I used to be kind of worried about Obama running against this guy. But in the past two weeks, he has proven to me that he's about as politically tone deaf as they come.

"I like to fire people."

"$365K isn't that much."

"Uh, yeah, I do pay a smaller percentage of taxes than secretaries and members of the military."

This guy is a disaster! I can't wait to see Obama dismantle what's left of him when Gingrich, Perry and Santorum are done!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I used to be kind of worried about Obama running
> against this guy. But in the past two weeks, he
> has proven to me that he's about as politically
> tone deaf as they come.
>
> "I like to fire people."
>
> "$365K isn't that much."
>
> "Uh, yeah, I do pay a smaller percentage of taxes
> than secretaries and members of the military."
>
> This guy is a disaster! I can't wait to see Obama
> dismantle what's left of him when Gingrich, Perry
> and Santorum are done!


When it is all done, the moving trucks will be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue exactly one year from Thursday. Your predictions have been about as on target as a Rex Grossman pass. Where is the long protracted primary? The general election campaign will begin next month just as the revised unemployment numbers will be going up. Gas will go up in the spring and summer. Foreclosures will continue. Good luck running on that platform. It's the economy, stupid, and it still sucks.

match play Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> When it is all done, the moving trucks will be at
> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue exactly one year from
> Thursday. Your predictions have been about as on
> target as a Rex Grossman pass. Where is the long
> protracted primary? The general election campaign
> will begin next month just as the revised
> unemployment numbers will be going up. Gas will
> go up in the spring and summer. Foreclosures will
> continue. Good luck running on that platform.
> It's the economy, stupid, and it still sucks.

It does hinge on the economy, but Romney sucks much worse than what I had originally anticipated. All things being equal, expect Romney to follow in the tracks of Bob Dole and John McCain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> match play Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > When it is all done, the moving trucks will be
> at
> > 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue exactly one year from
> > Thursday. Your predictions have been about as
> on
> > target as a Rex Grossman pass. Where is the
> long
> > protracted primary? The general election
> campaign
> > will begin next month just as the revised
> > unemployment numbers will be going up. Gas
> will
> > go up in the spring and summer. Foreclosures
> will
> > continue. Good luck running on that platform.
> > It's the economy, stupid, and it still sucks.
>
> It does hinge on the economy, but Romney sucks
> much worse than what I had originally anticipated.
> All things being equal, expect Romney to follow in
> the tracks of Bob Dole and John McCain.

Obama is more aloof than Romney ever could be. He has lost all the passion and enthusiasm from 2008. He looks like George HW Bush. His whole "it could be worse" lines don't sit well with many. The elephant in the room is the fact that emperor really has no clothes, no matter how hard he and his devotees try to explain otherwise.

match play Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the economy, stupid, and it still sucks.

But it sucks less than it did, and will continue to suck less as we approach November.

Here's the meme on Willard:

- Out-of-touch rich guy;
- Earned his millions by overleveraging companies, sucking out all the value, & then dismantling them, destroying thousands of jobs in the process;
- "Political weathervane"'
- No core principles or values.

Good luck selling that to the American voter.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2012 02:10PM by sleepy.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it sucks less than it did, and will continue
> to suck less as we approach November.

With unemployment set to go back up, gas prices go higher, more foreclosures coming? Yeah, looks peachy.

Good luck selling that to the American voter.

In the end, the same first time voters that hit the polls in 2008 will not show up and that will doom Obama's chances.

match play Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the end, the same first time voters that hit
> the polls in 2008 will not show up and that will
> doom Obama's chances.

I know you hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it were I you.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

I would not want to live in a country where you are punished for being too successful but thanks to Obama and the kool aid drinkers that is where we are headed.

Years ago a successful man was admired and something to emulate. The thought process was if he made it so can I. What has happened where we have come to the point that a person who is successful is to be scorned and told to give away the majority of his money to others who are lazy or fail in life.

I do not want Obama or anyone else in the government telling me how much I can earn. Such a thought process is detrimental to what has made this country great.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> match play Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In the end, the same first time voters that hit
> > the polls in 2008 will not show up and that
> will
> > doom Obama's chances.
>
> I know you hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it were
> I you.

Every indicator thus far points to Obama having a difficult time replicating that performance. Apathy is setting in for many of those 2008 first time voters. The small donations coming into Obama are just a first sign of that.

Obama need only promise a new slew of free things to those who dont feel like working and the election is his. Nothing turns out the riff raff like a free lunch

strange times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Years ago a successful man was admired and
> something to emulate.

Marginal tax rates were higher back then too, idiot. We've had a progressive tax system for almost a hundred years, suddenly the right-wing loonies yearn for yesteryear, when those tax rates were actually even higher on the wealthy. Makes no sense.

After 50% in taxes you cease working for yourself and being working for the benefit of the government. Do you consider that fair?
Oppresive taxes cause one thing to happen and that is the moving offshore of personal capital and business.

strange times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Years ago a successful man was admired and
> something to emulate. The thought process was if
> he made it so can I.

That was before the 99% figured out that the game
is rigged in favor of your “successful man” and to
keep the common man down. Reality has knocked him
off his pedestal.

> What has happened where we have come to the
> point that a person who is successful is to be
> scorned and told to give away the majority of his
> money to others who are lazy or fail in life.

You are misinformed, friend. Asking your “successful
man” to pay a 25% tax on unearned income instead of
15%, or a 37.5% tax on earned income instead of 32%,
is hardly asking him to “give away the majority of his
money”. BTW, half of the 99% are hard working,
productive, taxpaying citizens, not the lazy scum you
imagine.

> I do not want Obama or anyone else in the
> government telling me how much I can earn.

Earn as much as you can, just pay your fair share in taxes.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

Remember the Beatles song Taxman?

The Beatles' large earnings placed them in the top tax bracket in the United Kingdom, liable to a 95% supertax introduced by Harold Wilson's Labour government. For every dollar they made they gave the government 95 cents and got to keep a nickel.

Do you see the absurdity of this. Is that what you advocate?

sleepy Wrote:
> Earn as much as you can, just pay your fair share
> in taxes.

Tell me one thing what is the fair share? If you have an idea what others must pay lets hear it. Do you honestly believe over 50% of your income should go to the government?

Yeah, bring up a straw an argument about 50% of your income and reference a Beatles song, helluva a point you got there!

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Here's the meme on Willard:
>
> - Out-of-touch rich guy;
> - Earned his millions by overleveraging companies,
> sucking out all the value, & then dismantling
> them, destroying thousands of jobs in the
> process;
> - "Political weathervane"'
> - No core principles or values.
>
> Good luck selling that to the American voter.

Thats your meme on him.
You also dont believe Afghanistan had anything to do with 9-11.

You are not the spokes person for voters or anyone with a brain. You are the spokes person for the koolaid drinkers who would pick Obama over any person on the planet. You could have god himself tell you he was doing a bad job and you wouldnt believe it. No one should take what you say seriously

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, bring up a straw an argument about 50% of
> your income and reference a Beatles song, helluva
> a point you got there!

Ok so what is fair? Please just a number and base it on government need for your money not to be used as a punishment for success which is what I am hearing.

strange times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ok so what is fair? Please just a number and base
> it on government need for your money not to be
> used as a punishment for success which is what I
> am hearing.

If they wanted it to be fair there would just be a a flat tax of something like 15 percent which would probably bring in more revenue anyway and get rid of writeoffs. Just 15 percent period from EVERYONE. With a progressive tax no one should have to pay more than around 25 percent. Amost 40 percent is anything but their fair share. That means theyre working about 5 months a year for free. No one would want to do that.

strange times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, bring up a straw an argument about 50% of
> > your income and reference a Beatles song,
> helluva
> > a point you got there!
>
> Ok so what is fair?

"Fair" is for you rightards to stop playing stupid and pretending that the tax system before Bush's cuts is 'class warfare' or 'punishing the rich'. It's not, you know it's not, so stop acting like dumbasses.

That's what's fair.

As far as the rates, it's perfectly reasonable to have progressive tax rates.

TheMeeper Wrote:

> > Ok so what is fair?
>
> "Fair" is for you rightards to stop playing stupid
> and pretending that the tax system before Bush's
> cuts is 'class warfare' or 'punishing the rich'.
> It's not, you know it's not, so stop acting like
> dumbasses.
>
> That's what's fair.
>
> As far as the rates, it's perfectly reasonable to
> have progressive tax rates.

Wow such an intelligently worded statement backed by facts and logic for such an intellectual elitist

I'm sorry I couldn't find the appropriate Beatles song to base my opinion on.

Nice dodge meeper I expected better from you. Keep in mind income taxes are for funding the operation of the government not punishment. Yet you cannot come up with a figure. I will make it easy on you, My AGI is say $100,000 a year what should I pay?

Thats it no insults no snide remarks just give me the figure.

Also provide the top tier % bracket if you dont mind.

You shouldn't be paying anymore than you are paying now- and sorry, I'm not breaking out a tax table to start quoting you $ amounts. This is a stupid argument. You've gone from "punishing the rich", to a 50% income tax, to a 95% tax from a Beatles song, to asking me to quote your tax bill. It is ridiculous. Why not just come out and say you really like the Bush tax cuts?

strange times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After 50% in taxes you cease working for yourself
> and being working for the benefit of the
> government. Do you consider that fair?
> Oppresive taxes cause one thing to happen and that
> is the moving offshore of personal capital and
> business.


You are right. Conrad Hilton, Walt Disney and Bill Hewlett all stopped working when their marginal tax rates exceeded 50%.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You shouldn't be paying anymore than you are
> paying now- and sorry, I'm not breaking out a tax
> table to start quoting you $ amounts. This is a
> stupid argument. You've gone from "punishing the
> rich", to a 50% income tax, to a 95% tax from a
> Beatles song, to asking me to quote your tax bill.
> It is ridiculous. Why not just come out and say
> you really like the Bush tax cuts?


Why cant you answer a simple question?

Trying to deflect and turn everything around back on other people just shows how clueless you are.

It very simple ill start.

If you make 100k you should pay 15 percent. Top 1 percent should pay 25 percent. That still means theyre working 3 months a year for free.

Now you try

If he weren't in politics, his ideal profession would be experimenting with food additives.

Reagan repealed the last windfall profit tax in 1988, after his Administration had one of the longest peace-time expansions under these so-called growth-crushing tax rates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

> Trying to deflect and turn everything around back on other people just shows how clueless you are.

Ummm, that's exactly what you did to me. I pointed out that your "class warfare" argument was stupid, and now all of a sudden you're asking me to build my own tax table.

For nearly 100 years, Presidents and Administrations have implemented Excise Taxes and Windfall Profit Taxes to battle deficits. Suddenly, paying for what we owe is "UnAmerican." This belief also coincides with major corporations taking over all media and the emergence of PACs and other corporate-financing mechanisms of campaign contributions. Hmmm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ummm, that's exactly what you did to me. I
> pointed out that your "class warfare" argument was
> stupid, and now all of a sudden you're asking me
> to build my own tax table.


I like how you left out the rest of what I said.

"It very simple ill start.

If you make 100k you should pay 15 percent. Top 1 percent should pay 25 percent. That still means theyre working 3 months a year for free.

Now you try"

I didnt turn anything around on you. I asked you why you cant answer a simple question and give a few broad examples and then I provided my answer.

But as usual you have nothing to say and no actual answer to anything

At least Romney isn't a Communist. Doesn't matter to me who gets
the nomination. Anybody but Obummer

> But as usual you have nothing to say and no actual answer to anything

Umm, because I don't have the federal budget projections and all of the relevant economic data sittin here in front of me to start pulling numbers out of thin air and stating them as fact. How on earth did you arrive at your specific 15 & 25% anyway? Because they simply sound like ideal numbers to you? You consider that an "actual answer"?

And I actually did have something to say- I pointed out that you're class warfare/punishing-the-rich argument was dumb.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For nearly 100 years, Presidents and
> Administrations have implemented Excise Taxes and
> Windfall Profit Taxes to battle deficits.
> Suddenly, paying for what we owe is "UnAmerican."
> This belief also coincides with major corporations
> taking over all media and the emergence of PACs
> and other corporate-financing mechanisms of
> campaign contributions. Hmmm.

We can't do that anymore, WTL. The economy is now global, and if we put excise taxes on imports, we'll trigger WTO sanctions against us. If we institute windfall profits taxes, the companies will move offshore and pay no taxes at all. Those weren't options in the past, but they are now.

Romney isn't as bad as you're making him out to be. The firing line was taken out of context. Nobody is going to mistake either Romney or Mr. Price-of-Arugula are middle class everymen, and he's better on tax policy for the average voter than Obama is.

At the end of the day, all Romney needs to do is provide a credible alternative, keep his nose clean and let Obama's incomptence win this thing. I think he's got a much better shot than McCain did.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Umm, because I don't have the federal budget
> projections and all of the relevant economic data
> sittin here in front of me to start pulling
> numbers out of thin air and stating them as fact.
> How on earth did you arrive at your specific 15 &
> 25% anyway? Because they simply sound like ideal
> numbers to you? You consider that an "actual
> answer"?
>
> And I actually did have something to say- I
> pointed out that you're class
> warfare/punishing-the-rich argument was dumb.


Yes thats an actual answer. The budget should be constrained by the revenue, the revenue shouldnt just keep being upped to meet the budget. In times of war each number can be bumped by 5 percent or 10 percent if something really extreme happens but the feds dont lose out on all of the revenue anyway since the more money people have the more they will spend and more the feds will get revenue that way.

And no the class warfare argument isnt dumb when all the talk right now is about how the rich screw everyone and arent paying their fare share. Thats called class warfare when you demonize success and want to bring the rich down to everyone elses level instead of striving to raise the bar and bring more people up to their level.

strange times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember the Beatles song Taxman?
>
> The Beatles' large earnings placed them in the top
> tax bracket in the United Kingdom, liable to a 95%
> supertax introduced by Harold Wilson's Labour
> government. For every dollar they made they gave
> the government 95 cents and got to keep a nickel.
>
> Do you see the absurdity of this. Is that what you
> advocate?


Do you see how our current to tax rate is approx. 1/3 of
95%, renerding this comment moot?

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

Behonest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they wanted it to be fair there would just be a
> a flat tax of something like 15 percent which
> would probably bring in more revenue anyway and
> get rid of writeoffs. Just 15 percent period from
> EVERYONE. With a progressive tax no one should
> have to pay more than around 25 percent. Amost 40
> percent is anything but their fair share. That
> means theyre working about 5 months a year for
> free. No one would want to do that.

How is a consuption tax "fair" to those who consume
almost all of their low income?

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> We can't do that anymore, WTL. The economy is now
> global, and if we put excise taxes on imports,
> we'll trigger WTO sanctions against us. If we
> institute windfall profits taxes, the companies
> will move offshore and pay no taxes at all. Those
> weren't options in the past, but they are now.
>


Bullshit. There are no tax savings that are going to prevent a US company from moving offshore if they can do it. Most taxes are written off by corporations, anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> How is a consuption tax "fair" to those who
> consume
> almost all of their low income?


Everyone pays the same tax thats how its fair. Thats what fair means the same for everyone. It doesnt mean take money from people that have it and give it to those who dont. If someone wants to give to charity thats great, but the government shouldnt be forcing it.

How is taking 40 percent of someones income fair making them work 5 months a year for free?

Behonest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The budget should be constrained by the revenue,
> the revenue shouldnt just keep being upped to
> meet the budget.

Why not? Why should only the demand side of the
equation be adjustable?

> And no the class warfare argument isnt dumb when
> all the talk right now is about how the rich screw
> everyone and arent paying their fare share. Thats
> called class warfare when you demonize success and
> want to bring the rich down to everyone elses
> level instead of striving to raise the bar and
> bring more people up to their level.

It's also class warfare to suggest that poor inner-city
kids should be taught in school how to be janitors. It's
also class warfare to claim we can't increase taxes on the
'job creators' even though they' aren't creating any jobs.
It's also class warfare to suggest that programs designed
to help the neediest in our society are wasteful and user
of these resources are scum.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why not? Why should only the demand side of the
> equation be adjustable?

Because if you just keep raising revenue to match spending then you get out of control spending and wasteful spending as well as taking to much of peoples hard earned money. Thats the fastest way to get out of control spending like we have now.


> It's also class warfare to suggest that poor
> inner-city
> kids should be taught in school how to be
> janitors.

Teaching them work ethic while putting money in their pockets is class warfare? It was an example of one way they could get job experience as a child.

It's
> also class warfare to claim we can't increase
> taxes on the
> 'job creators' even though they' aren't creating
> any jobs.
> It's also class warfare to suggest that programs
> designed
> to help the neediest in our society are wasteful
> and user
> of these resources are scum.

You obviously have no idea what class warfare means. Glad to see your back to your old self just making up stuff.

You can also stop registering my names whenever you want im still going to call you out

People dont want to support you, I get that you want that to continue.

Behonest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone pays the same tax thats how its fair.

Do you think that a $4,500 tax on someone making
$30,000/year is equivelent to a tax of $45,000 on
someone making $300,000/year? That's 'fair' to you?

> Thats what fair means the same for everyone.

Fair to me means having the same (or simalar) impact
on everyone. A flat tax impacts folk at the bottom
MUCH harder than those at the top.

> It doesnt mean take money from people that have it
> and give it to those who dont.

To me, it does.

> How is taking 40 percent of someones income fair
> making them work 5 months a year for free?

If that means taking $400,000 from a person making
$1,000,000/yr., I have no problem with that. If it
means taking $20,000 from somone who makes $50,000/yr.,
I have a problem.

Again, its IMPACT, not raw percentage.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Again, its IMPACT, not raw percentage.

Like every commodity, money has a diminishing marginal utility. Income should be taxed according to its utility, not its value. That's why we have progressive tax rates in the first place. The average conservative mind has trouble understanding this.

Behonestsleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because if you just keep raising revenue to match
> spending then you get out of control spending and
> wasteful spending as well as taking to much of
> peoples hard earned money. Thats the fastest way
> to get out of control spending like we have now.

In your opinion. I do not have the same view on
increasing taxes.

> Teaching them work ethic while putting money in
> their pockets is class warfare? It was an example
> of one way they could get job experience as a
> child.

How is distracting children from their studies to
mop floors & clean toilets going to help them
improve their lot in life?

> You obviously have no idea what class warfare
> means.

Obviously. So, lay it on me: What is class warfare?
Is class warfare from the upper-classes downward
even possible, or is it only the poor attacking\
the rich?

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Behonest Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Everyone pays the same tax thats how its fair.
>
> Do you think that a $4,500 tax on someone making
> $30,000/year is equivelent to a tax of $45,000 on
> someone making $300,000/year? That's 'fair' to
> you?
>
Yes thats fair its the same percentage.


>
> Fair to me means having the same (or simalar)
> impact
> on everyone. A flat tax impacts folk at the
> bottom
> MUCH harder than those at the top.

No fair isnt about impact its about percentage of income. And not really about impacting the bottom more than the top. A flat tax would get rid of write offs and increase the amount of some at the top. You could still have a 0 rate for anyone making less than 15 thousand.


>
> > It doesnt mean take money from people that have
> it
> > and give it to those who dont.
>
> To me, it does.

Because you want wealth redistribution. Thats fine if you want that but just say it stop hiding behind the "their fair share" argument and own up to what you really want.

>
> > How is taking 40 percent of someones income
> fair
> > making them work 5 months a year for free?
>
> If that means taking $400,000 from a person
> making
> $1,000,000/yr., I have no problem with that. If
> it
> means taking $20,000 from somone who makes
> $50,000/yr.,
> I have a problem.
>
> Again, its IMPACT, not raw percentage.


Its raw percentage when you are talking about fair. Going off of impact punishes people who are more successful. Its not fair to take much more because they were more successful. The majority of the rich now either started a successful company, had a great idea, and either or spent many years in school getting to where they are like a surgeon. That doesnt mean they should have more taken from them because they worked harder and did all that while everyone else screwed around in school

The conservative mind has trouble with anything that isn't obviously floating on the surface, or any comprehension of the medium and long term. They have become the McDonald's of political insight.

That's why big buisness preys on the conservatives and has to battle the progressives.

Mitt is a loser. Good ridance to the evangelical influence on politics.

Life is shades of grey. Conducting an argument by sighting extreme outcomes of any policy does not discribe reality. Its a waste of keystrokes. It is also the basis for nearly every conservative viewpoint on this thread.

Come November, we'll get our precedent and you republicans cab go back to diddling little kids, beating your wive, masturbating with your firearms and worshiping your fairy tales.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2012 06:18PM by Atom.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Behonestsleepy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because if you just keep raising revenue to
> match
> > spending then you get out of control spending
> and
> > wasteful spending as well as taking to much of
> > peoples hard earned money. Thats the fastest
> way
> > to get out of control spending like we have now.
>
>
> In your opinion. I do not have the same view on
> increasing taxes.

Thats not an opinion thats a fact. If you just raise taxes to match spending all the time you will get to the point where you cant raise them anymore. Before you get to that point you will also get to the point where people who can retire will just stop working since it is no longer worth it or people start working elsewhere with better tax rates and your revenue takes a huge hit forcing you to raise it even more on the people who have to work.

> > Teaching them work ethic while putting money in
> > their pockets is class warfare? It was an
> example
> > of one way they could get job experience as a
> > child.
>
> How is distracting children from their studies to
> mop floors & clean toilets going to help them
> improve their lot in life?

It gives them work experience and money. Its not a distraction and it saves the schools money too that they can put back into learning.

>
> > You obviously have no idea what class warfare
> > means.
>
> Obviously. So, lay it on me: What is class
> warfare?
> Is class warfare from the upper-classes downward
> even possible, or is it only the poor attacking\
> the rich?


yes you can have downward class warfare but thats not whats going on. This isnt 15th centure Europe where people are oppressed to keep people rich or north korea. Thats downward class warfare.

The demonizing of success and having money is whats happening now in America which is upward class warfare. Its people being jealous of others success and instead of striving to raise themselves up to that level they want to bring them down to their level.

> The demonizing of success and having money is whats happening now in America

You have to give Obama credit using class warfare. It is an effective tool and works on the stupid and lazy which now seem to make up most of America.
It is a win win for those on welfare or who are failures in life. They know they will never amount to much and certainly will not rise to the level of having to pay income taxes. Thus they can only win with Obama in the White House redistributing the wealth.

If you think the so called 1% are going to just happily hand over their wealth you are crazy. The money will be socked away in off shore accounts. States with high income taxes will see the wealthy move out, on paper only, to states with little or no income tax. They need only buy a second home and claim residency. Unless the government wants to hire thousands of investigators to do nothing but follow them around they will not be able to prove otherwise. It is already happening when you see people living here but claiming residencey in some Florida condo while maintaining a million dollar home in the DC area. You need look no further than John Kerry who moored a million dollar yacht in Rhode Island avoiding his home state of Massachusetts high taxes. Of course it was just an honest oversight on his part.

Because of Obamas proposed taxation of capital gains as regular income you will see less capital pumped into stocks or investments in start up companies. If Obama is just going to take 33% of your investment returns why bother. Again the loser will be the middle class trying to get money to start up a business.

Romney raided the pension funds of companies Bain acquired and then used the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp to bailout workers at a fraction of what they earned for retirement. Romney socialized his losses and put them on the backs of taxpayers. He is about as "conservative" as Karl Marx, and you GOP idiots are falling for it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Romney had nothing to do with the bailout of GM or Chrysler or funding Solyndra. The government has no business in bailing out any company barring a natural disaster or if the company serves as a front line producer of products needed in a war effort.

They have NO business being in the arena of funding a start up business like Solyndra. If the company is that great it will be financed by an IPO where people will be begging to invest.

Companies that fail do so because they are poorly managed, failing to keep up with changing times or by unions bleeding them dry with contracts that cannot be sustained when competing with China.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

blake v Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to give Obama credit using class warfare.
> It is an effective tool and works on the stupid
> and lazy which now seem to make up most of
> America.

The Repugs. deserve their share of credit, too.

> It is a win win for those on welfare or who are
> failures in life. They know they will never amount
> to much and certainly will not rise to the level
> of having to pay income taxes. Thus they can only
> win with Obama in the White House redistributing
> the wealth.

Spoken like pompous, sanctimonious douche.

> You need look no further than John Kerry who
> moored a million dollar yacht in Rhode Island
> avoiding his home state of Massachusetts high
> taxes.

It's called "tax avoidance", moron. It's
completely legal and the smart move.

> If Obama is just going to take 33% of
> your investment returns why bother.

Sure, 'cause it's much better to earn a
tax-free return of zero than pay taxes
on actual returns. You really are stupid.

Like someone said, it's only "class warfare" when the other side starts fighting back. Americans should be appalled that Romney only pays 15 percent in taxes. How the fuck is that "fair?" And it's bullshit that investment income should be treated differently than regular income. Why should Romney pay a lower percentage because he sat on his ass to earn his money over the past 10 years?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

From the GOP version of the Bible;


JOBCREATORS 3:16

"Fucketh the poor, for they smell,,,"

-Jesus "cash is king" Christ

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like someone said, it's only "class warfare" when
> the other side starts fighting back. Americans
> should be appalled that Romney only pays 15
> percent in taxes. How the fuck is that "fair?" And
> it's bullshit that investment income should be
> treated differently than regular income. Why
> should Romney pay a lower percentage because he
> sat on his ass to earn his money over the past 10
> years?



You obviously dont understand investing. Its a risk. You could lose every last dime of it thats why taxes are lower for investment profits because you are taking a risk investing in businesses. If you raise that tax rate to 40 percent you can say good bye to investment in America. You dont risk money when you can only hope to keep a little over half of your profit.

Your attacks are getting more desperate every post and you are really showing a complete lack of understanding of business which isnt really surprising.

His taxes are 15 percent because his money is capital gains money which gets taxed at 15 percent so he pays his legal share as usual try again

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the GOP version of the Bible;
>
>
> JOBCREATORS 3:16
>
> "Fucketh the poor, for they smell,,,"
>
> -Jesus "cash is king" Christ


From the Democratic playbook

"Thank god we have republicans, otherwise we wouldnt have any money to give away"

Behonestsleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hatemotor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From the GOP version of the Bible;
> >
> >
> > JOBCREATORS 3:16
> >
> > "Fucketh the poor, for they smell,,,"
> >
> > -Jesus "cash is king" Christ
>
>
> From the Democratic playbook
>
> "Thank god we have republicans, otherwise we
> wouldnt have any money to give away"


that's funny stuff 'er boy,,,how long did you spend crafting that bit of comedy,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:

>
> that's funny stuff 'er boy,,,how long did you
> spend crafting that bit of comedy,,,


Are you a 16th century plantation owner now?

It took less than a second. Im sure youve been thinking of your "gem" since the thread started several hours ago.


Why work when others can do it for you right?

A risk? Romney ran a fund. He spent other people's money. He didn't risk shit!

As for this risk argument, how many average Americans got wiped out by the housing bubble as opposed to rich people? Most of the rich got a Bush Bailout!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for this risk argument, how many average
> Americans got wiped out by the housing bubble as
> opposed to rich people? Most of the rich got a
> Bush Bailout!

Even without a bailout, how much of a hit is it for
a guy like Willard, worth +/- $250 Million, to lose
a couple of hundred grand on the devaluation of his
house(s) v. the impact of the same hit on a guy worth
< $500K?

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

I'm a Republican and there is no way I'm voting for Romney. I'm leaning toward Ron Paul because he is the only person who supports the constitution.

Reagan4US Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a Republican and there is no way I'm voting
> for Romney. I'm leaning toward Ron Paul because
> he is the only person who supports the
> constitution.

Agreed: Willard is no Reagan.

How will you vote in November when your choice
is Willard v. President Obama?

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

At this point Florida is a lock for Romney in the primary and general election. He will carry Fla. by a double digit margin in the general so I really don't think I'll have to worry about voting for him. nice to see Fla as a 'safe state" again.

However team Obama is using the McCain campaigns op res book and here it is for those who have never seen one.

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/01/McCain-2008-Oppo-File-on-Romney.pdf

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At this point Florida is a lock for Romney in the
> primary and general election. He will carry Fla.
> by a double digit margin in the general so I
> really don't think I'll have to worry about voting
> for him. nice to see Fla as a 'safe state" again.

It's a long row to hoe getting to November 6, Smacky.

It is imprudent to appear this cocky so early in the
game.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan

Perry's the only one who could take Florida in the general election. Romney doesn't do enough to stir up the racial prejudices in people and that's what'll need to happen to get all those racist rednecks out to the FL polls on election day. The only way to do that is the dog whistle approach, and Romneys' is just not loud enough to foment that kind of bigoted rage needed to beat Obama.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > At this point Florida is a lock for Romney in
> the
> > primary and general election. He will carry
> Fla.
> > by a double digit margin in the general so I
> > really don't think I'll have to worry about
> voting
> > for him. nice to see Fla as a 'safe state"
> again.
>
> It's a long row to hoe getting to November 6,
> Smacky.
>
> It is imprudent to appear this cocky so early in
> the
> game.


Don't think so Sleepy. Romney's polling at well over 40% down here in the primary.

The president has a solidly negative 42 - 54 percent job approval rating and Florida voters say 52 - 44 percent that he does not deserve a second term in the Oval Office.

Plus Obama has managed to piss off pretty much all the Jews who supported him the first time around. Believe me that is one hell of an achievement!

I'm serious about this. I think his only hope is for an independent like Ron Paul or someone can come in and split the vote. This is unlikely.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sleepy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mcsmack Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > At this point Florida is a lock for Romney in
> > the
> > > primary and general election. He will carry
> > Fla.
> > > by a double digit margin in the general so I
> > > really don't think I'll have to worry about
> > voting
> > > for him. nice to see Fla as a 'safe state"
> > again.
> >
> > It's a long row to hoe getting to November 6,
> > Smacky.
> >
> > It is imprudent to appear this cocky so early
> in
> > the
> > game.
>
>
> Don't think so Sleepy. Romney's polling at well
> over 40% down here in the primary.

The primary, I think you're right: Willard wins hands-down.

> The president has a solidly negative 42 - 54
> percent job approval rating and Florida voters say
> 52 - 44 percent that he does not deserve a second
> term in the Oval Office.
>
> Plus Obama has managed to piss off pretty much all
> the Jews who supported him the first time around.
> Believe me that is one hell of an achievement!
>
> I'm serious about this. I think his only hope is
> for an independent like Ron Paul or someone can
> come in and split the vote. This is unlikely.

I, too, am serious. There are 9 1/2 months between
now & election day.

That's A LOT of time, politically-speaking.

Stranger things have happened then a Willard implosion
or President Obama accomplishing (or at least being
credited for) something game-changing.

Indeed, things look good for you…now. I am merely counseling
prudence when it comes to counting chickens at this point in the
process.

____________________________________________________________

“When a corporation farts, I'll believe it's a human being.” – Dylan Ratigan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2012 01:35PM by sleepy.

sleepy = on welfare or disability, I choose disability

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A risk? Romney ran a fund. He spent other people's
> money. He didn't risk shit!
>
> As for this risk argument, how many average
> Americans got wiped out by the housing bubble as
> opposed to rich people? Most of the rich got a
> Bush Bailout!


You should honestly seek counseling. Youve officially become the crazy old rambling man who is so filled with hate (your hatred of anything not obama) that you just make everything up and go on nonsensical rants.

Bottom line you want investment money taxed at 40 percent, that would be the end of business

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> It is imprudent to appear this cocky so early in
> the
> game.


But its okay to be cocky for Obama this early? Take your own advice

Anyone who doesnt think the election is going to be close regardless of what way you want it to turn out is absolutely kidding themselves

Behonestsleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone who doesnt think the election is going to
> be close regardless of what way you want it to
> turn out is absolutely kidding themselves

When did anyone (other than WTL) crow about the likelihood
of an outsized win by President Obama come November?

I agree with you: It'll be a close race.

In unrelated news Obama seeking to wean America off Middle East oil and to bring jobs here rejected the Keystone pipeline.

Honesty Is sleepy's Middle Name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Behonestsleepy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyone who doesnt think the election is going
> to
> > be close regardless of what way you want it to
> > turn out is absolutely kidding themselves
>
> When did anyone (other than WTL) crow about the
> likelihood
> of an outsized win by President Obama come
> November?
>
> I agree with you: It'll be a close race.


Umm, 4 More Years, II,

Honesty Is sleepy's Middle Name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Behonestsleepy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyone who doesnt think the election is going
> to
> > be close regardless of what way you want it to
> > turn out is absolutely kidding themselves
>
> When did anyone (other than WTL) crow about the
> likelihood
> of an outsized win by President Obama come
> November?
>
> I agree with you: It'll be a close race.

On that we can agree, which is probably the first time weve ever agreed on anything. WTL, Atom, 4 more years and that group all seem to think its going to be some kind of blowout Walter Mondale style and reelection is already in the bag

The only thing that wont be close is the primary. If Mitt wins SC its officially over, hell even a 2nd place finish basically ends it

Romney should already be vetting VP candidates,,,

I wonder who he'll pick,,,

He needs someone who is relatively unknown ,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Romney should already be vetting VP candidates,,,
>
> I wonder who he'll pick,,,
>
> He needs someone who is relatively unknown ,,,


He has been quietly vetting VP prospects for a few weeks now.

blake v Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In unrelated news Obama seeking to wean America
> off Middle East oil and to bring jobs here
> rejected the Keystone pipeline.


America already gets its oil from Canada, Venezuela and domestics sources. Anyone who thinks it makes economic sense to ship oil from Saudi Arabia to the US is an idiot.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Honesty Is sleepy's Middle Name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Behonestsleepy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyone who doesnt think the election is going
> to
> > be close regardless of what way you want it to
> > turn out is absolutely kidding themselves
>
> When did anyone (other than WTL) crow about the
> likelihood
> of an outsized win by President Obama come
> November?
>
> I agree with you: It'll be a close race.

Did I ever predict an outsized win? Not sure if I did. I've always figured it would be close.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > sleepy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > mcsmack Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I, too, am serious. There are 9 1/2 months
> between
> now & election day.

The only difference is that I have a track record of always being right. You don't

>

> Indeed, things look good for you…now. I am
> merely counseling
> prudence when it comes to counting chickens at
> this point in the
> process.

Things always look good for me sleepy.No matter who's president. That's what it is like being me.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honesty Is sleepy's Middle Name Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Behonestsleepy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Anyone who doesnt think the election is going
> > to
> > > be close regardless of what way you want it
> to
> > > turn out is absolutely kidding themselves
> >
> > When did anyone (other than WTL) crow about the
> > likelihood
> > of an outsized win by President Obama come
> > November?
> >
> > I agree with you: It'll be a close race.
>
> Did I ever predict an outsized win? Not sure if I
> did. I've always figured it would be close.

Yep:
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/342421/342530.html#msg-342530

You were also wrong about Crist in that post too. Can we call you prediction fail machine?

Yes, I judge whether or not I'm a failure based on what I write here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I judge whether or not I'm a failure based on
> what I write here.


Sucks to be you then don't it?

Spend a lot of time on a suicide hotline do ya?

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I judge whether or not I'm a failure based on
> what I write here.

First, you are the first person to pound your chest and declare how right your predictions have been. Don't be surprised when someone busts your chops for being chronically wrong.

Second, given how much you post here and how often, your statement comes as no surprise. I doubt there are any other endeavors in your life to which you devote as much time or energy.

Fred Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, I judge whether or not I'm a failure based
> on
> > what I write here.
>
> First, you are the first person to pound your
> chest and declare how right your predictions have
> been. Don't be surprised when someone busts your
> chops for being chronically wrong.
>
> Second, given how much you post here and how
> often, your statement comes as no surprise. I
> doubt there are any other endeavors in your life
> to which you devote as much time or energy.


I predicted Mitt would be fucked a week after his "I like to fire people" comment.

Here you go...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fred Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yes, I judge whether or not I'm a failure
> based
> > on
> > > what I write here.
> >
> > First, you are the first person to pound your
> > chest and declare how right your predictions
> have
> > been. Don't be surprised when someone busts
> your
> > chops for being chronically wrong.
> >
> > Second, given how much you post here and how
> > often, your statement comes as no surprise. I
> > doubt there are any other endeavors in your
> life
> > to which you devote as much time or energy.
>
>
> I predicted Mitt would be fucked a week after his
> "I like to fire people" comment.
>
> Here you go...
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_pol
> ls/

LOL. You are pointing to a single PPP poll that came out today. The Gallup tracking poll from the day before has Romney up by 16. When the results come in tomorrow night, you might be able to pound your chest for once after a long list of wrong predictions. Even then, there is not necessarily a correlation between Romney's statement and your prediction. There have been too many intervening events to make a direct cause and effect correlation. For instance, Perry dropping out and endorsing Gingrich, Palin's endorsement, etc.

Also, your PPP poll was taken mostly before the Gingrich news broke.

Finally, in the 2008 Dem Primary in PA, PPP predictied an Obama victory, Clinton won by nearly 10%.

Fred Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > Here you go...
> >
> >
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_pol
>
> > ls/
>
> LOL. You are pointing to a single PPP poll that
> came out today. The Gallup tracking poll from the
> day before has Romney up by 16. When the results
> come in tomorrow night, you might be able to pound
> your chest for once after a long list of wrong
> predictions. Even then, there is not necessarily
> a correlation between Romney's statement and your
> prediction. There have been too many intervening
> events to make a direct cause and effect
> correlation. For instance, Perry dropping out and
> endorsing Gingrich, Palin's endorsement, etc.
>
> Also, your PPP poll was taken mostly before the
> Gingrich news broke.
>
> Finally, in the 2008 Dem Primary in PA, PPP
> predictied an Obama victory, Clinton won by nearly
> 10%.


There's more than one poll showing Gingrich pulling ahead in the final days before Saturday's vote.

All Gingrich has to demonstrate to voters is that Romney is not up to winning the general election. Republicans really don't want Romney as the nominee, but feel he is the only one who can win against Obama. If Gingrich demonstrates Romney can't, you are going to see more Republican support behind Gingrich.

As for the intervening events, they are all tied to the opening Romney provided with the "I like to fire people" comment. All of a sudden, the press is focusing attention on the Bain material Gingrich had been putting out for weeks. The endorsements also have come to Gingrich as it appears Romney is becoming more vulnerable.

In the end, Romney may still end up with the nomination. But I am happy that GOP candidates like Gingrich and Santorum are making him unelectable on the GOP dime.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2012 09:26AM by WashingTone-Locian.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's more than one poll showing Gingrich
> pulling ahead in the final days before Saturday's
> vote.

And there is more than one poll showing Romney with a double digit lead in the final days.

> All Gingrich has to demonstrate to voters is that
> Romney is not up to winning the general election.

Marianne Gingrich just demonstrated that Newt is not up to winning the general election. Well, actually Newt just demonstrated he is not up to winning the general.

> Republicans really don't want Romney as the
> nominee, but feel he is the only one who can win
> against Obama.

I think that is true for a certain segment of the party. However, there are plenty of Republicans that stand strongly behind Romney. Romney pulled nearly 4.7 million votes and finished first or second in 22 states. The "electability" factor was not in play in getting those votes.

> If Gingrich demonstrates Romney
> can't, you are going to see more Republican
> support behind Gingrich.

I don't think you will. On Saturday and on January 31, we will see if you are right or wrong.

> As for the intervening events, they are all tied
> to the opening Romney provided with the "I like to
> fire people" comment. All of a sudden, the press
> is focusing attention on the Bain material
> Gingrich had been putting out for weeks. The
> endorsements also have come to Gingrich as it
> appears Romney is becoming more vulnerable.

Yeah, because Gingrich has no vulnerabilities! LOL.

> In the end, Romney may still end up with the
> nomination.

He will.

> But I am happy that GOP candidates
> like Gingrich and Santorum are making him
> unelectable on the GOP dime.

Too bad the President's record has made him unelectable. The Bain criticisms will have diminished given Romney's response time and the fact that the Democrats have been bathing in Bain money for years and Obama just named a Bain guy as head of OMB. The Bain attacks will wane and Obama will be forced to defend $4+ gas all summer long while defending the decision to not build a pipeline. See how that works for him.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:

> As for the intervening events, they are all tied
> to the opening Romney provided with the "I like to
> fire people" comment.



You continue to impress me everyday with how truely clueless you are. Yes it must be the comment not the fact that Newt stopped with the Bain bullshit and started actually being Newt again, or that Palin said vote for him to keep the primary competitive, or that Perry just threw his support behind Newt giving him more voters.

Newt getting back to actually running a campaign and not focusing on dumb crap is what has gotten him the spike.

The only people that care about Romneys comment or Bain are the koolaid drinkers like yourself that would would be executed than vote for a GOP condidate

Fred Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Marianne Gingrich just demonstrated that Newt is
> not up to winning the general election. Well,
> actually Newt just demonstrated he is not up to
> winning the general.


Thats not true at all. None of that was news. That had all come out more than 10 years ago in an Esquier article. That was ABC getting scared that Newt was getting too much momentum and them trying to bring his numbers back to earth.

behonestwtl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
>
> > As for the intervening events, they are all
> tied
> > to the opening Romney provided with the "I like
> to
> > fire people" comment.
>
>
>
> You continue to impress me everyday with how
> truely clueless you are. Yes it must be the
> comment not the fact that Newt stopped with the
> Bain bullshit and started actually being Newt
> again, or that Palin said vote for him to keep the
> primary competitive, or that Perry just threw his
> support behind Newt giving him more voters.
>
> Newt getting back to actually running a campaign
> and not focusing on dumb crap is what has gotten
> him the spike.
>
> The only people that care about Romneys comment or
> Bain are the koolaid drinkers like yourself that
> would would be executed than vote for a GOP
> condidate


Romney's own campaign is now saying he might not win SC. You can make as many excuses as you want. Truth is I'm right a majority of the time. I'm right again. Ha!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Romney's own campaign is now saying he might not
> win SC. You can make as many excuses as you want.
> Truth is I'm right a majority of the time. I'm
> right again. Ha!


The only thing youre right about is that he might not win SC WHICH HE WAS NEVER EXPECTED TO WIN IN THE FIRST PLACE. At first he wasnt even expected to finish in the top 2 there and no one would have been surprised if he finished 4th. The reason why you think youre right is completely wrong, and Ive said since day one he probably wouldnt win there.

Im not making any excuses for him he wasnt expected to win there period. You are far from right the majority of the time as several posters have pointed out over the last few days

To be honest, I'm starting to think Mitt is saying to many dumb things to overcome,,,I said months ago, the less he talks the better off he'll be but,

The Kim Kardashian joke was stupid,,,

The "I like to fire people" was insensitve in this economy regardless of context,

And the "I paid about 15%" was outrageous coming from a member of the tax cuts for the Rich party,,,

One or two more dumb quotes might finish him,,,

He apparently went to the Joe Biden school of public speaking,,,

---------------------------------------------------------

An axe to grind, and a motor to hate,,,

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest, I'm starting to think Mitt is saying
> to many dumb things to overcome,,,I said months
> ago, the less he talks the better off he'll be
> but,

Hes not the best debater by any means, but were electing a president not the captain of the debate team. The majority of the country felt McCain won the Obama debates and we all know how that turned out.

>
> The Kim Kardashian joke was stupid,,,
>
> The "I like to fire people" was insensitve in this
> economy regardless of context

You keep leaving out the whole quote. ""I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I'm going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me."

So youre saying you dont go elsewhere to get better service when you get crappy service? Could he has worded it better yes. Does it mean anything more than he likes being able to fire people that are bad at their jobs, no.
>
> And the "I paid about 15%" was outrageous coming
> from a member of the tax cuts for the Rich
> party,,,

Because his money is from Capital Gains, thats the tax rate for it. That money has already been taxed before. Theres nothing outrageous about it at all.

Make good investments and that can be your tax rate too.

Even if you are right on all your points, it doesn't matter,,,this is politics,,

Rule #1,,,first you must like the salesman,,,Clinton, W, and Obama were elected because people LIKED them,,,

Most corporations pay the bulk of compensation in stock options. That's not investment. It's a loophole around income taxes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even if you are right on all your points, it
> doesn't matter,,,this is politics,,
>
> Rule #1,,,first you must like the
> salesman,,,Clinton, W, and Obama were elected
> because people LIKED them,,,


I mean your right that people could see them as an issue but my point is that they arent/shouldnt be.

I think its sad that in this day an age in politics you cant even speak truthfully (aka the I like being able to fire people) without getting clobbered for it and we wonder why most people that run just make a ton of empty promises that people want to hear.

If people want straight forward honest political leaders they just tell you how it is and dont sugar coat things then we need to stop nit picking every thing ever said and start worrying about what the actual message was and not how we can twist it for our own political gain. About the only one who gets away with it so far is Chris Christy but hes had to fight off a lot of attacks for some of the things hes said too.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most corporations pay the bulk of compensation in
> stock options. That's not investment. It's a
> loophole around income taxes.


In other words it has nothing to do with you so screw them they should pay more and then you will complain when no one invests in business anymore. Go argue with Clinton who also knew that lower cap gains taxes encourages investment especially since that money gets taxed twice anyway