D'Ohbama!: If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan...

That isn't an accurate statement. There was a smattering of polite applause.

 

Obama lied and insurance companies cried.

 

Freedom doesn't mean you can do any damn thing you want. You have over 300mm neighbors you consider.

 

LOL @ texxx trying his damnedest to take things out of context and make them a bigger issue than what they are.

you go boi! keep up the good fight YOU AMERICAN PATRIOT!

 

gladiatorowdy who did a good service by preserving these quotes.

I wish I could add verbatim bigtexx's post in which he said he was too valuable in his office job, a Rice grad and all to fight in Iraq.

 

Nice choice of words

 

The context is that Breitbart destroyed the woman's reputation, and the NAACP's, by not playing the whole video where she said she didn't do what she was accused of. Further as FB notes it wasn't like wild cheering.

This was thoroughly discussed in the other thread and pretty much irrelevant other than as a side show to this one.

 

If it hurt the NAACP's reputation then it was deserved (the longer version of the video changes nothing in that reguard). They did cheer. Sherod was unintentional (as I said she should sue), but she was not the focus. If you had even bothered to read my last post you would of realized this.

 

she became the focus because she worked for the gov't and was subsequently fired.

 

she became the focus because the federal government fired her. That decision was not made by Breitbart (like I said , she should of sued).

If the best Breitbart detractors can do to discredit Breitbart is that he should of showed the whole video to make sure he didn't cause Sherod any unwarranted harm, then he is a journalism god.

 

So could this irrational prejudice against the NAACP be what's behind your irrational interpretation of what happened? Which prejudices are behind you buying into O'Keefe's discredited video?

There was some polite applause in the NAACP video and you act like it was wild cheering. I'm really confused.

You seem to be going to great lengths to hurt your own credibility by supporting a completely discredited video by O'Keefe and trying to smear the NAACP based on nothing damaging.

I don't get why you'd do that, Doc.

 

I have told you that I am not basing this on data...merely my own observations.

Also, I never said the entire phone bill. OF COURSE you only count the tax portions as tax. I really thought that would be understood without spelling it out.

Of course, now that I think about it...part of your cell phone bill reimburses your carrier for FCC frequency charges,etc. in addition to the taxes we all pay that are not "income tax," who knows how much more we pay for services so the providers can recoup costs from government?

Like an onion...our increased burden has many layers.

 

So you have no statistical evidence then.

And you are still missing that phone and data bills are higher now because many of the services that phone and cable companies provide now didn't exist previously. Consequently taxes are higher too. This isn't an even comparison between what we paid for in cable and phone in 1985 versus what we pay now.

Except you cannot show how that relates to the rate of inflation or taking into account things services that didn't exist previously or considering things that are not necessities, like cable TV.

 

Of course she was the focus because she was the focus of the video. Claiming that Breitbart wasn't after her just the NAACP and bears no responsibility that he created a false impression of her is very disingenuous. It would be like if I made a video of Ron Paul saying that people who can't afford health insurance shouldn't get health care and some people in the audience clap saying "I'm not trying to paint Ron Paul in a bad light but isn't the people in the audience"

And as I said that was thoroughly addressed in the other thread which I suggest you read.

 

What the hell is your deal? I made an off handed comment about how it appears that we pay a lot more to various levels of government and you just have a hard on for it.

I am soooo glad that you figured out that I have no data, considering I said as much quite some time ago, Maybe next, you'll unlock the mystery of how taxes on phone bills, etc are actually taxes.

Since you haven't really been paying attention to my posts, I am done discussing this with you.

 

Nope. The focus was the NAACP, who at the time where calling the Tea Party racist.

Didn't claim that. In fact I said she should sue. twice.

 

The point is you made a controversial statement with little evidence to back it up. Myself and other posters cited data to counter your point but you haven't provided data back.

I have paid very close attention to your posts and have posted counter points and counter data. This forum is called Debate and Discuss. The argument that taxes are much more burdensome now than before is one that does have implications for policy and politics. I would like to see if that really is the case because I am not so sure. Instead you are just claiming it is an off handed comment but if so then how does that affect thinking regarding policy and politics if that actually isn't the case.

I apologize if I seem to be picking on you but so much of our politics is shaped by lack of knowledge for example that the idea that a significant portion of our budget goes to foreign aid, actually very little does. I for one would rather have a better sense of what is the actual situation than just say "my impression is".

If you don't feel like you want to discuss it anymore then fine but I am going to keep this in mind next time the subject that "taxes now are more burdensome than before" comes up.