Repugs for Ron Paul!

[chefmike]

Vote for the mad doctor and help elect Obama!

LMAO..."Paul — or "Dr. Paul," as his followers reverently refer to the obstetrician-turned-politician... "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_el_pr/ron_paul_outposts;_ylt=AuulnyFEofZadnOx94X31MNh24c A

[trish]

(to be read with hushed tones):

1. If you’re a libertarian, then you’re for fiscal responsibility; not the continuation of a war that put us trillions of dollars into debt to China.

2. If you’re a libertarian, then you’re for individual rights; not kicking Habeas Corpus under the rug.

3. If you’re a libertarian, then you’re against big government with big ears listening in on your private phone and internet conversations. You’re against the Patriot Act.

4. If you’re a libertarian, then you’re for the right of an individual to control his own body. You’re against torture and you’re against McCain’s promise to stack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade.

If you’re a libertarian, you don’t want to vote for McCain…EVER! You’ll want to vote for Ron Paul: ‘cause three out of four ain’t bad.

[Blank]

He's pretty much dropped out. I don't know if he's officially dropped out, but he's not in the running any longer.

Vote Bobb Barr, I suppose.

[chefmike]

Vote Bobb Barr, I suppose.There is only one sane and informed choice, and that choice is Obama.

I suppose one would vote for Barr if they happened to be as clueless as the Dr. Pauloholics. Let us know how that works out for you... :roll:

[El Nino]

Vote Bobb Barr, I suppose.There is only one sane and informed choice, and that choice is Obama.

I suppose one would vote for Barr if they happened to be as clueless as the Dr. Pauloholics. Let us know how that works out for you... :roll:

Obama is anti-American. This can not be argued.

[trish]

Why, because he wears flag pin, or doesn't wear a flag pin? Are you wearing your flag pin right now? Do you own one? If you don't, are you a communist? If you do own one, how often do you wear it? Is the amount of time that you wear divided by your age a measure of your patriotism? Just how does that all work?

[JelenaCD]

i voted for perot in 92 and helped Clinton , Clinton ended up being good once the rebuplicans took over in 1994 ! Clinton was a good free trader with NAFTA , and welfare reform , this could not have occured with a democratic house and senate , the republican takover in 1994 and Clinton's right of center democratic tilt was perfect together , the dream of bi-partisanship , it's over now !

[trish]

i voted for perot :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: OMG I can't stop :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[El Nino]

Why, because he wears flag pin, or doesn't wear a flag pin? Are you wearing your flag pin right now? Do you own one? If you don't, are you a communist? If you do own one, how often do you wear it? Is the amount of time that you wear divided by your age a measure of your patriotism? Just how does that all work?

It has nothing to do with wearing a flagpin. That was just Fox news, neocon dis-info and distraction. It has everything to do with him being a globalist and sympathetic to a one world order. Take a look at the histories of the people and powers behind Obama. How about that New World Order speech he gave in Germany? wOW

[trish]

“One world order” is not only a mouthful, but a phrase rife with ambiguity. What does it mean to advocate a “one world order”? Such advocacy can be extremely innocuous: such as the claim there’s only one consistent set of physical laws that describe the order of the world. It can be a tad less so: such as the claim that there should be a web of treaties designed to reduce the carbon emissions of both the developed and developing countries. It can mean one supports the work of the U.N. or that one endorses the role of The World Court or the WTO. But none of these advocacies entails that the advocate would have to be anti-American. So you can’t, El Nino, have any of these meanings in mind.

Since you’re so scared, El Nino, of the “one world order,” I presume you mean something more in the line of “one world government” or perhaps a “one world (secret) government”. However, as I will presently demonstrate, this doesn’t entail the advocate has to be anti-American either.

The Demonstration: Though there are NO candidates for the U.S. presidency who advocate a one world government of any kind let’s assume for the sake of argument that there is one. To suppose that it therefore follows that he or she were anti-American is a logical fallacy: the fallacy of ultimate allegiance (let’s call it). The fallacy presumes, for example, that if a West Virginian were a patriotic American, then he would have to be anti-West Virginian. That might have been the case during the Civil War, but it’s certainly not the case today.
Indeed, the fact 1) that one could’ve been a loyal West Virginian and not a patriotic American together with fact 2) that today one can be both a loyal West Virginian AND a patriotic American, shows there is no logical connection in either direction between these two allegiances.

Were the interests of the United States served by the interests of a larger world order (and why else would a hypothetical presidential candidate support a larger world order?), it would be easy to see that our hypothetical candidate could be both a patriotic American AND an advocate of “one world order”. QED

However, to repeat: in actual fact, neither McCain nor Obama explicitly, implicitly or secretly plans to establish a one world government in any sense of the word “government”. Certainly neither candidate has plans to diminish U.S. sovereignty over its citizens. Each does advocate in stronger (Obama) or lesser (McCain) degrees that U.S. policy could stand to be a bit less unilateral in the the future. Certainly neither candidate can be said, without impugning your veracity or your sanity, to be anti-American.

[El Nino]

Trish, you really need to get a life and quit knit-picking trivialities. You seem to chronically be trying to defend Obama by hook or by crook. Face it, the guy is a trainwreck and his values are not even his own, when it comes down to it. Why this Obama is the savior tone with you? You know what Trish, I bet if he wasn't partially black you wouldn't be so supportive of him, would you? If he was just some middle-aged white guy you would be much less likely to give him your misinformed and mindless support. You sympathize with his color of skin Trish... there I said it. Its been long overdue here.

Now, does Obama continuously vote to fund the illegal occupation in Iraq? Yes he does. Did he vote to re-enact the Patriot act? Yes he did. Is he really for freedom of the people, true liberty and limiting taxation? no he's not. Is he pleasing his political lords and masters by voting this way? YES HE IS!! I am not going to continue here about Obombya' He is bad news for the Republic. End of discussion. Don't waste your energy defending this clown. Go Bill of Rights!

Down with a new world order; the Republic will prevail!!! Our leaders have betrayed the people. If you look at the very reasons why our founding fathers seceded from England, you will see history on the very cusp of repeating itself right here in the USA. There is a new Declaration of independence brewing as we speak. A vote for Obama is virtually the same thing as a vote for McCain. Two sides of the same coin. War will continue, debt will continue, blowback will continue, civil liberties will continue to diminish and your wallets will shrink due to the perpetual warfare/welfare state. To sum it up, Obama is George Orwells' worst nightmare. He is a perfect pawn and tool of the elite.

[chefmike]

Why, because he wears flag pin, or doesn't wear a flag pin? Are you wearing your flag pin right now? Do you own one? If you don't, are you a communist? If you do own one, how often do you wear it? Is the amount of time that you wear divided by your age a measure of your patriotism? Just how does that all work?

It has nothing to do with wearing a flagpin. That was just Fox news, neocon dis-info and distraction. It has everything to do with him being a globalist and sympathetic to a one world order. Take a look at the histories of the people and powers behind Obama. How about that New World Order speech he gave in Germany? wOW

The number 23.

It's coming for you, Nino.

[trish]

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=518730&highlight=#518730

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=518730&highlight=#518730

Is there an echo in here? El Nino, you've been reduced to repeating yourself. You've fallen prey to a logical fallacy. It's not knit picking to point it out. It's just stupid of you to shrug it off and pretend your argument still holds water.


Why this Obama is the savior tone with you?

I don't quite know what this sentence means but I'll attempt a response anyway: Defending someone against the charge of anti-Americanism isn't the same as accepting them as your savior.


There is a new Declaration of independence brewing as we speak.
Oh...that's not anti-American :roll:

[El Nino]

Its needed. The points need to be reiterated and reinforced.

[trish]

Its needed. The points need to be reiterated and reinforced.

Nonsense, you can't figure out how to save you fallacious argument and so you just start repeating yourself.

El Nino thinks that "X is a globalist, entails X is anti-American". :lol: :lol: :lol:

[El Nino]

Its needed. The points need to be reiterated and reinforced.

Nonsense, you can't figure out how to save you fallacious argument and so you just start repeating yourself.

El Nino thinks that "X is a globalist, entails X is anti-American". :lol: :lol: :lol:

You think its funny? Yeah, the severe erosion of your civil liberties and the economic collapse of the Country is just a big old barrel of laughs, huh? Wow you people amaze me. Victims of layer after layer after layer of brainwashing.

Oh yeah, and its not nonsense Trish. I am not trying to save anything. The point remains crystal clear. You are asleep

[trish]

I think its funny you can't recognize a logical fallacy when you're in the middle of one.

[El Nino]

...

[trish]

???

[El Nino]

Well, I am not truly in the middle of a logical fallacy now, am I Trish??? Your little equation is meaningless because it defines no contextual values or data sets.

[trish]

Now your just babbling!!! First of all, it's YOUR equation El Nino: Here's your argument.


Obama is anti-American. This can not be argued.

it has nothing to do with wearing a flagpin. That was just Fox news, neocon dis-info and distraction. It has everything to do with him being a globalist and sympathetic to a one world order. Take a look at the histories of the people and powers behind Obama. How about that New World Order speech he gave in Germany? wOW

This is your argument in a nutshell.

P1) Obama has associations, who are "sympathetic" to a one world order.
P2) Obama is "sympathetic" to a one world order.
C) Therefore Obama is anti-American.

Now the meaning of the two premises are ambiguous and unclear. I asked you about that but you never addressed that issue. But it doesn't matter that they're unclear, because even on the strongest meaning of "globalist" the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. You're whole argument is a non-sequiter.

If you think you’re being misrepresented, then YOU fill in ALL the gaps and show us without doubt the conclusion follows from a set of true, verifiable premises.

[strokeitnow]

Chefmike, I respect your opinion but Obama is the modern day robin hood..

He will take all he can from the rich and give it to the too lazy to get off their ass and get a job crowd. No thank you, I worked hard for my money and I intend to keep it.

Noboma is the only sane solution

[trish]

I'm not voting for Oboma either. Be he sounds pretty good...modern day Robin Hood, eh?

[El Nino]

Well, it's his associates and chief political advisers that openly have Anti-Constitutional sentiments, hopes and plans. Connect the dots Trish. And please don't argue that he is not encapsulated by these people because I could present hundreds of legitimate pages that state contrary.

[trish]

NO NO NO, I asked YOU to connect the dots. Show us. Fill in the gaps. (Please, establish premises using primary sources only; and carefully define your jargon; i.e. anti-American, anti-Constitution, globalist etc.)





"Encapsulated" Do ever stop?

[chefmike]

Well, it's his associates and chief political advisers that openly have Anti-Constitutional sentiments, hopes and plans. Connect the dots Trish. And please don't argue that he is not encapsulated by these people because I could present hundreds of legitimate pages that state contrary.

Legitimate? You've never posted any source that's even remotely legitimate, slick.

[chefmike]

Chefmike, I respect your opinion but Obama is the modern day robin hood..

He will take all he can from the rich and give it to the too lazy to get off their ass and get a job crowd. No thank you, I worked hard for my money and I intend to keep it.

Noboma is the only sane solution

It's about time that the BushInc. crowd lost their undeserved tax cuts and started paying their fair share. Go whine to Rush. I'm sure he feels your pain.

[Cuchulain]

strokeitnow wrote:
Chefmike, I respect your opinion but Obama is the modern day robin hood..

He will take all he can from the rich and give it to the too lazy to get off their ass and get a job crowd. No thank you, I worked hard for my money and I intend to keep it.

Noboma is the only sane solution


It's about time that the BushInc. crowd lost their undeserved tax cuts and started paying their fair share. Go whine to Rush. I'm sure he feels your pain.

Well said, chefmike. Strokeitnow is giving us the same old Reichwing garbage that Ronnie Raygun, the poster boy of the 'trickle-down' crowd trumpeted when he told Americans about his fictitious welfare queen. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth under Bush/Cheney UPWARDS into the hands of the richest 1%:
"Under the Bush administration there has been a significant transfer of wealth from lower- and middle-class households to the wealthiest stratum of our society. More than 90 percent of the gains we have made from the economic growth of the last 25 years has ended up in the pockets of the richest 10 percent of our population. Wait, there is more! The richest 1 percent got away with at least half of that gain.

The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 contributed to this widening of the gap between rich and poor. In 2007, these tax cuts meant an additional $20 of disposable income for the poorest 20 percent of households; $740 for the middle income group, but $45,000 annually for the top 1 percent. For millionaire households it adds up to a whopping $120,000.

Further, making those tax cuts permanent would add $4.4 trillion to our deficit in the next 10 years.

This dangerously widening income gap in the United States is largely due to the declining share of taxes paid by large U.S. corporations. The top marginal rate on corporations has fallen from 49.8 percent in 1986 to 39.3 percent today. As a result, Mr. Tulley, corporations in 2003 paid only 7.4 percent of all federal income taxes in the United States.

The decline in corporate responsibility is costly to the nation. Corporate tax cuts result either in shifting the burden of running the country to local and state agencies or putting an additional burden on the backs of working families.

There is a further rub. Well-planned, well-organized government spending is essential for a well-functioning economy. Tax revenues provide the funds for roads, ports, airports, flood control, telecommunications and a healthy, well-educated work force. Corporations that evade paying their fair share may show a greater profit in the short run, but in the long run, a deteriorating infrastructure will bring lower profitability. Without them our bridges will fall, our roads become impassable and flying dangerous.

Finally, economists have examined the impact of major corporate tax cuts on the prospects for long-run growth. The evidence shows that the degree of inequality we now experience has had a harmful effect on the social fabric of our nation. It has created political tensions, affected our children's futures and weakened our public health services.

Stephanie Seguino of Burlington is the associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and professor of economics at the University of Vermont." http://burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080731/OPINION/807310302

It's funny how these lads who complain about people "too lazy to get off their ass and get a job" never seem to have a problem with corporate welfare. I guess Haliburton needs our help more than a single mother tryin to raise 3 kids.

Obama wants us to pay Social Security tax on income above 250k. Presently we only pay SS tax on the first 100k of income. This will give a much needed boost to a program which is a social contract between America and it's citizens who are too old or too injured to work.

"Obama says he would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains. Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the current 15 percent to 20-28 percent....The 95 percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college. Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article

I can't find a lot of sympathy in my heart for the richest 5% of Americans who have been raking it in hand over fist during the past 8 years.

[strokeitnow]

chulculain and chefmike I think your missing the point.. what I would be in favor of is a flat tax rate for all americans... that is truly paying your fair share.. is it fair for me to have to subsidize other americans because I have the means? who is oboma to say he knows how to spend my hard earned money better than I... forget about robin hood barack is closer to being the pied piper and all you folks are mesmerized by his tune.. I'll be happy about paying my fair share when all others do as well and that includes Haliburton...

The only thing oboma has going for him is that most americans are fed up with the bush adiministration...

Noboma in 08 for me

[trish]

…is it fair for me to have to subsidize other americans because I have the means?

Of course it is. And it’s patriotic too. You already support a flat tax, right? By a flat tax most people mean a system which utilizes only one marginal rate; i.e. the tax you pay is proportional to your taxable income (the constant of proportionality being independent of your income). Consequently you already believe it is fair for those who have more to pay more. The only thing at issue is how much more? You’ve already conceded the fairness of “subsidizing” (as you put it) other Americans (with a capital A). So given your new understanding, ask yourself, “What is the real reason I prefer a flat tax?”

[strokeitnow]

The reason I prefer flat tax is equality. If it ends up being 50% of total gross income so be it as long as everyone who draws a wage in the US pays 50% I am cool with it.

[trish]

However, as a wealthy American you use and benefit more from the services provided by the government. You probably utilize the federal highway system for your personal use. If you have a business, you probably depend on the system to transport the goods you provide and the parts you need to produce those good. Someone who can't even afford a car only benefits indirectly from the highway system. It's not equitable that he should pay the same amount toward the system as you.

Once again by suggesting a flat tax is fair, you already concede it's fair for you to pay more; you concede your greater benefits and larger uses require you, in the interest of equity, to pay more. So it comes down to a matter of totaling up uses and other benefits and weighing them against taxes paid. What you need to do to substantiate your claim is prove that uses, benefits and cost to the commons are somehow miraculously proportional to taxable income.

[strokeitnow]

Well try this one out, I am a single male. Drive maybe perhaps 6000 miles per year tops. Not because I want to by the way, where I live there is no public transportation. I have no children yet I pay taxes for schools. Give because I want a considerable amount to local charities, boys & girls club, center for abused women. Don't own a business that benefits from our transportation system. How am I using a disproportionate amount of the services provided by our govt?

[trish]

Do you own a business that benefits from the government launched GPS satellite system? Perhaps you depend on cell phones or the internet. Are you invested in companies that use the transportation system? How about the airlines (whose traffic control is government run)? Do you use the monetary system? Do you benefit from living in a society where people can read and write? Does your business use the mail system (which provides special rates for business advertising)?

We certainly aren't going to construct a tax system based on your special case. So can you prove that use, benefits and cost to the commons is generally proportional to taxable income?

[NYBURBS]

Look there are a web of services and just about anyone can come up with a theory on how people benefit from it. That is aside from the fact that the tax system in this country is insane.

We are all (well most) paying too much of our incomes into ineffective government services. Property taxes for schools are forcing many people to pack up and leave a town they have lived in all their lives. Our paychecks are greatly diminished in the name of military and social programs, so on and so forth.

Then there are the tolls (5 dollars each way on a lot of bridges in NY), but I notice all the time that for all the damn road work projects, we in NY seem to have some of the worst roads in the country.

It's not that many of the programs we have aren't laudable goals, it's just that the bureaucracy required to run it usually fucks it up and turns it into someone's cash cow.

[trish]

It's not just a theory that we all benefit and use government services. Business in the modern world is impossible without government. There are no "self-made men" who owe nothing to infrastructure of laws and services government provides.

Did I say the current tax system is sane? I agree most people are paying way too much, except for the top 1% who over the past 7 years received the benefit of the projected ten year budgetary surplus we had at the end of the Clinton administration.

Schools are in financial difficulty all over and they are largely supported by local property taxes. That system needs to change.

Yeah, I hate toll roads too, and privatization of government services will only increase their number.

There's lot's of room for improvement. But can it be shown that a flat tax system will fix these and other inequities? One thing I can say in its favor is that at least the rich will pay something out of what they haven't managed to shelter.

[NYBURBS]

I'm not necessarily advocating a flat tax, but I'm not opposed to it in principal either. You're right that the extremely wealthy do shelter much of their income. There's also the issue of all the people that work off the books or cash business owners that under-report their earnings.

[trish]

Indeed, those off the book businesses are a perfect example of unregulated free-market enterprise. They offer no protections to the customers or the owners; and as you imply, they put nothing back.

[NYBURBS]

Indeed, those off the book businesses are a perfect example of unregulated free-market enterprise. They offer no protections to the customers or the owners; and as you imply, they put nothing back.

Regulation that we all pay the taxes due and free markets are not mutually exclusive. With the exception of anarchy, there will always be taxes. The main issues are really how much in services do we want or need, and what system is best for evenly collecting the taxes needed to support those services.

[trish]

Regulation that we all pay the taxes due and free markets are not mutually exclusive.

True enough. That why it's not redundant to use "unregulated" or "regulated" as a modifier to "free market".

As far a what services to we want or need...that's always in flux. People always want more than they think until it's time to pay for it. The "wants" and the "costs" have to find each other over the course of time.

[bartholomeus]

Both obama and McCain talk of starting war with iran....I want another choice. One that doesn't include more war.

[El Nino]

Fucking amen to that!!!