| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2008 12:49:34 AM · #301 |
Why hasn't Peta chimed in with all this talk about fishes and pigs?
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 01:13:56 AM · #302 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Why hasn't Peta chimed in with all this talk about fishes and pigs? |
I agree, it's an insult to pigs and fishes across the globe when they are compared to any politician. Stop the slander and libel of these poor animals:) |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 11:11:17 AM · #303 |
Interestingly, NPR never talks about this stuff unless somehow it actually has relevance. This is all a distraction for the kids that want candy â€Â¦ and they want it now.
IMO our most valuable news source can still be witnessed without even turning on the TV.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 11:23:27 AM · #304 |
Yeah, if she really thinks the American public will fall for her "concept" or "interpretation", than she has less faith in them than I do.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The Mass. Gov. doesn't sound too Swift. Maybe her fourth-grader can read the actual quote and explain it to her? :-/ |
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 01:22:46 PM · #305 |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 01:35:03 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
I have to agree with him ... the lies are comming fast and furious from the McCain camp ... |
Obama states that he is goinf to cut taxes on 95% of americans. How can he cut taxes on 95% when 40% already pay no Federal tax. Is this your idea of truth?
The way Obama will cut taxes on 95% of americans is through a rebate or check for bewteen $500 and $1200. This is the same program that he and the Democrats derided when the current adminsitration proposed it. It really is not a tax cut for the 40% who don't pay now, rather it is a form of welfare or gov't kick back. Redistribute from those that pay and give to those who don't. If that is what it is, and if this is what the american people want and support, then why call it something it isn't?
Isn't calling something it isn't, kind of like lying? If it is kind of like lying and liars are what you won't vote for, then you must be going to sit this election out? If you are not going to sit this election out, then you must be willing to vote for at least one of the liars - which indicates that lying is not your main concern.
Again it falls to the paty platforms of gun control, abortion, activist judges vs constitutionalists, taxes, the military, etc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 02:39:53 PM · #307 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by nomad469:
I have to agree with him ... the lies are comming fast and furious from the McCain camp ... |
Obama states that he is goinf to cut taxes on 95% of americans. How can he cut taxes on 95% when 40% already pay no Federal tax. Is this your idea of truth?
The way Obama will cut taxes on 95% of americans is through a rebate or check for bewteen $500 and $1200. This is the same program that he and the Democrats derided when the current adminsitration proposed it. It really is not a tax cut for the 40% who don't pay now, rather it is a form of welfare or gov't kick back. Redistribute from those that pay and give to those who don't. If that is what it is, and if this is what the american people want and support, then why call it something it isn't?
Isn't calling something it isn't, kind of like lying? If it is kind of like lying and liars are what you won't vote for, then you must be going to sit this election out? If you are not going to sit this election out, then you must be willing to vote for at least one of the liars - which indicates that lying is not your main concern.
Again it falls to the paty platforms of gun control, abortion, activist judges vs constitutionalists, taxes, the military, etc etc etc. |
I'm sure you refused your "Economic Stimulus" check as welfare/gov't kickback, since by your definition, that's exactly what it was. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 03:02:39 PM · #308 |
I wasn't offered one. Now how fair is that?
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 03:04:10 PM · #309 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by nomad469:
I have to agree with him ... the lies are comming fast and furious from the McCain camp ... |
Obama states that he is goinf to cut taxes on 95% of americans. How can he cut taxes on 95% when 40% already pay no Federal tax. Is this your idea of truth?
The way Obama will cut taxes on 95% of americans is through a rebate or check for bewteen $500 and $1200. This is the same program that he and the Democrats derided when the current adminsitration proposed it. It really is not a tax cut for the 40% who don't pay now, rather it is a form of welfare or gov't kick back. Redistribute from those that pay and give to those who don't. If that is what it is, and if this is what the american people want and support, then why call it something it isn't?
Isn't calling something it isn't, kind of like lying? If it is kind of like lying and liars are what you won't vote for, then you must be going to sit this election out? If you are not going to sit this election out, then you must be willing to vote for at least one of the liars - which indicates that lying is not your main concern.
Again it falls to the paty platforms of gun control, abortion, activist judges vs constitutionalists, taxes, the military, etc etc etc. |
I'm sure you refused your "Economic Stimulus" check as welfare/gov't kickback, since by your definition, that's exactly what it was. |
I almost refused it on principle but then thought I'd do the right thing and help my country. ;) I guess one could call it welfare/gov't kickback but I pay taxes so I'd call it a rebate. To me, cutting taxes would be a reduction in my tax rate. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 03:39:45 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure you refused your "Economic Stimulus" check as welfare/gov't kickback, since by your definition, that's exactly what it was. |
I smell another  Spazmo99 red-herring special detour!
Hang onto your hats while the thread is derailed into meaningless minutiae.
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 15:53:04. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 03:41:58 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure you refused your "Economic Stimulus" check as welfare/gov't kickback, since by your definition, that's exactly what it was. |
That isn't what I wrote. I am not in the 40% that pays zero Federal Income tax, therefore for me it was a tax refund. Regardless how you word it, Obama is not giving 95% of americans a tax break (as he claims) thus he is not accurate in his portrayal of it - thus no different than what some of his supporters are chanting against his opponent. Misleading statements are misleading statements and both candidates are full of them.
If you are basing your decision on who is not using any mis-representation, then you'll have to sit this election out. If you are willing to accept one candidates misrepresentations, then don't use the others as a false means to make your choice. Most and I suspect you as well, will be making your choice on where the parties/candidates stand on issues important to you - NOT on whether their campaigns utilyze any misrepresentations. That is a false argument and a hypocritical one as well.
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 15:45:30. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 03:55:55 PM · #312 |
I think I agree â€Â¦ but Not with the assumption that they have necessarilly lost focus, however - The few sound bites that you will hear from sensationalist news focus on "non-issues' but overall I'm not sure it's fair to say that they are obsessed with defending themselves - although one could completely avoid topics like that altogether I suppose.
It seems that's how some media outlets work - they start with an assumption, so there are always questions that should have been asked along the way.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 03:56:28 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure you refused your "Economic Stimulus" check as welfare/gov't kickback, since by your definition, that's exactly what it was. |
I smell another Spazmo99 red-herring special detour!
Hang onto your hats while the thread is derailed into meaningless minutiae.
|
Congrats! |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 03:58:31 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure you refused your "Economic Stimulus" check as welfare/gov't kickback, since by your definition, that's exactly what it was. |
That isn't what I wrote. I am not in the 40% that pays zero Federal Income tax, therefore for me it was a tax refund. Regardless how you word it, Obama is not giving 95% of americans a tax break (as he claims) thus he is not accurate in his portrayal of it - thus no different than what some of his supporters are chanting against his opponent. Misleading statements are misleading statements and both candidates are full of them.
If you are basing your decision on who is not using any mis-representation, then you'll have to sit this election out. If you are willing to accept one candidates misrepresentations, then don't use the others as a false means to make your choice. Most and I suspect you as well, will be making your choice on where the parties/candidates stand on issues important to you - NOT on whether their campaigns utilyze any misrepresentations. That is a false argument and a hypocritical one as well. |
So, you pay taxes. So do I and I wouldn't call my economic stimulus check a "refund" it's a handout.
The simple fact is that I haven't heard anything from McCain/Palin on issues, just sniping about Obama. SO, I'm left with their individual records and regardless of his "Maverick" image, his record is one of toeing the Republican party line, Palin's record as Governor and Mayor is scary at best with her underhanded dealings and repeated examples of using poor judgement. Obama's record is a bit sparse, but I can't find anything really damning. Biden's a bit of a toss up
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:03:01 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm sure you refused your "Economic Stimulus" check as welfare/gov't kickback, since by your definition, that's exactly what it was. |
I smell another Spazmo99 red-herring special detour!
Hang onto your hats while the thread is derailed into meaningless minutiae.
|
Oh really?
Unlike your extended tangents, I didn't bring something up that was only marginally related to the subject being discussed and try to flog it for days well past the point of ridiculousness.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:04:39 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you pay taxes. So do I and I wouldn't call my economic stimulus check a "refund" it's a handout.
The simple fact is that I haven't heard anything from McCain/Palin on issues, just sniping about Obama. SO, I'm left with their individual records and regardless of his "Maverick" image, his record is one of toeing the Republican party line, Palin's record as Governor and Mayor is scary at best with her underhanded dealings and repeated examples of using poor judgement. Obama's record is a bit sparse, but I can't find anything really damning. Biden's a bit of a toss up |
Not sure how you could call your "economic stimulas package" anything other than a partial return of the taxes you already paid. To me, that is a refund. For those who didn't pay any Federal tax, and still received money, then that is ceratinly not a refund nor even a "tax break" as Obama claims. That is a handout (aka welfare or charity or whatever words makes you feel good about it).
Regarding the candidates - there is a reason that "Obama's record is a bit sparse" - but I'll leave that up to the pundits to make ads on.
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 16:08:02. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:10:09 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you pay taxes. So do I and I wouldn't call my economic stimulus check a "refund" it's a handout.
The simple fact is that I haven't heard anything from McCain/Palin on issues, just sniping about Obama. SO, I'm left with their individual records and regardless of his "Maverick" image, his record is one of toeing the Republican party line, Palin's record as Governor and Mayor is scary at best with her underhanded dealings and repeated examples of using poor judgement. Obama's record is a bit sparse, but I can't find anything really damning. Biden's a bit of a toss up |
Not sure how you could call your "economic stimulas package" anything other than a partial return of the taxes you already paid. To me, that is a refund. For those who didn't pay any Federal tax, and still received money, then that is ceratinly not a refund nor even a "tax break" as Obama claims. That is a handout (aka welfare or charity or whatever words makes you feel goog about it).
Regarding the candidates - there is a reason that "Obama's record is a bit sparse" - but I'll leave that up to the pundits to make ads on. |
To use a recently maligned phrase:
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
FYI - paying tax was not a requirement to receiving an economic stimulus check, only filing a return. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:13:04 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - paying tax was not a requirement to receiving an economic stimulus check, only filing a return. |
And for the 40% that paid nothing in, it was not a refund. It was a gift. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:14:42 PM · #319 |
| Maybed if Obama and Biden followed McCain's lead on pork barrel projects - we wouldn't need to tax folks so much in the first place. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:19:32 PM · #320 |
I got this in an e-mail. Don't know who compiled it but I find it interesting......
You couldn't be a new lawyer with 143 days of experience and become a partner in my law firm.
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT....
'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he
logged 143 days of 'experience' in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work 'experience,' Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.
We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.
AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the
President of the United States of America? Come on folks, we are not voting for
the next American Idol!
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 16:19:55.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:20:30 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Maybed if Obama and Biden followed McCain's lead on pork barrel projects - we wouldn't need to tax folks so much in the first place. |
It'd help if McCain followed his own rhetoric on the matter too. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:25:37 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I got this in an e-mail. Don't know who compiled it but I find it interesting......
You couldn't be a new lawyer with 143 days of experience and become a partner in my law firm.
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT....
'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he
logged 143 days of 'experience' in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work 'experience,' Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.
We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.
AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the
President of the United States of America? Come on folks, we are not voting for
the next American Idol! |
You could make similar statements about another highly regarded American President. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:25:53 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I got this in an e-mail. Don't know who compiled it but I find it interesting......
You couldn't be a new lawyer with 143 days of experience and become a partner in my law firm.
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
BUT....
'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he
logged 143 days of 'experience' in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work 'experience,' Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.
We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.
AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the
President of the United States of America? Come on folks, we are not voting for
the next American Idol! |
Well, let's see... how much experience did G.W. Bush have in the Senate before taking the oath of office? And if your response is that he's had experience as a governor, and as a ceo, etc., etc., that only means that other experience counts. And in my opinion (humble or otherwise), there's more to a job candidate than just experience. There's education and knowledge and personality. Look at the whole package and stop letting the media drive your thinking -- if you still come down on the McCain side, fine, but at least you've thought for yourself.
Message edited by author 2008-09-11 16:26:18. |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:33:07 PM · #324 |
|
|
|
09/11/2008 04:37:39 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - paying tax was not a requirement to receiving an economic stimulus check, only filing a return. |
Since I didn't START this DETOUR, I'm assuming that I can join in without being subjected to your "red herring" red herring.
In regards to the Economic Stimulus Check - you are wrong.
Filing a return didn't entitle you to a stimulus check. As David pointed out, he filed a return and didn't get one. I filed a return and didn't get one. My daughter filed a return and didn't get one.
The fact is that even if you filed, if you made either too MUCH money or too LITTLE money, you didn't qualify for a stimulus check.
|
|
