I'm really thinking most of you assholes just can't stand a black man as president. How sad but you would cot for a fuxking Waco job
Printable View
I'm really thinking most of you assholes just can't stand a black man as president. How sad but you would cot for a fuxking Waco job
What you call "assholes" can't stand any Democratic president. They wouldn't have any problem with a black Republican president as they don't with the black Supreme Court Justice. Even if War in Iraq and the great recession in 2008 happened under a black GOP president, they wouln't have minded. But if a white Democratic president killed BinLaden and adopted heathcare reform, they wouldn't like them.
[QUOTE=Gato Hunter;423991]I'm really thinking most of you assholes just can't stand a black man as president. How sad but you would cot for a fuxking Waco job[/QUOTE]
Gato, that stroke must have had a greater affect on you than you have admitted. Get back on your meds, fast.
Stick with doing the GF and stop posting while off your meds. Your typing goes to shit as well as your ability to reason.
Post something about pusssy it's the iPad aout correct that's the problem I have the spnish keyboard turned on it fucks everything up
How about a poltical debate between challenger GatoHunter (on meds) and self proclaimed champion Toyman (on steriods). Make sure you bring some towels, alot of spit will be flying.
I would surmise most of Obama's understanding of the economy comes from the last 3. 5 years, as President. Listening to economists with an open mind rather than blindly following an ideology.
Obama understands what Romney does not: giving tax cuts to the wealthy (helping the rich get richer) is wasteful. Contrary to Republican belief, that money does not all "trickle down" so that everyone prospers. Some of it trickles down, and some of it doesn't. And what trickles down doesn't always help the economy. There was a story earlier this week, some rich hedge fund guy bought a painting for $120 Million. How many jobs did that create? These tax cuts add significantly to deficits; how does the economy benefit in return?
Conversely, a far greater proportion of wealth earned by the middle class flows back into the economy. Growing the economy from the 'middle out' as Obama says, is both an economically and morally superior approach.
Romney believes in trickle-down economics, but this is a failed economic policy that has only weakened the middle class since Reagan.
[QUOTE=Esten;424001]There was a story earlier this week, some rich hedge fund guy bought a painting for $120 Million. How many jobs did that create?[/QUOTE]Hey Estan,
It doesn't matter how much the guy spent buying the painting, because it's [b][u]his[/u] [u]fucking[/u] [u]money[/u]![/b]
To restate the obvious, it's not [b][u]your[/u] [u]fucking[/u] [u]money[/u]![/b]
Get it?
Why do liberals believe that if an individual is not spending their own money on the things that liberals want, then the liberals have the right to confiscate that money and spend it for them?
Thanks,
Jackson
I have suggested before, and esten has admitted, that he is spoofing us with ridiculous posts. To be honest, most of esten's posts are out there somewhere between the orbits of Neptune and Pluto. Thery make absolutely no sense and defy all parameters of common sense.
My suspicion is that Esten is laughing his ass off as we take seriously posts that daily become more absurd.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 424003]It doesn't matter how much the guy spent buying the painting, because it's [b][u]his[/u] [u]fucking[/u] [u]money[/u]! [/b]
To restate the obvious, it's not [b][u]your[/u] [u]fucking[/u] [u]money[/u]! [/b]
Get it?[/QUOTE]This post illustrates perfectly why Conservatives are not to be trusted on the economy.
Notice Jackson doesn't debate the point on economic grounds but on moral grounds. It's the rich guy's money. Even after many rich people say they don't need all their money, they don't need their tax cuts, they think it's best for the economy / country to raise their taxes, a Conservative will shout no, it's their money. They don't debate the point on it's economic merit, because it's a losing argument for them.
The wealthy and their lobbyists have engineered a system where most of the wealth accumulates at the top. The top 5% control about 80% of the wealth. It seems this number could go up to 90%, 95%, 99%, through more lobbying and engineering, wages could go down further, poverty could increase further, and a Conservative would still object to any attempt to reverse such economic inequality.
When it comes to the economy, Conservatives are ideologists, and suckers.
Esten, you don't 'Get It' because you don't want to get it. You are too blinded by 'social justice'.
Jackson's argument is based on economics; the funds spent were earned by the person spending them.
Liberal's can't stand people to spend money on things liberals don't consider 'just', 'moral' or 'are economically correct'.
Liberals wish to deny those who do not believe as they do one of the founding principles of this country. Liberty. The masses are too stupid to know what is best for them so the Ruling Liberal Elite will tell them what is good for them.
If Obama's economic prowess is based on the last 3. 5 years in office he gets an 'F'. His policies have failed and all he can do is offer up the same failed policies.
Esten, I agree 100% with Jackson. What you want to the extent you want it is institutionalized theft.
But, if you want to put yourself in the position of a thief, you should give some thought to what would be in your best interests, long term. How can you pocket the most money over the next 30 or 40 or 50 years. Without a doubt, you'd kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Obama would too, in part perhaps because he believes like you but mostly because it's good politics. Telling 97% of the country you're going to rob from the other 3% and somehow spend it on the 97%.
According to a study that just came out from the Congressional Budget Office, the federal tax rate on the top 1% in 2009 was 29%. The average for the country was 11%. Anyway, add state income tax, sales taxes, property taxes and the time and money that go into reporting to the taxing authorities and I bet the total is hitting on 50% of pre-tax income. Most of after tax profits of these individuals doesn't go into buying things like $120 million paintings. It's re-invested in businesses. Or it goes into bank accounts and bonds. It's loaned to businesses, municipalities and the feds to grow the economy and pay for government.
I just looked at IRS tax statistics for the most recent available year. Pelosi wants to stick it to people that make over $1 million a year and leave others untouched. Obama would go lower, to $200,000 or $250,000. Anyway, let's assume you're going to take every after-tax dollar from anyone who makes over $500,000 per year. You're going to take every dime that the federal and state governments aren't already taking in taxes, and leave them with nothing. This group made $901 billion in taxable income. They paid $257 billion in federal income tax. I figure they paid maybe another $63 billion in state income tax. That leaves them with $581 billion that you can get if you take everything. The current outstanding public debt is over $15 trillion. Please notethat's about 25 times larger than every after tax dollar earned by those who make over $500,000 per year. You add in social security and Medicare and Medicaid liabilities, and the debt would jump to over $50 trillion. That's over 80 years of all the after-tax income from the over-$500,000 crowd.
The tax the rich ploy is political fodder for the Democratic Party. It's not going to solve the country's problems. It is going to make them worse, if implemented, by reducing the capital available to the private economy. However, this does get votes. That's the reason Democrat politicians are obsessed with it. It's the same reason that they're obsessed with whether some people lost jobs while Romney was at Bain Capital. It's all about votes.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;424000]champion Toyman (on steriods).[/QUOTE]I have been hitting the gym lately, and lost about 6 kilos. Thanks for noticing BS. Monger on dudes. Toymann
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;423942]Romney's Contributors hiding money.[/QUOTE]The bankers are the ones in charge. Goldman Sachs hand selected BO and were either his largest or second largest contributor. I believe they gave BO far more money in 2008 than they have Romney in 2012. The difference between MR and BO is that MR understands how to make a profit. BO only understands how to get money out of government.
Everyone seems to get lost in the Republicans vs. Democrats angle. The banksters love that. What we need is an old fashioned Black Friday. Here is some information on that famous Black Friday:
"Black Friday (24 September 1869) was the climactic day of an effort by the financiers Jay Gould and James Fisk Jr, with the help of President Ulysses S. Grant's brother-in-law Abel Rathbone Corbin and one or two associates, to corner the ready gold supply of the United States. Because the nation was then on a paper money basis, gold was dealt in as a speculative commodity on the New York exchange. On 2 September Gould began buying gold on a large scale; on 15 September, Fisk also began buying heavily and soon forced the price from $135 to $140. The movement excited much suspicion and fear, and the New York Tribune argued that the Treasury had the "plain and imperative" duty to sell gold and break up the conspiracy. Secretary of the Treasury George S. Boutwell visited New York but decided not to act. Meanwhile, Grant had gone to Washington, Pennsylvania, and was out of touch until he returned to Washington, D. C, on 22 September. On 23 September, with gold at $144, the New York panic grew serious."
And:
"The effects of Black Friday caused dislocations in the financial markets which lasted into 1870. The term "Black Friday" came about as nervous depositors withdraw their gold coin savings from banks. Angry mobs dragged bankers out of their offices if they did not give back people's life savings (in gold coins) and there are reports that bankers were hung in New York. Grant's government had to send in troops to stop the riots. Many speculators and investors were wiped out."
What these articles did not mention is that many of those bankers tried to give depositers $20 greenbacks instead of their gold coins. The customers, not being as civilized as today's citizens, hung the thieving bankers on the lamp posts.
Personally, I do not care for BO or MR. I will vote for MR, because he will govern in a way that will delay a USD collapse for a year or two longer than BO. In addition, BO has been planning for 4 years to take the retirement plan assets. But he had to wait for a second term. Recent laws are making it very hard for US citizens to open accounts outside the US. Sounds a bit like Argentina, doesn't it?
The refusal on the part of Mitt Romney to release his pre-2010 tax returns is going to prove to be his waterloo. He is clearly hiding something that probably is not illegal but would be perceived by the media and the unwashed masses as unbecoming of a POTUS. Elaborate tax avoidance schemes, betting / hedging against the US Dollar, large offshore deposits, etc are all standard practice (and currently perfectly legal) for Wall Street Sharks like Romney but are inappropriate and unpatriotic for a potential POTUS and if disclosed as fact will be used by Obama's team to shatter Romney's campaign.