I hate to break it too you and it may not matter but McCain won the debate

[EscortBiz]

Sweetheart, turn on your TV!

We have real EXPERIENCED President now!

Governor of Texas, second term President of USA, not enough experience for you???
Would you elect George W Bush for the third term with all the expereince he has?

NO? You would not?
Than take all this "experience" talk and shove it.

Well ok lets break it down a bit

The current financial crisis has anything to do with what bush did or more of what stupid fucking people did by not thinking right?

As far as the wars go well im sure you would of responded different after 9/11 but not everyone is as smart as you, guess what right now the world fears the USA because of bush and we havent been attacked since, get a weak person into office and our security (more important than anything) will be at risk.

Stop being one of those sheep follow sheep people and just think before you blabble

[cherrylula]

The Palin deal just baffles me. I really think before that, McCain had a great shot at winning...

Middle America fucking loves her. If he wins, she will get the credit.

[cherrylula]

If McCain picked Romney, he wins this election. The Palin pick was stupid and short sighted. He also should have opposed the bailout. He would be killing Obama with the fact the bailout went through and the economy is still tanking.

McCain has no one to blame but himself for letting a few retarded wonks run his campaign into the ground.

a Mormon? that's worse than the moose lover.

my useless asshole opinion is that PALIN is going to win this election.

fact is, people want a dumbed down seeming candidate, that's why Bill Clinton was/is so popular, and GW is like everyone's drunk redneck buddy.

people need to stop thinking about actual politics, and look at the candidates and their humor rating, that's where the pull is in this country.

[cherrylula]

Sweetheart, turn on your TV!

We have real EXPERIENCED President now!

Governor of Texas, second term President of USA, not enough experience for you???
Would you elect George W Bush for the third term with all the expereince he has?

NO? You would not?
Than take all this "experience" talk and shove it.

hi Serge

[pornguy]

It becomes more and more apparent to me that as time goes by these politicans suck. All of them.

Thats what I have been saying all along.

People keep saying Vote Obama he will do X... Bullshit. He is a politician.

He will do what is best for his pocket.

NO ONE gets into politics to help the little guy. They get in to help themselves.



The other day George Clooney said he may run for some sort of office. Yeah Im sure it has a lot to do with helping the little guy, and NOT to do with stopping the tax hit on higher income people.

[Eric_ALSSCAN]

The problem is Mccain sold out, Mccain in 2000 was a man of principles on some level. Now he is just a man who wants to get elected and will say anything to do it.

Define: politician

[12clicks]

you need to get better design for your sites first.

would have... should have...

oh look! another tgp submitter without the financial backing for PPS looking to play program operator with a revshare program.

[J. Falcon]

I hate to break it to you but you're wrong.

[Fletch XXX]

the best things about opinions are:

1: they dont matter
2. you can make money from them

http://www.congratstothewinners.com/...won-again.html

[12clicks]

explain your lie.

wow, there actually WAS someone dopey enough to challenge me on this.
much like yourself, 13% of US workers already pay zero taxes. 95%+13%= a lie.
also, obama wants to raise the capital gains tax his exact words are,"I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%"

ok, so raising the capital gains rate from 15% to "under 28%" sounds like almost doubling it to me.
if 95% of US workers have zero investments, well then I guess we're ok.

get it? I'll bet you don't.

[webmasterchecks]

Hi ron, let me throw my opinion out. McCain may have won the debate, but obama was to perceived to have won it.

This wasn?t a test to where they could fill out a form and turn it in and get scored on how qualified they were, it was all perception and mcain, with his 100 ?my friends? looked desperate, that mad blinking in the background, slinging mud on obama (yea, I know it went the other way too but obama was much smoother about it). so for the average voter, a trucker out of Kentucky watuching the debate half paying attention because there is a kid screaming in the background, obama came out better.

but who knows what will happen election day. Getting people to vote will be another story. It was going the same way 4 years ago, then election night when the Reps won, my jaw dropped

[kowalsky]

All medias in south america says the debate was clearly won by Obama...

I didn´t watch it all, but according to what I watched Obama seemed to be more clear, instead of that McCain was trying to show experience, but he was not clear enough about the ideas he was tryting to transmite...

[Barefootsies]

Reading over this thread is pure comedy. It's no wonder a lot of adult businesses fail.

Politicians promising war, no war, universal health care, more money for schools, colleges, whatever. All of that shit costs money.

But no one wants to raise taxes to pay for all these 'wants'.

Family's budgets do not work on unlimited funds, and neither should the government. Taxes are required to pay for this shit. Not to mention the deficit already rolling because of this kind of thinking. Maybe if you hit people with taxes on their wants more often, they would actually give a shit about politics from oil companies, corporate America, to the war or education.

Furthermore, tax breaks to the rich, the capital gains and the rest of that magic trick is simple bullshit. Bush and the Republican Congress has had 8 years of doing that stuff their way, and the economy's where? All those lost jobs? India? American wages? The middle class??

If you can actually say that shit works with a straight face. Seek help.

[undersoul]

what a surprise! would never have guessed you thought McCain won! lol

[notoldschool]

oh look! another tgp submitter without the financial backing for PPS looking to play program operator with a revshare program.

Pot meet kettle.

The problem is Mccain sold out, Mccain in 2000 was a man of principles on some level. Now he is just a man who wants to get elected and will say anything to do it.

Keating 5 was before 2000 so he lost all ethical value before that time.

A huge debate is the economy... prior was how to stop an economic crash. Candidate Obama please respond... nothing. Candidate McCain please respond... nothing.

Well, our economy is now crashing and no one can do two fucks two stop it (i.e. market will spiral downward till dow reaches 8K... no sooner and no mutha fucking politicians can stop it)

So my question is who know is the best candidate to lead our country. The guy who has foreign affair relationships or the one sponsored by Hollywood?

this is a landmine that neither will jump on.

[Grays]

Reading over this thread is pure comedy. It's no wonder a lot of adult businesses fail.

Politicians promising war, no war, universal health care, more money for schools, colleges, whatever. All of that shit costs money.

But no one wants to raise taxes to pay for all these 'wants'.

Family's budgets do not work on unlimited funds, and neither should the government. Taxes are required to pay for this shit. Not to mention the deficit already rolling because of this kind of thinking. Maybe if you hit people with taxes on their wants more often, they would actually give a shit about politics from oil companies, corporate America, to the war or education.

Furthermore, tax breaks to the rich, the capital gains and the rest of that magic trick is simple bullshit. Bush and the Republican Congress has had 8 years of doing that stuff their way, and the economy's where? All those lost jobs? India? American wages? The middle class??

If you can actually say that shit works with a straight face. Seek help.

[baddog]

I couldnt of said it better myself

No argument there

[12clicks]

Pot meet kettle.

still clueless, eh?

[notoldschool]

still clueless, eh?

What am i clueless about? Please inform us all might traffic master.

[NoComments]

Stop being one of those sheep follow sheep people and just think before you blabble

Sweetheart, the FACT that you come here on GFY to work your butt off and me only come here when the boredome of my retirement gets the best of me is the proof that you are a sheep and I have track record of SHAVING sheep. Ask 12 Clicks, he'll tell ya


As for the rest of your "deep thought",
can you repeat it again?

[NoComments]

hi Serge

Hi to you and yours too! Thanks for stoppin by
;)

[Vegas Ken]

I don't think either one killed it, but I think there is no way McCain won the debate. If anything he failed to turn the tides by making the debate a game changer.

[Brad]

in the debate that I watched neither did a great job. I was quite disappointed actually. Maybe it was the format or maybe they just didn't answer the questions properly but I thought it was pretty sparse on new info.

[Drake]

Is McCain perfect? Hell no! But we will be better off with someone with real experience in office right now, not someone who likes to bullshit and tell stories all fucking day.

Having lots of experience doing critical things wrong is not the way to go. It's like asking a criminal who frequently gets busted how to go about committing a crime.

The current financial crisis has anything to do with what bush did or more of what stupid fucking people did by not thinking right?

It had as much to do with the "best and brightest minds" as it did with stupid people.

As far as the wars go well im sure you would of responded different after 9/11

Obama and Biden both would have responded differently than Bush/McCain. They would have focused on Afghanistan.

guess what right now the world fears the USA because of bush and we havent been attacked since, get a weak person into office and our security (more important than anything) will be at risk.

9/11 happened on Bush's term. They fear him now but didn't prior to 9/11?

We've beefed up security and have been lucky there have been no attacks. It has nothing to do with "fear" of the figurehead we call President. These guys are willing to blow themselves up - they have no fear.

[Drake]

I do have concerns about Obama's economic policy. If it's just going to be more tax and more spend, we might as well keep what we have now. If there is going to be a real effort to cut spending, then maybe a combination of increased taxation makes sense. But Obama has said that he understands that you cannot raise taxes during times of economic downturns, so I'm not sure if he will even pursue his tax plan. If the economy doesn't recover during his term, how can he implement his plan?

The other thing I don't really know/understand is if forms of protectionism actually work or if free trade is ideal. And as far as jobs, American workers can't compete with slave wages paid to Chinese who can do the same job. Yet it makes perfect sense to me for companies to be able to find the most cost effective labor. When Obama and McCain talk about "keeping jobs" in America what do they actually mean and how do you realistically do that?

[12clicks]

What am i clueless about? Please inform us all might traffic master.

hahaha, silly kid.
I almost wrote,"go ask the 50 or so business owners I currently do business with what you're clueless about" but then I realized, you don't know any business owners. your a board troll. then I laughed, then I realized it was time for lunch.

[Phil]

oh look! another tgp submitter without the financial backing for PPS looking to play program operator with a revshare program.

the best you can do???
tgp submitter? with out financial backing of PPS? is this supposed to be offensive, smart or just plain stupid cause you had nothing better to say?
idiot

[CDSmith]

I thought my SergeTracker ? was just acting up, so I smacked it a few times. But no, I see it's working perfectly.

Serge, why is it every time I see you post I have the urge to buy wine?

[Brad]

Well ok lets break it down a bit

The current financial crisis has anything to do with what bush did or more of what stupid fucking people did by not thinking right?

As far as the wars go well im sure you would of responded different after 9/11 but not everyone is as smart as you, guess what right now the world fears the USA because of bush and we havent been attacked since, get a weak person into office and our security (more important than anything) will be at risk.

Stop being one of those sheep follow sheep people and just think before you blabble

I almost had to abort this thread after your absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous tirade about "hipsters". How does that have any barring on the election?

So who's the sheep? Personally I would say the people who voted Bush into office a second time. Arguably it was fixed but the fact still remains he is in there. Everyone saw Kerry mop the floor with Bush. He was made to look like he had never even completed high school.

I find it funny that people even care about the debates when Kerry killed Bush (and for that matter Obama and McCain) yet still lost. These things don't matter...what matters in politics mostly is the unwaivering support of people like 12clicks. The middle ground is a small group and as was proven in the last election, the debates have no real barring on the choice the voters make.

[Drake]

I have serious concerns about McCain's outlook on the world. While foreign policy is supposed to be his strength, his positions and rhetoric IMO suggest he either sorely lacking in understanding or completely naive.

How on earth could one believe that America would be greeted as liberators in Iraq or that the war there would be won easily? Even non-military people with zero experience in foreign policy (eg. historian) could tell you this is implausible. McCain may be able to lead a regiment into battle, but I'm not sure I'd want him making the decisions about where those battles should be taking place.

McCain remarked that Obama is naive when Obama said he would kill Bin Laden if he knew where Bin Laden was and Pakistan wouldn't take action. I find that much more reasonable than McCain's offhand remarks about bombing Iran and wiping out North Korea.

The judgement call on focusing on Iraq over Afghanistan seems like another example of dropping the ball. Likewise the 'surge' tactic seems to me another ploy or a tactic used by somebody who doesn't get that more guns doesn't necessarily mean more success. It's other efforts that will make the necessary gains if any are made at all.

Here's a deeper analysis of the 'surge':
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...rge/index.html

[notoldschool]

hahaha, silly kid.
I almost wrote,"go ask the 50 or so business owners I currently do business with what you're clueless about" but then I realized, you don't know any business owners. your a board troll. then I laughed, then I realized it was time for lunch.

LOL..you can do business with EVERY webmaster on this board but it doesnt change the fact that KAMOCATS proggie is worth more than yours. Its funny how the loudest mouths on this board have the least traffic.

[EscortBiz]

Sweetheart, the FACT that you come here on GFY to work your butt off and me only come here when the boredome of my retirement gets the best of me is the proof that you are a sheep and I have track record of SHAVING sheep. Ask 12 Clicks, he'll tell ya


As for the rest of your "deep thought",
can you repeat it again?

you have a track record of talking bullshit thats pretty much it

[Snake Doctor]

You're right about one thing 12clicks, it doesn't matter.

This election is alot like 1980, the vast majority of the country is sick of the way things have been going and the policies that have led us there, and they desperately want a change.
All Obama had to do to "win" was prove he has the temperament and the intelligence to be President.

He's done that. You may not like his policies or his background or whatever, but you can't deny that he has the temperament and intelligence for the job.

[EscortBiz]

[QUOTE=Adult Lounge - Brad;14869219]I almost had to abort this thread after your absolutely unnecessary and ridiculous tirade about "hipsters". How does that have any barring on the election?

QUOTE]

You almost had to abort this thread because of something I said lol, I mean chill the fuck out and this is not a congressional hearing so should you have aborted I dont think it would of destabilize the civilized world.

As far as what hipsters have to do with the obama hype well figure it out.

[Snake Doctor]

wow, there actually WAS someone dopey enough to challenge me on this.
much like yourself, 13% of US workers already pay zero taxes. 95%+13%= a lie.
also, obama wants to raise the capital gains tax his exact words are,"I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%"

ok, so raising the capital gains rate from 15% to "under 28%" sounds like almost doubling it to me.
if 95% of US workers have zero investments, well then I guess we're ok.

get it? I'll bet you don't.

I don't want to get in the mud with you on this, but if we're talking facts, then let's talk facts.

Those 13% don't pay federal income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes (FICA). Obama is proposing a tax credit for those people to offset some of their payroll tax.
The 95% number is a little pie in the sky, the actual statement should be "95% of families", and even then you have to look at the numbers in the best possible light...but to call it a lie is a bit much.

28% was the capital gains rate Bill Clinton inherited from George HW Bush, which he inherited from your hero Ronald Reagan.
Clinton cut that rate twice, once to 23%, and again to 20%.

The 20% rate that was in place when Clinton left office is what Obama is proposing to go back to. My understanding is also that the higher rate will only apply to capital gains for those making over 250K per year.

All of Obama's tax proposals will have you paying less taxes than you did under Ronald Reagan, so while tomorrow's taxes might be higher than today's taxes, these are hardly onerous proposals that would hurt the economy.

[brand0n]

best part of this thread =

serge posting on gfy again

=]

[NoComments]

you have a track record of talking bullshit thats pretty much it

I can afford it, can you talk bullshit for 8 years straight and doing nothing else?

I don't think so, working bee.

[12clicks]

I don't want to get in the mud with you on this, but if we're talking facts, then let's talk facts.

Those 13% don't pay federal income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes (FICA). Obama is proposing a tax credit for those people to offset some of their payroll tax.
The 95% number is a little pie in the sky, the actual statement should be "95% of families", and even then you have to look at the numbers in the best possible light...but to call it a lie is a bit much.

FICA is social security. I'm glad you're ok with giving people a completely free ride and then pay for their retirement and give free healthcare to the children they can't afford to have but I'm not.
please don't confuse income tax with FICA, FICA is where the poor pay a small token to receive many times that in return during "retirement"

28% was the capital gains rate Bill Clinton inherited from George HW Bush, which he inherited from your hero Ronald Reagan.

silly kid. the democratic controlled congress blocked Reagan from lowering taxes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
"""Prospects are considered slim that President Reagan's call for lower capital gains taxes will go anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Congress in the forseeable future.
President Reagan, who is expected to propose such a reduction in his State of the Union Message Monday night, has pressed the idea before - in his first and second terms. But his only success with Congress came in his first year in office.
In the past two years, Congress has soundly rejected various proposals to cut capital gains taxes in considering major tax legislation.""

Clinton cut that rate twice, once to 23%, and again to 20%.

no, again you're wrong. The republican controlled congress lowered the rate. Not Clinton

The 20% rate that was in place when Clinton left office is what Obama is proposing to go back to.

I alreaded quoted obama on this and he did not say 20%.
I won't call you a liar if you can come up with a quote of his saying 20%

All of Obama's tax proposals will have you paying less taxes than you did under Ronald Reagan, so while tomorrow's taxes might be higher than today's taxes, these are hardly onerous proposals that would hurt the economy.

incorrect as well as irrelevant.

[NoComments]

best part of this thread =

serge posting on gfy again

=]

and why not?

UBS caved in and pays $19,000,000,000 to me and other folks, our cash is unfrozen, my job is done, now I can go pailing and gfying once again
;)

How you been, man!?

[BVF]

I didn't read anything except the OP's statement....However, it doesn't matter because Obama is going to win the ELECTION....I couldn't give two fucks about arguing who won a debate...

[NoComments]

Ronie, taxes are NOTHING. Who cares about low tax rates when one is unemployed?
Who cares about fat banking acount when the revolution redistributes the wealth?
I'd rather have my wealth redistributed by law than by the mob like it happened in..
French Revolution
Russian Revolution and as Brits will confirm
American revolution.

The rich folks are not scared by taxes, it's about time you start behaving like one.

[LAJ]

Pennsylvania:

Philly on one side, Pitt on the other, and Alabama in between :P

[Fresh]

I certainly would have run a better campaign.

[Pleasurepays]

The problem is Mccain sold out, Mccain in 2000 was a man of principles on some level. Now he is just a man who wants to get elected and will say anything to do it.

i think the opposite is true.

anyone that wants to get elected is forced to say anything to appeal to a broad enough base to be electable.

we hold politicians to impossible standards, pick apart ever syllable of every word and twist it against them, demand the impossible and have basically created a position that attracts nothing but narcissistic, sociopathic weirdos.

obama is just as full of shit as anyone else is. he's changed his position on almost anything he's ever talked about once he realized his position wasn't the most popular or wasn't resonating with those voters who need to be swayed to his side

mccain is just a creepy looking weirdo... that can't stop talking about how he can't get along with either party (i.e. "maverick") and who can't stop talking about vietnam. sorry... i don't give a fuck if some guy 600 years ago flew a plane a war or got shot down and captured while doing it. doesn't make him a great president or competent leader.

[CarlosTheGaucho]

glad I've clicked this thread!

[Snake Doctor]

FICA is social security. I'm glad you're ok with giving people a completely free ride and then pay for their retirement and give free healthcare to the children they can't afford to have but I'm not.
please don't confuse income tax with FICA, FICA is where the poor pay a small token to receive many times that in return during "retirement"

A tax is a tax....what the tax pays for is irrelevant. You said 13% of US workers pay zero tax. That is a false statement.

13% of US workers pay no federal income tax, but they still pay taxes. You may want to clarify that statement to say "income tax", but once you do, then you can't call Obama a liar because he didn't say he was going to give 95% of families "an income tax cut" he said he was going to give them a "tax cut"

silly kid. the democratic controlled congress blocked Reagan from lowering taxes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
"""Prospects are considered slim that President Reagan's call for lower capital gains taxes will go anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Congress in the forseeable future.
President Reagan, who is expected to propose such a reduction in his State of the Union Message Monday night, has pressed the idea before - in his first and second terms. But his only success with Congress came in his first year in office.
In the past two years, Congress has soundly rejected various proposals to cut capital gains taxes in considering major tax legislation.""

Calling me a kid doesn't make you look like a grown up, it makes you look like an asshole.

Capital gains tax rates.
1978 - 39%
1979-80 - 28%
1981 - 23.7%
1982-86 - 20%
1987 - 28%
1988-1990 - 28%-33%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

no, again you're wrong. The republican controlled congress lowered the rate. Not Clinton

Clinton signed it into law did he not? By that logic it was the democrats in congress who cut taxes in the 1980's.

I alreaded quoted obama on this and he did not say 20%.
I won't call you a liar if you can come up with a quote of his saying 20%

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...clarifies.html

The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986

incorrect as well as irrelevant.

Income tax rates, from the same source as above.

1981 - 70%/50%
1982-86 - 50%
1987 - 38.5%

So with the exception of Reagan's last two years, Obama's income tax proposals will have high income earners paying a lower rate than they did under the bulk of Reagan's term.

Also, the lower brackets will be much lower under the Obama plan than they were under the Reagan plan. (And don't forget, you pay taxes in those lower brackets too, you only pay the higher rate on income over and above the 200K threshold, on your first 20K, 50K, 199K, etc, you pay the same tax rates as everyone else)

I realize you object to taxes no matter what, but we have a national debt of $10+ trillion....and 8 trillion of that was under the watch of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, both of whom brought in sweeping tax cuts and claimed they would pay for themselves.
They obviously didn't and if we don't get our fiscal house in order the dollar will be worth about as much as a peso.

[kristin]

They did not capitalize on the town hall format and I think that hurt them. They had a chance to really connect with the people, but didn't do it.

[12clicks]

I realize you object to taxes no matter what, but we have a national debt of $10+ trillion....and 8 trillion of that was under the watch of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, both of whom brought in sweeping tax cuts and claimed they would pay for themselves.
They obviously didn't and if we don't get our fiscal house in order the dollar will be worth about as much as a peso.

this is the key point in all of this.

you think raising taxes gets "our fiscal house in order" it doesn't. cutting spending is the only answer. The reagan and bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves (look it up)
what it didn't pay for was the obscene spending spree congress has been on for decades.

so yeah, lets elect the guy who wants to spend more money because, well if we just raise taxes on the rich, everything will be ok.

I'm often embarrassed that I've accomplished so little in a country where most of the people are dumb enough to believe Obama's fairy tale.

[pocketkangaroo]

wow, there actually WAS someone dopey enough to challenge me on this.
much like yourself, 13% of US workers already pay zero taxes. 95%+13%= a lie.
also, obama wants to raise the capital gains tax his exact words are,"I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%"

ok, so raising the capital gains rate from 15% to "under 28%" sounds like almost doubling it to me.
if 95% of US workers have zero investments, well then I guess we're ok.

get it? I'll bet you don't.

If you don't raise some taxes on some people, how do you plan on paying off the debt? Already 10 trillion in debt with a couple trillion more on the books for bailouts.

[12clicks]

If you don't raise some taxes on some people, how do you plan on paying off the debt? Already 10 trillion in debt with a couple trillion more on the books for bailouts.

stop spending.
we really do NOT need all of the things the government tells us we need.
on top of that, cut taxes further. cutting taxes raises tax revenue, not the other way around.