It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:00 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:57 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:53 am
Posts: 254
Shadow wrote:
Ya know, there IS such a thing as a sore Winner. Would it kill you to refrain from your "IN YOUR FACE" attitude and realize that those who voted for Romney (Against Obama really) are people who work hard, pay taxes, and want what is best for all?


That insinuates that WE DON'T want whats best for this country, we DON'T work hard OR pay taxes. That mentality is what's wrong with Republicans and the Republican party, that attitude is why you lost.

Shadow wrote:
Your Junior high school student election mentality is somewhat overbearing to those of us who only want our country to improve.


Again, like we don't want the country to improve? This "in your face" gloating about the win is the whole point of this thread, read the title carefully, and it's hardly junior high school mentality unless there is a fart joke in there somewhere. LOL

You just don't like anyone pointing out your fallacies and those of the Republican party.

_________________
* Purposely written with typos, misspellings and bad grammar. I butcher the English language on purpose just to piss you off.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:09 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:26 am
Posts: 2093
Location: Bradford
NOT AT ALL N E O!
I'm tired of being villified for not voting for certain candidates or with certain parties. We are all Americans, wanting what we feel is best. I would no longer say you were wrong than you should say I was.

Nowhere in my posts do I say Obama ppl don't work hard, pay taxes, or want what's best for the country. But now that you mention it, I'm thinking the majority of Obama ppl don't even work, let alone work hard! And no work, no taxes! No wonder he won! THERE! NOW I said it!
Republican party is evil right? Wow, I suprised it's even allowed to exist. Let's not forget how politics works. Deals are made every day. Democrats vote with Republicans and vice versa all the time, just to get their favorite projects done. There is one HUGE project right in Bradford that was done with such a deal. Let's see if any of you can guess it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:12 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 888
Location: Heaven's front porch......TEXAS
[quote="Phillygirl
You just keep telling yourself Obama is to blame for the economy, it won't make it true. Bush cutting taxes and then waging two useless wars without any income bankrupted us. And the market dropped because the 1%ers are greedy and malicious and manipulative and just "can't take the truth." Invest in America? How? By sending jobs overseas?

***'Obama tripled in less than four years the debt Bush incurred in eight, once the cost of Bummercare is tallied. The market dropped because everyone knows we are heading the wrong direction......polls conducted even by the worst of the leftists show that to be the national sentiment.'***

The full-time employment rolls have been decimated since Bush. The doctors in my area jumped ship long before Obama, particularly OB/GYNs. There are only TWO hospitals in Philadelphia that deliver babies now and that happened before 2008. People have been working 2-3 jobs since before Obama -- remember Bush saying how "uniquely American" that is? And the wealthy will raise prices not because they need the money, but because they see taxes as an infringment of their rights (it's fine to milk the working class, of course). They can afford higher taxes to save our country's economy, they're just to effin selfish.

***'The wealthy did not get that way by making stupid fiscal decisions, Philly. They will not simply stand by mutely and be robbed by this administration. The money simply won't be there to be taxed. If I were that wealthy, I would be checking into international markets for my investment dollars. Earn it elsewhere and pay no U.S. taxes. Simple and legal. What makes you think they would just fork it over because Obama wants to punish them for attaining the American dream? Why shouldn't they protect their own interests? Don't you try to protect yours.....or do you just like to complain about your circumstances rather than change them?'***


Quote:
... when you discover that you could take all of the assets over one million dollars from every millionaire and billionaire in this country and it would only run the government for about 60 days;


Bull. That's deceptive.

***'No. That's FACT. Do the math, girl.'***

...
Quote:
when more people decide that it's easier to stay home and let "the government"(that's YOU, BTW) support them and their numerous children than to bother holding down mutliple part-time jobs;


Yeah, let's attack the retired senior citizens :roll: , they're to blame. And I worked my whole life since age 17, supporting my kid as a single parent until she was 11 when I remarried.

***'Where in my post is ANY reference to "retired senior citizens"? I'm talking about your generational welfare types who like their "free" ride better than working to support themselves. YOU, above all people, SHOULD be agreeing with me on THAT one. I guess you'd rather be contrary than right..... :roll:

Quote:
...when you finally realize that you bought the LIE that more government is better and now you have no liberty; WHEN, not if, that day comes......thank your boy......it's what he's working so hard for.
[/quote]

My "American dream" went down the toilet when my husband's job left this country when he was age 59, robbing us of six years of payments into his 401K, at a time when they would have been the largest. My "liberty" to retire comfortably was revoked, even tho we did everything right, planned ahead, socked money into those IRAs because we knew you couldn't rely on social security.

And I will believe to my dying day that when middle class people started making money in the stock market during Clinton's administration, the "cabal" of 1%ers decided that was just too much out of their pockets and caused the market to fall. They were willing to take a short term hit to get back to where THEY were making all the money. JMO.[/quote]

Yes, yes....we've all heard your tragic tale before. We also heard you disdain the idea that maybe you should pursue other options to counter your situation. Every suggestion was met with ridicule and excuses. If you won't do anything to help yourself, or at LEAST be gracious when someone cared to suggest options, you won't be getting much sympathy from those of us who ALSO have to overcome challenges every day in this life.

As for the wealthy tanking the stock market in order to put YOU in your place......... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Would YOU quit your job so your kids would appreciate their allowance? I'm sorry, but that's just too laughable to imagine! Only petty people think like that......successful people don't.

I know you are all elated that Obama thinks he can just tax the rich and fix the economy, but you really are not thinking this through.
First, the math doesn't work. The bulk of this country's wealth does NOT reside in the grasp of the 1% you so despise. YOU'VE got it.........the middle class. The actual numbers are available....look it up. You think that it will be a simple case of subtracting from the rich guys and adding to the poor guys. How sophomoric! As I've stated, the rich aren't going to be doing nothing while Obama's thugs try the mugging. Assets will be transferred offshore into other profitable ventures beyond the grasp of short-sighted politicians.
Second, you fail to understand how things really work. If you want to expand something, incentivise it. If you want to discourage something, punish it. If you want prosperity, do things to encourage it. Increasing taxation does NOT encourage prosperity. If you punish the wealthy, you will discourage them from creating more wealth....starting or growing businesses, increasing employment, investing in American companies. They will STILL make money....they'll just do it elsewhere, taking their wealth with them. Or they'll just stop employing people, retire on their profits, and let their businesses close. Whether they leave and close up shop here or retire and close up shop here, the shop is STILL closed when you show up to work there.....

_________________
"We live in a stage of politics where legislators seem to regard the passage of laws as much more important than the results of their enforcement." William Howard Taft, 27th American president


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:08 am 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:53 am
Posts: 254
Tiger, is that just math you do as a republican to make yourself feel better? LOL

tigereye wrote:
***'Obama tripled in less than four years the debt Bush incurred in eight, once the cost of Bummercare is tallied. The market dropped because everyone knows we are heading the wrong direction......polls conducted even by the worst of the leftists show that to be the national sentiment.'***


Obama is actually the SMALLEST GOVERNMENT SPENDER SINCE EISENHOWER. You bought into the lie that the whopping increase in spending in Obama's first year was his doing when in fact, the president before him, BUSH and his congress is the ones that sets the budget for the first year of the next president after him (2009), spending increased a whopping 17.9% and that spending was set months BEFORE Obama even took the oath.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/

Plus, if that really was the national sentiment, then Obama wouldn't have been reelected. You just pulled that poll right out of your ass.

tigereye wrote:
***'The wealthy did not get that way by making stupid fiscal decisions, Philly. They will not simply stand by mutely and be robbed by this administration. The money simply won't be there to be taxed. If I were that wealthy, I would be checking into international markets for my investment dollars. Earn it elsewhere and pay no U.S. taxes. Simple and legal. What makes you think they would just fork it over because Obama wants to punish them for attaining the American dream? Why shouldn't they protect their own interests? Don't you try to protect yours.....or do you just like to complain about your circumstances rather than change them?'***


Robbed? Right there you said it, if you where that wealthy, you would invest in a way that you pay NO TAXES AT ALL. That is the problem, wealthy people don't want to pay their fair share. They actually don't want to pay anything. That is all we are asking, for them to pay a fair share. Why should a janitor have to pay a higher rate than someone like Romney?

tigereye wrote:
***'No. That's FACT. Do the math, girl.'***


I think I've already proven you don't really know or understand the facts, so how can you get the math right? And it's not about for how long the government will run on the extra tax money from them, it's about fairness.

tigereye wrote:
**I know you are all elated that Obama thinks he can just tax the rich and fix the economy, but you really are not thinking this through.
First, the math doesn't work. The bulk of this country's wealth does NOT reside in the grasp of the 1% you so despise. YOU'VE got it.........the middle class. The actual numbers are available....look it up. You think that it will be a simple case of subtracting from the rich guys and adding to the poor guys. How sophomoric! As I've stated, the rich aren't going to be doing nothing while Obama's thugs try the mugging. Assets will be transferred offshore into other profitable ventures beyond the grasp of short-sighted politicians.
Second, you fail to understand how things really work.


Look at the chart below, your telling me the bulk of wealth isn't at the top?

ucsc.edu wrote:
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).


Wage and salary workers, 80% of America only holds 11% of the wealth. The top 5%, all upper class, hold 72% of the wealth. It's not about "subtracting from the rich guys and adding to the poor guys", it's about fairness in who pays the bills for our government and it's services.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The top 1% got 90% of the income growth
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... dened.html

Since you didn't know Obama spends less than any president since eisenhower and you got it wrong on who holds the wealth, I'd say you are the one that hasn't thought it through, can't get the math right or understand how things really work, but I'll go on.

tigereye wrote:
**He took a poor economy and devastated it.


You believe that because you believed a lie, like the ones above I've already proven you wrong. The economy is doing better. Look at the chart below that shows jobs going off a cliff and guess when they started to get better? Businesses started hiring right after Obama was elected, because they where confident in the market. Plus this economy would be doing better if the top 1% didn't get 90% of the income growth and Republican representatives actually helped to make it better instead of trying their best to kill it so that Obama would look bad.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148379/job-c ... -2008.aspx



tigereye wrote:
**The stock market dropped more than 300 points on the news of his reelection. The people who invest in America know a certain disaster when they see it coming.


The reason the markets dropped is the prospect of the Republicans not compromising on a solution for the “Fiscal Cliff”. They are betting the Republicans care more about being in power and making Obama look bad. Matter of fact, the reason the economy is only recovering this slowly is due to them not compromising. They are the reason we lost our credit rating. Their failure to compromise cost us then and it continues to cost us. They would rather the economy DIDN'T recover, so they can blame it on Obama. So I agree on the last point, those businesses and stock holders can see a disaster coming, because they know Republican representatives care more about themselves than they do about the country, or the people that live in it.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/08/investi ... index.html

Ok, now I think I've proven you do not truly understand the economy or how things really work, being so wrong on everything. Anyone should just discount you as no more different or smarter than the talking heads on BMN, Lush Limpdick and Karl Rove, who also doesn't get his math right with reality, but, to give them credit, it did fool you I guess, and that was their goals.

But I guess you'll come back with a response that I'm wrong because “Hannity” said so or cite some poll that doesn't exist or may-be some “study” that wasn't done with facts or real data, but just a conservatives bloggers opinions. Like Romney did.


Attachments:
jobs-growth.gif
jobs-growth.gif [ 12.71 KiB | Viewed 969 times ]
Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif [ 29.67 KiB | Viewed 969 times ]

_________________
* Purposely written with typos, misspellings and bad grammar. I butcher the English language on purpose just to piss you off.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:05 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:53 am
Posts: 254
Shadow wrote:
NOT AT ALL N E O!
I'm tired of being villified for not voting for certain candidates or with certain parties. We are all Americans, wanting what we feel is best. I would no longer say you were wrong than you should say I was.

Nowhere in my posts do I say Obama ppl don't work hard, pay taxes, or want what's best for the country. But now that you mention it, I'm thinking the majority of Obama ppl don't even work, let alone work hard! And no work, no taxes! No wonder he won! THERE! NOW I said it!



There you go shadow. You actually prove yourself wrong in your own contradictory post. You say you where NOT saying Obama voters where all freeloaders who don't work hard or pay taxes and then turn around and say exactly that, just like you did previously.

You don't want to be vilified for voting for Romney or the Republican party, saying we are all Americans and want what's best for the country, suggesting none of us should be vilified for who we vote for, but then almost in the same breath go on to vilify Obama voters as being people that don't work hard or pay taxes. You actually say the majority of Obama voters don't even work at all. They are all freeloaders living off the government.

The fact is poor people historically don't vote, see link below.

According to the statistics, there are only 4.1% of the U.S. Population on welfare. A great number of food stamp recipients are working people who just can't make enough to live, some even working 3-4 part time jobs and still can't earn enough to feed the family.

Ok now considering the fact that poor people don't vote, and there is only 4.1% of the U.S. Population on welfare, who is left? You do the math.

Ok, welfare people who do not work are typically at income levels below $15,000 and working welfare or food stamp recipients are usually in the $15-$30 range.

In 2008, out of 13% of the population below $15,000, only 6% of them voted. And not everyone below $15,000 income is on welfare, we know this because 13% of the population is at that level and there is only 4.1% of the population on welfare. So the welfare vote, if there is one is only a small amount of the 6% who voted out of 13% of the population at that income level.

Out of the 17.2% at $15-$30, only 12% of them voted.

A good number of voters ARE non-working, but they are senior citizens who've worked hard all their lives and paid taxes. They've earned their retirement and many of them fall in the categories below $35,000.

What all this means is that, it's not possible for the majority of Obama voters to be the non-working welfare bums you believe they are. Considering only 6% of the 13% at $15,000 or below voted, and there is only 4.1% of the population on welfare, it's hard for me to believe there is any welfare vote at all.

The majority of Obama voters are hard working people with incomes above $15,000. Karl Rove and O'Reilly got their math wrong yet again, and you shouldn't take it as truth, because their math is not real, it's math they do as a Republican to make themselves feel better. LOL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... ally-dont/

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/


Attachments:
income_support_table.png
income_support_table.png [ 8.88 KiB | Viewed 958 times ]

_________________
* Purposely written with typos, misspellings and bad grammar. I butcher the English language on purpose just to piss you off.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:59 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:53 am
Posts: 254
NEO wrote:
Look at the chart below that shows jobs going off a cliff and guess when they started to get better? Businesses started hiring right after Obama was elected,


Look at the chart below that shows jobs going off a cliff and guess when they started to get better? Businesses started hiring right after Obama was elected and his budgets and policies started to kick in.

_________________
* Purposely written with typos, misspellings and bad grammar. I butcher the English language on purpose just to piss you off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 3:32 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:26 am
Posts: 2093
Location: Bradford
Yeah, I said it. I own it. It's true. I didn't say it the first time, but THEN, I said it!
I said majority of Obama voters. (not ALL Obama voters.)
And most of the ppl who voted for Obama for the first time ever in their lives did so only b/c he is (half) black.
I personally know a lot of people who didn't vote. They are not poor, not black, not working 3 jobs. They are just lazy.
Last I knew there were 2 major candidates, and a few independents. Voting for a candidate is not evil. apathy is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:21 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:56 pm
Posts: 1347
Neo wrote:
Obama is actually the SMALLEST GOVERNMENT SPENDER SINCE EISENHOWER. You bought into the lie that the whopping increase in spending in Obama's first year was his doing when in fact, the president before him, BUSH and his congress is the ones that sets the budget for the first year of the next president after him (2009), spending increased a whopping 17.9% and that spending was set months BEFORE Obama even took the oath.

And if you knew anything about government works, that a president can't spend any monies above that alloted to the executive branch as discretionary, and were able to do just a little research you would find that the democratic controlled congress, house and senate, upped that spending in the last two years bush was in office, over his vetos.

Neo wrote:
Plus, if that really was the national sentiment, then Obama wouldn't have been reelected. You just pulled that poll right out of your ass.
Let's see, poll after poll states that over 50% of the population thinks we're heading in the wrong direction, obama's popularity is over 50%. He didn't get re-elected on his or democrat's policies, he was re-elected the same way a prom queen is elected.[/quote]

Neo wrote:
Robbed? Right there you said it, if you where that wealthy, you would invest in a way that you pay NO TAXES AT ALL. That is the problem, wealthy people don't want to pay their fair share. They actually don't want to pay anything. That is all we are asking, for them to pay a fair share. Why should a janitor have to pay a higher rate than someone like Romney?
Janitor's don't pay higher rates than romney. If that janitor invested his money he too would be paying a lower rate on those investments. Romney doesn't take a paycheck from his ventures, he invests his money, which by the way was already taxed. Fair share? Who uses more of the services provided by our tax money? Who pays by far a larger share of the taxes to our federal government? To criminalize those people that take advantage of tax breaks given by the code is idotic. I bet you do it every year. Go directly to jail. Hell I'm not rich and I don't want to pay taxes. I see it as wasted money. I pay estimated quarterly taxes so I don't over pay. Why let the government waste my money when I can invest it for an actual return? If you get back more than $.01 in your tax return you are an idiot.

Neo wrote:
I think I've already proven you don't really know or understand the facts, so how can you get the math right? And it's not about for how long the government will run on the extra tax money from them, it's about fairness.
It has never been about fair taxes. If that were so there would be a FLAT TAX for all citizens. That is the only fair way to do it.

Neo wrote:
Look at the chart below, your telling me the bulk of wealth isn't at the top?
As it should be. This isn't a socialist country, yet. Want more of that money, get out there and get it.

Neo wrote:
Wage and salary workers, 80% of America only holds 11% of the wealth. The top 5%, all upper class, hold 72% of the wealth. It's not about "subtracting from the rich guys and adding to the poor guys", it's about fairness in who pays the bills for our government and it's services.
Pays the bills for our government and services. If you go and get your car worked on I'm sure as hell not going to pay the bill.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Neo wrote:
The top 1% got 90% of the income growth
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... dened.html
Example: You make $20/hr, I make $10/hr. We both get raises of 50%. You gain $10/hr, I gain $5/hr. We both gained 50% but you gained double what I did. Fair? Yep.

Neo wrote:
Since you didn't know Obama spends less than any president since eisenhower and you got it wrong on who holds the wealth, I'd say you are the one that hasn't thought it through, can't get the math right or understand how things really work, but I'll go on.
Since you don't understand how our government works and the rules and regulations therein I'll go on. NO president can spend monies above the discretionary fund of the executive branch. Only congress sets budgets. There is no other way it happens. Simple math, since Jan 2009 until present, our country's debt has more than doubled. Who then is to blame? Can't be bush, established that using our own constitution. Can't be obama, established that using our constitution. Has to be congress. What levels of spending have we ben under since 2007? Congress. Who controlled congress in 2007? Democrats? Who won't set a budget, even present a budget? Democrats.

Neo wrote:
You believe that because you believed a lie, like the ones above I've already proven you wrong. The economy is doing better. Look at the chart below that shows jobs going off a cliff and guess when they started to get better? Businesses started hiring right after Obama was elected, because they where confident in the market. Plus this economy would be doing better if the top 1% didn't get 90% of the income growth and Republican representatives actually helped to make it better instead of trying their best to kill it so that Obama would look bad.
Businesses didn't start hiring right after obama took office. In fact, more people are unemployed presently than when he did take office. Remember, unemployment figures released are not the number of actual employed or unemployed. You have to actually read the BLS reports to get to the U6 category.

Neo wrote:
The reason the markets dropped is the prospect of the Republicans not compromising on a solution for the “Fiscal Cliff”. They are betting the Republicans care more about being in power and making Obama look bad. Matter of fact, the reason the economy is only recovering this slowly is due to them not compromising. They are the reason we lost our credit rating. Their failure to compromise cost us then and it continues to cost us. They would rather the economy DIDN'T recover, so they can blame it on Obama. So I agree on the last point, those businesses and stock holders can see a disaster coming, because they know Republican representatives care more about themselves than they do about the country, or the people that live in it.
The democrats won't compromise either. The reason we lost our credit rating was the inability to come to agreement in congress on a budget (democrats didn't even propose one), the increasing amount of debt the country was incurring, and the looming spectre of the PPCA. Even if the republicans raised taxes on the rich only as the democrats want, the remaining reasons will still apply. We don't deserve the rating we have and I had hoped that it would have dropped further. When spending is out of control the FIRST step to take is to stop spending.

Neo wrote:
Ok, now I think I've proven you do not truly understand the economy or how things really work, being so wrong on everything. Anyone should just discount you as no more different or smarter than the talking heads on BMN, Lush Limpdick and Karl Rove, who also doesn't get his math right with reality, but, to give them credit, it did fool you I guess, and that was their goals.

But I guess you'll come back with a response that I'm wrong because “Hannity” said so or cite some poll that doesn't exist or may-be some “study” that wasn't done with facts or real data, but just a conservatives bloggers opinions. Like Romney did.
You repeatedly use liberal sources for your links and you think tiger is hooked on hannity? Take from a registered Independent, neither republicans or democrats have all of the answers. Fiscally the republicans are light years ahead of the liberals. Socially the liberals ar light years ahead of the republicans. Both sides need to go away, permanently. You say republicans were blocking obama spending? Really? Where was the democrats budget? You can't even have a discussion without a proposal yet the democrats blame the republicans? Did you even read the proposal on medicare from ryan? It took from the rich by charging them more for their services and gave that money back to program to use for the poor. Vouchers were available but not mandatory, the richest wouldn't even be covered under medicare. Did you read the ryan budget that closed tax loopholes on, gulp, big oil, ending the subsidies that so many of the liberals in congress support because the companies operate in their districts? I know I read it. What I couldn't read was the proposed budget put forth by the democrats. There wasn't one.

Simple math Neo. Spending more than you take in is stupidity at the lowest level. When I was limited in my income I reduced spending. I didn't keep on spending like I was earning it.

I hope this country can turn it around. Not back to where we were, or even staying where we're at. I'm looking for a revolution in government. One where the republicans and democrats are outnumbered by people with no party.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:06 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:46 am
Posts: 1235
Guitar wrote:
I see the Cabinet and other staff are abandoning ship, Stony. What's your take on that?


Well, Hillary for one announced she was resigning before the election. She needs to prepare for the next presidential election, when SHE will win.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:10 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:46 am
Posts: 1235
Quote:
Ya know, there IS such a thing as a sore Winner. Would it kill you to refrain from your "IN YOUR FACE" attitude and realize that those who voted for Romney (Against Obama really) are people who work hard, pay taxes, and want what is best for all? Your Junior high school student election mentality is somewhat overbearing to those of us who only want our country to improve. Now get out there and count some reliefers, b/c the number is going to skyrocket!


Respectfully, Shadow, while, yes, Romney supporters are mostly all that (I don't necessarily believe they want the best for ALL), I don't see where Stony is anymore "in your face" than Tiger.

The ranting about "reliefers" is often mean-spirited. While you may see a side of welfare in Bradford that reflects people who are indeed "scummers," there are many, many people on welfare who used to be productive members of society until the Bush administration and, more recently, the 2008 crash.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:57 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:19 pm
Posts: 542
Want a fair share, flat tax. Only fair way. If everyone is paying 20% of what they earn then it is fair. Asking someone to pay a bigger share (over 55% between state and federal NOW) is not a FAIR share. That's punishment for being wealthy and that is paying a bigger share of the whole than anyone else is required to.

Tired of the argument "well, they're rich, they can afford to pay more". So what if they can? Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell them how much money they can have or need to have? Take more away from them that's less that they have to invest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Obama Wins! Republican's Eat your Heart Out!
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:34 pm 
Offline
BT Regular
BT Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:26 am
Posts: 2093
Location: Bradford
JeffT wrote:
Want a fair share, flat tax. Only fair way. If everyone is paying 20% of what they earn then it is fair. Asking someone to pay a bigger share (over 55% between state and federal NOW) is not a FAIR share. That's punishment for being wealthy and that is paying a bigger share of the whole than anyone else is required to.

Tired of the argument "well, they're rich, they can afford to pay more". So what if they can? Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell them how much money they can have or need to have? Take more away from them that's less that they have to invest.

Agree! since when is it the american dream to punish people for being successful?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
ADVERTISEMENT






LIKE US
EMAIL SUBSCRIBE

Enter your email address:

DONATE

© 2004-2014 Bradford PA Today. News & Information. All rights reserved.

Bradford PA Portal | PennsNews | BigFree Information | Free Web Hosting