I Can't Believe This - Not Today

[xsited1]

Democrats are racist. Tell us something we don't know.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Democrats are racist. Tell us something we don't know.

I see your avatar isn't far off. You're a strange, stupid little creature aren't ya?

 

[user_name_guest]

Democrats are racist. Tell us something we don't know.

Let's be fair. Not all democrats are racist. There is always a small piece on the pie, whether it is your party, your gender, your age, your race, your height, your weight, that is racist.

 

[xsited1]

Let's be fair. Not all democrats are racist. There is always a small piece on the pie, whether it is your party, your gender, your age, your race, your height, your weight, that is racist.

Democrats support Affirmative Action - giving preferential treatment to someone based on the color of one's skin. It's in their Party Platform. They are racist by definition.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm voting Obama because he's a vanilla/chocolate swirl cone. Best of both worlds!Besides he could really reach across the aisle, he's half and half.

Obama's plans are better described as a "reach around"!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Obama's plans are better described as a "reach around"!

Hey man.....if you're gonna get boned up the keister anyway, it's kinda nice that someone would offer a reach around.

McCain won't. He can't lift his arms high enough.

All politicians screw the taxpayer.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Good Golly Miss Molly! Do blacks hate whites?
National (US) Poll * July 15, 2008 * Women, Blacks Give Obama 9 - P - Quinnipiac University

All other racial groups vote somewhere between 50-65 percent for any candidate. Only blacks vote in such high number for themselves.
Pure racism..

Well, in this context, president, it isn't like there has been an opportunity for OTHER THAN WHITE to vote for their own group, now has there? I mean when, exactly have whites not been in that position, assuming that OF COURSE that was the ONLY way it could be?

Someday, a black man or woman will run for president and I will vote for him. .

HIM?????


...snip...

Nor will I vote for someone who has plans to turn our country into a socialist utopia through confiscatory tax rates..

Please note that the following article comes from www.FACTCHECK.org

There He Goes Again

McCain ad misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Again.

Joe Miller
factcheck.org
Sep 18, 2008 | Updated: 5:04 p.m. ET Sep 18, 2008

Summary
The McCain-Palin campaign has released a new ad that once again distorts Obama's tax plans.

The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity. He hasn't proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, but so does McCain.


It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil. Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

The ad claims that Obama will tax "life savings." In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged.

The McCain campaign argues in its documentation for this ad that, whatever Obama says he would do, he will eventually be forced to break his promise and raise taxes more broadly to pay for his promised spending programs. That's an opinion they are certainly entitled to express, and to argue for. But their ad doesn't do that. Instead, it simply presents the McCain camp's opinion as a fact, and it fails to alert viewers that its claims are based on what the campaign thinks might happen in the future.

Analysis
In what has become an ongoing theme, the McCain-Palin campaign has released yet another ad that makes false claims about Barack Obama's tax plan. The ad, which was released on Sept. 18 and which the campaign says will air nationally, claims that Obama will raise income taxes and will tax "life savings, electricity and home heating oil." As we keep saying, Obama says he'll raise income taxes and capital gains taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year or singles making over $200,000. He has proposed no plans to raise taxes on either home heating oil or electricity.

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad: "Dome"

Narrator: When our economy's in crisis, a big government casts a big shadow on us all.

Obama and his liberal Congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork.

And, we would pay -- painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil.

Can your family afford that?

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

Electric Charges
The ad opens with standard-issue Republican warnings of the economic dangers of big government before proclaiming that Obama and his liberal allies want to bring back "a massive government" complete with billions in spending increases and waste. We are then told that Obama would raise income taxes and would increase taxes on "life savings, electricity and home heating oil."

This isn't the first time the McCain-Palin campaign has claimed that Obama would raise taxes on electricity. The claim is just as false now as it was when it first came up. The campaign bases its charge on a single comment Obama made in an interview with a San Antonio columnist. Obama did in fact say, "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." But, as we said then, the comment is grossly out of context. Obama's remark comes after he was asked whether we ought to tax renewable energy sources. This was not a general call for increasing taxes on coal or natural gas, and Obama certainly does not have any such proposal as part of his public platform.

One could argue that Obama's proposed cap-and-trade program constitutes an indirect tax on electricity. But McCain proposes cap-and-trade, too, and we haven't heard McCain say that he wants to tax your electric bill. These programs are designed to reduce carbon emissions by requiring companies to pay for pollution credits. Since most electricity in the U.S. is generated via coal and natural-gas plants, both carbon-emitting fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade program will result in higher electricity costs.

Overheated Claims
Contrary to the ad's claim, Obama has not proposed raising taxes on home heating oil. In fact, just the opposite. Obama is proposing rebate checks of up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per family for what he calls an "emergency energy rebate." Obama says the rebate would be large enough that a typical family in a northern state could offset the full increase in home heating costs that have resulted from rising oil prices. Obama plans to fund the rebate through a five-year windfall profits tax on oil companies.

The McCain-Palin campaign counters that a windfall profits tax on oil companies will raise the cost of heating oil. The campaign points to a Washington Post editorial which charges that the cost of the five-year tax:

Washington Post (Aug. 6): would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump – thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help.

This is a fairly standard view in economics. Corporations don't really pay taxes. Any taxes levied on a corporation are passed along to one of three places: shareholders, in the form of smaller dividends on their investments; employees, in the form of lower wages; and consumers, in the form of higher prices. The McCain-Palin campaign's argument is that increasing taxes on oil companies amounts to increasing the price of heating oil and that that increase really is just a tax being levied on home heating oil. But the tax could also fall mainly on the stockholders of the oil companies, in the form of reduced after-tax profits, dividends and stock prices. That is actually how both the Congressional Budget Office and the independent, nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center allocate the benefits of tax changes on corporations.

We'll leave it to you to decide whether or not a windfall profits tax on oil companies makes economic sense. But it is misleading to describe Obama's view as a tax on home heating oil when Obama is actually proposing a rebate for home heating costs and a tax increase for oil companies.

Life Savings
The ad's claim that Obama will raise taxes on your "life savings" is only true if you're an individual making more than $200,000 (or a couple earning more than $250,000) and paying capital gains and dividend taxes. (We've said this many times now.) The "ad facts" that the McCain campaign released to reporters state very prominently that "Barack Obama would raise capital gains and dividend taxes" and that 26.7 million Americans received capital gains income while 31.5 million received dividend income. That's all true. But the very article that the campaign cites to support its claim also says quite clearly that Obama will raise capital gains and dividend taxes only on couples making more than $250,000 per year. We'd also note that more than 80 percent of all capital gains income in 2006 went to those earning more than $200,000 a year. See our Ask FactCheck on the subject for more.

McCain's Magic 8 Ball
The ad says sweepingly that "we would pay" the increased taxes, even though what Obama has proposed would produce tax cuts, not tax increases, for about 80 percent of all workers and families and about 95 percent of those with children, according to independent analysis by the Tax Policy Center. To justify its claim that "we" would pay, the McCain campaign is making a new argument. In an "ad facts" document, it cites two opinion columns which argue that Obama's new spending proposals would require him to break his pledge, and to raise taxes on couples making less than $250,000 per year. That's a prediction, which the McCain campaign states as fact in its ad. Viewers are given no indication that the ad is based on opinion about what could happen in the future.

It's certainly true that Obama's proposed spending is lower than his projected revenues, and Obama has made no secret of the fact that his plan will not result in balanced budgets for the next four years. According to the Tax Policy Center, without spending cuts elsewhere, Obama's proposals could lead to between $3.6 trillion and $5.9 trillion in new debt over 10 years. The McCain-Palin campaign is certainly entitled to argue that that level of debt is unsustainable and that Obama would therefore have to raise taxes.

That, however, is a dangerous argument. The same Tax Policy Center analysis shows that McCain's proposals would raise the debt by between $5.1 trillion and $7.4 trillion over 10 years. And while McCain has promised to balance the budget by 2013, the Tax Policy Center notes that doing so would require a 25 percent reduction in federal spending. Few economists outside the McCain-Palin campaign think that is a feasible goal. So, by the ad's logic, Obama could just as easily claim that McCain supports a massive tax increase. But if he did he would have no more justification than McCain does for this ad.

In fact, it's impossible to know for certain what either candidate will actually do if elected. Both sides are free to speculate. But unless they possess really good Magic 8 Balls, they are not free to present those speculations as settled facts.

Republished with permission from factcheck.org.

Sources
"Tapping Tired Wells." Washington Post. 6 August 2008.

Herman, Tom, "Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ." The Wall Street Journal. 18 June 2008.

"The Lexington Project: Breaking Our Dependence on Foreign Oil." 2008. JohnMcCain.com. 30 July 2008.

S.139: The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. 9 January 2003. 30 July 2008.

Guerra, Carlos. "Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama." 19 February 2008. The San Antonio News-Express. 30 July 2008.

Burman, Len, et. al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008." Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/159586

© 2008

I don't make my political decisions based on race, liberals do that. Nor do I use my race as a weapon to intimidate people with, liberals do that.

What group is it that has historically been the INTIMIDATORS?

That's what political correctness is, intimidation. And it seems that the OP of this thread, rayboyusmc, is a victim of it..

Maybe he has learned that there is more to it, and is looking at other sides of the issue.

If you are as open-minded as you say, perhaps you will read these books:

The books are quite reasonable, and look at things through a different lens. They say many things that I cannot articulate quite so well as these authors, great food for thought:

1. Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together In The Cafeteria? and other conversations about race. by Beverly Daniel Tatum, Ph. D.

For those who "just cannot get" Obama, and others, some of whom at the extreme, just do not like "white people"... Perhaps this is a start. Perhaps there is a place where the Dominant Culture Male can begin to get why the minority attitudes are what they are.

2. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural Americaby Ronald Takaki

This is one of the "it's not all about you (white people)" history books.

3. White Like Me by Tim Wise

This one is about a lot of things people just don't think about, or enjoy a state of total denial about.

4. Privilege, Power, and Difference by Allan G. Johnson

All about the heirarchy, and how it came to be, and why it generally stays the same. Part of the "why should those who have all the power change because having the power does benefit them to the exclusion of others" situation.

And after this, next on the list is White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement by Allan J. Lichtman.


I get most of my books from Amazon.com, used, for as little, at times, $4.00 each, one cent for the book, and 3.99 for the shipping/handling.

Someday, when a conservative minority comes along, I'll vote for him. But based on political ideology not race or ethnicity.

HIM?????

 

[jschuck12001]

Political Pulse | The Associated Press-Yahoo! News Poll on Yahoo! News

Funny thing about bias, it generalizes and doesn't take into account the individual. Obama can't be lazy and be where he is. He wasn't born into a rich family like Bush or have an Admiral for a daddy. He can't be violent, because he hasn't punched out McMumbles for the lies he keeps telling on TV.

What suprises me the most, is that as retired has said, I am voting for him only because he is Black.

Look at the graph. Oh Golly, Ms Molly, how do white republicans rate Blacks?

No, no racial shit here in America folks, nothing to see, keep moving.

Thats why so many people think that there is a portion of America that is just fucking stupid. This just backs it up.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Democrats support Affirmative Action - giving preferential treatment to someone based on the color of one's skin. It's in their Party Platform. They are racist by definition.

Are you aware that "LEGACY" preferences at IVY LEAGUE schools are Affirmative Action programs for dumb white boys who couldn't get into the schools otherwise?

And John McCain was a LEGACY entrant to the Naval Academy.

There are others, some refused entrance at their own state schools, that were then 'legacied" to the Ivys.

Then there is a friend of a "dad" giving prefernce in hiring to a mediocre candidate for a job, and then there is who and how the shoo-ins are mentored and moved up, or then there are cases of friends continually bailing out those who fail at business over and over again, qualified or not.

That "ACTION" looks pretty affirmative to me!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah.....just like the Chimp in Charge Bush Jr. hired Brown as the FEMA director. His quals were that he was a horse judge.

 

[Richard-H]

There is no doubt that there are many white Americans who will have a negative attitude towards the idea of having a Black President.

But there is also no doubt that the Obama campaign and the democratic party have anticipated this when they made the bold decision to nominate a black man.

Most of those who have misgivings about electing a black man, will be torn between they're gut primitive instincts vs. their intelligence. I believe that, in most cases, they will overcome these instincts and vote for Obama knowing that if he wins it will usher in a new age for American society.

I also believe that most Americans are absolutely disgusted by the performance of the Republicans and that their gut instincts will tell them that a McCain presidency will just be more of the same.

The one question that I have is that should Obama get elected:

Will they have to repaint the White House and rename it?



Sorry, my bad.

 

[del]

There is no doubt that there are many white Americans who will have a negative attitude towards the idea of having a Black President.

But there is also no doubt that the Obama campaign and the democratic party have anticipated this when they made the bold decision to nominate a black man.

Most of those who have misgivings about electing a black man, will be torn between they're gut primitive instincts vs. their intelligence. I believe that, in most cases, they will overcome these instincts and vote for Obama knowing that if he wins it will usher in a new age for American society.

I also believe that most Americans are absolutely disgusted by the performance of the Republicans and that their gut instincts will tell them that a McCain presidency will just be more of the same.

The one question that I have is that should Obama get elected:

Will they have to repaint the White House and rename it?



Sorry, my bad.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, if Paris Hilton is successful in her bid, she said she's gonna paint the White House pink.

 

[Shadow]

You know, that also is one of the things that makes Obama stand way out in front of McInsane. Obama worked for what he'd gotten, and learned a hell of a lot along the way. McInsane hasn't, as he came from a wealthy family and went to Annapolis as a legacy. So....basically he didn't work for squat as well as didn't really do much work at all. Lost planes as well as only barely passed the Academy.

And....if you want to talk about experience, let's look at something real quick.

Obama's experience comes from his growing up and having to learn how to get along as well as get ahead so that he could do what he wanted. McCain's experience isn't even close to that, because he's always had a silver spoon in his mouth.

In my book, Obama's experience is better than McCain's.

Obama didn't work for anything. He attached his star to Emille Jones and his corrupt Chicago gang of thugs.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Didn't work for anything? Ummmm.....then what in the hell was his getting through school and making it through college all about?

Damn sure wasn't priveledge, McInsane is the one with the silver spoon.

 

[jillian]

Obama didn't work for anything. He attached his star to Emille Jones and his corrupt Chicago gang of thugs.

Excuse me? He did everything you guys supposedly believe in... he busted his butt, became head of the Harvard Law Review... impressed people in his part of the world... moved up the ladder.

Anytime you get into poltics, you do so by dint of the local poltiical hierarchy UNLESS, like GWB (or one of the kennedys) you're a legacy... or have enough of your own money, a la michael bloomberg, that you can tell them to take a flying leap. that's simply facts of life.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Some folks on the right aren't able to admit he worked his way up. That would mean he isn't one of those lazy black folks.

Democrats are racist. Tell us something we don't know.

Right, that's why the poll shows that Republicans are more racist in their attitudes.

Affirmative action isn't racist if you know anything of why it was done. I guess you are one of those poor white folks who got screwed out of a job because of it. Tuff shit. Blacks have been screwed just as much and much longer.

 

[xsited1]

Are you aware that "LEGACY" preferences at IVY LEAGUE schools are Affirmative Action programs for dumb white boys who couldn't get into the schools otherwise?

And John McCain was a LEGACY entrant to the Naval Academy.

There are others, some refused entrance at their own state schools, that were then 'legacied" to the Ivys.

Then there is a friend of a "dad" giving prefernce in hiring to a mediocre candidate for a job, and then there is who and how the shoo-ins are mentored and moved up, or then there are cases of friends continually bailing out those who fail at business over and over again, qualified or not.

That "ACTION" looks pretty affirmative to me!

Yep. More racism (and nepotism). So we've got these racists and Democrats.

 

[CactusCarlos]

Political Pulse | The Associated Press-Yahoo! News Poll on Yahoo! News

Funny thing about bias, it generalizes and doesn't take into account the individual. Obama can't be lazy and be where he is. He wasn't born into a rich family like Bush or have an Admiral for a daddy. He can't be violent, because he hasn't punched out McMumbles for the lies he keeps telling on TV.

What suprises me the most, is that as retired has said, I am voting for him only because he is Black.

Look at the graph. Oh Golly, Ms Molly, how do white republicans rate Blacks?

No, no racial shit here in America folks, nothing to see, keep moving.

How would you feel if a black republican lost to a white democrat? I'm guessing you wouldn't be concerned at all about racism.

 

[WillowTree]

It isn't an issue to those who don't want to admit it. Sad commentary at this day and age.

someday, maybe you can objectively look back and say, "what did I think was going to happen when I decided to keep calling people rascist?" It has become so commonplace now that people don't even blink anymore. Just smile and nod.