PDA

View Full Version : Cindy McCains $300,000 dress.


tony hipchest
09-05-2008, 07:35 PM
WOW! no wonder they need a tax break. if elected she'll need a new one of these for every grand public appearance she makes.

Cindy McCain sets tone for GOP fashion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_en_ot/cvn_gop_fashion

stillers4me
09-05-2008, 07:51 PM
What? No mention of what their guys were wearing????

Preacher
09-05-2008, 07:54 PM
Actually....

My understanding is that they all (rep. and Dem) usually get those loaned to them so that the makers can get their name out there...

stillers4me
09-05-2008, 08:01 PM
And really, who cares? Even if they pay for their own it's their money. No one can accuse Cindy McCain of sitting back on her silver spoon her whole life. The lady has done alot of good work. I learned alot last night.......and I was prepared not to like her at all. Shows how narrow minded I was to assume she was nothing but a trust fund baby.

tony hipchest
09-05-2008, 08:14 PM
you guys are right. im sold.

in fact, they shouldnt have to pay any taxes at all, being that they dont need to use the welfare, public school systems, (they probably laugh at their social security checks), and they werent the ones who got our nation into debt in the 1st place. :thumbsup:

Hawk Believer
09-05-2008, 08:20 PM
And really, who cares? Even if they pay for their own it's their money. No one can accuse Cindy McCain of sitting back on her silver spoon her whole life. The lady has done alot of good work. I learned alot last night.......and I was prepared not to like her at all. Shows how narrow minded I was to assume she was nothing but a trust fund baby.

Actually, one thing I am pleased about is that the left and the media haven't torn into to her about some of the more unsavory parts of her past. Seems like they are actually applying some moral restraint. Hopefully they keep it up and there can be some reciprocation towards Michelle Obama.

GBMelBlount
09-05-2008, 08:54 PM
If they paid $300,00 that is great. The dressmaker made $300,000 and probably went out and bought a new car, giving the dealership, salesman and finance guy some extra money too. Then when he built a new house with the rest (after he pays his strangling taxes that Obama only wants to increase) he employs a builder, all the construction workers, and the companies and workers that make all of the products for his new home. God bless the McCains and God bless America! He's definitely got my vote now! Great thread Tony! :chuckle:

Preacher
09-05-2008, 09:06 PM
If they paid $300,00 that is great. The dressmaker made $300,000 and probably went out and bought a new car, giving the dealership, salesman and finance guy some extra money too. Then when he built a new house with the rest (after he pays his strangling taxes that Obama only wants to increase) he employs a builder, all the construction workers, and the companies and workers that make all of the products for his new home. God bless the McCains and God bless America! He's definitely got my vote now! Great thread Tony! :chuckle:

:rofl:


Yep..

Free market economy.

Amazing how people forget that.

tony hipchest
09-05-2008, 09:40 PM
If they paid $300,00 that is great. The dressmaker made $300,000 and probably went out and bought a new car, giving the dealership, salesman and finance guy some extra money too. Then when he built a new house with the rest (after he pays his strangling taxes that Obama only wants to increase) he employs a builder, all the construction workers, and the companies and workers that make all of the products for his new home. God bless the McCains and God bless America! He's definitely got my vote now! Great thread Tony! :chuckle:i know.

too bad the italian dressmaker lives in italy :wink: and doesnt buy american autos. (although the idea of hiring a multi-million dollar construction company, who offers competitive prices by hiring illegal aliens, does appeal to him). :coffee:

Preacher
09-05-2008, 09:43 PM
i know.

too bad the italian dressmaker lives in italy :wink: and doesnt buy american autos. (although the idea of hiring a multi-million dollar construction company, who offers competitive prices by hiring illegal aliens, does appeal to him). :coffee:

But that ITALIAN dressmaker DOES hire employees who buy cars from america.

Dang that free market system!

tony hipchest
09-05-2008, 09:52 PM
But that ITALIAN dressmaker DOES hire employees who buy cars from america.

Dang that free market system!and all fabric made from bengladesh sweatshops.

but thanks for pointing out why the american made auto industry is BOOMING right now.

thats good enough reason in itself why anyone who can afford a $300,000 dress shouldnt have to pay any taxes whatsoever. :chuckle: thanks for opening my eyes, guys!

:popcorn:

Preacher
09-05-2008, 09:58 PM
and all fabric made from bengladesh sweatshops.

but thanks for pointing out why the american made auto industry is BOOMING right now.

thats good enough reason in itself why anyone who can afford a $300,000 dress shouldnt have to pay any taxes whatsoever. :chuckle: thanks for opening my eyes, guys!

:popcorn:

Hmmm..

A little cognitive distortion here?

ShutDown24
09-05-2008, 10:10 PM
WOW! no wonder they need a tax break. if elected she'll need a new one of these for every grand public appearance she makes.

Cindy McCain sets tone for GOP fashion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_en_ot/cvn_gop_fashion

Oh good god. Anyone on this board who had the cash to buy such high priced items would do so without a second thought. In fact most people in the world would. I hate it when average income people criticize the wealthy for spending their money. I make next to nothing at my job and come from a below average income home - and that bothers ME. Let people spend their cash how they will, related to someone running for office or not.

'Political know it alls' (Many people on SF seem to consider themselves this) will attack things like this, while the real issues aren't being discussed. And that goes for supporters of both parties.

X-Terminator
09-05-2008, 10:21 PM
Oh good god. Anyone on this board who had the cash to buy such high priced items would do so without a second thought. In fact most people in the world would. I hate it when average income people criticize the wealthy for spending their money. I make next to nothing at my job and come from a below average income home - and that bothers ME. Let people spend their cash how they will, related to someone running for office or not.

'Political know it alls' (Many people on SF seem to consider themselves this) will attack things like this, while the real issues aren't being discussed. And that goes for supporters of both parties.

True dat.

I also don't believe one person on this board said that rich people shouldn't pay taxes. Besides, if you really want the rich to pay more in taxes, then close some of the many loopholes they use to get out of paying them. That way, you won't have to worry about raising their rates to some obscene number just to make yourself look good, while not actually solving the problem since a rich person can hire the best CPA/tax consultant money can buy to get them out of that extra debt.

tony hipchest
09-05-2008, 11:08 PM
[ I hate it when average income people criticize the wealthy for spending their money. 'Political know it alls' (Many people on SF seem to consider themselves this)]:coffee: rich people can piss their cash into the wind all they want. i dont care. i just dont wanna hear them b & m'ing when it comes to paying taxes. its a fact of life. everybody pays them.

plus, if these conservatives are more than happy to pass a law that would force a poor and insufficient mother to carry a baby to term, then they should be more than happy to pay that little bit extra it will take to feed, educate, and provide heath care for said child.

True dat.

Besides, if you really want the rich to pay more in taxes, then close some of the many loopholes they use to get out of paying them. .

and which candidate do you think is more focused on that? its not mccain. he has the most to lose in terms of votes and money (especially the ever so important campaign dollar)-

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693


A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)

each candidate promises to broaden the tax base and reduce corporate loopholes. McCain lists eight breaks for oil companies as targets but, other than that, is short on details for his pledge to eliminate "corporate welfare." Obama identifies a variety of steps, including basis reporting for capital gains, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and enacting sanctions on international tax havens that don't cooperate with enforcement efforts, but he would also need additional as-yet-unspecified policies to achieve his revenue target for base broadening.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a "current policy" baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama's proposals would raise $300 billion, an increase of 2 percent, and Senator McCain's proposals lose $1.0 trillion (if fully phased-in and permanent), a decrease of roughly 2 percent. Senator McCain has stressed that deficits should be closed by spending cuts, but policies he identifies, such as limiting earmarks, would offset only part of the revenue losses attributable to his tax plan. As noted, both candidates may be overoptimistic in their revenue targets for closing tax loopholes-Obama probably more than McCain.




heres some more-
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
i love how people here keep on throwing out the catch phrase "ignores the issues" so they can keep on pretending obama ignores the issues.

Preacher
09-05-2008, 11:11 PM
plus, if these conservatives are more than happy to pass a law that would force a poor and insufficient mother to carry a baby to term, then they should be more than happy to pay that little bit extra it will take to feed, educate, and provide heath care for said child.



Um... Tony...

it is about personal responsibility BEFORE the pregnancy...

But let's not retread THOSE threads.

tony hipchest
09-05-2008, 11:27 PM
Um... Tony...

it is about personal responsibility BEFORE the pregnancy...

But let's not retread THOSE threads.then maybe they shouldnt bitch so much about "BS govt spending" on such welfare like free contraceptives, or after school programs, or sex education in schools while a single mother (or 2 parents is/are) out working 2 jobs to simply make ends meet and put food on the table.

no wonder i stopped listening to rush. his gigantic fanbase suggests he represents the majority of the right though.

regardless, for the extreme conservatives to get what they want, its gonna come at a price. why are they so resistant in footing the bill?

after all, if i want another kid, i KNOW it will cost me. (although i do appreciate the NewMexiKids program and free immunizations to 6th grade girls to prevent cervical cancer i.e. stuff some on the right likes to whine about and call pork.)

Preacher
09-06-2008, 02:51 AM
then maybe they shouldnt bitch so much about "BS govt spending" on such welfare like free contraceptives, or after school programs, or sex education in schools while a single mother (or 2 parents is/are) out working 2 jobs to simply make ends meet and put food on the table.

no wonder i stopped listening to rush. his gigantic fanbase suggests he represents the majority of the right though.

regardless, for the extreme conservatives to get what they want, its gonna come at a price. why are they so resistant in footing the bill?

after all, if i want another kid, i KNOW it will cost me. (although i do appreciate the NewMexiKids program and free immunizations to 6th grade girls to prevent cervical cancer i.e. stuff some on the right likes to whine about and call pork.)

Um.. I have NEVER heard the "right" complain that childhood immunization programs were "pork" It's a nice line, but doesn't line up with reality.

Also, nice try on "extreme." I find it funny that whenever someone does't agree with you (general, not you, Tony) it is called "extreme." That mantra is tired, old, and pretty useless.

As far as the issue itself, I am always amazed how we first take away the issue of personal responsibility for ones actions, then take away the consequences of ones actions, then complain that if they had to face the consequences, they wouldn't know what to do and would need govt. help.

I don't know, my grandpa had 15 children and did ok for himself... and he had no money when he started out either. Many of my aunts and uncles had 5 or so children... and no money when THEY started out. They did fine as well.

I guess the difference, is that it was understood that RESPONSIBILITY and CHOICE go hand in hand.

If you made the CHOICE to have sex, you had the RESPONSIBILITY to deal with the consequences.

No, I don't think the problem is the "EVIL CONSERVATIVES" excuse me, "EXTREME CONSERVATIVES" who don't want to move the govt. in to be the father of a family.

The problem is the lack of understanding of RESPONSIBILITY.

If you (again, general) have sex, you have the RESPONSIBILITY to live up to the act and take care of a child..... ESPECIALLY THE MAN.

Want to see me JUMP for a govt. program, propose a national database for paternal testing-child support. Yeah, fund that one to the hilt.

Michael Keller
09-06-2008, 05:01 AM
If they paid $300,00 that is great. The dressmaker made $300,000 and probably went out and bought a new car, giving the dealership, salesman and finance guy some extra money too. Then when he built a new house with the rest (after he pays his strangling taxes that Obama only wants to increase) he employs a builder, all the construction workers, and the companies and workers that make all of the products for his new home. God bless the McCains and God bless America! He's definitely got my vote now! Great thread Tony! :chuckle:

Excellent comment and point of view. Why does any one care how much she or any person spends or keeps. It is their money . The governement developing a plan of any sort that resuls in the redistribution of wealth or income comes from the entitlement mentallity of the lazy, naive and those that believe in the collective power of an ideology that is simply contrary to human nature.

Two weeks ago I was looking for a third party candidate and since then with the nomination of Palin and observing & reading the points of view of the Omboma supporters (including those on this forum) and the media's biased reporting I will most certainly vote for MCaine. Enthusiastically!!!

This election which I was sure Oboma would win is now up for grabs. I just did a state by state evaluation of the polls and projections and I can now see How McCane can win .

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 05:34 AM
Originally Posted by tony hipchest
:coffee: rich people can piss their cash into the wind all they want. i dont care. i just dont wanna hear them b & m'ing when it comes to paying taxes. its a fact of life. everybody pays them.




Everyone DOES pay them but at what percent?

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% pays 39.89% of total taxes

Top 5% pays 60.14%

Top 10% pays 70.79%

Top 25% pays 86.27%

Top 50% pays 97.01%

..................and the Bottom 50% pays 2.99%
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6


I have all the sympathy in the world for that bottom 50% (In fact..I fell into the category growing up)...but common sense says that the people who HAVE the most right to complain about taxes would be those who are paying 97.01% of them...right?

The problem ALWAYS comes back to personal responsibility. My mother would not buy frozen-ready to microwave food when I was a kid, because making food from scratch made the groceries stretch farther. She not only didnt look for ways to get the government to give us "free" things but other than the occasional Reagan Cheese (which rocked by the way)...she was a believer in NOT taken handouts.
We had a phone that couldnt call long distance...a car that my dad worked on himself and drove until the wheels fell off...and our shoes were often buy one pair..get the second pair for a penny.
I can remember other people getting welfare...free medical...and other handouts ...and wondering why they were driving nice cars and had nicer shoes and clothes. My mom would ALWAYS say.."Because poor people have poor ways". whichh she explained to mean that there are certain people who sell out their future for getting things now and choose not to work if they dont have to. That didnt apply to all low income people. We didnt have alot of money but we never felt "poor". To us "poor" was a state of mind ...not a number on a paycheck.
That has stuck with me forever and because of that sage advise I stay away from credit cards and "easy" loans.
I would now probably fall close to the top 10% in paying taxes...but my kids DONT have a cell phone...they still play on a PS2 that my son had to pay for himself...they dont shop at top-end stores...but you know what? They are VERY confident in themselves and if you were to ask them about finances...both would sooner or later say..."Poor people have poor ways".
My mom took responsibility...I try and take responsibility..and my kids are learning responsibility.
Personally I think that we need to quit treating the bottom 50% like victims and EMPOWER them with the knowledge that THEY have the ability to make some changes that will not only help them but will give their children a better life than they had.
I have no problem helping a person who is down on their luck..but when taking handouts becomes a lifestyle...and thinking that someone ELSE owes you...someone ELSE should front the bill...and someone ELSE is the cause of your problems....well...thats where my sympathy ends...because in that case you just have to realize that poor people have poor ways.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 05:38 AM
Excellent comment and point of view. Why does any one care how much she or any person spends or keeps. It is their money . The governement developing a plan of any sort that resuls in the redistribution of wealth or income comes from the entitlement mentallity of the lazy, naive and those that believe in the collective power of an ideology that is simply contrary to human nature.

Two weeks ago I was looking for a third party candidate and since then with the nomination of Palin and observing & reading the points of view of the Omboma supporters (including those on this forum) and the media's biased reporting I will most certainly vote for MCaine. Enthusiastically!!!

This election which I was sure Oboma would win is now up for grabs. I just did a state by state evaluation of the polls and projections and I can now see How McCane can win .

Take away the top three liberal states...California, New York, and Illinois....and Obama only projects about 55 electoral votes....

Michael Keller
09-06-2008, 09:57 AM
Take away the top three liberal states...California, New York, and Illinois....and Obama only projects about 55 electoral votes....

Thats right !! and quite frankly I can see where MCaine could win with a large margin. I just hope and pray that the American people do not want what Oboma offes.

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 01:31 PM
Everyone DOES pay them but at what percent?

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% pays 39.89% of total taxes

Top 5% pays 60.14%

Top 10% pays 70.79%

Top 25% pays 86.27%

Top 50% pays 97.01%

I have all the sympathy in the world for that bottom 50% (In fact..I fell into the category growing up)...but common sense says that the people who HAVE the most right to complain about taxes would be those who are paying 97.01% of them...right?

.not when the top 50% control 97.01% of the wealth. common sense says you cant squeeze blood out of a turnip, which is why america isnt gonna get much tax dollars from the unemployed, homeless, can collectors, and bums begging for quarters on the street.

im gonna use some arbitrary numbers just to simplify this point.

if rush limbaugh makes $36,000,000 a year and pays 33% in taxes = $12,000,000 he definitely pays more in taxes that the lower-mid class man who works as a teacher and makes $36,000 and only pays $12,000. but common sense says "fair is fair", and rules are rules and rush absolutely DOES NOT HAVE the most right to complain.

your numbers are simply slight of hand. the american budget is in the trillions of dollars. you can add up ALL the yearly incomes of the bottom 50% and it would only make a fraction of that. thats common sense. :twocents:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-06-2008, 01:52 PM
not when the top 50% control 97.01% of the wealth. common sense says you cant squeeze blood out of a turnip, which is why america isnt gonna get much tax dollars from the unemployed, homeless, can collectors, and bums begging for quarters on the street.

im gonna use some arbitrary numbers just to simplify this point.

if rush limbaugh makes $36,000,000 a year and pays 33% in taxes = $12,000,000 he definitely pays more in taxes that the lower-mid class man who works as a teacher and makes $36,000 and only pays $12,000. but common sense says "fair is fair", and rules are rules and rush absolutely DOES NOT HAVE the most right to complain.

your numbers are simply slight of hand. the american budget is in the trillions of dollars. you can add up ALL the yearly incomes of the bottom 50% and it would only make a fraction of that. thats common sense. :twocents:

No slight of hand to say that a flat rate ..lets just say for the sake of arguement...of 10% would mean that:

-a person who makes 75 million a year would pay 7.5 million in taxes.
-a person who makes 35 thousand a year would pay 3,500 in taxes

fact #1) 7.5 million is more than 3,500
fact #2) Noone gets penalized for being succesfull or gets special treatment for underachieving


The whole notion that we need to redistribute wealth is socialistic.

Call me an extremist...but I think that any young man or woman sucking off the government teet..OR leeching off their families.. need to grow the F up and join the military.

Any and all persons should have the right to government assistannce...ONCE. Screw this whole generational welfare system....and if someone shows up for a handout...make them take a proficiency test to see what they have a knack for...give them a government apartment...pay them while they train...set them up at a job when they are complete and tell them..NO MORE EXCUSES...DONT COME BACK!!!
(and the heck with this I have too many children to work...GOOD...one of the jobs that the government can test for is CHILDCARE with the help of private companies.)

X-Terminator
09-06-2008, 02:45 PM
and which candidate do you think is more focused on that? its not mccain. he has the most to lose in terms of votes and money (especially the ever so important campaign dollar)-

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693


A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans (Full Report)



heres some more-
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

I'm very well aware of that, Tony. But I also support tax cuts - tax cuts for ALL taxpayers, not just for few, and not simply "targeted" tax cuts like most Democrats support. Hell, even with their "targeted" tax cuts, I never see one thin dime. Why? Because I'm single, and single people never benefit from tax cuts. They always go to "working families" or people with kids. If you cut taxes and close the loopholes, while curbing overall government spending, it would be far more beneficial and wouldn't produce the deficits that we've racked up since Bush took office. That has been my biggest issue with Bush - he cut taxes, but signed every damn spending bill that came to his desk, many times regardless of how much it cost. I like the idea of a flat tax with no loopholes - that way, everyone pays the same percentage no matter what they make, and the rich can't get out of paying their fair share. It might put a few tax consultants out of work, though.

revefsreleets
09-06-2008, 07:31 PM
I knew when I saw that on MSN somebody would pick up the football and run with it.

Cindy McCain comes from money...a lot of it. But so did Kerry's wife. And they owned a bunch of houses too...and they are Democrats, so shouldn't they sell all those possessions and give all the money to the poor?

No? Why not? It's clear that Cindy McCain hates poor people because she wears expensive clothes, but we already know the Republicans hate all poor people and want them to die in a fire or by starvation or whatever (I mean, that's what this thread is about, isn't it?)

So why does Kerry get a pass? Or any rich Democrat? Michael Moore? Al Gore? George Clooney?

stillers4me
09-06-2008, 07:50 PM
I knew when I saw that on MSN somebody would pick up the football and run with it.

Cindy McCain comes from money...a lot of it. But so did Kerry's wife. And they owned a bunch of houses too...and they are Democrats, so shouldn't they sell all those possessions and give all the money to the poor?

No? Why not? It's clear that Cindy McCain hates poor people because she wears expensive clothes, but we already know the Republicans hate all poor people and want them to die in a fire or by starvation or whatever (I mean, that's what this thread is about, isn't it?)

So why does Kerry get a pass? Or any rich Democrat? Michael Moore? Al Gore? George Clooney?

Stop making so much sense! You'll ruin all the fun! :chuckle:

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 08:25 PM
So why does Kerry get a pass? Or any rich Democrat? Michael Moore? Al Gore? George Clooney?because they dont publicly cry about their taxes being raised as they wear a $300,000 [figurative] dress, while the nation is grossly in debt. (not saing mccain publicly cries, but she supports the party that does.)

X-Terminator
09-06-2008, 08:31 PM
because they dont publicly cry about their taxes being raised as they wear a $300,000 [figurative] dress, while the nation is grossly in debt. (not saing mccain publicly cries, but she supports the party that does.)

Just because they're rich doesn't mean they lose the right to complain about their taxes being raised. They are American citizens and taxpayers, after all.

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 08:42 PM
Just because they're rich doesn't mean they lose the right to complain about their taxes being raised. They are American citizens and taxpayers, after all.suit asked why the democrats get a pass. i gave an answer.

noone suggested they lose the right, just in my eyes it makes them look bad and petty. it would be like a steeler publicly complaining about their contract and not having as much money.

revefsreleets
09-06-2008, 09:45 PM
Crying about taxes being raised?

Are you suggesting that Democrats welcome tax raises? Embrace them? Not Democrats like Clooney (who has so many accountants that no raise in taxes will ever hit him anyway), I'm talking rank-and-file ham-n-eggers, the "working class Democrats"?

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 10:05 PM
Crying about taxes being raised?

Are you suggesting that Democrats welcome tax raises? Embrace them? Not Democrats like Clooney (who has so many accountants that no raise in taxes will ever hit him anyway), I'm talking rank-and-file ham-n-eggers, the "working class Democrats"?obama's not proposing to raise their taxes :noidea:

revefsreleets
09-06-2008, 10:22 PM
Nobody who actually PAYS TAXES wants to pay MORE taxes. But the people who suck taxes from the other end certainly want to see taxes raised. That's their livelihood. The more the government can provide for them the better. But that really doesn't have anything to do with Cindy McCain or her dress now, does it?

This thread belongs in the "Best Dresses form the Oscars" Forum (which doesn't exist for a reason).

Preacher
09-06-2008, 10:40 PM
obama's not proposing to raise their taxes :noidea:

:chuckle: That's what they said about Clinton's taxes.

tony hipchest
09-06-2008, 10:44 PM
Nobody who actually PAYS TAXES wants to pay MORE taxes. But the people who suck taxes from the other end certainly want to see taxes raised. That's their livelihood. The more the government can provide for them the better. But that really doesn't have anything to do with Cindy McCain or her dress now, does it?

This thread belongs in the "Best Dresses form the Oscars" Forum (which doesn't exist for a reason).
:tap: "best dressed.......", locker room.

:hunch: i'd say that forum does exist.

nobody likes to pay taxes. thats no news. but everybody sure loves to have the police or military there to protect them when needed. everybody sure likes roads and highways, and infrastructure and the schools to educate their children and footage of man walking on the moon...

i'll just have to dismiss your point as you do mine; however, i wont suggest it has no place on this board. :thumbsup:

But the people who suck taxes from the other end certainly want to see taxes raised. That's their livelihood. im sure youre talking about airport screeners here, right?

Preacher
09-06-2008, 10:55 PM
:tap: "best dressed.......", locker room.

:hunch: i'd say that forum does exist.

nobody likes to pay taxes. thats no news. but everybody sure loves to have the police or military there to protect them when needed. everybody sure likes roads and highways, and infrastructure and the schools to educate their children and footage of man walking on the moon...

i'll just have to dismiss your point as you do mine; however, i wont suggest it has no place on this board. :thumbsup:

The point is Tony...

I would rather my LOCAL govt. tax me for the schools and police and city streets and bridges, because if the money gets mispent, it is MUCH easier to call them to accountability. Then, for bigger issues, I would rather have the STATE build the highways. ONly for real national issues like defense do I want the nation to develop a tax.

It isn't about not paying any taxes... it is about WHO it gets paid to, and the WAY it gets paid... instead that money goes to the feds... and then gets doled out in pork and backhanded deals (both the left AND the right).

Stop corruption by stopping the money that drives it in the federal govt.

augustashark
09-07-2008, 01:34 AM
obama's not proposing to raise their taxes :noidea:

WHAT! Obama has said that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. I may not be a harvard grad, but if those tax cuts expire then my and your taxes will go up. That to me is the same as raising my taxes. Spending is the key! I feel that McCain will begin to cut spending, while I know for sure that Obama will stay status quo or even spend more.

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-07-2008, 04:05 AM
obama's not proposing to raise their taxes :noidea:

Really?....Lets look at Obama's social security tax plan..... his original promise was to simply lift the cap, changing the system from a pay-in to income-redistribution...something that would have raised marginal tax rates to nearly 60%.... When Hillary Clinton started hitting Obama on his social security tax plan..he backed off his original plan to make social security taxes uniform and said he might (but might not).... add a "doughnut-hole" between $97,000 and $150,000 or $200,000 or $250,000.

WELL....Now that Obama has clinched the nomination and is pretending to be a centrist for the general election..... Obama pushed everything he promised in the primaries overboard......First, he said he would raise taxes not the full 12.4%, but just "2 to 4%" ...and the latest is that Obama will avoid any tax changes in social security until 2019,....so zero out the social security tax increases, unless Obama changes his mind for a fourth time.

Obama's latest claim is that he won't raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000 ....which is about the sixth different claim about the cut-off he has made since September....Keep in mind that Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times in three years, including the Democrats FY 2009 budget that raised taxes on all people with taxable incomes greater than $32,000. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea.)

People who know far more about taxes than I do.... have taken Obama at his word and analyzed the more detailed aspects of his plans...its been calculated that he will raise effective marginal federal income tax rates to as high as 45%....Even people making $45,000 will face a marginal income tax rate of 39% which is a gain of 3%.... that is 51.4% including social security taxes....But what has to be more troubling is Obama's various shifts in position on the issue.

So ...again... the question is whether President Obama will have the same tax plan as Senator Obama, Primary-Election Obama, or General-Election Obama.... and whether Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to go along with General-Election Obama..

But we shouldnt be surprised...Obama can't even keep his promises during this short election season....

A) He pledged in September 2007 to accept public financing in the general election, and then broke his pledge.....
B) He assured the MoveOn crowd in the primaries he opposed FISA reform, and then voted for it
C) In November, he supported DC's gun ban, today he claims to support the Heller decision.
D) Campaigning for the Senate in Illinois, he called for an end to the Cuba embargo; speaking to Miami residents in 2007, he supported the embargo.
E) He told an AIPAC audience that he supported an undivided Jerusalem, a position that lasted less than 24 hours.

It's hard to see the Obama tax plan as anything other than "political positioning," .....making Obama's tax promises meaningless..... he has changed his position so often that I simply don't know where Obama really stands, and neither do you.

stillers4me
09-07-2008, 07:12 AM
Really?....Lets look at Obama's social security tax plan..... his original promise was to simply lift the cap, changing the system from a pay-in to income-redistribution...something that would have raised marginal tax rates to nearly 60%.... When Hillary Clinton started hitting Obama on his social security tax plan..he backed off his original plan to make social security taxes uniform and said he might (but might not).... add a "doughnut-hole" between $97,000 and $150,000 or $200,000 or $250,000.

WELL....Now that Obama has clinched the nomination and is pretending to be a centrist for the general election..... Obama pushed everything he promised in the primaries overboard......First, he said he would raise taxes not the full 12.4%, but just "2 to 4%" ...and the latest is that Obama will avoid any tax changes in social security until 2019,....so zero out the social security tax increases, unless Obama changes his mind for a fourth time.

Obama's latest claim is that he won't raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000 ....which is about the sixth different claim about the cut-off he has made since September....Keep in mind that Obama has voted to raise taxes 94 times in three years, including the Democrats FY 2009 budget that raised taxes on all people with taxable incomes greater than $32,000. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea.)

People who know far more about taxes than I do.... have taken Obama at his word and analyzed the more detailed aspects of his plans...its been calculated that he will raise effective marginal federal income tax rates to as high as 45%....Even people making $45,000 will face a marginal income tax rate of 39% which is a gain of 3%.... that is 51.4% including social security taxes....But what has to be more troubling is Obama's various shifts in position on the issue.

So ...again... the question is whether President Obama will have the same tax plan as Senator Obama, Primary-Election Obama, or General-Election Obama.... and whether Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to go along with General-Election Obama..

But we shouldnt be surprised...Obama can't even keep his promises during this short election season....

A) He pledged in September 2007 to accept public financing in the general election, and then broke his pledge.....
B) He assured the MoveOn crowd in the primaries he opposed FISA reform, and then voted for it
C) In November, he supported DC's gun ban, today he claims to support the Heller decision.
D) Campaigning for the Senate in Illinois, he called for an end to the Cuba embargo; speaking to Miami residents in 2007, he supported the embargo.
E) He told an AIPAC audience that he supported an undivided Jerusalem, a position that lasted less than 24 hours.

It's hard to see the Obama tax plan as anything other than "political positioning," .....making Obama's tax promises meaningless..... he has changed his position so often that I simply don't know where Obama really stands, and neither do you.

Another home run for LLT! :hatsoff:

I'm STILL waiting for anyone, and I mean ANYONE......one this board, any other board or off the street that I have talked to , to give ONE VALID REASON to vote for Obama.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 10:55 AM
Another home run for LLT! :hatsoff:

I'm STILL waiting for anyone, and I mean ANYONE......one this board, any other board or off the street that I have talked to , to give ONE VALID REASON to vote for Obama.open your ears and you shall hear.

ive encountered a very smug and condecending attitude from the die hard republicans.

an inflexible one, that will even defend the indefensible to the bitter end.

i see a group of people who cant sleep at night because of a culture of fear, and are now socially dependent on war and terrorist welfare to combat imaginary threats in our airports and iraq. (much like the people they critisize being dependent on food stamps and public housing).

as the past 8 years have shown, their way is not the right way. i see, and hear, and listen to them and am more than happy to cast my vote in the opposite direction.

thats enough of a VALID REASON for me.

i was willing to give mccain a chance as a maverick who would go against the norm. that is until he had to hire that woman to be his backbone and 2 feet to stand on within his own party.

X-Terminator
09-07-2008, 11:37 AM
open your ears and you shall hear.

ive encountered a very smug and condecending attitude from the die hard republicans.

I've encountered the same kind of attitude from Democrats. Try being black and telling another black person that you aren't going to automatically cast your vote for Obama simply because he's black. And that's just ONE example.

an inflexible one, that will even defend the indefensible to the bitter end.

Let's not even go there and get into all of the behavior that Democrats have excused and defended to the bitter end over the years. If it's bad for Republicans to be inflexible and defensive, then it's bad when Democrats do the same. I work for a major university and see all of the anti-Republican sentiments first hand. I see things posted on office doors calling Bush a "murderer" and calling conservatives "fascists", among other things. You think those people are going to have an open mind? Somehow, I doubt it.

i see a group of people who cant sleep at night because of a culture of fear, and are now socially dependent on war and terrorist welfare to combat imaginary threats in our airports and iraq. (much like the people they critisize being dependent on food stamps and public housing).

So would you rather do the opposite and ignore those threats? And as far as those who are "socially dependent on war", whatever that means, I'd rather have issues solved without one bullet being fired, and so do the vast majority of Americans, Republicans included. But sometimes you have to do what you have to do when all of the talking breaks down, and most of the people you are talking about understands that, and supports the military when they are called upon to do their duty. That's a bad thing?

as the past 8 years have shown, their way is not the right way. i see, and hear, and listen to them and am more than happy to cast my vote in the opposite direction.

thats enough of a VALID REASON for me.

i was willing to give mccain a chance as a maverick who would go against the norm. that is until he had to hire that woman to be his backbone and 2 feet to stand on within his own party.

That's fine. You are an American and can vote for whomever you wish. But if Obama wins and things don't improve, will you be as willing to excoriate him the way you do McCain and Palin? (And for the record, I am not wild about Palin - she is way too much of a bible-thumper for my tastes.)

revefsreleets
09-07-2008, 01:30 PM
i was willing to give mccain a chance as a maverick who would go against the norm. that is until he had to hire that woman to be his backbone and 2 feet to stand on within his own party.

He compounded his position of change with more change, with a woman who is literally STEEPED in Democratic traits, and it took tremendous backbone to "hire that lady" not vice versa. Why are you failing to recognize the completely obvious? Even some from the GOP are beginning to turn on her after her little flash in the pan last week.

HometownGal
09-07-2008, 01:51 PM
open your ears and you shall hear.

ive encountered a very smug and condecending attitude from the die hard republicans.

an inflexible one, that will even defend the indefensible to the bitter end.

i see a group of people who cant sleep at night because of a culture of fear, and are now socially dependent on war and terrorist welfare to combat imaginary threats in our airports and iraq. (much like the people they critisize being dependent on food stamps and public housing).

as the past 8 years have shown, their way is not the right way. i see, and hear, and listen to them and am more than happy to cast my vote in the opposite direction.

thats enough of a VALID REASON for me.

i was willing to give mccain a chance as a maverick who would go against the norm. that is until he had to hire that woman to be his backbone and 2 feet to stand on within his own party.

So - you're casting the "anyone but a Repub" vote? WOW....just WOW. You, your darling little girl and those you love have remained SAFE because of a Repub Prez. I can sleep very well at night knowing that no matter what "fubars" this Prez has made during his 8 years in office, my family, those I love and my precious little grandson are safe.

an inflexible one, that will even defend the indefensible to the bitter end.

Can I petition for a "hypocrite" smiley? :chuckle::wink02:

I've never seen more people "defend the indefensible to the bitter end" than I've seen over the years with DemoRATs. It's an incurable disease with you people. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 04:26 PM
So - you're casting the "anyone but a Repub" vote? WOW....just WOW. You, your darling little girl and those you love have remained SAFE because of a Repub Prez. I can sleep very well at night knowing that no matter what "fubars" this Prez has made during his 8 years in office, my family, those I love and my precious little grandson are safe.
:LOL. great example of the culture of fear. my family was safe before "stick in the hornet nest" bush.

and my adorable little girl will be safe long after him. (as much as any single president can guarantee). it wasnt a republican who immediately declared war after the strike on pearl harbor, or stood up to the USSR during the cuban missle crisis, so i can immediately throw the rep and bush argument out the window.

my little girl will be safe and healthy because of the NewMexiKids health care program. i appreciate our democratic governor for that and for providin me health care as a spouse even though i am not legally married. but since my baby momma quit her state job, we lost that coverage. my daughter doesnt.

see andrea was trapped in a small town state job in the domestic violence unit, with a college degree and no hopes of upward mobility, thanks to nepotism and small town politics and favoritsim (something i know palin is all too familiar with).

so i am not gonna go purchase my own health insurance since i dont go to the doctor and my tax dollars are already paying for a great program to help us out.

instead, i will pay the unreal prices for andrea to return to school, earn her masters, and work as a nurse that actually has hopes of upward mobility. unfortunatley, as a white woman who already has a degree, she is exempt from just about all scholorships and grants.

we may go into a bit of debt for about a year, but atleast i KNOW payton wont suffer.

the republicans offer me nothing other than national debt and no social security. my vote goes to those who can. its that simple.

i congratulate all of you whose feet are firmly planted, and have nothing more to worry about than terrorists or having to sacrifice a $2000 outfit for a new years eve gala.

but 9-11 is done and gone and in my state drunk drivers are more of a threat to my safety.

HometownGal
09-07-2008, 04:49 PM
LOL. great example of the culture of fear. my family was safe before "stick in the hornet nest" bush.

and my adorable little girl will be safe long after him. (as much as any single president can guarantee). it wasnt a republican who immediately declared war after the strike on pearl harbor, or stood up to the USSR during the cuban missle crisis, so i can immediately throw the rep and bush argument out the window.

my little girl will be safe and healthy because of the NewMexiKids health care program. i appreciate our democratic governor for that and for providin me health care as a spouse even though i am not legally married. but since my baby momma quit her state job, we lost that coverage. my daughter doesnt.

see andrea was trapped in a small town state job in the domestic violence unit, with a college degree and no hopes of upward mobility, thanks to nepotism and small town politics and favoritsim (something i know palin is all too familiar with).

so i am not gonna go purchase my own health insurance since i dont go to the doctor and my tax dollars are already paying for a great program to help us out.

instead, i will pay the unreal prices for andrea to return to school, earn her masters, and work as a nurse that actually has hopes of upward mobility. unfortunatley, as a white woman who already has a degree, she is exempt from just about all scholorships and grants.

we may go into a bit of debt for about a year, but atleast i KNOW payton wont suffer.

the republicans offer me nothing other than national debt and no social security. my vote goes to those who can. its that simple.

i congratulate all of you whose feet are firmly planted, and have nothing more to worry about than terrorists or having to sacrifice a $2000 outfit for a new years eve gala.

but 9-11 is done and gone and in my state drunk drivers are more of a threat to my safety.

Nice deflect hipcheese! :chuckle: How DemoRATic! :wink02: (see the winkie?)

Your little girl will be safe because of the New Mexi Health Care program? Want to explain that one to me?

Your family was safe because the terrorists didn't strike New Mexico. Bush certainly has his faults and has had his share of fook-ups, but this country has remained safe because of his tough stance against terrorism, a stance with a voice which obviously those twisted turban tops are hearing loud and clear. If you think for one minute those bastards aren't licking their chops waiting (and hoping) to see if Obama gets into office, you are sadly mistaken.

Kudos to Governor Richardson for all that he has done and continues to do for you, your family and the residents of NM. :thumbsup::drink: I wish our Democratic Governor here in PA would take notice of Governor Richardson's efforts, accomplishments and good character.

the republicans offer me nothing other than national debt and no social security. my vote goes to those who can. its that simple.

And the Democrats offer me nothing more than a hefty tax increase, socialized medicine which I am vehemently opposed to (I need to see my docs more than every 6-9 months) and killing more innocent babies. It's that simple :wink02:

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 05:00 PM
Nice deflect hipcheese! :chuckle: How DemoRATic! :wink02: (see the winkie?)

Your little girl will be safe because of the New Mexi Health Care program? Want to explain that one to me?

:

:yawn: nice resort to LITP tactics of debate. seems popular these days... read it again-

my little girl will be safe and healthy

notice how the word "healthy" was italicized for emphasis?

im about done with this absurdity (and didnt even bother reading beyond the quoted portion), but my little girl will be SAFE because i am her daddy and i will do everything to protect her and not rely of war/terrorist welfare from a man named bush or mccain.

"culture of fear" :wave:

revefsreleets
09-07-2008, 05:06 PM
Where is this "culture of fear"? I have no fear of terrorist attacks on our soil at all...not that it's too hard, rather it's just so much easier in all the myriad countries who have huge homegrown disgruntled and disenfranchised Muslim populations.

But I do think we need to stay on the offensive. That was the message I heard from the GOP convention.

xfl2001fan
09-07-2008, 05:10 PM
I think he is referring to our fear of a democrat with no experience, no solid platform and no voting record other than "present" leading our country.

In that case, you're right. That's why I'll vote McCain.

HometownGal
09-07-2008, 05:46 PM
:yawn: nice resort to LITP tactics of debate. seems popular these days... read it again-



Don't you ever DARE compare me or anything I post to that SOB again, k? That was extremely unfair and I resent it. :mad::mad:

Also - please don't attempt to make me look stupid. Next time, kindly make yourself a little more clear, Tony, and I won't feel the need to ask you to clarify.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 07:33 PM
Don't you ever DARE compare me or anything I post to that SOB again, k? That was extremely unfair and I resent it. :mad::mad:

Also - please don't attempt to make me look stupid. Next time, kindly make yourself a little more clear, Tony, and I won't feel the need to ask you to clarify.
what was not clear in any of my posts?

it was MY words that were taken out of context and twisted against me, and it is I who has been made to look stupid ever since i bucked the trend and decided to cast my vote towards obama. :noidea:

if this board is intended to be a pro republican site, just let me know and i will cease with my rhetoric.

HometownGal
09-07-2008, 07:50 PM
what was not clear in any of my posts?

it was MY words that were taken out of context and twisted against me, and it is I who has been made to look stupid ever since i bucked the trend and decided to cast my vote towards obama. :noidea:

if this board is intended to be a pro republican site, just let me know and i will cease with my rhetoric.

my little girl will be safe and healthy because of the NewMexiKids health care program.

If you would have simply stated that your little girl will be "healthy" because of the NewMexiKids care program, I wouldn't have questioned it. Your words "safe and healthy", not mine. :doh::doh: Though I feel the program is very commendable and I'm very pleased that it benefits your child and many other children in NM, I don't get where that program or Governor Richardson had anything to do with what we were debating at that point.

We don't have control here at SF as to what any of our members' political affiliations or voting preferences are, nor do we ask what a member's preferences are when they register here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, including you Tony, and if most people here at SF don't agree with your choice of a candidate, that's their right.

I don't believe anyone is trying to make you look "stupid" because you back Obama, Tony. You have thrown some poison darts yourself at people for their opinions on Bush, J-Mac and Palin. I just believe people are firing them back when they feel justified in doing so.

All of us, including you and I, need to take a chill pill and start "attacking" the post, not the poster. We are all fiercely passionate about the candidate we choose to back and from where I stand, political opinions and differences just aren't worth ruining treasured friendships over. Though I have deeply respected you since day one of my joining SF, I must sadly admit that your comparison of me to LITP compromised that respect a little. That was way over the top imho.

tony hipchest
09-07-2008, 08:03 PM
All of us, including you and I, need to take a chill pill and start "attacking" the post, not the poster. We are all fiercely passionate about the candidate we choose to back and from where I stand, political opinions and differences just aren't worth ruining treasured friendships over. Though I have deeply respected you since day one of my joining SF, I must sadly admit that your comparison of me to LITP compromised that respect a little. That was way over the top imho.so was bringing my daughter into the discussion.

i would have NEVER done that to you.

my daughters safety and health go hand in hand. it is something i wouldnt expect to need clarification, ESPECIALLY within the context in which it was said.

my words were twisted and used as a weapon against me within the confines of debate. :noidea:

i have debated LITP more than anybody on this board (sorry revs but its true) and i recognize those tactics as well as anyone.

i am a pro at attacking the post and not the poster, which is probably the only reason i havent earned a multitude of infractions to this point (having some fun w/ cubanstogie after he attacked mosca, notwithstanding)

but football season is here and i will get back to what i love most (besides God, family, and country) and ignore most of this political bs. my points have been made and judgements have been cast.

i will definitely voice an opinion come november, to either LMAO or congrat mccain (but definitely not that self proclaimed bitch).

HometownGal
09-07-2008, 09:43 PM
so was bringing my daughter into the discussion.

i would have NEVER done that to you.

my daughters safety and health go hand in hand. it is something i wouldnt expect to need clarification, ESPECIALLY within the context in which it was said.

my words were twisted and used as a weapon against me within the confines of debate. :noidea:

i have debated LITP more than anybody on this board (sorry revs but its true) and i recognize those tactics as well as anyone.

i am a pro at attacking the post and not the poster, which is probably the only reason i havent earned a multitude of infractions to this point (having some fun w/ cubanstogie after he attacked mosca, notwithstanding)

but football season is here and i will get back to what i love most (besides God, family, and country) and ignore most of this political bs. my points have been made and judgements have been cast.

i will definitely voice an opinion come november, to either LMAO or congrat mccain (but definitely not that self proclaimed bitch).

I didn't bring your daughter into the discussion in a negative or mean-spirited way, so don't you even go there. You of all people know how much I love children and I would never cap on anyone's child. I stand by what I said with regard to the protection and safety of loved ones and family being a top priority - or at least it should be.

Your words were NOT twisted. Again - I didn't craft the post - YOU did. We were discussing safety concerns with regard to the candidates (at least I thought we were) and you combined the safety issues with the health issues. I questioned it as I'm 100% certain you would have done with me. I don't see what the problem with me asking you to clarify your statement is. :banging:

stlrtruck
09-08-2008, 11:21 AM
WOW! no wonder they need a tax break. if elected she'll need a new one of these for every grand public appearance she makes.

Cindy McCain sets tone for GOP fashion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_en_ot/cvn_gop_fashion

If she paid 300,000 for that dress, she needs to get money back!!!

xfl2001fan
09-08-2008, 11:47 AM
If she paid 300,000 for that dress, she needs to get money back!!!
:sofunny::sofunny::rofl::rofl:

Now we've come to a real issue!:thumbsup:

revefsreleets
09-08-2008, 02:50 PM
It wasn't a 300k dress, she had 300k worth of stuff on, including all the accessories and whatnot. Sure the jewelry made up the bulk of that.

Again, much ado about literally nothing. Rich people spend lots of money and drive the economy. God help us if they aren't allowed to spend what they earn anymore...unless this is part of an agrarian movement to redivide the wealth of this country.

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 02:58 PM
If she paid 300,000 for that dress, she needs to get money back!!!i believe the jewelry and dress was given to her as a charitable contribution. thus the companies gain advertisement AND can declare a tax write off.

so not only does an already rich person get stuff for free, us the taxpayers paid $300,000 for her to wear it.

God bless America :usa:

revefsreleets
09-08-2008, 03:11 PM
In the interest of accuracy, those were not "donations", that stuff is hers. She bought it. And paid luxury tax on it.

US News is reporting that Vanity Fair's estimate is probably WAY too high...280k for the earrings.

So, again, much ado about nothing...

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 03:26 PM
In the interest of accuracy, those were not "donations", that stuff is hers. She bought it. And paid luxury tax on it.

US News is reporting that Vanity Fair's estimate is probably WAY too high...280k for the earrings.

So, again, much ado about nothing...its definitely about something. and it still looks bad. sorta like mccain having so many houses he's lost count-

2. Countless houses
There’s never a good time for such a slip, but when McCain wasn’t able to tell Politico in an interview last month how many houses he owned (“I think—I’ll have my staff get to you, I can’t tell you about that. It’s condominiums where—I’ll have them get to you,” he replied), the timing was especially bad.

The slip dovetailed perfectly with a just-launched Democratic bid to counter McCain’s ads painting Obama as a lightweight celebrity with an offensive of their own depicting the Republican as wealthy and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans.


Cindy McCain—The only way to travel
Meanwhile the Netroots lit up after Cindy McCain’s remark in July on traveling about the state while her husband ran for the Senate, “In Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane.” :sofunny: personally i have driven across arizona numerous times, from south to north and east to west. the I-10 drive is absolutely beautiful, as is the drive from tucson to vegas.

http://news.yahoo.com/story/politico/20080907/pl_politico/13213

nice article on the top 8 campaign gaffes. (and no, its not one sided)

revefsreleets
09-08-2008, 03:40 PM
Fixed that with Palin.

Again, unless you are asking for forced redistribution of wealth, why do these people need to hide the fact that they worked hard, prospered and enjoy the fruits of the American dream?

Plus, I'm sure McCain pays a hefty share of taxes every year, so it's not like he's freeloading.

Can't just stand by and watch misrepresentations happen. Gotta keep this all on the level.

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainfinancial/

SUMMARY OF TAX RETURNS

Taxes Paid:


For 2006, Senator McCain paid $72,771 in federal income, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes (LINES 57 and 58) on taxable income of $215,304 (LINE 43), which is a 33.8% tax rate. View


For 2007, Senator McCain paid $84,460 in federal income, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes (LINES 57 and 58) on taxable income of $258,800 (LINE 43), which is a 32.6% tax rate. View


Charitable Contributions:

Senator McCain donates his royalties from his books to charitable organizations. This sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal. Senator McCain's book income of $256,898 for 2006 and 2007 is comprised of earnings for Faith of My Fathers, Worth the Fighting For, Why Courage Matters, Character is Destiny, and Hard Call. .


Beginning in 1991, Senator McCain has also donated the increase in his Senate salary for that year and each subsequent year to charity because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises. The cumulative total of these donations is over $450,000.
2006


In 2006, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $129,390 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation was $64,695. This is 19% of his adjusted gross income.


2007


In 2007, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $210,933 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation is $105,467. This is 27.2% of his adjusted gross income for the year.


Most of Senator McCain's contributions were made to the John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation, which makes direct contributions to charities. The Foundation's tax returns for 2006 and 2007, which include a list of the charities to which Senator and Mrs. McCain contributed through the McCain Family Foundation in 2006 and 2007, are available for download below. (2006 - 2007)

MACH1
09-08-2008, 04:07 PM
Cindy McCain—The only way to travel
Meanwhile the Netroots lit up after Cindy McCain’s remark in July on traveling about the state while her husband ran for the Senate, “In Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane.”

Isn't McCain a pilot? Maybe they fly because he can . :noidea:

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 04:13 PM
Isn't McCain a pilot? Maybe they fly because he can . :noidea::propeller: oh yeah :doh:. hmmmmm.

:laughing: got me.

stillers4me
09-08-2008, 06:10 PM
Isn't McCain a pilot? Maybe they fly because he can . :noidea:

Cindy McCain has her pilot's license.
\ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/earlyshow/main4414633.shtml

While googling for this info, I also found out she recovered from a stroke at age 50 in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Hensley_McCain

It also states that she's suffered some short term memory loss after the stroke. I have no idea why her husband suggested asking her how many houses they own if she can't remember, either. :chuckle:

xfl2001fan
09-08-2008, 06:14 PM
I thought he suggested his staff. Is she on his staff? (Not a sarcastic question, I really haven't looked.)

stillers4me
09-08-2008, 06:15 PM
I thought he suggested his staff. Is she on his staff? (Not a sarcastic question, I really haven't looked.)

You may be right.....I've heard so many blowhards on TV blow this out of proportion, that I think I've heard both versions.

tony hipchest
09-08-2008, 10:36 PM
Charitable Contributions:

Most of Senator McCain's contributions were made to the John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation, which makes direct contributions to charities. The Foundation's tax returns for 2006 and 2007, which include a list of the charities to which Senator and Mrs. McCain contributed through the McCain Family Foundation in 2006 and 2007, are available for download below. (2006 - 2007)

*sniffle*

that almost brought a tear to my eye as a lee greenwood song played inside my head.

so the mccains make charitable contributions to themselves? :laughing:

so funny how all these rich people who can afford and have no problem giving hundereds of thousands of dollars to charities (i.e. friends/family with deep pockets) which are nothing more than privitized "welfare", yet have such a big problem with their taxes being raised a bit. :noidea:

after all, isnt mccain patting himself on the back and lauded for being willing to put his life on the line for his country?

its ok to put ones life on the line, but God forbid asking the rich to put a few extra bucks on the line for "their country"?

i guess if tax breaks were offered for simply paying taxes it would be a completely different story.

TroysBadDawg
09-09-2008, 06:19 AM
What I don't understand is that the "poor" mostly vote for the Democrats, but they stay poor. Is that because of the free hand outs the Democrats in congress give them? OR is it because they are to lazy to delve into the facts and believe what ever they are told, through lies and innuendo?

IF you want a fair tax go to a National sales tax that has no loopholes, everybody pays. You buy a 1.5 mil boat you pay taxes on it, you buy a car you pay tax on it. Even companies pay tax on what they buy. Sure it will trickle down, but what of the companies that are owned outside of this country? They still have to pay tax on what they buy in this country.

It is funny that people on this board and others constantly complain about inflation, high taxes, and deficit spending.
Just who is ultimately responsible for it? The 545 people in Congress.

Here read this, it makes sense.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking
thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to
determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating
deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the
House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic
problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you, though you appear to have several choices.

1. You can send this to everyone in your address book, and hope' they' do something about it.
2. You can agree to 'vote against' everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years.
3. You can decide to 'run for office' yourself and agree to do the job properly.
4. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.

This includes those who do not want to vote either for or against but vote "PRESENT"

revefsreleets
09-09-2008, 08:23 AM
*sniffle*

that almost brought a tear to my eye as a lee greenwood song played inside my head.

so the mccains make charitable contributions to themselves? :laughing:

so funny how all these rich people who can afford and have no problem giving hundereds of thousands of dollars to charities (i.e. friends/family with deep pockets) which are nothing more than privitized "welfare", yet have such a big problem with their taxes being raised a bit. :noidea:

after all, isnt mccain patting himself on the back and lauded for being willing to put his life on the line for his country?

its ok to put ones life on the line, but God forbid asking the rich to put a few extra bucks on the line for "their country"?

i guess if tax breaks were offered for simply paying taxes it would be a completely different story.

We get it. You don't care for the guy. But why does lauding your own lack of understanding for how a charity works add anything to the argument.

Again, I'm trying to help you out here. You are not doing yourself any favors. Almost every charitable trust is named after the people who set it up. Bill Gates' charity is named after Bill and Melinda, and it will most likely be the largest philanthropic trust ever established. Are they selfish because in the course of literally giving ALL their money away they named the trust after themselves?

X-Terminator
09-09-2008, 08:29 AM
We get it. You don't care for the guy. But why does lauding your own lack of understanding for how a charity works add anything to the argument.

Again, I'm trying to help you out here. You are not doing yourself any favors. Almost every charitable trust is named after the people who set it up. Bill Gates' charity is named after Bill and Melinda, and it will most likely be the largest philanthropic trust ever established. Are they selfish because in the course of literally giving ALL their money away they named the trust after themselves?

Gates gave $25 million to CMU to build the Gates Center for Computer Science. Not exactly "rich guys giving money to other rich guys." Or to name other charity foundations, how about the Mario Lemieux Foundation? Or Pausch's People, named after the late Randy Pausch? We can go on and on.

tony hipchest
09-09-2008, 09:01 AM
Again, I'm trying to help you out here. You are not doing yourself any favors. Almost every charitable trust is named after the people who set it up. Bill Gates' charity is named after Bill and Melinda, and it will most likely be the largest philanthropic trust ever established. Are they selfish because in the course of literally giving ALL their money away they named the trust after themselves?...said the "spider to the fly". SURE you are. :rolleyes:

"most likely"? :chuckle:

warren buffet, you know... the berkshire hathaway dude, (and at times the entire worlds richest man) has pledged a bulk of his fortune ($30 bil +) to the bill and melinda foundation. its a great foundation, and i am definitely rooting for their efforts to eradicate malaria in africa, and find a vaccine (just hope we have enough food to feed all the people they save.) and his aspirations for every child to have access to the internet are a great idea. perhaps he can start by teaching our future president how to "log on".

i understand philathropic endeavors, dating back to my childhood facination and studies of andrew carnegie.

but again, youre missing the point. i only wish more of the elite rich were as generous as mr. gates. oh by the way, bill is socially liberal and has mainly supported and considers himself democtrat. i suspect he leaned a little to the right though after, clinton went after microsoft. :noidea:

We get it. You don't care for the guy. :yawn: more bs and misunderstanding. YOU clearly dont get it. (nice pied piper technique of lumping in "we" though). i dont care for alot of his stances and some major decisions he has made as presidential candidate.

i love the guy. but if youre gonna misrepresent me, you might wanna make sure i dont have a ton of posts to showing you are wrong.

have i once accused you of not liking obama? i wouldnt do that because i have shown you respect and actually taken (and perhaps wasted) the time to read your posts. i know you dont dislike the guy. if you wanna keep hitting below the belt you might just wanna do as you proposed and stay away from me in these discussions. ive seen this before, and i know how it turns out.

revefsreleets
09-09-2008, 09:16 AM
You are the architect of this statement, not me:

"so the mccains make charitable contributions to themselves?"

tony hipchest
09-09-2008, 09:39 AM
You are the architect of this statement, not me:

"so the mccains make charitable contributions to themselves?"you wanna try to get that quote correct? here let ME help YOU out a bit-

so the mccains make charitable contributions to themselves? :laughing:

:toofunny: WHOOOOSH!

revefsreleets
09-09-2008, 10:02 AM
Whoosh indeed.

"I got a fever...and the only prescription is more McCain bashing threads!"

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-09-2008, 10:09 AM
... perhaps he can start by teaching our future president how to "log on".



I knew you would give in to the inevitable.:applaudit:

...welcome to our side.

tony hipchest
09-09-2008, 10:25 AM
Whoosh indeed.

"I got a fever...and the only prescription is more McCain bashing threads!"lol. you call this "bashing"??? :sofunny: ive been relatively tame and timid in regards to a fellow southwestener i admire and respect, and in no way have treated him like a typical bunglefan.

the sensitiviteis growing in this forum are reminicent of those in the Blast Furnace a year or 2 ago.

I knew you would give in to the inevitable.:applaudit:

...welcome to our side.

does this mean i get to pat palin on the behind? :danceshout:

lamberts-lost-tooth
09-09-2008, 10:47 AM
does this mean i get to pat palin on the behind? :danceshout:

1) That is SEXIST!!!
2) Line forms behind me.

stlrtruck
09-09-2008, 11:48 AM
lol. you call this "bashing"??? :sofunny: ive been relatively tame and timid in regards to a fellow southwestener i admire and respect, and in no way have treated him like a typical bunglefan.

the sensitiviteis growing in this forum are reminicent of those in the Blast Furnace a year or 2 ago.



does this mean i get to pat palin on the behind? :danceshout:

Let me be the first one to point out the obvious - I seriously doubt it would be just a "pat" Tony.

tony hipchest
09-09-2008, 02:02 PM
speaking of prescriptions, mccains charities, and making "charitable contributions" to themselves....

certainly it isnt cool for cindy to be stealing drugs from her own charity (American Voluntary Medical Team does relief and medical volunteer work in third world countries)
to feed her nasty little habit (she got busted in '94). i gotta expect this will be just be painted as much ado about nothing again but WOW, what a compelling article. and it is something.

i coulda started its own thread but the set up in this one was just too perfect in this one-

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/print.html
(from october 1999)
How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction


By Amy Silverman

GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, [1999] recounting for Jane Pauley (on "Dateline") and Diane Sawyer (on "Good Morning America") the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.

It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.

It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.


I had deja vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.

I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.


juicy stuff. the whole article probably wont fit but worth the read if people wanna get some background.

But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts. The irony is that Cindy's secret would have stayed secret if John McCain's heavy-hitting lawyer, John Dowd (of D.C.'s Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; his most recent claim to fame was serving as co-counsel for fellow partner Vernon Jordan during impeachment) hadn't heavy-handedly pulled out all the stops to protect the McCain family.

Dowd tried to get back at the man on Cindy McCain's staff, Tom Gosinski, who had blown the whistle on her drug pilfering to the DEA. But in the course of trying to get local law enforcement officials to investigate Gosinski -- Dowd and the McCains considered him an extortionist; others might call him a whistleblower -- Dowd set in motion a process that would eventually bring the whole sordid story to light. When that maneuver backfired, the McCain media machine went into overdrive to spin the story.

It's a story of unintended consequences. It's also a story of power politics and media manipulation that's very un-McCain-like -- if you believe his national media hagiography.

But both of Cindy McCain's staged, teary drug-addiction confessions have been vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want.

McCain did it with the Keating Five, and with the story of the failure of his first marriage (Cindy is his second wife). So what you recall after the humble, honest interview, is not that McCain did favors for savings and loan failure Charlie Keating, or that he cheated on his wife, but instead what an upfront, righteous guy he is.

Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished. John McCain shoots from the hip -- but only after carefully rehearsing the battle plan, to be sure he won't get shot himself.


but why steal the drugs? :noidea: im sure rush limbaugh woulda made a "charitable contribution" to the foundation. :chuckle:

stlrtruck
09-09-2008, 02:34 PM
speaking of prescriptions, mccains charities, and making "charitable contributions" to themselves....

certainly it isnt cool for cindy to be stealing drugs from her own charity (American Voluntary Medical Team does relief and medical volunteer work in third world countries)
to feed her nasty little habit (she got busted in '94). i gotta expect this will be just be painted as much ado about nothing again but WOW, what a compelling article. and it is something.

i coulda started its own thread but the set up in this one was just too perfect in this one-

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/print.html
(from october 1999)


juicy stuff. the whole article probably wont fit but worth the read if people wanna get some background.



but why steal the drugs? :noidea: im sure rush limbaugh woulda made a "charitable contribution" to the foundation. :chuckle:

Maybe Brett Favre had some leftovers in his cabinet who knows.

What kills me with both parties is that they've all got skeletons in their closets and most of them have no bearing what so ever on the elections. However, some of them do.

For example, for me, this raises a question about how McCain will handle it when things blow up in his face and he isn't able to "spin" the issue before the media gets windfall of it. Will he clintonize people (yes I'm referring to the people that have ended up dead that at one point or another have been business associates of the Clintons)

But given the choices of the two candidates, I still feel "safer" with McCain in office.

xfl2001fan
09-09-2008, 02:39 PM
speaking of prescriptions, mccains charities, and making "charitable contributions" to themselves.... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/print.html
(from october 1999)

(Edited to cut the fat from your lengthy post)

I'm not doubting that McCain (and his people) know how to spin, but this article is very slanted towards an attack. That's the issue with politics these days.

Everybody seems to have an agenda. The politicians and the media seem to work together and/or against each other in very intricate ways to turn a simple painting of the Japanese flag (one Red Circle) into a Van Gogh or Da Vinci depending on who wants to spin which way.

We've allowed ourselves to become far too uptight and complicated for our own good.

SteelMember
09-09-2008, 03:36 PM
(Edited to cut the fat from your lengthy post)

I'm not doubting that McCain (and his people) know how to spin, but this article is very slanted towards an attack. That's the issue with politics these days.

Everybody seems to have an agenda. The politicians and the media seem to work together and/or against each other in very intricate ways to turn a simple painting of the Japanese flag (one Red Circle) into a Van Gogh or Da Vinci depending on who wants to spin which way.

We've allowed ourselves to become far too uptight and complicated for our own good.

Sometimes it's the (perceived) simple ideas that have taken the most thought and planning.

If "Knowledge is Power", then information is it's fuel.

After all is said and done, I am, at the very least, glad to see that we are able to have an open discussion and make our own individual decisions. The information may be skewed and twisted, but it's the individual that must sift and weigh it and become an active part of the process that we have in place. It's not perfect, but at least we have a choice and a voice to proclaim it. - cue flag and music.:chuckle:

Unfortunately, to media has become a huge part of politics today. All hollywood glamour and publicists, but this is where the media takes it. Shock journalism and reality television. We know it's not all true, but some people want to be told what is and what isn't without any thought of their own. These "easily influenced" are the ones targeted most of the time, not the free thinkers.

revefsreleets
09-09-2008, 06:41 PM
It IS much ado about nothing. So Is Michelle Obama. So is Palin's husbands 22 year old DUI. So is McCain's adopted kids.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on either's ability to lead this country. What it DOES show is the US's collective tabloid mentality.

tony hipchest
09-09-2008, 10:37 PM
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on either's ability to lead this country..actually it does. while im sure michelle lacks the history of theft, fraud, and addiction, and the jury is still out on palins family, or the mccain kids, theres an old saying i like to go by when it comes to choosing a leader. something to the tunes of "get your own house in order, before you decide to lead mine".

theres really only 3 things i can draw from cindy's problem-

1) mccain was totally oblivious to a serious problem right under his nose. he lacked the perception to notice what an employee/"whistleblower" easilly recognized. not something i want in a leader.

2) he completely turned a blind eye to the problem and refused to get his wife the help she needed. if he turns a blind eye on his wife, what will he do when his country has a problem? not something i want in a leader.

3) cindys drug abuse can be blamed on back problems right? mccain suffered major injuries in 'nam and i can definitely see him with his inporoperly healed bones suffering chronic pain issues. i have plenty of employees who cant even function w/o their daily meds. did cindy simply cover and take the fall for her husband (i seriously doubt it but one has to think.

augustashark
09-10-2008, 01:10 AM
actually it does. while im sure michelle lacks the history of theft, fraud, and addiction, and the jury is still out on palins family, or the mccain kids, theres an old saying i like to go by when it comes to choosing a leader. something to the tunes of "get your own house in order, before you decide to lead mine".

theres really only 3 things i can draw from cindy's problem-

1) mccain was totally oblivious to a serious problem right under his nose. he lacked the perception to notice what an employee/"whistleblower" easilly recognized. not something i want in a leader.

2) he completely turned a blind eye to the problem and refused to get his wife the help she needed. if he turns a blind eye on his wife, what will he do when his country has a problem? not something i want in a leader.

3) cindys drug abuse can be blamed on back problems right? mccain suffered major injuries in 'nam and i can definitely see him with his inporoperly healed bones suffering chronic pain issues. i have plenty of employees who cant even function w/o their daily meds. did cindy simply cover and take the fall for her husband (i seriously doubt it but one has to think.


I guess Obama being (in the past) a coke head is much better then taking some vikes or perks! LOL @ you and your standing on the edge of a building posts.

Cindy for the love of God rescued two babies from bangledesh and brought them back to the land of the free. Yep, sounds like she's a real wolf in sheeps clothing.

You are absolutely making no sense in your posts. I'm starting to worry. NOT!

revefsreleets
09-10-2008, 08:34 AM
Show me ONE family with no dysfunction, and I'll show you the Stepford Wives.

I want my election covered by McNeil/Lehrer, not Entertainment Tonight.

What have we learned from this thread? That Cindy McCain's dress actually only cost a few thousand dollars, and not the thread titled 300k, that it was her earrings that were expensive, and that they most likely cost nothing even remotely approaching the quoted (only by Vanity Fair, that solid vestige of political intellect, I might add) 280k.

Who would base their vote on any of this diversionary and irrelevent nonsense?