Jump to content

Who in the hell is Julia?


Tonik

Recommended Posts

all I want is a level playing field. eveyone chips in equally. get rid of all this loop hole exemptions bull crap. like apple is reported to have been able to skip out of paying a few billion dollars in taxes this year because of loop holes they use. where they keep their money, where they list their headquarters. in las vegas I think it is where there is some kind of taxless system for companies there. something to that effect.

of course I can't blame them for using it but why are they even able to? that's bullshit. if you tried to list your home at a place like that but live where you do the IRS wouldn't let you even try that crap.

See I think the fact that any company has to pay any taxes is ludicrous. The only thing that taxes on companies does is require them to raise the price of their product and it makes it more difficult for them to compete with foreign companies whose base country has lower corporate tax rates. the end result is higher inflation, and jobs lost to overseas markets. Both of which make our economy and standard of living lower.

If we took away corporate tax and streamlined our regulation, companies would be beating down our door trying to locate here and employ our people!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are women at my job that make more money than me that haven't been there as long and work less(a few guys also)...what's this about equal pay?

No, its about taking the USA into socialism. Julia is an Obama example of a female who, under his plan, is dependent on the government throughout her entire life. It shows all the programs and services that she could use for all her needs. Obviously he thinks women cant provide for themselves...... or he's just trying to buy their vote. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I donate money to the Tea Party. The Tea Party isn't real concerned about who the president is just as long as they can change the scope of congress, the president can either go along or veto everything. A democrat may veto a bunch of stuff but he has to let some stuff through. A republican most likely will go along whether he's in total agreement or not just for the sake of the party. The way I see it, tea party members are the only ones advocating a smaller less intrusive government and responsible spending...... so they get my support!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's the part where Julia puts away 20%+ of her income into expanded IRA limits to ensure she can pay for her expenses after 65? Where is Julia when she joins the Army, risking her life for her country, and doesn't even get retirement contribution matching like every other federal employee? And it's hilarious to think that someone in grade school now will have Social Security at 67. I'll be shocked if Medicare is even still there.

Also forgot that under Obama, in an era when we're trying to drastically increase the number of people with healthcare coverage, he CUT subsidized Stafford loans for graduate students, this includes medical students. How are you gonna entice people to get on the bandwagon while cutting programs that make it easier to manage being a physician?

Edited by smashweights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much vote for whoever isn't the incumbent for any Federal or State office. If we all did that we might stand a chance of firing the asshats faster than they can bread them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep voting for whatever place holder the GOP gives you... and you'll never see a bit of change.

I'd rather see 4 more years of Obama than give the GOP what they want.

I get what you're saying, but the truth is that a little less than half the people will vote for Obama, and the GOP is split. I personally don't think anything could be worse than 4 more years, including (gulp!) Romney (that was a bitter pill to swallow). If I could, I would toss the GOP and replace it with the tea party, but it isn't going to happen. Ron Paul doesn't have half a chance. This election he will be Ross Perot all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Paul wont Perot. He wont run independent. He knows his campaign is all about getting his ideas out and starting to impact the minds of the American people. That and possibly to set the stage for Rand Paul to run in 4 years when Obo finishes his 2nd. People know Ron is too old and he's not a fresh face on the scene. Rand has a shot of being that "new young guy" like Obama was 4 years ago. Libertarian party this year will put out Bob Barr or someone else and I'll throw my vote that way like I've done since GW. GOP will wise up eventually. Unless they're really all in cahoots and that's their plan to get the Democrat way: make the republican party ever more idiotic each election cycle and keep driving the masses to the Dem side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the Progressive agenda. Obama is a Progressive. Romney is a Progressive. The Progressive gets elected either way. They have a genius plan.

No Paul wont Perot. He wont run independent. He knows his campaign is all about getting his ideas out and starting to impact the minds of the American people. That and possibly to set the stage for Rand Paul to run in 4 years when Obo finishes his 2nd. People know Ron is too old and he's not a fresh face on the scene. Rand has a shot of being that "new young guy" like Obama was 4 years ago. Libertarian party this year will put out Bob Barr or someone else and I'll throw my vote that way like I've done since GW. GOP will wise up eventually. Unless they're really all in cahoots and that's their plan to get the Democrat way: make the republican party ever more idiotic each election cycle and keep driving the masses to the Dem side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Paul wont Perot. He wont run independent. He knows his campaign is all about getting his ideas out and starting to impact the minds of the American people. That and possibly to set the stage for Rand Paul to run in 4 years when Obo finishes his 2nd. People know Ron is too old and he's not a fresh face on the scene. Rand has a shot of being that "new young guy" like Obama was 4 years ago. Libertarian party this year will put out Bob Barr or someone else and I'll throw my vote that way like I've done since GW. GOP will wise up eventually. Unless they're really all in cahoots and that's their plan to get the Democrat way: make the republican party ever more idiotic each election cycle and keep driving the masses to the Dem side.

I hope you're right about that. Rand seems like he would be a good choice. I hope he runs eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you're right about that. Rand seems like he would be a good choice. I hope he runs eventually.

I think he will. You remember a few years before Obama ran, you already could tell they were grooming up their new young candidate before he ran as he was starting to get just enough media attention to get him noticed but not enough to make him a target, not unlike Rand. IMO, giving Romney the nomination, aka last election's republican reject, is essentially a strategy to hold out their best candidate, whoever that may be, for an election year when a non-incumbent is running against them. I think it's pretty obvious this is what they're doing as you can just listen to Romney in the debates and since then: his position is basically "you don't like Obama, right? Tada!" Not unlike the platform John Kerry ran on against GWB when he was up for re-election and Obama was waiting in the wing.

BUT the bottom line is still what George Washington warned us about: the political party concept (especially a two-party system) is horrendous for our country.

Edited by smashweights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the Progressive agenda. Obama is a Progressive. Romney is a Progressive. The Progressive gets elected either way. They have a genius plan.

Romney is a Progressive in the same vein as Gingrich would have put up a moon base.

I'd like to see Paul Ryan run.

So would I, just to see the look on his face when his Randian/Objectivist philosophies get curb-stomped by the electorate. It would be glorious, and I could only hope it would shut him up for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tea Party was something I could get behind. That's no longer the case. They're colors have bled through the fabric' date=' and what's revealed is a giant group of social conservative christians that want to ban this, that.. and anything else they don't like.

.[/quote']

As I'm sure you know, that's pretty much where I stand- socially and fiscally conservative. However, I find the libertarian concept to be a lot more honest than the conservative right.

As a Christian, I can't in good conscience vote for someone that will stand for values that are harmful to society, whether that be gay rights or murder of the unborn. I don't believe you can effectively legislate morality. You just end up with this back-and-forth at the voting booth, because there seems to be a pretty radical split. The country has never been more divided.

The American dream is dead. Everything it ever stood for has been eroded or replaced with something a lot more self-centered and a lot less noble. The average person these days is concerned with one thing, and one thing only: how any given thing affects them personally. Who cares about anyone else, or society as a whole? Our politicians are only a reflection of the values of the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I'm sure you know, that's pretty much where I stand- socially and fiscally conservative. However, I find the libertarian concept to be a lot more honest than the conservative right.

As a Christian, I can't in good conscience vote for someone that will stand for values that are harmful to society, whether that be gay rights or murder of the unborn. I don't believe you can effectively legislate morality. You just end up with this back-and-forth at the voting booth, because there seems to be a pretty radical split. The country has never been more divided.

The American dream is dead. Everything it ever stood for has been eroded or replaced with something a lot more self-centered and a lot less noble. The average person these days is concerned with one thing, and one thing only: how any given thing affects them personally. Who cares about anyone else, or society as a whole? Our politicians are only a reflection of the values of the majority.

Why does it really matter if gay people want to get married...or if a woman has an abortion? Neither one of those should be any f*cking business of politicians in the first place. Christian agenda has no place in politics either, this country is too diverse to shove one ideology down everyone's throat. Let people pray to whatever version of Santa Claus they believe in, and let politicians go about taking care of real business like keeping our country's economy from imploding and promoting higher education to allow our workers to be competitive on a global scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are discussing marriage, let's remember the US was founded with a little concept called, "Separation of Church and State".

If Christian morality refuses the right to have same sex marriage, then gay couples cannot get married in a Christian church.

The Government should not get involved in what constitutes a "marriage", EXCEPT for tax and census.

This would also mean pluralistic marriages cannot be ruled illegal either.

:rant:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...