Obama's positions on issues [Archive]

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 09:37 AM

I see the thread below about Obama's accomplishments or reasons he should get your vote. I read the first page and didn't see one listed.

The only things I do know about his actual positions are:

- He voted against banning partial birth abortion

- He is for universal healthcare

- He has mentioned having everyone pay for mortgages that people can't pay off by themselves.

- He wants to cut and run in Iraq

- Some people say he has mentioned reparations for slavery, but I cant see this being true.

It seems he talks about Hope and Change and never talks about what he would do to solve the issues. I could tell you most of Mccain's stances on issues, but hardly any of Obamas.

Go to his website or google it. His votes are public knowledge. Most voters vote from the gut and they always have. Before the internet and TV do you think voters knew, many still don't today, about the positions of their candidates? You really think voters gave serious thought before voting for Bush? Most voted for him because he was the guy they felt more comfortable "having a beer" with. Yeah, that's a great way to select a president. But it happens the majority of the time.

Just like in the military. You get a bunch of guys together and send them out to do something and a leader will emerge and others will follow not knowing a damn thing about him but just having that gut feeling that he is their leader.

Do your own research and make up your own mind. I've made up my mind to support Obama and I got that feeling in my guts years ago.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/clintsquint/barack33.jpg

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 10:28 AM

Can you name a few issues you agree with him on? You still havent answered my question

clambake

06-06-2008, 10:43 AM

xrayzebra

06-06-2008, 10:48 AM

he wants to change this broken machine. he wants to put political action groups and lobbyist in a box. (bravo)

he wants a real govt. in iraq. not this stupid situation that exist now. we are paying the real power brokers simply not to kill our troops.

he wants americans to have healthcare. people that rail against this need mental healthcare.

he wants the filthy rich to quit getting a free ride on our tail.

he wants to restore our country's image. people that rail against this need mental healthcare.

He can want in one hand and crap in the other and guess
which one will get full the fastest.

His buddy Tony Rezko going to jail so now he doesn't want
to take anyone else money. Obama can sure pick his
friends.

Is he also going to give up his wife and his millions. Or,
are you just referring to other rich people.

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 10:49 AM

Can you name a few issues you agree with him on? You still havent answered my question

I wasn't planning on answering your question. Why does it matter to you what I agree with Obama on? Surely you can make up your own decision without any help from me.

But I do agree with opposition to the Iraq War.
I agree with his position regarding contributions from lobbyists.
I like his plan on health care.
I like his plan for college tuition credits for those who serve.
I agree with his position on veterans benefits.
I like his idea of pulling in the best people regardless of their political party affiliation.

I've always liked and admired McCain but at this point I'm going with Obama.

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 10:51 AM

He can want in one hand and crap in the other and guess
which one will get full the fastest.

His buddy Tony Rezko going to jail so now he doesn't want
to take anyone else money. Obama can sure pick his
friends.

Is he also going to give up his wife and his millions. Or,
are you just referring to other rich people.

Yeah, I mean with friends like Bush, Cheney, Rummney, Rice, Libby. Hagee..why would anyone question McCain? Is McCain going to give up his rich wife?
Get real Xray.

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 10:55 AM

1 he wants to change this broken machine. he wants to put political action groups and lobbyist in a box. (bravo)

2 he wants a real govt. in iraq. not this stupid situation that exist now. we are paying the real power brokers simply not to kill our troops.

3 he wants americans to have healthcare. people that rail against this need mental healthcare.

4 he wants the filthy rich to quit getting a free ride on our tail.

5 he wants to restore our country's image. people that rail against this need mental healthcare.

1. Nice political speak. Every politician says this

2. Don't we all. This is not really a position. Its more nice political speak

3. I want Americans to have healthcare as well. I work hard for a company and have purchased their helathcare plan. More Americans need to do the same instead of relying on the government. The universal healthcare system would bankrupt the government not to mention diminish the quality of care and increase the time frame it takes to get treated.

4. Free ride? The filthy rich as you call them pay I believe near 50% in taxes. These people have worked hard to get where they are it. They should of course pay taxes, but they have nothing close to a free ride.

5. More nice political speak. How is he going to do it?

xrayzebra

06-06-2008, 10:57 AM

Yeah, I mean with friends like Bush, Cheney, Rummney, Rice, Libby. Hagee..why would anyone question McCain? Is McCain going to give up his rich wife?
Get real Xray.

Well, McCain might, or she might. Who knows. I understand
there were prenuptial agreements made before they were
married. So guess he doesn't have access to them.

As far as Bush, Cheney, Rummey, Rice and Libby. I see
nothing wrong with them. The are smart people who work
the system just as the dimms do.

You act like lobbyist are the worst thing that ever happened
to government. Do you include the Sierra club, Hispanic
groups, NAACP in your statement. Because they too
employ and do lobbying. Which is a basic freedom in our
country. The groups I mention also collect many dollars
and given them to politicians, which they have the freedom
to do. So don't paint with too wide a brush cause you
might find out you have a little paint on your hands.

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 11:01 AM

xrayzebra

06-06-2008, 11:03 AM

Well, they were smart enough to dupe you and many others. But I see through their BS.
ANY lobbyists.
You shouldn't take about painting with a wide brush since you do it on a daily basis. So I'd listen to your own advice.

I find your statement about any lobbyist a little bit far
fetched. Sorry, but I just don't believe you.

clambake

06-06-2008, 11:05 AM

#3 is the equivelent of yelling fire in a theater, no fire, just panic.

#1and 2. it can't be a position until it has the chance to make an affect.

#4 we should stop providing huge tax breaks to oil and reverse the bailout of the rich regarding their mortgage explosion. these are free rides on our tail, mate.

#5 he'll have some help from this democratic congress.

you probably don't have to worry about any of this. you can feel safe in the fear that republicans have provided.

Don Quixote

06-06-2008, 11:15 AM

I'm not so sure that support for Obama has much to do with the issues. He's a mentality, an attitude, a new outlook on government, a movement.

clambake

06-06-2008, 11:18 AM

I'm not so sure that support for Obama has much to do with the issues. He's a mentality, an attitude, a new outlook on government, a movement.

good post. all of these things have been missing too long.

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 11:21 AM

I find your statement about any lobbyist a little bit far
fetched. Sorry, but I just don't believe you.

That is the problem. But I've seen your refusal to believe other things.

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 11:23 AM

I'm not so sure that support for Obama has much to do with the issues. He's a mentality, an attitude, a new outlook on government, a movement.

More often than not voters, IMO, over look some disagreement with issues and vote for the candidate they like best. It can be that simple.

Most conservatives that I know don't like McCain at all and don't agree with most of his positions but are voting for him because he is a republican.

Don Quixote

06-06-2008, 11:33 AM

Half-true. Republicans tend stay home and vote for their party's guy unless there is compelling reason to take their vote elsewhere. Same goes for Democrats, by the way.

But like I said, campaigns built around a cult of personality (i.e., Obama) inevitably devolve into an up-or-down vote on the object of devotion. McCain may as well not even be running -- this election is all about the Anointed One. And I suspect that the majority of conservative types will object to (a) Obama's questionable connections, (b) his tax-spend-regulate approach to government, and (c) his naive foreign policy (the foreign thugs will eat his lunch) and eventually come around to McCain, even if he is a weenie.

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 11:37 AM

I'm not so sure that support for Obama has much to do with the issues. He's a mentality, an attitude, a new outlook on government, a movement.

So you should vote for somebody for their attitude, mentality and outlook? What if your boss kept saying things "Lets change the way we do things around here" " And lets hope for a better work environment" But never had any ideas to put in place to make the company, work environment, company's image better. You can speak this nonsense all day but if you have no ideas of how to get done it is just nonsense.

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 11:38 AM

Most conservatives that I know don't like McCain at all and don't agree with most of his positions but are voting for him because he is a republican.

They are voting for Mccain because they agree with more of his positions than Obamas

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 11:40 AM

Don Quixote

06-06-2008, 11:40 AM

I agree. Obama speaks in gassy platitudes. When you nail him down on specifics, he gets into identity politics (us vs. them), taxes as the solution, and other tired ideas from bygone eras.

clambake

06-06-2008, 11:43 AM

mccains decisions change on a daily basis. not entirely his fault. he has to figure out who wants what and when like he's picking a horse at the track.

AZLouis

06-06-2008, 11:43 AM

Can you name a few issues you agree with him on? You still havent answered my question

It's a loaded question.

Anybody answers and they and their reasonings will get lambasted by those who don't agree.

Meanwhile those who choose not to answer will be sufficient reason enough for you to say nobody can name a reason why they support Obama.

:rollin

clambake

06-06-2008, 11:45 AM

i love mccains idea of 10 townhall meetings with obama.

make it 20 or 30.

make them last at least 3 hours each.

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 11:48 AM

i love mccains idea of 10 townhall meetings with obama.

make it 20 or 30.

make them last at least 3 hours each.

I think it shows how the 2 candidates are different:

Mccain actually has an idea on how to make the debates and discussions between candidates better.
Obama just wants to "change" the way we do it and "hope" it gets better. He doesnt offer any ideas for doing so

clambake

06-06-2008, 11:52 AM

I think it shows how the 2 candidates are different:

Mccain actually has an idea on how to make the debates and discussions between candidates better.
Obama just wants to "change" the way we do it and "hope" it gets better. He doesnt offer any ideas for doing so

mccain also wants to go to iraq where the reality of their visit would be equal to a day at a theme park.

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-06-2008, 12:48 PM

he wants to change this broken machine. he wants to put political action groups and lobbyist in a box. (bravo)

he wants a real govt. in iraq. not this stupid situation that exist now. we are paying the real power brokers simply not to kill our troops.

he wants americans to have healthcare. people that rail against this need mental healthcare.

he wants the filthy rich to quit getting a free ride on our tail.

he wants to restore our country's image. people that rail against this need mental healthcare.

Then what's with the mortgage bailouts? A lot of those are second homes rich folk are trying to flip or rent out.

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-06-2008, 12:51 PM

Most conservatives that I know don't like McCain at all and don't agree with most of his positions but are voting for him because he is a republican.

Others (like myself) will vote for him because he's less to the left than Obama is. Democrat > marxist. And sadly, this is the realization I know lots of folks are making about this.

Damn.

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 12:57 PM

Others (like myself) will vote for him because he's less to the left than Obama is. Democrat > marxist. And sadly, this is the realization I know lots of folks are making about this.

Damn.

I agree, but we let the republicans see we would support the lesser of two evils, and they got worse. I will not reward such activity again myself.

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:23 PM

Then what's with the mortgage bailouts? A lot of those are second homes rich folk are trying to flip or rent out.

Too bad for you it's not the little guy getting bailed out....it's the rich mortgage brokers and their financial backers...

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:25 PM

I think it shows how the 2 candidates are different:

Mccain actually has an idea on how to make the debates and discussions between candidates better.
Obama just wants to "change" the way we do it and "hope" it gets better. He doesnt offer any ideas for doing so

Here is the main issue the 08 election boils down too...

McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 'the next hundred years'

Obama has a plan for systematic withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months after taking office....

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:26 PM

i love mccains idea of 10 townhall meetings with obama.

make it 20 or 30.

make them last at least 3 hours each.

Obama would wipe the floor with McCain....McCain is a piss poor public speaker..

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 01:28 PM

Here is the main issue the 08 election boils down too...

McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 'the next hundred years'

Obama has a plan for systematic withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months after taking office....

Way to take that completely out of context. Mccain does not want to stay there for 100 years. He wants Iraz to be able to leave Iraq in a poisition where it can sustain itself. Obama wants to cut and run. There are also a lot more issues out there than just this one, but judging by your 100 years comment you are pretty misinformed.

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 01:32 PM

balli

06-06-2008, 01:34 PM

Obama wants to cut and run.

I'd say you're taking thing quite out of context yourself; who are you, Karl Rove?

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 01:36 PM

I'd say you're taking thing quite out of context yourself; who are you, Karl Rove?

I think that getting out of Iraq that quick, no matter how much they are in shambles can be considered cutting and running.

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:39 PM

Way to take that completely out of context. Mccain does not want to stay there for 100 years. He wants Iraz to be able to leave Iraq in a poisition where it can sustain itself. Obama wants to cut and run. There are also a lot more issues out there than just this one, but judging by your 100 years comment you are pretty misinformed.

I think the point is that McCain supports a permanent military presence in Iraq, just like Dubya.....whether you want to face reality or not, Hillary lost the Democratic nomination because of her vote to authorize the Iraq invasion.....just how understanding do you think voters will be with McCain who has voted 90% of the time with Dubya...including it's plan for Iraq?

balli

06-06-2008, 01:39 PM

I think that getting out of Iraq that quick, no matter how much they are in shambles can be considered cutting and running.

Fuck em, let it burn. You should have thought about that shit before you voted for the piece of shit that started this war in the first place.

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:42 PM

I think that getting out of Iraq that quick, no matter how much they are in shambles can be considered cutting and running.

You can go with cut and run if you want, but the American people know better...and you'll be soundly defeated in Nov.

clambake

06-06-2008, 01:42 PM

I think that getting out of Iraq that quick, no matter how much they are in shambles can be considered cutting and running.

where else do we pay the enemy not to kill our troops?

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 01:43 PM

I think the point is that McCain supports a permanent military presence in Iraq, just like Dubya.....whether you want to face reality or not, Hillary lost the Democratic nomination because of her vote to authorize the Iraq invasion.....just how understanding do you think voters will be with McCain who has voted 90% of the time with Dubya...including it's plan for Iraq?

You know we still have military bases in Germany and other countries throughout the world. Is that such a bad thing?

I disagree about why Hillary lost the nomination. She lost it because black voters turned out in record numbers and something like 96% of them voted for Obama. She also lost it because Obama is a better speaker and spoke of hope and change that appealed to the abstract thinking voters.

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 01:44 PM

where else do we pay the enemy not to kill our troops?

please elaborate on this. I do not know what you are talking about. A link would be nice

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 01:45 PM

You can go with cut and run if you want, but the American people know better...and you'll be soundly defeated in Nov.

I am not running for office

clambake

06-06-2008, 01:45 PM

You know we still have military bases in Germany and other countries throughout the world. Is that such a bad thing?

where else do we pay the enemy not to kill our troops?

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 01:46 PM

You can go with cut and run if you want, but the American people know better...and you'll be soundly defeated in Nov.

A leader does not follow the will of others. A leader leads!

the likes of any democrats I know today will never be leaders. The have the following method for determining actions:

1) Insert finger in mouth.
2) Full out wet finger.
3) Stick high up in the air.
4) Determine which way the wind is blowing.
5) face that direction.
6) Throw tax payer dollars in the air.

A leader will appoint good people around himself(herself) that brings qualities the he or she lacks. They will listen to informed opinions, and make a decision. The people may or may not agree, but a good leader will then explain why he or she is right. Democrats just push their elitists agenda's using the jeolosy factor of their stupid constituents.

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:46 PM

I disagree about why Hillary lost the nomination. She lost it because black voters turned out in record numbers and something like 96% of them voted for Obama. She also lost it because Obama is a better speaker and spoke of hope and change that appealed to the abstract thinking voters.

:rolleyes

Right...because Iowa, Nebraska and Washington state are dominated by 'black voters'...

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:48 PM

A leader does not follow the will of others. A leader leads!

That's exactly the why the Republican movement is in its death throes....excuse me if Democrats go in a different direction...

clambake

06-06-2008, 01:49 PM

A leader does not follow the will of others. A leader leads!

the likes of any democrats I know today will never be leaders. The have the following method for determining actions:

1) Insert finger in mouth.
2) Full out wet finder.
3) Stick high up in the air.
4) Determine which way the wind is blowing.
5) face that direction.
6) Throw tax payer dollars in the air.

whats the deficit under these republicans?

balli

06-06-2008, 01:49 PM

please elaborate on this. I do not know what you are talking about. A link would be nice
From the council of conservative citizens no less
http://cofcc.org/?p=1192

The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack US forces. That’s right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "US-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack US troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al Qaeda.

This is a much cheaper way to fight a war. We can only wonder why Bush didn’t figure it out sooner.

The "surge" was also timed to take account of the near completion of neighborhood cleansing. Most of the violence in Iraq during the past five years has resulted from Sunnis and Shi’ites driving each other out of mixed neighborhoods. Had the two groups been capable of uniting against the US troops, the US would have been driven out of Iraq long ago. Instead, the Iraqis slaughtered each other and fought the Americans in their spare time.

In other words, the "surge" has had nothing to do with any decline in violence.

With the Sunni insurgents now on Uncle Sam’s payroll, with neighborhoods segregated, and with al Sadr’s militia standing down, it is unclear who is still responsible for ongoing violence other than US troops themselves. Somebody must still be fighting, however, because the US is still conducting air strikes and is still unable to tell friend from foe.

cajunspur

06-06-2008, 01:50 PM

[

balli

06-06-2008, 01:50 PM

whats the deficit under these republicans?

A record.

balli

06-06-2008, 01:50 PM

link?

Look up.

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 01:50 PM

whats the deficit under these republicans?

Less than it would be under democrats.

Nbadan

06-06-2008, 01:50 PM

I am not running for office

That's OK because you have Limbaugh and Insannity making these Republican talking points perfectly clear to voters....they are like PSA's for voting Democrat.....

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 01:51 PM

They are voting for Mccain because they agree with more of his positions than Obamas

Not necessarily.

balli

06-06-2008, 01:52 PM

Less than it would be under democrats.

Considering there was a surplus when Bill Clinton left office and a deficit when he came in and under Bush we've now had the largest budget and trade deficits in history, I'd watch my mouth if I were you.

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 01:52 PM

Less than it would be under democrats.

:lmao Are you that naive? Check your records again and look at where we were at the beginning of Bush and now.

Even McCain knows republicans raised the deficit. That is one thing he has not forgotten.

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 02:04 PM

Considering there was a surplus when Bill Clinton left office and a deficit when he came in and under Bush we've now had the largest budget and trade deficits in history, I'd watch my mouth if I were you.
How can you credit president Clinton for the rise in economy that was done by business, and several other reasons including the Y2K scare? Dropped after 2000 rolled around, right? Computer technologies exploded with the widespread usage of CMP starting in 1994. Everyone wanted the newest thing, and the technology was leaping at a faster rate than ever before. Internet stocks blossomed.

Besides, there was no surplus. It was an accounting trick. The last time we had a real surplus was under president Nixon. That was the last time the debt actually decreased.

clambake

06-06-2008, 02:06 PM

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 02:07 PM

Even republicans realize how much their out of control spending has COST them.

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 02:08 PM

:lmao Are you that naive? Check your records again and look at where we were at the beginning of Bush and now.

Even McCain knows republicans raised the deficit. That is one thing he has not forgotten.

I never said they didn't. How much more will the deficit and debt grow with the promised free health insurance along with all the other programs the libtards promise us?

Remember too, conservatives did not support republicans very will in 2006 because of too much spending and immigration policies. Liberals reward such idiotic stuff, conservatives penalize it!

balli

06-06-2008, 02:09 PM

How can you credit president Clinton for the rise in economy that was done by business, and several other reasons including the Y2K scare? Dropped after 2000 rolled around, right? Computer technologies exploded with the widespread usage of CMP starting in 1994. Everyone wanted the newest thing, and the technology was leaping at a faster rate than ever before. Internet stocks blossomed.

Besides, there was no surplus. It was an accounting trick. The last time we had a real surplus was under president Nixon. That was the last time the debt actually decreased.

Fine, but all I know is that our country was under better fiscal shape by almost astronomical levels under Clinton that it was under Reagan, Bush 1, and now W. Especially under W- I don't understand how you can hammer Democrats for spending after your guy for 8 years has spent and borrowed more than any administration ever.

And as I'm sure you know, we're not talking about the national debt, we're talking about the budget defecit.

JoeChalupa

06-06-2008, 02:12 PM

I never said they didn't. How much more will the deficit and debt grow with the promised free health insurance along with all the other programs the libtards promise us?

Remember too, conservatives did not support republicans very will in 2006 because of too much spending and immigration policies. Liberals reward such idiotic stuff, conservatives penalize it!

Wrong bucko! It was the American people who rejected republicans and their crazy spending. Not to mention all the scandals.

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 02:13 PM

And as I'm sure you know, we're not talking about the national debt, we're talking about the budget defecit.
Right. Now keep things in perspective too. Because of inflation, every year will be record spending. You have to look at it in terms or % of GNP, GDP, per capita, etc.

As a percentage, the spending under president Bush really isn't as bad as people like to believe!

Wild Cobra

06-06-2008, 02:14 PM

Wrong bucko! It was the American people who rejected republicans and their crazy spending. Not to mention all the scandals.

I'm sorry, I said conservatives because I didn't think liberals would support republicans either way. Should I have included them too?

balli

06-06-2008, 02:17 PM

As a percentage, the spending under president Bush really isn't as bad as people like to believe!

Yes it is. In fact, it's far worse than even I thought.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342

[comparing] spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.

Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.

During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"

balli

06-06-2008, 02:39 PM

Shut up pretty quick there didn't you Cobra?

boutons_

06-06-2008, 02:40 PM

"spending under president Bush really isn't as bad as people like to believe!"

.... you're excluding the $2T+ "emergency/supplementaries/off-books" for Iraq, right?

http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/images/debtcon.gif

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png

http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage.png

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya

Viva Las Espuelas

06-08-2008, 12:54 AM

Shut up pretty quick there didn't you Cobra?
hmm. i guess the value of the dollar has no effect on that at all. impossible.

Viva Las Espuelas

06-08-2008, 12:55 AM

GuerillaBlack

06-08-2008, 09:42 AM

Well, McCain might, or she might. Who knows. I understand
there were prenuptial agreements made before they were
married. So guess he doesn't have access to them.

As far as Bush, Cheney, Rummey, Rice and Libby. I see
nothing wrong with them. The are smart people who work
the system just as the dimms do.

You act like lobbyist are the worst thing that ever happened
to government. Do you include the Sierra club, Hispanic
groups, NAACP in your statement. Because they too
employ and do lobbying. Which is a basic freedom in our
country. The groups I mention also collect many dollars
and given them to politicians, which they have the freedom
to do. So don't paint with too wide a brush cause you
might find out you have a little paint on your hands.

You see anything wrong with these people?

G. Gordon Liddy

James Hensley

Charles Keating, Jr.

Rick Davis

Oleg Deripaska

Carol McCain vs. Cindy

Cindy McCain

Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno

Donald W. Riegle (K5)

Dennis DeConcini (K5)

Alan Cranston (K5)

Bob Riley

Charlie Black

Tom Loeffler

Peter madaigan

Charles Black, Jr.

John Green

Tom Loeffler

Bob Perry

Harold Simmons

T. Boone Pickens

Carl Linder Sr.

Harlan Crow

Jack E. Caveney

Albert Huddleston.

Rick Renz

I won't tell you what all they did, because I think you'll enjoy finding out about who these terrorists, corrupt lobbyists, corrupt politicians, mobsters, criminals, convicted felons, people he screwed over, drug addicts, whores and bums are. Is McCain even a "good" guy? If we're going to do 'guilt by association' he's clearly not qualified to be running for anything.

You go look those people up, what they did, how they built their empires, the ties they have, and then you can come back and list Obama's 4 names. List them with pride. And know that when you do, we'll be thinking about these 26 names of people far more questionable and far more sinister.

You think McCain's greatest hits have been played loud enough for America to have heard them? That party hasn't even begun yet. Rest assured that it will.

And I didn't even mention the ministers he sought out the endorsement of along the way.

Purple & Gold

06-08-2008, 11:54 AM

4. Free ride? The filthy rich as you call them pay I believe near 50% in taxes. These people have worked hard to get where they are it. They should of course pay taxes, but they have nothing close to a free ride.

Filthy rich to get a free ride. How many of them or their children actually serve in the military. They get the most out this country, yet contribute the least.

Giving your life >>>>> paying taxes

Purple & Gold

06-08-2008, 11:55 AM

Less than it would be under democrats.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

xrayzebra

06-08-2008, 12:03 PM

Filthy rich to get a free ride. How many of them or their children actually serve in the military. They get the most out this country, yet contribute the least.

Giving your life >>>>> paying taxes

I believe I hear a little "class" envy here. Those mean old "rich" people. Taking advantage of
the "poor" people who fight their wars. :wow

Purple & Gold

06-08-2008, 12:05 PM

I believe I hear a little "class" envy here. Those mean old "rich" people. Taking advantage of
the "poor" people who fight their wars. :wow

There you go couldn't have said it better myself :toast

Anti.Hero

06-08-2008, 01:16 PM

I'm not so sure that support for Obama has much to do with the issues. He's a mentality, an attitude, a new outlook on government, a movement.

Which is JUST what the people want RIGHT NOW. What a coincidence!

You want someone who might actually change things for the better, vote Ron Paul. He is attacking this fucked up system with common sense.

Obama says shit people want to hear. Ron Paul says shit people NEED to hear.

Wild Cobra

06-08-2008, 09:40 PM

Shut up pretty quick there didn't you Cobra?

So, since I don't live 24/7 on the internet, my moving on to other activities means you shut me up?

That's idiotic.

Wild Cobra

06-08-2008, 10:04 PM

could you please put up the value of the dollar chart to go along with this?

I'm not going to bother. We all know the dollar is dropping against other world currencies.

Now who cherry picked the charts?

We have various year charts here.

There are several explanations to consider for each. I won't give all possibilities I can think of, and I'm not going to try hard. Data can be construed to mean so many things.

First on:
http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/images/debtcon.gif

Consider that the republicans were elected as a majority in congress in 1994. The 1995 budget is already set, and their first budget is 1996. That's when spending is somewhat under control until 2002 when we spend major money following 9/11, deployment, Katrina, and war.

Also not it is in constant 2000 dollars. We also have population growth tis graph doesn't consider.

2nd:
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
Same thing with the congress, but also note it says projected, without distinguishing where the facts end and projections begin.

3rd:
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png

Notice how we have what looks like a natural cycle, like a sine wave at times. Increases from 1989 to 1992, drops to 2000, and increases again. The increase is starting in 2000. Before president Bush could have any effect. These economic cycles have a life of their own. The economy was booming until 2000, partially because of 2000... The Y2K scare.

Why does the chart end in 2004? We have 2006 data compiled now. Who's afraid to show us the newer data?

Also, we never had a negative deficit. It we did, the debt would go down. The last time the debt went down in 1968 I think. These numbers were compiled leaving out some important data. What did they leave out? How can such data be trusted?

DarkReign

06-09-2008, 11:22 AM

4. Free ride? The filthy rich as you call them pay I believe near 50% in taxes. These people have worked hard to get where they are it. They should of course pay taxes, but they have nothing close to a free ride.

:lmao

Hitting nearly every bullet point along the way, then this.

:downspin:

Don Quixote

06-09-2008, 11:26 AM

Which is JUST what the people want RIGHT NOW. What a coincidence!

You want someone who might actually change things for the better, vote Ron Paul. He is attacking this messed-up system with common sense.

Allow me to clarify. When I said the Obama Movement is not so much about issues, I meant that he's a brand, an emotion, and you can attach to him pretty much any meaning you want to him. Do I believe he is actually bringing anything new or different to the table? Not at all -- he's merely recycled foreign policy from the 30's, domestic policy from the 60's and 70's, and thrown in some racial politics and liberation theology that only exists in the university now. But he sure makes people *feel* good.

Second ... who's Ron Paul? Never heard of him. What primaries did he win again?

DarkReign

06-09-2008, 11:35 AM

Less than it would be under democrats.

:lmao More assumption.

Would Gore have led us into Iraq/Afghanistan? I dont know, but neither do you.

And all these entitlements that are such a large % of the spending in this country were there loooooong before Bush Jr/Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter.

But I do see the "War on Terror" actually rates on the pie chart.

Social spending should be dramatically decreased, no argument.

But lets not pretend that "other" expenses are completely out of our control. Especially those concerning preemptive war.

Purple & Gold

06-09-2008, 01:30 PM

I wonder why the dollar is so weak now. You think Bush has something to do with that??

RandomGuy

06-09-2008, 01:49 PM

could you please put up the value of the dollar chart to go along with this?

That would be the "constant" dollars that all good charts should be converted to.

The "value of the dollar" is a rather nebulous concept cooked up by gold-bug conspircay dorks.

RandomGuy

06-09-2008, 01:50 PM

Would Gore have led us into Iraq/Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no.

clambake

06-09-2008, 01:57 PM

i can't believe you guys don't want a "holiday gas tax suspension" and don't want to send a guy to mars.

can't you see that this kind of vision could eventually lead to a big hoe down with free corndogs and a sack race?

cajunspur

06-09-2008, 05:03 PM

:lmao

Hitting nearly every bullet point along the way, then this.

:downspin:

You don't think CEO's of major corporations, doctors, lawyers, etc... work hard to make their money

DarkReign

06-09-2008, 05:53 PM

You don't think CEO's of major corporations, doctors, lawyers, etc... work hard to make their money

Do you personally know any well-to-do people?

Because if you did, or had any idea how money starts to make itself, you wouldnt say such things.

Point is, the "rich" by definition, are no one you know. They inherit money. They spend very little time associating with the likes of you (or me for that matter).

A millionaire is NOT rich. A millionaire works hard (if he earned it and didnt inherit it that is). But all money reaches a critical mass, when you have enough of it, it makes itself through investment.

Rich people can absorb the loss of the stock market, losing hundreds of thousands a day, sometimes millions. Know how theyre affected?

They have another cup of coffee and call their accountant. I odnt think you know what "rich" really means, or that you have little experience with real rich people.

cajunspur

06-10-2008, 09:19 AM

Do you personally know any well-to-do people?

Because if you did, or had any idea how money starts to make itself, you wouldnt say such things.

Point is, the "rich" by definition, are no one you know. They inherit money. They spend very little time associating with the likes of you (or me for that matter).

A millionaire is NOT rich. A millionaire works hard (if he earned it and didnt inherit it that is). But all money reaches a critical mass, when you have enough of it, it makes itself through investment.

Rich people can absorb the loss of the stock market, losing hundreds of thousands a day, sometimes millions. Know how theyre affected?

They have another cup of coffee and call their accountant. I odnt think you know what "rich" really means, or that you have little experience with real rich people.

Yes I do know "well to do people" Quite a few actually. Whether it be athletes, doctors, ceo's, etc...they have all worked hard to get where they are at. Sounds like you are thinking of Paris Hilton here. Judging by your posts, you are a Democratic and dont hang out with high class people to often.

DarkReign

06-10-2008, 10:35 AM

you are a Democratic and dont hang out with high class people to often.

Did these CEOs and others attend the same elementary school as you? Grammar, friend.

Yes, I am a Democratic, if by that you mean a person who wants, thrives and believes in a democracy.

No, if you meant a Democrat, you'd be sorely mistaken. I may have been in my youth (that is, before I was 18 and my personal views made no difference in local, state and federal elections), but I am no longer anything you'd identify with.

I realize this is the internet and we can be anything we want by just typing it, but your definition of rich varies greatly from mine. Which means one of two things:

a) You dont know what "rich" really is
b) My definition of "rich" is so beyond yours in terms of what amount of money constitutes the term "rich", we will never agree

Either way, I dont give a shit. The rich pay some unGodly amount of tax% in this country...and for good reason. Because theyre rich. How much did you pay the government for 2007 earnings? Do you really know what rich is?

BTW, those questions of your income are rhetorical, I have no interest in your personal status. This forum to me, is not a comparison of dick size. But I can assure you, when I say "rich" I know what I speak of.

When a person earns $2-3 million a year, and has to cut a check to the government for ~$300k in taxes at years end, that poor, poor soul only has $2-2.7 million left to themselves only to reinvest it and earn exponentially more the next year.

Those poor, poor bastards, I tell ya. Looks like the house in the Florida Keys will have to wait on its rennovations....oh wait...looks like the kids Ivy league college fund is going to take a hit...oh wait....looks like they'll be just fine, seeing as not only does their business earn them income, but their investments in 5 years time will outpace any salasry they earn, and since any company can be incorporated, the failure of said company cannot be directly pinned to any one person, especially those companies large enough to have seperate investors.

The whole point of this mess, is to say that money reaches a critical mass (something you seem to neglect). If youre below that threshold (85-90% of the country is), yeah, youre working hard.

But if youre above it, the only thing you should care about is your investments and by proxy, the stock market. Because unless youre the CEO of a mega-large company that pays $10 million dollar salaries, there isnt a job in the world that will net you the amount of money in a year that your investments wont make double in the same time.

So, in effect, the self-made uber-rich are working hard...not because they have to, but because they have a personal motivation. The type of people that even if they won the lotto for a $100 million wouldnt quit their jobs.

I know people like that and have that exact conversation. I personally know a few families that are multi-millionaires and pay more taxes in a year than 10 families make in the same timeframe. They worked very hard to be where they are....those older individuals who earned it...but the point is, we are mortal. That money changes hands after death, and people die every day.

Their kids had nothing to do with their parents, yet they always cry the loudest when tax day comes because they dont have the same value attached to the means as they do the ends.

Thus, we call them snobs.

xrayzebra

06-10-2008, 11:03 AM

Did these CEOs and others attend the same elementary school as you? Grammar, friend.

Yes, I am a Democratic, if by that you mean a person who wants, thrives and believes in a democracy.

No, if you meant a Democrat, you'd be sorely mistaken. I may have been in my youth (that is, before I was 18 and my personal views made no difference in local, state and federal elections), but I am no longer anything you'd identify with.

I realize this is the internet and we can be anything we want by just typing it, but your definition of rich varies greatly from mine. Which means one of two things:

a) You dont know what "rich" really is
b) My definition of "rich" is so beyond yours in terms of what amount of money constitutes the term "rich", we will never agree

Either way, I dont give a shit. The rich pay some unGodly amount of tax% in this country...and for good reason. Because theyre rich. How much did you pay the government for 2007 earnings? Do you really know what rich is?

BTW, those questions of your income are rhetorical, I have no interest in your personal status. This forum to me, is not a comparison of dick size. But I can assure you, when I say "rich" I know what I speak of.

When a person earns $2-3 million a year, and has to cut a check to the government for ~$300k in taxes at years end, that poor, poor soul only has $2-2.7 million left to themselves only to reinvest it and earn exponentially more the next year.

Those poor, poor bastards, I tell ya. Looks like the house in the Florida Keys will have to wait on its rennovations....oh wait...looks like the kids Ivy league college fund is going to take a hit...oh wait....looks like they'll be just fine, seeing as not only does their business earn them income, but their investments in 5 years time will outpace any salasry they earn, and since any company can be incorporated, the failure of said company cannot be directly pinned to any one person, especially those companies large enough to have seperate investors.

The whole point of this mess, is to say that money reaches a critical mass (something you seem to neglect). If youre below that threshold (85-90% of the country is), yeah, youre working hard.

But if youre above it, the only thing you should care about is your investments and by proxy, the stock market. Because unless youre the CEO of a mega-large company that pays $10 million dollar salaries, there isnt a job in the world that will net you the amount of money in a year that your investments wont make double in the same time.

So, in effect, the self-made uber-rich are working hard...not because they have to, but because they have a personal motivation. The type of people that even if they won the lotto for a $100 million wouldnt quit their jobs.

I know people like that and have that exact conversation. I personally know a few families that are multi-millionaires and pay more taxes in a year than 10 families make in the same timeframe. They worked very hard to be where they are....those older individuals who earned it...but the point is, we are mortal. That money changes hands after death, and people die every day.

Their kids had nothing to do with their parents, yet they always cry the loudest when tax day comes because they dont have the same value attached to the means as they do the ends.

Thus, we call them snobs.

I would add only one thing. Just because someone is rich it doesn't mean they took it away
from someone else. Or someone lost out to the
rich guy. It just means, in most cases, like you
said, worked their butt off to make it. And in many cases are still working. More hours than the
guy working 40 hours a week.

DarkReign

06-10-2008, 11:35 AM

I would add only one thing. Just because someone is rich it doesn't mean they took it away
from someone else. Or someone lost out to the
rich guy. It just means, in most cases, like you
said, worked their butt off to make it. And in many cases are still working. More hours than the
guy working 40 hours a week.

I agree and I dont have numbers or stats to back my assertion that money is becoming old in this country.

That is, by my definition of rich, the amount of people in that bracket who earned it themselves are dead or dying. Seriously.

The rise of the auto-industry in the 40s and 50s where a mom-and-pop shop could grow so exponentially over a 15 year period, your typical rags to riches story, are over.

The dotcom blowout of the early to mid-nineties can be seen as a very similar, albeit much quicker rags-to-riches.

In my time running a business, I have learned many things. Most important though is how damn easy it was then in comparison to now (in reference to the auto industry, cant speak for anything else).

The owner of my company still has friendships with guys hes known for 30 years in the business. They sold out a looooong time ago for sweet, sweet millions. These guys were immigrants from Italy/Germany/Poland/etc. They came to this country with NOTHING except a suitcase and tradeskills. No education, no paperwork, hell they didnt even speak English.

But they had a work ethic unseen in today's world and a booming industry to supply. By proxy, they became very very successful. As long as they were in business, they were making money hand over fist.

They hired accountants and lawyers to move their earnings into sound investments and deferred accounts. They incorporated, hiring their family members as board members, they setup charities with their business partners and families as members of the board and donated "X" amount of their earnings to said charity, where the board members made "Y" amount of salary with only the minimum actually donated.

By incorporating their successful business, they prepared their family for their own death. In the event of the business originator dying, the only inheritance tax incurred by relatives was that of his own personal wealth (which if he had died before incorporation would have ruined them). Some properties here and there, his personal investments (not those investments held by his Holdings LLC which owned all his business properties and various stocks and bonds) and the like.

All in all, most of these men were worth 10s of millions, and the families (rightfully) bitched about having to pay the ~40% inheritance tax on a small fraction of the deceased's total worth (roughly, in one instance, they paid something to the tune of $2-3 million).

Boy, did they cry. I cant blame them, why the government can tax death is beyond me, but thats the way it is (for now). Those people, under the current system, should be happy the law allows the savvy to "hide" or "mask" their real wealth via corporations, holdings companies, deferred investments and the plethora of other means.

No matter, the point is, none of these beneficiaries had anything to do with the company, the man or his accomplishments (unless his wife was still alive at the time, but I dont think she was). They were nothing but what he made them.

The company brass (of which were a few family members and a boatload of businessmen) decided to sell the company their father started for millions upon millions in the late 80s. The fall of the auto-industry was right around the corner. Out just in time.

I see one or two of those people at personal events every blue moon. Nice people. Seriously.

But not one of them works. Nor will their children if they dont want to. But the luxury of not having to work is not what money provides, IMO. It provides an environment for improvement. The immigrant's grandchildren are all in the best colleges money can buy, they will graduate as doctors and lawyers and so on. Theyll earn their own way in this world while the money in the family just passes along the pipeline for generations to come. They dont have to work, but most will.

So hearing people who arent rich bitch about how the rich pay for everything makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. First, your definition of rich needs revising. Second, if under that revision you still find a tear in your eye for the rich, huddled masses, youre a knob.

cajunspur

06-10-2008, 01:19 PM

Did these CEOs and others attend the same elementary school as you? Grammar, friend.

Yes, I am a Democratic, if by that you mean a person who wants, thrives and believes in a democracy.

No, if you meant a Democrat, you'd be sorely mistaken. I may have been in my youth (that is, before I was 18 and my personal views made no difference in local, state and federal elections), but I am no longer anything you'd identify with.

I realize this is the internet and we can be anything we want by just typing it, but your definition of rich varies greatly from mine. Which means one of two things:

a) You dont know what "rich" really is
b) My definition of "rich" is so beyond yours in terms of what amount of money constitutes the term "rich", we will never agree

Either way, I dont give a shit. The rich pay some unGodly amount of tax% in this country...and for good reason. Because theyre rich. How much did you pay the government for 2007 earnings? Do you really know what rich is?

BTW, those questions of your income are rhetorical, I have no interest in your personal status. This forum to me, is not a comparison of dick size. But I can assure you, when I say "rich" I know what I speak of.

When a person earns $2-3 million a year, and has to cut a check to the government for ~$300k in taxes at years end, that poor, poor soul only has $2-2.7 million left to themselves only to reinvest it and earn exponentially more the next year.

Those poor, poor bastards, I tell ya. Looks like the house in the Florida Keys will have to wait on its rennovations....oh wait...looks like the kids Ivy league college fund is going to take a hit...oh wait....looks like they'll be just fine, seeing as not only does their business earn them income, but their investments in 5 years time will outpace any salasry they earn, and since any company can be incorporated, the failure of said company cannot be directly pinned to any one person, especially those companies large enough to have seperate investors.

The whole point of this mess, is to say that money reaches a critical mass (something you seem to neglect). If youre below that threshold (85-90% of the country is), yeah, youre working hard.

But if youre above it, the only thing you should care about is your investments and by proxy, the stock market. Because unless youre the CEO of a mega-large company that pays $10 million dollar salaries, there isnt a job in the world that will net you the amount of money in a year that your investments wont make double in the same time.

So, in effect, the self-made uber-rich are working hard...not because they have to, but because they have a personal motivation. The type of people that even if they won the lotto for a $100 million wouldnt quit their jobs.

I know people like that and have that exact conversation. I personally know a few families that are multi-millionaires and pay more taxes in a year than 10 families make in the same timeframe. They worked very hard to be where they are....those older individuals who earned it...but the point is, we are mortal. That money changes hands after death, and people die every day.

Their kids had nothing to do with their parents, yet they always cry the loudest when tax day comes because they dont have the same value attached to the means as they do the ends.

Thus, we call them snobs.

Sorry about the typo. I went to a prestigious high school that my "rich" parents payed very good money for me to attend. There are actually a good amount of ceo's, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, etc... that all attended this prestigious hgh school as well. I know a professional athlete that makes roughly $4 million a year and pays more than that $300,000 figure you threw out. That is only 10% of their earnings for a person making $3,000,000. Isn't the highest tax bracket around 38%?

It sounds as if you do not have a problem with people working hard and making their money. The ceo's I know of major construction companies that are making big big bucks have all worked very hard to do so. If they are investing their money, good for them. There is nothing wrong with that. If more people invested rather than spent what they got right away, we wouldn't be dealing with the current mortgage crisis.

As far as I go, no I am not rich yet, but I plan to work hard so I can enjoy all the luxuries my parents and their parents have. I really don't reach a point in your whole discussion. Do you have a problem with people working hard and making a large amount of money? Do you feel the rich should be taxed more than they are? I see a lot of words but no point.

Please answer those questions for me, before I go to my parents new condo on the Florida panhandle this weekend.

JoeChalupa

06-10-2008, 01:24 PM

I'm rich in character and to me is much more important than being financially rich.
I'm supporting Barack Obama and I've approved this post. But I do like his stance on the gas tax issue.

JoeChalupa

06-10-2008, 01:25 PM

I don't use money as a measuring stick for success either.

JoeChalupa

06-10-2008, 01:26 PM

And I'd have NO problem paying more taxes if I were richer. It goes with the territory and I wouldn't mind at all.

cajunspur

06-10-2008, 02:31 PM

And I'd have NO problem paying more taxes if I were richer. It goes with the territory and I wouldn't mind at all.

Rich people do pay more taxes. Their tax percentage is a lot higher than the rest. Democrats want to raise it even higher.

JoeChalupa

06-10-2008, 02:56 PM

Rich people do pay more taxes. Their tax percentage is a lot higher than the rest. Democrats want to raise it even higher.

Like I said, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

cajunspur

06-10-2008, 03:29 PM

Like I said, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

Easy for you to say when you dont have it

Wild Cobra

06-10-2008, 03:31 PM

Like I said, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
Then I will assume you are either one of the 47% who pay no taxes, or you make so much money, it doesn't change your quality of life.

I make just enough money, that I'm not 'rich' but I pay out bigtime in taxes. Everytime the demonrats want to get the rich, they get me too. I am sick and tired of paying about $20,000 in taxes every year and being told I don't pay enough.

Go fuck yourself.

cajunspur

06-10-2008, 04:01 PM

Then I will assume you are either one of the 47% who pay no taxes, or you make so much money, it doesn't change your quality of life.

I make just enough money, that I'm not 'rich' but I pay out bigtime in taxes. Everytime the demonrats want to get the rich, they get me too. I am sick and tired of paying about $20,000 in taxes every year and being told I don't pay enough.

Go fuck yourself.

thats also another great point. People act like the only ones paying huge taxes are the multi millionaires. Thats not true. The upper middle class if you will pays out tons of taxes, and they get screwed. Obama and other democrats want to raise taxes for the upper middle class to benefit the lower middle class. Every time they mention the "rich" they are referring to the upper middle class as well.

JoeChalupa

06-10-2008, 04:42 PM

Easy for you to say when you dont have it

It'd be easy if I did.

JoeChalupa

06-10-2008, 04:45 PM

Then I will assume you are either one of the 47% who pay no taxes, or you make so much money, it doesn't change your quality of life.

I make just enough money, that I'm not 'rich' but I pay out bigtime in taxes. Everytime the demonrats want to get the rich, they get me too. I am sick and tired of paying about $20,000 in taxes every year and being told I don't pay enough.

Go fuck yourself.

I pay taxes and would I like to keep more of it? Yeah, but I also know taxes are there for our National Security and many other issues. I live off my take home pay. If I were rich and I'd still live off my take home pay knowing damn well that I'm in a higher tax bracket but I'd be rich enough that I wouldn't whine about it.

Wild Cobra

06-10-2008, 05:11 PM

I pay taxes and would I like to keep more of it? Yeah, but I also know taxes are there for our National Security and many other issues. I live off my take home pay. If I were rich and I'd still live off my take home pay knowing damn well that I'm in a higher tax bracket but I'd be rich enough that I wouldn't whine about it.
I wouldn't whine either if I though our government needed more money. It doesn't. Federal expenditures are way too high in the social spending area.

If you want more money spent somwhere, make a donation. Don't ask the rest of us to help pay for what you believe in.

When the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire, how much more do you expect to pay? I haven't figured it out yet, but I don't like the idea. Then the democrats want to raise taxes on top of that...

Don Quixote

06-10-2008, 07:18 PM

Class warfare is alive and well!

DarkReign

06-11-2008, 12:02 AM

Sorry about the typo. I went to a prestigious high school that my "rich" parents payed very good money for me to attend. There are actually a good amount of ceo's, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, etc... that all attended this prestigious hgh school as well. I know a professional athlete that makes roughly $4 million a year and pays more than that $300,000 figure you threw out. That is only 10% of their earnings for a person making $3,000,000. Isn't the highest tax bracket around 38%?

It sounds as if you do not have a problem with people working hard and making their money. The ceo's I know of major construction companies that are making big big bucks have all worked very hard to do so. If they are investing their money, good for them. There is nothing wrong with that. If more people invested rather than spent what they got right away, we wouldn't be dealing with the current mortgage crisis.

As far as I go, no I am not rich yet, but I plan to work hard so I can enjoy all the luxuries my parents and their parents have. I really don't reach a point in your whole discussion. Do you have a problem with people working hard and making a large amount of money? Do you feel the rich should be taxed more than they are? I see a lot of words but no point.

Please answer those questions for me, before I go to my parents new condo on the Florida panhandle this weekend.

Is that all you got out of that post? Money and status?

People like you getting rich is what creates my apathy, golden boy.

Since you couldnt figure it out, I dont care who is taxed what, but if youre rich and beyond that critical mass point, I dont think one should be bitching.

But everyone finds a reason to cry...or brag. Whatever floats their ego-inflated raft.

Spur-Addict

06-11-2008, 12:19 AM

Which is JUST what the people want RIGHT NOW. What a coincidence!

You want someone who might actually change things for the better, vote Ron Paul. He is attacking this fucked up system with common sense.

Obama says shit people want to hear. Ron Paul says shit people NEED to hear.

INDEED GOOD SIR.

xrayzebra

06-11-2008, 10:47 AM

What's Obama's position today. He seems to change them
quite often. You know like Israel and his church and
lapel pins.....

MannyIsGod

06-11-2008, 03:42 PM

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Obama_beer_veto.jpg

JoeChalupa

06-11-2008, 03:43 PM

What's Obama's position today. He seems to change them
quite often. You know like Israel and his church and
lapel pins.....

McCain changes his positions too...depending on his audience.

Nice try though.

cajunspur

06-11-2008, 03:54 PM

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Obama_beer_veto.jpg

is that you in your picture flipping off the camera? If so, you are a giant douche.

MannyIsGod

06-11-2008, 06:08 PM

is that you in your picture flipping off the camera? If so, you are a giant douche.

Wut.

cajunspur

06-12-2008, 08:41 AM

Wut.

Is that you in your avatar flipping of the camera? Also "wut" is spelled what. The fact that you spelled what "wut" and that you have a pitcure of yourself flipping off a camera makes you an even bigger douche.

MannyIsGod

06-12-2008, 08:49 AM

Is that you in your avatar flipping of the camera? Also "wut" is spelled what. The fact that you spelled what "wut" and that you have a pitcure of yourself flipping off a camera makes you an even bigger douche.

Wat.

cajunspur

06-12-2008, 09:31 AM

Wat.

When I look at your picture, I see you flipping me off now and I laugh at what a douchebag you are. Leave the politics to the big boys you little immature boy.

MannyIsGod

06-12-2008, 03:29 PM

When I look at your picture, I see you flipping me off now and I laugh at what a douchebag you are. Leave the politics to the big boys you little immature boy.

Did you check with your penis before making this post? Pretty ironic being called immature by someone calling me a douche out of the blue.

xrayzebra

06-12-2008, 03:45 PM

What is Obama's position today. Anyone heard.

DarkReign

06-12-2008, 08:02 PM

:lmao

cajunspur

06-13-2008, 08:17 AM

Did you check with your penis before making this post? Pretty ironic being called immature by someone calling me a douche out of the blue.

Wow a penis joke. You just keep getting cooler and cooler. I did not call you a douche out of the blue. I read some of your idiotic posts and saw your cool avatar with you flipping off the camera which is hilarious and never been done before. It also has taken you 2 days to come up with a comeback remark and that was it? Like I said before leave the political talk to the big boys. Go flip off another camera and talk about how drunk you are.

Don Quixote

06-13-2008, 08:19 AM

This is funny and all, but what has this to do with Obama and his positions?

Do they even matter?

cajunspur

06-13-2008, 08:59 AM

This is funny and all, but what has this to do with Obama and his positions?

Do they even matter?

It started out discussing obama's positions on issues or lack there of. It digressed into a discussion on rich people. Then I had to make fun of mannyisgod for his douchebag avatar picture. I wouldnt mind getting back to Democrats telling me some of Obamas stances that they agree with. They couldnt really do this the first time I asked.

xrayzebra

06-13-2008, 10:42 AM

I understand that Mrs. Obama loves it when Barry changes his position. But that is only a rumor and I didn't hear it from Rush. Don't want to blame him for something the dimms started like the whitey thing.

clambake

06-13-2008, 11:23 AM

has obama decided to stay black?

Don Quixote

06-13-2008, 12:32 PM

This is funny and all, but what has this to do with Obama and his positions?

Do they even matter?

I'm not sure his positions matter at all. St. Barry is not really the sum of his positions on the issues. He's a movement, a brand, a feeling. I'm sure the majority of his True Followers will vote for him not knowing much about his positions at all. (Contrasted with McCain voters, who will vote for him often in spite of his known positions!)

But like any election centered around a cult of personality, it will end up as a yea-or-nay vote on the object of the devotion.

MannyIsGod

06-13-2008, 05:57 PM

Wow a penis joke. You just keep getting cooler and cooler. I did not call you a douche out of the blue. I read some of your idiotic posts and saw your cool avatar with you flipping off the camera which is hilarious and never been done before. It also has taken you 2 days to come up with a comeback remark and that was it? Like I said before leave the political talk to the big boys. Go flip off another camera and talk about how drunk you are.

Wut?

MannyIsGod

06-13-2008, 06:02 PM

I see the thread below about Obama's accomplishments or reasons he should get your vote. I read the first page and didn't see one listed.

The only things I do know about his actual positions are:

- He voted against banning partial birth abortion

- He is for universal healthcare

- He has mentioned having everyone pay for mortgages that people can't pay off by themselves.

- He wants to cut and run in Iraq

- Some people say he has mentioned reparations for slavery, but I cant see this being true.

It seems he talks about Hope and Change and never talks about what he would do to solve the issues. I could tell you most of Mccain's stances on issues, but hardly any of Obamas.

You want to talk politics? Lets.

Your OP in this thread is beyond foolish. You admit your own ignorance on the subject you want to discuss in what I can only assume is some lame attempt to show that "HEY LOOK OBAMA SUPPORTERS DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT HIM EXCEPT HIS PRETTY SPEECHES!". Its refreshing to see such a novel and smart approach come to this political forum.

I'm sure you've gone to an Obama rally and I'm sure your last paragraph isn't another statement based on ignorance. I'm sure your familiar what the so called "stump" and how presidential campaigns are run.

Thsi thread was bullshit from the get go. If leaving politics to the big boys means leaving it to idiots like you who can't be bothered to rid themselves of ignorance and instead think they're being clever in trying to expose that same ignorance in others then by all means, have at it.

cajunspur

06-13-2008, 08:54 PM

You want to talk politics? Lets.

Your OP in this thread is beyond foolish. You admit your own ignorance on the subject you want to discuss in what I can only assume is some lame attempt to show that "HEY LOOK OBAMA SUPPORTERS DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT HIM EXCEPT HIS PRETTY SPEECHES!". Its refreshing to see such a novel and smart approach come to this political forum.

I'm sure you've gone to an Obama rally and I'm sure your last paragraph isn't another statement based on ignorance. I'm sure your familiar what the so called "stump" and how presidential campaigns are run.

Thsi thread was bullshit from the get go. If leaving politics to the big boys means leaving it to idiots like you who can't be bothered to rid themselves of ignorance and instead think they're being clever in trying to expose that same ignorance in others then by all means, have at it.

I have followed this election pretty closely. While even Clinton was stating her stance on some issues, Obama was still pretty wishy washy and didnt answer the questions as much as he could.

Some Obama supporters have admitted that they don't really know his stances. They say they are voting for him because he is a change and brings hope. He has yet to speak about exactly what type of change he will bring to the table. My point is that anyone who is voting for him because they enjoy his speeches is ignorant. A president could give great speeches all day, but could still suck as a president.

I am not ignorant. You see someone started another thread about Mccains stance on issues, and why someone would vote for him. I sat there and listed all his stances and which ones I agree with and which ones I dont. Only one person on this thread has tried to it on this thread, and half of the topics were complete bullshit Obama speak.

I am proud of you for at least getting past your "wut" responses. You still have a long way to go before you have a chance of staying in my league as far as an argument goes though.

The way I see it you have 2 choices:
1. Change your douchebag avatar of you flipping the camera off. Accept the fact that right now you are a douchebag follower who plans to vote for Obama because your friend that you really look up to is.

2. Keep your avatar just because I advised you to change it. This would result in you staying a giant douchebag, but not accepting it yet. One day you will look back and realize what you are and be mad at yourself for your past actions.

The choice is yours.

Ignignokt

06-14-2008, 01:42 AM

This n00b is pwning MannyisDouche hardcore.:lmao

MannyIsGod

06-14-2008, 05:58 AM

I have followed this election pretty closely. While even Clinton was stating her stance on some issues, Obama was still pretty wishy washy and didnt answer the questions as much as he could.

Some Obama supporters have admitted that they don't really know his stances. They say they are voting for him because he is a change and brings hope. He has yet to speak about exactly what type of change he will bring to the table. My point is that anyone who is voting for him because they enjoy his speeches is ignorant. A president could give great speeches all day, but could still suck as a president.

I am not ignorant. You see someone started another thread about Mccains stance on issues, and why someone would vote for him. I sat there and listed all his stances and which ones I agree with and which ones I dont. Only one person on this thread has tried to it on this thread, and half of the topics were complete bullshit Obama speak.

I am proud of you for at least getting past your "wut" responses. You still have a long way to go before you have a chance of staying in my league as far as an argument goes though.

The way I see it you have 2 choices:
1. Change your douchebag avatar of you flipping the camera off. Accept the fact that right now you are a douchebag follower who plans to vote for Obama because your friend that you really look up to is.

2. Keep your avatar just because I advised you to change it. This would result in you staying a giant douchebag, but not accepting it yet. One day you will look back and realize what you are and be mad at yourself for your past actions.

The choice is yours.

Its pretty funny that you say you're not ignorant when in the first post you admit to not knowing shit about Obama other than those few things you posted. Obama has never been wishy washy with shit having to do with his stances or his voting record. Its out there. Anyone can visit his website and go straight to the issues page and have any question they have on his issues answered.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Its so fucking easy.

Want more? How about a 3rd party website.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Jesus, he's never told us anything about what he stands for except that he's for hope and change. Sure, McCain seems to find no problems attacking him on issues and his stances on his issues, but that must be because McCain has a super secret phone line where he talks to Barak and finds out just what he stands for.

And whats this you say? Some people voting for Barak out of ignorance? NO FUCKING WAY! Thats gotta be a first in American politics. And this whole time I thought well informed people like you (HA!) were the norm. Its not like we live in a sound byte driven media circus where many people believe Barak is Muslim or that that he changed his name from Barry cause he hates America or any other number of bullshit assumptions that keep them from voting for Obama. Never. Not in this country.

Your stupid posts reek of arrogance that is in no way deserved. Your debating skills? Sure dude, "OMG YOUR A DOUCHE I KNOW MCCAIN FUCK I RULE". There's a reason all you're going to get are "wut" responses. Its all you've merited.

Thanks for letting me know that some people vote out of ignorance though. Maybe next you can tell me who the average person in this country cares for more: Paris Hilton or John McCain.

MannyIsGod

06-14-2008, 06:11 AM

What is Obama's position today. Anyone heard.

FyBwMy27Aoc

God damn McCain is going to make youtube moments so great this year.

Clandestino

06-14-2008, 07:28 AM

cajun....no matter what manny does to his avatar he will still be a douchebag

Mr. Peabody

06-14-2008, 08:45 AM

I see the thread below about Obama's accomplishments or reasons he should get your vote. I read the first page and didn't see one listed.

The only things I do know about his actual positions are:

- He voted against banning partial birth abortion

- He is for universal healthcare

- He has mentioned having everyone pay for mortgages that people can't pay off by themselves.

- He wants to cut and run in Iraq

- Some people say he has mentioned reparations for slavery, but I cant see this being true.

It seems he talks about Hope and Change and never talks about what he would do to solve the issues. I could tell you most of Mccain's stances on issues, but hardly any of Obamas.

:rolleyes

A post like this was fine in January when everyone was just getting to know the candidates, but it's already June and we went through an extended primary.

If you're still buying into the "all he talks about is hope" meme here in June, you obviously haven't done anything to get to know his stances on issues.

And the fact that you would even post "Some people say he has mentioned reparations for slavery" tells me what kind of sources you're getting your information from.:bang

Mr. Peabody

06-14-2008, 08:49 AM

FyBwMy27Aoc

God damn McCain is going to make youtube moments so great this year.

He doesn't know how to use a computer . . . .

_R9wnMVZE_Q

Youtube moments are not going to bother him.

Mr. Peabody

06-14-2008, 08:58 AM

- Some people say he has mentioned reparations for slavery, but I cant see this being true.

Holy crap! Your sources are correct. He has mentioned reparations for slavery.

July 23, 2007
Obama: Fixing schools would make reparations for slavery
Posted: 08:19 PM ET

(CNN) – Sen. Barack Obama said fixing public schools would be reparations to African-Americans for generations of slavery, a position that won wide applause in the CNN/YouTube debate in South Carolina.

The Illinois senator — the lone black candidate in the 2008 race for the White House — was one of three Democrats to address the issue of reparations, a question posed by a viewer in Boston. Obama told of visiting public schools in Florence,South Carolina, where dropout rates are high and some buildings date back to Reconstruction.

"If we make the investments and understand that those are our children, that's the kind of reparations that are really going to make a difference in America right now," he said.

boutons_

06-14-2008, 09:14 AM

"Youtube moments are not going to bother him."

bullshit, they are bothering his handlers so badly his handlers are pulling down Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating's videos off Internet as quickly as they go up.

A candidate that his handlers don't want to be seen?
Or a just candidate who daily fucks up and gets YouTubed?

And you right wing bubbas thought Kerry was a weak candidate. Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating is DOA.

Old John wants us to believe that he can handle the "3 AM" business, which is thoroughly supported by him being a Prime Time 24x7 superstar on Youtube.

Mr. Peabody

06-14-2008, 09:17 AM

xrayzebra

06-14-2008, 10:46 AM

Well one thing he has a position on: He wants to raise payroll taxes on people making over $250,000.00. And raise capital gains taxes. Yeah,
that will really help the economy.

I love the fact too that Obama doesn't want but one town hall meeting and he wants that on the 4th of July. I think we all know why Mr. Obama doesn't like the idea of town hall meetings. No teleprompter, question would be unscripted and asked by citizens and not some professional reporter. Some question could get really dicey.
Obama obviously just cant stand the heat. I love the idea of town meeting debates. I would love to go to one and ask a question or two. (maybe an idea for a thread, what questions would you ask).

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/13/no_agreement_on_obama-mccain_t.html

Ahhhh, yes. A man of hope and change.

GaryJohnston

06-14-2008, 01:15 PM

Why should MY taxes go up to pay for healthcare for lazy ass people.

You give and give and give to lazy people and you create a society that cares not to improve thier quality of life on their own.

MannyIsGod

06-14-2008, 02:14 PM

:lol

Nope - no one in this country thinks Barack changed his name from Barry. No one.

:lmao

Cant_Be_Faded

06-14-2008, 07:41 PM

Obama is fucked. Noone white over age 30 is going to vote for him, and all the feminist bitches are so spiteful they will either vote mccain or not vote at all.

cajunspur

06-15-2008, 12:41 PM

Its pretty funny that you say you're not ignorant when in the first post you admit to not knowing shit about Obama other than those few things you posted. Obama has never been wishy washy with shit having to do with his stances or his voting record. Its out there. Anyone can visit his website and go straight to the issues page and have any question they have on his issues answered.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Its so fucking easy.

Want more? How about a 3rd party website.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Jesus, he's never told us anything about what he stands for except that he's for hope and change. Sure, McCain seems to find no problems attacking him on issues and his stances on his issues, but that must be because McCain has a super secret phone line where he talks to Barak and finds out just what he stands for.

And whats this you say? Some people voting for Barak out of ignorance? NO FUCKING WAY! Thats gotta be a first in American politics. And this whole time I thought well informed people like you (HA!) were the norm. Its not like we live in a sound byte driven media circus where many people believe Barak is Muslim or that that he changed his name from Barry cause he hates America or any other number of bullshit assumptions that keep them from voting for Obama. Never. Not in this country.

Your stupid posts reek of arrogance that is in no way deserved. Your debating skills? Sure dude, "OMG YOUR A DOUCHE I KNOW MCCAIN FUCK I RULE". There's a reason all you're going to get are "wut" responses. Its all you've merited.

Thanks for letting me know that some people vote out of ignorance though. Maybe next you can tell me who the average person in this country cares for more: Paris Hilton or John McCain.

He may have stances posted on his website, but he shys away from discussing them in debates, speeches and interviews. I have seen his voting record it is one of the most liberal in Congress.

Mccain is usually attacking his voting record, or reacting to Barack taking Mccains word out of context.

I think in this election many more Republicans are informed about Mccain's stances, than Democrats are about Baracks. Republicans know what they agree and don't agree with. They also know that while MCcain isn't a great candidate he is miles better for this country than Obama. Most Democrats are much less informed and are voting for Barack because he is black, they like the way he speaks, or they buy into his hope and change message.

I like how you insult my debating skills with a made up quote. Your candidate Barack would be proud of you for this. Are you seriously telling me what I have merited from you? I know I have merited for you to change your douchebag avatar, so I dont have to look at your shit eating grin flipping off the camera anymore.

I see you havent changed it yet by the way. Fight the man. Apparently you first had to do this probably not spontaneously while someone was taking a picture because you thought it was hilarious. Then you had the picture uploaded to your computer or its on facebook or myspace or something. Then you thought it was a hilarious and cool idea to put it as your avatar on a message board website. And not at one time did you think it was a douchebag move.

Your Paris Hilton line sums up how pathetic your arguing skills are. I think I have merited for you to quit trying to argue with me and accept the fact that I have made you look like an idiot.

I have met people like you before. You are the guy that has a few beers and feels the need to tell everyone how drunk you are like its the first time you drank in high school. You are the guy that quotes Borat or 300 or probably even Austin Powers way too long after the movies came out. Your avatar tells it all dude.

MannyIsGod

06-15-2008, 02:02 PM

He may have stances posted on his website, but he shys away from discussing them in debates, speeches and interviews. I have seen his voting record it is one of the most liberal in Congress.

Mccain is usually attacking his voting record, or reacting to Barack taking Mccains word out of context.

I think in this election many more Republicans are informed about Mccain's stances, than Democrats are about Baracks. Republicans know what they agree and don't agree with. They also know that while MCcain isn't a great candidate he is miles better for this country than Obama. Most Democrats are much less informed and are voting for Barack because he is black, they like the way he speaks, or they buy into his hope and change message.

I like how you insult my debating skills with a made up quote. Your candidate Barack would be proud of you for this. Are you seriously telling me what I have merited from you? I know I have merited for you to change your douchebag avatar, so I dont have to look at your shit eating grin flipping off the camera anymore.

I see you havent changed it yet by the way. Fight the man. Apparently you first had to do this probably not spontaneously while someone was taking a picture because you thought it was hilarious. Then you had the picture uploaded to your computer or its on facebook or myspace or something. Then you thought it was a hilarious and cool idea to put it as your avatar on a message board website. And not at one time did you think it was a douchebag move.

Your Paris Hilton line sums up how pathetic your arguing skills are. I think I have merited for you to quit trying to argue with me and accept the fact that I have made you look like an idiot.

I have met people like you before. You are the guy that has a few beers and feels the need to tell everyone how drunk you are like its the first time you drank in high school. You are the guy that quotes Borat or 300 or probably even Austin Powers way too long after the movies came out. Your avatar tells it all dude.

Wut

cajunspur

06-16-2008, 12:03 AM

Wut

Thank you for making this so easy for me. I have now accepted the fact that you are unable to come up with anything clever, and have resorted to typing one word. Its been fun dominating you in this argument. You have proved how deficient you are enough. You don't have to respond any more with your one word. Thank you once again. Hopefully for you, you never have to cross paths with me on another discussion again.

balli

06-16-2008, 12:23 AM

Thank you for making this so easy for me. I have now accepted the fact that you are unable to come up with anything clever, and have resorted to typing one word. Its been fun dominating you in this argument. You have proved how deficient you are enough. You don't have to respond any more with your one word. Thank you once again. Hopefully for you, you never have to cross paths with me on another discussion again.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s219/ballijuana/cajunspurisaredneck.jpg

MannyIsGod

06-16-2008, 01:42 AM

Mr. Peabody

06-16-2008, 07:15 AM

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 10:27 AM

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s219/ballijuana/cajunspurisaredneck.jpg
Why do you suck so much terrorist cock? And want to get fingered by Jerry Fallwells dead prick while acting like a complete liberal pussy.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 10:29 AM

These are your debating skills...? :lol

You over-generalize, make assumptions, and create straw men to try to prove your point. I guess these can be seen as skills, but I don't know that they can be "merited" as debating skills.:toast

That's good Peabody, i'd knew you'd be unbiased and only crack on Cajunspur for having lofty debating skills when your idealogical equal makes primate like one word responses.

xrayzebra

06-16-2008, 10:30 AM

Let's see. He wants Fathers to be Fathers, which is good.

And he knows how to fill sand bags, which is good, but if I was him, I wouldn't give up my day job. He didn't look to proficient at at. :lol

So I guess he is for sandbags and Fathers.

balli

06-16-2008, 10:34 AM

Why do you suck so much terrorist cock? And want to get fingered by Jerry Fallwells dead prick while acting like a complete liberal pussy.

:rolleyes Fuck off ignignokt. I'm not the one who loves war but is afraid to fight in them. Get back to me when you grow a pair.

Don Quixote

06-16-2008, 10:46 AM

I served during the invasion! Does this mean I have the standing to say anything?

(and BTW, I hate war. So does McCain. War sucks. Sometimes it is necessary, but it still sucks.)

balli

06-16-2008, 10:59 AM

I served during the invasion! Does this mean I have the standing to say anything?

(and BTW, I hate war. So does McCain. War sucks. Sometimes it is necessary, but it still sucks.)

Yeah, but you also have the standing to say stuff because you don't start by telling people things like they "suck terrorist cock" because you disagree with their politics.

All you righties should disassociate yourselves from that ignognokt fag. Despite his right wing politics, which may or may not appeal to you, he's the biggest piece of shit on ST.

boutons_

06-16-2008, 11:00 AM

"Does this mean I have the standing to say anything"

fuck no. Everybody has the right to say anything.

"War sucks. Sometimes it is necessary"

Iraq wasn't necessary, wasn't even a threat.

Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating still thinks the Iraq war was necessary, and has added his own "100 years" extension, and that is sufficient to kill his chances for the WH.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 01:04 PM

Yeah, but you also have the standing to say stuff because you don't start by telling people things like they "suck terrorist cock" because you disagree with their politics.

All you righties should disassociate yourselves from that ignognokt fag. Despite his right wing politics, which may or may not appeal to you, he's the biggest piece of shit on ST.

Me telling you suck cock doesn't say wether i like war or not.:lol

It's just an expression to pist you off. It's the same thing you do except now it's being served to you and you don't like it.

Don't get mad at me because you feel inadequate to put forth a real idea or input.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 01:05 PM

I mean your name is ballijuana, that means you toke balls.

JoeChalupa

06-16-2008, 01:21 PM

At least there is more attention paid to Obama than there is McCain. Of course we all know what has been going on the past 7 years.

balli

06-16-2008, 01:22 PM

Me telling you suck cock doesn't say wether i like war or not.:lol

It's just an expression to pist you off. It's the same thing you do except now it's being served to you and you don't like it.

Don't get mad at me because you feel inadequate to put forth a real idea or input.

Learn to spell, you fucking faggot.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2008, 01:32 PM

DarkReign

06-16-2008, 01:57 PM

cajunspur

06-16-2008, 02:21 PM

These are your debating skills...? :lol

You over-generalize, make assumptions, and create straw men to try to prove your point. I guess these can be seen as skills, but I don't know that they can be "merited" as debating skills.:toast

I did say most Democrats. On average I would venture to say that Republicans are more informed than Democrats.

ChumpDumper

06-16-2008, 02:39 PM

You over-generalize, make assumptions, and create straw men to try to prove your point.

Mr. Peabody

06-16-2008, 05:01 PM

That's good Peabody, i'd knew you'd be unbiased and only crack on Cajunspur for having lofty debating skills when your idealogical equal makes primate like one word responses.

My reasoning -

1. I enjoy Manny's posts.
2. I enjoy DR's posts.
3. In this thread, Cajun has acted like an arrogant prick to both.

As an aside, I wondered what the hell happened to you. I didn't realize you were posting under another name.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 06:16 PM

Dude why are you even talking with him? He's got a running record as a moron and everyone here knows it. He's on his second screen name because they made his last account post in all pink since he's such a retard but we all know his shit and treat him appropriately. Just ignore him and while he may not go away its the best way to handle piles of shit like him.

Wow Manny, if Ballsmoker wants to talk shit let him. Don't let your bitch tits get out your motherly instinct and jump at every chance to defend Ballichugger.

If ballichugger wants to call every Republican inbred and hayseed, he has every right to. He's gonna get shit for it, but that's the way it goes.

I only post under this nick because i can start threads. The other i can't start threads with or edit.

Being Pink on the internets is nothing to be ashamed of, i'm not here to kiss ass swing my bitch tits, and act like a self righteous prick like you.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 06:18 PM

My reasoning -

1. I enjoy Manny's posts.
2. I enjoy DR's posts.
3. In this thread, Cajun has acted like an arrogant prick to both.

As an aside, I wondered what the hell happened to you. I didn't realize you were posting under another name.

Manny deserves the treatment.

You wouldn't be up in arms about it if the roles were reversed so get off your high horse, you're just being partisan.

Mr. Peabody

06-16-2008, 06:28 PM

Manny deserves the treatment.

You wouldn't be up in arms about it if the roles were reversed so get off your high horse, you're just being partisan.

Not a matter of being on a high horse. As I said, I enjoy Manny and DR's posts. I know Manny's political leanings, but DR is not a partisan from what I can tell. On some issues, I agree with DR and on others I don't, but I always enjoy his posts.

Also, I am biased and partisan. So what? This is a political forum. Everyone in here is biased and almost all are partisan.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 06:34 PM

Not a matter of being on a high horse. As I said, I enjoy Manny and DR's posts. I know Manny's political leanings, but DR is not a partisan from what I can tell. On some issues, I agree with DR and on others I don't, but I always enjoy his posts.

Also, I am biased and partisan. So what? This is a political forum. Everyone in here is biased and almost all are partisan.

You're right, i am too. But why should cajunspur take your post seriously or anybody when they know had Manny done it to republicans, you'd stay quiet.

Like when did you become the sage of thread ethics?

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 06:39 PM

I'm now laughing at you. At first I was pissed at how big of dumbass you are, but now that I know you're just a board wide joke, I'm laughing. Along with everyone else apparently. See, it was great to find out you're a formerly pinked poster that everyone hates and knows is a dumbass. Great. Stay out of my way from now on, you pathetic fucking clown.

Ballijuana sent me this love letter through PM.

He's totally gay for me.

He needs counseling.

Mr. Peabody

06-16-2008, 07:58 PM

You're right, i am too. But why should cajunspur take your post seriously or anybody when they know had Manny done it to republicans, you'd stay quiet.

Like when did you become the sage of thread ethics?

"Sage of Thread Ethics":lol Nice. I've never claimed that, but I'll take it.:toast

As far as my political leanings, I think they are quite evident. You know that as well as anyone, as we've disagreed frequently in the past.

Moreover, how can you call me out for attacking posters with different ideologies? You and I both know that if cajunspur was liberal, you would have already made some crack about him having "man chowder on his molars" (to borrow a quote of your's from the past).:lol

MannyIsGod

06-16-2008, 09:27 PM

There was a day when I'd engage someone everytime they called me a name. It was fun. That day has come and gone. Its boring for the most part.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 11:40 PM

There was a day when I'd engage someone everytime they called me a name. It was fun. That day has come and gone. Its boring for the most part.

aww poor manny, the little kids were taunting him when he was all alone in his ape cage.

Ignignokt

06-16-2008, 11:42 PM

"Sage of Thread Ethics":lol Nice. I've never claimed that, but I'll take it.:toast

As far as my political leanings, I think they are quite evident. You know that as well as anyone, as we've disagreed frequently in the past.

Moreover, how can you call me out for attacking posters with different ideologies? You and I both know that if cajunspur was liberal, you would have already made some crack about him having "man chowder on his molars" (to borrow a quote of your's from the past).:lol

but i wouldn't be calling for one to adhere to forum ettiquette. This is a fun forum. Not everyone's reply will be taken seriously.

Don Quixote

06-16-2008, 11:46 PM

You libs seriously don't think Ign-ignoramus is one of the crudest, funniest posters here? He's top 10, easily. I'd love to work on his, um, methodology a bit (to help him become a smarter conservative), but I love his posts generally.

And what's this to do with the Golden Child anyway?

jochhejaam

06-17-2008, 07:27 AM

Obama gets the highest marks for upholding our Constitutional "Right to keep, and bear arms";

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’
.
Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

Wayne, Pa., Saturday, June 14. (AP)
That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

The comment drew some laughs and applause. But it also struck a chord with his Republican rival. John McCain’s campaign immediately accused the Democratic candidate of playing the politics of fear. They also mentioned that Obama said he would use a gun that would be illegal under Obama’s plans to cut down on illegal firearms.

“Barack Obama’s call for ‘new politics’ is officially over. In just 24 hours, Barack Obama attacked one of America’s pioneering women CEOs, rejected a series of joint bipartisan town halls, and said that if there’s a political knife fight, he’d bring a gun,” McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/?mod=googlenews_wsj

DarkReign

06-17-2008, 09:33 AM

I did say most Democrats. On average I would venture to say that Republicans are more informed than Democrats.

As much as you would like to think I am a "democratic", youre new, so I'll allow your assumptions to be overlooked.

You just quoted someone that said "you over-generalize, make assumptions, [sic]" and respond to this with...

On average I would venture to say that Republicans are more informed than Democrats.

Seriously? So you dont deny that your opinions are based on assumptions and generalizations?

Chump made this point right after your post, but I dont think you got it. So I figured I'd spell it out for you. Consider it "nickel advice".

IMO, there are a few different categories of people here in the political forum.

1) those who approach things with an open mind, but are still very much grounded in their views
2) those who are convinced of their righteousness and dont make it past a few lines of a post before dissecting their target point for point.
3) trolls

So far, youre leaning toward 2 with a distinct possiblity of being 3. I'd like to think that you arent. The political forum needs another political hack like it needs another topic on "Muhammad Hussein Obama".

Its been done. Try to be original or at least entertaining. Have an opinion, stay with it, but realize there are other people in the world who will never have the same worldview you do. The best you can do is state your opinion (making it clear that is an opinion) and back it up with some known facts.

Making sweeping generalizations will only garner favor and agreement from those who have been proven to be nothing more than regurgitating FoxNews/MSNBC hacks with little in the way of objectivity and honesty, but long on rhetoric and propoganda.

If you choose to be classified as such, by all means, continue. But youll just be identified and lotted together with those on "the other side" you seem to detest so much. Being a right-wing hack is no different than being a left-wing hack....youre still a hack.

DarkReign

06-17-2008, 09:49 AM

Obama gets the highest marks for upholding our Constitutional "Right to keep, and bear arms";

[sic]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Very interesting choice of words from Mr Obama. Right or wrong, a seasoned politician (McCain) doesnt make that mistake.

Obviously, he is using the analogy in a metaphysical sense, but providing ammunition for the opposition is as rookie as it gets (see, I can make analogies too!).

He cleans that up or he gets cleaned up in November. The power of suggestion can be a wonderful tool in the political arena when wielded by those with savvy. So far, he isnt very savvy and his opposition just might be.

Its things like this (not exactly this, but something orders of magnitude more important, lest we forget what he was referencing with the analogy) that can ruin him. Imagine if such a remark was made in reference to Iraq? Immigration/Amnesty? Education?

A poorly worded soliloquy can be (not always) the difference between a favorable perception or a negative perception.

Our war of words shall continue hand in hand with our inaction.