Nice attitude there, lifelong Democrat....

• I never said liberals were bad people... - Observer
  • But you're asking for it, aren't you? - Lifelong Democrat
    • Nice attitude there, lifelong Democrat.... - Observer
      • You think calling ME insecure justifies YOUR trouble making? - Lifelong Democrat
        • I came here to rain on a parade? - Observer
          • An olive branch? - Lifelong Democrat
            • Ahhh...okay...I finally figured out who you really are.... - Observer
              • Please share, then - Teddy
                • If anyone knows who Lifelong Democrat is, Teddy... - Observer
                  • Nope you're wrong - Teddy
                    • Yeah, yeah, yeah....still protesting too much. (nm) - Observer
                • Mistaken identity, for sure - Lifelong Democrat
                  • Transparent. (nm) - Observer
              • Oh, you looked in the mirror, then? - Lifelong Democrat
                • yada, yada, yada....read it all before. LOL. - Observer
                  • You can't sleep without the last word eh? - Lifelong Democrat
                    • Wow,thank you for going back and reading all my posts.... - Observer
  • Okay... - DW
    • Fair enough....with one qualification... - Observer
      • I'm sorry, I misspoke - DW
        • Your post... - Observer

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

With respect to the 10% tax, I still think $9,000,000 of disposable income goes a lot farther than $9,000, and 10% of $10,000,000 is just a drop in the bucket, compared to 10% of $10,000.

Anyway, my understanding of the "Fair Tax" is that it isn't based on income.  It's based on "consumption." It's (my paraphrasing) a federal sales tax instead of a federal income tax.  And spending up to the poverty level is tax-free, with their "fair tax rebate."

So if someone can afford to buy that 2006 Ferrari, they can also afford to pay the tax.  If someone can only afford a $500 1989 Mitsubishi, they will probably not have to pay any tax if it is considered under the poverty level.

This only addresses federal government tax issues, though.  It doesn't even begin to touch state, county and local taxation.

And from what I've read, I haven't heard what percentage of tax they are proposing. 

So I'm still not sure which I'm leaning towards.  I'm actually sort of swaying between the 10% and the "fair tax."

Nice to see you here, thanks for the invitation, and I agree.  We should debate here.

I am not unhappy that he chose a woman, I am unhappy that he chose this woman, this person that I know nothing about and only have 2 months basically to do it in.  IMO that is not a lot of time to get to know the 2nd in command, who could very likely be the 1st considering McCain's age - though God forbid.  Yes she has a child in the military and she is the head of the guard, or something to that effect, but how does that in any way qualify for foreign policy or to be a good leader.  And no, I don't necessarily think Obama is the answer.

Somehow it all seems to contrived to me.  Does he think that us as women are simply going to vote for him now just because he has a woman?  Does he think it automatically makes him look better to us?  I am just really questioning his judgment right now to pick someone nobody knows anything about and someone I had no idea he even knew.  I do know that I have family in Alaska and not everybody loves her.  The next time I talk to them I am going to find out the whys on that.

Someone had mentioned in an earlier post that nobody really knew who Obama was 8 years ago but we have had 8 years to know, good or bad, and certainly the last 18-24 months since we all pretty much knew he was going to run.

I know nothing of what she stands for, except no abortion, no gays, and yes on the death penalty.  What are her stands on everything else.  I will be investigating, just like I hope everybody else does.  I want to know exactly why she is the one McCain has chosen to "go to" as his 2nd in times of crisis, in times of anything really. Speaking of, let us not forget what today is and how it is still impacting people that live in our great country.

I am afraid this year, this election I will be voting against party and going for the Democrat.  I just don't know if I can trust McCain's judgment.  To me, I have said/thought when it came down to McCain and Obama that I was going to be looking at who they chose for the VP and I think McCain just lost it for me, as well as a lot of other people.

that I feel will ruin us if Obama is elected.  Oh...if you don't want to pay your fair share.....just don't make as much.  Why should people feel like they have to lower their income.  It will make hard working people not want to work hard because the government just takes what they earn.  Then you have the people who don't make anything and are living off of the government and that number will grow.  The more government assistance given, the more they want and the more they will take.  It will make spending for these programs outrageous.  Why should we enable people to mooch off of the government? 

I understand there are people who legitimately need help.  People who are truly disabled and can't work.  However, there are many others who are literally just mooching so they don't have to work. 

I have to think of MY future.  I have two kids who will go through college.  One boy is a freshman now so college really isn't too fair away.  I have a house I'm paying for.  I have a special needs child that requires more of my money.  I want to put my hard earned money back for my kids and myself for a rainy day.  I don't want it taken from me and given to people who I don't know and who I don't know whether they truly need it or are just lying and mooching off of the government. 

The bottom line is this, making more money is an incentive to work hard.  You take their money away and give to people who don't work hard and what does that show.....it shows that you don't have to work hard because the government will pick of the tab and it shows the hard workers....why bother.  I don't want that for my country.  I don't want my kids raised in that kind of life thinking that hard work doesn't pay off. 

just makes you seem somewhat sexist and I really was just curious? 

is quite amazing.  Exactly how do you know that Obama was not sent by God, or as you would say, that the will of mankind by choosing Obama is not in line with the will of God?  Has, per chance, your god bestowed upon you the gift of seeing into the future? If this is not the case, exactly what do you base your assumptions about the job Obama will do on?  Maybe its because you have bought into the fear doctrine of Bush so much that you can't see beyond it.

You said, *If you believe for one minute that Obama is going to change the way that Iran or any other country in the middle east view America you are very, very naive.  The only thing Obama will accomplish will be to weaken this country in an effort to make us more "likeable" to the world and in the end the only thing we will be is weak*

I would love to hear your definition of *weak.*  From what I can gather from your posts, weak in your eyes is the unwillingness to use force first.  So, what is so wrong with diplomacy?  Is your only response to a situation the *shoot first and ask questions later* mentality?  Believe it or not, there is strength in the ability to negotiate and compromise with others.  Since you base everything on religion, what does your Bible say about that?  Does it not teach compassion and understanding?  Of have you just interpreted it in a manner that suits you personally? 

Do I believe Obama will put an end to offshoring American jobs?  I believe that is his goal, unlike Bush and McCain who both supported tax breaks for companies overseas who do that exact thing.  Look up their voting records.

*How can he make America liked and respected by other countries, and take away a source of income for so many in third world countries?*    It's called FAIR TRADE.  Look it up.  Maybe you didn't pay attention to what Obama was saying during his campaign.  Did you even listen to him, or did you just get the Fox rendition?  I would be willing to bet that those *third world countries* know more about his policies than you do, and yet they overwhelmingly support him.

And then there's the middle east.  Everyone says they don't want Iran to have nukes.  I agree, but I also don't want anyone else to have nukes either.  You would argue that Iran is too radical to be trusted with them.  I would say the same thing about Israel and the US.  Under Bush's reign we have started 2 major wars and are presently funding Israel in its war to the tune of about over 2 billion a year in direct military support.  Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a while.  If you lived in Iran (a democratic state), you saw this behavior, and you know you are labeled as *next* on the Bush hit list, wouldn't you be trying to arm up?

Now I know you're going to say that each and every one of those wars was justified, but you are sooo wrong it's ridiculous.  Israel -- They have been bullying everyone over there for years in the name of the holy land and are currently killing civilians at an alarming rate.  Iraq -- An unjust war, to say the least.  And then there's Afghanistan, which was supposed to be retaliation for 9/11.  Why do you think 9/11 happened?  Do you think before 9/11 that everyone in the world just loved the US?  News flash -- No, they didn't.  The US has been meddling in the middle east for years on end (which included putting people like Saddam in power).  So, you think that the Bush administration had no way of seeing it coming.  Maybe you missed this interview.  It's very enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5TkWGsmZF0

And yet, you would say that Bush has *kept us safe.*  What a joke!

Amazingly, you call me naive when I am the one looking at the facts, and all you have are innuendos, rumors and guesses about what may happen.  Unfounded fears about the future do nothing for the progression of society.  The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will be able to see the truth.

Instead of actually contributing the conversation, you came along and just decided to pick out someone for a fight.  I really am happy that you have such a wonderful life and that this crisis is seemingly not affecting you.  However, I don't believe that gives you the right to criticize those who are being affected.  But then again, I would assume that was your point -- to just stir up a fight.  Maybe you should spend some of that $600 a month on a hobby.

BTW, if I were trying to be nasty, I would have actually told you that you are mindless wonder instead of just saying I would have called you something else.  LOL.

Lurker had the courage to try to debate you, tried to ignore your rude comments and personal attacks.  Yes, your intelligent debate triggered responses by Lurker, as follow:

Please do not preach at me and tell me I don't understand the concept of working for a living. I try my best not to berate or belittle anyone on this board and I would appreciate the same consideration.

I can see from her above post why you're so happy.  Looks like you succeeded in chasing her away for a while, too.

I'm sorry if you are offended by my opinion that I don't want to pay more in taxes. You wouldn't either if the tables were turned.

Applauding.

He raises some very interesting points, doesn't he?  I'm glad, too, that he wasn't fired.  I wish somebody like him (or he) WOULD run for President because I'd vote for him, as well.  After our invasion of Iraq, how DO other countries know they won't be next, and why wouldn't they want to protect themselves from an unwanted, uncalled-for American invasion? 

We need someone who can straighten out America and make it a much better place and lead by example so other countries WANT to be like us, rather than having our form of *freedom* forced upon them.

You really need to stop obsessing on me, Nina.  You've made your hatred of me known, but it's starting to get spooky.  Please find another hobby.  You're beginning to resemble a stalker. 

At the very least, you might want to scan the board before accusing me of saying things I didn't.  It will only take you a second, and you will appear to at least have some common sense and credibility if you do so.  Right now, I seem to be your target, and your hateful obsession is quite transparent.

Have a lovely day, dear.

I hadn't read the part where they included the US troops in the mix.  What I read was that the Iraqi Prime Minister wanted amnesty only for terrorists who killed American soldiers and NO amnesty for terrorists who killed Iraqis.  I felt this was a slap in the face to America, and that's the precise reason I'm so outraged over this.

It's interesting that you said that's what you *make of it.*  Every time I've read something on this issue, I walked away just kind of scratching my head because I was unable to grasp an understanding of most of it.  Even the bill itself that was voted on yesterday did nothing but express the *sense* of the Congress regarding this issue.  How can it be so important to take up Senate time, including the debate and vote, when the end result is that they are EXPRESSING THEIR SENSE?  Seems like a big waste of time to me and lends even more credibility to Harold Ford's view that it was nothing but a stunt.

What I don't understand is why 19 Republican senators would publicly place themselves in the position of voting their *sense* that they were in favor of letting terrorists off the hook when it comes to killing our soldiers, given that the majority of Iraqis think it's okay to kill Americans. 

I suppose some sense could be made of the reasoning behind it if we were dealing with terrorists/insurgents that could be trusted, but with 65% of the general Iraqi population thinking it's okay to kill Americans and 88% of the Sunni population believing so, I don't feel comfortable placing any trust in them.