PDA

View Full Version : Obama: "Spread the wealth around..."



JustSomeDude
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:11 AM
Obama's Own Words: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

New details on His Plan: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

More reading: http://news.aol.com/political-machin...edistribution/ (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/13/obamas-tax-cuts-more-like-redistribution/)

It's no surprise the socialists ("liberals/democrats" to the lay person) love this plan. But if Joe Plumber ain't happy... how are 51% of the public?

:dunno:

King Nothing
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:22 AM
But if Joe Plumber ain't happy... how are 51% of the public?

:dunno:Because 51% of the public are retards.

puckstr
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:38 AM
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_popculture_blog/images/2008/01/04/ralph08.jpg

Because he has MORE Experience than
Barrack Hussein Obama

MetaLord 9
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:48 AM
Because 51% of the public are retards.
I think you're lowballing that number b/c you're such a good guy...

PROFLYER
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:53 AM
^that's funny! If he gets in, who wants to go in on an island with me? We could build a race track....

JustSomeDude
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:54 AM
Oh boy - I just found out Obama's tax plan is RETROACTIVE for the last EIGHT YEARS of Bush tax cuts...

"The wealthiest 2% -- according to Senator Obama's website (http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/) - are asked to return portions of their tax cuts from which they benefited over the last eight years. It is unclear if he will "ask" or legislate, who are the wealthiest 2%, exactly how much money this redistribution of wealth will bring in, and whether a returning of the tax cuts refers to a retroactive lump sum payment or not.

Equally uncertain is whether or not Oprah is chomping at the bit to write a check to the federal government for her share." http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1109889/obama_to_plumber_redistribution_of.html

Wow... that's awesome. Considering 40% of my yearly salary is based on profit-sharing, I know this "spread the wealth" plan will directly effect me. My boss makes less profits - I make less through profit-sharing. Great. Can't wait.

Thank you socialism... I love you.

MetaLord 9
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:56 AM
Remember, rich people are bad because they're not you. So let's tax 'em!

puckstr
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 10:57 AM
Remember, rich people are bad because they're not you. So let's tax 'em!


You just jealousy

MetaLord 9
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 11:09 AM
You just jealousy
Oh yeah? Well you're so poor you can't even afford the " 're " in "you're!" So there! :D

Rhino
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:03 PM
That clip allows me to put things into perspective for most...

I'm a self-employed plumber. I make a nice living, but consider my prices quite fair at about 1/3 less than the franchises. When I am making a business plan/model things are taken into account. Materials, fuel, insurance, etc. AND taxes. At the end of the day, what I charge minus what it costs to operate equals profit. If MY taxes are raised, my rates will raise, as will most other companies. Who will pay for that increase? Congress? The evil Rich? No, the customer. Understand, this is not vindictive, but the nature of business. As costs go up, rates go up. (Vindictive is when I charge more for you having an Obama sign or bumper sticker :doublefinger:)So yeah, O's tax plan saved you $300/yr. But you pay $1000+ more as the cost of goods and services increase.

As much as most would like to believe that "the evil rich" are the paris hiltons of the world, most aren't stupid. If the majority of the financial load is pushed onto 5% of taxpayers, while the lower % is removed from more liability while being promised more benefits, how long will that system last? If you remove the incentive to invest by taxing the returns, why would the rich invest? As the current market shows, the individual faces risks.

Its all political promises leading up to an election. Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDAv-d-1XWQ (the rest of that episode is that the annual budget was gone in under a month and Homer had to resort to "shady measures" to pay the workers, as he couldn't very well raise rates)

Prime example: I did some work for a member of this board. Few minor things spent a little over 1 hour even offered to do a few more without charging more. Charged $75 The significant other made a comment under her breath "not bad for and hour". Of course, that didn't take into account the 1+ hour in drive time to and from the job. The $15 in gas (those big vans get thirsty) A few bucks in materials. A few bucks for the general operating costs (liability insurance, van insurance, my health insurance, etc. Then the 35% self employment tax. By the end, I'm earning less than half while the govt. is getting 1/3 with no risk and no investment. There are days I consider going to work for the big shops, as they take all the risk while promising more $ than I bring home now. If all us independents did this, the consumer will be at the mercy of the Big Shops who I'm sure some of you can attest charge ASTRONOMICAL fees.

On a positive note: I've done work for others on this board who have offered me more than I ask for, sometimes insistingly.

So, before the guys from Boulder jump in that I don't currently make over $250k... I could very easily if I took the risk and hired as few as 3 employees. Why should I take that risk? Especially if O gets his way with the mandatory health insurance? Here's my choice: I either provide you with insurance or I get fined and you get .gov subsidized insurance anyway. Do you think I'm going to find and buy the Premium Platinum Plan? It was stated in a debate this weekend: "When you're paying for me, I care about the quality and not the cost. When I'm paying for you, I care about the cost and not the quality".

To say that the Trickle Down policy didn't benefit people with wealth making it to the bottom, I'm pretty sure that the new policies will have the costs trickling down and harm those in the middle again, while being unaffecting to those at the bottom who don't pay for most things under subsidation now.

Before you pull that lever this year, just make sure you're looking through the turn and not target fixating on hollow promises and issues. (My attempt at pandering to riders! :leghump:)

King Nothing
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:09 PM
PostWell done, Rhino. Unfortunately, the brain-dead, goose-stepping O supporters on this board will disregard anything you said as the ramblings of an under-educated, blue collar worker who needs the government to step in and save you from yourself.

MetaLord 9
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:39 PM
Well done, Rhino. Unfortunately, the brain-dead, goose-stepping O supporters on this board will disregard anything you said as the ramblings of an under-educated, blue collar worker who needs the government to step in and save you from yourself.
yep, and have you ever been to church in your life? then it's your fault that Bush was elected & you should feel bad about that too.

puckstr
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:40 PM
A vote for Obama is a vote
for

Unicorns and rainbows
http://obamacorn.com/img/yes_we_can_3.pngs

JustSomeDude
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:49 PM
A vote for Obama is a vote
for Unicorns and rainbows

Brilliant write-up Rhino... thank you for posting it. Please know that your contribution to our community is highly valued, and none of us wish you to close down your business to work for one of the big shops!

And thanks for the pic puckstr... you just made my day.

:)

King Nothing
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:51 PM
yep, and have you ever been to church in your life? then it's your fault that Bush was elected & you should feel bad about that too.
Yep. Been there lots. Bush is still better than gore or kerry. Which isn't saying much.

64BonnieLass
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:56 PM
Its all political promises leading up to an election.

On a positive note: I've done work for others on this board who have offered me more than I ask for, sometimes insistingly.
A) I agree completely.

B) It's because you do things the right way and take care of your customers. :)


A vote for Obama is a vote for Unicorns and rainbows

Agreed: Unicorns don't exist and there is no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. :)

MetaLord 9
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 12:59 PM
Yep. Been there lots. Bush is still better than gore or kerry. Which isn't saying much.
It's true! being the lesser of two evils only makes you (at the least) better than one person.

King Nothing
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 01:03 PM
Terri, can I have your '64 Bonnie?

puckstr
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 01:08 PM
unassociated to thread
but I like it
http://i34.tinypic.com/vy1px4.jpg

64BonnieLass
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 01:09 PM
Terri, can I have your '64 Bonnie?

Sure sweetie! :slap:

Devaclis
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 01:10 PM
mmm Rosario Dawnson

JustSomeDude
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 02:21 PM
More class from the party of tolerance and inclusion:

http://pixpipeline.com/st/3d1a6df82cab.jpg (http://pixpipeline.com/d/3d1a6df82cab.jpg)

I wonder if they'd support "Obama is a nigger" shirts just as fervently.
Somehow, I think their hypocrisy would be exposed at that point.

Fascism: it's funny how some people still can't see it.

puckstr
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 02:25 PM
^^^^
I bet there parents are so proud of them

fullgrownbear
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 03:31 PM
Good post Rhino.

dchd1130
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Good post. All this hate the rich stuff going around right now is kind of ironic. I want to know how many people get a paycheck from a poor person. If it gets to the point where we cant make a profit, then its not worth all the risk and hassle. Bush's tax cuts generated more income for the guberment then what was generated during the Clinton years. If its too expensive to do business people will stop doing this tax the rich is an anti growth plan.

The Black Knight
Tue Oct 14th, 2008, 05:02 PM
Here's what I don't understand. Why is it fair to take away from those who produce results and give to those who sit on their butts??

And when I say results, I mean everyone from Donald Trump all the way down to the guy who works at McDonalds. If you get up everyday, with a clear objective in your mind of going to work and "EARNING" your paycheck then you are someone who produces results. You benefit society and you're an asset.

What I don't undestand is why is it o.k. to take money away from those who do produce and give to those who do not. It's my belief that just because Bill Gates has amassed his empire through Microsoft, doesn't mean myself or anyone else should be entitled to it. Just as I believe that everything I've worked for and gained is off limits to Bill Gates and everyone else. What he has is his.... and what I have is mine.... and what you have is yours....

How is that such a hard concept for most of the numbnuts in this country to understand? Just because someone else has more that you do, doesn't mean you are entitled to what they have. Maybe they worked harder then you have, to get what they have. Maybe they inherited it, or maybe they just get all the breaks. Regardless, no where in our Constitution and in the framing of our country did our Founding Fathers believe that what one guy has, should automatically become community property.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Pretty self-explanitory with the whole "Pursuit of". Hmmm, "Pursuit" would mean that action needs to be taken and that the action to be taken is on your own behalf. America is what you make of it.

If people want to sit on their butts or become homeless(yeah believe me, I know of some transients that have chosen their lifestyle), then that's their business. However, don't expect me or the rest of the result producing Americans to make up for your sorry waste of space self. Don't expect us to pick up the tab for your health problems or financial problems.

I've got my own problems, I don't need to be handling anyone else's.

dchd1130
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 08:05 AM
Its funny that none of our Obama fans have anything to say in this thread

MetaLord 9
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 08:57 AM
^^I noticed that actually...

I fully agree with The Black Knight. The sense of false entitlement that many Americans harbor is greedy and reprehensible. Because one has made a choice to be lazy does not mean that they are entitled to the earnings or benefits of another. Furthermore, if those feeling that sense of entitlement had to suddenly give up something of their own, you'd better believe that we'd ALL hear about it.

Government should be a place where people can gather to further their state, not something that they use to replace motivation. Capitalism is a survival-of-the-fittest type system and people have been lulled into a false sense of the world being fair. Person A works just as hard as person B and B makes more money. B got a break. Instead of chalking it up to some just getting better brakes than others, A cries wolf and feels a sense of entitlement. A: "I worked just as hard, I should make just as much! Give me B's money!" It shouldn't work that way.

I don't want Donald Trump's money. Furthermore, I don't want YOU to get Donald Trump's money either! It's called Donald Trump's money for a REASON. I find it ironic that the people who seem to have this great disdain for the rich are the folks relying on the system instead of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps to do something about their life. The people who hate the rich are those who don't do anything about themselves. One of these days, the rich, who are the most able to do this, will up & leave and those who have been screaming & crying about "where's my share of your money?!!?!?!" will be the ones having to cough it up. The catch, though, is that they'll have to cough up MORE to replace the HUGE chunk of support that just left the country for their own private island b/c we felt they wouldn't share.

vegasbound
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 09:06 AM
What you guys don't get, is that paying more taxes is not a penalty, it's it way of making our economy stronger so the middle and lower classes actually have money to spend on the products and services that others make and deliver.

Can't you see what the last eight years of tax cuts during a time of war have gotton us???? Sorry, trickle down economics does not work.

Obama is only talking about raising taxes on the rich 3%, or like it was during the Reagan and Clinton years.

Most rich people use all the tax loop holes and don't pay as much as you think anyways.

If you are making over 250k and you can't bare to help our country out of this mess you voted for you are some selfish bastards. Most of you dummies don't even make that much, and you are going to vote against your country and your own best interests once again. LOLOLOL

MetaLord 9
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 09:16 AM
you are going to vote against your country and your own best interests once again. LOLOLOL
Point, if you will, to where John Kerry & Al Gore would have made this country better & how a vote for them would have been in my own best interests.

K.

Raising the taxes on the rich 3% is a substantially higher dollar amount that probably any of us could afford anyway. The principle of the matter is, for a class that's already paying a higher percentage of taxes anyway, how do we justify charging them more? At what point does it cease to be support & patriotism and become a punishment for success & well being? There's been no indication that giving people more money means that they're going to turn around and reinvest in the economy in the form of purchasing goods and services. Case in point, what did most Americans spend their 2008 stimulus checks on? Most of us paid down our debts. Sure some recontributed & supported the economy, but not nearly enough to have made it worthwhile.

Trickle down economics may not be perfect but it's a better plan than socialism.


If you are making over 250k and you can't bare to help our country out of this mess you voted for you are some selfish bastards.

At what pont does continually medicating the patient cease to become aid and start to become an addiction? Can't help but think it's not too far away...

dirkterrell
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 09:27 AM
The principle of the matter is, for a class that's already paying a higher percentage of taxes anyway, how do we justify charging them more?

The top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of all income tax. The top 10% pay about 70% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners (those making less than $31K) pay 3%.

Source : http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

Dirk

MikeG
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 09:34 AM
If you are making over 250k and you can't bare to help our country out of this mess you voted for you are some selfish bastards. Most of you dummies don't even make that much, and you are going to vote against your country and your own best interests once again. LOLOLOL

A majority of small business owners file their business tax under their personal income, so it realistically would be hurting this group of people the most.

dirkterrell
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 09:44 AM
Here's an interesting number: in 2006 the roughly 82,000 people in the top 1% of income in Florida paid 3.3% of the federal income tax. That is more than the 66 million people in the whole country who are in the bottom 50%. Similar numbers for California, New York and Texas.

Source for the state data (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23440.html).

Dirk

Kranth
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 10:03 AM
OK, you guys found the source, please read the bit where both Obama's AND McCain's tax plan have this same flaw: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23727.html

Snowman
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Conceptually I agree with BK as well, However… (and you knew this was coming…)

One item seems to be overlooked by everyone here.
If we cut taxes (for anyone) how are we going to deal with this tiny problem?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 15 Oct 2008 at 04:33:57 PM GMT is $10,310,630,889,148.29
The estimated population of the United States is 304,913,078
Each citizen's share of this debt is $33,814.98.

I don't have that much in my 401K anymore...

MetaLord 9
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 10:45 AM
^^I would push for a rebalance of the budget, altho I have neither the time nor the brain power for such an endeavor

dirkterrell
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 10:53 AM
One item seems to be overlooked by everyone here.
If we cut taxes (for anyone) how are we going to deal with this tiny problem?


Well, the option that seems to be utterly foreign to politicians on both sides these days is to have the government spend less. :idea:

But since the tax cuts in 2003, the economy has climbed pretty well. See http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R3-Corporate-Income-Tax-Cuts-Boost.html

Dirk

Snowman
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 10:54 AM
Oh... of course… What an idiot I am. Just Rebalance the National Debt.

After all us tax payers are now the proud owners of several fail finical institutions with loads of CPA’s with nothing to do. Just get them to cook the books and that number will just go away.:)

Dr. Joe Siphek
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:00 AM
i got an e-mail that Obama's the anti-Christ...

Got this e-mail this morning.



Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.

Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what. And it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are facts!!!





Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year
4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General Operating Fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the federal government to 'put away', you may be interested in the following:


-------------------------------------------------------------


Q: Which political party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it in to the
General Fund so that Congress could spend it?


A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-
controlled House and Senate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------


Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.


Q: Which political party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

-----------------------------
--------------------------------------


Q: Which political party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.



Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them
even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try.


Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!


A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson

MetaLord 9
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:24 AM
Oh... of course… What an idiot I am. Just Rebalance the National Debt.

After all us tax payers are now the proud owners of several fail finical institutions with loads of CPA’s with nothing to do. Just get them to cook the books and that number will just go away.:)
I didn't say rebalance the national debt, I said look into what the government spending on what projects. Maybe throwing money at a problem isn't the best way to solve it. Giving free handouts isn't the best idea either. What I'm saying is that the only way to pay down the national debt is to rebalance the budget so that we're not spending more than we have available, not "cook the books" so that it looks like we come out on top.

The solution to spending too much money on unnecessary projects is not got get MORE money to spend, it's to spend the money we already HAVE better! If your son in college is spending too much money on beer & cd's and comes to you saying "I need more money, I don't have enough to eat and I owe more and more to my college loans every day!" you're not going to say "well I think that since I have more money in my bank account than you do then I will give you more money." You say "well maybe you should rethink how you're spending the money I'm already giving you and make sure you're buying food & books and maybe SAVING a little coin to contribute to your college loansl."

dapper
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:27 AM
i got an e-mail that Obama's the anti-Christ...
Travis,
We shouldn't go and put our lemon wedge thinking caps on by using concepts, accountability and historical analytical analysis's to open minds. How dare you...

This country wants more sheep, not shepherds.:roll:

“Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open.” Thomas Dewar

CYCLE_MONKEY
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:44 AM
I think you're lowballing that number b/c you're such a good guy...
Now THAT'S funny! these are the same people that make WWF wrassaling a hit too..... (although, most of them will probably vote for McCain so that's ok with me!)

CYCLE_MONKEY
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:47 AM
Its funny that none of our Obama fans have anything to say in this thread
They're too busy registering to vote 75+ times....:)

BeoBe
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:51 AM
Because 51% of the public are retards.

Totally. I mean cmon the guy has his own tv channel hes using to flood everyones head, and sadly most the morons seem to be eating it up.

Well all i can say is SCREW obama, and if he wins we can kiss the sweet ass gun sales on this forum goodbye..:scream1::banghead::alien::cry:

Snowman
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:55 AM
They're too busy registering to vote 75+ times....:)How about Obama’s budget plan is more financially conservative than McCain’s budget plan…

Can Obama, McCain keep promises to cut taxes? (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B02881347%2DF2DE%2D4A86%2DBEC2%2 D426654A0C537%7D&siteid=rss)

"McCain's plan costing an estimated $1.5 trillion over five years and Obama's close to $1 trillion during that time."

Not that I see either plan getting paid for completely.
But Obama’s plan has the better chance out of the box.

puckstr
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 11:58 AM
i got an e-mail that Obama's the anti-Christ...





Imposter.... I AM the Anti-Christ :devil2:

Rhino
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 12:12 PM
What you guys don't get, is that paying more taxes is not a penalty, it's it way of making our economy stronger so the middle and lower classes actually have money to spend on the products and services that others make and deliver.

Can't you see what the last eight years of tax cuts during a time of war have gotton us???? Sorry, trickle down economics does not work.

Obama is only talking about raising taxes on the rich 3%, or like it was during the Reagan and Clinton years.

Most rich people use all the tax loop holes and don't pay as much as you think anyways.

If you are making over 250k and you can't bare to help our country out of this mess you voted for you are some selfish bastards. Most of you dummies don't even make that much, and you are going to vote against your country and your own best interests once again. LOLOLOL


:wtf: I started reading this and thought you were being sarcastic at first...

To say paying MORE taxes isn't a penalty, then lets say paying TAXES isn't a penalty. Therefore, everyone should. It's all about being fair, right? So how about everyone pays 15%? How about a per person flat fee? The .gov collected 1.2 trillion from income taxes. $1,200,000,000,000/300,000,000 Americans = $4000/person Thats FAIR, right? Well sure, it's gonna be a bit of an increase on the bottom 50% who currently don't pay anything, but it's fair.

I can't understand how the liberals are so ok with higher taxes on the rich. "Obama is only talking about raising taxes on the rich 3%". What if someone said the people with the bottom 3% of grades in school have to work the fields and the other jobs that "Americans won't do". The ACLU would be screaming slavery and the 14th amendment in the blink of an eye. Yet taking the results of someone's efforts rather than their actual physical labor is A-OK in their book.

What YOU don't get is what I stated in my original post. Taxes are figured in to the cost of doing business. Any business plan includes a target profit.. If my taxes go up 10%, my rates go up 10%. So does the mechanic's, the car manufacturers, the doctor's, the barber, etc. Under O's plan, most (60%) would see an maximum reduction of $1250. How fast would it add up if you had to pay and additional 10% on the neccessities of life? ALL of them? There's your "trickle down".

(Numbers used not actual prices, just nice and round)
Water heater goes out= $1000 +10% now $1100 But wait, the company that makes the water heaters got taxed more too. $500 is now $550. And the supply house selling it? Yup, they were making more than $250k, so another 10%, now we're at $605. $1100+$105 in material increases, $1205 . YOU are now out $205. Not the plumber, not the supply house owner, and not the heater company. There goes a % of your "tax savings". Or are you going to go without hot water?
Transmission goes out= $2000 now $2200 etc. etc.
It will add up FAST! All of a sudden the new found "disposable income" of the middle class is gone.

Most charts I've seen show that 60% of taxpayers make 60k or less. Between the 2 plans, McCain's would be $1093, O's would be $1250.


The problem is what we are currently spending on, and what each wants to spend on in the future. Per that pesky piece o' paper, the only things the Fed is supposed to be spending on is the military, roads, post offices, etc. No where does it stipulate that they can spend on health care or "health and human services". By this chart, you can see more was spent on H&H services than the military. It also shows the hare's breath away that is being spent on interest of the national debt. For Snowman to worry about the $30k per person on the debt, he needs to be concerned with the unfunded promises that are coming. Between Social Security and Medicare/caid, its more like $400k per either person or household, I forget which.

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd150/RhinoPlumbing/Misc/chart.gif

To say that rich need to own the responsibility of "paying for this mess"... Why don't you instead ask that everyone pull their fair share. We all know where babies come from. We all know how expensive it is for an individual to survive on their own. How about lessening the demand made on the govt?....sorry taxpayers. I believe you can have as many kids as YOU can afford. "It takes a village to raise a child" should not be a tax policy. We don't die at 30 anymore. Graduate, get a CAREER, have savings, buy a house, THEN start a family. Minimum wage is not designed to support a family of 4. It is a starting point in the business world. If you have made minimum wage for 30 years, chances are you didn't apply yourself correctly. Hell, even the cashiers at McDonald's get promoted after a while.

It is NOT the taxpayers responsibility to make sure everyone lives as long as possible and in perfect health along the way. It is NOT the taxpayers responsibility to make sure you or anyone else has a roof over their head and food. If you want to say "we owe it to our fellow man", fine. If that's the case, we dont' need the IRS to enforce that, right?

To say that the rich use loopholes and pay less... Per the 1% pays 40% stat. O's tax policy is putting all OUR eggs in one basket. What happens if that 1% finds a way out of most income taxes? The fed loses 40% of it's income. You know they won't cut the entitlement programs. Will you be so accepting of a tax increase when it comes knocking on YOUR door?

I don't truly believe either of them have a good plan or that either can actually implement it. It all comes down to Congress, as they are charged with making budgets and levying taxes.


Here's my offer: I will pay 100% of you 300% more than I am currently paying you if you DON'T vote for Obama!

My offer to the .gov: I will (gladly) pay the $30k share of the national debt right now if you remove me from future tax responsibilities. Deal? (remember, I don't make over 250k/year and we still have "the rich" to pay for things)

MetaLord 9
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 12:21 PM
^^:applause::applause::applause::applause::applaus e::applause::applause::applause::applause::applaus e::applause::applause:

Snowman
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 12:36 PM
So what you're saying is basically the government is living beyond its means. Spending more money than it is taking in.

So there are two things that can be done to solve this problem.
A. Spend less.
B. Take in more.

1. Increase taxes on everybody. We are all citizens of this country so we all must step up and pay more to solve it.

2. Doing away with things like social security. After all none of us will ever be able to retire anyway.

I like you're radical thinking Rhino.

MetaLord 9
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 12:48 PM
^^ I don't believe any of what he was saying counts as radical thinking, unlike the "two things that can be done to solve this problem" that you mentioned. Spend wisely might be the option "C" that you're looking for here. Instead of ponying up & establishing a national healthcare system, why don't we work with the private sector to stimulate a segement of the economy while making healthcare affordable. Government SPENDS LESS and citizens also SPEND LESS while economy grows.

Less is more. Less government is more money left over. More money left over trickles down.


We are all citizens of this country so we all must step up and pay more to solve it. not that this was specifically advocated, but explain to me why this solution is any more radical than having a small percentage of the populace step up to pay more?

Snowman
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 01:08 PM
^^ I don't believe any of what he was saying counts as radical thinking, unlike the "two things that can be done to solve this problem" that you mentioned. Spend wisely might be the option "C" that you're looking for here. Instead of ponying up & establishing a national healthcare system, why don't we work with the private sector to stimulate a segement of the economy while making healthcare affordable. Government SPENDS LESS and citizens also SPEND LESS while economy grows.

Less is more. Less government is more money left over. More money left over trickles down.The problem I see with option “C” has to do with that fact that no one can come up with what “Spend wisely” means. The schools of thought are all over the board.

I’ve never bought into the trickle down effect theory. Not much for the trickle up ether, however it makes a little more sense to me (very little).

What spending wisely would mean to me is in the creation of better jobs, not just more.

That would require a better-trained work force, which means education.
That would require better and more efficient transportation systems, which means infrastructure.
That would require ways of powering everything from home to industry better, which means new sources of energy.
That would require a healthier work force, which means better heath care.
Etc…

Without these basic structures in place no business will succeed in a global market.

Everyone else on this board will have a different opinion on these topics.




not that this was specifically advocated, but explain to me why this solution is any more radical than having a small percentage of the populace step up to pay more?
Its not, I was being sarcastic for the most part.

However, I believe the tax system has been screwed to the point its completely unjust from top to bottom of the income scale. I have always thought a flat tax or sales tax could solve the problem of who should pay more or less in taxes. But I don’t se this coming anytime soon.

Rhino
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 02:18 PM
So what you're saying is basically the government is living beyond its means. Spending more money than it is taking in.

So there are two things that can be done to solve this problem.
A. Spend less.
B. Take in more.

1. Increase taxes on everybody. We are all citizens of this country so we all must step up and pay more to solve it.

2. Doing away with things like social security. After all none of us will ever be able to retire anyway.

I like you're radical thinking Rhino.


Cutting the spending is key.

Social Security has been operating at a surplus for years. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, politicians abhor a surplus. It seems to cause them physical pain and they do anything to eliminate it. The excesses from SS have been "loaned out" to other programs with a promise of being returned when needed. Unfortunately, uncontrolled spending means that money is GONE. Now, just on the horizon is going to be the largest number of SS recipients as the first of the Baby Boomers reached retirement age recently. Now there is going to be more demand than supply and there is going to be less incoming. The missing money is now going to be added to the deficit.

I'm not sure what you qualify as "radical thinking". I like to think it's obvious thinking. I can't find it right now, but there is a youtube clip from Cspan right after the Bailout plan was passed. The representative took the stand and stated that unless the .gov sticks to what it is supposed to be doing (per article 8, section 1 of the constitution) that things like this will continue to happen. It fell on deaf ears as the rest of the them were patting each other's backs and comparing what pork funds they got.

I wish I knew how to do it. Heller vs. D.C. showed that we can challenge the .gov and win. How do you do it? How much does it cost? Do you think the ACLU would take my case if I said I wanted to sue the congress so they couldn't further fund welfare, medicare, foreign aid, etc. Build roads and declare war. Thats it.

Can I sue them for dereliction of duty re: immigration? They are charged with making the laws regarding it. They are also responsible for enforcement. Article 4, section 4 of the official rulebook:
Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem too hard that I could turn that into a case, right? Hell, it says right there that we HAVE to elect McCain, as it guarantees a Republican Form of Gov. :yay:

I'm sure that would save us a bit on our budget, not paying those entitlements.


We've lost control of our representatives. We've lost our system of checks and balances. It doesn't matter that we keep hiring the same people, its that we keep electing politicians. If you don't believe it, explain how the bailout bill plan passed with a 99 to 1 against vote from the people. It should be a representative cross-section of the populus, not a bunch of lawyers and liars. Get a teacher, a bus driver, an IT guy, a HVAC foreman. Someone who has to go home and face his neighbors instead of someone who got in just for the retirement benefits and what the lobbyists are offering and then go back to their gated community mansion.



Our reps shouldn't be worried about their jobs, they should be worried about their necks stretching as they hang from lampposts in the town square.



But... we don't care. We'll pick what we feel is the lesser of 2 evils....AGAIN. And in one way or another, they will each raise our costs of living while offering us less, whether it be tax increases on us, or cost increases because they taxed someone else.


As far as the healthcare issue. Mccain wants free market. O wants "I don't care what it costs, just that everyone has it". If you are an insurance provider how would you deal with that choice?



On one hand, you are in competition with 10 other companies to get and keep customers. You have to compete on price, but also quality and value. Go to http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm and see where it explains that you get the tax credit and the payments go directly to the ins. company. I don't know WTF o's camp is talking about with that being taxed. If I give you a $5k credit at the gas station, but when you fill up I send it to the gas station owner, you're still getting $5k in gas, right?



On the other, the .gov subsidizes the cost to the consumer AND makes it mandatory to employers. The ones that the .gov subsidizes have no reason to try to keep the cost reasonable. The employer has no reason to seek out quality, only most cost effective to them.




When I worked for other companies and they offered health insurance: In 2000, I worked for a company that offered 100%. I don't know what the actual cost was.
In 2001, a different company paid @ 80% and it was about $100/month ($20 to me). Then the rates skyrocketed. Same company changed carriers a few times. Ended up with me paying $160+ for insurance I never used.
2005, New company offered a choice between crap for $130 or slightly better than crap for $180/month.



Present Day. 31 non smoker, good health, self employed.... $36/month. Preventative care covered. Emergency room covered. All the usual benefits. BUT a $7500/yr deductible for things not covered. That beat the taxpayers paying if I'm uninsured and some fucktard pulls out in front of me when I'm on my bike. From my point of view, I don't need either candidates interference.


The problem with current health insurance is the cost. Not the cost of the insurance itself, the cost of medical services. At 19, I had my appendix out. In the door at 3 p.m. on the table by 6, overnight, discharged next evening. $14,000 (Did they replace it with a platinum plated bionic appendix?) How much have costs increased in 12 years? If I was paying $100/month, it would take 11.6 years for the ins. company to recoup that loss.



Now, how much did it cost when Spiderbob wrecked? (Feel free to chime in if someone knows) If I remember, he was in a coma for a few days. Airlifted? Surgery? Is the insurance company going to be able to stay in the black if he was only paying an "affordable" insurance premium? Then multiply that cost by the bikers and skaters and kids jumping off roofs on youtube. The one thing this country has a surplus of is people messing themselves up...well that and expensive medical treatment.


Meanwhile, I know a guy who has one of the biggest houses I've been in just East of Parker. New BMW's, new harley, new EVERYTHING. He sells blood diagnostic machines to hospitals. Sells them. Doesn't engineer them. Doesn't manufacture them. Doesn't repair them. Just sells. How many hospitals are out there? This guy is making millions from sales! How much does that figure goes into the development, building, repairing of them?


Until the actual cost of health care comes down, insurance is a moot point. Even if Americans are given the opportunity to have low premiums, the industry won't/can't survive, just like SS. More going out than coming in...until the .gov subsidizes it anyway and it gets passed back to the taxpayer.

Rhino
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 02:31 PM
That would require a better-trained work force, which means education. Everyone has a perfect opportunity to get a FREE education at a public school. Most choose not to take advantage of it. Can someone cite a specific example of how you were unable to achieve a quality education from a public school? The only challenge I see currently is that the funding is being split to teach classes in Spanish.
That would require better and more efficient transportation systems, which means infrastructure. Before the gas prices this summer, did you EVER see a full RTD bus? Anyone wanna comment on light rail?
That would require ways of powering everything from home to industry better, which means new sources of energy. As long as Ted Kennedy can't see it from his ocean front patio, right?
That would require a healthier work force, which means better heath care. Maybe the Dems can ban germs. At least the one's with "the shoulder thing that goes up"
Etc…


As far as furthering education...as I understand it, student loans are given at extremely low rates. For people to say "I just finished paying off my student loans" at 40 were more than likely taking ample advantage of the low rates vs. not being able to actually pay for it.

DFab
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 05:01 PM
"There can be no worthwhile praise of our economic system without detailed awareness of its pitfalls."

DFab
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 05:09 PM
I don't know WTF o's camp is talking about with that being taxed. If I give you a $5k credit at the gas station, but when you fill up I send it to the gas station owner, you're still getting $5k in gas, right?


Under McCain's plan, employer provided health insurance will be considered taxable income.

schwagman
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 06:09 PM
Remember, rich people are bad because they're not you. So let's tax 'em!
B Hussein Obama just increased the taxes of anyone making 41,000 or more a year in his home state of Illinois. So if you make 41,000 or more a year are you considered rich? He stated in the debates that if you make less than $250,000 a year that your taxes would not be raised. Did he lie? Duh!!! :banghead::scream1::drink:

Scribbler
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 06:20 PM
As far as furthering education...as I understand it, student loans are given at extremely low rates. For people to say "I just finished paying off my student loans" at 40 were more than likely taking ample advantage of the low rates vs. not being able to actually pay for it.

Actually no. Student loan rates at a Minimum of 10% apr applies to students who come from a family that can pay it off quickly. According to studies, students who have no financial backing, yet have grades to qualify for student loans average between 25k - 35k (for low end colleges) for four years at 15-16%apr, which puts them into debt at approx 15%apr per year, which equates to about 5k per year in interest. So to overcome that you'd have to pay approx 5.5k per year just to keep ahead of interest. Not every college grad comes out of college making enough money to pay off that much extra each year to pay that off. Especially with unemployment being at such a low. And at 5.5k per year that's about $750 per year paid off...so when you have 25-35k to owe...that can equate to a long haul.

Not sayin it CAN'T be done. But there are many many people who accrue student loan debt who don't jump immediately into an income that can afford 5k per year. Ask your average Low to Middle income college graduate who's workin paycheck to paycheck how easy it is to pay off 5k per year and a lot of them will probably boggle their eyes at you.

Rhino
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Under McCain's plan, employer provided health insurance will be considered taxable income.

http://www.johnmccain.com/content/default.aspx?guid=9b94f39b-1650-4a3a-89ef-fba8cba4c868

This is from from Mickey's website. It seems to be worded poorly. The idea of a "tax liability" in the left column... The key to this discussion is that every number in the right column is in the positive.


The Facts about the McCain-Palin Health Care Plan

Barack Obama And Joe Biden Have Consistently Lied To Americans About John McCain's Plan. Their claims have failed every fact-check – from CBS to the Washington Post. John McCain is not going to raise taxes on middle class families. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the only ones in this race that plan to raise taxes.

Transforming The Tax Code To Create Greater Equity: The McCain plan transforms the current tax code to provide all American families – including the self-employed and the uninsured – the same tax benefit, a $5,000 refundable tax credit ($2,500 for individuals) that was previously only available to those with employer coverage. Families can use this credit to purchase insurance of their choice, including keeping their current coverage. This is an approach supported by Barack Obama's own Senior Economic Advisor Jason Furman who wrote that "we could scrap the current deduction altogether and replace it with progressive tax credits that, together with other changes, would ensure that every American has affordable health insurance."

Better Than "Members of Congress": Under the McCain Plan, your employer can provide you with health insurance as good as a "Member of Congress", and you would pay no more in taxes – regardless of your tax bracket. In fact, you would have some additional money left over from the McCain tax credit to put in a health savings account.

On The Issue Of Congressional Plan – There Are Options, But All Are Under The FEHB Program: A good example is the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, which has combined monthly premiums for family coverage of $1027.95, for an annual cost of $12,335.40.

Income Tax Liability McCain-Palin Tax CreditTotal Tax Savings
10% Bracket (Up to $15,000) $1,200 ($12,000 x 10%) $5,000 +$3,800
15% Bracket ($15,650 - $63,700) $1,800 ($12,000 x 15%) $5,000 +$3,200
25% Bracket ($63,700 - $128,500) $3,000 ($12,000 x 25%) $5,000 +$2,000
28% Bracket ($128,500 - $195,850) $3,360 ($12,000 x 28%) $5,000 +$1,640
33% Bracket ($195,850 - $349,700) $3,960 ($12,000 x 33%) $5,000 +$1,040
35% Bracket ($349,700 and Over) $4,200 ($12,000 x 35%) $5,000 +$800

So, what I take from this: They "tax" you on that $12k. If you make less than $60k/year, that number is $1800 "tax". They give you a credit for $5k. They subtract the "tax" from your credit. You are left with a positive amount, $3200 in this case that YOU get to save in a flexible medical savings account. If they had coined it as a "Credit Deduction" there probably wouldn't be a whisper about it.


I'm only looking for insight here. I can understand O's appeal to...certain folks. But his rockstar image that has swept the middle and upper class makes no sense. I was hoping to gain insight in the last post from Vance, but there was the usual lack of substance.
I'm more right than left, but I don't follow the conservative mantra. I don't view Mc as a GREAT choice, rather the lesser of 2 evils choice. It just amazes me that in an age when so much information is at our fingertips, the level of ignorance has increased exponentially. "I heard Obama's a muslim" "Palin's baby Trig is really the daughter's" I understand the sensationalizm, but I sorely misjudged that adults on this board who not only earn enough to survive, but obviously do well enough to have toys like sportbikes wouldn't fall so easy for smoke and mirrors...or a "good speech".

Besides the fall of people's 401k in the last 2 weeks...(which I would blame on liberal lending policies) Can someone give me an example of how the "trickle down" didn't work for you? I just don't see how so many people are playing this victim card. Go to ANY intersection in the metro area. Tell me how long it takes you to count 10 cars that are older than 5 years old. (classics don't count) I sat in Gunther Toody's and watched the light at Arapahoe and Clinton and it took 4 light changes before I saw 1 older vehicle, and it was a tractor trailer.

Someone, Anyone tell me how you filled out a loan application honestly, and choose the 30 yr fixed rate on a house and now you're in trouble. It may be more common that I think, but I have yet to meet 1 person who did things right and are now in trouble. I spend a LOT of time with realtors, investors, landlords, etc. I know some who lost, but they were the ones who played the system and lost.

When interest rates are at "record" lows and you get an Adjustable Rate Loan which way do odds say it will go? And you saved what? .5% for the first year?

Someone tell me your story. I won't judge. I just think that most of this is people being told they are victims so they are seeking an "attacker" to blame. I think their is a phantom army of "victims of Bush's policies".

I live as debt free as possible. The idea of the national debt irritates me to no end. But if push comes to shove, who do we owe that money to? What happens if we tell China to suck it? I have not had any tax increase to pay for it(that I know of), and I'm sure most haven't either. They spend, they tax, they borrow, but they haven't slid anyone the check yet, just let you know they're running up the tab. What if we dine and dash?

Can someone explain it better? We've got engineers, nurses, computer techs, business owner's, and all other manner of college edumacated folks here. Please, share insight.

Rhino
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 07:14 PM
snip


I appreciate the correction.

My step brother, who spent many years in school, but was also doing extremely well made the comment that the student loans were all he had when he was looking at a home loan. He said the rates were so low that it didn't make sense to pay it off vs. keeping them. I thought he said it was 1%, but maybe I heard wrong or times have changed.

schwagman
Wed Oct 15th, 2008, 07:28 PM
Obama Binladen in with terrorist? He has done business with them.

MAZIN
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 05:57 AM
But come on guys I thought he would be the first US pres to read the Fed Budget as per his DNC speech (LMAO)

MAZIN
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 11:58 AM
Here ya go

TFOGGuys
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 12:59 PM
So what you're saying is basically the government is living beyond its means. Spending more money than it is taking in.

So there are two things that can be done to solve this problem.
A. Spend less.
B. Take in more.

1. Increase taxes on everybody. We are all citizens of this country so we all must step up and pay more to solve it.

2. Doing away with things like social security. After all none of us will ever be able to retire anyway.

I like you're radical thinking Rhino.

When an individual spends more than (s)he makes, it's called check kiting, and is punishable by civil and criminal law. When a government does the same, it's called "deficit spending". WTF? Perhaps our esteemed criminals....er...."representatives" in Washington should be required to take Accounting 101, and prove that they can count to 10 without having to take their shoes off before they are allowed to spend OUR money....:banghead:

R1chie
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 01:01 PM
The evil Rich?

My ears were burning so I had to drop in.

Seems like the polls say that most of the nation is for Obama.
Hmm that would make us an Obamanation. LOL

Just say Nobama. :)

R1chie
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 01:13 PM
That would require a better-trained work force, which means education.

You can go to any college you want, you just have to be motivated to want to do that, in America, people who want to do that do, and those who don't don't. That is the way it should be.

That would require better and more efficient transportation systems, which means infrastructure.

Transportation systems workink in large compact cities. I know it does no work in Colorado Springs. I see urban sprawl and empty buses.

That would require ways of powering everything from home to industry better, which means new sources of energy.

That would be nuclear power, but our liberal tree huggers don't want that even though we know it works in other countries.

That would require a healthier work force, which means better heath care.
Etc…

We have the best healthcare system in the world. Those who can afford it can use it. Those who choose not to go to school, get good jobs, work hard, don't get to use it. That is how the world works.

Without these basic structures in place no business will succeed in a global market.

Business can succeed with none of these. The problem is that there are people in 3rd world countries that are so poor they will work for a tenth or twentyth the amount an american will work for. Businesses cannot compete with that. That is why they are sending jobs over to those places so they can compete.

Everyone else on this board will have a different opinion on these topics.
However, I believe the tax system has been screwed to the point its completely unjust from top to bottom of the income scale. I have always thought a flat tax or sales tax could solve the problem of who should pay more or less in taxes. But I don’t se this coming anytime soon.

Federal income tax is unconstitutional. It should be removed. The Fed gov can go back to the way it was before the war. Using only tariffs on goods coming from abroad.

This will help the upper middle class but the poor and lower middle don't pay income tax anyway.

puckstr
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 02:57 PM
My ears were burning so I had to drop in.

Seems like the polls say that most of the nation is for Obama.
Hmm that would make us an Obamanation. LOL

Just say Nobama. :)


The polls also had John Kerry to beat GW Bush.

I hope the polls are wrong again.

Nick_Ninja
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 03:00 PM
The polls also had John Kerry to beat GW Bush.

I hope the polls are wrong again.

No way in hell.

Unless they do the standup thing and change the ticket.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/wp-content/assets/19/427/picture1.jpg

puckstr
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 03:01 PM
^^^^^

We shall see

JustSomeDude
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 05:36 PM
What you guys don't get, is that paying more taxes is not a penalty, it's it way of making our economy stronger so the middle and lower classes actually have money to spend on the products and services that others make and deliver.

Can't you see what the last eight years of tax cuts during a time of war have gotton us???? Sorry, trickle down economics does not work.

Obama is only talking about raising taxes on the rich 3%, or like it was during the Reagan and Clinton years.

Most rich people use all the tax loop holes and don't pay as much as you think anyways.

If you are making over 250k and you can't bare to help our country out of this mess you voted for you are some selfish bastards. Most of you dummies don't even make that much, and you are going to vote against your country and your own best interests once again. LOLOLOL

1.) 40% of the working population doesn't even pay taxes. Why should we TAKE money from the rich and GIVE it to them for FREE!?!?! Just so they can "buy more stuff and services" as you suggest?

2.) You say "trickle down economics does not work." Well, a hundred years, and the few dozen countries that gave socialism a try shows it's a total socio-economic disaster wherever it's been implemented. No, capitalism is not perfect, but it's the best system we have, faults and all. History has shown this to be true.

3.) You are right, most rich do use tax loopholes to keep as much of their money as they can. But with an ever GREATER marginal tax rate, you can be damn sure they will be working over time to pay even LESS taxes OR to KEEP MORE MONEY for themselves. That could mean less investment, small production runs, or decreased staff. That translates to less jobs, and higher costs to the average consumer.

4.) As for your final statement, you are correct - many of us probably don't make $250,000. But the fact is, many of us would like to. The incentive for hard work is success, which (in this country) translates to financial benefit. If you penalize success, or improve the quality of "failure", what would motivate anyone to better their current condition? Yes, we can all live in mediocrity equally, but that is no way to live.

Joe the Plumber... God Bless John McCain's unlikely savior:
http://www.yahoo.com/s/971720

PS: Gallup today - only a 2 point spread. Joe the Plumber saving the day!!!

Canuck
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 06:21 PM
"Joe the plumber" is not even a licensed plumber in the state of Ohio.

King Nothing
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 07:10 PM
And you're not a real canadian.

DFab
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 07:30 PM
PS: Gallup today - only a 2 point spread. Joe the Plumber saving the day!!!

This poll would matter if the election was decided by national popular vote. The electoral map is currently showing a blowout, possibly by 200+ electoral votes.

JustSomeDude
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 09:14 PM
This poll would matter if the election was decided by national popular vote. The electoral map is currently showing a blowout, possibly by 200+ electoral votes.

Polls schmolls... http://www.zombietime.com/lefts_big_blunder/

The only poll that matters is the one on Nov. 4th. The current data showing a "blowout" is based on "extended" likely voter models. Basically... the polling groups are going out of there way to count on the youth vote like never before. They are actually having to make an effort to show Obama up 3-5, which is pretty sad. We saw the same trend with Gore's "rock the youth vote" 2000 campaign... and, yes, Bush may have lost the popular vote, but he still won. Traditional polls are showing McCain either up, or in a statistical tie. Throw in Bradley effect and racism (which unfortunately exist), and some still consider a McCain landslide a very real possibility.

Remember... the youth are about as reliable on election days as my ability to get an erection in a gay bar. Sure, it could happen, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

JustSomeDude
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 09:26 PM
Some more to chew on from James Pethokoukis' article, "Did Barack 'Spread the Wealth' Obama Just Blow the Election?" (published today)


And after last night's debate, a few more Americans might think that way, too. McCain's best line: "Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around." And by the way, I just noticed that the IBD/TIPP poll, the most accurate in 2004, has McCain down by just 3 points. If the contest is perceived by the voters as a contest between a wealth redistributor and a wealth creator, then it could be a long night come Nov. 4. This is still a center-right country, gang. Note this Gallup poll from June:
When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly—by 84% to 13%—prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
There you go.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/16/did-barack-spread-the-wealth-obama-just-blow-the-election.html

R1chie
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 09:27 PM
Polls schmolls... Throw in Bradley effect and racism (which unfortunately exist), and some still consider a McCain landslide a very real possibility.

Remember... the youth are about as reliable on election days as my ability to get an erection in a gay bar. Sure, it could happen, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I do hope your right. It would be nice to have a hot chick as a vice president. Hey she is hot to us older guys.

R1chie
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 09:31 PM
No way in hell.

Unless they do the standup thing and change the ticket.


Who would have though Bush would have got a second term, with everyone hating him and everything. The liberal media makes you think the everyone on the planet hates Bush, thus you must hate McCain. I guess we will have to see if liberal biased media is wrong again or right this time.... I mean left.. I mean... well I don't know what I mean.

The Black Knight
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 09:55 PM
Who would have though Bush would have got a second term, with everyone hating him and everything. The liberal media makes you think the everyone on the planet hates Bush, thus you must hate McCain. I guess we will have to see if liberal biased media is wrong again or right this time.... I mean left.. I mean... well I don't know what I mean.

I really liked how McCain smacked Obama with the "I'm not George Bush.. and if you wanted to run against George Bush than you should have run back in 2004" blast. Oh that's right, back in 2004 he was hanging around and working with Bill Ayers.

schwagman
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 10:13 PM
I think Obama wants to spread our cheeks and distribute our wealth:shocked:

JustSomeDude
Thu Oct 16th, 2008, 11:46 PM
I do hope your right. It would be nice to have a hot chick as a vice president. Hey she is hot to us older guys.

Of course I'm right. The primary goal right now is just to not fall for the hype of the liberal media. Read that article I linked to up at the top of the page titled "The Left's Big Blunder." It's basically a scientific/sociological analysis of how we, as people, will say one thing in a group that we disagree with personally. It's an instinctive reaction for acceptance and to avoid being outcast from the group. Unfortunately, we as republicans have suffered from this effect because we've allowed the angry/obnoxious left to control the dialogue for far too long. We simple sit by as they spew their hype - never offering a counter punch. The media, and the Obama campaign, is taking advantage of this, and trying to beat the right into submission by inflating polls and Obama's popularity, so we won't even consider voting on November 4th. It's the, "Look, Obama can't lose, you'd be an idiot to vote for the other guy! HAHA!" DO NOT fall for it!

The fact that this guy is barely at 50% in an anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-Democratic year has the left scared shitless. They are using guerilla warfare (and voter fraud through ACORN) to try and drag Obama across the finish line. Keep your head up, keep the faith, and DO NOT BELIEVE THE HYPE. They are desperate for a win, and using desperate measures to keep us at bay.

CHIN UP pardner! :hump:

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 12:00 AM
Hey, I think I just found 700 billion dollars! Maybe we could get THESE guys to to Spread the Wealth Around.


JOHN McCAIN (R)
Merrill Lynch $298,413 Citigroup Inc $269,251 Morgan Stanley $233,272 Goldman Sachs $208,395 JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975 AT&T Inc $174,487 Blank Rome LLP $150,426 Credit Suisse Group $150,025 Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787 UBS AG $140,165 PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120 US Government $137,617 Bank of America $129,475 Wachovia Corp $122,846 Lehman Brothers $117,500 FedEx Corp $113,453 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250 US Army $103,613 Bear Stearns $99,300 Pinnacle West Capital $97,700 Source: OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424)
http://tuesdayshorse.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/arrow_whiterightredbg.gif TOP CONTRIBUTORS BY INDUSTRY (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=7&goButt2=Submit)
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Goldman Sachs $691,930 University of California $611,207 Citigroup Inc $448,599 JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919 Harvard University $435,769 Google Inc $420,174 UBS AG $404,750 National Amusements Inc $389,140 Microsoft Corp $377,235 Lehman Brothers $370,524 Sidley Austin LLP $350,302 Moveon.org $347,463 Skadden, Arps et al $340,264 Time Warner $338,527 Wilmerhale Llp $335,398 Morgan Stanley $318,070 Latham & Watkins $297,400 Jones Day $289,476 University of Chicago $278,885 Stanford University $276,038

...and I quote:

"We got politicians running races on corporate cash
Now don't tell me they don't turn around and kiss them peoples' ass
You may call me old-fashioned
but that don't fit my picture of a true democracy
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free

We got CEO's making two hundred times the workers' pay
but they'll fight like hell against raising the minimum wage
and If you don't like it, mister, they'll ship your job
to some third-world country 'cross the sea
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free"

I think the folk singer from Kansas got it right.
I wonder if Iris Dement hangs with Ron Paul.

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Hey, Looky here what I found! More bankers willing to help all the little people.

George W. Bush
Top donors to Bush's 2004 campaign, with Wall Street firms included:

Morgan Stanley $599,730
Merrill Lynch $569,204
PricewaterhouseCoopers $508,300
UBS Americas $456,525
Goldman Sachs $373,100
MBNA Corp. $351,000
Credit Suisse First Boston $329,290
Lehman Bros. $315,275
Citigroup Inc. $311,100
Bear Sterns $302,600
Ernest & Young $296,140

Wow! What a shock! I wonder if these folks can help us. Why, maybe if we ask real nice and all, they'll even be gracious enough to trickle down on us Uncle Jed!


Oh but WAIT! a minute Jethro. Don't be so selfish and all now. Why these here folks can't even hep them selves.



Why maybe we should just trickle up some of our earnins to them!


...seriously now people....


Explain how the trickle down theory (a.k.a. Voodoo Economics according to George H. W. Bush) is supposed to work when Congress, including McCain and Obama, just gave the people who are supposed to be "trickling" down on us OUR money just to stay afloat.



( ...Ron Paul save me...)

#1Townie
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 06:57 AM
im sure obama is going to win this year.. when he does and all you people who voted for him start to get screwd just shut your mouths.... all you people who vote for obama cuz you think one man can fix the world your the retards...

DFab
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 09:51 AM
and voter fraud through ACORN
There is a big difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. Voter registration fraud is being perpetrated upon ACORN by the shitheads they've hired to register people.

Nobody is going to show up to vote with these fraudulent registrations. It makes no sense, it wouldn't work. The number of people that would have to participate to throw the election makes vote fraud unworkable in this day and age. Just another conservative bogeyman.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html

Voter suppression on the other hand, is very real. And for the most part, it's conservatives that are engaging in it.

Shea
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 09:56 AM
There is a big difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. Voter registration fraud is being perpetrated upon ACORN by the shitheads they've hired to register people.

Nobody is going to show up to vote with these fraudulent registrations. It makes no sense, it wouldn't work. The number of people that would have to participate to throw the election makes vote fraud unworkable in this day and age. Just another conservative bogeyman.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html

If you have fraudulant registrations, they don't actually have to show up. You've already padded the eligible voter count and all you have to do is say they voted for Obama. Bam, stolen election...say in Ohio, by 200,000:

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-10-16-0033.html





Voter suppression on the other hand, is very real. And for the most part, it's conservatives that are engaging in it.

Source?

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 10:10 AM
The top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of all income tax. The top 10% pay about 70% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners (those making less than $31K) pay 3%.

Source : http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

Dirk
Dirk,

I pay about 50% in taxes by the time I get change at the store. I don't know about you but I'm getting screwed.

Snowman
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 10:15 AM
Hey, Looky here what I found! More bankers willing to help all the little people.

George W. Bush
Top donors to Bush's 2004 campaign, with Wall Street firms included:

Morgan Stanley $599,730
Merrill Lynch $569,204
PricewaterhouseCoopers $508,300
UBS Americas $456,525
Goldman Sachs $373,100
MBNA Corp. $351,000
Credit Suisse First Boston $329,290
Lehman Bros. $315,275
Citigroup Inc. $311,100
Bear Sterns $302,600
Ernest & Young $296,140

Wow! What a shock! I wonder if these folks can help us. Why, maybe if we ask real nice and all, they'll even be gracious enough to trickle down on us Uncle Jed!

( ...Ron Paul save me...)
Looks to me like these companies just made a 695.6 Billion return on their investment.

Nick_Ninja
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 10:19 AM
I have two questions.


What the hell is going on in Indiana
Why is Michigan voting Democrat. Well I'll answer my own question here. Because Detroit can't build a car worth selling on the open market --- that's why.

You do the math ..................

* Wisconsin -- 10 electoral votes --- Obama ahead by 17 points
* Virginia -- 13 electoral votes --- Obama a 10-point advantage
* Pennsylvania -- 21 electoral votes --- Obama up by 16 point
* Ohio -- 20 electoral votes --- Obama ahead by 5 points
* North Carolina -- 15 electoral votes --- Obama up by 2 points
* Nevada -- Five electoral votes --- Obama a 3-point lead
* New Mexico -- Five electoral votes --- Obama ahead by 8 points
* New Hampshire -- Four electoral votes --- Obama ahead by 6 points
* Missouri -- 11 electoral votes --- Obama ahead by 6 points
* Michigan -- 17 electoral votes --- Obama up by 16 points
* Indiana -- 11 electoral votes --- McCain leads by 7 points
* Florida -- 27 electoral votes --- Obama a 5-point edge
* Colorado -- Nine electoral votes --- Obama leads by 9 points

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 10:31 AM
"Joe the plumber" is not even a licensed plumber in the state of Ohio.Does he earn money in Ohio? If he does than I think that he has a right to complain about it being taken. He asked Obama a question that Obama didn't have his telepromter for and the left has decided to destroy him for it. I guess this is a sign of what we can expect from his presidency? You will tow the Obama line or be detroyed by the truth police.

puckstr
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 10:32 AM
Liberal media HYPE. Nov 4th we will ALL see what the outcome is.


also:
Originally Posted by Canuck http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/showthread.php?p=368734#post368734)
"Joe the plumber" is not even a licensed plumber in the state of Ohio.

If he can clear the shit clogged toilet, I could care less if he has a license.
Snake that nasty shit

Better him than me

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 10:54 AM
Liberal media HYPE. Nov 4th we will ALL see what the outcome is.


also:
Originally Posted by Canuck http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/showthread.php?p=368734#post368734)
"Joe the plumber" is not even a licensed plumber in the state of Ohio.

If he can clear the shit clogged toilet, I could care less if he has a license.
Snake that nasty shit

Better him than me+1

I think its ironic that the left is berating him for not having a license. Does Barry have any experience in the Executive branch of the government? He sure talks like he does.

puckstr
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 10:59 AM
Hey I have worked for this company for 6 years and I am due for the CEO position......

Hello
Hello

WTF do you mean I am not qualified?

Devaclis
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 11:12 AM
http://www.soreye.com/host/dancing_stars.jpg

MetaLord 9
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 11:14 AM
^^THAT explains McCain's faces after the debate! nObama's steal'n his girl!! :lol:

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 11:24 AM
Someone that spy's on me here will send this to my GF but I don't care.

Palin is hot!!! She photoshops so well.

The last pic I added just because its so f'n funny.:slappers:

JustSomeDude
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 11:54 AM
I think its ironic that the left is berating him for not having a license. D

I do not know about contract work, but I work for an engineering firm and do NOT have a PE (Professional Engineering) license for myself. Nor do I need one, so long as one person in the firm (who must be a principle) has one.

Mr. Joe Plumber has made it clear he WORKS for a company that does plumbing work, and that he is INTERESTED in buying it. I'm sure should he continue on that course he would need to pursue a license or "registration" before transfer of ownership is complete. But is a "registration" required simply to do plumbing work for a registered outfit? If I walked into Roto-Rooter and filled out a job application, would I be turned down if I didn't show my professional plumber's registration?

If it's anything like engineering, I would think not. I know many laborers on job sites who have dick registrations for hammers and saws, but they are hired to do plenty of work on the homes and office buildings we all live and work in.

Honestly, what's the gripe here?

:dunno:

Shea
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 11:57 AM
Honestly, what's the gripe here?

:dunno:

Thought it was pretty obvious...

"We don't like what he's saying. We don't want to discuss his points. Therefore we will bring up something completely irrelevant to distract you. Please carry on worshiping our savior."

This brought to you by the most enlightened, intelligent and caring party on the planet. Vote Democrat '08!

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 12:12 PM
Thought it was pretty obvious...

"We don't like what he's saying. We don't want to discuss his points. Therefore we will bring up something completely irrelevant to distract you. Please carry on worshiping our savior."

This brought to you by the most enlightened, intelligent and caring party on the planet. Vote Democrat '08!
+1
The nuclear option in the media is weapons of masses detraction.

dirkterrell
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 12:27 PM
Mr. Joe Plumber has made it clear he WORKS for a company that does plumbing work, and that he is INTERESTED in buying it. I'm sure should he continue on that course he would need to pursue a license or "registration" before transfer of ownership is complete. But is a "registration" required simply to do plumbing work for a registered outfit?

It depends on the jurisdiction but when I worked as a plumber for 3.5 years or so in college, it was not required. The only requirement was similar to your example about engineers, that there had to be a licensed master plumber at the business, presumably overseeing everything. I would bet that in areas dominated by labor unions, it would commonly be required.

Dirk

puckstr
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 12:28 PM
http://www.obamaformessiah.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/obama-messiah.jpghttp://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/obamasavior.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/jAMBAMAS/l_af9603e8c232833d4c43a0367031a605.gif

DFab
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 12:55 PM
If you have fraudulant registrations, they don't actually have to show up. You've already padded the eligible voter count and all you have to do is say they voted for Obama. Bam, stolen election...say in Ohio, by 200,000:

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-10-16-0033.html





Source?

How do fraudulent registrations get turned into votes without someone actually showing up or voting by mail or whatnot? Who is the person to say "all these eligible voters (that didn't actually vote) voted for Obama"? Wouldn't a recount pick up on that? Or is it done through the vote tabulation software? Or am I missing your point?

The bottom third of this article has quite a few links to examples of voter suppression:
http://www.slate.com/id/2202428/

As I understand it, these efforts fall into a few categories: misinformation, intimidation, removing eligible voters from the rolls, and not counting all the votes that have been cast.

King Nothing
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 01:53 PM
First, fraudulent voter registrations could/would turn into mail-in ballots for early voting. Vote early, vote often!

Slate is a radical left-wing publication and ANYTHING contained on that site should be taken with a bag of salt.

salsashark
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 02:21 PM
mmmmmmmmm saaaaalllllttttttt....

bikernoj
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 02:28 PM
Here's what I don't understand. Why is it fair to take away from those who produce results and give to those who sit on their butts??

And when I say results, I mean everyone from Donald Trump all the way down to the guy who works at McDonalds. If you get up everyday, with a clear objective in your mind of going to work and "EARNING" your paycheck then you are someone who produces results. You benefit society and you're an asset.

What I don't undestand is why is it o.k. to take money away from those who do produce and give to those who do not. It's my belief that just because Bill Gates has amassed his empire through Microsoft, doesn't mean myself or anyone else should be entitled to it. Just as I believe that everything I've worked for and gained is off limits to Bill Gates and everyone else. What he has is his.... and what I have is mine.... and what you have is yours....



How soon some of you have forgotten the Enrons and Joe Naccios of this country! I had a good job at US West for years before Naccio & Anschutz showed up and screwed us all.

The week before the "merger" Naccio was all smiles & promises, and told everyone with a straight face that life would be the same as it was before. The week after the hostile takeover, Naccio came back on and announced to the entire company that there would be no raises, no more bonuses, and that layoffs would begin immediately!

So every month for the next three years we all tried to work our butts off with the constant uncertainty of our continued employment. Three years of no Christmas because I didn't want to spend money we might need to live, only to be told on Dec 23 that we were safe for the quarter.

The workforce went from 72,000 employees to 47,000 within the first two years, and everyone was stressed sick about their workload, the constant political games management played, the increasingly disgusting level of backstabbing from coworkers, and the invisible threat of being "surplused" on any given day.

By the end of my tenure, people that could have retired at 30 years were laid off with only months to go, cutting their pensions in half. All so Naccio could screw the company by inflating stock prices! Forget what the media told you, the people who worked there (and had access to facility records) know what happened.

By the time Naccio left, he had made over $230 MILLION on stock sales, got $7M per year as salary, another $21M per year in stock options, and got a Golden Parachute as a "consultant" for another $10M per year for the next five years. Phil Anschutz made close to ONE BILLION DOLLARS (cue Dr. Evil) in the deal.

I worked my butt off and did a pretty damn good job, and I lost my career as a result of the same type of greedy corporate assholes you defend. In the end, Naccio was fined less than 10% of his "earnings" and got a slap on the wrist. That is what Republicans deem as FAIR, and it seems you believe that is the correct path to a stable economy.

I suppose you want to support Amendment 48 as well?

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Looks to me like these companies just made a 695.6 Billion return on their investment.


... those poor rich people are so put upon by us all ... after we reward them for screwing up, let's give'm a big 'ol gosh darned Amurican tax cut. Just to hep 'em all out temporarily. Why, I'm sure the bankers and the politicians they own won't just go off and keep all that money. Why, THAT's never happened before.

[/URL]
As the bailout figure starts to flucuate up or down, and politicians start throwing around numbers that differ by 0.1 billion (or trillion) consider this:

A million seconds is 12 days.
A billion seconds is 31 years.
A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.

[URL]http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Taxes/million.htm (http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts/)

DFab
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 02:54 PM
First, fraudulent voter registrations could/would turn into mail-in ballots for early voting. Vote early, vote often!

How exactly does this work? Are thousands of mail in ballots going to be sent to a few addresses? Or are hundreds of thousands of people each going to commit a felony to vote one extra time?

I go back to the point I made earlier; the scale at which this fraud needs to be committed makes it unworkable.



Slate is a radical left-wing publication and ANYTHING contained on that site should be taken with a bag of salt.Try addressing the content of the article, instead of the site it's posted on.

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 03:01 PM
I think Obama wants to spread our cheeks and distribute our wealth:shocked:

Don't look now, but I think your freudian slip is showing. :slappers:

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

Considering that regardless of who gets elected taxes will have to be raised, I think you can just blame Uncle Sam in general. He takes many forms. To Republicans He used to look like the consumate Southern Carpetbagger with dents in His shoes, a.k.a Old Scratch or Slick Willy.

To Democrats, He most recently took the form of a clueless Texas oil man.

When I see Uncle Sam, he often takes form in the shape of an I.R.S. auditor, usually on or about Halloween.

Snowman
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 03:10 PM
So goes Coiln Powell, so goes the nation...

Shea
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 03:48 PM
Don't look now, but I think your freudian slip is showing. :slappers:

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

Considering that regardless of who gets elected taxes will have to be raised, I think you can just blame Uncle Sam in general. He takes many forms. To Republicans He used to look like the consumate Southern Carpetbagger with dents in His shoes, a.k.a Old Scratch or Slick Willy.

To Democrats, He most recently took the form of a clueless Texas oil man.

When I see Uncle Sam, he often takes form in the shape of an I.R.S. auditor, usually on or about Halloween.

Is it just me or is the concept "cut taxes, cut spending AND balance the budget" so utterly foreign to people that it doesn't even enter the debate? It's either "cut taxes" from the right or "tax the crap out of those evil rich" from the left....

How about this...balance the fracking budget douchebags, then cut taxes (for everyone who pays them) and balance it again. Our country will implode if we don't make some tough choices in the next administration (and here's a free clue, niether McCain or his holiness has the huevos to make them).

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 04:42 PM
How soon some of you have forgotten the Enrons and Joe Naccios of this country! I had a good job at US West for years before Naccio & Anschutz showed up and screwed us all.

Enron learned their tricks from TCI (which later became Liberty Mutual). When I worked at CareerTrack in Boulder, "Jimmy and Jeff" sold the company to TCI and they both got well over $40 million a piece for a company they basically started in their basement. At this point, it's an American success story. Very Good. TCI pulls what is now considered to be a classic Enron move and starts to use the act of buying all these little companies to make their books look better than they really are. They get rid of our CEO and bring in Josh Clarin? spelling? from Texas, who also worked for a venture capital group and then turned around and sold the name and content of CareerTrack to our third place competition, Fred Pryor in Kansas City. They laid everybody off and parted out the Boulder Success story at the end of the caldusaq at Center Point Green, but only after we had turned the company around and were actually showing an approx. $3 million profit. :cry:

... and good buddy Josh? Well guess who the next CEO of Fred Pryor/CareerTrack, Inc. was?:music:



By the time Naccio left, he had made over $230 MILLION on stock sales, got $7M per year as salary, another $21M per year in stock options, and got a Golden Parachute as a "consultant" for another $10M per year for the next five years. Phil Anschutz made close to ONE BILLION DOLLARS (cue Dr. Evil) in the deal.

I worked my butt off and did a pretty damn good job, and I lost my career as a result of the same type of greedy corporate assholes you defend. In the end, Naccio was fined less than 10% of his "earnings" and got a slap on the wrist. That is what Republicans deem as FAIR, and it seems you believe that is the correct path to a stable economy.At STK, when CEO Pat Martin came to town, I survived 3 years of constant and on-going layoffs. All good things must come to an end but, while I would consider Pat Martin to be a better CEO than most?, these lay offs were going on while our stock price was doubling. Compare his salary with mine:

I was an MVS Tech IV making $19 an hour and after 3 years I was at $21.62x per hour and working all the overtime I could handle the whole time. The maximum raise one could theoretically get was 7%, and you would have to be one of the stepford wives to get that. Nobody ever got 7%. Everybody always got 2%-4%. I got 6% but, I was told that we were changing the way we did things, so I would not get my legendary 6% raise on my Nov. hire date. I would have to wait until April.:turtle:

When April rolled around I was told that during these times of austerity I would only get 1/2 now and the other 1/2 in July. So after doing a good job, I had worked 1/2 of one year with no 6% raise only to be told that I would get 1/2 now and the rest in July. In July I was told that my July raise was going to be about 1/2 of what I expected. In other words, I had to wait all that time just to get a 4% raise along with everybody else. It reminds me of the Dilbert Cartoon about Wally's "Future Raise" that was being heavily posted on cubicles everywhere at the time.:banghead:

Pat Martins salary was Googled online as being $346,000 if memory servers me well, and the bare minimum raise that he could get was 150% (not to mention the $4 million stock option thrown in for good measure.) ...and that's the bare minimum...:hump:

To STK's Disk Buisness Units credit we had a very senior 3rd level who refused to take his golden parachute as a matter of principal and resigned, and our New V.P. who came over from Seagate stood up for us until he was ultimately forced out by some :slappers: from France, as I recall.:(

So why are CEO's making so much money? It's called friends in high places. They've got'em, and we don't. That's why there should be transparency in Corporate America, and I would say that having a very senior 3rd level manager and the V.P. of the DBU going to bat for their employees, and being loyal to their people is admirable, but it is the exception in Corporate America, not the rule.

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Is it just me or is the concept "cut taxes, cut spending AND balance the budget" so utterly foreign to people that it doesn't even enter the debate? It's either "cut taxes" from the right or "tax the crap out of those evil rich" from the left....

How about this...balance the fracking budget douchebags, then cut taxes (for everyone who pays them) and balance it again. Our country will implode if we don't make some tough choices in the next administration (and here's a free clue, niether McCain or his holiness has the huevos to make them).

Well, you pretty much got that right. But I would say that, after seeing what Congress has done on both sides of the isle ( I cast my first vote in '81. ) that the reality of the situation is this: If people really believe that we have a two party system, then their choices are between electing Tax & Spend Democrats OR electing Tax & Spend Republicans.

Ultimately, increasing taxes has never been an incentive for Congress to reduce their spending.

The more they tax, the more they spend, no matter what.

Without having someone else to blame, Politicians don't have any plausible deniability, or the ability to defend their records, so they return home to their districts and say, "Yuh know, If it wasn't for my colleagues on the OTHER side of the isle, we could've passed some good legislation. But by GOLLY, if we just keep at it long enough, Why one day we'll vote those obstructionists out of office ... AND KEEP ALL OF OUR PROMISES! ...and then they go back to Washington and pat each other on the ass, and start running for office all over again. :drink:

...repeat and fade...

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 17th, 2008, 05:44 PM
I really liked how McCain smacked Obama with the "I'm not George Bush.. and if you wanted to run against George Bush than you should have run back in 2004" blast. Oh that's right, back in 2004 he was hanging around and working with Bill Ayers.

Obama was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote in a year where George Bush was re-elected, Dennis Hassert (Republican) was Speaker of the House, and Democrats in Congress actually lost 2 seats.

Why didn't John McCain run against Bush in 2004? He's a closet socialist anyway, and I'm sure most of the Republicans in Congress wouldn't put it past him.

I doubt that McCains little burst of emotion scored many points with undecided swing voters. Most people realise that Obama was successfully running "against Bush" in 2004 to begin with, or he would not have been elected to a minority Senate that year.

I would have liked to see the look on McCains face had Obama thought to actually say that to McCains face, but these are the kinds of things people think about on the way home after the debate.:)

I'd rather see Carl Rove debate James Carville. Then we'd really get down to brass tacks.

tripledigits
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 12:42 PM
What would McCain's negative campaign ads look like if:
>
>
>
> What if the Obama's had paraded five children across the stage,
> including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage
> daughter?
>
> What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
> What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating
> class?
>
> What if McCain had only married once and Obama was a divorcee?
>
> What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a
> severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his
> standards?
>
> What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair
> while he was still married?
>
> What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to
> pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable
> organization?
>
> What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
>
> What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating
> Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989,
> igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and
> Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)
>
> What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
>
> What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?
>
> What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included
> discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?
>
> What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many
> occasions, a serious anger management problem?
>
> What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?
>
> What if the Obama's had adopted a white child?
>
> You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected
> reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close
> as they are?
>
> This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
> positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities
> in another when there is a color difference.
>
> Educational Background:
>
> Barack Obama:
> Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization
> in International Relations.
> Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
>
> Joseph Biden:
> University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
> Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
>
> vs.
>
> John McCain:
> United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899
>
> Sarah Palin:
> Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester North Idaho College - 2
> semesters - general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters -
> journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester University of Idaho
> - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism Education isn't everything, but
> this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our
> standing in the world. You make the call.
>
>
>
>

vegasbound
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 02:58 PM
And if Mccains Daddy wasn't an Admiral he never would have gone to the Naval Academy or graduated for that matter. Sound like any other President?

TripleDigits you just owned this thread! Well done....

DanFZ1
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 04:11 PM
........pssssst!...hey!...

Has anyone seen "Joe the Plumber"?

No?

I think I know where to find him.

I think maybe he's here with his good 'Ol buddy John McCain and convicted Con man Rafaello Follieri in Montenegro on this Yacht.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames

^^^^^Feel the love boat.^^^^^

CYCLE_MONKEY
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 04:38 PM
And if Mccains Daddy wasn't an Admiral he never would have gone to the Naval Academy or graduated for that matter. Sound like any other President?

TripleDigits you just owned this thread! Well done....
When (if) Brakk No-Fucking-Bama ever serves his country like McCain did instead of serving himself, then you can talk about McCains Naval Academy experience.

Nick_Ninja
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 04:53 PM
When (if) Brakk No-Fucking-Bama ever serves his country like McCain did instead of serving himself, then you can talk about McCains Naval Academy experience.


McCain should be required to pay back to the tax payer the damage he caused the USS Forrestal. Oh ---- and the two other planes he wrecked. lousy pilot that history is well documented in portraying as someone who doesn't follow directions.


It was just about 10:50 a.m. (local time). The launch that was scheduled for a short time later was never made. Lt. Cmdr. John S. McCain III, later a prisoner of war in Vietnam and still later U.S. Senator from Arizona, said later he heard a "whooshy" sound then a "low-order explosion" in front of him. Suddenly, two A-4s ahead of his plane were engulfed in flaming jet fuel — JP-5 — spewed from them. A bomb dropped to the deck and rolled about six feet and came to rest in a pool of burning fuel.

DanFZ1
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 06:07 PM
McCain should be required to pay back to the tax payer the damage he caused the USS Forrestal.

I hate to piss in your corn flakes, but Sen. McCain was exonerated of the tragedy aboard the USS Forestal.

Since I wasn't there, I just decided to Google for it and I am just putting quotes around what follows:


"A Zuni rocket launched accidentally from an F-4 (Phantom), NOT an A-4, and it came from the opposite side of the flight deck compared to where McCain was sitting in his A-4 readying for take-off. McCain’s A-4 was not the plane involved either in launching the Zuni rocket or getting hit by the Zuni rocket, but he was very close to the conflagration and easily could have lost his life. Many did perish in the ensuing fires, but for anyone to assert that John McCain bore any responsibility is completely contrary to the findings of extensive investigations and witness reports."
“At 10:52 A.M. on July 29, the second launch was being readied when a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom parked on the starboard side of the flight deck aft of the island. The missile streaked across the deck into a 400 gallon belly fuel tank on a parked A-4D Skyhawk. The ruptured tank spew highly flammable JP-5 fuel onto the deck which ignited spreading flames over the flight deck under other fully loaded aircraft ready for launch. The ensuing fire caused ordinance to explode and other rockets to ignite. Spread by the wind, the flames engulfed the aft end of the stricken ship turning the flight deck into a blazing inferno.. Berthing spaces immediately below the flight deck became death traps for fifty men, while other crewmen were blown overboard by the explosion.”
http://www.forrestal.org/fidfacts/page13.htm


And then of course here is a different version of the story as well:


His plane was hit?His plane fired the rocket. This is a common danger in naval aviation, even today. There is so much high-power radar around, it can jump the ignition gap on a rocket motor, and start the motor.
There are electrical shunt clips that "safe" the motor, but they have to be removed before flight. Best practice is to then have the aircraft pointing to the side of the carrier, aimed at empty ocean. But once they start lining up for launching, your have some twitchy electrical circuits waiting for a stray electrical pulse, rather than the pilot pushing a button.
The rocket, a 2.75 FFAR, came from McCain's A-4, but it was shown to have been a freak accident, and he had nothing to do with it."


Sen. McCain is such a politically and morally corrupt individual, in so many ways, that it's hardly necessary to be critical of his combat experience.

If one wishes to point out his extremely low academic standing at the United States Naval Academy, or the fact that there were so many Generals and Admirals on stage at the DNC, etc., etc., then I would say that these are points that could legitimately be considered in defence of Obama.

Some of the Old Guard Republicans have lowered their opinions of McCain for "Wrapping himself in the Flag" as the campaign has worn on, but "Swift Boating" McCain, only creates the impression that you may not actually be a detached and objective third party observer in all of this Mr. Ninja.:)

It makes you look like your trying to win every corner (like Sete G. in 2005). Just keep the knee down and don't lose the front end. Obamma has already checked out like a combination between Mick Doohan and Valintino Rossi. I'm sure McCain would like to come from behind and make that last corner pass and Mug Obamma at the finish line, but there might be an "October Surprise" in store for hard-charging team McCain.

Instead of people going on and on about McCains actions aboard the USS Forestal, they should be looking a little more closely at his activities aboard The USS McCain-Follieri Love Boat.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames

It's amazing how a carpet bagger like John McCain can successfully portray him self as a "man of the people" when his private birthday? party seems to consist of Hollywood types and convicted con-men. Although, it dosen't look like much of a birthday celebration since his campaign manager seems to be there as well.

DavidofColorado
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 09:22 PM
I think they should make him President for the time that he spent in a POW camp and hope that he isn't still brainwashed with socialist ideas. Instead of Osama that is still very much a socialist but still denies it.

Paying back the American tax payer is about as retarded as asking him to send an appology letter to everyone who paid for that plane. Like Steve Martin did in "The Jerk" when he refunded everyone's money for the glasses thingy-widget.

The Black Knight
Sat Oct 18th, 2008, 10:49 PM
Here you go, just to stir the pot a little more. :)

You couldn't get a job at McDonald's and become
> district manager after 143 days of experience.
>
> You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143
> days of experience of being a surgeon.
>
> You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the
> superintendent after 143 days of experience.
>
> You couldn't join the military and become a
> general or admiral after a 143 days of experience.
>
> You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become
> the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
>
> BUT....
>
> From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a U.S.
> Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a
> Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of
> experience in the Senate. That's how many days the
> Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days
> of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be
> Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World......143 days.
>
> We all have to start somewhere, and the Senate is a
> good start; but, after 143 days, that's all it is -- a
> start.
>
> AND, strangely, a large sector of the American
> public is okay with this and they are campaigning for him.
> We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet
> some are okay with this for the President of the United
> States of America?
>
> Come on folks, we are not voting for the next
> "American Idol"!

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 12:33 AM
Obama served the state house of Illinois (population 12,831,970) for eight years.

Palin served the state house of Alaska (population 670,053) for slightly less than two years.

Let's stir the pot just a bit more and see what Sarah has accomplished during her short time in office.

"A bipartisan committee of Alaska legislators voted 12-0 on Friday to release a report stating that Gov. Sarah Palin violated state ethics law "by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/lawmakers-emerge-from-ses_n_133800.html)."
Here are the key findings, written by Stephen Branchflower, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel; the complete report is embedded below.

Finding One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39/52/110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that every public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."- Troopergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal): Fired Public Safety Officer who refused to fire her brother-in-law, then replaced him (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html) with man she knew to have committed sexual harrassment. UPDATE 9/4: She is also now accused of improperly accessing and disclosing (http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/04/1347737.aspx) the state trooper's personnel file, which could carry criminal charges

- Claimed she was against Bridge to Nowhere, was actually for it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-flip-flopped-on-inf_n_122843.html) (before she was against it)

- Claimed to have been an anti-corruption crusader, actually ran Ted Stevens' political action committee (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html?hpid=topnews) and made appearances with him even after he was accused of corruption.

- DairyGate (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/9330/95523/364/584429): Fired the entire Alaskan Agricultural Commission board, filled vacancies with cronies, kept failing state-owned dairy afloat with public subsidies (which may have been misappropriated), then allowed dairy to fail and ensured that remaining assets were acquired at steep discount by political ally.

- As mayor, fired local police chief (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5713866&page=1) who questioned her political contributions.

- Palin's 17 Year old daughter is pregnant (http://www.adn.com/palin/story/512560.html), but she personally slashed funding for teen pregnancy organization (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html) with a line-item veto despite a $5 billion Alaskan budget surplus (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/325207.html) due to rising oil prices.

- When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, it was the only town in Alaska that forced rape victims to pay for their own rape kits (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215898.php). The state was forced to pass a law preventing the practice.

- Palin attended convention for Alaskan Independence Party (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/another-aip-off.html), which is devoted to ensuring that Alaska secedes from the union. Addressed the party convention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI) this year. Founder of AIP said (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/aip_founder_professed_hatred_f.php): "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."

^^^^^^^^^^Does this sound vaguely familiar?^^^^^^^^^^

- Todd Palin was a registered member (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212499.php) of the Alaska Independence Party from 1995-2002

- Palin was in church (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html) when Jews For Jesus founder David Brickner described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

- Palin left Wasilla $20 million in debt (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html)

- Palin pressured a librarian (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html) to ban unspecified books and later fired her.

- Palin failed to disclose interest (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_scrubbing_car_wash.html) in Anchorage car wash; car wash later was involuntarily dissolved by state because they failed to pay licensing fees.

- Palin claimed to have been to Ireland but it was merely a re-feuling stopover (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palins_stopover.html?showall).

- Palin actually sued the US government (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2145097820080522) to block polar bears from being listed on a threatened species list.

- Palin claimed to have sold an Alaskan luxury private jet on E-Bay. In truth, the jet never sold on E-Bay (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-palin_planesep05,0,3470364.story) and had primarly been used to transport convicts. Alaska eventually sold it at a $300,000 loss to a Palin campaign contributor.

Not to belabour the point but ,why would anyone who seriously felt that the position of V.P. was important and necessary, pick Palin over Charlie Crist, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Marsha Blackburn or Rob Portman. I am still shaking my head in wonder over why he didn't at least consider Marsha Blackburn or Rob Portman.

It seems as though his pick for veep was an ill conceived media stunt which gave him a bump in the polls, but only temporarily and now if he wins he'll have a Veep he can't stand? for the next four years.

As a thought experiment, utter the phrase, "Sarah Palin will be the next Dick Cheney". ...!?!?!?!??!... Love him or hate him, President Cheney has the kind of resume you need when you've got a Vice President like George Bush in the Oval Office.

Sarah Palin is just one more example of someone that other people are going to have continually watch over and look after, but will Cheney be there to baby sit?

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 01:19 AM
> AND, strangely, a large sector of the American
> public is okay with this and they are campaigning for him.
> We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet
> some are okay with this for the President of the United
> States of America?
>
> Come on folks, we are not voting for the next
> "American Idol"!

If "we are not voting for the next American Idol" then why did McCain pick Palin in the first place?

I am continually amazed (not really) that nobody ever mentions the fact that McCain was the media darling back in 2000.

This quote is from National Public Radio:

"As a primary candidate that year, he was an even dearer media darling than Paul Tsongas in 1992, Bruce Babbitt in 1988 or Mo Udall in 1976 — the loved ones of earlier cycles. Seven years ago, seasoned campaign hands from big national news organs vied to ride shotgun on McCain's Straight Talk Express. They laughed aloud at his jokes and marveled at his flinty-eyed vision. In an era when candidates all seemed the products of consultants, more celluloid than human, John McCain seemed to be a sudden resurgence of the real.

No wonder he once referred to the press, half in jest, as "my base."

Some say McCain's rapid rise in reporters' esteem began in 1996, when he emerged as a major advocate for Bob Dole's presidential campaign. At that year's national GOP convention in San Diego, McCain was a polo-shirted fixture in the media hotel lobby, holding court at all hours. Gaggles of reporters stood around him, most not even taking notes. It was all about Dole, sure — but McCain was also dazzling on a personal level, an ocean-breeze-bearing candor and self-deprecating wit."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9533562

^^^link for above quote^^^

Now he pisses as moans about the fact that the spot light happens to be on somebody else. :rolleyes:

And of course now that ABC (owned by Disney) NBC (owned by Microsoft) and CBS ( owned by General Electric ) don't love him like they used-to-could, they somehow have magically become the "liberal" media. What were they when they were fawning all over him eight years ago?

Also, could someone please explain what Fred Thompson (actor) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (actor) and Ronald Reagan (actor) might be? "American Idols", right?

Oops, I think they did it again.
:horse:

DavidofColorado
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 01:41 AM
I thought we were talking about McCain and Osama? Why did Sara get in there? Should we sling mud at Biden being the ultra left pinko commie?

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 01:48 AM
> Sarah Palin:
> Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester North Idaho College - 2
> semesters - general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters -
> journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester University of Idaho
> - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism Education isn't everything, but
> this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our
> standing in the world. You make the call.
>
>
>
>

If your figures are right, then Sarah Palin took 9 semesters of college and only has a single bachelors degree to show for it.

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 02:14 AM
I thought we were talking about McCain and Osama? Why did Sara get in there? Should we sling mud at Biden being the ultra left pinko commie?

The thread does tend to wander a bit, but the Black Nights post deals with experience, or the lack thereof. So, in response to the "143 days" post, I am trying to point out that 1.) Palin would fail the same litmus test and 2.) I am trying to show how much trouble she has managed to get herself into, in a very short period of time.

I am not really anti Governor regarding Palin. It may seem that I am very anti Palin but I just tend to come across as ticked off when I type at people. (..on occasion, not always..) I do not think however, that John McCain chose wisely. This just comes across as more of a political stunt than anything. Take a look at the experienced women that McCain could've picked from my list of V.P.'s above. Google them. They are in bold letters.

...and you can sling mud at "Joe The Biden" all day long if you wish. It won't make a difference to the man from Scranton, PA. Unlike Palin who goes to anti-American rallies ( attended convention for Alaskan Independence Party (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/another-aip-off.html)) and belongs to a church that actually believes in witches? (Assembly of God splinter cell known as the 3rd Wave) Biden has actually been thoroughly interviewed, background checked, and has gone thru the very lengthy, thorough and normal process of being selected for V.P.

Sarah Palin still has a few more skeletons left to go before the closet is empty.

In one sense, this is still about John McCain. It's about his bizaare choice for V.P.

The Black Knight
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 07:46 AM
The thread does tend to wander a bit, but the Black Nights post deals with experience, or the lack thereof. So, in response to the "143 days" post, I am trying to point out that 1.) Palin would fail the same litmus test and 2.) I am trying to show how much trouble she has managed to get herself into, in a very short period of time.


This is the part that really kills me with you people. You hoot and holler about Palin's lack of this or that. Last time I checked she was "asked" to be VP, and wasn't seeking the actual Presidency. If I remember correctly it's McCain who is running for President and not Palin.

The blatant and resounding fact of the matter is, Obama is your #1 on the ticket and yes only has his "143" in the US senate. So it's perfectly fine to grill Obama about his experience because, he's the actual one seeking the oval office.

And if you really want to get technical about who's got the worse skeletons in the closet, look no further then your boy Obama.

1. associations with unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers from 99-2002, (Obama)actually got millions from the government in order to distribute the money to local schools for radical beliefs re-education.

2. association with ACORN, a extremely radical group, who goes around and threatens local banks and strongarms them into giving bad mortgage deals to people who can't pay them back. Not to mention the $800,000+ in monies Obama's campaign gave ACORN, in order to kickstart the register to vote in his state. Oh yeah, ACORN is under investigation for voter registration fraud in what 14 states now? Particularly in fact in all of the battleground states.

3. Reverend Wright, a racist man who loves to preach Goddamn American!! and it's the US-KKK-A. A man so focused on racism, spreads it on his very own. A man who spewed forth hatred and racism, whom also is in favor of the "black liberation" movment. And a man whom Obama sat in his church pues for over 20 years listening to his BS. But yet Obama "claims" he never heard anything like that...HAHA yeah o.k.

4. Louis Farrakahn, a known extremist muslim that is a huge supporter of Obama

5. Father Pfleger, HAHA where do I begin with this guy. A man so radical and so liberal(whom also has contributed money to Obama), that he has the audacity to stand out in front of a Chicago gun store, and threaten the owner inside with comments like, "we'll come in there and snuff you out"(paraphrased)

6. Obama's own wife saying that right now in American history she's finally proud to be an American. Are you kidding me? just because you're husband is running for President, now you're finally proud??

7. Not to mention his countless quotes from his books of where he's showing gross racism and truely outlining where his allegiances lie.


Look I realize you people have such a hard-on for Obama it hurts to walk. But don't slam the #2 on McCain's ticket with the experience card, without taking a gigantic look at the #1 on your own.

Like I've always said, you point the finger and you'll have 10 pointing right back at you.

DavidofColorado
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 11:34 AM
Well Osama sucks, McCain sucks and Biden really sucks. Palin I don't think sucks really.

Is there anything good about these people that would make them better than the other?

I will let you long winded typers field in this one...

JustSomeDude
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 12:40 PM
Well Osama sucks, McCain sucks and Biden really sucks. Palin I don't think sucks really.

Is there anything good about these people that would make them better than the other?

I will let you long winded typers field in this one...


I agree, there is nothing great about McCain. My vote for McCain is simply a vote against socialism, which Democrats have comfortably pushed as the base of their policy platform under Obama. McCain is no conservative by any means, but he's no socialist either.

Further reading: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html

Mac020
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 01:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWFeuTzGIIk&feature=dir

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 03:27 PM
Well Osama sucks, McCain sucks and Biden really sucks. Palin I don't think sucks really.

Is there anything good about these people that would make them better than the other?

I will let you long winded typers field in this one...

The short answer is Yes. Good can be found in every one.

A slightly longer answer would be, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Both candidates have been politically expediant in moving towards the center once they started feeling a little more pressure from the opinion polls than from their lobbyists. The lobbyists will be around long after the American people have ceased manning the watch towers and returned to their homes after the Nov. elections though.

Both candidates have voted along party lines, and perhaps both candidates have reached across the isle when they found lobbyists on the other side of the isle looking to buy infulence. After all, why let the other side have all the fun?

One thing to look at might be what the constitutional job description of the President actually consists of.

Help me with this people and add to it if I leave anything out.

1.) Veto legislation.
2.) Picks their own Cabinet Members.
3.) Nominates Supreme Court Justices.
4.) ...and I think there's something about the expanded War Powers Act.

Personally, I think the President has a lot more power and influence than that.

Of course there are more likeable chearleaders for both parties, but these people will still tow the party line, because once they are in office, who ever wins will owe many many campaign contributers, and will have many masters.

Since Democracy consists, in part, of not only demanding your rights, but even more importantly, demanding that people who might seem to be the complete opposite from you have their rights treated with the same level of decencey and respect; it might be a good idea to look at the candidates with all of that in mind. At that level, a polictician must stick up for the rights of everyone. Especially the people that didn't support that particular candidate.

I would give the edge to the proffessor of constitutional law in that regard.

As far as the economy goes, the Chairman of the Fed has all the power that most voters actually believe the President has.

And of course, the real political power still resides in the House of Congress, by design.

I still think that the Oval Office wields a great deal of influence.

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 04:32 PM
I agree, there is nothing great about McCain. My vote for McCain is simply a vote against socialism, which Democrats have comfortably pushed as the base of their policy platform under Obama. McCain is no conservative by any means, but he's no socialist either.

Further reading: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html

Apparently "Mark R. Levin who served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration" believes that John McCain, is in fact a socialist.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUzOGY0ODA1YzBmNjFhOWE5NWU0OTY5NTZiOGNhOGQ=

And this from the New American: Like Barack Obama, John McCain Is a Socialist (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/417)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/417

"The McCain website statement acknowledges: "It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit." That's an ominous warning, indeed, considering that the recently passed bailout bill just raised our national debt limit another $800 billion.

But if this is what McCain advocates, why do McCain supporters like the one in Waukesha, Wisconsin, see the Democrats, but not McCain and like-minded Republicans, as being socialists? Part of the problem may be wishful thinking — no matter how far Republicans move in the socialist direction, Democrats have been adept at advocating even more socialism — but part of the problem is also selective hearing on the part of McCain's conservative constituency. After all, neoconservative Republicans like McCain know how to package their message in a way that will make it sound appealing to conservative-minded Americans."

This is an interesting thread started by Navy91:

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=18&f=1717&t=3163018

Which includes this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081009/pl_polit ico/14414 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081009/pl_politico/14414)


And then of course there is always the opinion of "The Right Wing Nut House":

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/01/23/the-gop-comes-acourtin/

There's no telling how much pressure will be brought to bear by fellow Republicans if McCain wins in Nov., but what if Democrats hold on to the House?

Based on what I have been able to gather from reading your posts, I would say that the following links might be closer in political philosophy to what it is that you would want to see in a candidate regarding actual policy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
http://www.ronpaul.org/
http://www.ronpaul.com/

Of course Ron Paul doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in Hell of getting elected, but that only drives home the idea that the kind of fiscal reform you are looking for will not be forthcoming from the Republican party in the form of Sen. John McCain. I am still inclined to believe that we have a one party system; It's called Corporate America.

Politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) have a lot more in common ( $$$ ) than voters would like to admit.

As for me, I think it's time to vote the bums out and, quite honestly, that means voting ALL the bums out. We really do need to get rid of the usual suspects and, we need to get some new blood into the political system, and that just doesn't sound like John McCain.

JustSomeDude
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 06:56 PM
We really do need to get rid of the usual suspects and, we need to get some new blood into the political system, and that just doesn't sound like John McCain.

No it does not --- but it sure does sound a lot like Mrs. Sarah Palin.

:)

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 09:06 PM
No it does not --- but it sure does sound a lot like Mrs. Sarah Palin.

:)


Nice try. :hump:

Are you hoping for a heart attack? or something more along the lines of Watergate? from the Nixon era? :rolleyes:

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 10:06 PM
This is the part that really kills me with you people. You hoot and holler about Palin's lack of this or that. Last time I checked she was "asked" to be VP, and wasn't seeking the actual Presidency. If I remember correctly it's McCain who is running for President and not Palin.

The reason "the part that really kills me with you people" keeps getting brought up to begin with, is because Republicans have ceaselessly made the "cross comparison" of Presidential Candidate to Vice Presidential Candidate regarding Obama and Palins experience since the day she was nominated.


The blatant and resounding fact of the matter is, Obama is your #1 on the ticket and yes only has his "143" in the US senate. So it's perfectly fine to grill Obama about his experience because, he's the actual one seeking the oval office.
It is perfectly fine to grill Sen. Obama. Now examine the political ambitions of Gov. Palin and look at how she has conducted herself during her brief time in the arena. I am talking about the blatant abuse of 1.) power, 2.) favoritism and 3.) "Friends in High Places" approach to governing which have become the trademarks of her administration. Under the circumstances, I think it would be naive to think that Gov. Palin has no designs on the Oval Office when there is an endless amount of chatter going on amongst conservatives about how great it will be when she gets to be the first female president. Running as the Vice Presidential Candidate is not an act of altruism, although I wish that's the way things were done in Washington.


And if you really want to get technical about who's got the worse skeletons in the closet, look no further then your boy Obama.

1. associations with unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers from 99-2002, (Obama)actually got millions from the government in order to distribute the money to local schools for radical beliefs re-education.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164200/page/2



"ACORN and Vote Fraud

McCain made some dire claims about a liberal group he said was out to steal the election:

McCain: We need to know the full extent of Sen. Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.



It's true that the voter registration wing of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has run into trouble in several states. ACORN employees have been investigated and in some cases indicted for voter registration fraud. Most recently, more than 2,000 registrations in Lake County, Ind., have turned out to be falsified.



But does this constitute "destroying the fabric of democracy"? More like destroying the fabric of work ethic. There's been no evidence that the ACORN employees who submitted fraudulent forms have been paving the way for illegal voting. Rather, they're trying to get paid for doing no work.

, the Republican prosecuting attorney in , Wash., where the first ACORN case was prosecuted, said:



Satterberg: [A] joint federal and state investigation has determined that this scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting. Instead, the defendants cheated their employer. ... It was hardly a sophisticated plan: The defendants simply realized that making up names was easier than actually canvassing the streets looking for unregistered voters. ..."


2. association with ACORN, a extremely radical group, who goes around and threatens local banks and strongarms them into giving bad mortgage deals to people who can't pay them back. Not to mention the $800,000+ in monies Obama's campaign gave ACORN, in order to kickstart the register to vote in his state. Oh yeah, ACORN is under investigation for voter registration fraud in what 14 states now? Particularly in fact in all of the battleground states. "McCain claimed the liberal group ACORN "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history ... maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." In fact, a Republican prosecutor said of the biggest ACORN fraud case to date: "[T]his scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting." He said $8-an-hour workers turned in made-up voter registration forms rather than doing what ACORN paid them to do.


"From Crooks and Liars comes this photo of John McCain cavorting with his friends over at ACORN, the very same evil socialist ACORN that McCain now accuses of 'trying to steal' an election."



"Marc Ambinder reminds us: "It's important to know, as you watch this, that ACORN was, to Republican field operatives, a Dirty Word in 2006." Yet, "McCain had no trouble fraternizing with ACORN in 2006."



Ambinder has the video clip of McCain happily hanging with his friends at an ACORN rally."



http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/a_lifetime_ago_sen_john.php



Miami Dade College press release:

Miami, Florida - February 20, 2006 ― Leaders from a diverse array of sectors will hold a rally in Miami on Thursday, February 23, 2006, in support of comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to keep immigration reform at the forefront of the public debate. Leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, labor, business, and religious organizations will gather to call on Washington to enact workable reform.



The rally will feature Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the headline speaker along with elected officials, immigrants and key local and national leaders. Sen. McCain is one of the chief sponsors of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act; bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation introduced last Congress and scheduled for consideration by the Senate in the coming weeks. A similar rally with Sen. McCain is planned for New York City on February 27



The rally in Miami is being sponsored by the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC) in partnership with ACORN, Catholic Legal Services - Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia Vota en Acción, Service Employees International Union, and UNITE HERE."



Wow. Look at all those organizations trying to destroy the fabric of America. It's catholics, educators and Unions.

If we apply the same standard to both candidates, and If Sen. Obama is guilty by association, then it looks like Sen. McCain is guilty as well.




Oh yeah, ACORN is under investigation for voter registration fraud in what 14 states now? Particularly in fact in all of the battleground states.

Well of course in all of the battle ground states. And What?, no where else? Not in states that McCain will win? Only in the states were he hopes to profit? from throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks? The fact that he's only doing it where he thinks he's going to lose makes it look more like an act of desperation. Of course it never hurts to create hysteria among the voters before heading off on a fishing expedition in the middle of an election. God only knows how many allegations of fraud there will be on both sides before it is all over. It might even be as ugly as Miami in 2000.

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 10:47 PM
And if you really want to get technical about who's got the worse skeletons in the closet, look no further then your boy Obama.

3. Reverend Wright, a racist man who loves to preach Goddamn American!! and it's the US-KKK-A. A man so focused on racism, spreads it on his very own. A man who spewed forth hatred and racism, whom also is in favor of the "black liberation" movment. And a man whom Obama sat in his church pues for over 20 years listening to his BS. But yet Obama "claims" he never heard anything like that...HAHA yeah o.k.


Sen. Obama never spoke the words "God Damn America".

In fact, he did what most people would do. He told anybody who would actually listen that the views of Rev. Wright were not his own, and quit the church. It may be difficult to grasp for people who attend church every Sunday, but most of the people in the U.S. don't attend church regularly and don't pay that much attention when they do.

Now, the back ground noise is all about Obama's spotty record of church attendance over the years. (Shake the Wattles and Clutch the Pearls Grandma!) Spotty church attendance?! NOW YUH KNOW THAT AIN'T RIGHT. IT'S LEFT.

It's far more important to understand that someone who would embrace secular humanism is going to be far more likely to try and balance the wishes of everybody through compromise (like it or not), than to take the approach of benevolent totalitarianism, by listening to the view of any one particular subculture in our society (to the exclusion of all else), and then ramming it down the throats of the American People at the tax payers expense. That would be my definition of benevolent totalitarianism.



Now let's apply the same standard to the Republican ticket for office.



- Palin attended a convention for the Alaskan Independence Party, which is devoted to ensuring that Alaska secedes from the union and addressed the party convention this year? :shocked:

Founder of the AIP said: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."

^^^^^^^^^^Does this sound vaguely familiar?^^^^^^^^^^




And then of course there is the "Chickens coming home to roost" debacle:

"One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.”

He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan's terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News.

...and that's what he told the congregation.



He was quoting Peck as saying that America's foreign policy has put the nation in peril:



“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”



“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism."



“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism."



“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel."



“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers."



“We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock."



“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home."



“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.


Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day."



“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."



“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism."


And who said all of these horrible things? A leftist pinko commie? A Spiritual Advisor? or perhaps even Sen. Obama?


No. None of the above. It was Edward Peck.

...and here is the extremely qualified resume of Edward Peck:




Served in the US Army as a paratrooper. (and loves his country)



Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (U. Alexis Johnson), Nixon Administration, January 1971.[1][2]



Edward Peck served as Chief of Mission in Baghdad (Iraq 1977 to 1980) in the Carter Administration and later held senior posts in Washington and abroad.

He also served as a Foreign Service Officer in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, and as Ambassador in Mauritania.

At the State Department he served as Deputy Director of Covert Intelligence Programs, Director of the Office of Egyptian Affairs and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.

He served as deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan Administration.

Edward L. Peck is a retired career United States diplomat who served thirty-two-years in the U.S. Foreign Service (1956-1989).


So, not to put too fine a point on it, but a feeble attempt at character assination isn't going to work. The cheap "FEAR SELL" tactics can always be used effectively by both parties.

DanFZ1
Sun Oct 19th, 2008, 11:23 PM
And if you really want to get technical about who's got the worse skeletons in the closet, look no further then your boy Obama.

4. Louis Farrakahn, a known extremist muslim that is a huge supporter of Obama.


We could apply the same standard to the Republican ticket and say that the Kluless Klux Klan is in the tank for John McCain, but is that fair? John McCain has no control over who endorses him for President. So why be judged by who endorses who unless the candidates seek out said endorsement in the first place.

McCain however, insists on saying that Hamas endorses Barack Obama. That really is dirty politics. McCain is, at this point, playing handball against the curb. Put another way, John McCain is so low, he could limbo under a pregnant ant. It really shows what you can expect from John McCain.




5. Father Pfleger, HAHA where do I begin with this guy. A man so radical and so liberal(whom also has contributed money to Obama), that he has the audacity to stand out in front of a Chicago gun store, and threaten the owner inside with comments like, "we'll come in there and snuff you out"(paraphrased)

Once again, because of this perceived notion that religion should play a role in politics, yet another "Spiritual Advisor" bites the dust.

Now let's apply the same standard to John McCain.


"Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio -- whom Sen. John McCain hails as a spiritual adviser -- has suggested on several occasions that the U.S. government was complicit in facilitating black genocide."



"In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status."



"During his 2000 presidential bid, he (McCain) referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark."



Flip Flop.



"More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system."

After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement."



Surprising isn't it, that when John McCain screws the pooch and picks nut jobs for his political advisors .... excuse me ... did I say "political?" advisors. My friends, I meant to say "Spiritual" Advisors, the media decides not to beat the issue to death for weeks on end. It's also interesting to note that Pentecostal John McCain did NOT drop either of these nut-job T.V. preachers. He should have done what Obama did, but McCain still associates with the anti-american Palins and the anti-Catholic Televangelist Rev. John Hagee.




6. Obama's own wife saying that right now in American history she's finally proud to be an American. Are you kidding me? just because you're husband is running for President, now you're finally proud??

Now let's apply the same standard to Gov. Palin's spouse.



- Todd Palin was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party from 1995-2002. A party which happens to be so anti-government, that they cross the line and end up being anti-American because they think Alaska should succeed from the Union. Tell me something, now that Todd Palin is no longer a card carrying member of the AIP, do you think he's finally proud to be an American?




7. Not to mention his countless quotes from his books of where he's showing gross racism and truely outlining where his allegiances lie.

I can't wait to see you post his "countless" quotes showing gross racism which truly outline where his allegiances lie.

Do you think Sen. Obama became a Professor of Constitutional Law hoping to somehow fool the "man" and then spent 8 years in the State senate and 4 years in the Senate at the Federal level as part of some covert Muslim conspiracy? Do you expect people to believe that Sen. Obama is a "Manchurian Candidate" of some kind?




Look I realize you people have such a hard-on for Obama it hurts to walk. But don't slam the #2 on McCain's ticket with the experience card, without taking a gigantic look at the #1 on your own. I think somebody's got a hard-on for Sarah.:oops:




Like I've always said, you point the finger and you'll have 10 pointing right back at you.

The Black Knight
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Sen. Obama never spoke the words "God Damn America".
No he didn't, Rev. Wright did. However Obama still likes the man and holds in still high regard.

In fact, he did what most people would do. He told anybody who would actually listen that the views of Rev. Wright were not his own, and quit the church. It may be difficult to grasp for people who attend church every Sunday, but most of the people in the U.S. don't attend church regularly and don't pay that much attention when they do.

Only reason Obama renounced his former Reverend, was because it would benefit his campaign and bid for president. Of course if he wasn't running for president, he would still be hanging out in Rev. Wright's church. I mean please seriously?


- Palin attended a convention for the Alaskan Independence Party, which is devoted to ensuring that Alaska secedes from the union and addressed the party convention this year? :shocked:
Let me be upfront and honest. If a state wants to secede from the Union, I feel they have every right to. Just as I believed in what the Confederate States of America had a right to do, so do I believe that any state today has that same right. Granted the Confederates did it on a much larger scale, then say just Alaska leaving the Union. But if they really want to secede who are we to stop them? Because all it does is secure the Union??


Founder of the AIP said: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."
While I don't agree with the man, he does have every right to speak about secession from the Union. While I haven't looked up his reasons for hating the government(I don't care to), I'm sure he has his reasons, whether they be valid or trivial whose to say.

"Omitted all the quotes, to keep this short"


So, not to put too fine a point on it, but a feeble attempt at character assination isn't going to work. The cheap "FEAR SELL" tactics can always be used effectively by both parties.
I think attacks on character are pefectly fine, because we are having to dissect two candidates and basically interview them for the most important job of America. If someone has a shady past and is for all intentions and purposes running for President. Then by all means their life and background is fair game. If you don't want your dirty laundry done in public, here's an idea... Don't run for President... Pretty simple if you ask me.




We could apply the same standard to the Republican ticket and say that the Kluless Klux Klan is in the tank for John McCain, but is that fair? John McCain has no control over who endorses him for President. So why be judged by who endorses who unless the candidates seek out said endorsement in the first place.


Here's where I take issue. Regardless if the KKK do support McCain. He doesn't embrace them. Obama(no matter what you think or say) still embraces Rev. Wright and all that comes with him. His renounce of Rev. Wright was half-ass, and he only did it because of his bid for the White House. Like I say, had he not been running, he'd still be sitting there today in the pues, just eating up everything Rev. Wright has to say. Also of course the KKK is going to support a White candidate. You actually think they would support Obama??


"Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio -- whom Sen. John McCain hails as a spiritual adviser -- has suggested on several occasions that the U.S. government was complicit in facilitating black genocide."
Well he's entitled to that opinion, I've never heard him say that. Course I don't listen to much of anything that Parsley has to say.


"In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status."
If his church has been engaging in such activities then yes it is wrong. I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State. However, to turn the tables. If the Republicans have to live by it and Republican churches or pastors. Then also do Democrats have to live by the same standard.


Which means Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger can't openly preach sermons about Obama. And recommend that their own followers vote for Obama. Is there any doubt that Rev. Wright and Trinity aren't in the "tank" for Obama? Again where's this Separation of Church and State everyone is yelling about??


Oh I get it, it's only good for Democrats and their religious organizations to promote and tell their congregations to vote Democrat. But if Republican pastors do it, well then it's just messed up according to Liberals. You can't have one without the other. What's good for one side, has to be good for the other.


"More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system."
Can't blame him there, I don't hold the Roman Catholic Church in high regard either. I'm not saying Catholics(the people) are bad. However, the church as an entity is grotesquely not Christian.


- Todd Palin was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party from 1995-2002. A party which happens to be so anti-government, that they cross the line and end up being anti-American because they think Alaska should succeed from the Union. Tell me something, now that Todd Palin is no longer a card carrying member of the AIP, do you think he's finally proud to be an American?
I'm not sure, why don't you ask him. Obama's wife freely admits it and blames everyone else for it.


As far as him being a member of the AIP. If you're going to lambast him for being part of a seperatist or secession believing organization. Then you need to nail every American to the wall, that belongs to the United States Communist Party or Black Panthers or KKK or any other party of that nature. Hey what's good for one is good for all.


Again I don't know where you get secession is Anti-American. If anything it's a State exercising it's own "State's" rights. Do I believe Secession is necessarily a good thing? No, but if some state and it's voters all choose secession. Why should we stop them? Again I point back to the Civil War. It was the main driving factor in the North not wanting the South to secede. It had nothing to do with Slavery(although that was a big factor the North used against the South), but it boiled down to the North not wanting to let the South do was they wish.


Again, I believe secession should be reserved for the most dire of circumstances. However, my definition of "Dire" may be different than from those of the AIP. Yet in my opinion, secession is a valid state's right.


I can't wait to see you post his "countless" quotes showing gross racism which truly outline where his allegiances lie.
Ask and ye shall receive:


1. From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingrating myself to the whites."


2. From Dreams of My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."


3. From Dreams of My Father: "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And White."


4. From Dreams of My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."


5. From Dreams of My Father: "I never emulate white men and black men whose fathes didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attribues of Martin and Macolm, Dubois and Mandela."


6. From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Arabs(muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly directions."


Do you think Sen. Obama became a Professor of Constitutional Law hoping to somehow fool the "man" and then spent 8 years in the State senate and 4 years in the Senate at the Federal level as part of some covert Muslim conspiracy? uhhh yeah...


I think somebody's got a hard-on for Sarah.:oops:


Who wouldn't she's hot. :)

p.s.
I had to cut some of your post down and some of my replies down. So I didn't get to answer everything you mentioned. So don't think I just dodged it. I answered what I felt was important and needed an answer.

DanFZ1
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 05:34 PM
Who wouldn't she's hot. :)

p.s.
I had to cut some of your post down and some of my replies down. So I didn't get to answer everything you mentioned. So don't think I just dodged it. I answered what I felt was important and needed an answer.


That's fine Black Knight. It's good to see where you stand on the issues. You've doged nothing. Since I don't think the CSC is going to swing the election one way or the other, cutting lengthy posts down to size is fine.

My alterior motive here is show that people simply ape the responses fed to them by the media and that people do not apply the same standards to both candidates.

As far as your quotes of Obama: I think that if or when people actually read the books you have quoted from, they will come away with a different opinion of what those single sentence statements mean.

~Hail Good Fellow, and well met.

The Black Knight
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 06:20 PM
That's fine Black Knight. It's good to see where you stand on the issues. You've doged nothing. Since I don't think the CSC is going to swing the election one way or the other, cutting lengthy posts down to size is fine.

My alterior motive here is show that people simply ape the responses fed to them by the media and that people do not apply the same standards to both candidates.

As far as your quotes of Obama: I think that if or when people actually read the books you have quoted from, they will come away with a different opinion of what those single sentence statements mean.

~Hail Good Fellow, and well met.

Well that could be a matter of opinion of how someone forms their views about the books. One person could read it and completely agree or another could read them and be completely abhored. It's more or less perception and in this case the perception is negative.

The main point focused on, is the fact he said them(wrote them) in his books and it's seen as a definite bias towards the race issue. Whether or not race plays a part in the election is yet to be seen.

DavidofColorado
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 07:52 PM
It would read like a child book. Obama would feel that he has to dumb it down so much for common folk like you and me to understand that it would come off being as condescending as "My mama the Lama".

DanFZ1
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 08:13 PM
Well that could be a matter of opinion of how someone forms their views about the books. One person could read it and completely agree or another could read them and be completely abhored. It's more or less perception and in this case the perception is negative.

The main point focused on, is the fact he said them(wrote them) in his books and it's seen as a definite bias towards the race issue. Whether or not race plays a part in the election is yet to be seen.

The following are excerpts from this link:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/517/

"One quote stands out as totally false.


"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

We read the book, and thought this line sounded out of place. To be doubly sure, we purchased an electronic edition of the book via ebooks.com, and searched for the words solace, grievance or animosity. We were not able to find the sentence, or anything close to the sentence, in Obama's book.

The quote is actually lifted from an article in the American Conservative. Author Steve Sailer wrote a detailed analysis of Dreams from My Father, describing the narrator as "a humor-impaired Holden Caulfield whose preppie angst is fueled by racial regret" but also praising it as "an impressive book" with an "elegant, carefully wrought prose style."
The "grievance" quote comes from the following passage:

"In reality, Obama provides a disturbing test of the best-case scenario of whether America can indeed move beyond race. He inherited his father’s penetrating intelligence; was raised mostly by his loving liberal white grandparents in multiracial, laid-back Hawaii, where America’s normal race rules never applied; and received a superb private school education. And yet, at least through age 33 when he wrote Dreams from My Father, he found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his mother’s race."

But those are Sailer's words, not Obama's. It's an arguable point whether it's a fair characterization of the views expressed in Obama's book. The bottom line is an e-mailer somewhere took the sentence, rewrote it, and passed it off as Obama's words. For this reason, we rate this statement Pants on Fire!"

This is the link one click further in for the rest of quotes:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/10/dreams-my-father-quotes-require-context/

• From Dreams from My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." (Introduction, p. xv)

This quote, taken out of context, is part of a longer explanation of how people react to Obama when they discover he is biracial and grew up with a white mother.

"When people who don't know me well, black or white, discover my background (and usually it is a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the split-second adjustments they have to make, the searching of my eyes for some telltale sign. They no longer know who I am."

• From Dreams from My Father: "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white." (Page 142)

This truncated quote refers to Marty Kaufman, a community organizer who interviews Obama, a recent college graduate, and recruits him to work in Chicago. In this scene, Kaufman, who is white, has just explained to Obama that he needs to hire someone black to help organize the historically black churches of Chicago. The fuller quote:
"After he was gone, I took the long way home, along the East River promenade, and tried to figure out what to make of the man. He was smart, I decided. He seemed committed to his work. Still, there was something about him that me wary. A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white — he'd said himself that that was a problem."

• From Dreams from My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." (Page 101)

This quote is taken from a description of Obama's first year of college, when he self-consciously cultivated an identity of angry rebelliousness, a phase he grows out of. Here's the fuller quote:

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. ... But this strategy alone couldn't provide the distance I wanted … After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

• From Dreams from My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela ." (Page 220)

This quote is taken out of context from one of the most poignant passages of the book. Obama is now several years out of college and a community organizer living in Chicago. His half-sister Auma — his father's daughter from a previous marriage, who was raised in Kenya — has come to visit her brother for the first time. The two bond instantly, and in the conversations that follow, Auma tells Obama things about his father that he has never heard before. Auma tells how his father returned to Africa from the United States, and at first, he did well. But as the political situation in Kenya begins to change, so did the struggles of his father. He loses his job and his passport is revoked. He finally accepts a small job just to put food on the table for his new family. He begins to drink heavily and neglects his children. But he seems to be pulling himself together again when he gets into the car wreck that kills him.

Obama's idealized version of his father's life is shattered in a highly personal way. He reflects: "Yes, I'd seen weakness in other men — Gramps and his disappointments, (his stepfather) Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. ... Now, as I sat in the glow of a single light bulb, rocking slightly on a hard-backed chair, that image had suddenly vanished."

• From The Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." (Page 261)

The final quote of the e-mail comes from The Audacity of Hope. Obama talks about speaking in front of audiences of immigrants, and how he often tells them that they embody the American dream. But he wrote that when he speaks to audiences of Pakistani and Arab-Americans, their message to him has a more urgent quality.

"(T)he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of im

The Black Knight
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 08:52 PM
"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

The quote is actually lifted from an article in the American Conservative.
"In reality, Obama provides a disturbing test of the best-case scenario of whether America can indeed move beyond race. He inherited his father’s penetrating intelligence; was raised mostly by his loving liberal white grandparents in multiracial, laid-back Hawaii, where America’s normal race rules never applied; and received a superb private school education. And yet, at least through age 33 when he wrote Dreams from My Father, he found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his mother’s race."

Well the list of quotes I have are merely excerpts. Obviously people aren't going to repost them along with the other paragraphs that are on the same page. However, most quotes are taken from parts of paragraphs and so forth. However, I did find this exact thing you posted as well, while doing a google search. Seems as though this website is a bit Obama bias. But if they say he didn't say it and someone else did, fine I'll concede one.

But those are Sailer's words, not Obama's.

• From Dreams from My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." (Introduction, p. xv)

"When people who don't know me well, black or white, discover my background (and usually it is a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the split-second adjustments they have to make, the searching of my eyes for some telltale sign. They no longer know who I am."
O.k. fine a longer explanation. Lets dissect it further. What's the point of making such a statement about race and his mother? Was he in fact ashamed of his white roots and his mother's race? He's being very elusive about this comment. Obviously anyone with half a brain can tell he's mixed(black and white). So why did he feel the need to stop advertisting it, because it's written all over his face(figuratively speaking). It's as if he felt shameful to advertise his white heritage. If he loved his mother as much as he says he does, then why the deception and why not promote your roots.

I myself am mixed, White and Spanish. I've never once hidden the fact about my heritage or roots. When filling out a application or questionaire. I also check both White and Spanish, because that's what I am. So I find Obama's statement about his race a bit deceptive and elusive.

• From Dreams from My Father: "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white." (Page 142)

This truncated quote refers to Marty Kaufman, a community organizer who interviews Obama, a recent college graduate, and recruits him to work in Chicago. In this scene, Kaufman, who is white, has just explained to Obama that he needs to hire someone black to help organize the historically black churches of Chicago. The fuller quote:
"After he was gone, I took the long way home, along the East River promenade, and tried to figure out what to make of the man. He was smart, I decided. He seemed committed to his work. Still, there was something about him that me wary. A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white — he'd said himself that that was a problem."
Again speaking of race in a negative light. If Obama is so liberal and so accepting, then race shouldn't bother him. Granted I know the real truth that everyone with an ethnic background of other that White, has at some point in their life experience racial divide. But Obama seems to be severely focused on it and points it out to be derrogatory.

• From Dreams from My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names." (Page 101)

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. ... But this strategy alone couldn't provide the distance I wanted … After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
I think no more a "fuller" and damning statement that the one just posted. He alludes to this early associations, in particular one that struck me. "The Marxist professors", hmmm I suppose that would shed some light on his recent "spread the wealth around" comment.

Again towards the end of the quote we see another division of race. You can see his somewhat contempt for the "white radicals" that were "tolerated". For him being black, he felt he had to show his allegiance to the black masses. Doesn't sound like a man who can think for himself. He shouldn't be showing his allegiance to any kind of radicalism, only to the country in which he's seeking President. Again, I'm put off by Obama's blatant racially divisive comments.

• From Dreams from My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela ." (Page 220)

This quote is taken out of context from one of the most poignant passages of the book. Obama is now several years out of college and a community organizer living in Chicago. His half-sister Auma — his father's daughter from a previous marriage, who was raised in Kenya — has come to visit her brother for the first time. The two bond instantly, and in the conversations that follow, Auma tells Obama things about his father that he has never heard before. Auma tells how his father returned to Africa from the United States, and at first, he did well. But as the political situation in Kenya begins to change, so did the struggles of his father. He loses his job and his passport is revoked. He finally accepts a small job just to put food on the table for his new family. He begins to drink heavily and neglects his children. But he seems to be pulling himself together again when he gets into the car wreck that kills him.

Obama's idealized version of his father's life is shattered in a highly personal way. He reflects: "Yes, I'd seen weakness in other men — Gramps and his disappointments, (his stepfather) Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. ... Now, as I sat in the glow of a single light bulb, rocking slightly on a hard-backed chair, that image had suddenly vanished."
While this comment whether truncated or shown in full, does seem to add more deception. If Obama had little contact with his real dad. Yet his grandfather whom been so involved with his life and his stepfather in his life.

Why does Obama align himself with a man vastly unknown to him? It seems that he's always looking down on his DNA. Trying to harness one side of it and forget the other. At least that's how I see it.

• From The Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." (Page 261)

The final quote of the e-mail comes from The Audacity of Hope. Obama talks about speaking in front of audiences of immigrants, and how he often tells them that they embody the American dream. But he wrote that when he speaks to audiences of Pakistani and Arab-Americans, their message to him has a more urgent quality.

"(T)he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of im<--huh?
While I'll have to search to find it, I do have the actual quote buried somewhere. From what I do recall and it is for the most part verbatim. He does say that he will stand with the "Arabs" should the political winds shift. Now one might say, well he didn't say Muslims. But lets get real for a second. Who else would he be talking about? Christian Arabs? Atheist Arabs? No, I'd be willing to bet 9 out of 10 are straight up Muslim. So in essence the conclusion drawn from his comment is yes, should the political winds shift in a ugly direction he's going to back the Muslims.

I think that quote is rather self-explanatory and mroe or less something you just have to use a little thought behind. When one speaks of Arabs, one undoubtably speaks of Muslims or Islam.

:)

again, I had to cut down your quotes and my responses, I exceeded the 10000 character limit.

Shea
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 09:08 PM
In the immortal words of Dr. Johnny Fever, BOOGER!

DanFZ1
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 09:25 PM
:)

again, I had to cut down your quotes and my responses, I exceeded the 10000 character limit.


"(T)he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Obama doesn't mention Muslims. And the e-mail version suggests this is a declarative statement Obama is making, when actually it is what is being asked of him. That's why we concluded this statement was False."




I must have exceeded the limit as well, because not only did this last bit get cut off but my animated emoticon was also missing.

Do you see this one a lot? :vader:

The Black Knight
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Do I see the Vader emoticon alot? HAHA not really. Why do you ask? Are we locked in some epic battle to the death or what? HAHA!

DanFZ1
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 09:47 PM
Do I see the Vader emoticon alot? HAHA not really. Why do you ask? Are we locked in some epic battle to the death or what? HAHA!

No, I just thought it was a bit obvious, so I figured someone on this board must have done it already. Any time I think I coming up with something original, it's usually been done before.

:vader:

The Black Knight
Mon Oct 20th, 2008, 09:49 PM
actually I've used it before in discussions. I think it's a hilarious emoticon and it fits most of the time.

DavidofColorado
Tue Oct 21st, 2008, 06:45 AM
:)
I exceeded the 10000 character limit.

:slappers:

I am deeply offended by the leftists attempt to turn a vote against Barrack into something racist. WTF? Can't I vote for McCain because of his policys? And can't I vote against Barry because of his? How, in anyway, does that have to do with the color of his skin? I am voting against all of him too BTW, even the white half. What does that make me then?

Maybe he should turn his back on those that use the race card on his behalf just like he did with his reverand of 20 years.

Shea
Tue Oct 21st, 2008, 07:56 AM
:slappers:

I am deeply offended by the leftists attempt to turn a vote against Barrack into something racist. WTF? Can't I vote for McCain because of his policys? And can't I vote against Barry because of his? How, in anyway, does that have to do with the color of his skin? I am voting against all of him too BTW, even the white half. What does that make me then?

Maybe he should turn his back on those that use the race card on his behalf just like he did with his reverand of 20 years.

Obviously, a vote for Obama is intelligent, rational, enlightened, loving towards your fellow man, grounded in a firm understanding of history, economics and psychology. Further it shows that you have an open mind/heart and understand that paying taxes to redistribute your ill-gotten wealth is patriotic.

If you vote for McCain, however, you are racist, greedy, uncaring, cold, heartless, warmonger hamster-f**ker who will rot in a nondemoninational-nonreligious pain-based afterlife (probably vegan, I'll have to get my brochure). You fail to understand the nuance and brilliance of Obama and are just a hate-filled son of a bitch.

Of course if you're a Republican just move some words around and it works the other way as well...

puckstr
Tue Oct 21st, 2008, 08:27 AM
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g234/Andrightlyso/racecard.jpg

Has it come to this already?

DanFZ1
Tue Oct 21st, 2008, 05:27 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/N/2/obama-mccain-understand.jpg (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/N/2/obama-mccain-understand.jpg)
I found a funny a picture and posted it to a message forum. I am smart now and know all the the issues.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081009/pl_politico/14414

I think Sen. Obama does understand Sen. McCain all too well.

DavidofColorado
Tue Oct 21st, 2008, 05:54 PM
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7274/racecardyr0.jpg (http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=racecardyr0.jpg)
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/562/liberaldanceqf2.gif (http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=liberaldanceqf2.gif)
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3109/obama07eo7.jpg (http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obama07eo7.jpg)
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/4909/obamata4.jpg (http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamata4.jpg)
http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/6792/obamaflagny2.jpg (http://img93.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamaflagny2.jpg)

Oh we are going there alright!!!

DanFZ1
Tue Oct 21st, 2008, 08:57 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/F/2/mccain-gaffe-free.jpg (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/F/2/mccain-gaffe-free.jpg)

"Across this country this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners." <==Fruedian Slip?; " And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent." --Bethlehem, Penn., Oct. 8, 2008 (Watch video clip (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccainvideos/youtube/mccain-prisoner.htm))

"Not you, Tom." --to debate moderator Tom Brokaw, after being asked who he might name as Treasury Secretary in his administration, Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 7, 2008

"I have not had a chance to see it in writing, so I have to examine it.'" --on the Bush administration's Wall Street bailout plan, which was a three-page document that McCain said he received the day before, interview with WKYC in Cleveland, Sept. 23, 2008

"Sure. Technically, I don't know." --asked if the U.S. is in a recession, "60 Minutes" interview, Sept. 21, 2008

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president and, in my view, has betrayed the public's trust. If I were president today, I would fire him." --apparently unaware of the fact that the SEC chairman, as a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission, cannot be removed by the president, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Sept. 18, 2008

"Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States. ... I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region." --after being asked if he would invite Spanish President Jose Rodriguez Louis Zapatero to the White House, casting an ally of the U.S. as a potential enemy (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.htm) while simultaneously confusing Spain for a Latin American country (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218038.php), interview with Radio Caracol Miami, Sept. 17, 2008

"I also know, if I might remind you, that she is commander of the Alaska National Guard. In fact, you may know that on Sept. 11 a large contingent of the Alaska Guard deployed to Iraq and her son happened to be one of them. So I think she understands our national security challenges." --touting Sarah Palin's foreign policy credentials by confusing the Alaska National Guard with the U.S. Army (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/giant-gaffe-mccain-confus_b_127918.html), where Palin's son is currently serving, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sept. 17, 2008

"I understand the economy. I was chairman of the Commerce Committee that oversights every part of our economy." --ignoring the fact that it is actually the Senate Banking Committee which is responsible for credit, financial services, and housing -- the very areas currently in crisis, CNBC interview, Sept. 16, 2008

"[Sarah Palin] knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. ... And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia." --after being asked about Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience, interview with WCSH-6, Portland, OR, Sept. 12, 2008

"I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I've been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time." --explaining at an Oct. 2007 debate why Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are not qualified to be president

^^^Flip:scatter: Flop^^^

"She's a partner and a soul-mate." --on his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/ig/Sarah-Palin-Pictures/), whom he had met only once before offering her the job, "FOX News Sunday" interview, Aug. 31, 2008

"Could I just mention to you, Jay, that in a moment of seriousness I spent five and a half years in a prison cell. I didn't have a house, I didn't have a kitchen table, I didn't have a table, I didn't have a chair." --once again playing the POW card (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/21/mccain-camp-plays-pow-car_n_120428.html) to deflect a question from Jay Leno about how many houses he owns, "Tonight Show" interview, Aug. 25, 2008


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/F/2/mccain-gaffe-free.jpg (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/F/2/mccain-gaffe-free.jpg)

"I think -- I'll have my staff get to you. It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you." --after being asked how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own, interview with Politico, Las Cruces, N.M., Aug. 20, 2008

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/p/J/2/mccain-elitist.jpg (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/p/J/2/mccain-elitist.jpg)

Is that Joe the Plumber I see?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames

Nope, It's just a convicted con-man on the McCain-Follieri Love Boat.

John McCain: A desperate man for desperate times. :horse:
...and here we see John McCain beating a donkey with a stick.

DavidofColorado
Wed Oct 22nd, 2008, 05:50 AM
Yeah I hope to have 7 times more things when I am 72 then what I have now. It shows that my life wasn't completely wasted.

Cunnuck, what did you have a problem with? You can PM me if you want to? But if you think that silencing me because I don't share your change, hope, unicorn vision of the world you should find a better way to go about it then abusing your moderator privileges.

I can only guess at what you didn't like because you just said I was spreading hate a irrelevant stuff. That you just didn't like my hopes and dreams so you had to smash them. I think you should relax, pop in a copy of the Flinstones turn lights off and well do what comes naturally!

DavidofColorado
Wed Oct 22nd, 2008, 06:08 AM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/F/2/mccain-gaffe-free.jpg (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/F/2/mccain-gaffe-free.jpg)

"Across this country this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners." <==Fruedian Slip?; " And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent." --Bethlehem, Penn., Oct. 8, 2008 (Watch video clip (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccainvideos/youtube/mccain-prisoner.htm))

I feel like a prisoner sometimes whats the big deal? Besides didn't Frued only deal with sexual topics aside from psycho-analogies? e.g. 100k to find out you were pissed at your father and loved your mother.

"Not you, Tom." --to debate moderator Tom Brokaw, after being asked who he might name as Treasury Secretary in his administration, Nashville, Tenn., Oct. 7, 2008

Ha, he told him. What's the big deal?

"I have not had a chance to see it in writing, so I have to examine it.'" --on the Bush administration's Wall Street bailout plan, which was a three-page document that McCain said he received the day before, interview with WKYC in Cleveland, Sept. 23, 2008

Again what's the big deal here?

Are you just pointing out mistakes that he made for a reason? I think I see where the rest of this is going so I ask you this. If you hate McCain and refer to Sara Palin as "That Bitch" all this is good to further your hate for him. But you are aware that Uh-bama makes mistakes too, right? Although his are different slips about being Muslim and the 57 states of Musilmness. Does that mean that he is to old too?

DanFZ1
Wed Oct 22nd, 2008, 12:28 PM
Again what's the big deal here?

Are you just pointing out mistakes that he made for a reason? I think I see where the rest of this is going so I ask you this. If you hate McCain and refer to Sara Palin as "That Bitch" all this is good to further your hate for him. But you are aware that Uh-bama makes mistakes too, right? Although his are different slips about being Muslim and the 57 states of Musilmness. Does that mean that he is to old too?


my point

You simply do apply the same standard to both candidates.

DavidofColorado
Wed Oct 22nd, 2008, 01:35 PM
my point

You simply do apply the same standard to both candidates.

Oh Well then let me help you out here...

Endorsements you don’t want: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy... Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate... And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you—not financially to help him—we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.” —Joe Biden **It won’t be apparent because you won’t be right.

What about the law?: “I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.” —Barack Obama

Getting it exactly backwards: “John McCain has been a party to the most significant redistribution of wealth in American history and it has been all the wrong way... [McCain believes in] trickle down, government is bad, markets are right [economics].” —Joe Biden

Speaking of redistribution: “Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

From the Head Cheerleader: “One hundred percent Barack Obama is going to win! He’s going to be our next president and a great president at that. We’re all excited to work with him.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Thanks for clearing that up: “What I said, that indicted everybody, that’s not what I meant at all. What I mean is there’s still folks that have a problem voting for someone because they are black. This whole area, years ago, was really redneck.” —Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) “apologizing” for calling Western Pennsylvania racist **“I never said most of the things I said.” —Yogi Berra
INSIGHT

“[W]e must choose from among our guardians those men who, upon examination, seem most of all to believe throughout their lives that they must eagerly pursue what is advantageous to the city and be wholly unwilling to do the opposite.” —Socrates

“A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.” —Dwight D. Eisenhower
UPRIGHT

“[Joe] Biden’s erratic and gaffetastic behavior is the least of America’s worries. He’s worse than a blunderbuss. He’s an incurable narcissist with chronic diarrhea of the mouth. He’s a phony and a pretender who fashions himself a foreign policy expert, constitutional scholar and worldly wise man. He’s a man who can’t control his impulses. And he could be a heartbeat away.” —Michelle Malkin

“Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they’ve been tried in the world, yet die-hard socialists, such as William Ayers, still smarter than God, insist on cramming them down our throats in the name of ‘fairness.’ Unreconstructed radicals always say that true socialism hasn’t been given a real chance. Well, if Obama is elected, we may get that chance.” —David Limbaugh

“People who put faith in government to solve national or even individual problems are headed for deep disappointment, if it hasn’t already arrived. Still, that doesn’t stop politicians from attempting to sell political snake oil to the gullible. No one ever lost money betting on the ignorance of the uninformed masses.” —Cal Thomas

“[b]y ‘redistributing wealth,’ as Obama wants the government to do, he’s actually reducing overall wealth in the economy by taking away capital from those who can invest it efficiently in direct job creation. And the real irony is that if Obama is elected and succeeds in raising taxes on the top 5 percent, he’s likely to collect less tax, not more, if history is a guide.” —Linda Chavez

“It was the Republican Party that demolished the shining city on the hill my father built. It was the Republican Party that was 100 percent responsible for the end of the Reagan Revolution...[T]he Republican Party abandoned the trail leading to that shining city on the hill to become itself a quasi-Left-wing organization which looks at the Democrats’ welfare programs and says ‘me too’.” —Michael Reagan



EDITORIAL EXEGESIS

“What happened to the Democratic Party? Just a few generations ago, the party of Franklin Roosevelt went to bat for the little guy, the common man, the everyday Joe the plumber. Not anymore. Now, the wealthy elites who run the Democratic Party have declared war on working-class Americans while pretending to defend them against greedy and heartless Republicans. Those would be the same Republicans whose vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, doesn’t just talk about working-class people but actually embodies one and yet has been savaged by liberals. And those would be the same Republicans who have devised a tax plan that might just appeal to ‘Joe the Plumber’ Wurzelbacher, the Ohio resident who dared to confront Barack Obama over the unfairness of his tax plan. In a candid moment that could well lose him some votes, Obama acknowledged to Wurzelbacher that he intended, if elected president, to take the wealth of those making more than 250,000 per year and ‘spread it around’ to others making less. That wasn’t very smart, and the Obama campaign knows it. So they’re trying to change the subject by making Joe the Plumber the issue. They’re doing so, with a little help from their friends in the news media and labor unions, by digging into Joe’s background in search of something embarrassing... That will teach Joe to keep quiet. Let’s hope the country learns a lesson as well—about what the Democratic Party used to be and what it has become.” —San Diego Union Tribune

DavidofColorado
Wed Oct 22nd, 2008, 01:36 PM
DEZINFORMATSIA

Asking the tough questions: “People have called you ‘The Savior,’ ‘The Messiah,’ ‘The Messenger of Change.’ The expectations have been raised to such a level... If you are, as you just say, lucky enough to be elected the next president are you going to have to consciously manage expectations during the first several months of your administration?” —NBC’s Matt Lauer to Barack Obama

Talk about Looney Toons: “Sometimes I think I’m watching Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd here. You know Bugs Bunny is driving him crazy. He’s laughing, running away and Elmer just can’t keep, can’t keep, can’t get his eyes off the guy.” —Daffy Duck, er, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews likening Obama to Bugs Bunny and McCain to Elmer Fudd

Europeanness envy: “While we’re on the symbolism, let me remind you how many Europeans see U.S. voters—as a trigger-happy bunch with a Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other... Does either of you senators have any serious plans to reduce the number of guns available in the U.S. or even dare to suggest it? That really would impress the Europeans, that you stand for change.” —CNN European political editor Robin Oakley to Obama and McCain

Good thing the rest of the world can’t vote here: “[P]olls show the image of the U.S. has improved slightly this year simply because President Bush is leaving. And, that if the world had a vote, Barack Obama would win in a landslide. Regardless of who wins, the world is clamoring for a new America in 2009.” —NBC’s Dawna Friesen

And it’s called “redistribution”: “Obama’s tax cuts only go to people who work, so by definition, it’s not welfare. Some working people eligible for Obama’s tax cut make so little, they do not pay income taxes. But they do pay payroll taxes and other taxes.” ABC’s Jake Tapper
Newspulper Headlines: We Blame Global Warming, or Not: “Alaska Glaciers Grew This Year, Thanks to Colder Weather” —Anchorage Daily News “Federal Report: Arctic Getting Warmer and Warmer” —FoxNews.com

Finally, Some Good Economic News!: “Baby Boomer Deaths Could Fuel Funeral Industry” —Associated Press

They’re Always in the Last Place You Look: “Obama, McCain Camps Look for Florida Votes in Israel” —Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)

They’re Trying to Disenfranchise Aliens!: “GOP to Continue Efforts to Shut Down Satellite Voting Centers” —Times (Munster, IN)

Help Wanted: “Hunt Under Way in Chicago for Creepy Clown Who Stalks Children” —FoxNews.com

News You Can Use: “Shortage of Money Could Cost Us Millions” —Indianapolis Star

Bottom Stories of the Day: “Albright Says Obama Is Presidential” —Las Vegas Sun (Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)
VILLAGE IDIOTS

More endorsements: “I have some concerns about the direction that the [Republican] party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it... I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration.” —former Republican Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama **Too far to the right? What party is he talking about?

From the Glitterati: “Until the Republican Convention, very few had ever heard of Sarah Palin... and now this mean-spirited campaigner is asking who is Barack Obama? I’m asking who is Sarah Palin?” —who is Barbra Streisand?

More tripe from Hollywood: “I don’t think Sarah [Palin] would understand the picture... It has a lot of complicated dialogue. George Bush is an intellectual compared to her... It’s very fair. It’s based on a lot of research. It was not done with malice.” —director Oliver Stone on his movie “W”, insisting that the movie is NOT an attack on President Bush “It isn’t Bush bashing, but it should be. He will have a long and healthy life and hopefully spend most of it in depositions. Hopefully, history will be unforgiving.” —actor Richard Dreyfuss, who portrays Dick Cheney in the movie “W”



SHORT CUTS

“Even in this room full of proud Manhattan Democrats, I can’t shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me. I’m delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary!” —John McCain at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner Thursday night

“This must be the first time in Western civilization that being a plumber was considered too ‘high brow’ to represent the vox populi... Then again, with all the political sewage in Washington, maybe more plumbers are just what our nation’s capital needs.” —Elisabeth Meinecke

“Colin Powell is in the news, of course, because he endorsed Barack Obama. Wonder how John McCain feels about Colin Powell endorsing Obama? He is probably all right with it. Men his age are used to having colon problems.” —Conan O’Brien

“Washington, DC, was named in a health survey as having the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases of any city in the United States. Blame it on the Wall Street bailout plan. You can’t screw that many taxpayers and not catch something.” —Argus Hamilton

Jay Leno: If you watched the debate [Wednesday] night, you know John McCain kept talking about this guy Senator Obama met on the campaign trail named Joe the Plumber. Do you know the saddest part about the Joe the plumber story? Last month, he was an investment banker. ... Are you buying this whole Joe the plumber thing? McCain said he’s worried about Joe the plumber’s income. His income? Anybody here ever gotten a bill from a plumber and go, “Well, this is way too low. Put a few more zeros. Put something down there for yourself.” ... A married congressman from Florida, Tim Mahoney, is under investigation for paying $125,000 to his mistress to keep her quiet. Well, that worked out well. Well, listen, yesterday it was reported he was having a second affair at the same time. What kind of sleazeball cheats on his mistress? ... And in a statement with his wife standing next to him—only in politics do the wives stand next to you when you do this kind of stuff—Mahoney said this is a private matter. The most important thing to him now is his wife. Well, that’s got to make her feel special. Of all the women he’s sleeping with, she’s number one. ... This week, President Bush announced a $250 billion—everything’s billions now, millions don’t even count, have you noticed that? Millions is like chump change—plan for the government, to directly buy shares of the nation’s leading banks, to make sure they’re run properly. Because one thing we know is the people who gave us a $9-trillion debt, they know how to handle money.

DanFZ1
Wed Oct 22nd, 2008, 03:25 PM
I am not sure if the typo in my post is confusing. I was trying to type "You simply do not apply the same standards to both candidates."

As far as "endorsements you don't want" goes, all that seems to be negative? is that you don't like the actual people? themselves? What your quoting them as saying doesn't seem to be anything that a candidate would distance themselves from.

Under DEZINFORMATSIA? are you trying to make the point that the entire media is in the tank for Obama? As I have already pointed out, the media used to love John McCain. Now that they have found themselves "another", McHypocrite cries Foul!

The editorial EXEGESIS fails to provide any kind of comparison and contrast from a historical point of view, but William F. Buckley Jr. (Republican) started the National Review partly because he felt that it was the "Well Fed Right" who had the same problems attributed to the Democrats in the article you quote. Back in the 1950's, it was Republicans like WFB that were considered the radicals.

R.I.P. W.F.B.

His son Christopher (Republican), who was the editor after his father died, recently quit the National Review, and now endorses Sen. Obama. Considering his place in history as both a writer (satireist), editor of Forbes Life Magazine for 15 years, and also as a prominent Republican within the party, I think it is quite telling that someone with an inside track as to what is really happening regarding Repubilcan politics over the last eight years, actually cites the last eight years as a prime example as to why the party needs reform. From what he has seen first hand, he obviously believes that the Republican party does not have the ability to reform its self from within. Christopher Buckley is still a Republican though. He's not changing parties. He does however have a concsience that will not let him turn away from the damage that the extreme right has done to the GOP (Grand Old Party).

wankel7
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 10:27 AM
So, I was thinking about Obama's windfall tax on the oil companies. He wants to take their money and spread the wealth around when they are making money.

What happens when their profits drop?

Is Obama going to want the tax payers to give the oil companies money to help them through these tough times?

Shea
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 10:34 AM
So, I was thinking about Obama's windfall tax on the oil companies. He wants to take their money and spread the wealth around when they are making money.

What happens when their profits drop?

Is Obama going to want the tax payers to give the oil companies money to help them through these tough times?

Of course the brilliant minds in the Obama economic team fail to understand that corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do. Taxes are just another cost of doing business (just like raw materials, labor, transportation) and they get passed on to the end user.

And to answer your question directly, of course not. In the Democrats world, corporations are evil, bloated things that take advantage of people and use them to make PROFIT <shutter>. If they all fail it just opens the door for them to control more of the economy (case in point, the recent bailout package).

DavidofColorado
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 12:07 PM
They have already seen what we are forced to pay for gas. Those prices will become permanent. The taxes will be passed onto the consumer just like cigarettes. You will have to pay or quit. And in the case of gasoline that is just fine with them since they are doing it for the environment.:crazy:

dchd1130
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 12:12 PM
If they all fail it just opens the door for them to control more of the economy (case in point, the recent bailout package).

Im sure someone will jump all over that because the cowboy signed off on it, but I would like to point out that it is still a democratic plan. I think Bush is trying to make people like him better by leaning to the left. Instead of sticking to his conservative morals.

Shea
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 12:33 PM
Instead of sticking to his conservative morals.

I honestly don't believe he really had any...

dchd1130
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 12:41 PM
I honestly don't believe he really had any...

Apparently not, along with just about every other politician out there. right or left. Its funny that no one liked the bill until it had a bunch hand outs included. Then it was Ok. Then the markets tanked anyway. Every time one of these idiots opens their mouths it gets worse.

rforsythe
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 12:59 PM
.

Nick_Ninja
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 01:33 PM
I honestly don't believe he really had any...

Probably the only statement from you that we both will ever agree on. :up:

CYCLE_MONKEY
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 03:06 PM
Man, I was worried there. I was so busy with the other crazy sh!t in my life I didn't register, but I called Larimer county and they said it was no biggie, just go down and vote, that I was in the system under an old address. So, I'm gonna go vote for McCain/Palin tonight.......45 times or so....:)

Nick_Ninja
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 03:09 PM
Man, I was worried there. I was so busy with the other crazy sh!t in my life I didn't register, but I called Larimer county and they said it was no biggie, just go down and vote, that I was in the system under an old address. So, I'm gonna go vote for McCain/Palin tonight.......45 times or so....:)

You are a sick individual Frank.

CYCLE_MONKEY
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 03:12 PM
You are a sick individual Frank.
Why.....YES!!, yes I am.....:)

Nick_Ninja
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 03:17 PM
I already canceled your vote out. I'm glad it was your vote that my vote trumped ------- and not this beeeatch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwjlUMoLVvA

dapper
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 03:46 PM
That was interesting...

The pond must have been out of fish for this dude to hook her and keep her.

Shea
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:17 PM
Probably the only statement from you that we both will ever agree on. :up:

Just shows how ignorant and misinformed you actually are. But you're from Boulder, 'nuff said.

Nick_Ninja
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:19 PM
Just shows how ignorant and misinformed you actually are. But you're from Boulder, 'nuff said.

Ignorant ---- if you say so. :roll:

Shea
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:35 PM
Ignorant ---- if you say so. :roll:

Just waiting for the hate-filled threats and promises of harm to prove how more enlightened, moral and caring you are then we conservatives. Or do I need to tell you I believe in a higher power to get you to vomit your child-like insults in my direction?

Big-J
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:44 PM
Just waiting for the hate-filled threats and promises of harm to prove how more enlightened, moral and caring you are then we conservatives. Or do I need to tell you I believe in a higher power to get you to vomit your child-like insults in my direction?

I don't think I read one post in this thread by Jeff where he did anything that you mention above, on the other hand I can see numerous post by conservatives with child-like insults and what not towards the "left".

Shea
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:58 PM
I don't think I read one post in this thread by Jeff where he did anything that you mention above, on the other hand I can see numerous post by conservatives with child-like insults and what not towards the "left".

As I said Jeremy, I'm waiting for it.

CYCLE_MONKEY
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:34 PM
I already canceled your vote out. I'm glad it was your vote that my vote trumped ------- and not this beeeatch:

Crap! Then I'm just gonna have to vote again a couple times!:)

DavidofColorado
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:42 PM
Crap! Then I'm just gonna have to vote again a couple times!:)

Acorn been by your house too?

They were so nice they offered to fill out most of my votes and mail them in for me. Even offered me a cabinet position in Nobama's administration if I kept my mouth shut about it.

Nick_Ninja
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:50 PM
As I said Jeremy, I'm waiting for it.

Shea,

You're not worth the sweat off my asshole to communicate in the fashion you depict.

DanFZ1
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 08:39 PM
So, I was thinking about Obama's windfall tax on the oil companies. He wants to take their money and spread the wealth around when they are making money.

What happens when their profits drop?

"Is Obama going to want the tax payers to give the oil companies money to help them through these tough times?

Maybe if Obama needs help figuring out what to do, he can just ask Gov. Sarah Palin.

"Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

^hit the jump^

As far as "what happens when their profits drop", I think it might help to understand that our government taxes all commodities. Oil, potatoes, pork bellies, wheat, corn, sugar, you name it. It all gets traded on the various mercantile exchanges, and it all makes a profit, and the price of all of it fluctuates, and it all gets taxed.

Suggested reading: Rigged, by Ben Mezrich, describes how oil is traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

It would be difficult to understand what sets the price of oil without understanding the merc.

DanFZ1
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 08:51 PM
Of course the brilliant minds in the Obama economic team fail to understand that corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do. Taxes are just another cost of doing business (just like raw materials, labor, transportation) and they get passed on to the end user.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-18-econteams_N.htm

"All are deficit hawks likely to give Obama "fiscally conservative" advice, says Leon Panetta, who was Clinton's chief of staff and budget director. Volcker and Rubin also are veterans of major financial crises: Volcker is hailed for ending the double-digit inflation of the 1970s, Rubin for preventing the Mexican government from defaulting on its debts in the 1990s."

The full article is more informative (for both candidates).


And to answer your question directly, of course not. In the Democrats world, corporations are evil, bloated things that take advantage of people and use them to make PROFIT <shutter>. If they all fail it just opens the door for them to control more of the economy (case in point, the recent bailout package).

"Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...askatax07.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html)

Rhino
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 10:06 PM
How about this...

Since most of you probably work for someone else/corporation, go in tomorrow and talk to the accountant or HR or whoever.

Ask them how the Obama tax/healthcare plan would affect your company.

If they say "We would have to cut X number of people", get everyone together and put faces to those numbers.

(you might need a mirror)

DanFZ1
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 10:22 PM
How about this...

Since most of you probably work for someone else/corporation, go in tomorrow and talk to the accountant or HR or whoever.

Ask them how the Obama tax/healthcare plan would affect your company.

If they say "We would have to cut X number of people", get everyone together and put faces to those numbers.

(you might need a mirror)

Quote from the Wall Street Journal:

"Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain propose to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html


You are suggesting that people vote in their own self-interest and, I agree.
:alien:

Rhino
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:01 PM
You are suggesting that people vote in their own self-interest and, I agree.
:alien:


Isn't that what everyone usually votes for? Let me channel NN for a moment....I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR INTERESTS!!! Yup...that about sums it up.

I'm suggesting people look past the media and what both side feel is fit to post on a motorcycle forum.

Go to YOUR BOSS and ask how it will affect YOU. Most people are looking at the dollar signs of the "tax cuts" and not seeing that it might mean "income cut".


This greedy short-sightedness would be amusing if it wasn't so detrimental. If you think the good times just go on forever and "the rich" can shoulder everything, look out your front door. The state of Colorado is reeling from loss of tax income. Hiring freezes, wage freezes. City of Aurora went from taking in 14 million to 8 million due to the loss of new construction taxes/fees. Either services are lost, or they will tax the money from somewhere else. The municipalities base most everything on property tax. When property values went up, so did taxes, budgets, and spending. Now that home prices are crashing...

Airlines couldn't raise their prices effectively to combat the price of fuel. Now they're cutting services, flights, employees, etc. What happens when the big evil companies can't raise rates to combat an 11.5% tax increase? Layoffs? Benefit cuts? And the ones that do will simply pass it on to the consumer. Remember the 80's? When plane tickets were $600+? Now, if you can't get 5 people to Antarctica for $60 on Priceline, the airlines are "screwing you".

I'm sure you'll have a link about how higher unemployment creates more productive employees...or something.

MikeG
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:08 PM
Three main reasons I did not vote for Obama:
1. He can talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk. He makes statements of bi-partisanship, tax cuts, etc. but yet his seante voting record shows nothing to back up these statements.

2. The majority of the American media is basically running his campaign for him. If he were to get elected, it would esentially add up to the president of the United States becoming elected by the MEDIA, not the people. The media has shifted all the focus on Sara Palin, and would never touch Obama with a six foot pole with ANY of the questions they've put on her.

3. Obama's tax plan will put small business owners out of business. His tax on capital gains will cause many to pull out on their stocks before he takes office in order to avoid paying significant tax on said earnings. After putting small business owners out on the street the largest companies will be hurting from so many pulling out on their stocks, Obama's administration will buy those companies out and the government will own them. He will then take this money and "spread the wealth" by redistributing it to the lower class, effectively turning the United States of America into a socialist country.

dapper
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:16 PM
I have the preliminary results for who the next president of the united states will be. I had to pump the information out of a cute green-eyed girl and it was thy pleasure.



The next president of U.S. of American is...

















a Senator.:)

MikeG
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:27 PM
"All are deficit hawks likely to give Obama "fiscally conservative" advice, says Leon Panetta, who was Clinton's chief of staff and budget director. Volcker and Rubin also are veterans of major financial crises: Volcker is hailed for ending the double-digit inflation of the 1970s, Rubin for preventing the Mexican government from defaulting on its debts in the 1990s."



Very true, and it was also an excellent political move that left the Republican party kinda helpless. It showed that he could reach to the other side and essentially cut of the right wing. Hate to say it, but it was a brilliant political strategy on Clinton's behalf and worked wonders for the deficit.

Scribbler
Thu Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:35 PM
This greedy short-sightedness would be amusing if it wasn't so detrimental. If you think the good times just go on forever and "the rich" can shoulder everything, look out your front door. The state of Colorado is reeling from loss of tax income. Hiring freezes, wage freezes.
Where are you getting this data from? Last I recall (only 2 or 3 months ago), the State of Colorado has been abuzz over all the different organizations (especially the environmental orgs) seething and chompin at the bit trying to get their hands on a cut of the substantial surplus Colorado currently has on tax income. Also one of the reasons DPS had an easy time negotiating a better Compensation Package and Spending Budget.

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 12:10 AM
Isn't that what everyone usually votes for? Let me channel NN for a moment....I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR INTERESTS!!! Yup...that about sums it up.

I'm suggesting people look past the media and what both side feel is fit to post on a motorcycle forum.

Go to YOUR BOSS and ask how it will affect YOU. Most people are looking at the dollar signs of the "tax cuts" and not seeing that it might mean "income cut".


This greedy short-sightedness would be amusing if it wasn't so detrimental. If you think the good times just go on forever and "the rich" can shoulder everything, look out your front door. The state of Colorado is reeling from loss of tax income. Hiring freezes, wage freezes. City of Aurora went from taking in 14 million to 8 million due to the loss of new construction taxes/fees. Either services are lost, or they will tax the money from somewhere else. The municipalities base most everything on property tax. When property values went up, so did taxes, budgets, and spending. Now that home prices are crashing...

Airlines couldn't raise their prices effectively to combat the price of fuel. Now they're cutting services, flights, employees, etc. What happens when the big evil companies can't raise rates to combat an 11.5% tax increase? Layoffs? Benefit cuts? And the ones that do will simply pass it on to the consumer. Remember the 80's? When plane tickets were $600+? Now, if you can't get 5 people to Antarctica for $60 on Priceline, the airlines are "screwing you".

I'm sure you'll have a link about how higher unemployment creates more productive employees...or something.

Channeling Nick_Ninja must be quite a trip ...

...anyway,

I agree that people get a hard-on for tax cuts that are often fleeting, when in fact, they could give themselves a tax cut by holding on to their money and, letting it earn interest for as long as possible, instead of getting a so called "refund" at the end of the year.

I also agree that people should vote in their own self-interest. Maybe I should say "in their own BEST" interest. For instance, Bush Vetoed the U.S. Farm bill twice in 8 years. With help from the Democrats it was over-ridden this last time around. But there is not one farmer in my township that will ever cross party lines, no matter what. Even though they all hate the oil industry and know that W. is a "Texas Oil Man", they will only vote Republican no matter what.

I'm not sure I get the part about "higher unemployment creates more productive employees". That sounds like something the "please trickle down on me" Republicans would come up with. So I have no link for you.

It has been estimated that unemployment will be somewhere between 7% - 8% by the time the next President of the United States is actually sworn in. I really don't see how anyone will be able to blame the President for that, regardless of who it is. The question is whether or not the next President can help solve all of these current problems which they will have inherited from the previous administration. Regardless of what new direction they may wish to take this country in, they will have to clean up and reform the current mess. For government to reform anything, that's going to mean regulation. If a government solution is required, obviously that's going to mean putting new laws on the books to prevent this from happening again, and that means having accountability, and that's what regulating financial markets is all about to begin with.

As you mentioned above, this is one of the very things tax dollars are needed for, unfortunately. And yes, I think it would be short sighted to get fed a few crumbs off the table in the form a minuscule tax refund and try to convince my self that I had just won the lotto, than it would be to realize that "Big Government" got even bigger under W. even WITHOUT regulation.

We should at least be able to afford to police our own financial institutions so that we don't have to have a $700 billion dollar bailout for rich bankers and Wall Street firms who are supposedly going to trickle something down on us someday. Funny how it's all trickling up instead of down at the moment though, huh?.

Rhino
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 08:10 AM
Where are you getting this data from? Last I recall (only 2 or 3 months ago), the State of Colorado has been abuzz over all the different organizations (especially the environmental orgs) seething and chompin at the bit trying to get their hands on a cut of the substantial surplus Colorado currently has on tax income. Also one of the reasons DPS had an easy time negotiating a better Compensation Package and Spending Budget.

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/articles/2008/10/23/news/metro_aurora/doc490000fc710e1921382549.txt

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=350497

I usually have the news on in the background. Ritter was on recently and said the words "loss of revenue" and "hiring freezes". When the "credit freeze" hit a month ago, I started looking at my options. There was a job at the CU medical center in Aurora (state job). Filing date was 2 weeks away. Suddenly, poof, no more job. I guess maintaining the systems isn't a "necessary" job. Its a .gov job, so they have to have a pool. No one just walked in and got the job.


Dan: I deal with people from all manner of industries. Politics are coming up more and more. Several people have made the comment that at their workplace, the bosses have gotten everyone together and said "Just so YOU understand, IF O's plan goes through, there will have to be cuts to the roster".

That was my only intention. Don't listen to the news, the campaign ads, the pretty internet graphs, or DanFZ1 & Rhino. Go ask the guy who signs your check.

On the short-sighted side, I don't think I'll be affected either way. I don't make enough to be taxed more and I can immediately pass on cost increases. ...but... I have a gut feeling that "the top 5%" isn't going to be the end of it. What if O lets the Bush tax cuts expire? Those making 27-65k will have rates go from 15% back to 28%. O didn't give you a tax hike, just let the last cut expire. Does that change the fact you'll be paying more?

As far as trickle up/down/sideways... I've tried to make it simple. If costs go up at the top, it will be passed on to the consumer. I'll let you decide where you are in that process.

As far as "We should at least be able to afford..." We should be able to afford a lot of things. Government waste, corruption, and greed causes a major loss of our ability to afford things. At the end of the day, we haven't changed who's in congress so things won't change. We just picked a new Oz while the same man behind the curtain pulls the levers.

Welcome to Rome v2.0

ETA: This election more than any other has shown me one thing. "No taxation without representation" is a good battlecry. But "No representation without taxation" is going to become necessary for our survival. The amount of people who currently don't pay ANYTHING into the system who are voting for their own goodie bag, regardless of where the money is coming from is overwhelming. We're already standing in the bottom of a hole and the majority is screaming "DIG UP!!!" It can't work.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong. The U.S. failing doesn't benefit me one bit. 10 years from now, if things are better, I'll buy everyone a beer and eat my crow.

puckstr
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 08:58 AM
Health care reform? Another Red Herring like Gun Control and Roe vs Wade.

This country is run by pharmaceutical companies and they are not about to let up on there profit laden cash cows.

Why do you think the politicians are against Stem-cell research? Faith? God?
That is bullshit. It is ALL about money.

The bottom line is "There is NO MONEY in a CURE!!!"

Keep the sick coming back for treatments and keep the cost high, with no Government controls.

Snowman
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 09:03 AM
And you wonder why the US has the most advanced and expensive health system on the planet and we are 27th in life expectancy (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/sort.php).

puckstr
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 09:06 AM
And you wonder why the US has the most advanced and expensive health system on the planet and we are 27th in life expectancy (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/sort.php).


I don't wonder.

DFab
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 09:58 AM
Several people have made the comment that at their workplace, the bosses have gotten everyone together and said "Just so YOU understand, IF O's plan goes through, there will have to be cuts to the roster".

Go ask the guy who signs your check.

My bosses are assholes. Maybe these bosses you mention are trying to browbeat their employees into voting republican; it has happened before. Mine sent a company wide email a few weeks ago trying to pin the blame for the current economic crisis to Fannie/Freddie, the Dems, and poor minorities.


Why do you think the politicians are against Stem-cell research? Faith? God?
That is bullshit. It is ALL about money.


I disagree. It seems to me that for the most part, dems are pro stem cell research. The opposition comes almost entirely from the conservative side.

puckstr
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 10:10 AM
I disagree. It seems to me that for the most part, dems are pro stem cell research. The opposition comes almost entirely from the conservative side.

Dems or GOP... They are not going to change ANYTHING concerning Stem Cells.
The Drug companies are the politicians "Sugar Daddies".

t_jolt
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 02:04 PM
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read " Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Rhino
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 02:49 PM
My bosses are assholes.


You're probably one of the "mirror" people mentioned...:silly:

TFOGGuys
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 02:52 PM
:pointlaugh::pointlaugh::pointlaugh:

Friggin classic!

Nick_Ninja
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 02:53 PM
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read " Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.



If I were the waiter, and you showed back up in my restaurant, I'd hack a BIG snot wad in your meal next time. :D

zetaetatheta
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 03:04 PM
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read " Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.


Hope you sent your stimulus check back with a note you don't want no stinking handout. BTW the tax system that we now have spreads the wealth--earned income credit for example. I would happily trade my $50K income for one of 250k + and 3% extra tax. We have been a socialist country since social security, especially bailing out fat cats and other insiders...Shit let them eat cake. I voted Obama yesterday and will do it again Monday. Vote early, vote often.

Big-J
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 03:10 PM
Im curious, where did you get the idea that this how Obama's plan is going to play out?



Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read " Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 03:51 PM
Im curious, where did you get the idea that this how Obama's plan is going to play out?
Canada!!

Canuck
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 03:56 PM
Canada!!



Hahahahahaahaha! YOU have no clue on their health care system :lol:

zetaetatheta
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 04:26 PM
Isn't it McCain that wants to buy out mortgages of deadbeat homeowners, giving them some built in equity, all on the backs of taxpayers? So if your neighbor's not paying for his upside down house and you are, he will be able to renegotiate for current value while you get the shaft. That's mavericky or should I say gimmicky, I don't know with McCain it's confusing. Maybe that was last week. Seems like the only thing being spread around is bullshit.....Vote early, Vote often...

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 04:35 PM
Hahahahahaahaha! YOU have no clue on their health care system :lol:
I pay for my own insurance so what do I need their style of socialized medicine for?

CYCLE_MONKEY
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 04:35 PM
Vote early, vote often.
Funny, I'm heading off now to vote for McCain, oh, 45 times or so.....:)

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 04:42 PM
Funny, I'm heading off now to vote for McCain, oh, 45 times or so.....:)

Vote couple times for me too, will ya?

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Several people have made the comment that at their workplace, the bosses have gotten everyone together and said "Just so YOU understand, IF O's plan goes through, there will have to be cuts to the roster".

That was my only intention. Don't listen to the news, the campaign ads, the pretty internet graphs, or DanFZ1 & Rhino. Go ask the guy who signs your check.

1.) Not every business owner is actually going to be honest with their employees about the finances of the company. This is the most sensitive and private information a company can have.

2.) Not every business knows how to run a successful company even in a prosperous economy. Companies fail for a number of both Macro and micro economic reasons. Companies can often times fail because they were run into the ground by the owner of the company. It is not uncommon to blame "outside factors" beyond ones control when faced with the prospect of making an embarrassing admission which would lay the blame at ones own feet.

"Our sales projections were off by 50% for the last six months and we just found out about it. Sorry, but we are going to have to lay people off."

What can cause this? The government? Only if you are screwing up and doing a lousy job of running your company in the first place. That was a very candid and very rare conversation I once had with the V.P. of Sales were I worked.

Here is what happened.:

They ramped up to support their first product ever. It was hot. Then, to support the new product, they ramped up their staff. To be able to afford (and to leverage) the new talent they had brought on board, and get some stable growth, they needed to roll out a hot product number two that would offset swings in demand for the first product. This meant that the second product would need to be different enough to have a more diversified customer base so that when one product was doing not so well during certain months, the second hot product would offset that loss of revenue.

Because both products were so similar, they either both did well during the same months, or demand for both products dried up at the same time in other months. So they were off by 50%, spent money they did not have, laid off all of the support staff, and made the programmers answer their own phones. These business owners were GOOD people. They just got it wrong, damn it. Getting past the three year milestone just isn't easy.

The government was not at fault. They referred to the macroeconomic influences "outside of the company" when they gave the impassioned lay-off speech, but it was the inability to develop a more diversified product line that took this small company (with customers nation wide) out of the game. Their competitors are still around, and so are their customers.

It is not unusual for businesses to not actually know what the hell is going, and what the hell to do about it once they finally realize what has happened. So I would think that in a politically charged election, there could be a lot of employers who would not 1.) know what the future really has in store for them and 2.) would own up to their employees and speak candidly about company finances when asked the question that you propose. What you get for a response, if anything, would be another political opinion. At that point, you might be jeopardizing your future and continued employment if they came away with the wrong impression as to who you were going to vote for. Especially with all of the lay-offs that are now under way. They only want team players. Remember that. Managers keep all kinds of lists. So asking DanFZ1 and Rhino would actually be a much better idea. We might not be any smarter than your boss, but at least we are not going to gig you on your performance review at the end of the year.

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Health care reform? Another Red Herring like Gun Control and Roe vs Wade.

This country is run by pharmaceutical companies and they are not about to let up on there profit laden cash cows.

Why do you think the politicians are against Stem-cell research? Faith? God?
That is bullshit. It is ALL about money.

The bottom line is "There is NO MONEY in a CURE!!!"

Keep the sick coming back for treatments and keep the cost high, with no Government controls.

Agreed: There is a definite conflict of interest. _4ck big pharma. Oh, wait, they're already doing that. You'd prolly have to take a number and stand inline.

zetaetatheta
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 05:31 PM
I pay for my own insurance so what do I need their style of socialized medicine for?

I have socialized medical, the kind congress has, provided for by uncle sam at the cost of about $35 per month for a family of four. Never had a problem and have had it since 1975. It was free from 1975 to 1995, then I had to kick in. Guess I lived in a socialist society for much of my life and I am no better off nor worse off for it. Of course I'm talking the military, very socialist as an e-5 nuclear power-plant operator makes exactly the same as an e-5 cook. Very socialist on one hand (the left) and very Facist (the right)on the other all at the same time. In no way, will the united states ever go the way of our military, yet many folks choose to opt for that way of life for 20 or more years. I did, with no regrets. In fact, I want both of my children to do their time serving their country in one way or the other.
We have become so polarized in our beliefs without looking around and seeing how things really are. No one will ever take away my guns, I will never earn a six figure income (my choice), and I will never adhere to legistated morality--I'll make that call on my own. We hand out to the rich, just as much as we hand out to the poor. Corporate welfare is still welfare. Trickled down has never worked because of greed. So to me the only trait I care about president is temperament, as their finger is on the button. I have seen change in america over my last 53 years and our country is better now than than it was 40 years ago and will be better in the next 40 years. Just as a child must grow so must our country.
My point in all this is we are all in this together and every 4 years we have a chance to envoke change at the national level. One cannot predict the future, but we can analize the past. If you are in better shape now than 4, 8 years ago then you will surely not want to change, those of us that have not been so fortunate may want change. This country is divided and I'm not sure a black man can be elected, but if one is it will be a major step forward in our ability to put away the past and look toward the future. I still admire intellect and a desire to better onesself. We all play a part in our future, the farmer feeds us, the factory worker supplies us, the engineer advances us--all equaly important.
I need a change and I voted my conscience, you no doubt will do the same and hopefully the outcome on nov 4 will be peaceful and the losing party will take their lumps and move on. If things go to hell, the opposing party will have a easy victory next time around. I kinda like our system.

TFOGGuys
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 05:53 PM
I pay for my own insurance so what do I need their style of socialized medicine for?


The UK has a comprehensive Socialized Medicine program, available to all.....and anyone who can afford private health care does, because the social medicine has the same sort of issues as Amtrak and the Post Office....

DanFZ1
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 05:56 PM
I have socialized medical, the kind congress has, provided for by uncle sam at the cost of about $35 per month for a family of four. Never had a problem and have had it since 1975. It was free from 1975 to 1995, then I had to kick in. Guess I lived in a socialist society for much of my life and I am no better off nor worse off for it. Of course I'm talking the military, very socialist as an e-5 nuclear power-plant operator makes exactly the same as an e-5 cook. Very socialist on one hand (the left) and very Facist (the right)on the other all at the same time. In no way, will the united states ever go the way of our military, yet many folks choose to opt for that way of life for 20 or more years. I did, with no regrets. In fact, I want both of my children to do their time serving their country in one way or the other.
We have become so polarized in our beliefs without looking around and seeing how things really are. No one will ever take away my guns, I will never earn a six figure income (my choice), and I will never adhere to legistated morality--I'll make that call on my own. We hand out to the rich, just as much as we hand out to the poor. Corporate welfare is still welfare. Trickled down has never worked because of greed. So to me the only trait I care about president is temperament, as their finger is on the button. I have seen change in america over my last 53 years and our country is better now than than it was 40 years ago and will be better in the next 40 years. Just as a child must grow so must our country.
My point in all this is we are all in this together and every 4 years we have a chance to envoke change at the national level. One cannot predict the future, but we can analize the past. If you are in better shape now than 4, 8 years ago then you will surely not want to change, those of us that have not been so fortunate may want change. This country is divided and I'm not sure a black man can be elected, but if one is it will be a major step forward in our ability to put away the past and look toward the future. I still admire intellect and a desire to better onesself. We all play a part in our future, the farmer feeds us, the factory worker supplies us, the engineer advances us--all equaly important.
I need a change and I voted my conscience, you no doubt will do the same and hopefully the outcome on nov 4 will be peaceful and the losing party will take their lumps and move on. If things go to hell, the opposing party will have a easy victory next time around. I kinda like our system.

+1 :up:

DavidofColorado
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 06:42 PM
I have socialized medical, the kind congress has, provided for by uncle sam at the cost of about $35 per month for a family of four. Never had a problem and have had it since 1975. It was free from 1975 to 1995, then I had to kick in. Guess I lived in a socialist society for much of my life and I am no better off nor worse off for it. Of course I'm talking the military, very socialist as an e-5 nuclear power-plant operator makes exactly the same as an e-5 cook. Very socialist on one hand (the left) and very Facist (the right)on the other all at the same time. In no way, will the united states ever go the way of our military, yet many folks choose to opt for that way of life for 20 or more years. I did, with no regrets. In fact, I want both of my children to do their time serving their country in one way or the other.
We have become so polarized in our beliefs without looking around and seeing how things really are. No one will ever take away my guns, I will never earn a six figure income (my choice), and I will never adhere to legistated morality--I'll make that call on my own. We hand out to the rich, just as much as we hand out to the poor. Corporate welfare is still welfare. Trickled down has never worked because of greed. So to me the only trait I care about president is temperament, as their finger is on the button. I have seen change in america over my last 53 years and our country is better now than than it was 40 years ago and will be better in the next 40 years. Just as a child must grow so must our country.
My point in all this is we are all in this together and every 4 years we have a chance to envoke change at the national level. One cannot predict the future, but we can analize the past. If you are in better shape now than 4, 8 years ago then you will surely not want to change, those of us that have not been so fortunate may want change. This country is divided and I'm not sure a black man can be elected, but if one is it will be a major step forward in our ability to put away the past and look toward the future. I still admire intellect and a desire to better onesself. We all play a part in our future, the farmer feeds us, the factory worker supplies us, the engineer advances us--all equaly important.
I need a change and I voted my conscience, you no doubt will do the same and hopefully the outcome on nov 4 will be peaceful and the losing party will take their lumps and move on. If things go to hell, the opposing party will have a easy victory next time around. I kinda like our system.

I don't know about a blackman getting elected. But I have heard of a democrat going down in flames from his own rhetoric. If uh-bama looses it won't be because of his color even though that is what the left will say. He will loose because enough people saw thru his charade and didn't trust his spin doctors. He won't loose because of Joe the plumbers question either, he will loose because of his answer. Personal responsibility will be as foreign to him as it is to most welfare supported democrats that think the world owes them something. I just hope hurries up and goes on his fake hunting trip with Biden soon to show us all that his really pro gun. (As if all gun owners are Elmer Fudds just going hunting for wabbits)

Socialized medicine in other countries is great if you are sick and not working because you get to reap all the benifits of it without any downside. But if you are working you are going to get taxed 40% off the bat to pay for it. And if you not sick often you are getting screwed again.

Socialized anything is/are as big of losers as their gun control schemes. I bet they thought they weren't going to have their guns taken away either. I bet they miss them now.

I believe you when you say he is not after my guns about as much as take stock Obama saying it in a comercial. I bet he believes it though. Barrock'o probably means everything he says until hes elected. Then its back to business as usual. He was on the executive board the Joyce Foundation for fuck sake! The Joyce Foundation: is the primary source of welfare for Groups like the Bady Camp and AHSA (American Hunters and Shooters Association) a fuex pro hunter group that was meant fool voters into thinking certain antigun groups are on the level. They support things like Registration and banning Assault Weapons snf .50 cal sniper rifles. Not the kinda talk I would expect from a progun group that has ever shot a gun.

I guess I am doing alright since the dems made everything go to shit. I am buying my first home. Other than that my job sucks because the union is toothless, I haven't got a raise in a year and the raise I got then wasn't worth the white screen this is printed on. I want change too. But wishful thinking in a socialist commie isn't going to get me anything. I have to make things happen for myself. Change isn't always good and hope isn't a plan.

And what pisses me off the most is that McCain didn't get the DNC nomination. He would have been the perfect dem to do it. Either way we loose a President that has pissed off more liberals and had more movies made to slander him than any other president in history and since the libs turned up the propaganda so high during his years in office the sheeple think for a moment that a Noncitizen that can read a teleprompter like no other is a viable alternative. But just to make sure that he has a chance they are being just as dishonest as Obama by comitting voter fraud to get him elected. It may seem justified to cheap and scam and lie to get what you want but these are not means to an end to me this is only a sign of things to come. Typical evil manipulation of the facts with no one the wiser because even the media can't stop humping his leg.

He went to Harvard... good for him. But he couldn't hack it in the real world suing gun companies and chasing ambulances that he had to go into politics to make it easier for others to do it.

I am usually right about these sort of things. But I don't want to be.

MattTLS
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 06:57 PM
I would happily trade my $50K income for one of 250k + and 3% extra tax. We have been a socialist country since social security, especially bailing out fat cats and other insiders...Shit let them eat cake. I voted Obama yesterday and will do it again Monday. Vote early, vote often.

and then "I will never earn a six figure income (my choice)"

I'm confused ... are you running for office?

zetaetatheta
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 09:25 PM
and then "I will never earn a six figure income (my choice)"

I'm confused ... are you running for office?
Nope just a teacher, and would gladly like to make 250K but it is not an option. I am a teacher because I love teaching, not for the money, would like more but don't need more.

DanFZ1
Tue Oct 28th, 2008, 01:56 AM
If anyone finds the McCain campaing equivalent, post both links together please. It would/will make for an interesting comparison.

Thanx :alien:

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

^^^It's a calculator. Click on it.^^^

DavidofColorado
Tue Oct 28th, 2008, 10:34 AM
If anyone finds the McCain campaing equivalent, post both links together please. It would/will make for an interesting comparison.

Thanx :alien:

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

^^^It's a calculator. Click on it.^^^
I don't know if McCain has a cute little calculator but I would like to know how much other things are going to cost because of his plan? I would like a tax cut on cigarettes not capital gains. But I am just a obsolists working man in a union he doesn't know anything about me.

DanFZ1
Tue Oct 28th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I don't know if McCain has a cute little calculator but I would like to know how much other things are going to cost because of his plan? I would like a tax cut on cigarettes not capital gains. But I am just a obsolists working man in a union he doesn't know anything about me.

Federal taxes on cigarettes (sin) tax and gas etc., do have at least some impact on inflation. So does printing too much money in a crisis. Production costs will increase the price of the end product too. Because if raw materials increase in price, the cost goes up. The cost of labor can also lead to inflation. As a workers pay increases, companies usually pass on those costs to the consumer.

As for me, my state and federal tax returns come pretty close to balancing each other out every year. The government doesn't get to hang on to too much of my money during the course of the year, and I basically owe next to nothing at the end of the year. The difference between the two candidates based on what I have punched into the calculator isn't more than a couple hundred bucks once I included my state taxes.

Both political parties are tax and spend political parties. Especially now that both parties have decided to spread the wealth around by giving $700 billion to the Banks and Wall Street firms that donate to both parties.

By the way, doesn't it cost less to roll your own cigarettes? Just asking. Obviously if you don't want to quit that's up to you. I'm just thinking that would cut down on the grocery bill.

puckstr
Tue Oct 28th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Federal taxes on cigarettes (sin) tax and gas etc., do have at least some impact on inflation. So does printing too much money in a crisis. Production costs will increase the price of the end product too. Because if raw materials increase in price, the cost goes up. The cost of labor can also lead to inflation. As a workers pay increases, companies usually pass on those costs to the consumer.

As for me, my state and federal tax returns come pretty close to balancing each other out every year. The government doesn't get to hang on to too much of my money during the course of the year, and I basically owe next to nothing at the end of the year. The difference between the two candidates based on what I have punched into the calculator isn't more than a couple hundred bucks once I included my state taxes.

Both political parties are tax and spend political parties. Especially now that both parties have decided to spread the wealth around by giving $700 billion to the Banks and Wall Street firms that donate to both parties.

By the way, doesn't it cost less to roll your own cigarettes? Just asking. Obviously if you don't want to quit that's up to you. I'm just thinking that would cut down on the grocery bill.


Yes it is cheaper to roll your own.
The tax does not cover loose tobacco, it is classified as a staple.

DavidofColorado
Tue Oct 28th, 2008, 03:54 PM
By the way, doesn't it cost less to roll your own cigarettes? Just asking. Obviously if you don't want to quit that's up to you. I'm just thinking that would cut down on the grocery bill.
Roll my own like a hobo, I would rather quit or steal a truckload of smokes and dump them in sloans lake in protest of the high taxes.

I tried to roll my own and they were to strong. But they do come it lots of yummy flavors like mint, vanilla and cherry:yumyum:.

DanFZ1
Tue Oct 28th, 2008, 06:20 PM
Roll my own like a hobo, I would rather quit or steal a truckload of smokes and dump them in sloans lake in protest of the high taxes.

I tried to roll my own and they were to strong. But they do come it lots of yummy flavors like mint, vanilla and cherry:yumyum:.

Just smoke a pipe, then you'll be everybody's friend.

I'm just going to take a wild guess and say that you go for the soft pack of Marlborough lights.

I personally used to go for the red hard pack of Marlboroughs but found I liked Nat Shermans better when they used to be in the hard pack. (they actually smelled like fresh tobacco) Then they switched over to the fancy foil packaging and I just said scew it. I don't even own a pipe any more. God only knows what a pack of smokes cost at the 7-11 these days.

DavidofColorado
Tue Oct 28th, 2008, 08:41 PM
Just smoke a pipe, then you'll be everybody's friend.

I'm just going to take a wild guess and say that you go for the soft pack of Marlborough lights.

I personally used to go for the red hard pack of Marlboroughs but found I liked Nat Shermans better when they used to be in the hard pack. (they actually smelled like fresh tobacco) Then they switched over to the fancy foil packaging and I just said scew it. I don't even own a pipe any more. God only knows what a pack of smokes cost at the 7-11 these days.

Did you mean Marlboro's? I smoke Davidoff lights. I started smoking them in Europe and liked them. Before that it was Marlboro 100 lights box but you are close. I have never been discriminated by a non smoker. Although, I have been bothered by some jerkoff coughing once and Waterworld. It was to far away and up wind from me so I figured he was just being a jerk or dieing so I paid him no mind.