believes that. It is a complete fallacy. Even democrats agree that we must do something to keep SS solvent.

Quote:

---

Low black unemployment is no substitute for the centuries of abuse and institutional racism in law and policy suffered by minorities. If you cannot grasp that, or acknowledge it, then you can shove your finally giving the brother a job up your ….!

---

Wow. I have always believed that the man who has no real point to make will instead resort to name calling. It always amuses me to see the liberals on this board who claim to believe in tolerance and civility resort to such crude temper tantrums. Well, at any rate, I have never suggested that low black unemployment made up for anything. I have simply pointed out that black unemployment is lower than ever which is, I would think, a good thing. I guess you don't agree with that which is about what I would expect since you cannot bring yourself to give Trump credit for anything.

I really don't understand you. You seem to get angry at the strangest things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It is not the same difference. It is such a common sense idea that a first grader can understand it. You cannot reduce taxes on people who do not pay taxes. People who pay a relatively small amount of tax cannot expect to receive an enormous tax break. It is very, very, very, very simple math.

---

Wrong!

I guess PAYROLL taxes don't count as paying taxes huh?

You can do poor people the same way you do rich people with tax deductions and wage increases. That would at least provide relief that helps the economy and keep hard working Walmart workers off the public dole. You guys never make the distinction between WORKING poor and LAZY non workers. They seem to be the same to you. That's but on suggestion to spur the economy with people who can buy stuff, instead of hoard it with the tremendous loopholes given to spare their wealth.

I mean you think its fair to claim depreciation on plants you close in America and build a new on in India? Really?

Quote:

---

OK, first of all, note the words "for instance". It was just a hypothetical. As to the rest of your statement, no one, and I mean no one, who has knowledge of the SS crisis which is probably fifteen or so years down the road believes what you have said. Absolutely no one with knowledge believes that. It is a complete fallacy. Even democrats agree that we must do something to keep SS solvent.

---

You can make SS solvent forever by raising the deduction cap TODAY! That's just one of many options, and they have been public record for more than a century, so save the crisis crap. There are solutions besides cutting benefits, or raising the retirement age.

Quote:

---

Wow. I have always believed that the man who has no real point to make will instead resort to name calling. It always amuses me to see the liberals on this board who claim to believe in tolerance and civility resort to such crude temper tantrums. Well, at any rate, I have never suggested that low black unemployment made up for anything. I have simply pointed out that black unemployment is lower than ever which is, I would think, a good thing. I guess you don't agree with that which is about what I would expect since you cannot bring yourself to give Trump credit for anything.

---

Well let me just put you on notice Mr. Conservative family values guy, low unemployment isn't enough to allow you to act like you've done something significant because a job is crap unless you can live off it and not have your dignity shaken by being on public assistance, and conservatives hollering you don't work hard enough.

Quote:

---

I really don't understand you. You seem to get angry at the strangest things.

---

Not mad at all just disgusted my friend is repeating the dufus talking point like it's such a great thing is as unacceptable as other insulting words and behavior he displays. ET TU? I mean black unemployment is still twice as high as white unemployment so what the freak are you crowing about?

Quote:

---

I guess PAYROLL taxes don't count as paying taxes huh?

---

What I said was correct. I was very specific to mention income taxes. But even at that, guess who pays a lot more in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes? If you said "the wealthy", then you get a prize.

Quote:

---

You guys never make the distinction between WORKING poor and LAZY non workers. They seem to be the same to you.

---

You are fantasizing again. I didn't even bring the subject up much less discuss it.

Quote:

---

You can make SS solvent forever by raising the deduction cap TODAY! That's just one of many options, and they have been public record for more than a century, so save the crisis crap. There are solutions besides cutting benefits, or raising the retirement age.

---

That's always the solution for libs. Take money from one person and give it to another.

Quote:

---

Well let me just put you on notice Mr. Conservative family values guy, low unemployment isn't enough to allow you to act like you've done something significant because a job is crap unless you can live off it and not have your dignity shaken by being on public assistance, and conservatives hollering you don't work hard enough.

---

Well, at least this time you called me a name I can wear with pride, "Mr. Conservative family values guy". I like that. And again, in your fantasies, you have imagined that I am claiming to have done something significant. I had nothing to do with it. It is the policies of this Trump administration that made the difference.

Quote:

---

I mean you think its fair to claim depreciation on plants you close in America and build a new on in India? Really?

---

I don't think that can be done, but if it can, then I will be all for changing that law, one that Mr. Obama never bothered to change.

Quote:

---

Not mad at all just disgusted my friend is repeating the dufus talking point like it's such a great thing is as unacceptable as other insulting words and behavior he displays. ET TU? I mean black unemployment is still twice as high as white unemployment so what the freak are you crowing about?

---

I'm not repeating anyone's talking points. I'm just pointing out a great fact for our country. And you are in no position to criticize Trump for "insulting words and behavior". You act just like him. Sometimes I think he must be your mentor. If you really don't approve of that behavior, then you might want to consult the guy in the mirror.

That's the wordiest cop out I ever saw. You're so amused with yourself aintcha?

Quote:

---

That's the wordiest cop out I ever saw.

---

Just interested in the truth. There's no cop out and you know it.

Quote:

---

You're so amused with yourself aintcha?

---

Trump couldn't have said it better. Congratulations!! Your mentor would be proud of you. (<:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What I said was correct. I was very specific to mention income taxes. But even at that, guess who pays a lot more in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes? If you said "the wealthy", then you get a prize.

---

The wealthy don't pay payroll taxes, nor do corporations and they have lawyers and accountants to take advantage of all kinds of loopholes and tax shelters and that's just US wealthy guys. Do the math, wealthy guys don't keep whirlpool, ford, or CARRIER in business we do. They are already wealthy, and looking for cheap labor and good tax breaks to get wealthier. They can afford to buy the people you elect to get more money while you pay them for what they're selling. Everybody does. LOL, and you really think they need more taxpayer money and holler about the debt?

I always though you had life and BS all screwed up, and plain to see who you put on a pedestal.

Quote:

---

You are fantasizing again. I didn't even bring the subject up much less discuss it

---

It's all related, and sets the pattern of you conservatives serving the corporate god, while hollering about the least of us being so despicable, and smacking us over the head with your bibles. That's reality not fantasy you wanna be bully.

Quote:

---

That's always the solution for libs. Take money from one person and give it to another.

---

Like they don't take money from liberals just you conservatives? See what I mean about your BS that you think is true? Can I use your bible for a minute? I feel the need to smack your ungrateful arse up side the head with it because Mississippi take our Texas dollars we give to government, and you poor people like you there are mad about it. So stop taking other peoples money you hypocrite!

Quote:

---

Well, at least this time you called me a name I can wear with pride, "Mr. Conservative family values guy". I like that. And again, in your fantasies, you have imagined that I am claiming to have done something significant. I had nothing to do with it. It is the policies of this Trump administration that made the difference.

---

Sarcasm font not working but the dufus is about NOISE, and division, and he lies to you like he lies to me. The real difference is you believe him and I don't

Quote:

---

I don't think that can be done, but if it can, then I will be all for changing that law, one that Mr. Obama never bothered to change.

---

Dems have been hollering about closing loopholes on YOUR wealthy gods for decades, why weren't you listening? Oh that's right it's easier to blame Obama, and obstruct the dems to protect your wealthy gods. And that's only ONE law you didn't know about. Wonder how many others you've missed with your right wing hollering. Don't even speak of structure and credibility to me and ignorance of the LAW is no excuse. You've heard that before surely.

Quote:

---

I'm not repeating anyone's talking points. I'm just pointing out a great fact for our country. And you are in no position to criticize Trump for "insulting words and behavior". You act just like him. Sometimes I think he must be your mentor. If you really don't approve of that behavior, then you might want to consult the guy in the mirror.

---

The guy in the mirror says don't take no crap from loonies or bullies, liars, or cheaters. Right or left. Conservative or Liberal. I don't have a bible to beat you about the bead with, so I rely on facts, which you ignore, dismiss, or just don't know. Back to you!

Quote:

---

The wealthy don't pay payroll taxes,

---

Uhm, yes, they do. All income up to about 128,000 is subject to the payroll tax.

Quote:

---

I feel the need to smack your ungrateful arse up side the head with it

---

You're really channeling Trump this morning. I know he would be proud.

Quote:

---

And that's only ONE law you didn't know about.

---

Show me where it is and I'll believe it. Until then it's just your opinion. But if it is policy, then I'll join with you in advocating for change and in criticizing Obama for doing nothing about it for eight years.

Quote:

---

The guy in the mirror says don't take no crap from loonies or bullies, liars, or cheaters. Right or left. Conservative or Liberal. I don't have a bible to beat you about the bead with, so I rely on facts, which you ignore, dismiss, or just don't know. Back to you!

---

Again, the professed believer in civility and tolerance goes on a rant. Back to me? There's really nothing to respond to. Reading your comments was like driving through the desert. There was very little to see. Drink a cup of coffee and calm down.

I am not in the 1%. I'm not even in the top 20% (You know, the guys who pay 87% of income taxes), so I have no vested interest in defending the wealthy. I do object when liberals make mindless statements such as, "The wealthy need to pay their fair share", or as you stated above, "The wealthy don't pay payroll taxes." These are plainly ridiculous comments with no connection to the truth. I have long believed the truth is worth defending.

$128,000 ain't the wealthy, and more than twice the national average,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

You can fact check me on the tax code though, or keep your opinions based on hollering points. As an example, the average wage earner sees a bigger paycheck because of changes in the tax code, because of the dufus and repub tax cuts, and if you didn't adjust for less taxes withheld, a smaller tax return was a shock.

Another FACT you need to be aware of is YOU lose that tax cut in a few years, but the wealthy keep theirs forever...subject to subsequent acts of congress. Probably end up with dems taking over, keeping YOUR tax cuts and the wealthy losing theirs like when the Bush tax cuts sunseted, and the wealthy didn't go broke, but we kept our crumbs. You do remember those Bush tax cuts don't you?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bush-tax-cuts.asp

A teachable moment.

Quote:

---

$128,000 ain't the wealthy, and more than twice the national average,

---

If you make a million dollars, you pay in payroll taxes on the first 128,000, so the wealthy pay payroll taxes. That was the point.

Quote:

---

You can fact check me

---

So you make a statement and then want me to do the work to check it out? No thanks. I'll just regard it as opinion until you can back it up. Did you notice that your link showed that average household income under Trump finally caught back up to 2008? It is much higher than in any of Obama's years.

Yes, tax cuts come and go. They come with repubs and they go with dems. The one constant is the overspending of the federal government which is going to come back and bite us all in the rear end some day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you make a million dollars, you pay in payroll taxes on the first 128,000, so the wealthy pay payroll taxes. That was the point.

---

Um, that assumes the wealthy make EARNED WAGE INCOME. If they don't they do NOT pay payroll taxes. You might be surprised how many of the wealthy do not depend on a salary, but receive money in one or more of the following ways.

DIVIDEND INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
BOND INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
RENTAL INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
CAPITAL GAINS INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
CD INTEREST INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.

There's also student income and exempt wage income but we need not bother ourselves with these.

The income sources above represent income to the wealthy in enormous amounts - in many TRILLIONS of dollars! NONE of this income is subject to payroll taxes. In any case, it DWARFS the measly $132,900 subject to a payroll tax. And that only kicks in if they receive EARNED WAGES.

Also, one more correction. You claimed the wealthy pay a lot more in payroll taxes. Wrong, the tax is the same for anyone who earns $132,900 in a year. It is, in fact, a regressive tax.

Quote:

---

You claimed the wealthy pay a lot more in payroll taxes. Wrong, the tax is the same for anyone who earns $132,900 in a year. It is, in fact, a regressive tax.

---

My reference was to a wealthy individual. Obviously the payroll tax from 132K is a lot more than from 30K. The same is true of property tax from a big house versus a small house, or from a large business property versus no business property. And it is generally not even considered to be a tax. SS is not a welfare program. It is a supplemental income program for retirement. And bear in mind that the person paying on 132K probably does not need SS when he/she retires. It's a needless program for that person that he/she is forced to pay into.

Quote:

---

Um, that assumes the wealthy make EARNED WAGE INCOME. If they don't they do NOT pay payroll taxes. You might be surprised how many of the wealthy do not depend on a salary, but receive money in one or more of the following ways.

DIVIDEND INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
BOND INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
RENTAL INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
CAPITAL GAINS INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.
CD INTEREST INCOME - exempt from payroll taxes.

---

But that's true for everyone. Anyone who wants to can invest in mutual funds, for instance. But all of those sources of income are subject to other taxes.

Quote:

---

The income sources above represent income to the wealthy in enormous amounts - in many TRILLIONS of dollars!

---

Not on an annual basis. As far as I could determine, captial gains in the U.S. is nothing like many trillions of dollars a year. But even if that was true, what difference does it make? Social Security is not meant to be a "me take care of you" program. It has always been intended to be a program in which I invest in a system that will take care of me.

More wordy cop outs? Darn your good at it, but if you make trillions (As a collective, or billions, or millions, if you prefer) and pay NO tax, that's fair? Half the country can't afford a money manager and neither could you unless they cuts a deal for a 401K with your employer. Do the math, or look it up yourself, how many people are in the 1%? In the 20%? Do it on your own and let me know how that works out...if you can afford it.

How many people ain't in that investor class? Why aren't you? When is your state going to stop taking my states hard earned money? I can't comment on the SS gobble de goop you posted.

PS

How did the recession/depression in 2008 affect that 401k? Or mutual funds if you invested.

Quote:

---

More wordy cop outs? Darn your good at it, but if you make trillions (As a collective, or billions, or millions, if you prefer) and pay NO tax, that's fair?

---

OK. No one is making trillions, so that's make believe. As to the rest, all I know to say (again) is that the top 20% of income earners pay more than 85% of the income taxes. That's pretty good for a group of people who, according to you, pay no taxes.

Quote:

---

How many people ain't in that investor class? Why aren't you?

---

I do invest in mutual funds and stocks. Anyone can do it, and in fact tens of millions of people do it either individually or through retirement plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

OK. No one is making trillions, so that's make believe.

---

No one said that, so the make believe is all yours. Own it.

Tal's comment was collective or an aggregate.

OK. So who makes trillions as a collective? Who, as a "collective", is making trillions in profits? Answer: No one. So it turns out to be make believe after all, and especially so if this "collective", this "aggregate" is making trillions but paying no taxes. It just doesn't exist. I understand that Tal was not trying to be specific with amounts. He was probably just exaggerating as many often do including me. It is not a big deal.

Besides all of that, I would happily agree that businesses and rich people should pay taxes, so we are in agreement with that, but when the top 20% is paying more than 85% of income taxes, then it's hard to make the argument that they are not doing so. I think libs have a hard case to make for "tax fairness" when the bottom half of income earners pay virtually no income tax and the top 20% carry very nearly all of it.

You have your opinion of fairness and whether the government can take your money and give it to me, and all that crap, I have mine, but have you actually examined the logic of giving the wealthy even more wealth? I don't think it's fair that my government takes my money and gives it to a rich guy that pays me crumbs. I don't think it's fair you take his side without even knowing of the legal ways he buys lawmakers I elect to make tax laws and regulations that enrich him and leave me holding the bag for the shortfall. I don't think it's fair a rich guy can legally hide half his wealth in shelters and havens and pay NO tax, or YOU equating a rich guys taxes to a poor guys taxes without asking why is half the country of a rich nation with a great economy poor?

I don't think it's fair for job creators to subsidize there wages with tax payer dollars and pay no property taxes. Then close shop when the tax saving agreement is over, or worse move to other countries for cheap labor. Yeah those are the rich guys you give more money to while the make money selling stuff. Some don't do that, they just bet on stuff in the stock market and stuff the profits in the Cayman or something.

I don't think its fair to rail against those poor folks you say pay no taxes and complain how godless they are, while those rich guys get MO'Money to rape pillage and plunder, lie, cheat, and steal. I don't think its fair at all to beat and cage women and children that someone is getting rich for doing it, while you help some and disregard the rest.

I don't think its fair at all you tout a lying cheating dufus as a savior, because he gives you what you want, and always bad mouth the decent church going human who cleaned up the mess the rich guys made before. No doubt it's obvious your idea of fair doesn't work for me at all, but I am content to let the god you profess to believe in judge you and just find the joy in standing against whatever you poison you're peddling, in the hope someday you repent your wicked ways and see the light of truth...you have life and BS all mixed up, and your book can't save you, because that's your job, and a lousy one at that.

No RANT or sarcasm.

Quote:

---

I don't think it's fair that my government takes my money and gives it to a rich guy that pays me crumbs. I don't think it's fair you take his side without even knowing of the legal ways he buys lawmakers I elect to make tax laws and regulations that enrich him and leave me holding the bag for the shortfall. I don't think it's fair a rich guy can legally hide half his wealth in shelters and havens and pay NO tax, or YOU equating a rich guys taxes to a poor guys taxes without asking why is half the country of a rich nation with a great economy poor?

---

So I'll say it again in hope that maybe one day it will sink in. The top 20% of income earners in America pay 87% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing. That is why I don't take your comments above seriously. It's just liberal talking points that are completely false.

Quote:

---

complain how godless they are, while those rich guys get MO'Money to rape pillage and plunder, lie, cheat, and steal.

---

You really need to get a cup of coffee, calm down, and stop these rages of fantasy. And it is 100% a falsehood for you to say I have said the poor are godless. I've never said that.

Tal, that was one of your best ever responses! - especially the part about people getting rich housing the very badly cared for asylum seekers in detention prison -- at $700-800 per day!!!! Am I a liberal? No, I'm a Republican AND a Christian who does her best to follow Jesus' two greatest commandments.

Quote:

---

people getting rich housing the very badly cared for asylum seekers in detention prison -- at $700-800 per day!!!!

---

1. That they are "very badly cared for" is, I think, an overstatement. They are fed, clothed, given med care, and kept in a secure place, and usually for a few weeks at most, or at least that is my understanding. I'm sure there have been some isolated failures, but they don't represent what is generally occurring.
2. Where did you find the information about hundreds of dollars a day? How do you know those people are getting rich?

Quote:

---

Am I a liberal?

---

You sure sound like one. I am happy to hear of your commitment to the words of Christ, but I have trouble getting past your refusal weeks ago to join in a call for sexually responsible behavior leading to a greatly diminished out of wedlock birth rate. I don't see how your refusal there can correspond to the two commandments your referenced.

It is nice to see you posting again.

Quote:

---

1. That they are "very badly cared for" is, I think, an overstatement. They are fed, clothed, given med care, and kept in a secure place

---

Vice President Mike Pence saw firsthand the extreme overcrowding migrants are often forced to endure at federal detention centers when he visited two Friday in Texas.

Agents wore face masks, and video showed detainees packed into their holding areas surrounded by chain-link fence, the concrete floors littered with silver thermal blankets. Reporters accompanying Pence described the facility as smelling “horrendous.”

Pence said afterward that what he saw was evidence of a “system that was overwhelmed.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/13/no-s...n-centers.html

Quote:

---

I have trouble getting past your refusal weeks ago to join in a call for sexually responsible behavior leading to a greatly diminished out of wedlock birth rate. I don't see how your refusal there can correspond to the two commandments your referenced.

---

I have no idea what you're referring to. It's time men keep their flies zipped up.

Quote:

---

Pence said afterward that what he saw was evidence of a “system that was overwhelmed.”

---

So when do you suppose the democrat led congress will introduce emergency funding legislation do remedy the overwhelmed system?

Quote:

---

I have no idea what you're referring to. It's time men keep their flies zipped up.

---

Fine. So will you agree that men need to keep their flies zipped up and women need to keep their pants on, or that their should be a general agreement to reserve sex for marriage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So when do you suppose the democrat led congress will introduce emergency funding legislation do remedy the overwhelmed system?



Fine. So will you agree that men need to keep their flies zipped up and women need to keep their pants on, or that their should be a general agreement to reserve sex for marriage?

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-p...ay-2019-06-25/

That was last month. The overcrowding is due in large part to this zero tolerance policy and his metering procedure to slow walk processing. I think we discussed his not sending the judges, interpreters and, legal counsel to speed up the process. He knew they were coming last year, and asked for no money then to prepare. His request for funds was well after the IG report, which he got in February. The press has been reporting the conditions for many months before Pence and repubs decided to see (SMELL) for themselves and still have not visited El Paso or Clint Tx. They went to McAllen Tx at another facility that's been reported on since December.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So when do you suppose the democrat led congress will introduce emergency funding legislation do remedy the overwhelmed system?

---

There is no "democrat led congress".

Quote:

---

Fine. So will you agree that men need to keep their flies zipped up and women need to keep their pants on, or that their should be a general agreement to reserve sex for marriage?

---

If men keep their flies zipped up, women can go about their business as usual. I never said anything about sex before marriage, was always taught and then did my own teaching that that's where it belongs.

Quote:

---

If men keep their flies zipped up, women can go about their business as usual. I never said anything about sex before marriage, was always taught and then did my own teaching that that's where it belongs.

---

So it's all the fault of the men? Even women who have multiple children from multiple fathers face, in your view, no responsibilities in the matter. And that's conservative Christian faith?

My call was to men and women both to exercise restraint and reserve sex for marriage. Just as it was several months ago, you will not commit to that. It would appear that your liberal orthodoxy will not allow you to assign responsibility to both genders. That is unfortunate.

Pretty obvious it's going to take more than just calling for abstinence to bring about changes in human behavior. They've been calling for that in many areas not just in sex. Hasn't worked very well to mask the root causes of human pain which is at the heart of such behaviors that go against the common sense of those that suffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So it's all the fault of the men? Even women who have multiple children from multiple fathers face, in your view, no responsibilities in the matter. And that's conservative Christian faith?

---

Not conservative faith. Those women were looking for love. Is that what men are looking for? Not all the time in MY experience!

Quote:

---

My call was to men and women both to exercise restraint and reserve sex for marriage. Just as it was several months ago, you will not commit to that. It would appear that your liberal orthodoxy will not allow you to assign responsibility to both genders. That is unfortunate.

---

Okay. Women should stop looking to men for love (and giving up their purity during the process). Men should stop dangling love as a lure, meanwhile unzipping their pants.

Quote:

---

Women should stop looking to men for love (and giving up their purity during the process). Men should stop dangling love as a lure, meanwhile unzipping their pants.

---

I'm not as sure as you are of the involvement of the desire for love. Even for women, passion is a major element, yet that is a fair statement you made so far as it goes. But doesn't marriage basically solve the problem? Not all problems, to be sure, but at least the problem of children being born out of wedlock and the discipline of sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm not as sure as you are of the involvement of the desire for love. Even for women, passion is a major element, yet that is a fair statement you made so far as it goes. But doesn't marriage basically solve the problem? Not all problems, to be sure, but at least the problem of children being born out of wedlock and the discipline of sex.

---

Among women, the need for love is MUCH more a driving force than passion.

Look back at post #32: WG said, "I never said anything about sex before marriage, was always taught and then did my own teaching that that's where it belongs."

So we basically agree. Wonderful!

Most people are not as pious as some of you want them to be for a variety of reasons. What are you intending to do, supervise them 24/7? Make a law to punish those that don't agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Most people are not as pious as some of you want them to be for a variety of reasons. What are you intending to do, supervise them 24/7? Make a law to punish those that don't agree?

---

Exactly! And much of that goes back to how they were parented and what they were taught, how they were made to feel.