Thinking Out Loud

[JohnDoe]

If I decide to vote for President and it were between Hillary Clinton or John McCain, I would choose Hillary Clinton. OF course that is no surprise to any of you because you know me as a Democrat/Moderate.

But THAT is NOT the reason that I might register to vote in Maine and vote for Hillary.

There are many reasons I would vote for Hillary.

-One, I think that we are in for some very, very rough times ahead, (a world of do do to be precise), with our economy and I think we need a President that will be very strong in this arena...(or have a husband that is strong in this arena and in this case only, I think the cliche of 'two heads are better than one' can apply :) )

I also do not want to see all the High up Financial positions within our gvt to go in to the hands of the same type people we have had in these positions for the last 7 years that HAVE PUT US IN THIS big, big, big mess that we are in...McCain would just bring the same ole, same ole when it comes to Financial Advisors as President Bush....and there is no way that ANY OF US should support THAT!!! We need fresh blood.

- I think that McCain is just too damn old and does not have the spunk or energy to deal with domestic issues....and will stick with what he feels comfortable with, War. Whereas Hillary would have the spunk and thinking out of the box ideas with the economy and domestic issues and also the smarts with the war not to just retreat ALL at once, but carefully, or as carefully as one can be...

-I think that Hillary has the fortitude and a desire to succeed....yes succeed as being a good president when all is said and done....even if you differ with certain political stances.

I feel this way because I see a 'fire' in her....and because I do not believe she will let the female gender down.... I think she takes being the first woman president pretty seriously and she knows the history books will be written in huge numbers regarding her performance in such a position....

jd

[krisy]

I don't know how McCain will do with domestic issues either,but I do think he will be strong in the war on terror and better than any other candidate at keeping our country safe.

I am hoping that McCain is telling the truth about keeping the tax cuts in place,and that I like as well. I heard a woman in the grocery complaining about the tax rebate she is about to get. She said that they are only giving us our own money back. She was very arrogant about it. I'm sitting there there thinking,"are you nuts?!!" Your getting your own money back!!! My family needs this $1800 that we are supposed to get big time. You won't see me pouting about that check. I think Hillary would raise taxes and just make everything a lot worse in the financial sense. I think we are overtaxed as it is.

I also think with the thinking in extremist groups about women,that she may get pushed around.

On top of all that, don't like her stance on abortion. That alone is enough to make me not vote for her.

[OCA]

I don't know how McCain will do with domestic issues either,but I do think he will be strong in the war on terror and better than any other candidate at keeping our country safe.

I am hoping that McCain is telling the truth about keeping the tax cuts in place,and that I like as well. I heard a woman in the grocery complaining about the tax rebate she is about to get. She said that they are only giving us our own money back. She was very arrogant about it. I'm sitting there there thinking,"are you nuts?!!" Your getting your own money back!!! My family needs this $1800 that we are supposed to get big time. You won't see me pouting about that check. I think Hillary would raise taxes and just make everything a lot worse in the financial sense. I think we are overtaxed as it is.

I also think with the thinking in extremist groups about women,that she may get pushed around.

On top of all that, don't like her stance on abortion. That alone is enough to make me not vote for her.

Bush cut taxes and we are in a mess so not sure on the reasoning behind the tax raise will make everything worse. My reason for supporting tax cuts has nothing to do with improving the economy..........its stealing, plain and simple, I earned it I keep it.

[hjmick]

That "fire" you see in Hillary? That's her insatiable appetite for power. That is what she desires most and that is what drives her. As for "thinking outside the box," she has been inside the box for too long to do anything exceptional because to do so would risk losing that power she craves so much. No, she is no different from any other politician.

[5stringJeff]

That "fire" you see in Hillary? That's her insatiable appetite for power. That is what she desires most and that is what drives her. As for "thinking outside the box," she has been inside the box for too long to do anything exceptional because to do so would risk losing that power she craves so much. No, she is no different from any other politician.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[jimnyc]

If I decide to vote for President and it were between Hillary Clinton or John McCain, I would choose Hillary Clinton. OF course that is no surprise to any of you because you know me as a Democrat/Moderate.

I think if your hubby was running for president as a republican you would still vote for Hillary. :coffee:


But THAT is NOT the reason that I might register to vote in Maine and vote for Hillary.

There are many reasons I would vote for Hillary.

This oughta be a good one! I can't think of a single reason that would make her a good president.


-One, I think that we are in for some very, very rough times ahead, (a world of do do to be precise), with our economy and I think we need a President that will be very strong in this arena...(or have a husband that is strong in this arena and in this case only, I think the cliche of 'two heads are better than one' can apply :) )

A president alone will not solve our financial woes. It'll take the entire country to fix our problem, and not by taking more taxes from those who earned it and giving it to the less deserving.


I also do not want to see all the High up Financial positions within our gvt to go in to the hands of the same type people we have had in these positions for the last 7 years that HAVE PUT US IN THIS big, big, big mess that we are in...McCain would just bring the same ole, same ole when it comes to Financial Advisors as President Bush....and there is no way that ANY OF US should support THAT!!! We need fresh blood.

You know what McCain would do financially, or who he would bring aboard? Link please...


- I think that McCain is just too damn old and does not have the spunk or energy to deal with domestic issues....and will stick with what he feels comfortable with, War. Whereas Hillary would have the spunk and thinking out of the box ideas with the economy and domestic issues and also the smarts with the war not to just retreat ALL at once, but carefully, or as carefully as one can be...

We don't need "spunk", we need solid decisions. You say Hillary has the spunk to think outside the box with the economy and domestic issues - can you please give me some examples of initiatives she has succeeded in during her career that backs this up? I can only speak for NY when I say she ain't done shit to help the economy here or domestic issues. Last I heard from her was a guarantee of thousands of jobs in Upsate NY only to lose thousands instead.


-I think that Hillary has the fortitude and a desire to succeed....yes succeed as being a good president when all is said and done....even if you differ with certain political stances.

I have an extremely strong desire to succeed in everything I do. Unfortunately, that doesn't equate to success. If it weren't for her hubby, Hillary would be an unknown defending corporate bigwigs right now.


I feel this way because I see a 'fire' in her....and because I do not believe she will let the female gender down.... I think she takes being the first woman president pretty seriously and she knows the history books will be written in huge numbers regarding her performance in such a position....

I prefer she look out for all Americans, not just women, not just Democrats, but ALL of us. I see no evidence of success or impartiality in her career or life, only someone willing to do whatever it takes to garner attention and power.

[Classact]

I think it would be kinda cool if the super delegates would choose Hillary and then if she was elected all of the Republicans would hate her along with most of the Democrats. Nothing would be accomplished and she would flop around like a fish out of water.

As a result of Obama being cheated out of the presidency most of the Democrats would not show up at the polls and as a result more Republicans would be elected in the House and Senate. Then in 2010 even more Republicans would be elected replacing Democrats... and finally perhaps the Republican Party could actually submit a Republican candidate that could win with a landslide that has conservative values.

[Mr. P]

Only two types of people will vote for Hillary:

1. Dumb

and

2. Dumber

[Monkeybone]

Only two types of people will vote for Hillary:

1. Dumb

and

2. Dumber

hey now, JD isn't dumb. she is just passionate and women power! RAGH! but she ain't dumb. and opionated(i hate spelling)? and sometimes that makes yah wanna see/think things that uh...yah..ain't true (?) or yah.

[PostmodernProphet]

One, I think that we are in for some very, very rough times ahead, (a world of do do to be precise), with our economy and I think we need a President that will be very strong in this arena...(or have a husband that is strong in this arena and in this case only, I think the cliche of 'two heads are better than one' can apply

so in essence, you want to vote for Hillary because you believe Bill would make a good president.......

[JohnDoe]

I think if your hubby was running for president as a republican you would still vote for Hillary. :coffee:

This oughta be a good one! I can't think of a single reason that would make her a good president.

There is no IF, my husband is a Republican and I would vote for him over Hillary.



A president alone will not solve our financial woes. It'll take the entire country to fix our problem, and not by taking more taxes from those who earned it and giving it to the less deserving.

I'm sorry the repubs messed things up so badly by spending like drunken sailors that WE ALL might have a tax hike in the future. We pay $300-$500 Billion dollars a year just in the Interest payment on the humongous debt Congress has acrued and added to the debt the past 7 years!

$500 billion in our budget going to nothing but interest payments for the debt.

This is extremely burdensome and not healthy for our country, especially when we have to start paying back what we used and borrowed from the Social Security surplus.

Yes, now is NOT a good time to raise taxes because of the recession, possible depression that we are headed for... but at some point, the debt must be addressed to help our country move forward without the 800 lb gorilla on our back.


You know what McCain would do financially, or who he would bring aboard? Link please...

I know that mccain said himself he doesn't know dodo regarding the economy, so he would rely on advisors...I seriously doubt that he would put in democratic advisors so to me that means he will put in MORE of what we just had...repubs, and honestly, repubs don't deserve to be given the second chance on this....they have screwed it up so badly with their over spending and policies that it would be wrong for me or anyone in my opinion to reward their behavior with another chance when it comes to fiscal responsibility and the American loyalty to a healthy dollar...which they have none!


We don't need "spunk", we need solid decisions. You say Hillary has the spunk to think outside the box with the economy and domestic issues - can you please give me some examples of initiatives she has succeeded in during her career that backs this up? I can only speak for NY when I say she ain't done shit to help the economy here or domestic issues. Last I heard from her was a guarantee of thousands of jobs in Upsate NY only to lose thousands instead.

Yes we do need solid decisions, and I trust her decision making ability moreso than McCains... I see her supporting what she and her party believes in but with McCain I see an undecivive old man without any SPUNK to conjure up.

I think Hillary's ideas on the FHA loans for the refi of the people in trouble that have a chance of making it is a good idea she supports and is outside of the LET'S BAIL the businesses out ONLY thinking that this administration seems to be set on....which mccain supports.


I have an extremely strong desire to succeed in everything I do. Unfortunately, that doesn't equate to success. If it weren't for her hubby, Hillary would be an unknown defending corporate bigwigs right now.

That simply can't be said Jim. YOU have no idea where Hillary would be in her life or with her own career if she had not married Bill.

You have no idea what Bill would have become if he had not been married to Hillary.

This is just something that can't be guessed, let alone known to anyone!


I prefer she look out for all Americans, not just women, not just Democrats, but ALL of us. I see no evidence of success or impartiality in her career or life, only someone willing to do whatever it takes to garner attention and power.


I am sorry if you took it that I meant that Hillary would look out for women.

THIS IS NOT what I was saying in that statement of mine and I did not mean to imply such.

What I said was that I think that Hillary will try her best to be a good President. I believe she is well aware of what is on her shoulders as being the first woman president of the United States if she becomes the President, and that she will be critiqued from here to high heaven by the press, by the country's men, by the country's women and by the world moreso than if old fogey mccain became president.

I think that she knows all of this and call it pride or call it vanity, I think that she will work very hard to be a good president, a better President than her husband even.... I am certain that she has the brains and the spunk and the "fire with desire" that is needed to succeed at this....she will give it her all to have those thousands of history books that are going to be writen, to be writen about her success at being the first woman president and not her failure as the first woman president.

This has nothing to do with her looking out for "women", I NEVER said that....it has to do with making us intelligent women out here proud...proud that she could hang with the boys, and do a good job for both men and women.

I will admit though, that whoever becomes president, there is going to be a very rocky road to traverse the next 4-8 years!


jd

[JohnDoe]

hey now, JD isn't dumb. she is just passionate and women power! RAGH! but she ain't dumb. and opionated(i hate spelling)? and sometimes that makes yah wanna see/think things that uh...yah..ain't true (?) or yah.



hahahahahaha! Damnit!!! I gotta spread some rep around! I can't even find a "kiss smilely" to throw at ya so you will have to accept this: :cheers2:

and thanks! :D

jd

[JohnDoe]

Only two types of people will vote for Hillary:

1. Dumb

and

2. Dumber

Well....I was born in the South....?:poke:

hahahahaha!

[JohnDoe]

That "fire" you see in Hillary? That's her insatiable appetite for power. That is what she desires most and that is what drives her. As for "thinking outside the box," she has been inside the box for too long to do anything exceptional because to do so would risk losing that power she craves so much. No, she is no different from any other politician.

I can't say I can disagree about the power thing....I think this is the case with most any politician though so nothing knew to her, just knew maybe for us to see this in a woman verses a man maybe?

I think that you MAY :) also be right when it comes her being inside of the box too long, HOWEVER I do believe that she has a better chance of breaking out of that box and in venturing outside of that box than McCain... mccain doesn't have the energy or the real desire to be president, I just don't see it? Hillary on the other hand, KNOWS she has alot at stake and her ego will not let her fail... I have seen this before in some successful women that i have worked with over the years.... she's got it.

I am not saying that she will not do things that WE ALL don't agree with...I don't agree with quite a few of her positions, it does not mean that she is wrong and I am right though, or it does not mean that her position does not have validity also.

I am just saying, i do not think that she will take the presidency lightly.

I do not think she will go home at 5pm in the afternoon every day and I do not think she will take a month off each year to spend at her "ranch" or abode. I think she will work her socks off...

jd

[JohnDoe]

It is looking like Obama will be the candidate, so I don't know why I am even thinking about this out loud....?

[JohnDoe]

I think it would be kinda cool if the super delegates would choose Hillary and then if she was elected all of the Republicans would hate her along with most of the Democrats. Nothing would be accomplished and she would flop around like a fish out of water.

As a result of Obama being cheated out of the presidency most of the Democrats would not show up at the polls and as a result more Republicans would be elected in the House and Senate. Then in 2010 even more Republicans would be elected replacing Democrats... and finally perhaps the Republican Party could actually submit a Republican candidate that could win with a landslide that has conservative values.

Hey Classy!

That certainly is a possibility....the dems are definately divided at this point, but somehow, I think they will be united in the end... I already heard Hillary speaking with her supporters that if she does not win they will be behind Obama.... so we will see.

Right now though....it seems like a volcano is going to erupt like mt st helens and we don't know which side of the mountain is going to collapse and fall, and slide off...

[JohnDoe]

so in essence, you want to vote for Hillary because you believe Bill would make a good president.......Nooo, I think that Bill could be a good economic/financial advisor.

jd

[hjmick]

...I do not think she will take a month off each year to spend at her "ranch" or abode.

This is an accusation that I have always found amusing. The President is taking a month off and spending it at his ranch. It is laughable. The obvious implication in the statement is that the President is not working. He's not doing his "presidential stuff." It's as if people who make this statement believe that, for the time spent away from the White House, the President, any president, is doing nothing. He's reading, visiting water parks, catching up on episodes of Dexter or his favorite cartoon. They seem to think that a president's vacation is much like one they take. No work, lounging on a beach, reading the latest from John Grisham. It's not as if we get a substitute President when the serving one goes on "vacation."

Do people who make the statement, "Ooh, well, he's going on vacation to his ranch for a month" honestly believe a president drops all business for thirty days? If they do, I'd say that they are seriously mistaken. I guarantee you that he still gets every daily briefing he gets when he's in D.C. I guarantee you that he still makes decisions, still makes phone calls, still does the business of the President when he is on "vacation for a month at the ranch."

I think it is somewhat telling how the issue of Bush's vacations are treated as compared to other presidents. He is the first president I can remember being derided for doing what every president before him has done. Some have taken more time, some have taken less. Carter took the least amount of time, 79 days during his four year term while Reagan took 335 during his eight years. I don't recall either of them ever being hassled for their time off. Hell, the press even referred to the ranch in Santa Barbara, where Reagan spent most of his 335 days, as The Western White House.

No, a president is never on "vacation" as the average citizen knows it, but it sure is fun to throw the term around in an attempt to make Bush look the fool.

[Mr. P]

Well....I was born in the South....?:poke:

hahahahaha!

OH, OK...geeezzz

[JohnDoe]

I don't know how McCain will do with domestic issues either,but I do think he will be strong in the war on terror and better than any other candidate at keeping our country safe.

I don't see it that way....I think he may be strong on keeping the things just the way they are now, in Iraq....

I think that any president we have, will have keeping us safe, very high on their agendas!

I am hoping that McCain is telling the truth about keeping the tax cuts in place,and that I like as well. I heard a woman in the grocery complaining about the tax rebate she is about to get. She said that they are only giving us our own money back. She was very arrogant about it. I'm sitting there there thinking,"are you nuts?!!" Your getting your own money back!!! My family needs this $1800 that we are supposed to get big time. You won't see me pouting about that check. I think Hillary would raise taxes and just make everything a lot worse in the financial sense. I think we are overtaxed as it is.

We are over taxed, and we will be taxed even more so because of the 5 trillion dollars this administration with the help of the republican congress, will have borrowed mostly from foreigners, has added to our nation's debt.

No one WANTS to pay more in taxes...but when you give tax breaks and do not cut the spending at the same time, you put our country in DEBT, BIGTIME DEBT of which we are paying $300-500 billion dollars a year, solely on the interest payment for that debt....about 20% of the income taxes collected from us is going to pay that debt alone....that's alot of money that won't be going towards things that we need to pay...like medicare and the military without having to continue to borrow... like I said we are in a mess, and it wasn't the democrats that caused it.

If we had good times ahead of us, we could have had a chance to at least bring in more revenues to pay down the debt, but that is not the case....it's looking like a period where we will be pulling in less tax revenues because of the recession.... thus the even bumpier road....

I also think with the thinking in extremist groups about women,that she may get pushed around.

Not for one second do i think that Hillary will be pushed around by women's groups! She's more one of the boys....imo.

On top of all that, don't like her stance on abortion. That alone is enough to make me not vote for her.

What is her stance on abortion? She does not believe in abortion personally and would never abort a child of her own.... and she believes that abortion should be legal, but rare.

I don't see Hillary a pro choice nut when it comes to this area...

I am a prolifer but what I and some other prolifers that I am friends with have come to the conclusion of is this that it does not matter who, a republican or dem in the whitehouse, abortion will never become illegal in the USA. No prolife president will be able to change a thing....

Even if the SC reverses roe v wade which is nearly impossible for them to do at this point with all of the precedent that has follwed the ruling...but let's say the SC could reverse it, it goes back to the states and more than half of all of our states had abortion as a legal procedure before roe v wade, and the rest of them had it legal in rape cases and emergencies, and incest...

so, maybe one or two states may be able to ban abortion, but it won't reduce one single abortion in this country, because the girls from the state that would have it illegal could go to the state that had it legal...

sooooo much money and time is being wasted on this divisive issue that it reaches the point of almost being immoral imo. When that time could be spent on educating parents on how to educate their girls on how not to get pregnant and money spent on programs giving women better choices like adoption.... :(

Abortion is used as a wedge and posturing by politicians and they really could give two dodos about the issue and what can be done to reduce the number of abortions occuring NOW.

jd

[Mr. P]

This is an accusation that I have always found amusing. The President is taking a month off and spending it at his ranch. It is laughable. The obvious implication in the statement is that the President is not working. He's not doing his "presidential stuff." It's as if people who make this statement believe that, for the time spent away from the White House, the President, any president, is doing nothing. He's reading, visiting water parks, catching up on episodes of Dexter or his favorite cartoon. They seem to think that a president's vacation is much like one they take. No work, lounging on a beach, reading the latest from John Grisham. It's not as if we get a substitute President when the serving one goes on "vacation."

Do people who make the statement, "Ooh, well, he's going on vacation to his ranch for a month" honestly believe a president drops all business for thirty days? If they do, I'd say that they are seriously mistaken. I guarantee you that he still gets every daily briefing he gets when he's in D.C. I guarantee you that he still makes decisions, still makes phone calls, still does the business of the President when he is on "vacation for a month at the ranch."

I think it is somewhat telling how the issue of Bush's vacations are treated as compared to other presidents. He is the first president I can remember being derided for doing what every president before him has done. Some have taken more time, some have taken less. Carter took the least amount of time, 79 days during his four year term while Reagan took 335 during his eight years. I don't recall either of them ever being hassled for their time off. Hell, the press even referred to the ranch in Santa Barbara, where Reagan spent most of his 335 days, as The Western White House.

No, a president is never on "vacation" as the average citizen knows it, but it sure is fun to throw the term around in an attempt to make Bush look the fool.

100% correct!

I spent 1 week on the Johnson ranch and the only thing that couldn't be done was to drive over to the capital in a few minutes.

[JohnDoe]

This is an accusation that I have always found amusing. The President is taking a month off and spending it at his ranch. It is laughable. The obvious implication in the statement is that the President is not working. He's not doing his "presidential stuff." It's as if people who make this statement believe that, for the time spent away from the White House, the President, any president, is doing nothing. He's reading, visiting water parks, catching up on episodes of Dexter or his favorite cartoon. They seem to think that a president's vacation is much like one they take. No work, lounging on a beach, reading the latest from John Grisham. It's not as if we get a substitute President when the serving one goes on "vacation."

Do people who make the statement, "Ooh, well, he's going on vacation to his ranch for a month" honestly believe a president drops all business for thirty days? If they do, I'd say that they are seriously mistaken. I guarantee you that he still gets every daily briefing he gets when he's in D.C. I guarantee you that he still makes decisions, still makes phone calls, still does the business of the President when he is on "vacation for a month at the ranch."

I think it is somewhat telling how the issue of Bush's vacations are treated as compared to other presidents. He is the first president I can remember being derided for doing what every president before him has done. Some have taken more time, some have taken less. Carter took the least amount of time, 79 days during his four year term while Reagan took 335 during his eight years. I don't recall either of them ever being hassled for their time off. Hell, the press even referred to the ranch in Santa Barbara, where Reagan spent most of his 335 days, as The Western White House.

No, a president is never on "vacation" as the average citizen knows it, but it sure is fun to throw the term around in an attempt to make Bush look the fool.

Here's my answer for ya hj....I don't know what other Dems are saying about it and don't care what they think about it, but here is what I think about it and it is very simple...

We were attacked on our own soil by a foreign enemy on September 11, 2001 and this had not happened since Pearl Harbor.

3000 plus innocent Americans were killed under this Presidency, President Bush's watch...

Taking very long vacations during Wartime or after a major tragedy where thousands of Americans have been killed, is not appropriate by any President.

[JohnDoe]

I can't say I can disagree about the power thing....I think this is the case with most any politician though so nothing knew NEW to her, just knew NEW maybe for us to see this in a woman verses a man maybe?

I think that you MAY :) also be right when it comes her being inside of the box too long, HOWEVER I do believe that she has a better chance of breaking out of that box and in venturing outside of that box than McCain... mccain doesn't have the energy or the real desire to be president, I just don't see it? Hillary on the other hand, KNOWS she has alot at stake and her ego will not let her fail... I have seen this before in some successful women that i have worked with over the years.... she's got it.

I am not saying that she will not do things that WE ALL don't agree with...I don't agree with quite a few of her positions, it does not mean that she is wrong and I am right though, or it does not mean that her position does not have validity also.

I am just saying, i do not think that she will take the presidency lightly.

I do not think she will go home at 5pm in the afternoon every day and I do not think she will take a month off each year to spend at her "ranch" or abode. I think she will work her socks off...

jd

damn misspellings...my knew should have been new in my first paragraph... and i can't stand that we can't edit after a certain period, the timeclock on the edit time could run out just with hitting refresh on my dial up connection.... :(

[JohnDoe]

Here's my answer for ya hj....I don't know what other Dems are saying about it and don't care what they think about it, but here is what I think about it and it is very simple...

We were attacked on our own soil by a foreign enemy on September 11, 2001 and this had not happened since Pearl Harbor.

3000 plus innocent Americans were killed under this Presidency, President Bush's watch...

Taking very long vacations during Wartime or after a major tragedy where thousands of Americans have been killed, is not appropriate by any President.


hj let me add to this that it is not a huge thing for me....the vacation thing with president bush.... it is just one of many things, and certainly not one of the more important things....i probably shouldn't have mentioned it...but I actually am saying some things in this whole thread that are said to egg some conversation on...or debate on.... I am bored, what can I say? :dunno:

jd

[Sitarro]

I would expect extended vacations to Africa, his homeland, from Obamaboy and extended stays in Moscow, the land she adores, for the Hillary.

[hjmick]

We were attacked on our own soil by a foreign enemy on September 11, 2001 and this had not happened since Pearl Harbor.

3000 plus innocent Americans were killed under this Presidency, President Bush's watch...

And I believe it would have happened no matter who was sitting in the White House. The fact that it was Bush is meaningless.


Taking very long vacations during Wartime or after a major tragedy where thousands of Americans have been killed, is not appropriate by any President.

Believe me when I tell you that I am not overly thrilled with the way Bush's tenure in office has turned out, I had hoped for more and I am disappointed with what we got. That being said, considering the fact that we live in an age of instant communication, the notion that the President might leave the White House during a crisis is not a problem as far as I can tell.


hj let me add to this that it is not a huge thing for me....the vacation thing with president bush.... it is just one of many things, and certainly not one of the more important things....i probably shouldn't have mentioned it...but I actually am saying some things in this whole thread that are said to egg some conversation on...or debate on.... I am bored, what can I say? :dunno:

That's what the board is for, to stimulate discussion.

[JohnDoe]

And I believe it would have happened no matter who was sitting in the White House. The fact that it was Bush is meaningless.
It is not meaningless, it is History! :)



Believe me when I tell you that I am not overly thrilled with the way Bush's tenure in office has turned out, I had hoped for more and I am disappointed with what we got. That being said, considering the fact that we live in an age of instant communication, the notion that the President might leave the White House during a crisis is not a problem as far as I can tell.

Well, I'll be darn! hahahaha! Men are from mars and women are from Venus has more validity to it than people give credit! :)

I say this because I did not even think about the capability to stay in touch, in this day of technology as a reason for it all being okay, or not okay if it wasn't there.

I took the "girl or woman" route and was looking at it from the shoes of the mother of a killed soldier, or the wife of a killed soldier, or the daughter of a killed soldier...how President Bush, taking a long extended vacation on his ranch, playing "Will Rogers" with the permanent on site, photo op press, while I was mournig the death of my relative who sacraficed their life for us angle! :D

In this manner, with our men and women at war and with the mourning relatives of the 911 victims, the President taking extended vacations, still seems inappropriate to me...

I asked Matt and he said, ''in this day and age the president can be anywhere and still do his duties....'', the vacations were fine. so he agrees with you.

Seeeeeeeeeee, it's a girl thing I guess? Or baggage that i still carry from when my father was in vietnam...

Regardless, I think you guys are wrong and it does and did look bad, and was inappropriate for president bush to take extended, month or longer vacations, while we are at war and right after we were attacked, while the country was still in mourning!






That's what the board is for, to stimulate discussion.

yes, that's why I am here! :D

jd

[Gaffer]

well JD, when the president takes a "vacation" its a vacation only in the presses view. His "vacation" is nothing more than a change of scenery. He is not out of touch with anyone even while traveling. It's a 24 hour job and there are no vacations.

Bush was in office for nine months on 9/11. He was just getting things rolling. The government takes about two years for anything implemented by a president to really start taking effect. The 9/11 attack had been planned years before it happened. Along with many other attacks. Most of them under clintons watch. billory, the two headed serpent, better be careful what she says about her experience in the white house.

[Abbey Marie]

What is her stance on abortion? She does not believe in abortion personally and would never abort a child of her own.... and she believes that abortion should be legal, but rare.

I don't see Hillary a pro choice nut when it comes to this area...

I am a prolifer but what I and some other prolifers that I am friends with have come to the conclusion of is this that it does not matter who, a republican or dem in the whitehouse, abortion will never become illegal in the USA. No prolife president will be able to change a thing....

Even if the SC reverses roe v wade which is nearly impossible for them to do at this point with all of the precedent that has follwed the ruling...but let's say the SC could reverse it, it goes back to the states and more than half of all of our states had abortion as a legal procedure before roe v wade, and the rest of them had it legal in rape cases and emergencies, and incest...

so, maybe one or two states may be able to ban abortion, but it won't reduce one single abortion in this country, because the girls from the state that would have it illegal could go to the state that had it legal...

sooooo much money and time is being wasted on this divisive issue that it reaches the point of almost being immoral imo. When that time could be spent on educating parents on how to educate their girls on how not to get pregnant and money spent on programs giving women better choices like adoption.... :(

Abortion is used as a wedge and posturing by politicians and they really could give two dodos about the issue and what can be done to reduce the number of abortions occuring NOW.

jd

It's public knowledge that Hillary is a supporter of partial birth abortion. That is the definition of an abortion "nut", as you put it. Her claimed refusal to get one herself, means nothing if she supports keeping such an abomination legal.

I'm pretty sure Obama supports it as well.

[Lizabeth]

She only wants back in the Whitehouse because she needs more furniture and paintings.

Power hungry doesn't come close to describing her. We are all screwed if she gets in...think expenses are high now, wait till the bottom line cost comes in on her healthcare plan that all of us employed people will have to pay for.

[DragonStryk72]

If it's between Hilary or McCain, I vote Wayne Root (write-ins are wonderful)

[JohnDoe]

It's public knowledge that Hillary is a supporter of partial birth abortion. That is the definition of an abortion "nut", as you put it. Her claimed refusal to get one herself, means nothing if she supports keeping such an abomination legal.

I'm pretty sure Obama supports it as well.
Abbey, for a very small part of the public, it might be public knowledge of what you say about her....;)

She is not a supporter of partial birth abortion, and has taken the stance for nearly a decade or longer that she believes it should be banned in all cases except for the health of the mother.

As example, there is this condition that causes a fetus's head to swell to double or triple or more in size than a normal fetus, under these conditions the mother to be has to abort the child and the partial birth abortion procedure is the best procedure for the mother to be able to have her child delivered intact..., where the parents can have a service and bury their child in ONE piece.... with a full body.

Verses the other abortion procedure which is still LEGAL for late term pregnancies and was NOT banned by congress or the supreme court, which cuts and tears the child in to pieces inside the mother's womb.... :(

It is MORE humane to allow this mother to be, to have the partial birth abortion procedure, where they can reduce the head and swelling in the baby's head before they extract the child from her uterus...the oversized head would be too big to deliver normally or without this procedure.

I can give you link after link and article after article on her stance against partial birth abortion, with the exception of the health of the mother...then the mother should have the choice.

and yes she voted against the bill because the republicans did not give an exception for the health of the mother.

I don't take these purely political manipulation of bills and how one voted on them, as the 'say all, be all....' you really can't in this day and age as divisive as it has become on each side of the aisle with the Cons trying to one up the Dems with tricky legislation or the Dems trying to one up the Cons, on this Bill or that bill...the fine details do matter, just to figure out what REALLY is going on...imo!!!

and obama, i am uncertain of his stance on pba....but i am going to look in to it to see where he has publically been the past decade...

jd

[red states rule]

Well, iyt looks like the only way you will get to vote for Hillary is if she steals the nomination from Obama

I hope that is what happens. I am looking forward to the Dems convention in Denver turing into a full scale war

There are really no big differences between Hillary and Obama. Both are tax and spend liberals who see the Federal government as the answer to all problems

Both will surrender and appease the terrorists

Both, with a lib Congress, will take us back to the glory days of Peanut Carter both on the home front and overseas

[red states rule]

Hillary does have the lead in one poll JD

She leads in the unfavorable rating


snip

The Gallup Poll recently asked voters the favorable/unfavorable rating question, and the results show once again that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is far and away the most unlikeable in the bunch. In answer to the question, "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?" 53 percent said favorable and 44 percent said unfavorable. Her unfavorability rating has been as high as 50 percent in a number of other polls over this two-year period, but rarely lower than the mid-to-high 40s. Among all of the major candidates in her party, she has consistently been the least likeable — usually by a wide margin.

Campaign strategists tell me that Mrs. Clinton's high index of unfavorability is driven by voters who think she takes positions based solely on political calculations. Voters sense that, all too often, she sounds evasive in her answers, untrustworthy and dishonest in her statements of principle.

That perception hardened this month when her claim that she ran for cover avoiding snipers during a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia, as first lady turned up entirely bogus. Cable news shows last week repeatedly aired videos of Mrs. Clinton telling the big whopper, followed by archival film showing her calmly walking off the plane, being greeted by dignitaries, and sauntering to her car.

Contrary to the claim that her plane had to make a "corkscrew" landing to avoid incoming fire, her pilot, retired Air Force Col. William Changose, recalled in a radio interview that there was no "evasive" maneuver as Mrs. Clinton described it. "Not only were there no bullets flying around, there wasn't a bumblebee flying around," he said.

On the other hand, Sen. Barack Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has consistently drawn high favorables and low unfavorables. Even people who say they will vote for someone else like him. Sixty two percent gave him a favorable rating and only 33 percent were unfavorable, Gallup said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080331/COMMENTARY05/258716455/1012/COMMENTARY

[JohnDoe]

Well, iyt looks like the only way you will get to vote for Hillary is if she steals the nomination from Obama

I hope that is what happens. I am looking forward to the Dems convention in Denver turing into a full scale war

There are really no big differences between Hillary and Obama. Both are tax and spend liberals who see the Federal government as the answer to all problems

Both will surrender and appease the terrorists

Both, with a lib Congress, will take us back to the glory days of Peanut Carter both on the home front and overseas


I haven't even registered to vote in Maine yet....

This was a IF it is hillary against McCain and IF I did decide to vote, I think I would vote for HIllary over Mccain...and gave my reasons... I was looking for feedback! :) (hahahaha anddd got it!)

And I also wanted to see how many republicans that were against McCain would come in to this thread and support MCCain once Hillary's name was mentioned! :D

Looks like it will be obama anyway, as i mentioned earlier in the thread....

jd

[red states rule]

I haven't even registered to vote in Maine yet....

This was a IF it is hillary against McCain and IF I did decide to vote, I think I would vote for HIllary over Mccain...and gave my reasons... I was looking for feedback! :) (hahahaha anddd got it!)

And I also wanted to see how many republicans that were against McCain would come in to this thread and support MCCain once Hillary's name was mentioned! :D

Looks like it will be obama anyway, as i mentioned earlier in the thread....

jd

JD, I want Hillary to steal the nomination

I wish I could sit down with you (I would bring some pizza, chicken wings, and some drinks) and watch the convention as all hell breaks loose

It will make great TV

But Hillary, like Obama, is another tax and spend liberal, She wants bigger govenment and higher taxes. If you think you are over taxed now, why the hell would you vote for her or Obama?

[Dilloduck]

I haven't even registered to vote in Maine yet....

This was a IF it is hillary against McCain and IF I did decide to vote, I think I would vote for HIllary over Mccain...and gave my reasons... I was looking for feedback! :) (hahahaha anddd got it!)

And I also wanted to see how many republicans that were against McCain would come in to this thread and support MCCain once Hillary's name was mentioned! :D

Looks like it will be obama anyway, as i mentioned earlier in the thread....

jd

I feel so---used !!!! :poke::laugh2:

[red states rule]

I feel so---used !!!! :poke::laugh2:

I do hope Obama supporters feel the same way at the convention

[JohnDoe]

JD, I want Hillary to steal the nomination

I wish I could sit down with you (I would bring some pizza, chicken wings, and some drinks) and watch the convention as all hell breaks loose

It will make great TV

But Hillary, like Obama, is another tax and spend liberal, She wants bigger govenment and higher taxes. If you think you are over taxed now, why the hell would you vote for her or Obama?


If Hillary wins the nomination, it won't be stolen.

It will be within the rules of the DNC....the super delegates are NOT there to just reaffirm what the delegates have done.....IF this were the case, there would be no need for superdelegates at all....(which is my prefference BUT the rules would need to be changed to take the superdelegates out of the picture BEFORE the game begins, this game as begun and the rules should be followed as they were when the game started imo)


jd

[retiredman]

I agree with you JD...and believe that the democrats will come together in November behind either one of the candidates. There is too much at stake not to. We cannot afford to spend another four years on this failed path.

[Dilloduck]

I agree with you JD...and believe that the democrats will come together in November behind either one of the candidates. There is too much at stake not to. We cannot afford to spend another four years on this failed path.

Which failed path do you think would be better ? Raising taxes ?

[JohnDoe]

Which failed path do you think would be better ? Raising taxes ?
Nooooooooo, we wanna do just like your team, the republicans...Spend spend spend and then overspend, overspend and overspend...

That has served us so well!

:laugh2:

jd

[Dilloduck]

Nooooooooo, we wanna do just like your team, the republicans...Spend spend spend and then overspend, overspend and overspend...

That has served us so well!

:laugh2:

jd

My team . :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

My team . :laugh2:


ya like that one huh?

:laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

ya like that one huh?

:laugh2:

None of em can play on my team--they're are assholes. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Which failed path do you think would be better ? Raising taxes ?

I think that democrats can get us on a path that will not lead us to failure....

but clearly, time will tell.

[Dilloduck]

I think that democrats can get us on a path that will not lead us to failure....

but clearly, time will tell.

How do you define failure ?

[retiredman]

How do you define failure ?

many ways... an economy getting ready to swirl down the drain, a senseless counterproductive war in Iraq, our real enemies as strong or stronger than they were five years ago, our reputation in the world tattered.... those are a few of the indicators of failure.

How do YOU define failure?

[Dilloduck]

many ways... an economy getting ready to swirl down the drain, a senseless counterproductive war in Iraq, our real enemies as strong or stronger than they were five years ago, our reputation in the world tattered.... those are a few of the indicators of failure.

How do YOU define failure?

I'm not even sure what the long term goals of America are so failure is pretty vague.

[retiredman]

I'm not even sure what the long term goals of America are so failure is pretty vague.


what do YOU think the long term goals of America ought to be?

[JohnDoe]

I'm not even sure what the long term goals of America are so failure is pretty vague.
It used to be maintaining a strong middle class, and maintaining a strong Dollar, and maintain Peace....so we all could have the opportunity to pursue happiness!

:D

jd

[Dilloduck]

It used to be maintaining a strong middle class, and maintaining a strong Dollar, and maintain Peace....so we all could have the opportunity to pursue happiness!

:D

jd


no wonder we're failing--America's goal is to be happy?

[JohnDoe]

no wonder we're failing--America's goal is to be happy?
yep.

to live in a safe, peaceful society, have the ability to achieve the american middle class dream...own a home, make a living by working, good health or means to take care of it, good education for your kids, wanting them to have it better than you had....

also a simple belief in Human dignity.... for all....

I knowwwwwww, a UTOPIA, a dream.....


jd

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey, for a very small part of the public, it might be public knowledge of what you say about her....;)

She is not a supporter of partial birth abortion, and has taken the stance for nearly a decade or longer that she believes it should be banned in all cases except for the health of the mother.

As example, there is this condition that causes a fetus's head to swell to double or triple or more in size than a normal fetus, under these conditions the mother to be has to abort the child and the partial birth abortion procedure is the best procedure for the mother to be able to have her child delivered intact..., where the parents can have a service and bury their child in ONE piece.... with a full body.

Verses the other abortion procedure which is still LEGAL for late term pregnancies and was NOT banned by congress or the supreme court, which cuts and tears the child in to pieces inside the mother's womb.... :(

It is MORE humane to allow this mother to be, to have the partial birth abortion procedure, where they can reduce the head and swelling in the baby's head before they extract the child from her uterus...the oversized head would be too big to deliver normally or without this procedure.

I can give you link after link and article after article on her stance against partial birth abortion, with the exception of the health of the mother...then the mother should have the choice.

and yes she voted against the bill because the republicans did not give an exception for the health of the mother.

I don't take these purely political manipulation of bills and how one voted on them, as the 'say all, be all....' you really can't in this day and age as divisive as it has become on each side of the aisle with the Cons trying to one up the Dems with tricky legislation or the Dems trying to one up the Cons, on this Bill or that bill...the fine details do matter, just to figure out what REALLY is going on...imo!!!

and obama, i am uncertain of his stance on pba....but i am going to look in to it to see where he has publically been the past decade...

jd


Here are the details: Hilary voted no on the partial birth abortion ban, even though there was an exception for the life of the mother. "Health" is a very broad term, and can be used to allow abortions in many, many, cases, including mental health. You might as well not ban it at all if you allow such an indefinable term as "health" to govern exceptions, and I'll bet Hillary knows that.


[Hillary Clinton]Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003



The simple fact is, it can be parsed all day, but we can be assured that given Hillary's voting record, if she is elected, partial birth abortion will be alive and well (unlike the fully-formed baby being killed). And with her ability to appoint flamingly liberal judges to the courts, for decades to come as well. Shame!


As for the oversized heads you mentioned, if it is life-threatening, the bill would have allowed it. And that is why God created c-sections.

[red states rule]

I think that democrats can get us on a path that will not lead us to failure....

but clearly, time will tell.

All Dems care about is living up to their reputation as tax and spend liberals

You guys claim we our economy is going down the drain - yet you want to jack up taxes by over $2 trillion

Now, anyne who makes over $31,000/yr will be screwed by the Dems with higher taxes

Meanwhile, Dems want to increase spending by over $800 billion

TAx and spend is not the way to go

[Dilloduck]

yep.

to live in a safe, peaceful society, have the ability to achieve the american middle class dream...own a home, make a living by working, good health or means to take care of it, good education for your kids, wanting them to have it better than you had....

also a simple belief in Human dignity.... for all....

I knowwwwwww, a UTOPIA, a dream.....


jd

MAKE A LIVING BY WORKING ?????? where in the hell does it say that in the Constitution ??? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

All Dems care about is living up to their reputation as tax and spend liberals

You guys claim we our economy is going down the drain - yet you want to jack up taxes by over $2 trillion

Now, anyne who makes over $31,000/yr will be screwed by the Dems with higher taxes

Meanwhile, Dems want to increase spending by over $800 billion

TAx and spend is not the way to go


got a link for that $31K figure?

the interesting part of your rant above is that you admit that democrats will be fiscally responsible enough to not increase spending by more than they take in. I certainly wish Bush and the republican congress had shown such discipline - bridge to nowhere, anyone???

[red states rule]

got a link for that $31K figure?

the interesting part of your rant above is that you admit that democrats will be fiscally responsible enough to not increase spending by more than they take in. I certainly wish Bush and the republican congress had shown such discipline - bridge to nowhere, anyone???


Dems are out to screw all of us. Now Obama and the ems say if you make more the $31,000/yr you are "rich"

CAN AMERICA AFFORD BARACK OBAMA?

The March 17, 2008 edition of Human Events sets forth the following facts:
On March 12, during senate debate on the 2009 federal budget, Senator Wayne Allard (R. - Colo.) introduced an amendment entitled the "Obama Spend-o-Rama", which proposes funding just 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Barack Obama's presidential campaign, at a cost of $1.4 trillion over five years. There are 77 other proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to that total. The new spending (just 66% of Obama's total proposals) would amount to a 10% increase over Bush's FY2009 proposal; the $300 billion per annum spending proposal would cost more than 42 states' annual budgets, combined; it is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion); and it is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever (And remember, this is only 66% of Obama's total proposals!)!

Obama promises to fund his spending proposals with tax increases on Democrats' "attractive target" of people earning over $250,000 per year, but this will generate "only" $225 billion over five years, less than one-sixth of what is needed. If congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing Obama's bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; the top 10% by 32%; the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, those earning more than $31,000 [adjusted gross income] already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes!

Obama claims to want to "balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security surplus." Combining that goal with Obama's massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise by $5,300, or 61%; for taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be more than $12,000, or 74%; and for taxpayers in the top 1%, earning more than $365,000, their tax bill will rise by $93,500, or 132%!

To put all of this into perspective, the 1993 tax hike by the Clinton administration raised taxes by $240.6 billion over five years, approximately one sixth of the increase required to fund just two-thirds of Obama's spending proposals! And Sen. Patrick Moynihan (D. - N.Y.) called the Clinton tax hike 'the largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world." Obama's proposal would far exceed that five year amount in a single year!

These facts assume that tax revenues will increase, dollar for dollar, with the tax rate increases, which is never the case Would you vote for the "Obama Spend-o-Rama" amendment if you were in the Senate? Will Obama?

http://www.sodahead.com/question/67834/

[retiredman]

"sodahead" dot com? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

"sodahead" dot com? :laugh2:

Boy you really proved the numbers are wrong, didn't ya?

[retiredman]

Boy you really proved the numbers are wrong, didn't ya?


If congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing Obama's bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; the top 10% by 32%; the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, those earning more than $31,000 [adjusted gross income] already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes!

you understand that that is a number derived from Allard's goofy political amendment to the budget and not something proposed by the democrats?

sodahead dot com!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

If congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing Obama's bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; the top 10% by 32%; the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, those earning more than $31,000 [adjusted gross income] already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes!

you understand that that is a number derived from Allard's goofy political amendment to the budget and not something proposed by the democrats?

sodahead dot com!:laugh2:

The numbrs are spot on given the Dems huge hunger for more spending and taking more of our money

They want to raise taxes through the roof, and you are trying to lie your way out of it

[retiredman]

The numbrs are spot on given the Dems huge hunger for more spending and taking more of our money

They want to raise taxes through the roof, and you are trying to lie your way out of it

the numbers are not from a democratic bill...they are from a sodahead dot com story about a republican amendment.

sodahead dot com!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

the numbers are not from a democratic bill...they are from a sodahead dot com story about a republican amendment.

sodahead dot com!:laugh2:

Keep trying people it is not a tax increase when Dems are plannng for them to pay more in taxes - I am sure it will go over very well

The same way when Dems whine about a program being vut when the amount of money being spent on it is more then last year - not the full increase Dems demanded

Liberal logic is is sight to behold.

[retiredman]

Keep trying people it is not a tax increase when Dems are plannng for them to pay more in taxes - I am sure it will go over very well

The same way when Dems whine about a program being vut when the amount of money being spent on it is more then last year - not the full increase Dems demanded

Liberal logic is is sight to behold.


keep trying to sell your lie about Democrats calling people who make over $31K "rich"

liar.

[red states rule]

keep trying to sell your lie about Democrats calling people who make over $31K "rich"

liar.

Your guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich

I posted the link

Now start lying for him - GO!!!!

[retiredman]

Your guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich

I posted the link

Now start lying for him - GO!!!!


which thread did you post that link where Obama called people making 31K rich?

[manu1959]

which thread did you post that link where Obama called people making 31K rich?

well he said he wanted to raise taxes on the rich....and he has said he will repeal the tax cuts which affect people making 31k and up....so anything 31k and above must be rich....

[red states rule]

well he said he wanted to raise taxes on the rich....and he has said he will repeal the tax cuts which affect people making 31k and up....so anything 31k and above must be rich....

As I posted on page 2 of this thread

With Dems if you have any money left over after taxes are taken from your paycheck - you are rich and are not paying your fair share

[Dilloduck]

which thread did you post that link where Obama called people making 31K rich?

MORE SEMANTIC GAMES ???? :lame2:

[retiredman]

MORE SEMANTIC GAMES ???? :lame2:

read post 66.

I am asking for a link.

DO try to keep up!

[red states rule]

MORE SEMANTIC GAMES ???? :lame2:


it is the only game he knows how to play

[retiredman]

it is the only game he knows how to play

got that link you mention in #66?

[red states rule]

got that link you mention in #66?

It is on page 2

Try looking you will find it

Or do you want someone else to do the work for you as most libs want?

[Dilloduck]

It is on page 2

Try looking you will find it

Or do you want someone else to do the work for you as most libs want?

He's gotta stall for a bit. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

He's gotta stall for a bit. :laugh2:

Then he will deny Dems are raising taxes period on them.

[retiredman]

Then he will deny Dems are raising taxes period on them.

you don't have any posts on page two of this thread.

[Yurt]

you don't have any posts on page two of this thread.

it is around post 58....

[retiredman]

it is around post 58....

post 58 contains a discussion about Senator Allard's political amendment. It does NOT, as RSR claims, have anything that shows that My{Your) guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich.

I posted the link."

once again, an RSR LIE.

[red states rule]

post 58 contains a discussion about Senator Allard's political amendment. It does NOT, as RSR claims, have anything that shows that My{Your) guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich.

I posted the link."

once again, an RSR LIE.

Sure, when Dems let the tax cuts expisre, people making over $31,000 are paying more in taxes - it is not a tax increase

Even though the standard talking point for Dems is they will only raise taxes on the rich

Only to a liberal hack like MFM will say it is not a tax increase, Dems never voted for a tax increase

[retiredman]

Sure, when Dems let the tax cuts expisre, people making over $31,000 are paying more in taxes - it is not a tax increase

Even though the standard talking point for Dems is they will only raise taxes on the rich

Only to a liberal hack like MFM will say it is not a tax increase, Dems never voted for a tax increase



you said "your guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich

I posted the link"

nothing in your link had Obama calling people who made 31K rich. That is what we commonly refer to as a LIE.

[red states rule]

you said "your guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich

I posted the link"

nothing in your link had Obama calling people who made 31K rich. That is what we commonly refer to as a LIE.

Obama siad only taxes would be raisedon the rich

Taxes wil go up on people making $31,000/yr

To Obama and the Dems they must be rich

Unless the Dems lied about who they would screw over with increased taxes

Which is the correct answer

[retiredman]

Obama siad only taxes would be raisedon the rich

Taxes wil go up on people making $31,000/yr

To Obama and the Dems they must be rich

Unless the Dems lied about who they would screw over with increased taxes

Which is the correct answer



so...you actually do not have any quotes from Senator Obama were he "did call people making over $31K rich". YOU said you did....but you don't....hmmmm

so that would make you.... A LIAR again

[Dilloduck]

Obama siad only taxes would be raisedon the rich

Taxes wil go up on people making $31,000/yr

To Obama and the Dems they must be rich

Unless the Dems lied about who they would screw over with increased taxes

Which is the correct answer

Give up----MFM is playing dumb again. Refuses to add 1 plus 1.

[Yurt]

so...you actually do not have any quotes from Senator Obama were he "did call people making over $31K rich". YOU said you did....but you don't....hmmmm

so that would make you.... A LIAR again

i will only raise taxes on the rich

the effect/reality is that my tax plan requires taxes to be raised on all those making 31K and over

[retiredman]

i will only raise taxes on the rich

the effect/reality is that his tax plan requires taxes to be raised on all those making 31K and over

and you get that 31K number from the editorial write up about senator allard's amendment?:lol:

[red states rule]

i will only raise taxes on the rich

the effect/reality is that his tax plan requires taxes to be raised on all those making 31K and over

To a liberal hack like MFM, he will spin how it is NOT a tax increase

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not voting for a tax increase. So you see, it not really a tax increase

[Yurt]

and you get that 31K number from the editorial write up about senator allard's amendment?:lol:

well, he has more experience than obama with such matters, so in his opinion that is what it will take to make his plan work.... you should accept that, just like you expect the like in the gay thread

[retiredman]

well, he has more experience than obama with such matters, so in his opinion that is what it will take to make his plan work.... you should accept that, just like you expect the like in the gay thread


Allard's opinion is hardly synonymous with RSR's statement that "Obama had called folks who made over $31K rich"

[red states rule]

Allard's opinion is hardly synonymous with RSR's statement that "Obama had called folks who made over $31K rich"

Sure it does. You refuse to acknowledge the facts on the tax increase he wants

[retiredman]

Sure it does. You refuse to acknowledge the facts on the tax increase he wants

you said that Obama had said something...he hadn't said it. you are, therefore, a liar.

[red states rule]

you said that Obama had said something...he hadn't said it. you are, therefore, a liar.

I see you are in full defesne mode - ignoring what Obama said about taxes, and then what he supports

[retiredman]

I see you are in full defesne mode - ignoring what Obama said about taxes, and then what he supports

I merely point out that you make false statements and never bother to retract them. I call you on those.... always will.

[red states rule]

I merely point out that you make false statements and never bother to retract them. I call you on those.... always will.

What false statements? You are making a feeble defense (and trying to change the subject) over your tax and spend liberal guy being exposed on how he will screw over the middle class

[retiredman]

What false statements? You are making a feeble defense (and trying to change the subject) over your tax and spend liberal guy being exposed on how he will screw over the middle class

"your guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich

I posted the link"

1. Obama never called people making $31K "rich"

2. YOur link shows nothing of the sort whatsoever.


THAT is the false statement I had in mind.

[Dilloduck]

"your guy Obama did call people making $31,000 rich

I posted the link"

1. Obama never called people making $31K "rich"

2. YOur link shows nothing of the sort whatsoever.


THAT is the false statement I had in mind.

If I make 31K a year would I see any change in my taxes under Obama's plan? If so--would they go up or down?

[JohnDoe]

If I make 31K a year would I see any change in my taxes under Obama's plan? If so--would they go up or down?

they would stay the same OR go down some, from what I heard him say on a 24/7

75k/150k per couple, would see the tax cuts expire...

[retiredman]

If I make 31K a year would I see any change in my taxes under Obama's plan? If so--would they go up or down?


why don't you ask him?:laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

they would stay the same OR go down some, from what I heard him say on a 24/7

75k/150k per couple, would see the tax cuts expire...

dang--your voice changed :laugh2:

[red states rule]

why don't you ask him?:laugh2:

Like Obama would tell the truth about that or anything else:rolleyes:

[red states rule]

they would stay the same OR go down some, from what I heard him say on a 24/7

75k/150k per couple, would see the tax cuts expire...

Wronf JD. Dems voted to allow all the Bush tax cuts expire

snip

The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-13-senate-tax_N.htm?csp=34

[retiredman]

"as scheduled". doesn't that mean that those tax cuts were only meant to be temporary when Bush signed them into law? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

"as scheduled". doesn't that mean that those tax cuts were only meant to be temporary when Bush signed them into law? :laugh2:

It happens everytime Republicans work with Dems in the sprit of "bipartisanship"

Bottom line, Dems are out to screw the workers and middle class once again with higher taxes

[retiredman]

It happens everytime Republicans work with Dems in the sprit of "bipartisanship"

Bottom line, Dems are out to screw the workers and middle class once again with higher taxes

Simple question, RSR:

Was the tax cut signed by President Bush intended to be permanent or not?

I swear, I have NEVER met anyone who had a harder time than you do answering simple questions!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Simple question, RSR:

Was the tax cut signed by President Bush intended to be permanent or not?

I swear, I have NEVER met anyone who had a harder time than you do answering simple questions!:laugh2:

I am pointing out what happens when you are stupid enough to work with Dems

I know you will not admit this is a tax increase MFM - you wil blame Bush for it as you do everything else

[retiredman]

I am pointing out what happens when you are stupid enough to work with Dems

I know you will not admit this is a tax increase MFM - you wil blame Bush for it as you do everything else

there ya go...proving my point once again. Go on. Try...You can do it, can't you? It really is a simple yes or no question. Here: let me give it to you again...

Was the tax cut signed by President Bush intended to be permanent or not?

YES or NO

[red states rule]

there ya go...proving my point once again. Go on. Try...You can do it, can't you? It really is a simple yes or no question. Here: let me give it to you again...

Was the tax cut signed by President Bush intended to be permanent or not?

YES or NO

Keep changing the subject MFM - you can't bring yourself to admit Dems are seeking a record breaking tax increase on the American apeople

[retiredman]

Keep changing the subject MFM - you can't bring yourself to admit Dems are seeking a record breaking tax increase on the American apeople

simple question. go ahead. be a man. answer it. I'll wait.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

simple question. go ahead. be a man. answer it. I'll wait.:laugh2:

I did

You are the one who insists when people are paying more in taxes it is not a tax increase

[retiredman]

I did

You are the one who insists when people are paying more in taxes it is not a tax increase

no you didn't.... it is a simple yes or no question:

Was the tax cut signed by President Bush intended to be permanent or not?

YES or NO

what is your answer?

[red states rule]

no you didn't.... it is a simple yes or no question:

Was the tax cut signed by President Bush intended to be permanent or not?

YES or NO

what is your answer?

It was give in to the Dems or no tax cuts period due to a fillabuster

Now Dems want that tax cut back and even more on top of that

[retiredman]

It was give in to the Dems or no tax cuts period due to a fillabuster

Now Dems want that tax cut back and even more on top of that

yes or no?

[red states rule]

yes or no?

Keep ducking the record tax increase issue. The people won't if they get a higher tax bill

[retiredman]

Keep ducking the record tax increase issue. The people won't if they get a higher tax bill

I'll wait until you answer the simple yes or no question before proceeding.

I have been asking it for some time now...it is rather rude of you to keep ducking it.:lol:

[red states rule]

I'll wait until you answer the simple yes or no question before proceeding.

I have been asking it for some time now...it is rather rude of you to keep ducking it.:lol:

So if people end up paying more in taxes, it is not a tax increase according to the liberal gospel of MFM

[JohnDoe]

Wronf JD. Dems voted to allow all the Bush tax cuts expire

snip

The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-13-senate-tax_N.htm?csp=34


from YOUR article RSR:

immediately following the original bill from the house...letting all tax cuts expire the senate passed a companion bill to extend the tax cuts for the middle class and below...


The Senate passed a companion plan by a 51-44 vote. It endorsed extending $340 billion of Bush's tax cuts but balked at continuing all of them. The competing versions head to talks in which the House is all but certain to accept the Senate's position endorsing tax cuts for the working poor, married couples, people with children and for those inheriting large estates.


jd

[red states rule]

from YOUR article RSR:

immediately following the original bill from the house...letting all tax cuts expire the senate passed a companion bill to extend the tax cuts for the middle class and below...

jd



JD, lets take a trip down memory lane. Dems said they would cut pork, work a 5 day week, lower gas prices, work with Republicans, and cut Congressional perks if they were elected in 2006

Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut if he was elected

Guess what JD, the Dems are 0 -6 on their promises

Do you really believe they will not raise taxes across the board if the have Congress and the WH?

[JohnDoe]

JD, lets take a trip down memory lane. Dems said they would cut pork, work a 5 day week, lower gas prices, work with Republicans, and cut Congressional perks if they were elected in 2006

Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut if he was elected

Guess what JD, the Dems are 0 -6 on their promises

Do you really believe they will not raise taxes across the board if the have Congress and the WH?

YES. There is NO WAY that the Dems will allow the tax cuts for the middle and below expire.

They WANT to keep their jobs and support their base....they may be stupid but not THAT stupid.

jd

[red states rule]

YES. There is NO WAY that the Dems will allow the tax cuts for the middle and below expire.

They WANT to keep their jobs and support their base....they may be stupid but not THAT stupid.

jd

JD, I think the world of you, but I do have some wonderful beach front property in AZ I would like to sell you

Your Dems are foaming at the mouth to raise taxes and increase federal spending

They are out to screw all of us, and take more of the money we earn

I hope you do not have to find out how greedy they are

[retiredman]

JD, I think the world of you, but I do have some wonderful beach front property in AZ I would like to sell you

Your Dems are foaming at the mouth to raise taxes and increase federal spending

They are out to screw all of us, and take more of the money we earn

I hope you do not have to find out how greedy they are

if they "screw" everybody, who do you think that THEY think will vote for them in 2010?

We're gonna get the rich back on Clinton era tax rates.... cuz most of them don't vote for democrats anyway!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

if they "screw" everybody, who do you think that THEY think will vote for them in 2010?

We're gonna get the rich back on Clinton era tax rates.... cuz most of them don't vote for democrats anyway!:laugh2:

Gee, a liberal wanting to stick it to the rich

What an original rant from a liberal