TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- Anyone watch the final presidential debate tonight?
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by starboy Actually, you're better off under obama's tax plan if you're making less than 250k a year, if you're doing that well dj'ing then hat's off to you. No, he's cutting taxes for 95% of americans. ... Which would have prevented this financial crisis we're in right now. The reason he doesn't attack her is because she attacks herslef. Plus, the last thing obama needs the day after the debate are headlines reading "obama, the sexist" PLUS he has way too much class to stoop down to her level of idiocracy.

im for more regulation in the financial sector obviously. But lets not forget the Obama & fellow democrats repeatedly voted against more regulation for fannie mae and freddit mac, and who also took huge amounts of funds from them. Now look at the mess. Mccain actually voted for MORE regulation on fannie and freddi 2 years ago. Obama did not.

actually he is not cutting taxes for 95% of americans, that is just wrong...

And 95% of americans may think the country will be better off with Obama's tax plan, thats the point, in order to gain votes. But that doesnt mean the economy or our country is going to be better off. Look at the big picture. Your cost of living will go up substantially once he takes office.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen [QUOTE]Originally posted by starboy Actually, you're better off under obama's tax plan if you're making less than 250k a year, if you're doing that well dj'ing then hat's off to you. No, he's cutting taxes for 95% of americans. ... Which would have prevented this financial crisis we're in right now. QUOTE] im for more regulation in the financial sector obviously. But lets not forget the Obama & fellow democrats repeatedly voted against more regulation for fannie mae and freddit mac, and who also took huge amounts of funds from them. Now look at the mess. Mccain actually voted for MORE regulation on fannie and freddi 2 years ago. Obama did not. actually he is not cutting taxes for 95% of americans, that is just wrong... And 95% of americans may think the country will be better off with Obama's tax plan, thats the point, in order to gain votes. But that doesnt mean the economy or our country is going to be better off. Look at the big picture. Your cost of living will go up substantially once he takes office.

obama has stated he's for more regulation of energy and financial markets, which is all that's important at this point. our next president must recognize when a change of policy is needed rather than stubbornly pursuing the same failed agenda expecting a different outcome a la bush/mcsame. if you want to get technical about it, all of our economic clusterfucks from enron to aig stem from reagan's deregulation movement in the early 80s.

i'm still not getting where you come up with the idea that obama's tax plan is a farce, you don't hear any economists, analysts or pundits stating the same thing. our cost of living will rise regardless of who takes office next, that's the result of indirect taxation through excessive money printing and monetary hyperinflation.

quote:

Originally posted by R!CH i'm still not getting where you come up with the idea that obama's tax plan is a farce, you don't hear any economists, analysts or pundits stating the same thing. our cost of living will rise regardless of who takes office next, that's the result of indirect taxation through excessive money printing and monetary hyperinflation.

Because those that Obama plans to gouge with his largest tax increase in 30 years will find a way to trickle it down to us. They will place their wealth in off shore bank accts. Investors will invest more in foriegn markets. This is not what our economy needs right now in my opinion.

The "rich" are not necessarily the "dumb"

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen Because those that Obama plans to gouge with his largest tax increase in 30 years will find a way to trickle it down to us. They will place their wealth in off shore bank accts. Investors will invest more in foriegn markets. This is not what our economy needs right now in my opinion. The "rich" are not necessarily the "dumb"

obama has already proposed closing off existing offshore corporate tax havens and giving out tax breaks only to american companies that create american jobs. the threat of corporations reincorporating in countries with lower capital gains and corporate tax rates is overstated. there are plenty of industries in america that can't be advantageously outsourced overseas. remember this country has been shifting from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy for decades now.

quote:

Originally posted by |Thrax| You've outdone yourself with your stupidity. It amazes me, such a well structured paragraph of nonsense. Let's diagram it. 1: Bash on poster, laugh and call them a libtard... 2: State a fallacy based on information you got by trolling another thread. Oh, and use a comic phrase. That's not irony Alanis. 3: List the names of 3 or more posters on the page who have called you out as an ignorant, uneducated idiot. Thus your attempt to "punk them". 4: Al Barrack Hussein.. there we go again..Your attempt to point out Mr. funny name. Is this TA or are you smarter than a 5th grader? Get a brain.

but you've got to give him this, as the acronym says, he is

Terrific
At
SUCKING
D_ _ _

not sure why he put me in his last post, i didnt say anything far off from the middle. and i infact defended mcain! he has not had 100% negative campaign ads throughout the campaign, just the other day. he might be running 0 negative ads as of today, i dont know.

quote:

Originally posted by bigperf 100% of the ADs mccain was running YESTERDAY were negative. that is true. 100% of the ads mccain has RUN over the entire campaign HAVE NOT been negative. common sense prevails here. maybe today 0% of McCains ads will be negative....

quote:

Originally posted by element-y look why attack those who are for the republican ways? As mentioned about myself, I am not backing either one on here. And it might be opposite of what you think. I am just saying being obssesed over two politicans when it really isnt that different once in office is crazy. I mean you have people like osme of you here attack republicans and then the other side attacking the dems - to a personal level even - like this board already - way to go. This isnt necessary. And guys, there is far more than just the president when it comes to handling the country...

If you don't think there are huge, clear differences between Obama & McCain you either aren't paying attention or have poor comprehension skills.


Just read their respective platforms.


Better yet, read this fantastic commentary:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comme...k_editors?yrail

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen you added "the last 8 years" which was absent from any statement i have made. He has proposed nothing new that the democrats of the last 40 years have been proposing, outside of the perhaps the largest single tax increase. Raise taxes, spend more of our money, more government regulation, control more of our day to day lives...again, what change rich? And Jerk, your comparison to palin is obvious, why would he attack somebody with no experience, when he has none of his own. His advisors have advised him to stay away from that battle since day 1.

Josh you have an extremely poor understanding of Obama's proposals.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis If you don't think there are huge, clear differences between Obama & McCain you either aren't paying attention or have poor comprehension skills. Just read their respective platforms. Better yet, read this fantastic commentary: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comme...k_editors?yrail

Fuck what they say publicly and what the new yorker says. Go directly to their websites and read for yourself. They list them in categories such as Iraq, Terrorism, Global Warming, etc. Read up on those and you will see most of them are the same. Like i said, what people say in the public is spun towards campaign attraction.

quote:

Originally posted by element-y Fuck what they say publicly and what the new yorker says. Go directly to their websites and read for yourself. They list them in categories such as Iraq, Terrorism, Global Warming, etc. Read up on those and you will see most of them are the same. Like i said, what people say in the public is spun towards campaign attraction.

Uh, I've read both, and they are not the same.

The supreme court picks they are going to make ALONE will have lasting consequences for the direction of this country in the next 50+ years.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis If you don't think there are huge, clear differences between Obama & McCain you either aren't paying attention or have poor comprehension skills. Just read their respective platforms.

I think he is eluding to the claim that politicians are not really the ones in control of the direction of our country, but rather special interest groups and big corporations. This would render useless any small differences that the two candidates may have with each other.

And i understand Obama's proposals just fine, i have read about %90 of the contents on his website, which should contain the majority of his proposals. Perhaps you should brush up on the democratic party's politcs of the past 4 decades so you yourself can make the proper comaprisons.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen I think he is eluding to the claim that politicians are not really the ones in control of the direction of our country, but rather special interest groups and big corporations. This would render useless any small differences that the two candidates may have with each other. And i understand Obama's proposals just fine, i have read about %90 of the contents on his website, which should contain the majority of his proposals. Perhaps you should brush up on the democratic party's politcs of the past 4 decades so you yourself can make the proper comaprisons.

If anyone else has any questions about where I stand, read the new yorker link I posted.

quote:

Originally posted by djjoshuaallen im for more regulation in the financial sector obviously. But lets not forget the Obama & fellow democrats repeatedly voted against more regulation for fannie mae and freddit mac, and who also took huge amounts of funds from them. Now look at the mess. Mccain actually voted for MORE regulation on fannie and freddi 2 years ago. Obama did not.

It's not as straightforward as that. Two years ago, the mortgage backed securities and CDO's that contained mortgages with no money down (non traditional 30 yr mortgages) were getting high ratings from companies like Moody's and S&P. These programs were allowing many more first time home buyers, a priority for the dems.

One thing missing in this whole financial crisis is blame on the companies that rated this piece of shit investments with AAA ratings.

Taken from the Moody's page on Wiki:
For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of ABS collateralized debt obligations (CDO) issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated Aaa by Moody's.[2]

From: Sen. John S. McCain
To: All my supporters

Subj: Vote for a Maverick

I was born into a family in which my grandfather and father made me feel inadequate because of their military accomplishments, however; after a wasting my youth and the opportunity afforded me by attended an elite boarding school, I found a new lease on life by attending the United States Naval Academy surely this would make my daddy proud.

After squandering my early military career, flight training, and elitist education I found a new lease on life by requesting to fly missions in Vietnam, surely this would aid me in my pursuit towards a command position.

Unfortunately, because I was such an inept pilot, my plane went down in North Vietnam and was taken prisoner. I was accustomed to a life of preferential treatment where my actions had no consequences but this was crazy. I was hurting. So I told my captors my father was an Admiral, gave them a bunch of military info and made statements against my country and later attempted to kill myself out of shame. But alas! Once I was released, I found a new lease on life. I vowed I would stop my whoring and put family and country first.

I once again used my family's name to enter the National War College where I didn't do much except revert back to my whoring days. Shortly afterwards, I was appointed to a command position for which I was greatly underqualified for and eventually landed a sweet position as Navy Liason Officer. This position gave me a new lease on life which allowed me hob nob with my political mentor Sen. John Tower of Texas and travel the World in the lap of luxury, whoring around the globe at taxpayer expense.

About this time, I crashed my third US navy plane, was passed over for promotion and hooked up with a young chickie 19 years my junior named Cindy Lou Hensley. Her pappa was loaded so I divorced my disfigured, baby-mamma, married Cindy. Her pappa as well as Charles Keating and his cronies were my biggest financial backers during my first campaign for congress. A new lease I tell ya!

Oh that crazy Charles Keating. He really took care of me during my first term. Ummm, I think it was just because he thought the world of military veterans. During my first term in Senate, good ol Chuck handed me no less than nine all expense paid trips and my new family vacationed at his cool estate in the Bahamas. What a nice guy.

When I was in congress, I voted against a national holiday honoring that darkie Martin Luther King Jr. I backed Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy and supported that whole Iran-Contra thingy, voted to slash federal spending on social programs and twice voted against campaign-finance reform. But my "biggest" legislative victory of that era - a 1989 bill that abolished catastrophic health insurance for seniors. Freakin entitlement programs!

I voted to confirm Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. In 1993, I was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for a group that sponsored an anti-gay-rights ballot initiative in Oregon. I even called for abolishing the departments of Education and Energy in 1994. And believe it or not, in 1995 I was the one that championed a sweeping measure that would have imposed a blanket moratorium on any increase of government oversight. It was a sign of the times ya know, everyone was doing it - everyone was taking all expense paid vacations. I wasn't the only one.

Chuckie even helped finance my bid for Senate. What a nice guy. You can only imagine my surprise when I learned that he was mysteriously using political influence to help deregulate the savings and loan industry. I was shocked when I learned I was accused of corruption in 1989 after intervening on his behalf. I mean how was I suppose to know all these elderly people were going to lose their life savings due his (and possibly my) misdeeds. I thought the guy was being nice so I was just using my influence to help a friend out so they called it "poor judgement". Well, I learned a lesson from that and got a new lease on life.

I became a maverick! I surely would be the voice of campaign finance reform after that. And now, I'm a champion of government bailing out bad investments and buying up all those bad mortgages. I'll tell you......we need more government oversight and I'm just the man to bring it about.

(sorry everyone....I had to cut this short as I need to get ready to leave for the weekend but maybe someone could continue my letter from Dear John and take it from the post 1990s deregulation Newt Gingrich revolution. Better yet......maybe there's a McCain supporter who wants to draft a Obama letter. haha peace Capt Kirk)


http://www.azcentral.com/news/elect...o-chapter1.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/co...eal_john_mccain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo

I would probably vote for Obama if he assured a position for Colin Powell among the leadership in his administration, Which would immediatly strengthen his foreign policy status around the world. Big hit for Mccain this morning...


Oct. 19) - Colin Powell, a Republican who was President Bush's first secretary of state, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Sunday and criticized the tone of Republican John McCain's campaign.
The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said either candidate, both of them senators, is qualified to be commander in chief. But he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve its standing in the world.

"It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that," Powell, interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," said of his longtime friend, the Arizona senator.
But, he added: "I think we need a transformational figure. I think we need a president who is a generational change and that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama, not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Sen. John McCain."
Powell's endorsement has been much anticipated because he is a Republican with impressive foreign policy credentials, a subject on which Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, is weak. Powell is a Republican centrist who is popular among moderate voters.
At the same time, Powell is a black man and Obama would be the nation's first black president. Powell said he was cognizant of the racial aspect of his endorsement, but said that was not the dominant factor in his decision. If it was, he said, he would have made the endorsement months ago.

Powell expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate and McCain's and Palin's decision to focus in the closing weeks of the contest on Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers. A co-founder of the Weather Underground, which claimed responsibility for nonfatal bombings during the Vietnam War-era, Ayers is now a college professor who lives in Obama's Chicago neighborhood. He and Obama also served together on civic boards in Chicago.
"This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign," Powell said. "But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him?"

http://news.aol.com/elections/artic...5225x1200708829

Yeah the endorsement is huge

Colin Powell is the original general petraeus x10 and I am sure there will be a good spot for him in the administration where he can really shine and doesn't have to follow bad policies just to keep the administration happy

quote:

Originally posted by xenpro Yeah the endorsement is huge Colin Powell is the original general petraeus x10 and I am sure there will be a good spot for him in the administration where he can really shine and doesn't have to follow bad policies just to keep the administration happy

if this could be preconcieved information, that could sack the election immediatly imo. I wonder if he would take a position, he is 71 years old.

That would be strong, should he be able to open a spot for both powell and warren buffet in an Obama administration.

Hmmm

is there any chance Bill and/or Hillary Clinton could also get spots in Obama's administration as well? also, do you guys think they would accept them as well? why or why not

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.