Obama will be blackmailed (possibly many times)

[Gord]

In other words, you're saying you're willing to throw allegations out into a debate but not provide the facts/evidence to back them up?

Lists like this suppose the reader is UNINFORMED and attempts to blow smoke up his/her ass, and it is NOT encumbent on ME to back up YOUR argument.

Let's get something straight. I don't like Obama. I didn't vote for Obama. But when I go to nailing his ass you can rest assured I'm going to have some evidence to back up my accusation(s). I don't have to spin everything he does in a negative light in some lame attempt to make him look worse than he is or just flat make up some bogus shit.

If I was half as ignorant as you think, I wouldn't have just taken your argument and rolled it up nice and tight and packed it back up your ass where it came from.

See my comment to chloe.

You vastly overestimate your counterarguments and I notice you provided no links or evidence to back them up even as you upbraid me for not doing so.

 

[Gunny]

Thank you.

I do not expect everyone to understand every point in these lists. But if someone does not understand they must be first willing to do some research of their own before just dismissing or demanding I explain them. I found everything in those lists on the internet. Each point has key words in it or clues to appropriate key words that can be used in search engines.

The purpose of these lists was to show that Obama carries a lot of baggage into office and in many cases has some splainin' to do. It was not to pick a fight on every point I made. If someone has a bone to pick on a point I am willing to look at it (as I have). But when someone like Gunny comes along and just scatter guns the whole thing and then demands that I spend time answering many questions he could just as easily find for himself, then I am just as inclined to dismiss him just as he has off-handedly dismissed my lists...

Incorrect. One of the basic tenets to not being dismissed as just another hack is that you have and will back up what you post with evidence. That is basic to every political message board I have ever posted on.

I scattergunned nothing. I took careful aim at each one and any one you feel you don't have to answer to you should not have posted.

You're being intellectually dishonest and lazy. OBVIOUSLY I didn't just "dismiss" anything. I took the time and effort to address each item on your list. Time and effort you are apaprently unwilling to devote to defending each item on your list.

There is nothing dismissive nor scattergunning about asking you to defend your argument. THAT is the point to the exercise here.

 

[chloe]

Gord I googled your list and see that is originally your own thoughts. Im sure you did a lot of thinking (possibly while laying in bed staring at the ceiling as my dad used to do for hours, sometimes even days !) Before you came to those truths. Anyway all teasin aside, I can see some relevant points to your argument. The bunny loves gunny so let's try not to make the marine mad k?

 

[Gunny]

See my comment to chloe.

You vastly overestimate your counterarguments and I notice you provided no links or evidence to back them up even as you upbraid me for not doing so.

Au contraire ... tis YOU that vastly overrates your propaganda.

Now you're making a strawman argument. How far do you go? One, I only asked for links to specific things, not each and every point you listed. Two, you have not asked for any evidence to anything I have posted.

Back to the drawing board for you. Feel free to leave the book of "Lame Excuses and Deflections" on the shelf this time.

 

[Gord]

Au contraire ... tis YOU that vastly overrates your propaganda.

Now you're making a strawman argument. How far do you go? One, I only asked for links to specific things, not each and every point you listed. Two, you have not asked for any evidence to anything I have posted.

Back to the drawing board for you. Feel free to leave the book of "Lame Excuses and Deflections" on the shelf this time.

Look, I don't give a crap what you think. If you had asked about a one or two points at a time I would have replied. But your condescending, dismissive attitude does not inspire me to spend any time on you. Go cry a river...

 

[Gord]

Gord I googled your list and see that is originally your own thoughts. Im sure you did a lot of thinking (possibly while laying in bed staring at the ceiling as my dad used to do for hours, sometimes even days !) Before you came to those truths. Anyway all teasin aside, I can see some relevant points to your argument. The bunny loves gunny so let's try not to make the marine mad k?

Thank you for doing that. And yes I spent a lot of time on these lists. They are all researched.

 

[Gord]

[I feel a ban coming on. I have found it is not uncommon when a moderator doesn't get his way in an argument on posting protocol. Oh well... ]

 

[chloe]

Thank you for doing that. And yes I spent a lot of time on these lists. They are all researched.

Yeah something is definately fishy about the whole New Clinton/Obama administration and all those weather underground associates connected to both of them. That was a lot of research you did Gord.

 

[DiveCon]

[I feel a ban coming on. I have found it is not uncommon when a moderator doesn't get his way in an argument on posting protocol. Oh well... ]

uh, not here gord
chill out

 

[Gord]

Yeah something is definately fishy about the whole New Clinton/Obama administration and all those weather underground associates connected to both of them. That was a lot of research you did Gord.

Yup - there is a lot that is fishy about this guy.

Yeah, you spend hours and hours over a period of weeks or months researching something, and then when you post it you get kneejerk reactions from people who in many cases don't even bother to read everything you've posted. But I am used to it, and hold up responses like Gunny's and the liberals on this thread as a badge of honor. I don't post for them, and I usually only argue with them if I think it will be a help to those who might genuinely be interested in my research. I certainly don't think I will convince any partisans to see my side. And as for Gunny - like water off a duck's back... [shrug]

 

[chloe]

I look forward to more of your information as your research evolves. If anything your certainly devoted to uncovering the truth.

 

[Gord]

uh, not here gord
chill out

You underestimate my ability to get under a moderator's skin even though I am almost always polite and virtually never break the rules. The last place I got banned it was for posting a couple of lists a couple times. The moderator (a liberal) insisted it was breaking the rules. So then I asked him why a few of the liberals on the board were allowed to post and repost the same doctored photos of Bush over and over again? He incredibly said he didn't know about them and demanded I provide links. I told him I wasn't going to do his job for him. And when I asked him to produce the rule against multiple identicle posts, he couldn't (there was no rule). So he said it was because it was "annoying" other posters. So I asked which posters, and of course there were no posters. In the end I was permanently banned for finally getting frustrated with this guy and telling him to screw off and leave me alone. But I knew I was going to be banned long before it actually happened...

 

[Gord]

I look forward to more of your information as your research evolves. If anything your certainly devoted to uncovering the truth.

Well again, thank you very much. It is gratifying to have your work appreciated and complimented in public. It is people like you that make the many hours worthwhile...

 

[DiveCon]

You underestimate my ability to get under a moderator's skin even though I am almost always polite and virtually never break the rules. The last place I got banned it was for posting a couple of lists a couple times. The moderator (a liberal) insisted it was breaking the rules. So then I asked him why a few of the liberals on the board were allowed to post and repost the same doctored photos of Bush over and over again? He incredibly said he didn't know about them and demanded I provide links. I told him I wasn't going to do his job for him. And when I asked him to produce the rule against multiple identicle posts, he couldn't (there was no rule). So he said it was because it was "annoying" other posters. So I asked which posters, and of course there were no posters. In the end I was permanently banned for finally getting frustrated with this guy and telling him to screw off and leave me alone. But I knew I was going to be banned long before it actually happened...

well, multiple identical posts is what most would call spamming
and here, about the only thing that will get you in any real trouble is calling out a mod in the process of doing mod duties
also, its not wise to take a mod in poster mode as if they are modding
you will know when mod powers are in use, they tell you very clearly

 

[Gord]

well, multiple identical posts is what most would call spamming
and here, about the only thing that will get you in any real trouble is calling out a mod in the process of doing mod duties
also, its not wise to take a mod in poster mode as if they are modding
you will know when mod powers are in use, they tell you very clearly

I don't spam. When I multiple post it is always relevant to the issue at hand and usually my own original research which many posters may not have seen the first time.

OK - thanks for the info.

 

[Ravi]

You underestimate my ability to get under a moderator's skin even though I am almost always polite and virtually never break the rules. The last place I got banned it was for posting a couple of lists a couple times. The moderator (a liberal) insisted it was breaking the rules. So then I asked him why a few of the liberals on the board were allowed to post and repost the same doctored photos of Bush over and over again? He incredibly said he didn't know about them and demanded I provide links. I told him I wasn't going to do his job for him. And when I asked him to produce the rule against multiple identicle posts, he couldn't (there was no rule). So he said it was because it was "annoying" other posters. So I asked which posters, and of course there were no posters. In the end I was permanently banned for finally getting frustrated with this guy and telling him to screw off and leave me alone. But I knew I was going to be banned long before it actually happened...

You should spell your name "Gourd" because as far as I can tell your head is as empty as one.

 

[chloe]

maybe it is shortened as is in G Gordon liddy

 

[Gord]

You should spell your name "Gourd" because as far as I can tell your head is as empty as one.

A liberal displays his debating skills...

 

[frazzledgear]

If you aren't blessed with Children, and were middle income (15%) tax bracket, you did not get a tax bracket rate deduction similar to those in the higher tax brackets.

The Child tax credit helped a great many, but not those without children.

The EIC credit increase helped those with lower incomes, but again, if you were smack in the middle income 15% bracket, this did not reduce your taxes either...

Just saying, some people got GREAT tax cuts/credits with Bush's plan, even if not in the higher brackets that got HUGE tax bracket percentage reductions, IF they HAD children, or had young adult children going to college etc....

But if you were without children, as matt and me, there was minimal, very minimal, tax relief under president Bush's plan....

Care

You confuse tax RATE reduction with the actual dollar amount someone saved as a result of a reduced tax rate. They are not one and the same.

The crap about the child rate deduction is irrelevant and Congress was years overdue on adjusting it anyway. That child rate deduction represents just a fraction of what it actually costs to support a child every year. And it isn't meant to cover the total cost of supporting a child, but just provide a slight offset to that total cost with the deduction. Is it really fair to tax someone who earns $40,000 the exact same dollar amount when he is supporting 2 or more people on that salary and the other guy is only supporting himself? Congress is always slow about making any adjustments to it even during times of inflation and rapid rises in the cost of living. Those who earn the same amount but do not have other dependents but themselves will still have far more disposable income than someone with dependents who gets that deduction. They didn't get RICHER than you with that deduction because it is always going to be just a fractional offset of what it cost them to support other people with their income -while you only had to support yourself. Having kids is not a good way of trying to end up with more money in your pocket -because you definitely won't. LOL

Bush gave an across-the-board tax rate reduction -everyone's tax RATE was reduced by the IDENTICAL percent. There was not a HUGE tax bracket reduction for the rich while the tax rates for middle and lower income taxpayers were reduced by less. They were all reduced by the identical percent. If the tax rates were 37%-35%-30%-28%-17%-12%, then after the identical tax rate reduction they became 35%-33%-28%-26%-15%-10%. The rich still pay the exact same percent higher tax rate than you do. However if someone paid $385,000 in taxes, a 2% reduction in their tax rate will result in them reducing their taxes by a greater dollar amount than someone who only paid $9,000 in taxes. Someone who paid $9000 in taxes will keep a greater dollar amount of their money than someone who only paid $400 in taxes. Do you think a tax rate cut intended to stimulate the economy should somehow put $7700 of free money in the pocket of someone who was only paying $400 in taxes to begin with while the rich got nothing or what? Maybe you didn't know this -but the majority of all businesses get taxed at the rate used by the wealthiest -so somehow trying to gyp the wealthy out of it would also have zero economic stimulus too.

It was a 2% reduction of every tax bracket. Everyone's tax rate was 2% lower. If someone paying 3 times more taxes than you even earn got to keep a substantially larger dollar amount than you did -that should be a clue that guy STILL pays a massive amount in taxes and STILL pays many times more in total taxes than you even EARNED. Not try to use it as an opportunity to wallow in class envy -which is really about the fact you just didn't earn as much as that guy to begin with. He still got to keep 2% more of his OWN money just like you got to keep 2% more of YOUR money. You didn't get handed someone else's money and neither did the rich guy.

It is as if people like you just can't comprehend what that tax rate reduction was even for. The economy was in trouble when Bush took office -and he decided to use the tax rate code as the means to stimulate the economy. The purpose of that tax rate reduction wasn't to try and turn our tax code to an even more progressive one. It wasn't to try and shift an even higher percentage of all taxes paid onto the wealthiest who already pay the lion's share. It was to stimulate the economy. PERIOD -it was the only purpose. And in order to stimulate the economy, you damn well better include the group that actually creates new jobs in the first place or it has little to no stimulative effect whatsoever. The most effective and FAIREST way to stimulate the economy by manipulating the tax rate code -is by reducing all tax brackets by the identical percent. Exactly what Bush did. And exactly why Congress passed it. It treated all taxpayers identically -they all got to keep 2% more of the money they earned.

It doesn't require a whole lot of mental math here to realize that 2% really isn't a huge amount of your total income, so it just put a bit more of your own money in your pocket instead of government's. Not a lot. It put the identical fraction of the rich guy's income back in his pocket too -but because he pays far more in taxes than you do in the first place, it is a larger dollar amount. Even though it is still just 2%. And multiplied by 180 million taxpayers and the vast majority of businesses who create new jobs -that represents enough to provide a real economic stimulus. However, remove that 2% reduction from those who pay the highest tax rate in the first place but for whom it is still just 2% of their own money they get to keep just like you -and you remove nearly the entire stimulative effect.

 

[Care4all]

You confuse tax RATE reduction with the actual dollar amount someone saved as a result of a reduced tax rate. They are not one and the same.

The crap about the child rate deduction is irrelevant and Congress was years overdue on adjusting it anyway. That child rate deduction represents just a fraction of what it actually costs to support a child every year. And it isn't meant to cover the total cost of supporting a child, but just provide a slight offset to that total cost with the deduction. Is it really fair to tax someone who earns $40,000 the exact same dollar amount when he is supporting 2 or more people on that salary and the other guy is only supporting himself?

why not? he/she CHOSE to have children and those children use gvt services that taxes pay for, like sCHIP HEALTH insurance, free vacinations, public schools, the parents... to drive kids around use our public roads more too, while the person on their own, uses the roads less and uses gvt resources less in many cases....

should those without children be punished with higher taxes than you for your personal CHOICE?

we were paying $4000 a year on property taxes for schools for the proverbial, ''your'' children to go to school....that's each and every year....for goodness sakes!

NOW, let me say that we are fine with the property tax and the taxes from our federal taxes that go towards k=12 schools for your kids, and for special loans that many of these kids never pay in full for their college and the state universities that get our taxes too, and the vaccinations and the road use and the healthcare, and the college grants etc..........

BUT, is it FAIR to us, having to pay higher taxes while you pay less because by CHOICE you had children?

no, it's not.....imo, but it is acceptable to me because I WISH THE BEST FOR YOU and the future of our country...

Congress is always slow about making any adjustments to it even during times of inflation and rapid rises in the cost of living. Those who earn the same amount but do not have other dependents but themselves will still have far more disposable income than someone with dependents who gets that deduction. They didn't get RICHER than you with that deduction because it is always going to be just a fractional offset of what it cost them to support other people with their income -while you only had to support yourself. Having kids is not a good way of trying to end up with more money in your pocket -because you definitely won't. LOL

if i take care of a sister or a mother or a grandparent or a stranger as you do with your kids, shouldn't i get the same credit as you do with the child credit?

Bush gave an across-the-board tax rate reduction -everyone's tax RATE was reduced by the IDENTICAL percent.


ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 15% bracket was NOT REDUCED 3-5% for their entire bracket, they only got the first 5k or so of earnings taxed reduced to 10%, which every tax bracket above the 15% tax bracket got as well.........THAT'S IT.....got it? hope so....

There was not a HUGE tax bracket reduction for the rich while the tax rates for middle and lower income taxpayers were reduced by less. They were all reduced by the identical percent. If the tax rates were 37%-35%-30%-28%-17%-12%, then after the identical tax rate reduction they became 35%-33%-28%-26%-15%-10%.

AGAIN, NOT TRUE frazz.....there was no 17& bracket, only a 15% and the 15% bracket was NOT REDUCED to 12%!!!!! PLEASE LOOK IT UP!

The rich still pay the exact same percent higher tax rate than you do. However if someone paid $385,000 in taxes, a 2% reduction in their tax rate will result in them reducing their taxes by a greater dollar amount than someone who only paid $9,000 in taxes. Someone who paid $9000 in taxes will keep a greater dollar amount of their money than someone who only paid $400 in taxes. Do you think a tax rate cut intended to stimulate the economy should somehow put $7700 of free money in the pocket of someone who was only paying $400 in taxes to begin with while the rich got nothing or what? Maybe you didn't know this -but the majority of all businesses get taxed at the rate used by the wealthiest -so somehow trying to gyp the wealthy out of it would also have zero economic stimulus too.

It was a 2% reduction of every tax bracket. Everyone's tax rate was 2% lower. If someone paying 3 times more taxes than you even earn got to keep a substantially larger dollar amount than you did -that should be a clue that guy STILL pays a massive amount in taxes and STILL pays many times more in total taxes than you even EARNED. Not try to use it as an opportunity to wallow in class envy -which is really about the fact you just didn't earn as much as that guy to begin with. He still got to keep 2% more of his OWN money just like you got to keep 2% more of YOUR money. You didn't get handed someone else's money and neither did the rich guy.


AGAIN, SIMPLY NOT TRUE, THERE WAS NO FULL BRACKET REDUCTION IN THE 15% TAX BRACKET.

It is as if people like you just can't comprehend what that tax rate reduction was even for. The economy was in trouble when Bush took office -and he decided to use the tax rate code as the means to stimulate the economy. The purpose of that tax rate reduction wasn't to try and turn our tax code to an even more progressive one. It wasn't to try and shift an even higher percentage of all taxes paid onto the wealthiest who already pay the lion's share. It was to stimulate the economy. PERIOD -it was the only purpose. And in order to stimulate the economy, you damn well better include the group that actually creates new jobs in the first place or it has little to no stimulative effect whatsoever. The most effective and FAIREST way to stimulate the economy by manipulating the tax rate code -is by reducing all tax brackets by the identical percent. Exactly what Bush did. And exactly why Congress passed it. It treated all taxpayers identically -they all got to keep 2% more of the money they earned.

IF it was to stimulate the economy then:

1 you do not mind letting these tax cuts to expire, when things are better with the economy.

2 you see how well it worked now don't you?

3 every statistic, every analysis, every report sgows as FACT that if it was a stimulus for individuals then most of the money should have been put in to the hands of the poor and the middle class....this group puts near every dollar in stimulus, back in to the economy immediately, while the wealthiest individuals do not even put 40% back in to it months after getting it. AGAIN, omb and the gao have these reports...

It doesn't require a whole lot of mental math here to realize that 2% really isn't a huge amount of your total income, so it just put a bit more of your own money in your pocket instead of government's. Not a lot. It put the identical fraction of the rich guy's income back in his pocket too -but because he pays far more in taxes than you do in the first place, it is a larger dollar amount. Even though it is still just 2%. And multiplied by 180 million taxpayers and the vast majority of businesses who create new jobs -that represents enough to provide a real economic stimulus. However, remove that 2% reduction from those who pay the highest tax rate in the first place but for whom it is still just 2% of their own money they get to keep just like you -and you remove nearly the entire stimulative effect.

AND AGAIN the 15% tax bracket did NOT GET A 2% REDUCTION for their entire income bracket.............please look it up!!!!!

care