It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: John Florida on October 29, 2011, 06:57:08 PM
-
Anybody hear anything about Perry droping out of debates?
-
He alluded a couple days ago that he made a mistake participating in them.
-
It's his racism catching up to him.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/29/tour_rick_perry_joking_about_obamas_birth_certificate_is_racist.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/29/tour_rick_perry_joking_about_obamas_birth_certificate_is_racist.html)
-
He drops out of the debates and it's over he might as well go back to Texas.
-
There are too many crappy debates. I wouldn't mind if they were real debates but they aren't. They are MFM setups to discredit the candidates.
That said, Perry isn't doing himself any favors by not participating. He really needs to just take a crash course on debate tactics. He sucks at them but the proper course of action is to man up and kick Romney's ass rather than run away.
-
There are too many crappy debates. I wouldn't mind if they were real debates but they aren't. They are MFM setups to discredit the candidates.
That said, Perry isn't doing himself any favors by not participating. He really needs to just take a crash course on debate tactics. He sucks at them but the proper course of action is to man up and kick Romney's ass rather than run away.
The debates have devolved into bash obama and each other to the destruction of all of them. This herd needs to be thinned and a more serious tone needs to be taken. Screw Obama and concentrate on issues. Obama can be hurt just by going through where the country is today and people will come to their own conclusions as to how we got here.
Wait for the presidential debates to slat Obama with his own record. Right now I think people are ready to hear real plans from less people.
-
The Atlantic (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/reporters-put-romney-couch/44279/)
When Perry interrupted Romney's 30-second response at the most recent debate, Romney appealed to the CNN debate moderator, Anderson Cooper. Parker confides, "it has become something of a running joke among the traveling press corps to call out 'Anderson? Anderson?' when things go awry."
OMG
George Will's characterization of Romney as the Republican George Dukakis is too real. Dukakis became the joke of press corps and the nation and it's happening with Romney right before our eyes.
'Anderson? Anderson? ROTFLMAO
-
The most scandalous thing about the debates is gNewt.
gNewt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
He and all the politicos know he is unelectable. He resigned congress
because of a book deal not unlike Speaker Jim Wright's. He divorced
his dying first wife, then a second wife and now he's toting 'round a
third blowing his budget. The same people who would not vote for
McStinky will certainly not vote for him, more so.
-
I agree the whole debate setup is largely a sham. But Perry is definitely not doing himself any favors if he boycotts them. He does realize the Republican nominee will be in debates against Obama, doesn't he? If he can't hack it against other Republicans then I definitely don't want to see him as some sort of W. redux in the General.
-
Heard a Hannity replay this afternoon, with Trump recounting a recent conversation with Perry where Perry was very good in stating his positions, very forceful, and Trump braced him with the question, "now why don't you do this, sound this way, while debating" and Perry replied, verbatim Trump said, with "it's just not my thing". He knows he's a poor debater.
I don't know what to say about this. We all usually choose to avoid a forum that showcases our weaknesses; I would imagine if he believed working on it would help, he would do so. Perhaps not the case.
-
As of 2 hours ago AP was reporting he's still going to at least 5 debates.
story here (http://news.yahoo.com/perry-attend-least-5-more-debates-002327759.html)
-
There are too many crappy debates. I wouldn't mind if they were real debates but they aren't. They are MFM setups to discredit the candidates.
That said, Perry isn't doing himself any favors by not participating. He really needs to just take a crash course on debate tactics. He sucks at them but the proper course of action is to man up and kick Romney's ass rather than run away.
I agree . Someone should have counselled the candidates not to fall for the bait but it's too late now . Personally , I thought they were crazy to enter that many debates so early . They're pointless . I haven't watched a single one .
-
The thing I don't understand is why they would agree to participate in venues with hostile moderators. It would be easy enough to say, "You can televise our debate, but we're choosing our own moderators. Don't like that? OK. Next."
-
I think 2 or 3 debates are needed at the most. If you haven't gotten your point across by then, you never will.
-
I think 2 or 3 debates are needed at the most. If you haven't gotten your point across by then, you never will.
I mostly agree but would put it at 3-4.
What's missing from these contests is an outcome or resolution. And they are contests. Each participant is pitting their oratorical skills and reasoning ability against another. At the conclusion of each contest there are clear winners, but no elimination, and therefore no resolution.
It's nice that we gave Huntsman and Paul a chance to speak their peace......now go away and let us concentrate on serious candidates. The interesting thing is, depending upon how you scored each contest Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman would also be gone. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing at this point in the game?
On the plus side, having several opportunities to debate has broadened our chance to see these guys peek outside of canned speeches and ads. One of the missing aspects is the thoroughness of examination. I hated Mrs. Goldstein's ninth grade math class because it wasn't enough for her to press you for an answer - she made you show your work. She insisted on an explanation of how you arrived at your answer. Which meant that you couldn't guess or make wild guesses. She insisted on not just the correct answer but the right answer and we were better students for it.
Likewise, we got to hear Perry's soundbyte on immigration but not an explanation on how he thinks it could possibly ever work. Or how Paul's isolationism would fare on 21st century Earth.
(It's time to try out my latest metaphor)
So far what I've seen of the candidates on display in these debates shows Gingrich as a magnificent diamond - complete with flaws, Cain as a diamond in the rough, Perry like an industrial-grade diamond - useful enough but nothing you want to give your sweetie, Romney as a Cubic Zirconium - an excellent presentation but at the end of the day still not the real thing, Paul like Pyrite (better known as Fool's Gold), and the rest minor gems.
They all have their strengths, they all have their weaknesses. All are imperfect but even the least of which stands head & shoulders above the miserable wretch currently doing his "Occupy White House" imitation.
-
Informative interview:
http://www.therightscoop.com/rick-perry-in-new-hampshire-im-here-to-win/ (http://www.therightscoop.com/rick-perry-in-new-hampshire-im-here-to-win/)
-
The most scandalous thing about the debates is Newt.
Newt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
He and all the politicos know he is unelectable. He resigned congress because of a book deal not unlike Speaker Jim Wright's. He divorced his dying first wife, then a second wife and now he's toting 'round a third blowing his budget. The same people who would not vote for McStinky will certainly not vote for him, more so.
I'm not saying you said this but your comment makes me ask this....
What makes Ron Paul any more/less a whore than Newt? They have the same chance of becoming President. They also have their own reasons for wanting to take part in the process. Both have their own well thought out points and stances and beliefs. Both are tired of a government that is broken and walking all over the people.
I find both of them in the debate refreshing. I think it reminds the entire Country that there are hundreds of thousands (millions perhaps) that very well would be willing to go 'that far' to fix things. Take out the 'unelectable' and then you get another McCain choice. Someone nobody wants except the GOP and established clowns.
-
The thing I don't understand is why they would agree to participate in venues with hostile moderators. It would be easy enough to say, "You can televise our debate, but we're choosing our own moderators. Don't like that? OK. Next."
AMEN !!!!!!!!
-
The most scandalous thing about the debates is Newt.
Newt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
...
I'm not saying you said this but your comment makes me ask this....
What makes Ron Paul any more/less a whore than Newt? They have the same chance of becoming President. They also have their own reasons for wanting to take part in the process. ...
First things:
The most scandalous thing about the debates is gNewt.
gNewt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
He and all the politicos know he is unelectable. He resigned congress
because of a book deal not unlike Speaker Jim Wright's. He divorced
his dying first wife, then a second wife and now he's toting 'round a
third blowing his budget. The same people who would not vote for
McStinky will certainly not vote for him, more so.
This is the unedited quote. If one edits a quote it should, in some way, be identified. ::oldman::
The most scandalous thing about the debates is Newt.
Newt is a whore using the debates to increase his value. ...
I'm not saying you said this but your comment makes me ask this. ...
What makes Ron Paul any more/less a whore than Newt? They have the same chance of becoming President. They also have their own reasons for wanting to take part in the process.
Precisely, they do have different reasons, however; gNewt, is an unelectable whore as illustrated in the original post. No Republican candidate could
overcome his baggage. Ron Paul is unelectable, in my opinion, however; he is not there on a self promotional tour, he is running for president because he sincerely wants to be president. Ron Paul is not a whore, therefore his appearance is not scandalous.
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
-
The most scandalous thing about the debates is Newt.
Newt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
...
I'm not saying you said this but your comment makes me ask this....
What makes Ron Paul any more/less a whore than Newt? They have the same chance of becoming President. They also have their own reasons for wanting to take part in the process. ...
First things:
The most scandalous thing about the debates is gNewt.
gNewt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
He and all the politicos know he is unelectable. He resigned congress
because of a book deal not unlike Speaker Jim Wright's. He divorced
his dying first wife, then a second wife and now he's toting 'round a
third blowing his budget. The same people who would not vote for
McStinky will certainly not vote for him, more so.
This is the unedited quote. If one edits a quote it should, in some way, be identified. ::oldman::
The most scandalous thing about the debates is Newt.
Newt is a whore using the debates to increase his value. ...
I'm not saying you said this but your comment makes me ask this. ...
What makes Ron Paul any more/less a whore than Newt? They have the same chance of becoming President. They also have their own reasons for wanting to take part in the process.
Precisely, they do have different reasons, however; gNewt, is an unelectable whore as illustrated in the original post. No Republican candidate could
overcome his baggage. Ron Paul is unelectable, in my opinion, however; he is not there on a self promotional tour, he is running for president because he sincerely wants to be president. Ron Paul is not a whore, therefore his appearance is not scandalous.
Sorry for any confusion. I thought I had made reference to saying I was not putting words in your mouth... but wanted to speek additionally on a point.
I was agreeing with you and tying it in to Ron Paul as an extension of the same thought.
From now on I'll spam full quotes.
-
The most scandalous thing about the debates is Newt.
Newt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
...
I'm not saying you said this but your comment makes me ask this....
What makes Ron Paul any more/less a whore than Newt? They have the same chance of becoming President. They also have their own reasons for wanting to take part in the process. ...
First things:
The most scandalous thing about the debates is gNewt.
gNewt is a whore using the debates to increase his value.
He and all the politicos know he is unelectable. He resigned congress
because of a book deal not unlike Speaker Jim Wright's. He divorced
his dying first wife, then a second wife and now he's toting 'round a
third blowing his budget. The same people who would not vote for
McStinky will certainly not vote for him, more so.
This is the unedited quote. If one edits a quote it should, in some way, be identified. ::oldman::
The most scandalous thing about the debates is Newt.
Newt is a whore using the debates to increase his value. ...
I'm not saying you said this but your comment makes me ask this. ...
What makes Ron Paul any more/less a whore than Newt? They have the same chance of becoming President. They also have their own reasons for wanting to take part in the process.
Precisely, they do have different reasons, however; gNewt, is an unelectable whore as illustrated in the original post. No Republican candidate could
overcome his baggage. Ron Paul is unelectable, in my opinion, however; he is not there on a self promotional tour, he is running for president because he sincerely wants to be president. Ron Paul is not a whore, therefore his appearance is not scandalous.
You may believe that about Ron Paul, but I don't. I think he is nothing more than an attention whore, who strings his supporters along to pad his campaign coffers. As far as Newt's baggage, I tend to agree, but this is a very different political climate, these days. I don't think that type of baggage is as condemning as it was ten or even five years ago.
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
Looks like it will leave that evil IRS intact! ::hysterical::
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
Heck, I like it.
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
Heck, I like it.
Well, then you must be in favor of keeping the current system! ;D
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
Heck, I like it.
Well, then you must be in favor of keeping the current system! ;D
I'm confused, those four of five lines of deductions don't resemble the multiple pages of multiple forms now necessary. And a deduction for capital gains and dividends, never seen a tax form with that on it.
-
I disagree with those questioning Ron Paul's motives. Nothing in his career suggests he is doing anything other than attempting to put the constitution as he interprets it front and center, and using Presidential campaigns as his evangelism tent.
Regardless of what we think of his style, the particulars of his politics, or the idiocy of his disciples, few have done more in the last several years to focus the national conversation on what are and are not constitutional functions of this government.
-
I disagree with those questioning Ron Paul's motives. Nothing in his career suggests he is doing anything other than attempting to put the constitution as he interprets it front and center, and using Presidential campaigns as his evangelism tent.
Regardless of what we think of his style, the particulars of his politics, or the idiocy of his disciples, few have done more in the last several years to focus the national conversation on what are and are not constitutional functions of this government.
I agree. I think Ron Paul -and- Newt are genuine, but with nope hope of winning they are using the platform to speak their ideas.
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
Heck, I like it.
Well, then you must be in favor of keeping the current system! ;D
I'm confused, those four of five lines of deductions don't resemble the multiple pages of multiple forms now necessary. And a deduction for capital gains and dividends, never seen a tax form with that on it.
Recently, I was told when I said I was in favor of keeping the IRS in place, with a much simpler tax code, that I was "in favor of keeping the current system."
I was making a point. This keeps the IRS in place, presumably with a much simpler tax code which is exactly what I said I was in favor of.
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
Heck, I like it.
Well, then you must be in favor of keeping the current system! ;D
I'm confused, those four of five lines of deductions don't resemble the multiple pages of multiple forms now necessary. And a deduction for capital gains and dividends, never seen a tax form with that on it.
Recently, I was told when I said I was in favor of keeping the IRS in place, with a much simpler tax code, that I was "in favor of keeping the current system."
I was making a point. This keeps the IRS in place, presumably with a much simpler tax code which is exactly what I said I was in favor of.
But with their teeth pulled and their power stunted.I have no problem with the IRS being there but I do have a problem with their number and power.
-
Sample Tax Return; Perry's plan:
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf (http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/10/sample-tax-return.pdf)
Heck, I like it.
Well, then you must be in favor of keeping the current system! ;D
Under Perry's one page plan to file your taxes, the IRS has been rendered useless. The initials may be the same, but the power is gone. There is the incremental change you argued weighed against a one page form.
I'm waiting for you to take his plan to task, as you did Cain's. I stated I like the plan because on the surface, it is simplistic, same reason I like Cains, but if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
-
... if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
-
... if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
Priceless.But how do you really feel?
-
... if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
Pan, I don't know if this is possible, but any new plan needs to come with the guarantee once established, it can never be raised, only lowered. I'd also make part of my plan if deductions are greater than your income, tough crap, no refund.
-
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
I tend to agree.
To paraphrase what I said on another thread...define income, define exemption, define, define....
It is in writing the definitions that TPTB slip in exceptions and special cases....this year we should have empowerment zones and hey those guys over there need relief so they get something too!! and so it goes....
then you need an agency to enforce the collection because "everyone" will try to be an exception ::hysterical::
-
... if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
Priceless.But how do you really feel?
Johnny-boy, that is one of the most inane, stupidest, most aggravating responses to a comment. It's as though ya can't think of anything better to say. I'm already telling you "how I really feel", and you know it, so cut the crap.
Just sayin'.
-
Politico is either going for the kill a little early or Machiavelli is alive and well.
Link (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html)
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
Tryin' to lynch him they are.
-
Politico is either going for the kill a little early or Machiavelli is alive and well.
Link (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html)
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
Tryin' to lynch him they are.
Yep, they are.
Can't pull out the race-card? Next up is the sexual oppression/harassment charge.
Men are all beastly rapists, anyway.
/
-
It's a repeat of the Clarence Thomas confirmation and the pubic hair on the Coke can. They'll find their Anita Hill soon enough, especially if he wins the nomination.
-
... if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
Priceless.But how do you really feel?
Johnny-boy, that is one of the most inane, stupidest, most aggravating responses to a comment. It's as though ya can't think of anything better to say. I'm already telling you "how I really feel", and you know it, so cut the crap.
Just sayin'.
Just checkin.
-
Under Perry's one page plan to file your taxes, the IRS has been rendered useless. The initials may be the same, but the power is gone. There is the incremental change you argued weighed against a one page form.
I'm waiting for you to take his plan to task, as you did Cain's. I stated I like the plan because on the surface, it is simplistic, same reason I like Cains, but if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Once again, you completely mischaracterize what I have said previously. I did not "argue for incremental change." That is a lie. I said it would be difficult to get drastic changes through congress.
And your condescending crap about me taking this plan to task, as I did Cain's is just that...condescending crap.
-
... if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
The agency appointed by the federal government to collect taxes is going to have power. If you think we are going to get THIS CONGRESS or ANY OTHER CONGRESS to move us away from a system of witholding and quarterly tax payments in one fell swoop, then you're dreaming. I want it as much as you and the rest of us do, but I'm trying to be realistic about it. There is going to be a federal agency to collect taxes. There is no way around that. We can only LIMIT the power it will have as much as possible. Greatly simplifying the tax code is a big step in the right direction. This Perry plan seems to qualify. Cain's plan is complex and, in my opinion, completely unworkable....because it would never get through congress, for several reasons.
-
... if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Any agency not disbursed, defunded and defanged will regain regulatory power under another Administration, so I want them all "dead"; beheaded, dismembered, drawn and quartered, burned, buried and the ground salted. And afterward, the next person, who merely whiffs a suggestion of resurrection, promptly shot.
The agency appointed by the federal government to collect taxes is going to have power. If you think we are going to get THIS CONGRESS or ANY OTHER CONGRESS to move us away from a system of witholding and quarterly tax payments in one fell swoop, then you're dreaming. I want it as much as you and the rest of us do, but I'm trying to be realistic about it. There is going to be a federal agency to collect taxes. There is no way around that. We can only LIMIT the power it will have as much as possible. Greatly simplifying the tax code is a big step in the right direction. This Perry plan seems to qualify. Cain's plan is complex and, in my opinion, completely unworkable....because it would never get through congress, for several reasons.
LIMIT the power? Until what time and what administration?
I'm not picking between the Cain/Perry tax plans in my response, Janny; I'm stating a fact, period. Any agency left standing will regain the power it holds presently, or more. And killing any of them is no guarantee it won't be resurrected. Where is your argument with any of this as a generally stated principle?
-
Call it what you want there will always be an agency
to collect taxes. This plan, who in the world would
elect to keep the old one, will cause the IRS to wither
on the vine.The Perry plan will attrit the IRS.
If a candidate comes out and says I'm going to shut
down the IRS the Dhimocrats will trot out babies
mothers and every afflicted employee and call him killer.
Perhaps, if the IRS were taken out of the Treasury and
not given the Nepoleoniac policing and confiscation authority
you would then feel more comfortable.
-
Call it what you want there will always be an agency
to collect taxes. This plan, who in the world would
elect to keep the old one, will cause the IRS to wither
on the vine.The Perry plan will attrit the IRS.
If a candidate comes out and says I'm going to shut
down the IRS the Dhimocrats will trot out babies
mothers and every afflicted employee and call him killer.
Perhaps, if the IRS were taken out of the Treasury and
not given the Nepoleoniac policing and confiscation authority
you would then feel more comfortable.
I don't know to whom you speak, but for me, I am not comfortable with your theory. No governmental authority ought to be sticking its f**king nose into any individual's financial business unless there's proof of lawbreaking.
Push me in that direction, I'm likely to dig in my heels even further.
Not a threat; a promise.
-
Anarchist.
-
Whatevs.
-
Janny, I don't think anybody is calling you a liar.
It's difficult sometimes for one to express what
one thinks and be a diplomat at the same time.
We're not professional writers and what we intend
to convey when we write, the thought and emotion,
may be interpreted entirely different than intended.
We all want to make the best choice and we need
for each other in order to sort it out.
-
Under Perry's one page plan to file your taxes, the IRS has been rendered useless. The initials may be the same, but the power is gone. There is the incremental change you argued weighed against a one page form.
I'm waiting for you to take his plan to task, as you did Cain's. I stated I like the plan because on the surface, it is simplistic, same reason I like Cains, but if it became dependant on withholdings from pay stubs, quarterly filings, etc, then the beast will regain its power and my "liking" would vanish.
Now, if either is one page and you only mail in your proof of deduction, I would like it. I would support it. I do not support anything that keeps the IRS with any power.
Once again, you completely mischaracterize what I have said previously. I did not "argue for incremental change." That is a lie. I said it would be difficult to get drastic changes through congress.
And your condescending crap about me taking this plan to task, as I did Cain's is just that...condescending crap.
OK....It would be difficult to get thru congress...so what? Any change of this nature will be extremely difficult. So far, a difficulty you have with the Cain plan is your displeasure with the avenue he has taken to present it. Is that a fair assessment? I'm willing to allow it to play, since it is the issue Cain has real traction with the voter. Any other difficulty I may have with the ( any) plan will eventually be played out in the halls of congress, where my support will either strengthen or wane. In the meantime, I'll throw my support to the simplicity of both the Cain and Perry plans.
I'm not attempting to be condenscending, sorry you took it as such.