WHAT are you talking about? Are you that gullible?
Posted By: I guess O supporters have no clue.nm on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: Here's my motivation....to do my part - for the common good of our nation.
nm
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
Boy, are you gullible!
Did it not occur to you that they POLITELY ASKED the other lady to give up her shirt (no dragging out in handcuffs for her, you notice)in order to JUSTIFY ousting Sheehan? Give me a break:) LOL - don't need to be an Einstein to figure out how our leaders work - IF you care to pay attention, their actions and motivations are pretty consistent and easy to figure out.
Someone is gullible alright. nt
.
Did you know gullible's not in the dictionary?
x
The gullible continue to hit themselves with hammers.
It's really amazing to see. In the first place, Bush's tax cuts mainly affected investment income. Do you think the ultra wealthy 1% do 9 to 5 at Burger King and report their wages like the rest of us working slobs? Please. They don't have wages and so, do not even contribute to the Social Security coffers (though that doesn't stop them from accepting huge chunks of OUR hard-earned money in Bush free for all tax refund giveaways). Bush took OUR money and gave it to his friends - and himself, by the way.
But here's the real story without the skewed numbers (excerpt):
Grossly Unfair: Evaluating the Bush Proposal
By Ron Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action
It is true that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes than others. But even though the Treasury Department reports that the top one percent pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes, Bush wants to give them 40 percent of the tax cut. The bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut—i.e., about 1/9 of what the richest one percent receive. The bottom 80 percent receive only 29 percent.
The more closely you look at what has been happening in the last few decades, the more outrageous this 40 percent tax cut for the richest one percent appears. The income of the top one percent has grown vastly more that the rest of the population. From 1989 to 1998, the after-tax income of the bottom 90 percent grew by only five percent, but the richest one percent enjoyed a 40 percent jump. That means the income of the top one percent grew eight times faster than the bottom 90 percent. (That explosion of after-tax income happened even though President Clinton and Congress raised the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent in 1993—a small tax increase that apparently did not discourage investment, harm the economy or prevent the richest from significantly widening the gap between themselves and everybody else.) Furthermore, the total effect of changes in the tax laws between 1977 and 1998 has already lowered the federal tax payments of the top 17 percent of families by over 14 percent ($36,710) whereas the bottom 80 percent of families saw their average tax payments fall by just 6.9 percent ($335).
It gets still worse. President Bush says his plan is fair because it lowers the tax rates for everyone. In fact, the poorest 31.5 percent of all families do not get a cent from Bush’s proposal (even though 80 percent of them are working) because their incomes are so low they do not pay any federal income taxes. (They do pay substantial payroll taxes, but the tax cut does not change that.) More than half of all black and Latino children are in families that would not benefit a cent from this plan.
Abolishing the estate tax is also wrong. Of course it needs to be revised so that children can inherit family farms and small businesses (that would cost only a fraction of what abolishing it will cost). When fully implemented in 2010, the repeal of the estate tax would provide a mere 64,000 estates with a tax cut of $55 billion—which is the same amount that the poorest 74 percent of all U.S. families (192 million people) would receive in tax cuts.
Abolishing the estate tax is misguided for several reasons. It would discourage charitable giving and thus undermine civil society. Wealthy individuals today can avoid estate taxes on wealth they give to charitable organizations. Consequently, abolishing the estate tax would almost certainly reduce charitable giving to a vast array of private agencies., including precisely the private, non-profit social service agencies in civil society that President Bush (wisely) wants to strengthen and expand. His proposal on the estate tax fundamentally contradicts his desire to expand the role of civil society in general and FBOs in particular in combating poverty—which is why John Dilulio, the head of Bush’s new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently criticized abolishing the estate tax. Fortunately, some of the wealthiest Americans (including Bill Gates’ father) have launched a campaign to preserve the estate tax!
The whole article can be read at www.christianethics.com, issue 35.
Don't let anybody be misled by the sneaky claim that the rich pay oh so much more of the tax burden than you do. Say you make 30,000 and you pay 20% of your wages in taxes - 6000. Along comes rich guy who makes no wages but has to pay 20% of his 3 million investment income in taxes - he would pay 600,000.
Oh my God!!! The rich guy has just paid 600,000 and you only paid 6000! He paid 100 TIMES what you did!! Oh the poor, poor overburdened rich guy! That's how they devise their 80-90% figures. Never mind about fair share, never mind that you are paying taxes on wages that would otherwise go to rent and food and utility costs, while they are paying taxes on free money they get just for having huge sums of money invested wisely, as the rich certainly know how to do. And why shouldn't they? But let's not pretend they need that money for food or shelter. Let's not pretend that they should be in any way exempt from contributing a fair share to the system that makes their happy lifestyles possible.
Oh, bull.. dont be gullible. O is paying off his
nm
When McBush is talking, he isn't talking to you unless you are wealthy or CEO
who provides campaign funds. Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines? Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills? Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head? Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble. God, I could go on and on here but I get tired. The nation is in such trouble. Serious serious trouble. There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics? did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference. lol.
Well I want you to know what fascism. And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks. Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself? There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota. You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice. Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened.
THINK ABOUT THIS!!!! Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake!
Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.[13].[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.
Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
I am, not talking about Clinton, I am talking
about the torture of prisoners, crimes against the Geneva conventions.
It seems that you did not read the last sentence in my former post.
Are you saying that crimes from the near past should all be forgotten?
Not really, you'd have to know what they were talking about
which I didn't know about the incident of the soldier accidentally killing other soldiers.
Thanks though.
Wow! what are you talking about???nm
x
What are you talking about?
.
I was talking about myself when I said that.
You might want to re-read my post.
What are you talking about?
I am sure I don't know. I know your game though.
Not what I was talking about
Wasn't referring to WMD, as stated in my post.
Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs, said his son-in-law, quite a few years earlier. If your theory of invading a country that no longer is a threat, then would you also advise invading Germany since they used to have a Nazi regime?
If you are talking to me...
which question did I not answer?
who are you talking to?
I don't understand the anonymous post... there are plenty I think it could be addressed to, why did you not point out what you mean? PS you are just stirring the pot more right?
Exactly what I am talking about. Think for yourself.
xx
Talking about yourself again, huh?
nm
what are you talking about?
straight out of left field... you random people!
Yes the baby has Down's syndrome...
He is so adorable did you see him when she held him on stage?
Babies are so amazing!
Okay, what are you talking about?
I just mean in terms of the baby being passed around. That's what people do with babies. They share the love.
Doncha have any babies in your family?
What are you talking about??
And you still have nothing positive to say about Obama.
All I'm asking for is something positive and you can't even do that.
You know exactly what I'm talking about; no need
You'll just produce your own figures (be they real or imagined) to 'back up' your own claims. But if you truly think the number of priests who have turned out to be sexual predators isn't a little fishy, then maybe that blindness is part of the problem.
No, I don't think he is talking about ...
the same sex ed for high school as he is kindergartners. However, it did describe talking about "sexual intercourse" and how HIV-AIDS is spread. I don't know how that is appropriate in any case for a kindergartner. The bill was specifically intended to open it up to the lower grades...it was already being taught in the upper grades. Why would you open that up to elementary school kids, let alone kindergartners? That was my point. If you want to establish a program for elementary school children about right and wrong touches, I am all for that. But introducing sexual intercourse and how HIV-AIDS is spread makes no sense to me for elementary school children. If they did not intend to teach it to elementary school children and kindergartners, why pass a bill to open it up to them?
Apparently many in the state senate agreed, because the bill did not pass.
That was my point. He in essence did vote for sex education for kindergartners and it was not just right and wrong touching. Thankfully, at least in my estimation...it did not pass. You saw the video...if he meant limited to "right and wrong touching" he would/should have said so.
I was talking about
appointing new justices to the supreme court. I would love to have lots of liberal justices seated on the bench. Has nothing to do with put babies in a closet, but hey, whatever.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
x
This is exactly what I am talking about. nm
nm
Who do you think you are talking to?
from the experts to figure out tax structure, credits, cuts, deductions, incentives, etc, and certainly know myself, my beliefs, my principles and my values by now. I also know my party, their platform, my candidate and my choice.
Well am I talking to myself LOL
I meant this to go under the post of sm-m!
So, what will you be talking about
just curious
What are you talking about?!
Biden answered each and every question very completely and very eloquently. They were more like accusations than questions, and the whole thing resembled an ambush more than an interview. Please WATCH THE VIDEO OF THIS INTERVIEW (link below) and tell me just which question Biden DIDN'T answer.
I wouldn't waste my time being interviewed by this woman, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X346U109Chs
What are you talking about
"Fox news is barely legal"
He's right, we ARE talking only to each other now UH OH, what now?
Seriously, what do we do now?
What R U talking about? sm
Joe Biden has been out doing rallies every day! Did you not know about Joe the Plumber standing up John McCain at his rally today? Oh, yeah, guess you were too busy looking up bogus trash about Obama online.
First of all, you don't know who you are talking to.
Second, the kind of ignorance displayed in your other post cannot strike any chord anywhere, except maybe a gag reflex. Obama has exactly the same "it" factor that JFK had. Furthermore, he challenges us to dig deep down inside to become our better selves. His faith in the American people to rise above division to unite is strong and unwavering.
His record of civil rights and community organizing belies your impotent claims regarding socialism...something I refuse to debate with someone who obviously has no clue as to the meaning of the word. It is your job to educate yourself, not mine.
I have lived long enough to understand exactly what I will be getting when Obama takes the oath and I am counting the days until we turn the corner on W's slash and burn and strike out on our journey to a better America. I am not threatened by the idea of equal opportunity for ALL Americans and I expect my leaders to fight to achieve that...that includes the poor.
I'm afraid I am not the one with disappointment in store, my dear. The pubs will not be able to steal another election, despite their best efforts. Third time is not the charm...not this time. They tried the same shennanigans in 1960...cried vote fraud, demanded recounts, which they got. The result? The original Nixon state of Hawaii moved over to the Kennedy side and he won 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. No need to defend an HONEST election. Why are the pubs always so paranoid to think that everythng MUST be rigged when they are clearly the losers? Sore losers, at that.
You are wallowing in negative energy whether you realize it or not. There is nothing "positive" about the pathetic witch hunt the pubs have been conducting now for months, all to no avail, currently in one last desperate attempt to save a candidate who cannot even put a decent campaign together. Try not to feel too badly. The party didn't really have a whole lot to work with from the get go.
She knows what she is talking about
and she knows how to deliver it. It is all in the delivery, not so much in the words. This is called charisma.
Smooth and velvety, like Obama.
What are you talking about?
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/index.cfm
You must be talking about....(sm)
The Financial Services Modernization Act (which really started it all).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354
Funny, I don't see a whole lot of "nays" beside the R's in the list.
about whom are you talking?..nm
nm
what are you talking about?...sm
It did not work for 8 years, so we try it differently, we needed change and we hope that it will work this way.
We were talking about this the other day...sm
But heck, then we got to thinking....we DO live in a foreign country, on the top of a mountain, in the wilderness....where no one can touch is if we don't want them to.
We're gonna hunker down for the next four years, and pray for the best.
If the worst happens, we'll be prepared.
Now that's what I'm talking about !
x
That is not what we are talking about.
civil service where my 16yo daughter goes to the barracks for 3-4 months to learn training as if a war was coming. That is what Hitler used to do to his country.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80829
This was posted on 2nd page and already discussed the link above.
What are you talking about?
May I repeat myself again. The plan will operate like any other private group plan. O is only going to insure ACCESS to the existing plan that is now used by the House, Senate and federal employees. You choose your own doctor under a PPO or you can elect HMO which will function exactly the same as HMOs currently function. You choose from 4 or 5 different levels of coverage according to your desired deductible amount and level of coverage. This is NOT modeled after European socialized medicine. The government will not have ANYTHING TO DO with decisions regarding your health care. It is simply a plan to give all Americans affordable access to EXISTING plans.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????s/m
I just want to state that I am pro-abortion till the 3rd month.
THAT'S IT.
Umm, Hello? No one was talking about
Except for you, of course.
what are you talking about
?
Okay so everyone is talking about
abortions versus abstinence and saying nasty things about Palin's daughter. To me all of that is not the point. The point is....WHY SHOULD WE FUND FOREIGN ABORTIONS. Who cares! I mean...they know what causes pregnancies surely. If they can't control their hormonal urges....why should that be our problem and why should we fund it? I mean really? For all I care, they can make their own law stating only oral sex is allowed. LOL! Why is this even a concern for us and why do we feel the need to fund it? We have enough problems...do we not? I think I would be much more concerned about our country's problems then whether or not foreign countries can stop knocking their women up.
What are you talking about?
Nobody agrees with you. Why are you keeping misunderstanding posts?
You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about
You know very well that I am not speaking of the working class who have fallen on hard times. My family has always hunted to put food on the table as long as I can remember and we grew a garden for all our vegetables. And, I have always gone into the cheap grocery stores because that's how I was raised. My husband is a white collar worker as well and is diagnosed with a medical condition in which his medications will now cost out of pocket $1500 a month, of which we do not have. Needing help is just that, needing help due to circumstances that have caused a family to fall on hard times; that is what food stamps, etc. is for and I certainly have no problem with that.
The welfare you call propaganda is not propaganda, it is a WAY OF LIFE for many if not most people living in this community. This is a generation to generation to generation way of living with as many opportunities afforded their children as mine to better themselves but it is turned down because of not wanting to actually work hard for anything. They are used to a free check, free groceries, free healthcare, and it has been that way for several generations. That is not propaganda, that is the facts that I see every day.
You never saw me post anything about the working population who have fallen on hard times. You obviously DO NOT live where I do or see what I see, or you would know what I am talkinhg about without bringing up the word propaganda.
What I speak of is called lazy and baby breeders. Your situation is completely different........two different situations entirely.
Who, O? WTH are you talking about? nm
//
That's what I'm talking about
Everyone says "oh trickle down economics doesn't work" but then when it's suggested by *gasp* a "pub" (I prefer independent because I'm not loyal to either party, but I guess if your not dem your pub these days) to workout a "trickle up" system we are bashed for it.
I just think that if we are going to have to pay for this then we should get help too, and not social programs either. I like the idea you talked about, I think that's fair. I know if I could ditch my mortgage for a couple of years I'd spend that $600 a month on contractors to work on my house and purchasing a new used car (car payments) and probably some new furniture or something. Of course I'd buy from all local folks except for maybe the car (have any American companies come out with hybrids yet?)
|
