Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's see, what are my choices.
A candidate who was involved in a legitimate, legal business to make money or someone who sat in the living room of Bill Ayers to get counciling and had Van Jones in his administration.
I may have to take a few seconds to think about this choice!!!
From where I sit, the real issue is facts and choices. Paul Krugman wrote about the facts on Friday, "In Democrat-world, up is up and down is down. Raising taxes increases revenue, and cutting spending while the economy is still depressed reduces employment. But in Republican-world, down is up. The way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and slashing government spending is a job-creation strategy. Try getting a leading Republican to admit that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit or that sharp cuts in government spending (except on the military) would hurt the economic recovery."
As for choices, Obama wants the rich to pay a larger share of taxes. This position is supported by 80% of Americans as is maintaining Social Security and Medicare in their present form. All of the Republican candidates believe that low taxes on the rich are sacrosanct, even if it means slashing fundamental popular social programs. Rick Perry even said we shouldn't use monetary policy to aid the weak economy. That's basically crazy talk. Bachmann said that "we should be more like China." If we adopted China's population control policies, Bachmann would be in trouble. Then you have Gingrich, who wanted to attack Libya until Obama did and then Gingrich was against it. Next, we have Herman Cain who knew he was against Obama's policies but couldn't verbalize why. Lastly, we have Romney, who has been on both sides of every issue.
If you want candidates who are economic illiterates -- who believe economic myths, deny science, history and arithmetic -- by all means, any of the Republican crop meet your bill.
You mean Warren Buffet who doesnt pay dividends to his investors because he doesnt want them to be subjected to taxes, and the Bill Gates, who the left wing hated so much 10 years ago, that they almost broke up his company or forced him to move to another country. Both of them btw donated 100% of their wealth so they wouldnt have to pay taxes themself, so why exactly are you bringing them up into the discussion? What does this dispute?
It's not hypocrisy to benefit from laws that one disagrees with. I may not believe that it's proper to have a deduction for each child but I'm going to deduct all my children while I advocate for dropping that from the tax-code.
Likewise, Buffett believes that paying dividends to shareholders ultimately lowers the stock price and believes that it's better for the shareholders to retained those earnings in the company treasury.
Thus, both Buffett and Gates believe that the government coddles the wealthy.
Agreed. No surprise its a bunch of the left wing liberal kooks who have no understanding of the real world who believes they are the same.
I should request government funding to do a study to find out how many liberals have basic elementary education as to businesses and how they operate because by reading many of these postings, one would believe they simply are too young to even be posting here.
What is comes down to is they are tossing darts to make something stick.
I called this a month ago here on this forum.
I said Newt would rise to the top and when he starts moving the idiot hateful liberals would start the attacks. It only took them 24 hours to see my message to start the attacks.
For everything they have tossed out at Newt nothing is sticking and we seem to be able to find SEVERAL like issues with Obama backed up with substance and proof and they simply cannot handle it.
I called a poster here on the fact they believed that Newt getting paid as a private citizen to do a job he was hired to do is not the same as Barry accepted huge donations from former CEOs who accepted huge tax payer bonuses and then turned around and handed it to Obama. This is criminal.
I said a long time ago Obama would find ways to buy the 2012 election by sending money to certain groups or people so he can then turn around and receive the donations.
Follow the money folks. Obama is corrupt as any we have ever seen in our lifetimes. Now word is the Solyndra deal has more info coming out soon that goes directly to bundlers who Obama has close ties to.
Change the headline to
RIP Obama
Here stands the worst President of the United State ever.
Here stands the most corrupt anti American divider ever.
Here stands someone who disgraced not only the job but our country.
What is comes down to is they are tossing darts to make something stick.
I called this a month ago here on this forum.
I said Newt would rise to the top and when he starts moving the idiot hateful liberals would start the attacks. It only took them 24 hours to see my message to start the attacks.
For everything they have tossed out at Newt nothing is sticking and we seem to be able to find SEVERAL like issues with Obama backed up with substance and proof and they simply cannot handle it.
I called a poster here on the fact they believed that Newt getting paid as a private citizen to do a job he was hired to do is not the same as Barry accepted huge donations from former CEOs who accepted huge tax payer bonuses and then turned around and handed it to Obama. This is criminal.
I said a long time ago Obama would find ways to buy the 2012 election by sending money to certain groups or people so he can then turn around and receive the donations.
Follow the money folks. Obama is corrupt as any we have ever seen in our lifetimes. Now word is the Solyndra deal has more info coming out soon that goes directly to bundlers who Obama has close ties to.
Change the headline to
RIP Obama
Here stands the worst President of the United State ever.
Here stands the most corrupt anti American divider ever.
Here stands someone who disgraced not only the job but our country.
Is it hypocritical to have given Bill Clinton such grief over his behavior, and many still do, and yet just act like Newt didn't behave the same way? Is it odd for the party of family values and the religious right, the party that has prided itself on being so careful in vetting their candidates for office to have someone with such bad moral behavior as their poster boy for 'real conservativism'?
Last edited by dixiegirl7; 11-20-2011 at 12:45 AM..
Is it hypocritical to have given Bill Clinton such grief over his behavior, and many still do, and yet just act like Newt didn't behave the same way? Is it odd for the party of family values and the religious right, the party that has prided itself on being so careful in vetting their candidates for office to have someone with such bad moral behavior as their poster boy for 'real conservativism'?
One big difference... Clinton lied under oath about his bad moral behavior.
One big difference... Clinton lied under oath about his bad moral behavior.
Do you really think that is such a big difference? I understand that he broke the law, but both had basically the same behavior. I am not a fan of either men, but I find it very hypocritical that people who condemned Bill Cinton, now embrace Newt and want him to lead this country.
Do you really think that is such a big difference? I understand that he broke the law, but both had basically the same behavior. I am not a fan of either men, but I find it very hypocritical that people who condemned Bill Cinton, now embrace Newt and want him to lead this country.
Had Newt been in Clinton's shoes I think the outcome would have been the same.
Had Newt been in Clinton's shoes I think the outcome would have been the same.
Yes, I am just about sure it would have been. I have read that Clinton had Newt followed and found out about all of his dalliances and told him he better back off or it would all come out. Newt's fellow Republicans felt that his affairs compromised them.
You mean Warren Buffet who doesnt pay dividends to his investors because he doesnt want them to be subjected to taxes, and the Bill Gates, who the left wing hated so much 10 years ago, that they almost broke up his company or forced him to move to another country. Both of them btw donated 100% of their wealth so they wouldnt have to pay taxes themself, so why exactly are you bringing them up into the discussion? What does this dispute?
liberals want OTHER people to pay taxes.
it is bizarre how extreme liberals embrace buffett and gates now.
from bill parish:
But Warren Buffet, like the younger Gates, has also been able to sell vast holdings within the structure of his foundation, thereby avoiding all taxes. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has sold all of its Microsoft shares, not even keeping 10% out of loyalty to the company’s employees. Of course not a penny of tax was paid on any of these sales and today the Gates Foundation aggressively invests in activities ranging from private equity to currency speculations with all gains completely shielded from any tax consequence.
it must not be that hard to fool the extreme left-just pretend to embrace it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
