DEMS SAY, "F*CK OBAMA!!"

24567

Comments

  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Best of Times wrote:
    In My Tree:

    It wasn't rhetorical. There was a point to be made, and it applies to your job question: The tax cuts were passed in '01 and '03. A small tax cut cannot save an economy that is hindered by an administration that has spent more money in 2 years than the entire US spent from 1789-1980.

    The question regarding why a gov't taxes, strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights against overreaching gov't.

    If they didn't spend our money faster than crackheads, we wouldn't be sitting here acting like this is there money, and we're lucky if they let us keep any of it. Think about it. They've already spent the money they're debating letting the "rich" people keep. Nancy Pelosi had a $50,000/year alchohol bill as Speaker- and that was just on her free "Air Force Airliner." 50K/year on airplne booze!!!! And then tells you she's for the little guy and you believe her....

    Gov't FOR the people.

    NOT people for the gov't.

    This is the fundamental phiosphical difference b/w Liberalism and Conservatism.

    um, the tax cuts for the "job makers" were in place for 10 years...um, no jobs...

    and I love the Pelosi thing, let explore that....Pelosi has a big booze bill = billionaires need more money...

    you got me there... :lol:
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,401
    Best of Times wrote:
    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:
    i am saying that the poor and middle classes need those tax cuts. they are the ones who make less money, yet have to buy the same things like gasoline,groceries, electricity, natural gas and utilities, medical care/health insurance premiums and deductables, all of which are not cheep by most people's standards. percentage wise besides house and car payments, food is the next highest expense. to rich people that expense is negligible because they have a lot more money and can buy it and have tons of money left over.. but if you take that same cost and apply it to someone making $40,000, that is a significantly higher dollar amount that hits those families. to let tax cuts expire and hit them with that increased burden is criminal. to rich people, it will not affect them so much when having to purchase the necessities of life.

    and are you serious? if you do not know why governments tax people, i would have to assume you are joking...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Best of Times wrote:
    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:
    i am saying that the poor and middle classes need those tax cuts. they are the ones who make less money, yet have to buy the same things like gasoline,groceries, electricity, natural gas and utilities, medical care/health insurance premiums and deductables, all of which are not cheep by most people's standards. percentage wise besides house and car payments, food is the next highest expense. to rich people that expense is negligible because they have a lot more money and can buy it and have tons of money left over.. but if you take that same cost and apply it to someone making $40,000, that is a significantly higher dollar amount that hits those families. to let tax cuts expire and hit them with that increased burden is criminal. to rich people, it will not affect them so much when having to purchase the necessities of life.

    and are you serious? if you do not know why governments tax people, i would have to assume you are joking...

    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Best of Times wrote:
    WHO are you refferring to when you say "allowing cuts to expire for the people who really need those cuts"?

    A simple question Gimme: Why does the gov't tax people? I'll kinldy wait for your response.
    :roll:
    i am saying that the poor and middle classes need those tax cuts. they are the ones who make less money, yet have to buy the same things like gasoline,groceries, electricity, natural gas and utilities, medical care/health insurance premiums and deductables, all of which are not cheep by most people's standards. percentage wise besides house and car payments, food is the next highest expense. to rich people that expense is negligible because they have a lot more money and can buy it and have tons of money left over.. but if you take that same cost and apply it to someone making $40,000, that is a significantly higher dollar amount that hits those families. to let tax cuts expire and hit them with that increased burden is criminal. to rich people, it will not affect them so much when having to purchase the necessities of life.

    and are you serious? if you do not know why governments tax people, i would have to assume you are joking...

    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.


    who's demonizing them...?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,401
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    don't take the bait on the demonizing thing...that's there shtick...toss out shit to get you off track...no one is demonizing anyone...but the right loves to play the victim, which leads the discussion off track...
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    You do raise some decent points, but from where I stand, setting these kinds of precedents are dangerous: "This guy has too much. We need to TAKE from him and give to this guy." Thomas Jefferson said the republic will die when you take from those willing to work and give to those who are not.

    Redistribution of wealth is code word for state takeover. Communists mask their hideous intentions behind the friendly mask of social justice.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    You do raise some decent points, but from where I stand, setting these kinds of precedents are dangerous: "This guy has too much. We need to TAKE from him and give to this guy." Thomas Jefferson said the republic will die when you take from those willing to work and give to those who are not.

    Redistribution of wealth is code word for state takeover. Communists mask their hideous intentions behind the friendly mask of social justice.

    How long ago did Tom say that...? I think it's been awhile, and we seem to still be chugging along... :lol:
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    inmytree wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    don't take the bait on the demonizing thing...that's there shtick...toss out shit to get you off track...no one is demonizing anyone...but the right loves to play the victim, which leads the discussion off track...

    Yeah, the right always plays the victim. That's a good one.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    It funny that people bitch and complain about nothing being done in the government and that representatives are stalling and filibustering, etc...then when there is compromise, everyone bitches that they didn't get their way!!!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,401
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    Those "rich" people you keep referring to had to have taken some risk to earn their place. Why do we continue to demonize those who have worked hard and earned their fortunes? Not everyone is Bernie Madoff.

    Demonizing every successful person comes off a little too Bolshevik.
    who risks more, bill gates, or the man who is working in a mine for $30,000 a year? how about the professional athlete, or the marine stationed in afghanistan? who risks more? what about the CEO, who risks more, the CEO, or the cop who is paid peanuts to work security for him?

    i am not demonizing anyone. we all know that the "rich create the jobs" line is a lie.
    are you telling me that paris hilton worked for her fortune and she deserves a tax break? how about he kardashians?

    you have your opinion, i have mine.

    You do raise some decent points, but from where I stand, setting these kinds of precedents are dangerous: "This guy has too much. We need to TAKE from him and give to this guy." Thomas Jefferson said the republic will die when you take from those willing to work and give to those who are not.

    Redistribution of wealth is code word for state takeover. Communists mask their hideous intentions behind the friendly mask of social justice.
    this is not redistribution of wealth. please explain to me how this is redistribution of wealth. it is not like the increased tax on the rich would be stolen from them and given directly to the poor. what is it with all of the buzzwords on the forum today?

    and you did not answer my question about why to you support the top 2% of earners? and how can you be for reducing the deficit, yet taking money away from the government in the form of cutting taxes for that richest 2%? again , you can not be for reducing the deficit AND tax cuts for the wealthy. it is mathematically impossible...the assertion that you can do both is borderline absurd.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    and you did not answer my question about why to you support the top 2% of earners? and how can you be for reducing the deficit, yet taking money away from the government in the form of cutting taxes for that richest 2%. again , you can not be for reducing the deficit AND tax cuts for the wealthy. it is mathematically impossible...

    Because you cannot tax people to death and expect them to create wealth or jobs. You cannot stifle entrepreneuralism and expect fruitful results. This is why socialism sucks and people come here from around the world to start businesses.

    Where's your proof that the deficit is going to be cut by taxing anyone?
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,401
    edited December 2010
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    and you did not answer my question about why to you support the top 2% of earners? and how can you be for reducing the deficit, yet taking money away from the government in the form of cutting taxes for that richest 2%. again , you can not be for reducing the deficit AND tax cuts for the wealthy. it is mathematically impossible...

    Because you cannot tax people to death and expect them to create wealth or jobs. You cannot stifle entrepreneuralism and expect fruitful results. This is why socialism sucks and people come here from around the world to start businesses.

    Where's your proof that the deficit is going to be cut by taxing anyone?
    raising taxes on the rich is not "taxing them to death". another buzzword meant to stir up negative emotions...

    and how is the tax "burden" going to stifle entrepreneuralism? the taxes will be about what they were under clinton, which is very resonable.

    and where are you getting this as socialism? another buzzword that has been proven false. obama is not a socialist. any true socialist will tell you that. and our ecominic issues are definitely not socialist.

    and my proof is in all of those other threads with news articles that state that these tax cuts are adding about $900 billion to the deficit.... :lol:
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Best of Times
    Best of Times Posts: 296
    inmytree wrote:
    Best of Times wrote:
    In My Tree:

    It wasn't rhetorical. There was a point to be made, and it applies to your job question: The tax cuts were passed in '01 and '03. A small tax cut cannot save an economy that is hindered by an administration that has spent more money in 2 years than the entire US spent from 1789-1980.

    The question regarding why a gov't taxes, strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights against overreaching gov't.

    If they didn't spend our money faster than crackheads, we wouldn't be sitting here acting like this is there money, and we're lucky if they let us keep any of it. Think about it. They've already spent the money they're debating letting the "rich" people keep. Nancy Pelosi had a $50,000/year alchohol bill as Speaker- and that was just on her free "Air Force Airliner." 50K/year on airplne booze!!!! And then tells you she's for the little guy and you believe her....

    Gov't FOR the people.

    NOT people for the gov't.

    This is the fundamental phiosphical difference b/w Liberalism and Conservatism.

    um, the tax cuts for the "job makers" were in place for 10 years...um, no jobs...

    and I love the Pelosi thing, let explore that....Pelosi has a big booze bill = billionaires need more money...

    you got me there... :lol:


    NO: WE have a big booze bill. See, it's all good w/ a Lib, as long as it's not your money...
    Dude, its ALL OUR MONEY...
  • Best of Times
    Best of Times Posts: 296
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo

    Here is the author of Obamacare, Senator Max Bauchus to talk about redistribution of wealth. Enjoy!
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,401
    it is not just those in congress that are angry and abandoning him. latest polls released today have some troubling news for obama. his disaproval rating among democrats has nearly doubled. it would be alright to lose some democrats if he was picking up independent support, but hs is not....


    http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-di ... -democrats
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • TriumphantAngel
    TriumphantAngel Posts: 1,760
    so not even 2 years into his Presidency and the obama faithful are throwing him away.

    that tells me that they are a whole lot smarter than the bush faithful who put up with his crap for 8 years.

    i think obama genuinely has a good heart. unfortunately good hearts don't make a great President on it's own. you have got to be able to make the tough calls too and i've yet to see him be able to do that.

    i'd also like to take a moment to say that i think the way he has been demonized by some of the American public (obama is a muslim OMG, he's not a citizen, he is the anti-christ, where is his birth certificate etc) just shows how hateful, ignorant, racist and plain dumb some Americans are.

    those of you who are guilty of that behaviour ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    TriumphantAngel wrote:
    so not even 2 years into his Presidency and the obama faithful are throwing him away.

    that tells me that they are a whole lot smarter than the bush faithful who put up with his crap for 8 years.

    i think obama genuinely has a good heart. unfortunately good hearts don't make a great President on it's own. you have got to be able to make the tough calls too and i've yet to see him be able to do that.

    i'd also like to take a moment to say that i think the way he has been demonized by some of the American public (obama is a muslim OMG, he's not a citizen, he is the anti-christ, where is his birth certificate etc) just shows how hateful, ignorant, racist and plain dumb some Americans are.

    those of you who are guilty of that behaviour ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    I'm not ashamed to criticize the man for his policies. I couldn't care less what the color of his skin is. It means nothing to me.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    TriumphantAngel wrote:
    so not even 2 years into his Presidency and the obama faithful are throwing him away.

    that tells me that they are a whole lot smarter than the bush faithful who put up with his crap for 8 years.

    i think obama genuinely has a good heart. unfortunately good hearts don't make a great President on it's own. you have got to be able to make the tough calls too and i've yet to see him be able to do that.

    i'd also like to take a moment to say that i think the way he has been demonized by some of the American public (obama is a muslim OMG, he's not a citizen, he is the anti-christ, where is his birth certificate etc) just shows how hateful, ignorant, racist and plain dumb some Americans are.

    those of you who are guilty of that behaviour ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    skin color means nothing but what you just posted has been going on for years with every president,brown black or yellow people have said the same things about every president but now with a black president all the sudden it's a huge issue,unfortunately it's been this way for years and no mater who is president or what color they are this will continue to happen,not that it's right by any means but pointing the finger of racism at anybody is one reason racism is alive and well in America,people of all colors are guilty of it but white people seem to get most or all the attention for this.

    Godfather.
  • fife
    fife Posts: 3,327
    I found this article interesting. don't know if i agree or not but its interesting.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/13/z ... tml?hpt=T2

Categories