I am on task.
Posted By: You, on the other hand....sm on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: You as well need to stay on task... - sam
You answered your own challenge here. Of course you cannot reduce taxes, give tax breaks (or whatever other ill-considered literal read you may choose) on people who do not pay them. That would lead any person with a triple-digit IQ to conclude that he is referring to people currently paying taxes....wouldn't it? Your main premise is faulty, as in flawed, caput, no dice, etc. Let's state the obvious again, in case you weren't paying attention. You can't cut something that is not there. We agree on that one.
However, we not agree on your assertion that Obama is lying. According to you, any movement of wealth out of the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who didn't is redistribution of wealth. Perhaps those fat cat oil company CEOs and stockholders would not agree with your argument. The O windfall profit proposal is a one-time jump-start energy rebate aimed at economic stimulus for middle class families, who in case you haven't noticed lately, are having a helluva of time. It is not a permanent scheme where Americans become "collective owners" of the resource (decidedly more Marxist) as Palin's is...income sharing at its finest hour. There is a difference, all right, but not the one you are willing to concede.
Again, we see you dance around the issue of the long-established progressive tax structure question and just how is it socialist only when Obama reforms it? You cannot seem to answer that fundamental central issue, can you?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
No, let's don't. Let's stay on task.
0
Again. Could you PLEASE stay on task.
!
Sorry. Just trying to stay on task.
Thread started out about hate speech, then turned toward lawsuit. Silly me. Do you always change the subject when you start to look stupid? The only plants at the SP rallies spring up from the seeds of bigotry and racism that come spilling out of her mouth every time she opens it...in the form of a crop of hateful ignorance. Must make you feel right proud.
You as well need to stay on task...
Fact. He has said he is going to give a tax break to 95% of the American people. 40% of the American people don't even pay federal taxes. How can you give a tax break to people who don't even pay taxes? In the form of a check. How ELSE is he going to do that? THAT is classic redistribution of wealth Marxist style. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to cut a lot of checks. YOU tell ME how he is going to do it.
As far as Palin...you really need to focus here. Yes, she did a windfall profits task. And yes, she distributed it to the Alaskan people. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, rich and poor alike, every single citizen of Alaska. That is NOT redistribution of wealth. See the difference? And it is not taking from the tax coffers that everyone in Alaska paid into...which is what Obama is going to do. He is going to tax small businesses and the so-called rich (the threshold for which gets smaller every day) and redistribute that to 95% of people...40% of whom don't even pay federal income tax.
Marxist re-distribution of wealth.
No soup for you either, but plenty of ice cream.
Not interested in taking this off task.
nm
You seem to be having a little trouble staying on task.
Let's try this again. The subjct is guilt by association. The post you are answering listed Mc'Cain's associates as follows:
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedo. Can you say Iran contra? How about dong business with terrorists (the arms seller AND the arms customer)?
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry and proud of it!
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
Let me spell out the issue at hand. If we are to infer that Obama embodies the phuilisophies of each and every single person or organization that he has ever encountered dring the corse of his lifetime, then we can infer the same about McCain. Are you with me so far? an appropriate, direct and credible response would not include the word democrat in it. It would deal with the issue at hand and with the list of pub snakes McCain pals around with.
I think you're the one who needs to stay on task
you even asked it. Go back up a few posts and you'll see where I said:
"I'd say the same about anyone who dies after they cast their vote but before the election. It shouldn't count. Where's the accountability?"
Anyone would refer to grandma, pap, brother, sis, aunt, uncle, etc.
Geez, you people make it so easy for me to feel smart. 
Next time, please try to stay on post task.
1st paragraph. I agree. That's why O's and B's supporters are voting for them. Not more government. Better government...smarter government…and one with vision for a different America than what you cons are peddling. You are straying from the subject again. Pay attention. The discussion is about O and JM how JM's plan differs from Bush's plan. On the voting record, last time I checked only O and JM are running for president and those are the voting records we are inspecting now. It is the 90+% of MC'CAIN'S votes in support of Bush's initiatives that we now showcase. Do not complicate the plan comparisons with a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors peripheral unknowns. Candidates. Got it?
Have it your way. Bush adopted O's exit strategy first and JM followed his lead who followed O's lead. He did not start talking exit at all until the Bush flip-flop(s) (i.e., we dont negotiate with terrorists but a US interests section in Iran might work) began getting press during the primary campaigns. I have not had time to examine the context from which you lifted O's surge statement from the other O's Fox interview which you continually and confidently predicted he was too scared to do. Once I do that, I will comment further on the surge statement. Don't know how to tell you this, but the surge was not the greatest national security/foreign policy decision, although it is plain to see that the cons often get military strategies pretty mixed up with foreign policy. Again, ask the Iraqis how successful our missions have been at slaughtering more than 100,000 of their family members. Another bubble to burst here. There are many among us who do not feel that the war has made our nation safer from terrorists. So, in fact, we are not done with this subject, no matter how quickly you would like to dismiss it. Obama was simply trying to avoid MORE quagmire and advance the withdrawal plan that is not only promoted by him, but now suddently promoted by Bush and JM in tow. Some call it vision, others call it judgment.
Did not ask about JMs speeching. Asked about the plan. What is it, if he laid it out so plainly? Must have missed all that between the fear/military references last night. BTW, as I told you in the past post, govt transparency is a democratic initiative that was launched back in the early 90s during the Clinton administration, squashed during the undercover Bush administration and is now clearly articulated in O's technology section under issues.
Cons cannot speak for democrats as to how they can or cannot define pork barrel spending. I know very well what it is. I do find your example of moveon.org rather peculiar in this context. When was the last time they benefited from pork barrel legislation? Please do not reply with a regurgitation of Fox and O'Reilly campaign to demonize the group. You want to talk PACs, fine, but put them in the correct context and tread very lightly for your own sake.
The class warfare is waged by pubs against dem constituents, so yes, I am familiar with that subject and plan to continue to advocate and support measures that will level that playing field. I have a lot of company in that regard. TBone advocates drilling once or twice inside the context of a whole arsenal of other energy initiatives that you discount by omission. He does not, however, try to sell the public on the notion that this will bring prices down anytime in the first of second terms of the upcoming administrations like JM and company would have us believe. On the American imperialist delusions of grandeur, if you have to ask, no soup for you. Would be a waste of time, but this concept is not lost on the better versed in Bush/Cheney NeoCon visions which JM is trying to deny and embrace at the same time. Good luck with that one.
Stay on task, sam. This thread is about refuting
Guess you can't reconcile facts staring you straight in the face with the fiction you couldn't wait to post. Again, if O voted against Katrina funds, there had to have been something REALLY stinky the proposal, and I for one prefer to wait and see exactly what it was before passing judgment.
Why do pubs have so much trouble staying on task?
I like facts. Troopergate has lots of them. Try reading it. Then try answering the questions. Challenge yourself. Get though one single entire post, begining to end, without trashing Obama. Can you handle that? Probably not, but give it your best shot. By the way, there is only one person here who you need to educate....and it ain't me, babe.
Why do pubs have such difficulty staying on task?
Evidently smearing the dems is more important to you than equal pay for women. With this kind of tendency to self destruct, no wonder you folks lost so many elections.
Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
Counting by hand of 100 million votes would be a task...sm
Not that it is an unworthy one, I just doubt it will be done.
One idea was that the computer gives the voter a reciept of their selection and then the reciept, once verified by the voter, is deposited into the machine.
Brainstorming, I suggest they take it one step further and have a real time tally for each candidate per voting center. That way the voters can verify that their vote was casted, counted, and affected the number. The last voters, along with the volunteers could verify the final numbers for the districts.
Pubs can't stay on task if their lives depended on it.
Americans don't elect issues wimps.
You evidently have a hard time staying on task.
if your mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, grandfather, husband or best friend cast a vote in the early election and passed away on November 4th, how would it make you feel if their votes were thrown out?
|
