Story Comments
Posted by: Beeboppin71 1 year, 5 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Beeboppin711 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What Hannity meant to say was that the proposals will raise HIS taxes. This is merely a plea to his listeners and viewers to keep his tax breaks. Please. Please. Don't make poor Hannity fork over a few bucks to help pay for the war he's been promoting.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000."
Obama also vowed to fight FISA, even filler buster it and not to let it pass.
He voted for it in the same form he promised he would fight it.
He lied
Next
Reply-
catstevensComment removed: Retracted by user17 Replies
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama voted for the final bill, and I am very UNHAPPY that he did so.
HOWEVER - Obama voted FOR 3 amendments - all of which FAILED - to REMOVE or LIMIT the immunity clauses for the telecomms.
And, at least Obama was PRESENT to vote. McCain was not there and did not vote.
In fact, Mccain has NOT been PRESENT in the Senate since APRIL 1.
McCain has the WORST attendance record of ANY Senator for the current session.
The people in Arizona should be very unhappy with McCain - he is so obsessed with being President that he is not even representing his state anymore.
McCain must also be a liar.
McCain says he has supported veterans' issues when he has voted against increased VA funding for 4 years in a row.
McCain was against Bush's tax cuts - now he is for them.
McCain was for strict immigration enforcement - now he is not.
McCain says he is against earmarks and lobbyists, but he votes for earmarks and he has lots of lobbyists working for his campaign.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do your research.
I'll take your points in order....
1. Correct on the attendance record - although Obama's is hardly good.
2. False. McCain has voted against such bills on the grounds that they encourage people to leave as soon as they qualify, and has instead supported making the existing scheme more generous. Additionally, he has only voted against expansion of such benefits when it is tied to bills he considers objectionable otherwise. Sources: http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio...
3. True.
4. False on both counts. McCain's plan does not qualify as "amnesty", and his thoughts on the matter ahve not changes substantially over the course of several years. Source: http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/...
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
5. Partly true. McCain does have many lobbyists on his campaign (but Obama just shouldn't go there - lobbyists are in his campaign, also), but has an excellent track record of voting against and scrutineering earmarks, to the point that the non-partisan organisation "Taxpayers for Common Sense" has granted McCain its "Treasury Guardian" award. Source: http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... , http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... , http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/... and http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/32/
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Scrutineer." A person who examines a specific situation in great detail. Used to describe election scrutineers, experts appointed to examine all aspects of a specific case, etc., etc.
Also, don't even go there, saying that I'm like Bush. It is my considered opinion that the best thing that could happen for America right now is that Bush suffers a terminal mischief. At the very least, the incoming President should start a criminal investigation of the man.
I just don't like Senator Obama.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? Here is some info on McCain's "track record" on earmarks and on lobbyists ...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/mccain-camp...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/20/mccain-earm...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/01/mccain-earm...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/03/mccains-spe...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-blac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccains-cam...
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/27/mc...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/04/high-powere...
Yes, they are all ThinkProgress links - but those links have the root sources of the information.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At least when I source my argument from a single source, I try to avoid the partisan sources.
Of course ThinkProgress isn't going to say anything good about Senator McCain. Just like AFA isn't going to say anything good about Senator Obama.
If you want to be informed solely by one side's partisan propoaganda, that's fine by me - enjoy the KoolAid.
And, yes this applies to people like Anickly, on the other side of that divide. The KoolAid tastes just as good to righties as lefties, it seems.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I DO my research.
#2 -- bogus reasons for being against the new GI Bill. If someone signs up for the military for ONE 'tour' (or whatever), at the END of that commitment that person DOES HAVE THE RIGHT to re-enlist or NOT. If McCain thinks that ONLY ONE 'tour' is NOT enough service to get GI Bill benefits, then he is being DISINGENUOUS to ALL who serve in the military regardless of their 'length' of service.
Also, there are plenty of statistics to counter his logic.
#4 -- McCain HAS changed his stance significantly on Immigration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21614851/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mccain-immi...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/14/mccain-immi...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/06/mccain-secu...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/28/mccain-give...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nope. here ya go. read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-p...
then read this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php
then find out what the Protect America Act is and how it is far worse than the current FISA provisions.
then get back to me.
see, its much more complicated than you think it is obviously.
change and hope are campaign slogans. nothing more. everyone knows that. so if we aren't hanging our hats solely on those simplistic ideas, and know that there is a real need for substance in these times, why are you hanging your hat on that same false simplicity in your attack on Obama?
perhaps its because you don't have anything substantial with which to mount a real attack.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"After 143 active days in the senate he lacks a lot of experience."
--Yes, but you voted time and time again for those who had more "experience" than Obama and yet they still DESTROYED AMERICA, Klarissa. What does that say about your judgement? Take your time, Klarissa. Exactly...Doesn't sound real stable, does it? ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IN JEST!!!
IM SURPRISED AT YOU!
Why on Earth are you upset at the notion that campaign statements are '''malleable?'''
Wouldn't it be MORE OUTRAGEOUS if ... once ELECTED you had a presdient that lied?
Liek ... say for instance, a presdient lied about reasons to go to war.
Or a VeePee twisted CIA intellegence to support those lies.
Or that officials in the office of an administration engaged in a TREASONABLE offense by Revealing the Identity of a Covert CIA agent. ... Then STONEWALLING on culpability.
What about Politicizing our entire JUDICIARY ... then LYING before a Congressional Committee.
OR... what I refer to as the COUP DE GRAS ...
A presdient that hires a lawyer ... (David Addingham) whos SOLE purpose is to amend legislation passed by Congress. The purpose of these amendments? ... (called 'Signing Statements) ... Their sole purpose is to make the Presdient UN-ACCOUNTABLE to the legislation.
You must be REALLY upset by these examples.
Reply -
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
((In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for middle-class families and rolling back President Bush's tax cuts only on people making over $250,000."))
Didn't the last Democrat president say almost those very words before he put forth the largest tax increase on th emiddle class in US history?
Now you want us to listen to the next Democrat?
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why slate!
You make it sound as if Taxes were the worst thing in the world!
I prefer to consider what the taxes actually accomplish. During the Clinton administration, the physical growth of the Federal Goverment was halted, the economy took off, and a nice little nest egg was produced.
Compare this to Goerge W. Bush's massive tax rebate and we are FRANTICALLY borrowin from the Communists in China! We are spendin money liek CRAAAZIE - in fact ... we are spending $TEN TO TWELVE BILLION a month in Iraq!
PLUS ... the physical size of goverment has been EXPONENTIALLY EXPANDED ... and the Republicans spent MASSIVE, MASSIVE amounts of money we didn't have!
See? You caint just look at it from a "I don't want no more taxes" pov ... you gotta look at it liek ... "what do I get for my money?"
With Democrats ... we seem to consistently get good governance.
With Republicans and Neo-Conservatives, ... we seem to consistently get Deficit Spending and Bankruptcy.
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Course ... since every Republicans since Reagan has campaigned on the brand that 'Goverment IS the problem" ... it just stands to reason that ... given their disrespect for Goverment as a Solution ... they waste no effort to destroy our goverment.
I mean, let's face it, that IS the essence of Republicans and Neo-Conservatives. They believe Goverment serves at the behest of Corporate America.
And building up the military with massive, Massive, MASSIVE, unGodly amounts of money is their hobby.
Last I heard, this Neo-Con administration has spent more on the military than all nations of the world COMBINED!
Fact is, makin war for Neo-Cons is just another product to be exported.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe my perspective is a little off
So you thought today and this subject was gonna magically be different? Messo?
That would be 'projected' budget surplus and there is this lil thing called a war on two fronts and the WTCs crumbling to the ground which caused harm to the economy
Hey hot shot not everyone did grand during the Clinton years,,,, some did for a time before the false bublle popped about a year before Willie left office,,,,, Bush started with a recession,,,, then had 9/11 and then has been fighting a couple of wars...... yeah that takes money,,,, iffn WIllie had done something after the first try on the WTCs we may not even have need discussing this topic,,,,,,, Right?
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So you thought today and this subject was gonna magically be different? Messo?"
--Oh, stale...can't a guy even dream to be as sharp, clever and witty as you? ;-)
"That would be 'projected' budget surplus and there is this lil thing called a war on two fronts and the WTCs crumbling to the ground which caused harm to the economy"
--I just love how cons say things like this and then fantasize about Bush's legacy being golden and wonderful 50 years from now. Projecting future good fortune is smart on some days and not so good on others, huh? Anyway, speaking of crumbling, you forgot to mention the destructive impact of Bush's unprecedented war time tax cuts for the least needy Americans (none of which we've seen any evidence of trickling down anywhere) not to mention what his *buy now and pay later* philosophy has in store for our children and grandchildren quality of life. ;-(
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Didn't the last Democrat president say almost those very words before he put forth the largest tax increase on th emiddle class in US history?"
--Maybe my perspective is a little off but wouldn't you think people who voted for Bush again after he and the GOP hurled us from a budget surplus down into a dark horrifying chasm of debt and gave us the largest bloated government in history would be more worried about the prospect of having another administration of that? After all, was the middle class complaining that they were being shafted under Bill Clinton's tax structure the way they are now? Refresh our memories, slate because I don't think they were...So basically you're blowin' a lot of smoke. Right? ;-(
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama also vowed to fight FISA, even filler buster it and not to let it pass. "
"It is a close call for me," Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the "exclusivity" provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, "met my basic concerns." He said the bill's target should not be the phone companies' culpability, but "can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/0...
Reply -
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have yet to see where Obama made these statements. I have seen republicans saying he did but they have yet to show Obama saying this. I am not saying anyone is incorrect I am just saying I haven't seen it so if there is a link please be kind and let me take a look see.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
rightfromwrong1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The rich & super rich have to start paying their way and support America.
Why did Halliburton take it's office Dubai? Because they could max out their profits and make more money for Cheney.
Halliburton charges $100 per load of laundry & $25 for a hamburger. Who pays for it? American middle class! What do they get for it $135 per barrel of oil, 3,500 dead soldiers & over 30,000 disabled.
Thanks Bush & company
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/whistleblo...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Doddlin1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The rich pay the vast majority of everything in this nation, even those EIC checks that are paid to those who don't pay 'their way'. Is the rich the only citizens responsible for supporting America and our way of life? Sounds like those who are not rich believe they should benefit from the GREAT way of life we enjoy in this country, but shouldn't have to contribute. They need Mom and Dad to pay their way, eh?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is this what we have become? Hannity is an idiot, to post an article on his opinions are equally idiotic. If you are a believer in his blatant lies, you should be ashamed to say it in public. This guy haven't met a truth he hasn't tried to spin. He plays Obamas tapes and then say here is what he really means. He say Obama hasn't done this and when it's pointed out that he has, he, (hannity) says he didn't do it well or as good as some lame GOPer. How can we indulge in this suborn drivel.
Reply -
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (32)
-
Ciera-Marie
-
Ratskii
-
joey-evans
-
sinophil49
-
cushi
-
joeblowe
-
jordan11
-
tchef
-
LumFan
-
miklkit
-
oneironaut420
-
ConquerorWyrm
-
spkguy
-
decipher
-
bubba2
-
Beau7890
-
fsev41
-
Goppy
-
Will1313
-
quackpot
-
mesodude
-
AntiNeoCon
-
GWHayduke
-
RussianThreats
-
CRYMTYPHON
-
IneedIwantIgottahave
-
AnteUp
-
augustine974
-
baddad59
-
bluetexasvalley
-
jmarks
-
TLovesTeddy
Klarissa
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.