Didnt anyone watch Michelle Obama? Did anyone care?

[PatentGuy]

“Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.”

I believe you now get my point regarding Obama’s tax plan. It is brutal on successful self employed.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color. No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? No, I want a truly qualified person. Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]

wtf? How do you face yourself in the mirror in the morning? I would want a doctor to operate on me who went to the best medical school in the country, who graduated with the best grades and who trained with the best surgeons at the best hospitals specializing in the procedure. And if he/she got through all that and had a dark color skin and proved to everyone that they were BETTER than the others, I’d go under the knife with no reservations.

Where do people get this “affirmative action” bullshit with Obama? The man has excelled at everything he attempted with NO SUPPORT from a 5th generation senator family fortune behind him (a la the Kennedy types). Affirmative action means that you maybe wouldn’t have made it by a point or two, but someone gave you the benefit of the doubt and opened the door. This does not apply to Obama–he won every contest ON MERIT. There was no “aw, let’s give the sub-standard black guy a chance.” He had the grades and the intellect –but not the finances–to make it on par with or above his well-heeled fellows. Who are these racists who keep pushing him into the dumb football player category? Pisses me off….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color. No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? No, I want a truly qualified person. Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]

wtf? How do you face yourself in the mirror in the morning? I would want a doctor to operate on me who went to the best medical school in the country, who graduated with the best grades and who trained with the best surgeons at the best hospitals specializing in the procedure. And if he/she got through all that and had a dark color skin and proved to everyone that they were BETTER than the others, I’d go under the knife with no reservations.

Where do people get this “affirmative action” bullshit with Obama? The man has excelled at everything he attempted with NO SUPPORT from a 5th generation senator family fortune behind him (a la the Kennedy types). Affirmative action means that you maybe wouldn’t have made it by a point or two, but someone gave you the benefit of the doubt and opened the door. This does not apply to Obama–he won every contest ON MERIT. There was no “aw, let’s give the sub-standard black guy a chance.” He had the grades and the intellect –but not the finances–to make it on par with or above his well-heeled fellows. Who are these racists who keep pushing him into the dumb football player category? Pisses me off….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color. No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? No, I want a truly qualified person. Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]

wtf? How do you face yourself in the mirror in the morning? I would want a doctor to operate on me who went to the best medical school in the country, who graduated with the best grades and who trained with the best surgeons at the best hospitals specializing in the procedure. And if he/she got through all that and had a dark color skin and proved to everyone that they were BETTER than the others, I’d go under the knife with no reservations.

Where do people get this “affirmative action” bullshit with Obama? The man has excelled at everything he attempted with NO SUPPORT from a 5th generation senator family fortune behind him (a la the Kennedy types). Affirmative action means that you maybe wouldn’t have made it by a point or two, but someone gave you the benefit of the doubt and opened the door. This does not apply to Obama–he won every contest ON MERIT. There was no “aw, let’s give the sub-standard black guy a chance.” He had the grades and the intellect –but not the finances–to make it on par with or above his well-heeled fellows. Who are these racists who keep pushing him into the dumb football player category? Pisses me off….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color. No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? No, I want a truly qualified person. Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]

wtf? How do you face yourself in the mirror in the morning? I would want a doctor to operate on me who went to the best medical school in the country, who graduated with the best grades and who trained with the best surgeons at the best hospitals specializing in the procedure. And if he/she got through all that and had a dark color skin and proved to everyone that they were BETTER than the others, I’d go under the knife with no reservations.

Where do people get this “affirmative action” bullshit with Obama? The man has excelled at everything he attempted with NO SUPPORT from a 5th generation senator family fortune behind him (a la the Kennedy types). Affirmative action means that you maybe wouldn’t have made it by a point or two, but someone gave you the benefit of the doubt and opened the door. This does not apply to Obama–he won every contest ON MERIT. There was no “aw, let’s give the sub-standard black guy a chance.” He had the grades and the intellect –but not the finances–to make it on par with or above his well-heeled fellows. Who are these racists who keep pushing him into the dumb football player category? Pisses me off….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color. No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? No, I want a truly qualified person. Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]

wtf? How do you face yourself in the mirror in the morning? I would want a doctor to operate on me who went to the best medical school in the country, who graduated with the best grades and who trained with the best surgeons at the best hospitals specializing in the procedure. And if he/she got through all that and had a dark color skin and proved to everyone that they were BETTER than the others, I’d go under the knife with no reservations.

Where do people get this “affirmative action” bullshit with Obama? The man has excelled at everything he attempted with NO SUPPORT from a 5th generation senator family fortune behind him (a la the Kennedy types). Affirmative action means that you maybe wouldn’t have made it by a point or two, but someone gave you the benefit of the doubt and opened the door. This does not apply to Obama–he won every contest ON MERIT. There was no “aw, let’s give the sub-standard black guy a chance.” He had the grades and the intellect –but not the finances–to make it on par with or above his well-heeled fellows. Who are these racists who keep pushing him into the dumb football player category? Pisses me off….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=greekfire]Renterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.

The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.

Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
[/quote]

Calling BS here: yes, voting for one of these candidates–much as I would like to vote for Ron Paul–is a wasted vote if you believe that one mainstream candidate is better than the other, which I obviously do. Nader contributed to the failed candidacy of Kerry as much as the gaming of the electoral college. Until the game theory guys figure out how to implement a 3rd party, we are stuck with a zero sum election model. If you can generate an argument for one candidate over the other amongst Ds and Rs, vote on it, because the outliers are really just buzzing flies detracting from the real, high stakes game going on at the grown up’s table…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=greekfire]Renterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.

The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.

Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
[/quote]

Calling BS here: yes, voting for one of these candidates–much as I would like to vote for Ron Paul–is a wasted vote if you believe that one mainstream candidate is better than the other, which I obviously do. Nader contributed to the failed candidacy of Kerry as much as the gaming of the electoral college. Until the game theory guys figure out how to implement a 3rd party, we are stuck with a zero sum election model. If you can generate an argument for one candidate over the other amongst Ds and Rs, vote on it, because the outliers are really just buzzing flies detracting from the real, high stakes game going on at the grown up’s table…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=greekfire]Renterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.

The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.

Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
[/quote]

Calling BS here: yes, voting for one of these candidates–much as I would like to vote for Ron Paul–is a wasted vote if you believe that one mainstream candidate is better than the other, which I obviously do. Nader contributed to the failed candidacy of Kerry as much as the gaming of the electoral college. Until the game theory guys figure out how to implement a 3rd party, we are stuck with a zero sum election model. If you can generate an argument for one candidate over the other amongst Ds and Rs, vote on it, because the outliers are really just buzzing flies detracting from the real, high stakes game going on at the grown up’s table…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=greekfire]Renterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.

The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.

Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
[/quote]

Calling BS here: yes, voting for one of these candidates–much as I would like to vote for Ron Paul–is a wasted vote if you believe that one mainstream candidate is better than the other, which I obviously do. Nader contributed to the failed candidacy of Kerry as much as the gaming of the electoral college. Until the game theory guys figure out how to implement a 3rd party, we are stuck with a zero sum election model. If you can generate an argument for one candidate over the other amongst Ds and Rs, vote on it, because the outliers are really just buzzing flies detracting from the real, high stakes game going on at the grown up’s table…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=greekfire]Renterclint: No, a vote for those not in the establishment is not a wasted vote. A vote for Hillary Clinton, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Allan Keyes, etc., is basically a big middle finger to the establishment. The two party system is totally rigged, as you probably know already.

The Republicans will say that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama; while the Democrats will say that a vote for someone like Ralph Nader is a vote for McCain. This is how the two parties have continued to trap a lot of voters over the years, but not me.

Obama and McCain aren’t as different as the media will have us believe that they are. They are very similar. I respect your desire to research the candidate’s positions. I recommend that you research not only the candidate’s stated positions (and voting records), but that you also research the Constitutional positions on these issues. Check out Ron Paul’s ideology and voting record and compare it to the Constitution and you will will find no equals…Ron Paul, you will find, is the true champion of the Constitution.
[/quote]

Calling BS here: yes, voting for one of these candidates–much as I would like to vote for Ron Paul–is a wasted vote if you believe that one mainstream candidate is better than the other, which I obviously do. Nader contributed to the failed candidacy of Kerry as much as the gaming of the electoral college. Until the game theory guys figure out how to implement a 3rd party, we are stuck with a zero sum election model. If you can generate an argument for one candidate over the other amongst Ds and Rs, vote on it, because the outliers are really just buzzing flies detracting from the real, high stakes game going on at the grown up’s table…

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]No, my point is that everyone should pay an amount that is equal relative to their income. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $10,000 could affect how much food gets put on the table or if the kids go to college or if the electric bill gets paid. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $1,000,000 means a few less rounds of golf. Big difference.[/quote]

afx: Thanks for posting the WashPost tax graphic and not the “fake forwarded e-mail from zealots for bigotry” version. I was about to add it myself.

And I wholeheartedly agree–it’s supposed to be a “progressive” tax…topping out at x% at $250k and continuing the same percentage through $XX million in income is not “progressive.” And the argument that a higher tax bracket creates disincentive to work hard or innovate is a crock. I don’t think Soros or Buffet will stop going to the office if their tax bracket goes up–they will hardly notice (just their tax law firm will). The poor people trying to eke out a life will be hard hit and will notice it every day and it will influence every decision they make. Buy milk and bread or pay the electic bill or buy a bus pass (no cars at this tax bracket) to get to work…

Even Sir Charles is willing to give a little more, dig a little deeper, to “give back” to those who need it more:

BARKLEY: Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life.

Let’s be realistic. I’ve been very fortunate and blessed. I did a great job of saving my money. But I got no problem if I’m making that type of money, paying more in taxes to be honest with you.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/barkley-economy-incomes/

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]No, my point is that everyone should pay an amount that is equal relative to their income. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $10,000 could affect how much food gets put on the table or if the kids go to college or if the electric bill gets paid. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $1,000,000 means a few less rounds of golf. Big difference.[/quote]

afx: Thanks for posting the WashPost tax graphic and not the “fake forwarded e-mail from zealots for bigotry” version. I was about to add it myself.

And I wholeheartedly agree–it’s supposed to be a “progressive” tax…topping out at x% at $250k and continuing the same percentage through $XX million in income is not “progressive.” And the argument that a higher tax bracket creates disincentive to work hard or innovate is a crock. I don’t think Soros or Buffet will stop going to the office if their tax bracket goes up–they will hardly notice (just their tax law firm will). The poor people trying to eke out a life will be hard hit and will notice it every day and it will influence every decision they make. Buy milk and bread or pay the electic bill or buy a bus pass (no cars at this tax bracket) to get to work…

Even Sir Charles is willing to give a little more, dig a little deeper, to “give back” to those who need it more:

BARKLEY: Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life.

Let’s be realistic. I’ve been very fortunate and blessed. I did a great job of saving my money. But I got no problem if I’m making that type of money, paying more in taxes to be honest with you.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/barkley-economy-incomes/

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]No, my point is that everyone should pay an amount that is equal relative to their income. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $10,000 could affect how much food gets put on the table or if the kids go to college or if the electric bill gets paid. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $1,000,000 means a few less rounds of golf. Big difference.[/quote]

afx: Thanks for posting the WashPost tax graphic and not the “fake forwarded e-mail from zealots for bigotry” version. I was about to add it myself.

And I wholeheartedly agree–it’s supposed to be a “progressive” tax…topping out at x% at $250k and continuing the same percentage through $XX million in income is not “progressive.” And the argument that a higher tax bracket creates disincentive to work hard or innovate is a crock. I don’t think Soros or Buffet will stop going to the office if their tax bracket goes up–they will hardly notice (just their tax law firm will). The poor people trying to eke out a life will be hard hit and will notice it every day and it will influence every decision they make. Buy milk and bread or pay the electic bill or buy a bus pass (no cars at this tax bracket) to get to work…

Even Sir Charles is willing to give a little more, dig a little deeper, to “give back” to those who need it more:

BARKLEY: Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life.

Let’s be realistic. I’ve been very fortunate and blessed. I did a great job of saving my money. But I got no problem if I’m making that type of money, paying more in taxes to be honest with you.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/barkley-economy-incomes/

[Shadowfax]

[quote=afx114]No, my point is that everyone should pay an amount that is equal relative to their income. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $10,000 could affect how much food gets put on the table or if the kids go to college or if the electric bill gets paid. Having to pay $1,000 in taxes on an income of $1,000,000 means a few less rounds of golf. Big difference.[/quote]

afx: Thanks for posting the WashPost tax graphic and not the “fake forwarded e-mail from zealots for bigotry” version. I was about to add it myself.

And I wholeheartedly agree–it’s supposed to be a “progressive” tax…topping out at x% at $250k and continuing the same percentage through $XX million in income is not “progressive.” And the argument that a higher tax bracket creates disincentive to work hard or innovate is a crock. I don’t think Soros or Buffet will stop going to the office if their tax bracket goes up–they will hardly notice (just their tax law firm will). The poor people trying to eke out a life will be hard hit and will notice it every day and it will influence every decision they make. Buy milk and bread or pay the electic bill or buy a bus pass (no cars at this tax bracket) to get to work…

Even Sir Charles is willing to give a little more, dig a little deeper, to “give back” to those who need it more:

BARKLEY: Well, I think that if you’re rich — I thank God I’ve been very successful — if you’re rich, you’re always going to be rich. If we pay more in taxes, I got no problem with that. If you’re making that kind of money, a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there are not going to change your life.

Let’s be realistic. I’ve been very fortunate and blessed. I did a great job of saving my money. But I got no problem if I’m making that type of money, paying more in taxes to be honest with you.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/26/barkley-economy-incomes/

[Author]

Posts