Presidential Race - Are We United?
- Thread starter 68droptop
- Start date
Won't see this dug into in the mainstream media
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2008
Obama disqualified himself from higher office in 2004
When he assumed Senate seat, he said he didn't know enough
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 21, 2008
8:24 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Democratic vice president candidate Sen. Joe Biden has created a furor with his implication to a crowd of deep-pocket donors that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's lack of experience would create an appearance of weakness that would encourage opponents to challenge the U.S.
But he was only repeating what Obama himself said as he prepared to serve the first day of the Senate term he's now a little more than halfway through.
According to news reports, Biden told the crowd of donors, "Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.
"The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy," Biden said.
"He's going to have to make some really tough – I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen," Biden said.
Obama himself expressed the opinion that he wasn't qualified to run for the presidency after he was elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois in late 2004, less than four years ago. His statements have been preserved on a YouTube video, which can be seen here:
After his election victory, Obama was asked why he had ruled out running for national office.
"I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job," he responded. "And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there may be people comfortable doing that. I'm not one of those people," Obama said.
Even some 800 days later, on Feb. 10, 2007, when he announced his presidential bid, in remarks published by the Washington Post as prepared for delivery, he admitted, "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington."
Obama's lack of experience also came up during the Democratic primary, when Biden expressed worry that Obama's inexperience could cause difficulties.
Another YouTube video shows Biden warning that being president does not lend itself to on-the-job training and affirmed that he had described Obama as lacking the necessary experience.
"I stand by the statement," he said.
The GOP campaign of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin jumped on Biden's latest remarks.
"The next president won't have time to get used to the office," McCain said at a southern campaign stop. "We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. If Senator Obama is elected, Senator Biden said, we will have an international crisis to test America's new president. We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars."
Continued McCain, "What's more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn’t be apparent that Senator Obama would have the right response. Forget apparent. Senator Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign."
Get Brad O'Leary's authoritative blockbuster, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values," for just $4.95 – today only – a $21 savings!
The Obama campaign explained Biden simply was noting that presidents face challenges starting from day one.
In a forum at the Christian Science Monitor, one participant said Biden is right, "Obama looks weak to the rest of the world, which will start an international crisis."
"McCain is strong and, like Ronald Reagan, would be respected," the participant continued. "Remember how our U.S. Embassy hostages were freed on Reagan's inauguration day after being held captive 444 days by Iran? They were held 444 days due to Jimmy Carter's weakness. Obama would be Jimmy Carter's 2nd term!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2008
Obama disqualified himself from higher office in 2004
When he assumed Senate seat, he said he didn't know enough
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 21, 2008
8:24 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Democratic vice president candidate Sen. Joe Biden has created a furor with his implication to a crowd of deep-pocket donors that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's lack of experience would create an appearance of weakness that would encourage opponents to challenge the U.S.
But he was only repeating what Obama himself said as he prepared to serve the first day of the Senate term he's now a little more than halfway through.
According to news reports, Biden told the crowd of donors, "Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.
"The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy," Biden said.
"He's going to have to make some really tough – I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen," Biden said.
Obama himself expressed the opinion that he wasn't qualified to run for the presidency after he was elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois in late 2004, less than four years ago. His statements have been preserved on a YouTube video, which can be seen here:
After his election victory, Obama was asked why he had ruled out running for national office.
"I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job," he responded. "And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there may be people comfortable doing that. I'm not one of those people," Obama said.
Even some 800 days later, on Feb. 10, 2007, when he announced his presidential bid, in remarks published by the Washington Post as prepared for delivery, he admitted, "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington."
Obama's lack of experience also came up during the Democratic primary, when Biden expressed worry that Obama's inexperience could cause difficulties.
Another YouTube video shows Biden warning that being president does not lend itself to on-the-job training and affirmed that he had described Obama as lacking the necessary experience.
"I stand by the statement," he said.
The GOP campaign of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin jumped on Biden's latest remarks.
"The next president won't have time to get used to the office," McCain said at a southern campaign stop. "We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. If Senator Obama is elected, Senator Biden said, we will have an international crisis to test America's new president. We don't want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars."
Continued McCain, "What's more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn’t be apparent that Senator Obama would have the right response. Forget apparent. Senator Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign."
Get Brad O'Leary's authoritative blockbuster, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values," for just $4.95 – today only – a $21 savings!
The Obama campaign explained Biden simply was noting that presidents face challenges starting from day one.
In a forum at the Christian Science Monitor, one participant said Biden is right, "Obama looks weak to the rest of the world, which will start an international crisis."
"McCain is strong and, like Ronald Reagan, would be respected," the participant continued. "Remember how our U.S. Embassy hostages were freed on Reagan's inauguration day after being held captive 444 days by Iran? They were held 444 days due to Jimmy Carter's weakness. Obama would be Jimmy Carter's 2nd term!"
This should be front page but...............nope
Obama’s Secret Campaign Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?
Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:28 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- “will be returned.”
“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers.”
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”
“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
“Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.
Obama’s Secret Campaign Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?
Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:28 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- “will be returned.”
“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers.”
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”
“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
“Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.
t.nie
Patience Tester
Back to cutting and pasting from the loony tunes Joseph Farah site? Bopper, he is the guy who advocates we take the law into our own hands and murder each other. Now who needs to get real?
Take a look into McCain's campaign finance too. By far the biggest corporate donors are on his donor lists. Wonder why? Could it be because McCain is the guy who will be padding their pockets in office?
It's ridiculous even trying to discuss this. You ask the question who paid for Obama's college, get an answer, then turn around and call it a lie and ask the question again. It's pretty obvious you won't take anything but what Joseph Farah says as "the truth."
Take a look into McCain's campaign finance too. By far the biggest corporate donors are on his donor lists. Wonder why? Could it be because McCain is the guy who will be padding their pockets in office?
It's ridiculous even trying to discuss this. You ask the question who paid for Obama's college, get an answer, then turn around and call it a lie and ask the question again. It's pretty obvious you won't take anything but what Joseph Farah says as "the truth."
moonflow
BIRKY!!!
There are millions of donors out there, including myself. If you go to the website for the donation page on Obama's site, there is a check box that you are required to check before making a donation.
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/standardvidbottom?source=mainnav_bt_dn_c
Legal Compliance
Check this box to confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:
1. I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
2. I am at least 16 years old.
3. This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
4. This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
5. This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
6. This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
7. The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
Now, there's no guarantee that the person making that contribution and checking that box are actually in 100% compliance with that agreement. But with the oversight of the FEC, I'm sure that Obama's campaign is returning the contributions that are in violation when they are discovered. Let's see how easily you could do the job.
Of course, the RNC jump on this situation, and get it into the news, because it's another opportunity to take the campaign from the real issues that are important to Americans, like the war in Iraq and the current economic crisis. To take the focus off their candidate's obvious lacking knowledge of what actually needs to be done.
On to another topic. Biden's comments were definately taken out of the context and setting that they were made. CNN made an excellent point last night. Several new Presidents have had testing international crisis early in their administrations. Kennedy had the Cuban Missle Crisis. George H. Bush had the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Clinton had the truck bombing of the World Trade Center. And George W. Bush had the 9/11 terror attacks. Often, extremist regimes will try something to test the meddle of the new President.
On to another topic. McCain claims that he's more qualified because he's been "tested". OK, he was a Vietnam POW for 6 years. He suffered torture and other cruel treatment. I get that. What I don't get is how does that qualify him more than Obama. If anything, it concerns me. McCain has, more than likely, a pent up hatred for Asians. If something even mildly concerning happens in North Korea or Vietnam, or another Asian country, who's to say he won't pull a "Dub-Yah" and jump into a war we have no business being in? He also claims that he was tested during the Cuban Missle Crisis, because he was in a plane, and he had a target. Well, my uncle worked in a Minuteman missle silo in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and had his finger on the button. But I don't feel that makes him more qualified to be President.
McCain is quick to temper, has proven to act irrationally, and often goes back and forth on subjects like the economy and the war. I don't even feel him to be fit for office.
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/standardvidbottom?source=mainnav_bt_dn_c
Legal Compliance
Check this box to confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:
1. I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
2. I am at least 16 years old.
3. This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
4. This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
5. This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
6. This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
7. The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
Now, there's no guarantee that the person making that contribution and checking that box are actually in 100% compliance with that agreement. But with the oversight of the FEC, I'm sure that Obama's campaign is returning the contributions that are in violation when they are discovered. Let's see how easily you could do the job.
Of course, the RNC jump on this situation, and get it into the news, because it's another opportunity to take the campaign from the real issues that are important to Americans, like the war in Iraq and the current economic crisis. To take the focus off their candidate's obvious lacking knowledge of what actually needs to be done.
On to another topic. Biden's comments were definately taken out of the context and setting that they were made. CNN made an excellent point last night. Several new Presidents have had testing international crisis early in their administrations. Kennedy had the Cuban Missle Crisis. George H. Bush had the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Clinton had the truck bombing of the World Trade Center. And George W. Bush had the 9/11 terror attacks. Often, extremist regimes will try something to test the meddle of the new President.
On to another topic. McCain claims that he's more qualified because he's been "tested". OK, he was a Vietnam POW for 6 years. He suffered torture and other cruel treatment. I get that. What I don't get is how does that qualify him more than Obama. If anything, it concerns me. McCain has, more than likely, a pent up hatred for Asians. If something even mildly concerning happens in North Korea or Vietnam, or another Asian country, who's to say he won't pull a "Dub-Yah" and jump into a war we have no business being in? He also claims that he was tested during the Cuban Missle Crisis, because he was in a plane, and he had a target. Well, my uncle worked in a Minuteman missle silo in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and had his finger on the button. But I don't feel that makes him more qualified to be President.
McCain is quick to temper, has proven to act irrationally, and often goes back and forth on subjects like the economy and the war. I don't even feel him to be fit for office.
t.nie
Patience Tester
I think McCain is a bitter and angry old man. I wouldn't trust that guy to take care of a dog, let alone the country. Just look at his campaign, entirely negative, entirely based on bashing the other guy.
Being a bitter critic of your opponent does not make a good leader. Bashing the other guy doesn't outline what you will do.
When McCain loses this election by a landslide, the only person he has to blame is himself. He blew it. Had he run a different campaign, one that was clear, focused and with some clear agenda on how he was going to fix the problems we are facing, I might have voted for him. But as it stands now, there is no way I want some angry old man with hatred plastered all over his face as the guy in charge. His answer to everything is "Senator Obama is bad." That is not an answer to ANYTHING. Just more hate from the hateful arrogant patronizing Senator from Arizona.
Being a bitter critic of your opponent does not make a good leader. Bashing the other guy doesn't outline what you will do.
When McCain loses this election by a landslide, the only person he has to blame is himself. He blew it. Had he run a different campaign, one that was clear, focused and with some clear agenda on how he was going to fix the problems we are facing, I might have voted for him. But as it stands now, there is no way I want some angry old man with hatred plastered all over his face as the guy in charge. His answer to everything is "Senator Obama is bad." That is not an answer to ANYTHING. Just more hate from the hateful arrogant patronizing Senator from Arizona.
Here ya go, boys and girls...another one of those "junk chain email" that is just to right on to be true!!!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are
all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20.'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when
I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand ("those" being leftist idiots...and dirt hound), no explanation is possible.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post...37!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are
all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20.'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when
I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand ("those" being leftist idiots...and dirt hound), no explanation is possible.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post...37!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
t.nie
Patience Tester
Except of course, the tax rate on the richest isn't 59%, the bar owner isn't going to reward his customers with a 20% decrease in the price of a beer, and the whole piece starts out with everyone happy with the original arrangement. Which the rich paying 59% would NEVER accept, and I wouldn't either.
Sorry, just my leftist idiot coming out and pointing out the skewed BS in your lovely little contribution.
Sorry, just my leftist idiot coming out and pointing out the skewed BS in your lovely little contribution.
Of course. I wouldn't have expected anything more. Just can't take ANYTHING for what it means, can you? Well, continue to twist everything so you can understand it...let me know how that works for you.
And just so you all know, neither candidate has wonderful positive points to dwell on, so the reason that we continue to point out the horror of Obama is because is so far surpasses what you'll find on McCain.
Maybe I can start drawing pictures to "cut and paste" on here for clearer explanations.
JPR
Member
No tax cut from Obama unless you don't pay taxes....huh?????????????????????????
Obama’s Scheme: Tax the Poor, Pay the Rich
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:57 PM
By: Charles R. Smith Article Font Size
If you think you are going to get a tax cut from Sen. Obama, think again. The fact is, Obama’s plan will actually increase taxes on the vast majority of Americans.
Obama promises that no one making less than $250,000 a year will see an increase in their taxes. Yet, according to The Wall Street Journal, Obama has a stealth tax — called credits — hidden in his plan.
These credits basically would have the effect of raising taxes on average income couples making between $25,000 and $40,000 a year.
In fact, some families in this range could see an increase in their taxes of up to 40 percent.
The credit scheme also discourages people from earning more. Since the credits are tied to income, the more you make, the less credits you can earn. Thus, people will see their real income go down even though they are earning more from raises or over-time. Since you take home less at the higher pay scale — the incentive is to not work overtime or seek a better paying job.
Worse still, millions of Americans who pay no taxes are also entitled to these credits. Obama has labeled the stealth credits “refundable." Thus, people who are paying no taxes at all will still receive a check from the government.
According to the Tax Foundation, under Obama’s tax scheme 63 million Americans, or 44 percent of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability. Most of those 63 million would also get a check from the IRS.
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama scheme, an additional 10 million would pay no taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
According to the Tax Policy Center, the cost of these “tax credits” to the real tax payers would quickly rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to over $1 trillion.
Add on top of this Obama’s government backed healthcare plan that is estimated to top $1 trillion, and you have over $2 trillion worth of government backed welfare programs. Clearly, no increase in taxes on the “rich” will be able to make up for this huge outlay of cash benefits to the non-working.
So where is this $1 trillion going to come from? The answer may shock and surprise you.
Here's another part of Obama’s stealth tax plan: The so-called credits will actually threaten Social Security. Americans paying no taxes would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.
Since people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then the scheme is not about income tax relief but cutting payroll taxes. The same payroll taxes that fund Social Security.
The Obama scheme means billions of dollars in lost revenue for Social Security. In short, the solvency of Social Security system will come quickly to a head because of this lost revenue, threatening the lives of millions of senior citizens within months.
Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economic professor who serves as one of Sen. Obama’s top advisers, noted this little problem during a recent appearance on Fox News.
“You can’t just cut the payroll tax because that’s what funds Social Security,” Mr. Goolsbee admitted to Fox’s Shepard Smith. “So if you tried to do that, you would undermine the Social Security Trust Fund.”
If that form of political suicide is not enough to end Obama’s career then consider this: Obama’s tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses.
Obama claims that no business making less than $250,000 would be hit by more taxes but this is a bald faced lie. The fact is that 85 percent of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year will face higher taxes.
The businesses that do make more than $250,000 a year will be slammed big time, even harder than major corporations. The Obama scheme requires many small business owners to pay as much as a 4-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000.
The result is the federal marginal small business tax rate jumps up to nearly 45 percent for the little guys, while big business would continue to pay the 35 percent corporate tax rate.
Joe the plumber would get hit if he expanded his business and hired other plumbers. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, 50 percent of businesses with 20 to 249 workers would pay the extra tax. In short, the Obama scheme is an incentive to hire fewer workers.
The most successful small- and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs in our dynamic society will be slammed by Obama’s tax hikes. If you hire another worker — you will get slammed harder.
Obama’s stealth tax/credit scheme is actually a plan to redistribute the wealth and is nothing more than a giant welfare program. Obama’s tax scheme will cut jobs, threaten Social Security and hit the lowest income wage earners like a ton of bricks.
I find it ironic that the base of voters who support Obama that also make between $25,000 and $40,000 a year are totally unaware of the cruel fate they are signing onto by supporting the freshman senator. Obama’s scheme is Robin Hood in reverse — tax the poor to pay the rich.
According to Obama, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Obama’s Scheme: Tax the Poor, Pay the Rich
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:57 PM
By: Charles R. Smith Article Font Size
If you think you are going to get a tax cut from Sen. Obama, think again. The fact is, Obama’s plan will actually increase taxes on the vast majority of Americans.
Obama promises that no one making less than $250,000 a year will see an increase in their taxes. Yet, according to The Wall Street Journal, Obama has a stealth tax — called credits — hidden in his plan.
These credits basically would have the effect of raising taxes on average income couples making between $25,000 and $40,000 a year.
In fact, some families in this range could see an increase in their taxes of up to 40 percent.
The credit scheme also discourages people from earning more. Since the credits are tied to income, the more you make, the less credits you can earn. Thus, people will see their real income go down even though they are earning more from raises or over-time. Since you take home less at the higher pay scale — the incentive is to not work overtime or seek a better paying job.
Worse still, millions of Americans who pay no taxes are also entitled to these credits. Obama has labeled the stealth credits “refundable." Thus, people who are paying no taxes at all will still receive a check from the government.
According to the Tax Foundation, under Obama’s tax scheme 63 million Americans, or 44 percent of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability. Most of those 63 million would also get a check from the IRS.
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama scheme, an additional 10 million would pay no taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
According to the Tax Policy Center, the cost of these “tax credits” to the real tax payers would quickly rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to over $1 trillion.
Add on top of this Obama’s government backed healthcare plan that is estimated to top $1 trillion, and you have over $2 trillion worth of government backed welfare programs. Clearly, no increase in taxes on the “rich” will be able to make up for this huge outlay of cash benefits to the non-working.
So where is this $1 trillion going to come from? The answer may shock and surprise you.
Here's another part of Obama’s stealth tax plan: The so-called credits will actually threaten Social Security. Americans paying no taxes would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.
Since people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then the scheme is not about income tax relief but cutting payroll taxes. The same payroll taxes that fund Social Security.
The Obama scheme means billions of dollars in lost revenue for Social Security. In short, the solvency of Social Security system will come quickly to a head because of this lost revenue, threatening the lives of millions of senior citizens within months.
Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economic professor who serves as one of Sen. Obama’s top advisers, noted this little problem during a recent appearance on Fox News.
“You can’t just cut the payroll tax because that’s what funds Social Security,” Mr. Goolsbee admitted to Fox’s Shepard Smith. “So if you tried to do that, you would undermine the Social Security Trust Fund.”
If that form of political suicide is not enough to end Obama’s career then consider this: Obama’s tax increase would hit the bottom line of small businesses.
Obama claims that no business making less than $250,000 would be hit by more taxes but this is a bald faced lie. The fact is that 85 percent of small business owners are taxed at the personal income tax rate, any moderately successful business with an income above as little as $165,000 a year will face higher taxes.
The businesses that do make more than $250,000 a year will be slammed big time, even harder than major corporations. The Obama scheme requires many small business owners to pay as much as a 4-percentage-point payroll tax surcharge on net income above $250,000.
The result is the federal marginal small business tax rate jumps up to nearly 45 percent for the little guys, while big business would continue to pay the 35 percent corporate tax rate.
Joe the plumber would get hit if he expanded his business and hired other plumbers. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, 50 percent of businesses with 20 to 249 workers would pay the extra tax. In short, the Obama scheme is an incentive to hire fewer workers.
The most successful small- and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs in our dynamic society will be slammed by Obama’s tax hikes. If you hire another worker — you will get slammed harder.
Obama’s stealth tax/credit scheme is actually a plan to redistribute the wealth and is nothing more than a giant welfare program. Obama’s tax scheme will cut jobs, threaten Social Security and hit the lowest income wage earners like a ton of bricks.
I find it ironic that the base of voters who support Obama that also make between $25,000 and $40,000 a year are totally unaware of the cruel fate they are signing onto by supporting the freshman senator. Obama’s scheme is Robin Hood in reverse — tax the poor to pay the rich.
According to Obama, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
dirt hound
Registered User
we need an angry old man in office that'sd the whole problem here's sceneroio vince limbardi when he was alive or the fomer coach of the rams who would you want to run your team
PITDRIFTER
Motorsports
Lombardi hounddog!
I had no idea there were so many liberals involved in racing. I bet you're all really slow...
Actually, I guess this thread only proves there are a few really vocal liberals that love to hear themselves talk. I trust the average McCain supporter has more sense than to argue endlessly with political half-wits on a racing forum.
Can we set-up a poll on this thread or a new thread? A poll where each person can vote only once? That would identify the real majority and negate the angry lib dribble of the few that have nothing better to do.
Actually, I guess this thread only proves there are a few really vocal liberals that love to hear themselves talk. I trust the average McCain supporter has more sense than to argue endlessly with political half-wits on a racing forum.
Can we set-up a poll on this thread or a new thread? A poll where each person can vote only once? That would identify the real majority and negate the angry lib dribble of the few that have nothing better to do.
unreal
You started this thread with your highly intelligent thought (da vote for McCain/Palin kus they like racn) the stupidest comment about the election I have heard to date and you are calling other people slow and half wits with nothing better to do. Unbelievable
I had no idea there were so many liberals involved in racing. I bet you're all really slow...
Actually, I guess this thread only proves there are a few really vocal liberals that love to hear themselves talk. I trust the average McCain supporter has more sense than to argue endlessly with political half-wits on a racing forum.
Can we set-up a poll on this thread or a new thread? A poll where each person can vote only once? That would identify the real majority and negate the angry lib dribble of the few that have nothing better to do.
You started this thread with your highly intelligent thought (da vote for McCain/Palin kus they like racn) the stupidest comment about the election I have heard to date and you are calling other people slow and half wits with nothing better to do. Unbelievable
Bopper:
You could better support your cause if you could first understand what your posting before you post it.
Nothing in your post about taxes supports your point.
1. Income tax credits are already part of the tax code
2. Income taxes and payroll taxes are seperate taxes and giving an income tax credit does not take away from the social security fund.
3. If a small business owner understands the tax code or has an accountant they will not be taxed at anywhere near 35%.
You could better support your cause if you could first understand what your posting before you post it.
Nothing in your post about taxes supports your point.
1. Income tax credits are already part of the tax code
2. Income taxes and payroll taxes are seperate taxes and giving an income tax credit does not take away from the social security fund.
3. If a small business owner understands the tax code or has an accountant they will not be taxed at anywhere near 35%.
