Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Last week, Hannity suggested we provide amnesty to illegal immigrants already here and now this:

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said on Sunday that the Republican Party should stop defending “a bunch of millionaires” and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans.

“It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000.”

He continued: “Really, the Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?”

http://news.yahoo.com/kristol-open-rais ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:Last week, Hannity suggested we provide amnesty to illegal immigrants already here and now this:

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said on Sunday that the Republican Party should stop defending “a bunch of millionaires” and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans.

“It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000.”

He continued: “Really, the Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?”

http://news.yahoo.com/kristol-open-rais ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I support assimilation over amnesty.

Seriously, if half the people in America knew how screwed up our immigration laws are, and the implications of straight out amnesty, there would be pitchforks and torches for anyone who even hints at it.

Australia and several other countries on the Pacific Rim have got it right. Learn to speak the native language, become a true Australian/Singaporean/Kiwi/whatever and you are welcome. If you are one of those "press 2 for Spanish" idiots then fvck off.

CID1990 wrote:I support assimilation over amnesty.

Seriously, if half the people in America knew how screwed up our immigration laws are, and the implications of straight out amnesty, there would be pitchforks and torches for anyone who even hints at it.

Australia and several other countries on the Pacific Rim have got it right. Learn to speak the native language, become a true Australian/Singaporean/Kiwi/whatever and you are welcome. If you are one of those "press 2 for Spanish" idiots then fvck off.

It's going to be fun watching the conservatives try and win over some of us Latino's.

CID1990 wrote:I support assimilation over amnesty.

Seriously, if half the people in America knew how screwed up our immigration laws are, and the implications of straight out amnesty, there would be pitchforks and torches for anyone who even hints at it.

Australia and several other countries on the Pacific Rim have got it right. Learn to speak the native language, become a true Australian/Singaporean/Kiwi/whatever and you are welcome. If you are one of those "press 2 for Spanish" idiots then fvck off.

I actually agree whole-heartedly with this.

I told my wife yesterday or the day before when I was watching Krystal talk that I can't stand him. The guy has no backbone. No sense of principle. If you say you don't want to raise taxes on households that make more than $250,000 per year because you think it hurt the economy there is nothing about an election result that should change your belief. You don't say, "Oh. I thought it would hurt the economy but now that we lost an election by a whole three percentage points I don't think that anymore."

Again: You should state your principles and stand by them. And you should make your arguments for why they are correct. I have no respect for people who want to ditch their principles because they think they put them at a disadvantage in an election. If you can't stand by your principles and are going to change your plans away from what you think is the right thing just so you can get elected, why do you WANT to get elected? What is the point.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I support assimilation over amnesty.

Seriously, if half the people in America knew how screwed up our immigration laws are, and the implications of straight out amnesty, there would be pitchforks and torches for anyone who even hints at it.

Australia and several other countries on the Pacific Rim have got it right. Learn to speak the native language, become a true Australian/Singaporean/Kiwi/whatever and you are welcome. If you are one of those "press 2 for Spanish" idiots then fvck off.

I actually agree whole-heartedly with this.

I do to. It won't happen because neither party wants to risk losing the Latino vote.

kalm wrote:Last week, Hannity suggested we provide amnesty to illegal immigrants already here and now this:

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol said on Sunday that the Republican Party should stop defending “a bunch of millionaires” and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans.

“It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000.”

He continued: “Really, the Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?”

http://news.yahoo.com/kristol-open-rais ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the problem: It does NOTHING to solve the problem. All it does is further the agenda of thsoe who've painted the 1%'ers in this country as the "villians". Great, we squeeze more from the "rich". Super. What's the next domino to fall? What happens when the # drops to $200,000? $150,000? If this were more than just a drop in the fucking bucket I might support it, but it isn't. It's purely a ploy to buy more votes from those who contribute nothing to the nation's bottom line.

I think it's BS that, in all likelyhood, the 60% of people who want to raise taxes aren't the ones who will have their taxes increased.

It's too easy to say "Raise taxes, just not mine".

Raise taxes on everyone, even if it's a token increase for lower incomes. I wonder if 60% will favor that.

BlueHen86 wrote:I think it's BS that, in all likelyhood, the 60% of people who want to raise taxes aren't the ones who will have their taxes increased.

It's too easy to say "Raise taxes, just not mine".

Raise taxes on everyone, even if it's a token increase for lower incomes. I wonder if 60% will favor that.

EVERYBODY with some skin in the game. EVERYBODY. For those who currently pay no taxes, there should be a minimum of, say, $250-$300/year at LEAST.

AZGrizFan wrote: For those who currently pay no taxes, there should be a minimum of, say, $250-$300/year at LEAST.

Amend the Constitution.

Good luck with that.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: For those who currently pay no taxes, there should be a minimum of, say, $250-$300/year at LEAST.

Amend the Constitution.

Good luck with that.

Or, we could amend the tax laws.

At the very LEAST, let's get rid of the ability for slackers to get back MORE than they actually paid in in federal taxes.

Or, we could amend the tax laws.

I'm waiting on that too. And it's going to be fun in Washington watching all the lobbyists try to keep loopholes open!

Seahawks08 wrote:

Or, we could amend the tax laws.

I'm waiting on that too. And it's going to be fun in Washington watching all the lobbyists try to keep loopholes open!

And the borders.

JohnStOnge wrote:I told my wife yesterday or the day before when I was watching Krystal talk that I can't stand him. The guy has no backbone. No sense of principle. If you say you don't want to raise taxes on households that make more than $250,000 per year because you think it hurt the economy there is nothing about an election result that should change your belief. You don't say, "Oh. I thought it would hurt the economy but now that we lost an election by a whole three percentage points I don't think that anymore."

Again: You should state your principles and stand by them. And you should make your arguments for why they are correct. I have no respect for people who want to ditch their principles because they think they put them at a disadvantage in an election. If you can't stand by your principles and are going to change your plans away from what you think is the right thing just so you can get elected, why do you WANT to get elected? What is the point.

I'll bet your wife spends a lot of time rolling her eyes while you have yet another of your racist rants about suppressing the minority vote.

BTW, Bill Kristol and Billy Krystal are not the same person.



Racist conk fuck.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:Last week, Hannity suggested we provide amnesty to illegal immigrants already here and now this:



http://news.yahoo.com/kristol-open-rais ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the problem: It does NOTHING to solve the problem. All it does is further the agenda of thsoe who've painted the 1%'ers in this country as the "villians". Great, we squeeze more from the "rich". Super. What's the next domino to fall? What happens when the # drops to $200,000? $150,000? If this were more than just a drop in the **** bucket I might support it, but it isn't. It's purely a ploy to buy more votes from those who contribute nothing to the nation's bottom line.

We should be taxing wealth at the same rate we tax income. Trust fund babies need to pay their fair share too.

JohnStOnge wrote:I told my wife yesterday or the day before when I was watching Krystal talk that I can't stand him. The guy has no backbone. No sense of principle. If you say you don't want to raise taxes on households that make more than $250,000 per year because you think it hurt the economy there is nothing about an election result that should change your belief. You don't say, "Oh. I thought it would hurt the economy but now that we lost an election by a whole three percentage points I don't think that anymore."

Again: You should state your principles and stand by them. And you should make your arguments for why they are correct. I have no respect for people who want to ditch their principles because they think they put them at a disadvantage in an election. If you can't stand by your principles and are going to change your plans away from what you think is the right thing just so you can get elected, why do you WANT to get elected? What is the point.

Kind of like a libertarian supporting Romney?