Ableton Forum

damn, i almost forgot about the commies

those sneaky bastards!!

NO CONFIDENCE in either mainstream candidate.... write in Ron Paul. he has been talking about all this mess we will soon be in for years.

nebulae wrote: I'd refute that by pointing to how the Obama campaign has been run the past 20 months. Look at the things that have changed from any other campaign in the past:

1. More money than any other campaign.
2. First democrat to go into southern states and challenge them seriously (no, Bill Clinton doesn't count).
3. A massive organization that was built from the ground up.
4. No lobbyist money.
5. Youth energy.
6. Use of information technology, the Internet, and social networking sites to build consensus.

#1 - why is that a positive?

#3 - a massive organization built from the ground up and headed by the same insiders as we have had for a long time.

#4 - This is a deceptive claim by Obama. He gets his money from lobbyists. It is just slid through the back door but it buys the same influence.

#6 - to build consensus? what does that mean? the people of the country were overwhelmingly against the wall street bailout and Obama pushed it through and supported his main financial donors. (see #4)

hey man, laugh now, but Obama is best buddies with Castro and Chavez. I hope you like red, because you're going to be saluting a big red flag with a hammer and sickle and spitting on a cross before every workday at the state owned factory. Everybody will wear red jumpsuits, unless they are members of Obama's "new hope muslim socialist" party, they get to wear regular shirt and pants. BTW, If you don't deny Christ and accept Islam you'll be put to death... Now how are you going to vote, motherfucker?


.lm.

deva wrote:

nebulae wrote: I'd refute that by pointing to how the Obama campaign has been run the past 20 months. Look at the things that have changed from any other campaign in the past:

1. More money than any other campaign.
2. First democrat to go into southern states and challenge them seriously (no, Bill Clinton doesn't count).
3. A massive organization that was built from the ground up.
4. No lobbyist money.
5. Youth energy.
6. Use of information technology, the Internet, and social networking sites to build consensus.

#1 - why is that a positive?

#3 - a massive organization built from the ground up and headed by the same insiders as we have had for a long time.

#4 - This is a deceptive claim by Obama. He gets his money from lobbyists. It is just slid through the back door but it buys the same influence.

#6 - to build consensus? what does that mean? the people of the country were overwhelmingly against the wall street bailout and Obama pushed it through and supported his main financial donors. (see #4)

#4

Check the slaughtered Lamb, there's money piling out of its neck instead of blood just like the reshitians campaign.

Two partys in any part of the world = brainwashing.

leisuremuffin wrote:hey man, laugh now, but Obama is best buddies with Castro and Chavez. I hope you like red, because you're going to be saluting a big red flag with a hammer and sickle and spitting on a cross before every workday at the state owned factory. Everybody will wear red jumpsuits, unless they are members of Obama's "new hope muslim socialist" party, they get to wear regular shirt and pants. BTW, If you don't deny Christ and accept Islam you'll be put to death... Now how are you going to vote, motherfucker?

.lm.

There has been a change... the party regulars will be wearing black leather jackets with photos of Reverend Wright emblazoned on them...

nebulae wrote: Let's break it down even more. Suppose you or your business does make 250K, which means you bring in $20,833 per month. Right now, you are taxed at 36%, which means after taxes you bring in $13,333 per month. Under the "disastrous" Obama tax plan, you'd bring home $12,708. On a weekly basis, the difference would be from $3,076 (at 36%) to $2,932 (at 39%). Now I'll throw this argument back to you...You wanna tell me that all the negatives against BigMac and his Beauty Queen are worth having, and worth not paying $144 a week when you make $250,000 a year? Seriously?

Ohhh!! Break it down brother! Way to cut through the BS with some numbers. The debate last night really sealed the deal for me....McCain is such a total fuckwit.

blakbeltjonez wrote:NO CONFIDENCE in either mainstream candidate.... write in Ron Paul. he has been talking about all this mess we will soon be in for years.

i will not vote for a pro-lifer.

i would vote nader long before ron paul

TomTom wrote:I actually think I could go along with you (as unfair as I think it is) if I knew that the extra taxes would be put toward lowering debt. They won't. Nothing will change, government will spend more regardless of who is elected.

Given that fact, I prefer people keep their money.

This is the typical Republican line (and I am a Republican), and it's BS for the most part. Republicans aren't for letting people keep their money much more than Democrats. Republicans just favor giving it to corporations in the form of tax breaks rather than back to regular people. Republicans favored the deregulation that has gotten us into the current financial mess, which has cost everyday people a lot already.

As for the debt, it has doubled in 8 years of a Republican president. The budget was running a surplus under Clinton, and the debt was being paid, although in tiny amounts. So it does matter who is president, they are not all the same.

you're a Republican? wow, finally found one I can stand.
I can see how/why a libertarian appeals to you, that's a party that can attract people from both sides of the aisle. why the GOP? (if I may ask.)

Democrats - fix the problem through government (welfare)
Republicans - fix the problem through corporations (trickle down)
Libertarian - individuals fix the problem

I registered as Republican because of what I feel the Republican party is supposed to stand for, which is a lot closer to Ron Paul than most Republicans would like....although the recent financial mess has really made me think about the negative side of deregulation, as many people on this forum have brought up in regards to Ron Paul.

Also, a lot of dumb ass Republicans won't even discuss issues with you if you're not Republican. I called Jim Inhofe to bitch him out one day, and right off the bat he asked if I was a Republican, and when I said No he said Bye. I registered Republican after that.

Look people, I think we need to stop dancing around the issue.

[/img]

ethios4 wrote:I registered as Republican because of what I feel the Republican party is supposed to stand for, which is a lot closer to Ron Paul than most Republicans would like....although the recent financial mess has really made me think about the negative side of deregulation, as many people on this forum have brought up in regards to Ron Paul.

Yeah, deregulation is a tricky one... these words are all so Orwellian these days. What gets deregulated are the laws which prevent the powerful from stealing from the public, while the laws that give the powerful an unfair advantage in the first place are left in place. That is really more manipulation, than deregulation...

I do like Ron Paul, but he does not address this...

Obama is gonna have the toughest task any new president has ever faced... at least any in recent memory.

Huey wrote:Obama is a Marxist. Look at his "spread the wealth" plan. Obamahood wants to penalize those who made money honestly, small business and anyone who makes more than 250k a year, so he can pay poor fucking slackers and people who don't pay taxes. Thats right.........spread the wealth you thieving fuck. Make people who worked hard pay for lazy welfare fucks who think everyone owes them for not applying themselves. Do I want a Marxist country, hell no.

you're saying that people who make less than 250k a year are "lazy welfare fucks who think everyone owes them for not applying themselves" ?

i heard that obama eats babies.