|
OBAMA WINS !!!! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| T.A.S.D. |
| quote: | Originally posted by xenpro
lol ... congrads now you are a junior TA.... |
Well, the junior title only represents how many posts I've placed here on this site since I don't have all the idle time of libtardism you do to post here 24/7. But if you want to compare "trance-addict" resume's, then you'll fail again as always. |
|
|
| T.A.S.D. |
"Read it and weep (T.A.S.D - aka our bitch for the next 4 years), you're alone out there, clinging on to your outdated beliefs, and please keep doing so, it means you will never see your party ever regain control of this country or the white house."----dj rann
Let's see. My absolute outdated belief is self-actualization and self-reliance. Please clear this up for me. That is if it's oudated, then sticking my hand up for a handout is the means nowadays?
And as far as my party goes, they don't deserve a chance this go around. My support wasn't for McCain rather it surely was against Obama. But since you're a foreigner I'll once again educate you in American politics that it always go in cycles. That means you guys get to enjoy 2 years before the right regains seats in the house and senate, and then ultimately the white house in 20012. It's always history repeating itself. Keep sniveling though; I remain constantly amused. |
|
|
| TheGarbageMan |
| quote: | Originally posted by T.A.S.D.
|
Cry more. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by T.A.S.D.
"Read it and weep (T.A.S.D - aka our bitch for the next 4 years), you're alone out there, clinging on to your outdated beliefs, and please keep doing so, it means you will never see your party ever regain control of this country or the white house."----dj rann
Let's see. My absolute outdated belief is self-actualization and self-reliance. Please clear this up for me. That is if it's oudated, then sticking my hand up for a handout is the means nowadays?
And as far as my party goes, they don't deserve a chance this go around. My support wasn't for McCain rather it surely was against Obama. But since you're a foreigner I'll once again educate you in American politics that it always go in cycles. That means you guys get to enjoy 2 years before the right regains seats in the house and senate, and then ultimately the white house in 20012. It's always history repeating itself. Keep sniveling though; I remain constantly amused. |
This is actually the first post where you have actually said anything remotely sensical and without prejudice towards liberalism, as if it were some kind of disease (that most of the world seems to have).
I prefer to vote for what I believe, rather than basing my vote solely on who I don't, which is your situation and not a good basis for democracy or freedom of personal choice.
I'm glad you recoginze that the republicans did not deserve it this time, even if you did everything but admit this in all the threads you posted on this subject until today. They did not deserve it mainly becuase of Bush, for what the party has become over the last 8 years and also because they did not even win it in 2000 (FACT: bush lost both the electoral and popular vote and is recognized by the most conservative of analyists). The final reason was McCain - I've held true that he is not a bad man at all, but the guy who won the primary, Senator John McCain, quickly became a grossly twisted mutation, Candidate McCain, who did and said anything in an attempt to win, which only harmed and tarnished people's view of him. I truly believe that if he was elected in 2000, America and the World would not be in such bad shape.
Nearly all politics is cyclical, not just American - it actually follows the laws of natural selection. One wins, becomes dominant and the contender reforms itself to combat the specific strengths and weaknesses of the competition. Being "foreign" I understand the political system various countries not just my own or where I happen to reside and often the themes are the same, just with different names.
But lets' be honest the reason you, T.A.S.D, has so few posts is that it's an alt because for some reason you are too afraid to let your true identity be known.
handouts isn't what Obama is about and you know you're only saying that to get a rise.
BTW, well said Billy! it's all in good spirits.... |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
people have reservations about his credentials, which is understandable given the amount of rhetoric emphasizing it as a weakness, but the most important characteristic of a strong leader is not experience or a consistent voting record. politicians love harping on experience and voting records because it provides flak for opponents to dish dirt at, but the reality is that those things are sideshows compared to the qualities of temperament and judgment. obama, in the short time we've known him, exhibits the best temperament and the best judgment i have seen of any politician ever. without question.
|
Hitler was a great speaker as well as a great leader, should we mention the mess he convinced the germans to get into? I see great leadership qualitites in Obama, and yes he is a great orator, but i dont really care how well he can deliver me a speech. That is for the uniformed who just want to feel good about a person. I want to know what type of decisions he will make behind closed doors. What type of policies he is going to get his house and senate to pass. You cant tell any of this from Obama, just that he is a great speaker. Its just hard for me to put trust in a chicago politician based on promises alone. I voted for Obama, but i am veeeeerrryy skeptical. Unlike everybody here who is ready to yank his sausage before he takes the oath. |
|
|
| 72hrpartyanimal |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
BTW, well said Billy! it's all in good spirits.... |
;) |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
Hitler was a great speaker as well as a great leader, should we mention the mess he convinced the germans to get into? I see great leadership qualitites in Obama, and yes he is a great orator, but i dont really care how well he can deliver me a speech. That is for the uniformed who just want to feel good about a person. I want to know what type of decisions he will make behind closed doors. What type of policies he is going to get his house and senate to pass. You cant tell any of this from Obama, just that he is a great speaker. Its just hard for me to put trust in a chicago politician based on promises alone. I voted for Obama, but i am veeeeerrryy skeptical. Unlike everybody here who is ready to yank his sausage before he takes the oath. |
you're comparing obama to hitler because they both speak well? you might as well compare bugsy siegel to jesus because they're both jews. i think it's imprudent to suspect he is up to no good just because he has the ability to express himself well. instead of focusing on the fact that they both know how to communicate, let's look at content of their messages: hitler touted the greatness of his nation lie in its christian culture and blamed all its problems on liberals, jews and his neighbors across the border while pushing for mobilization. obama on the other hand speaks of the greatness of america's resilience to endure hard times and achieve anything through unity while creating opportunity and prosperity through multilateral cooperation. i think there's quite a huge divide that separates the two and no one has any grounds to suspect his intentions. |
|
|
| R!CH |
| quote: | Originally posted by getfoul
You want to know WTF I'm talking about?
From Obama's site: "They will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family."
So if some Ding-Dong pays 200 in taxes, they will get a check for 800 to "Help the lower class."
Most of the money that goes to lower class workers comes from this:
"Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century."
I don't know about you, but if I had a small company and I had to pay 50% taxes to let some dipstick who is 47 and working at minimum wage instead of getting their act together and moving up, I'd be mad. If I was the lower class worker who got the 1000 dollar handout, I'd love Obama as President.
Please reference this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121...ost_emailed_day |
no i don't want to know what the you're talking about, i want YOU to know what the YOU'RE talking about.
first thing about your article, yes obama's plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. absolutely correct. why? because supply-side economics is a ing joke. it doesn't work. just like the flat tax scheme. these are economic mythologies used to rationalize the rich getting richer while 99% of society stays the same or gets poorer. it still baffles me why jokers like you defend the ultra-wealthy and their right to amass grotesque amounts of wealth off the backs of society without paying a proportionate amount back into the system. yes they should pay a higher percentage of tax because they are benefiting from society to a far greater degree than others below them and in spite of a higher percentage of their wealth being taxed, they are still living the most comfortable lives of any of us. you speak of taxation is if it's a human rights violation. wake up kid: taxes pay for everything that makes your and my life as safe, comfortable and convenient as it is! if it outrages you that much then move somewhere else and see how your quality of life is affected by it.
second thing about your post, a fact from my mid-july issue of the economist: " from 2002-2006, the incomes of 99% of america rose by an average of 1% a year in real terms, while those of the top 1% rose by 11% a year. 75% of the economic gains during bush's presidency went to that top 1%. " under the bush administration the rich not only continued their longstanding trend of getting disproportionately richer, but their income taxes were lowered, tax shelters were expanded, some taxes were absolved, and corporations that amassed the most wealth in the history of commerce such as exxon were given more tax breaks and tax credits even while they evaded taxes. all this tax reduction ultimately becomes a tax burden for the rest of us. you know the 99% of america whose incomes did not keep pace with the rate of inflation. obama's "socialist" plan (for those of you that don't know the meaning of socialism) is at best an extremely minor correction of the last 8 years of economic policy. you can bitch about some minimum wage american, who struggles to keep the heater running in the winter, getting more money back than he earned at his $6/hr job - if you want to ignore the fact that he's been getting poorer and poorer while working harder and harder because everything is getting more expensive while the opportunity for economic advancement doesn't exist around him. that'd be very big of you.
finally, i want to know how the hell you arrived at the conclusion that obama is going to take away your guns. i want to know exactly what neocon blog site or radio station you get your dose of fear from. |
|
|
| Lomeli |
| quote: | Originally posted by skizzell
 |
 |
|
|
| sugar&ice |
 |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
obama on the other hand speaks of the greatness of america's resilience to endure hard times and achieve anything through unity while creating opportunity and prosperity through multilateral cooperation. i think there's quite a huge divide that separates the two and no one has any grounds to suspect his intentions. |
well, he is off to a great start of cooperation. Picking the most liberal man in the senate other then himself for his chief of staff.
He preached reaching across party lines to push for change. This guy wont have to speak to a republican for the next 4 years, let alone reach out to any of them. Plans are already in place to strip lieberman of his duties in the senate. He will not be cooperating with any independants, republicans, or any other party for that matter. He is sticking to his left wing guns. That is exactly why i didnt want him in office. I was hoping for a somewhat republican house or senate to check his ass. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
well, he is off to a great start of cooperation. Picking the most liberal man in the senate other then himself for his chief of staff.
|
Hang on, you can't have it both ways - Obama has "been the most liberal man in the senate" for the last 21 months, so now he picks someone they get the new title? Bull, and it smells republican.
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
He preached reaching across party lines to push for change. This guy wont have to speak to a republican for the next 4 years, let alone reach out to any of them. Plans are already in place to strip lieberman of his duties in the senate. He will not be cooperating with any independants, republicans, or any other party for that matter. He is sticking to his left wing guns. That is exactly why i didnt want him in office. I was hoping for a somewhat republican house or senate to check his ass. |
Lieberman is a ing joke and the whole senate knows it - don't run against you're own party in the hopes the other side will give you a promotion or kickback if they get in. Not only did he publicly back the wrong horse to the detriment of his party, he's done nothing for the democratic cause in recent years, sidding with McCain against his "own party" should be the final straw for him.
Don't get me wrong, as a politician, go with what you believe, even if that is the other party but if you get it wrong like he did, you know there's going to be consequences. They're not just going to welcome you back in to the fold.
He's not even a Democrat anymore and the reason they are going to strip him is that he is not representing his party in any shape or form - why should he keep his position |
|
|
|
|
