Show me where Obama has said he would provide
Posted By: Rebates checks to ANYONE who...sm on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: Look....let me lay it out for you. - sam
did not earn income. Try to stay on task with this Sam. The associations argument is a one-way conversation headed toward a dead-end destination. Let's talk PROGRESSIVE TAX...which is the central issue here.
SP seems to be fine with windfall profits....call them what you like, rebate of whatever, but they are still windfall profits redistributed oil company revenues to the owners of "collectively owned resources"...her words, not mine.
Did you look at the chart? Do you have any comment on those telling historical rates? What about McCain's intent to keep the progressive tax structure as is...since it has serve our CAPITALIST economy well in the past.
Your argument is bankrupt. No soup for you.
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
Show us how her experience is "more" than Obama's.
Nothing wrong with serving local community, but never hurts to serve yourself while you're at it. Thing is, other than showing how squeaky clean she is and playing into the public perception of government corruption, what exactly did she do for the PEOPLE in the community?
Of course she pro-life. Of course she is against gay marriage. Anything less would have spelled political suicide for McCain, especially after all the uproar from the right when he was considering one of his own maverick choices…Tom Ridge. Towing party line ..despicable in democrats, according to you, but GREAT when the republicans do it. Double standards do not enhance one's credibility.
She got rid of him, all right, along 35 of his appointees (she was one among them). Just wondering on what grounds they were all fired. Guilt by association, perhaps? Like the poster said, beware the woman scorned.
Don't have to be careful about the lack of experience issue. McCain has killed that one by his own hand. Careful, Sam, your bias is showing again. By what stretch of the imagination does 8 years serving a tiny Alaska community and less than 2 years as governor with no identifiable benefit to the voters who put her there constitute more experience than 7 years as a state senator, 3 war on terrorism years in the US senate, and a successful bid for the party nomination for the highest office in the land (a position of popular mandate, NOT selection by one man)? Holds plenty of water now, thanks to your #1 chair. Enlighten us, please.
Service to the people? What programs here directly served her citizens instead of her own personal agenda? Slashing funds for local construction projects? Where's the meat here? Ethics clean-up her main claim to fame? She's going to have to come out and play with the big boys now. Whistelblowing not likely to win her any Miss Congeniality contests in DC. How many of us "little people" want her to be on the other end of that 3 a.m. phone call? What's will she do, tell them to go clean their house? Pitiful.
Check the new show about Obama at 9EST
Studies show that Barrack Obama
has had a major advantage in this election because of the liberal leaning media. Here is how balanced the news media has been.
Including all the media in one lump....there were 57% negative McCain articles and only 29% negative Obama articles.
In newspapers.....69% negative McCain and only 28% negative Obama.
NBC....54% negative McCain and only 21% Obama.
MSNBC.....73% negative McCain and only 14% negative Obama.
Fox News.....40% negative McCain and 40% negative Obama.
Looks to me like the only media that seems to be fair to each candidate would be.....would you look at that.....Fox News. At least Fox News covers both sides and lets their viewers decide instead of just showing more negative Obama articles to try and swing our decisions like all the other news media appears to be doing in favor of Barrack Obama.
I agree with Obama's decision to not show them. (sm)
It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists. I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision. If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.
I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos. Last I heard, the complete opposite was true. Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?
Why wont Obama just show his long-form
nm
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.
I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.
But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?
You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
You can't provide them. Just say so. lol.
nm
So are you saying you are not able to provide
one single solitary link, citation or reference? I keep up with all sorts of news, though I must confess I am not a Fixed News fanatic. I am simply asking you to back up your own claim. Either you can or you can't.
It is as American as apple pie to challenge close election results and certainly is not a phenomenon confined to the blue side of the aisle. In fact, a fixed recount was the ONLY way W was able to slither into office in 2000 (can you say hanging chads?).
Are recounts only legitimate when they favor the GOP, as was the case of Saxby Chambliss in Georgia? Thank God we avoided one in Alaska. We could have ended up with a convicted felon being shunned in the Senate chambers and defeated GOP VP candidate/Gov Palin annointing, er I mean appointing herself as his successor. What a disaster that would have been.
In any case, recounts have their place. It does seem that Coleman's claim to victory may have been a tad premature, even though he did arrogantly concede that Franken did have the right to "purse official review." This was mighty big of him, considering it is mandated in Minnesota when the margins are less than 1%.
If you are defending Cornyn in his assertion that the process should "play it self out," why do you have such a problem seeing that happen in Minnesota? Could it have anything to do with the looming threat of supermajority? Suppose we just wait and see which way the ball bounces. If it doesn't happen to land in your court, better luck next time.
but they will also provide
energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil is such a big thing.....I would think that would be top priority, but it doesn't seem to be. I still say we look into solar, wind, biofuels, and go ahead and drill where we know we have oil. It is just stupid of us to continue giving money to people who hate us.
Would you please provide a link so we can see what it really says?
//
Can you provide support for this
All the research I have seen says that ectopic pregnancies cannot survive, that an embryo must be in the uterus to thrive. I would love to see some support/back up of this if you have any (I am honestly curious, not trying to be difficult!)
Thanks.
Just WHO do you think does provide jobs?
the middle class?
Can you provide a link to what you are saying? Thanks. nm
nm
I see sam has yet to provide us with evidence
are going to be given to people who are not paying tax. Show me what in his plan describes a refundable (AKA non-wastable) tax credit. So far, all I can see is that sam does not understand the basic concepts of socialism, Marxism, tax cuts and tax credits. Tax cuts are a reduction in taxes, based on lowering a tax rate. You cannot reduce a rate on tax in the absence of tax due. Tax credits for the most part are paid against TAXES DUE. The 2 exceptions in the US are the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit
So show me where Obama has said that his tax credit would be a refundable/non-wastable credit. Also, naturally, I am still waiting for sam's answer to my original question on how it is that progressive tax reform is only socialist when it is Obama reform but no other president who has reformed the tax structure is a socialist? Please answer that question and the one about the refundable tax credit. Direct answers would be very much appreciated.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the REAL content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's boring. It's a trick you probably learned from Obama, who figures most people won't even notice that he's changed the conversation.
We notice that you're changing the conversation, so you lose.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the actual content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's painfully transparent and truly boring.
I won't answer your absurd accusations again and return the other readers to the program previously in progress. You just carry on with yourself.
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.
Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):
Ayers
Wright
Dorhn
Michelle
Khalidi
The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=
I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).
Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
In an effort to provide some information sm
I was on vacation when the posts were made, but a friend of mine copied them and sent them to me. They were no exactly death threats, but under a post wishing President Bush Happy Birthday, there were two posts saying something to the effect that they hoped Bush died and burned in hell. Also, every single thing you accuse conservatives of in this long post, every SINGLE thing, has been committed on this board by liberals. You might also notice that most of the conservative posters have stopped coming over here, something the liberal posters have not been able to do, as their drive-by postings still appear sporadically and predictably.
Please provide factual evidence of this...
....but MUST be from a nonpartison source absolutely. Actually I thought it was just as much the case with the Republican party, but I freely admit that I have no concrete statistics at this point to back that up.
Please provide substantiation for your claim.
After all, you are not GW who can manipulate the truth as he pleases. But anyway, please provide the "burn in hell for eternity" quote that seems to appear over and over. I notice that this "quote" also changes slightly each time it is "quoted."
I will provide an answer to your question
I feel it is in poor taste to adopt the moniker of a liberal-leaning poster on a liberal board and then post anti-liberal messages. This is common sense and if you have to ask why it matters...well you are probably lacking common sense, as well as basic manners.
But thought I'd try explaining it anyway.
Signed,
?? (am changing to Teddy, a less ambiguous moniker)
Saddam Hussein would provide anyone...
with anything if he thought it would be used to help bring down the United States and would make a "deal with the devil" (Al Qaeda) in order to attack the US, and I think anyone who thought differently would be disingenuous to say the least. Mortal enemies are often joined together by their hatred of some other entity....in this case of the United States, and Americans.
As to the 18 generals lined up behind Obama...what about the hundreds not lined up with him?
We will definitely disagree on this one.
Have a good night.
can you provide me a source so I can hear it? x
x
Please provide details and link regarding the...sm
42 meth labs in Wasilla. I have not heard of this. Was it while SP was in office as mayor there, or what?
I truly want to know....thanks.
6 mil provide a bit more of an incentive to recant.
su
How did the McCain provide this info??...
xx
Interesting that you provide a link
directly addresses and refutes your allegations that Snopes is steeped in liberal bias.
Quote:
Is TruthorFiction.com a more reliable source?
TruthorFiction.com has condemned this anonymous attack against Snopes.com and lauded the website as an "excellent" and "authoritative" resource.
What's ironic about the claim that TruthorFiction.com is more reliable than Snopes is that when you compare the contents of the two, their findings rarely diverge in any substantive way (does that mean TruthorFiction.com is biased too?).
Where the sites do differ is in the depth and quality of their coverage. On Snopes.com the Mikkelsons go to great lengths to address the finer details of each text. They supply critical analysis, as well as background and contextual information. They cite sources.
Not to disparage TruthorFiction.com owner Rich Buhler -- who does maintain an up-to-date and generally trustworthy resource -- but by comparison his analyses tend to be perfunctory, and his sourcing minimal at best.
Snopes.com boasts a 12-year record of providing accurate, dependable information and analysis, and in that time has earned the confidence of the media, government agencies, the business community, and the general public alike.
Given all of the above, Snopes is surely the preferable resource.
You won'the provide links because you have none, and
FREEREPUBLIC???? Are you kidding me? They are known to be the whackiest of all the whackos. The majority of republicans even disown them, but that certainly explains a lot about your mentality.
Well a hand up will not provide the people of New Orleans with sm
what they need in this time of crisis.
What are you smokin'? Do you think these people don't need emergency money now, they have lost everything.
Good grief. There are mannnny Americans who still live paycheck to paycheck and if the little they have is wiped out, they have nowhere to go. But some people don't see it that way. I call them the I got mine generation.
I guess Harvard fails to provide that course, eh?
x
Then why didnt O just provide the REAL documents
nm
No bridger, you don't provide the links every time. That's
the point.
Mrs., if there ever was anyone posturing in a contest, you would definitely be the winner.
I don't intend to argue with you. I have cautioned you because you are putting this board and its owners at risk.
I don't click on links people provide because my
x
I worry every time I provide the government
Where will this end up? How long will it stay there? How will it be used? Do I trust the guy presently in office? Congress? Will I trust the next crop of office holders? There is a reason why people are going *off the grid*
Please provide verifiable quotes to back up your claim.
I am not right or left and think you are all pretty much full of it but I have to see allegations made without proof. I haven't seen the staunchest of Republicans doing anything of the sort. I really hate when people throw things out without any kind of fact behind it.
Do not cut and paste long text...provide links!
Sheesh!
Please provide a reference showing that you were the first to mention Alinsky?
As you can see by the post below, the first reference to Alinsky found on this forum was made by Jules on 09/02/2008 regarding Alinsky's son's letter to the Boston Globe. Could you please provide us with an earlier reference indicating that you were the first to have mentioned Alinksy?
You can't provide any examples of "gross inaccuracies in the article" because there aren
Why don't you prove me wrong? Is it because you CAN'T?
Provide a link to the document with that title. None of the official copies I've seen use the wor
nm
You cannot type it word for word, just provide a link.
.
I know most of it's for show
But how does she get on TV saying things like she did about Jewish people? How does she sleep at night after saying something like that? She just gets more and more outrageous just to get a reaction - and yeah sometimes it works because what she says is hateful. I have no problem with anyone giving their views, but she's hateful about it and that is what I have a problem with (and no, as I've said before I don't condone hateful things on either board)
goes to show
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Just goes to show you that you need to ...sm
have an inquiring mind and not take as gospel what is spoon fed to you by either party. I particularly like the "fact checks" on both party's candidates. The perception is that we American voters are fools and will believe anything we are told.
Show me a pic
I can't find a pic with a lump on his jaw.
show me
show me refusal to acknowedge - I haven't seen it.
Goes to show you - sm
McCain is concerned about the people. Obama is concerned about himself.
McCain was absolutely right on the spot when he said there needs to be an investigation, just as there was when 9-11 happened, we need one now for this crisis.
One more plus to show McCain is interested and will work for us, while Obama....well Obama is for Obama.
Once again....goes to show
how people who get their tail feathers all ruffled after someone personally attacks an Obama supporter on the board, but they have no problem calling McCain supporters names and personally attacking them by stating they lack intelligence.
Look in the mirror....your hypocracy is showing.
Don't believe it. Show me. nm
.
You show me anywhere where he said...
95% of American workers WHO PAY TAXES. SHOW me where it says that. But, supposing that is what he means...there are still that 30-40%. Those people pay taxes. Then they get deductions and credits. They get back every dime they paid in and THEN some. They are part of that 95% who "pay taxes." Got it? And about 30-40% of the working public fall into that category. so it is back to square one. Yes, they "pay taxes." Taxes are deducted. Then they file. They get the deductions and the credits and whatever (I am talking about NOW). They get back every dime they paid in. These people technically "pay taxes." If you work one day a year and have deductions, you "pay taxes" and will be included.
I understand that you don't see it. I understand that you are filling in the blanks that he left open. I don't see it the way you see it. He is counting on people seeing it the way you see it. So be it.
YOu can yell BOGUS until you are blue in the face. I will yell NAIVE just as loud.
"He is assuming it is understood." Well, he is hoping that everyone will understand it the way YOU understand it. I am not so enamored of him that I cannot read between the lines. And frankly, as BOGUS as my line of thinking appears to me, YOURS is naive at best. So we will agree to disagree. If he went on television and told you tomorrow that he was going to cut checks to people who don't pay taxes because it is the right thing to do, you would be on this board defending the decision tomorrow night.
|
