And I suppose you would rather we continue...(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-11-10
In Reply to: Obama bringing terrorists to the US? - What the heck?
to run that torture chamber in Guantanamo. Yeah, that would be the one where they can hold supposed SUSPECTS for how long without trial? Maybe you should rent the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side."
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
It may continue until........sm
about 3-1/2 years before the end of time.
Your refusal to pull your head out of the sand, in my opinion, regarding what will happen makes any further discussion of this issue futile. Hope the sand protects your little head when all heck breaks loose.
why do we have to continue with what others before
did wrong?
Tit-for-tat and 2 wrongs doesn't make anything right.
Obama is a very promising and respectable 44th President of the United States of America and if you do not see that, I feel very sorry for you.
and yet you continue...
to slander everyone on this board who doesn't agree with you.
I will continue to care for the little guy
Well, you go ahead and defend big corporations and the rich..frankly, they could not care about you one bit. I will continue to care for the middle class, the poor, the disadvantaged.
Why must you continue to post?
Nah, just someone who cannot imagine why a neocon dinosaur who knows she/he is not wanted or needed on the liberal board would continue to post.
go ahead...continue...
....being rude.
Life's too short to be so full of hate, directed at every member of the opposite viewpoint.
But as you say, the silence is deafening....maybe you need a hearing aid??
Big 3 talks continue....... sm
According to the article linked below and others I have read, the two of the three auto makers who will be receiving these emergency loans will be required to either show a viable plan for their industries by March 31, 2009, or face repayment of the loans. While I agree with the premise of this requirement, I have to wonder if, given the amount of time that it took them to get into this situation in the first place, will 3 months, more or less, be enough time for them to find a way to save their dying companies? Is this bailout/loan just a temporary fix to a more permanent problem? What happens, if on 03/31/2009, the automakers have spent the money fronted them, are unable to come up with a plan to satisfy the stipulations, and can not repay the loan? Is it fair for taxpayers to bear the burden of this as well as the other bailouts that have been given and are likely yet to come?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/11auto.html?ref=us
Not what I said. Just wondering why we continue getting
and not a single person can stop and show a bit more humanity....that's all.
Not that I feel I need to continue.... sm
this seemingly endless and mindless banter, but rather to just satisfy your apparent thirst for blood, I went back and looked to see what I had posted that I felt the need to apologize for. Here is the post that I made to abc that sent her off into a tizzy about it being her body and her embryo, etc.
""And I prefer an abortion to giving up my baby for adoption. I would not be able to sleep a single night, having given my baby to strangers." (Note: This was a quote from abc that I was addressing. )
But you could sleep knowing that you took your baby's life? I am not trying to criticize but simply trying to understand this line of reasoning. " (This was my answer to her quote.)
Now..... go cool off! 
Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
Why do you continue to ask "where" when you have
=>
Obama will continue to act like he did regarding
nm
Why do you suppose
that Hillary Clinton and John McCain dropped the birth certificate issue. Why do you suppose the media dropped it? I do not believe that those of you keeping this issue going on this forum are medical transcriptionists, thus you should not be allowed to post to a MT forum unless you provide documentnation that you are qualified as a medical transcriptionist. 
I don't suppose...(sm)
you have a source for that claim?
and the personal attacks continue
Go ahead continue to talk about which you know nothing about
Go ahead, then, continue to talk about what you know nothing about other than news reports and slanted history books and we, who truly know a bit more about jewish issues and Israel will sit back and continue to smile and, of course, like I said in my previous post, there are always courses in the local synagogue that you can take. Join a jewish discussion group either in the net or in your home town, that is if your home town even has a jew in it, and learn the truth. Not what is being put out there by radical orthodox jews. Those are the ones that you see fighting in Israel to stay in Gaza. The radical orthodox jews. Sharon, as much as I dont like him, is right in what he has decided. It is unfortunate but it is just and right.
The gullible continue to hit themselves with hammers.
It's really amazing to see. In the first place, Bush's tax cuts mainly affected investment income. Do you think the ultra wealthy 1% do 9 to 5 at Burger King and report their wages like the rest of us working slobs? Please. They don't have wages and so, do not even contribute to the Social Security coffers (though that doesn't stop them from accepting huge chunks of OUR hard-earned money in Bush free for all tax refund giveaways). Bush took OUR money and gave it to his friends - and himself, by the way.
But here's the real story without the skewed numbers (excerpt):
Grossly Unfair: Evaluating the Bush Proposal
By Ron Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action
It is true that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes than others. But even though the Treasury Department reports that the top one percent pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes, Bush wants to give them 40 percent of the tax cut. The bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut—i.e., about 1/9 of what the richest one percent receive. The bottom 80 percent receive only 29 percent.
The more closely you look at what has been happening in the last few decades, the more outrageous this 40 percent tax cut for the richest one percent appears. The income of the top one percent has grown vastly more that the rest of the population. From 1989 to 1998, the after-tax income of the bottom 90 percent grew by only five percent, but the richest one percent enjoyed a 40 percent jump. That means the income of the top one percent grew eight times faster than the bottom 90 percent. (That explosion of after-tax income happened even though President Clinton and Congress raised the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent in 1993—a small tax increase that apparently did not discourage investment, harm the economy or prevent the richest from significantly widening the gap between themselves and everybody else.) Furthermore, the total effect of changes in the tax laws between 1977 and 1998 has already lowered the federal tax payments of the top 17 percent of families by over 14 percent ($36,710) whereas the bottom 80 percent of families saw their average tax payments fall by just 6.9 percent ($335).
It gets still worse. President Bush says his plan is fair because it lowers the tax rates for everyone. In fact, the poorest 31.5 percent of all families do not get a cent from Bush’s proposal (even though 80 percent of them are working) because their incomes are so low they do not pay any federal income taxes. (They do pay substantial payroll taxes, but the tax cut does not change that.) More than half of all black and Latino children are in families that would not benefit a cent from this plan.
Abolishing the estate tax is also wrong. Of course it needs to be revised so that children can inherit family farms and small businesses (that would cost only a fraction of what abolishing it will cost). When fully implemented in 2010, the repeal of the estate tax would provide a mere 64,000 estates with a tax cut of $55 billion—which is the same amount that the poorest 74 percent of all U.S. families (192 million people) would receive in tax cuts.
Abolishing the estate tax is misguided for several reasons. It would discourage charitable giving and thus undermine civil society. Wealthy individuals today can avoid estate taxes on wealth they give to charitable organizations. Consequently, abolishing the estate tax would almost certainly reduce charitable giving to a vast array of private agencies., including precisely the private, non-profit social service agencies in civil society that President Bush (wisely) wants to strengthen and expand. His proposal on the estate tax fundamentally contradicts his desire to expand the role of civil society in general and FBOs in particular in combating poverty—which is why John Dilulio, the head of Bush’s new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently criticized abolishing the estate tax. Fortunately, some of the wealthiest Americans (including Bill Gates’ father) have launched a campaign to preserve the estate tax!
The whole article can be read at www.christianethics.com, issue 35.
Don't let anybody be misled by the sneaky claim that the rich pay oh so much more of the tax burden than you do. Say you make 30,000 and you pay 20% of your wages in taxes - 6000. Along comes rich guy who makes no wages but has to pay 20% of his 3 million investment income in taxes - he would pay 600,000.
Oh my God!!! The rich guy has just paid 600,000 and you only paid 6000! He paid 100 TIMES what you did!! Oh the poor, poor overburdened rich guy! That's how they devise their 80-90% figures. Never mind about fair share, never mind that you are paying taxes on wages that would otherwise go to rent and food and utility costs, while they are paying taxes on free money they get just for having huge sums of money invested wisely, as the rich certainly know how to do. And why shouldn't they? But let's not pretend they need that money for food or shelter. Let's not pretend that they should be in any way exempt from contributing a fair share to the system that makes their happy lifestyles possible.
Before you continue with your generalization rampage
William Bennett's remarks are definitely NOT representative of conservative views as a whole. However, you and GT's comments do nothing...absolutely nothing but make the division between political views that much worse. If you and your ideology truly want unity and peace you would do the cause much good by not adding gasoline to an already bad bonfire.
Your comments cause as much harm to race/political relations as what Bennett said himself.
No. You won't leave. You'll continue on.
Not unlike Bush, who wants to have world domination, you want to dominate all boards here.
Accidents are exused. There's no reason on earth to excuse you.
I don't think it serves any purpose to continue this. sm
Suffice it to say, I can't imagine how I would feel were I in his shoes. Israel is facing some pretty terrible prospects in the days ahead. Anyway, I'd say it's time to let it drop. It's funny, as I am posting this, I see over to the side on the right under the ads by Google, Christian Jewish tours. I have always wanted to go. I have friends who have gone with their churches. I may never get the chance.
You continue to prove my point. (nm)
nm
oh yea, continue the horrors for the victim
Yes, make sure the mother has the baby of the person that raped her. Make sure she goes on for nine months every minute of the day remembering the horrible incident. A lot of rape victims want to commit suicide. Luckily most of them are able to get through it with counseling but most of them don't have a belly to show. But hey, let that belly get bigger. Let her feel the child of the person that committed the horendous crime and violated her body. Make sure she remembers that. Geez - why not just frame the rapists photo so she can see his picture every day. Then the cherry on the cake will be the actual birth when she can once again see the rapist once her baby is born.
And then we have the wonderful knowledge that a lot of times these tendencies are hereditary (not always but a lot of times). Would you want to raise a rapists child knowing that when he/she becomes an adult the likelihood of them committing the same crime against someone else is there.
Oh yes that's a nice 20-year sentance for the victim.
Good. Let the games continue. nm
nm
While you continue to preach to the choir
su
you continue to minimize the gravity of this...
situation. This is not your normal "crisis" for the love of Pete. Whatever McCain has done on deregulation, and I already said he had been for it, when push came to shove, when this looming disaster was foreseen, it was HE who foresaw it, and it was Obama, Dodd, and Frank who ignored everyone, and not only that, ENCOURAGED them to continue the way they were going.
THAT is the point, THAT is what you ignore, and because ou are so enamoured of Barack Obama you do not hold his feet to the fire for his part in this, nor the Democratic party for this.
In THIS issue, NO. The Republicans did NOT have a part in it. They all voted, every single ONE Of them, to push that legislation forward. All the Democrats, eVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, voted not to. That includes Obama and Biden.
Why on EARTH would you trust him as President? I just don't get it.
I'd rather leap into the unknown, than continue
Republican government. We all KNOW we'll lose our shirts with them. It'll be 'business as usual' with those old fossils. At least with some new blood in office, some of us (who AREN'T corporate CEO's) will stand half a snowball's chance in H___ of survival in the future.
Unlike past elections, which I voted in on ideals alone, this one is different. Lots of us are voting SURVIVAL.
For those that want to continue to live in the dark
I do not care to do that. As a democrat, I have watched this man whom so many think will be their saving grace. This man was raised Muslim, is Muslim through and through, and only went Christian on us after he came here and started attending Rev Wright's church.
He is very careful about skirting around questions posed to him. He has never been able to prove US citizenship...refuses to put forth a legitimate birth certificate proving it, and is now facing a suit to hopefully force him to prove just that. I am not so easily led as some O lovers.
I have a close friend in Atlanta, GA, who is an aware winning journalist. This is where one of the most recent honor killings took place. As all campaigns are questioned when something important surfaces, they want to know how the candidate feels about certain things. Well, knowing Obama is Muslim by birth and upbringing, this question was posed out of Georgia to his camp, who would not give a straight answer. They refused to let Obama speak to this. They went round and round the question, but wouldn't even come out and say he would condemn such things. Not even a condemnation of these acts.
Just not easily led about this man.
You do if you continue to meet and scheme with
@
Then idjit, why do you continue to post?
//
I'd love to continue to argue with you
but at the moment I have more pressing things to do outside of politics....like making a difference in the community I live in. I'm sure I'll be back to argue with you some more later. LOL
You sank to their level but beyond, and continue to do so.
I give up.
You continue to prove my point.
Yep, their ratings continue to tank while Fox
nm
The pubs will not survive if they continue to . . . .
let the Evangelicals control them!
Independents continue to drift away
Gallup has Obama at his lowest numbers in their polling at 58% approval (down from a high of 69%) and his approval index remains low at +1 on Rasmussen. The approval index is computed as the difference between those who strongly approve minus those who strongly disapprove.
And, both pollsters say that the difference is the growing disenchantment of independents. Republicans and Democrats have held fairly steady opinions, although some Dems are also beginning to have buyer's remorse.
ABC News is going to try to pull Obama's fat out of the fire on healthcare by turning the whole network over to the White House while allowing no dissenting views (bananas, senorita? we have some berry, berry nice fruits here in Banano Republico), but it's safe to predict that it won't work.
Meanwhile, Obama is spending more time denouncing Fox News than Kim Jong IL or the ruling clerics in Iran - and meanwhile Fox viewership continues to grow and grow and grow. None of his folks will come on Fox, of course, so yes - you do hear the faint sound of chickens clucking in the background.
The longer this man is in office, the more cracks we see in his character (i.e., that it really didn't matter to us which Iranian candidate was declared the winner, which betrayed a singular lack of commitment to the principles of democracy) and the more his inexperience shows (i.e., that he doesn't realize that the American people don't want anymore of his programs and spending).
I think that this is the fastest I've ever seen an American public grow sick and tired of a President. The best thing for him to do would be to keep his ugly mug off the TV right now. If he rotates his czars out in front of the camera, one a week, we wouldn't have to look at him for months and months.
Independents continue to drift away
Gallup has Obama at his lowest numbers in their polling at 58% approval (down from a high of 69%) and his approval index remains low at +1 on Rasmussen. The approval index is computed as the difference between those who strongly approve minus those who strongly disapprove.
And, both pollsters say that the difference is the growing disenchantment of independents. Republicans and Democrats have held fairly steady opinions, although some Dems are also beginning to have buyer's remorse.
ABC News is going to try to pull Obama's fat out of the fire on healthcare by turning the whole network over to the White House while allowing no dissenting views (bananas, senorita? we have some berry, berry nice fruits here in Banano Republico), but it's safe to predict that it won't work.
Meanwhile, Obama is spending more time denouncing Fox News than Kim Jong IL or the ruling clerics in Iran - and meanwhile Fox viewership continues to grow and grow and grow. None of his folks will come on Fox, of course, so yes - you do hear the faint sound of chickens clucking in the background.
The longer this man is in office, the more cracks we see in his character (i.e., that it really didn't matter to us which Iranian candidate was declared the winner, which betrayed a singular lack of commitment to the principles of democracy) and the more his inexperience shows (i.e., that he doesn't realize that the American people don't want anymore of his programs and spending).
I think that this is the fastest I've ever seen an American public grow sick and tired of a President. The best thing for him to do would be to keep his ugly mug off the TV right now. If he rotates his czars out in front of the camera, one a week, we wouldn't have to look at him for months and months.
I suppose the Congressional
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Study: Tax burden growing heavier for middle class
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Bush’s tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation’s rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.
The tax rate declined across all income levels -- but more so in the top brackets, the report said.
People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.
In contrast, middle-class taxpayers -- with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 -- bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.
The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.
“George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we’re turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families,” Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. “The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years.”
Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said, “Because of President Bush’s policies every American pays less in taxes today than they did before he became president...John Kerry has promised to raise taxes during the campaign. That is the clear choice Americans will have in the fall elections.”
The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent.
The study is based on figures in 2001 and assumes no changes in wealth distribution from increases in income, dividends or capital gains.
On the Net:
Congressional Budget Office: www.cbo.gov
I suppose my question is. sm
Why do we pick and choose who we help and which cause is noble? We ignored Rwanda, many many more people dead than in Darfur and in a much shorter time. Many more hundreds of thousands maimed. Not a peep out of UN or US. Darfur has become a Hollywood cause as well. Where was Hollywood during Rwanda? I don't get it.
I suppose you'd rather we keep punishing ourselves?
Punishing Americans with higher and higher healthcare costs because we give it free to indigent illegals, hospitals and ERs are forced to take them, then write them off and raise their prices to us, because we don't qualify under our own social programs! We should deprive ourselves and give to them because we care more about their "poor little baby" than our own? Charity should begin at home, and until it does, I don't give a hoot in Hades about some illegal's maternity problems! My conscience is clear about whatever happens to those babies because I didn't get knocked up with them! Indigent irresponsible women who pop out babies like Pez are the real punishers of babies - I'm all about FREE birth control, how about you? I wanna know why YOU care about her babies at the expense of American babies and senior citizens who are forced to choose between food and medication each month - how's your conscience about that?
spoken by someone who KNOWS, I suppose....
so sorry I am not up on methods of drug delivery. Sorry. It was cocaine my mistake. He snorted cocaine. He called it "blow" in his book. So I stand corrected...Obama snorted COCAINE, not CRACK. Make you feel better????
I suppose it depends on who says it...sm
If she said it referring to herself....who cares.
If someone says it about Sarah Palin.....who cares, it will bounce off, as she is neither of those words.
What about when Obama talked about all the small town bitter people holding on to their guns and religion, in his San Francisco speech?
Was that bad? I think it was, and he disenfranchised a whole group of voters, to this day, who would not consider voting for him....
That is perhaps, the phrase that deRothchild was comparing to...not sure, but perhaps...
Sooooo.....to answer your question? which word is worse? Well, both of them are, and there's been plenty of name calling lately. It's getting tiresome, really.
Petty, spiteful, little name calling, which has run entirely too rampant lately in the media, not to mention on this board from time to time.
Might just be very very tired, I suppose.
Beyond this board, what do you suppose
E-C-O-N-O-M-Y. How does it feel to be constantly running away from your own candidate's inept, vacuous dirth of effective policy initiatives while people are losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings? Please explain to me just how all this Obama trashing is addressing the problem you have with a cowardly candidate who by his own admission does not understand econmics and will stoop lower than the stock market plunge to be elected? A better example of "country last" could not be found. If this is any indication of how a McCain administration behaves in a crisis, we can all look forward to a landslide for Democrats across the board. T-minus 25 and counting.
I suppose you are anti-gun as well.
//
Seriously. Why do you suppose women
The onus of birth control is not gender specific. My own son learned this lesson when he was 9 years old when his only cousin was diagnosed with HIV. He takes precautions and asks the right questions. He does not have sex with women who are not willing to show him the pill or discuss openly with him how they would respond to an unwanted pregnancy...and he makes his own views plainly known in no uncertain terms...that he does not feel he is ready for the responsibilities of fatherhood and that he ALSO has the right to make this decision without moral persecution.
Most women share the news of a pregnancy with the father in the hopes that he will take on the responsibilities of fatherhood. The ones who do not more than likely already know what the answer will be. Unwanted pregnancies have a way isolating the mother, blaming her for having gotten pregnant in the first place in much the same way you have inferred in your parting shot (as though the father has suddenly become canceled out of the equation) and giving all sorts of folks license to condemn and weigh in on the decision. In the event that support is forthcoming, most women WILL have the child more often than not.
If that wre the case, why do you suppose that nobody
The Black Panthers remind me of just how far things had to go and how hard they had to fight before black people in this country were given their civil rights. The Panthers are a part of that history and have as much right as anybody to be there. I would not feel the least bit intimidated by their presence and, in fact, would be grateful that we have come as far as we have since those day. Intimidation is in the eyes of the beholder. Get over yourself.
I suppose Canada
At least they speak English and I've been there numerous times.
My adult son would probably say Poland as he's been there and it's a nice, friendly, beautiful country with a low cost of living. I might be persuaded to try Poland, but I'd have a hard time learning Polish!
Do you suppose it could be regional?
When Clinton was in, my brother had a construction business and was going gangbusters. I did a drive down the whole California coastline, a trip to Vegas, New Orleans, Manhattan, Aruba, Florida....that's all I can think of....I was a single mom of 2 teenagers, bought a home, eventually bought a newer car and worked 4 days a week as an MT at a hospital then promoted to supervisor (made less money in that position, go figure)
In comes Bush - got remarried, moved to another city, kids are gone, husband professional, I was a supervisor (making $90,000 year between the 2 of us) and we could afford to go out to eat once in awhile. Our house is tiny, we are down to one car, husband is laid off and my health is in the toilet (stress will kill you). I was doing much better before the Bush years and my brother's construction company went belly up shortly after Bush was "elected" and he's been scrambling for work ever since. It's like you and I traded places........
Well, i suppose you told me...
consider me properly chastised.
You suppose incorrectly
Although I'm curious if there is an option for reporting a post because someone recognized you from previous posts.
I didn't take the time to report your posts; your lack of comprehension should continue to shine on the boards.
If it's been so nice, why do you continue to come here? Didn't you say you were leaving?
And didn't you say you were going to Iraq, as well? I think you'd be an incredible asset to Bush in Iraq. If you were there, we could win the war immediately. All you have to do is spread your word to the enemy. After five minutes of listening to your skewed logic, they'd turn the weapons on themselves. Masters of surprise terror attacks that they are, this would be a wonderful surprise tactic to use on them.
It doesn't work here any more, though. The only thing that would surprise some of us is if you actually told the truth about something. 
|
