Kind of a low blow...

• Obama's tax plan - mt
  • I think you're numbers are wrong. The top 5% of - Underpaid MT
  • 40% of TOTAL US population (i.e., most of mid class) - Owns less than 1$ of national wealth. sm
    • Not OK with me, cuz for me, that would mean I have - about 40 cents of the nat'l. wealth. :(
  • Question. We are MTs. Right? - Do your incomes exceed $250,000/yr? sm
    • Here in Cali, $250/year is pretty run-of-the mill, - middle-income. Dont buy much, either.
      • haha.... that's pretty LOW! That should be - $250 THOUSAND a year, not $250! ;D
    • No, mine doesn't, but many small businesses... - sam
      • 1 more time. INDIVIDUAL income means 1 person. - Not a couple, not a small business, sm
        • While you are at it, look up S corporations... - sam
    • i don't care what the individual income is - florida
      • So will you still feel that way the next time a hurricane wipes - part of Florida off the map? Then again....
      • Very "Christian" of you. nm - oldtimer
        • What?? - mt
          • Joe Blow sounds like the typical Floridan to me. And PS: - please don't botch this election like 2000's
        • Kind of a low blow... - sam
          • I know Pagans, Satanists, and Hell's Angels that do more - TRUE charity-work than most 'Christian'
          • That's what they all say. nm - oh please
            • No, that is what they all DO. Obama is the one... - sam
              • Last-worditis. - nm
        • LMAO. Thanks. - I needed a good knee-slapper. nm
      • Any person earning less than $57,490/yr - Falls into the lower 40% of...sm
      • Would you like a tax cut? - Would that help you out at all? just curious. nm
      • What is so hard about answering a - simple question with a direct answer? nm
    • Just in case you skip the message, - am asking about INDIVIDUAL ineome. nm
  • Any Democrats think this is a good plan? - mt
  • Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it... - sam
    • How can he deny that? - mt
      • He denies it for the exact reason the interviewer said... - sam
      • "income redistribution" is just a fancy term for - STEALING to me. "Robin Hood Obama". nm
  • If his tax plan scares you, check out his Global Poverty Act. Link inside. - MT and worn out
    • Good grief! and under the "oversight" of the UN... - sam
  • I so much agree with you. Some will have to give - back close to HALF what they earn! nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of business, media and politics.

The elite group meets annually at luxury hotels or resorts throughout the world — normally in Europe — and once every four years in the United States or Canada. It has an office in Leiden in the Netherlands.^[1] The 2007 conference took place from May 31 to June 3 at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Istanbul, Turkey.^[2] The 2008 conference took place in Chantilly, Virginia, United States ^[3] .^[4]

[edit] Origin and purpose

DE Bilderberg" href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bilderberg_-_Oosterbeek.jpg>

Hotel de Bilderberg

The original Bilderberg conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in The Netherlands, from May 29 to May 31, 1954. The meeting was initiated by several people, including Joseph Retinger, concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, who proposed an international conference at which leaders from European countries and the United States would be brought together with the aim of promoting understanding between the cultures of United States of America and Western Europe.^[5]

Retinger approached Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who agreed to promote the idea, together with Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland, and the head of Unilever at that time, the Dutchman Paul Rijkens. Bernhard in turn contacted Walter Bedell Smith, then head of the CIA, who asked Eisenhower adviser C. D. Jackson to deal with the suggestion.^[6] The guest list was to be drawn up by inviting two attendees from each nation, one each to represent conservative and liberal (both terms used in the American sense) points of view.^[5]

The success of the meeting led the organizers to arrange an annual conference. A permanent Steering Committee was established, with Retinger appointed as permanent secretary. As well as organizing the conference, the steering committee also maintained a register of attendee names and contact details, with the aim of creating an informal network of individuals who could call upon one another in a private capacity. Conferences were held in France, Germany, and Denmark over the following three years. In 1957, the first U.S. conference was held in St. Simons, Georgia, with $30,000 from the Ford Foundation. The foundation supplied additional funding of $48,000 in 1959, and $60,000 in 1963.^[6]

Dutch economist Ernst van der Beugel took over as permanent secretary in 1960, upon the death of Retinger. Prince Bernhard continued to serve as the meeting's chairman until 1976, the year of his involvement in the Lockheed affair. There was no conference that year, but meetings resumed in 1977 under Alec Douglas-Home, the former British Prime Minister. He was followed in turn by Walter Scheel, ex-President of West Germany, Eric Roll, former head of SG Warburg and Lord Carrington, former Secretary-General of NATO.^[7]

If choosing between a president who had his penis sucked in the oval office, and a president who threw unequipped National Guard troops under the bus to try to impress his daddy, I'll take the Prez with the healthy sexual appetite any day.

10 Reasons to Impeach G. W. Bush and Dick "Shoot 'em Up" Cheney (BTW it is too bad Cheney and Bush never went hunting together):

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an AL Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

 Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

I have to admit this is the first thing I've ever seen of his. He seems a bit out of it, to say the least.  He's also twisting reality beyond the bounds of truthfulness.

Why do we constantly get hammered with these ridiculous slanted, partisan postings?  Could we PLEASE JUST ONCE be shown something by the conservatives that is not from a propaganda source? 

Everything below is from their official, sanitized website, but for the real view of this group read their forum which includes lots of photos of firearms, many with children alongside them.

________________

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-- John Stuart Mill

(From the Mission portion of the website):

War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

"

Do any of you watch Survivor?  I love that show.  I think Im in pretty good shape but there is no way I could survive for a month on an island like they do but I like to watch and make believe that I could (smile).  Snakes and alligators and bugs..YIPES. 

Don't know who you are referring to but I suppose all countries have residents who don't wish it well but I assume that statistically they would be a very tiny minority as really, why would they live in a place they wish to see destroyed?  Seems silly.

This country seems to be unable to educate itself about the nature of our foe.  We rely on leaders who seem to flaunt their ignorance about the middle eastern culture.  So perhaps you are right, there are those who wish us harm.....by utilizing repeatedly the same failed techniques/agendas that as you stated, continue to stoke the fires of hate that have been burning for a very very long time -- the agendas of ignorance and unwillingness to learn from history.  As long as this runaway ignorance prevails our soldiers will continue to die along with the Iraqi civilians and our world will become less safe.

There is a world of heartache ahead in the very near future.  In case you haven't been following the trend, there is one church that has been advising its members for over 100 years to stock pile food and supplies, be self-sufficient, and otherwise make nice with the world.  The holocaust is coming, but there isn't going to be some saving-grace rapture first.  The righteous people will collect into specific locations to survive while the unrighteous have a slug fest and kill each other off.  Its very real and it is likely going to be within this lifetime.

creepy thought for you to be fixated on.  EEEWWW.

I agree with everything you said.

I think that lumping people together and making gross inaccurate generalizations does nothing but prevent any intelligent discourse from occurring, and that's very sad because these issues are very serious.  Our very ability to keep BREATHING may be in jeopardy, particularly if we don't start concentrating on our own safety. Bush  has made Iraq much less safe place to be, and he hasn't done much to make the United States a safe place to be.  If we truly NEED our military someday to protect US in a homeland attack, where will they all be?

What also worries me is that our enemies might consider this a bilateral "religious" war.  They already believe it is, yelling and effecting "Jihad."  But the current focus on one particular brand of Christianity in this country -- not religion in general, but one particular BRAND of Christianity -- makes me wonder if Bush himself doesn't think this is a religious war.  The fact that he might think so is what scares me the most, as history tell us they are the most deadly, bloody wars of all. I personally don't want the U.S. to be known as a "Christian" nation.  One of the things I love the most about this country is the freedom that we're SUPPOSED to have to worship freely, and I will personally oppose anyone who tries to take that away from us.    

It's sad that tolerance and respect aren't in more people's hearts and souls. 

already and the 4th pregnancy could put her life in peril.  Does she allow her other children to go motherless? 

Maybe the kind who underwent extensive testing and was told that her child would be born limbless or so developmentally delayed that any kind of life would be miserable?

Maybe the kind who was raped and does not want to bear the child of a rapist, whether she would be able to put the child up for adoption or not.

A woman's body is her body.  No one should have the right to tell her what to do with it.  There are many reasons to have an abortion.  I personally feel that in the above cases, an abortion is a reasonable option.  I certainly wouldn't wish any of the scenarios above on anyone.  Outlawing abortion in general is wrong.  If you want to prevent it from being used as a form of birth control, then by all means put limitations on it, but don't outlaw it completely.  Sometimes it is the only choice.

Not pro-abortion but definitely pro-choice.  There is a difference. 

that I feel will ruin us if Obama is elected.  Oh...if you don't want to pay your fair share.....just don't make as much.  Why should people feel like they have to lower their income.  It will make hard working people not want to work hard because the government just takes what they earn.  Then you have the people who don't make anything and are living off of the government and that number will grow.  The more government assistance given, the more they want and the more they will take.  It will make spending for these programs outrageous.  Why should we enable people to mooch off of the government? 

I understand there are people who legitimately need help.  People who are truly disabled and can't work.  However, there are many others who are literally just mooching so they don't have to work. 

I have to think of MY future.  I have two kids who will go through college.  One boy is a freshman now so college really isn't too fair away.  I have a house I'm paying for.  I have a special needs child that requires more of my money.  I want to put my hard earned money back for my kids and myself for a rainy day.  I don't want it taken from me and given to people who I don't know and who I don't know whether they truly need it or are just lying and mooching off of the government. 

The bottom line is this, making more money is an incentive to work hard.  You take their money away and give to people who don't work hard and what does that show.....it shows that you don't have to work hard because the government will pick of the tab and it shows the hard workers....why bother.  I don't want that for my country.  I don't want my kids raised in that kind of life thinking that hard work doesn't pay off. 

I have tried and tried and tried to get people to THINK and debate.  It isn't so much about this election as it is about the American people coming together as one and fixing what is wrong with this country.  We have only 2 choices in this election and we can all just try to learn as much TRUTH about both candidates and then vote for whichever one we think MAY most likely represent our values.  McCain and his followers have completely turned me off with the constant trashing of Obama.  At least Obama has been dignified and while he takes pot shots at his oponent, his speeches offer some insight into what he SAYS he stands for whereas McCain does nothing but preach how his opponent is going to throw the whole country under the bus.

My Christianity doesn't enter into this election.  If I saw either man with Christian values, that would certainly play a part in my decision.  On the one hand we have Obama supporting abortion and gay marriage, which I can't do.  On the other hand we have McCain LYING.  According to my Bible if you break one commandment you are guilty of breaking all.  According to my belief:  Abortion = murder.  Lying = "thou shalt not bear false witness."  Both are thou shalt not  commandments.  So from a Christian standpoint one man is no better than the other.