Dirty politics

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 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:
 
Werbung:
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. :rolleyes:

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

You expected more.....from The Clown/loudmouth 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...
 
Wow...

I was always hoping Joe Biden 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?
 
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:

 
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."

 
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."

 
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

 
McCain = Democrat

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
Perfectly sums up McCain to me.
 
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.
 
Werbung:
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.
 
Back
Top