[quote]that he just went into a room and picked her all by himself.[/quote] Drguy has me worked up today should say "that he just didnt go into a room and pick her all by himself."
[quote]A hero is a guy like my sister[/quote] This is pretty funny.....lol....should say a hero is a PERSON like my sister.
[quote]I cannot beleive the arrogance of liberals! Not even in the white house yet and already dictating what we can say or even what name we can go by! BULLSHIT And his lies? Comeon! YOu can fabricate one or 2 right? You liberals are really a pathetic lot. You are trying to destroy a man for asking a question (not in the approved question list) of a candidate.[/quote]] No I am not I am simply saying that he misrepresented who he really was. He lied. Doesnt matter t
should be "thanks"
[quote]That does not mean you cant learn.[/quote] Thank
[quote]The lowering of tax rates does not have a direct correlation with bad economic results.[/quote] Yes it does, oh sure not right away, but as you see continued low rates DOES adversely affect the country(in conjunction with deregulation). You just cant stand to admit it. And in my statement I did specifically say the 3 lowest periods of tax rates led to 3 of the most significant recession/depression/financial crisis of the last 100 years(roughly). I un
[quote]They did not 'go against' the popular vote in 2000. The electors voted for the candidate who got the most popular votes in their respective states, which is the tradition & intent. To be accurate, you should say the candidate who won the national popular vote has lost in the electoral college only twice. The cumulative national popular vote, while a mainstay of the media coverage, means absolutely nothing in electing a president.[/quote] Well I understood it and I have b
[quote]Blind? Perhaps. Or just can express yourself properly. You did not say decades, you said periods. A period is an indeterminate amount of time that is started and stopped based upon an event. Since we are talking tax rates, then we have to look at the periods of when they changed. Not decades. Lesson #2. A couple is 2, a few is 3 or more. 2 years (actually 1 since 30 is in the 20s decade, just as 2000 was the end of the 20th century - there is no year 0) is not a few. SO I see
[quote]BTW: as for her qualifications, again, she was more qualified than Obama. It is not a resume job as I still dont think Obama's resume would merit consideration, but then he never presented one to the BOD.[/quote] Personally I dont think there are any "qaulifications" in the world that get you ready to be president. Just my opinion, it is the most unique job in the world....no one is "ready" for it......And yes we can agree from time to time....:)
[quote]I can't believe anyone would consider Palin suitable for being the President. She thinks Africa was a country, doesn't know what exactly the Vice President does, she thinks everyone should be christian/catholic, she thinks gay couples should be denied their constitutional rights, she is against condoms and birthcontrol(she would probably try and ban it as president), and she has no opinion what-so-ever on the iraq, she probably doesn't know what's going on over there. McCain lossed a
[quote]hope you dont say that "Joe the Plumber" and "Tito the builder" and "nancy the nurse" are your heroes too Those are teh people that make America work and there are far worse people that are portrayed as heros now.[/quote] Well first off it should be Sam the Plumber and if he is a hero for oweing back taxes and lying to people then yes I would say he is NOT a hero I want to look up to.
[quote]THE PERSON has said no such thing. Or are you privy to statements made by McCain that even the Media has not seen yet? Puhlease![/quote] No one else had a say in it? You dont think he had a bunch of advisors advocating for different people? Maybe he actually said yes to her, but unless YOU WERE PRIVY to what was said in those meetings then I guess you dont really know either.
[quote]Thanks Moose for your response as well. I understand what you're saying but just as there are Muslim terrorists so too are there Christian terrorists[/quote] I agree that is true, and that is what I worry about. If you are saying you believe in your faith I respect that. But sometimes if others are not careful that belief can morph into(in a general sense) "its my religion or no religion" And if a person like that gets in power, in any nation, it is dan
[quote]Cant read a chart either can you. I count 7 periods before Bush cut taxes. That is not 7 years, 7 periods. The last being just before Clinton jacked them up. You are still wrong. Do you want the actual link so you can verify the numbers (without the hearts)?[/quote] Well I guess I must be blind sir. As I look at YOUR chart, I see the 1920's and the first few years in the 1930's that the highest tax bracket is at 25% roughly. Then in '32 it goes
Hey KFC thanks for the response, my concern with people who are deep christians is that as you have said faith is in all aspects of your life. In many ways this is(and I truely do mean this) a great thing. But in some ways my beleif is that it is dangerous. I guess I just rambled a bit too much. As to Christianity being a religion I would say that is not true. Christianity is a movement with Religions that are apart of it. Example.&nb
[quote]Seriously you folks kinda scare me. Your history is bad. Since 1917 the tax rate we have right now is the third lowest of the last 91 years. The other 2 times were first the 1920's(we all know what happened because of that in 1929) and the second was for a few years in the early 90's and guess what we had at the end of those 2-3 years.....a resession. Now we have had these give to the rich policies and they will create jobs and a thriving economy for 5+ years and look at what we
[quote]These are top rates, not starting rates. But a qucik google search can find out everything you want to about the taxes. As you can see Mooseplow is dead wrong. Surprising what Google can do for you.[/quote] How am I wrong there DRGUY? You just proved what I said. The rich have it great right now as compared to history. and if you look at when the rich had it best on your chart there you will notice the 3 times I listed are the 3 times the rich had the lowest tax
[quote]Better re-read my response. You are still wrong. The modern tax system was founded with the 16th amendment. The initial rate was very low (like 1% on anything over $1000 of income - which was a lot in those days). It quickly grew. Now, would you like a history of the rates? I will provide them, but you know I am right. For the reason your answer is deprived of any actual rebuttal, just a squirming hoping for a mistake you can pounce on.[/quote] Negative I am correct.&nbs
[quote]When you grow up, you will realize Clinton was just another hack that got caught lying. And no, when your taxes go up, that is a tax increase. Big brother has not taken over yet.[/quote] Perhaps you folks as I pointed out in a different post should take alook at the history of taxes since 1917. When you do you will notice that in the last 30 years the richest amongst us have been making out quite well, if you base your observations on real actual history, the real hard
KFC I have met people like you. Not necessarily bad people, probably mostly good, but you let religion govern your life. I think faith is a great thing, but when it comes to government it needs to be seperate. It is fringe people like you that start wars against other religions. Ever heard of the crusades? Funny but I thought jesus taught us to love one another even if they are different. I think you care but that your faith trumps all and that is dangerous
[quote]Well said in deed, you can thank the Democrats for the crap we are in today, not that they will admit it. But let me tell you something, our history may be bad, but we all know there are worse ones around the globe. We did not become the most powerful country because we were stupid. And I'll tell you more, we may be donw right now, but don't count us out just yet. We will get out of this one just like we did before and we will be stronger just like we have done before whether Obama or
If you need to see the actual stats please go to the national taxpayers union(a nice conservative site) or tax foundation. This will show you the info you need. For whatever reason Mozilla wont let me cut and paste here which kinda sucks.
[quote]Your history is bad. The country was not founded 91 years ago. And the rate was higher from the 20s until the early 80s. YOur "3rd" lowest is a great example of spin, but not facts.[/quote] No sorry drguy this is fact read it at the IRS if need be or tons of other sites that will give you the tax rate history of the US. Its all factual numbers there is no debate. Your only correct statement is that the country wasnt founded 91 years ago. However the modern
Seriously you folks kinda scare me. Your history is bad. Since 1917 the tax rate we have right now is the third lowest of the last 91 years. The other 2 times were first the 1920's(we all know what happened because of that in 1929) and the second was for a few years in the early 90's and guess what we had at the end of those 2-3 years.....a resession. Now we have had these give to the rich policies and they will create jobs and a thriving economy for 5+ yea
[quote]He was there - he did no actions, as the investigation found. But nice try! I am sure the dirt diggers at Obama are trying the same spin. But regardless of spin, facts still get in the way.[/quote] he did actions delaying regulation that is an action. And surprisingly no he didnt go to jail....lucky him I guess...but needless to say he was way LESS than honest here.