Indecision 2008 -what do you think????? (country, American, concert, quote)

TheBig3 · 09-12-2008, 07:14 AM

Did anyone happen to catch the charlie rose interview where he asked her if we're in a holy war?

sleepy jack · 09-12-2008, 09:03 AM

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." - Sarah Palin on the Iraq War

~~The Unfan~~ · 09-12-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

You do understand that raising taxes for Big Businesses raises ALL of our PRICES, right? If Big Biz has to pay more taxes, where do you think those monies are going to come from? From us, the customers, that's who. Prices will continue to rise and Big Biz will be laughing their asses off, all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, we'll be sitting here, wishing WE could onto some of the Programs, because now we have even less than we did before. Sad, but true.

Trickle up doesn't typically favor business. Remember what happened when the price of cigarettes went up?

~~The Unfan~~ · 09-12-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

i'm just trying to pass on what my research has shown me. If you can look at facts and then just discount them because you don't agree with them, fine. It's just that history DOES repeat itself, if we don't make the necessary changes.

What facts? You're the one who claims trickle up puts more money in the pocket of businesses. As gas prices raise we see more people bike and take the bus because 5 dollars is just too much for gas. The end result is oil companies losing money. At some point taxing the business does a whole lot more than inflate prices.

~~The Unfan~~ · 09-12-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

i didn't exactly say (nor allude to) Big Biz making more profits from a tax increase. i just said (and i think it's one of those logical things that can't be refuted), they are not going to just sit back and LOSE money.

This is true but...

Quote:

This country has already been through an Energy Crunch during the '80's, and guess what? The big oil companies came out smelling like freshly printed MONEY, went right back to business as usual, and Voila! Here we are, again, wondering who is going to walk away the loser this time?

3 guesses, the first 2 don't count.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

with OPEC reporting profits at an all time high during that oil scare it seems like it could very well have been implied.

To tackle this question, no I'm not wondering.

~~The Unfan~~ · 09-12-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendyCal

Well, actually, i think i can...

If the Top 10 Poorest Cities in the United States have ALL been run under the same party, that says something about that party's (in)ability to take good care of their folks. Whatever they're doing isn't working, and after years and Years of the same ole, same ole, it might be time for some fresh eyes and ideas.

So what does that say about all but 2 of top 10 richest all being liberal (the exceptions being Raleigh, NC and Anchorage, AK) while the poorest city in America is the notoriously conservative Miami? In fact 6 of the 10 poorest cities have consistently been conservative.

Hell, let me expand my point further, lets go by state. According to the census bureau in 2007 the poorest states based on median household income.

Montana $40,627
Tennessee $40,315
Kentucky $39,372
Louisiana $39,337
Alabama $38,783
Oklahoma $38,770
Arkansas $36,599
West Virginia $35,059
Mississippi $34,473

Out of those states 9 have consistently sided with republicans. Interesting. So how about richest?

Maryland $65,144
New Jersey $64,470
Connecticut $63,422
Hawaii $61,160
Massachusetts $59,963
New Hampshire $59,683
Alaska $59,393
California $56,645
Virginia $56,277
Minnesota $54,023

Quite a large margin, eh? Also of note 8 out of 10 have been consistently liberal.

Don't ****ing lie to me in a debate again you worthless old hag.

Double X · 09-12-2008, 04:38 PM

But he's just showing the facts, with some unnecessary insults maybe, but still it's the facts, right?

ProggyMan · 09-12-2008, 08:46 PM

You're the one ignoring the facts, you have yet to respond to half the arguments against you.

Quote:

i didn't exactly say (nor allude to) Big Biz making more profits from a tax increase. i just said (and i think it's one of those logical things that can't be refuted), they are not going to just sit back and LOSE money.

Please consider this:

This country has already been through an Energy Crunch during the '80's, and guess what? The big oil companies came out smelling like freshly printed MONEY, went right back to business as usual, and Voila! Here we are, again, wondering who is going to walk away the loser this time?

3 guesses, the first 2 don't count.

Never heard of government subsidies? Ever been to Europe? Look at the gas prices. They've been much higher than what we have now for a long time.

Double X · 09-13-2008, 03:44 PM

The first two links are ridiculously biased towards Palin, and the fact that Palin is super fundy-conservative brings huge negative marks from me.

To call the third ridiculous and say nothing about the first link is not that good.

This can be exaggerated, but the fact that she considers creationism as a possibility to be taught along with the Big Bang in our public schools - really, really turns me off. I mean, don't we have separation of church and state for a reason? I know she says it's for debating purposes only...but why even say she would support it? There is nothing, apart from petty discussion that should be held in a philosophy class, good about this idea. She is such a religious bonehead I could never imagine supporting her.

adn.com | elections : 'Creation science' enters the race

She is also against *** marriage...which is silly, really. At least McCain seems moderate about it, Palin has attempted to deny benefits and supported the banning of *** marriage in Alaska.

And this is a good site I think about her advantages and disadvantages.

Sarah Palin on the Issues

joyboyo53 · 09-12-2008, 04:43 PM

@ wendycal

hes an ass, ignore him.

disclaimer:im an independant/libetarian who doesnt vote and im too tired from work to spell check or even reread what the **** im about to write.

as far as obama wanting to go into pakistan, i believe we are already headed that direction,and i really dont see mccain stopping it. furthermore mccain wants to start another cold war with russia starting with suggesting to kick them out of the g8. you remember russia right? the country who doesnt just have nuclear bombs that someone else taught them how to use, but is capable of launching from russia to the usa... and are big enough *******s to do it. after we saw how 'friendly' russia was to the civilians in georgia, we can only hope they will be as nice. i just have an itching if one was headed our way, they might not exactly aim for military bases.

further more you wanna talk about "those damn democrats raising taxes", and you want "facts". how about the surplus when clinton was in office followed by the biggest deficet ever by bush? who gives a **** if you get tax breaks when it only goes to the top .5% and inflation shoots through the damn roof. id rather have a little less money thats worth more than a little more money thats worth ****. furthermore palin is one of if not the worst and most unexperienced candidates in the history of time.

im not sugesting that obama is the next jfk, im suggesting hes not the next bush... imperial ******* of the new republican order.

anyone up for some coffee and cigarettes?

View Poll Results: Who will it be?
Obama	42	79.25%
McCain	5	9.43%
**** you RezZ, I'm not telling you!	6	11.32%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

09-12-2008, 07:14 AM	#1 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,246	Did anyone happen to catch the charlie rose interview where he asked her if we're in a holy war? __________________ I've moved to a new address

09-12-2008, 04:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
Double X sleepe Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: boston Posts: 1,140	But he's just showing the facts, with some unnecessary insults maybe, but still it's the facts, right? Last edited by Double X; 09-12-2008 at 05:14 PM.

09-13-2008, 03:44 PM	#9 (permalink)
Double X sleepe Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: boston Posts: 1,140	The first two links are ridiculously biased towards Palin, and the fact that Palin is super fundy-conservative brings huge negative marks from me. To call the third ridiculous and say nothing about the first link is not that good. This can be exaggerated, but the fact that she considers creationism as a possibility to be taught along with the Big Bang in our public schools - really, really turns me off. I mean, don't we have separation of church and state for a reason? I know she says it's for debating purposes only...but why even say she would support it? There is nothing, apart from petty discussion that should be held in a philosophy class, good about this idea. She is such a religious bonehead I could never imagine supporting her. adn.com \| elections : 'Creation science' enters the race She is also against * marriage...which is silly, really. At least McCain seems moderate about it, Palin has attempted to deny benefits and supported the banning of * marriage in Alaska. And this is a good site I think about her advantages and disadvantages. Sarah Palin on the Issues

09-12-2008, 04:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
joyboyo53 down the rabbit hole Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: the mountain called monkey Posts: 764	@ wendycal hes an ass, ignore him. disclaimer:im an independant/libetarian who doesnt vote and im too tired from work to spell check or even reread what the ** im about to write. as far as obama wanting to go into pakistan, i believe we are already headed that direction,and i really dont see mccain stopping it. furthermore mccain wants to start another cold war with russia starting with suggesting to kick them out of the g8. you remember russia right? the country who doesnt just have nuclear bombs that someone else taught them how to use, but is capable of launching from russia to the usa... and are big enough ***s to do it. after we saw how 'friendly' russia was to the civilians in georgia, we can only hope they will be as nice. i just have an itching if one was headed our way, they might not exactly aim for military bases. further more you wanna talk about "those damn democrats raising taxes", and you want "facts". how about the surplus when clinton was in office followed by the biggest deficet ever by bush? who gives a if you get tax breaks when it only goes to the top .5% and inflation shoots through the damn roof. id rather have a little less money thats worth more than a little more money thats worth . furthermore palin is one of if not the worst and most unexperienced candidates in the history of time. im not sugesting that obama is the next jfk, im suggesting hes not the next bush... imperial ***** of the new republican order. anyone up for some coffee and cigarettes?