Still above $50k, so you still stand to lose. Keep digging, I bet Fox has something you could post for all of us to laugh at.First $250k, then 200k, now 150
Well it appears to have dropped 100K drop in a pretty short time (before the election). Hold on to your wallet after the election.Still above $50k, so you still stand to lose.
He said that the money should go to people who make less "insert arbatrary figure here". He didn't say that people making between $151k and $249k will no longer be eligible.Well it appears to have dropped 100K drop in a pretty short time (before the election). Hold on to your wallet after the election.
Not to create another bet.... So if the 0bama "rich" goes down to, say $75k, you are good with that?
"first they came for the investment banker, but i wasn't an investment banker, so i did nothing..."I know you don't make more than $150k, so why even worry?
He said that the money should go to people who make less "insert arbatrary figure here". He didn't say that people making between $151k and $249k will no longer be eligible.
Dude, you are seriously trying to hard. I know you don't make more than $150k, so why even worry?
<edit> yes, I'm cool with that.
How many times do I have to say it?
I AM NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA FOR A TAX BREAK. I AM VOTING IN SUPPORT OF MY MILITARY AND IN SUPPORT OF MY ENVIRONMENT. I WANT MY FELLOW VETS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, AND I WANT MY EARTH TO LAST LONG ENOUGH FOR MY DAUGHTER TO ENJOY.
Just for fun, at what point would you say that floor is too low? If there isn't one, just say so.
BTW, as for the military, how do expect the military to be well served with a proposed 25% Defense cut? Just curious.
"I gotta tell you honestly that I was a Republican at that point," Gration says now.
Gration is a decorated major general who retired from the Air Force after 32 years. He says he voted for George W. Bush in 2000.
But time can change a man.
Gration did take that trip with Obama. And he watched as the young senator from Illinois confronted Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki over corruption.
"The press people had to pay to get in - but they didn't get receipts," he said. "The senator was respectful, but he confronted that. It took courage. He didn't have to do it."
Gration says he knows Obama's talk-about-it approach has been characterized as "naive and foolish."
But it was that approach that won Obama one of his biggest military fans.
"I was taken by him as a leader," Gration said. "Not so much as a Democrat, but as a leader."
what are we talking - 2% of mil leaders O6+? i actually don't know, but that's where i'd put it.Why would so many military leaders support Obama if he didn't know what he was doing?
Dead link.
This guy is a full-on anti-nuke. Hats off to him (and you) for serving this country, but I am not thrilled with that level of judgement.Why would so many military leaders support Obama if he didn't know what he was doing?
From Major-General J. Scott Gration:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977482246
LOL!Just for fun, at what point would you say that floor is too low? If there isn't one, just say so.
BTW, as for the military, how do expect the military to be well served with a proposed 25% Defense cut? Just curious.
Here:Dead link.
Support for troops does not end when they get off the plane home. Some people (GWB) seem to think it does.Vets group slams McCain on voting record
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Oct 8, 2008 12:38:28 EDT
The nation’s most prestigious group for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans released a congressional scorecard on Tuesday that ranks Republican presidential candidate John McCain as having one of the worst voting records when it comes to supporting troops and veterans.
The grade is due to his absence on several key votes on military and veterans’ issues over the last two years.
McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a decorated Navy fighter pilot who spent 5½ years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, received a D on the report card from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He is one of nine lawmakers — four senators and five members of the House of Representatives — who received a D or F from the nonprofit, nonpartisan group.
McCain’s presidential campaign staff did not respond to calls asking for comment on the report.
Two people — both Republicans — received an F: Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
For senators, scores were based on 10 votes involving increased funding for veterans’ programs, expansions of benefits, a vote to purchase Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles and four separate votes at various stages of consideration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill of Rights and co-sponsorship of the bill.
McCain’s Democratic challenger, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, received a B on the report card, the same grade received by Obama’s vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. Obama and Biden also missed key votes; Obama missed four and Biden three.
The majority of active military officers do not disclose who they are voting for out of respect for the sitting president (as it was told to me by my commanding officer). So to have as many openly support him is quite a big number in that regard.what are we talking - 2% of mil leaders O6+? i actually don't know, but that's where i'd put it.
What kind of judgment are you looking for in a military person?? Just curious.Dead link.
This guy is a full-on anti-nuke. Hats off to him (and you) for serving this country, but I am not thrilled with that level of judgement.
I am not sure why, but the statement "...I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world." struck me as a bit naive.What kind of judgment are you looking for in a military person?? Just curious.
So you think the more nukes the better, even though we have WAY more than you could ever use.I am not sure why, but the statement "...I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world." struck me as a bit naive.
I suppose we have to assume that this career military officer based his opinion on decades of experience, hardly worth the paper he wrote it on.I am not sure why, but the statement "...I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world." struck me as a bit naive.
So you think the more nukes the better, even though we have WAY more than you could ever use.
Yet you are anti-abortion when we have WAY more unwanted children than we can support as a nation.
Interesting double standard.
So if we could nuke unwanted kids as long as it's not called "abortion" you are cool with that?
Nukes == Nuclear ProliferationA bit fuzzy logic there. Just because I think no-nukes is not good does not imply that more is better.
Where are you seeing that we have WAY too many unwanted childern that we can support? Because a single mom cannot afford a child, kill it? Have you ever heard of adoption?
Where is the double std?
No nukes == no deterrent.
That might be a reasonable conclusion if all (or most all) experience military officers believed this. What value of "the paper" would you give to those military big-wigs who disagree with this guy?I suppose we have to assume that this career military officer based his opinion on decades of experience, hardly worth the paper he wrote it on.
And our nuclear arsenal did so much for us on September 10th.No nukes == no deterrent.
Nice utopia. Works well WRT gun control. Just ask those in Washington DC.I don't think anyone would disagree that nukes can act as a deterrent, but stating that nobody having them is obviously better does not correlate to you not thinking they are a deterrent.
What's wrong with his belief??? He's not forcing his belief on others in a way that infringes on you or myself, and like I said, I can pretty much guarantee you that he does live in reality and recognizes that since nukes do exist, that yes they do act as a deterrent....Nice utopia. Works well WRT gun control. Just ask those in Washington DC.
We are not getting rid of our ICBM, aircraft carriers, JSF fighters, sat tech, etc.And our nuclear arsenal did so much for us on September 10th.
Welcome to the 21st century.
First $250k, then 200k, now 150
Yes, $120k is in fact less than $250k.You filthy rich bastards. Do I here $100k?
liberals raise taxesWhat part of this concept escapes you?
Well $42.5K is less than $250K as well. Why not just say that?:huh: In case you missed it, by lowering the level of what they define as "rich", they are showing their true colors.Yes, $120k is in fact less than $250k.
Therefore, under Obama's tax plan, you will get a tax cut at $120k. You will even get a tax cut the year after when you get a raise to $130k.
What part of this concept escapes you?
Nothing has changed, that's the part you seem to not understand. They don't define what rich is, the GWB economy is doing that for us.Well $42.5K is less than $250K as well. Why not just say that?:huh: In case you missed it, by lowering the level of what they define as "rich", they are showing their true colors.
You're having a really hard time understanding the difference between lowering taxes, maintaining taxes, and raising taxes. Did you follow that? There are three (3), tres, options here, not two (2), dos.Well $42.5K is less than $250K as well. Why not just say that?:huh: In case you missed it, by lowering the level of what they define as "rich", they are showing their true colors.