I posted your reply above by mistake....
Posted By: sm on 2008-12-13
In Reply to: She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm) - nm
the "You don't have to look" post.
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
Should be posted in reply to jm.
x
I posted under the wrong reply.
Posted by "There is no truth in the assertion...." one down.
"I do not agree with the absolute pronouncement that you are a full-blown psychopath. However, I do see you consistently have tendencies to take a certain measure of pleasure in following aggressive impulses when it comes to validating your obvious adversion to the President-Elect, illustrated by the current post in question. You have been doing this for quite some time, so it would be safe to assume that could be an integral part of who you are. You do seem to gain a great deal of satisfaction out of promoting some of the more far-fetched right-wingnut fantasies out there about O, and you seem to have no particular conscience about doing it. No sarcasm intended. This is the way you come across to some of us."
Reply posted above this by accident.
x
Whoever posted this nasty reply to 'abc' on 11/16/08 should be banned.nm
nm
Ha Ha my mistake
I missed that paragraph in your post. Sorry. I just gave myself 40 lashes
That's not a mistake.....
...everybody knows O can raise the dead with the proper stimulus.
Huge mistake
I have been banned from this board a long time, and finally they let me back in. There is a post from this Nan person, a cartoon justifying it as filbustering T. Kennedy; when in essence it makes a mockery out of thousands of Americans, and even more Iraq's lives lost. I did go on the wrong board, I did not intend to, honestly. I have not been on this board for more than 4 months until last night; and I can understand the moderator's decision to change it; but I really did not know. Who is this Nan person? She must be a moderator because if you challenge her with the truth one iota, your posts are deleted. Again, the moderators have allowed me to get away with a lot. I do understand their decision to split it into conservatives and liberals; and I have no excuse, I have had an extremly stressful week, went on there to express my opinion and my posts were deleted, I simply went on the wrong board and once again was called a troll. Anyone who disagrees with this Nan person is accused of being a troll.
Yep, made a mistake, should have been why would anyone BAN you. SM
People do that all the time on the board, don't make a big deal out of it and I am perfectly FINE here. Why.....feeling uncomfortable? It's not like you guys don't take pot shots on the Conservative board now is it?
No we didn't and it was a mistake, but it
also wasn't our stated mission to TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY, just to get them back out Kuwait. You'd have griped even louder back then if we'd done that, screaming about going against UN mandate. The likes of Phil Donohue didn't even want us to go after the Taliban. to some there is nothing worth war. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths you people go to find fault and place blame and denigrate your own country. Of course that is until a Democrat gets back into office. Then none of this will matter, right? I can't wait to see you explain away the next terrorist attack or disaster that will most certainly occur once you install Billary into the white house.
It was a campaign mistake for her to go on
She wasn't funny. They made fun of her. I thought it was humiliating for her.
Please do not mistake this for the real
Nanaw!
I'm sorry. i made a mistake
I got it mixed up with the EMS tax of $250. It's called Per Capita Tax (right to breathe) . The PCT s only $5.50. Then we have occupational priviledge (right to work) tax of $10, local income tax 1% of gross income, school tax (and doesn't matter if you don't have school kids) $1500, county tax $400. Then there is the business priviledge tax if you operate business $10. On top of that is the state and federal income tax.
All taxes are due April 15th except the county and school taxes. They are paid April and October but still, it's just sickening what we pay. Now the gov. wants to raise the sales tax and make us pay it on everything we buy.
It has to stop. Oh, yeah, that's right, it will when we are dead and buried unless they put a yearly tax our final resting place. Oops. Shouldn't have said that. They might get the idea to do just that. 
gt you just made a huge mistake. sm
You have no idea what my religion is. I would never make an assumption like this. This one statement of your's and the other person who called me a Xtian (too darn lazy to type out Christian) reveals the true inner workings of the leftist mine. If you are not with me, you are against me. That's your motto and no one could possibly be as well-informed as you. Why, if I were to take some of your bizzare sayings, i.e., burning in hell and such, I might think you are a satanist. Are you? Can't prove it by me. Amazing.
I would never make the mistake of a prediction like that.
for either side. Having confidence in your party is one thing. Speaking for your party is another. I believe there are many liberals who would find the things you have to say and the way you say them anathema.
Hopefully a mistake, but why try to sweep it under the carpet?
nm
So this is a mistake? Reading that article
Was this a planned pregnancy? Maybe, maybe not? Who knows but the girl that obviously is having sex and not using birth control. Hello? Is this the year 2008? Whewee...
Sounds to me like this young father is stepping into quite a family! VP as his MIL; whatta guy!!!!! It's a shame more young fathers don't step up and marry their children's mother, but this one sure is....
Help please...you mean a mistake to vote democrat for....
congress last cycle?
You say God is creator but mistake of nature....
xx
Where do you see a mistake? His nickname starts with D nm
x
dont mistake your distorted
opinion for fact.
oops, terrible mistake, but looks like some
xx
As a Christian that is not a mistake you would make.
Would you ever hear a middle eastern person accidentally say "my christian faith"? I think not.
My mistake too....I did not want to debate and asked not to...you kept...sm
trying, too, though, and I should have ignored your barbs, even though you didn't think that they were.
My apologies for not having a thick skin of armor on.....will not in the future respond back.
Even GREENSPAN admitted to his mistake to believe
correct themselves. Deregulation and the politics of greed are not a democratic platform plank. Unbelievable that this camp would STILL be trying to garner all that compassion and sympathy for the rich.
Greenspan...I made a mistake to think the
Being familiar with your posts, I will not be spending too much time here trying to get you to open you mind up to something other than your own opinion. Try tuning in to the money talk shows on CNN and CSPAN or listen to what some of the leading economists are saying about THIS particular set of circumstances. Studies of 2004 could not have foreseen the destruction that IS the W. Either you are interested or not. I'm done arguing with or trying to do someone else's reasearch for them. Election's over and I will be spending my time planning to take advantage of the new opportunities that will be opening up for small businesses for me and my husband, now that an affordable health care plan is within sight and there will be SB resources popping up right and left in the near future. It pays to plan ahead and at long, long last, my plan is to blast myself as far away from the outsource and decay of my MT profession of 27 years. Greener pastures are in my future.
No, but it goes to show you anyone can make a mistake
Heck, I always though Africa was a country...i.e. - What country are you going to on vacation? Answer: Africa.
The fact that she didn't say it makes it less credible to believe any of the malarky.
Which by the way according to Obama we have 57 states
It was Roberts' mistake...here are the facts.
WASHINGTON - It was merely a formality and it’s probably a few phrases that both Barack Obama and Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts have practiced several times, but the leader of the Supreme Court may have been just a tad nervous when he got one word of the presidential oath of office a little out of order.
Obama smiled slightly when he realized that Roberts, a fellow Harvard Law School graduate, misplaced the word “faithfully” during the oath. but the new president joined in the fun and repeated it the way Roberts initially administered it. (Lest we forget, in the Senate Obama voted against confirming Roberts to the high court. Last week Obama met with him and the other Supreme Court justices during a courtesy call.)
Here is how the oath is supposed to be administered: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
And here’s how it went:
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA: I, Barack…
ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA: … that I will execute…
ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
For any conspiracy theorists worried Obama isn’t president because the oath was a little off, the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the new president assumes office at noon on Jan. 20.
His real mistake was not choosing the
hero, Mr. O, wanted him to choose!
I made the mistake of feeding the gt troll
won't make that mistake again. There is no debating with a sociopath.
Democratic Hawk Now Sees War as a Mistake
Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
![src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645096.jpg]()
Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war. ![src=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/11/24/2002645169.jpg]()
JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 2003
U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, center, with military officers at ceremonies marking the opening of new facilities at Naval Station Bremerton in 2003.
Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake
By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau
WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.
Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and peaceniks who protested the Vietnam War and did terrible things to troop morale.
The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.
Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: Cowards cut and run; Marines never do.
During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.
There was a lot of anger back there, Dicks said in an interview this week. It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here.
Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.
And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.
Voted to back Bush
In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.
Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.
After visiting Iraq early in the war, Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops, Murtha said in an interview this week.
Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.
While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further.
The insurgency has gotten worse and worse, he said. That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.
Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.
Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would absolutely not have voted for the war.
The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.
But Dicks says the intelligence was doctored. And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.
A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs, he said.
He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.
Norm ... has agonized
All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized, Murtha said this week.
Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.
In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.
Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon, Dicks said at the time.
By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.
We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed, he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined.
By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened, he said at the time.
That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.
Growing doubts
On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.
Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.
That Joe Wilson article was very troubling, Dicks said.
Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.
Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me, McDermott said recently. This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe about prewar intelligence.
The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.
Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.
The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.
Dicks said he told the White House that their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard.
The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.
Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole, he said.
But he added, We can't take forever.
Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.
I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't.
Alicia Mundy: 202-662-7457 or amundy@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
Oops...there is a message - typed (nm) by mistake.
That's how dizzy this makes me!
No, what happens if you finally realize you made a mistake. nm
x
Why Clinton as secy of state would be a mistake
I was wondering what it would mean if Obama picks Clinton as Secy of State. Big mistake according to this liberal Obama supporter. It does make sense.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200811140018?f=i_latest
When you and I "forget" to pay our taxes, just tell them it was a "careless mistake"...
see how well that goes over from the normal working person. Then put us in charge of finances! What a joke!
Opps! Watched it again and again. I made a mistake, sorry.
He didn't ask O what he was going to do about it.
I made a mistake and was trying to respond to the post below by *LOL* when I wrote that.
in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.
I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.
As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell. I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).
The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.
If I offended you, then I truly apologize. I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article. I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.
If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.
I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.
My mistake...I thought you only tolerated like-minded people....
hence Berkeley.
Ooops - my big mistake, sorry sam I replied in the wrong area
I meant to reply to the one right below this posted by holycrap.
Sorry for the mixup, after it was posted and I saw where I said to myself - Holycrap, I posted in the wrong area. HA HA HA. Sorry. That's what I get for trying to function on 4 hours of sleep last night and not enough coffee today.
Depends on the mistake. Making the case for war in Iraq on a stack of
lies from Curveball, not your everyday ooops.
As if.
No, gourdpainter...it's gonna be Obama ruling....make no mistake....
Obama and the democratic congress.
I think it's highly doubtful Hillary will pass muster to be SOS, since Bill has too many shady dealings with China and the Saudis, and who knows who else he has taken/is taking money from, and selling our national secrets to (or did, in the case of China with our military secrets).
As for Bush, don't know how you get him thrown in the equation, unless someone named Bush has been appointed....I'm working too much to pay close attention...
But, as I said, make no mistake. No matter who Obama appoints, it's gonna be him and his socialist/marxist agenda....Obama and his far left agenda to the max.....
I'm hiding for the next four years......
oops - made a mistake - the other guy's book was released during the campaign -
I am sorry that I was wrong. Obama's book had already been released.
The first copy obviously sold really well though considering the amount of money they paid him to do the sequel.
Reply
Any so-called knowledge can later prove to be wrong. There are very few absolutes in this world. I do know that the 1990s saw a dessimation in our human intelligence gathering. We need to get back to being good at that. If a threat is there, I'm not willing to wait until people die to do something about it. If you are, then I hope it's not one of my loved ones in the next airplane or subway or building. As for Al-Qaeda, there has been much damage done to that organization. Of course the news doesn't play that up very much, but it's happening. We're still looking for Bin Laden, we're still chasing Al-Qaeda, and we're planting a seed in the middle east that will hopefully someday (and it may take longer than your of my lifetime to accomplish) make a change in the middle east that will hopefully keep the horror of terrorism at least under control. We fought the Japanese, we fought the Nazis... I think we can handle Iraq and Al-Qaeda. As for N. Korea, you can't do anything there because they already HAVE the nukes. At least we can cross Iraq off the list for sure in the nuke department.
Thanks for the reply. (nm)
nm
Reply....
You missed my point also, because you are still harping on abortion "against God's will." No matter how many times I say it, you will not hear it, because it does not further your agenda to hear it.
I am not against abortion because it is against God's will. I am against abortion because it is murder, and it is murder of the most innocent life that exists. That is a deeply moral issue, and it does not stem from what or what is not God's will. You said you and God parted company a long time ago, but I am willing to bet your morality did not part and go with God...you kept it, right? Of course you did. Because we all have basic morality, whether or not you choose to believe in God. Belief in God validates and enhances that morality, but even those of you who do not believe in God have morals...right? Of COURSE you do. There are people who are NOT religious who oppose abortion on a strictly moral level. As that article said that I posted, if I lost my faith today, I would still morally oppose abortion. Yet it is more comfortable for you to claim that I am against abortion "in the name of God." I am against abortion because it is morally wrong. PERIOD.
Being pro choice does mean being pro abortion. If you vote for the right to choose, you are putting the okay stamp on it. You can spin it however you like, but the truth remains. It is your choice to do so, yes, but at least have the guts say so.
I have already said that I work toward supporting women who decide to make a choice for life. If they decide to go ahead with the abortion, they do not get condemnation from me, but they certainly know were I stand, and they also respect what I am doing and understand why I am doing it. Much unlike you ladies.
Again....try to let this sink into your closed mind. I am trying to give the CHILD a choice. The CHILD has no voice. You are taking that away from them. They have no recourse, no place to run, no place to hide. All they can do is endure being sliced and diced to have their brain sucked out. You want the MOTHER to have the choice, the voice, the power. I am merely saying that the CHILD deserves SOMETHING here, doesn't it? Doesn't something in your moral structure scream out to you that the CHILD deserves SOME consideration in all this?? That is where I and others like me come in. Because we believe the child DOES deserve consideration, DOES deserve to have a voice.
You say "I have intolerance for those who cannot take another's opinion or perception without tearing it down." Is that not EXACTLY what all your posts do to my opinions and perceptions? Including completely ignoring what I am actually saying and trying to put words in my mouth to suit your anti-God agenda.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
my reply
was meant in a humorous, light tone. Sorry you are so unhappy with current events.
reply
As far as who can accomplish all these goals -- a journey begins with a single step. Barack is willing to start the journey. McCain stubbornly refuses to change course. If he does not live up to his hopes - another election in 4 years.
Experience -- time and time again current events have proven Barack's thoughtfulness and judgment have proven true. Even the current administration is following the course for a time-table that Barack proposed so long ago.
I do not see Barack as a savior -- I see a fine man with a vision for our country that matches my own.
Reply...
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both of these claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where McCain called Alaska the largest state in America, he could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MORE FACTS: She is responsible for negotiating any drilling of those resources. "Primary power" may be taxation, but she also has to oversee environmental issues, etc. She cracked the monopoly and forced oil companies to bid again, and she made a necessary portion of the bid that they address environmental issues. That was left out of the FACTS. While the population of the state may not be in proportion to the size of the state, her latest approval rating is 86%. That is unheard of. None of the other candidates enjoy that as senators from their respective states. That was also left out of the FACTS.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
MORE FACTS: When the National Guard is called up within a state, the governor does have the primary responsibility of mobilization and oversight. Since she is 50 miles from Russia, having control of the National Guard in that state is certainly central to our national security. And the operative word is AFTER the unit is deployed. Making the decision to call them up and send them to war IS her decision, and DOES affect national security.
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January of 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
MORE FACTS: This is true. But if Democrats truly believe in hope and change, they have had since January to actually do it. Have seen zip, zilch, nada. Got news for you...Bush is not a true conservative, especially fiscally obviously. McCain is.
THE FACTS: It's true that Obama voted "present" dozens of times, among the thousands of votes he cast in an eight-year span in Springfield. Illinois lawmakers commonly vote that way on a variety of issues for technical, legal or strategic reasons. Obama, for instance, voted "present" on some abortion measures to encourage wavering legislators to do the same instead of voting "yes." Their "present" votes had the same effect as "no" votes and helped defeat the bills. Voting this way also can be a way to duck a difficult issue, although that's difficult to prove.
MORE FACTS: Nice spin. He still voted "present." If he can't make a decision on those bills, he is going to be able to make the big ones to run the country? You can't vote present in the oval office. However, he did show up to vote NO to the Infants Born Alive act...twice.
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MORE FACTS: Look at this and digest it. First paragraph...Obama's plan will raise income for middle income taxpayers by 5% by 2012...he does not define "middle class." McCain's plan is going to CUT taxes across all levels and still raise the "middle income" by 3%. I think I will take the tax cut and the 3%. No brainer.
Obama wants to provide 80 billion in tax breaks to people who already pay almost 0 taxes. Where, pray tell, is that $80 billion going to come from?? Taxing the "rich" which will trickle down to loss of jobs and depression of the economy. Won't work. Never works. Case in point..small businesses that make more than $250,000 would see taxes rise. That is about every small family business in this country, who employ a lot of people. Just throw them all under the bus in order to cut taxes for people who pay the least taxes of all of us ANYWAY.
NO THANKS.
Reply
You know what truly amazes me? EVERYONE srcutinizes Obama for EVERY LITTLE THING from the b/c issue to his education, whether he is muslim, is he a terrorist, does he believe in this or that,etc but while GWB did pretty much whatever he wanted especially outside of the law whether it be national/international and the level of scrutiny bestowed upon him when he was first elected to office up until now has been been pretty much nonexistent.. or people saying 'i don't trust him', ' he frightens me' 'he is scary'. Should have been afraid of Bush and truly fear what you MAY NEVER know regarding the true state of this country of the last eight years..truly amazing
reply
Throw that hood in the wash, its getting dingy. 12 year olds, we know what you are saying there.
I made no "moral judgment" on SP's premarital pregnancy - merely pointing out the historical precedent she set.
I did reply, it is below....but I will reply again here...
I cannot find anything where Republicans voted for this issue before they voted against it. If you can, present it. I looked. In the case when McCain co-sponsored the bill that I have posted information about, where he predicted this exact thing happening, it never made it out of the committee. All the Republicans on the comittee voted for it, all of the Democrats on the comittee voted against it.
This is what the bill would have done:
1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Sounds like the bailout bill doesn't it? Would have been nice if they had not blocked the legislation that would have fixed the problem and not stuck us with it?
I did not reply to it because I have not seen it -
I have not been on the news or TV today so am not aware of what you are talking about. Will, however, before I go to bed, find out what is going on so that I can discuss it later...
|
