idrankwhat 0 #51 June 5, 2008 Quote this will all happen during the big depression they'll both bring which is slightly worse than the one McCain would also trigger. The one that "they" will bring? How's that? Oh, that's right. Possession is 9/10. They'll be called "Obamavilles" I presume. But hey, you never know. Obama may embrace the neo-principals of conservatism with their war cry: "There's PLENTY of money. See, I have more checks!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #52 June 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote I don't vote on color or gender, sorry - you'll have to ask a bigot. I won't vote for Obama or Clinton because I don't agree with their views. If forced (i.e., Ron Paul doesn't run indy), I'll hold my nose and vote McCain....but not by choice. You're missing my point Mike. I'm not ask who YOU would vote for. I'm asking do you think that your Nation is ready for a Black President. I'm not missing your point at all. If the most important characteristic you can come up with is the color of his skin, you're going to have to ask someone else because that criteria doesn't even cross my event horizon. So in other words, you read the question in the thread title, thought "I don't know", then opened the thread anyhow and just looked for an opportunity to take offense? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #53 June 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIs the colour of Obama going to be his down fall. I can see this going one of 3 ways, Lots of coloured people will be encouraged to vote (perhaps mistakenly on racial lines) Lots of lazy arsed rednecks bigots will vote (perhaps mistakenly on racial lines) Both al ot more redneck bigots and coloured people will vote (perhaps mistakenly on racial lines) Bush 43 is pretty much the most despised US president in history, with an abysmal 69% disapproval rating largely due to his Mid-Eastern debacle. McCain is at least perceived as being more willing to continue there. Bush 43 was president when mortgage debacle brokem, with record forclosures. Him and his republicans are going to get blamed for it. Obama's greatest strengths in the election are that 1) He's not McCain 2) He's not a Clinton and 3) He's not a Republican. Color has nothing to do with it. He's also not a Clinto And Congress' disapproval rating is even higher - does that mean they'll be 'most despised', too? No, because too many people think everyone in Congress sucks except their guy. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #54 June 5, 2008 Quote Quote Bush 43 was president when mortgage debacle brokem, with record forclosures. Him and his republicans are going to get blamed for it. The thing that kills me here is - it's more the fault of the democrats in congress than the executive branch. Look at what the democrats are doing now! It's going to get a lot worse if one gets to head the executive branch. Yeah, cuz things were just fucking peachy from 2001-2007. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #55 June 5, 2008 QuoteWhat we're not ready for is a mixed race person who only claims one side of his heritage because it's politically convenient, and playing to a large portion of the population because they believe that they are owed. I've heard him speak of his white mother on more occasions than his black father. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #56 June 5, 2008 Quote(as the millions of dollars spent in the media would seem to indicate). There is some interesting research that seems to indicate that money spent on a campain has little if no correlation with the success of a candidate. Check out Freakocomics if you want more details.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #57 June 5, 2008 QuoteSo, basically what you are saying is political zealotry trumps racial bigotry? That has gotta be the most profound statement I've read in a long time. You hit the nail on the head. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 June 5, 2008 Quote Yup, the GOP sure understands economics. Unfortunately, the Reps learned the overspending game all too well from the Dems - there's really no difference between the parties anymore in that regard. Also unfortunately, the Dems really don't understand economics - only that they want MORE eggs out of that golden goose to pay for their bread and circuses programs. Forget about spending, forget about the deficit - no distractions or blamestorming from the basic question. Here's the operative principle: Taxes on things like cigarettes and booze is considered a deterrent - the operative though is that it will make them TOO expensive and decrease purchase/usage. It's also well known that overtaxing businesses cause them to lay off people, decrease operation or even move out of country where they CAN afford operations. Individuals that have taken a cut in pay (equivalent of excessive taxes) buy less - or only the essentials. HOW, then, do the Dems think that increasing taxes on businesses and individuals will somehow magically "stimulate the economy"? Rebut.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #59 June 5, 2008 Quote HOW, then, do the Dems think that increasing taxes on businesses and individuals will somehow magically "stimulate the economy"? Exactly. Obama is advocating policies that failed in the mid 1960s! Frightening...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 June 5, 2008 QuoteQuote HOW, then, do the Dems think that increasing taxes on businesses and individuals will somehow magically "stimulate the economy"? Exactly. Obama is advocating policies that failed in the mid 1960s! Frightening... Well, the Reps haven't learned any lessons either - Reducing taxes is a GOOD thing - but you have to reduce the spending to match.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #61 June 5, 2008 During the early 1960s reporters would interview people in the south about how they would feel if desegregation occurred. The most common answer from the man/woman on the street was something like: "Well, it would be fine by me, but the REST of the state/city/town would NEVER be ready for it!" something to think about. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #62 June 5, 2008 Quote Quote Yup, the GOP sure understands economics. Unfortunately, the Reps learned the overspending game all too well from the Dems - there's really no difference between the parties anymore in that regard. Rebut. Well, your premise is wrong so the rest of your post is moot. Deficit spending increases MORE under a GOP president and Congress than under a Dem one. When it comes to increasing spending without corresponding increase in revenues, the GOP is the heavywight champion. True of Nixon, true of Reagan, true of both Bushes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 June 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Yup, the GOP sure understands economics. Unfortunately, the Reps learned the overspending game all too well from the Dems - there's really no difference between the parties anymore in that regard. Rebut. Well, your premise is wrong so the rest of your post is moot. Deficit spending increases MORE under a GOP president and Congress than under a Dem one. When it comes to increasing spending without corresponding increase in revenues, the GOP is the heavywight champion. True of Nixon, true of Reagan, true of both Bushes. What part of "no discussion about the deficit or spending" did you NOT read? Answer the question as stated and stop trying to sidetrack it, or kindly stay out of the discussion if you can't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #64 June 5, 2008 >Also unfortunately, the Dems really don't understand economics . . . So someone who can balance their checkbook doesn't understand economics, whereas someone who just keeps getting more and more credit cards understands economics a bit better? Spending has to stop - AND we have to pay for what we spend. The GOP has yet to understand either principle. >HOW, then, do the Dems think that increasing taxes on businesses >and individuals will somehow magically "stimulate the economy"? a) The purpose of taxation is not "to stimulate the economy" or "encourage investment" or "let middle class americans afford to blah blah blah." It's to pay for what the government spends. b) Historically the economy does better during periods of high taxation anyway. c) The Treasury Department released a report in 2006 showing that the tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. They have a barely perceptible effect on the economy, and the long term result is less money coming in. d) The same report says clearly that it makes FAR more sense to raise taxes enough to balance the budget now than to wait 20 years and try to raise them enough both to balance the budget AND to manage the additional debt service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 June 5, 2008 Ok, so you obviously didn't read it, either - I'm talking SOLELY about the end effect of EXCESSIVE TAXATION - discussions of what the government is spending or how to come up with funds for what spending the government has is not germane to the question and will be ignored. I will restate to make it more clear - How do you justify the position that higher taxes as a means to DISCOURAGE spending on some things (cigarettes, booze) with the position that higher business and personal taxes will ENCOURAGE spending by those entities?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #66 June 5, 2008 >discussions of what the government is spending or how to come up >with funds for what spending the government has is not germane to the >question and will be ignored. How much we spend is not germane to how much we owe? You, uh, don't handle your own finances, do you? >How do you justify the position that higher taxes as a means to >DISCOURAGE spending on some things (cigarettes, booze) with the >position that higher business and personal taxes will ENCOURAGE spending >by those entities? How do I justify one with the other? I do not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #67 June 5, 2008 Nevermind, Bill - you obviously have no interest in discussing the issue. >> How do I justify one with the other? I do not. But yet you advocate higher taxes, disregarding the punitive effects. Admittedly, you and I *do* agree on cutting spending - another lesson the Reps learned all too well, unfortunately.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crashtested 0 #68 June 5, 2008 Quote No, there *IS* condescension - mostly from people outside the US that view anyone from south of DC, west of Florida and east of Arizona to be Cro-Magnon knuckledraggers. Quite comical coming from people who coined such terms as "seppos", "abos", "pikeys", etc. Is there bigotry in the south? Yup, there is. There's bigotry in the north, east and west, too....from all colors and all walks of life. That 'redneck bigot' is most likely the guy you passed on the shoulder of the highway, changing a tire for an old black (*gasp*) lady in a pouring rain. That 'redneck bigot' is most likely the one that's stepped ahead to hold the door open for that young mother trying to herd 3 small kids into the grocery store. That 'redneck bigot' is most like the one that just handed you 50 cents with a "y'all have a good day, now" while you're digging change out of your pocket standing in front of a coke machine. Same in the uk, most of the inhouse bigotry (is that how you spell it?) comes from white conservative upper class toffs. They will still have manners though as above and more. but inheantly are fuck wits who are as inbread as they come. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crashtested 0 #69 June 5, 2008 To come back to the point... I would hope most people would not mind what president you get, as long as your economy takes an upturn and your housing market becomes slightly (by slightly i mean a lot cause its fucked) more stable. The black thing is an issue for a lot of people, not due to race but due to inherant fears of somthing different, be it a black / hispanic / women/ etc president, Or women working in industry, or a million other times in history when someone has brought change to a country. If he is voted in and your economy has an upturn his colour will be forgotten fairly quickly, the problem is very few of your presidents have acted on behalf on the commen populus. More on larger ssues which due to the size of your country will remain popular in some quaters and deeply unpopular in others. Best idea reduce fuel prices and decrease lower band tax's (low earners). 85% of your country is happy. the 15% who funded the campaigns withdraw there surport though, leaving the president in a lot of bother... (I would go into it in more depth but i think you may get my point) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #70 June 5, 2008 >But yet you advocate higher taxes, disregarding the punitive effects. I advocate paying what we owe. I am in favor of lower taxes that come from reduced spending. I do not favor lower taxes that come from increased spending. That is one of the stupidest things we could do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 June 5, 2008 Quote>But yet you advocate higher taxes, disregarding the punitive effects. I advocate paying what we owe. I am in favor of lower taxes that come from reduced spending. I do not favor lower taxes that come from increased spending. That is one of the stupidest things we could do. Too bad you can't disinvest yourself enough to have an honest discussion about it - I think it would be interesting.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #72 June 5, 2008 There is nothing dishonest about what he said. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #73 June 5, 2008 Quote Quote >But yet you advocate higher taxes, disregarding the punitive effects. I advocate paying what we owe. I am in favor of lower taxes that come from reduced spending. I do not favor lower taxes that come from increased spending. That is one of the stupidest things we could do. Too bad you can't disinvest yourself enough to have an honest discussion about it - I think it would be interesting. Well, we already know billvon is a duck. Are you claiming he's a duck invested in dishonest discussion? "Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #74 June 5, 2008 Quote Answer the question as stated and stop trying to sidetrack it, or kindly stay out of the discussion if you can't. That's kind of funny given your non-answer of the question in the thread title and subsequent discussion of taxation rather than race. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 June 5, 2008 Quote Well, we already know billvon is a duck. Are you claiming he's a duck invested in dishonest discussion? Not at all - merely that he can't disinvest himself from the tax/spend issue to be able to discuss the theory of taxation being a punitive measure and what effect it has in regard to spending by businesses and consumers. Bill and I agree on the fact that Congress is out of control on spending...we both agree that some taxes are necessary. We differ on how MUCH taxation is necessary and the affects on the country.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
