measure 66-67 pass in Oregon

[MikeE]

The issue we are talking about is the passage of Measures 66-67, which raised taxes on wealthy people and corporations. Here is a link anyone interested in the discussion should at least check out:

seekingalpha.com/instablog/183929-sober-realist/21758-the-wealth-gap-and-the-collapse-of-the-u-s

I'll give you a few highlights. The facts are sourced in the article, so I will not waste space here:
Between 1970-1999, the average US worker salary rose 10% in real dollars.
In the same period, America's top CEO's salaries rose to 1000x the average salary (from 41x in 1970).
Between 1979-1997 the richest 1% of the population saw their incomes go up 157%.
In 2008, the 20 highest paid Hedge Fund managers earned 22,255x the average US worker salary.These same managers, using a tax loop hole unavailable to you and I, paid 15% Federal tax rate.
We are only talking about incomes here. If we measured Wealth the picture would be even more unbalanced. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks the USA third worst among the top 30 world economies for inequality and for economic opportunity - only Turkey and Mexico are more unequal.
The last time the deck was this stacked in favor of the rich was just before the 1929 Crash.
The reason we had a crash this time was similar, so much wealth had accumulated at the top, without enough real investment opportunities in the productive economy. So imaginary investment 'opportunities' were invented by the Masters of the Universe. Interestingly enough both the left and the conservative Austrian economic school agree on these causes for the economic crash -although solutions differ. This is a good case for the argument that it's not taxation of the wealthy that threatens our future, it is massive wealth inequality.

 

[mudnducs]

The issue we are talking about is the passage of Measures 66-67, which raised taxes on wealthy people and corporations. Here is a link anyone interested in the discussion should at least check out:

seekingalpha.com/instablog/183929-sober-realist/21758-the-wealth-gap-and-the-collapse-of-the-u-s

I'll give you a few highlights. The facts are sourced in the article, so I will not waste space here:
Between 1970-1999, the average US worker salary rose 10% in real dollars.
In the same period, America's top CEO's salaries rose to 1000x the average salary (from 41x in 1970).
Between 1979-1997 the richest 1% of the population saw their incomes go up 157%.

In 2008, the 20 highest paid Hedge Fund managers earned 22,255x the average US worker salary.These same managers, using a tax loop hole unavailable to you and I, paid 15% Federal tax rate.
We are only talking about incomes here. If we measured Wealth the picture would be even more unbalanced. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks the USA third worst among the top 30 world economies for inequality and for economic opportunity - only Turkey and Mexico are more unequal.
The last time the deck was this stacked in favor of the rich was just before the 1929 Crash.
The reason we had a crash this time was similar, so much wealth had accumulated at the top, without enough real investment opportunities in the productive economy. So imaginary investment 'opportunities' were invented by the Masters of the Universe. Interestingly enough both the left and the conservative Austrian economic school agree on these causes for the economic crash -although solutions differ. This is a good case for the argument that it's not taxation of the wealthy that threatens our future, it is massive wealth inequality.

So what? Class envy isn't what made America great....hard work and belief that tomorrow held deeper promise made her great. The poorest among us live better than the wealthiest of us 100 years ago. We didn't regulate ourselves into that.

Would you chain us to the tyranny of low expectations and equal outcome because you begrudge what others have worked for, the fruit of their own labor?

Though many love to demonize them, the wealthy are just people too. Class envy is what will destroy America. The notion that what a man earns with his own sweat is for his neighbors to distribute...is what will destroy America. It is not governments function to regulate and control, it's government function to get out of the way.

 

[Dan-Dee Sales Inc]

is there an award for the longest thread?

 

[MikeE]

So what? Class envy isn't what made America great....hard work and belief that tomorrow held deeper promise made her great. The poorest among us live better than the wealthiest of us 100 years ago. We didn't regulate ourselves into that.

Would you chain us to the tyranny of low expectations and equal outcome because you begrudge what others have worked for, the fruit of their own labor?

Though many love to demonize them, the wealthy are just people too. Class envy is what will destroy America. The notion that what a man earns with his own sweat is for his neighbors to distribute...is what will destroy America. It is not governments function to regulate and control, it's government function to get out of the way.

I agree with you, the wealthy are people too. Very true. The vote breakdown for Measures 66-67 showed it enjoying a large majority among people earning 150,000 per year and up. Why? Because they understand that the wealth inequality is terrible for business and economic growth. Less folks with money to buy goods and services of all types. The problem is, if you have a lot of money. you need to invest it somewhere. Even if you know the investment vehicles are fraudulent, you'll need to use them because you can't just leave a bazzillion dollars in a checking account. Do you know the term 'counter-party risk'? By the end of 2008, the 'counter party risk' was so out of control that investing and lending ground to a screeching halt. Translation - none of the big guys trusted each other with their money, no body has any idea, to this day, what the so-called 'assets' are worth.That's what happens when too much money is concentrated in too few hands. Not only did us regular folks get hurt in the recession, but the very rich lost big-time. I forget the total number of trillions of dollars that were destroyed in this crash. But I'll tell you this, the tiny amount that the wealthy got taxed through 66-67 is like fly crap in comparison. And a very small fly.

 

[bugeye]

WOW! Ok, sorry I need to explain this! I thought everyone was teachable, but I have been wrong before and it appears that I am wrong again.

See the quote attached to the original message. It's at the top (of my message--the original one I posted). Do you see where some ignorant person stated that.....here let me post it....again....

"That's funny, the term progressives as it has been used by the rest of the english speaking world for the last hundred years never applied to socialists, communists, or fascists, progressives are moderates."

I thought I was speaking English (should be capped, btw) but maybe what I refer to English, you don't??!! So, I was NOT giving a half sided argument. The entire link was posted, not half posted. And the point of giving that to you was to let people look and see. Self proclaimed socialists are not moderates. Now, I will concur that some people on that list are moderates, but not that all you have listed would be deemed so. I would also argue that those moderates were not an integral part of the movement itself but associated with it.

I tend to side with doing everything within our power to protect the environment and not to openly destroy land. I am very far from being a nola, however. I could be associated with doing things for the environment but not an Environmentalist. This was NOT to start an argument about the environment, it was an example. You will probably get side tracked though.

So, in conclusion. I really don't waste my time long with people that are a waste of organic material. I have much more important things to spend my time doing. I need to read more about survival skills because if this is the thought process of enough people, they will be running our country into the ground faster than I imagined.

Have a nice night!

Sorry, if I offended.

My contention was that the term Progressive has been hijacked by the right and that Progressives were moderates, that is just as true as a generality can be! If the validity of my point has to be based on there never being a communist or socialist that took part in the progressive movement then you're right. But, what is the point of your argument, that any large movement of people will contain at least a few examples of every sort of 'ism?

If you go back in my posts in this thread you will see a definition of progressive from wikkipedia, that backs my point.

It is as clear as day that the right has hijacked this term, no one should have to argue this obvious point! Heck, the right is trying to give facists and Nazi's to the left too, they are redefining the linear system to shed any reference to their nasty parts.

 

[bugeye]

is there an award for the longest thread?

Good point, I've said everything I have to say as well as I can say it.

I did just look up some points on Measure 66, I saw that the amount of federal tax you were allowed to deduct from your oregon taxable income had changed in the measure and I was concerned. It actually went up a few hundred bucks so it will result in a slight tax reduction for some people, really not a factor at all.

 

[Stomper]

NICE!! Another post telling buggyeyed to pound sand!!


BTW, FWIW, I never really siad Proggy's were commies or socialist, they are STATISTS!!

 

[bugeye]

If you think that the only one that compares to Beck et al, is Randy Rhodes, you are, quite simply, delusional. Randy Rhodes openly advocated for the assassination of President Bush. Show me where Beck et al have done that. She is way worse than anything on the right that you have mentioned.


As to your claim that CBS admitted to the lies by Rather, show me that statement. Otherwise, all you have is a network that had to fire him in order to stave off further legal action and bad PR.

Do you also agree with



When did Olbermann or MSNBC retract that lie and take responsibility for it?
When Did Olbermann get fired?

And, do you also agree with this lie from Matthews?



When did Matthews or MSNBC retract that lie and take responsibility for it?
When did Matthews get fired?


In reference to your claim that the left is "fact based, open minded, deciders and we resent being lied to.", do you believe in AGW? I can't begin to count how many liberals believe in the AGW lie that is being exposed continually.


So much for that claim of yours.


Bottom line is that for you to make any statements about the conservatives enjoying being lied to while claiming that liberals are "fact based, open minded, deciders" is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.


Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

I was collecting my posts when I noticed that I didn't respond to this one.
so,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers.

as to the "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?", if everything you're saying is true, and I'm not going to check it because there is no need, then indeed Chris Matthews pushed the point a bit, but not very much, the question is open but if I were asked it I would yell "NO!", but I would have used a standard of 'hard intel' as a hypothetical for this question. This is kind of nitpicking, and is way less distorting than what Beck does everynight.

Global warming - climate change is not a field of my technical expertise. To what extent people are affecting it, is nothing I can calculate or work out for myself. It may be a deception or it may not be, so it really isn't very good criteria for this discussion. This discussion requires clear cut cases of BS, like the one I posted by savage, or Becks - Dunn-Stein-tides-apollo-soros poop.

So much for that claim of yours!

Bottom line, you make some hasty poorly checked arguments that aren't even really applicable, and then claim victory, amazing, simply amazing.

 

[komodo_dragon]

I was collecting my posts when I noticed that I didn't respond to this one.
so,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers.

as to the "Did Bush know about the 9/11 attacks in advance?", if everything you're saying is true, and I'm not going to check it because there is no need, then indeed Chris Matthews pushed the point a bit, but not very much, the question is open but if I were asked it I would yell "NO!", but I would have used a standard of 'hard intel' as a hypothetical for this question. This is kind of nitpicking, and is way less distorting than what Beck does everynight.

Global warming - climate change is not a field of my technical expertise. To what extent people are affecting it, is nothing I can calculate or work out for myself. It may be a deception or it may not be, so it really isn't very good criteria for this discussion. This discussion requires clear cut cases of BS, like the one I posted by savage, or Becks - Dunn-Stein-tides-apollo-soros poop.

So much for that claim of yours!

Bottom line, you make some hasty poorly checked arguments that aren't even really applicable, and then claim victory, amazing, simply amazing.

From your own source.

While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

So CBS admiited to a "mistake" and then fired Mapes and a few others to cover their ***. Nowhere does your source ever state that CBS admitted to the lies of Rather.

Strike one for you.

No response from you on the Olbermann question. Olbermann, a rabid liberal, still has his job

Strike two for you.

Your response to the Matthews question is that "he pushed the point a bit, but not very much". Matthews still has his job.

Foul ball for you.

As to the AGW question, it was simple and to the point. "Do you believe in AGW."


Swing, and a miss. Strike three, you're out.


BTW, I notice that you avoided addressing the Randy Rhoades issue, like it was the black death.





You have responded in the typical liberal hypocritical fashion. When faced with concrete examples of liberals doing the very thing you are accusing conservatives of, you minimize, justify, deflect, dodge, and then claim that the other side has proven nothing.


Yep. You have just proved how much of a liberal you are. Of course, you proved that way back with your first or second post, when you began advocating so stridently for government to seize more of the taxpayer's money, but then you already know that.

I could find you more cases of liberals lying and distorting the truth than you could ever count, even with a calculator. However, it would be a waste of my time. Sorta like trying to teach a pig to sing. Wastes my time and annoys the pig.

You are not interested in reality, only your beloved "progressive" talking points.


have a nice life.

 

[cw009]

:yes: lol man good stuff! :banana::smash::banana::winner


I had quite the display but it only allows me 10 images!!

 

[slideglider]

"The reason we had a crash this time was similar, so much wealth had accumulated at the top, without enough real investment opportunities in the productive economy. So imaginary investment 'opportunities' were invented by the Masters of the Universe. Interestingly enough both the left and the conservative Austrian economic school agree on these causes for the economic crash -although solutions differ. This is a good case for the argument that it's not taxation of the wealthy that threatens our future, it is massive wealth inequality."

That is not what the Austrian Economists think. It may be what the Keynesian Marxists think, or would have you believe. The reason for the bust in the 20's was Ponzi stock market schemes and an oversupply of credit. It started with Hoover and Roosevelt made it worse and drag on. There were other recessions before that but most corrected fairly fast. The reason it turned into a Depression was on purpose, in order for the banking cartel, The Federal Reserve, to be established. All nations were in recession or depression much like about now. Then the US joined the war, last, sped up industrial capacity, and the western nations won. The US was the only nation not ravaged by war which is what got it out of the Depression. It also had the designation of a world reserve currency because almost everyone else was broke, especially England. After that came Breton Woods, after taking everyone's gold of course, and set currency valuations or pegs. Then came Nixon killing the gold peg because France actually had the gall to ask for the gold contractually owed to it, which the US didn't have. From the 70's inflation rose dramatically. There was a crash with the oil crisis. A crash in the 80's with the S&L's, the 90's tech bubble, early 2000's commodity bubble and finally real estate bubble. The can got kicked down the road as far as it could go. There is now no place to put a bubble. Credit has overvalued and created bubbles in all asset classes worldwide, which have now sunk in value, or will sink soon. Banks don't want to lend and consumers are trying to slash debt. Paulson's bazooka lending scheme didn't do anything. Nor did the stimulus or cash for clunkers. China will pop sometime soon. It has a CRE vacancy rate of 50% or more and an overheating demand economy. Inflation is high and they have problems with ethnic tensions, the Dali Lama, Taiwan and Tibet. Including new things going on at the India border.

What has happened is a full scale looting of the public purse, which has nothing in it mind you, by the favored unions,businesses, banks, hedge funds, politicians, military industrial complexes and insurance services. It has turned generations past, present and future into debt slaves right when everyone is trying to reduce debt with falling wages, job cuts and unemployment. It will, eventually, destroy the dollar. All other currencies are tanking too. The solution by the banks and politicians, just like before, will be a huge world war, followed by something declared a winner, and a new reserve currency. What the IMF/CFR/World Bank/Nato want, is a carbon currency, tied heavily to energy. They also want the North American Union, but the European Union may disintegrate before they can can convince the people on that. But with a world ravaged by war and despot government, the people probably won't have a voice.

This is the crack-up-boom. This is what fiat currencies bring. There will never be a prosperous human period until there is a world wide understanding and empowerment/protection of the individual and private property rights along with true money.

The best thing for the states to do is succeed from the union, renege on Federal debt, kick out the military and take control of the National Guard and start it's own currency with gold or gold backed currency combined with public audit quarterly. And start a sanctioned militia with every household armed and trained.

It's not going to happen though, except for maybe Montana or Vermont and then you'll get a Fort Sumter.

 

[bugeye]

From your own source.



So CBS admiited to a "mistake" and then fired Mapes and a few others to cover their ***. Nowhere does your source ever state that CBS admitted to the lies of Rather.

Strike one for you.

No response from you on the Olbermann question. Olbermann, a rabid liberal, still has his job

Strike two for you.

Your response to the Matthews question is that "he pushed the point a bit, but not very much". Matthews still has his job.

Foul ball for you.

As to the AGW question, it was simple and to the point. "Do you believe in AGW."


Swing, and a miss. Strike three, you're out.


BTW, I notice that you avoided addressing the Randy Rhoades issue, like it was the black death.





You have responded in the typical liberal hypocritical fashion. When faced with concrete examples of liberals doing the very thing you are accusing conservatives of, you minimize, justify, deflect, dodge, and then claim that the other side has proven nothing.


Yep. You have just proved how much of a liberal you are. Of course, you proved that way back with your first or second post, when you began advocating so stridently for government to seize more of the taxpayer's money, but then you already know that.

I could find you more cases of liberals lying and distorting the truth than you could ever count, even with a calculator. However, it would be a waste of my time. Sorta like trying to teach a pig to sing. Wastes my time and annoys the pig.

You are not interested in reality, only your beloved "progressive" talking points.


have a nice life.

I brought up Randy Rhodes in this discussion as an example of a lefty as bs as the righties, so why would you expect me to defend her?

You're out, failure to accept a given by your opponent and then redefining the playing field.

I said that CBS admitted to the mistake and have defended that argumet, you're pulling other nits out, again trying to redefine the argument by increasing it's scope.

You're out again, I'm right and you fail to prove me wrong. And by the way if you had actually bothered to research this issue you would have never questioned the validity of my statement in the first place.

You're Olberman argument was so poorly described no one could have responded to it, I was doing you a favor by not bringing up your incredible case of vague. And this is kind of amazing because you were just pulling these points from right wing web sites. Give me enough info and I'll check it out!

You're out again!

On Matthews I gave your argument all the credit it is due. Again, everyday on Beck folks spoon fed far more delusional distortions, and I provided a list of these.

You're thrown out of the game for a spitball.

We can't use AWG as a test case, it isn't a clear cut case of BS. I know about testing, that is a field of my expertise.

So, I hope you had fun with your rebuttal, I did admire the shape of it too bad the content was was worthless.

Then you say I'm a typical leftie and make typical leftie arguments, well thank you, I agree that my argments are to the point and that I don't try and win by altering the actual scope of the argument along the way, and that if I engaged in these dishonorable practices than I would be making the typical arguments of a rightie. So, at least I do end on a note of your expertise!

 

[komodo_dragon]

I brought up Randy Rhodes in this discussion as an example of a lefty as bs as the righties, so why would you expect me to defend her?

You're out, failure to accept a given by your opponent and then redefining the playing field.

I said that CBS admitted to the mistake and have defended that argumet, you're pulling other nits out, again trying to redefine the argument by increasing it's scope.

You're out again, I'm right and you fail to prove me wrong. And by the way if you had actually bothered to research this issue you would have never questioned the validity of my statement.

You're Olberman argument was so poorly described no one could have responded to it, I was doing you a favor by not bringing up your incredible case of vague.

You're out again!

On Matthews I gave your argument all the credit it is due. Again, everyday on Beck you folks spoon fed far more delusional distortions.

You're thrown out of the game for a spitball.

And you're final point, is to deny the existance of the playing field itself, you propose to use 'AWG' as a test case for BS, I respond by saying we need to use argments that can clearly be seen as true or false to test these matters, and you ask me if I'm a believer. This is interesting, because for me to believe in something I need to understand it, I need to have some grasp of the science that is being done, and I don't have that information even though I'm a scientist, this isn't my field! However, you only need a opinion, you don't need to know anything about the subject to be cocksure of what is reality, and what isn't, and of course you take on these opinions without any responsibility whatsoever for what may come of them. I take the responsiblity for my opinions rather seriously as men of honor have always done.

So, I hope you had fun with your rebuttal, I did admire the shape of it too bad the content was was worthless.

Obviously you have kept repeating your lies long enough that you believe them. Good luck with the rest of your life. You're going to need it, since you have difficulty differentiating between truth and fantasy.

 

[MikeE]

"The reason we had a crash this time was similar, so much wealth had accumulated at the top, without enough real investment opportunities in the productive economy. So imaginary investment 'opportunities' were invented by the Masters of the Universe. Interestingly enough both the left and the conservative Austrian economic school agree on these causes for the economic crash -although solutions differ. This is a good case for the argument that it's not taxation of the wealthy that threatens our future, it is massive wealth inequality."

That is not what the Austrian Economists think. It may be what the Keynesian Marxists think, or would have you believe. The reason for the bust in the 20's was Ponzi stock market schemes and an oversupply of credit. It started with Hoover and Roosevelt made it worse and drag on. There were other recessions before that but most corrected fairly fast. The reason it turned into a Depression was on purpose, in order for the banking cartel, The Federal Reserve, to be established. All nations were in recession or depression much like about now. Then the US joined the war, last, sped up industrial capacity, and the western nations won. The US was the only nation not ravaged by war which is what got it out of the Depression. It also had the designation of a world reserve currency because almost everyone else was broke, especially England. After that came Breton Woods, after taking everyone's gold of course, and set currency valuations or pegs. Then came Nixon killing the gold peg because France actually had the gall to ask for the gold contractually owed to it, which the US didn't have. From the 70's inflation rose dramatically. There was a crash with the oil crisis. A crash in the 80's with the S&L's, the 90's tech bubble, early 2000's commodity bubble and finally real estate bubble. The can got kicked down the road as far as it could go. There is now no place to put a bubble. Credit has overvalued and created bubbles in all asset classes worldwide, which have now sunk in value, or will sink soon. Banks don't want to lend and consumers are trying to slash debt. Paulson's bazooka lending scheme didn't do anything. Nor did the stimulus or cash for clunkers. China will pop sometime soon. It has a CRE vacancy rate of 50% or more and an overheating demand economy. Inflation is high and they have problems with ethnic tensions, the Dali Lama, Taiwan and Tibet. Including new things going on at the India border.

What has happened is a full scale looting of the public purse, which has nothing in it mind you, by the favored unions,businesses, banks, hedge funds, politicians, military industrial complexes and insurance services. It has turned generations past, present and future into debt slaves right when everyone is trying to reduce debt with falling wages, job cuts and unemployment. It will, eventually, destroy the dollar. All other currencies are tanking too. The solution by the banks and politicians, just like before, will be a huge world war, followed by something declared a winner, and a new reserve currency. What the IMF/CFR/World Bank/Nato want, is a carbon currency, tied heavily to energy. They also want the North American Union, but the European Union may disintegrate before they can can convince the people on that. But with a world ravaged by war and despot government, the people probably won't have a voice.

This is the crack-up-boom. This is what fiat currencies bring. There will never be a prosperous human period until there is a world wide understanding and empowerment/protection of the individual and private property rights along with true money.

The best thing for the states to do is succeed from the union, renege on Federal debt, kick out the military and take control of the National Guard and start it's own currency with gold or gold backed currency combined with public audit quarterly. And start a sanctioned militia with every household armed and trained.

It's not going to happen though, except for maybe Montana or Vermont and then you'll get a Fort Sumter.

Interesting post. Agree with part of your analysis. Two points, though:
The Federal Reserve was established in 1913, NOT as a response to the 1929 Crash.
Credit is the way money is brought into existence in our economy, so easy credit is the way for money to get concentrated into the hands of few people.
The gold standard seems attractive today, when our collective memory of how things actually were under the gold standard has faded. Read about the US populist movement of the 1870's-1890's. This was a rural movement, primarily in the US south and west. The farmers created their own economic agenda, based on local, community based credit institutions and cooperative marketing, purchasing, and mutual aid in labor. The so-called Red states of today were hotbeds of what we would today call left wing political action, although their ideas did not come from some European PHD, but from their own experiences under the Gold standard. Under gold, independent farmers had become massively in hock to the local private banks, and especially the merchants and buyers of farm products. One observer noted that 'the entire South was a giant pawn shop'. The reduction of a whole generation of independent producers into impoverished debtors created such a powerful protest movement that the corporate establishment barely hung on to power. One way they tried to co-opt the movement was to create the Federal Reserve, so that credit could be loosened - however without giving up any corporate control, or creating local-based institutions desiged by and for the producers.

Back to today. If we are talking solutions, I think the populists have alot to teach us. We need local community based control of the institutions that are necessary for modern life. Starting with municipal and public utilities whose mission would be distributed energy production and conservation. We need enough public land available to any person/family that wants to grow some of their own food. We need cheap, fast, quality housing divorced from real estate speculation. We need to make sure that public funds, especially pension funds, are re-invested locally, instead in the globalized ponzi scheme. We need to make sure that every one in our community has enough to eat. If we can do this, and we can, we can cut back on the top-down federal and state programs, reduce the size of government.
I totaly agree with you about the size of the military. It could be cut in half without threatening our security. We need to re-define national security to include energy conservation, and 'Resilient Communities' that can withstand oil shocks and natural disasters.

 

[OcelotZ3]

"Do as I say, not as I do" is one of their mantras.

Hmm.

You mean like those upstanding people on the right who insist that the institution of marriage must be defended, then go on and cheat (or most likely are already cheating) on their spouses & family because they believe in the sanctity of marriage so much... Or serve their wives with divorce papers while in the hospital... Or marry 3, 4, 5 times.

Or that "state rights" are the all-important thing, that is until a state allows terminally ill people assisted suicide... Or if they legalize marijuana... *Then* see them change their tune.

 

[Partsproduction]

You mean like those upstanding people on the right who insist that the institution of marriage must be defended, then go on and cheat (or most likely are already cheating) on their spouses & family because they believe in the sanctity of marriage so much... Or serve their wives with divorce papers while in the hospital... Or marry 3, 4, 5 times.

Are you implying that the existence of hypocrisy invalidates all morals? Or is it only the moral values you deem unworthy that are invalidated?

 

[OcelotZ3]

I'm not "implying" anything.

The original poster said a mantra of "the left" was "do as I say, not as I do". I was pointing out it's not just "the left".

 

[komodo_dragon]

I'm not "implying" anything.

The original poster said a mantra of "the left" was "do as I say, not as I do". I was pointing out it's not just "the left".

Please show me where I stated that it was a mantra of ONLY the left?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Partsproduction]

I'm not "implying" anything.

Fooled me, sure looked like you were implying that because someone cheats on their wives that cheating on wives isn't wrong, the fact is that moral values stand in spite of adherence to them.

 

[OcelotZ3]

Please show me where I stated that it was a mantra of ONLY the left?

I didn't say you stated that... You show *me* where I said that you did.

Regardless, your original posting said it was "a mantra of the left". Since you left out "the right", or anyone else but the left, it was reasonable to point out to all that it's a mantra of *both*, regardless of what you personally think, since you only specified one particular group, choosing to exclude any others by your statement.