Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101017/pl_ … ion_mccain
This is VERY ACCURATE. Why would anyone want to imitate SARAH PALIN, considering the fact that the Tea Party's popularity is now something like 18%? Yet O'Donnell seems to be doing exactly that. That's NUTS
I would give pretty big odds that she won't be elected. Any takers?
I'll bet the Tea Party has much greater support than the 18% you site, which by the way is nothing to sneeze at! I don't find Palin or O'Donnell nuts at all... what I do find nuts are progressive democrats and their addvocation for bigger government and higher taxes... oh yes, they only want higher taxes on everyone else except themselves...
Once again, you ignore the many well-to-do public figures who support letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. You're right. This liberal is not in that tax bracket, but I would pay higher taxes on the income I make right now and be fine with it.
You don't have to wait to pay higher taxes.
If you're feeling benevolent send in a higher percentage.
Somehow I don't think you will.
Taxes are the lowest they've been since WWII, and our roads, bridges, railroads and schools are in the worst shape ever. Not to mention the national debt that you are whining about all the time.
Well then we should elect another moron who will increase the debt by 1.6 Trillion.
Good thinking Ralph.
We already elected a moron in 2000. (sort of, he needed supreme interference to actually take office). We went with an educated man in 2008; maybe that's why he's so intimidating to the teabaggers.
So our infrastructure and schools are in bad shape, and you want to lower taxes and decrease the debt? These goals don't seem to match up. We can't lower taxes and decrease the debt and pay to fix what's broken all at the same time. Jim, what exactly is your proposal?
Yes and didn't we pass a trillion dollar stimulus to fix them? Gee I wonder where that money went? Oh and a 2.5 trillion dollar health entitlement won't affect the debt at all right? Please!
Deeds, that ain't saying much: taxes were in the 98% rate during WWII .
Your statement is right out of the teabagger play book. Ask the poor to pay a higher share so the rich can pay less.
"Ask the poor to pay a higher share so the rich can pay less."
Is she poor?
Do without the internet connection and send that money in every month.
Or stop whining.
Where am I whining?
Back to rule #1 I see.
LOL! You never fail to entertain. No, I am not poor, but I have been in what would be considered a borderline income bracket and I never whined about paying taxes. I'm sure you'll come back with some flippant one-liner, but the fact is that the whining is coming from people who want to live in a society with clean air and water, good roads, food free from contaminants, and safe neighborhoods yet somehow think those things can exist without everyone contributing to their cost.
This deserves two responses.
Nowhere did I ask the poor to pay anything.
Nowhere did I ask anyone to pay anything.
Your statement is right out of the democrat playbook.
Rule 1)Make shit up and see what happens.
"Ask the poor to pay a higher share so the rich can pay less."
This is EXACTLY what has gone on Under the Republicans, and wishes to be continued by the Baggers. Deal with it---you want it, WE don't!
Oh well, you really should get caught up on current affairs.
Whether you want it or not you're gonna get it.
Deal with that.
You are a dupe of the "men behind the curtain."
Because I have different opinions?
I could be a blithering idiot but if I agreed with your absurd notions I would be a genius.
I'll stick with being right.
You know absolutely nothing about my life, Jim, as it pertains to how I spend my money. Your assumptions are wrong in so many ways.
Have a nice day!
I assume that you wont pay a higher percentage of tax unless you are told to.
And I couldn't care less how you spend your money, now quit worrying about how the rest of us spend ours.
You would live better on a deserted island. Society and it's complexities seem to puzzle you.
Actually, that's not true. If you send in a . . . let's call it a "tip" to the IRS, they will send you back the difference. I know this from experience. I missed a deduction and the IRS caught it and the next thing I knew I had a nice gov check for $800. No one was as surprised as me. Not nearly as surprising as the following year when I did the math correctly but got distracted when I put the money figure in that little box, and ended up getting a check for seven cents. Still tacked on my bulletin board too because, as we all know, no one in their right mind would cash a check for seven cents.
You know, I actually believe you. I believe that you would be willing to pay higher taxes if it meant everybody else would, too. This may seem fair to you, but here's what that reminds me of: the woman who was willing to have the baby she claimed was her own cut in half and shared equally, rather than let the other woman have it. Clearly that income that your receive is not your own, and that's why it's no skin off your nose to sacrifice it.
Huh? You think the income I receive is not my own? Please clarify, because you have me stumped.
The normal human response is "don't hurt my baby", not "share and share alike." Most people don't want their own income diminished, and are less concerned with that of someone else's. If you are okay with your income being taxed higher, as long as everyone else's is, too, then it stands to reason that the source of your income is somehow tied in with taxation.
Well, you are wrong about that. I used to work in government, but I haven't always and I don't now, if that is what you mean.
Besides, I didn't even say that I was okay with my income being taxed higher as long as everyone else's is, too. You added that part. I would be fine with those making less than me being taxed less or none at all.
I'm not sure where you get your idea of what is the normal human response. But I don't think a baby is an appropriate comparison since it is a living being and money is just something that buys material goods. I only need enough money to pay for shelter, food, and the basic necessities. Beyond that, any extra I have is nice but I can do without it.
First of all, you don't have to work directly for the government to feel that your income is dependent on a high tax stream. People who work in education, at public and private universities, often are highly dependent on the public money that gets streamed into their institutions. Many people in the arts and sciences get grants at public expense. There are so many other avenues into which public moneys are being funneled that quite a large group of people, not just direct government workers, now feel that their bread is buttered that way. Whereas before people would want their income spared so they themselves would have more money to invest in arts and sciences, now they feel they are partaking of the public pie.
A baby is an appropriate comparison, because those of us who have children support them with our income. Those of us who are artists and scientists also support our work as if it were a child. Nobody would say: "Sure, take away half of what I have to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate my child" unless they thought they would get even more back through some tax related channel.
I think you are trying to impose your own values upon my statements.
Let me make this clear. I am willing to pay taxes because I believe it benefits everyone, not just me personally. In the long run, yes, that benefits me because the society I live in becomes more civilized and enjoyable to live in.
That is it, in a nutshell. I would feel that way regardless of where my income is derived.
PrettyPanther, that you are willing to pay higher taxes is one thing. That you are willing to impose taxes on others by force is another. The original context of what you said was that you'd be willing to pay higher taxes as long as others had to. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes alone? If not, clearly the willingness to pay higher taxes has something to do with what you will derive from the taxes paid unwillingly by others. If it's not a question of revenue stream, then at the very least, you believe that the people who spend the taxes would do what you want with the money in some way, whereas if other people got to keep their money, they would not do what you want with it. Is it about values? Sure. But I think it's about your values.
"impose taxes on others by force is another." ?? You mean by laws adopted by our elected representatives?
That is the weakest part of the Teabaggers argument. They are firmly against democracy and claim to be fighting tyranny.
Yes, Ralph. That's exactly what I mean. That's how taxation is usually done.
Aya, taxes are imposed by our legally elected representatives via legislation. I do not consider that "by force" since it is done by representatives who have been duly elected by the people. If the people don't like what their representatives are doing while in office, they vote them out.
Yes, it is within my value system to believe that taxation is a necessary component of living in a comfortable society.
Or unless the truth was that they had plenty to spare. Or knew that others in the society couldn't even feed let alone educate their children.
Aren't you supposed to be a christian? I'd say your attitude is shocking, but then of course, it isn't.
The income tax is involuntary servitude. @ a 30% rate, the first 4 months of my labor each year goes straight to government without my direct consent.
Slavery is NOT freedom.
Lady, Odonnell didn't know that the constitution prevented the establishment of religion by the government, so she didn't understand separation of church and state was a first amendment law. Pretty stupid woman to be running for the senate.
It's well known John McCain is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Meghan McCain learned her politics at his knee and is obviously even more progressive than her old man. Couple that with the fact she's only 26, sounds like she's 15, and never had to work a day in her life tells me she knows nothing of the real world.
How sad is it that the political discussion of this country has been reduced to the opinion of a spoiled little rich girl who's only famous because of her Senator daddy? Come on, folks, lets get back to discussing something a whole lot more important like, oh, lets say, how to get this country out of the hole Obama seems to be hell bent on burying us in.
Your guy, George, put us in the hole. Obama's getting us out.
No he's not.
There is absolutely no sign that Obama can balance his own check book much less oversee our economy.
And no, democrats put us into the hole, and you know it.
You don't get out of a hole by digging it deeper.
Last time I checked, article 2 of our constitution doesn't give our president ANY control over our economy.
Wake up America, you're being bamboozled. Your constitution has been stolen by the 9 death knights in black robes.
Slavery is not freedom.
Come on, Mr. Deeds, it's time to step forth into the light and stop blaming GWB for our present problems.
Yes, it was started on his watch with the horribly run Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac but he tried to fix it and the Democratically-lead Congress stopped him.
We're finding out, painfully so, that Obama couldn't find his way out of a paper bag with a flashlight and a pocket knife. The problems we now face can and will be placed squarely on the shoulders of Reid-Pelosi Congress as well as the worst president this country has ever had, Barack Hussein Obama, during the 2010 elections.
This is Obama's economy now and has been for several months. The time for blaming Bush has long since passed. It's time to get rid of the Reid-Pelosi Congress now and boot out Obama and Michelle "Antoinette" with the swiftest of kicks in 2012.
Once again, it's time to stop placing the blame for all our problems on GWB. By doing so, you make yourself sound like you have nothing more to bring to the table. I have a feeling that's not the case even if you are a liberal.
I look forward to the debate.
"he tried to fix it and the Democratically-lead Congress stopped him."
The Dems cooperated with his bailout give-away to the bankssters at AIG amd Goldmine Sucks. What else did he try to do?
The bailout was nothing but a knee-jerk reaction on the part of both parties when they realized things like the number of people a bankrupt AIG would put out of a job. This country would have been better off in the long run if these companies had been allowed to file bankruptcy then restructure if possible. If not, let them go down.
All that said, it's unconscionable to now sit back, 21 months into the Anointed One's presidency, and blame all that's happened on GWB. I have a 2-1/2 year old son that takes responsibility for what he's done better than Obama.
Are you really that far in the tank for the Democrats?
I have a feeling you're a lot more your own man than that. Simply blaming it all on Bush is just too easy.
I think it's Meagan McCain who's gone nuts. Shameful rebellion against conservatism and her own father....
but there were hints even during the Campaign that the dark side was getting at her....
The question is, why is she even out there in the first place?
She's like these reality-show wh*res that go from reality show to reality show.
She was on bill Maher years ago....as what? Not a politician.
She's not serious. She is ignorant of politics.
So, who put her there and why?
Did you see Bill Maher's hilarious analysis of why Palin, Bachmann, and O'Donnell are so popular among white men? Even my white male Republican husband was ROFL.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-s … res-penis/
O'Donnell and the jackass, Carl Paladino, running for governor of New York tie for the worst candidates of 2010.
Uggh, Paladino is nuts. After he went on a gay-bashing spree (all scripted, none of it accidental "off the cuff" remarks), apparently someone reminded him that New York City is part of New York state, and people don't just let remarks like Paladino's be ignored in NYC. The guy also has major ethics issues and was known for sending lewd emails to his colleagues featuring acts I can't even describe here for fear of getting flagged.
Christine O'Donnell IS a nut.
There is no way around that.
If anyone watched her debate with Chris Coons you saw and heard it. She's wack.
Actually, I watched it, listened to the criticism, and came away with "really? people think this is a big deal?"
I'm an Atheist. And hearing a candidate say "it's up to the state and local city to decide if they want to teach ID!" made perfect sense to me.
Let me show you why:
"CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
And then, mix that with the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
... we can easily see that she is *gasp* correct!! Oh my god!! A Congressional candidate that has actually read the constitution?!?!?!
Your understanding of what she said in the debate is equal to your understanding of the Constitution.
She admitted to not being aware of the establishment clause.
The part of the debate that I watched was the religious aspect of the debate.
And she was right.
CONGRESS shall make no law.
See how that works? Congress = Congress? yeah...
Congress. Yep. Congress.
The tenth amendment allows states to write any law not prohibited to them by the constitution.
Congress can't write the laws, states can.
I will never admit that 2+2=5.
I'm surprised to see so many people hate O'Donnell.
Listen to what Baby McCain says:
"And what that sends to my generation is (the message that) one day, you can just wake up and run for Senate, no matter how lack of experience you have..."
... umm... isn't that... like... the American Dream... or something? I thought that WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF HAVING A REPUBLIC!!! THAT ANYONE CAN BE A REPRESENTATIVE!!!
MCCAIN!!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!
Also, who cares what baby McCain has to say, she doesn't even match the same requirements she's insulting O'Donnell for!
Wow, I didn't realize how passionate i felt about that until it just came flying out of my fingers!!
Really? Everyone agrees with McCain on this? Yeesh!
"OMG she practiced witch craft when she was 13" ... or whatever the heck it was. NEWSFLASH!! President Bush snorted coke back in college!!! Practicing witchcraft when you're a goofy teen = not a big deal!!
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that McCain just got you all to agree with her that the American Dream IS dead, and that republican government is nonsense. She also got you all to agree that Mercantilism is the appropriate way of running a government. Good job, all!
I don't think that McCain's daughter is alone.
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
Good afternoon,Ten years ago, Congress passed broad income tax cuts. But in a cynical accounting trick designed to mask their long-term impact, they scheduled these cuts to expire next January. Now we are...
by Jim Hunter5 years ago
You don't have to wait for the government to mandate it, send in the money now.Trust me, they won't turn it down.
by My Esoteric2 weeks ago
There were two distinct debating styles on display last night on Sept 26, 2016.How do you describe what in on?
by ddsurfsca5 years ago
I do not understand something guys, but I am sure I will get straightened out---- The main idea behind the republicans thinking, if I am understanding it correctly, is to give those people who have money,...
by fishskinfreak20086 years ago
More bad news for Obama
by Stacie L6 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101017/pl_ … ion_mccainMeagan McCain thinks GOP Candidate is a "nut job" and "Christine O'Donnell is making a mockery of running for public office," Meghan...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.