quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: In fact, catch Barack Obama in a candid moment and you will find that his spoken English is a far cry from what you might expect to see on a freshman-level, two-page, double-spaced, one-inch-margins paper due every other Wednesday. To be sure, if you want to know when someone is giving a rehearsed answer, listen for grammatical errors. If you don't hear any, be suspicious.
I agree to a point. When I speak, I am generally very careful about what I say. I phrase things correctly most of the time, and do tend to finish my sentences. I am in training to be an ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher- I'm almost done with the course. Ive had to transcribe quite a few conversations and monologues, and I've just got to tell you, if Sarah Palin were doing this program with me, based on her performance in interviews, she would fail. An English teacher has to be able to speak clearly and precisely, using the correct words.
You're being a little dismissive of what seems to you like a minor point. It could be minor, but it has some big implications in my opinion. One might wonder why Palin is fine in front of a Teleprompter or in a debate with strictly rehearsed responses, but goes to pieces in the face of a question that is outside her immediate experience? Why, at the very least, can she not teach herself to think about what she is saying before she spits it out? Is she thinking at all?
The lack of coherence in her off-the-cuff speaking is far more egregious than the average person on the street. But even if it wasn't, people have different registers of speaking for different environments. One cannot expect Barack or Palin to speak in their "public voices" when having a coffee with friends. However, when the candidates ARE in front of cameras and microphones, they aught to be able to pull it together and get through one sentence after the other. I'm not nitpicking some little errors- we were talking about a fairly massive miscomprehension, or at the very least a glaring misuse of the word "first-amendment."
And, frankly, I expect a lot more from the person running for the executive branch, than I do from a random person off the street. However, I'm convinced that the average person off the street has a fair chance of being more thoughtful and well-spoken than Palin is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Yes!!! But not running away, running toward. If he was anywhere near to possessing the level of virtue and principle that he is like to be painted with, then his first order of business as a fledgling member of an education activism board would be to demand the removal of fellow board members who have proven and continue to stand by their treasonous, disloyal, and aberrant attitudes toward their country and government. If this meant sacrificing advancement in the political scene in which these trials of character take place, then so be it.
Given that the project was totally unrelated to Ayers' past and that Ayers committed the bombings decades before, why do you think this would have been an appropriate situation for Obama to make a big stink over Ayers' participation?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As I said, Obama's associations with these unsavory characters had little to do with the unfortunate circumstances of the political scene of Chicago and much to do with compromised values for the sake of political ambition.
Your claim seems to be that if Obama were not so willing to act on his political ambition then he would have taken a stand against Ayers' position on the education board. Why should I grant that?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because someone like Ayers should not be given any quarter under any circumstances. If I was managing a McDonald's I wouldn't give him a job.
I'm not saying anyone should agree with this sentiment, but to accuse Republicans of being cheap and trying to distract with this sort of thing is highly dismissive of what many people have a perfectly reasonable right to feel. Many conservatives equate it with Obama serving on some committee -it doesn't matter what it is- with someone like O.J. Simpson or Nancy Pelosi...
I think the difference between the two perspectives on associations comes from the same place that the differences liberals and conservatives have on other issues come from, like abortion and flag burning, that sort of thing. Liberals seem to be more tolerant of disagreeable things, and conservatives are not.
[edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
posted
No, Lyrhawn, duh. She's an unconvicted double murderer.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Because someone like Ayers should not be given any quarter under any circumstances. If I was managing a McDonald's I wouldn't give him a job.
I'm not saying anyone should agree with this sentiment, but to accuse Republicans of being cheap and trying to distract with this sort of thing is highly dismissive of what many people have a perfectly reasonable right to feel. Many conservatives equate it with Obama serving on some committee -it doesn't matter what it is- with someone like O.J. Simpson or Nancy Pelosi...
I think the difference between the two perspectives on associations comes from the same place that the differences liberals and conservatives have on other issues come from, like abortion and flag burning, that sort of thing. Liberals seem to be more tolerant of disagreeable things, and conservatives are not.
[edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
So your saying someone acquited of being a domestic terrorist 40 years ago should not have a career, a job, or a life under any circumstances?
IP: Logged |
posted
To make an attempt at Resh's position...it's not a ridiculous mindset. Had Ayers actually killed anyone in his attacks instead of specifically going out of his way to ensure their safety, I might agree with him on a basic instinctive level.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether Ayers is a terrorist or not, Obama does not "pal around" with him in such a way that suggests that he supports setting bombs to make a political point. Spending time in a professional way with somebody who committed crimes in the past, whether they are repentant or not, is not "paling around". Even going out for a drink because you know each other in a professional way is not "paling around." The accusation is totally ludicrous. Prominent people spend a considerable amount of time with people they strongly disagree with.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: So your saying someone acquited of being a domestic terrorist 40 years ago should not have a career, a job, or a life under any circumstances?
If you or Obama or Kathy Lee Gifford want to help him with those things, that's up to you. Just don't expect me to feel warm and fuzzy about having a president who would feel comfortable with doing so.
I know Obama didn't do anything like provide him with food, shelter, and warm hugs to help him sleep at night. But he was comfortable with working with the guy and allowing him to host political events in his (Obama's) honor at his (Ayer's) home.
Again, disagree with the relevance if you like. Don't let it keep you from voting. I find the whole thing despicable, but I wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. But don't try to tell people who don't know if they want to vote for Obama that their aversion to his associations are unwarranted and should not factor into their decision making. That's not for you or anyone else to decide.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Whether Ayers is a terrorist or not, Obama does not "pal around" with him in such a way that suggests that he supports setting bombs to make a political point. Spending time in a professional way with somebody who committed crimes in the past, whether they are repentant or not, is not "paling around". Even going out for a drink because you know each other in a professional way is not "paling around." The accusation is totally ludicrous. Prominent people spend a considerable amount of time with people they strongly disagree with.
This is what I'm saying. It's irrelevant to you. But it isn't to me, and it isn't to a lot of people. To call it ludicrous is to assert your superior judgment.
Wait, you're calling the descriptor of "palling around" ludicrous. Ok, that I can agree with.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting."
Actually it shows what Obama is willing to put up with for a greater good; in this case an education non-profit and an anti-poverty board. You have no evidence that Obama joined those organizations merely to move up in politics.
I don't think his associations shouldn't be of any account, but this is being pitched like the ONLY people he hangs around with are terrorists. How many people has he served on a committee with? How many other people served on those boards? What about the Republicans who helped fund them? Shouldn't they also be outed as terrorist-sympathizers? Shouldn't we also be looking at the other people Obama talks to, confides in, takes advice from? By that standard, the Rev. Wright is a much more damaging association - although there I think Obama already had his say, in one of the best speeches on race in America ever made.
And why aren't more Republicans bothered by McCain's associations with Charles Keating? McCain accepted $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates; his wife Cindy and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center a year before McCain helped pressure bank regulators on Keating's behalf; McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet, three of them to Keating's Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.
Until evidence pops up that Obama spent many happy hours at Ayres house making pipe bombs, McCain's Keating connection is much more relevant to how he will deal with the economic crisis as president.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. I can point to some things about McCain that are even more negative than that. But I still prefer him over Obama.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Until evidence pops up that Obama spent many happy hours at Ayres house making pipe bombs, McCain's Keating connection is much more relevant to how he will deal with the economic crisis as president.
This is why I love you, Chris. I think people spend too much effort trying to demonize people they don't agree with. Political discourse has degenerated in this country to the point that we lose sight of issues in the fervor to prove that 'the other guy' is evil.
I'm a registered independent and have voted for Republicans AND Democrats in the past. The last presidential election was agony for me, for various reasons.(I supported McCain four years ago, but his platform is so different now, he hardly seems like the same person.)
This time the decision is not a difficult one at all, for me. America needs a leader who can inspire people, bring people together. It seems pretty clear to me who that is.
I can't hardly wait to see how this turns out.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that really enough, Olivet? Is that your sole criterion for preferring Obama? His charisma?
Do you really think he is bringing people together? Any more than any other candidate? Because it seems like about half the country doesn't feel any kind of affection for the guy, and speaking as one of those people, I don't feel like he's been trying to reach out to that half at all. It feels like he looks down his nose at us, and if you don't support him, you can go jump in a lake as far as he's concerned. Maybe someof us don't pay any income taxes, but he seems to think that he can bribe us into voting for him buy promising us someone else's money. But the only way he can take it from them is if we give him the power.
posted
No. No. (I assume the third question is rhetorical, but No.)
Yes. Yes. I wouldn't know, though he does seem to be reaching out with his campaigning in traditionally Republican states. He's not spending a lot of time defending himself from continued attacks about the same issues, because he's already addressed them.
I am not going to argue about it. In my experience, people argue more to reassure themselves than to convince others. I am convinced, for many reasons I have no particular drive to share, and I have zero interest in converting anyone.
I am excited, though, to see the huge lines for early voting all around where I live. It is thrilling to see my neighbors so involved in the democratic process. It probably helps that my state has fallen from the "leaning Republican" category to the "toss up" category in the last few days.
Whoever wins, this will be one for the history books. I feel like a child on Christmas Eve. I have faith that, whoever wins, the sun will rise as i always has, and my Beloved and I will continue to care for our family, and make the best of what we have been given.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wait a minute, I'm spending time posting in this thread with people I disagree with like Resh and DarkKnight...are we paling around?!
I had no idea!
Lyr, as somebody who pals around with right wing wackos, what makes you think you have a future in politics. What you should have been doing was never posting anything in response to anything these people were saying. Don't enter into conversation with them, at least not without pre-condition.
Well, let's face it, at this point your political career is just about over. We have waaayyy too much dirt on you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Is that really enough, Olivet? Is that your sole criterion for preferring Obama? His charisma?
Do you really think he is bringing people together? Any more than any other candidate? Because it seems like about half the country doesn't feel any kind of affection for the guy, and speaking as one of those people, I don't feel like he's been trying to reach out to that half at all. It feels like he looks down his nose at us, and if you don't support him, you can go jump in a lake as far as he's concerned. Maybe someof us don't pay any income taxes, but he seems to think that he can bribe us into voting for him buy promising us someone else's money. But the only way he can take it from them is if we give him the power.
[Edited]
And if McCain won with only half, what about the other half? Are they less important?
IP: Logged |
Oh Georgia, yeah. I didn't think of that because most of the major news networks still have it as leaning McCain, but personally I think it's leaning Democratic. I don't know if it was here or elsewhere but I put a little electoral bio out about Georgia to explain why I thought the state would be a real toss-up this year. Between voter registration, early voting, and some other factors, I think it really will be a squeaker, and I even think there's a decent chance that Obama could end up pulling it out.
Blacks and to a smaller degree the youth vote have been underpolled, which I think gives Obama a 2-3 point edge over what any poll says. That makes it a virtual tie. Georgia's senate race is going to be even more interesting considering the national implications.
Your vote might matter more than most in some ways this year Olivet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
RCP actually has Arizona as a toss up now, but that's new, and the state is still polling for McCain, within the margin of error. Interesting.
At this point, Lyr, what's your no BS assessment of the chances of a McCain win? I've been going over and over the numbers, and McCain would have to pull out a victory in what, 10 states in which he is either down, or barely ahead? How could he do it at this point?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, Lyr. It is awesome to see the lines that have run around the corner of the local library every day this week.
My husband, who is voting for McCain (but not terribly excited about it, poor lamb-he has no faith in either candidate or party, but usually votes for the party that does not control Congress as a sort of "Damage Control") offered not to vote if I wouldn't vote, since our votes will "cancel each other out," but I want us to set an example for our kids, you know? The example that good citizens vote, as well as the example that two people can disagree politically and still be very much in love and a united parental front.
Either way, I have faith in the process.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: [edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
I really don't understand why that's insulting.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because someone like Ayers should not be given any quarter under any circumstances. If I was managing a McDonald's I wouldn't give him a job.
I would. In a second I would.
You know why? Because he is a human being. It's a common refrain these days, especially from me, but compassion and forgiveness mean little when you can't embrace them in the face of the worst.
Now back to regular programming...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In Canada, the gov't keeps track of who doesn't vote. If you don't vote, you cannot ever have a say in how things are run until you vote.
My mom doesn't vote, and one time when she sent a complaint about something back when jean Cretien was Justice Minister he sent her back an angry letter.
It was awesome, jean Cretien was made at us!
IP: Logged |
posted
I know there were legitimate strategic reasons for doing so - Georgia's not exactly considered a major player in this election - but had Obama continued to run a few ads here he'd have it in the bag already. Then again, the "get out and vote" people, Obama signs, and bumper stickers are everywhere, and these things tend to have a more direct influence on people than an easily ignored commercial.
As for the senate race, though, I'm pretty sure Chambliss is going to mop the floor with Martin. Chambliss's ads are just ridiculous (Martin was fired, was he?), but Martin is so out of touch he's missing every obvious opportunity to get himself out there and take the lead.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: My husband, who is voting for McCain (but not terribly excited about it, poor lamb-he has no faith in either candidate or party, but usually votes for the party that does not control Congress as a sort of "Damage Control") offered not to vote if I wouldn't vote, since our votes will "cancel each other out," but I want us to set an example for our kids, you know? The example that good citizens vote, as well as the example that two people can disagree politically and still be very much in love and a united parental front.
Either way, I have faith in the process.
So, have you decided on how you are going to get your husband not to show up to the polls? Cutting his brakes seems drastic, and a little dangerous. You could pretend that there has been a family emergency... or you could just tell him, "actually let's just not go to polls," and then sneak off and vote. It's up to you. We're counting on your deviousness! Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: [edit] to add: Obama's associations serve as an indicator of just how tolerant he is, and what he is willing to put up with for the sake of his own personal ambition. By all appearances, he is way too tolerant of despicable attitudes and beliefs for my liking. To call that an irrelevant quality (which is what you are doing if you say his associations shouldn't be of any account) is to dismiss my own criteria for how I should determine a man's fitness for the highest office, and that's pretty insulting.
I really don't understand why that's insulting.
Basically, if you disagree with Resh, you are attacking his character.
Also you are a ferret.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know there were legitimate strategic reasons for doing so - Georgia's not exactly considered a major player in this election - but had Obama continued to run a few ads here he'd have it in the bag already. Then again, the "get out and vote" people, Obama signs, and bumper stickers are everywhere, and these things tend to have a more direct influence on people than an easily ignored commercial.
I agree with this, I've been watching the polls for months and Georgia has pretty much only leaned Republican this election with neither candidate focusing on the state very much. It seems like had they just spent some money here it would've been an easy flip.
However, I've seen just as many Martin ads as I have Chambliss ads. I really do think this one will be close. The problem is Martin's approach. "Saxby Chambliss earned an A+ in George Bush economics" seems to be the only thing they're focusing on and really its been overplayed.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, our local polling places are within walking distance, and I hope that we shall walk together, hand-in-hand.
I wish both candidates for Senate would STFU. We've started joking every time an ad comes on. "Saxby Chambliss eats babies." "Oh yeah? Jim Martin rapes squirrels with burning American flags." We've been trying to outdo the mudslinging ads, but it's hard.
That said, chances are very, very slim that I will be voting a straight one-party ballot.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Is that really enough, Olivet? Is that your sole criterion for preferring Obama? His charisma?
Of course it's not enough, but it is a huge point in his favor. Let's not forget that the primary duty of a president is as a figurehead representative of our nation to other countries. In that respect, I find his charisma most appropriate.
McCain, meanwhile, is refusing point blank to even sit down and talk with certain foreign leaders.
quote: Do you really think he is bringing people together? Any more than any other candidate?
Yes. The race isn't nearly as close as other races in the past. Bush won by the skin of his teeth and did not win the popular vote! You'll never get 100% of the people to agree with you, of course.
quote: Because it seems like about half the country doesn't feel any kind of affection for the guy, and speaking as one of those people, I don't feel like he's been trying to reach out to that half at all. It feels like he looks down his nose at us, and if you don't support him, you can go jump in a lake as far as he's concerned.
I'm sorry you feel that way. During his infomercial, one of the things he said that struck a chord with me was this:
quote:I'm reminded every single day, that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president. But I can promise you this, I will always tell you what I think and where I stand; I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you when we disagree, and most importantly I will open the doors of government and ask you to be involved in your democracy again.
In fact, many of the things that have drawn me to Obama are these sorts of things. He wants us to be involved in our own government and solving our own problems. He doesn't claim he'll be able to solve them for us.
I know you disagree with him and I know many who do, but I do not understand the resentment. When I hear about it, most of the time it seems people are attributing attitudes and positions to Obama that I do not perceive and have seen no evidence of.
quote: Maybe someof us don't pay any income taxes, but he seems to think that he can bribe us into voting for him buy promising us someone else's money. But the only way he can take it from them is if we give him the power. [Edited] [/QB]
I still don't get this. Maybe it's a matter of perspective, but he has not promised anyone someone else's money. I may say it until my face turns blue, but here it is again: We all pay into the income tax system. Some of us pay more than others. Some of us make more than others. It is a difficult and complex system, but determining who pays what part of the burden is the job of president. It's not like we're taking all the money made in the country and dividing it back out by the # of people in the nation. No, we're asking that people who make more money pay a little bit more to make sure that we have a strong military, a good education system, highways, police, etc.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes? Where do you think that money will come from? Actual taxpayers pockets, and a highly disproportionate amount will come from the top 5%.
That top bracket employs the overwhelming majority of American workers. When they have less money to pay their employees, how are they supposed to make new hires? We're in the middle of a full blown recession, possibly heading into a depression, and Obama wants to limit American businesses' ability to employ more people. Why? So he can promise a handout and sway ignorant people into voting for him out of a selfish desire for free money.
I don't think there will be many people who will vote for him for that reason, but I bet his campaign is banking on there being enough of them to tip a couple of swing states in his favor. Maybe he'll come to his senses if elected and take back some of his ridiculous economic proposals. I don't think it will hurt his popularity as a president, seeing as how his constituents believe he can do no wrong.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tuesday when people vote, when do we know the result and when does Barack Obama manage to get in office?
Also, in furthermore people are ignorant, I was talking to some texans online over vent, it was insane, all of them were convinced in every lie ever uttered and utterly confident that "he may get elected but he won't be president" and in the next sentence that the Secret Service "ain't want him neither" and that "they can't see you when your 8000 meters away behind a rifle"
What are the current security arrangements to prevent 1 madman with a rifle from damaging your country's reputation for the end of time?
IP: Logged |
quote:Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes?
So does McCain.
Not to mention the fact that they already do. It's called the earned income credit. I'm not saying you shouldn't disagree with it, but it's not new.
As for jobs...doesn't he plan to offer a tax credit to companies for every American employee hired in the US? Also, to take away their tax credit for shipping jobs overseas. (I mean, come one! I can't believe the Republicans did that.)
On a completely different subject, I looked up some information for my mom because she didn't believe me that the Republican party has been the big deficit spenders rather than the Democrats. I found some great graphs that I thought I'd share with you guys, too. I didn't realize how pronounced this was!
quote:Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes?
So does McCain.
I recieved a Bush stimulus check, and it was worth more than I payed in taxes that year. Just saying...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other news, I've gotten 7 calls from 312-348-3696 on my cell phone (which I haven't been carrying on me). Looks like these are from the Obama campaign trying to verify my citizenship, in regards to that $15 donation. Persistent little buggers. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Do you know that he intends to give a tax refund to people who don't pay taxes? Where do you think that money will come from? Actual taxpayers pockets, and a highly disproportionate amount will come from the top 5%.
Wow, you don't know about the earned income credit?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Dagonee, i didn't respond to your links because, well, you started saying untrue things about me, and I parodied your remarks using basically the same form. I would say that there's at least as much truth to my remarks as there were to yours.
As far as Lisa's remarks, here's a link to a letter Ayers sent in immedinately following the column on him that Lisa's remarks come from.
And how hard would it have been for him to say, "I do regret having resorted to bombings." He didn't. Terrorist. And Paul, why are you being a credulous fool?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
He was acquitted wasn't he? Is he still making bombs? He is still planting them? Has it been proven that he at this moment continues to plot to destory the american government?
Also does it mean nothing that his actions past actions 40 years ago I might add are comparable to various notable Israeli's as it was already mentioned?
IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, the only people injured or killed in these activities were people who screwed up while making a bomb. If an innocent had died or even been injured, I might care more about his actions. He seemed to go out of his way to ensure that no one was hurt- it wasn't just luck. I can understand why he doesn't feel too bad about what he did (considering everything about the time). All he ever hurt were buildings.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That top bracket employs the overwhelming majority of American workers. When they have less money to pay their employees...
Resh, do you believe the wealthiest 5% of Americans pay the salaries of their employees out of their personal incomes?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the vast majority of Americans are employed by small businesses. Just saying...
I don't think that actually contradicts what Tom's getting at. I'd be surprised if most of small businesses making over $250K are not incorporated and thus subject to a different set of tax laws than apply to personal income. To the extant that this is true, their employees are not being paid from the personal income of the owners of these businesses.
quote:I'd be surprised if most of small businesses making over $250K are not incorporated and thus subject to a different set of rules than personal taxes.
Actually, partnerships, most small* LLCs, and many corporations* (specifically, so-called "S-Corps") are subject to pass-through taxation, which means that the owners (partners, members, or shareholders, depending) report their share of the entity's income on their own personal tax returns.
*these can have tens of million or more in revenue.
quote:To the extant that this is true, their employees are not being paid from the personal income of the owners of these businesses.
It depends on how one defines it, but in the situations I've described above, every dollar of salary paid to an employee is taken from the amount of income passed through to the owners. In this sense, it is being paid by them, in a way that is not true of shareholders in non-pass-through business entities.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I have faith that, whoever wins, the sun will rise as i always has, and my Beloved and I will continue to care for our family, and make the best of what we have been given.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
