18% Tax Rate For the Rich!?!?!

[vkirkend]

On Good Morning America they ran a story about Rupert Murdock's taxrate being 18% and his Receptionist rate being 33%. SOmething is wrong with this picture. :mad2:What do you think?

[SC Cheesehead]

On Good Morning America they ran a story about Rupert Murdock's taxrate being 18% and his Receptionist rate being 33%. SOmething is wrong with this picture. :mad2:What do you think?

I think somebody got something screwed up in the story.

In order for Murdock to have an 18% tax rate, he'd have to have an annual taxable income of less than $41,050 (depending on how he filed, i.e. single, head of household,etc.), and his Receptionist would have to earn more than $171,650 to be taxed at the 33% rate.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html

SCCH

[fastcar]

+1. BTW, if he's really just paying 18%, it's because he's VERY SMART, and deserves to. I'd pay 0%, if I could, but I'm not smart enough! :lol:

fastcar:burnout:

[Marauder]

On Good Morning America they ran a story about Rupert Murdock's taxrate being 18% and his Receptionist rate being 33%. SOmething is wrong with this picture. :mad2:What do you think?

I don't think his specific tax rate is 18%. Making as much as he does, he's in the highest tax bracket...BUT, he may have other stuff such as stocks (gains and losses), bonds, write offs, etc. that can, and normally will, lower his overall tax percentage.

I think long term stocks only get taxed like 12% - 15% even if you sold $10,000,000 worth...as long as they qualify for long term. Short term I think are 30% - 35%. If there are any losses, it offsets the percentage gains so overall, he may only be paying 18% after gains, losses, write offs, etc.

I know a ton of stocks I sold were taxed very little since they qaulified for long term. I budgeted myself like 40% to pay for taxes and I wasn't even close....good to overshoot. :D

[Marauderjack]

He also may show a $40K "Salary" and expense EVERYTHING through his corporations!!:beer: Not very unusual!!:shake:

[BUCKWHEAT]

Rupert probably doesn't take any salary. He has enough to live on the long term capital gains, taxed at the low rate. The secretary could have a 33% marginal rate on a combination of her salary and some stock option exercises that the boss was gracious enough to bestow on her.

Count on the press to a) get the math wrong and b) infer a conclusion not supported by the real facts.

In our tax system, we have a bucket of people that pay nothing.

[sailsmen]

The bottom 50% not only pay less than 5% when you add back in the earned income tax credit they are welfare recipients.

The top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.

It's all about buying votes. The top earners are a small percent and cannot vote anyone in or out of office. Same with the military.

The politicans are all about how amny votes they can buy.

The SCHIPS is a perfect example. Many states could not meet their quota so they expanded it to $80+K and 25 year olds.

You could have a family of 4 in one state making $55K per year paying for a family of 4 in another state making $80K whose 25 year old drunk son in college is one of the children!

[rvaldez1]

I don't think his specific tax rate is 18%. Making as much as he does, he's in the highest tax bracket...BUT, he may have other stuff such as stocks (gains and losses), bonds, write offs, etc. that can, and normally will, lower his overall tax percentage.

I think long term stocks only get taxed like 12% - 15% even if you sold $10,000,000 worth...as long as they qualify for long term. Short term I think are 30% - 35%. If there are any losses, it offsets the percentage gains so overall, he may only be paying 18% after gains, losses, write offs, etc.

I know a ton of stocks I sold were taxed very little since they qaulified for long term. I budgeted myself like 40% to pay for taxes and I wasn't even close....good to overshoot. :D


Exactly, he is paying an 18% EFFECTIVE tax rate. Anyone with a good accountant can find ways of getting aa lower tax rate, it can be as simple as where you invest your money.



The bottom 50% not only pay less than 5% when you add back in the earned income tax credit they are welfare recipients.

The top 15% pay 80% of the taxes.

It's all about buying votes. The top earners are a small percent and cannot vote anyone in or out of office. Same with the military.

The politicans are all about how amny votes they can buy.

The SCHIPS is a perfect example. Many states could not meet their quota so they expanded it to $80+K and 25 year olds.

You could have a family of 4 in one state making $55K per year paying for a family of 4 in another state making $80K whose 25 year old drunk son in college is one of the children!

IDK I tend to disagree a bit, who the hell cares about the popular vote, they dont count anyway.

[LordVader]

Saw this and he admits that the tax rate benefits the rich and he took it upon himself to show how screwed the little guy gets. He said he would be willing to pay a higher tax rate if it was law, but as he says "don't blame me, blame the government".

[sailsmen]

If I buy a stock for $100 and sell it 2 years latter for $200. I pay 15% on the $100 gain.

If I am a hihgly paid executive any part of my salary over $1mil is not deductible as an expense. Why Politicians got votes by passing this law. The result is stock options.

Stock goes up and I execute the options at a lower tax rate then the rate if I received it in salary? I am not an account but believe this is the way it works.

Remember the top 25% pay 85% of income tax and top 1% pay 37% of income tax.

[sailsmen]

All these people who say they are not taxed enough can send what ever amount of additional money they want to the US Treasury.

There is nothing to stop them.

How much is enough? As we post the Feds are spending $10K for every man, woman and child in this country.

Although Defense average 35% of Federal spending from 1946-96 it is currently less than 20%.

State and local is another $4,000 for a total of $14,000. The gov't spends about 30% of every dollar, how much is enough?

You say effective rate? The total income of the top 25% is ~40%, the top 25% pay a much higher effective rate then the bottom 50% who pay 5% before the earned income tax credit.

[SC Cheesehead]

Remember the top 25% pay 85% of income tax and top 1% pay 37% of income tax.

Correct. There's an imbalance, but it's not the one the politicians would have you believe.

For more interesting reading, check this out:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg13nov13,0,6452559.colu mn

[sailsmen]

Why am I passionate about this? Every year 750 new laws are passed.

Most of us unknowingly break laws on a regular basis. Soon it will be easier to compy with the laws by telling us what to do vs what not to do.


The more money the government takes in taxes the less freedom you have and the more power the gov't has.

[SC Cheesehead]

The more money the government takes in taxes the less freedom you have and the more power the gov't has.


Amen to that, bro!

SCCH

[BruteForce]

I'm all for anything that raises YOUR taxes and lowers mine. :D

[rumble]

If I am a hihgly paid executive any part of my salary over $1mil is not deductible as an expense. .


What’s really funny about that is if you’re a Hollywood star or some other highly paid entertainer you’re exempt from that law.

Man, I don’t understand that. How could big movie stars get politicians to give them a tax break that no one else gets.

Any one have any idea about why?:dunno::dunno:

[rvaldez1]

What’s really funny about that is if you’re a Hollywood star or some other highly paid entertainer you’re exempt from that law.

Man, I don’t understand that. How could big movie stars get politicians to give them a tax break that no one else gets.

Any one have any idea about why?:dunno::dunno:

Influence, you keep the influencial people happy to CYA. This is the same reasons presidential candidates invite celebrities to thier rallies.

[Vortex]

Just remember this: the real super rich guys are pushing the "flat tax" and/or the "consumption tax" and are against the current graduated income tax. A flat tax doesnt hurt them because 20% of a million is much less than what they pay now but it screws over low income folks. The consumption tax is like a VAT tax and really screws over poor folks who use almost all of their income to buy necessary things, rich folks can just bank thier "excess" money and avoid the tax. The best tax method is the graduated income tax but without so many loopholes that we have now. Also, the super rich are trying to get rid of the estate tax, which right nowe only affects estates over a million dollars anyway and that is going up next year. Most working class folks never have to worry about it.

[sailsmen]

Most people are employed by small business. Upon death the tax is due in 6 months based on the value at death.

Many small businesses decrease in value substantially upon death of the principle. Yet the tax is based on the value at death not what the business is sold for post death of the principle.

A solution is to buy life insurance. This is an inefficient use of money that could be used to hire more employees.


You take the value of a home and the value of a small business pre-principle death and you can easily exceed $1mil.

Keep in mind tax has already been paid on these items and merely because someone dies it is taxed again.

If you are one of those "working folks" you refer to most work for a small business and when the owner dies they have a lot to worry about.

The bottom half of wage earners are welfare recipients.

Those that pay income tax at the higher brackets pay a higher percentage of their income.

[Haggis]

Just remember this: the real super rich guys are pushing the "flat tax" and/or the "consumption tax" and are against the current graduated income tax. A flat tax doesnt hurt them because 20% of a million is much less than what they pay now but it screws over low income folks. The consumption tax is like a VAT tax and really screws over poor folks who use almost all of their income to buy necessary things, rich folks can just bank thier "excess" money and avoid the tax. The best tax method is the graduated income tax but without so many loopholes that we have now. Also, the super rich are trying to get rid of the estate tax, which right nowe only affects estates over a million dollars anyway and that is going up next year. Most working class folks never have to worry about it.

...and most people who have busted their butts all their life to make their children's lives easier are screwed if the estate tax is removed by double taxation.

[Leadfoot281]

Gordan and Billy, thanks!

My Dad never once made more than 30k/year his whole life. I don't think he ever bought a light bulb rated at more than 40 watts either. This "rich guy" drove a Buick Park Avenue and a two year old Chevy truck.

Yet when he died the value of his small farm (980 acres) that was worth far more than anyone imagined.

I paid 55% estate tax on it. I was very lucky to have gotten away with paying only $907,600.00 in taxes.

To pay that I sold his beloved Buick, truck, and virtually all the machinery. Much of the farm is rented out today and I'm basically just a broke hobby farmer with a lot of land. (ever try to pay for a tank of gas with a bucket of dirt?) There is no way I'll ever acheive what he did.

No flood, tornado, or natural disaster could have done more damage to this multi-generational family business than the Death Tax did.

I hear Hillary wants to bring back the Death Tax. Good. :rolleyes: Screw them rich :censor: ers right into the ground! Or, better yet, screw 'em while they're in the ground. Who needs farmers anyway? Tree bark tastes great if you cook it just right.

[sailsmen]

Leadfoot you do not understand the definition of "rich".

If you are not on SS, Welfare or don't receive the earned income tax credit you are "rich" and should be taxed.

You are just greedy when you want to keep your own money instead of taking it from others! Admit it!

[Leadfoot281]

Leadfoot you do not understand the definition of "rich".

If you are not on SS, Welfare or don't receive the earned income tax credit you are "rich" and should be taxed.

You are just greedy when you want to keep your own money instead of taking it from others! Admit it!


Lol! You're right. I'm just greedy. :lol:

Heck, if I had the money I paid in Death Taxes I'd have probably bought another 20 acres to hit that magical 1,000 acre mark. Then I would have hired a couple hard working (aka greedy) people to haul grain, and made a fortune. That's how greedy I am! If given a chance, I would have tried to take job creation away from government too. Ooops, my bad!

Oh well, I'm sure Uncle Sam spent it far better than I could have. :shake:

The whole thing taught me a good lesson though; Try hard NOT to succeed. Success will be punished harshly. Personal achievement is bad.

"Super rich" people like my Dad and his Super Fancy Buick Park Avenue were just black eyes for the party of hand-outs. He sure paid the price.

[ahess77]

The politicians who are buying votes by "raising" taxes on the rich are basically promoting socialism. Why not just let the government run everything, it worked so well in the USSR for a century didn't it? Set income for everyone, government run health care, etc. No rich people, just powerful military leaders and then everyone else who was poor.

Why take away the incentive to earn money? The more you earn the higher percentage you pay? Just sit at home and live on social welfare programs, it's easier than working for a living. And, the more poor children you have, the more income you get, what a great country. I'm not against helping children, but why encourage parents to have kids for more welfare income?

PS, I earn 6 figures and my effective tax rate is only 7%, all you have to do is give away more than 10%.

[GrazniM]

In our country there is major confusion as to what defines rich, middle class and poor - this is compounded by perceptions based on costs of living due to regional impact.

At any rate, 30% of 150,000 = $50,000 taxes paid and 18% of 100 million = $18,000,000 in taxes paid.... no to mention Murdoch creates thousands of jobs, including his and many other "highly paid" receptionists. There are numerous articles that report the wealthiest 1% of the US population earns 15-20% of the income and pay around 40% of the total tax dollars taken in. But it is also a fact that the better an accountant(s) you have the lower your taxable rate will be.... (not as true for 300K or less incomes vs. much higher incomes.)

The Left would have you believe they are talking about the Bill Gates and Murdoch's of the world while they try to push tax policies that slam families making more than 40K/year - oh yeah, then they hand out a juicy $1,200 tax credit to pay for your kids college ...what a joke :rolleyes: - just my two cents!

[BruteForce]

The Left would have you believe they are talking about the Bill Gates and Murdoch's of the world while they try to push tax policies that slam families making more than 40K/year...

I guess I missed that one. Point out where someone voiced this possibility (over 40K) 'cause they wouldn't even last until closing time in any public office I know of.

Help me remember... who has had control of both parts of Congress and the White House for 7 of the past 8 years? How did those crafty commies get such diabolical tax laws past those "regular Joe" Repubs?

[Leadfoot281]

I guess I missed that one. Point out where someone voiced this possibility (over 40K) 'cause they wouldn't even last until closing time in any public office I know of.

Help me remember... who has had control of both parts of Congress and the White House for 7 of the past 8 years? How did those crafty commies get such diabolical tax laws past those "regular Joe" Repubs?

Let's see here. Bush cut the Capital gains tax from 20% to 15%. He eliminated the death tax as well. There were other cuts as well. These cuts worked.

The employment rate is at 95.5%...(aka 4.5% un-employment). Not too shaby considering he took the helm during an economic reccession and then we suffered the attacks of 9-11 shortly there after.

The leading lib has already stated that the Death Tax is coming back and the Bush tax cuts are going to get repealed. On top of that, taxes are going up.

I'm not even going to mention Reagons tax cuts due to it's clearlly undenialble benefit to America. Sure he never once submitted a balanced budget... who cares? He spent it killing communism and that was worth every cent.

A better question is how a candidate can be leading the polls with a plan to rob from the dead? Talk about "crafty and diabolical"!

[BruteForce]

These cuts worked."!

Worked to do what?



The employment rate is at 95.5%...(aka 4.5% un-employment). Not too shaby considering he took the helm during an economic reccession and then we suffered the attacks of 9-11 shortly there after.
"!

Revisionist history... unemployment hasn't moved significantly in 10 years. What has changed is the the type of jobs available. Less skilled labor and more minimum wage service positions. Federal spending in constant dollars increased under Bush by 26% in his first four and one-half years. The tax cuts, a recession, and significant increases in military and domestic outlays all contributed to record budget deficits during the Bush administration. And that was just the first term.



The leading lib has already stated that the Death Tax is coming back and the Bush tax cuts are going to get repealed. On top of that, taxes are going up.


Who did you think would have the pay the bar tab GW has rung up? Maybe we should just leave it for the kids. That's what Ronnie would do.



I'm not even going to mention Reagons tax cuts due to it's clearlly undenialble benefit to America. Sure he never once submitted a balanced budget... who cares? He spent it killing communism and that was worth every cent.


Ronnie happened to be on watch when the USSR collapsed. It was well on its way long before he came into the picture.



A better question is how a candidate can be leading the polls with a plan to rob from the dead? Talk about "crafty and diabolical"!

I have no idea who you're referring to. Is that Mit?

[Leadfoot281]

Thanks man! I can always count on you for a laugh!

[sailsmen]

Happened to on his watch is :bs: and you know it!

Before Regan took office our military equipment was so wore out our helos broke down on a mission to rescue our hostages in Iran. The mission was aborted. Ross Perrot broke open a jail and got his people out.

Many military analyst are of the opinon that had the USSR started a war with us during the Carter years we would have either surrendered or had to go nuclear.

Col Gaddafi would tend to disagree w/ your statement.

The press tried to make a fool out of Regan's "Star Wars", the Russians didn't think it was a fool and thru in the towel resulting in one of the greatest liberations in the history of mankind.

Remember the 1,000 ship Navy? My clients built some of those ships.

Your comment is a blatant lie!

The tax cuts resulted in record revenues to the treasury. Congress controls the purse strings not the President.

Wages have increased in the US. The President by design does not control the US economy and has very little influence over the economy.

[BruteForce]

I'll trade you Reagan caused the USSR collapse for Clinton not only balanced but had a surplus budget when turning it over to "tax break AND spend" Bush.

[Leadfoot281]

I'll trade you Reagan caused the USSR collapse for Clinton not only balanced but had a surplus budget when turning it over to "tax break AND spend" Bush.

Collecting more tax than the government needs is theft. Calvin Coolidge.

[BruteForce]

Collecting more tax than the government needs is theft. Calvin Coolidge.

So is raiding your children's piggy bank.

[Leadfoot281]

So is raiding your children's piggy bank.


Sheesh...

OK, OK, I get it BF. Bill Clinton balanced the budget. Good for him. We're all so very proud of his special money handling abilities. Heck, Bill even came up with a surplus! Again, good for him!

I remember it well. America finally had a budget surplus (from excessive taxation) and sunshine and joy spread across the nation. Government cheese deliverys were going to be right on time! Joy!

I'm sure the fact that my Dad died on June 8th, 2000 (during the Clinton administration) had absolutely nothing to do with Bills amazing financial feat!!! Nor did the $907,000.00 I sent the IRS on his behalf.

Oh Nooooo... Bill Clinton was a financial genius! He certainly wasn't a grave robber! :rolleyes: Government earned my Dads money through hard work!

You know something? Our family never even got a 'Thank you' note from Clinton, the IRS or you. I'm sure they got the check.

Clinton did take full credit for the balanced budget though...

Why did the deficit drop 25% under Bush, WITHOUT the Death Tax? I'm sure you heard about that, didn't you? It made page 6 of the local liberal newspaper and Fox news. Oddly enough, there was NO mention of it on CNN. :confused:

Also, what do you mean by "raiding your childrens piggy bank"? Is this some reference to raising taxes on the next generation to cover todays governments excessive expenses? If it is, I think we can safely say that Bush has found a proven way to avoid that. It's called TAX CUTS.

How's the cheese my Dad sent you? I hear it's addictive.

[BruteForce]

Maybe you need a new line of work. Don't blame me for the governments tax policies. I have as much to do with those as you have to do with my daily bowel movement. I keep hearing you whining on and on about how the poor farmer (cash poor land rich) is being screwed. Maybe you should get into a field that doesn't have that problem... like mine (cash rich land poor). Oh that's right... its the government's fault.

BTW, Bush's tax cuts have little or no effect on my tax bill. Though I am a small business owner (who he claims to champion), I guess I'm not rich enough.

[Haggis]

I'll trade you Reagan caused the USSR collapse for Clinton not only balanced but had a surplus budget when turning it over to "tax break AND spend" Bush.

Did Clinton do this while Monica was under his desk?

[SC Cheesehead]

:laugh:
Did Clinton do this while Monica was under his desk?

Almost forgot about this! Oh, and don't forget that Al Gore invented the Internet on Bill's watch, man, what a great administration!:lol:

SCCH

[duhtroll]

Who cares?

The country was doing well when, to quote Lewis Black "the guy was getting his winky whacked."

I find it laughable that the main comparison between Bush and Clinton is always that Bush *didn't* get a BJ.

Maybe he should. Then he could fix some stuff.


Did Clinton do this while Monica was under his desk?

[Haggis]

What pisses me off about Clinton is not that he got his weewee wet is that he lied about it to Congress, the American people and his wife. If he he takes his marriage vows that lightly who is to say that he took his Presidental vows any more seriously. Also instead of serving his country at a time of war he decided to run off th England to go to college and who can ever forget the famous; 'I smoked pot, but didn't inhale'. The man is a liar enough said.

Oh yea, don't forget Whitewater, senior citizens that were ripped off by him and his commie wife.

[Bluerauder]

Who cares?

The country was doing well when, to quote Lewis Black "the guy was getting his winky whacked."
What the H3LL planet do you live on?? The military and the Defense Budget were ***** during the Clinton years. The US Armed Forces were cut in half. R&D was slashed. Production of new equipment was curtailed. And for what ... more Government freebees and "Feel Good" assistance programs. Yep ... we will all feel real good as we continue to sacrifice our strength for Political Correctness and handouts.

[1of327]

What the H3LL planet do you live on?? The military and the Defense Budget were ***** during the Clinton years. The US Armed Forces were cut in half. R&D was slashed. Production of new equipment was curtailed. And for what ... more Government freebees and "Feel Good" assistance programs. Yep ... we will all feel real good as we continue to sacrifice our strength for Political Correctness and handouts.

Well said Charlie...could not agree more!

[BruteForce]

What pisses me off about Clinton is not that he got his weewee wet is that he lied about it to Congress, the American people and his wife. If he he takes his marriage vows that lightly who is to say that he took his Presidental vows any mor seriously. Also instead of serving his country at a time of war he decided to run off th England to go to college and who can ever forget the famous; 'I smoked pot, but didn't inhale'. The man is a liar enough said.

Oh yea, don't forget Whitewater, senior citizens that were ripped off by him and his commie wife.

If lying to Congress and the American people is a high crime then why aren't you pushing for impeachment of Bush & Cheney? Also lets not try and play the military service BS... your folks is no better. Bush went AWOL and Cheney dodged.

[Bluerauder]

Also lets not try and play the military service BS... your folks is no better.
Your C.S. response has been noted and filed accordingly. Thank you for your support for the National Defense. :rolleyes:

[Haggis]

If lying to Congress and the American people is a high crime then why aren't you pushing for impeachment of Bush & Cheney? Also lets not try and play the military service BS... your folks is no better. Bush went AWOL and Cheney dodged.

Prove Bush was AWOL in the NG, those papers were proven to be a forgery.

Should have said lying under oath to be 'politicaly correct'...and how do you know what I am pushing for or not?

For - a Conservative President.
Not - a President that will rape the Constitution.
For - a strong and Patrotic President.
Not - one that will sell us out to Socialism.
For - a President that belives in protecting our way of life.
Not - someone who is in George Soros' back pocket.
For - a President that believes in a strong military.
Not - some commie weenie that will let our enemies walk all over us.
etc....

[duhtroll]

Ya know, I'd be happy to reply to anything that has substance about leaders you don't like, but all you guys have offered is conjecture.

So lying is OK if it's "not under oath?" I guess Bush got that part right. He invokes executive privilege when asked "who dealt it?"

I don't remember anything in the Clinton campaign platform(s) that include raping the constitution and letting enemies walk all over us. Can you point me to those references?

Look, I never voted for the guy and won't vote for his wife, but let's be factual, k? Stop fabricating crap.

Besides, you forgot to include "them queers" and the French in your rant. :)



Should have said lying under oath to be 'politicaly correct'...and how do you know what I am pushing for or not?

For - a Conservative President.
Not - a President that will rape the Constitution.
For - a strong and Patrotic President.
Not - one that will sell us out to Socialism.
For - a President that belives in protecting our way of life.
Not - someone who is in George Soros' back pocket.
For - a President that believes in a strong military.
Not - some commie weenie that will let our enemies walk all over us.
etc....

[duhtroll]

First of all, our military is not the bulk of our country.

Our overall economy did very well under Billy Boy. There is no real argument there.

Secondly, after Reagan, who had record deficits because of military spending, yes, I think we needed to spend less on the military. Maybe not cut as far as Clinton did, but we certainly were overspending on defense under Reagan in his later years.

We currently spend more on our military than all of the "axis of evil" and all of their potential allies combined, and then some. I think that's far more than "enough." Our defense spending is still over half our federal discretionary budget, and that doesn't even count the many trillions we are now in debt due to Iraq.

By the way, saying we spend too much on defense and being supportive of our military are not mutually exclusive.


What the H3LL planet do you live on?? The military and the Defense Budget were ***** during the Clinton years. The US Armed Forces were cut in half. R&D was slashed. Production of new equipment was curtailed. And for what ... more Government freebees and "Feel Good" assistance programs. Yep ... we will all feel real good as we continue to sacrifice our strength for Political Correctness and handouts.

[Haggis]

Ya know, I'd be happy to reply to anything that has substance about leaders you don't like, but all you guys have offered is conjecture.

Having his weewee sucked and then saying; 'I did not have sex with that woman', is conjecture?

Clinton admiting to; 'I smoked pot, but did not inhale', is conjecture?

Going to college in England so he could not be drafted, is conjecture?

Ripping off the elderly in the Whitewater scam, is conjecture? Ok you have me on that one, thanks to his lawyers. But I knew people from Littlerock, Arkansas and they told me not to vote for him because he was a crook.

I will give Hillary this, out of all the Democratic canidates she is the only one not in George Soros' back pocket, but she will still rape the Constitution starting with the 2nd Amendment and later with the 4th and 5th and the 1st will not be far behind.


The Constitution guarantees our rights as American citizens, the 2nd Amendment protects those rights.

[duhtroll]

Having his weewee sucked and then saying; 'I did not have sex with that woman', is conjecture?

Nope, but that's not what I was referring you to - where's the other post allofasudden? Oh yeah, it's no longer relevant, which is the point.


Clinton admiting to; 'I smoked pot, but did not inhale', is conjecture?

I'm not defending the guy, but, yes. By definition, unless you have proof otherwise, yes, this is conjecture. You don't know he inhaled. You think he did. Hell, so do I, but that doesn't make it fact.


Going to college in England so he could not be drafted, is conjecture?

"Going to college in England" is not. "so he could not be drafted" most certainly *IS* conjecture. You don't get to tell other people what they think, or determine their intentions.


Ripping off the elderly in the Whitewater scam, is conjecture? Ok you have me on that one, thanks to his lawyers. But I knew people from Littlerock, Arkansas and they told me not to vote for him because he was a crook.

There are a bunch of people who still believe aliens land here frequently, too. Guess that means it must be true.

Again, not defending the guy. Just trying to separate fact from fabrication.


I will give Hillary this, out of all the Democratic canidates she is the only one not in George Soros' back pocket, but she will still rape the Constitution starting with the 2nd Amendment and later with the 4th and 5th and the 1st will not be far behind.

There's your conjecture for ya. You're fabricating the first part, and fortune telling the second part of that sentence/paragraph.

[Haggis]

Nope, but that's not what I was referring you to - where's the other post allofasudden? Oh yeah, it's no longer relevant, which is the point. Please point me in the right direction.



I'm not defending the guy, but, yes. By definition, unless you have proof otherwise, yes, this is conjecture. You don't know he inhaled. You think he did. Hell, so do I, but that doesn't make it fact. So we both believe that he inhaled? Have you ever seen someone smoke pot and not inhale, what's the point of smoking it then?


"Going to college in England" is not. "so he could not be drafted" most certainly *IS* conjecture. You don't get to tell other people what they think, or determine their intentions. Why else did he go to school in England? He could have ran to Canada with the rest of the cowards.



There are a bunch of people who still believe aliens land here frequently, too. Guess that means it must be true. There are really aliens here? Where, Area 51? You you get me to see them?
Again, not defending the guy. Just trying to separate fact from fabrication.



There's your conjecture for ya. You're fabricating the first part, and fortune telling the second part of that sentence/paragraph. So your telling me that Hillary is in George Soros' back pocket, they must have kissed and made up. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'?

As to the second part I pray your right or it will be; 'Seig Heil Hillary!"

...............

[duhtroll]

Look, because I say "x is not true," it doesn't infer that I must believe y.

For your other answers, I "point" you to my previous posts -- no reason to repeat them.

[Haggis]

Look, because I say "x is not true," it doesn't infer that I must believe y.

For your other answers, I "point" you to my previous posts -- no reason to repeat them.

Oh you meant the 'queers' and 'French' that you mentioned. Well, honestly I have never met a 'queer' or a Frenchman that I did like. And I have met some not many though, I guess I have only met the bad apples of the bunch.

Well I can not play any longer today, have to go. Hopefully I will be back tomorrow or Wednesday, but not promising anything as those will be busy work days, but I'll try.

Now don't you all go and 'CLOSE' this thread while I'm gone and good debating with you Andrew.

[Leadfoot281]

Maybe you need a new line of work. Don't blame me for the governments tax policies. I have as much to do with those as you have to do with my daily bowel movement. (you're able to vote on that?! Wow. That's the one thing I CAN'T vote on.) I keep hearing you whining on and on about how the poor farmer (cash poor land rich) is being screwed. Maybe you should get into a field that doesn't have that problem (I hope you weren't eating when you typed that. We don't mind criticisizm...just please don't do it with your mouth full. Ok?)... like mine (cash rich land poor). Oh that's right... its the government's fault.

BTW, Bush's tax cuts have little or no effect on my tax bill. Though I am a small business owner (who he claims to champion), I guess I'm not rich enough.

First off, Congratulations on being a small business owner! We both like Zappa, own Marauders and we're both business owners. Whodathunkit?

Just make sure you give all of your worldly possessions away before you kick off. Knowing the exact time and date of death was the only way past the Death Tax for my Dad.

I'm not whining. I've got a Marauder, a dang good dog, a freezer full of venison, and the best friends in the world. Life is good! I just posted my story as a warning to others. The Death Tax doesn't discriminate between land rich/cash broke, and cash rich/land broke.

Unless you run a lemonade stand, the American small business man (farmer or otherwise) can easily have a pile of money wrapped up in it. Those cash and assets are NOT safe under any circumstances with the Death Tax around.

The Death tax has been proven to be completely unnecessary.

If you believe me, I've proven the Death Tax to be cruel are hurtfull.

And if you believe the Dems won't bring the Death Tax back, I've got a bridge for sale.

[duhtroll]

Nope - I was referring to what you are "FOR," and what you are "AGAINST."

I noticed that much of what you are AGAINST sounds a lot like something one would hear Sean Hannity say. :eek:

I ain't voting for Billary part 2, but if she is somehow elected the world is not going to be engulfed in flames as a result, despite what Mr. Hannity says.

But he's a "great American." :lol:

I seriously wonder how so many people are scared of Hillary if they have paid any attention to world events the past 7 years. It can't get much worse than Dubya.

To quote John Stewart: "The problem with this country, according to the Republican debates, is that Hillary Clinton has been destroying this country for the past 6 years and must be stopped."

You know, this next line is a complete guess on my part, but I will bet you have met several gay people (and gotten along fine with them) and not even known they were gay. Just a thought. Statistically isn't it something like 10%?


Oh you meant the 'queers' and 'French' that you mentioned. Well, honestly I have never met a 'queer' or a Frenchman that I did like. And I have met some not many though, I guess I have only met the bad apples of the bunch.

Well I can not play any longer today, have to go. Hopefully I will be back tomorrow or Wednesday, but not promising anything as those will be busy work days, but I'll try.

Now don't you all go and 'CLOSE' this thread while I'm gone and good debating with you Andrew.

[duhtroll]

Yep, I saw a discarded Joe Biden campaign placard that read "Screw the Dead!" but they threw out the slogan because it gave folks the wrong idea.


First off, Congratulations on being a small business owner! We both like Zappa, own Marauders and we're both business owners. Whodathunkit?

Just make sure you give all of your worldly possessions away before you kick off. Knowing the exact time and date of death was the only way past the Death Tax for my Dad.

I'm not whining. I've got a Marauder, a dang good dog, a freezer full of venison, and the best friends in the world. Life is good! I just posted my story as a warning to others. The Death Tax doesn't discriminate between land rich/cash broke, and cash rich/land broke.

Unless you run a lemonade stand, the American small business man (farmer or otherwise) can easily have a pile of money wrapped up in it. Those cash and assets are NOT safe under any circumstances with the Death Tax around.

The Death tax has been proven to be completely unnecessary.

If you believe me, I've proven the Death Tax to be cruel are hurtfull.

And if you believe the Dems won't bring the Death Tax back, I've got a bridge for sale.

[BruteForce]

Yep, I saw a discarded Joe Biden campaign placard that read "Screw the Dead!" but they threw out the slogan because it gave folks the wrong idea.

Necrophiliacs lookin' for dead ones... Name that tune. :P

[Leadfoot281]

Yep, I saw a discarded Joe Biden campaign placard that read "Screw the Dead!" but they threw out the slogan because it gave folks the wrong idea.

Actually that post, and it's questions, were directed to BruteForce.

Thanks for sharing!

[sailsmen]

For some more real life. John's family fortune was taken by the Federals after the civil war. The property that was left was taken by the gov't to pay the property tax on property that was made worthless.

Johns father went to work for the gov't and died young. The mother turned her house into a boarding house to support John and his two siblings. John moved into a box in the basement so his mother could rent out his room.

This caused John some health problems. John studied and got a scholarship to Tulane. John then got into medical school. John sold hats after school and borrowed a friends books to "study" every nite after work.

John became an ENT, one of the youngest in the country. John married the daughter of a legal immigrant who came to the US with his 2 brothers and bought the business they worked for. John borrowed money from his wife's farther to start his practise.

John until the day he died would only charge patients $2 who left it at the counter. John was the first private ENT to go to many countries in Africa to teach how to remove cataracts so thousands could see again.

In his last 10 years John gave away most of his money. When he died he owned 5 suits, an old car and a 17' boat he had mostly built.

During the last years of his life his record keeping began to fail.

The IRS demanded payment because althought there was a pattern that he gave away almost all he earned every year for 10 years the proof in the last few years of his life was not all there. To quote the IRS agent "I do not believe a surgeon only made X and then gave it all away".

John's father in law who lent him the money to start his practise died and all the life insurance money went to pay the estate tax.

Neither man nor their families ever received a penny from the government.

Neither man lived in a mansion, owned a Rolls Royce or mercedes, owned a yacht, owned an art collection, owned a summer home, owned horses, owned an airplane. No one ever considered them "rich" in the material sense. Successful but not "rich".

Both men enriched many who were less fortunate. Many a legal immigrant has worked for John's father in law making high 5 figures.

Yet in the eyes of some in our government they both were "rich" their estates were taxed 55%. Why??????????????????????????? ??????

Because they gave more than they took!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BruteForce]

Actually that post, and it's questions, were directed to BruteForce.

Thanks for sharing!

If you guys can go 6 on 1 then I think its okay if we get a little 2 on 1 going. I'm sure you can handle it. Well maybe not... :P

[Leadfoot281]

If you guys can go 6 on 1 then I think its okay if we get a little 2 on 1 going. I'm sure you can handle it. Well maybe not... :P


How about one on one then? I'm up for that.

[BruteForce]

For those of you who have been around for a while and have maybe read or posted in one of our political threads last year or before, I'd like to raise a glass to one of our fallen friends who passed on about this time last year.

hitchhiker (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/member.php?u=1792)

Rest in peace you crazy mofo.

[Bluerauder]

For those of you who have been around for a while and have maybe read or posted in one of our political threads last year or before, I'd like to raise a glass to one of our fallen friends who passed on about this time last year.

hitchhiker (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/member.php?u=1792)

Rest in peace you crazy mofo.
"Hitchhiker" and "Skotty702" were remembered during Marauderville V activities.

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/showcase/files/1/8/9/1/MV5012.jpg

While I didn't always see "eye to eye" with Hitchhiker, I was saddened by his passing.

[duhtroll]

You're welcome!


Actually that post, and it's questions, were directed to BruteForce.

Thanks for sharing!

[Haggis]

Nope - I was referring to what you are "FOR," and what you are "AGAINST."

I noticed that much of what you are AGAINST sounds a lot like something one would hear Sean Hannity say. :eek:

I ain't voting for Billary part 2, but if she is somehow elected the world is not going to be engulfed in flames as a result, despite what Mr. Hannity says.

But he's a "great American." :lol:

I seriously wonder how so many people are scared of Hillary if they have paid any attention to world events the past 7 years. It can't get much worse than Dubya.

To quote John Stewart: "The problem with this country, according to the Republican debates, is that Hillary Clinton has been destroying this country for the past 6 years and must be stopped."

You know, this next line is a complete guess on my part, but I will bet you have met several gay people (and gotten along fine with them) and not even known they were gay. Just a thought. Statistically isn't it something like 10%?

Oh this thread:


For - a Conservative President.
Not - a President that will rape the Constitution.
For - a strong and Patrotic President.
Not - one that will sell us out to Socialism.
For - a President that belives in protecting our way of life.
Not - someone who is in George Soros' back pocket.
For - a President that believes in a strong military.
Not - some commie weenie that will let our enemies walk all over us.
etc....

Ok, I have not insulted you at all in our discussions. Don't start! I know you are against the 1st 'For' in my list, but I can not believe you are not for the rest of the 'For's. And I certainly hope you are not for the ones in the 'Not' category.

As for the gay people, yes I do know the people that I have met and whether they were gay or not and I did not get along with them. As I have not had any positive dealings with the French that I have met. So don't assume that I have.

It can and will get much worse with Hillary as President or any of the other Democratic front runners.


The Constitution guarantees our rights as American citizens. The 2nd Amendment protects those rights.

[SC Cheesehead]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/11/27/us/27ladies-600.jpg
"So, a Democrat, a Republican, and a Libertarian walk into this bar, see...."



GAWD, I hope this woman isn't our next President!

SCCH

[duhtroll]

I know you are against the 1st 'For' in my list, but I can not believe you are not for the rest of the 'For's. And I certainly hope you are not for the ones in the 'Not' category.

First of all, stop assuming that the "nots" are true about any of the people you mentioned.

They're "not." It's grandstanding propaganda.

Making wild assumptions about what's going to happen when someone is elected, *if* someone is elected, is playing chicken little.

You know, "the sky is falling!"

Secondly, I haven't stated who I support as of yet. I would like to have a conservative president fiscally but one that is not a mouthpiece for the hypocritical religious right.

I'd like almost any president who is going to cut spending on overseas invasions.

Side note: The Iraq war has cost more than any "entitlement program" (or all of them put together) anyone could dream of. I laugh when GOPs argue that they want a conservative president since our current one ran under that banner (his own words "I'm a compassionate conservative") yet has spent more money than any president in history.


As for the gay people, yes I do know the people that I have met and whether they were gay or not and I did not get along with them. As I have not had any positive dealings with the French that I have met. So don't assume that I have.

So, you ask each individual with whom you speak to describe their sexual experience? Male *and* female? All of them? And then you assume they are telling the truth? If so, you may be the only person I have ever corresponded with that has done this. The truth is that you don't know exactly who boinks whom among everyone you know. Everyone has secrets.


It can and will get much worse with Hillary as President or any of the other Democratic front runners.

To quote Reagan: "There you go again." Predicting the future is not something that anyone has been proven to be able to do. The sky is falling, and all that.

Side note 2: Still waiting for the headline "Psychic wins lottery!"

Tell me what is bad about Obama. That's the guy I support in the upcoming election. I don't think he'll win, but I'm still waiting for someone to show me why he would be a bad choice for president. I'm pretty sure raping the constitution and letting our enemies walk all over us (and all of the other stuff you mentioned) are not in his campaign platform, at least the last time I read it.

They are not in Hillary's, either (or anyone else's) but I am not in her camp.

[Bluerauder]

Tell me what is bad about Obama. That's the guy I support in the upcoming election. I don't think he'll win, but I'm still waiting for someone to show me why he would be a bad choice for president.
For one thing, he doesn't Pledge Allegiance to the USA. Good enough ??

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/showcase/files/1/8/9/1/ObamaPledge.bmp

[BruteForce]

For one thing, he doesn't Pledge Allegiance to the USA. Good enough ??

That's just schoolyard silly. "I'm more patriotic than you... no you're not I am..."

How about discussion about policy (real not imagined) instead of whether someone remembers to do the ritual correctly in public.

[Bluerauder]

That's just schoolyard silly. "I'm more patriotic than you... no you're not I am..."

How about discussion about policy (real not imagined) instead of whether someone remembers to do the ritual correctly in public.
Just the type of response that I expected. Pretty predictable really. This isn't a question of patriotism or ritual. Obama has demonstrated in public that he is unwilling or unable to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag or to the United States of America. How do you expect that he can execute of the Oath of Office of the President and "protect and defend the Constitution of the US ....." You are an absolute ball of critical thinking there Brute .........

[kayzap]

Anyone who owns instead of works for a business should be incorporated. With the proper incorporation and corporate papers. Death taxes and most other taxes can be legally avoided. Spend some money now with a high end Estate Attorney and Business Attorney and save tons of cash over the years and at the end.

This would have saved the Farmers family hundreds of thousands and could do the same for the small business owner.

As a side note for those of you willing to take advantage of the "Housing crisis" If you incorporate and build a credit rating. (Gas card will do.) Your Corp. can buy houses with no money down on the strength of its credit rating. Rent the house out and your corp. is taxed at a lower rate because of expenses i.e. maintenance on the house and other expenses like your corp. car etc. Get it yet?

Forming a Corp. is cheap and easy too. Here in Commie California it cost me $277.00 to form my last corp. Corps also provide personal asset protection.

The tax code is a maze set up to the advantage of those who wrote it. You can use it too and you don't have to be rich to take that advantage but by taking that advantage you can be richer.

OK back to politics.

[BruteForce]

Just the type of response that I expected. Pretty predictable really. This isn't a question of patriotism or ritual. Obama has demonstrated in public that he is unwilling or unable to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag or to the United States of America. How do you expect that he can execute of the Oath of Office of the President and "protect and defend the Constitution of the US ....." You are an absolute ball of critical thinking there Brute .........

Critical thinking is not involved with making leaps of logic based on conjecture. Missing lapel pins or improper "hand over heart" placement is not an indication of patriotism or lack of which. If he really was the subversive that you think he is, do you really think he would flaunt it publicly?

Try removing cranium from orifice before engaging thought process. It helps... no really.

Here's the real story on the rumor surrounding that picture. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic. html)

Not the pledge... it was the national anthem. Here's the whole film (http://www.youtube.com/user/tf8252).

See if you were using those critical thinking skills, you would have checked the facts instead of relying on a biased source.

The facts from the horse's mouth. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3834553)

Here's what Barack sez about that picture:


"My grandfather taught me how to say the Pledge of Allegiance when I was 2," Obama said, his annoyance obvious. "During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem you sing."

A woman also asked Obama about the photo Tuesday night during a town hall meeting in Cedar Rapids, evoking a similar reaction.

"This is the classic dirty trick of the campaign," Obama said.

He added that he's often the target of anonymous criticism on the Internet.

"You've got e-mails saying I'm a Muslim plant trying to take over America," Obama said. "We've seen this before."

He advised the woman to tell the sender of the e-mail the real story.

"You don't have to curse them out, just tell them they've got their facts wrong," he said.

General M. McPeak (USAF Ret), Maj General Scott Gration (USAF Ret) and Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy released a letter denouncing the chain emails regarding Obama's patriotism. Read it here (http://obama.3cdn.net/bd741716c892f7b788_eum6iycah.P DF) (PDF).

Thanks for playing. Sorry... no lovely parting gift.

[duhtroll]

So when Bush forgets the words to the National Anthem, he is unpatriotic?

It's happened, gents.

If this type of stuff is important, then every single living being is now disqualified from being president of the US, because everyone forgets things from time to time. It doesn't mean that they aren't important.

Oh look, I didn't capitalize "President of the US" or write it out correctly.

Damn. I'm out, too.

Are you seriously giving this lame excuse as a reason Obama should not be president?

You're assuming he is doing it deliberately, just to piss people off??

Either that or you must say it was unintentional. If it's unintentional, you have no argument. If you think he is doing it deliberately to say "screw you America, I'm better than you," then I think you have a problem with reality.

If you're so certain of his intentions, you should call Sen. Obama and explain to him just what he was doing and what he meant by it. People love it when you explain their actions for them.



Just the type of response that I expected. Pretty predictable really. This isn't a question of patriotism or ritual. Obama has demonstrated in public that he is unwilling or unable to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag or to the United States of America. How do you expect that he can execute of the Oath of Office of the President and "protect and defend the Constitution of the US ....." You are an absolute ball of critical thinking there Brute .........

[duhtroll]

Wow. Thanks for posting that. I was going to attend that event myself except it conflicted with a performance I was judging. I didn't realize that was right here in IA.

The only thing unpatriotic in that video is the way the national anthem is being performed.


Critical thinking is not involved with making leaps of logic based on conjecture. Missing lapel pins or improper "hand over heart" placement is not an indication of patriotism or lack of which. If he really was the subversive that you think he is, do you really think he would flaunt it publicly?

Try removing cranium from orifice before engaging thought process. It helps... no really.

Here's the real story on the rumor surrounding that picture. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic. html)

Not the pledge... it was the national anthem. Here's the whole film (http://www.youtube.com/user/tf8252).

See if you were using those critical thinking skills, you would have checked the facts instead of relying on a biased source.

The facts from the horse's mouth. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3834553)

Here's what Barack sez about that picture:



General M. McPeak (USAF Ret), Maj General Scott Gration (USAF Ret) and Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy released a letter denouncing the chain emails regarding Obama's patriotism. Read it here (http://obama.3cdn.net/bd741716c892f7b788_eum6iycah.P DF) (PDF).

Thanks for playing. Sorry... no lovely parting gift.

[Haggis]

First of all, stop assuming that the "nots" are true about any of the people you mentioned. I did not say they were, all I said is that is what I am 'NOT' for.
They're "not." It's grandstanding propaganda.

Making wild assumptions about what's going to happen when someone is elected, *if* someone is elected, is playing chicken little. All of the Democratic candidates are for gun control to the point of repealing the 2nd Amendment. And that is not chicken little that is fact, just look up their voting history in Congress.
You know, "the sky is falling!" Just hope it doesn't land on top of you.

Secondly, I haven't stated who I support as of yet. I would like to have a conservative president fiscally but one that is not a mouthpiece for the hypocritical religious right. Here we agree again.

I'd like almost any president who is going to cut spending on overseas invasions. The idea behind the Iraq invasion was a good thing, but has been twisted and drawn out far to long.

Side note: The Iraq war has cost more than any "entitlement program" (or all of them put together) anyone could dream of. I laugh when GOPs argue that they want a conservative president since our current one ran under that banner (his own words "I'm a compassionate conservative") yet has spent more money than any president in history. I don't believe everything I hear, do you? I believe actions speak louder then words and yes I am disappointed.

So, you ask each individual with whom you speak to describe their sexual experience? Male *and* female? All of them? And then you assume they are telling the truth? If so, you may be the only person I have ever corresponded with that has done this. The truth is that you don't know exactly who boinks whom among everyone you know. Everyone has secrets. Just because I talk to someone doesn't mean I like them or dislike them. But, everyone that I have gotten to know and was gay I have found not to like them.



To quote Reagan: "There you go again." Predicting the future is not something that anyone has been proven to be able to do. The sky is falling, and all that. Really, you don't say.

Side note 2: Still waiting for the headline "Psychic wins lottery!" I waiting for Ed McMahon to show up at my door.

Tell me what is bad about Obama. That's the guy I support in the upcoming election. I don't think he'll win, but I'm still waiting for someone to show me why he would be a bad choice for president. I'm pretty sure raping the constitution and letting our enemies walk all over us (and all of the other stuff you mentioned) are not in his campaign platform, at least the last time I read it. He is for repealing the 2nd Amendment, look at his voting record in Congress. He is for HR 2074 and the 'Law of Seas Treaty' (LOST), that will affectively put us under the heel of the UN. And as Charlie stated above; "This isn't a question of patriotism or ritual. Obama has demonstrated in public that he is unwilling or unable to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag or to the United States of America. How do you expect that he can execute of the Oath of Office of the President and "protect and defend the Constitution of the US ....." and as you stated above; "Secondly, I haven't stated who I support as of yet. I would like to have a conservative president fiscally but one that is not a mouthpiece for the hypocritical religious right." and Obama is not a conservative.
They are not in Hillary's, either (or anyone else's) but I am not in her camp. Thank you.

...........

[Bluerauder]

:laugh: Isn't this one of those "ad hominem" attacks that the liberals just hate --- but immediately resort too when challenged?

Try removing cranium from orifice before engaging thought process. It helps... no really.

No one denies that the picture was real. That's your FACT. Doesn't matter whether it was the Pledge or the National Anthem ... he didn't participate. Doesn't know how. And he isn't singing either per his granddaddy's guidance. I expect the next President of the USA to have some character. Character counts. This incident calls that character into question. That's the point. Obviously, you missed it ... never got it ... or can't understand it.


Thanks for playing. Sorry... no lovely parting gift.

I see that you fancy yourself as the Einstein of Politics. Congrats on your self-appointed position.

BTW --- Don't bother to post up one of your long winded reclamas --- I am done with this thread.

[BruteForce]

:laugh: Isn't this one of those "ad hominem" attacks that the liberals just hate --- but immediately resort too when challenged?


No one denies that the picture was real. That's your FACT. Doesn't matter whether it was the Pledge or the National Anthem ... he didn't participate. Doesn't know how. And he isn't singing either per his granddaddy's guidance. I expect the next President of the USA to have some character. Character counts. This incident calls that character into question. That's the point. Obviously, you missed it ... never got it ... or can't understand it.



I see that you fancy yourself as the Einstein of Politics. Congrats on your self-appointed position.

or·i·fice /ˈɔrəfɪs, ˈɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awr-uh-fis, or-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun an opening or aperture, as of a tube or pipe; a mouthlike opening or hole; mouth; vent.

I was referring to your hat. :D


Doesn't matter whether it was the Pledge or the National Anthem ...

Actually it does matter in the context in which you presented it. You told us what it meant. I showed you that you were wrong. If I post up a picture of Barack with hand over heart, will THAT convince you of his character? I'm thinkin' not.

I don't see any mea culpa. When presented with the facts (if intellectually honest) one usually owns up to an error. Now that you have the truth, will you be posting any followups to wherever you got that garbage? I'm thinkin' not.

Put that in your hat.

[BruteForce]

It is untrue that Barack Obama "refused to say the pledge allegiance," but feel free to share the following record of Obama's allegiance and patriotism when the cameras were not rolling with whomever sent you that misleading chain email or with an American hero you know.

February 15, 2005: Obama critiques Bush for providing a veterans budget funding that is $4 billion short
March 26, 2005: Obama introduces a bill to add $2.85 billion to VA health care, but the bill was defeated (<–probably by people who usually put their hands over their hearts instead of singing for the national anthem)
April 14, 2005: Obama gives Senate floor speech about wounded veterans who were paying for their own meals and phone service while recovering
May 12, 2005: Senate passes Obama amendment ensuring that wounded veterans recovering in military hospitals would not have to pay for their own meals.
May 23, 2005: Obama, Durbin, and Nichols hold a Veterans Town Hall meeting to hear veterans' concerns
June 14, 2005: Obama, Durbin introduce bill to prevent Iraq War widow from being sent back to Kosovo
June 23, 2005: Obama releases statement of concern about the $1 billion shortfall in the budget for veterans' care
June 28, 2005: Obama pushes for emergency funding for veteran health care in light of the fact that Congress found billions to give people tax cuts.
June 30, 2005: Obama praises Senate decision to provide $1.5 billion for VA health care
July 15, 2005: Obama gives major speech at the American Legion on caring for America's veterans
July 21, 2005: Obama votes to add additional funding for armor military vehicles
August 10, 2005: Obama criticizes VA decision not to review cases of veterans who were denied claims for post-traumatic stress disorder
September 23, 2005: Senate passes Obama, Durbin legislation requiring VA to inform veterans in states who had received below-average disability compensation
September 23, 2005: Obama, Durbin amendment ensures that veterans whose PTSD cases were reviewed would not get their benefits reduced or revoked.
October 3, 2006: Military Update highlights Obama's efforts on reviews of PTSD cases
November 10, 2005: Obama releases statement about the VA suspending their review of PTSD cases.
November 16, 2005: Obama passes amendments to protect troops from Avian flu and to improve their health care
November 18, 2005: Obama, Durbin legislation requiring individuals to be informed about lower than average disability compensation in their states moves toward being signed into law
December 16, 2005: Kerry, Pryor, Obama provision to help troops save thousands on their taxes passes Senate
January 25, 2006: Obama decries the fact that thousands of veterans were denied VA care in 2005
January 27, 2006: Obama and others demand answers from VA for rude service and incorrect answers at their call center
February 2, 2006: Obama addresses low job placement rates for veterans
February 16, 2006: Obama criticizes "accounting gimmicks" in Bush's proposed VA budget, the increase in veterans' health care and co-payment fees, the ban on middle-income veterans, the cut in claims benefits processing staff, no increased funding for nursing home construction, and cuts for medical and prosthetics research.
March 16, 2006: Senate approves Obama bill providing $40 million for homeless veterans and veterans' employment
May 8, 2006: VA acts on Obama, Durbin legislation to inform veterans who have received below average disability benefits
May 17, 2006: Obama helps a veteran get $12,500 in back benefit pay.
May 22, 2006: Obama calls the theft of 26.5 million VA records "unconscionable"
May 23, 2006: Obama, Durbin asks VA to provide credit monitoring services to veterans whose records had been stolen
June 7, 2006: Obama introduces bill to keep homeless veterans off the street
June 22, 2006: Obama bill to get homeless veterans off the street passes Senate Veterans Affairs committee
November 30, 2006: Obama releases statement expressing encouragement by Iraq Study Group's call for redeploying U.S. forces
February 20, 2007: Obama, McCaskill plan to introduce legislation that would improve care at active duty military hospitals
February 27, 2007: Obama releases statement on troops being deployed to Iraq without proper training
March 1, 2007: Obama, McCaskill officially introduce the Dignity for Wounded Heroes Act
March 1, 2007: The Army Times highlights the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act introduced by Obama and McCaskill
March 13, 2007: Obama, Durbin ask VA for info about most recent disparities in disability benefits and about whether they are prepared for the increasing number of new veterans
March 27, 2007: Other Senators join Obama and McCaskill's Dignity for Wounded Heroes Act
March 29, 2007: Obama commemorates sacrifice of the Tuskeegee Airmen
March 29, 2007: Senate Republicans reject provisions in the Dignity for Wounded Heroes Act introduced by Obama and McCaskill that would have provided funding for caseworkers, mental health care counselors, a women's mental health treatment program, and a study of mental health care for returning soldiers
March 30, 2007: Obama calls on Bush to support care for returning soldiers by supporting the Dignity for Wounded Heroes Act
April 10, 2007: Obama and other senators introduce a bill to provide housing for homeless veterans
April 12, 2007: Obama raises concerns about Bush's nominee for Veteran's Affairs
April 19, 2007: Obama and other senators ask GAO to study military's mental health care
April 19, 2007: The Army Times examines soldiers being discharged for PTSD and the efforts of Obama and other senators to address it

(continued next post)

[BruteForce]

May 2, 2007: Obama, McCaskill introduce the Homecoming Enhancement Research Oversight (HERO) Act that would evaluate the physical, mental health, and readjustment needs of service members returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
May 8, 2007: Obama asks President to ensure that the National Guard has the resources it needs to respond to national emergencies
May 10, 2007: Obama, other senators introduce bill to update treatment of traumatic brain injury for military servicemembers
May 10, 2007: The AP highlights the National Guard's readiness and Obama's efforts to address it
May 22, 2007: Obama, other senators express concern about mental health care services for soldiers at Fort Carson
May 23, 2007: Obama, Domenici introduce bill to expand mental health care access for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan
May 28, 2007: The Washington Post writes an editorial highlighting the need for Obama's legislation to improve veterans' mental health care
June 14, 2007: A comprehensive Senate bill to improve health care for service members incorporates proposals from Obama and McCaskill's Dignity for Wounded Heroes Act.
June 21, 2007: Obama and other senators demand review of personality disorder discharges for soldiers
June 21, 2007: Obama and other senators introduce bill to improve VA services for blind veterans
June 27, 2007: Several Obama proposals are incorporated into a Senate bill to improve veteran's health care and benefits including a VA Hospital Quality Report card and extended mental health coverage for veterans and increased outreach to the National Guard and the Reserve
July 12, 2007: Obama and other senators plan to introduce legislation to temporarily cease military personality disorder discharges
July 17, 2007: Obama releases statement on resignation of VA secretary with whom he had to fight to get veterans their benefits
July 19, 2007: Obama introduces legislation to impose a moratorium on military personality disorder discharges until the procedure is reviewed
July 25, 2007: Obama, McCaskill applaud passage of Wounded Warrior legislation
July 26, 2006: Obama and other senators introduce legislation to provide an employment safety net for families of wounded service members
August 2, 2007: Obama and other senators introduce "Patriot Employers Act" legislation to reward companies that invest in jobs, benefits, decent wages, and support for their employees who are called to active duty
August 2, 2007: Senate passes Obama/McCaskill's Military Family Job Protection Act which provides up to a year of job protection for family members caring for a service member recovering from combat-related injuries
August 21, 2007: Barack Obama gives major speech to the VFW on America's veterans
September 18, 2007: Obama, McCaskill release statement on Military Family Job Protection Act urging the Senate to approve it
September 19, 2007: Obama co-sponsors Jim Webb legislation that requires minimum periods between troop redeployments
September 25, 2007: Obama, McCaskill continue to fight for passage of Military Family Job Protection Act
September 26, 2007: Obama releases statement on GAO report that wounded soldiers are receiving substandard treatment from the Pentagon and VA
September 26, 2007: Obama releases statement asking Bush to ensure that private contractors are not jeopardizing military's efforts in Iraq
October 1, 2007: The Post-Dispatch discusses military soldier discharges for "pre-existing conditions" and the Obama/Bond legislation that addresses it
October 1, 2007: Obama, Bond praise new safeguards on military personality disorder discharges
October 17, 2007: Obama calls on Gates to ensure that all service members are receiving full educational benefits
October 21, 2007: The Post-Dispatch interviews soldiers handling the effects of personality disorder discharges and highlights the Obama/Bond legislation that calls for a moratorium
October 23, 2007: Obama, Durbin demand full report on military post traumatic stress disorder cases
October 30, 2007: Obama releases statement on nomination of James Peake for VA Secretary
November 5, 2007: Obama and other senators call on Pentagon to ensure quality care for returning service members with eye injuries
November 8, 2007: Obama introduces the Veterans Homelessness Prevention Act which provides housing and support services for veterans and their families, including those returning from Iraq, who are at high-risk of becoming homeless
November 17, 2007: Obama and Durbin introduce legislation to improve hiring and quality of care at VA medical centers
November 19, 2007: A wounded Iraq veteran visits Barack Obama's Senate office for help.
November 20, 2007: Barack Obama writes a post on VetVoice, the blog for VoteVets explaining his vision for taking care of America's veterans

Need more?

[vkirkend]

I 'm with "duhtroll on this one. How many people have gone to sporting events and heard others in the crowd butcher the national anthem, or not take their hates off, or not put their hands over their hearts. It does not make them communist sympathizers.

Here's the real story on the rumor surrounding that picture. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic. html)

Not the pledge... it was the national anthem. Here's the whole film (http://www.youtube.com/user/tf8252).

This isn't a question of patriotism or ritual. Obama has demonstrated in public that he is unwilling or unable to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag or to the United States of America.

Didn't he have to do this to get elected to Congress??? This sounds like a lot of chest beating to me without alot of substance.:shake:

[duhtroll]

Please post the votes that you believe mean that Obama wants the 2nd amendment repealed.

IF you want to discuss the voting record and make a conclusion about it, you have to post it. Otherwise, it's more phantom scariness.

And, for the record I said fiscal conservative. I'll make a wager that Obama wants to spend less cash than Dubya. Wanna wager on that?


...........

[BruteForce]

Please post the votes that you believe mean that Obama wants the 2nd amendment repealed.

IF you want to discuss the voting record and make a conclusion about it, you have to post it. Otherwise, it's more phantom scariness.

Ya see they can't. It wasn't part of the article they read on Papa Bear's site (who we all know is meticulous at citing his source material). You just gotta take it at face value. :tmi:

[Leadfoot281]

How about one on one then? I'm up for that.

Still waiting BruteForce. Quit Stalin.



BTW, Great example of the classic liberal "drive by"! (posts 76 and 77).

[BruteForce]

Still waiting BruteForce. Quit Stalin.



BTW, Great example of the classic liberal "drive by"! (posts 76 and 77).


I miss you too. Now wait your turn.. the adults are talkin'. ;)

[Aren Jay]

If you do it right in Canada the tax rate is 14.5% max.

Unless you have a salary, then you max out at 29%.

[Haggis]

Dutroll you are right, I will need to do more research.

Bruteforce, why do you feel the need to lower yourself to name calling and insulting people when they do not agree with you?

But, if you are running for a political office you should know how to show proper respect for the flag and the National Anthem and to be aware of your surroundings knowing that pictures will be taken of you. Also he is no longer 2yrs old and should know by now the proper way to show respect.

[duhtroll]

I heard a campaign commercial by Hillary several times yesterday on my way to/from a meeting out of town last night, and on my way to work this AM.

It is an official "I am Hillary and I approved this message" ad.

It features a man talking emotionally about his child, who had a very rare disorder and needed a bone marrow transplant to the tune of $300K-$400K. Their insurance would not cover it and they did not have the money. They called Hillary for help. Her office called them the next day and told them the hospital was going to "absorb the cost of the transplant."

This says two things to me.

1) Like all medical procedures, this transplant probably does not cost $300K, probably more like $30K given the way they inflate health care prices.

2) The hospital likely did not absorb the cost. The other patients most likely did.

I cannot believe she ran this commercial, and I cannot believe anyone would fall for this type of shenanigan as a positive thing, outside of the fact that the kid is still alive.

Were I Hillary's opponent I would be running the same commercial with commentary including TINFL.

Here in IA we get the privilege of being deluged with political ads pretty much 365 anymore.

[BruteForce]

Bruteforce, why do you feel the need to lower yourself to name calling and insulting people when they do not agree with you?

Typical blinders on with respect to your own side's BS.


You are an absolute ball of critical thinking there Brute .........

Its okay to belittle the liberals but once they show their teeth, its all "why you be so mean?". And what he posted was not only WRONG as in false, he went on to base further misinformation and false judgment based on it as proof. So he got spanked. Deal with it.

[Haggis]

Bruteforce, why do you feel the need to lower yourself to name calling and insulting people when they do not agree with you?


Typical blinders on with respect to your own side's BS.




You are an absolute ball of critical thinking there Brute .........


Its okay to belittle the liberals but once they show their teeth, its all "why you be so mean?". And what he posted was not only WRONG as in false, he went on to base further misinformation and false judgment based on it as proof. So he got spanked. Deal with it.
Fist of all here you go again, insulting people and name calling. For the record you started insulting people in post #35 and then continued in #58, #70 and #82. I never belittled Liberals, I just disagree with them. Can you now continue this debate without the insults, it just demeans your argument. By the way if someone else insults you just ignore it or point it out that it is not necessary.

[Haggis]

Dutroll you are right, I will need to do more research.

Here are Senator Obama's voting record on gun control in the 109th Congress. The information is posted by Gun Owners of America.

Sen. Obama's voting record on gun control (http://www.gunowners.org/cci.htm)

[duhtroll]

There is nothing there about repealing the 2nd amendment.

The only thing I see that is debatable is the vote that GOA says requires registration, which of course the bill said nothing of the sort. There are lots of organizations that have their communications monitored, formally or informally, so while I don't see a problem I am certain the paranoid would find it undesirable.

But then again, tapping phones is OK with the current admin., so this is really a moot point. If Big Brother wants to know, they can find out what's going on.

Unless someone is going to argue that having a trigger lock available with a gun purchase is a bad thing. Which of course, the GOA is saying. The bill doesn't require that you use it, only that you have one made available. I don't see this as a problem, and it certainly doesn't threaten the 2nd amendment.

I'll remind y'all that the 2nd amendment reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Emphasis mine. He didn't vote to take any guns away, only that a safety device be included in the sale. Regulating said "militia" (definition also debatable) is part of the amendment.


Here are Senator Obama's voting record on gun control in the 109th Congress. The information is posted by Gun Owners of America.

Sen. Obama's voting record on gun control (http://www.gunowners.org/cci.htm)

[BruteForce]

Fist of all here you go again, insulting people and name calling. For the record you started insulting people in post #35 and then continued in #58, #70 and #82. I never belittled Liberals, I just disagree with them. Can you now continue this debate without the insults, it just demeans your argument. By the way if someone else insults you just ignore it or point it out that it is not necessary.

Most of what you call insulting is pretty tame, even funny if you have thick enough skin. I will admit a couple were borderline but nowhere near as insulting as I have seen you post in the past. Maybe its your reading of it? Ever consider that?

[Haggis]

There is nothing there about repealing the 2nd amendment.

The only thing I see that is debatable is the vote that GOA says requires registration, which of course the bill said nothing of the sort. There are lots of organizations that have their communications monitored, formally or informally, so while I don't see a problem I am certain the paranoid would find it undesirable.

But then again, tapping phones is OK with the current admin., so this is really a moot point. If Big Brother wants to know, they can find out what's going on.

Unless someone is going to argue that having a trigger lock available with a gun purchase is a bad thing. Which of course, the GOA is saying. The bill doesn't require that you use it, only that you have one made available. I don't see this as a problem, and it certainly doesn't threaten the 2nd amendment.

I'll remind y'all that the 2nd amendment reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Emphasis mine. He didn't vote to take any guns away, only that a safety device be included in the sale. Regulating said "militia" (definition also debatable) is part of the amendment.
Read the whole text, I bold type the part you forgot to.

[Haggis]

Most of what you call insulting is pretty tame, even funny if you have thick enough skin. I will admit a couple were borderline but nowhere near as insulting as I have seen you post in the past. Maybe its your reading of it? Ever consider that?

Tame or not it is not called for. And as you have stated; "near as insulting as I have seen you post in the past." This is more then possibly true, but have I insulted you or anyone else in this thread?

[duhtroll]

I was referring to the "well-regulated" part; the part people always seem to neglect.

Maybe you could explain how that makes a difference to the point (it doesn't - no one is taking anything away from anyone in that bill).

Other laws require seat belts in cars, too. They even go so far as to require you to use them. Seems the complaint should be more about seat belts, IMO.

EDIT: It's a bit telling that the site you cited makes everything clear about votes when they say a green check means the candidate voted "for US" and a red x means the candidate voted against "US". :rolleyes:


Read the whole text, I bold type the part you forgot to.

[Haggis]

I was referring to the "well-regulated" part; the part people always seem to neglect.

Maybe you could explain how that makes a difference to the point (it doesn't - no one is taking anything away from anyone in that bill).

Other laws require seat belts in cars, too. They even go so far as to require you to use them. Seems the complaint should be more about seat belts, IMO.

EDIT: It's a bit telling that the site you cited makes everything clear about votes when they say a green check means the candidate voted "for US" and a red x means the candidate voted against "US". :rolleyes:

That was the only site that I found that had Obama's voting record on gun control bills that came up before the 109th Congress. If you have a better site that shows his voting record on gun control please send it to me. Maybe you will be able to enlighten me.

The things I find important and influnce my voting are the 2nd Amendment, illegal immigration, the economy and national defense. When I joined the US Army I took an oath to defend the Constitution and the American way of life, I still stand by that oath today.

Seat belts are not an amendment to the Constitution.

[duhtroll]

Now wait a sec -- I'm not the one questioning the guy's voting record. Therefore, that obligation doesn't fall to me.

My point about seat belts is valid whether or not it appears in the constitution. There are many laws that restrict freedom in favor of safety. The disagreements occur about where those restrictions should fall. Calling the required purchase (not use of, just purchase) of a trigger lock a "gun tax" is simply ignorant. If that sort of logic is to be followed, then seat belts on cars need to be labeled a "vehicle tax," and so forth. I am sure there are hundreds of similar examples.

If people didn't need to be told to not keep unlocked loaded handguns in a child's reach then such things would not be necessary. Unfortunately, stupid people can cause innocent deaths just as easily as they can cause their own, hence the restrictions.


That was the only site that I found that had Obama's voting record on gun control bills that came up before the 109th Congress. If you have a better site that shows his voting record on gun control please send it to me. Maybe you will be able to enlighten me.

The things I find important and influnce my voting are the 2nd Amendment, illegal immigration, the economy and national defense. When I joined the US Army I took an oath to defend the Constitution and the American way of life, I still stand by that oath today.

Seat belts are not an amendment to the Constitution.

[Haggis]

Now wait a sec -- I'm not the one questioning the guy's voting record. Therefore, that obligation doesn't fall to me. I'm not questioning his voting record either. I just thought you might know of a better site for me to review and possibly enlighten me.
My point about seat belts is valid whether or not it appears in the constitution. There are many laws that restrict freedom in favor of safety. The disagreements occur about where those restrictions should fall. Calling the required purchase (not use of, just purchase) of a trigger lock a "gun tax" is simply ignorant. If that sort of logic is to be followed, then seat belts on cars need to be labeled a "vehicle tax," and so forth. I am sure there are hundreds of similar examples. The point that they were trying to make about trigger locks is that they feel that it the buyer is required to pay for something, that THEY feel is unnecessary, therefore they consider it like an additional tax.

If people didn't need to be told to not keep unlocked loaded handguns in a child's reach then such things would not be necessary. Unfortunately, stupid people can cause innocent deaths just as easily as they can cause their own, hence the restrictions. Right we agree again; guns should be left out of an unsupervised childs hands. But, a locked up gun will not protect you or your family from an intruder.

..........

[BruteForce]

Tame or not it is not called for. And as you have stated; "near as insulting as I have seen you post in the past." This is more then possibly true, but have I insulted you or anyone else in this thread?

So this thread has some sort of "special rules" assigned to it? Was there a memo? I must have missed it. I apologize if you find this insulting. :rolleyes:

[Leadfoot281]

I enjoy a good, thoughtfull, and spirited debate. Either watching it or participating in it. It helps me understand differing view points. Many times I walk away from them having learned something.

However, name calling is just a sign of a weak arguement. People that engage in it should re-evalue their postition. They should also seriously ponder whether or not they're up to the task of defending it. Who would hire an attourney that calls the DA a doodie head? I must have really got his goat!

While I love debate, I love irony even more.

An adult using the expression; "Wait your turn, adults are talking" ought to be the new gold standard in irony!
Once again Bruteforce, thanks for the laugh! :laugh:Unfortunately, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.

[BruteForce]

Always happy to provide entertainment. I see you're still stewing about my offhand remark. I do hope you can get past it. Its not healthy to obsess about such things.

PS. Since you allude to our conversation via private message, you wouldn't mind if I quote you from there too, would you?

[Haggis]

So this thread has some sort of "special rules" assigned to it? Was there a memo? I must have missed it. I apologize if you find this insulting. :rolleyes:


I enjoy a good, thoughtfull, and spirited debate. Either watching it or participating in it. It helps me understand differing view points. Many times I walk away from them having learned something.

However, name calling is just a sign of a weak arguement. People that engage in it should re-evalue their postition. They should also seriously ponder whether or not they're up to the task of defending it. Who would hire an attourney that calls the DA a doodie head? I must have really got his goat!

While I love debate, I love irony even more.

An adult using the expression; "Wait your turn, adults are talking" ought to be the new gold standard in irony!
Once again Bruteforce, thanks for the laugh! Unfortunately, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.

BruteForce it is just not called for and when you said; "Wait your turn, adults are talking"; you need to step back and see if you fall within this catagory.

There are no 'special rules' that I know of and if a 'memo' was sent I was also left out. As to insulting me go ahead if you feel you need to, but that will further weaken your argument for the liberals. I want you and Andrew to 'enlighten' me as to the liberals point of view, one that I do not agree with. But, I would like to know why the two of you feel so strongly that the liberals are right.

[duhtroll]

The thread "liberals are right" would take more pages than the joke of the day thread, all the Buttermilk, and all the oil and SC threads in existence.

And it would be pointless.

I've never said "liberals are right" because it by definition isn't true. There are idiots on both sides, which is why I vote for individuals, not parties. Are the Dems guilty of fewer travesties lately? You bet. Doesn't mean much, because I am certain they will find ways to be impotent in the coming months.

Besides, it doesn't really belong here. I still stand by that. I don't (at least for a long time, if ever) start these threads -- only occasionally respond when the BS smell gets to be too overpowering. I'm not saying that makes me better than anyone, only that were it left to me these threads would not exist on mm.net.

My big thing is "truth vs. fact." Everyone has truths that they believe. Truth is subjective. Facts are not (and I don't mean statistics, because those are subjective, too). There is not a single human being out there that can express their views without bias, but I do my best to discuss only what is actually real -- which is why I would post in a thread like this one.

I don't object to people saying "liberals suck!" What I object to is people saying "liberals suck because they are French commies."

My view? Bash whomever you want. Just do it by their actual faults and not making stuff up like "all of the Dem front runners want to repeal the 2nd amendment."

[Haggis]

The thread "liberals are right" would take more pages than the joke of the day thread, all the Buttermilk, and all the oil and SC threads in existence. It's possible

And it would be pointless. True

I've never said "liberals are right" because it by definition isn't true. There are idiots on both sides, which is why I vote for individuals, not parties. Are the Dems guilty of fewer travesties lately? You bet. Doesn't mean much, because I am certain they will find ways to be impotent in the coming months.
I agree to a point, there are 'idiots' everywhere. I just find it hard to vote for a liberal, I just do not agree with most of the things they are for. But is there a Democrate out there that I would vote for, possibly.
Besides, it doesn't really belong here. I still stand by that. I don't (at least for a long time, if ever) start these threads -- only occasionally respond when the BS smell gets to be too overpowering. I'm not saying that makes me better than anyone, only that were it left to me these threads would not exist on mm.net. I usually stay away from these threads also, but reading some of the things here made me want to post. And I have enjoyed my debate with Andrew, still doing research on Sen. Obama. I disagree here; these threads are about whom we are as individuals and as long we all debate in a civilized manner should be allowed. And I do not feel anger at anyone just because they have different views, because they help me see the other side of the spectrum and hopefully I can learn something.

My big thing is "truth vs. fact." Everyone has truths that they believe. Truth is subjective. Facts are not (and I don't mean statistics, because those are subjective, too). There is not a single human being out there that can express their views without bias, but I do my best to discuss only what is actually real -- which is why I would post in a thread like this one. And I respect you for that. But, facts like truths can be twisted.

I don't object to people saying "liberals suck!" What I object to is people saying "liberals suck because they are French commies." Ok, liberals suck. Liberals don't suck because they are French commies. The French suck because they are liberal commies. ;)

My view? Bash whomever you want. Just do it by their actual faults and not making stuff up like "all of the Dem front runners want to repeal the 2nd amendment." Ok, which ones don't? Please name one, give me a fact!

..........

[duhtroll]

See, that's the problem.

You can't tell anyone what their intentions are or were, or what they believe.

What I maintain is that there is no evidence that Sen. Obama is attempting to repeal the 2nd amendment.

If there is real evidence out there, that could prove me wrong -- but I have seen no such evidence.

AFAIK, there is no evidence that any of the Dem. front runners are attempting to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Some good evidence would be an initiative by one or more of them to repeal the 2nd amendment, which doesn't exist TMK.

A vote on a bill is just that in many cases. It isn't a statement that "guns are bad and so are people who own them."

See the difference?


..........

[Haggis]

See, that's the problem.

You can't tell anyone what their intentions are or were, or what they believe.

What I maintain is that there is no evidence that Sen. Obama is attempting to repeal the 2nd amendment.

If there is real evidence out there, that could prove me wrong -- but I have seen no such evidence.

AFAIK, there is no evidence that any of the Dem. front runners are attempting to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Some good evidence would be an initiative by one or more of them to repeal the 2nd amendment, which doesn't exist TMK.

A vote on a bill is just that in many cases. It isn't a statement that "guns are bad and so are people who own them."

See the difference?

The Democrats have a party history of voting for gun control. Sen. Obama and the other front runners usuall vote along party lines. Many of the Democratic candidates have received a lot of funding from George Soros and Mr. Soros has/is pushing hard to have the 2nd Amendment repealed. So do I have a paranoia of having our rights as American citizens being influnced by outside sources.

[SC Cheesehead]

:laugh: :laugh:

I don't object to people saying "liberals suck!" What I object to is people saying "liberals suck because they are French commies." Ok, liberals suck. Liberals don't suck because they are French commies. The French suck because they are liberal commies. ;)

Gordon, you are truly a man of great insight!

SCCH

[Haggis]

:laugh: :laugh:

Gordon, you are truly a man of great insight!

SCCH

Thanks Rex, at least someone appreciates me.

[duhtroll]

I don't follow Soros, but if we're going to discuss him please post what you are referring to.

Gun control and repealing the 2nd amendment are not synonymous. Gun control is stated directly in the 2nd amendment - as I said "well regulated."

Repealing the 2nd amendment would be better defined as removal of guns from the hands of private citizens. All guns, that is, not just quibbling over the definition of assault weapons, etc..

I don't even know the info on this Soros guy, other than he writes a lot of propaganda films -- but I'll need some evidence that this could be his goal before I can comment on it.


The Democrats have a party history of voting for gun control. Sen. Obama and the other front runners usuall vote along party lines. Many of the Democratic candidates have received a lot of funding from George Soros and Mr. Soros has/is pushing hard to have the 2nd Amendment repealed. So do I have a paranoia of having our rights as American citizens being influnced by outside sources.