"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 11

Of course the person with the mind set reacting to it would see it.

I don't see how posting a racist cartoon proves whatever point you were trying to make.

How is that cartoon at all racist????

Only racists see racism in everything.

Yes but let's leave the president out of this for now.

We shouldn't talk about ourselves in the third person. And who cares what the President of the one-member Republican Trumpet Club thinks, anyway?

Should we talk about our singulars with plurals instead?

You're a teacher. I'm a teacher. We both should be well aware that there was nothing grammatically wrong with my sentence.

Actually there is plenty wrong with your sentence.

That said, it is sad that the author of that comic engages in such racism.

"We shouldn't talk about ourselves in the third person."


There is no racism in the cartoon. If there is, please explain what it is. Thanks.

And I think the education system failed you, Nick.

Let's not give control back to Republicans. It's clear who benefits and who doesn't.


Below is the original graph. The above is expanded to include who controls the houses of congress as well.

Pretty telling isn't it?

However they'll never accept the truth is my guess no matter what facts you present them with. Republicans ( and their conservative counter parts have learned to spin, bend, and break the truith all too well.

So Dan Rather was framed?

Care to comment on the actual numbers presented above Jazz?

No, I do not. Thanks for asking, though.

Actually yes, I will comment in the form of a question:

Do you believe that the income growth Democrats experienced under their reign is a result of policies implemented DURING their administration?

Obama tells me that the results of newly implemented economic policies are delayed many years.

I think you are oversimplifying things again. The world is not black and white like you want it to be. Some things are delayed, some not. Some presidents have 4 years, some have 8. Some parties keep control for 12 or 16. Some presidents are met with nothing but obstructionism and delay tactics to run out the clock until the next elections. Some aren't. All of these things play a role in how long it takes policies to have an impact.

What you will notice, however, is that EVERYONE benefits (and the poorest off benefit the most) when Democrats have complete or near complete control. The rich benefit most when Republicans have the power. Them's the facts.

Actually it isn't at all clear who benefits when any measurement conveniently manages to leave out the Great Depression. Also any chart that takes by definition, the outliers, aka the top 5 or bottom 5% and compares them to quintiles, is going to misrepresent numbers in terms of the evenness of anything. This chart would look no different if it were for height and weight when you try to look at the top 5% versus bottom 20% or middle 20%. A smaller percentage is by definition going to look more extreme since there is less to average into it.


The truth is a quintile and 5% are not the same. The truth is that if you left out the worst 12 years of Republican growth, their side of the chart would look different and all these charts presented all leave out FDR for a reason. How can anyone seriously advocating for Democratic positions leave out what they consider the greatest Democratic president ever and feel like it is a valid comparison?


Now if you want to really break down these charts I can tell you exactly why the are the way they are and why people are cherry picking those numbers. The Democratic party created the atrocity that was the Great Depression. We suffered under it for 12 years. The reason it ended was because World War 2 forced FDR to stop attacking industry long enough to for them to jump start the economy and start fighting the Third Reich. After World War II, the world was in shambles except for of course the United States where except for Pearl Harbor, none of the fighting had occurred. The world began rebuilding itself and needed to often buy American in order to do so. We were providing the money via the Marshall Plan so of course we could dictate the terms.

This gave us a good 20 year stretch until everyone had gotten their acts back together and were starting to generate some decent competitive economic activity. So we had basically from 1945-1965 where we were the only game in town. Then in the mid/late 60's the rest of the world finally started getting back into the game starting with Japan in the Pacific and good chunks of Europe. Such effects aren't immediate. We also started and remained in a long and draining war to distract us. We come out of it and suddenly realize the rest of the world has caught up. All those guaranteed raises and benefits no longer are affordable and on top of it, we aren't competitive. That was at the beginning of the 70's and that is where the Republican finally started, occasionally winning more than the Presidency but Nixon set them back quite a bit. Finally you have the 80's with Reagan and Republicans kept holding the Senate more than two years out of every 10. By the 90's they took the House and Senate and in doing so they balanced the budget. We know they lost some of that resolve in the 2000's but Democrats in power have lost their complete minds with trillion dollar a year deficits.

The reality is Republican never controlled the House during any of those heyday years. Democrats held the House during the entire timeframe of that graph until 1994. The second part is that income growth is no measure of anything. Income growth minus inflation is true growth. If Democrats had 5% income growth and 10% inflation then people were actually losing 5% a year of spending power. Republicans are known for pursing low inflation the crushing of inflation during the early Reagan years was part of what allowed economic recovery from stagflation.

For those of us that pursue reading in this area deeper than a pretty bar graph, we've got the entire picture and thus it is easy to dispel such a graph. Heck you have to even look at EFFECTIVE taxation rates and have to note what is and isn't considered income, etc. Anyone who would try to draw a general conclusion from such a chart should be considered a laughing stock. The reason Republicans were even able to get into the game nationally is because Democrats had the largest economic lead the world has ever seen and blew it. After WWII the U.S. sat astride the world alone and Republicans started getting elected when Democrats had managed to destroy that lead. However when you cherry pick the numbers, you can easily include that lead and assign the timeframe where trying to fix the slower growth is blamed on the Republicans. Nothing is valid if it doesn't include a minimum of FDR. Any valid comparison should probably go back to Lincoln.

In what way is this cartoon racist, trumptman?

How can you not see the racism there MJ? It's exactly racist in the way that noting a middle name, or country of origin, or any sort of criticism is racist.

As the app store guidelines note, "I'll know it when I see it." It works for Apple and here, it works for me.

Nope. Still don't see it.

How is that cartoon racist?

I'm sorry you can't see it. You'll probably need to attend my sensitivity classes. Please let me know where I can bill you and I'll send you the info.

Deleted because I don't really want to engage with trumptman

It's funny that you think what you do is engaging.

Let's look at the past assertions of racism given by a person like yourself and see the tremendous level of proof they had to meet.

This one.


How about this one?


There's also this gem.


The standard and reasoning are clear. Racists don't understand how something they've done is racist. They aren't sensitive to understand such things. Yet the sensitive among us see and understand it. In trying to defend their racism, they prove they are even more racist and insensitive due to not properly responding to the first charge.

It is amazing that anyone would dare defend that cartoon. The fact that someone would try to defend it proves that racism is alive and well and that some of the racists on here need some serious help since they can't even understand or comprehend their racism. The fact that they are unapologetic, or uncomfortable only proves the point.

The cartoon is not racist. I think Trumpy honestly can't tell what's racist and what isn't, so he's pretty much going to claim that any cartoon caricature of a black person must be racist.

It must be the ears... oh wait... Bush's ears are pointier. It must be the nose... oh wait... Clinton's nose is bigger...

I don't see any fat lips (Obama has fairly thin lips in real life, but it's a common racial caricature to depict black people with fat lips and huge white teeth).

I still don't see it. This is one case where I honestly think it takes a racist to recognize any racism.

Obama's wearing a suit. It's not a robe and turban. It's not Aunt Jemima.

There are no features in the cartoon that could be called a racist exaggeration at all. The cartoon depicts a black person. Trumpy doesn't know the difference, so he says it's racist by default.

IF he knew why it was racist he would have said so by now.

I understand what this is about.

I mentioned that you were banned from another forum for making a racist joke.

And that means that you now have to make any discussion about race and racism impossible.

The cartoon is not racist, Trumptman.

Your President is black.

Your black President is in that cartoon.

But your black President is not in that cartoon because he is black.

Your black President is in that cartoon because he is your President, in the same way that the other presidents in that cartoon are in that cartoon because they were presidents.

So we might as well say "Your President is in that cartoon." And leave it at that.

That cartoon is not racist. It's just a cartoon with a picture of your president in it.

Similarly, this is picture of Barack Obama.



This is not a racist picture. It is just a picture.

The cartoon is like that.

And of the the two of us, trumptman, you are the only one who has ever been banned for writing racist things in a public forum.

Good luck with those sensitivity classes. It's my belief that you will benefit from them.

Showing an equivalence doesn't stop the cartoon from being racist. Bush was so noted by his middle name that he was called "W." for short. Noting Barack Obama's middle name is racist. We can portray Bush or Reagan as Hitler but portraying Obama as Hitler is racist.

It is clear that even engaging in the same actions by two different parties is racist. Just look at the n-word for an example of that.

You seem fixated on racism, specifically with noting that Barack Obama is black. You've repeated that point several times in your post.

Clearly you repeat it so often because you think about the fact that he is black so often. You think about this so often because it is troubling to you. It is troubling to you do the fact that you have racist thoughts. The best way to hide your racist thoughts is to demand racist material be seen as not racist or to make accusations against others to cover up your own racism.

Please stop trying to defend the picture. It just makes the racism worse. It likely will lead to an additional ban from here due to the racist and hateful attitudes you have already displayed here repeatedly.

George Bush Jr was called 'W' by his family. The nickname distinguished him from his father, whose name was 'George'.

Right wing people on the internet are so preoccupied with Barack Obama's middle name, 'Hussein', because...?

While you're thinking about that, please explain exactly why this cartoon is racist. You haven't done that yet. I'll keep on asking you to explain yourself until you do (you know what I'm like), so you might as well start.

I'll even give you the first sentence.

"This cartoon is racist because..."

That's nice, Nick.

You have been banned for racism before. Me, never. So I understand that you have some insight on this that might be useful to the discussion.

However. About that cartoon.

It's racist because..?

Bush was called W. by much more than his family. Yet it would appear that if the family engages in an action, the public can as well.


I've not read a poll or seen any public measure showing the public being "preoccupied." The middle name and the implications from it were brought up by his wife, aka FAMILY.


Of course I've proven how it is racist. I even linked to some wonderful quotes of MumboJumbo reasoning to help make it more clear. Here I'll take one of those, remove the subject and insert this cartoon instead. You'll clearly see how it works if your racism isn't blinding you.

Now that we have proven that THIS CARTOON says racist things, by looking at the things IT has said, and reading the IMAGES IT has used, which are racist, this thread is pretty much over, really.

Clearly you would have to agree with that profound reasoning right?

You've been banned multiple times from these forums for all manner of racism, ad-homs, and hate of all manner.

Oh dear, Nick.

This is proving to be embarrassing to you.

You've called the cartoon racist.

But you can't actually explain why.

You just want to make a point.

"I was banned for making a racist joke!" says trumptman. "And it was really unfair! Poor me! Ai ai ai! I was banned from applenova for making a racist joke! But racism doesn't really exist! It's SO UNFAIR!"

Oh, Nick. Just stop. Please.

Oh trumptman. Trumpytrumpytrumpy.


I was banned for writing the words "Go fuck yourself."

Not racism.

YOU were the one who got banned for racism.

I've been trying to find the thread in question and quote it, but they deleted it!

Probably because it was racist.

Wait, I thought your own reasoning explained why. Are you saying those prior claims or racism weren't proven by you? I forgot since you weren't engaging with me.

However I think you should go back to not engaging with me and please stop trying to defend this racism. This episode of defending racism is likely to go over just like the other episodes where you defended racism and got yourself banned from these forums for that racism.

Oh, I see.

The only way you can "win" is by telling a blatant lie.

Nick. Who are you doing this for? You know it's not true, and I know it's not true, and everyone else who comes here knows it's not true. So it's for... the lurkers? People who find this thread by accident?

Even though I have never been banned from these forums for racism, being one of the most annoying politically correct wieners around, you have to write the lie that I have because you want to win?

I write "Nick was banned from applenova for making a racist joke in a thread about Hewlett Packard face recognition".

Which is true.

So you, Nick, have to write "Hassan was banned from appleinsider for... being racist."

Which is a lie.

Man. I hope you bring your kids up to respect basic shit like this, because truly, I'm not impressed with your honour and stuff.

The only way you can "win" is by telling a blatant lie.

MJ. Who are you doing this for? You know it's not true, and I know it's not true, and everyone else who comes here knows it's not true. So it's for... the lurkers? People who find this thread by accident?

There's something on your dignity. I think it's spoiled.

Even though I have never been banned from these forums for racism, being one of the most annoying politically correct wieners around, you have to write the lie that I have because you want to win?

I write "MJ was banned from Appleinsider for making a racist and hateful comments in multiple threads multiple times".

Which is true.

So you, MJ, have to write "Nick was banned from Applenova for... being racist."

Which is a lie.

MJ. This... isn't your finest hour.

Man. I hope you bring your kids up to respect basic shit like this, because truly, I'm not impressed with your honour and stuff.

Edited because I kinda want to step out of this thread and do some work and not contribute to the world's ugliness tonight.

Edited because this thread is now... uncomfortably odd. And I have work to do.