A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

blatham wrote:

Try to work it out.

Congratulations! That certainly is an original capitulation! Laughing

0 Replies

Republicans are adamant about their opposition to choice. I recently came upon the following.

"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."
Margaret Sanger

0 Replies

Republicans tend to be opposed to the killing of unborn children.

When did this become a thread to discuss the topic of abortion?

0 Replies

Now!

A human fetus is not a fully formed human being until sometime after the 19th week.

I oppose abortion after conception. I also oppose federal and state laws forbidding abortion.

0 Replies

Unborn children is oxymoronic.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Unborn children is oxymoronic.

So true; especially at conception. It has no brains, no feelings, and feels no pain.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Unborn children is oxymoronic.

Based on that response, it sounds as if you are fully supportive of late term or third-trimester partial-birth abortions, even after the baby is "viable"? Up until the point the baby has fully breached the birth canal, you are in favor of allowing the mother to kill it?

Something's moronic, but it's not that phrase.

0 Replies

McCain came out and said "no new taxes" during his term if he wins.

He's lost my vote.

0 Replies

I guess he gained more votes than he lost with that. I suspect most people don't want their taxes going up.

Any particular reason you want yours increased?

0 Replies

It's not a matter of the middle class and poor's taxes being increased; it's about the rich paying more.

The rich don't need more tax breaks; we're fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somebody has to pay for these wars, and increasing the federal deficit for later generations to pay is not only unfair, but dangerous for the long term economic security of this country.

0 Replies

Do you have THIS BOOK on your night stand, c.i.?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I guess he gained more votes than he lost with that. I suspect most people don't want their taxes going up.

Any particular reason you want yours increased?

Well, not just my taxes, but everyone's taxes raised enough to cover our massive deficit and to pay for this war that 1/3 of the country wants to be in.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I guess he gained more votes than he lost with that. I suspect most people don't want their taxes going up.

Any particular reason you want yours increased?

Dishonest response.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Do you have THIS BOOK on your night stand, c.i.?

Yep - cause opposing more tax breaks for the rich obviously means you must be a marxist or communist or sumthin.. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

You guys who have a lot of expendable money lying around should certainly send all your excess to the Federal government earmarked to pay down the deficit.

Please do not raise my taxes, however. I'm paying all I care to pay.

Please do not raise the taxes on the 'rich' either, as I simply can't afford it. Everytime you do that, the economy tanks for large segments of the society. We've just now gotten unemployment down to manageable levels. The current mortgage slump is cutting into the the otherwise solid economy here somewhat, but taxes had nothing to do with that and higher taxes would only exacerbate that.

Every credible source, including the national treasury, agrees that revenues from the 'rich' have substantially increased since the Bush tax policy went into effect. Why in the world does anybody think it makes sense to dry up that increased revenue with higher taxes?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Please do not raise the taxes on the 'rich' either, as I simply can't afford it. Everytime you do that, the economy tanks for large segments of the society.

Right - like when Clinton raised the taxes on the rich in the 90s and the economy tanked for large segments of the society... umm, no that didnt actually happen, instead you subsequently had a half-decade of the largest economic growth in decades. But anyway, you were saying...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Please do not raise the taxes on the 'rich' either, as I simply can't afford it. Everytime you do that, the economy tanks for large segments of the society.

Right - like when Clinton raised the taxes on the rich in the 90s and the economy tanked for large segments of the society... umm, no that didnt actually happen, instead you subsequently had a half-decade of the largest economic growth in decades. But anyway, you were saying...

Reagan decreased the income tax on the rich from 70% to 28%. The economy improved dramatically. In return for a promise by the Democrats to reduce spending, Reagan increased the income tax on the rich to 30%. The Democrats did not keep their promise. Bush41 agreed to increased the income tax on the rich to 35%. The economy nevertheless continued to improve but at a slower rate. Clinton increased the income tax on the rich to 39.5%. The economy nevertheless continued to improve while a budget surplus was generated. In Clinton's last year the economy started into a decline. Bush43 inherited that decline into a recession in his first term. But then Bush43, reduced the income tax rate on the rich to 33% and the economy began to improve dramatically.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I guess he gained more votes than he lost with that. I suspect most people don't want their taxes going up.

Any particular reason you want yours increased?

Dishonest response.

Bite me.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I guess he gained more votes than he lost with that. I suspect most people don't want their taxes going up.

Any particular reason you want yours increased?

Well, not just my taxes, but everyone's taxes raised enough to cover our massive deficit and to pay for this war that 1/3 of the country wants to be in.

Okay, thanks. I appreciate your response.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Do you have THIS BOOK on your night stand, c.i.?

Yep - cause opposing more tax breaks for the rich obviously means you must be a marxist or communist or sumthin..

Well I think a Marxist or communist would agree with that plan, don't you?

But c.i. might just be a leftist.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know