Quantcast

Is Obama going to call Mccain on his crap?

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
Mccain has been spouting loads of BS about who he is and what he stands for, here are some things I think Obama needs to call out Mccain/Palin on
1)Mccain says he is about change, but votes with bush 90% of the time
2)Mccain is trying to separate himself from bush, refer to #1, and the fact that he is surrounding himself with bush cronies.
3)The Mccain camp has been spouting some stuff that is flat out not true, and running some scummy ads, like saying he wants to teach sex ed to 5 year olds (Obama supported teaching 5 year olds what to do when they are approached by a pedophile, not full on sex ed)
4)Palin is a hypocrite, she talks about how she is against federal ear marks but she is clearly lying.
5)Palin called the war in Iraq a holy war
6)Of course she was a popular mayor, when you get 2million plus dollars for a town of 1000 people are going to love you.

Mccain is a scum bag and a lier and I think Obama needs to call him out on all his bull****, maybe he will do better in the polls and I will no longer want to leave the country.
 

J-Dubs

Monkey
Jul 10, 2006
702
0
Salem, MA
To answer your question; Probably not.

Democrats are weaklings when it comes to campaigning. They attempt to take the high road, but don't prepare well enough for the GOP to take the LOW road, which they most often do.

If the Dems screw up this election it's Green party for me next time around.
 

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,622
2
G14 Classified
On the same page, I'm worried about the mainstream media not calling McCain and Palin out on their hypocrises(sp?).

It's sad when the Daily Show may be the most unbiased political show available.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
3)The Mccain camp has been spouting some stuff that is flat out not true, and running some scummy ads, like saying he wants to teach sex ed to 5 year olds (Obama supported teaching 5 year olds what to do when they are approached by a pedophile, not full on sex ed)
the spot doesn't say '5 year olds', it says 'kindergartners'.

so does the legislation
senate bill 99 said:
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted hellz yeah)
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
Yeah I think that the Obama campaign itself has fought back but I haven't seen Obama himself say anything low yet.

EDIT: He did call McCain on his normalcy with the lipstick comment
 
Last edited:

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Yeah I think that the Obama campaign itself has fought back but I haven't seen Obama himself say anything low yet.
hint: 'lipstick'

wtf part of COMPREHENSIVE evades you?

read further:
(4) Course material and instruction shall present
19 the latest medically factual information regarding both
20 the possible side effects and health benefits of all
21 forms of contraception, including the success and failure
22 rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually
23 transmitted infections, including HIV.
24 (5) Course material and instruction shall include a
25 discussion of the possible consequences of unintended
26 pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including
27 HIV.
these are required teaching.
i'd like to know how you think a conversation about "sexually transmitted infections" would go in kindergarten class that is both developmentally appropriate and COMPREHENSIVE, which is required.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
how the **** do you teach this to a kindergartner?
27 (10) Course material and instruction shall teach
28 male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence
29 and shall teach female students about reducing
30 vulnerability for sexual violence.
31 (11) Course material and instruction shall teach
32 pupils about counseling, medical, and legal resources
33 available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual
34 assault, including resources for escaping violent relationships.
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
hint: 'lipstick'

wtf part of COMPREHENSIVE evades you?

read further:these are required teaching.
i'd like to know how you think a conversation about "sexually transmitted infections" would go in kindergarten class that is both developmentally appropriate and COMPREHENSIVE, which is required.
That clearly states what they teach has to be age appropriate AND comprehensive, teaching a 6 year old about AIDS only meets one of those requirements.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,946
2,529
In my pants
hint: 'lipstick'

wtf part of COMPREHENSIVE evades you?

read further:these are required teaching.
i'd like to know how you think a conversation about "sexually transmitted infections" would go in kindergarten class that is both developmentally appropriate and COMPREHENSIVE, which is required.


"Now class, I'm going to pass out some crayons and we're going to draw our own illustrated story about the two people we learned about today. Remember Ron Jeremy's role as daddy, and Jenna Jamison's place as mommy but depending on outfits, this is open to your own interpretation"
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
13 is about right for a Kindergartner in some southern states
Dude, seriously..:disgust1:







12

:biggrin:

I hope you have an appreciation for some southerners on these forums that can manage to put together a few intelligent conversations...
 

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
Democrats are weaklings when it comes to campaigning. They attempt to take the high road, but don't prepare well enough for the GOP to take the LOW road, which they most often do.
Hmmm, I think you have it backwards...the system must be working.
 
Last edited:

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
While I appreciate a good rant, my question is when are BOTH sides going to quit the kindergarten (ages 5-13) name calling, i.e. pigs, lipstick, pitbulls, who used change first and start talking about issues?

Budget deficit, sending billions to foreign oil producers, funding a 10 billion per month war to protect people that are sitting on billions of their own in oil surpluses, a declining economy, faltering education system, roads and bridges falling apart, etc.

You know, all those things that should matter for a prospective President...
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
28,223
2,533
While I appreciate a good rant, my question is when are BOTH sides going to quit the kindergarten (ages 5-13) name calling, i.e. pigs, lipstick, pitbulls, who used change first and start talking about issues?

Budget deficit, sending billions to foreign oil producers, funding a 10 billion per month war to protect people that are sitting on billions of their own in oil surpluses, a declining economy, faltering education system, roads and bridges falling apart, etc.

You know, all those things that should matter for a prospective President...
see post #21.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
I think the biggest problem the Dems face is everytime someone says "Boo" about Sarah Palin, the Republicans act either offended, condescending, or spout the same tired statements over and over.

I am waiting for a question to be asked which Repub's cannot just dismiss.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
^^^^^
Got to give them credit for recycling the line from the Dem's biggest stumblebum, Kerry.

Last time, the GOP played that line to death. Looks like it came home to roost, with lipstick on.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
it's looking like the dust is nearly settled on palin's earmarks: Setting The Record: Palin's Earmarks
Palin's record on earmarks is mixed. Compared to the previous governor, Palin's earmarks are down 44 percent, but stills totals more than $450 million over two years.

By repeating the claim she said no thanks to the bridge, the implication is that she confronted a spendthrift Congress recklessly wasting money.

The record shows she wanted that bridge until the end and kept the money.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
15,167
1,835
Colorado
Mccain has been spouting loads of BS about who he is and what he stands for, here are some things I think Obama needs to call out Mccain/Palin on
1)Mccain says he is about change, but votes with bush 90% of the time
2)Mccain is trying to separate himself from bush, refer to #1, and the fact that he is surrounding himself with bush cronies.
3)The Mccain camp has been spouting some stuff that is flat out not true, and running some scummy ads, like saying he wants to teach sex ed to 5 year olds (Obama supported teaching 5 year olds what to do when they are approached by a pedophile, not full on sex ed)
4)Palin is a hypocrite, she talks about how she is against federal ear marks but she is clearly lying.
5)Palin called the war in Iraq a holy war
6)Of course she was a popular mayor, when you get 2million plus dollars for a town of 1000 people are going to love you.

Mccain is a scum bag and a lier and I think Obama needs to call him out on all his bull****, maybe he will do better in the polls and I will no longer want to leave the country.
I hate to break it to you, but this country is in the beginning (most say middle, but I feel there is far more and worse to come) of the largest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. Given that you are of the younger set you might want to start looking at the issues that will truly effect the rest of your life: namely money.
We currently have the greatest defecit we have ever seen. We are in the middle of an unpopular war we can't get out of tht is costing $10bill/day. The individual citizen has an average of $25,000 (excluding home debt), while if you factor in the govt debt WE owe, it's closer to $435,000 PER PERSON.
Obama wants to shift the tax burden to the upper 5% of income makers AND start taxing wealth.
Taxation shift: He wants to make the lower 25% of this country tax positive. They actually make money in the end. The middle 70% tax neutral. Break even. And the upper 5% pay taxes for everyone.
Currently there is an exodus of money from the US to safe foreign havens because of his new tax plan. His response is prevent people in the upper 5% from shifting funds out of the country. This will cause for a reduction of money coming into the country from that 5% as getting it trapped in the US is not the best personal fiscal policy.
Because this money is leaving and not returning, there will not be enough funds to support his tax scheme, leading to either additional layers of debt and/or additional taxes accross the board. Additional debt will only dig the hole we are currently sitting in deeper, and make the pile of dirt waiting to collapse back onto the country taller.

Taxation of wealth:
Given you're an Orinda brat, I"d assume your parents have quite a bit of money saved up. They likely got this by being frugal AND by saving. Obama's plan to tax wealth will be a double tax on those people smart enough to not spend every penny they own and dig themselves into debt. Taxing wealth does not promote savings, it does the opposite. In a time where we can not rely on the US govt to support up in our later years with social security, wealth taxation is nothing more than a re-distribution of wealth from those who were smart enough to be savers to the dumb asses that only know how to consume. Trying to say your green, while promoting consumerism is hypocritical.

All that being said, I do not support McCain solely for the Republican factor and I think he is more of a hypocrit than most politicians. That and the fact that he might croak leaving a hot-head in charge scares me immensely.
But I can't support Obama because his rally the masses, tax the rich mentality will only dig us deeper into a hole. We need someone who will put his foot down, and stop blowing smoke up the ass of the American public. No pandering, no special interests, someone who wants to sort the fiscal health of our country and economy.

Full disclosure, I'm voting Libertarian because the support the Fair Tax (a spending based tax, not income), smaller govt, and doing the right thing, even if it's hard.
Voting for either of the idiots because you "have no choice" will do nothing to change the status quo. Want to make a change? Start voting based on YOUR beliefs, not the beliefs the media tell us are important.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Joker, have you even looked at Obama's tax policy, he is advocating nothing like making the top 5% pay the taxes for the entire nation, he is just spreading the bush tax cuts across 95% of the country. He is lowering taxes overall as well.

Where are you getting this information from, I don't even know where to start to show where you're wrong, because you obviously didn't get this from Obama.

We need to prevent the failed policies of trickle-down economics (except during periods of demand-based inflation like during Kennedy) from happening again. The FairTax plan is anything but fair, it only serves to hurt the poor (edit: meant middle class) while benefiting the rich.
 
Last edited:

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
Taxation of wealth:
Given you're an Orinda brat, I"d assume your parents have quite a bit of money saved up. They likely got this by being frugal AND by saving. Obama's plan to tax wealth will be a double tax on those people smart enough to not spend every penny they own and dig themselves into debt. Taxing wealth does not promote savings, it does the opposite. In a time where we can not rely on the US govt to support up in our later years with social security, wealth taxation is nothing more than a re-distribution of wealth from those who were smart enough to be savers to the dumb asses that only know how to consume. Trying to say your green, while promoting consumerism is hypocritical.
You couldn't be more far off the mark, I am not an Orinda brat, I live in pleasant hill, and barely at that. I'm not going to into how much money my family has but lets just say I work hard for my bikes and am thankful that I live in a safe area, have food on my plate, and can afford to go to community college.
Full disclosure, I'm voting Libertarian because the support the Fair Tax (a spending based tax, not income), smaller govt, and doing the right thing, even if it's hard.
Voting for either of the idiots because you "have no choice" will do nothing to change the status quo. Want to make a change? Start voting based on YOUR beliefs, not the beliefs the media tell us are important.
I'm voting 3rd party as well, I'm voting for a moderate socialist. Being that I am a socialist I see Obama as a capitalist who has at least some compassion for the working man and wants to make it a bit easier for them. Where Mccain is the embodiment of all that is capitalist and evil
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
15,167
1,835
Colorado
The FairTax plan is anything but fair, it only serves to hurt the poor while benefiting the rich.
Taxation based on spending. How is that not fair? No taxation on necessities. It promotes savings by not taxing your income, but rather your expenditures. If you feel like blowing $70k on a new car, go for it. But you need to py taxes on your lifestyle (something this country sorely needs). Spend smart and buy the $30k on a used car, save the rest and you are rewarded in the form of less tax output.


As for the trickle down tax cuts, spreading those tax cuts over the rest of the country does just that, it shifts the tax burden up the food chain.
In the short term it will benefit me, but longterm it will cost me more money. Personally I'm a fan of looking to the longterm.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Obama wants to shift the tax burden to the upper 5% of income makers AND start taxing wealth.
Taxation shift: He wants to make the lower 25% of this country tax positive. They actually make money in the end. The middle 70% tax neutral. Break even. And the upper 5% pay taxes for everyone.
Where are you getting this from?

As for the trickle down tax cuts, spreading those tax cuts over the rest of the country does just that, it shifts the tax burden up the food chain.
In the short term it will benefit me, but longterm it will cost me more money. Personally I'm a fan of looking to the longterm.
It is just reverting to pre-Bush tax, it isn't an additional tax. 30% of college students think they will be millionaires by the time they are 40, and that just doesn't happen.

Factcheck did a wonderful breakdown on the FairTax: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
Factcheck did a wonderful breakdown on the FairTax: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
Excellent link, Samirol, thx.

My issue with is this:

We found that including all the taxes that the FairTax would replace (income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes), those earning less than $24,156 per year would benefit. AFT’s Burton agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000” would see their percentage of the tax burden rise.
And if you look at the whole, this is the majority of middle class workers and a lot of smaller business owners. In regards to SBOs, tax them until they give up and they cut jobs and that results in loss of wages for their workers and less tax income into the treasury.

I support reliving the tax burden on lower income, but remove the child tax credit, or at least limit it and remove the earned income credit. These are nothing more than tax breaks to those and it shifts the burden for the replacement of that tax dollar to the next tax bracket. I don't mind paying my share, but I do mind paying someone else's.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Excellent link, Samirol, thx.

My issue with is this:



And if you look at the whole, this is the majority of middle class workers and a lot of smaller business owners. In regards to SBOs, tax them until they give up and they cut jobs and that results in loss of wages for their workers and less tax income into the treasury.

I support reliving the tax burden on lower income, but remove the child tax credit, or at least limit it and remove the earned income credit. These are nothing more than tax breaks to those and it shifts the burden for the replacement of that tax dollar to the next tax bracket. I don't mind paying my share, but I do mind paying someone else's.
Just to clarify: I'm definitely against the FairTax, it isn't good for the middle class, which is already being decimated.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
Is there an answer to the question or has it been asked, if the federal tax system went to a fair tax (spending based), what would happen to the state and local sales taxes? Would those go away and the state rely solely on the Fed? Would a Federal sales tax be on top of those? That seems like it would make some items almost prohibitively expensive.

PA doesn't sales tax clothing, unprepared food or prescription drugs. Sales tax is roughly 6% and most local taxes are 1% or less. If you added a 30% (roughly) Federal sales tax, that would make most thing impossible to afford.


or am I missing something?