Stop Using the term Class Warfare

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

Labeling any discussion of a fair distribution of the tax load as "class warfare" is what is pitting people against each other.


Fair is a subjective term. If we want to reverse the Bush tax cuts, we need to reverse them all, at all income levels. Selective reversal strikes me as unfair and arguably class warfare. But then again, it is totally subjective right?


Wait a minute. We can't raise taxes on the middle class because the republicans object. So 2008, Obama wanted to raise it on families earning 250K or more, and you complained about how those people are really middle class too. So he raises the bar to $1million + of annual taxable income, and now it's class warfare. Who put us there?

Republicans created at TEMPORARY tax cut that they knew had to be reversed because it was unsustainable. You went back on your own commitment.
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:If we want to reverse the Bush tax cuts, we need to reverse them all, at all income levels. Selective reversal strikes me as unfair and arguably class warfare.

There you go - something other than a flat tax is class warfare. Where's that guy who was saying that no one was trying to redefine terms?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:SS is not a tax, since you will ultimately get most of that money back..


I may be getting a very small portion of that money back, and nothing like what the money would have been if I had been able to invest it in a very safe bond.

And remember, you pay 7.5% SS tax on the income for which you pay the tax, which of course is not all, and the employer pays another 7.5%. Economists differ on whether employees would get the full employer-paid 7.5% if SS tax were removed but all agree the employee would get some of it. So the tax is more than 7.5% but probably less that a full 15%.
Anonymous
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
anonymous wrote:
anonymous wrote:I hear politicians saying the wealthy need to "give back more" all the time - and you do too.

I’m confident I’ve never used that phrase. That phrase is foreign to my perspective on taxation. I have a username, so it would be easy to search and find that quote or one like it from me.


Sorry, you misunderstood. I was saying that you hear the phrase all the time, not that you use it.

But I am done engaging with you. You are disingenuous in your responses. And you have a preset view of where everyone who disagrees with you is coming from. I don't watch "Faux News" as you call them. I don't read Rep websites or blogs. I mostly listen to NPR and read the New York Times. And my statements about the attitudes I am hearing toward the rich and taxation are about things Obama has said and other politicians have said, and then probably also from some NPR guests.

I know what you will say. It is your favorite response: "No one is saying that. Give me a quote. Where's the quote."

Well, you know what, most people don't have photographic memories. And I could search online to find a few quotes and give them to you. But I KNOW that you KNOW these things are being said. That's one reason I'm done with you. Average people, smart people, even very smart people, hear politicians and pundits say things overtime and the listener develops a sense of the overall statement being made. When I talk to my liberal or progressive friends, they don't claim these statements aren't being made. The discuss the substance with me; whether we should think the rich aren't paying their"fair share." I can see why you think the world is all about tactics. Tactics are your intellectual impulse.

You said in a different post that I should get a username, after I asked that you to address the ideas more and the tactic/deluded/motivation questions less. This is a mostly anonymous forum. If you can only engage respectfully with people who also have user names, that leaves you with PenguinSix and a few others, most of whom aren't on the political forum.
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:I know what you will say. It is your favorite response: "No one is saying that. Give me a quote. Where's the quote."

Well, you know what, most people don't have photographic memories. And I could search online to find a few quotes and give them to you. But I KNOW that you KNOW these things are being said.

You offer your views to be scrutinized by others, and when they are, say you don't have to support or question them b/c you just KNOW. I'm sure blaming your abandonment of reason on mean Mr. MWU is easier than honestly appraising your positions.

Since I dislike the Dems, your idea that I'm just employing some evasive tactic in their defense is misguided. As I said, I'm sure the phrase "give back more" HAS been used very often, but that phrase is neither vilification nor class warfare.

Anonymous wrote:You said in a different post that I should get a username, after I asked that you to address the ideas more and the tactic/deluded/motivation questions less. This is a mostly anonymous forum.

It was purely practical. Your posts are less likely to be misunderstood by me or anyone if you have one. Look how mine has made judging my posts easier for you.
takoma
Member Offline
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You said in a different post that I should get a username, after I asked that you to address the ideas more and the tactic/deluded/motivation questions less. This is a mostly anonymous forum.

It was purely practical. Your posts are less likely to be misunderstood by me or anyone if you have one. Look how mine has made judging my posts easier for you.

In case my own use of a name is not sufficient to indicate that I agree with Man on this, let me say again that it's not a matter of self-identification, since we are using pseudonyms, but rather of letting people keep track of which postings are from the same person. I find it extremely confusing at times when I can't tell a supporting post from a repetition, or even from an ironic rebuttal.
Anonymous
takoma wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You said in a different post that I should get a username, after I asked that you to address the ideas more and the tactic/deluded/motivation questions less. This is a mostly anonymous forum.

It was purely practical. Your posts are less likely to be misunderstood by me or anyone if you have one. Look how mine has made judging my posts easier for you.

In case my own use of a name is not sufficient to indicate that I agree with Man on this, let me say again that it's not a matter of self-identification, since we are using pseudonyms, but rather of letting people keep track of which postings are from the same person. I find it extremely confusing at times when I can't tell a supporting post from a repetition, or even from an ironic rebuttal.


I understand the practical point. MWUN's statement was: "Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that."

My point is, in a forum with very few who have names, it shouldn't be his position that he only engages respectfully (i.e., not respond to posts with 'you are just being led by "Faux" news') with those who also have names.
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:I understand the practical point. MWUN's statement was: "Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that."

My point is, in a forum with very few who have names, it shouldn't be his position that he only engages respectfully (i.e., not respond to posts with 'you are just being led by "Faux" news') with those who also have names.

Anyone can compare my statement with your paraphrase and see your twisting. You might also want to go back and read the original substantive statement in question. In response, I didn't say or suggest that you were being manipulated; I said that you were making an obvious observation that added nothing.

But I guess regardless of what the words on the screen say, you'll KNOW different.
Anonymous
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I understand the practical point. MWUN's statement was: "Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that."

My point is, in a forum with very few who have names, it shouldn't be his position that he only engages respectfully (i.e., not respond to posts with 'you are just being led by "Faux" news') with those who also have names.

Anyone can compare my statement with your paraphrase and see your twisting. You might also want to go back and read the original substantive statement in question. In response, I didn't say or suggest that you were being manipulated; I said that you were making an obvious observation that added nothing.

But I guess regardless of what the words on the screen say, you'll KNOW different.


I don't understand, I quoted your statement. I'm not paraphrasing it. It was in response to my request for more substance and less name calling, for lack of a better term. That request by me was not brought on by an earlier exchange between us; it was brought on my just reading your posts for a few days.
takoma
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand, I quoted your statement. I'm not paraphrasing it. It was in response to my request for more substance and less name calling, for lack of a better term. That request by me was not brought on by an earlier exchange between us; it was brought on my just reading your posts for a few days.

That's the problem with "anonymous." When a new person jumps into a dialog, there is a tendency to think it's the same "anonymous" you've been talking to, and your response makes no sense to that new person.
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Anyone can compare my statement with your paraphrase and see your twisting.

I don't understand, I quoted your statement. I'm not paraphrasing it.

You quoted and then (mis)paraphrased.
Quote: "’Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that.’"
Paraphrase: “his position that he only engages respectfully (i.e., not respond to posts with 'you are just being led by "Faux" news') with those who also have names.”

The twist was between those two. When you first started complaining about my focus on Faux/Rep tactics, I laid out very clearly why and how I distinguish between carriers of the disease, so to speak, and people with legitimate, considered ideas, only with the latter of which am I willing to engage fully.

I think you’re playing this rhetorical game now, painting me as petty, because you’re frustrated with your inability to distinguish yourself from Faux parrots – if in fact you even agree with them, which I don’t think you’ve made clear (see below). As I said, rather than either backing up your public statements or amending your position, you’re telling yourself that I’m a big meanie for demanding that you back them up.

Anonymous wrote:It was in response to my request for more substance and less name calling, for lack of a better term.

I don’t think you’re trying very hard to find a better term. We’re not talking about name calling or anything like it.

Let’s say I don’t believe in global warming. Someone starts a thread on how terrible it is. I could just say, “There’s no such thing as global warming.” That’s a legitimate, on topic statement, but it’s a little flat – it leaves a bunch of questions about why I hold this contrary view. So instead, I say either: 1) “I think it’s a myth – what’s your evidence;” or 2) “I think you’ve been fed a bunch of lies by tree-huggers – what’s your evidence?”

Unless you’re complaining about the “tree-hugger” part, we’re talking about perfectly legitimate points. In response, one could do as you did and say, “Baloney – I KNOW you believe in global warming.” That’s more legitimate?

As I said, if you think that there is “class warfare” and “vilification” occurring, then you can back it up and prove me wrong. If you don’t think it’s occurring, then I can’t imagine why you’re getting involved, at least in opposition to me.

Anonymous wrote:That request by me was not brought on by an earlier exchange between us; it was brought on my just reading your posts for a few days.

Here it is, from my 8:21 post on page 16 of the “DCUM class warfare” thread:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A little off topic, but pertinent to the discussion of why everyone should pay some federal income tax if they earn wages. We have close to 50% of the population paying no federal income tax. Those individual's have no incentive to elect leaders who will be good use our federal monies prudently.

Of course they do. My kids don't contribute to my HHI, but they have a big interest in how we spend our money. Those called "takers" have more incentive to ensure that money is well spent, since they (supposedly) rely on it more.

Besides, the voting problems in this country don't result from deficiencies in incentive but in knowledge and judgment.


They have an incentive to want the efficient use of money. They also have an incentive to take as much as possible from those who pay taxes and have it redistributed to them.

Profound observation. Everyone, rich and poor, has an incentive to maximize their money.

PP said something incentives to spend wisely, and I addressed it. I don't know why you're raising this separate (and very obvious) point.


(I am asking myself why I should continue to engage with you, MWUN. You've become more hostile and more of a jerk. Yet, here I am).

Get a username - seriously. If you think you're posts are being misjudged and/or quickly dismissed, it will help prevent that.


In summary:
1) PP makes point.
2) I counter it.
3) You step in.
4) I call you point obvious and irrelevant. I don’t say anything about Faux, tactics, sheep, etc.
5) You complain about me being a jerk.
6) I suggest that you get a username.

You’re now saying that it was more of a complaint about me harping on about Faux/Rep tactics. If so, you picked a strange time to bring it up, when I hadn’t mentioned them at all.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: