mccain's vp

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this is from yesterday, i googled 'barack obama bush tax'. this came up first on the list...an excerpt:

Obama has change of heart about Bush tax cuts as polls favor McCain

By Ross Balano, Midwest Voices Columnist 2008

Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama had a change of heart yesterday about one of his major campaign issues; the Bush Tax Cuts.

The Associated Press quotes Obama as now saying that “he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.”

Two things struck me about this comment.

First; he uses the term increase. This is the first time I’ve heard him admit that rescinding the Bush cuts would in reality be a tax increase.

Second; he admits that an increase would hurt the economy.

For about as long as he has been running for president, which seems like forever, Obama has been preaching the woes of the Bush Tax Cuts. For those of you in Alma, those are the tax cuts pushed through congress by President Bush that Obama and fellow Democrats claim were “tax breaks for the rich” and are “shrinking the middle class.” Repealing that work of the evil Bush administration was “job one.” So why the change of heart?

Perhaps you might want to find a new source for your "news" unless of course "midwest voices" is the new CNN and perhaps you might even want to post a link.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

[/b]

For some reason you have a hard time comprehending Obama's tax policy. I dont know if its out of stubborness or an illogical yearning to stay ignorant on the subject but for some reason you dont want to take the time to research and learn....but yet you still want to attempt to discuss it.

Who said it was cap gains alone? Who said he is "getting ideas from the very group he's trying to save us from"? These statements demonstrate a total lack of knowledge on the subject at hand.

www.factcheck.org

i just said that. he has said he won't roll back bushes tax cuts, and now you're comparing his cap gains percentage to reagan. those are republicans, aren't they?

i know he claims to want to lower middle class taxes, and raise it on the rich, but i also know he's waffling on that now, as i posted above.

but i'll keep in mind that you're saying he wants to raise taxes other than capital gains, that's good to know as well.

Scuds it sounds like you think Z and I are rolling in the bucks and defending the wealthy. You make the whole poor v. rich thing sound like it is so simple. Bill Clinton knocked more people off of welfare than any other president. He put them to work, essentially made them work with a swift kick in the behind from a Rep. congress.
I am one of the silly people that think working and working hard, is a very rewarding experience if you do what you like. Even if you dont make much money. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And we better wake up because the types of jobs that will be required to make enough money in this country to live in relative comfort require a brain that functions.

Sorry for the silly personal stuff that I wrote, but sometimes its required so you get an idea where a poster is coming from. Its embarassing but necessary.

[Mortimer]

Well I guess she hasn't.

She's busy arguing semantics with GenuineCrazyLady2: ElectricBoogaloo.

Hopefully there will be death threats.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i just said that. he has said he won't roll back bushes tax cuts, and now you're comparing his cap gains percentage to reagan. those are republicans, aren't they?

i know he claims to want to lower middle class taxes, and raise it on the rich, but i also know he's waffling on that now, as i posted above.

but i'll keep in mind that you're saying he wants to raise taxes other than capital gains, that's good to know as well.

LOL. What you posted was not a news article but rather EXCERPTS garnered from a RIGHT WING BLOG called midwestern voices. Yes, great source there. Millions world wide are reading "midwestern voices" as we speak. LOL.

Surely you can do better than this. Your information is completely inaccurate and your demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Hopefully there will be death threats.

No.
Please.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

She's busy arguing semantics with GenuineCrazyLady2: ElectricBoogaloo.

Hopefully there will be death threats.

Oh God...surely you are not calling what i said to you the other night a "death threat". MY God...you are a little baby.

Sorry i hurt your feelings coach poopy pants.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this is from yesterday, i googled 'barack obama bush tax'. this came up first on the list...an excerpt:

Obama has change of heart about Bush tax cuts as polls favor McCain

By Ross Balano, Midwest Voices Columnist 2008

Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama had a change of heart yesterday about one of his major campaign issues; the Bush Tax Cuts.

The Associated Press quotes Obama as now saying that “he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.”

Two things struck me about this comment.

First; he uses the term increase. This is the first time I’ve heard him admit that rescinding the Bush cuts would in reality be a tax increase.

Second; he admits that an increase would hurt the economy.

For about as long as he has been running for president, which seems like forever, Obama has been preaching the woes of the Bush Tax Cuts. For those of you in Alma, those are the tax cuts pushed through congress by President Bush that Obama and fellow Democrats claim were “tax breaks for the rich” and are “shrinking the middle class.” Repealing that work of the evil Bush administration was “job one.” So why the change of heart?

Probably because of people like yourself that keep putting the interests of the rich ahead of their own best interests. If you live an average lifespan, you'll do just fine getting your money back that you put into social security. They are never gunna touch that program, and it's for the reason you just stated: too many people have already paid into it for too many years to change their benefit levels. Anything they do will effect new payers of social security taxes. If the Dems ever let them change it, they will not let them give you less benefits than someone who is getting Social Security now. That's the Republicans that want to start shorting people on their future checks(after paying into it for many years already.) If you or Tony got sick,and couldn't work, then you would get social security now. You would get it now, and probably nobody else but that program would give a damn about your problems.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Perhaps you might want to find a new source for your "news" unless of course "midwest voices" is the new CNN and perhaps you might even want to post a link.

like i said, i googled and that was first on the list. i thought it was interesting.

and perhaps you can make the freaking rules on posting links when you start your own board, and perhaps you can be condescending to someone else-it doesn't further your arguments.
and perhaps you missed my post in another thread in which i stated i was proabably voting for obama, but i really don't care if you did or not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

LOL. What you posted was not a news article but rather EXCERPTS garnered from a RIGHT WING BLOG called midwestern voices. Yes, great source there. Millions world wide are reading "midwestern voices" as we speak. LOL.

Surely you can do better than this. Your information is completely inaccurate and your demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge.

speaking of lack of knowledge, it's you're. it's a contraction of you are.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Probably because of people like yourself that keep putting the interests of the rich ahead of their own best interests. If you live an average lifespan, you'll do just fine getting your money back that you put into social security. They are never gunna touch that program, and it's for the reason you just stated: too many people have already paid into it for too many years to change their benefit levels. Anything they do will effect new payers of social security taxes. If the Dems ever let them change it, they will not let them give you less benefits than someone who is getting Social Security now. That's the Republicans that want to start shorting people on their future checks(after paying into it for many years already.)

no, i think i put my best interests ahead of yours, or the rich folks. i work for my money, and i think i can do a better job of saving for retirement than the govt. unlike many, i look to myself to take care of me, not the govt, and not any social programs.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Dannie...haven't you had wet dreams about me in the day time?


I'd really like to know.

i got rained on all day if that counts.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i got rained on all day if that counts.

Stick save.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

speaking of lack of knowledge, it's you're. it's a contraction of you are.

LOL. If you think correcting a typographical error is going to make you seem any less informed....

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i got rained on all day if that counts.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

LOL. If you think correcting a typographical error is going to make you seem any less informed....

it's always been a pet peeve of mine when i see your in place of you're. i just think it's funny when someone wants to act as tho they are sooo intelligent, and then use your instead of you're...or exasperate in place of exacerbate. it makes me laugh.

[Danzig]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...hetaxrais.html


yeah, another blog, but maybe the latimes is a bit more respected? at any rate, apparently my husband and i are RICH. i'm thrilled.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...hetaxrais.html


yeah, another blog, but maybe the latimes is a bit more respected? at any rate, apparently my husband and i are RICH. i'm thrilled.

can I hold a dolla??

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's always been a pet peeve of mine when i see your in place of you're. i just think it's funny when someone wants to act as tho they are sooo intelligent, and then use your instead of you're...or exasperate in place of exacerbate. it makes me laugh.

I would have played it the same way if I was in the position you were. Lets (oh, ****, forgot the apostrophe) get away from the topic of not knowing what I am talking about and change the focus to a typo on an internet forum. Great.

I dug around and found your wonderful source of knowledge and enlightenment (did I spell that right?). In the future, you would be wise not to pass off a "column" as an "article". Surely that mistake is more egregious (sp?) than subsituting Your for You're (especially when i used your earlier in the same sentence).

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2015

In case anyone wanted the link to the "column". In case you didn't know, Danzig, a "column" is a reflection of the writer's opinion. A news article should just be fact.