39
   

McCain is blowing his election chances.

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 02:11 pm
real life wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes Dys... eventually everyone... even Africans.
real life wrote:
Bill,

Since we should not 'hurt the illegal immigrant' , are you in favor of providing them with free health care under the proposal that 'Present' Obama has put forth?
Well yes... but I would prefer single payer... which can more easily manage the load in a more progressive fashion, and shifts the incentive from maintenance to solutions.

real life wrote:
Since you are already paying their taxes anyway, you surely won't object to increasing the load, will you?
This line highlights your ignorance. What makes you think I am paying their taxes? Clearly; you are no businessman.


When employers hire illegal aliens for cash as 'contract labor', they do not put them on the payroll as employees. Therefore, no taxes are deducted from their earnings.

So you favor them paying no taxes but benefiting from the things we pay for.
Many, if not most employers DO put them on payroll as opposed to paying them cash. One can easily comply with "new hire reporting" laws and be bulletproof in the eyes of the law. Fake papers are easily obtainable and the IRS goes well out of its way to let the illegals know they are welcome to real papers as well and that A. They should pay their taxes and B. They will not be targeted for doing so. Further; the guy who pays cash can't claim that employee as an expense when filing his own taxes; so on paper he has a greater income himself. Further still: a great many illegals pay taxes on bogus SS numbers, but never file for a return, thereby contribute more than their fair share.

Ps. You should do more asking than telling when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 02:58 pm
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
nimh wrote:
I think it's unfair but moreover, pretty useless to aim the sharp stick of repression at the illegal immigrants themselves. They're just desperate to find a way out of poverty and help their family back home to survive.

I've said it before: These are the people we should want in our country. They had the brains, initiative, drive and tenacity to get here.


Smart tenacious criminals are not ideal citizens.

What about those who play by the rules and go thru the proper procedure?

Have they not 'brains' or 'initiative'?

Of course they do.

Anyone willing to break the law to get here should be sent back. Period.

I disagree.


Other than proving they are 'smart' by eluding capture, how does encouraging someone to break the law make them a positive part of the society?

Compare them with the people who DO play by the rules. They file the correct paperwork, wait their turn and enter the country legally.

Are you simply telling them 'you are stupid schmucks for obeying the law' ?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 02:59 pm
Our nation was founded by a bunch of law-breakers, troll. It fits perfectly with our ethos.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 03:07 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
real life wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes Dys... eventually everyone... even Africans.
real life wrote:
Bill,

Since we should not 'hurt the illegal immigrant' , are you in favor of providing them with free health care under the proposal that 'Present' Obama has put forth?
Well yes... but I would prefer single payer... which can more easily manage the load in a more progressive fashion, and shifts the incentive from maintenance to solutions.

real life wrote:
Since you are already paying their taxes anyway, you surely won't object to increasing the load, will you?
This line highlights your ignorance. What makes you think I am paying their taxes? Clearly; you are no businessman.


When employers hire illegal aliens for cash as 'contract labor', they do not put them on the payroll as employees. Therefore, no taxes are deducted from their earnings.

So you favor them paying no taxes but benefiting from the things we pay for.
Many, if not most employers DO put them on payroll as opposed to paying them cash. One can easily comply with "new hire reporting" laws and be bulletproof in the eyes of the law. Fake papers are easily obtainable and the IRS goes well out of its way to let the illegals know they are welcome to real papers as well and that A. They should pay their taxes and B. They will not be targeted for doing so. Further; the guy who pays cash can't claim that employee as an expense when filing his own taxes; so on paper he has a greater income himself. Further still: a great many illegals pay taxes on bogus SS numbers, but never file for a return, thereby contribute more than their fair share.

Ps. You should do more asking than telling when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


Employers can claim any legitimate business expense , including hiring a subcontractor, as a business expense.

You are simply incorrect to state that it makes the employer appear to have a bigger income and therefore a bigger income tax liability.

And who says that an illegal could never file a 1040 to get a tax refund?

Why wouldn't they? Of course they can.

Quote:
However, the Service continues to consider illegal aliens as U.S. residents fortax purposes, which permits aliens to file individual income tax returns on Forms 1040. As a result, illegal aliens are receiving tax benefits which exceed those received by non-resident alien taxpayers (Form 1040NR filers) that are in compliance with U.S.Immigration Laws
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:122bndTKDfoJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0317021.pdf+illegal+alien+file+1040&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 05:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Our nation was founded by a bunch of law-breakers, troll. It fits perfectly with our ethos.

Cycloptichorn


You wanna explain how you figure this.
Or are you talking about the men that founded this nation by revolting against British rule?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 05:32 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Our nation was founded by a bunch of law-breakers, troll. It fits perfectly with our ethos.

Cycloptichorn


You wanna explain how you figure this.
Or are you talking about the men that founded this nation by revolting against British rule?


That is exactly what I speak of.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 05:45 pm
This actually works for conservative politicians because their supporters have no problems dealing with these huge disconnects from reality.


Quote:


McCain Campaign Yanks "True Conservative" Ad from YouTube, Web Site

Just one day after the McCain campaign proclaimed its man the "Original Maverick," Barack Obama blasted that assertion both on the stump and in a new ad of his own. "You can't be a maverick when politically it's working for you," Obama said, "and not a maverick when it doesn't work for you." Which may explain why the McCain campaign has apparently tried to purge any traces of its "True Conservative" ad, a February 2008 spot designed to win over hard right GOP primary voters.

As it turns out, McCain's latest ads ("Broken" and "Praising McCain") tout the Arizona Senator as the populist "Original Maverick." But that resurrection of McCain's tattered maverick image is contradicted by the "True Conservative" TV spot he used during the Republican primaries. In February, McCain to be sure wasn't the maverick battling special interests in his own party:

Announcer: As a prisoner of war, John McCain was inspired by Ronald Reagan.

Mr. McCain: I enlisted as a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution.

Announcer: Guided by strong conservative principles, he'll cut wasteful spending and keep taxes low. A proud social conservative who will never waver. The leadership and experience to call for the surge strategy in Iraq that is working.

John McCain: The true conservative. Ready to be commander-in-chief on Day One.

As it turns out, McCain's claim to be a "true conservative" didn't just disappear once he sewed up the Republican nomination. For the most part, so did the ad itself.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/07/mccain-campaign-yanks-true-conservative-ad-from-youtube-web-site/#more-31653


0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 05:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Our nation was founded by a bunch of law-breakers, troll. It fits perfectly with our ethos.

Cycloptichorn


You wanna explain how you figure this.
Or are you talking about the men that founded this nation by revolting against British rule?


That is exactly what I speak of.

Cycloptichorn


Like he didn't know exactly what you meant. That shyt gets so old from MM.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 05:53 pm
As I was saying.

Quote:

Protecting McCain's Ignorance with a 'Great Wall of Duh'


Senator Obama on Tuesday said of the McBush Republicans, "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." After eight years trapped aboard this dark ride, finally hearing a Democratic presidential candidate publicly and forcefully refer to the Republicans as ignorant liars ought to be enough to coax even the most indecisive leaner into the Obama column.

But let's take the senator's remark even further. The McBush Republicans don't just take pride in their ignorance -- their entire electoral strategy depends on it.

This is obviously a risky strategy given the existence of things like "reason", "facts" and "truth" -- each readily available to anyone who's industrious enough to seek them out. Fortunately, though, for the McBush Republicans, there's an outside collaborator working in their favor: the barbecue media whose success also depends greatly upon both ignorance and disingenuousness (Olbermann and others excluded). Paraphrasing Woody Allen, ignorance and disingenuousness are, collectively, their various breads and various butters. So the Republicans have a convenient and sizeable zero-barrier of protective stupid surrounding their golf courses and mansions and trophy wives, shielding them from reality. Let's call it the Great Wall of Duh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/protecting-mccains-ignora_b_117565.html


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 06:00 pm
John (huuuhhhh, what did I say?) McCain.


Quote:


Flashback McCain '07: Paris Hilton Gets More Attention Than Deserved

There once was a time, not too long ago, when John McCain lamented the fact that Paris Hilton was getting so much attention in the news media. Nowadays, of course, his campaign is gleefully pushing the celebrity famous for doing nothing as a relevant campaign issue.

During an August 17, 2007 appearance on Hardball, the Arizona Republican, who was already running for president, was asked to weigh in on the drama surrounding O.J. Simpson's arrest in Las Vegas for armed robbery.

McCain's response doesn't exactly jive with his campaign's posture today.

"I don't know," he said, when asked if the Juice could get a fair trial. "I would not know about that. The last time a lot of people were surprised that he got at least what was in his view a fair trial. But, honestly, I have not been keeping up with it as much as I should have maybe, because it's certainly -- This and Paris Hilton are the kind of issues that seem to get a lot more attention than maybe some of us think they deserve."

Fast forward to this past week, when the Senator has actively sought to bring Paris Hilton into the political dialogue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/07/flashback-mccain-07-paris_n_117566.html

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 06:33 pm
real life wrote:


Other than proving they are 'smart' by eluding capture, how does encouraging someone to break the law make them a positive part of the society?

Compare them with the people who DO play by the rules. They file the correct paperwork, wait their turn and enter the country legally.

Are you simply telling them 'you are stupid schmucks for obeying the law' ?


Oh, the irony!
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 06:49 pm
One American who speaks my language.

"There are plenty of good conservative individuals, honorable folks who would never participate in the sort of corruption we have watched unfold over the last few years. Hang around with grassroots conservative voters in Kansas, and in the main you will find them to be honest, hardworking people. Even our story's worst villains can be personally virtuous. Jack Abramoff, for example, is known to his friends as a pious, polite, and generous fellow.

But put conservatism in charge of the state, and it behaves very differently. Now the "values" that rightist politicians eulogize on the stump disappear, and in their place we can discern an entirely different set of priorities -- priorities that reveal more about the unchanging historical essence of American conservatism than do its fleeting campaigns against gay marriage or secular humanism. The conservatism that speaks to us through its actions in Washington is institutionally opposed to those baseline good intentions we learned about in elementary school.

Its leaders laugh off the idea of the public interest as airy-fairy nonsense; they caution against bringing top-notch talent into government service; they declare war on public workers. They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job. Repairing it will require years of political action.

Conservatism-in-power is a very different beast from the conservatism we meet on the streets of Wichita or the conservatism we overhear talking to itself on the pages of Free Republic. For one thing, what conservatism has done in its decades at the seat of power is fundamentally unpopular, and a large percentage of its leaders have been men of eccentric ideas. While they believe things that would get them laughed out of the American Sociological Association, that only makes them more typical of the movement. And for all their peculiarity, these people -- Grover Norquist, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Newt Gingrich, and the whole troupe of activists, lobbyists, and corpora-trons who got their start back in the Reagan years -- have for the last three decades been among the most powerful individuals in America. This wave of misgovernment has been brought to you by ideology, not incompetence.

Yes, today's conservatives have disgraced themselves, but they have not strayed from the teaching of their forefathers or the great ideas of their movement. When conservatives appoint the opponents of government agencies to head those government agencies; when they auction their official services to the purveyor of the most lavish "golf weekend"; when they mulct millions from groups with business before Congress; when they dynamite the Treasury and sabotage the regulatory process and force government shutdowns -- in short, when they treat government with contempt -- they are running true to form. They have not done these awful things because they are bad conservatives; they have done them because they are good conservatives, because these unsavory deeds follow naturally from the core doctrines of the conservative tradition.

And, yes, there has been greed involved in the effort -- a great deal of greed. Every tax cut, every cleverly engineered regulatory snafu saves industry millions and perhaps even billions of dollars, and so naturally securing those tax cuts and engineering those snafus has become a booming business here in Washington. Conservative rule has made the capital region rich, a showplace of the new plutocratic order. But this greed cannot be dismissed as some personal failing of lobbyist or congressman, some badness-of-apple that can be easily contained. Conservatism, as we know it, is a movement that is about greed, about the "virtue of selfishness" when it acts in the marketplace. In rightwing Washington, you can be a man of principle and a boodler at the same time."
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174963/thomas_frank_washington_s_lords_of_creation
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 07:24 pm
real life wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
real life wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes Dys... eventually everyone... even Africans.
real life wrote:
Bill,

Since we should not 'hurt the illegal immigrant' , are you in favor of providing them with free health care under the proposal that 'Present' Obama has put forth?
Well yes... but I would prefer single payer... which can more easily manage the load in a more progressive fashion, and shifts the incentive from maintenance to solutions.

real life wrote:
Since you are already paying their taxes anyway, you surely won't object to increasing the load, will you?
This line highlights your ignorance. What makes you think I am paying their taxes? Clearly; you are no businessman.


When employers hire illegal aliens for cash as 'contract labor', they do not put them on the payroll as employees. Therefore, no taxes are deducted from their earnings.

So you favor them paying no taxes but benefiting from the things we pay for.
Many, if not most employers DO put them on payroll as opposed to paying them cash. One can easily comply with "new hire reporting" laws and be bulletproof in the eyes of the law. Fake papers are easily obtainable and the IRS goes well out of its way to let the illegals know they are welcome to real papers as well and that A. They should pay their taxes and B. They will not be targeted for doing so. Further; the guy who pays cash can't claim that employee as an expense when filing his own taxes; so on paper he has a greater income himself. Further still: a great many illegals pay taxes on bogus SS numbers, but never file for a return, thereby contribute more than their fair share.

Ps. You should do more asking than telling when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


Employers can claim any legitimate business expense , including hiring a subcontractor, as a business expense.
Laughing Proving you have no clue. Legitimate is the key word in this sentence, and there are various requirements that must be met for this as well. If you could disappear cash simply by saying you paid an anonymous "subcontractor"; how many business owners do you suppose might just pay themselves that way? Rolling Eyes You are out of your depth... stop digging.

real life wrote:
You are simply incorrect to state that it makes the employer appear to have a bigger income and therefore a bigger income tax liability.
You are simply a moron if you don't believe many, if not most employers would prefer to simply do the LEGALLY REQUIRED new hire reporting, withhold according to law and avoid committing felony conspiracy to defraud the United States government... when there is little incentive to do so. You are talking completely out of your ass.

real life wrote:
And who says that an illegal could never file a 1040 to get a tax refund?
No one said that. Rolling Eyes I said a great many do not, but many do and in so doing they DO pay their fair share of tax.

real life wrote:
Why wouldn't they? Of course they can.
Many use cheaper papers that may have the same SS as dozens of other immigrants, so they never file. This means they pay MORE than their fair share... so the IRS isn't likely to object.

Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You very clearly do not. I'm bored with this.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  0  
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 07:27 pm
American business flows on a pile of loose cash...

:wink:

(fast and loose)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 08:49 am
McCain, however, is slowly but surely fine tuning his campaign strategy and it is beginning to work. He did fail to understand that this campaign is not like all other campaigns, but then he has never been a great campaigner. Is that important? I don't know. But it is a fact.

He doesn't have to please all voters to win this election; he only has to convince enough voters that despite his flaws and weaknesses, he is a better or safer or whatever choice than Obama.

Quote:
. . . .As luck would have it for McCain, Celebrity also coincided with the onset of Obama fatigue. In a Pew poll this week that is worrying Democrats, 48 per cent of voters believed they had been "hearing too much" about Obama, compared to just 26 per cent feeling the same way about McCain. This might be temporary. Or not.


Yes, the ad was silly but this is what political observers fondly call the silly season - that time in August when everyone is looking for a bit of light relief. Obama's allies overplayed their hand by claiming Celebrity was racist and it will be many years before Bob Herbert of the New York Times lives down his fantasy about the phallic symbols therein.


For once, Obama seems a little rattled. He even accused McCain of lying about his energy plan for the relatively mild offense of trying to reduce it to an off-hand remark about tire inflation. He was clearly irked by the mildly amusing stunt of distributing Obama tire gauges. "We weren't lying, we were mocking him," said one McCain aide. "He's so fussy."


The aide added that he had a theory that the campaign that laughed the most tended to win. There could be something in that. Suddenly, after coming across as unremittingly dour during the primaries, McCain is enjoying himself a lot more, quipping about his wife Cindy taking part in a topless beauty pageant and telling people to lighten up about Celebrity. By comparison, Obama is straight faced.


McCain's The One ad, which painted Obama as a would-be messiah, complete with Charlton Heston as Moses parting the Red Sea, also hit home. The suggestion that Obama sees himself as too grand to relate to the concerns of ordinary people has real potential to damage him. At the same time, Schmidt & Co. have finally begun to exert a bit of message discipline on both McCain and his surrogates.


Tom Daschle's remark that Celebrity and The One have dented Obama's poll numbers was an admission of at least a tactical defeat. Obama's top aides know that whining about how negative the campaign has become is pointless and their candidate didn't spend all those years in Chicago without learning how to hit back hard.


When Obama returns from his holiday in Hawaii, where he should avoid windsurfing at all costs, he has to take the fight to his opponent. The anger and the age cards will no doubt be in his back pocket.


Winning in November in an environment toxic for any Republican remains a gargantuan task for McCain and there is no need for Democrats to panic just yet because the national polls are so tight.


But the Vietnam hero has realized that many Americans might be tiring of this election being all about Obama all the time - and that he therefore needs to keep it that way.
LINK
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 09:05 am
Lol, that last piece is one big assertion after another.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 09:14 am
Foxfyre wrote:
"We weren't lying, we were mocking him," said one McCain aide.

Er...

Mocking can work, when the mocked is a complete numbnut. No matter what you believe about whether Obama would make a good Pres, he's definitely not a numbnut.

It appears more and more to me that the McCain campaign is just phoning it in.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 09:42 am
Possibly, but it seems to be working. And a truly objective analysis of what each candidate is saying doesn't reveal any more substance coming from the Obama camp.

Lately it seems that McCain is mostly spoofing Obama's rock star image and the lack of substance in Obama's rhetoric while Obama is mostly complaining about McCain criticizing Obama.

But since most voters--not all but most--seem to base their choice on political party, ideology, or image/warm fuzzies, what the hey. Whatever works.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 09:42 am
McCain doesn't campaign on weekends. He takes two days a week off.

Therefore, doesn't he deserve 1/4 less press then Obama?

This doesn't seem like the actions of a guy who really wants to win it. I haven't seen any actual evidence that his ads have hurt Obama in any way, or have changed the dynamic of the race in any way.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 10:16 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Possibly, but it seems to be working. And a truly objective analysis of what each candidate is saying doesn't reveal any more substance coming from the Obama camp.

Lately it seems that McCain is mostly spoofing Obama's rock star image and the lack of substance in Obama's rhetoric while Obama is mostly complaining about McCain criticizing Obama.

But since most voters--not all but most--seem to base their choice on political party, ideology, or image/warm fuzzies, what the hey. Whatever works.


An honest question: what data are you relying upon, to come to the conclusion that it 'seems to be working?'

In unrelated news,

Ads like this are going to kill McCain. This one is absolutely the best political attack ad I've ever seen.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/08/politics-in-the.html

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 02:56:19