Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Can the 2008 elections really be stopped?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 35770" data-attributes="member: 443"><p><strong>Re: Can the 2008 elections really be stopped?</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Gonzo,</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The "deregulation" that caused the current financial meltdown began with new regulations <strong>forcing</strong> mortgage companies to free up more loans to people that are bad risks - IOW, make loans to people that (for the most part) are unlikely to pay. This was begun as a Democratic program under President Jimmy Carter. It really took off when Bill Clinton forced regulators to start enforcing the mandate.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Bush had nothing to do with it (though you wouldn't By God know that if you listen to political ads these days - from both sides!), neither did Reagan, neither did Conservatives.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Please, do you think that if McCain's middle name was Adolphitler that the Democrats wouldn't constantly refer to him that way?</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Don't be so naive. Both parties are equally bad, there is simply no way around this fact.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Obama has a lead that is comfortable enough that he need not attack McCain. I guarantee you that if it were a close race - you'd see it from both sides - just like you did during the campaign for the Democratic nomination.</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Racism is ugly everywhere.</p><p> </p><p>Let me ask you this. If John McCain's early career was helped by an individual that admitted he'd bombed abortion clinics, and had in fact said that he wished he had bombed more of them, do you think it would be a legitimate point for the Democrats to bring up?</p><p> </p><p>William Ayers said these things about government installations.</p><p> </p><p>What, exactly, is the difference?</p><p> </p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Do you have any examples of this so-called "mudslinging?" Are you saying that referring to a candidate by his full name is "mudslinging?"</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I say it's trying to use everything you can to your advantage.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I haven't heard a single thing the McCain campaign has put out about Obama that wasn't a legitimate point. Compare that to the crap people said about Palin, how she shouldn't have considered running because of her special needs child, how she should have </span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 10px">freakin aborted her baby</span></strong><span style="font-size: 10px"> for God's Sake!</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">How is that relevant? Yet it was a topic for a couple of weeks, constantly being harped on by the dried up lesbian old lady feminist (former) "movement" that only "moves" now to push their own liberal political agenda that has nothing <strong>whatsoever</strong> to do with women's issues.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">NO? Where were these women when all their "sisters" were saying Clinton had groped them - the very thing the feminists started out trying to address!</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Why did they state that a serious, intelligent and successgful woman like Sara Palin should have recused herself from the election?</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Why did they judge her for her " <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite48" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />CHOICE!!!<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite48" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />" to not abort her baby?</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Both sides are loaded with hypocrisy. Switch labels and you couldn't even taste the difference.</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Obama has not put forward any plan to do any of the things you list above. Taking money from "rich" people that make over 250,000 (as a couple) </p><p>and giving it to people that don't even pay taxes is a disincentive for the really rich people to keep their money in this country.</p><p> </p><p>You enjoy selling all that crap from China, where it is made by people making around 1/20 of what Americans used to earn while making the very same stuff?</p><p> </p><p>I worked most of my life in places where stuff gets made, with the idea that it would be sold. I've seen companies go under because of the tax situation in this country.</p><p> </p><p>Care to guess what happened to the employees at these companies?</p><p> </p><p>Why is it the working man's job to carry non workers on his back? I mean, this is already the case now. What, exactly, is the argument that we aren't "doing enough" for poor people? And then what - exactly - would be "enough?"</p><p> </p><p>It's easy for a rich guy to move his company to China or Mexico because his new tax rate will cost him a million more a year.</p><p> </p><p>In the meantime, regular people making 250,000 as a couple will be stuck here because their incomes are based on their jobs, not companies they started. They will continue to pay money out of their pockets to people that made bad choices in life and that will continue to make bad choices until somebody takes the time to demonstrate that bad choices (eventually) have bad consequences.</p><p> </p><p>Now this, for me, is not about raising taxes. If Obama wants to raise taxes to pay down the debt, I disagree that it would work but I would applaud him for at least trying to do something about a real problem that will swallow everyone, no matter how much income you plan to "redistribute" to the poor in the future.</p><p> </p><p>But that's not what it is about. It is about a naked ploy to buy votes, exactly the same thing Clinton did in his first campaign.</p><p> </p><p>Fortunately for the country, it will never happen anyway because any tax increase will have to go to service our debt for the forseeable future because of the new debt taken on re the Iraq war and the financial bailout.</p><p> </p><p>And anyway - giving money to the poor only creates more poor people. Check the results of LBJ's war on poverty and you'll find that, despite trillions of giveaway dollars, poverty won <strong>that</strong> war.</p><p> </p><p>The line for free money never, <strong>ever</strong> gets shorter. Never.</p><p> </p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 35770, member: 443"] [b]Re: Can the 2008 elections really be stopped?[/b] [SIZE=2]Gonzo,[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]The "deregulation" that caused the current financial meltdown began with new regulations [B]forcing[/B] mortgage companies to free up more loans to people that are bad risks - IOW, make loans to people that (for the most part) are unlikely to pay. This was begun as a Democratic program under President Jimmy Carter. It really took off when Bill Clinton forced regulators to start enforcing the mandate.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Bush had nothing to do with it (though you wouldn't By God know that if you listen to political ads these days - from both sides!), neither did Reagan, neither did Conservatives.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Please, do you think that if McCain's middle name was Adolphitler that the Democrats wouldn't constantly refer to him that way?[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Don't be so naive. Both parties are equally bad, there is simply no way around this fact.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Obama has a lead that is comfortable enough that he need not attack McCain. I guarantee you that if it were a close race - you'd see it from both sides - just like you did during the campaign for the Democratic nomination.[/SIZE] Racism is ugly everywhere. Let me ask you this. If John McCain's early career was helped by an individual that admitted he'd bombed abortion clinics, and had in fact said that he wished he had bombed more of them, do you think it would be a legitimate point for the Democrats to bring up? William Ayers said these things about government installations. What, exactly, is the difference? [SIZE=2]Do you have any examples of this so-called "mudslinging?" Are you saying that referring to a candidate by his full name is "mudslinging?"[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]I say it's trying to use everything you can to your advantage.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]I haven't heard a single thing the McCain campaign has put out about Obama that wasn't a legitimate point. Compare that to the crap people said about Palin, how she shouldn't have considered running because of her special needs child, how she should have [/SIZE] [B][SIZE=2]freakin aborted her baby[/SIZE][/B][SIZE=2] for God's Sake![/SIZE] [SIZE=2]How is that relevant? Yet it was a topic for a couple of weeks, constantly being harped on by the dried up lesbian old lady feminist (former) "movement" that only "moves" now to push their own liberal political agenda that has nothing [B]whatsoever[/B] to do with women's issues.[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]NO? Where were these women when all their "sisters" were saying Clinton had groped them - the very thing the feminists started out trying to address![/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Why did they state that a serious, intelligent and successgful woman like Sara Palin should have recused herself from the election?[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Why did they judge her for her " :rolleyes:CHOICE!!!:rolleyes:" to not abort her baby?[/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Both sides are loaded with hypocrisy. Switch labels and you couldn't even taste the difference.[/SIZE] Obama has not put forward any plan to do any of the things you list above. Taking money from "rich" people that make over 250,000 (as a couple) and giving it to people that don't even pay taxes is a disincentive for the really rich people to keep their money in this country. You enjoy selling all that crap from China, where it is made by people making around 1/20 of what Americans used to earn while making the very same stuff? I worked most of my life in places where stuff gets made, with the idea that it would be sold. I've seen companies go under because of the tax situation in this country. Care to guess what happened to the employees at these companies? Why is it the working man's job to carry non workers on his back? I mean, this is already the case now. What, exactly, is the argument that we aren't "doing enough" for poor people? And then what - exactly - would be "enough?" It's easy for a rich guy to move his company to China or Mexico because his new tax rate will cost him a million more a year. In the meantime, regular people making 250,000 as a couple will be stuck here because their incomes are based on their jobs, not companies they started. They will continue to pay money out of their pockets to people that made bad choices in life and that will continue to make bad choices until somebody takes the time to demonstrate that bad choices (eventually) have bad consequences. Now this, for me, is not about raising taxes. If Obama wants to raise taxes to pay down the debt, I disagree that it would work but I would applaud him for at least trying to do something about a real problem that will swallow everyone, no matter how much income you plan to "redistribute" to the poor in the future. But that's not what it is about. It is about a naked ploy to buy votes, exactly the same thing Clinton did in his first campaign. Fortunately for the country, it will never happen anyway because any tax increase will have to go to service our debt for the forseeable future because of the new debt taken on re the Iraq war and the financial bailout. And anyway - giving money to the poor only creates more poor people. Check the results of LBJ's war on poverty and you'll find that, despite trillions of giveaway dollars, poverty won [B]that[/B] war. The line for free money never, [B]ever[/B] gets shorter. Never. Harte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Can the 2008 elections really be stopped?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top