fauxlaw

That is such a load of crap! What, you abdicate control of your destiny that easily? Get an education. Learn to think critically. Use your head to whorl smart, not just hard. Is that so hard?

Stop spending

I wonder why people, many who aere rich, are leaving NY and Ca in droves. I left CA for the last time nearly 20 years ago. Drive taxes high enough, your assumed tax base will dwindle. 

Congratulations. You get it. Your parents get it. Many don't.

What is stopping you from being rich? I'm sick and tired of you guys complaining rather than standing up and counting for something. YOU decide to be rich, and DOI IT. Nobody else. Look in the mirror; there's your nemesis. Change him. God in heaven, when are you guys who complain going to recognize it's not rocket science. There's money to be had. Go get it. Get out of the street and start thinking for yourselves. Do for yourselves. I am not going to do irt for you. No one did it for me.

Before making your snide commentary about the rich, why don 't yoiu research what percentage of all taxes paid are paid by the rich? Afraid of what you'll find is the true history, buff?

So, a 15% increase on +$1M may not have a significant effect on the economy. If you know what your talking about, why don't you know that even double that tax rate will not sustain government spending at the rate your progs want it. Yeah, I'm conservative. The money supply is in better hands in the private sector.

If that's how you want to see him, that's your trip, bud. Milk it. Argue for your limitations; they're yours

Care to demonstrate why, or do I just trust you know what you're talking about. As I explained in my post #1 [this is my string] the one-percenters, even if taxed 100%, could not possibly fund the government longer than 6 months at current expeditures, let alone adding wild hair projects progressives/marxists want to cover. Who else would be taxed then, by Biden. You, bud.

the direct comparison is that Muhammad, like it or not, was also a politician, as I demonstrated by source. And since when is the forum not a free expression of ideas? You want topic dedication, where is your debate experience?

No, I am not referring to min wage, which I find curious that is has so much support among Democrats. It's a low goal. Why should they clamor for min wage when they have, contrary to Oba'a, access, by ambition, to an unlimited money supply, and they want minimum wage? My topic was a living wage for all 9which must be higher than a minimum wage, because min wage was never, and will never be a wage meant to sustain a family according to its originating law, the Fair labor Act of 1938. As for topic, that's for debate. The forum is a free expression. of ideas.

Well, all in all, it's a one-on-none conversation, mostly, but I approve of Melville, so, all is forgiven. Call me Ishmael, but I doubt I'll ever wear such a moniker as a whale, of which I am still not sure Moby Dick is a valid species representative. Only Ahab knows if it is so damned, it will wear the Captain's spit of a last breath for never, ever more. Quoth the Raven.

Isn't there always a bigger Rottweiler? Even Rots can be intimidated. And debate should not be a forum for big dog games. We have a forum for that. Let the dogs lie with their appropriate vomit.

and giving people who are lazy a living wage is not a waste of money?

Same goes for Gov Cuomo and Mayor the SoBlahblah

I find a growing debate habit disturbing: Claiming victory in a debate during argument rounds. I am of the opinion that such declarations as "I win because... [plug in any number of reasons]. or worse, declare victory with no justification. I believe the better declaration is something like "My BoP is proven because... [plug point 1, point 2, etc.] Debate participants do not decide victory; voters do. To declare victory in argument rounds is arrogant, even when the opponent forfeits or concedes. Some have argued that concession is a conduct advantage when a participant realizes his burden is not going to be proven. I tend to agree. It is honorable under those circumstances. But for the other participant to declare victory dismisses the point that, otherwise, they may not have presented such a definitive argument, sourcing, S&G and conduct, themselves. Further, I'd argue that  eary claim of victory approaches the severity of vote rigging, because it may encourage a voter to be swayed by the declaration. I suggest we wait for the voters' assessment of victory, and leave it at that. Strange things happen in voting, and it may be unfortunate that debate points cannot be withdrawn, thus resulting in negative points. I believe the suggested conduct would raise the level and value of debating.

I will admit that there are rare occasions when wiki appears to be the only legit source. Indicative of the fragile state of knowledge. Hell, we managed to lose the library at Alexandria, due only to the fragile state of paper, and an idiot Roman who tossed a still-smoldering joint. At least wiki is protected from that.

2/7/2019 A group of idiots proposed a resolution in US Congress to achieve net-zero GHG emissions within 10 years. However, currently, every single green energy turbine in the world uses petroleum for lubrication of moving parts, and for fabrication of plastic parts. Show me AGoreGooeyJuice that is to replace petroleum. Oh, by the way, every single cultivated field of rice, and all other natural wetlands on earth, including rivers, lakes and oceans, emit methane, a GHG, in greater quantity than cow flatulence. Eat your rice, but leave my steak alone. And shove your GND where the sun doesn't shine - another methane source.

2/7/2019 is when idiocy officially occupied the Democrat Party.

Wiki = lazy sourcing. I couldn't care less about "rating."

As I said above [post 25] David owns the property deed. Time is immaterial. There are two legitimate means to obtain property: Buy it outright [David did], or inherit it from a deceased owner. Anything else, such as occupation by force, is a counterfeit deed. So, what "annex?" The Jews already own it, outright.  Tell me I'm wrong, and back it up. Or, shall I just come occupy your property, if you own one?

Why do I keep finding history to be contrary to your claims?

David purchased, with 50 shekels of silver, Araunah's [a Jebusite king] expansive threshing floor, leveled and cleared from what was once Mt. Moriah, and surrounding land, where Abraham is said to have intended to sacrifice his son, Isaac generations previous, and which David, through his son, Solomon, eventually had built Solomon's Temple, and the place is now called the Temple Mount. Once purchased by David, no subsequent purchase of the property has ever occurred. The Palestinian's, and then others, occupied that property and claim it today. Let them show their deed. They do not have one.

A side note: a threshing floor is where wheat grain is separated from chaff [refuse], and the same occurs figuratively in the temple to the human soul. 

Washington, by profession, before politics, was a farmer, turned military, turned politician, and after that, a farmer. A successful farmer.

Muhammad, a self-proclaimed prophet [one who claims to speak for and from God], was a merchant, a seller of product produced by somebody else, such as a farmer.

I'll take the guy who actually produces something any day of the week.

Yes, oromagi is correct; I have a particular disdain for wiki. My generation is familiar with the hard-copy version, the encyclopedia, of which wiki is merely the online version [although several of the more famous encyclopedias have online versions, themselves]. Both encyclos and wiki claim to be compiled by "experts," though the term is dubious. What is an expert, and how does one qualify? By making the claim with a string of academic letters. Yeah, I have PhDs; one in history; one in English Lit. I am by no means an expert in either field; I just know more than most, as does anyone else with an advanced collegiate degree, we presume. However, I also know that the term, encyclopedia, is coined, claimed to have a Greek etymology. The truth is ironic, considering the subject matter. Some dimwit transliterator in the late 15th century combined what had been two Greek words, enkyklios  and paedia, meaning, independently, circular, or recurring ['re-edited periodically' in its new guise], and education. Encyclopedias, by that erroneous  combined coinage, have been around ever since, existing now, for reference, as wiki. For general knowledge, it's a handy reference. For scholarly work, which I consider debate to be, it is strictly benign last-resort information. As wiki often references scholarly sourcing, it is best to ignore wiki and go to the better sources, with verification that the info obtained actually does speak scholastically to one's subject.

your post #4:

But, history says Muhammad was ALSO a politician. That's what it was about. Not such a poor comparison

Why do I keep finding evidence that history is not your friend? 622 BNCE, Muhammad, tired of being persecuted in Mecca, migrated to Medina. That city asked him to be their leader; he accepted. "During his 10 years in Medina, Muhammad became more than just a spiritual leader. He put his administrative and political skills to good use, effectively acting as the town’s leader… Islam was evolving from a religious movement to a powerful political one." https://www.ancient.eu/Prophet_Muhammad/

I totally agree with the three points from Brookings. However, I consider not following them, which is, after all, an easy mountain to climb, as lazy. Where it comes to the physically and mentally handicapped through no fault of their own, all bets are off, and I totally agree with their public support, but, they, too, can find a working niche if that is really their desire to contribute to society. God bless them.

It's my money; no one else's, except by my choice.  Let the lazy ingrates work for themselves, as I do.

Having money in no way means I have not experienced poverty first hand. I've been in over 30 countries, and lived for months in about half, not as I am used to living, but in and among the poor. I know plenty. You don't know me. This is why over 20% of my annual increase goes to help others.

A proper ethic of government should be to stay out of the business of a social net. God in heaven how did we ever survive without Roosevelt and Johnson? We did. That's the point. We did it without government's involvement, when people either grew a pair of brass ones and went to work, or they starved. That's the policy of individual responsibility, and individual justice, not social responsibility and social justice.

The letter is an interesting read, but is, itself, a marked example of condoning the censure it is written to oppose, to wit: "The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy." This is a common phrase coming from Progressives, not Liberals, who are, indeed, a dying breed, and specifically because Progressives are crowding them out in a steady march toward Marxism. I keep expecting that someone, sometime is going to follow up the statement by example of why they think Trump is a threat to democracy, but they never do. So, why are they so shy?

I entirely agree with you

The media is treating Joe Biden like a fragile china doll. Example: When Joe Biden said he will beat Joe Biden, along comes the media with an instant apology: he didn't say "beat;" he said "be." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_p33LCZ9go But that's worse. If he's not Joe Biden now, when will he be Joe Biden? No one yet has given me a plausible answer for an identity question: when Joe Biden is elected, who will be the President, because it will not be Joe Biden in any guise, even with hairy legs.  Example: NYT columnist says Biden should not debate Trump except under two conditions never imposed on previous presidential candidates. Neither condition has squat to do with debate. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/opinion/biden-trump-debate.html Example: Biden says you ain't black. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/joe-biden-breakfast-club-interview-274490

This is a viable candidate? When you stop laughing, you're left with nothing electable. By all means, keep laughing.

So, anything unverifiable is ignored? Like the Green New Deal? Fine; ignore it.

Don't you think the term has shifted in definition since Darwin? Hell, since ten years ago. You are a creature of your current culture, not what has passed on. You want to cancel culture, it is your current culture that cancels, and thus, you are forgotten. Well done.

We are a collection of our body parts, our spirit, and, by the new covenant, we are also a collection of our thoughts

Do not confuse love with acceptance or condoning of behavior. Love the sinner. Hate the sin; the sin is not your neighbor, who must be loved regardless. That is why love is more powerful, always, than hate.

It's you record, bud. Call it what you will, it's verifiable. Period.

This may be a calculated argument, but consider RM's calculated results: he has lost or tied 38% of his debates. I'd look to a more successful debate result; that of oromagi, whose loss/tie percentage is zero. Oromagi does not calculate; he is merely relentless. Merely. Not so easy to do, but it is a dedicated debate style that argues virtually every round with relentless accuracy. He wears you down. Either one is dedicated to debate, and would emulate oromagi, or one is carefree, and would use RM's calculation. Take your pick. You know mine. If you want to improve your debate style, the choice is obvious. If you don't, why are you here?

Nancy Pelosi on free college education: 
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-dems-introduce-bill-require-years-debt-free/story?id=56780928
 
Democrats on free Medicare for all:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/politics/medicare-for-all-2020-democrats.html
 
Democrats on the Green New Deal:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/climate-change/green-new-deal/
 
Democrats on social benefits for illegals:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/undocumented-immigrant-health-care/
 
Democrats on universal basic income:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/us/politics/universal-basic-income-andrew-yang.html
 
Democrats on universal child care:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/democrats-are-finally-getting-serious-about-helping-americans-balance-work-and-family/
 
Did I say Nancy Pelosi favored all of these? No. Nancy Pelosi is not the Democrat Party. Yes, she supports some of these, but the party, as a whole, appears to want all of them. They are not Republican economy ideas. You need to recognize what Pelosi’s party has become, and how quickly it has changed. It is headlong into Marxism. Read the Manifesto. Absorb it. It is not what you have been taught. It is the enemy of America.
 
Note that I have not once used Breitbart of Fox News. I don’t frequent either, and don’t need to do so. There’s enough reported by the media mob.

Is it economically right wing to lobby for free college? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.

Is it economically right wing to lobby for free medicare for all? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.

Is it economically right wing to lobby for the green new deal? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.

Is it economically right wing to lobby for social benefits for illegals? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.

Is it economically right wing to lobby for free living wages for not working? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.

Is it economically right wing to lobby for free child care? No. It's Marxist. Your party has changed.

Is it economically right wing to lobby for self-sufficiency? Yes, but your party was never for that.

The people Joe Biden will pick to erun. the show? You are clearly misunderstanding this entire election. I've asked numerous times who will be the president if Joe Biden is elected. It will be no one he picks. Don't you get it? This guy is a puppet. The party leadership; a bunch of Marxists, are beside themselves with Joe Biden as a candidate. I wouldn't be surprised with a brokered convention, if the Dems actually hold one. At this point, why bother? Just put up Joe Biden, and hope to hell the electorate are as dumb as they think we are. I notice you did not acknowledge reading anything. I believe it. No, not everyone who disagrees with me is a Marxist. But the question was not directed to anyone else, anyway. 

While the original presentation offerers plenty of evidence of hate, I see nothing in the original presentation that comes close to demonstrating that it is the most powerful weapon. I submit that it is closer to the weakest weapon. It is the weapon of last resort when all other worthy weapons have failed to overwhelm a declared enemy because that hate most often expresses in the form of personal attack, the weakest and most unsupportable argument. I submit that the most powerful weapon is hate's opposite: love. It overwhelms with the the potential result that an enemy becomes a friend.

What! You mean Congress is not the only branch with oversight? Son of a gun! Where'd you get that? The Constitution? [Well done!]

Spot on, and a hell of a lot more than 66.

I don't care what Joe Biden is against. See my question re: who. Like I said, it ain't Joe Biden, anyway, so who cares what he says now. He also said he would beat himself. He also said he's running for the Senate. He also said he likes children rubbing his legs, and on, and on, and on. Sniffing hair? Manhandling women? You thought Trump was a pervert? What do these claims make Joe Biden?

Since Joe Biden will not be running the show, the people who are will hold a figurative gun to his head to sign legislation.

Who's a Marxist? Sanders. Occasional Cortex, and her Squid Band. Kammie Harris. Mama Pelostomy., and a few other idiots. Never read the Communist Manifesto, did you? Let alone the Constitution of the United States.

Completely off-topic, but who can tell me why ebuc's identification of his avatar, "66 Lines/Chords" is incorrect? There are actually two issues. Name them. One of them is blatantly obvious. Got to be specific.

He did and does.

If you elect Joe Biden, your taxes are going up, and Mt. Rushmore is coming down. Don't you dare tell me that only the one-percenters will be taxed; that you'll skate. Don't be an idiot. You already want to have free higher education, and medicare for all. Just to cover the current government expense, taxing just the one-percenters, even at 100% [they get no income] you will fund the government for less than six months. Who pays the rest? You, you, and you, and me. Now add your Green New Deal, which estimates are anywhere from $7T over ten years, to $30T over ten years. That's close to, to exceeding an additional $1T per year. Add medicare for all; that's a trillion more. Per year. Add free education, free abortions, free child care, free energy [yes, you're proposing that], and a living wage payment even if you don't work, free benefits for illegals, and on, and on. So don't give me your crap that the one-percenters can pay for all that, so, you won't have a tax increase. Your Marxism is a failed social contract. It has never lasted anywhere tried for more than 100 years. Meanwhile, the system you're throwing away has endured 230 years. You tell me which has a better chance of survival. But, go ahead. Vote for Joe Biden. You cannot even tell me when you elect him who the President will be, because it ain't Joe Biden. He's a puppet. Who's really your Marxist overlord? You don't know, do you?

ebuc, having the ill-conceived notion that I address ebuc, I don't need the reminder that I don't even think of ebuc, let alone address him.

blocked to avoid direct mention of 66-lines of a-retention.