so how about this election

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Originally Posted by RJF

What Constitutional rights have been removed?

one word, the USA Patriot Act. You know, but I'll refresh everyone else. The Patriot act pretty much allows authorities to do whatever the fuck they want, including break into your home, bug your phone, search through email, medical records, financial records, and other records without permission or warrents to "fight terra". If you don't think that this is breaking any constitutional rights then examine the Natural Rights portion in the Constitution. The Natural Rights point out the "life, liberty and property" part of the Constitution. The simple FEAR of terrorism removed every aspect of the Natural Rights by imposing the Patriot Act.
thus "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by RJF

You can hear the quote straight from Obama in the video clip posted above.

What the scary part of that $250,000 number is that it has not been defined. What does it consist of? Gross receipts? Profits? He won't say and that makes the potential very scary.

Hm, I'll be damned. I can understand that he'd say that in regards to someone making over the $250k threshold, maybe that's what he was assuming, dunno. Stupid-ass thing to say, response should have been "if you make less than $250k AGI I won't raise them at all".

Anyway, on the $250,000 subject, with individuals that would plainly be whatever your adjusted gross income is.

In regards to small businesses, which is what McCain seems to be hammering on, it HAS TO BE bottom line, so net income. You cannot levy a business tax on gross revenues as all business types have wildly different expense structures. How are you going to tax a manufacturing company with a 4% industry-average gross margin the same on the top line as you would a service company with a 50% gross margin industry average?

It's "profits", i.e. net income, after you pay all expenses, all employees, and likely yourself (most owners take a salary and then also distributions from "profits").

I utterly positively absolutely fucking assure you and everyone that he isn't talking about gross revenues. It's just not possible or sensical.


As for the quote, not sure what to say there, he definitely fucked up. I think that's his honest answer for someone who's legitimately making a lot of money, and it IS admittedly a populist nearly-socialist message, but I don't read into that response that he plans a tax increase for people making less than his stated $250k.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Originally Posted by RJF

You can hear the quote straight from Obama in the video clip posted above.

What the scary part of that $250,000 number is that it has not been defined. What does it consist of? Gross receipts? Profits? He won't say and that makes the potential very scary.

but you act like that's going to matter. The fact is that 94 of the 95% of the people don't get anywhere NEAR $250k a year. So gross and Profits make no difference. The 1% that is near that number should talk about it with their tax men and see if they could work something out.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by Mi Beardo es Loco

but you act like that's going to matter. The fact is that 94 of the 95% of the people don't get anywhere NEAR $250k a year. So gross and Profits make no difference. The 1% that is near that number should talk about it with their tax men and see if they could work something out.

Yes it does.

At its peak, my consulting company (small business) had gross receipts over that number. I had employees, office rent and other expenses....in the end my salary was under $100K after all those expenses and costs required to operate the business. So, yes Obama's definition of what the $250,000 consists of is very important.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Originally Posted by RJF

Yes it does.

At its peak, my consulting company (small business) had gross receipts over that number. I had employees, office rent and other expenses....in the end my salary was under $100K after all those expenses and costs required to operate the business. So, yes Obama's definition of what the $250,000 consists of is very important.

I thought Wangan did a nice job at point it out. I agree that it's probably net.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by Mi Beardo es Loco

I thought Wangan did a nice job at point it out. I agree that it's probably net.

But it hasn't been said publicly.

[MaD ViLLaiN]

ok maybe im wording this to vaugely, When i say health care should be a right i dont mean like its free for everyone. What i mean is it should be attainable for everyone, there are too many american families too poor to afford healthcare and therefore get turned away from medicines or treatment needed maybe even to save theyre lives. Are we as a society choosing that only the strong and people with enough cash survive is this the american way? if you aint got the money you aint worth a chance at a healthy life. Im not saying make it free but make it attainable make systems where if your living paycheck to paycheck just to barely exist, you will still have attainable healthcare.

maybe for some of you you never had to grow up with barely anything to eat, only the same 3 different pairs of clothes to wear to school each year that were hand me downs in the first place, maybe some of you didnt have to grow up walking miles just to get clean water, maybe some of you didnt have to grow up with out electricity. etc... but the reality here is that there are thousands of american families that live this way. And its not just cuz of health care but its because of a failed system as a whole. Is this how we want america to be?

I personaly dont agree with taxing the rich more than anyone else, i say maybe tax everyone the same, we are to be equal right?! put the taxes towards healthcare for all maybe?! maybe we spend some on being a self sustaining country and not be so hugely dependant on foreign energy. not bailout BS multi million dollar companies that made crap business choices. This country needs a change and i dont care what you label it democratic republican liberal etc. as long as it is a positive change for ALL thats is what we need, cuz the last 8 years has been the worst 8 years this country has ever seen.

We need a government that works for its people, that will do theyre honest best at benifiting all americans, not a government that looks out for just the ones in power and the ones with money. We need a government that wont treat us like were idiots and force us to think that 9/11 was a terrorist only job are very own government allowed this to happen, 9/11 was planed by the US. I know im going in all different directions now, its just bottom line change is a must or so many american families are going to be swept under the rug just lke 9/11 was.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by MaD ViLLaiN

cuz the last 8 years has been the worst 8 years this country has ever seen.

By what measure? The late 70's had higher unemployment, run-away inflation, high interest rates, plus real energy shortages, plus then there was the depression of the 30's where unemployment was 25%.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

Originally Posted by RJF

By what measure? The late 70's had higher unemployment, run-away inflation, high interest rates, plus real energy shortages, plus then there was the depression of the 30's where unemployment was 25%.

In times like this, remember, there has always been times like this.

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by RJF

But it hasn't been said publicly.

Not to sound condescending, but I think that's just because it's viewed as self-evident.

I cannot think of a single tax that is levied on the top-line, mainly due to the expense structure issue I listed above. It would be a wholesale change in how taxes are calculated and it would be, it appears, literally impossible to execute.


Take, for instance, a small business like a corner electronics store, or anything else that involves resale of goods manufactured elsewhere.

Their revenue numbers will be stratospheric in relation to their profits, as COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) will take out a huge chunk. They probably only make, at best, a 10% margin on sales, so for every $990,000 they sell, they've got $900k in expenses.

Compare this to, for instance, a real estate agent. They maybe have $500k in gross revenues but few expenses other than a license, an office, and the salary of the agent.

How could you levy the same top-line tax on both of these businesses? Now think of the thousands and thousands of different business types out there and it starts to become quite literally impossible to determine "correct" rates, from an administrative standpoint.

This is why we talk about "NIBT", i.e. "Net Income Before Taxes", and "EBITDA", i.e. "Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization".

[MaD ViLLaiN]

Originally Posted by RJF

By what measure? The late 70's had higher unemployment, run-away inflation, high interest rates, plus real energy shortages, plus then there was the depression of the 30's where unemployment was 25%.

well im an 80s kid, i dont follow politics very closely so i dont have set % facts. but i do know is lets say when clinton was president, maybe not the best by far but while in office our nation had a good % of employment, economy was doing ok, and our govenrment didnt destroy buildings in order to start a war, and cover it up, in natural disasters help actualy came, not like what happened in new orleans and that whole deal. now since bush has been in office, we are facing another depression, our rights have been violated wire wiretaps and such (dont remember the specifics off the top of my head but it was in direct result of bushes people) were at war over the wrong reasons and because of a huge lie! were more dependant than ever on foreign energy.

the bush crew are the biggest bunch of thugs and liers! Congress never aproved the war the way most think. They gave bush the ok as long as all peacful attempts were used up first, when bush got this ok he skipped the first part and went straight to the war part. against iraq?!?! i thought bin ladin and afganistan did it? i agree sadam needed to be dealt with but that shoulda been handled the first time over there in desert storm. when the towers went down, and all commercial air traffic was stopped who were the special VIP's bush authorized to fly out to afganistan, several members of bin ladins family. hmmmm, did you know that i think it was maybe 25-30% of american soil is actualy owned by middle east powers?! did you know that the world trade center buildings and wtc7 are the first steel structured buildings in the world to collapse due to fires?! and jet fuel burns hot yes, but still no where near hot enough to melt down steel framed building. look it up, you tube something called thermite! its what demolition crews use to implode buildings they are to get rid of, look at pics of ground zero how comes all the steel pillars left standing are cut at perfect slanted angles?! just like when a building is destroyed by a controled explosion. Look for info on ANY evidence of a plane ever hitting the pentagon, why is the hole only 16 ft in diameter, when a 757 would have made a hole about 30+ feet, a 757 is taller even with the landing gear in than the pentagon yet before the fires burned into it the pentagon roof was still intact? why just mere minutes after the pentagon blew up were survailence tapes from the gas station and the hotel near by were taken by fbi and secret service and then never realeased because they supposedly dont show anything?!?! they both had a clear and direct view of the area hit. and look at pics of the pentagon roof line theres arched cameras about every 10 15 feet, one of which is directly above the hole in the wall. wheres that footage?! how comes in the tape they do show the building explodes outwards?! well look at a video of like a car hiting a house you dont see much of anything flying outwards, everything goes inward.

why if this war is about terrorist and weapons of mass destruction was me and my unit ordered to clear and secure the oil fields and refineries? and still to this very day zero weapons of mass destruction were found! why when at the begining of the war in afganistan did we have been ladin cornered ( and i know this for a fact cuz i heard the damn radio chater, and my younger brother was friggin there!) and we were ordered to stand down, and by doing so allowed him to escape. why are military veterans that were severly injured in war not being taken care of, and instead being left by the wayside!?!?! (not all but alot)

this is only a small amount of the parts of the worst 8 years ive seen since this president took over, and if mcain and palin are a supporter of this type of policy and want to continue on bushes path. well i say fuk that.

it will take a president with a plan to unfuk this country and what bush did to it, and to me by watching these debates it seems like obama is the best choice. mcain does not seem fit and palin is just not ready, and from the looks of it abuses the power she has in alaska by firing a person cuz that peron happend to have a bad break up with her sister i think it was.

so in comparison to the 30's and 70's not the worst, but on the other hand times now a days arent like then we are a world super power so to speak and we have all the means necessary to not be in such a state were in now, we are not like this cuz we dont have the ability to be self sustaining and create systems that help the everyday average american, we are like this now simply cuz we havent had the HONEST leadership needed to keep america they way its supposed to be!

[MaD ViLLaiN]

[MaD ViLLaiN]

To avoid having to return to Congress for more debate on Iraq, Bush had pushed for and received authority to launch a war without further advance notice to Congress. Never before had Congress so trusted a president with this authority. But in granting this unprecedented authorization, Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present. Specifically (and here I am summarizing technical wording; the actual language [is in section 3(b) (1) and (2) of PL 107-243]), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing threat" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing wtih those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In short, Congress insisted that there be evidence of two points that were the centerpirce of Bush's argument for the war.
We now know, of course, that there were no nuclear weapons program and no WMDs in Iraq. And that the claimed connections of Saddam to al-Qaeda were bogus, and the notion that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks even more so. And,of course, UN weapons inspections were under way in Iraq in 2003, but they were halted by Bush's decision to go to war anyway.

[ALTRNTV]

Having a debate on who to vote for?

Glassbooth - Quiz to help you choose best 2008 presidential candidate

"Non-profit, non-biased organization with no affiliation toward any political parties. "
Let's you see which candidates you have similarities with, concerning views/beliefs
on the issues.

I got:

Obama 71%
Nader 64%
Barr 63%

[ESmorz]

Originally Posted by WanganRunner

This is conspiracy theory bullshit.

No one is "running the show". This is not Metal Gear Solid.

Corporations and Lobbyists run this nation.

If you see how much power they have over both parties and the entire legal system, there is no way you can think Obama is some rogue, awesome, changeling candidate. He has been accepted. Just like the rest of them.

He and McCain are two peas in a very fucked up pod we call whats left of our nations Republic.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by MaD ViLLaiN

To avoid having to return to Congress for more debate on Iraq, Bush had pushed for and received authority to launch a war without further advance notice to Congress. Never before had Congress so trusted a president with this authority. But in granting this unprecedented authorization, Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present. Specifically (and here I am summarizing technical wording; the actual language [is in section 3(b) (1) and (2) of PL 107-243]), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing threat" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing wtih those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In short, Congress insisted that there be evidence of two points that were the centerpirce of Bush's argument for the war.
We now know, of course, that there were no nuclear weapons program and no WMDs in Iraq. And that the claimed connections of Saddam to al-Qaeda were bogus, and the notion that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks even more so. And,of course, UN weapons inspections were under way in Iraq in 2003, but they were halted by Bush's decision to go to war anyway.

[Matej]

RJF and Hayden Panettiere have convinced me!

Hayden Panettiere PSA: Vote for McCain from Hayden Panettiere

[MaD ViLLaiN]

Originally Posted by RJF

is it that your tired of seeing/hearing the truth about the above ^^. or that youve been blissfuly happy ignoring the truth and accept just eating the garabage the bush administration feed you and tells you to believe, just like the rest who support bush and further mcain since he will be more of the same!

he is a president that went to war despite what congress told him, went to war on a assumption and hopeful thinking that theyre were WMDs and that in turn hed turn out to be a big hero but the exact opposit happened! this is not the type of government we want running this coutry!

[ESmorz]

Originally Posted by MaD ViLLaiN

is it that your tired of seeing/hearing the truth about the above ^^. or that youve been blissfuly happy ignoring the truth and accept just eating the garabage the bush administration feed you and tells you to believe, just like the rest who support bush and further mcain since he will be more of the same!

[MaD ViLLaiN]

Educate yourself on these links... yeah im harping on something old, but its also releveant i think cuz its still for reason not being heard by our government and we are left without answers, there is too much proof and evidence showing 9/11 was planned and our own government had a hand in it. Do we want this kind of leadership to continue, what will be the next cause american lives are sacrificed by the thousands for no good reason?!?!

YouTube - 9/11 CONSPIRACY:WERE THERMITE SHAPE CHARGES USED AT THE WTC?

YouTube - Zero : An Investigation Into 9-11- part 3

thermite used in 9/11 for controlled demolition ^^

[ESmorz]

Welcome to 2006

[RJF]

Originally Posted by MaD ViLLaiN

i
he is a president that went to war despite what congress told him, went to war on a assumption and hopeful thinking that theyre were WMDs and that in turn hed turn out to be a big hero but the exact opposit happened! this is not the type of government we want running this coutry!

Well, Congress authorized the military action.

Check your facts.

[Matej]

Why was the Sarah Palin thread locked?

What is this, communism?!


Freedom of speech!


1st amendment!


This


is


ZILVIAAAAAAAA!!!!

[soldiaboy]

lol at McCain referring to joe the plumber every 5 sec

[murda-c]

I changed my mind, i'm pro prop 8 now.

[Phlip]

I love McCaint's palling around with terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, who was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention while Bill Ayers was still in whatever group he was in and Obama was 8 years old.
Funny thing, here, is that Liddy RAISED FUNDS for McCaint to run for the senate in 98 and actually had Granddaddy McCaint on his syndicated radio show as recently as last year, where McCain said he was "proud" of Liddy and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Specifically, what McCain said was:

Well, you know, I'm proud of you. I'm proud of your family. I'm proud to know your son, Tom, who's a great and wonderful guy. And it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon. And congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.

"principles and philosophies"?
Word?
Which do we speak of, here?
Advocacy of break-ins?
Firebombings?
Assassinations?
Kidnappings?
Taking target practice with figures nicknamed Bill and Hillary? (let the record show that I actually agree with the "Hillary" one)
While we're on the subject of shitty associations with people who have "palled" around, as in meeting in person, as the rules have been precedented, how about Liddy's instructions to anyone who would listen on how to shoot ATF agents "who want to take your guns," and to "shoot in the head because they have on bulletproof vests."
Not to say that Liddy is any less of a "terrorist" than Bill Ayers is, but Bill Ayers has not been parading his terrorism about over the last 3 elections as standard republicanism, and is not a sponsor.

[Matej]

Has anyone else noticed how much McCain blinks?

He keeps blinking, constantly.

Weirdo.

[YoungGun]

Nailin' Palin, coming soon.

This really doesn't contribute to the thread, but look it up seriously.

[cuddlesthesheep]

haha i was laughin my ass off at the blinking. I actually counted how many times in one minute and the minute i chose was perfect, he went off on blinking. I counted 113.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by PHLIP

I love McCaint's palling around with terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, who was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention while Bill Ayers was still in whatever group he was in and Obama was 8 years old.
Funny thing, here, is that Liddy RAISED FUNDS for McCaint to run for the senate in 98 and actually had Granddaddy McCaint on his syndicated radio show as recently as last year, where McCain said he was "proud" of Liddy and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Specifically, what McCain said was:

"principles and philosophies"?
Word?
Which do we speak of, here?
Advocacy of break-ins?
Firebombings?
Assassinations?
Kidnappings?
Taking target practice with figures nicknamed Bill and Hillary? (let the record show that I actually agree with the "Hillary" one)
While we're on the subject of shitty associations with people who have "palled" around, as in meeting in person, as the rules have been precedented, how about Liddy's instructions to anyone who would listen on how to shoot ATF agents "who want to take your guns," and to "shoot in the head because they have on bulletproof vests."
Not to say that Liddy is any less of a "terrorist" than Bill Ayers is, but Bill Ayers has not been parading his terrorism about over the last 3 elections as standard republicanism, and is not a sponsor.

I've advocated assassinations and what the general public would consider to be kidnappings. Castro, Chavez, Khamenei would all be better dead. Bernanke and Paulson should be nabbed by the citizens and thrown in jail or some guy's basement for being traitors to this country.

Telling people how to defend themselves against a corrupt and malevolent government is not a bad thing. Agents of the government willing to forsake their oath and invade private property are open to be shot. Anyone coming to get my guns will get them muzzle first.

Note: This is simply to argue the definition of "terrorist" and not to condone any actions by either Ayers or Libby. The term is bandied about too frequently without regard to its meaning. It is sensationalist and instantly puts those labeled in the "bad guy" category, destroying their reputation and public confidence in them. Some of those labeled "terrorists" by our government are simply freedom fighters who go about their private war in unconventional ways.