you haven't responded to my posts. 

Quote from: quiktaco on October 30, 2008, 01:58:44 PM
No talk about politics.  Completely ignoring anything I've posted.

Those are both true.  You haven't talked about politics, and I've ignored it.

When someone refers to a major party candidate as an EVIL man, it pretty much rules out reasonable discussion.  Likewise, when someone posts (cuts and pastes from right wing smear sites) non-factual material, it rules out reasonable discussion.  It also avoids talking about real issues (which is pretty much the strategy for McCain-Palin these days).

The American people will vote in a few days.  We'll see if they reject smear and attack politics, or if they embrace positive change.  My guess is they'll do both simultaneously.

Quote from: jserio on October 30, 2008, 02:35:47 PM
you haven't responded to my posts. 

Please let me know what I haven't responded to, and I'll be glad to respond.

Quote from: trumpetguy on October 30, 2008, 03:01:56 PM

Quote from: quiktaco on October 30, 2008, 01:58:44 PM
No talk about politics.  Completely ignoring anything I've posted.

Those are both true.  You haven't talked about politics, and I've ignored it.

When someone refers to a major party candidate as an EVIL man, it pretty much rules out reasonable discussion.  Likewise, when someone posts (cuts and pastes from right wing smear sites) non-factual material, it rules out reasonable discussion.  It also avoids talking about real issues (which is pretty much the strategy for McCain-Palin these days).

The American people will vote in a few days.  We'll see if they reject smear and attack politics, or if they embrace positive change.  My guess is they'll do both simultaneously.

Not all the information is 'non-factual' as you call it.  Let's take just one topic and discuss that.  Redistribution of Wealth.  He stated that.  It's not from a smear site.  It's not 'non-factual'.  Recorded once (and not out of context) in 2001, and recorded again just a few weeks back (not out of context).

What do you make of this?  Are you for redistribution of wealth?

99% of small businesses make more that 250k, so almost all will be paying more in taxes.  Only tiny home based businesses with 1-2 employees make less than that.  So all these companies will have to pay more, which will hinder them from growing.

And as for 95% of American's getting taxed less???

"Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution That Would Raise Taxes On Those Making Just $42,000 A Year. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. "What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. ... But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our 'taxable income.' The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that 'people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.' In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000." ("The $32,000 Question," FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)"

This shows that anyone making over 41,500 per year will be taxed more, when the Bush tax cuts expire.  I don't know about you, but 41.5 is not that much.  I'll be taxed more, and I think more that 5% of people will be taxed more as well.


So, now, for this Redistribution of Wealth issue...let's discuss.  Please rebut anything that I've said here, and tell me which smear sites I copied and pasted from, and tell me how wrong I am.

our entire tax code needs reworked. i hate that my percentage goes up the more i make. why can't it be a straight percentage accross the board? this way, those who make more, will pay more in taxes but yet everyone will pay the same amount as pertains to their income. also, i think many of these "deductions" we have need looking into. seriously. i'm all about sticking to the tax man but come on now, when you can deduct so much that you actually pay less in tax as pertains to your income than someone who's making less money, something is wrong with that picture. for example, every meeting, all meals you eat, every car you buy etc, should not all be allowed to be "business expenses". same as welfare programs. they are necessary but need reworked to rid them of the fraud that's involved. (people abusing it) back to taxes, i see them as a necessary evil, i really do.  medium income here in america is what, $48k? somewhere around there. i don't make that and i still feel at times "stretched" in the budget dept.

Quote from: jserio on October 30, 2008, 05:30:51 PM
our entire tax code needs reworked. i hate that my percentage goes up the more i make. why can't it be a straight percentage accross the board? this way, those who make more, will pay more in taxes but yet everyone will pay the same amount as pertains to their income. also, i think many of these "deductions" we have need looking into. seriously. i'm all about sticking to the tax man but come on now, when you can deduct so much that you actually pay less in tax as pertains to your income than someone who's making less money, something is wrong with that picture. for example, every meeting, all meals you eat, every car you buy etc, should not all be allowed to be "business expenses". same as welfare programs. they are necessary but need reworked to rid them of the fraud that's involved. (people abusing it) back to taxes, i see them as a necessary evil, i really do.  medium income here in america is what, $48k? somewhere around there. i don't make that and i still feel at times "stretched" in the budget dept.

Agree.  Do something like 20% tax, and I'd be happy...or whatever it would be.  And you're right about all the deductions.  It's taking advantage of the deduction system when all meals are business meetings and cars are business cars.  That's dumb.  Normal deductions and such are great, and a straight tax would be great too.  If only...if only.

I'm right at that line of making too much, so I'll be taxed more.  Sucks, cause living in Southern California costs way more than most other places.  What I make goes to the dumpy place I rent, and I'm forced to ride a motorcycle of all things (horrible I know) to save gas, just so I can feed and clothe my wife and daughter.  We live paycheck to paycheck, and I don't know how we're going to re budget once  bama gets in and takes more away.  We already stretched it out as far as we could when we had our daughter.  And now, my work isn't going to give it's annual inflation raise this year, so no help there.

i'm fortunate enough to work for a decent company that shows great concern for their employees. they pay us decent and just in general show concern for our overall well being. it's hard to explain, you'd have to work here to get it.  i don't make tons (i'm a machinst for Crown, forklift maker) but it gets us by. the area i live in, cost of living isn't that bad i don't think. our 3bdrm 1 bath house(roughly 1100 sq ft) cost us just under 75k. sure, things could be better but they could always be worse, alot worse.

Quote from: jserio on October 30, 2008, 06:17:57 PM
i'm fortunate enough to work for a decent company that shows great concern for their employees. they pay us decent and just in general show concern for our overall well being. it's hard to explain, you'd have to work here to get it.  i don't make tons (i'm a machinst for Crown, forklift maker) but it gets us by. the area i live in, cost of living isn't that bad i don't think. our 3bdrm 1 bath house(roughly 1100 sq ft) cost us just under 75k. sure, things could be better but they could always be worse, alot worse.

I'm speechless, I didn't know it was that cheap for a house elsewhere.  My wife and I are looking for a house right now.  3 bed 1 baths that are in a neighborhood that you aren't afraid of getting killed, costs around 450,000.  Where you are afraid of getting killed, around 350,000.  And this is after the housing crash.  They were around 550,000 to 600,000 before. (same sq. ft as you too)

Yeah, I definitely don't make enough for living here.  Now we're going to get taxed more.  This sucks.

At least it's Halloween.  My work shows their appreciation for us by letting us not work today, throwing a huge, huge party, and supplying unlimited kegs.  It's a huge SoCal Surf company, what did you expect?  So it's 8.33am right now, time to let the festivities begin 

California way over inflated I was amazed at what flippers on the house flipping shows were paying for houses in the LA area in questionable neighnorhoods. In my part of the country we bought our 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage for right at 90,000. Nice little neighborhood except for the reprobate kiddies who moved in next to us, and have since lost the house and been foreclosed on.

I bet your guys' places have a decent amount of land with them as well huh?  For the 500k that you pay here, you get 3 bed 1 bath, with about 6k sq of land...that's only 60ft by 100ft (that your house is on, so the bigger the house, the less the land)...that's not that big.

Mmmm Screwdriver/Momosa mix, yum



Beer next 

I voted for Obama...flame away.    I'm an independent that researched both candidates at length.  Back in February, I was certain I would vote for McCain.  After careful research, watching every debate, and listening to both candidates recently, I made my choice based on McCain's inability to counter Obama's policies.  All he could do was say how bad Obama was, but he never said how his policies were better.  I'm not going to get in to a debate about this issue.  Instead, I really want you all to get out and vote (no matter who your choice is).  I voted for Barack, but if McCain wins, I think he'll be very capable as president (I just hope he doesn't die, because I DON'T feel the same about Palin).  I thought I'd mention it before I got labeled a democrat.  My local and state choices were split between the parties based on the issues. 

Now go out and vote.   

Quote from: oramac on October 31, 2008, 12:26:33 PM
I voted for Obama...flame away.    I'm an independent that researched both candidates at length.  Back in February, I was certain I would vote for McCain.  After careful research, watching every debate, and listening to both candidates recently, I made my choice based on McCain's inability to counter Obama's policies.  All he could do was say how bad Obama was, but he never said how his policies were better.  I'm not going to get in to a debate about this issue.  Instead, I really want you all to get out and vote (no matter who your choice is).  I voted for Barack, but if McCain wins, I think he'll be very capable as president (I just hope he doesn't die, because I DON'T feel the same about Palin).  I thought I'd mention it before I got labeled a democrat.  My local and state choices were split between the parties based on the issues. 

Now go out and vote.   

Yeah yeah Palin is so terrible.  You do realize that she has more experience than Mr. Obama, right? 

she has more experience than obama? really? how? please tell me, maybe i'm not informed properly.

She HAS held an executive position for the same amount of time Obama has held a legislative position and historically governors tend to make better presidents than senators.  Oh yeah, and despite the hush hush that O's near trillian dollars in funds can buy I'm still not satisfied that he is legally eligible to take office nor that he is not associated with 'shady' characters. 

obamas been in senate for what 3 years, two of which hes not been on the job. ( campaigning) check his voting records. shes been both a mayor, and a governor. and the most that the LW commandos can dredge up is some trivial bullshit. god i cant wait until this crap is over. maybe in 4 months it waill be. sure as hell wont be after election night. i see more problems then after 04. wiht teh sore losermann, recountathon

yes but he is soon to become president of the united states of america!!! get over it

He might be. But We haven't voted yet.

Quote from: spc on October 31, 2008, 03:11:45 PM
She HAS held an executive position for the same amount of time Obama has held a legislative position and historically governors tend to make better presidents than senators...

Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska with a population of <10,000, from 1996 - 2002, then she was the Governor in 2006, just over a 1.5 years gubernatorial experience (Alaska total population ~680,000).

Barack Obama was in the Illinois senate (Illinois population is >12,000,000) from 1997 - 2004, then was elected to the U.S. senate in 2004, nearly 3.5 years U.S. senate experience.

Yeah I spoke too soon, apparently daddy continued making the house payment. They started moving back in again yeterday. I hope that f%$king house burns to the foundation doper punk f%$king piece of shaZam! worthless punks. They have a nice fat bill from the city since they didn't keep it maintaned, the city cut their grass and cleaned up their yard that's a $180 fine hope they get their assses arrested for not payinng that one.

Oh yeah heres how to tie it in to thios thread they had an Obama 08 sticker on their car. I really hope some really bad shaZam! happens and they all asphyxiate or something. My neighborrhood is super nice and quite except that f%$king trash.

  frankie. i WILL be if acron has /had anything to do with it, if he gets in, tehn well have forced radio censorship, amongst other things

Quote from: trumpetguy on August 02, 2008, 10:15:11 PM
A comparison to CEO is very apt.  In this case, Obama's considerable charisma and organizing experience will pay off.  He will be a leader of people, and a real uniter (not just someone who says he is).  He will surround himself with competent people (he already has) not with those to whom he or his family owes favors, as W did.  His will be a VERY different administration than W's.  There is a real reason why people are excited to hear him speak -- his ideas, courage, and convictions are inspirational.  It's not just "hope" or "change" -- those are the slogans, but it doesn't end there.

The problem isn't Obama.  The problem is an unchecked Nancy P and the other super majorities in the house and senate.   He has never, and will never stand up the Democrat floor positions.  We don't need a CEO to be charismatic and have great organizing experience.  We need someone who will and has stood up to what he believes in, not just what his party says he should believe in. 
2nd:  Why do you think he's going to unite anything?  The only thing I've seen him do is encite class-war politics and use 'He's the problem' sociology. 
3rd:  The people he's surrounded himself with are ALL part of the 'do nothing but take money' rejects that have been trying to push more government control on all of us while taking large sums of money from the agencies that they put under government mandate and non-functional regulation.  They say that de-reguation is the problem when the regulation that is happening uses 'it's' position of unchecked power to make sure that whatever it's regulating not only doesn't work, but also pays them to make sure it doesn't work.
4th: The people are only excited to hear him speak until they find out what he's really saying.  (look at the crowds at his last 10 or so events.  Half empty)  He is a Master at making 'Nothing' soud fantastic.

I want to make something very clear.  I am on the verge of hatred toward John McCain.  I just cannto justify a vote for a person that believes he can make other peoples ideas work, when they haven't worked in other places.  Universal health care without choice will not only be a major drain on an already destroyed economy, but will elevate the price of already outragous health care policies (SEE HAWAII).  Increasing the size and quantity of inept government offices will not only limit our choices as Americans but also will be unfundable without raising the taxes of "95% of Americans".   Courts are supposed to interpret, not legislate.  Legislation should be handled by the House and Senate.  Obama stated his support for Supreme court justices that want to MAKE laws, not interpret them.  This belief could be THE most dangerous of enemies to our freedoms to date.

Please do not take this as an attack.   I believe that every person has the right to choose.  I respect your opinion and your choice, i just wanted to speak my mind about it a little.  Thanks