Fairweather

Do I hear $90,000? $50,000 anyone? Do I hear $38,000! Going once...

Can you back up this assertion? Who are these evil barons holding "most" of this paper? All I see in your statement is froth. BTW: How are mom and dad?

Kind of scary how Obama has used the power of government to try to shut down a private citizen with an opinion. And he's not even in office yet.

"[update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]"

Wow, that's a whole lotta taxes! And all that profit for those evil shareholders? Take a look at your 401k--it's probably one of the only bright spots. Don't know what 2008 looks like for the taxes v profits picture, but feel free to research. Obama wants to impose a 'windfall profits' tax? All he'll be doing is stealing from investors like you and me and forcing still more companies to move offshore.

What you and your homo polish boy do down in Bend is your own business, but I'm not into farm animals or men (although the two of you barely qualify), so you and Gastrickiss will just have to share amongst yourselves--and maybe flip a coin or do rock/paper/scissors to decide who gets to go first and who has to hold the camera. I would recommend you two use protection, but I hear you don't even know how to place it.

In order: It does. It does not address payroll taxes for lower income Americans. Yes. As usual. The Messiah would be most unhappy that you sprayed on the internets during his tri-network call to prayer.

IMO; he ties with Woodrow Wilson, but he takes the cake for worst ex-presidents.

Social Security and Medicare for their own future benefit. Those so-called taxes are not income tax. Maybe the "rebate" these folks receive should be deducted from their payout upon retirement. You can't be serious with that argument, Matt.

umm...sounds like a no-brainer for all the po'folk like me - now why can't all the other rednecks dig on this? Since the bottom 38% of American income earners pay no federal income tax, I would like to know why the bottom 20% are entitled to anything. Isn't that called welfare?

A lecture on the virtues of socialism from a man who claims he is so wealthy he no longer has to work? Now that's irony. I think you are confusing human altruism and charity with government imposition of the same. When you give to your fellow man both you and he are rewarded in the transaction, but when government comes in and inserts itself forcibly as the sole agent of that transaction--and takes a cut--the receiver is left with a feeling of entitlement and the giver is left feeling he just got screwed. Don't get me wrong, I have always supported a progressive tax system--the mountain should get steeper as you approach the top--but making the goal of wealth too unattainable destroys ingenuity and risk-taking. There is a balance that should be watched on the right side of the equation too, and I've never said otherwise, but ultimately I prefer to see wealth "spread around" through employment and public participation in the system. (And a safety net that is nothing more than advertised.)

I don't get it. Are you saying that I support slavery? I doubt you understand the history behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as I do. I'm saying you're a bigot. You saying it doesn't make it so. Using the 'racist' label to shut down discussion is an old and tired tactic used by weak-minded lefty punks such as yourself and a select few of your fellow zombies here. Dislike of Obama's policies--perceived or real--is not racist. Got it? Now if you want to go off on a tangent about the semantics of racist versus bigot go right ahead, but I think it was pretty clear what you were/are trying to say with your veiled historical references. Now go off somewhere and fuck yourself little man.

Sounds like emotion to me. I doubt you can even articulate what that means without DNC talking points from which to recite.

Your thread title sounds a lot like Brave New World to me.

I don't get it. Are you saying that I support slavery? I doubt you understand the history behind the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as I do.

I would imagine he has some problems with the XIVth. Which section are you referring to?

Since I've never met anyone who did not already know this, or disagrees that a certain degree of eminent domain is necessary, I was assuming he was referring to the case that made big news a couple years ago. BTW; how are your efforts to close the road to Cloudcap going? We're implementing a socialists only policy, so I guess you're shit out of luck. Sounds like a confession to me.

Fuck off you clueless tool.

Since I've never met anyone who did not already know this, or disagrees that a certain degree of eminent domain is necessary, I was assuming he was referring to the case that made big news a couple years ago. BTW; how are your efforts to close the road to Cloudcap going?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to a certain (outrageous) case.

That honor falls only to certain cc.com self-described liberals who regularly cheered for a someone to kill GWB. The moderation here is anything but.

The case you are referring to was in 2005. But before you embarrass yourself any further, you should know that the ruling was supported and passed by the liberal side of the court - Stevens, Ginsberg, Bryer, Souter, along with the more moderate Kennedy. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor voted against the measure and I believe the Bush Administration had filed a Friend of the Court brief against the seizure by the city of New London. So much for your argument there. But, seriously, do any of Obama's comments in the link concern you at all?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/ "And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said. It almost sounds like he's saying that the courts are a dead-end for "redistribution of wealth" schemes--which he clearly--supports--and that some form of raw populism is preferable? This guy gets scarier with each passing day. Why FOX? Because no one else in the media seems to care about "knowing" Barak Obama.

Did you catch anything with all of your flies?