My parents are scared

Where will they put their money?

We are thinking it is a good time to buy. Warren Buffet is saying the same.

Warren Buffet will most likely be right for the long term, but the next two years will be shaky. Warren has enough wealth to ride out the storm. The rich will continue to put their money in bonds, real estate and gold.

The stock market is also due to myriad problems, not Obama talking about his economic plan.

I am happy to agree to disagree.

I respect you and your opinion.
 
*shrug* I disagree.

You don't dangle. But that's very interesting. You're the first woman who has said that the father should have rights. Most other women say that the man doesn't have to go through the whole pregnancy thing with their bodies. I disagree. When my girlfriend was pregnant, before we knew she was, I going through quite a bit, physically. Anyway, tmi... sorry. ;)
 
There's not much to detail. Obama's tax policies will have a negative effect on the economy and the wealthy will simply move their money out of the stock market to avoid punitive taxation.

This is garbage. Did that happen the last time capital gains tax was 20%? No, it didn't. In fact, the stock market grew at incredible speeds in the late 1990s. Income tax levels were also at 39% for the richest. There's absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.
 
I'm in Florida now and I can confirm that they're right about the airwaves being flooded with ads. The ones McCain approves are negative, the ones sponsored by various Republican groups are frightening; Obamas are about 50 / 50 positive / negative and I haven't seen any from Democratic side groups regarding the big race.

The hardest ones to stomach are the fear mongering ads from the Republican side groups - especially the ones aimed at Florida's seniors.

I can appreciate your parents trepidation.

-Joe

I'm in California, which is painted dark blue on the map, so we don't get a lot of campaign ads.

I don't miss them.

The best advice to anyone in a swing state is to TIVO the TV, then skip the ads. None of them add a thing to any kind of reasonable dialogue, nor do they give one reason to vote for one candidate over another. I've seen hundreds of campaign ads over the years, and they all have the same thing in common: They are full of crap, all of them from both parties.

The best thing to do is to look at the issues, then decide which candidate agrees with your position more than the other, then ask yourself if there is more than a snowball's chance that your pick might begin to sort of straighten out the mess left by the past administration, or if they're likely to make things worse.

Make yourself a balance, put the plusses and minuses of each candidate on a chart, then base your vote on the result.

Then, don't expect the candidate to actually keep all of the promises made during the campaign. Neither one of them will be able to do that. One big minus for both of them is that they tell the voters what they want to hear.

Of course, if they didn't tell us what we want to hear, we wouldn't vote for them.

And, remember, we're not electing a king. The president can't make laws, can't do really any of the things that they say they want to do without the active participation of Congress.

Thank God for the Constitution.
 
This is garbage. Did that happen the last time capital gains tax was 20%? No, it didn't. In fact, the stock market grew at incredible speeds in the late 1990s. Income tax levels were also at 39% for the richest. There's absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.

Uh, no. Lower government spending was able to offset the higher taxes, but there was also the problem with the dot com bubble which could have been prevented by lowering taxes. Cuts in government spending are expansionary, making economies boom. However, you still have to understand that lower tax rates are also expansionary. Ireland is a perfect example of this. They have a 15 percent tax on corporate profits, a 20 percent tax on inflation-indexed capital gains and lower tax rates on labor. Government needs to do it's job. Lowering taxes is the way to go. I often quote this Harvard study because it takes a lot of data from 18 large economies over a few decades and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that lowering taxes works.

http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/WP504.pdf

Happy reading.
 
Uh, no. Lower government spending was able to offset the higher taxes, but there was also the problem with the dot com bubble which could have been prevented by lowering taxes. Cuts in government spending are expansionary, making economies boom. However, you still have to understand that lower tax rates are also expansionary. Ireland is a perfect example of this. They have a 15 percent tax on corporate profits, a 20 percent tax on inflation-indexed capital gains and lower tax rates on labor. Government needs to do it's job. Lowering taxes is the way to go. I often quote this Harvard study because it takes a lot of data from 18 large economies over a few decades and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that lowering taxes works.

http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/WP504.pdf

Happy reading.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what bills the House and Senate passed in 1995 and 1996 that caused the economy to improve and lower government spending?
 
Big friggen deal - she had no problem taking part in making the baby.. After's not really the time to be a selfish bitch, is it?

So your saying shes NOT "off the hook".

And yeah...pregnancy is sort of a "big friggen deal".

Its nice how that if the guy wants the girl to go through 9 months of labor to have a kid for her, its "not really the time to be a selfish bitch", but if the woman wants the guy to pay for child support its all good for you. Nice level of consistency there.
 
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what bills the House and Senate passed in 1995 and 1996 that caused the economy to improve and lower government spending?

Here you go:

Contract with America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This explains the bills that did and did not pass. Pay particular attention to the bills pertaining to tax relief and fiscal responsibility. Non-defense government spending DECREASED during this period by about 0.7%.
 
So your saying shes NOT "off the hook".

And yeah...pregnancy is sort of a "big friggen deal".

Its nice how that if the guy wants the girl to go through 9 months of labor to have a kid for her, its "not really the time to be a selfish bitch", but if the woman wants the guy to pay for child support its all good for you. Nice level of consistency there.

Were you born this friggen dumb? If the guy doesn't want the kid, and the woman does, why should he have to pay child support? Or did you completely MISS that post of mine while you were slobbering all over your keyboard in a fit of fury?
 
Were you born this friggen dumb? If the guy doesn't want the kid, and the woman does, why should he have to pay child support? Or did you completely MISS that post of mine while you were slobbering all over your keyboard in a fit of fury?

If the guy wants the kid, and the woman doesn't, why should she have to go through 9 months of labor?

I understand your point, dumbshit. I'm attempting to get you to realize how hypocritical it is. Try some reading comprehension lessons, eh?
 
If the guy wants the kid, and the woman doesn't, why should she have to go through 9 months of labor?

I understand your point, dumbshit. I'm attempting to get you to realize how hypocritical it is. Try some reading comprehension lessons, eh?

If the guy wants the kid, and the woman doesn't, why should she get to kill it? She needed his consent to make it, she should need his consent to kill it.
 
People in poverty have abortion at four times the rate of people not in poverty. That is according to the guttmacher institute, you can google it.

The quickest way to reduce abortion is to introduce jobs, and help get people, especially young girls, out of poverty.

Period.

This is what clinches my vote for Obama.

Please help me to understand how this clinches your vote for Obama. Obama's presidency will be bad for American business and what is bad for American business is bad for the poor. Jobs will be lost under Obama. Businesses that hire the poor will close and if you are correct about introducing jobs to reduce abortion then abortions will increase.

Immie
 
If the guy wants the kid, and the woman doesn't, why should she get to kill it? She needed his consent to make it, she should need his consent to kill it.

Because. She. Is. Required. To. Go. Through. Nine. Months. Of. Labor.

And around and around in circles we go...
 
Because. She. Is. Required. To. Go. Through. Nine. Months. Of. Labor.

And around and around in circles we go...

Big. Fucking. Deal.

She had no problem spreading her legs for the man without some form of birth control. She. can. suck. it. the. fuck. up.

Clear enough for you?
 
Big. Fucking. Deal.

She had no problem spreading her legs for the man without some form of birth control. She. can. suck. it. the. fuck. up.

Clear enough for you?

The man had no problem fucking some chick with no birth control, so he can pay for the baby if the woman wants to keep it.

Clear enough for you? Do you get how those two circumstances are EXACTLY the same?
 
The man had no problem fucking some chick with no birth control, so he can pay for the baby if the woman wants to keep it.

Clear enough for you? Do you get how those two circumstances are EXACTLY the same?

Well, gee. If all men, and all women thought like you, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

However, they don't, and it is.

What do YOU suggest is to be done about it?
 
Well, gee. If all men, and all women thought like you, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Umm, all I've been doing is showing how your view is inconsistent. You still don't get that?

What do YOU suggest is to be done about it?

Basically how it is now. Its flawed, but it has to be flawed because one gender carries the baby to term for 9 months, and one doesn't. You can't whine and scream about "equality for everyone" if their situations are inherently unequal. Treating them the exact same fucks over the woman.
 
Umm, all I've been doing is showing how your view is inconsistent. You still don't get that?



Basically how it is now. Its flawed, but it has to be flawed because one gender carries the baby to term for 9 months, and one doesn't. You can't whine and scream about "equality for everyone" if their situations are inherently unequal. Treating them the exact same fucks over the woman.

Where am I "whining and screaming" about anything? I simply think the guy should be given some choices in the matter.

Have you ever seen the face of a guy who found out his girlfriend was pregnant, and THEN found out she had an abortion?
 
Given the ability to kill at will, you aren't really making me sympathetic to the women declaring "oops" when they irresponsibly get pregnant.

And yes, women DO have more responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy than men, because it IS their body.
 
Big. Fucking. Deal.

She had no problem spreading her legs for the man without some form of birth control. She. can. suck. it. the. fuck. up.

Clear enough for you?

I like your style.


Uh. shadooby shattered shattered.
 

Forum List

Back
Top