Obama invokes race card

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

No Bill Gates really didn't work hard. He's not the best designer, programmer, or anything else. Instead he was a pretty dirty rotten business man who was slightly more agile then another dirty rotten business man; Steve Jobs. There is a vast (VAST) different between well off, not having to worry about going into retirement, and being rich. You seem to lack understanding of the difference.

what about the people that created google? or the many others that have created a company that blew up and are making millions now? for every bill gates there are others that have worked hard to get their company where they're at.

[ChemicalWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cheese

what about the people that created google? or the many others that have created a company that blew up and are making millions now? for every bill gates there are others that have worked hard to get their company where they're at.

And? Like I said, I don't like raising taxes, I don't like income taxes at all. But if there were a bracket to tax more... wealthy would be my first target. I would start by removing tax cuts that benefited the wealthy first and then look at the situation again.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by ChemicalWarrior

And? Like I said, I don't like raising taxes, I don't like income taxes at all. But if there were a bracket to tax more... wealthy would be my first target. I would start by removing tax cuts that benefited the wealthy first and then look at the situation again.

i was arguing the point you said about how people that are rich don't work hard. and i saw you said you didn't support any tax raise/income tax etc etc and i agree.

[{OF}Blong]

Originally Posted by Cheese

what about the people that created google? or the many others that have created a company that blew up and are making millions now? for every bill gates there are others that have worked hard to get their company where they're at.

since I cant read chems posts I will reply to this. How old are you chem 19? its not me who doesnt understand the difference. He HAD TO WORK HARD to get ahead of steve jobs. he may have been dirty but he had to work hard at being dirty to get to where he is. I do know the difference and thats why I have people all over telling me with what I am doing for my retirement I will be set enough that I wont have to worry about how to pay that next bill ect ect and that I will actually be making $$$ in retirement. Now obviously they are basing it on past performances which could easily change. So maybe when you grow up a bit you might understand things like that more.

[[DvT]UY]

Originally Posted by {DvT}JonahHex

Now the questions become when, where, and how is the current incarnation of the Republican Party actually practicing that economic philosophy?

Paying for war with tax cuts, maybe? Allowing the credit industry to work hard and earn huge profits by ripping off the middle class and their investors? Allowing money to "trickle down" rather than "flow down" so a 2-income family has become the norm?

Fiscally responsible Republicans are a myth.

THis Rep admin has been the sh!ts imo...however, looking at all the candidates running for Prez...the Reps are still the clear & logical choice...or the lesser of the two evils, however you wish to see it.

[{OF}Erad]

Originally Posted by {OF}Blong

since I cant read chems posts I will reply to this.

LOL, he has Chem and I blocked! and yet he still has to reply about Chem's post without reading it.... what a buffoon!

[Soul]

Talking with some friends the other day, and the topic of age/experience came up, obviously Obama is a youngster, but on the flip McCain is in his 70's. Obviously McCain has the wisdom of life and longer experience in the political arena, and Obama is just a young guy and is largely untested in politics.

So my question, removing party lines, how important is age to being a good president? Doesn't it even matter?


Blong - if you can't read Chem's posts why would you respond to him and ask a question, rhetorical or not, you wouldn't be able to see his reply. It is almost like you are having a conversation with yourself, in which case we maybe should call someone.

[{DvT}JonahHex]

Originally Posted by [DvT]UY

THis Rep admin has been the sh!ts imo...however, looking at all the candidates running for Prez...the Reps are still the clear & logical choice...or the lesser of the two evils, however you wish to see it.

"This Rep admin" is the logical extension of the Reagan/Bush(I) admins. Likewise the Rep Congresses. The clear and logical choice is let the Dems fuk up the country for a while. They will fuk it up, but at least they will fuk it up differently instead of continuing business as usual - aka screwing you. Maybe, just maybe, they'll screw things up as badly as Bill Clinton did: the country was at peace, the economy was sound, and the only thing of significance the "loyal opposition" could find to make an issue of was a blowjob.

=====

For those of you debating the "experience" question, how about a little wisdom from Robert Heinlein in the personage of Lazarus Long?

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

[{OF}Blong]

Originally Posted by Soul

Talking with some friends the other day, and the topic of age/experience came up, obviously Obama is a youngster, but on the flip McCain is in his 70's. Obviously McCain has the wisdom of life and longer experience in the political arena, and Obama is just a young guy and is largely untested in politics.

So my question, removing party lines, how important is age to being a good president? Doesn't it even matter?


Blong - if you can't read Chem's posts why would you respond to him and ask a question, rhetorical or not, you wouldn't be able to see his reply. It is almost like you are having a conversation with yourself, in which case we maybe should call someone.

lol because I can still see the quotes when someone quotes him .