Yes, we can. - Page 227

Morrigoon · 10-13-2008, 02:05 PM

JW: I'd stop short of a sweeping generalization about who has done more or less. Truth is none of us have any idea about potential voter fraud that hasn't been caught. So we really can't say that one party has committed more than the other.

Morrigoon · 10-13-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

As expected, Mom's thrown her vote in the mail for McCain. The reason being: his association with the ACORN fraud. Perhaps if she had voted on election day like a good American, this would have all died down. On the other hand, I'm sure there would have been some last minute smear that she would have glommed onto to avoid voting for Obama.

Just as long as she voted No on 8.

scaeagles · 10-13-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

For the record, I have no illusions that Democrats have not committed voter fraud. However, it it plain that the shear volume of voter fraud committed by Republicans makes the Democratic efforts pale in comparison.

There was voter suppression in Florida in 2000.

For every cry of that, I can cry out that voters were getting in line after polls closed demanding to vote. We can each play this game, and each will refuse to give an inch.

sleepyjeff · 10-13-2008, 02:07 PM

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...mer101008.php3

CoasterMatt · 10-13-2008, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

Who is the biggest manufacturer of electronic voting machines? Debolt.
Which brand of voting machine seems to have the most instances of changing Democratic votes to Republican ones - in error, of course (wink, wink)? Debolt.
Which party does Debolt contribute the most money to? The Republican Party.

Hmmmmmm.... No, there couldn't be any relation there...

Do you mean 'Diebold'?

JWBear · 10-13-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoasterMatt

Do you mean 'Diebold'?

That too...

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 06:44 AM

How interesting that I just posted yesterday how Obama is telling massive lies about his tax plan and the tax cuts for 95% of people, which is funny considering some 30% of people pay no federal income taxes at all. That ties in exactly with what Obama said to a man who starting a plumbing business either yesterday or a short time ago (I can post a link if anyone needs it).

From yesterday in Ohio:

Quote:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Spreading the wealth around is income redistribution. There is no question in my mind that in this context he is talking about taking money from those who pay taxes and giving it to those that don't. That is redistribution of wealth. I have no problem that there are those low income earners who pay no federal income taxes. But don't tax others more to give money to those who pay no taxes. He's not talking welfare. He's talking tax policy.

Considering tax policy and national defense are my two hot button issues, I may just end up voting for McCain rather than abstaining.

Moonliner · 10-14-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Considering tax policy and national defense are my two hot button issues, I may just end up voting for McCain rather than abstaining.

How important do you think international support is to our National Defence?

It's no secret that Obama is more popular among our allies than McCain. So it seems to me that despite McCain's image of being strong on defence, that Obama will be better able deliver security by working with our allies.

innerSpaceman · 10-14-2008, 07:01 AM

Um, newsflash to scaeagles ... the tax structure of our nation has ALWAYS been a redistrubution of wealth, from the middle class to the rich. It's about time it went the other way.

scaeagles · 10-14-2008, 07:10 AM

Fair question, Moonliner, and it has no simple or quick answer. I will when I have more time (as in not at work).

ISM, here's a news flash for you. For the tax year 2006....

Top 1% of wage earners (above $388,000) paid 39.89% of all federal income taxes.

Top 5% of wage earners (aggregate with the 1%, above $153,000) paid 60.14% of all federal income taxes.

The top 10% paid 70.79%, the top 25% paid 86.27%. The bottom 50% paid 2.99%.

Being that this is the case, how can it be said that the top wage earners are not paying enough, or that the taxes from the middle class has been a redistribution of wealth from the middle to the rich?

10-13-2008, 02:05 PM	#2261
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	JW: I'd stop short of a sweeping generalization about who has done more or less. Truth is none of us have any idea about potential voter fraud that hasn't been caught. So we really can't say that one party has committed more than the other. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

10-13-2008, 02:07 PM	#2264
sleepyjeff Go Hawks Go! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parkrose Posts: 2,632	http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...mer101008.php3 __________________ River Guardian-less
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 07:01 AM	#2269
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Um, newsflash to scaeagles ... the tax structure of our nation has ALWAYS been a redistrubution of wealth, from the middle class to the rich. It's about time it went the other way.
	Submit to Quotes

10-14-2008, 07:10 AM	#2270
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Fair question, Moonliner, and it has no simple or quick answer. I will when I have more time (as in not at work). ISM, here's a news flash for you. For the tax year 2006.... Top 1% of wage earners (above $388,000) paid 39.89% of all federal income taxes. Top 5% of wage earners (aggregate with the 1%, above $153,000) paid 60.14% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% paid 70.79%, the top 25% paid 86.27%. The bottom 50% paid 2.99%. Being that this is the case, how can it be said that the top wage earners are not paying enough, or that the taxes from the middle class has been a redistribution of wealth from the middle to the rich?
	Submit to Quotes