Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|5782|USA

usmarine wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

osama hussein sold his soul to the liberals
I know. Damn those tax cuts for the middle class. Fucking liberals.


/rolleyes
well, i am not middle class and i dont want my money spread around.
I understand. We'll pay for everything. You just kick back big guy and enjoy.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5881

Poseidon wrote:

You make more than $250,000 a year?
thats middle class?

then whats this 42K tax break thingy or whatever?

Last edited by usmarine (2008-10-26 09:40:56)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5881

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

I understand. We'll pay for everything. You just kick back big guy and enjoy.
i already pay more than you.  its not my fault you have a shitty job.
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|5657|Long Island, New York

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

You make more than $250,000 a year?
thats middle class?

then whats this 42K tax break thingy or whatever?
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Fill that out and tell me what your annual income is.

If you are not making more than 250K, you will NOT see your taxes be raised. And I really highly doubt anyone here makes more than 250K a year.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,610|5741|London, England
If people are in a situation where they know they personally will be better off with McCain than Obama, than more power to them for voting for McCain. I won't complain if people look out for themselves, cos I'd do the same shit. I'd also say that to the people that would be better off under Obama than McCain. Look out for yourselves/family tbh.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-10-26 09:48:31)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5881

Poseidon wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

You make more than $250,000 a year?
thats middle class?

then whats this 42K tax break thingy or whatever?
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Fill that out and tell me what your annual income is.

If you are not making more than 250K, you will NOT see your taxes be raised. And I really highly doubt anyone here makes more than 250K a year.
not going to tell you my annual income.

its says obama 0, mccain 0.

no i dont make more than 250.  But i reckon thats just the starting point.  plus, i dont get a tax break either right?

and what about capital gains?  i have stock and that would hurt also.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-10-26 09:49:40)

Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,610|5741|London, England
usmarine would you be better off under McCain than Obama? Tax Breaks and all
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5881

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

If people are in a situation where they know they personally will be better off with McCain than Obama, than more power to them for voting for McCain. I won't complain if people look out for themselves, cos I'd do the same shit. I'd also say that to the people that would be better off under Obama than McCain. Look out for yourselves/family tbh.
one question i always wondered....


if mccain is for the rich people, then why do all the celebs and uber rich support obama?  because they are patriotic?  lulz
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5881

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

usmarine would you be better off under McCain than Obama? Tax Breaks and all
you cant really answer that.  why?  because they never do what they say anyway.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,610|5741|London, England

usmarine wrote:

if mccain is for the rich people, then why do all the celebs and uber rich support obama?  because they are patriotic?  lulz
Dunno, same goes for alot of poor/not so rich people that want McCain to win. Some people put other issues ahead of things like tax/economy I guess (I wouldn't, personally)

Besides celebs know they will be rich as long as they're famous and that tax barely matters to them. They know they'll only stay famous if they're popular with the right kind of people and that's why they're all for Obama, at the end of the day I think they're all still just looking out for themselves, mostly
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5525|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977&ei=kLgDSY7oLY6qrgKt5bwD&q=reagan[/google]

We should be so lucky. Nothing in this race compares.
Reagan is the second most overrated president.  Lincoln is the most.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5720|132 and Bush

According to you. .. comrade.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,610|5741|London, England
Yeah you f'kin communist don't diss Raygun just because he brought down ur evil empire.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5720|132 and Bush

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Yeah you f'kin communist don't diss Raygun just because he brought down ur evil empire.
Dissening Reagan is the cool thing to do now..dontchano? OMg liek Revisionist think they are soooo smart.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|5493|Kyiv, Ukraine

Kmarion wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Yeah you f'kin communist don't diss Raygun just because he brought down ur evil empire.
Dissening Reagan is the cool thing to do now..dontchano? OMg liek Revisionist think they are soooo smart.
Reagan wasn't even canonized by the Fox network until just a few years ago.  IIRC he was a running joke towards the end of his own administration, pilloried as anything from malicious and dangerous to just a doddering old fool (or one acting like the other).  Reagonomics and the S+L failure were tied together, as was his attack on gun rights and property rights through the "War on Drugs" not to be out-done until PATRIOT acts.  He took credit for beating the USSR, which is just laughable...they hung themselves but revisionist history said that our military spending made them bankrupt, BS.  We won't even get into his massive human rights abuses by supporting fascist rebellions and dictators in South America or the all too famous Arms for Hostages fiasco (which Reagan conveniently forgot any details about).

The revisionists want to give Reagan credit for the "good times" during the 80's, but really it was Voelcker's schizophrenic interest rate playing that both trashed Carter and gave Ray-gun his '84 win.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5720|132 and Bush

So I guess I should be worried when the democrats start calling Obama the Democrat version of Reagan? The USSR hung themselves? How so? By trying to keep up with something that they couldn't keep up with. They were focused on the wrong issues. We are ALL fortunate that it ended the way it did. The support of those "fascist rebellions and dictators" preceded Reagan. Carter, aside from destroying the economy, also partnered up with Tito, Ceausescu, Ortega, and Kim il-sung. Reagan was no perfect man.. but what Politician can not be dissected and scrutinized using the luxury of hind sight?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5530|'Murka

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

SealXo wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Good article.

I'll still take the chance with Obama than accept 4 more years of Bush.

One candidate has a plan. One has nothing. One is candid. The other is a liar.

America is done with the politics of fear.
Bush isn't running.
Literally, no. Good eye son. John McCain is running with Bush's policies. That is the point. John Sidney McSame sold his soul to the RNC.
No. He's not. But don't bother yourself with actually researching McCain's policies. Just keep lapping up the DNC talking points you're being fed by the MSM.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5525|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

So I guess I should be worried when the democrats start calling Obama the Democrat version of Reagan? The USSR hung themselves? How so? By trying to keep up with something that they couldn't keep up with. They were focused on the wrong issues. We are ALL fortunate that it ended the way it did. The support of those "fascist rebellions and dictators" preceded Reagan. Carter, aside from destroying the economy, also partnered up with Tito, Ceausescu, Ortega, and Kim il-sung. Reagan was no perfect man.. but what Politician can not be dissected and scrutinized using the luxury of hind sight?
We beat the Soviet Union for one reason only...  We could borrow more.  We could afford to go further into debt than they could.  This isn't revisionism -- it's truth.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5720|132 and Bush

Reagan won it by winng Gorbachev. Here, have a read.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5525|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Reagan won it by winng Gorbachev. Here, have a read.
Here's what I don't get...  People champion Reagan's ability to communicate while in the same conversation say that government does more harm than good.  Even your sig mentions that we really don't have the right to govern others -- yet, time and time again, we enter various conflicts we don't belong in and encroach upon the freedoms of our own people.

It just doesn't make any sense.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5720|132 and Bush

Yes we do/are .. it's under the guise that they are encroaching into our freedoms. Wasn't it Carter who set forth the policy of military interventionism in order to protect ME oil? Wasn't it Bill Clinton who made it the official policy to remove Saddam? Bush, in the post 9/11 world, put those two policies in high gear (with help from the Dems). I do not advocate any of it. I previously mentioned Reagan was not perfect. But when he spoke people believed him.. foreign and domestic. He didn't have to use crushing force to get his point across. That is the kind of great communicator we need now, and even Barry'O agrees with that assessment.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5525|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Yes we do/are .. it's under the guise that they are encroaching into our freedoms. Wasn't it Carter who set forth the policy of military interventionism in order to protect ME oil? Wasn't it Bill Clinton who made it the official policy to remove Saddam? Bush, in the post 9/11 world, put those two policies in high gear (with help from the Dems). I do not advocate any of it. I previously mentioned Reagan was not perfect. But when he spoke people believed him.. foreign and domestic. He didn't have to use crushing force to get his point across. That is the kind of great communicator we need now, and even Barry'O agrees with that assessment.
I'm starting to think what the world needs is an America that stops fucking with the world so much.  Maybe Obama can bring back better diplomacy to our leadership, but it would also be good if we'd just stop getting involved in so many different conflicts.

Most of the world would seem to prefer that we mind our own business.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5720|132 and Bush

Impossible... would be nice.. but impossible.

When is the last time we had a President that didn't assert our global influence? If it isn't us be assured it will be someone else. That is unless of course humanity has some sort of drastic moral revolution and history becomes non repetitive.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Braddock
Agitator
+916|5410|Éire

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Yeah you f'kin communist don't diss Raygun just because he brought down ur evil empire.
Dissening Reagan is the cool thing to do now..dontchano? OMg liek Revisionist think they are soooo smart.
Reagan wasn't even canonized by the Fox network until just a few years ago.  IIRC he was a running joke towards the end of his own administration, pilloried as anything from malicious and dangerous to just a doddering old fool (or one acting like the other).  Reagonomics and the S+L failure were tied together, as was his attack on gun rights and property rights through the "War on Drugs" not to be out-done until PATRIOT acts.  He took credit for beating the USSR, which is just laughable...they hung themselves but revisionist history said that our military spending made them bankrupt, BS.  We won't even get into his massive human rights abuses by supporting fascist rebellions and dictators in South America or the all too famous Arms for Hostages fiasco (which Reagan conveniently forgot any details about).

The revisionists want to give Reagan credit for the "good times" during the 80's, but really it was Voelcker's schizophrenic interest rate playing that both trashed Carter and gave Ray-gun his '84 win.
Great post. I don't mean to diss Saint Ronald but I agree that there is a definite tendency in modern times to move away from critical assessment of the past towards soft-focus revisionism when it comes to a President or world leader who has done one or two things right in their time. Politics is always a very grey area, no one is ever all the way good or all the way bad. Mr. Reagan may have done great things with the US economy but on an International front he did lend support to several 'questionable' movements and leaders in various countries during his time.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-10-26 17:06:23)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard