Did you vote today?

[dont know nothin]

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
Why did they get in a position of needing republicans to compromise in the first place? Libs can't handle OPM?

because everything that is passed in congress needs compromise lol where have you been

[guest 2]

We are going over the cliff and the mighty fine president some of you lke to brag about ain't doing nothing to stop it. Some of you need to wake up. I guess it's going to take those taxes going up and those paychecks getting a whole smaller to get your attention. And in January when the president pushes his gun control on us. After all if he had his way none of us would have any guns. Do any of you really think this is going to stop the criminals, pretty soon they will be the only ones with guns. For some of you that wasn't paying attention te guy that shot those 20 kids. Didn't get his guns legelly, he stole them from his mother. Why should us law bidding citizens have our guns ripped from us when they can't control the criminals. Some of you better get your eyes open or we will lose all our freedoms. But this what you get when you put a communist in office. It was the most stupid thing voters have done. Because Obama oesn't have a clue how to run this country. We are in a Big Huge Mess.

[dont know nothin]

guest 2 wrote:

We are going over the cliff and the mighty fine president some of you lke to brag about ain't doing nothing to stop it. Some of you need to wake up. I guess it's going to take those taxes going up and those paychecks getting a whole smaller to get your attention. And in January when the president pushes his gun control on us. After all if he had his way none of us would have any guns. Do any of you really think this is going to stop the criminals, pretty soon they will be the only ones with guns. For some of you that wasn't paying attention te guy that shot those 20 kids. Didn't get his guns legelly, he stole them from his mother. Why should us law bidding citizens have our guns ripped from us when they can't control the criminals. Some of you better get your eyes open or we will lose all our freedoms. But this what you get when you put a communist in office. It was the most stupid thing voters have done. Because Obama oesn't have a clue how to run this country. We are in a Big Huge Mess.

lol only person that needs to wake up is you. The president had made 2 attempts to compromise with republicans. Then Boehner, the republican house leader, made an attempt with plan B and that even failed to pass with republicans. The leader of his own party cannot even reign in his constituants. It may take the tax rates going up to get something done in congress, but when they go up; democrats will cast an immediate vote for tax rates of 250k and below be cut back to the tax rates of today. The republicans will trip all over theirselves with what to do with newly proposed bill and will inevitably vote to pass it because it does concern over 98% of the country and further damage their chances of getting reelected in 2014. As far as gun control goes; we need it and are on our way to put the ban back into place. There was nothing wrong with the ban when it was in place, it was accepted as law and will once again be accepted as law. As a matter of fact, obama has proposed no such things as you have said about taking away all guns, the NRA only has about 2 million followers that they leech money out of so you cannot believe everything those bumbling buffoons say. All of your ignorant fear mongoring redoric proves just how much of a pathetic gullable low life your sorry excuse for parents truely succeeding in raising. You good sir are no better than the dirt on the bottom of your shoe and your parents should be ashamed of themselves for having such an incompetent fool such as yourself for a son or daughter.

[Billy Bob]

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
"Now before you fools start throwing the word "liberal" around it should be known that I do not like Obama and I didn't like Romney ether I liked Bill Clinton didn't like G.W.Bush liked John McCain didn't like Serra Palin. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican I'm independent."
This paragraph has LIBERAL written all over it!

Yep that's the blind one eyed reaction i was expecting.

[Billy Bob]

Last I herd it was Obama that won the election not John Boehner. And yet John Boehner has done nothing but dictate the lower house of congress not to cooperate. It is so obvious that he is protecting his rich buddy's and not thinking about the country. The Republicans can not get over the fact that they lost the election and there ego has been bruised now instead of working together for the grater good of the country they try to block everything. We will not get "tax hikes" the tax will just go back to when Clinton was President and the last time I checked the USA was doing pretty good under his economics. Now before you fools start throwing the word "liberal" around it should be known that I do not like Obama and I didn't like Romney ether I liked Bill Clinton didn't like G.W.Bush liked John McCain didn't like Serra Palin. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican I'm independent. As I'm not blinded by one side or the other I can see the best and worst from both sides. And for the record get ready as when Obama goes out next election Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President as I can not see anyone in the Republican party that is worthy of doing the job.

[Realtiy Check]

dont know nothin wrote:

<quoted text>if you look over every presidential election especially the ones that are won handily then yes he does have a damn mandate... and how the hell do you propose he's gonna "sacrafice 98% of the nation"? he's trying to NOT raise taxes on that percent... LOL and how the hell do you supppose that increased tax rates on the upper income is going to make the cost of consumables go up? tell me how the hell you came to that bright conclusion there genius.. so you think that by increasing taxes on corporate business investors or ceo's is going to do this? lol what ajoke... and who cares about fixing the whole problem .. we can't even get a vote to help fix a part of the problem... republicans just passed their plan B for a vote and didn't even get enough votes on their own damn bill .. there are only a few republicans in the house holding all this bs up and they'll be X'd come 2014 rather it be by a new democrate or independant or a good level headed replublican .. all this TEA party nonsense is over

If Obama keeps the tax structure the same as it currently is then the 98% keeps lower taxes. If he stands firm on his "must tax the rich more" and we go over the cliff then the 98% get crushed. It's that simple. It would be different if taxing the rich would solve the problem but it won't. It would be like bringing 20 gallons of water to a house fire. Sure it will put out some of the fire but your still going to lose the house so what good have you done? You could have just saved someone the $.03 on their water bill and been $.03 ahead because you were going to lose the house anyway only bringing 20 gallons to put it out. You ask how the cost of goods will go up? Surely you understand this. Businesses are owned by those considered to be in the 2%. If you raise taxes on them then they will have two choices, pass it on to the consumers of their products and survive or absorb it and go under. I know you believe that all owners of successful businesses are just rolling in the money but it's not that way. Believe me, I am talking from experience and you are talking from perception and they are a world apart. The sooner you realize that politics is just a game that those at the top play without reguard to the consequences to those below them the sooner you will start seeing the truth. Until then you are going to keep lookig like an idiot that points the finger at the republican party for every woe America faces. You do realize that no one can be right all of the time. As for American politics I would say that politicians on either side are right about 20% of the time which is pathetic.

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem was Obama not compromising. He won the election so he believes that he has the upper hand in this. He does but not near as much as he thinks. Obama is going to sacrifice 98% of the nation for the sake of raising taxes on 2% which doesn't even come close to fixing the problem. So the middle class and lower class will not only be crushed by increased taxes but also by the increase in the costs of goods (as if they aren't bad enough) as a result of higher taxes on the upper class that owns most of the businesses in America. It's all a part of Obama's grand plan to destroy capitalism. It would be different if the increase in taxes for the rich would actually fix the problem but it isn't even close.

If you did not use Right Wing propaganda to rationalize your greed,

you could possibly speak and not leave the impression that you are a greedy Idiot.

[BARNEYII]

Good example;

"Obama is going to sacrifice 98% of the nation for the sake of raising taxes on 2%"

Other side of that coin;

REPUBLICAN MAJORITY (house) is going to sacrifice 98% of the nation

for the sake of not LETTING TAX CUTS EXPIRE ON THE OTHER 2%".

[Guess Who]

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
The 20 year old adult that committed every act, from going in her house.... to taking her guns.... to driving to the school.... and to finally pulling the trigger, takes sole responsibility for it. Come on Churm, only a lib would blame it someone who didn't do it.
Don't we all know individuals we think aren't mentally stable? We can't all have these people put away, can we?

The mother was the 20 year olds enabler. If the shooter had lived he likely would never went to trial, He would have likely been declared not competent to stand trial. I do think it was a premeditated crime. however even four year olds are capable of doing premeditated things.

[guest]

BARNEYII wrote:

Good example;
"Obama is going to sacrifice 98% of the nation for the sake of raising taxes on 2%"
Other side of that coin;
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY (house) is going to sacrifice 98% of the nation
for the sake of not LETTING TAX CUTS EXPIRE ON THE OTHER 2%".

Considering the tax increase won't make a dent in the deficit, and Obama has admitted that increasing taxes on the wealthy is not about cutting the deficit but about "fairness," your "other side of that coin," is wrong no matter how many times you try to flip it. But then again... you've never been about putting the right thing on here, just your "side of that coin."

[BARNEYII]

Billy Bob wrote:

<quoted text>Yep that's the blind one eyed reaction i was expecting.

Thinking or acting for oneself in a manner in which which others disagree is not independent enough.

Anyone that is not inline with their independent view, well their just a Liberal.

Think Rush, or Hannity or Michael Savage, or any of the others will tell you anything different.

Not as long as they have their minions making them rich following their B.S., you won't.

[guest]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
If you did not use Right Wing propaganda to rationalize your greed,
you could possibly speak and not leave the impression that you are a greedy Idiot.

If you did not use Left Wing propaganda to rationalize your greed,
you could possibly speak and not leave the impression that you are a greedy Idiot.

[Realtiy Check]

BARNEYII wrote:

Good example;
"Obama is going to sacrifice 98% of the nation for the sake of raising taxes on 2%"
Other side of that coin;
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY (house) is going to sacrifice 98% of the nation
for the sake of not LETTING TAX CUTS EXPIRE ON THE OTHER 2%".

Here's the difference that you refuse to see. If we keep the tax rates the same for everyone then no one gets hurt and we go off the cliff and lose America. If we raise taxes on the top 2%, then few of the top 2% won't get hurt, many of the top 2% will get hurt, and we technically don't go off of the fiscal cliff but we still lose America. How you say? First off the revenue from the two percent leaves us about 95% short of what we need. Lastly, I can assure you that some of the wealthiest 2% will adjust their money so it is basically non existent and we won't get any additional tax revenue leaving the rest of the 2% to struggle to make it without bankruptcy. What liberals don't understand is that there are those that make an actual $250,000 per year then there are those who the government sees $250,000 profit in their business that don't make anywhere near $250,000 annually yet they are still counted in the 2% and will have to come up with the additional tax revenue that they don't have. They go up on their prices and business goes down because price increases knock out the bottom percentage of customers that shop with those business owners. Not to mention that the companies that supply those business owners will increase their prices. In a nut shell, business owners have most of their profits tied up in their business and not as cold hard cash in their bank accounts. It's just the way it is even if you refuse to see it.

[BARNEYII]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>Considering the tax increase won't make a dent in the deficit, and Obama has admitted that increasing taxes on the wealthy is not about cutting the deficit but about "fairness," your "other side of that coin," is wrong no matter how many times you try to flip it. But then again... you've never been about putting the right thing on here, just your "side of that coin."

"tax increase won't make a dent in the deficit"

To let the tax decrease expire on the top TWO percent would add and estimated 1.6 trillion revenue over the next decade.

Yes, I will post something that is not "right" but cheered on by the Right'

"people typically avail themselves of every legal (and not-so-legal) strategy to do so. Change the tax environment by raising rates or adversely modifying the rules, and taxpayers, especially those in the upper echelons of earners, can be counted on to modify their conduct accordingly"

[BARNEYII]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>If you did not use Left Wing propaganda to rationalize your greed,
you could possibly speak and not leave the impression that you are a greedy Idiot.

Some people confuse facts with propaganda, obviously you are one of them.

BTW, what is your stand on gun control, been couple weeks now, still waiting?

[BARNEYII]

Realtiy Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the difference that you refuse to see. If we keep the tax rates the same for everyone then no one gets hurt and we go off the cliff and lose America. If we raise taxes on the top 2%, then few of the top 2% won't get hurt, many of the top 2% will get hurt, and we technically don't go off of the fiscal cliff but we still lose America. How you say? First off the revenue from the two percent leaves us about 95% short of what we need. Lastly, I can assure you that some of the wealthiest 2% will adjust their money so it is basically non existent and we won't get any additional tax revenue leaving the rest of the 2% to struggle to make it without bankruptcy. What liberals don't understand is that there are those that make an actual $250,000 per year then there are those who the government sees $250,000 profit in their business that don't make anywhere near $250,000 annually yet they are still counted in the 2% and will have to come up with the additional tax revenue that they don't have. They go up on their prices and business goes down because price increases knock out the bottom percentage of customers that shop with those business owners. Not to mention that the companies that supply those business owners will increase their prices. In a nut shell, business owners have most of their profits tied up in their business and not as cold hard cash in their bank accounts. It's just the way it is even if you refuse to see it.

Has it occurred to you that every one who makes over 250k are NOT business owners? And how many of those (business owners) are sole proprietors as opposed to business that are a corporations.

As a matter of fact, show me some verifiable numbers that show what percentage of those who make over 250k are sole proprietor business owners.

Here is your chance to add some credibility to your non sense, and prove me wrong.

Can you do it?

[BARNEYII]

Realtiy Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the difference that you refuse to see. If we keep the tax rates the same for everyone then no one gets hurt and we go off the cliff and lose America. If we raise taxes on the top 2%, then few of the top 2% won't get hurt, many of the top 2% will get hurt, and we technically don't go off of the fiscal cliff but we still lose America. How you say? First off the revenue from the two percent leaves us about 95% short of what we need. Lastly, I can assure you that some of the wealthiest 2% will adjust their money so it is basically non existent and we won't get any additional tax revenue leaving the rest of the 2% to struggle to make it without bankruptcy. What liberals don't understand is that there are those that make an actual $250,000 per year then there are those who the government sees $250,000 profit in their business that don't make anywhere near $250,000 annually yet they are still counted in the 2% and will have to come up with the additional tax revenue that they don't have. They go up on their prices and business goes down because price increases knock out the bottom percentage of customers that shop with those business owners. Not to mention that the companies that supply those business owners will increase their prices. In a nut shell, business owners have most of their profits tied up in their business and not as cold hard cash in their bank accounts. It's just the way it is even if you refuse to see it.

Fact that 70% of economy is based on consumer spending.

Looking at 200 plus years of US history with your opinion in mind,

makes me wonder how in the Hell did the USA survived and become one of the most influential nations in the world,

with a tax burden, including a high of 92 percent in 1952-53 on her citizens.

Yet, 60 years later...... were still here.

[Post Turtle]

If obama's boots are flapping he's lying, I trust this prick about as much as I do a rattlesnake.
I hope I didn't offend any rattlesnakes.

[guest 2]

dont know nothin wrote:

<quoted text>lol only person that needs to wake up is you. The president had made 2 attempts to compromise with republicans. Then Boehner, the republican house leader, made an attempt with plan B and that even failed to pass with republicans. The leader of his own party cannot even reign in his constituants. It may take the tax rates going up to get something done in congress, but when they go up; democrats will cast an immediate vote for tax rates of 250k and below be cut back to the tax rates of today. The republicans will trip all over theirselves with what to do with newly proposed bill and will inevitably vote to pass it because it does concern over 98% of the country and further damage their chances of getting reelected in 2014. As far as gun control goes; we need it and are on our way to put the ban back into place. There was nothing wrong with the ban when it was in place, it was accepted as law and will once again be accepted as law. As a matter of fact, obama has proposed no such things as you have said about taking away all guns, the NRA only has about 2 million followers that they leech money out of so you cannot believe everything those bumbling buffoons say. All of your ignorant fear mongoring redoric proves just how much of a pathetic gullable low life your sorry excuse for parents truely succeeding in raising. You good sir are no better than the dirt on the bottom of your shoe and your parents should be ashamed of themselves for having such an incompetent fool such as yourself for a son or daughter.

It's people like you that are the reason our country is in the shape it's in. Your ideas have been tried in other countries and they don't work. You are only kidding yourself if you think obama won't come for our guns. I guess you will find out in these foour years how dangerous this guy is to the country. Back in germany before hilter took over they removed all guns and then he killed 6 million jews. If you remove guns from all lawbiding citizens what you get is only criminals will have guns. I have you ask you something if you are rich person and you paid 40% out in taxes how much is enough would you be happy with just 40 50 or 60%. Let me open your eyes If obama gets his way anyone that makes over 450,000.00(thats the magic number)you will actually be paying about 60% of your income in taxes(federal state local sales and personal property). So you are ok with the government ripped it from them when it's you that worked your butt off for it. And since you know nothing about economics any time you sock the rich and if they are business owners they hang on to what money they have left they don't hire, and they lay off workers to cut corners. Do you what that means it affect all of us and everything buy goes up in price. So if you then stick it to the rich is fair you just live in your imaginary world. So we are fixing to have a recession that will make the last one look like nothing. I guess when you get your paychecks in january you see what i mean. One more Taxes are going up tomorrow anyway cause of obama care. One other I hate to break it to you the country is in the shape it in cause obama does know how to stop spending by the way you ok with 5 million dollar(tax payer money)hawaiian vacation him and his family are taking? Ever had an expensive vacation?

[bill t]

Milita wrote:

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states
and arrived at a striking
conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin ..
Allow me to restate that number: 600,000
Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth
largest army in
the world.
More men under arms than in Iran.
More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin,
to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of
Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now
returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally
establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would
comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It's millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of
home-grown firepower.
Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of
national security.
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.
Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still
remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed
citizens???

Obama can do it easy.