Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America
Pages :
[1]
2
Maximus84
10-22-2008, 12:27 PM
.He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Maximus84
10-22-2008, 12:30 PM
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.:nono: :screwy:
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.:nono: :screwy:
2strokebloke
10-22-2008, 02:05 PM
What are your thoughts on the situation maximus?
Maximus84
10-22-2008, 04:55 PM
I think you should quit manipulating my sig,stop locking threads when you dont like the answer you think I'll respond with,& quit making personal attacks against public info with sources listed,as requested.Follow your own rules. As I stated,I'm not a typer,so posting stuff that closely resembles what I might think is easier. Is that simple enough 4 U? :banghead:
Oz
10-22-2008, 05:06 PM
So you're a pawn in someone else's game and proud of it?
Kind of reminds me of that game, Lemmings.
Kind of reminds me of that game, Lemmings.
Maximus84
10-22-2008, 05:17 PM
So you're a pawn in someone else's game and proud of it?
Kind of reminds me of that game, Lemmings.What the hells wrong with you?:screwy:
Kind of reminds me of that game, Lemmings.What the hells wrong with you?:screwy:
KustmAce
10-22-2008, 06:53 PM
http://ocw.usu.edu/University_Extension/sheep-and-lambing-management/sheep.jpg
Were you to pay attention to anything, you would realize that damn near all of the propaganda you copy/paste is just that. Its exaggerated and largely untrue.
Also, if you are going to copy/paste, at least post a source, or acknowledge that these are not your thoughts before you paste. Otherwise, its plagiarism.
Were you to pay attention to anything, you would realize that damn near all of the propaganda you copy/paste is just that. Its exaggerated and largely untrue.
Also, if you are going to copy/paste, at least post a source, or acknowledge that these are not your thoughts before you paste. Otherwise, its plagiarism.
2strokebloke
10-22-2008, 07:12 PM
I think you should quit manipulating my sig,stop locking threads when you dont like the answer you think I'll respond with,& quit making personal attacks against public info with sources listed,as requested.Follow your own rules. As I stated,I'm not a typer,so posting stuff that closely resembles what I might think is easier. Is that simple enough 4 U? :banghead:
I've never touched your sig. And I'm fairly certain that it's impossible to make a personal attacks against public information.
However simply copying and pasting fragments of articles doesn't really contribute to discussion, even adding a few of your own comments or thoughts shows that you at least understand what the articles you paste here are even about.
If I wanted to read articles I'd buy a newspaper. This forum is to discuss situations, to promote discourse - it's not here just so people can dump articles and fragments without ever offering or promoting conversation.
You know, if you wanted to not look like you even had a clue as to what's going on in current events, you might even find an article pro-obama and then discuss its faults. Or find a pro anything article. We all know you don't like Obama, you've already posted a dozen articles to prove that point (we get it already) but who do you like? Got an article about somebody you would vote for?
I've never touched your sig. And I'm fairly certain that it's impossible to make a personal attacks against public information.
However simply copying and pasting fragments of articles doesn't really contribute to discussion, even adding a few of your own comments or thoughts shows that you at least understand what the articles you paste here are even about.
If I wanted to read articles I'd buy a newspaper. This forum is to discuss situations, to promote discourse - it's not here just so people can dump articles and fragments without ever offering or promoting conversation.
You know, if you wanted to not look like you even had a clue as to what's going on in current events, you might even find an article pro-obama and then discuss its faults. Or find a pro anything article. We all know you don't like Obama, you've already posted a dozen articles to prove that point (we get it already) but who do you like? Got an article about somebody you would vote for?
ericn1300
10-22-2008, 09:46 PM
What are your thoughts on the situation maximus?
LOL, I nearly busted a gut reading your response Bloke. It was quite succinct.
As I stated,I'm not a typer,so posting stuff that closely resembles what I might think is easier. Is that simple enough 4 U? :banghead:
I think he meant “I'm not a thinker”. Simple enough for me.
LOL, I nearly busted a gut reading your response Bloke. It was quite succinct.
As I stated,I'm not a typer,so posting stuff that closely resembles what I might think is easier. Is that simple enough 4 U? :banghead:
I think he meant “I'm not a thinker”. Simple enough for me.
-Davo
10-22-2008, 10:38 PM
I smell the dirty stench of a straw man argument, care to link up these claims?
BNaylor
10-22-2008, 10:44 PM
Timeout!
If this member is posting something anyone disagrees with then prove him wrong or do it with a counter argument and credible links or information. This is not a one way street.
Maximus84 you were warned about your posting habits and the content of your posts. Please get your act together.
:popcorn:
If this member is posting something anyone disagrees with then prove him wrong or do it with a counter argument and credible links or information. This is not a one way street.
Maximus84 you were warned about your posting habits and the content of your posts. Please get your act together.
:popcorn:
drunken monkey
10-23-2008, 12:53 PM
If this member is posting something anyone disagrees with then prove him wrong or do it with a counter argument and credible links or information. This is not a one way street.
But this is part of the issue here; it is next to impossible to prove the negative of typical propaganda. I can claim that McCain is a lying, cheating, evidence hiding collaborator during the Vietnam war and I could challenge you to prove that he isn't.
The thing that I want to make clear is that I am not commenting on whether I support either candidate. The thing I am making a stand against is the type of things he is posting.
By and large, it is propaganda and as I have pointed out, and provided links to, some very similar things can be found about McCain.
On a related note; how biased is abc news?
We get some abc news reports here on 24 hour news channels and they claimed that for the average earning US citizen up to $100,000 (it may have been $150,000) will be paying less tax under the proposed Obama system compared to the McCain system.
But this is part of the issue here; it is next to impossible to prove the negative of typical propaganda. I can claim that McCain is a lying, cheating, evidence hiding collaborator during the Vietnam war and I could challenge you to prove that he isn't.
The thing that I want to make clear is that I am not commenting on whether I support either candidate. The thing I am making a stand against is the type of things he is posting.
By and large, it is propaganda and as I have pointed out, and provided links to, some very similar things can be found about McCain.
On a related note; how biased is abc news?
We get some abc news reports here on 24 hour news channels and they claimed that for the average earning US citizen up to $100,000 (it may have been $150,000) will be paying less tax under the proposed Obama system compared to the McCain system.
Maximus84
10-23-2008, 01:00 PM
LOL, I nearly busted a gut reading your response Bloke. It was quite succinct.
I think he meant “I'm not a thinker”. Simple enough for me.If you're not polite & respectful enough to just address the issues,& not resort to personal attacks...like the majority of you have done here ...why bother even going to the political area ? :nono:
I think he meant “I'm not a thinker”. Simple enough for me.If you're not polite & respectful enough to just address the issues,& not resort to personal attacks...like the majority of you have done here ...why bother even going to the political area ? :nono:
BNaylor
10-23-2008, 01:48 PM
But this is part of the issue here; it is next to impossible to prove the negative of typical propaganda. I can claim that McCain is a lying, cheating, evidence hiding collaborator during the Vietnam war and I could challenge you to prove that he isn't.
The thing that I want to make clear is that I am not commenting on whether I support either candidate. The thing I am making a stand against is the type of things he is posting.
By and large, it is propaganda and as I have pointed out, and provided links to, some very similar things can be found about McCain.
On a related note; how biased is abc news?
We get some abc news reports here on 24 hour news channels and they claimed that for the average earning US citizen up to $100,000 (it may have been $150,000) will be paying less tax under the proposed Obama system compared to the McCain system.
It is up to you on what position or stand you desire to take but it doesn't mean it isn't biased or you are 100% correct in your argument. We all have our own bias which is understandable. Other options could be to not weigh-in at all or take a neutral approach but that is up to you. IMO neither tax proposals look all that good to me. But that is just my opinion. :2cents:
Propaganda?......maybe yes or maybe no. It depends on how you look at it. Remember these are just promises by the candidates that have to become law and codified which means Congress and the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) will be involved in the case of the tax proposals. To make a proper assessment you should look at multiple sources not just ABC if that is all you have to go by. See link below which is from the Washington Post. Is this what you are referring to? From what I see the tax decrease is in favor of McCain for people that make up to at least $150K a year. At $100K it is a toss up slightly in favor of Obama. Also, what these figures do not show especially in the lower brackets is many families that make for example $35K per year or under could pay little, less or no tax. Many qualify for earned income credit and the child credit depending on exemptions and number of children, etc. It is a lot more complex than at face value or if you do not have an understanding of the U.S. tax system.
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html)
IMO beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
The thing that I want to make clear is that I am not commenting on whether I support either candidate. The thing I am making a stand against is the type of things he is posting.
By and large, it is propaganda and as I have pointed out, and provided links to, some very similar things can be found about McCain.
On a related note; how biased is abc news?
We get some abc news reports here on 24 hour news channels and they claimed that for the average earning US citizen up to $100,000 (it may have been $150,000) will be paying less tax under the proposed Obama system compared to the McCain system.
It is up to you on what position or stand you desire to take but it doesn't mean it isn't biased or you are 100% correct in your argument. We all have our own bias which is understandable. Other options could be to not weigh-in at all or take a neutral approach but that is up to you. IMO neither tax proposals look all that good to me. But that is just my opinion. :2cents:
Propaganda?......maybe yes or maybe no. It depends on how you look at it. Remember these are just promises by the candidates that have to become law and codified which means Congress and the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) will be involved in the case of the tax proposals. To make a proper assessment you should look at multiple sources not just ABC if that is all you have to go by. See link below which is from the Washington Post. Is this what you are referring to? From what I see the tax decrease is in favor of McCain for people that make up to at least $150K a year. At $100K it is a toss up slightly in favor of Obama. Also, what these figures do not show especially in the lower brackets is many families that make for example $35K per year or under could pay little, less or no tax. Many qualify for earned income credit and the child credit depending on exemptions and number of children, etc. It is a lot more complex than at face value or if you do not have an understanding of the U.S. tax system.
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html)
IMO beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
drunken monkey
10-23-2008, 05:08 PM
The link you provide could well be the numbers the ABC news report was talking about. I am aware that you can't take just one source; what is why I asked about any bias ABC has as a news channel. I just happened to mention that report because it was one that I just caught last night so it was fresh in my mind and don't have at hand a point of comparision.
Incidentally, that table also shows that 60% of people pay less tax under Obama's policies compared to McCains and that only the top 1% (more than $600,000 salaries) pay more tax.
As an "average" earner, I have to say that looking at those numbers, Obama's plans do seem more attractive. Except the cynic in me can't help but wonder if this isn't a ploy to court that 60% for votes. It also doesn't take into account capital gains tax and (do you have) inheritance tax?
Right now, my mum's biggest concern is what's going to happen to our assets when she kicks it.
The thing that I'm not 100% on is where both candidates propose to get funds from for their health policies. Both propose something that will without doubt require heavy government funding. Considering that McCain's tax proposals promise cuts in tax AND giving tax rebates relating to buying healthcare, I am left wondering where he is going to get funding from.
I also don't think Obama is aware of how much it costs to run a public health service and without knowing what kind of service he is proposing it is hard to make a judgement on that issue. Quite simply though, it costs a hell of a lot to have an NHS type service.
Incidentally, that table also shows that 60% of people pay less tax under Obama's policies compared to McCains and that only the top 1% (more than $600,000 salaries) pay more tax.
As an "average" earner, I have to say that looking at those numbers, Obama's plans do seem more attractive. Except the cynic in me can't help but wonder if this isn't a ploy to court that 60% for votes. It also doesn't take into account capital gains tax and (do you have) inheritance tax?
Right now, my mum's biggest concern is what's going to happen to our assets when she kicks it.
The thing that I'm not 100% on is where both candidates propose to get funds from for their health policies. Both propose something that will without doubt require heavy government funding. Considering that McCain's tax proposals promise cuts in tax AND giving tax rebates relating to buying healthcare, I am left wondering where he is going to get funding from.
I also don't think Obama is aware of how much it costs to run a public health service and without knowing what kind of service he is proposing it is hard to make a judgement on that issue. Quite simply though, it costs a hell of a lot to have an NHS type service.
-Davo
10-24-2008, 12:22 AM
If this member is posting something anyone disagrees with then prove him wrong or do it with a counter argument and credible links or information. This is not a one way street.
McCain's father is a nazi.
Prove me wrong.
McCain's father is a nazi.
Prove me wrong.
Maximus84
10-24-2008, 01:17 AM
McCain's father is a nazi.
Prove me wrong.No,according to everyone attacking my posts,you have to prove youre right
Prove me wrong.No,according to everyone attacking my posts,you have to prove youre right
03cavPA
10-24-2008, 04:35 AM
McCain's father is a nazi.
Godwin's Rule. Kill the thread. :rofl:
Godwin's Rule. Kill the thread. :rofl:
Maximus84
10-24-2008, 12:24 PM
Godwin's Rule. Kill the thread. :rofl:Might as well....again:sunglasse :shakehead :screwy:
BNaylor
10-24-2008, 01:42 PM
McCain's father is a nazi.
Prove me wrong.
This is getting ridiculous. :shakehead
If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.
McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.
Prove me wrong.
This is getting ridiculous. :shakehead
If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.
McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.
03cavPA
10-24-2008, 03:52 PM
From the old usenet days......
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-godwins-rule-of-nazi-analogies.htm
......... Often, an example of Godwin's Rule accompanies hyperbole. The idea is to invalidate the opposition by comparing it to the Nazi Party. However, this can backfire, and usually does. Unless the comparison is valid, the person who brought up Nazis or Hitler is considered to be the loser. In a rational discussion or debate on or off the Internet, resorting to a Nazi comparison is generally a strong indicator that you have run out of material to discuss or support your claims.
Many Internet communities have taken Godwin's Rule to mean that when Nazis enter a conversation, the discussion is over. In some cases, someone may invoke Godwin's Rule to end a conversation before it gets worse. However, sometimes a discussion should continue, even though Godwin's Rule has been illustrated by a Nazi reference. Individual members of the discussion decide whether or not a conversation will be carried or ended with an instance of Godwin's Rule. ........
Hey, there were no claims this was a rational discussion, were there?
:evillol:
I think Davo was just funnin', though. If not, ....:loser:
:p
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-godwins-rule-of-nazi-analogies.htm
......... Often, an example of Godwin's Rule accompanies hyperbole. The idea is to invalidate the opposition by comparing it to the Nazi Party. However, this can backfire, and usually does. Unless the comparison is valid, the person who brought up Nazis or Hitler is considered to be the loser. In a rational discussion or debate on or off the Internet, resorting to a Nazi comparison is generally a strong indicator that you have run out of material to discuss or support your claims.
Many Internet communities have taken Godwin's Rule to mean that when Nazis enter a conversation, the discussion is over. In some cases, someone may invoke Godwin's Rule to end a conversation before it gets worse. However, sometimes a discussion should continue, even though Godwin's Rule has been illustrated by a Nazi reference. Individual members of the discussion decide whether or not a conversation will be carried or ended with an instance of Godwin's Rule. ........
Hey, there were no claims this was a rational discussion, were there?
:evillol:
I think Davo was just funnin', though. If not, ....:loser:
:p
Maximus84
10-24-2008, 04:37 PM
This is getting ridiculous. :shakehead
If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.
McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.:rofl:
If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.
McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.:rofl:
-Davo
10-25-2008, 01:32 AM
If this member is posting something anyone disagrees with then prove him wrong or do it with a counter argument and credible links or information. This is not a one way street
This is getting ridiculous. :shakehead
If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.
McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.
I had my suspicion that you didn't know what you were talking about, but I didn't think you would take it this far.
The irony is you your self has failed at your own logic.
The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof, that is a one way street. It is not up to the skeptic to prove the claimer wrong, it is the claimers onus to prove them that he is right.
Since Max failed at that department, my statement that McCain's father is a Nazi conforms to your logic, and I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.
This is getting ridiculous. :shakehead
If McCain's father is a Nazi then post something credible to support your position or belief or at least carry on an intelligent debate.
McCain's father Sr. was an Admiral with 4 stars in the US Navy and served his country proudly to include serving during World War II and Vietnam. Posting B.S. in a sad attempt to prove your point ruins your credibility.
I had my suspicion that you didn't know what you were talking about, but I didn't think you would take it this far.
The irony is you your self has failed at your own logic.
The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof, that is a one way street. It is not up to the skeptic to prove the claimer wrong, it is the claimers onus to prove them that he is right.
Since Max failed at that department, my statement that McCain's father is a Nazi conforms to your logic, and I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.
Maximus84
10-25-2008, 01:43 AM
I had my suspicion that you didn't know what you were talking about, but I didn't think you would take it this far.
The irony is you your self has failed at your own logic.
The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof, that is a one way street. It is not up to the skeptic to prove the claimer wrong, it is the claimers onus to prove them that he is right.
Since Max failed at that department, my statement that McCain's father is a Nazi conforms to your logic, and I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.OK,so then your logic is that in your claim he is a Nazi,you have to prove your right. Either way,your warped logic is showing
The irony is you your self has failed at your own logic.
The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof, that is a one way street. It is not up to the skeptic to prove the claimer wrong, it is the claimers onus to prove them that he is right.
Since Max failed at that department, my statement that McCain's father is a Nazi conforms to your logic, and I am still waiting for you to prove me wrong.OK,so then your logic is that in your claim he is a Nazi,you have to prove your right. Either way,your warped logic is showing
-Davo
10-25-2008, 01:49 AM
And just to prove a point:
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
I did my own research on this, and I could not find anything on this. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=eyc&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama%27s+call+for+800b+in+spending&spell=1
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
This is a straw man argument. Obama actually voted Preset, not actually 'no'. He did this to preserve the freedom of choice for women, and I agree with him. It is not up to the dogmatic religion zealots to decide what women do with their unborn fetus's, if you have a problem, protest, not form a hypocrite stance that forbids personal decision.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
This to me was the filthy straw man I smelt, I did a search and I was right, what a dirty, filthy fucking straw man argument. This is a complete distortion.
Here is Obama's actual stance on gun laws:
"Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen (http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/03/right-to-bear-sporting-goods-oregon.html) should be protected.
We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/).
I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people.
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/06/senator-obamas-position-on-gun.html
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=cPI&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama+opposing+gun+rights%3F&spell=1
I have to go out to dinner for a mates 19th so I will return and see if the rest of the list is dirty propaganda distortions or not.
Peace
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
I did my own research on this, and I could not find anything on this. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=eyc&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama%27s+call+for+800b+in+spending&spell=1
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
This is a straw man argument. Obama actually voted Preset, not actually 'no'. He did this to preserve the freedom of choice for women, and I agree with him. It is not up to the dogmatic religion zealots to decide what women do with their unborn fetus's, if you have a problem, protest, not form a hypocrite stance that forbids personal decision.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
This to me was the filthy straw man I smelt, I did a search and I was right, what a dirty, filthy fucking straw man argument. This is a complete distortion.
Here is Obama's actual stance on gun laws:
"Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen (http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/03/right-to-bear-sporting-goods-oregon.html) should be protected.
We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/).
I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people.
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/06/senator-obamas-position-on-gun.html
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=cPI&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama+opposing+gun+rights%3F&spell=1
I have to go out to dinner for a mates 19th so I will return and see if the rest of the list is dirty propaganda distortions or not.
Peace
-Davo
10-25-2008, 01:54 AM
OK,so then your logic is that in your claim he is a Nazi,you have to prove your right. Either way,your warped logic is showing
Read it again.
I clearly stated, and my exact words
The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof in response to BN's crazy idea that if someone disagrees with you max, it is their responsibility to prove you wrong, not that you have to supply sources for your claims, I pointed out the fallacy in that with a rhetoric example. He then responded with a direct contradiction of his own words, did you not read that part?
You have taken what I have said not just out of context, but used it against me in an attempt to sway others reading that a hypocrisy that does not exist, that is called a STRAW MAN. Do not do it again, you will not win.
If I were to claim his father was a Nazi, yes I would have to back it up, but it was a RHETORIC, it was not to be taken as a legitimate stance of position.
Fail move along.
Read it again.
I clearly stated, and my exact words
The point I was trying to make was that he who makes the claim has the burden of proof in response to BN's crazy idea that if someone disagrees with you max, it is their responsibility to prove you wrong, not that you have to supply sources for your claims, I pointed out the fallacy in that with a rhetoric example. He then responded with a direct contradiction of his own words, did you not read that part?
You have taken what I have said not just out of context, but used it against me in an attempt to sway others reading that a hypocrisy that does not exist, that is called a STRAW MAN. Do not do it again, you will not win.
If I were to claim his father was a Nazi, yes I would have to back it up, but it was a RHETORIC, it was not to be taken as a legitimate stance of position.
Fail move along.
Maximus84
10-25-2008, 02:07 AM
And just to prove a point:
I did my own research on this, and I could not find anything on this. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=eyc&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama%27s+call+for+800b+in+spending&spell=1
This is a straw man argument. Obama actually voted Preset, not actually 'no'. He did this to preserve the freedom of choice for women, and I agree with him. It is not up to the dogmatic religion zealots to decide what women do with their unborn fetus's, if you have a problem, protest, not form a hypocrite stance that forbids personal decision.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
This to me was the filthy straw man I smelt, I did a search and I was right, what a dirty, filthy fucking straw man argument. This is a complete distortion.
Here is Obama's actual stance on gun laws:
http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/06/senator-obamas-position-on-gun.html
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=cPI&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama+opposing+gun+rights%3F&spell=1
I have to go out to dinner for a mates 19th so I will return and see if the rest of the list is dirty propaganda distortions or not.
Peace CHECK AGAIN!->> :shakehead http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html) On Gun Laws,etc->CHECK THESE LINKS OUT-> :shakehead http://www.morebans.org/obama.html (http://www.morebans.org/obama.html) and http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html (http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html) ---Income Redistribution: Barack decides who pays
Why would the Party that has been relentlessly denouncing the Bush tax cuts turn around and give anyone another tax cut? Barack Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax program would purportedly give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut—including 44 percent who would owe no federal income taxes. What seems a discrepancy, however, is really downright deception. Far from being a tax cut, Obama’s plan would actually give an income tax credit of up to $500 to folks who pay no income taxes. Rather it is based on what they pay into Social Security. As columnist William McGurn points out in The Wall Street Journal, this is not income tax relief but payroll tax relief. Of course, the relief wouldn’t come from the Social Security fund, as touching the Third Rail would be political suicide. Instead, it would come from “general revenues” —i.e., the taxes of those who actually do pay federal income taxes.
McGurn quips, “With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief: Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of ‘Making Work Pay’.” Not only that, but it would also fundamentally change Social Security from an earned benefit, distributed based on an individual’s “contributions” into the system, into a welfare program, granted for not contributing. Propping it all up would be the confiscated dollars of wealthier taxpayers. :shakehead
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award-
“Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) :screwy:
I did my own research on this, and I could not find anything on this. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=eyc&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama%27s+call+for+800b+in+spending&spell=1
This is a straw man argument. Obama actually voted Preset, not actually 'no'. He did this to preserve the freedom of choice for women, and I agree with him. It is not up to the dogmatic religion zealots to decide what women do with their unborn fetus's, if you have a problem, protest, not form a hypocrite stance that forbids personal decision.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
This to me was the filthy straw man I smelt, I did a search and I was right, what a dirty, filthy fucking straw man argument. This is a complete distortion.
Here is Obama's actual stance on gun laws:
http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/06/senator-obamas-position-on-gun.html
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=cPI&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=obama+opposing+gun+rights%3F&spell=1
I have to go out to dinner for a mates 19th so I will return and see if the rest of the list is dirty propaganda distortions or not.
Peace CHECK AGAIN!->> :shakehead http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html) On Gun Laws,etc->CHECK THESE LINKS OUT-> :shakehead http://www.morebans.org/obama.html (http://www.morebans.org/obama.html) and http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html (http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html) ---Income Redistribution: Barack decides who pays
Why would the Party that has been relentlessly denouncing the Bush tax cuts turn around and give anyone another tax cut? Barack Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax program would purportedly give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut—including 44 percent who would owe no federal income taxes. What seems a discrepancy, however, is really downright deception. Far from being a tax cut, Obama’s plan would actually give an income tax credit of up to $500 to folks who pay no income taxes. Rather it is based on what they pay into Social Security. As columnist William McGurn points out in The Wall Street Journal, this is not income tax relief but payroll tax relief. Of course, the relief wouldn’t come from the Social Security fund, as touching the Third Rail would be political suicide. Instead, it would come from “general revenues” —i.e., the taxes of those who actually do pay federal income taxes.
McGurn quips, “With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief: Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of ‘Making Work Pay’.” Not only that, but it would also fundamentally change Social Security from an earned benefit, distributed based on an individual’s “contributions” into the system, into a welfare program, granted for not contributing. Propping it all up would be the confiscated dollars of wealthier taxpayers. :shakehead
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award-
“Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) :screwy:
blazee
10-25-2008, 09:40 AM
"I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people."
That just proves the man is ignorant, (along with the ones that passed it in the first place) and knows nothing about guns. That was a stupid law. It did nothing to prevent the manufacture, sale, or ownership of dangerous guns. It targeted guns based on their accessories, things that could easily be dropped and not make the gun any less lethal. Take Norinco for example, all they did was cut the ears off the bayonet mount, and were legal to sell again. This had no effect on the performance of the gun. I know that not everyone here is familiar with firearms, and since this is a car site I'll put it this way. It would be like congress wanting to stop speeding, so they pass a law banning cars with chrome wheels, spoilers, decals, and racing stripes.
That just proves the man is ignorant, (along with the ones that passed it in the first place) and knows nothing about guns. That was a stupid law. It did nothing to prevent the manufacture, sale, or ownership of dangerous guns. It targeted guns based on their accessories, things that could easily be dropped and not make the gun any less lethal. Take Norinco for example, all they did was cut the ears off the bayonet mount, and were legal to sell again. This had no effect on the performance of the gun. I know that not everyone here is familiar with firearms, and since this is a car site I'll put it this way. It would be like congress wanting to stop speeding, so they pass a law banning cars with chrome wheels, spoilers, decals, and racing stripes.
drunken monkey
10-25-2008, 11:03 AM
and i think that is also part of the issue with the sort of things the OP is copying. Those articles/blog posts by and large, only present the basic gist of something that may be true in general but without talking about the specifics, doesn't present the true nature.
eg. Obama wants to raise your taxes (yes so that the majority of people pay less taxes)
It's details that actually benefit and move discussion along but there isn't much detail being presented. At best the copied items presented here are second hand.
eg. Obama wants to raise your taxes (yes so that the majority of people pay less taxes)
It's details that actually benefit and move discussion along but there isn't much detail being presented. At best the copied items presented here are second hand.
BNaylor
10-25-2008, 11:26 AM
and i think that is also part of the issue with the sort of things the OP is copying. Those articles/blog posts by and large, only present the basic gist of something that may be true in general but without talking about the specifics, doesn't present the true nature.
It's details that actually benefit and move discussion along but there isn't much detail being presented. At best the copied items presented here are second hand.
Here are the specifics on his position concerning the issue of gun control which really hasn't changed regardless of his flip flip on some issues or what he wants you to believe so there is basis in fact and truth to the OP's first post as far as the gun control issue. See link below. This is a well relied upon and fairly accurate non-partisan web site so IMO is it a good source and not biased. The detail is sufficient enough to draw a conclusion on his real position and views in this specific instance.
Obama on Gun Control (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
It's details that actually benefit and move discussion along but there isn't much detail being presented. At best the copied items presented here are second hand.
Here are the specifics on his position concerning the issue of gun control which really hasn't changed regardless of his flip flip on some issues or what he wants you to believe so there is basis in fact and truth to the OP's first post as far as the gun control issue. See link below. This is a well relied upon and fairly accurate non-partisan web site so IMO is it a good source and not biased. The detail is sufficient enough to draw a conclusion on his real position and views in this specific instance.
Obama on Gun Control (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
drunken monkey
10-25-2008, 11:56 AM
and that is the sort of post/link that is useful, instead of posting clippings from obviously biased articles/blogs.
I have just been reminded of one thing though and that is the oft quoted
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
I have never come across a questionaire that only require a yes/no/maybe tick to represent my opinion correctly and my gut instinct in this case is that it is true in this case. Marketing people (and that covers marketing of all areas) use questionaires because it gives the illusion of a choice in the answers.
When it comes to something like gun control in the US, an issue that does not and will not have one for all, blanket resolution, there is no yes or no answer.
Incidentally, how much detailed info does the regular citizen have access to regarding bills and whatnot? In the UK, we have access to all government white papers (as well as others that are released for public consultation) that details all policies from our local council offices (if you so wish to see them). I guess my real question is, how easy is it for you make a real informed opinion?
I have just been reminded of one thing though and that is the oft quoted
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
I have never come across a questionaire that only require a yes/no/maybe tick to represent my opinion correctly and my gut instinct in this case is that it is true in this case. Marketing people (and that covers marketing of all areas) use questionaires because it gives the illusion of a choice in the answers.
When it comes to something like gun control in the US, an issue that does not and will not have one for all, blanket resolution, there is no yes or no answer.
Incidentally, how much detailed info does the regular citizen have access to regarding bills and whatnot? In the UK, we have access to all government white papers (as well as others that are released for public consultation) that details all policies from our local council offices (if you so wish to see them). I guess my real question is, how easy is it for you make a real informed opinion?
BNaylor
10-25-2008, 07:27 PM
Incidentally, that table also shows that 60% of people pay less tax under Obama's policies compared to McCains and that only the top 1% (more than $600,000 salaries) pay more tax.
No matter how the argument is parsed that is commonly referred to as socialism and redistribution of wealth. Even the New York Times newspaper criticized his plan as it relates to small businesses and the owners that file as sole proprietors making over $250K net per year which could be 33% of the small businesses in the U.S.
Here is a simple analogy of socialism and redistribution of wealth.
100 kids want candy for Halloween.
40 kids decide they don't like to dress up and would rather just sit and wait on the porch.
55 kids put on their costumes and gather candy from around the block.
5 kids, with a little more energy and work ethic, decide to walk the whole neighborhood, even though it might take a little longer. Then they decide they don't want to share their candy and they store their candy outside of town (overseas) to get it later, say after the next election.
Meanwhile, back on the porch, 100 kids share the little bit of candy that the 55 kids collected.
It also doesn't take into account capital gains tax and (do you have) inheritance tax?
Right now, my mum's biggest concern is what's going to happen to our assets when she kicks it.
The issue of capital gains taxes and inheritance tax is vague from both candidates. Some Americans believe the inheritance tax was repealed a few years ago but that is not true.
CAPITAL GAINS
On raising capital gains taxes, Obama has mentioned raising capital gains taxes, maybe as high as 28% but with an exclusion that would not apply to homes sold. As part of Obama's "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan I recall there was an interview around March 2008 with CNBC where he stated he favored raising capital gains taxes from 15% to 20% but no higher than 28%.
Both candidates favor exempting the first $250,000 of gains from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple on a joint return).
INHERITANCE TAX
Here is the candidates position according to the Chicago Sun-Times. McCain would try to lower the inheritance tax while Obama would raise it on estates more than $3.5 million.
No matter how the argument is parsed that is commonly referred to as socialism and redistribution of wealth. Even the New York Times newspaper criticized his plan as it relates to small businesses and the owners that file as sole proprietors making over $250K net per year which could be 33% of the small businesses in the U.S.
Here is a simple analogy of socialism and redistribution of wealth.
100 kids want candy for Halloween.
40 kids decide they don't like to dress up and would rather just sit and wait on the porch.
55 kids put on their costumes and gather candy from around the block.
5 kids, with a little more energy and work ethic, decide to walk the whole neighborhood, even though it might take a little longer. Then they decide they don't want to share their candy and they store their candy outside of town (overseas) to get it later, say after the next election.
Meanwhile, back on the porch, 100 kids share the little bit of candy that the 55 kids collected.
It also doesn't take into account capital gains tax and (do you have) inheritance tax?
Right now, my mum's biggest concern is what's going to happen to our assets when she kicks it.
The issue of capital gains taxes and inheritance tax is vague from both candidates. Some Americans believe the inheritance tax was repealed a few years ago but that is not true.
CAPITAL GAINS
On raising capital gains taxes, Obama has mentioned raising capital gains taxes, maybe as high as 28% but with an exclusion that would not apply to homes sold. As part of Obama's "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan I recall there was an interview around March 2008 with CNBC where he stated he favored raising capital gains taxes from 15% to 20% but no higher than 28%.
Both candidates favor exempting the first $250,000 of gains from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple on a joint return).
INHERITANCE TAX
Here is the candidates position according to the Chicago Sun-Times. McCain would try to lower the inheritance tax while Obama would raise it on estates more than $3.5 million.
drunken monkey
10-25-2008, 10:01 PM
I got sent an explanation of taxes a while back that is also very good reading.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost
just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid
nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7
(28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'
'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.
'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost
just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid
nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7
(28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'
'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.
'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.
-Davo
10-26-2008, 07:18 AM
CHECK AGAIN!->> :shakehead http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html) On Gun Laws,etc->CHECK THESE LINKS OUT-> :shakehead http://www.morebans.org/obama.html (http://www.morebans.org/obama.html) and http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html (http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html) ---Income Redistribution: Barack decides who pays
Why would the Party that has been relentlessly denouncing the Bush tax cuts turn around and give anyone another tax cut? Barack Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax program would purportedly give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut—including 44 percent who would owe no federal income taxes. What seems a discrepancy, however, is really downright deception. Far from being a tax cut, Obama’s plan would actually give an income tax credit of up to $500 to folks who pay no income taxes. Rather it is based on what they pay into Social Security. As columnist William McGurn points out in The Wall Street Journal, this is not income tax relief but payroll tax relief. Of course, the relief wouldn’t come from the Social Security fund, as touching the Third Rail would be political suicide. Instead, it would come from “general revenues” —i.e., the taxes of those who actually do pay federal income taxes.
McGurn quips, “With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief: Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of ‘Making Work Pay’.” Not only that, but it would also fundamentally change Social Security from an earned benefit, distributed based on an individual’s “contributions” into the system, into a welfare program, granted for not contributing. Propping it all up would be the confiscated dollars of wealthier taxpayers. :shakehead
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award-
“Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) :screwy:
You would rather see a dead child than your precious gun get a fucking child lock?
Why would the Party that has been relentlessly denouncing the Bush tax cuts turn around and give anyone another tax cut? Barack Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax program would purportedly give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut—including 44 percent who would owe no federal income taxes. What seems a discrepancy, however, is really downright deception. Far from being a tax cut, Obama’s plan would actually give an income tax credit of up to $500 to folks who pay no income taxes. Rather it is based on what they pay into Social Security. As columnist William McGurn points out in The Wall Street Journal, this is not income tax relief but payroll tax relief. Of course, the relief wouldn’t come from the Social Security fund, as touching the Third Rail would be political suicide. Instead, it would come from “general revenues” —i.e., the taxes of those who actually do pay federal income taxes.
McGurn quips, “With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief: Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of ‘Making Work Pay’.” Not only that, but it would also fundamentally change Social Security from an earned benefit, distributed based on an individual’s “contributions” into the system, into a welfare program, granted for not contributing. Propping it all up would be the confiscated dollars of wealthier taxpayers. :shakehead
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award-
“Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) :screwy:
You would rather see a dead child than your precious gun get a fucking child lock?
Maximus84
10-26-2008, 12:18 PM
You would rather see a dead child than your precious gun get a fucking child lock?Thats it? Thats all you think the whole 2nd Amendment rights issue is about? Gun locks? You think its better that no one has a firearm,but the people who dont give a crap about laws,or have a 2nd thought about home invasion,robbing your house,assaulting your family,carjacking you,holding up convenience stores,etc.You dont think 99.9% of Americans who own guns are responsible people who hunt,go to gun ranges with their freinds,are law abiding citizens who have some idea what gun safety is? :shakehead ....By the way,whats a "fucking chid lock",& why would you be locking your child up?:screwy:
Maximus84
10-26-2008, 12:20 PM
The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country.
We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace — or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.
Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president — He is a dangerous one.
The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states.
Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put the most extreme liberal in the history of the presidency in the White House.
Obama has been trying to fool people and remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters.
He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party.
We all know his 100 percent liberal rating in Congress, his support for the TOTAL gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.
But there is one issue almost all Americans agree on: Illegal aliens should not be given driver’s licenses.
Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license?
Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote!
Here is the shocking fact: Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses.
He said as much during two Democratic debates earlier this year.
The head of Homeland Security said such thinking was dangerous for national security.
Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan.
Obama’s position is not a new one: We discovered that Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator.
We have no doubt that, as president, Obama will also champion this radical plan.
With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities — biological, chemical, and nuclear — can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?
Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered.
Doesn’t he want to prevent that from ever happening again?
If he supports driver’s licenses for illegals, the answer is clear.
We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace — or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.
Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president — He is a dangerous one.
The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states.
Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put the most extreme liberal in the history of the presidency in the White House.
Obama has been trying to fool people and remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters.
He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party.
We all know his 100 percent liberal rating in Congress, his support for the TOTAL gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.
But there is one issue almost all Americans agree on: Illegal aliens should not be given driver’s licenses.
Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license?
Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote!
Here is the shocking fact: Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses.
He said as much during two Democratic debates earlier this year.
The head of Homeland Security said such thinking was dangerous for national security.
Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan.
Obama’s position is not a new one: We discovered that Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator.
We have no doubt that, as president, Obama will also champion this radical plan.
With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities — biological, chemical, and nuclear — can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?
Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered.
Doesn’t he want to prevent that from ever happening again?
If he supports driver’s licenses for illegals, the answer is clear.
jon@af
10-26-2008, 11:06 PM
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.:nono: :screwy:
Below is an explanation of where the above quote has orignated from. We very much appreciate credit where it is due here. Especially when it is not due to you.
http://blogs.jsonline.com/raisingkane/archive/2008/10/06/down-and-dirty.aspx
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.:nono: :screwy:
Below is an explanation of where the above quote has orignated from. We very much appreciate credit where it is due here. Especially when it is not due to you.
http://blogs.jsonline.com/raisingkane/archive/2008/10/06/down-and-dirty.aspx
Maximus84
10-27-2008, 01:54 AM
DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER
Attack the message, not the messenger. Criticize ideas, not the person. Don't attack others. Personal attacks and flaming on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack. No violent, discriminatory language or personal attacks are allowed. Personal attacks are defined as personal, racial, ethnic and or gender based insults, slurs or derisive comments. We reserve the right to edit and remove any inappropriate posts.
Politics, Philosophy (Religion), and Stress Release subsections:
These sections are, like in life, heavily debated and some are quite passionate in their views, beliefs, agendas and debates. Still, here in AF, please note that all topics within these sections should be rational and should not be a basis to start any argument over any issue that will always have two sides to it. As mentioned previously, attack and debate the message, not the messenger. No flaming of members and moderators are allowed
Attack the message, not the messenger. Criticize ideas, not the person. Don't attack others. Personal attacks and flaming on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack. No violent, discriminatory language or personal attacks are allowed. Personal attacks are defined as personal, racial, ethnic and or gender based insults, slurs or derisive comments. We reserve the right to edit and remove any inappropriate posts.
Politics, Philosophy (Religion), and Stress Release subsections:
These sections are, like in life, heavily debated and some are quite passionate in their views, beliefs, agendas and debates. Still, here in AF, please note that all topics within these sections should be rational and should not be a basis to start any argument over any issue that will always have two sides to it. As mentioned previously, attack and debate the message, not the messenger. No flaming of members and moderators are allowed
-Davo
10-27-2008, 03:14 AM
Thats it? Thats all you think the whole 2nd Amendment rights issue is about? Gun locks? You think its better that no one has a firearm,but the people who dont give a crap about laws,or have a 2nd thought about home invasion,robbing your house,assaulting your family,carjacking you,holding up convenience stores,etc.You dont think 99.9% of Americans who own guns are responsible people who hunt,go to gun ranges with their freinds,are law abiding citizens who have some idea what gun safety is? :shakehead ....By the way,whats a "fucking chid lock",& why would you be locking your child up?:screwy:
I was pointing out the fact that you did not even read your own link, which support my argument that you are motivated through lies and deception.
I had a longer essay, but I decided to just go with a short, sweet attack at your own personal credulity from ignorance.
Here it is.
------------
Finally you have a link to back a claim up, but your other two links are pure crap.
Your second link, http://www.morebans.org/obama.html, is pure propaganda. There is no actual sources for any of those claims. Not only that, but the failed red herring attempt to sway the reader from the actual truth has failed. I laughed at that you actually believe junk like this, you must be a creationist. Oh I went there.
In fact, I will go into depth on the pure failure that is your second link.
"I believe the DC gun ban is Constitutional, and will not be overturned."
--Barack Obama, Constitutional Scholar, 2/2/2008
"I agree with the Supreme Court decison that guns are an individual right." --Barack Obama, Political Pragmatist, 6/30/2008
"This is less of a flip flop and more of an outright contradiction. Why? 70% of independent voters are pro-gun, and without them, Obama can't win. He added a quick "we still have a right to create gun laws" at the end of this statement, to appease the Left. But unlike nearly every other Senator, he did not file in support of the 2nd Amendment." --Kitty Pilgrim, CNN
Fail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LXb0ZPws&feature=related
I stopped reading there, the lies this website spewed was giving me a headache.
Your third link was laughable, do you actually know what the fuck you are arguing!?
Lets see what Obama voted against and for, according to your own source:
Obama voted for:
Trigger locks for child saftley (I assume you would rather see a Child dead than this? Do you even READ the fucking shit!?)
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senate-Bills/sa1626.html
--------------
I stopped there and decided to go with an ad hominem because I felt it was justified considering I already knew you did even read it. You probably just cut and copied it.
Jswigs point is exactly that of my own, you can't do research for your self, you are spewing filthy fucking propaganda to these forums and you have absolutely no idea of exactly what it is you are copying! This thread is hours away from major lockage. I can feeeel it
I'll tell you what a chid lockis, it is your failed attempt to lie and deceive more, because you are a fucking snake.
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8581/chidjy5.jpg
FAILED
PURE
FAIL
I was pointing out the fact that you did not even read your own link, which support my argument that you are motivated through lies and deception.
I had a longer essay, but I decided to just go with a short, sweet attack at your own personal credulity from ignorance.
Here it is.
------------
Finally you have a link to back a claim up, but your other two links are pure crap.
Your second link, http://www.morebans.org/obama.html, is pure propaganda. There is no actual sources for any of those claims. Not only that, but the failed red herring attempt to sway the reader from the actual truth has failed. I laughed at that you actually believe junk like this, you must be a creationist. Oh I went there.
In fact, I will go into depth on the pure failure that is your second link.
"I believe the DC gun ban is Constitutional, and will not be overturned."
--Barack Obama, Constitutional Scholar, 2/2/2008
"I agree with the Supreme Court decison that guns are an individual right." --Barack Obama, Political Pragmatist, 6/30/2008
"This is less of a flip flop and more of an outright contradiction. Why? 70% of independent voters are pro-gun, and without them, Obama can't win. He added a quick "we still have a right to create gun laws" at the end of this statement, to appease the Left. But unlike nearly every other Senator, he did not file in support of the 2nd Amendment." --Kitty Pilgrim, CNN
Fail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LXb0ZPws&feature=related
I stopped reading there, the lies this website spewed was giving me a headache.
Your third link was laughable, do you actually know what the fuck you are arguing!?
Lets see what Obama voted against and for, according to your own source:
Obama voted for:
Trigger locks for child saftley (I assume you would rather see a Child dead than this? Do you even READ the fucking shit!?)
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senate-Bills/sa1626.html
--------------
I stopped there and decided to go with an ad hominem because I felt it was justified considering I already knew you did even read it. You probably just cut and copied it.
Jswigs point is exactly that of my own, you can't do research for your self, you are spewing filthy fucking propaganda to these forums and you have absolutely no idea of exactly what it is you are copying! This thread is hours away from major lockage. I can feeeel it
I'll tell you what a chid lockis, it is your failed attempt to lie and deceive more, because you are a fucking snake.
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8581/chidjy5.jpg
FAILED
PURE
FAIL
Maximus84
10-27-2008, 03:18 AM
I was pointing out the fact that you did not even read your own link, which support my argument that you are motivated through lies and deception.
I had a longer essay, but I decided to just go with a short, sweet attack at your own personal credulity from ignorance.
Here it is.
------------
Finally you have a link to back a claim up, but your other two links are pure crap.
Your second link, http://www.morebans.org/obama.html, is pure propaganda. There is no actual sources for any of those claims. Not only that, but the failed red herring attempt to sway the reader from the actual truth has failed. I laughed at that you actually believe junk like this, you must be a creationist. Oh I went there.
In fact, I will go into depth on the pure failure that is your second link.
Fail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LXb0ZPws&feature=related
I stopped reading there, the lies this website spewed was giving me a headache.
Your third link was laughable, do you actually know what the fuck you are arguing!?
Lets see what Obama voted against and for, according to your own source:
Obama voted for:
Trigger locks for child saftley (I assume you would rather see a Child dead than this? Do you even READ the fucking shit!?)
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senate-Bills/sa1626.html
If youre going to say links are "pure crap",then you should find some of your own that arent horseshit
I had a longer essay, but I decided to just go with a short, sweet attack at your own personal credulity from ignorance.
Here it is.
------------
Finally you have a link to back a claim up, but your other two links are pure crap.
Your second link, http://www.morebans.org/obama.html, is pure propaganda. There is no actual sources for any of those claims. Not only that, but the failed red herring attempt to sway the reader from the actual truth has failed. I laughed at that you actually believe junk like this, you must be a creationist. Oh I went there.
In fact, I will go into depth on the pure failure that is your second link.
Fail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LXb0ZPws&feature=related
I stopped reading there, the lies this website spewed was giving me a headache.
Your third link was laughable, do you actually know what the fuck you are arguing!?
Lets see what Obama voted against and for, according to your own source:
Obama voted for:
Trigger locks for child saftley (I assume you would rather see a Child dead than this? Do you even READ the fucking shit!?)
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senate-Bills/sa1626.html
If youre going to say links are "pure crap",then you should find some of your own that arent horseshit
-Davo
10-27-2008, 03:30 AM
If youre going to say links are "pure crap",then you should find some of your own that arent horseshit
See my updated thread, I decided to add just how much of a snake you are.
Also, to address your concern, I AM AUSTRALIAN my main goal was to just show how far from the truth you have swayed in an attempt for readers of this forum to prevent them being MISLED through your religiously motivated LIES and PROPAGANDA.
I do not have political claims of my own, THEREFORE I don't need to back anything up, but I have used your own sources against you which is better than any source I could provide next to making my own claims.
I pointed out the fallacies of your claims, and your lies I am done. Any more, and I predict its too far, this thread will be locked.
See my updated thread, I decided to add just how much of a snake you are.
Also, to address your concern, I AM AUSTRALIAN my main goal was to just show how far from the truth you have swayed in an attempt for readers of this forum to prevent them being MISLED through your religiously motivated LIES and PROPAGANDA.
I do not have political claims of my own, THEREFORE I don't need to back anything up, but I have used your own sources against you which is better than any source I could provide next to making my own claims.
I pointed out the fallacies of your claims, and your lies I am done. Any more, and I predict its too far, this thread will be locked.
Maximus84
10-27-2008, 02:50 PM
See my updated thread, I decided to add just how much of a snake you are.
Also, to address your concern, I AM AUSTRALIAN my main goal was to just show how far from the truth you have swayed in an attempt for readers of this forum to prevent them being MISLED through your religiously motivated LIES and PROPAGANDA.
I do not have political claims of my own, THEREFORE I don't need to back anything up, but I have used your own sources against you which is better than any source I could provide next to making my own claims.
I pointed out the fallacies of your claims, and your lies I am done. Any more, and I predict its too far, this thread will be locked.Youre a real piece of... work,dude. Australian? Who gives a crap! Religiously motivated? What the hell R U talking about? lies and propaganda? What R U talking about? You do not have political views? Why are you even posting & getting involved in American politics in a political forum? Why dont you keep your views of American politics down under where the sun dont shine,Shiela? You havent pointed out anything but your complet lack of charactor,manners,respect for others,& complete lack of knowledge. Back that up!:loser: This is just 4 U-> http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.com/video_obamawright_nmxn.html -I think you should run,not walk,to get some serious anger management counseling,& get medication for the chemical imbalance in your brain:shakehead
Also, to address your concern, I AM AUSTRALIAN my main goal was to just show how far from the truth you have swayed in an attempt for readers of this forum to prevent them being MISLED through your religiously motivated LIES and PROPAGANDA.
I do not have political claims of my own, THEREFORE I don't need to back anything up, but I have used your own sources against you which is better than any source I could provide next to making my own claims.
I pointed out the fallacies of your claims, and your lies I am done. Any more, and I predict its too far, this thread will be locked.Youre a real piece of... work,dude. Australian? Who gives a crap! Religiously motivated? What the hell R U talking about? lies and propaganda? What R U talking about? You do not have political views? Why are you even posting & getting involved in American politics in a political forum? Why dont you keep your views of American politics down under where the sun dont shine,Shiela? You havent pointed out anything but your complet lack of charactor,manners,respect for others,& complete lack of knowledge. Back that up!:loser: This is just 4 U-> http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.com/video_obamawright_nmxn.html -I think you should run,not walk,to get some serious anger management counseling,& get medication for the chemical imbalance in your brain:shakehead
03cavPA
10-27-2008, 04:17 PM
Hey, guys, this is getting all of us nowhere.
Maximus, no one is going to change their mind on the vote based upon a lot of cut and paste stuff.
Those of us who aren't voting for Obama already decided that a while ago. Those who are voting for him would still vote for him even if his mask fell off and he was revealed as some kind of demon on live TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU
:eek7:
It doesn't matter. What does matter is this: this country is focked, no matter who gets the position. Neither one of these guys can fix it. This 2 party system has given us 2 choices, bad and worse. The clowns in that 3-ring circus we call congress are getting more and more comfortable by the day and we're all gonna pay no matter who wins.
I see no need for this sniper fest.
In the words of Rodney King: "can't we all just get along"?
Maximus, no one is going to change their mind on the vote based upon a lot of cut and paste stuff.
Those of us who aren't voting for Obama already decided that a while ago. Those who are voting for him would still vote for him even if his mask fell off and he was revealed as some kind of demon on live TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU
:eek7:
It doesn't matter. What does matter is this: this country is focked, no matter who gets the position. Neither one of these guys can fix it. This 2 party system has given us 2 choices, bad and worse. The clowns in that 3-ring circus we call congress are getting more and more comfortable by the day and we're all gonna pay no matter who wins.
I see no need for this sniper fest.
In the words of Rodney King: "can't we all just get along"?
Maximus84
10-27-2008, 04:43 PM
Hey, guys, this is getting all of us nowhere.
Maximus, no one is going to change their mind on the vote based upon a lot of cut and paste stuff.
Those of us who aren't voting for Obama already decided that a while ago. Those who are voting for him would still vote for him even if his mask fell off and he was revealed as some kind of demon on live TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU
:eek7:
It doesn't matter. What does matter is this: this country is focked, no matter who gets the position. Neither one of these guys can fix it. This 2 party system has given us 2 choices, bad and worse. The clowns in that 3-ring circus we call congress are getting more and more comfortable by the day and we're all gonna pay no matter who wins.
I see no need for this sniper fest.
In the words of Rodney King: "can't we all just get along"?Just defending,not attacking.And yes,youre 95% correct. Mind boggling,isnt it.You know what voting for the do-nothing nobody from nowhere will get us,even more flocked if you think its bad now! I fear Biden was correct on one point
Maximus, no one is going to change their mind on the vote based upon a lot of cut and paste stuff.
Those of us who aren't voting for Obama already decided that a while ago. Those who are voting for him would still vote for him even if his mask fell off and he was revealed as some kind of demon on live TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU
:eek7:
It doesn't matter. What does matter is this: this country is focked, no matter who gets the position. Neither one of these guys can fix it. This 2 party system has given us 2 choices, bad and worse. The clowns in that 3-ring circus we call congress are getting more and more comfortable by the day and we're all gonna pay no matter who wins.
I see no need for this sniper fest.
In the words of Rodney King: "can't we all just get along"?Just defending,not attacking.And yes,youre 95% correct. Mind boggling,isnt it.You know what voting for the do-nothing nobody from nowhere will get us,even more flocked if you think its bad now! I fear Biden was correct on one point
J-Ri
10-27-2008, 05:55 PM
The thing I really dont understand is that barack has not released where he got all his campaign contributions from, or his birth certificate. Of the contributions I have seen, quite a few come out to odd cents... as if a whole dollar amount of another currency was donated. This man may not even be elligible to run for president because he was born outside the US. I know what I've read, and if someone wants sources, you find them, quite honestly I don't have the time. I know most people have already made a decision based on... well... something, probably; obama voters aren't thinkers, so there's no point in giving them something to think about. He's spending $60 million on advertising to reach the media-brainwashed masses, no amount of logic, voting records, or unethical practices will change their "minds". I think we'll be going from a media-run state to a state-run media... of the two, I don't know which is worse.
ericn1300
10-27-2008, 06:31 PM
The thing I really dont understand is that barack has not released where he got all his campaign contributions from, or his birth certificate.
LOL, I can't believe the crap about his birth certificate is still going around the blogs. He did release his birth certificate.
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.
LOL, I can't believe the crap about his birth certificate is still going around the blogs. He did release his birth certificate.
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.
Maximus84
10-27-2008, 07:21 PM
The thing I really dont understand is that barack has not released where he got all his campaign contributions from, or his birth certificate. Of the contributions I have seen, quite a few come out to odd cents... as if a whole dollar amount of another currency was donated. This man may not even be elligible to run for president because he was born outside the US. I know what I've read, and if someone wants sources, you find them, quite honestly I don't have the time. I know most people have already made a decision based on... well... something, probably; obama voters aren't thinkers, so there's no point in giving them something to think about. He's spending $60 million on advertising to reach the media-brainwashed masses, no amount of logic, voting records, or unethical practices will change their "minds". I think we'll be going from a media-run state to a state-run media... of the two, I don't know which is worse. The 2nd is even worse...from very bad to worse.:headshake And he wants to give free benefits,our taxpayer money, to illegals-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KznfyCqL44c&eurl=http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.com/index.html
Toksin
10-27-2008, 09:19 PM
Obama voters aren't thinkers?
gatoratoy227
10-28-2008, 04:07 AM
i personally don't like either of the canidates John McCain looks like a sociopath, and i've heard i forgot from where that his own campaign team doesn't want him in controll of (que dramatic music) "the button" the relivancy i got from that idea was he is a vietnam vetren, no disrespect there, but veitnam was one of the most horrifying twisted wars to be in i've heard alot of the people who returned from the war had PTSD and other assorted mental issues after said war
Barack Obama, his ideals remind me of Che Guevara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
not to that extreme but you do the research and you'll figure out what i mean
kinda off topic here, but my idea of a good president is a person who hasn't made over $45,000 a year in their life time
Barack Obama, his ideals remind me of Che Guevara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
not to that extreme but you do the research and you'll figure out what i mean
kinda off topic here, but my idea of a good president is a person who hasn't made over $45,000 a year in their life time
HotZ28
10-28-2008, 10:03 AM
Ladies & Gentlemen; please tone down your language, or your post will be removed. Please review our AF Guidelines, especially this paragraph:
There may be places where explicit, obscene or vulgar language, graphics or behavior is appropriate, however Automotive Forums .com is not one of them. Discussion forum posts that contain explicit, obscene or vulgar language will be removed.
This thread will remain open; however, any additional post with personal insults and vulgar language will be deleted. The last post (# 50 from “Davo”) was removed from view for the reasons mentioned above! We appreciate your cooperation!
There may be places where explicit, obscene or vulgar language, graphics or behavior is appropriate, however Automotive Forums .com is not one of them. Discussion forum posts that contain explicit, obscene or vulgar language will be removed.
This thread will remain open; however, any additional post with personal insults and vulgar language will be deleted. The last post (# 50 from “Davo”) was removed from view for the reasons mentioned above! We appreciate your cooperation!
Maximus84
10-28-2008, 11:51 AM
Obama's plan defines 'rich' anyone making over $90,000 a year, because that's when his FICA tax cap comes off and you start paying an addition 7% of tax on each and every dollary you earn above the cap! And if you are making just $50,000 a year or more — expect to pay another 4.5% on each and every dollar you earn starting in 2010. That's when the Bush tax cuts expire.
'President Obama' has emphatically states he will expire those cuts for "rich" people like you.— removal of the FICA tax cap, meaning all ordinary income above $97,000 will be taxed an additional 7%!
— the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed in 2010 — meaning everyone in the upper tax brackets will have an immediate almost 5% increase in income taxes
— an increase in the dividend tax from 15% to at least 20%
— an increase of the capital gains tax from 15% to as high as 28%
— and estate taxes will skyrocket. The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized
by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
http://newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_credit_card/2008/10/27/144683.html:smokin:
'President Obama' has emphatically states he will expire those cuts for "rich" people like you.— removal of the FICA tax cap, meaning all ordinary income above $97,000 will be taxed an additional 7%!
— the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed in 2010 — meaning everyone in the upper tax brackets will have an immediate almost 5% increase in income taxes
— an increase in the dividend tax from 15% to at least 20%
— an increase of the capital gains tax from 15% to as high as 28%
— and estate taxes will skyrocket. The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized
by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
http://newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_credit_card/2008/10/27/144683.html:smokin:
drunken monkey
10-28-2008, 03:08 PM
can someone clarify the taxing system in the US for me?
Is it stepped as it is in the UK, whereby the amount inbetween each threshold level is taxed at a particular rate?
i.e guy earns £60,000
first £20,000 is @ x%
the next £25,000 is @ y%
then next £15,000 is @ z %
or is it one rate for entire amount?
can anyone explain where McCain stands on the "Bush tax cuts" and what the deal is with that in the first place. First question that comes to mind that if it was to be a permanent thing, why wasn't it just a blanket cut in the rates instead of being a separate deduction? If it wasn't meant to be a permanent thing (or if it was a "gift" of some sort), what is the issue with it not being renewed at a time when the Government needs to raise capital?
Is it stepped as it is in the UK, whereby the amount inbetween each threshold level is taxed at a particular rate?
i.e guy earns £60,000
first £20,000 is @ x%
the next £25,000 is @ y%
then next £15,000 is @ z %
or is it one rate for entire amount?
can anyone explain where McCain stands on the "Bush tax cuts" and what the deal is with that in the first place. First question that comes to mind that if it was to be a permanent thing, why wasn't it just a blanket cut in the rates instead of being a separate deduction? If it wasn't meant to be a permanent thing (or if it was a "gift" of some sort), what is the issue with it not being renewed at a time when the Government needs to raise capital?
Maximus84
10-30-2008, 12:25 AM
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/untitled-3.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXVudGl0bGVkLTMuanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/jm.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWptLmpwZw==)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/jmm.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWptbS5qcGc=)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/jjm.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWpqbS5qcGc=)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhLmpwZw==)
John McCain's Cell At The Hanoi Hilton
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aaa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhYS5qcGc=)
Leg Irons in McCains Cell At The Hanoi Hilton
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aaaa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhYWEuanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aaaaa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhYWFhLmpwZw==)
Photograph of Lt. Cmdr. John S. McCain III taken during an interview with U.S.News & World Report after his release from captivity in Vietnam.
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/s.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXMuanBn)
Pres. Ronald Reagan chose Sen. John McCain to be the Chairman of the Republican Presidential Task Force.
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/w.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXcuanBn)
USS John McCain (DDG-56) launch
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/o.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PW8uanBn)
'Lots of late-70's influence there, including that great haircut, those fantastic lapels, and the shout-out to his 'Choom Gang' (chooming = smoking pakalolo, at least back then).
'
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/oo.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PW9vLmpwZw==)
Obama dressed in Muslim attire honoring his Muslim Roots in a 2006 visit to Africa
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/k.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWsuanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/e.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWUuanBn)
"Black Theology Rev.
God D*** America Wright
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/b.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWIuanBn)
Barack Obama's Church Honors Nation of Islam Leader Radical Louis Farrakhan endorses Obama...
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/z.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXouanBn)
No lapel pin or hand over the heart for this candidate!
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/zz.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXp6LmpwZw==)
Barack Obama recently finished a $500,000 total overhaul of his 757.
And as part of the new design, he decided to remove the American flag from the tail...
he replaced the flag with a symbol of his overthrow movement.
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/zzz.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXp6ei5qcGc=)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/zzzz.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXp6enouanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/c.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWMuanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/jm.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWptLmpwZw==)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/jmm.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWptbS5qcGc=)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/jjm.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWpqbS5qcGc=)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhLmpwZw==)
John McCain's Cell At The Hanoi Hilton
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aaa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhYS5qcGc=)
Leg Irons in McCains Cell At The Hanoi Hilton
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aaaa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhYWEuanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/aaaaa.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWFhYWFhLmpwZw==)
Photograph of Lt. Cmdr. John S. McCain III taken during an interview with U.S.News & World Report after his release from captivity in Vietnam.
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/s.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXMuanBn)
Pres. Ronald Reagan chose Sen. John McCain to be the Chairman of the Republican Presidential Task Force.
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/w.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXcuanBn)
USS John McCain (DDG-56) launch
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/o.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PW8uanBn)
'Lots of late-70's influence there, including that great haircut, those fantastic lapels, and the shout-out to his 'Choom Gang' (chooming = smoking pakalolo, at least back then).
'
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/oo.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PW9vLmpwZw==)
Obama dressed in Muslim attire honoring his Muslim Roots in a 2006 visit to Africa
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/k.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWsuanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/e.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWUuanBn)
"Black Theology Rev.
God D*** America Wright
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/b.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWIuanBn)
Barack Obama's Church Honors Nation of Islam Leader Radical Louis Farrakhan endorses Obama...
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/z.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXouanBn)
No lapel pin or hand over the heart for this candidate!
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/zz.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXp6LmpwZw==)
Barack Obama recently finished a $500,000 total overhaul of his 757.
And as part of the new design, he decided to remove the American flag from the tail...
he replaced the flag with a symbol of his overthrow movement.
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/zzz.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXp6ei5qcGc=)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/zzzz.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PXp6enouanBn)
http://i395.photobucket.com/albums/pp32/novemberhope/c.jpg (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczM5NS5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL3 BwMzIvbm92ZW1iZXJob3BlLz9hY3Rpb249dmlldyZjdXJyZW50 PWMuanBn)
GForce957
10-30-2008, 03:06 AM
Those pictures make me lol, I especially like the superman and the cigarette one
Toksin
10-30-2008, 04:43 AM
Why is having Muslim roots such a terrible thing? Also, how is being a shitty bomber pilot a contribution to your country?
blazee
10-30-2008, 04:50 AM
Why is having Muslim roots such a terrible thing?
Because "they" crash planes in our country.
Also, how is being a shitty bomber pilot a contribution to your country?Because he crashed planes in other countries.
:dunno:
:lol:
Because "they" crash planes in our country.
Also, how is being a shitty bomber pilot a contribution to your country?Because he crashed planes in other countries.
:dunno:
:lol:
Nicole8188
10-30-2008, 06:55 AM
I love how people can feel so incredibly strongly about this, but not do anything other than sit on the internet and post pictures of both candidates. Good job, you're making a change.
Oh yeah, stop being dumb.
Oh yeah, stop being dumb.
Nicole8188
10-30-2008, 06:56 AM
The only thing worse than a big idiot is a politically charged big idiot.
blazee
10-30-2008, 07:09 AM
The only thing worse than a big idiot is a politically charged big idiot.:15millionsign:And add religiously charged.
BNaylor
10-30-2008, 07:27 AM
At least McCain is a U.S. Naval Academy - Annapolis graduate. You have to be Superman to pass that. :uhoh:.....:lol:
At least he was properly vetted and actually qualifies for a security clearance. Obama couldn't get a job in the military or any government agency that requires a security clearance due to the alleged past affiliations. Funny how that is waived for elected officials. :screwy:
At least he was properly vetted and actually qualifies for a security clearance. Obama couldn't get a job in the military or any government agency that requires a security clearance due to the alleged past affiliations. Funny how that is waived for elected officials. :screwy:
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025