It's Over.
-
drift86;245415 wrote:
You guys act like zac didn't know what he was saying when he said it. Ya it may have been out of line but he doesn't care if you like him or not because of what he said. He got the reaction from you guys that he was looking forwell said.... well said....
-
ruthless351;245413 wrote:
Just think...and it makes you look good too! :duh: I see this thread heading south soon.The 'South' (This thread) will rise again..... :icon_rendeer:
HAHA -- thought it was fitting...I am still shocked on how many people were willing to vote someone in with such little experience. I think in about two-years I am going to start campaigning to be president since obviously having experience doesn't really mean much to the voters.. So, the scary thing of all.. Democratic President (with little experience in Govt.) with a House & Senate Majority of Dem.'s. Ya a lot will get done, but will it be the right stuff getting done??
I think he'll be running to Biden a lot for advice, may as well voted Biden in as president & Obama as V-P... He'll just becomes Biden's hand puppet.
-
I think we should be worried about how racist the black community is. What is the percentage of the black population that voted for Obama? 99.9%? Funny how the tv shows always show "white catholics" and such and not "black catholics". lol
I would have voted for a black president no problem as long as he represented what I believe in and has the experience to lead the nation....Obama had neither. Running a campaign doesn't count. Anyone old enough on here to remember a President named Jimmy Carter? Do some research...Obama will be him but 10x worse, AND with no peanut farm.
-
Not to discredit here Matt because I certainly understand your points...but anyone remember JFK? The only real difference between the two (experience wise) is JFK had a military background prior to the Senate. He seemed to do ok by most peoples standards.
I'm certainly not saying Obama is perfect, but claiming his presidency is doomed before he is even sworn into office is silly. Saying he is going to bring upon (further) socialism w/o a single bill being signed into law is a guess at best....but I bet that John McCain votes with him on the majority of the bills.
I wasn't a big fan of GWB, but I never hoped that he would screw up just to prove my point. I hoped he (and any president we elect) does the best that they can do for this country.
-
tjamz;245493 wrote:
I'm certainly not saying Obama is perfect, but claiming his presidency is doomed before he is even sworn into office is silly. Saying he is going to bring upon (further) socialism w/o a single bill being signed into law is a guess at best....
x2. -
Let me add I don't mean any of this in a demeaning or offensive manner:
Dave, I just don't get it. What are you reading or have read that makes you think that he will be actually able to do just that. You seem hell bent that the country is going to be geared towards lazy worthless people who don't want to work but have the same everything as everyone else. Link me or tell me whatever it is so I can "understand" the consequences of what he wants to turn the USA into actually. Not someone's opinion of what he wants to turn the country into, but what HE wants to turn the country into.
Matt I think you are jumping to conclusions too quickly. Jimmy Carter reduced the US import of oil by 50% and created 8 million jobs during his term. Not saying Carter's term was all great because it wasn't. I just think people are shitting their pants for no good reason. Also big difference between a peanut farmer and magna cum laude from Harvard.
Provide me with any info for discussion because I'm having trouble understanding your points of view
-
tjamz;245493 wrote:
Not to discredit here Matt because I certainly understand your points...but anyone remember JFK? The only real difference between the two (experience wise) is JFK had a military background prior to the Senate. He seemed to do ok by most peoples standards.I'm certainly not saying Obama is perfect, but claiming his presidency is doomed before he is even sworn into office is silly. Saying he is going to bring upon (further) socialism w/o a single bill being signed into law is a guess at best....but I bet that John McCain votes with him on the majority of the bills.
I wasn't a big fan of GWB, but I never hoped that he would screw up just to prove my point. I hoped he (and any president we elect) does the best that they can do for this country.
"redistribuition of wealth" hmmm...yeah. I wonder where this is going. John McCain can move in with him for all I care. He's no "true" conservative anyway.
Bring back Reagan conservatism.
-
on another note is anyone watching south park right now lmao
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
wowwwwwwww.........
Palin screwed Mccains chances. I know she was a reason I wouldn't vote for Mccain. Probably one of the key ones
-
Sweet-WRX-Lovin;245498 wrote:
Dave, I just don't get it. What are you reading or have read that makes you think that he will be actually able to do just that. You seem hell bent that the country is going to be geared towards lazy worthless people who don't want to work but have the same everything as everyone else. Link me or tell me whatever it is so I can "understand" the consequences of what he wants to turn the USA into actually. Not someone's opinion of what he wants to turn the country into, but what HE wants to turn the country into.It's simple, I listen to the mans words and think about what he is actually saying. Quick example: "I want to give 95% of americans a tax cut". That sounds good right? :icon_scratch: Not. I think we can agree that Obama doesn't intend on giving the top 5% a tax cut, so he is refering to the bottom 95% right? Ok, the next thing to think about is that somewhere between 38%-40% of americans don't currently pay any income tax. So basically what Obama wants to do is give money to this 38%-40% of people for no reason. Where is that money going to come from? Obviously it has to come from the top 5% since everyone else is getting a cut. You can call that re-distributing the wealth, socialism or whatever. Whether the people getting the money are working or lazy, I don't know, I'm sure it's a mix.
If you want more examples I can type them up.
That said, maybe I'm worrying needlessly. Maybe he was just saying this stuff to get elected and doesn't have any plan of actually doing any of it. I hope thats the case.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Tad218;245282 wrote:
Congratulations to the United States of America :icon_cheers:
Yes...congratulations!
http://www.obamamustsee.com/ -
thrash;245327 wrote:
I am pretty disappointed at the Cass county results. Must be proximity to the peoples republic of Minnesota
Also, all 4 ND ballot measures went exactly the opposite of how i wanted them. Even though limiting spending would have been better than limiting income tax, the enemy of good is "perfect" so i was pro-#2 anyway.
Yeah let's cut the state's income in half. Do you even know what would end up suffering? Education! They were going to take A LOT of money away from funding education. You must be really ignorant to think that this was a good idea!
-
DaveH;245545 wrote:
It's simple, I listen to the mans words and think about what he is actually saying. Quick example: "I want to give 95% of americans a tax cut". That sounds good right? :icon_scratch: Not. I think we can agree that Obama doesn't intend on giving the top 5% a tax cut, so he is refering to the bottom 95% right? Ok, the next thing to think about is that somewhere between 38%-40% of americans don't currently pay any income tax. So basically what Obama wants to do is give money to this 38%-40% of people for no reason. Where is that money going to come from? Obviously it has to come from the top 5% since everyone else is getting a cut. You can call that re-distributing the wealth, socialism or whatever. Whether the people getting the money are working or lazy, I don't know, I'm sure it's a mix.If you want more examples I can type them up.
That said, maybe I'm worrying needlessly. Maybe he was just saying this stuff to get elected and doesn't have any plan of actually doing any of it. I hope thats the case.
I'm just curious if you have looked at Obama's published plan. I didn't see anything that said "handouts for the lazy" or anything to that affect. While I don't agree with him about raising the top tax brackets rates by 3%, most of the rest of it makes sense to me.
I could copy paste the parts that I like, but I will instead post a link to his tax plan and let you tell me the parts that you don't like.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
-
It is nice to see people stop bitching for once and see "happy" news lately...hopefully the Dems/Obama don't FUBAR the nation like they've made it sound like they will. If certain rights don't get infringed on, then as much as I don't want him as pres, I'll be satisfied. I still think the government being run by one party is not good for the nation though...government was founded on checks and balances, there will be none of that, just like there wasn't ~6 years ago.
-
00Accord;245550 wrote:
Yeah let's cut the state's income in half. Do you even know what would end up suffering? Education! They were going to take A LOT of money away from funding education. You must be really ignorant to think that this was a good idea!sigh
The state has considerable other income sources apart from state income tax. (That was what Prop #1 was about, btw). WA state as well as a few other states have no income tax. ND has one of the most efficient state governments in the USA. We could get by on much less state income tax. What would suffer is people in government that feel they are entitled to spend tax payer money on their projects.
In terms of funding education -- maybe you haven't been paying attention. I want to end public school in the USA [and replace it with a system of vouchers or at least something run only at the state level].
I definitely do not think "Everyone should go to college", and I am definitely not willing to pay for it. The simple fact of the matter is that most kids don't have any business going to college right out of HS because they mostly want to drink and have a living arrangement where their parents still pay for everything but they don't have to follow any rules.
Side note: guess what happens when you try to make Everyone go to college. The cost goes up. Guess what happens when the government loans Everyone money to go to college. The cost of college AND the cost of money both go up.
That said, I didn't see anything conclusive that said what programs might get cut if there was a reduction in state revenue. The usual whining windbags (i.e. teachers unions) proclaimed doom if they didn't get their state handouts, but that does't mean what they said was accurate.
-
00Ws6TransAm;245547 wrote:
Yes...congratulations!
http://www.obamamustsee.com/holy shit, never saw that one...... not graphic in the least
-
If everyone has a college degree then the exclusivity of having a degree means nothing...it would be the same as a highschool diploma.
-
DaveH;245545 wrote:
It's simple, I listen to the mans words and think about what he is actually saying. Quick example: "I want to give 95% of americans a tax cut". That sounds good right? :icon_scratch: Not. I think we can agree that Obama doesn't intend on giving the top 5% a tax cut, so he is refering to the bottom 95% right? Ok, the next thing to think about is that somewhere between 38%-40% of americans don't currently pay any income tax. So basically what Obama wants to do is give money to this 38%-40% of people for no reason. Where is that money going to come from? Obviously it has to come from the top 5% since everyone else is getting a cut. You can call that re-distributing the wealth, socialism or whatever. Whether the people getting the money are working or lazy, I don't know, I'm sure it's a mix.If you want more examples I can type them up.
That said, maybe I'm worrying needlessly. Maybe he was just saying this stuff to get elected and doesn't have any plan of actually doing any of it. I hope thats the case.
I believe the 95% tax cut is an effort to stimulate the economy by freeing up money to the majority of americans to spend on goods and services. Not an attempt to redistribute wealth or at least blatantly. While this gives the shaft to people making 250K+ it's not a horrible idea. It's a tax cut for 95% and nothing for the 5%. Not a tax cut+tax hike. Or at least that's how I understand it right now, definitely could be wrong. They've enjoyed a tax break the last few years I imagine his thinking might be.
Like you said I imagine also there is or was a lot said that won't happen. If the tax cut does come about I see them as a short term economy fix because I just don't get how you can decrease taxes yet pay our way out of this abyss we call a deficit unless you slash spending enormously. This all has to pass the house/senate yet right? And all of them make big bucks and have friends/contributers that do as well so who knows.
I agree Kirk once they picked Palin that sealed the deal for me as well. That was just retarded.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login