Obama's Democrats in disarray over expiring tax cuts

fishinRod · Dec 7, 2010

Protectionist said:
Most Americans voted for Republicans in the last election. The same majority of Americans who voted Republican, including me, now oppose the Republicans on the tax cuts for the rich issue.

the republicans were very upfront on how they stood for tax cuts for all before the elections. Are you trying to say that they (repubs)wanted the tax cuts to expire while campaigning before Nov.? That is certainly NOT what i heard them say, in fact what i heard was quite the opposite.

Boo Radley · Dec 7, 2010

ptif219 said:
More BS and no specifics. As always you can not give a staight answer

What's not straight about the entire quote. Your sentence is specific. it is specifically false. Examples ahve been given to prove it false. What are you having trouble with?

ptif219 · Dec 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
What's not straight about the entire quote. Your sentence is specific. it is specifically false. Examples ahve been given to prove it false. What are you having trouble with?

You are showing nothing. You are being general and not even showing how you think it is false just a lot of accusations with nothing to back them up.

Boo Radley · Dec 7, 2010

ptif219 said:
You are showing nothing. You are being general and not even showing how you think it is false just a lot of accusations with nothing to back them up.

Who would back up what I think? Read your wild hyperbolic exaggeration and tell me what you think I would need to support my beliefs. As I don't support Obama's decisions in Afghanisatn, what would i site for you? As I think rangle should be fired, what would support that I think that? As I have state a few thousnad times that I prefer divided government, what would I cite? You're not making any sense at all.

I suggest you go back and re-read this converation. Otherwise, drugs are bad, ok . . . .

ptif219 · Dec 7, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Who would back up what I think? Read your wild hyperbolic exaggeration and tell me what you think I would need to support my beliefs. As I don't support Obama's decisions in Afghanisatn, what would i site for you? As I think rangle should be fired, what would support that I think that? As I have state a few thousnad times that I prefer divided government, what would I cite? You're not making any sense at all.

I suggest you go back and re-read this converation. Otherwise, drugs are bad, ok . . . .

More rants and not specifying the exaggeration. You can not do anything unless it is in general with no specifics.

Protectionist · Dec 7, 2010

fishinRod said:
the republicans were very upfront on how they stood for tax cuts for all before the elections. Are you trying to say that they (repubs)wanted the tax cuts to expire while campaigning before Nov.? That is certainly NOT what i heard them say, in fact what i heard was quite the opposite.

I am a registered Independent. I, and millions of other Independents, voted for Republicans because of a variety of issues. Tax cuts for the rich most certainly was not one of them. We voted for Republicans because of immigration, Islamization, gun control, death penalty, etc. The only people who would vote for tax cuts for the rich are the rich themselves (if they are that greedy), and paid-off politicians who kiss their asses.
Polls now bear this out. Only 1/4 of the American people support tax cuts for the rich. Even lots of Republicans are wise to the gangster boys in the capitol like McConnell and Boehner.
As for the harm to business from these tax cuts > BS. Taxes were at all time highs (82 - 94%) on the highest income bracket (1944 - 1963), and this was a time of prosperity. By the same token, Bush lowered tax rates down to 35% in 2003, and the economy has been a dud ever since.

j-mac · Dec 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
What's not straight about the entire quote. Your sentence is specific. it is specifically false. Examples ahve been given to prove it false. What are you having trouble with?

OMG! No you haven't! You SAID that you have before, and then all the sudden two pages later you get to say that you have given examples? You are dishonest Joe.

j-mac

j-mac · Dec 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Otherwise, drugs are bad, ok . . . .

Oh, oh....I see a pattern here....When Joe can't honestly debate something, he reverts to this small minded little insult. It's called trolling Joe, keep it up.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2010

j-mac said:
OMG! No you haven't! You SAID that you have before, and then all the sudden two pages later you get to say that you have given examples? You are dishonest Joe.

j-mac

J, do you even understand what is being said. I most certainly have given eamples a few times, and you don't have to go back any further than post 254 to read them. I'm serious begining to question the two you and your reading ability.

But let me ask a simple question, what do you think I'm suppose to give examples of?

Barbbtx · Dec 8, 2010

Protectionist said:
I am a registered Independent. I, and millions of other Independents, voted for Republicans because of a variety of issues. Tax cuts for the rich most certainly was not one of them. We voted for Republicans because of immigration, Islamization, gun control, death penalty, etc. The only people who would vote for tax cuts for the rich are the rich themselves (if they are that greedy), and paid-off politicians who kiss their asses.
Polls now bear this out. Only 1/4 of the American people support tax cuts for the rich. Even lots of Republicans are wise to the gangster boys in the capitol like McConnell and Boehner.
As for the harm to business from these tax cuts > BS. Taxes were at all time highs (82 - 94%) on the highest income bracket (1944 - 1963), and this was a time of prosperity. By the same token, Bush lowered tax rates down to 35% in 2003, and the economy has been a dud ever since.

Tea party was against raising taxes on anyone. Taxed Enough Already, but stick it to the rich? I don't think so.
That's not what they meant. The Republican did well to defend everyone's best interest to keep more of their own money.

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2010

j-mac said:
Oh, oh....I see a pattern here....When Joe can't honestly debate something, he reverts to this small minded little insult. It's called trolling Joe, keep it up.

j-mac

Yep, whenever someone can't see what is clearly written, like in post 254, and their comments make absolutely no logical sense, I reply with "drugs are bad, ok . . . " That's not trolling j. And you commenting on behavior is likey more of a rules violation. But as I just did that with you, we both might want to be careful.

Erod · Dec 8, 2010

The Prof said:
afghanistan is a disaster

biden moved the DROP DEAD DATE for withdrawal to 2014

The Page by Mark Halperin | Biden: 2014 “Drop Dead Date”

more americans have been killed over there since obama took over than 01 to 08 combined, 55 in november

iCasualties | Operation Enduring Freedom | Afghanistan

for what?

wapo's watergate wonderboy wrote it's all about politics (and incompetence) in his characteristic voice of judgement, OBAMA'S WARS

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

tragic

When you won't let troops fight a war like you're supposed to fight a war.......you get this.

Barbbtx · Dec 8, 2010

Protectionist said:
I am a registered Independent. I, and millions of other Independents, voted for Republicans because of a variety of issues. Tax cuts for the rich most certainly was not one of them. We voted for Republicans because of immigration, Islamization, gun control, death penalty, etc. The only people who would vote for tax cuts for the rich are the rich themselves (if they are that greedy), and paid-off politicians who kiss their asses.
Polls now bear this out. Only 1/4 of the American people support tax cuts for the rich. Even lots of Republicans are wise to the gangster boys in the capitol like McConnell and Boehner.
As for the harm to business from these tax cuts > BS. Taxes were at all time highs (82 - 94%) on the highest income bracket (1944 - 1963), and this was a time of prosperity. By the same token, Bush lowered tax rates down to 35% in 2003, and the economy has been a dud ever since.

I find the red part quite odd. No one ran on any of the issues last election. The Tea party sure isn't in agreement on them. What they agree on is low taxes, fiscal accountability, smaller government and the Constitution. They purposely avoided the things you said you voted on.

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2010

Erod said:
When you won't let troops fight a war like you're supposed to fight a war.......you get this.

Explain. As I recall, the commanders got exactly what they asked for in the Afghan surge.

ptif219 · Dec 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
J, do you even understand what is being said. I most certainly have given eamples a few times, and you don't have to go back any further than post 254 to read them. I'm serious begining to question the two you and your reading ability.

But let me ask a simple question, what do you think I'm suppose to give examples of?

How I exaggerated, Do you deny often defending Obama policies?

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2010

ptif219 said:
How I exaggerated, Do you deny often defending Obama policies?

because I believe in some of his policies. But that isn't where you stop. Read your quote again.

Erod · Dec 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
Explain. As I recall, the commanders got exactly what they asked for in the Afghan surge.

Obama impacted the manner in which they engage the enemy, including the time of day, ability to act immediately, etc. He put restrictions on them that make it hard to fight.

We've lost more troops in Afghanistan since Obama took over than in all the years of Bush. Now, I don't mean to say that Obama is entirely responsible for that because different objections have different risks, but their ability to act freely as needed is a must.

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2010

Erod said:
Obama impacted the manner in which they engage the enemy, including the time of day, ability to act immediately, etc. He put restrictions on them that make it hard to fight.

We've lost more troops in Afghanistan since Obama took over than in all the years of Bush. Now, I don't mean to say that Obama is entirely responsible for that because different objections have different risks, but their ability to act freely as needed is a must.

you realize, Bush wasn't actually engaged in Afghanistan, so becoming more involved explains an increase in loss of lives. And most of the restrictions you speak of have been misrepresented by quite a few on these forms. They largely speak to not killing civilians, whose hearts and minds you can't win by killing them.

However, he has been very consistent in letting the commanders have their way, and in doing so, making what I believe are huge mistakes. We need a clearer, more practical mission. We can't do enough nation building to make Afghanistan what we want. Instead, we shold back up and focus on aftey issues and internal Afghan affiars.

Albert Di Salvo · Dec 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
you realize, Bush wasn't actually engaged in Afghanistan, so becoming more involved explains an increase in loss of lives. And most of the restrictions you speak of have been misrepresented by quite a few on these forms. They largely speak to not killing civilians, whose hearts and minds you can't win by killing them.

However, he has been very consistent in letting the commanders have their way, and in doing so, making what I believe are huge mistakes. We need a clearer, more practical mission. We can't do enough nation building to make Afghanistan what we want. Instead, we shold back up and focus on aftey issues and internal Afghan affiars.

Oh for cripes sake, you don't actually support Obama's war do you?

Boo Radley · Dec 8, 2010

Albert Di Salvo said:
Oh for cripes sake, you don't actually support Obama's war do you?

I've been around a long time, and have a history ofn saying even during the Bush adminstration that Afghanistan masde some sense. It was going on the snipe hunt in Iraq that bothered me most. It was the sningle most reckless move in the last few decades.

That said, I think I stated clearly what I have a problem with and what I think should be done.

Albert Di Salvo · Dec 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
I've been around a long time, and have a history ofn saying even during the Bush adminstration that Afghanistan masde some sense. It was going on the snipe hunt in Iraq that bothered me most. It was the sningle most reckless move in the last few decades.

That said, I think I stated clearly what I have a problem with and what I think should be done.

The Hindu Kush is full of snipes for Obama to shoot at. America will be fighting Obama's war for years.

ptif219 · Dec 8, 2010

Boo Radley said:
because I believe in some of his policies. But that isn't where you stop. Read your quote again.

Yet you do not show how any of it is an exaggeration. Look how you try to play it down by saying some. I would say it is more like most and you disagree seldom.

Protectionist · Dec 9, 2010

Barbbtx said:
I find the red part quite odd. No one ran on any of the issues last election. The Tea party sure isn't in agreement on them. What they agree on is low taxes, fiscal accountability, smaller government and the Constitution. They purposely avoided the things you said you voted on.

Maybe in Texas they didn't run run these issues, but here in Florida they sure did. Rick Scott knocked McCollum right out of the top spot by showing ads with him saying "We don't need a law like that here in Florida" (referring to Arizona's SB1070 immigration law). As for Islamization, it's a big issue in New York because of 9/11 and the Ground Zero Mosque (among other things).
Also, to say the Tea party isn't in agreement on these + gun control and the death penalty doesn't sound quite right. Upon whay do you base that ?

j-mac · Dec 9, 2010

ptif219 said:
Yet you do not show how any of it is an exaggeration. Look how you try to play it down by saying some. I would say it is more like most and you disagree seldom.

Common tactic Joe uses, and has for years and years. It is ofcourse a fallacy, but one that he will never admit. When I first met him online, and debated him he was much more honest in his argument than now, although I am sure he would say the same of me. Which is why I won't from this point forward, and until some time in the future when I have discerned that he is willing to get back to an honest form of discussion, and not this Allensky crap and pablum he puts out, debate him further. It is quite pointless to argue with someone who thinks that shifting goal posts, and outright about faces in position are fair when they do it. Not to mention the name calling. He is done for now in my book.

j-mac

Boo Radley · Dec 9, 2010

ptif219 said:
Yet you do not show how any of it is an exaggeration. Look how you try to play it down by saying some. I would say it is more like most and you disagree seldom.

Ah, but I do disagree. So your statement was an exaggeration. I do believe you and j have reading difficulties. Sadly.

Obama's Democrats in disarray over expiring tax cuts

Active member