Thread: Bush vs. Kerry

Originally Posted by no-one

any reasons behind this raging hatred for our president? of course i mean other that "he's and idiot", im looking for something legitimate.

come now, you know the answer to that!

Let me help the liberals out here for a moment:
- he started a war for oil
- he gives tax cuts to the rich
- he's stupid
- he's anti-abortion
- he's Christian

Should I go on? Or should we just recognize that most here are young and inexperienced in life. After all, if you are under 30 and you aren't liberal you have no heart but if you are over 30 and you are not conservative you have no brain.

There's a reason that liberals push the "get out the vote" crap. They want the young and inexperienced in the voting booth because they fall for those lines. The "civic duty" to vote that they are always spouting on about actually not intended to mean that you have a civic duty to think before you vote. Thinking can always be done for you by Hollywood after all.

just remember, "vote or die mutha fu**er!!!"

I voted against Bush, and I am very young (18) , but I think I have rational reasons for not wanting him in office.

I don't think he started the war for oil, but I disagreed with the occupation based on what we knew at the time, else I might have been for it, and I do think he is doing it because he thinks it is the right thing.

Bush has given tax cuts overall, but it is still families with my income range (around 70K per year...this translates to each parent making about as much as a school teacher) carry the heaviest burden, and rich people do get tax relief.

And in general I agree with being socialistic about healthcare, because usually privitising healthcare seems to translate into companies being able to charge whatever they want, screwing over normal people. Plus, health insurance costs are outrageous, and normal people can't afford it. I think healthcare should be a right, not just a priviledge.

And, I typically get called a commie for my views.

Obviously people disagree with me, but I at least hope the pro bush people on this site can appreciate the fact that I'm being more fair.

just remember, "vote or die mutha fu**er!!!"

Darn, you've figured me out! I admit it, I admit it, I only voted so that P. Diddy wouldn't kill me! AHH

I do appreciate that you're being more rational than the rest of this hateful bunch. With that having been said...

Originally Posted by Darkness

Bush has given tax cuts overall, but it is still families with my income range (around 70K per year...this translates to each parent making about as much as a school teacher) carry the heaviest burden, and rich people do get tax relief.

I just want to test your knowledge on this one. And I'd appreciate it if everyone else just let Darkness answer this. But would you approve of a system where everyone is taxed 15% of their income, regardless of what they make?

> come now, you know the answer to that!

I've given them before, and I know no-one doesn't care. And the "war for oil" idea has never been pronounced by anyone with half a brain. If we did go to war for oil gas prices wouldn't be kicking my ass.

> I do appreciate that you're being more rational than the rest of this hateful bunch. With that having been said...

Hey, who sniped who in this thread?

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

I do appreciate that you're being more rational than the rest of this hateful bunch. With that having been said...I just want to test your knowledge on this one. And I'd appreciate it if everyone else just let Darkness answer this. But would you approve of a system where everyone is taxed 15% of their income, regardless of what they make?

I don't know all of the ins and outs of how it works, so maybe I will learn something new. What I know is what I said, and it is that Bush has given tax cuts overall, but that it's normal people who still end up paying more than the rich people. If I'm wrong with that much, please tell me.

To answer your question directly, I think that I would not approve with the system as you've mentioned it, because you end up getting very rich people whose 15% would carry most of the taxes. I guess everyone should be taxed 15% up until that 15% hits a certian figure.

Is that reasonable? I don't pretend to know more, so tell me what *you* think. Geezer boy

edit:

Hey, who sniped who in this thread?

I am guessing some flame bait was tossed around a bit here and there, and as I remember FYB was ranked down for being a conservative.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

Hey, who sniped who in this thread?

whatever do you mean? I've made no personal attacks to cboard members or candidates.

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

whatever do you mean? I've made no personal attacks to cboard members or candidates.

But you are an evil conservative! Hide your children!

Originally Posted by Darkness

To answer your question directly, I think that I would not approve with the system as you've mentioned it, because you end up getting very rich people whose 15% would carry most of the taxes. I guess everyone should be taxed 15% up until that 15% hits a certian figure.

interesting, so you're saying that a lower percentage should exist for the wealthiest because they would pay too much if it were a set percentage?

> whatever do you mean? I've made no personal attacks to cboard members or candidates

Oh, ok, my mistake. I didn't realize that "hateful bunch" was directed at other people.

I'm trying to be civil here. Try and relax

> interesting, so you're saying that a lower percentage should exist for the wealthiest because they would pay too much if it were a set percentage?

GUYS! I FOUND STEVE FORBES'S GIMMICK ACCOUNT!

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

GUYS! I FOUND STEVE FORBES'S GIMMICK ACCOUNT!

he said he voted for kerry, cheez!

I was talking about you, goofball. That's why I quoted you, preaching the benefits of the flat tax to impressionable youths.

What if I told you that those making 28,400 were taxed 25% and those making 311,950 were taxed 35%?
http://partners.financenter.com/abcn...taxbracket.fcs

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

interesting, so you're saying that a lower percentage should exist for the wealthiest because they would pay too much if it were a set percentage?

As I understand it, it's families with my income, 70K per year, that physically pay more $$$ than compared to, say, a family with a 200K income per year. I don't like that. But I also think Bill Gates might say, "well, here I am paying billions of dollars a year in taxes, this is ridiculous, I don't want to be that responsible for the government". So, to fix the part of the taxes that I don't like, the 200K per year family would still physically pay more $$ than my family, as they have more money, but then Bill Gates would still pay a lot, but not so much that it gets out of hand.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

I was talking about you, goofball. That's why I quoted you, preaching the benefits of the flat tax to impressionable youths.

Not preaching flat tax. I was just demonstrating that he was working with only a slogan.

Tax cuts for the rich.

He has illustrated my point on the youth vote. Thank you Darkness.

Not that it matters, as Bush is in office.