• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 6 votes

McCain picks Palin as VP


  • Please log in to reply
565 replies to this topic

#541 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:16 AM

Throwing out the name "Goldwater" is a travesty.

Barry Goldwater - "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

Possibly one of the most anti-Obama statements ever made.


Your statements here were so insane that I guess I will go along with your agreement to disagree, because we hardly have any means of communicating.


Well then I suggest you contact his daughter and let her know that.
You might want to call Eisenhower's grand daughter and Nixons daughter and reprimand them too.
Oh and don't forget Ron Reagen, President Reagens son...he's voting for Obama also.
And I'm sure Chris Buckley would love to hear from you.
And then go wag that savage finger of yours at Colin Powell. Set him straight.
Listen Savage, if anyone is insane, it's you.
You need to get your head out from where the sun don't shine and get a reality check.

lol... o boy.

I dunno why you insist on attacking me personally, especially after refusing to address any of the actual points I made ... I never said anything about you ...

and if I personally knew the sons/daughters of Goldwater and Reagan and knew that they were for Obama, I would certainly tell them how I feel, and how their fathers felt...

Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 01:23 AM.


#542 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:23 AM

Throwing out the name "Goldwater" is a travesty.

Barry Goldwater - "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

Possibly one of the most anti-Obama statements ever made.


Your statements here were so insane that I guess I will go along with your agreement to disagree, because we hardly have any means of communicating.


Well then I suggest you contact his daughter and let her know that.
You might want to call Eisenhower's grand daughter and Nixons daughter and reprimand them too.
Oh and don't forget Ron Reagen, President Reagens son...he's voting for Obama also.
And I'm sure Chris Buckley would love to hear from you.
And then go wag that savage finger of yours at Colin Powell. Set him straight.
Listen Savage, if anyone is insane, it's you.
You need to get your head out from where the sun don't shine and get a reality check.

lol... o boy.

I dunno why you insist on attacking me personally, especially after refusing to address any of the actual points I made ... I never said anything about you ...

Really? Last time I checked, calling my statements insane was a personal attack.
Telling you to get some fresh air is a suggestion...not an attack.


#543 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:28 AM

Throwing out the name "Goldwater" is a travesty.

Barry Goldwater - "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

Possibly one of the most anti-Obama statements ever made.


Your statements here were so insane that I guess I will go along with your agreement to disagree, because we hardly have any means of communicating.


Well then I suggest you contact his daughter and let her know that.
You might want to call Eisenhower's grand daughter and Nixons daughter and reprimand them too.
Oh and don't forget Ron Reagen, President Reagens son...he's voting for Obama also.
And I'm sure Chris Buckley would love to hear from you.
And then go wag that savage finger of yours at Colin Powell. Set him straight.
Listen Savage, if anyone is insane, it's you.
You need to get your head out from where the sun don't shine and get a reality check.

lol... o boy.

I dunno why you insist on attacking me personally, especially after refusing to address any of the actual points I made ... I never said anything about you ...

Really? Last time I checked, calling my statements insane was a personal attack.
Telling you to get some fresh air is a suggestion...not an attack.

No, calling your statements insane is not a personal attack. You telling me I am insane just now and calling me stupid earlier were personal attacks.

Your incredibly vile and untrue statements about McCain and McCain supporters were also personal attacks.

He's desperate, pathetic and stupid. His claim to fame is he was a party boy in school, got lousy grades,
got shot down and was a POW. This in no way qualifies him for the office of President
IN fact one might argue the opposite, considering his bad judgment and mean temper. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, according to him,
he really doesn't understand economics either. It's like an SNL routine. It amazes me that so many people support him
in spite of this. One can only guess their true motives.
...
We are an amazing country with an amazing diversity of culture, BTW something you don't see in a McCain crowd.



I could go through your statements one by one and tell you why I think they are crazy, but you refuse to respond to any of my *actual arguments* so I don't really feel like continuing our conversation, especially if you are going to be so unnecessarily nasty...

Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 01:44 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#544 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:34 AM

Throwing out the name "Goldwater" is a travesty.

Barry Goldwater - "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

Possibly one of the most anti-Obama statements ever made.


Your statements here were so insane that I guess I will go along with your agreement to disagree, because we hardly have any means of communicating.


Well then I suggest you contact his daughter and let her know that.
You might want to call Eisenhower's grand daughter and Nixons daughter and reprimand them too.
Oh and don't forget Ron Reagen, President Reagens son...he's voting for Obama also.
And I'm sure Chris Buckley would love to hear from you.
And then go wag that savage finger of yours at Colin Powell. Set him straight.
Listen Savage, if anyone is insane, it's you.
You need to get your head out from where the sun don't shine and get a reality check.

lol... o boy.

I dunno why you insist on attacking me personally, especially after refusing to address any of the actual points I made ... I never said anything about you ...

Really? Last time I checked, calling my statements insane was a personal attack.
Telling you to get some fresh air is a suggestion...not an attack.

No, calling your statements insane is not a personal attack. You telling me I am insane is a personal attack.

Your incredibly vile statements about McCain and McCain supporters were also personal attacks.

He's desperate, pathetic and stupid. His claim to fame is he was a party boy in school, got lousy grades,
got shot down and was a POW. This in no way qualifies him for the office of President
IN fact one might argue the opposite, considering his bad judgment and mean temper. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, according to him,
he really doesn't understand economics either. It's like an SNL routine. It amazes me that so many people support him
in spite of this. One can only guess their true motives.
...
We are an amazing country with an amazing diversity of culture, BTW something you don't see in a McCain crowd.



I could go through your statements one by one and tell you why I think they are crazy, but you refuse to respond to any of my *actual arguments* so I don't really feel like continuing our conversation...

mission accomplished.

#545 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:41 AM

To make sure nothing got lost in all that, here were my actual arguments:

Get over the bullshit tax argument. It affects less than 5% of the population. Maybe only 2% actually. 95% of the population makes under $100,000 a year. Check the census. The people whose taxes will go up, and only by a very small percent anyway, make over $250 K a year.
May I ask the extent of your education? Did you somehow miss out on math?
And as for who is crazy, I suggest you look in the mirror.

It's important to know that while taxing rich individuals may not hurt them much, if the taxes hurt their margins they may need to let people go or lower the salary of their employees. So joe sixpack may get a tax check but he may also see a pink slip.

I'm also wondering if you are ok with the government giving out checks to people who don't pay taxes.


Lies, lies and more lies. It's not true about giving tax checks to people who don't pay taxes. How could you even believe that?
People are NOT going to get tax checks. They are going to get tax breaks.
I am sure you know that, and if not, I am very sorry for you and I must question your common sense.
And as for rich people letting their workers go or lowering their wages, gimme a break. First of all the increase in taxes isn't even going to
amount to that much on an individual basis. Maybe 3% more than they are paying now. And we all know that rich people, as you call them,
are paying their workers minimum wage or even less by hiring illegal workers.
Look how the economy played out when rich people, or as your beloved president Bush calls them, the haves and have mores, were in control. They raped and pillaged this country and its people.
Obama is eliminating the capital gain tax for under 250,000. That is a big plus. He is eliminating income taxes for seniors making under $50,000 a year. Another big plus. He will create jobs and opportunities through developing energy alternatives and rebuilding the infrastructure and provide educational opportunities that have been denied average income kids for the past 8 years. We have a nation of uneducated idiots. I know the republicans like it like that. The dumber the electorate, the better chance they have. An intelligent electorate is a dangerous thing to a Republican. Every major intelligent conservative is supporting Obama. From Chris Buckley to Colin Powell. From Barry Goldwaters daughter to President Eisenhowers grand daughter. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Isn't that telling you something?
McCain hasn't a clue or original idea about how to get this country back on its feet. All he can talk about is hating Obama. His campaign has been despicable. Intelligent Republicans are ashamed and embarrassed by his pick of Sarah Palin. It's an insult to their intelligence. But
I guess with a name like Savage, you might not be that keen on intellect.

Ah... silly, silly.

2006 (IRS figures):
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% of income earners: 39.89%
Bottom 50% of income earners: 2.99%
The bottom 40% of income earners actually paid -3.8% of federal income taxes.

When Barack Obama talks about giving an "income tax credit" to 95% of people, he is talking about redistributing the wealth of "evil rich" people who already pay well more than their "fair share" and giving welfare checks to the bottom 40% of income earners who pay no income tax at all.

This is not a tax plan. It is a welfare plan.

It's NOT a lie!

Obama is eliminating the capital gain tax for under 250,000.

Small businesses don't pay capital gains tax! This is a useless talking point made for gullible people!

He is eliminating income taxes for seniors making under $50,000 a year. Another big plus. He will create jobs and opportunities through developing energy alternatives and rebuilding the infrastructure and provide educational opportunities that have been denied average income kids for the past 8 years.

Why do you want to create a nanny state? Why are we expanding the number of people who depend on the government for money?

Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America's small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One's tax increases.

If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business - and if you vote for Obama - then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat.


"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

Every major intelligent conservative is supporting Obama.

This is completely false. There is no major intelligent conservative that supports the greenest, most radical, and most liberal member of the senate for president. None. That should tell you something about the people you listed. They are not conservative... or not intelligent.

A keen intellect is necessary, but not sufficient, to face the savage reality, missminni.


Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 01:45 AM.


#546 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:15 AM

Savage, trust me, I read your arguments and I know how to scroll back.
I strongly suggest you research the history of the progressive income tax system our country has had in place since
President Teddy Roosevelt, John McCaine's hero, put it there.

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.

"But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows."

"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth......

"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar?s worth of service rendered?not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

Theodore Roosevelt. A great man. A great mind. And a great Republican. I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.
That would be lovely.






To make sure nothing got lost in all that, here were my actual arguments:



#547 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:22 AM

Frankly, I would like to see the income tax abolished in favor of the Fair Tax. Strongly suggest you research that :)

But ignoring that for a minute, there is a huge, huge difference between "a graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and a tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

From your own quotes:

"A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune.
...
"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.
...
"But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out..."
...


I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.

Agreed.

Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 02:43 AM.


#548 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:43 AM

Frankly, I would like to see the income tax abolished in favor of the Fair Tax. Strongly suggest you research that :)

But ignoring that for a minute, there is a huge, huge difference between "a graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and a tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.

Agreed.


Point of fact.....
Small businesses making a net profit under $250,000 a year will not see any raise in their income tax at all.
Businesses making $250,000 or less on a captail gain transaction will not pay any tax on it.
Incomes between $102,000 and 250,000 will not have to pay Social security tax.

ETA~
and as for the Fair Tax....people would always find a way to get around it...just like they do now. sounds good, but it would be impossible
to enforce...in fact the enforcement of it would probably be a ridiculous expense.

Edited by missminni, 31 October 2008 - 02:47 AM.


#549 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:50 AM

Frankly, I would like to see the income tax abolished in favor of the Fair Tax. Strongly suggest you research that :)

But ignoring that for a minute, there is a huge, huge difference between "a graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and a tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.

Agreed.


Point of fact.....
Small businesses making a net profit under $250,000 a year will not see any raise in their income tax at all.
Businesses making $250,000 or less on a captail gain transaction will not pay any tax on it.
Incomes between $102,000 and 250,000 will not have to pay Social security tax.

"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.


Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 02:52 AM.


#550 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:51 AM

and as for the Fair Tax....people would always find a way to get around it...just like they do now. sounds good, but it would be impossible
to enforce...in fact the enforcement of it would probably be a ridiculous expense.

most states already have sales tax. and NO tax system could be as expensive as the IRS, which the Fair Tax would abolish

Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 02:51 AM.


#551 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:55 AM

Frankly, I would like to see the income tax abolished in favor of the Fair Tax. Strongly suggest you research that :)

But ignoring that for a minute, there is a huge, huge difference between "a graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and a tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.

Agreed.


Point of fact.....
Small businesses making a net profit under $250,000 a year will not see any raise in their income tax at all.
Businesses making $250,000 or less on a captail gain transaction will not pay any tax on it.
Incomes between $102,000 and 250,000 will not have to pay Social security tax.

Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.

I am not following you....what theory would mean the ruin of the entire country? The tax breaks I mentioned? I doubt that. ... Teddys Roosevelt's Progressive Tax? We've had that in place for 100 years and going strong until Bush got in office.

#552 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:58 AM

Frankly, I would like to see the income tax abolished in favor of the Fair Tax. Strongly suggest you research that :)

But ignoring that for a minute, there is a huge, huge difference between "a graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and a tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.

Agreed.


Point of fact.....
Small businesses making a net profit under $250,000 a year will not see any raise in their income tax at all.
Businesses making $250,000 or less on a captail gain transaction will not pay any tax on it.
Incomes between $102,000 and 250,000 will not have to pay Social security tax.

Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.

I am not following you....what theory would mean the ruin of the entire country? The tax breaks I mentioned? I doubt that. ... Teddys Roosevelt's Progressive Tax? We've had that in place for 100 years and going strong until Bush got in office.

There is a huge, huge difference between Roosevelt's "graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and Barack Obama's tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

Roosevelt addressed this exact situation himself in the quotes you provided:

"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.


Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 02:59 AM.


#553 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:07 AM

and as for the Fair Tax....people would always find a way to get around it...just like they do now. sounds good, but it would be impossible
to enforce...in fact the enforcement of it would probably be a ridiculous expense.

most states already have sales tax. and NO tax system could be as expensive as the IRS, which the Fair Tax would abolish

You must not shop much. Especially at smaller family run businesses.....
If you don't need a receipt, and you pay cash, you very well might not pay sales tax.
That's the perc you get for cash.
Also, enforcement would be ridiculous. And let me tell you something...nobody is going to pay a 23% tax willingly. They will
find many ways to avoid it. Necessity is the mother of invention.
The expensive tax system we now have in place is in Place. That makes it less expensive already.
What I would favor is tax reform for those who make between 100,000 and 250,000 a year. That's why i pointed out the fact that under Obama, that bracket would be exempt form paying social security tax. That's a help.
Although they might be a small percent of the tax paying public, they usually live in areas where the cost of living is much higher
than the norm. I think that should be taken into consideration.

#554 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:16 AM

Frankly, I would like to see the income tax abolished in favor of the Fair Tax. Strongly suggest you research that :)

But ignoring that for a minute, there is a huge, huge difference between "a graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and a tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.

Agreed.


Point of fact.....
Small businesses making a net profit under $250,000 a year will not see any raise in their income tax at all.
Businesses making $250,000 or less on a captail gain transaction will not pay any tax on it.
Incomes between $102,000 and 250,000 will not have to pay Social security tax.

Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.

I am not following you....what theory would mean the ruin of the entire country? The tax breaks I mentioned? I doubt that. ... Teddys Roosevelt's Progressive Tax? We've had that in place for 100 years and going strong until Bush got in office.

There is a huge, huge difference between Roosevelt's "graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and Barack Obama's tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

Roosevelt addressed this exact situation himself in the quotes you provided:

"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.


Why are you stuck on welfare giveaways? That's not even on the Obama agenda. He's talking about creating 5,000,000 jobs, not welfare giveaways. I must say that the use of the word welfare reeks of racism. Racism is the driving force of the McCain/Palin campaign. Especially Palin.
She's is so obvious. (Maybe that's because she lost the Miss Alaska contest to a Black woman.)
They think they are hiding it, but it shows through like a bad poker face.

#555 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:28 AM

I thought these were very interesting quotes from Teddy Roosevelt. Quite appropriate for the current situation.

Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble even to notice the epithet. … Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are high-minded and honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social reformers. They are opposed to the brutalities and industrial injustices which we see everywhere about us.......

Many of the men who call themselves socialists today are in reality merely radical social reformers, with whom on many points good citizens can and ought to work in hearty general agreement, and whom in many practical matters of government good citizens can well afford to follow......

"I have always maintained," he concluded, "that our worst revolutionaries today are those reactionaries who do not see and will not admit there is any need for change."

Something tells me he would vote for Obama too.

#556 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:34 AM

Frankly, I would like to see the income tax abolished in favor of the Fair Tax. Strongly suggest you research that :)

But ignoring that for a minute, there is a huge, huge difference between "a graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and a tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

I hope we see a return of the REAL Republican Party.

Agreed.


Point of fact.....
Small businesses making a net profit under $250,000 a year will not see any raise in their income tax at all.
Businesses making $250,000 or less on a captail gain transaction will not pay any tax on it.
Incomes between $102,000 and 250,000 will not have to pay Social security tax.

Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.

I am not following you....what theory would mean the ruin of the entire country? The tax breaks I mentioned? I doubt that. ... Teddys Roosevelt's Progressive Tax? We've had that in place for 100 years and going strong until Bush got in office.

There is a huge, huge difference between Roosevelt's "graduated income tax on big fortunes" - for the purposes of running the essential functions of government and Barack Obama's tax on small businesses, the employers for the vast majority of new jobs in this country, for the purposes of socialist wealth redistribution and welfare giveaways.

Roosevelt addressed this exact situation himself in the quotes you provided:

"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.


Why are you stuck on welfare giveaways? That's not even on the Obama agenda. He's talking about creating 5,000,000 jobs, not welfare giveaways. I must say that the use of the word welfare reeks of racism. Racism is the driving force of the McCain/Palin campaign. Especially Palin.
She's is so obvious. (Maybe that's because she lost the Miss Alaska contest to a Black woman.)
They think they are hiding it, but it shows through like a bad poker face.

Ok, we are DONE here. You just went WAY off the deep end.

#557 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:47 AM

Why are you stuck on welfare giveaways? That's not even on the Obama agenda. He's talking about creating 5,000,000 jobs, not welfare giveaways. I must say that the use of the word welfare reeks of racism. Racism is the driving force of the McCain/Palin campaign. Especially Palin.
She's is so obvious. (Maybe that's because she lost the Miss Alaska contest to a Black woman.)
They think they are hiding it, but it shows through like a bad poker face.

Ok, we are DONE here. You just went WAY off the deep end.


I just called a spade a spade. Nothing hurts like the truth and you just proved it.
Hey, Savage, the truth will set you free.
Now, on a totally uplifting note...read this
I am becoming totally enamored with this man.

#558 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 02:44 PM

This is so sad I won't respond directly. I hope you get over this some day.

During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let's see if we can remember a few:

- Using the word "skinny" to refer to Obama is racist.
- "Community organizer" is a racist term.
- Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist - that would be because Raines is black.
- All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black.
- Referring to Obama as "eloquent" is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent.
- For goodness' sake, don't say that Obama is "clean."
- This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a "socialist" is also racist because "socialist" is just another code word for black.

And so it goes. We've also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don't vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he's black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you're a racist. Simple as that.



#559 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 31 October 2008 - 03:19 PM

Nothing hurts like the truth and you just proved it.



You are so blind missminni; you wouldn't know if the truth snuck up behind you and bit you in the butt. :)


This is attributed to you believing everything Obama has said even after it had been proven false. You just are relentless in your baseless convictions about Obama. I've never seen one bit of factual, un-biased information from anywhere (sources) backing up what you have said.

#560 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 31 October 2008 - 05:59 PM

Nothing hurts like the truth and you just proved it.



You are so blind missminni; you wouldn't know if the truth snuck up behind you and bit you in the butt. :)


This is attributed to you believing everything Obama has said even after it had been proven false. You just are relentless in your baseless convictions about Obama. I've never seen one bit of factual, un-biased information from anywhere (sources) backing up what you have said.

Savage and Luv to Increase
Please refrain from addressing your comments to me and I will do likewise. It's futile and boring as hell and honestly brings out the
worst in me and I suspect it is annoying Laz no end.
You two and biknut are the only people here who support McCain, so I understand how desperate you are and I suppose it's what most McCain supporters are going through right now. Hence the slanderous robo calls etc. However our stupid bickering solves nothing and only creates more animosity.
I wish you all the best regardless of which way this election turns out. From now on, lets ignore each other.




#561 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 31 October 2008 - 06:04 PM

It's futile and boring as hell and honestly brings out the worst in me



Ah ha. I see you are the type of person that doesn't like to think ---> "analytical". You would rather fall prey by the bells and whistles ---> "peripheral" rather than concrete proof. I am glad you admitted that. I will refrain from addressing you from now on because I only like to have debates with people that can actually back up what they say with relevant, true, and unbiased material. Anything else would be a waste of time and trivial.

Good day.

Edited by luv2increase, 31 October 2008 - 06:05 PM.


#562 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 October 2008 - 09:39 PM

Nothing hurts like the truth and you just proved it.



You are so blind missminni; you wouldn't know if the truth snuck up behind you and bit you in the butt. :)


This is attributed to you believing everything Obama has said even after it had been proven false. You just are relentless in your baseless convictions about Obama. I've never seen one bit of factual, un-biased information from anywhere (sources) backing up what you have said.

Savage and Luv to Increase
Please refrain from addressing your comments to me and I will do likewise. It's futile and boring as hell and honestly brings out the
worst in me and I suspect it is annoying Laz no end.
You two and biknut are the only people here who support McCain, so I understand how desperate you are and I suppose it's what most McCain supporters are going through right now. Hence the slanderous robo calls etc. However our stupid bickering solves nothing and only creates more animosity.
I wish you all the best regardless of which way this election turns out. From now on, lets ignore each other.

It's hilarious that you write all this about not debating each other any more, and then throw in the little "so I understand how desperate you are" and "slanderous robo calls" ... haha.

Talk about stupid bickering!

at least you ended on a slightly lighter note, which I appreciate. despite everything, I would prefer not to have any hard feelings...

#563 Iam Empathy

  • Guest
  • 429 posts
  • 1

Posted 01 November 2008 - 06:23 PM

This sort of ignorance must really be exposed to even believe! How could someone running for one of the highest positions in the land be this ignorant and stupid?

Read this...

Sarah Palin: Pledge of Allegiance "was good enough for the Founding Fathers"

http://web.archive.o...-candidate.html

The only problem is that the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian Socialist, and the cousin of Socialist Utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). http://en.wikipedia....e_of_Allegiance

My favorite was this comment:

Sarah Palin lives in a sort of cartoon US of A ruled over by the ghost of Ronald Reagan and a blue-eyed Jesus who wears red, white and blue robes and tools around heaven on a snowmobile accompanied by his pet bald eagle Sam on a mission to cure gays and smite godless Muslims aided by an army of babies saved from abortion at the last minute and raised in giant Alaskan igloos heated by camp fires fueled by burning books. Amen. WINK



Edited by Iam Empathy, 01 November 2008 - 06:26 PM.


#564 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 01 November 2008 - 06:49 PM

This sort of ignorance must really be exposed to even believe! How could someone running for one of the highest positions in the land be this ignorant and stupid?

Read this...

Sarah Palin: Pledge of Allegiance "was good enough for the Founding Fathers"

http://web.archive.o...-candidate.html

The only problem is that the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian Socialist, and the cousin of Socialist Utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). http://en.wikipedia....e_of_Allegiance

My favorite was this comment:

Sarah Palin lives in a sort of cartoon US of A ruled over by the ghost of Ronald Reagan and a blue-eyed Jesus who wears red, white and blue robes and tools around heaven on a snowmobile accompanied by his pet bald eagle Sam on a mission to cure gays and smite godless Muslims aided by an army of babies saved from abortion at the last minute and raised in giant Alaskan igloos heated by camp fires fueled by burning books. Amen. WINK



More relevant to ImmInst are Palin's views on biological research


#565 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 01 November 2008 - 08:54 PM


she doesn't know the constitutional amendments:

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." --Sarah Palin, getting first amendment rights backwards while claiming that criticism of her is unconstitutional, radio interview with WMAL-AM, Oct. 31, 2008

or the role of the Vice President

"They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008


Or the geography of the United Stataes

"I like being here because it seems like here and in our last rally too -- other parts around this great Northwest -- here in New Hampshire you just get it." --Sarah Palin, Laconia, New Hampshire, Oct. 15, 2008

or the decision reached by her own state legislature

"I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing ... any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." --Sarah Palin, after an Alaska legislative report found she had broken the state's ethics law and abused her power in the Troopergate scandal, conference call with Alaska reporters, Oct. 12, 2008

or a single supreme court decision except Roe vs Wade

Katie Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"
Sarah Palin: "Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"
Couric: "Can you think of any?"
Palin: "Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today." --unable to name any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade, CBS News interview, Oct. 1, 2008


and how can we forget her positively jaw dropping explanation of her experience with Foreign Affaira:

"Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia ... We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

her grasp of the financial crisis:

"But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy." --Sarah Palin, explaining the $700 billion government bailout of Wall Street to Karie Couric, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008

her experience with foreign leaders:

I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you." --Sarah Palin, after being asked if she had never met a foreign head of state, despite the fact that every vice president in the last 32 years had met a foreign head of state prior to taking office, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008

and her suggestion that we should go to war with Russia over Georgia.

"Perhaps so." --Sarah Palin, when asked if we may need to go to war with Russia because of the Georgia crisis, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008

The woman is arrogant and uninformed (very dangerous combo) and her selection by John McCain speaks volumes to his bad judgment.

Edited by missminni, 01 November 2008 - 09:10 PM.


#566 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 02 November 2008 - 01:29 AM



Two well-known Canadian pranksters tricked Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin into thinking she was on the phone today with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The conversation, captured on a Montreal radio program, was, in a word, embarrassing. (Politico's Ben Smith was among the first to pick up on reports from The Canadian Press.)

The fake Sarkozy buttered Palin up by telling her he hoped she would become president some day. "Haha, maybe in eight years," Palin replied. Then the conversation turned to helicopter hunting, with a mention of Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous bad shot.

"One of my favorite activities is to hunt, too," the fake Sarkozy said. "Oh, very good, we should go hunting together," Palin replied, adding, "I think we could have a lot of fun together as we're getting work done. We could kill two birds with one stone that way."

"I just love killing those animals! Taking away life, that is so fun," the Sarkozy impersonator said.

Palin laughed.

"As long as we don't bring Vice President Cheney," the jokester said. "I'll be a very careful shot, don't worry," Palin said, laughing.


Words cannot express how shocked I am by her response to this call. She didn't even know the name of the PM of Canada. It's just shocking that someone so ignorant could ever be in position for public office, let alone VP. This is scandalous. How could she possibly have a future in politics?
Maybe the phenomena of Sarah Palin can be explained by the sad statistics below:

# The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
# The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
# Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
# "The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).
# Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!
# "The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).
# "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).
# Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).
# Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.
# The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
# "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
# Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
# "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
# Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).
# The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
# Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
# The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).
# "Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
# "Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69).
# "Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68).
# The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).
# U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
# Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).
# Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.
# Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. (Hear that, you poor deluded cowboys?) As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
# As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
# Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.
# One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).
# "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).
# "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).
# Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).
# "Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).
# "The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users