We didn't receive moronic reports like this back then. Let me explain.
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-04-16
In Reply to: Wow. - sm
This report is so broad and covers so many perfectly harmless individuals and so many perfectly legitimate political beliefs that it is not actionable. It's stupid because it's useless, and that's why it would have been laughed out of the squad room. This wasn't "intelligence"; it was amateurish gibberish - and it wouldn't have done one thing to prevent McVeigh's actions, if for no other reason that every cop in Oklahoma City would have been tied up watching the wrong people - perhaps you, for instance.
I'd say 70% of the people in America share at least one of the "issues" that this report enumerates as portending extremism. That's what makes it rubbish, and that's also what makes it alarming.
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
Explain how MOST will pay back the recapture on
Oh wait, you don't know what the "recapture" is? I doubt it but now you can go look it up.
I have several relatives who are in the real estate AND mortage business and they can already tell there will be a lot of low income individuals once again given these credits, default on their loans, and then will NEVER EVER be able to repay their tax credit....
OH BUT...... YOU CAN PAY IT FOR THEM, RIGHT?
Maybe I didn't explain myself very well...(sm)
The state assessment of my property value went up. However, if I were to try to sell right now I wouldn't be able to get what I paid for it. So, while my property taxes are going up, what I can actually get out of the house has gone down. No, I'm not behind on payments and have a fixed rate (6 more payments to go...Yeah!). It just ticks me off that the state is saying its worth more, while the market says it has lessened in value.
We inherited a house 2 doors down from my husband's aunt. We sold it 2 years ago. Since that time the girl we sold it to has gotten married and moved. She has tried to rent it out, but is running into the problem you have in that she can't get enough in rent to cover the payments. She also can't sell it because she can't break even on it, and yet her state appraisal went up, so her taxes went up. There's a big difference here between the state appraisal and the market value.
I think it would be interesting to find out how different states are handling this.
that's right you didn't - I'll try and explain myself better
I read your message again (thought maybe the first time I read it wrong), but it implies that anyone who voted for Bush a second term is a moron. You didn't have to say "if you voted for Bush a second time your a moron", but your message was simple and said if you voted for him again your a moron (he just happens to be republican). I get your meaning and I understand what you are saying, but what I'm trying to say is sometimes you don't have a choice. You have to vote for the lesser of the worst. In this case it happened to be Bush. Sure I wish there was someone else I could have voted for but a lot of us didn't have a choice. This doesn't mean we're intellectually deficient. It simply means we are well informed and used the best judgement. In any case it was still a better pick than Kerry any day.
And you're a stupid moronic idiotic
and YOU fill in the blanks. (Take your time because there are a lot of them.)
We're *the reason we have to separated into little rooms* yet you can't stay in yours like the moderator asked. So go back. There is minimum IQ requirement to be here, and you flunked. 
You didn't do anything wrong. Come back if they poof you again.nm
12
I guess we didn't know it was a joke...if you go back and read (sm)
you said you have a very strong opinion and you keep it to yourself...which sounded like you were saying that is what we should all be doing too. But the point in response to you was that the board is for political opinions to be expressed and if it bothers anyone, they don't have to come on here. I am sorry you got your feelings hurt though. I am sure it was just a communication problem.
Didn't the Washington Post back Obama?
My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?
So, it's okay with you for women to not receive....
equal wages for equal work. Maybe you would be okay with us just going back to the stick at home and support your man theory. Maybe we shouldn't think for ourselves. Why don't you come to the rescue for Obama, or anyone else for that matter? She is a politician by choice, and we all know the scrutiny and criticism that comes with that. I don't plan on treating her with kid gloves just because she has a vagina. You, on the other hand seem to have a double standard, and that double standard does not help with the cause for equality for women.
Would you prefer he receive a
declaration of war from these leaders? He can't possibly be responsible for RECEIVING letters from people. This is ridiculous and serves to do nothing but fan the flames of hate and fear. Please open the link I provided and look at the graphs. George W. Bush has completely destroyed any trust, respect or credibility the United States once had. The WORLD wants a leader they can trust. The WORLD simply doesn't trust the Republicans after eight years of Bush. Open the link and see for yourself.
And the thread you started above is simply false. Public service will NOT be mandatory. He's trying to bring back a "Peace Corps" style attitude to America and wants to REWARD those who CHOOSE to perform community service with help paying for their college tuition. The rich kids can still float through and don't have to do anything, but the poorer families -- and they are increasing in the USA every day with every job lost -- are offered a way to help pay for college tuition. That's hardly sinister.
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country" used to hold a positive meaning in this country.
Maybe some Americans have gotten too greedy and spiteful for those words to mean anything today, but they still hold meaning for many of us. 
So how much would someone who rents receive?
Or does your plan exclude these people?
And while you're getting your 50K, can poor people still get food stamps to feed their families?
If I ever receive an email like that from my employer...
..I will IMMEDIATELY begin to send out resumes and when I find another job, I will quit. I will give the courtesy of two weeks' notice, though, because one of us should be professional. However, my association with an employer like this will end immediately.
They not only can apply, they receive mortgages
%%
I'd be most happy to receive an email from you.
I don't understand why MTStars won't forward yours to me.
I guess receiving an email from you would require me to publicize my email, and that sort of makes me feel like I'm diving into a river swarming with piranhas, and, not knowing what kind of physical damage (viruses, etc.) they could do to my computer, I'm just not comfortable doing that.
Let me think about this for a while, and I'll get back to you (or you get back to me if you think of something). In the meantime, yes, I really would like to have an intelligent conversation with a reasonable person. It would be a breath of fresh air.
Then explain his church and minister. Explain that to me. nm
x
SC Roman Catholic priest says Obama supporters shouldn't receive
By MEG KINNARD | Associated Press Writer
9:04 PM EST, November 13, 2008
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) _ A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."
The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.
"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.
"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."
During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.
But bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers — and voters — should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from church teaching on abortion. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese. In their annual fall meeting, the nation's Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights.
According to national exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics chose Obama, who is Protestant. In South Carolina, which McCain carried, voters in Greenville County — traditionally seen as among the state's most conservative areas — went 61 percent for the Republican, and 37 percent for Obama.
"It was not an attempt to make a partisan point," Newman said in a telephone interview Thursday. "In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same."
Conservative Catholics criticized Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 for supporting abortion rights, with a few Catholic bishops saying Kerry should refrain from receiving Holy Communion because his views were contrary to church teachings.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she had not heard of other churches taking this position in reaction to Obama's win. A Boston-based group that supports Catholic Democrats questioned the move, saying it was too extreme.
"Father Newman is off base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."
A man who has attended St. Mary's for 18 years said he welcomed Newman's message and anticipated it would inspire further discussion at the church.
"I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate," said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. "You're talking about the murder of innocent beings."
___
On the Net:
St. Mary's Catholic Church: http://www.stmarysgvl.org/
Even in these reports
waterboarding and applying electric currents to body parts is defined as torture. Latter was not mentioned in the report, but it was done in Abu Ghraib, we saw the pictures.
These tortures were done on prisoners of whom 'there was sufficient suspicion of having connections to Al-Quaida.' Suspicion? Does this justify torture? Of all immates in Abu Ghraib 90% were innocent. Can you imagine being innocent and being tortured to death, as they have nothing to confess?
Soldiers Garner and England were definitely sadists.
This is not something new or exaggerated - see these old reports ---
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/pollack070306.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5185887
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
This was started back in the 80s and until recently there was no limit for how long you could draw the money. The $31 - well, each article brings up that amount of money and none of them say that includes benefits... they say they are paid that per hour - and playing games - yes, each article talks about the pay per hour, the wastefulness of being able to sit there day after day (the limit now is 2 years per person), but it is still wasteful! Yes, help them, but the rest of us draw unemployment at a reduced rate of pay and then only for 26 weeks or so...
why does everybody think those people are so special? You all fuss about spreading the wealth from the rich to the poor, but you sure don't give a darn about us poor folks who are busting our butt spreading what little bit we have to the rich ---
I for one am darn sick of it!!!
You must have missed the reports about
who all was in the audience and how he only invited the folks that he believes have supported him (AKA AGREED with him) over his presidency. Guess O just did't measure up to the criteria for that elite fraternity.
What reports are you reading.. your OWN
nm
Current Rasmussen Reports
Poll shows Obama leading 260 electoral votes to McCain 167 votes. If you take the "likely states" the votes change to Obama 300, McCain 174.
Rasmussen has lots of interesting polls on its site, for what they are worth, but it is interesting to watch them change week-to-week and some of them even day-to-day.
www.rasmussenreports.com
they copied those reports from other papers -
the same report was in LA times, the Anchorage Daily News, American Power, Political Affairs, not just on those one-sided sites -
Sorry, I was just posting the obvious that SP was not qualified as a leader of the military just because she is over the Alaskan National Guard when they are not activated. It does not matter where that news comes from - it is still true.
Bush ignored the intelligence reports.
The attack most likely had been planned for a long time, but Bush and his cronies ignored all of the intelligence reports they received that indicated that a huge attack using airplanes was imminent. If he wants credit for keeping us safe since 9/11, he has to take credit for not keeping us safe on 9/11!
I hope you don't think I got those reports from the Media?
They came directly from the minutes of those debates, not the media.
Maybe you should read government reports
I posted a lot of links a while back about the economy and terrorism prior to O becoming president.
Clinton knew the terrorists were getting ready for an attack, but just didn't know how and when it would happen. He could have stopped it, had he had GOOD information from the CIA, FBI. Those two groups were part of the reason we were attacked. They didn't work together or share information. There were plenty of warnings. He also knew there were WMDs in Iraq. It's in the report, but he didn't do anything about it and, in the meantime, Saddam tested his WMDs on his own people, killing thousands.
Clinton also did not leave such a large surplus. He and the accounting office cooked the books to make it look good. There was a surplus but not near as much as Clinton stated.
Global warming...I don't believe it. This is a natural happening every so many decades. It will turn around on its own in its own time. Part of the so-called global warming is the people. There are too many people in the world. People breathe in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. Without trees, we're in trouble. Sounds dumb, but if you want to point fingers, point to the Amazon and destroying the rain forests. Prior to the Amazon forests being destroyed at the rate they are today, there was no problem.
Making peace instead of war doesn't work with terrorists. You have to "walk softly and carry a big stick." O is trying to charm them into peace and we all know that won't work. You have to be ruthless with them or else they will think the US is a pushover. If O wants to keep our country safe, he has to be a combination of FDR, JFK, Reagan, and both Bush's.
Instead of O going on talk shows and joking around, he should have his finger on the pulse of Washington and bring his congress and senate in line. They are so out of control, it's ridiculous. He has to stay in the WH or, before he knows it, those power mongers will be in power, not him (of course, that has already happened).
If O wants to turn this country around, he needs to let the people do it on their own. Government can't solve everybody's problems. People need to solve their own problems. Money doesn't solve any problems, it just creates more. More social programs that we can't pay for doesn't solve problems. It creates a society that depends on the government for all its needs. That's not the American way. If businesses fail, so be it. If banks fail, so be it. You can't prop up those failures by throwing money at them...as you well know, most of those failures are caused by inept CEOs. Remember Dodge, Cadillac, Studebaker, Rambler, etc.? Those businesses failed. GM and Chrylster absorbed some, but not all. The rest died. Did the world come to an end because of it? No.
As for the rest, small banks are gobbled up by large banks. Should they? No. It causes a monopoly and when that happens, that's a problem. Comcast is the largest cable company in the country. How did it get that way? By gobbling up the smaller ones. If I wanted to leave Comcast, I couldn't because there is no other cable company in this area. I am FORCED to have Comcast if I want internet service. There is no free enterprise when companies become conglomerates.
Oh shucks, some will understand what I'm saying, others will still keep their rose-colored glasses on and believe government will solve all our problems. NOT.
Fox news web site reports over 700 dead. sm
It was a sunni attack on sunnis and it's more than likely retaliation for the constitution. Iraq is definitely headed toward cival war.
Protect us???? He did not listen to all the Intelligence Reports....sm
that a large-scale attack was imminent, his Daddy lit the flame by going over to Iraq the first time to secure Daddy Bush's and his friend's oil interests there, they did not care a FIG about the poor Kuwaitis! We are more hated as a nation now, because of the Bush policies, than we have EVER been in history, and instead if his getting Bin Ladin, as he vowed, he helped the Bin Ladin family living in LA to escape the country becaue of the wrath of the people. Speaking of Kool-Aid? Blind pubs must have bought the factory and have been living on the stuff the past 8 years, unbelievable!
Fed reports economy continued to deteriorate
Gee, I'd been wondering why we were paying the big bucks to these Fed officials and now I know. So they can tell us things we could have told them (for a lot less money, too).
Perhaps we should call the Fed "MOOSE" (the Ministry For Obvious Official Statements on the Economy)? You can see now why we needed Palin, who knows how to field dress a moose.
...and then there was Obama the other day telling Congress not to spend too much money. In case you didn't catch what I just said, this was Mr. Super-Deficit Obama, telling Congress they should watch the spending.
I think that the White House has been listening to the national backlash on Daddy MoreBucks' drunken spending spree, and wants to have something they can float during Obama's next campaign to show how fiscally responsible he is. Certainly, there's no connection between what he says and what he does.
But wait - we're already seeing Obama's next campaign, aren't we? The man never stops campaigning.
Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports.
Hope it works!!
Funny it's okay to post inflammatory reports about Bush (nm)
x
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
Please explain to me what we are not
doing to protect ourselves here? You just assume there's nothing in place here to protect us because you believe all the unsubstantiated liberal talking points that come out ever day. Believe it or not part of protecting us here at home is making the world a more stable place. We can't just hope they won't make the long journey over here like they did in the 1700 and 1800s. Today, in just a few short hours they can walk off of any commercial airline or private plane. We are in Iraq for a myriad of reasons including protecting our own boarders. Why does this have to be explained over and over again to you? A lot of liberals call conservatives narrow minded, but many of you have tunnel vision to a degree I've never seen before.
Let me explain how I can say that.
I agree with you that there were inciting posts from both political viewpoints on the conservative board, myself included. However, I think what is being pointed out was a general trend of "anything goes" for the conservative posters and high deletion/banning rates for the liberals. This has been apparent for a long time and complained about many, many times (usually complaints are deleted so they are virtually impossible to document at this point). I personally was warned once for "picking on" Nan, when objectively, it really was more the other way around. There is a sickness of spirit on the conservative board at times. I was drawn into this and became "ill" also at times. I am not proud of this.
As far as the moderator or administrator, she did post in the Christian board some time ago regarding her beliefs. They were evangelical Christian, kind of extreme. That, coupled with occasional comments on the political board in addition to deleting LOTS of liberal posts and actively supporting and not reigning in the Conservatives is, well, just common sense as to her political leanings.
Explain please
I don't have ESP...
So please explain this:
If marriage is for procreation, and Mary and Joseph were married, why and how was Mary still supposedly a VIRGIN when Jesus was born?
Well, then perhaps you could explain to me
why Saddam's atrocities didn't seem to bother us in the 80s when we wanted his help against Iran?
This might help explain why.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
7, 2006
Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad, the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. That's a problem.
A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.
The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.
The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote The Turner Diaries, the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members.
Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military, he said, because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists.
The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.
The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military, he said. Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq.
The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. There are others among you in the forces, one participant wrote. You are never alone.
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's military unit coordinator.
Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war, he wrote. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.'
He concluded: As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Like I said....we all only have to explain our
own decisions to God. Remember your argument here to me. It may come in handy.
God bless.
Someone explain this to me...
If you are a suspected terrorist or suspected terrorist sympathizer you can go to Gitmo or sent out of the country to a place where torture is A-OK for the rest of your life w/o being given a reason for the incarceration or access to our legal system, even if you are an American citizen but....if you are on a list of terror suspects, you can buy a gun just like everyone else.
Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by Associated Press
NRA: Don’t Ban Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
by Sam Hananel
WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ’suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.” 0506 07
“As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word ’suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties,” Cox wrote.
In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.
Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.
Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.
“When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg’s bill.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.
“Right now law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it.”
A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.
© 2007 The Associated Press.
Will someone please explain to me -
Why do you keep saying our vote does not count and that the next President has already been chosen?
I for one, have too much to do, to try to explain it....sm
to you, because frankly, I'm getting so I don't care.
There's nothing to find out, and they're making stuff up, so until you have something substantial, I have work to do.
However, if you would have posted about the screaming witch woman from up north and her rag on her, I would have really busted a gut being upset.
As it is, I'm just letting it all go, because Gov. Palin is better than you, better than me, and better than the media.
She will rise above it all, and come out on top. Of this, I have no doubts whatsoever.
That's all I have to say on the matter, cuz I have too much to type for more here....
Look at who you are trying to explain this to
xx
Please explain...
Please explain exactly how Democratic voters are misled. How are they being misled??? What, can they not read the English on the voter card? All I know is Ohio had 200,000 dead and nonexistant voters voting for Obama. I don't think it's the Democratic voters who are being misled, I think it's the American people, who don't realize what a complete scam is going on with this ACORN group.
Would someone please explain
How McCain can "guarantee" he's going to win as he said on Meet The Press yesterday?
Perhaps this will help explain....
Remember him talking about the tax "credits?" That is his way of floating giving tax rebates to people who pay no taxes. This is the opinion from someone on the other side of the pond...and explains it pretty well.
OBAMA TAX PLAN – 95% BULL?
Obama’s tax plan is receiving much praise from some elements of the Tory blogosphere. Promising tax cuts for everything and everyone is certainly a very attractive position, and I can see why so many ObamaCons are attracted to it; but does the claim really stand up to scrutiny?
Firstly, if you look at Obama’s promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans and then look at the billions of dollars needed for the government programs that he has pledged to implement or expand, and common sense should tell you that thing simply do not add up.
Secondly, the 95% of all Americans figure is suspect. Since more than 30% of working Americans don't pay any income taxes now - many in fact get a welfare check - how can they get a "tax cut?" So how does Obama back up this 95% claim? Well those of you with long memories may remember Bill Clinton’s battle to change the definition of what “is” is? What we are witnessing here is an attempt to change the definition of tax cut. To me, and I am guessing to most people, a tax cut means you get to keep more of what you earn. But for the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts disguised by the infamous "tax credit." All but one of these tax credits would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for an income transfer -- a government check -- from taxpayers to non taxpayers. In other words, increased welfare, a Demogrant if you will. Obama's marketing genius is to call this increase in welfare a tax cut; and given how UK conservatives have watched the collapse into failure of Gordon Browns tax credit system, I am mystified why they would support Obama’s.
That being said...he says it expands welfare. I say it is socialist. Same end result. Marxist redistribution of wealth. But it is working...LOL. He is sure hiding it from YOU.
Let's see if I can explain this to you..
most blacks voted for Obama; most are against gay marriage, as their vote points out. How hard is that for you to comprehend? The black vote FOR Obama hurt the gay marriage vote. Is that simpler for you to understand?
I really tried to explain to you......... sm
in my other response to you above that I don't hate you and that I don't hate gay people or teach my sons to hate them. I don't know in exactly what way you think I should reach out to gay people. I do know some gay people, and as much as I may like them as a person, I would have to tell them if they presented the subject my feelings on it and why.
Please explain....(sm)
why you think it would be *trickle-up poverty* and how that works. I can't wait to hear this one...LOL.
explain to me
all their "tax breaks" then
because maybe im missing the bigger picture.
the middle class... (ME included) got a tax break... my first one EVER... so until I see a better one under Obama's administration, I'll stick with what I believe is a tax break for everyone that pays taxes...
and how is it a fact that the "rich" pays what, like 80% of the taxes?
That would explain why
why a clear 7.2% margin of victory mandate was handed over on Nov 4, why seas of humanity were jumping for joy that night, why DC is filling up to the rafters as Jan 20 approaches and why the rest of the world is joining in our single-digit T-minus-9 countdown. The transition is coming off without a hitch despite your best efforts to protest otherwise, the guy has assembled a blue-ribbon team, has plans in place and is ready to roll. Like I said, you are not handling defeat very well and cannot stand to see REAL leadership emerge after W's scorched earth administration.
Please explain this one........ sm
"*..., even a black man.....*
That's right....even a black man. Is it so hard for you to fathom the idea that someone of a different skin color would be of equal standing to you? Do you just completely reject the ideas of civility and equality? Has it ever occurred to you that this *black man* has every intention of trying to help YOU keep your job and help you keep food on your table?"
Why is it that this inauguration is being tauted, especially by the Democrats, as "an historical event" in which the first African-American man will become POTUS and that is supposedly politically correct, but when a Republican or non-Obama supporter dares utter that he is a black man, they are jumped on like white on rice for being racist and bigoted?
Please explain.....nm
x
|
