The silence is pretty amazing.

• McCain wants to privatize SS in Wall St just like - Bush did.... can u imagine?
  • Actually, what I remember hearing about was ....sm - ms
    • You might want to Google "mccain privatize social security" - and take a look-see. nm
      • I did, and found what I remembered, that's why I posted the link. nm - ms
    • I'm with you on that one. - Zville MT
      • That might be nice, but don't look to - McCain for that. He's with Bush on this one.
        • What do you mean? I thought that was what Bush wanted to do. - Zville MT
          • Privatize SS, as in play the market with SS tax $. - Google McCain's privatize SS
  • And a hush came over the crowd. - The silence is deafening.
    • The silence is pretty amazing. - gourdpainter
  • I think privatizing SS is a dumb idea and - gourdpainter
    • Actually SS is in good shape compared to - the 401k that has tanked for many
    • You people never stop making fun of the right. The - left can never state opinions without being nasty.
      • It is you, not I who defines me as - gourdpainter
        • But why are you referring to....sm - ms
          • It's coming along great! - gourdpainter
            • That's pretty cool....sm - ms
    • I cannot imagine not knowing how many homes I have - McBush/Failin
      • I can't believe it either. s/m - gourdpainter

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

First reaction is if these issues, which have been posted on O's website ever since he launched his campaign, are of such sudden concern to the cons and femocons, why did they not get addressed during the RNC?  Do you not see the high-jack strategy as the cons try to talk out of both sides of their mouths and reinvent themselves as the new age liberals?  How is this different than the now exposed folly of the compassionate conservative Bush/Cheney ploy?   

Small business.  Either you can't read, you think that we can't or your spin cycle is stuck in high gear.  Go here:  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business.  Plans to give tax relief for small businesses and startups, eliminate capital gains taxes on them and provide a $500 new making work pay tax credit (one of many) for workers.  For all those IC MTs out there, this is aimed at reducing the burden of double taxation in the current structure where small businesses pay both employer AND employee side of payroll tax.  Obama will INVEST $250 million per year in support of entrepreneurship, by creating national network of public-private business incubators to facilitate start-up creation.  Your $250,000/yr figure applied to tax cuts on INDIVIDUALS who earn in excess of that amount.  Therefore, your offshore, job loss, and massive flight to lower income argument does not hold water on this point.  Please cite the right-wing rag you have taken this $6 billion dollar additional tax on small business claim.  I'm not finding that in O's plan.  The tax breaks to the "lower brackets" (losing their homes, can't decide whether to get medicine or food this month, and if they are lucky, can gas their tank once a month) is addressed below.    

On the plight of the struggling rich.  Define rich, please.  From the bottom, INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000/yr might look about right.  From the top, $5 million a year maybe (one of McC's not-so-funny jokes, some would wonder).  The 90% of the federal tax bill claim must be a typo.    Go here for 2008 info: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html. Our top 1% of filers pay 40% or tax burden.  An accurate argument would include these facts as well.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth.  In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.  Let's say that one more time.  Top 1% gets 38%, bottom 40% get less than 1%.  Since they are not earning a living wage, probably that is why they cannot afford to pay tax.  Got the picture?

There is only one reason our long suffering corporations are taking their business overseas.  Greed.  They do not want to pay their share and they get tax incentives currently for outsourcing.  Do not take us down the path of needing to address sweat shop working conditions, 7-day work weeks, $2/day wages in developing countries where US labor laws do not apply.  Greed is not a universal American value.    

There you go again.  Please try to keep this discussion in the context of McCain plans and how they are different than Bush plans.  You are spinning way out in right field without a paddle on that ridiculous statement about keeping people in lower brackets.  What in the world make you think this kind of ignorance is going to help JM/SP win the election. 

Preying on discontent, fear and division was a blatent and nauseating subtext for the RNC this entire week.  I do agree with inspecting history, and the history that is under the microscope now is Bush/Cheney and JM voting history.  Do you really want to bring up govt "borrowing."  Again, Bush is the record setter in this regard and while we are talkin' W, don't forget the Bush slash and burn policies toward our seniors.  Here's a link for you to a rather exhaustive analysis on 12 reason privatizing social security is a bad idea.  http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503.  You can get back to me on that one with your rebuttal.  My question would be putting WHICH people before WHICH party? 

Survey Americans on which party they associate election fraud with in the past, say, 30 years or so and tell me what you come up with.  So you forgot to mention what JM's plan is on this one.   Again, just saying no to personal attacks and steering you back on course.  JM's plan for lobbying and earmarks is what exactly.  I see O has one. 

JM hate war?  LMAO.  So what was all that military service orgie this week all about?   The entire McCain family for generations have shown to us just how much they hate war.  Where is his war prevention strategy?  Did I miss the part where he sang Give Peace a Chance?  Sam, really, do you care nothing about your own credibility or that of your candidates?  Am laughing too hard to comment further on this. 

Here's a link for you to serve as a primer on the Patriot Act controversy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy.  Will not address the attempts you are making to minimize the unconstitutional aspect of this legislation.  I would like an explanation as to how RNC protestors engaging in destruction of private property, vandalism, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and such have suddenly been charged with terrorism?  The we have not been attacked yet defense does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about standing legislation that violates the constitution 9 ways to Sunday.  Far mongering does not a justification make.  O's plan demonstrates ways to tackle terrorism that do not involve trashing the constitution. 

There are many issues swirling around the separation of church and state.  Christian theocracy will be kept in the marginal fringes where they belong.  Religious principles will not be incorporated into laws that seek to remove a woman's right to control her own body.  Freedom from religion is also at stake here as are hate crime definitions that provide protection for Moslems in the US.  That is the freedom the cons overlook every time. 

I didn't specify who I was talking about when I said there are some people on this board who distort the truth and make things up.  But the ones I see doing that the most are the ones who posted a reply to my observation and were on the defensive when the did. 

that a lot of our "laws" are laws that are also spoken of in the Bible?  Wonder if that is a coincidence?

I've heard that most prisoners "get religion" when the are incarcerated.  I have heard they embrace all kinds of religion including wiccianism (if that's a word).  I don't know if this is true or not but lacking anything better to do at the moment, I think I'll research it as it strikes my interest.

Who said anything about the US being the head of that one-world government?

I have no idea.  I didn't.  I said under the same rule -- not necessarily under US rule.

I don't believe that the US will even exist as we know it by the time the one-world government comes into effect, much less have any power in a one-world government.

One can only hope.

And it is not based on speculation. It is based on the book of Revelation.

Why is it that when someone on this board says anything about relgion having a negative impact on legislation you guys get all upset, but when we look at the future of our government it's supposed to based on a 2000-year-old ghost story?   Why don't we just start looking into crystal balls.

I think this lends a great deal of credance to the theory that this election was engineered from the get-go and Obama was manufactured for this from birth.  Probably the scariest thing is that over half the people in the US will never believe this, even with documentations staring them rignt in the face,  and will just holler "sore losers" even louder than before.

I found this post there interesting:  "Not directly related to the original subject of our thread but the Reverend Joseph Lowery is going to be giving the major benediction at the Obama inauguration. Although the NY Times and Washington Post will not mention it, Lowery was the recipient of a free trip to Lybia courtesy of Muamar Qadafi and Lowery took the trip at a time when Qadafi was openly calling for attacks on America. Lowery’s junket was courtesy of the Lybian dicator who ordered the bombing of a disco in West Germany where American GIs hung out. An African-American was murdered due to Qadafi’s terrorism. And Lowery did not make a peep of protest. I can’t help but wonder why the NY Times won’t touch the issue of Lowery getting a nice goodybag from Qadafi. And Lowery’s comments about Israel and essentially about American Jews are vile. He is like Reverend Wright, albeit with a braver personal life story. But Lowery needs to be exposed for what he is."  But of course,  he is ONLY giving the benediction, so no need for the rabid right to get all bent out of shape about it.  Still, the left hollers about Warren and his biblical stance against homosexual marriage, probably the only  truly biblical stance the man has, but it's a start.

I would say that America has made a huge, huge mistake, but I think Obama would have gotten in even if every voter had voted for Santa Claus on a write in.  We are in big trouble, folks. 

...Barney Frank, who helped orchestrate the whole Fannie/Freddie fiasco, and later denied there was any problem (saying the agencies were were doing a splendid job) is now denying any responsibility.  Now he's saying the republicans caused it because it exploded on Bush's watch.  And now Frank is screaming for government oversight of banks who made *risky loans*  which dem-sponsored policies forced them to make.  It is so machiavelian!  You have to give them points for turning this whole thing to their advantage.  Now under the guise of fixing Bush's mess, they can slip in the whole laundry list of social policy changes they've been panting after for decades.  I am in awe. 

I remember some talk before the elections that younger voters only get their "news" from Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show."  I never agreed with that assessment because in order to "get" Stewart's sometimes subtle comedy, one had to know the real story in advance.

This is the first time I recall watching the "Daily Show" where I didn't laugh very much.  It seems that this IS the one time that Stewart actually did report some pretty important news that no other "mainstream" media source was able to do.

To me, this was probably the most important news story to cover (or try to understand) what happened to the economy.

It's a shame that it took a comedy show to do it!

(The link to the Hannity & Colmes interview referred to is http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/FetzerHannityColmes200606222.wmv).  I would definitely recommend watching this. 

There are a lot of *coincidences* here, it would seem. 

Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when Hannity & Colmes (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen attack theme (they got their facts FOXED, as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question -- almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer.

Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?

While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Minetta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Minetta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.

Obviously, the producers of the Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over their airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.

Here's the Real Kicker... The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly exposed to the FOX faithful, Norman Minetta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Minetta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.

There has been barely a peep about Minetta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it (although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason). That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM elite.

A Final Thought I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Minetta's damning testimony just a few hours before Minetta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?

Click here to download the clip of the four-minute interview (in Windows Media Format). An AVI version is here.

[Note: James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.]
Source:  http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=284742411#Post294752412

what a gift to our country at this tumultous time.

You have made some very anti-semetic remarks about the Israeli's, and now you are being called on the carpet about it.  You've documented several times with your supporting remarks of the Muslim protestors in Washington (which I've failed to find any reference to besides your obscure article link) that you think Israel and the U.S. are mean murderous tyrannically-governed countries.  If you are going to take a side take a side, but your attempt to suddenly appear tolerant in the presence of a Jewish person is VERY disingenous, and I for one don't by it for a second.  Pick a side and stick to it.  If you don't support Israel then stand by your assertions.  If you do support Israel then you need to make yourself a little clearer, because all I see you doing is siding with Hezbollah.