Dirty politics

[Popeye]

Check out this garbage (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/). A mailer, similar to this, has been received by voters in SC. It basically calls John McCain a traitor.

This is nothing but a cowardly act, done by many of the same people, headed by Jerry Kiley and Ted Sampley, that were involved in swift boating John Kerry.

Every time I think politics can't get any dirtier, it does just that.

[PLC1]

It does seem a little early to start swiftboating John McCain, doesn't it?

Yes, politics is a nasty game, and this election promises to be one of the nastiest. The best thing to remember is to only believe about a tenth of what is said, and that only after extensive verification.

If you think it's nasty now, just wait until the two major parties choose candidates, and they start throwing barbs at each other. They'll produce enough bull**** to keep us in fertilizer until the next presidential elections.

[SW85]

Check out this garbage (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/). A mailer, similar to this, has been received by voters in SC. It basically calls John McCain a traitor.

This is nothing but a cowardly act, done by many of the same people, headed by Jerry Kiley and Ted Sampley, that were involved in swift boating John Kerry.

Every time I think politics can't get any dirtier, it does just that.

First of all, "cowardly"? What kind of attack would you propose would be "honorable"?

And second, are their attacks demonstrably false? If the attacks are slimey, they must be slimey because they are untrue, not simply because of the person whom they're leveled against.

[PLC1]

First of all, "cowardly"? What kind of attack would you propose would be "honorable"?

And second, are their attacks demonstrably false? If the attacks are slimey, they must be slimey because they are untrue, not simply because of the person whom they're leveled against.

Calling someone who fought to protect this country and who was a prisoner of war for years a "traitor" is false and reprehensible regardless of who the warrior might have been or what his current politics are.

Most attacks are slimy because they are untrue, or at least misleading.

[heyjude]

I don't like John McCain because he is a nasty mean little creep. But he is a hero. To hold someone to the standard that talking under torture is betraying their country is rediculous. People who are tortured will confess to anything. Flying around on a broom stick, having sex with satan. Anything.

Attacking McCain for talking is easy. I'd be willing to make an exception to my opposition to torture, and allow anyone who makes that claim to be tortured and see how long they last.

[Bunz]

I like McCain and although I dont agree with all of his views, I do agree with enough of them, and trust him enough to do the right thing otherwise.

This attack is total BS and will likely have little negative effect on McCain who I think likely to be the GOP nominee. McCain is a true American hero, and while he may have talked under duress, he did refuse early release and special treatment because his father was a Navy Admiral at the time.

I will also point out that it was McCain's jet that was struck by a missle during the USS Forestall disaster. McCain just managed to jump to safety before the explosions began. He volunteered to transfer to another carrier wing when his ship was crippled after the incident, which led to him being shot down.

[Andy]

It does seem a little early to start swiftboating John McCain, doesn't it?

Be ready. The better McCain does, the worse it will get before the convention. A McCain win would secure a Democrat win since no Republican would be in the race. :p

If you don't get my meaning... McCain is a Democrat. If he gets the nomination, there's no point for anyone voting. It would be two Democrats on the ballet. Yeah one says he's 'republican' but in reality, there's no deference between McCain and Hillary and Obama. :rolleyes:

The Swiftboat type groups know that, and will do anything to prevent it. No one expected him to get this far. Now that he is... the mud will fly for sure. :cool:

[heyjude]

McCain isn't a Republican because? He supports campaign spending limits. That doesn't make him a Democrat. It makes him a maverick politician. Of any party.

McCain loves war. He, like Bush, wants to start wars all over the world. Any one who doesn't jump when the US says jump, we destroy them. The more wars the better. That makes McCain a Republican.

[PLC1]

Be ready. The better McCain does, the worse it will get before the convention. A McCain win would secure a Democrat win since no Republican would be in the race. :p

If you don't get my meaning... McCain is a Democrat. If he gets the nomination, there's no point for anyone voting. It would be two Democrats on the ballet. Yeah one says he's 'republican' but in reality, there's no deference between McCain and Hillary and Obama. :rolleyes:

The Swiftboat type groups know that, and will do anything to prevent it. No one expected him to get this far. Now that he is... the mud will fly for sure. :cool:

That may be correct. I'd still vote for McCain over any of the Democratic candidates running currently.

[SW85]

Calling someone who fought to protect this country and who was a prisoner of war for years a "traitor" is false and reprehensible regardless of who the warrior might have been or what his current politics are.

Most attacks are slimy because they are untrue, or at least misleading.

Well, see, it's not false and reprehensible if it is, in fact, true. That's why I asked if the charges were false.

People who are tortured will confess to anything. Flying around on a broom stick, having sex with satan. Anything.

Glancing briefly at the site, it seems to me that the concerns of this group are not merely limited to the fact that McCain talked under torture. (Although if it were that, could you understand why veterans would be unhappy about it?) They're also that he sleazily abused his connections to his father, a big Naval muckety-muck, in order to win special treatment that was denied to his fellow soldiers, some of whom may well have died as a result of his talking, and that he got medals he apparently didn't deserve since they allege they was a substandard aviator with a scanty record anyway.

Incidentally, I did a Ctrl+F search on the main page and found no incidents of the words "traitor" or "treason." I couldn't run a similar search on the mailer because it was a pdf file, but I skimmed it and saw no mention of those words either. He's not being accused of treason, but of cowardice and nepotism.

I understand and can agree that people will confess under torture, and from what I've read the bulk of the "information" McCain offered them was false anyway. So the cowardice charge, I think, won't really stick (tho again, you can understand why Vietnam vets would be unhappy about it, especially since McCain's whole claim to the Presidency, at least in the primary, is now resting almost solely on his cult of personality as a veteran, since his personality is unlikable and his issue positions unpalatable to the types of people who vote in GOP primaries). But the nepotism charge is less defensible.

[Andy]

McCain isn't a Republican because? He supports campaign spending limits. That doesn't make him a Democrat. It makes him a maverick politician. Of any party.

McCain loves war. He, like Bush, wants to start wars all over the world. Any one who doesn't jump when the US says jump, we destroy them. The more wars the better. That makes McCain a Republican.

lol LBJ, FDR... yeah... So he's a Democrat. Typically preventing political free speech is a democrat idea. It's against the Constitution, something the Democrats typically do not support... again, he's a Democrat. He sides with Democrats the vast majority of the time, so... ...uh... he is a Democrat. He supports tax and spend policy, big government and massive regulations.... erm... DEMOCRAT.

I see nothing about him that is remotely Republican. Democrats are not as anti-war as they lead you on to believe.

[Bunz]

I think McCain could certainly be considered a moderate or centrist, but I dont mind that a bit. I am convinced we need a President that can really set aside partisan issues and attempt to heal and bring the country together and have a change of course.
Of the front runners, only McCain and Obama can do that.

[TruthAboveAll]

Check out this garbage (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/). A mailer, similar to this, has been received by voters in SC. It basically calls John McCain a traitor.

This is nothing but a cowardly act, done by many of the same people, headed by Jerry Kiley and Ted Sampley, that were involved in swift boating John Kerry.

Every time I think politics can't get any dirtier, it does just that.

I voted for Senator McCain in 2000 primary, to be honest. I salute his service, I feel deep compassion for what it must have been like for him in Viet Nam.

The internet is a great resource, and a great curse at the same time. The "swift-boaters" may be, as in 2004 with Senator Kerry, a group of legitimate vets, with a view that they perceive as one that should be shared. When there is a "media darling" the in-depth examination of these issues is simply not going to happen.

Right now John McCain is a media darling. When so much of the media is endorsing either Clinton or Obama, their modest support for McCain is questionable, at best. But as a Viet Nam War veteran, and a former POW, questioning anything about his service years is off limits. For now.

If he becomes the Republican nominee for President, it won't matter whether he is running against Clinton or Obama. After the conventions and the final campaign for the White House begins, it won't matter. He will be fair game, the media will turn on him, and all the nice talk now will be history.

It's sad, but the media playing nice with him now is misleading. I'm not at all sure he's any where near up to the fight he'll face: either the Clinton/Media campaign, or the Obama/Media campaign. Whoever the Republican nominee is will face the same thing. Other candidates won't have been lulled into a false comfort zone though, and will know what they're up against going in. Swift-boating? Internet claims and accusations? Child's play to what McCain will face come September.

Some in these posts claim he's a Democrat. He's not. He is centrist and/or liberal on many issues, but not a Democrat by any stretch. I've several problems with his positions on issues, personally. But whether he's a hero or not, or whether his service was 100% honorable or a bit tarnished is not at issue.

Dirty politics though? Hold on - you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[TruthAboveAll]

I think McCain could certainly be considered a moderate or centrist, but I dont mind that a bit. I am convinced we need a President that can really set aside partisan issues and attempt to heal and bring the country together and have a change of course.
Of the front runners, only McCain and Obama can do that.

With the political power struggle currently at center stage between the two major parties, a centrist or moderate is never going to be able to heal wounds and bridge the gap. What will is a President who does what he says, says what he/she means, and stands firm to lead. I'm afraid none of the current crop, from any direction, is displaying that quality.

I hear a lot about changing course. What I don't hear is 1) what the bad course is currently and 2) what the new course would/should be. I hear lots of rhetoric, but I don't hear anyone defining a vision, much less a plan for implementation.

If you're looking for a centrist, McCain is definitely your man in the current offerings. Obama? I'm afraid that the only candidate further to the left was Kucinich. I think he's tempered for the moment, realizing that he is under the scrutiny of the national spotlight. The main advantage for him in meeting the voters' desire for someone to heal and change course is that he does not have the deeply entrenched connections and demands of the Washington political scene. At least not visibly so - yet.

[Andy]

I think McCain could certainly be considered a moderate or centrist, but I dont mind that a bit. I am convinced we need a President that can really set aside partisan issues and attempt to heal and bring the country together and have a change of course.
Of the front runners, only McCain and Obama can do that.

Begin to understand this ideology. Look at history... did you ever hear of the great moderates? No, because there is nothing great about being moderate. Centrists are nothing more than road kill.

Can anyone tell me what the 'moderate' view is on any major issue, or why anyone should support the 'moderate' view?

Moreover, McCain supported limiting freedom of speech. This is not moderate, this is liberal.

McCain supported tax and spend policy. This is not moderate, this is liberal.

McCain supported amnesty for illegals. This is not moderate, this is liberal.

McCain supported preventing an up or down vote on judicial nominees. That isn't even constitutionally supportable, and clearly very liberal.

I'm not sure of any political view of his that is not liberal.

If McCain is a moderate, then that's only a liberal who left the Democrat party. Calls himself a moderate and joins the repug, but he's no different than any donkey on the ticket.

[Bunz]

Hello TruthAboveAll,

I agree with much of your posts. Whoever the GOP candidate is, especially if it is against Hillary, the mud is going to pile up like firewood.

I do disagree with your notion of a moderate being able to bring the country back after 8 years of bad government memories for me and plenty of others. I would like to see some healing and unification after all this, as I said before.

I think McCain is the only person in the race still that could do that. I dont think of McCain as a liar, but a generally honest guy. I dont trust Hillary and am tired of her.

Now, I as an Independant, I wont be voting along party lines. McCain to me, and many other independants will agree is the only one that can have a chance at winning the general election.

[Bunz]

Hi Andy,
Well I guess it would be fair to say we have different definition of what a moderate is versus a liberal. Maybe I should clarify though what I think is the real positive about McCain, and that is his willingness to work beyond party lines with the aim being a workable solution that is practical along with taking on the issues that none of the other candidates would such, as he did with campaign finance.

That being said, Andy who do you like for President?

[Andy]

Hi Andy,
Well I guess it would be fair to say we have different definition of what a moderate is versus a liberal. Maybe I should clarify though what I think is the real positive about McCain, and that is his willingness to work beyond party lines with the aim being a workable solution that is practical along with taking on the issues that none of the other candidates would such, as he did with campaign finance.

That being said, Andy who do you like for President?

I am unsure of how being a Democrat, while calling yourself a Republican, is working beyond party lines. Nor do I see how being so would be a positive.

Basically you are saying being dishonest about your true loyalty is a plus.

Further, it may end up being more a of negative. The Democrats normally are consumed with power. As such for their own benefit they would be against McCain regardless of how much he supports their causes. Of course the Republicans will not support McCain because he constantly sides against them.

It could very quickly end up being like Jesse Ventura who because he was 'independent', had support of neither party, and had a horrible time getting anything passed.

As for me, I really do not see the Constitutionalist position being truly supported by any candidate. I may not vote, I may vote against Hilliary, and I may vote independent. It depends on if Hilliary is on the ticket, and who the repug is. I get sick of repugs though because of their lack of Constitutionality. It's possible our country is too far gone for a candidate of my liking to be on the ballet. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

Check out this garbage (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/). A mailer, similar to this, has been received by voters in SC. It basically calls John McCain a traitor.

This is nothing but a cowardly act, done by many of the same people, headed by Jerry Kiley and Ted Sampley, that were involved in swift boating John Kerry.

Every time I think politics can't get any dirtier, it does just that.

You must be too young to remember 2000 (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/3/amy_goodman_questions_john_mccain_on).


http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/mccain_bush-hug-767929.jpg


:rolleyes:

[9sublime]

Is it just me or is the other bloke (not Bush) absoloutley dripping with sweat? Or is that just wierd varicose veins on his face...

[ilikeboobs]

Begin to understand this ideology. Look at history... did you ever hear of the great moderates? No, because there is nothing great about being moderate. Centrists are nothing more than road kill.

Can anyone tell me what the 'moderate' view is on any major issue, or why anyone should support the 'moderate' view?

Moreover, McCain supported limiting freedom of speech. This is not moderate, this is liberal.

McCain supported tax and spend policy. This is not moderate, this is liberal.

McCain supported amnesty for illegals. This is not moderate, this is liberal.

McCain supported preventing an up or down vote on judicial nominees. That isn't even constitutionally supportable, and clearly very liberal.

I'm not sure of any political view of his that is not liberal.

If McCain is a moderate, then that's only a liberal who left the Democrat party. Calls himself a moderate and joins the repug, but he's no different than any donkey on the ticket.


To be fair, he has been pretty pro-life throughout his career. That said, I still wouldn't trust him to be a "conservative" by any means. And as was said above, if these charges are true then what's wrong with them?

[Mr. Shaman]

Is it just me or is the other bloke (not Bush) absoloutley dripping with sweat? Or is that just wierd varicose veins on his face...
Surgical-scar, from skin-cancer.

That "other bloke" is John McCain.

[Andy]

To be fair, he has been pretty pro-life throughout his career. That said, I still wouldn't trust him to be a "conservative" by any means. And as was said above, if these charges are true then what's wrong with them?

It's possible he's pro-life. But some of his statements have made me wonder. More specifically, he has said many anti-religious statements, that is both liberal and alienates religious voters.

I was not making a point about those statements being good or bad. Honestly many Democrats would find most of those as being very positive.

My point is merely that those statements are not the views of a Constitutionalist, a Conservative, or a Republican. As in, McCain is none of those.

Again, if McCain wins, there will be two Democrats running for office.

[Bunz]

Again, if McCain wins, there will be two Democrats running for office.

I know, aint it great? I mean this is my third Presidential election to vote in.
In the previous two it was George Bush versus also ran. Now if there were to be an Obama-McCain general election, I would consider either candidate a victory for me personally.

[Mr. Shaman]

I know, aint it great? I mean this is my third Presidential election to vote in.
In the previous two it was George Bush versus also ran. Now if there were to be an Obama-McCain general election, I would consider either candidate a victory for me personally.
Whatta shame (for you).

If you'd noticed the seating-arrangement (at the SOTU), you (probably) saw the Dem-ticket; Clinton/Biden. :cool:

[Bunz]

Shaman,
Guess we will see when its said and done. Personally I like Biden. I would like to see him in the next administration. With Obama that is unlikely, but no worries. Like I said before an Obama-McCain general election would be a no lose situation for me.
As for Clinton, I think there is a good chance you will Wes Clark on her ticket.

[Andy]

It does make you wonder... why do we have a constitution anyway? We don't follow it, we elect people that we know will ignore it. What purpose does it serve anyway?

But it's all good. Go tyranny! Freedom is over rated!

[Bunz]

It does make you wonder... why do we have a constitution anyway? We don't follow it, we elect people that we know will ignore it. What purpose does it serve anyway?

But it's all good. Go tyranny! Freedom is over rated!

I dont disagree Andy. It seems that the slippery slope started long ago.

[Andy]

I dont disagree Andy. It seems that the slippery slope started long ago.

No question about it. But to think we have progressed to the point where all the options on the list are nearly a carbon copy of each other, that our defaults are Obama and McCain, and that people are happy about it... is really really sad... Basically the people are voting for the candidates they know the least about. McCain "I supported the surge" and Obama "We are great!"

I wager the loss of our civilization as we know it, will likely be within my life time. Just in the last 40 years, our country and government has warped to be nothing of what the founding fathers envisioned. We already have completely accepted Communism as the default for how our country should run. And despite what people say about supporting freedom and protecting rights, they consistently vote for those who by virtue of supported policy, want to tax more and control more and regulate more.

[Mr. Shaman]

Shaman,
Guess we will see when its said and done. Personally I like Biden.

As for Clinton, I think there is a good chance you will Wes Clark on her ticket.
I was always hoping Joe Biden (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm) would run, again (after Kerry imploded), back before Hillary announced. I can easily see him negotiating-with/cajoling, on international-matters. He always makes reasoned-arguments.....rather-than the sophomoric-justifications (from the present-Admin), for their actions. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

It does make you wonder... why do we have a constitution anyway? We don't follow it, we elect people that we know will ignore it.
You expected more.....from The Clown/loudmouth (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm) who's always the first-one sittin'-in-the-bar....with whom everyone wanted to have a beer?

We're not (exactly) talkin'-about a Constitutional-scholar, here. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Shaman]

No question about it. But to think we have progressed to the point where all the options on the list are nearly a carbon copy of each other, that our defaults are Obama and McCain, and that people are happy about it... is really really sad... Basically the people are voting for the candidates they know the least about. McCain "I supported the surge" and Obama "We are great!"

I wager the loss of our civilization as we know it, will likely be within my life time. Just in the last 40 years, our country and government has warped to be nothing of what the founding fathers envisioned.
Actually, it's been a little over 70 years (http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_bloodandoil.html). :rolleyes:

The modern problems in the region result not from ancient hostilities but from the actions of modern governments on behalf of big business.

[USMC the Almighty]

Just in the last 40 years, our country and government has warped to be nothing of what the founding fathers envisioned. We already have completely accepted Communism as the default for how our country should run. And despite what people say about supporting freedom and protecting rights, they consistently vote for those who by virtue of supported policy, want to tax more and control more and regulate more.

I agree would date what you are referring to from 1932 (FDR) with his promotion of the "welfare state" where the government replaced the role of fathers and the family structure and created generations of parasites who do nothing but leech off the productive members of society through government programs. Andy's right -- how would the Founders react if they knew that the most productive members of society had to turn over roughly half of everything they earned to the government?

Governments have their purpose (what is enumerated in the Constitution) and they should stick to it. Private entrepeneurship and individual innovation is always better than bloated, bureacratic government programs.

[Andy]

You expected more.....from The Clown/loudmouth (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm) who's always the first-one sittin'-in-the-bar....with whom everyone wanted to have a beer?

We're not (exactly) talkin'-about a Constitutional-scholar, here. :rolleyes:

See that's just politically motivated crap. Worse, it's exactly what the government wants you to do. By focusing your attention on the single guy who is president, you have by default, ignored 435 elected Senators and Representatives of our Congress, both of which, stay longer than the president who lasts only 8 years, and have more effect on policy then the president who can only sign or veto.

Try and open your eyes to the more broad view. Congress routinely uses the president to get away with their activities without repercussions. Congress over spent by hundreds of billions and people blame Bush. Just like they over spent by hundreds of billions during the 80s and people blame Reagan.

But wait, it was the same fat cat career politicians in Congress both times wasn't it? You think maybe they perfected the strategy of doing bad things and focusing the attention off them, and on the one guy at the top?

And here we are posting links about how Bush isn't a Constitutionalist... So which of the people in Congress are Constitutionalist? But don't worry, focus on the president. Don't mind what that other 99% of government is doing...

[Andy]

Actually, it's been a little over 70 years (http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_bloodandoil.html). :rolleyes:

Ignorant. A site made by people who have no understanding of the Oil business or our public policy.

Nothing more dangerous than simple people with a little knowledge.

[Andy]

I was always hoping Joe Biden (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm) would run, again (after Kerry imploded), back before Hillary announced. I can easily see him negotiating-with/cajoling, on international-matters. He always makes reasoned-arguments.....rather-than the sophomoric-justifications (from the present-Admin), for their actions. :rolleyes:

He's inconsistent, and illogical.

Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception. (he does?)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (huh?)
Supports partial-birth abortion ban, but not undoing Roe. (what?!)

Invest in new programs by ending war & eliminating tax cuts. (tax and spend)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (No don't be fiscally responsible)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Do as I say, not as I do)

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (more imported oil)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Pay off to Ted Turner in Ethanol subsidies)

That's just the start. So your model elected official would... make us more dependent of imported oil... reduce our energy independence... increase more taxes and spending... and be completely unpredictable on social issues.

This is a good thing to you?

[Mr. Shaman]

See that's just politically motivated crap. Worse, it's exactly what the government wants you to do. By focusing your attention on the single guy who is president, you have by default, ignored 435 elected Senators and Representatives of our Congress, both of which, stay longer than the president who lasts only 8 years, and have more effect on policy then the president who can only sign or veto.
Yeah.....if-only that was true. :rolleyes:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

[Mr. Shaman]

Andy's right -- how would the Founders react if they knew that the most productive members of society had to turn over roughly half of everything they earned to the government?
You, of course, have the numbers to justify that rhetoric, right? :rolleyes:

"As we debate the course of the Iraq war on the eve of tax day, it is time for a different approach -- one based on returning to shared sacrifice. If we do not plan to draft soldiers regardless of their economic class, then at the very least every American should bear his or her fair share of the economic burden.

Let's bring back a 40 percent marginal tax rate on high incomes (over $500,000, perhaps) until this war is over. If the burden is borne broadly and fairly, the wealthiest Americans will have a powerful incentive to consider whether the costs of war outweigh its benefits. Only then will all of us have a personal stake in the discussion of how and when our exit from Iraq should proceed."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/09/sharing_the_burden_of_war_and_taxes/

[Mr. Shaman]

Ignorant. A site made by people who have no understanding of the Oil business or our public policy.

Nothing more dangerous than simple people with a little knowledge.
Yeah.....too-much History can be a dangerous-thing, huh? :rolleyes:

*

At a time when the United States has adopted a policy of preemptive action in its war on terrorists - and is portrayed here as encouraging student street protests - the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh's government is taking on fresh relevance for some Iranians.

Today, Mr. Mossadegh remains a hero to many Iranians who believe he fought against colonial exploitation and dictatorial rule during his 26 months in office. Perhaps because he represents a future denied and what might have been, his memory has approached myth.

Mossadegh incurred the wrath of Britain by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and then argued his case successfully at the UN Security Council.

After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d'état. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government.

A new book on the coup - "All the Shah's Men," by New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer - describes how the CIA and the British helped to undermine Mossadegh's government through bribery, libel, and orchestrated riots. Agents posing as communists threatened religious leaders, while the US ambassador lied to the prime minister about alleged attacks on American nationals."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0822/p08s01-wome.html

[Mr. Shaman]

Ignorant. A site made by people who have no understanding of the Oil business or our public policy.

Nothing more dangerous than simple people with a little knowledge.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Here.....have some o' mine!

"With that, they made clear what the whole world now knows: The American bubble has burst -- and it was oil that popped it. Thus are those with an "oil addiction" (as President Bush once termed it) forced to grovel before the select few who can supply the needed fix."

http://www.alternet.org/story/75649/?page=1

[Andy]

You haven't made an informed post yet Sham. That is why most people here ignore you. Moving on...

For those who saw my post about McCain being a Democrat, apparently I'm not the only one that sees it.

Cartoon (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/ramirez/ramirez.htm)
Perfectly sums up McCain to me.

[Mr. Shaman]

Subject Is STILL: Dirty Politics
You haven't made an informed post yet Sham.
That's pretty-difficult to do, when the recipient is (apparently) illiterate.

[USMC the Almighty]

You, of course, have the numbers to justify that rhetoric, right? :rolleyes:

What are you rolling your eyes at? The rich pay something like 46% of their income to the IRS. I am, unfortunately, not among them but nevertheless I can empathize with their position.

[PLC1]

What are you rolling your eyes at? The rich pay something like 46% of their income to the IRS. I am, unfortunately, not among them but nevertheless I can empathize with their position.

Ummmm... the top tax bracket is 35% Maybe they're just being generous?

[TruthAboveAll]

Ummmm... the top tax bracket is 35% Maybe they're just being generous?

Setting aside a ton of variables, thanks to our convoluted, archaic and cumbersome tax codes, the top income tax bracket is indeed 35%. But in addition, even if it goes by a different name the FICA "contributions" are still a tax. When you add that in, you're looking at the potential rates of 41.2% to 50.3%.

This is just the income/payroll taxes. Yes, the payroll tax will only go to the first $108,000 income. But that portion of the income for those earning more than that is still the maximum rate of 50.3% for self-employed, or the 41.2% for those with employer paid contributions.