19
   

Should we all hide our wallets? What do you think?

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 06:16 am
@Woiyo9,
I say again, there are worse things in nature than marxists and Malthusians are in that category. The envirowhack section of the demoKKKrat party are basically Malthusians; their ultimate aim is to restore human populations to medieval levels for the greater glory of Gaea; 5$/gallon gasoline, which will be back with us within days of Barky Oinkbama being elected president, is a stepping stone to that ultimate dream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TvgrZ0KqKo&eurl=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2117304/posts
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 06:18 am
@gungasnake,


I don't see how anyone on the left can continue to support and defend this guy.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 06:19 am
@Thomas,
http://able2know.org/topic/124587-1

It's for all those Obama haters out there.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 06:20 am
@Woiyo9,
I answered it.

And again, blindly making the assumption that I called YOU a racist.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 06:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When did Obama say that he wouldn't have liked the courts to venture into the area of redistribution?

When did he say they should have? He, as a constitutional scholar in this interview, clearly said that it would have been going against what the framers intended. Not exactly an endorsement.

Quote:
His argument was not from the conservative point of view that the courts should not legislate, it was that redistribution could have been persued in the legislature, but was not because the civil rights movement was too focused on the courts, and the courts never took up the issue.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. If you look at the text in the video it does not accurately reflect what he says, which must seem obvious, because why do you need to add text at all if what he says is so obviously advocating redistribution above and beyond what is already in place via our tax code?

And that brings me to the bogusness of this whole thing. I hear the fear mongering, but Obama's tax plan has been out for months. Why all of a sudden is this tax plan of his marxist? And you'll also notice that people forwarding this theme do not actually point to his plan at all. They make up scenarios of mine vs. yours to make it sound like money is being taken from hard working middle class folks and given to lazy homeless people. In fact, his tax plan has a cut for the middle class. If you are in the 5% of people who will have your taxes increased, your extra taxes will probably go to paying for our immense debt and two wars, not to homeless people. And to that I say that you, Finn, should pay extra taxes just for advocating that cluster **** in Iraq in the first place. Bush also was a redistributor, just in the opposite direction. What about the EIC? That's redistribution, no? From the richest to the poorest, though the recipients of that tax credit are, inconveniently for conservatives, not lazy and unemployed.

It sounds to me like folks, desperate in the last week of the campaign, are taking a progressive tax system, which is more or less accepted by everyone, and trying to paint it into communism. It might work on people who were already going to vote for McCain, but I doubt it's going to turn back the tide.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 06:56 am
@Bella Dea,
Go ahead and hide. You are a coward.
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:10 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Any tax increase at this point will spell the end of our nation. The gas price spike was essentially a tax increase that in turn caused the subprime mortgage collapse as people, dumb as they are, always pay for their car but not for their house. Same thing happened in the depression.

But most Obama supporters are very young, and have no grasp of history, nor do they care. They are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if they don't listen to A) The almost gone WWII generation and B) Those that have spent their lives watching the older baby boomers **** things up.
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:14 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:
Any tax increase at this point will spell the end of our nation.


Wow, what a rational and sensible argument. No hyperbole there.
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:17 am
@kickycan,
Just watch dumbass. I'm prescient.
kickycan
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:21 am
@cjhsa,
Tool.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:26 am
@cjhsa,
Quote:
Any tax increase at this point will spell the end of our nation. The gas price spike was essentially a tax increase that in turn caused the subprime mortgage collapse as people, dumb as they are, always pay for their car but not for their house. Same thing happened in the depression.


I knew you had said some stupid things in the past cj, but this just beats all.

in 1929, only 55% of families owned cars, 219 cars per 1000 persons
Today there are 814 cars per 1000 persons in the US. To blame the depression in the 30's on people putting gas in their cars is just.... I have no words to describe how incredibly stupid your comment is.
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:28 am
@parados,
I didn't. I just said that during the depression, those that had cars paid their car loans, but not their mortgages. Same thing just happened, in a slightly different way. Is it really that difficult for you to understand? My father lived through the depression. He is my best source of info on that topic. Continue (making a fool of yourself).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:30 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:
Any tax increase at this point will spell the end of our nation.

If America can't survive a top marginal income tax of 39%, how do you explain that it survived a top marginal tax rate of 90% from Roosevelt to Kennedy, and of 70% from Kennedy to Carter?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:33 am
@Thomas,


It's not just Obama's tax rate hike, it's his oppressive spending and growth
of government combined with his tax rates that will kill this republic.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:36 am
@Thomas,
Different circumstances.

Those tax rates you speak of were killing off our businesses. My grandfather was a very hard working Swede who started several companies, including one that made the wood and metal seats for the old Tiger Stadium. He shocked my father one day by saying "We're paying 82-cents on the dollar to the government, and they're giving it to the "poor". What are we working for?".
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:53 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:
Different circumstances.

That's a convenient catch-all objection to any evidence that might challenge your opinions, , isn't it? Could you be more specific? How are the circumstances different this time? How do those changed circumstances make it impossible for the nation to survive Obama?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:57 am
@Thomas,
You inability to see Obama for the real threat that he is will forever prevent you from understanding how Obama will destroy this republic.
No matter how much logic is applied, you won't get it.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 08:12 am
@H2O MAN,
For our next exciting game of Dictionary, let me suggest...
misologist.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 08:17 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O Man -- Let's meet for lunch after the Obama presidency. If he has destroyed the Republic by then, I'll pay. If it isn't, you will. Deal?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 08:32 am
@Thomas,
Quote:

If America can't survive a top marginal income tax of 39%, how do you explain that it survived a top marginal tax rate of 90% from Roosevelt to Kennedy, and of 70% from Kennedy to Carter?


Nobody in the target groups ever paid those rates or anything near them. What Oinkbama is proposing would likely affect middle class people who were not thus able to protect themselves and their assets.

It's another area in which it's the thought that counts. Democrats hate the idea of a middle class even existing and they definitely don't like the idea of suburbs existing. It's about control; they want you, me, and everyone else living either in a city or on a farm, and under (their) control in either case.

 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:35:37