Walken 2008

[SteveThaiBinh]

I actually meant that it would end up being Neo-Con on Quiet Liberal, in place of Powell and Clinton.

 

More like Bush on Kerry, the sequel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:ph34r: I guess I just didn't want to believe it.

[julianw]

I think Hilary has a decent chance.

 

Three years before state contests begin to choose nominees for the next presidential election, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the early favorite among Democrats.

 

Among Democrats, 40% favor Clinton in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last weekend. Last year's Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and his running mate, John Edwards, trailed with 25% and 17% respectively. The margin of error is +/

[Reveilled]

There was some hot electronic engineer chick that ran for Governer of California back when Arnie got in. Georgie her name was, or something. I didn't agree with her poitics, but any hot geek chick gets my vote. I'd totally vote for her to be president if she ran. Of course, I'd totally need US citizenship first. "

 

The only reason she lost in California is because the pussies working the diebold machines weren't brave enough to risk fixing the machines to let the best girl win. "

[Child of Flame]

Dude. If it is true, and if I could vote in the 2008 election, I would totally vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This statement implies you can not vote (at least in 2008). If you dont mind, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think she's Canadian. :ph34r:

 

I hope McCain runs, and wins.

 

I don't like Hilary.

[Reveilled]

I wish Ron Paul would run.

Umm...well, run again.

But as the Republican candidate.

 

We all like to dream sometimes.

[julianw]

I hope McCain runs, and wins. 

 

I don't like Hilary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think Hilary has much of a chance against McCain. McCain can easily steal many Democrats' votes from Hiltary since McCain even vote in Democrats' favor on many issues in the Senate.

 

While Republicans are known for sticking to their own candidate during presidential elections.

[Laozi]

Thats just it, I think it might a tricky deal for McCain to secure a victory in the republican primary.

[metadigital]

I think Hilary has a decent chance.

 

Three years before state contests begin to choose nominees for the next presidential election, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the early favorite among Democrats.

 

Among Democrats, 40% favor Clinton in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last weekend. Last year's Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and his running mate, John Edwards, trailed with 25% and 17% respectively. The margin of error is +/

[Cantousent]

The problem for Kerry is that he's a known loser. Once you've lost your bid for president, neither party is keen on risking more money on you. Individual supporters cast a bleary eye in the same way.

 

That's too bad, because I believe Kerry is an honorable fellow who wants what he believes is best for the country.

 

I'll probably vote for the Republican, but that's just me being a trillionaire and all. :D Actually, my wife and I are middle class in both our values and our household income. Kerry was not my candidate of choice, but it certainly wasn't personal. Clinton appears to be positioning herself to the right of Kerry, but that might not save her. On the other hand, the liberal side of the house, no matter how genuine their aims and concerns, have not really shown an interest in helping the middle class. They've been far more interested in punishing the rich. Unfortunately, they seem to think that punishing the rich is the same as helping the poor. You have to be careful when you target the rich, though. You might hurt a lot of us middle class folks while you're at it.

 

It sounds nice, you know, to bring down those rich folks a notch or two. Still, I'd rather not stay awake at night worrying that some rich guy might be having fun. Far more interesting to me is my state of affairs.

 

Of course, folks suggest that Republicans are misers who care nothing for the poor. Conversely, I lived in poverty in my youth. My wife and I contribute freely to charitable causes. As a percentage of our income, we give far more money, time, and talent than do my more vocal liberal friends. That's not to say that my liberal friends, and I use the term friends without any irony, don't donate of themselves. That's also not to say that I haven't met a few conservative skin flints. ...But gross generalizations and stereotyping are the hallmarks of a sloppy argument.

[EnderAndrew]

That's too bad, because I believe Kerry is an honorable fellow who wants what he believes is best for the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Kerry is anything but honorable. Those that know him really well have nothing but bad things to say about him, and he has been caught lying about more things than I can remember.

 

How can you be honorable without integrity?

 

He and Edwards also had the two worst voting records in Congress. If he can't show up to do his job, then why promote him?

 

Bring on McCain.

[Cantousent]

I don't believe he is dishonorable. I also take for granted that he honestly believes in his cause. He is disingenuous, it's true. So are all politicians from what I can tell. Still, I'd one of those hopeless fellows who believes as best about folks as reasonably possible.

[EnderAndrew]

I'm sure he believes in his cause, which is to further himself.

 

This is a guy who one day votes for the Patriot Act and then the next day say the Patriot Act is destroying the counrty. Then in a debate, he defends voting for the Patriot Act but says it needs reform. His rival is also calling for reform of the act, and then Kerry the next day says we should just remove it.

 

So what does he stand for?

 

He's staunchly Catholic, except for the two largest Catholic issues right now. He's for gay marriage rights, and then he isn't.

 

He voted to go into war, but he doesn't support it.

 

Can you please tell me what exactly his cause is and how he honorably stands up for it?

[Atomic Space Vixen]

I think Kerry is anything but honorable.  Those that know him really well have nothing but bad things to say about him, and he has been caught lying about more things than I can remember.

 

How can you be honorable without integrity?

 

He and Edwards also had the two worst voting records in Congress.  If he can't show up to do his job, then why promote him?

 

Bring on McCain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many thousands have died as a result of Kerry's lies?

 

And how much integrity does it take to support a candidate whose team slandered you viciously and dragged you through the mud, like McCain did when he supported Team Rove?

[Child of Flame]

Kerry's got a screw or two loose. Then again, last election I thought that you couldn't do much worse. I'm pretty pissed off about how this war is turning out, and I'm still miffed I missed voting in the last election by all of six months. Especially when I was telling someone who was voting that if everyone didn't vote that it would in fact not throw the country into anarchy. I love retarded voters.

 

EDIT: OH SNAP LIBERALS!!!

[Cantousent]

We're not to the mid-term elections at any rate. The next election Clinton has is for New York Senator. I foresee that she will win. I guess anything is possible in politics, eh?

[Atomic Space Vixen]

They've been far more interested in punishing the rich.  Unfortunately, they seem to think that punishing the rich is the same as helping the poor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm interested in how this is anything more than a talking point. Other than wanting the rich to pay more in taxes than the poor because, well, they have more money, how is it they're going around punishing the rich? Keeping in mind of course that the gap between rich and poor is increasing while the middle class is slowly disappearing. The rich aren't hurting for money, and jobs are increasingly going overseas so shareholders can revel in higher profits. There is always the option of destroying unions and abolishing the minimum wage to go hand in hand with the disintegration of welfare. It'll certainly save transportation costs when instead of having factories in the Third World, a whole new Third World can be created here. I don't see the rich being punished at all, while the poor have less and less every day, especially as more and more of the middle class are laid off and join the ranks of the poor.

That's family values for you.

So other than people with the most money paying the most taxes (which can be rectified by putting more of the tax burden on the poor and middle class), how exactly are the rich being punished?

[EnderAndrew]

How many thousands have died as a result of Kerry's lies?

 

And how much integrity does it take to support a candidate whose team slandered you viciously and dragged you through the mud, like McCain did when he supported Team Rove?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Millions could have died if Kerry went into office. He promised a pull-out of troops in six months if you recall. Iraq is a country of 30 million and it would have imploded.

 

He voted to go into war. And then he was going to leave the place in worse condition than he started.

 

And how did Bush lie to start the war? I watched the speech when he announced we were going in. He cited a few things.

 

One - Iraq had WMD. The intel of the entire world said he did, and we have proof he used them on his own people. Intel also suggests that when we gave him plenty of warning those same WMD left Iraq into Syria. We did find trace amounts of illegal WMD, storage facilities, training facilities, manuals for the use of WMD, and illegal missles with biological weapons in them. Did Iraq have WMD? Yes. Did Bush operate off intel the entire world was agreeing with? Yes.

 

I love when people suggest that Bush just made all this up. If that was the case, then why did Clinton say the same thing? Then why did the UN pass over 75 unanimous security resolutions finding that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement?

 

The same people who insist that Bush lied to create an incident that has been around for over 20 years also usually insist that this is all about oil. Too bad we've spent over 100 billion dollars of our money to take care of Iraq, and we haven't stolen a single drop of oil.

 

Please demonstrate how thousands of people have died over his lies. Because I feel that you are only one lying here. I'm a Democrat by platform, but most of the people who oppose the war are operating off media lies and suppositions rather than facts. Don't start this arguement unless you know what you're getting into. I'll bury you.

 

2 - Bush noted that we had legal authority to enter Iraq. The original cease-fire was based upon Iraq's compliance, which they were in violation of. Thereby, UN law said the cease-fire was invalid, and the UN had voted unanimously for military action against Iraq in the first place. In addition, there was a unanimous security resolution telling Iraq to immediately comply or else. That was right after 9/11, some 2 years before we moved in. Considering that the UN contined to find them in violation, I think the "or else" clause kicks in.

 

3 - Partisan politics tends to overlook 30 million people in a country where Saddam was in power. Rape and murder was the law. The man shut off food and water to towns, and people were living in caves to flee Saddam's power as he attempted to practice genocide. I guess people shouldn't make any effort to preserve 30 million lives or stop genocide. That wouldn't be a valid reason at all.

 

Now, I'm REALLY hoping that you come back and attempt to argue that we shouldn't have gone in, that we should have ignored genocide, and that 30 million lives aren't worth saving. Just wait to see what I have to say about that.

 

And if you really want to step in the ring with me, I suggest you start at factcheck.org because I will call you on sources.

[Cantousent]

The rich pay the lion's share of taxes in the United States.

 

At any rate, I think my post seemed far less like talking points than your response, Atomic.

 

I've heard the Democratic "talking points" over the years, and yet it does not escape my notice that most people in the United States are doing well. Increasingly, we have Democratic candidates telling us in the United States that the rich are getting richer while we languish at the bottom of the heap. I've never seen so many people bound and determined to believe that they are oppressed when, indeed, they have it rather good.

 

Do I think we should do away with a tax system that puts the majority of the tax burden on the rich? Of course not. The rich have greater wealth from the system and therefore should shoulder more of the burden. It's in their best interest to do so. On the other hand, I'd appreciate folks not suggesting that the middle class shoulders the majority of the burden. The middle class carries the majority of the tax burden in neither straight dollars nor in percentage.

 

Yes, I do think that Democrats target the rich. This was especially clear in John Edwards' "two Americas" speech. If there are two Americas, the second America didn't show up at Edwards' rallies. They were too busy trying to survive daily in inner city slums. Since those slums have existed under both Democrats and Republicans, I see no moral high-ground for either side.

[EnderAndrew]

Warren Buffet, once the richest man in the world said that if you make 100,000 dollars a year and you still pay taxes you are an idiot. I'm paraphrasing a bit but I don't recall the exact quote.

 

My parents used to own and operate a telemarketing company among various other small businesses. Certain states like Maryland allow you to incorporate yourself, and have a corporation of one person. You don't even have to reside in Maryland. Your corporate papers do.

 

Everything that you spend suddenly becomes a business expense, and you are you really taxed on income that you don't spend.

 

I can vouch personally that the wealthy can easily get around paying taxes. We also don't tax capital gains too much because we don't want to ruin the stock market, but again, we are taking it easy on the rich.

 

Those that are rich and pay taxes, do pay a higher rate, and I personally find no fault with that.

 

I don't want pure socialism, and I don't want pure capitalism. This country has always been a blend of both, and I think it should stay that way, though people will argue over the specific blend of the two.

[jaguars4ever]

How many thousands have died as a result of Kerry's lies?

 

And how much integrity does it take to support a candidate whose team slandered you viciously and dragged you through the mud, like McCain did when he supported Team Rove?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Millions could have died if Kerry went into office. He promised a pull-out of troops in six months if you recall. Iraq is a country of 30 million and it would have imploded.

 

He voted to go into war. And then he was going to leave the place in worse condition than he started.

 

And how did Bush lie to start the war? I watched the speech when he announced we were going in. He cited a few things.

 

One - Iraq had WMD. The intel of the entire world said he did, and we have proof he used them on his own people. Intel also suggests that when we gave him plenty of warning those same WMD left Iraq into Syria. We did find trace amounts of illegal WMD, storage facilities, training facilities, manuals for the use of WMD, and illegal missles with biological weapons in them. Did Iraq have WMD? Yes. Did Bush operate off intel the entire world was agreeing with? Yes.

 

I love when people suggest that Bush just made all this up. If that was the case, then why did Clinton say the same thing? Then why did the UN pass over 75 unanimous security resolutions finding that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement?

 

The same people who insist that Bush lied to create an incident that has been around for over 20 years also usually insist that this is all about oil. Too bad we've spent over 100 billion dollars of our money to take care of Iraq, and we haven't stolen a single drop of oil.

 

Please demonstrate how thousands of people have died over his lies. Because I feel that you are only one lying here. I'm a Democrat by platform, but most of the people who oppose the war are operating off media lies and suppositions rather than facts. Don't start this arguement unless you know what you're getting into. I'll bury you.

 

2 - Bush noted that we had legal authority to enter Iraq. The original cease-fire was based upon Iraq's compliance, which they were in violation of. Thereby, UN law said the cease-fire was invalid, and the UN had voted unanimously for military action against Iraq in the first place. In addition, there was a unanimous security resolution telling Iraq to immediately comply or else. That was right after 9/11, some 2 years before we moved in. Considering that the UN contined to find them in violation, I think the "or else" clause kicks in.

 

3 - Partisan politics tends to overlook 30 million people in a country where Saddam was in power. Rape and murder was the law. The man shut off food and water to towns, and people were living in caves to flee Saddam's power as he attempted to practice genocide. I guess people shouldn't make any effort to preserve 30 million lives or stop genocide. That wouldn't be a valid reason at all.

 

Now, I'm REALLY hoping that you come back and attempt to argue that we shouldn't have gone in, that we should have ignored genocide, and that 30 million lives aren't worth saving. Just wait to see what I have to say about that.

 

And if you really want to step in the ring with me, I suggest you start at factcheck.org because I will call you on sources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Niclely done Ender.

[Cantousent]

The wealthy pay more taxes.

 

Don't take my word for it.

 

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in04sr.xls

 

Now, let's not start fighting. I like this thread, but I don't want an all out flame war. We can discuss things reasonably here without turning into message board cowboys.

[EnderAndrew]

Can't both statements be true?

 

The rich pay more taxes, but many rich people avoid paying taxes?

 

Your own chart suggests those making 10 million or more only account for 15 million in taxes in the entire country. Bill Gates personally is worth over 80 billion, isn't he? Let's say he made 4 billion in a year via income and capital gains.

 

He doesn't really pay taxes on his stocks or capital gains. But if he were taxed at 20% like me, he'd pay 80 million personally. The entire country only took in 15 million total for that entire tax bracket. Surely there are a few people in this country who made 10 million last year.

 

I'm guessing some of them didn't really pax taxes.

[Cantousent]

This is entirely true. I think savvy rich folks will undoubtedly learn how to manipulate the system. Hell, I know some middle class folks who can manipulate the system. ...Or folks who appear poorer than they should and receive more money from the earned income credit.

[EnderAndrew]

Your chart also shows that the $50,000 bracket is generating the second highest amount. Really it is the upper-middle class paying a good chunk of the country's taxes, while the uber-wealthy are likely paying less.

[Cantousent]

I'll agree with that. The question is usually where we draw the line for upper middle class. If you consider anything over $100,000 rich, then there are an aweful lot of rich folks in the US.

 

If you consider $100,000 to 200,000 upper middle class, then I think the middle class does shoulder the majority of the burden in terms of straight dollar amount.

 

EDIT: I have to hit the sack. Please don't go all flame on one another. heated discussion is fine, but don't go calling each other out in the middle of the street or anything.