I don't see how what I said is jingoistic.b, 21b, 21I'm an individual and I trust that I can make betterb, 21decisions for myself than the government can.b, 21Everyone on here, on the other hand, trusts Obamab, 21unquestioningly to furnish and maintain their b, 21well-being.
... you sound very inxperienced in life.b, 21b, 21giving people who make under 150.000 a year a tax break while increasingly taxing those who make more than 250.000 has nothing to do with socialism and it has nothing to do with charity. It's simply the right thing to do. It will support the economy since the consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend. If you're a family with 2 or 3 kids and your total income is $6.000 or $8.000 a month you don't need any charity. You don't need a handout. But you certainly are in a position where you by raising your kids and offering them good education etc are giving a lot to the society you live in and that does cost you money. Higher fuel prices and other costs of living affect you more than someone who makes let's say 25.000 a month and who has the same number of kids. If that person is not helplessly greedy, he should not have anything against paying a bit more in taxes than the first example, knowing that this will help out the economy and the society as a whole. We're not talking about socialism taking over America, we're talking about finally having someone talking common sense and willing to take necessary actions and moving forward towards a better future. I'm glad you're obviously happy with where you're at but why do you think that people making more than $250.000 a year need your support and solidarity? And why support the hideous "socialist" slandering by the McCain/Palin campaign? If you can't see how morally wrong and potentially dangerous this is, I feel sorry for you.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121I don't see how what I said is jingoistic.b, 21b, 21I'm an individual and I trust that I can make betterb, 21decisions for myself than the government can.b, 21Everyone on here, on the other hand, trusts Obamab, 21unquestioningly to furnish and maintain their b, 21well-being. b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121just read atlas shrugged, huh
Quote:/font1h,121b,121... you sound very inxperienced in life.b, 21b, 21giving people who make under 150.000 a year a tax break while increasingly taxing those who make more than 250.000 has nothing to do with socialism and it has nothing to do with charity. It's simply the right thing to do. It will support the economy since the consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend. If you're a family with 2 or 3 kids and your total income is $6.000 or $8.000 a month you don't need any charity. You don't need a handout. But you certainly are in a position where you by raising your kids and offering them good education etc are giving a lot to the society you live in and that does cost you money. Higher fuel prices and other costs of living affect you more than someone who makes let's say 25.000 a month and who has the same number of kids. If that person is not helplessly greedy, he should not have anything against paying a bit more in taxes than the first example, knowing that this will help out the economy and the society as a whole. We're not talking about socialism taking over America, we're talking about finally having someone talking common sense and willing to take necessary actions and moving forward towards a better future. I'm glad you're obviously happy with where you're at but why do you think that people making more than $250.000 a year need your support and solidarity? And why support the hideous slandering of the McCain/Palin campaign? If you can't see how morally wrong and potentially dangerous this is, I feel sorry for you. b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I agree with most of what you're saying but I just disagree thatb,121it should be forced upon us by the government.b, 21b, 21b, 21&b, 21To a lot of people on here:b, 21Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121... you sound very inxperienced in life.b, 21b, 21giving people who make under 150.000 a year a tax break while increasingly taxing those who make more than 250.000 has nothing to do with socialism and it has nothing to do with charity. It's simply the right thing to do. It will support the economy since the consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend. If you're a family with 2 or 3 kids and your total income is $6.000 or $8.000 a month you don't need any charity. You don't need a handout. But you certainly are in a position where you by raising your kids and offering them good education etc are giving a lot to the society you live in and that does cost you money. Higher fuel prices and other costs of living affect you more than someone who makes let's say 25.000 a month and who has the same number of kids. If that person is not helplessly greedy, he should not have anything against paying a bit more in taxes than the first example, knowing that this will help out the economy and the society as a whole. We're not talking about socialism taking over America, we're talking about finally having someone talking common sense and willing to take necessary actions and moving forward towards a better future. I'm glad you're obviously happy with where you're at but why do you think that people making more than $250.000 a year need your support and solidarity? And why support the hideous "socialist" slandering by the McCain/Palin campaign? If you can't see how morally wrong and potentially dangerous this is, I feel sorry for you. b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Frank.....just curious....what country do you pay taxes to and what is the ballpark % they charge you??
Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121... you sound very inxperienced in life.b, 21b, 21giving people who make under 150.000 a year a tax break while increasingly taxing those who make more than 250.000 has nothing to do with socialism and it has nothing to do with charity. It's simply the right thing to do. It will support the economy since the consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend. If you're a family with 2 or 3 kids and your total income is $6.000 or $8.000 a month you don't need any charity. You don't need a handout. But you certainly are in a position where you by raising your kids and offering them good education etc are giving a lot to the society you live in and that does cost you money. Higher fuel prices and other costs of living affect you more than someone who makes let's say 25.000 a month and who has the same number of kids. If that person is not helplessly greedy, he should not have anything against paying a bit more in taxes than the first example, knowing that this will help out the economy and the society as a whole. We're not talking about socialism taking over America, we're talking about finally having someone talking common sense and willing to take necessary actions and moving forward towards a better future. I'm glad you're obviously happy with where you're at but why do you think that people making more than $250.000 a year need your support and solidarity? And why support the hideous slandering of the McCain/Palin campaign? If you can't see how morally wrong and potentially dangerous this is, I feel sorry for you. b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I agree with most of what you're saying but I just disagree thatb,121it should be forced upon us by the government.b, 21b, 21b, 21&b, 21To a lot of people on here:b, 21Methinks the lady doth protest too much. b, 21b, 21h,121font class="post"1b,121is it being 'forced' on us if we elect the person presenting the plan with the knowledge that they intend to implement the plan
Quote:/font1h,121b,121The federal government's job is to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit b,121of happiness - not to be a charitable organization. Who the hell are you to b,121say that because I earn more than most (I don't, by the way), I am legally b,121required to help the less fortunate more than anyone else.b, 21b, 21Though we should be charitable, if we are truly free then we have the freedom b,121to not give s**t to anybody and say f**k'em. It should be of our own volition.b, 21b, 21KeithVH. I never said anything about a Utopian society being a goal. b, 21Unless everybody has the same idea of what Utopia is, which they never will, b, 21that's ridiculous. The only fair solution to a problem with no solution is to b, 21give everyone as much freedom as possible to do their best and make the best possible life for themselves.b, 21b, 21b, 21Higher taxes on the rich, giving houes to people who can't afford them to meet a quota, affirmative action...b, 21You can keep your handouts. They're an insult to me as an individual. If I can't have something that the guy down the block has because I can't afford it based on what I earn for my hard work then I just learn to do without it. For those of you that are going to bring up healthcare on that point, I trust the free market. If government would stop interfering, competition will bring the prices down.b,121If you have that Scarface the-world-is-mine attitude, u1you[/u] need to make it happen. It's nobody else's responsibility. b, 21b, 21h,121
Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121... you sound very inxperienced in life.b, 21b, 21giving people who make under 150.000 a year a tax break while increasingly taxing those who make more than 250.000 has nothing to do with socialism and it has nothing to do with charity. It's simply the right thing to do. It will support the economy since the consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend. If you're a family with 2 or 3 kids and your total income is $6.000 or $8.000 a month you don't need any charity. You don't need a handout. But you certainly are in a position where you by raising your kids and offering them good education etc are giving a lot to the society you live in and that does cost you money. Higher fuel prices and other costs of living affect you more than someone who makes let's say 25.000 a month and who has the same number of kids. If that person is not helplessly greedy, he should not have anything against paying a bit more in taxes than the first example, knowing that this will help out the economy and the society as a whole. We're not talking about socialism taking over America, we're talking about finally having someone talking common sense and willing to take necessary actions and moving forward towards a better future. I'm glad you're obviously happy with where you're at but why do you think that people making more than $250.000 a year need your support and solidarity? And why support the hideous slandering of the McCain/Palin campaign? If you can't see how morally wrong and potentially dangerous this is, I feel sorry for you. b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I agree with most of what you're saying but I just disagree thatb,121it should be forced upon us by the government.b, 21b, 21b, 21&b, 21To a lot of people on here:b, 21Methinks the lady doth protest too much. b, 21b, 21h,121font class="post"1b,121is it being 'forced' on us if we elect the person presenting the plan with the knowledge that they intend to implement the plan b, 21b, 21h,121font class="post"1b,121b,121Yeah.....it's being forced on the 40+% that voted against said candidate......but that's how our system works.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121The problem for Goldfarb is that McCain said his campaign staff could not invoke Jeremiah Wright's name. So like an idiot he positions himself to be asked directly who is he talking about and he cannot say it out loud... he is reduced to saying, "we all know who it is."b, 21b, 21What a moron. If you know that he was hinting at Wright he looks like a stupid douche and if you don't he still looks like a stupid douche only without context. b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I think Goldfarb is a genius. McCain is still getting credit, however dubious, for not bringing up Reverend Wright. But Goldfarb just got the highest youtube rating for the day by refusing to say the man's name. So the weekend before the election, the McCain campaign has a lot of people talking about Reverend Wright while still taking a perceived high road for not bringing it up. b, 21b, 21I don't see any reason why Wright wouldn't be a legitimate campaign issue. Wright believes America (or in his case Amerikkka) is owed the terror of 9-11. This view doesn't make the reverend a Jew hater, just a moral idiot and the kind of man whose advice should not be sought--politically or spiritually--by an American president. Indeed, his grotesque post 9-11 sermon indicates a kind of anti-Americanism, or at least he believes America has no greater moral claim than al Qaeda, Japanese fascists, Soviets etc... And no, I don't think any of this is balanced out by the fact that I'm sure he has done good works for his community. His church also gave an award to Farakhan and Wright visited Qadafi right around the time that the Libyans had directed the Pan Am 103 and disco bombing in Berlin. b, 21b, 21Wright's "Amerikkka" is a popular perception on the hard left (who I fear would go rogue if Obama lost). I am aware that there are many good and decent Americans teaching at our universities. And I am uncomfortable with questioning a man's patriotism--having had my patriotism questioned a few times. But if you think--in its most extreme form--that the victims of 9-11 were "Little Eichmans" as Ward Churchill said, or you photograph stepping on an American flag as Ayers did, or you think Bush is Hitler, then you are saying America is no better than the worst fiends of history. Is it fair to infer that such a person does not love his country?b, 21b, 21I have said this before and will say it again, I don't think Obama really rides for the aforementioned claptrap. He is comfortable around it, he was teaching at University of Chicago, and he once thought this way, according to his memoirs. But he's committed himself--too publicly and for too long--for centrists positions, for me to conclude he is a radical. Clearly John McCain and most of his supporters disagree with me. In this case, we don't know for sure. Maybe on November 5, Barack is gonna say: "Gotcha" and send me to a re-education camp. And pointing out that Obama attended Wright's church for what 20 years, long after Oprah left it cause Wright was too whacky, made him his spiritual advisor, is legit. Kind of a weak hand. Not really a positive message, but fine. Put another way, calling some one a secret Marxist is different than calling them an n word. Conservatives should be able to call someone a communist without being called racist. Isn't that the exact thing the left wants? The right to call someone a neoconservative without being called anti-Semitic. This seems a reasonable point. If I came on here and said every time one of you calls John McCain a neoconservative, you're just Jew hating, you would all rightly accuse me of conflating an ideological statement with a slur. I suppose you could counter that domestic communists were blacklisted decades ago. But isn't that what John Conyers is advocating, the prosecution of administration neoconservatives? And when was the last commie prosecuted in this country? I digress. b, 21b, 21Finally there is the matter of Sanchez. He's the real moron. How could he possibly not have known Goldfarb was talking about Wright? There may be an argument that Wright is not an anti-Semite, but Sanchez did not make that argument. He instead called the Anti-Defamation and took the word of Myrna Sheinbaum. He appealed to an authority on anti-Semitism. The ADL two months ago accused Joe Klein--a Jew--of anti-Semtitism, but a guy who thinks Israel and Amerikkka's occupation of Palestine justified has never been called out by ADL. I mean this is too stupid. Wright gave an award to Louis Farakhan, he thinks the Jewish State are comprised of brutal thugs. If you want to technically say that these positions do not confer a general feeling or attitude towards Jews--be my guest. I don't really care so much about anti-Semitism. But Jewish voters in florida would likely be horrified at Khallidi and Wright's views. The question is, is it fair to say these associations reflect Obama's views of Israel. On this I think Obama is a centrist. I think Obama has read books by Roth and Bellow and is super tight with like one of the most Jewish guys in Chicago, David Axelrod. Again, I don't think these associations tell us as much about Obama as the McCain camp would have us believe, but never mind. Pre-Senate, Barack Obama hung out with some radicals. Will this data-point turn the election? Please.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121b,121Frank.....just curious....what country do you pay taxes to and what is the ballpark % they charge you?? b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121That would be Germany. But luckily I'm freelancing and my expenses always were so high that my profits at the end of the year remained under the taxable minimum.b, 21b, 21The last time I held down a regular job (12 years ago) I think a bit more than a third of my paycheck went towards taxes, public healthcare and mandatory retirement insurance... there's also been a "solidarity-charge" that went towards building up freshly aquired Estern Germany. The 'retirement insurance" actually gets used to pay peopel who are retired now, once I will hit the age of retirement, the system will have collapsed so far that even after a lifetime of paying into this insurance I wouldn't get paid out enough to survive. All these are reasons why I decided to exit the system. Germany is pretty fucked. It's also a prime example for a failed wellfare state and the US would do well studying what went wrong there and not make the same mistakes. I can still remember what it used to be like in the early 80s. People would get paid a 13th paycheck at the end of the year. 25 days of paid days off a year and those off-days were paid at 150%... the out of control wellfare system lead to a scenario where people at the lower end of the job market would make more money living on wellfare sometimes with or without doing some off-the-book part timejob at the side than with a regular fulltime job. My mother had a pretty wellpaid job (not anymore...) around the mid-90s and she got to keep a little less than half her paycheck. It's pittyful. I guess Grope could give you more up to date details. b, 21Germany is really, really fucked...
Quote:/font1h,121b,121But luckily I'm freelancing and my expenses always were so high that my profits at the end of the year remained under the taxable minimum.b, 21b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b, 21The "tax-breaks" the rich get in this country allows them to do exactly what you do.
I'm just saying these are questions worth asking.b, 21Why are you all afraid to know more about your candidate?b, 21b, 21He's just the greatest and I'm gonna ignoreb, 21all of the questionable stuff because I don'tb,121want to second-guess myself.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121The problem for Goldfarb is that McCain said his campaign staff could not invoke Jeremiah Wright's name. So like an idiot he positions himself to be asked directly who is he talking about and he cannot say it out loud... he is reduced to saying, "we all know who it is."b, 21b, 21What a moron. If you know that he was hinting at Wright he looks like a stupid douche and if you don't he still looks like a stupid douche only without context. b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I think Goldfarb is a genius. McCain is still getting credit, however dubious, for not bringing up Reverend Wright. But Goldfarb just got the highest youtube rating for the day by refusing to say the man's name. So the weekend before the election, the McCain campaign has a lot of people talking about Reverend Wright while still taking a perceived high road for not bringing it up. b, 21b, 21{{SNIP, SNIP}}b, 21b, 21h,121font class="post"1b,121b,121V, thanks for the response. b, 21b, 21Before I respond back I want to apologize for my initial meeting with you on this board. I got off on the wrong foot with you popped back up over a month ago and I should not have compared you to Kala. I have been reading your posts on the sidelines since.b, 21b, 21With that said, I am having a hard time seeing the genius in Goldfarb's gambit. Who was the intended audience? It certainly was not me, well informed Obama supporter. Was it aimed at his base? They are already voting for him. Was it aimed at the low information/undecideds? If that was the audience I would say that the gambit was a failure.b,121b, 21The only people that are getting the reference are the base already swimming in the McCain sea of information or high information voters on the other side (people like me). The former are already voting for McCain and there is zero chance that the later will change their mind on the Wright issue.b,121b, 21So, please explain to me how Goldfarb looking like he doesn't know the answer to the question seems like a win?
S--b,121b,121You may be right. CNN is smack in the political middle of the broadcast media. To generate buzz and get people talking off of an incident in a campaign, this close to election, could remind some low information voters that Obama went to a crazy church for 20 years. More important, the Jews of florida, who may withhold their support for the Democrat this year because they fear he is too left on Israel may have forgotten about Wright. In Florida, in a purely semiotic sense, the clip was Latino v. Jewish grandson on whether or not the black candidate is anti-Jewish. Again, I don't know how this will break. Most older Jews are Democrats. How many seniors in Florida know about youtube? At the end of the day I still bet Obama is taking it, so I don't know if it swings the election. But to create big media stories about Jeremiah Wright, and to get it by free media, three days before election day, is a PR coup. b, 21b, 21V
Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121exactly. so stfu b, 21b, 21h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Really??b,121b, 21STFU about something you disagree with and just let the government do their thing??b,121b, 21Really?? b, 21b, 21h,121font class="post"1b,121no, im saying that we're not being 'forced' to do this, we're electing by majority a president who is going to do it because we support that economic approach, so shove it, rhetorically speaking
Quote:/font1h,121b,121S--b,121b,121You may be right. CNN is smack in the political middle of the broadcast media. To generate buzz and get people talking off of an incident in a campaign, this close to election, could remind some low information voters that Obama went to a crazy church for 20 years. More important, the Jews of florida, who may withhold their support for the Democrat this year because they fear he is too left on Israel may have forgotten about Wright. In Florida, in a purely semiotic sense, the clip was Latino v. Jewish grandson on whether or not the black candidate is anti-Jewish. Again, I don't know how this will break. Most older Jews are Democrats. How many seniors in Florida know about youtube? At the end of the day I still bet Obama is taking it, so I don't know if it swings the election. But to create big media stories about Jeremiah Wright, and to get it by free media, three days before election day, is a PR coup. b, 21b, 21V b, 21b, 21h,121
d. I will grab all the free condoms available on my university campus. When the McCain-Palin administration makes birth control illegal, I will sell those rubbers for profit to Sarah Palin's other daughters.
Comments