565 replies to this topic

[REGIMEN]

Umm, I may be mistaken, but I don't see John McCain's name in there... I hope you're not trying to infer that you could replace Bill Clinton's name with Barack Obama and John McCain's name with George Bush. I sincerely hope you are not trying to do that. You have to look at the candidates proposed spending plans, and Obama has right out there for the whole world to see that he is planning on spending close to $1 Trillion dollars during his 4 years if elected.

Empathy, think logically for a moment. How could Obama turn that deficit into a surplus by lowering taxes and massively increasing gov't spending ---> even compared to President Bush? Will you please do the math for me please?

If you look at the posted image and actually read IamEmpathy's post you'll see he's making a correlation by self-tagged appellation; McCain is a "fiscal conservative" just like all the other deficit diggers mentioned which then are shown in that deficit timeline. It reads like you get it...but at the same time it doesn't. Effectively it amounts to McCain trying to associate himself with those past Republican presidents by timely name-dropping in hopes of it rubbing off on him and sparks the voters' sense of nostalgia for "them more moral good ol' days"....

Your point about the proposed spending plan being a better indicator makes sense; it might help to see how well past presidents held to those proposed plans to see if it still holds. Give that research a try instead of feverishly defending your short fence in this vast field.

Edited by REGIMEN, 06 October 2008 - 03:09 AM.

[luv2increase]

Give that research a try instead of feverishly defending your short fence in this vast field.

It is simply math. That is all there is to it. Any proposed number by a Presidential candidate can only go up after they become President. It is not the inverse. So if Obama has double the proposed spending policy as McCain; I find it extremely hard to believe McCain would end up spending more money at the end of his 4 year stint. This and the fact that Obama basically said (without saying) he wouldn't cut any of his proposed programs if he became President despite our economic crisis we are in now (this was at the first debate) makes this belief of mine even more concrete and feasible.

[niner]

Give that research a try instead of feverishly defending your short fence in this vast field.

It is simply math. That is all there is to it. Any proposed number by a Presidential candidate can only go up after they become President. It is not the inverse. So if Obama has double the proposed spending policy as McCain; I find it extremely hard to believe McCain would end up spending more money at the end of his 4 year stint. This and the fact that Obama basically said (without saying) he wouldn't cut any of his proposed programs if he became President despite our economic crisis we are in now (this was at the first debate) makes this belief of mine even more concrete and feasible.

It is simply math, except for one problem; you have a false premise. Proposed spending by a candidate can easily go down, and likely will do just that in this economic climate. Candidates of all stripes talk about all the great things they would "like" to do, and they don't talk about things they would cut or taxes they will raise or any sacrifices the population may have to make, because if they do, the electorate will not vote for them. If the electorate were not a bunch of idiots who can't handle the truth, then you could get the truth in a campaign. The safest thing you can say is that their proposals give you clues as to where they want to go. McCain wants to cut taxes mostly for the rich, Obama wants to cut them mostly for the middle class. They may both need to cut taxes less than they are talking about, or spend less than they are talking about. Since McCain's tax plan starts out with a lot less revenue than Obama's, he will have to constrain spending a lot more just to keep the deficit in the same place.

[luv2increase]

Proposed spending by a candidate can easily go down, and likely will do just that in this economic climate.

I never knew you were psychic niner beener. Ah, ya gotta be kidding me? Likely go down? Your buddy never said that. He was asked at the first debate what he'd cut, and do you know what his answer was? Probably not. I think you can foretell the future better than understand the facts of the past. He said he'd cut nothing, but then he rambled on about how we need to spend more! Get outta here niner beener.

Edited by luv2increase, 11 October 2008 - 02:43 AM.

[Shepard]

I never knew you were psychic niner beener. Get outta here niner beener.

I would take this private, but I'm going to show you the same respect that you're showing navigation. You're one step away from a vacation.

[missminni]

It appears Mrs. Palin has been found guilty of abuse of power.

Alaska Gov. Palin guilty of abusing her powerAFP
Published: Friday, October 10, 2008

JUNEAU, Alaska - Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her position as Alaska governor by pressuring officials to sack a state trooper once married to her sister, a long-awaited official investigation said Friday.

In a potentially explosive 263-page report released by Alaska's Legislative Council following a six-hour closed-door hearing, investigator Steve Branchflower said Palin violated state ethics rules governing public officials.

Palin had allowed her husband Todd Palin to use the Alaska governor's office and its resources to pressure officials to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, her former brother-in-law, the investigator said.
An Alaska ethics inquiry found that Palin abused the power of her office by dismissing the state's public safety commissioner, a report released on Oct. 10, 2008 said.

"The evidence supports the conclusion that governor Palin, at the least, engaged in 'official action' by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband to get trooper Wooten fired," his report said.

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get trooper Michael Wooten fired."

"She had the authority and power to require Mr Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act."

McCain-Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said the report showed Palin had acted "properly and lawfully" in axing Monegan, dismissing the investigation as politically motivated.

A Republican-dominated bi-partisan committee had launched the investigation following Palin's decision to sack Alaska public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July.

Monegan claimed he was fired because of his refusal to sack Wooten, who had been involved in an acrimonious divorce with Palin's younger sister in 2005.

The inquiry found that although Palin was within her rights as Alaska governor to dismiss Monegan, she had breached ethics rules by allowing her husband to badger officials into firing Wooten.

In an affidavit to investigators released on Wednesday, Todd Palin acknowledged contacting several senior Alaska officials over Wooten, but said his wife had later told him to back off.

"Anyone who knows Sarah knows she is the governor and she calls the shots," said Palin in his affidavit.

Palin also defended his role in his wife's political career, saying: "My wife and I are very close. We are each other's best friend. I have helped her in her career the best I can, and she has helped me."

Sarah Palin initially vowed to co-operate with the probe, but later refused to testify after being named as John McCain's running mate, complaining the investigation had become "tainted and politically motivated."

Branchflower lamented the fact that Palin had not made herself available.

"An interview would have assisted everyone to better understand her motives and perhaps help explain why she was so apparently intent upon getting trooper Wooten fired," his report said.

The investigator also cast doubt on Palin's claims that she had felt threatened by Wooten, who she and her husband had accused of threatening her father and family.

"Governor Palin has stated publicly that she and her family feared trooper Wooten," Branchflower wrote. "Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear."

Palin had scaled back her personal security detail after being elected Alaska governor and her husband had sought Wooten's dismissal for "reasons that had nothing to do with fear."

"I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get trooper Wooten fired for personal family reasons."

[Lazarus Long]

Just to be clear on this it was a *finding of fact* in a report, not technically a conviction of anything. This is how a legal process begins, not ends. She is entitled like all others to her day in court before accusations of guilt are legitimate.

If this decision is passed from here to a special prosecutor then it will be his/her decision to bring formal charges but it is more likely that would only precipitate the seating of a grand jury. I doubt any of this will be too relevant to the larger story.

BTW the finding is of an ethics violation not necessarily a violation of *law* either. There is a difference.

[luv2increase]

I'd like to note once again that the report found the trooper stuff was not, I repeat was not the sole cause of him being fired. This means they found her other reasons to be relevant, and that she acted in her full constitutional right to fire the guy. Basically, she did nothing wrong.


Think about this as well. The guy is a state trooper. He is crazy because he tazered his son, he drinks repeatedly on the job, and he threatened to kill members of the Governor's family while she is governor. Wouldn't as of us done the same? Are we not human?

[Iam Empathy]

"Tina Fey has actually done more interviews about playing Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin has done about being Sarah Palin!"

http://www.cnn.com/2...aign/index.html

Edited by Iam Empathy, 15 October 2008 - 10:35 PM.

[Iam Empathy]

Palin calls New Hampshire part of the "Great Northwest" --- and is roundly booed

[REGIMEN]

Proposed spending by a candidate can easily go down, and likely will do just that in this economic climate.

I never knew you were psychic niner beener. Ah, ya gotta be kidding me? Likely go down? Your buddy never said that. He was asked at the first debate what he'd cut, and do you know what his answer was? Probably not. I think you can foretell the future better than understand the facts of the past. He said he'd cut nothing, but then he rambled on about how we need to spend more! Get outta here niner beener.

Must be all that hothot sun and living amidst a high concentration of illegal Mexican immigrants down there in the southwestern desert that's getting to luv2increase...

McCain's caught some of that "crazy heat", too... which explains his fully negative campaign.

Drink more fluids, get to bed earlier, and by all means stay indoors.

Edited by REGIMEN, 28 October 2008 - 07:51 PM.

[Iam Empathy]

http://www.sfgate.co.../EDS513N8QG.DTL

The Maverick's tragic flaw

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Writers Group

Monday, October 27, 2008

My husband called it first. Then, a brilliant, 75-year-old scholar and raconteur confessed to me over wine: "I'm sexually attracted to her. I don't care that she knows nothing."

Finally, writer Robert Draper closed the file on the Sarah Palin mystery with a devastating article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine: "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain."

McCain didn't know her. He didn't vet her. His campaign team had barely an impression. In a bar one night, Draper asked one of McCain's senior advisers: "Leaving aside her actual experience, do you know how informed Gov. Palin is about the issues of the day?"

The adviser thought a moment and replied: "No, I don't know."

Blame the sycamore tree.

McCain had met Palin only once - in February, at the governor's convention in Washington, D.C. - before the day he selected her as his running mate. The second time was at his Sedona, Ariz., ranch on Aug. 28, just four days before the GOP convention.

As Draper tells it, McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, "Voila." One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten. By no means am I suggesting anything untoward between McCain and his running mate. Palin is a governor, after all. She does have an executive resume, if a thin one. And she's a natural politician who connects with people.

But there can be no denying that McCain's selection of her over others far more qualified - and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter - suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by ... what?

Science provides clues. A study in Canada, published in New Scientist in 2003, found that pretty women foil men's ability to assess the future. "Discounting the future," as the condition is called, means preferring immediate, lesser rewards to greater rewards in the future.

Drug dealers, car salesmen and politicians rely on this affliction and pray feverishly for its persistence.

The Canadian psychologists showed pictures of attractive and not-so attractive men and women to students of the opposite sex. The students were offered a prize - either a small check for the next day or a larger check at some later date.

The men made perfectly rational decisions, opting for the delayed larger amount after viewing the average-looking women. You know where this is going. (Women, by the way, were rational no matter what.) That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools. McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin's maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.

Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister's. In McCain's case, it doesn't hurt that his reflection is spiked with feminine approval.

As my husband observed early on, McCain the mortal couldn't mind having an attractive woman all but singing arias to his greatness. Cameras frequently capture McCain beaming like a gold-starred schoolboy while Palin tells crowds that he is "exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief." This, notes Draper, "seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful."

It is entirely possible that no one could have beaten the political force known as Barack Obama - under any circumstances. And though it isn't over yet, it seems clear that McCain made a tragic, if familiar, error under that sycamore tree. Will he join the pantheon of men who, intoxicated by a woman's power, made the wrong call?

Had Antony not fallen for Cleopatra, Octavian might not have captured the Roman Empire. Had Bill Clinton resisted Monica Lewinsky, Al Gore may have become president and Hillary Rodham Clinton might be today's Democratic nominee.

If McCain, rightful heir to the presidency, loses to Obama, history undoubtedly will note that he was defeated at least in part by his own besotted impulse to discount the future. If he wins, then he must be credited with having correctly calculated nature's power to befuddle.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 28 October 2008 - 11:15 PM.

[missminni]

If anybody saw McCain on Meet the Press this past Sunday, they could see that not only was he nervous and insincere, but senility is beginning to become apparent.

He couldn't remember names, and couldn't gracefully maneuver around them...it was so painfully awkward. When he couldn't remember one of his own advisor's name, no matter how hard he tried, it was pathetic. Then later on, when they were talking about something else entirely, the name came to him, and he blurted it out....like he was so proud he finally remembered.

I am not saying this to be mean, because it is just a fact of life at his age, and even I forget stuff at my age (not the name of somebody who is close to me though. Maybe I forget the name of a song I used to like 20 years ago) but I am not running for president. And he shouldn't be either. He is too old. It's that simple. We need a young agile mind, not an old decrepit one.

[luv2increase]

If anybody saw McCain on Meet the Press this past Sunday, they could see that not only was he nervous and insincere, but senility is beginning to become apparent.

That is a load of trash. I watched it, and he seemed fine. He didn't show any signs of senility from any of the 3 debates either. Did you think that he may have been tired from all the campaigning? I mean, the guy is human isn't he? He sure as heck doesn't have an social economic agenda that will cause millions of people to lose their jobs and small businesses, the backbone of our country, to fail now does he?

Obama should want to raise taxes right now on anyone the way things are right now... What is he, crazy?

[missminni]

If anybody saw McCain on Meet the Press this past Sunday, they could see that not only was he nervous and insincere, but senility is beginning to become apparent.

That is a load of trash. I watched it, and he seemed fine. He didn't show any signs of senility from any of the 3 debates either. Did you think that he may have been tired from all the campaigning? I mean, the guy is human isn't he? He sure as heck doesn't have an social economic agenda that will cause millions of people to lose their jobs and small businesses, the backbone of our country, to fail now does he?

Obama should want to raise taxes right now on anyone the way things are right now... What is he, crazy?

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.

[RighteousReason]

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.

Edited by Savage, 29 October 2008 - 02:38 AM.

[missminni]

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.

Edited by missminni, 29 October 2008 - 03:16 AM.

[niner]

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.

Savage, this doesn't make any sense. If they aren't making enough money, they will work harder and hire more people to make MORE money. On the other hand, if we cut their taxes, they will have MORE money, thus LESS incentive to work.

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

You mean like to failing banks, Wall Street crooks, or General Motors? People on Social Security? People on Medicare? I'm not crazy about it, but sometimes the social good outweighs the fiscal bad.

[inawe]

[Shepard]

If they aren't making enough money, they will work harder and hire more people to make MORE money.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone doing this. I do hear about companies laying people off due to financial crises quite often, though.

On the other hand, if we cut their taxes, they will have MORE money, thus LESS incentive to work.

This is operating on the assumption that once income hits a certain level, the person/corporation decides they have enough money. This may happen at the very high end of the spectrum (on an individual level), but I doubt it happens for most people. In my experience the best incentive to work harder is more money.

[luv2increase]

Get over the bullshit tax argument. It affects less than 5% of the population.

Are you kidding me? Do you not know how economics works? It will "indirectly" affect everyone; the price of goods will soar, businesses will lay off more workers because less of their goods are being bought and the tax burden will be too great, the government will run out of money because their won't be the amount of income ONCE THERE to tax the sh*t out of. Obama wants to raise the taxes on individuals and businesses making now over $200,000 -----> 5 0 . 3 % !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Get over it? Hardly. The fabric of our capitalistic economy will be torn like never before. Yes, this surely is change, but it isn't change none of us hoped for........................



It doesn't take half a brain to figure this stuff out. If you feel yourself as being the least bit intelligent, you would look past the man and analyze what the man wants to do!!!

[Shepard]

If you feel yourself as being the least bit intelligent, you would look past the man and analyze what the man wants to do!!!

And if you live in the real world, you take the character of the candidate into account. No rational person can deny the importance of the personality of the candidate. I don't care if there is a dream candidate that mimics my political beliefs perfectly, I'm not voting for her if I don't have faith in her character in the face of a crisis.

[luv2increase]

If you feel yourself as being the least bit intelligent, you would look past the man and analyze what the man wants to do!!!

And if you live in the real world, you take the character of the candidate into account. No rational person can deny the importance of the personality of the candidate. I don't care if there is a dream candidate that mimics my political beliefs perfectly, I'm not voting for her if I don't have faith in her character in the face of a crisis.

I can't believe you said that. I would surely have thought you would want to shy aside the man's character. Do you not think that the old adage "birds of a feather flock together" apply to Obama? Him and all his anti-American buddies should surely have relevance to his character. What makes you think Obama would be exempt from this adage? I don't understand? Also, Obama's statement when he didn't know he was being recorded in Pennsylvania saying the people "go to their guns and their religion" when things are bad. This shows his character. The guy's negative campaigning and never once denouncing the negative wrong-doings of his supporters and his campaign surely represent his character. Open your eyes shepard and quit trying to apply a Double Standard. It is wrong!

[luv2increase]

If you feel yourself as being the least bit intelligent, you would look past the man and analyze what the man wants to do!!!

And if you live in the real world, you take the character of the candidate into account. No rational person can deny the importance of the personality of the candidate. I don't care if there is a dream candidate that mimics my political beliefs perfectly, I'm not voting for her if I don't have faith in her character in the face of a crisis.

I can't believe you said that. I would surely have thought you would want to shy aside the man's character. Do you not think that the old adage "birds of a feather flock together" apply to Obama? Him and all his anti-American buddies should surely have relevance to his character. What makes you think Obama would be exempt from this adage? I don't understand? Also, Obama's statement when he didn't know he was being recorded in Pennsylvania saying the people "go to their guns and their religion" when things are bad. This shows his character. The guy's negative campaigning and never once denouncing the negative wrong-doings of his supporters and his campaign surely represent his character. Open your eyes shepard and quit trying to apply a Double Standard. It is wrong!


P.S. So now we've come to the realization that his character is flawed, and his economic policy agenda is flawed; what do we have left, his brilliant way of speaking of things which hold no substance? He is playing on peoples' emotions to get their vote. He is a con-artist whether you like it or not.

Someone can say anything and say it brilliantly, but can he walk the walk??????? I didn't think so because his record is 100% contradictory to what he says he is going to do. Face it, you have been sceamed.

[Shepard]

Did you see me mention Obama?

[REGIMEN]

Did you see me mention Obama?

Just keep feeding him tidbits...the longer he's chained to his keyboard by his over-wrought need to defend against imagined offenses to which he hammers out endless linkings of dissociated riposte....the better.

[RighteousReason]

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 for 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, 30 October 2008 - 10:31 PM.

[missminni]

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

Savage, I don't have the time or inclination to debate you point by point.
I obviously don't agree with or accept your interpretation of the facts.
Let's just agree to disagree.
However, when it comes to facing reality, savage is the one we have been dealt under your administration.
We are now in state of disrepair and destitution because of it.
I pray that we can rise from the nightmare your "have and have more" barbaric political party has wreaked on us.
It is not only savage, it's criminal and I hope criminal prosecution will follow.
The savage reality is that your man is losing.
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.
His other claim to fame was his involvement in the Keating Five.

America and intelligent Republicans are smarter than that. What you call conservative is reactionary.
True Conservatives like the Goldwater's and Buckley's are voting the only intelligent choice...for Obama.
I hope this will be a turning point in American history when conscious intelligent people from both parties work
together to further the evolution of our nation and the role it plays in world PEACE and Prosperity...not domination.
When I was a kid, I was so proud to be part of the American melting pot. Looking at the crowds for Obama, I see that
beautiful melting pot that makes America so special. We transcend race and gender. We are an amazing country with
an amazing diversity of culture, BTW something you don't see in a McCain crowd.
It's time to unite as one race, the human race, and move forward toward world peace and prosperity with creativity, compassion
and inclusiveness.

[RighteousReason]

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

Savage, I don't have the time or inclination to debate you point by point.
I obviously don't agree with or accept your interpretation of the facts.
Let's just agree to disagree.
However, when it comes to facing reality, savage is the one we have been dealt under your administration.
We are now in state of disrepair and destitution because of it.
I pray that we can rise from the nightmare your "have and have more" barbaric political party has wreaked on us.
It is not only savage, it's criminal and I hope criminal prosecution will follow.
The savage reality is that your man is losing.
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.
His other claim to fame was his involvement in the Keating Five.

America and intelligent Republicans are smarter than that. What you call conservative is reactionary.
True Conservatives like the Goldwater's and Buckley's are voting the only intelligent choice...for Obama.
I hope this will be a turning point in American history when conscious intelligent people from both parties work
together to further the evolution of our nation and the role it plays in world PEACE and Prosperity...not domination.
When I was a kid, I was so proud to be part of the American melting pot. Looking at the crowds for Obama, I see that
beautiful melting pot that makes America so special. We transcend race and gender. We are an amazing country with
an amazing diversity of culture, BTW something you don't see in a McCain crowd.
It's time to unite as one race, the human race, and move forward toward world peace and prosperity with creativity, compassion
and inclusiveness.

However, when it comes to facing reality, savage is the one we have been dealt under your administration. We are now in state of disrepair and destitution because of it.

The Republicans

One thing for sure - the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion's share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt's Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans *in 1994* recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then - this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.

As a matter of fact, it's not just the Department of Education; it's our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London - all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.

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.

Edited by Savage, 31 October 2008 - 12:11 AM.

[missminni]

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.