|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 12, 2008 13:21:05 GMT -5
Heh, I had mentioned his association with William Ayers last week.
As is SOP for the lefties here they COMPLETELY disregarded that tid bit. Anything they cannot attempt to explain away...just goes out the window to the left as if it never happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 13, 2008 12:13:34 GMT -5
wait! wait! wait! i grew up a poor white boy in the black projects. where was all my gov't assistance then? why did i spend many a days and nights without electricity, heat, and food? why didn't i just stay in that neighborhood and wait for the gov't to save me with other people's money? oh, that's right, those were the reagan years in which i was inspired to get out of that hell hole and become something rather than wait on someone to do things for me. those were the years when i realized that my being there in that situation wasn't the result of me being "less fortunate." my fortune was out there waiting. it was up to me to go after it. opportunity never came knocking at my door. i had to get off my duff and go find it. duh, silly me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jun 14, 2008 15:25:09 GMT -5
There will never be a candidate that is 100% like or loved. Boren did the right thing as far as listening to his constituents, however come November, how will he explain to them they only have two choices- (1) another 4 more years of the mess we're in, or (2) change?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 15, 2008 0:03:36 GMT -5
if i'm in a leaky lifeboat but i'm able to bail water long enough to reach shore, i'll vote for the mess i'm in as opposed to change which if change means abandoning the lifeboat.
in other words, while everything may not be perfect it sure beats the kind of socialist change taht obama speaks of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jun 15, 2008 0:46:25 GMT -5
How can you call it a socialist change when Obama has announced that people will have to work for this change-no free hand outs.
I'm willing to get out of this mess we are in. McCain hasn't given another avenue to look forward to and the way things are going, people will look around their own personal lives and make their own decision---either way it's a gamble.
Personally, I'm not doing so bad.......but how much more can the country take?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 16, 2008 14:44:40 GMT -5
How can you call it a socialist change when Obama has announced that people will have to work for this change-no free hand outs. Except for, of course, the promised reductions in tax rates for the lower 80% of income tax payers. Acually, that's a misnomer because the lower tax brackets don't pay any income tax at all. Currently, the dependent exemption is a refundable credit, along with the Earned Income Tax Credit. That means that the government currently mails checks to people who are below the tax threshold, and, under Obama's tax plan, those checks will get larger. So, in that sense, yes, Obama's plan is socialism: Take from the Rich, Give to the Poor, and Government will Decide what's Fair. When you ask, "how much more can the country take," are you referring to the economic growth that we've enjoyed since the 2003 tax cuts? Or, are you referring to the historically low unemployment rates we currently have? Or, are you referring to the fact that America has not been attacked since 9/11 because the terrorists have been bottled up in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or, are you referring to the ever-increasing regulatory burden that Congress insists is for our own good? Or, are you referring to the looming economic crisis in 2010 if the tax cuts are rescinded, capital investment dries up and energy prices skyrocket? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jun 17, 2008 0:08:51 GMT -5
Promised reductions in tax rates do not mean people stop working their two-three jobs to make ends meet. The jobs they had when Bush took office are no longer here. What is wrong with EIC and everyone uses dependent exemptions. The poor rich folks aren't giving up any luxuries, nor are they skipping any vacations because poor folks just want to feed their families.
The Republicans make an issue of abortion, yet have a problem feeding a poor "live" child.......
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 17, 2008 0:49:55 GMT -5
Mink sez...
Au contraire, mon amie! I myself changed my vacation plans this year because of a combination of events. The increased value of the Euro to over a buck and a half torpedoed my Ireland plans, and the increased gas costs cut short my Midwest vacation.
You keep beating that class warfare drum, and you're going to wear a hole in it. Name me a "poor" person who doesn't aspire to be "rich." Ronald Reagan said (I'm paraphrasing here), "Why is it that both a liberal and a conservative can look on a thin man and a fat man, and the liberal believes that the fat man got fat at the expense of the thin man?"
Can you answer that question?
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Jun 17, 2008 8:36:45 GMT -5
How can you call it a socialist change when Obama has announced that people will have to work for this change-no free hand outs. Sen. Obama's Economic Plan calls for an elimination of income taxes for those earning less than $50,000 per year. Since 71% of individuals working earn less than that, this would mean that the other 29% of working indiviuals would have to pay most if not all of the income taxes. Again, the same old Socialist plan of taking from the rich and giving to the poor or in this day and age, "the redistribution of wealth." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 17, 2008 11:14:24 GMT -5
There will never be a candidate that is 100% like or loved. Boren did the right thing as far as listening to his constituents, however come November, how will he explain to them they only have two choices- (1) another 4 more years of the mess we're in, or (2) change? Since when is change for the sake of change a good thing? |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 17, 2008 13:45:35 GMT -5
Mink sez...
Not a good example, coming from a progressive. Vietnam was a very bad time for our country, not because of the conflict itself, which, by all accounts, we were winning, but because of the lack of support here at home and the final, ignominious end to the conflict that the lack of support caused. As I recall, the leading voices calling for an end to the conflict in Vietnam were ... liberals. The same liberals who proudly wear their "Free Tibet" stickers and t-shirts couldn't care less about the Iraqis and the horror they lived under with Saddam.
Mink, you have just made McCain's point for him. We were in the Phillipines long enough for the country to establish a stable government. Once they reached that point, they asked us to leave and, here's the important point, we did. You have just refuted the "imperialism" and "colonialism" arguments that we hear from so many other progressives.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 17, 2008 13:52:22 GMT -5
Which is exactly why the Filipinos like us so much, or at least the majority do. We helped them to realize freedom. And now they are doing their best to bring their country up a level. It is a picture of diplomatic success.
|
|
