The difference between Obama and mccain

[Spider]

Obama sends a message of hope , desire ,And a can do attitude ............. Mccain sends a message of attack ...
First Obama ........
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NRgWpa_rnWQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NRgWpa_rnWQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Spider]

Now McCain ........
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWXqpHEsrxc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWXqpHEsrxc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Bob]

The difference? McCain's a Democrat, Obama is a Marxist.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mccain-e-mail.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quote of the Day

"I served with Sen. McCain, and he and I
were the only two to vote against the
Bush/Cheney tax cuts. But now, it is a
different John McCain. He is saying he
would make the tax cuts permanent."

- former senator Lincoln Chafey

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/gopers-for-obama-rip-mcca_n_118414.html)

[Dudeskey]

The difference? McCain's a Democrat, Obama is a Marxist.

??? I don't remember him talking about nationalizing everything... Seriously, Marxist? As for McCain, the guy we see now isn't even close to the same McCain that was running in 2000.

[Sim Pilot 4.0]

Now McCain ........
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWXqpHEsrxc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWXqpHEsrxc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

What a liar... Didn't Obama say he would raise taxes on people who made more than $250,000?

[Spider]

What a liar... Didn't Obama say he would raise taxes on people who made more than $250,000?

That he did ........ mainly corporate america in General ......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

.. Seriously, Marxist?

:giggle:

What more can we expect from a guy who thinks the science of global climate change is just some weird religious cult like Scientology? :mullet2:

[DenverBrit]

Quote of the Day

"I served with Sen. McCain, and he and I
were the only two to vote against the
Bush/Cheney tax cuts. But now, it is a
different John McCain. He is saying he
would make the tax cuts permanent."

- former senator Lincoln Chafey

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/gopers-for-obama-rip-mcca_n_118414.html)

Ironically, Obama voted in favor of the tax breaks for Big Oil, and McCain opposed it.
Both changing their stances shouldn't be a surprise......they're politicians!

[BroncsRule]

Ironically, Obama voted in favor of the tax breaks for Big Oil, and McCain opposed it.
Both changing their stances shouldn't be a surprise......they're politicians!

Link?

[Drek]

Ironically, Obama voted in favor of the tax breaks for Big Oil, and McCain opposed it.
Both changing their stances shouldn't be a surprise......they're politicians!

You should actually follow the issues if you're going to spout off trivia.

The Bush tax plan that Obama voted for did include tax cuts for big oil, but it also literally doubled America's production of renewable energies.

He didn't like the tax plan but it was as good as they'd get from the administration at the time so they took it in order for the country to keep moving forward.

McCain's big issue was that his special interest friends weren't being taken care of in it, not any problem with the tax breaks for big oil. Same as now when he only pays lip service to increasing our renewable energy usage and instead wants to start building nuke plants and drilling everywhere we might squeeze out a drop of crude, for no immediate return and very little long term return.

[DenverBrit]

Link?


However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production,
a measure Cheney played a major role in developing.
McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26040077

[DenverBrit]

You should actually follow the issues if you're going to spout off trivia.


I don't consider 'facts' to be trivia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26040077

The fact that both voted against their 'consciences' then changed their stances is the point.
They are politicians.
My comment wasn't an 'ideology' jab, it was a 'politician' jab.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obama also voted for immunity for the telecoms that helped Bush carry out illegal spying operations on Americans.

That's one more reason why I'm not voting for him this November.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center>http://www.bartcop.com/mccain-maverick-808.jpg

</center>

[Bronco Bob]

Obama also voted for immunity for the telecoms that helped Bush carry out illegal spying operations on Americans.

That's one more reason why I'm not voting for him this November.

And McCain voted against it? I don't think so.
Either McCain or Obama is going to be president January 2009.
And the more I hear from McCain, it's going to be Bush part 3.
If you are fine with that, sit out the election. Me, I've had
enough of Bush parts 1 and 2, so Obama is the only real
alternative to part 3 now that my girl is out of the running.

[peacepipe]

Obama also voted for immunity for the telecoms that helped Bush carry out illegal spying operations on Americans.

That's one more reason why I'm not voting for him this November.You lose your right to b*tch about a McCain victory if you don't vote.

[Drek]

Obama also voted for immunity for the telecoms that helped Bush carry out illegal spying operations on Americans.

That's one more reason why I'm not voting for him this November.

I'm sorry but this is what is inherently wrong with the extreme left wing mindset.

You do realize that telecoms themselves aren't going to get hit with anything regardless of what FISA states, right? They'll just run out plausible deniability and unless a high ranking official self incriminates by producing a smoking gun the telecoms would go largely unpunished.

What would happen is hundreds of telecom employees, who were simply doing what they were told by the NSA, would get huge fines and jail time.

You want to clean up the surveillance act you need to change the source of the problem, the civil rights violations perpetrated by the current administration.

If you actually want your civil rights back it'd probably make sense to vote for the candidate who has a J.D. specializing in civil rights law and has vowed to spend much of his first 90 days in office going over every single security act GWB has put in place to check for civil rights loopholes and violations.

[Tombstone RJ]

And McCain voted against it? I don't think so.
Either McCain or Obama is going to be president January 2009.
And the more I hear from McCain, it's going to be Bush part 3.
If you are fine with that, sit out the election. Me, I've had
enough of Bush parts 1 and 2, so Obama is the only real
alternative to part 3 now that my girl is out of the running.

Wow LABF is choosing not to vote for Obama (and I'm assuming McCain too) and your badgering him on his choice?

That is some weak azz schit.

LABF is pretty up to speed on all the issues and he's choosing to go in a different direction than the Dem and GOP, I say, GOOD FOR LABF!

What this country needs is for everyone to vote for a third party candidate, just to punch the Dems and the GOP in the mouth!

[Tombstone RJ]

I'm sorry but this is what is inherently wrong with the extreme left wing mindset.

You do realize that telecoms themselves aren't going to get hit with anything regardless of what FISA states, right? They'll just run out plausible deniability and unless a high ranking official self incriminates by producing a smoking gun the telecoms would go largely unpunished.

What would happen is hundreds of telecom employees, who were simply doing what they were told by the NSA, would get huge fines and jail time.

You want to clean up the surveillance act you need to change the source of the problem, the civil rights violations perpetrated by the current administration.

If you actually want your civil rights back it'd probably make sense to vote for the candidate who has a J.D. specializing in civil rights law and has vowed to spend much of his first 90 days in office going over every single security act GWB has put in place to check for civil rights loopholes and violations.

Blah, blah, blah!

Arguing that Obama is some kind of liberator is assinine. He's for more government, not less government. He's not gonna do a damn thing about this issue because it keeps him in control. In case you didn't know it, Obama is the most elitist candidate to come down the pike in 100 years. He's not gonna start slashing back on the fed. government's powers. If anything, he'll increase the roll of the gov. and start his grandiose redistribution of wealth crap.

[Bob]

Wow LABF is choosing not to vote for Obama (and I'm assuming McCain too) and your badgering him on his choice?

That is some weak azz schit.

LABF is pretty up to speed on all the issues and he's choosing to go in a different direction than the Dem and GOP, I say, GOOD FOR LABF!

What this country needs is for everyone to vote for a third party candidate, just to punch the Dems and the GOP in the mouth!

I am voting for a third party person too, unless McCain impresses and surprises me with his VP pick. If both parties continue to depend on voter blocks being sheep things will remain the same, and our voices will be more and more muted. I know that my voting will likely help Obama in my state (and it should be obvious that I am no Obama fan) but our first committment should be to changing the US in a positive way -- if one feels dirty by voting for teh R or D they should not sell out and do it. Long term we will all be better off having a viable third party option, and forcing the twe parties to listen and act accordingly.

[Spider]

Blah, blah, blah!

Arguing that Obama is some kind of liberator is assinine. He's for more government, not less government. He's not gonna do a damn thing about this issue because it keeps him in control. In case you didn't know it, Obama is the most elitist candidate to come down the pike in 100 years. He's not gonna start slashing back on the fed. government's powers. If anything, he'll increase the roll of the gov. and start his grandiose redistribution of wealth crap.

More government ? Link ?
elitist ? right wing buzz word , well guess what we have had a moron the last 8 years in office , please explain the down side of having a so called elitist in office? i got to hear this ...... Oh and for those that havent been paying attention government grew by 60% under republican control when Bush took over

[Bob]

[QUOTE=Drek;2041507]I'm sorry but this is what is inherently wrong with the extreme left wing mindset.
QUOTE]

Good question -- no, really.

"Wrong" might not be the right word, but usually truth is found between two extremes. My mindset is that the founders were divinely inspired, so the further we move away from the founding documents and principles of governance in terms of rights, and the power lent to the government teh more I am concerned. I think it is good to question our assumptions though and some level of introspection is needed for a free people to remain so.

Do you feel that the further one leans left, the more willing they are to expand the social safety net? It seems that at least in some instances that as the net is extended the more people become dependent on it, and the more people find themselves needing it. When N.O was flooded out it was clear that that FEMA did poorly, but what percentage of the folks on roof-tops with signs saying "help me" had become helpless through learned helplessness? If teh far left want to create systems of "support/help" that enable and have the unintended result of making slaves to teh government, which in turn will become more bloated, then being far left might not be a healthy thing. If being far left means more accountablity to oneself and government and other tax paying folks then great...be far left.

[BroncoInferno]

I am voting for a third party person too, unless McCain impresses and surprises me with his VP pick. If both parties continue to depend on voter blocks being sheep things will remain the same, and our voices will be more and more muted. I know that my voting will likely help Obama in my state (and it should be obvious that I am no Obama fan) but our first committment should be to changing the US in a positive way -- if one feels dirty by voting for teh R or D they should not sell out and do it. Long term we will all be better off having a viable third party option, and forcing the twe parties to listen and act accordingly.

Probably not. The third party ivory tower that people keep longing for would simply degrade into the same state as the other two parties. Why would you think otherwise? Perhaps there would be some sort of short term benefits, but it would probably actually worsen the situation long term. Look at countries with multi-party systems (that go beyond 2) and you invariably hear about constant cluster-****s. The reason for this is that when you have more than two dominant parties, it becomes very difficult to legislation passed because there is no built in majority. All kinds of alliances have to formed to get anything accomplished. This may sound like a good thing on the surface, but if you think back-door dealings and money grabs are bad with the two party system, you ain't seen nothing yet. For better or worse, the two party system is probably the best way to go. That is not to say that we should accept the status quo within that system, but if you want them to change you have to make them change. Clearly, there aren't enough people interested in changing the status quo.

[Bob]

More government ? Link ?
elitist ? right wing buzz word , well guess what we have had a moron the last 8 years in office , please explain the down side of having a so called elitist in office? i got to hear this ...... Oh and for those that havent been paying attention government grew by 60% under republican control when Bush took over

Your right the government did grow Bush AND Congress are to blame. His spending is one of the things that have many conservatives staying home, or voting for a third party this time around.

[Spider]

Your right the government did grow Bush AND Congress are to blame. His spending is one of the things that have many conservatives staying home, or voting for a third party this time around.

;D I dont care if people vote 3 rd party that is your right , and more power to you , vote your conscience , but I just get ticked off when people try and pass off bull**** as fact

[Tombstone RJ]

More government ? Link ?
elitist ? right wing buzz word , well guess what we have had a moron the last 8 years in office , please explain the down side of having a so called elitist in office? i got to hear this ...... Oh and for those that havent been paying attention government grew by 60% under republican control when Bush took over

Why do you think I'm pro Bush? This has nothing to do with Bush, my comment was on Obama and my belief that he will be a president that grows government and spending, not shrink it. He will increase taxes, not cut them.

Yah, so Bush has sucked the big one, that has nothing to do with how I'm gonna vote this coming election.

[Rigs11]

Why do you think I'm pro Bush? This has nothing to do with Bush, my comment was on Obama and my belief that he will be a president that grows government and spending, not shrink it. He will increase taxes, not cut them.

Yah, so Bush has sucked the big one, that has nothing to do with how I'm gonna vote this coming election.

Ummmm maybe the relevance to bush is that he has ran up a huge deficit and increased government.So it is up to the next preident to fix this. What is it with you people who always stoop to using the "raising taxes" card?If you borrow money for your wars you have to pay for it somehow. Where is this money supposed to come from? From cutting back on our infastructure?Hell our roads and bridges are already in dire need.you can't keep spending and cut taxes.

[Tombstone RJ]

Ummmm maybe the relevance to bush is that he has ran up a huge deficit and increased government.So it is up to the next preident to fix this. What is it with you people who always stoop to using the "raising taxes" card?If you borrow money for your wars you have to pay for it somehow. Where is this money supposed to come from? From cutting back on our infastructure?Hell our roads and bridges are already in dire need.you can't keep spending and cut taxes.

Yep, Bush has run the deficite up, and Clinton also increased governmental spending. The difference between the two is the Clinton had the luxury of cutting way back on the military (rightly so) because the cold war was over, and Bush is fighting a war (albeit a stupid war in Iraq) and dealing with ramifications on 9/11 (Dept. of Homeland Security).

Both administrations stunk, and now the next president has a schit sandwich his got to take a big bite out of. I simply don't think Obama is up to the challenge.

[Spider]

Why do you think I'm pro Bush? This has nothing to do with Bush, my comment was on Obama and my belief that he will be a president that grows government and spending, not shrink it. He will increase taxes, not cut them.

Yah, so Bush has sucked the big one, that has nothing to do with how I'm gonna vote this coming election.

sure it does , you are ok with what Bush does cause you and your people benefit fiscally from his policies , McSame offers the same free ride ......

[PaintballCLE]

Ok feel free to blast me for this but here is my ideology.

Republican's want to put more money in YOUR pockets, and less in the Governments.....(granted it puts more into rich peoples pockets than it does middle class) But you can't penalize people just because they are successful and have more money than you. Lets say they implemented a 20% income tax for EVERYONE.....no loop holes, no nothing, everyone pays 20%. You know what? Dems would be going ape **** over this. My question is why? People who make more money would be paying more taxes, and 20% across the board is fair. People that make $1,000 a year or people that make 1,000,000 a year are still equal citizens, each only have one vote, each are protected by the military, each have equal freedoms, etc...... the guy making 1000 a year would be paying 200 in taxes. The guy making 1,000,000 a yera would be paying 200,000 in taxes. I dont see why the dems have a problem with this ideology. I''m not trying to get into arguements here, just hoping someone can explain to me why they would oppose that?

[PaintballCLE]

sure it does , you are ok with what Bush does cause you and your people benefit fiscally from his policies , McSame offers the same free ride ......

This is coming from a college student, working a full time job to make ends meet. I can honestly say i have had more money in my pocket during the bush regime, that i did, or will do under any democrat. Tax cuts, Tax rebates, Stimulus checks......sure Bush is an idiot........but lets just be thankful that Kerry or Gore aren't in office!

[Spider]

Ok feel free to blast me for this but here is my ideology.

Republican's want to put more money in YOUR pockets, and less in the Governments.....(granted it puts more into rich peoples pockets than it does middle class) But you can't penalize people just because they are successful and have more money than you. Lets say they implemented a 20% income tax for EVERYONE.....no loop holes, no nothing, everyone pays 20%. You know what? Dems would be going ape **** over this. My question is why? People who make more money would be paying more taxes, and 20% across the board is fair. People that make $1,000 a year or people that make 1,000,000 a year are still equal citizens, each only have one vote, each are protected by the military, each have equal freedoms, etc...... the guy making 1000 a year would be paying 200 in taxes. The guy making 1,000,000 a yera would be paying 200,000 in taxes. I dont see why the dems have a problem with this ideology. I''m not trying to get into arguements here, just hoping someone can explain to me why they would oppose that?

See here is where the right loses me ........ Penalize ? no one is talking penalizing , we are talking about making the rich pay their Fair share , why is it ok for a multi millionaire pay less in Taxes then me ? They enjoy the same infrastructure I do , they have full use of fire dept , police , medical services , why should th working man keep paying their way ?
and dude I made 3 times as much money under Clinton , then I did Bush 1 or Junior ..........

[Spider]

This is coming from a college student, working a full time job to make ends meet. I can honestly say i have had more money in my pocket during the bush regime, that i did, or will do under any democrat. Tax cuts, Tax rebates, Stimulus checks......sure Bush is an idiot........but lets just be thankful that Kerry or Gore aren't in office!

gore was in , I would still own my own truck ...........and that is a fact , Back in the day , the Oil companies wanted to raise the price of fuel , Clinton said do that and I flood the market with the strategic reserve , thus in turn keeping transportation cost , low keeping food cheap etc ........ it is all 1 big circle , dont be fooled by the window dressing

[Spider]

See it is all in how the right frames their argument , dont penalize the rich for being rich , bad democrat , But it is perfectly ok to punish the middle class , the working class ,etc ......... Why is it the skinny man is expected to pay for the band while the fat man dances ?

[peacepipe]

This is coming from a college student, working a full time job to make ends meet. I can honestly say i have had more money in my pocket during the bush regime, that i did, or will do under any democrat. Tax cuts, Tax rebates, Stimulus checks......sure Bush is an idiot........but lets just be thankful that Kerry or Gore aren't in office!You were living with mommy & daddy during the clinton years so you have no clue what a good economy is like.

[PaintballCLE]

gore was in , I would still own my own truck ...........and that is a fact , Back in the day , the Oil companies wanted to raise the price of fuel , Clinton said do that and I flood the market with the strategic reserve , thus in turn keeping transportation cost , low keeping food cheap etc ........ it is all 1 big circle , dont be fooled by the window dressing

maybe I am missing something, and don't make fun of me if i got it wrong ^5 lol jk but why does the price of gas/diesel effect you? As gas goes up, you charge more to deliver the product, hence the price goes up at the store.......(this isn't an indian knight attack on you) but im just curious as to why fuel prices affect the drivers?

[PaintballCLE]

See it is all in how the right frames their argument , dont penalize the rich for being rich , bad democrat , But it is perfectly ok to punish the middle class , the working class ,etc ......... Why is it the skinny man is expected to pay for the band while the fat man dances ?

Spider, you missed my point. I agree with you its wrong with all the loop holes etc.... but what i said is if EVERYONE pays 20%, no loop holes, nothing.......how is that unfair? I dont see how it could be, but Dems still think it is.


With the rumored sales tax/income tax. (for those that don't know) Income tax/IRS/ETC would get totally wiped out. And a Federal sales tax would be applied to every purchase instead. So the more you buy, the more you get taxed. The dems first attack on this is well money going into rich peoples bank account wouldn't be taxed. But thats untrue. Any additional contributions to liquid assets in excess of 100K would also be taxed. How is this unfair?

[Spider]

maybe I am missing something, and don't make fun of me if i got it wrong ^5 lol jk but why does the price of gas/diesel effect you? As gas goes up, you charge more to deliver the product, hence the price goes up at the store.......(this isn't an indian knight attack on you) but im just curious as to why fuel prices affect the drivers?

No bro it is like this , fuel goes up , my prices goes up , my prices go up , the store prices go up , the cost is past off on to you , the consumer , but i cant compete with companies like swift , JB hunt etc , if if fuel goes up over 3.00 per gallon and my fuel sur charge is 22% , doesnt take long , then add in I have to shop the same places you , I dont stand a chance ......... Now People spend less , that means less miles for drivers cause supplies are not as low ......

[Drek]

Blah, blah, blah!

Arguing that Obama is some kind of liberator is assinine. He's for more government, not less government. He's not gonna do a damn thing about this issue because it keeps him in control. In case you didn't know it, Obama is the most elitist candidate to come down the pike in 100 years. He's not gonna start slashing back on the fed. government's powers. If anything, he'll increase the roll of the gov. and start his grandiose redistribution of wealth crap.

You must be a big fan of Olestra, because you got a pretty bad case of anal leakage.

How is Obama an elitist? Show me where he said he wants to expand government. I just listened to him today talking about how he wants to decrease taxes, and I have a hard time seeing how the presidential candidate with the LEAST privileged youth of any candidate we've had pretty much ever is somehow an elitist.

John McCain - son of a second generation naval admiral, legacy acceptance to the Naval academy where he probably would've been booted out if his father wasn't an admiral, married to a very wealthy woman, with a long history of being a Washington man with a nice fat senate check rolling. Not an elitist?

Barack Obama - son of a single mother, raised as much by his elderly grandparents who worked to put him through a good school. Then earned merit scholarships to attend Columbia and Harvard Law. Spent a few years between working with civil groups in urban Chicago. Only made his first million after his book became a roaring success. Elitist?

Please, please reconcile this for me.


Ok feel free to blast me for this but here is my ideology.

Republican's want to put more money in YOUR pockets, and less in the Governments.....(granted it puts more into rich peoples pockets than it does middle class) But you can't penalize people just because they are successful and have more money than you. Lets say they implemented a 20% income tax for EVERYONE.....no loop holes, no nothing, everyone pays 20%. You know what? Dems would be going ape **** over this. My question is why? People who make more money would be paying more taxes, and 20% across the board is fair. People that make $1,000 a year or people that make 1,000,000 a year are still equal citizens, each only have one vote, each are protected by the military, each have equal freedoms, etc...... the guy making 1000 a year would be paying 200 in taxes. The guy making 1,000,000 a yera would be paying 200,000 in taxes. I dont see why the dems have a problem with this ideology. I''m not trying to get into arguements here, just hoping someone can explain to me why they would oppose that?

In theory that'd be a great system. I used to think that way too, when I was 10.

But the problems with that:
1. The Republican party is in no way less government spending and lower taxes than the Democratic party. Government has grown 60% over the last 8 years and the middle class pays just about as much taxes as they did under Clinton. Only difference? While the traditional democratic party has taxed the wealthy at a higher rate and poured that into civil programs and the lower class the Republicans instead just don't tax the rich, give less to civil programs, and continue deficit spending.

The old Republican party in which they could preach small government/low taxes is long gone. Reagan was elected on the fact that he at least somewhat remotely thought along those lines (though he wasn't afraid of deficit spending by any means). Now it is a group of rich politicians in the pockets of lobbyists who trumpet the virtues of the past but instead run all their campaigns on smear tactics and moral conservative boogie men. Unfortunately most of this country is too stupid to notice the difference.

As for the impracticality of a standardized tax rate. The problem is that the "wealthy" aren't by and large individuals, they're corporations. And these corporations when given limited government taxation and regulation screw over the common man in favor of the bottom line. It happened in the late 1900's which lead to union strikes and rioting throughout much of that time period. Unless you're a fan of the 80 hour work week and child labor you aren't a fan of the kind of minimalistic regulation of business that most right wingers preach.

Also our government has spent far too much time subsidizing the corporate bottom line with tax breaks and cash handouts. The bill is coming due on all that, it seems only fair that the big corporate machine that has enjoyed so much pork over the years should take up their fair share in paying said bill.

[Spider]

Spider, you missed my point. I agree with you its wrong with all the loop holes etc.... but what i said is if EVERYONE pays 20%, no loop holes, nothing.......how is that unfair? I dont see how it could be, but Dems still think it is. flat tax is a solid Idea , we have that in Wyoming .....But here is what the dems think is unfair reported income see reps want capitol gains reported separate , only 15% tax ... if it is 20% on everything , then you got a plan I could support


With the rumored sales tax/income tax. (for those that don't know) Income tax/IRS/ETC would get totally wiped out. And a Federal sales tax would be applied to every purchase instead. So the more you buy, the more you get taxed. The dems first attack on this is well money going into rich peoples bank account wouldn't be taxed. But thats untrue. Any additional contributions to liquid assets in excess of 100K would also be taxed. How is this unfair?
well lets use the trucking industry as an example , we truckers do far more damage ot the roads , then cars , should it be fair that people in Cars pay he same amount of tax to repair the roads as truckers ? or should truckers pay more ?

[PaintballCLE]

But the problems with that:
1. The Republican party is in no way less government spending and lower taxes than the Democratic party. Government has grown 60% over the last 8 years and the middle class pays just about as much taxes as they did under Clinton. Only difference? While the traditional democratic party has taxed the wealthy at a higher rate and poured that into civil programs and the lower class the Republicans instead just don't tax the rich, give less to civil programs, and continue deficit spending.

.

So what your saying is with inflation over the last 8 years, with a 60% increase in government, the middle class still only pays as much as they did in the clinton years...... i think i rest my case you did the work for me! LOL

[Spider]

Don get me wrong I bleed , you make some good counter points and I would be with you on the flat tax thing , but here is the 800 pound gorilla in the room ....Iraqi war , it is costing us big time , we got to pay for our own decisions

[PaintballCLE]

well lets use the trucking industry as an example , we truckers do far more damage ot the roads , then cars , should it be fair that people in Cars pay he same amount of tax to repair the roads as truckers ? or should truckers pay more ?

exactly! So if you (the truck in your example) make 1,000,000 a year, you would be paying 200,000 in taxes. Me (the car) making 30,000 a year would only be paying 6,000 in taxes. Isn't that kinda the same thing as your analogy? Or did i miss the point LOL (sorry its been a rough day)

[PaintballCLE]

Don get me wrong I bleed , you make some good counter points and I would be with you on the flat tax thing , but here is the 800 pound gorilla in the room ....Iraqi war , it is costing us big time , we got to pay for our own decisions

I agree.....but isn't a war supposed to BOOST the economy not deflate it?

Hence Pearl harbor, ww2 etc....

[Spider]

I agree.....but isn't a war supposed to BOOST the economy not deflate it?

Hence Pearl harbor, ww2 etc....

war does , nation building doesnt ....... thats our problem right now

[Spider]

exactly! So if you (the truck in your example) make 1,000,000 a year, you would be paying 200,000 in taxes. Me (the car) making 30,000 a year would only be paying 6,000 in taxes. Isn't that kinda the same thing as your analogy? Or did i miss the point LOL (sorry its been a rough day)

no the point is I pay 1,100 in road use tax per month , as well as tax at the pump ........ then my IFTA tax , yeah I had a really rough day also ....... People in cars dont pay these road use and ifta Taxes ( not to mention permits etc)and they shouldnt have to

[PaintballCLE]

war does , nation building doesnt ....... thats our problem right now

But why dont they use their own oil money to rebuild.

I mean honestly.....who cares if Cheneys company does all the work over there......as long as the iraqi oil revenue is paying for it..... it wouldnt cost us a penny....correct?

[Spider]

But why dont they use their own oil money to rebuild.

I mean honestly.....who cares if Cheneys company does all the work over there......as long as the iraqi oil revenue is paying for it..... it wouldnt cost us a penny....correct?
well the problem from the get go was te no bid contract , then cheney denying he had any ties to Haliburton when in fact he did , bu the iraqis are not paying for KBR or Betchel , world com etc ......... we are , and Bush doesnt see a problem with it

[PaintballCLE]

I guess what it all comes down to for me.....is living in cleveland i think i am the only republican living here. People who say there aren't jobs in cleveland and full of BS. Sure they might not pay 100K a year.....but there is no problem finding a job that pays 30K a year. (ans i might add 30K a year with the cost of living in cleveland being really low isn't bad) But all these people around here don't WANT to work. They would rather have everything handed to them for nothing. I wish i didn't have to get up early every day, go to classes, then go work a full time job. I wouldn't mind sleeping in till noon, and having a check, food stamps, etc sent ot my house every month. I AM BY NO MEANS SAYING DEMOCRATS do this as a whole (obviously there are hard working people like you, my parents, neighbors etc.) BUt the fact they want to raise taxes on people that wokred hard their whole lives to become successful, so that they can create more programs and hand outs to these people that are getting govt checks every month yet still driving around in escelades selling crack all day long is rediculous.

Look at it this way.......lets say truck drivers were the new Doctors (IE making 300K a year) would you want to be taxed 50% while people who dont work are reaping the benefits? Or knowing that someone making 50K a year is only paying 15%? Hell no you would be pissed as all hell. and rightfully so.

[PaintballCLE]

ps since your all doped up and off work you up for a quick game? lol

[Spider]

I guess what it all comes down to for me.....is living in cleveland i think i am the only republican living here. People who say there aren't jobs in cleveland and full of BS. Sure they might not pay 100K a year.....but there is no problem finding a job that pays 30K a year. (ans i might add 30K a year with the cost of living in cleveland being really low isn't bad) But all these people around here don't WANT to work. They would rather have everything handed to them for nothing. I wish i didn't have to get up early every day, go to classes, then go work a full time job. I wouldn't mind sleeping in till noon, and having a check, food stamps, etc sent ot my house every month. I AM BY NO MEANS SAYING DEMOCRATS do this as a whole (obviously there are hard working people like you, my parents, neighbors etc.) BUt the fact they want to raise taxes on people that wokred hard their whole lives to become successful, so that they can create more programs and hand outs to these people that are getting govt checks every month yet still driving around in escelades selling crack all day long is rediculous. of course tere are Jobs , but there is no way I could support my family off of wal mart or Mcdonalds wages , getting a job is one thing , supporting a family is an entire different ball game

Look at it this way.......lets say truck drivers were the new Doctors (IE making 300K a year) would you want to be taxed 50% while people who dont work are reaping the benefits? Or knowing that someone making 50K a year is only paying 15%? Hell no you would be pissed as all hell. and rightfully so.
More unhappy then sending my Money to support a war I dont support or believe in ? and no one is talking about taxing anyone 50%

[Spider]

ps since your all doped up and off work you up for a quick game? lol

;d tomorrow Bro , I am still in alot of pain

[PaintballCLE]

;d tomorrow Bro , I am still in alot of pain

i know..... i figured it would give me a fighters chance LOL hope ya feel better man!

[Spider]

see here is where I am screwwed , Colten came along cause the pill my wife was on wasnt strong enough , fine we dont believe in abortion , the trips came along cause my wife cut he finger off an when they sewed her finger back on the meds they gave her tuned the pill into a fertility drug , we was told to abort the 2 girls , again we dont do abortion so now we have 6 kids when only 2 were planned , if I took lower paying job , we would need welfare to help us along ........and I am sure we are not the only couple to have this happen

[Spider]

i know..... i figured it would give me a fighters chance LOL hope ya feel better man!

Thanks , ;D and the best advice i can give you is when we play tomorrow dont play me , play the board bro , write the game down win lose or draw , study it , it will only make you stronger .......

[Spider]

see here is the damn of it all ......... I like McCain , he is war hero serving this country while Obama partied ...... I just can get behind McCains policies

[PaintballCLE]

well im going to bed.....all this talk gave me a headache! lol jk I get migranes and i can feel one coming on......i guess 72 games of chess today might have something to do with it........Damn you spider........you got me addicted! LOL well I am off to bed, If you feel like playing tomorrow let me know.... i still suck, just not as bad. Let me know a time and ill be here if you do wanna play!

[Bob]

See here is where the right loses me ........ Penalize ? no one is talking penalizing , we are talking about making the rich pay their Fair share , why is it ok for a multi millionaire pay less in Taxes then me ? They enjoy the same infrastructure I do , they have full use of fire dept , police , medical services , why should th working man keep paying their way ?
and dude I made 3 times as much money under Clinton , then I did Bush 1 or Junior ..........

But when the wealthiest 1 % are paying 40% of the taxes in America, and 50% of Americans are not paying income tax at all I think that creates an economy where 50% are not paying their fair share in my mind. I don’t feel bad for the super rich folks – but I don’t feel like they “owe me” or their government more either.

I like you have a big family (five young kids) I earn between 50 and 75k -- and it’s hard at times but over-all I have it good and I think I am treated fairly by the government. The government and the rich don’t owe me, I owe something to society. Some government help, is helpful and fosters economic gain -- like college grants, and help for vets, but can it go to far? If a political party wants power -- how easy is it to say to the 50% that are not paying income taxes and suggest that the rich small minority are the bad evil greedy folks – and if you vote for me, I will take from them and give some of it to you. That is what I think to some degree is happening --and that game makes the 50% weaker and more dependent. An extreme example of that mentality was fund in the USSR. I have worked in social services in some form or another all my adult life -- I want to help folks, and choose a certain lifestyle as a result -- but those programs that are government sponsored (that I have seen) frequently are not thrifty, smart, and do not foster long-term independence. Benjamin Franklin warned that once politicians learn that they can buy votes by promising benefits it spells the beginning of the end for a Democratic Republic.

[Spider]

But when the wealthiest 1 % are paying 40% of the taxes in America, and 50% of Americans are not paying income tax at all I think that creates an economy where 50% are not paying their fair share in my mind. I don’t feel bad for the super rich folks – but I don’t feel like they “owe me” or their government more either. I need a link to back that up cause i got different info such as the 1031exchange form , or this little gem http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/745877.html


I like you have a big family (five young kids) I earn between 50 and 75k -- and it’s hard at times but over-all I have it good and I think I am treated fairly by the government. The government and the rich don’t owe me, I owe something to society. Some government help, is helpful and fosters economic gain -- like college grants, and help for vets, but can it go to far? If a political party wants power -- how easy is it to say to the 50% that are not paying income taxes and suggest that the rich small minority are the bad evil greedy folks – and if you vote for me, I will take from them and give some of it to you. That is what I think to some degree is happening --and that game makes the 50% weaker and more dependent. An extreme example of that mentality was fund in the USSR. I have worked in social services in some form or another all my adult life -- I want to help folks, and choose a certain lifestyle as a result -- but those programs that are government sponsored (that I have seen) frequently are not thrifty, smart, and do not foster long-term independence. Benjamin Franklin warned that once politicians learn that they can buy votes by promising benefits it spells the beginning of the end for a Democratic Republic.

why does this have to be bout who owes who a living ? why is it every time we ask corporate America and the rich to pony up we are asking for handouts ? they use the exact same services I do , only they get serviced better , I will tell you what Bob My Mom and my wife both come from big money very rich , you dont want to dance this dance........And guess what , they are willing to dish out hundred grand to tax lawyers .......
I tell you what destroys a democracy faster , thats nation building with idiotic voters

[Spider]

well Bob i really want to know why is it I ask these corporations and rich to pay their fair share who work and make money in this country like I do equates to me thinking they owe me a living ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But all these people around here don't WANT to work. They would rather have everything handed to them for nothing. I

"These people?"

Gee, I wonder who you could be referring to? :oyvey:

[Drek]

So what your saying is with inflation over the last 8 years, with a 60% increase in government, the middle class still only pays as much as they did in the clinton years...... i think i rest my case you did the work for me! LOL
What part of deficit spending do you not understand?

Bush has blown up the federal deficit by huge amounts while Clinton was actually reducing it.

So who's the fiscal conservative between the two?

Accept it, your view of the republican party is an extinct beast of the past. Now they're worse than the democrats on financial responsibility and reducing government.

[PaintballCLE]

"These people?"

Gee, I wonder who you could be referring to? :oyvey:

lol, if you read the post, i was referring to the majority of people in cleveland. Not any specific party!

[PaintballCLE]

I tell you what destroys a democracy faster , thats nation building with idiotic voters

hey hey hey, remember the rules, your not allowed to call anyone an idiot :wave:

[Breaker]

Wow LABF is choosing not to vote for Obama (and I'm assuming McCain too) and your badgering him on his choice?

That is some weak azz schit.

LABF is pretty up to speed on all the issues and he's choosing to go in a different direction than the Dem and GOP, I say, GOOD FOR LABF!

What this country needs is for everyone to vote for a third party candidate, just to punch the Dems and the GOP in the mouth!

You really expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you claim LABF is up to date on anything other than the funny pages Hilarious!

The same guy that practical sucks from Gaff's teat. No LABF is simply not going to vote for someone who has a chance to win so that he can bitch and whine about however wins, period.

[Spider]

hey hey hey, remember the rules, your not allowed to call anyone an idiot :wave:

LOL