In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
In case you wondered about Obama
scottm21166
Member Posts: 20,723
This will shock you, then you will get angry...
please pass this on to everyone you know.
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/video/video/show?id=2600775:Video:3245354&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video
please pass this on to everyone you know.
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/video/video/show?id=2600775:Video:3245354&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_video
Comments
This is a clear violation of the 5th amendment (equal protection under the law) and the 14th amendment.
He is starting to show his true colors and seems like he doesn't even care to hide it.
What happened to his channeling Reagan? or moving to the center?
Even the networks have to start reporting on this.
I hope they do shut down the government and I think everyone of us should write or democratic senators and apeal to their american values (they must have somewhere in their liberal minds)
It's truly hard for me to imagine that people were not this upset about OBama when Sean Hannity exposed him and his racist, anti-American church long before he became president. I can't get too excited today about his ability to stir up hate and discontent among the masses, but I have forwarded it on to some other people, some of whom will keep it going in an attempt to educate other people.
LOL! If he were Catholic, would you then attack the Church for its pedophile members?
I thought I saw in the newspaper statistics some where that only about 10& of working people in US were Union.. So how is it that everything they want they get?? Minorities always win over.
Wake up people we are just not organised like the tit suckers.
a horse and the guts to put the sorry SOB on the nag and hit him hard with a rope, see how far he can swing.
Do you like him any better white? Me either. See, your not a racist![:D]
Good for Obama. The unions need more members to protect the working class folk from the greedy businessmen and politicians.
Local unions still serve a valuable purpose doing just this, Hairy.
What is needed is protection of working folks from national unions.
Brad Steele
Good for Obama. The unions need more members to protect the working class folk from the greedy businessmen and politicians.
Like a submarine needs screen doors.
Socialism works fine until they run out of other peoples money.
We are there HAIRY, we are broke.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
It's truly hard for me to imagine that people were not this upset about OBama when Sean Hannity exposed him and his racist, anti-American church long before he became president. I can't get too excited today about his ability to stir up hate and discontent among the masses, but I have forwarded it on to some other people, some of whom will keep it going in an attempt to educate other people.
LOL! If he were Catholic, would you then attack the Church for its pedophile members?
You got my message, and that's all that I'm concerned with where you are involved.
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
It's truly hard for me to imagine that people were not this upset about OBama when Sean Hannity exposed him and his racist, anti-American church long before he became president. I can't get too excited today about his ability to stir up hate and discontent among the masses, but I have forwarded it on to some other people, some of whom will keep it going in an attempt to educate other people.
LOL! If he were Catholic, would you then attack the Church for its pedophile members?You got my message, and that's all that I'm concerned with where you are involved.And your message is you will attack President Obama regardless. Oh well....
We are broke and the libs just keep on digging, it will be there ultimate demise.
And so long as the party of NO refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, we'll be in this fiscal hole for generation after generation.
Good for Obama. The unions need more members to protect the working class folk from the greedy businessmen and politicians.
As usual, you have it backwards. The taxpayers and productive members of society need protection from the greedy unions. Unions are like governments, they contribute nothing and take as much as possible. Like governments, they exist by preying on the weak and ignorant.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
It's truly hard for me to imagine that people were not this upset about OBama when Sean Hannity exposed him and his racist, anti-American church long before he became president. I can't get too excited today about his ability to stir up hate and discontent among the masses, but I have forwarded it on to some other people, some of whom will keep it going in an attempt to educate other people.
LOL! If he were Catholic, would you then attack the Church for its pedophile members?You got my message, and that's all that I'm concerned with where you are involved.And your message is you will attack President Obama regardless. Oh well....
You bet, he is a racist, for one.
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
It's truly hard for me to imagine that people were not this upset about OBama when Sean Hannity exposed him and his racist, anti-American church long before he became president. I can't get too excited today about his ability to stir up hate and discontent among the masses, but I have forwarded it on to some other people, some of whom will keep it going in an attempt to educate other people.
LOL! If he were Catholic, would you then attack the Church for its pedophile members?You got my message, and that's all that I'm concerned with where you are involved.And your message is you will attack President Obama regardless. Oh well....
You bet, he is a racist, for one.
So what? So are you. Next.
If it weren't for the unions, our children would be working 18 hours a day for pennies. Unions and their members are what made this country great, not the robber barons.
Why don't you mention some 'great' contributions unions have made. Not propoganda, actual contribution. And please don't cite the election of corrupt politicians like Obama as a contribution to 'greatness'.
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
If it weren't for the unions, our children would be working 18 hours a day for pennies. Unions and their members are what made this country great, not the robber barons.
Why don't you mention some 'great' contributions unions have made. Not propoganda, actual contribution. And please don't cite the election of corrupt politicians like Obama as a contribution to 'greatness'.
Fpr examples: safer working envirnoments; fewer working hours; higher pay; better benefits; and, not to be overlooked, GREATER PRODUCTION. These are factual achievements and not propaganda.
I suspect Bernie Madoff is your example of a businessman, eh?
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
It's truly hard for me to imagine that people were not this upset about OBama when Sean Hannity exposed him and his racist, anti-American church long before he became president. I can't get too excited today about his ability to stir up hate and discontent among the masses, but I have forwarded it on to some other people, some of whom will keep it going in an attempt to educate other people.
LOL! If he were Catholic, would you then attack the Church for its pedophile members?You got my message, and that's all that I'm concerned with where you are involved.And your message is you will attack President Obama regardless. Oh well....
You bet, he is a racist, for one.
So what? So are you. Next.
You'd like to believe that, Hairy. You can email me and we can take it up from there, buddy.
Hairy, do you think you will succeed in getting this thread poofed, which is your aim, or do you think you will only succeed in getting it locked.
We don't tax wealth. We tax income. There is a distinction between income and wealth. One can be very wealthy and have very little income. One can have a very large income and still not be particularly wealthy.
So, do you want to tax the incomes of the big earners, or do you want to tax the investments of the big savers?
Ahh, the politics and propaganda of envy.
quote:Originally posted by RtWngExtrmst
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
If it weren't for the unions, our children would be working 18 hours a day for pennies. Unions and their members are what made this country great, not the robber barons.
Why don't you mention some 'great' contributions unions have made. Not propoganda, actual contribution. And please don't cite the election of corrupt politicians like Obama as a contribution to 'greatness'.
Fpr examples: safer working envirnoments; fewer working hours; higher pay; better benefits; and, not to be overlooked, GREATER PRODUCTION. These are factual achievements and not propaganda.
I suspect Bernie Madoff is your example of a businessman, eh?
Pure propoganda. Just because union claim those improvements in working conditions doesn't make it true. How would you explain improvements in working conditions in companies that have no unions? Or in countries where unions have never existed? Civil Service laws protected gov employees long before there were any public employee unions. Unions CLAIM greatness without any evidence. By definition, propoganda. It may be true unions helped coal miners 80 years ago, but what have they done lately? I know, destroyed the automotive industry in America and bankrupted the country.
Hairy, do you think you will succeed in getting this thread poofed, which is your aim, or do you think you will only succeed in getting it locked.LOL! My only aim is to present you as you are, that's all. Sorry you don't like the way you look to the public.
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by RtWngExtrmst
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
If it weren't for the unions, our children would be working 18 hours a day for pennies. Unions and their members are what made this country great, not the robber barons.
Why don't you mention some 'great' contributions unions have made. Not propoganda, actual contribution. And please don't cite the election of corrupt politicians like Obama as a contribution to 'greatness'.
Fpr examples: safer working envirnoments; fewer working hours; higher pay; better benefits; and, not to be overlooked, GREATER PRODUCTION. These are factual achievements and not propaganda.
I suspect Bernie Madoff is your example of a businessman, eh?
Pure propoganda. Just because union claim those improvements in working conditions doesn't make it true. How would you explain improvements in working conditions in companies that have no unions? Or in countries where unions have never existed? Civil Service laws protected gov employees long before there were any public employee unions. Unions CLAIM greatness without any evidence. By definition, propoganda. It may be true unions helped coal miners 80 years ago, but what have they done lately? I know, destroyed the automotive industry in America and bankrupted the country.
Well, you insist on having your head in the sand and you appear to prove the comments, "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." Pity.
BTW, which countries don't have unions?
quote:And so long as the party of NO refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, we'll be in this fiscal hole for generation after generation.
We don't tax wealth. We tax income. There is a distinction between income and wealth. One can be very wealthy and have very little income. One can have a very large income and still not be particularly wealthy.
So, do you want to tax the incomes of the big earners, or do you want to tax the investments of the big savers?
Ahh, the politics and propaganda of envy.
You're right; we do tax income. So why the refusal to tax the income of the wealthy? Isn't there a large deficit? The two ways of reducing any deficit is to RAISE taxes and LOWER expenditures. So far, the Party of NO only wants to address half of the solution. Why?
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Hairy, do you think you will succeed in getting this thread poofed, which is your aim, or do you think you will only succeed in getting it locked.LOL! My only aim is to present you as you are, that's all. Sorry you don't like the way you look to the public.
I figured you'd take the easy way out, Hairy. The real racist individuals like you will never get a free pass from me, and you know it. You won't get a free pass from me on this forum, and you damn sure would not get one if you were within arm's reach. So, continue on with your personal attacks in a very weak attempt to get this thread poofed in order to shield the likes of certifiable racist people such as OBama and yourself.
You are mixing up income and wealth again. They are two different things.
We do tax the income of all but the lowest-earning. The top tax rate, IIRC, is 35%. That's a pretty good chunk, is it not?
Trouble is, the top earners represent a very small percentage of the total number of taxpayers, so even though they pay a lot of their income in tax, they still don't pay the majority of the tax. Most of the tax collected is paid by middle-income guys like me. We don't pay 35%, but there are a lot more of us.
Taxing the wealthy? Funny. Would you classify a person with a net worth of $2 million as wealthy? I would. But, let's say that he has his money all tied up in very secure but low-yielding accounts, so maybe he earns 5% on his money. $2 million X 5% = $100,000.
Maybe he only has a million bucks in a similar account, and his income is $50,000.
Now, is an earner making $50K or $100K "wealthy?" He may be "wealthy," but he isn't a top earner, so he doesn't pay the highest tax rate.
Let's suppose a fellow had a career in the U.S. military, retired as E-7, living on his military pension. Surely he isn't wealthy. But, let's suppose that he made a few good real estate purchases throughout his career, and inherited some property from his parents, and though his income is fairly small, his net worth is somewhere over a million dollars. Is that man wealthy?
Again, the dems talk about taxing wealth, when they mean taxing income. Or, do they mean taxing a taxpayer's net worth, year after year, until he no longer has any?
quote:Originally posted by nunn
quote:And so long as the party of NO refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, we'll be in this fiscal hole for generation after generation.
We don't tax wealth. We tax income. There is a distinction between income and wealth. One can be very wealthy and have very little income. One can have a very large income and still not be particularly wealthy.
So, do you want to tax the incomes of the big earners, or do you want to tax the investments of the big savers?
Ahh, the politics and propaganda of envy.
You're right; we do tax income. So why the refusal to tax the income of the wealthy? Isn't there a large deficit? The two ways of reducing any deficit is to RAISE taxes and LOWER expenditures. So far, the Party of NO only wants to address half of the solution. Why?
Are you retarded? The top 10% income earners pay 70% of all income taxes while the bottom 47% pay nothing. If the gov confiscated 100% of the income of the 'rich', it wouldn't cover Obama's proposed deficit. You libs live in a vacuum where the same idiotic lies echo endlessly off the walls. Sad you never learned simple arithmetic. Maybe if you had, you wouldn't be libs.
My FIL is one of the largest contractors for 100 miles around or more, and his non-union employees regularly outperform the union contractors on the same job sites. THAT is why he gets a large portion of the large jobs.
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Hairy, do you think you will succeed in getting this thread poofed, which is your aim, or do you think you will only succeed in getting it locked.LOL! My only aim is to present you as you are, that's all. Sorry you don't like the way you look to the public.
I'm pretty sure "the public" has a much more favorable view of kimi than of HAIRY.
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Hairy, do you think you will succeed in getting this thread poofed, which is your aim, or do you think you will only succeed in getting it locked.LOL! My only aim is to present you as you are, that's all. Sorry you don't like the way you look to the public.
I'm pretty sure "the public" has a much more favorable view of kimi than of HAIRY.
Well thank you kind sir! [:)] I knew going in with such an idenity that if I wallowed with pigs of the racist types that I would get dirty. [V] Now...if only I did not enjoy it so much! [:D][:D][:D]
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by nunn
quote:And so long as the party of NO refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, we'll be in this fiscal hole for generation after generation.
We don't tax wealth. We tax income. There is a distinction between income and wealth. One can be very wealthy and have very little income. One can have a very large income and still not be particularly wealthy.
So, do you want to tax the incomes of the big earners, or do you want to tax the investments of the big savers?
Ahh, the politics and propaganda of envy.
You're right; we do tax income. So why the refusal to tax the income of the wealthy? Isn't there a large deficit? The two ways of reducing any deficit is to RAISE taxes and LOWER expenditures. So far, the Party of NO only wants to address half of the solution. Why?
Are you retarded? The top 10% income earners pay 70% of all income taxes while the bottom 47% pay nothing. If the gov confiscated 100% of the income of the 'rich', it wouldn't cover Obama's proposed deficit. You libs live in a vacuum where the same idiotic lies echo endlessly off the walls. Sad you never learned simple arithmetic. Maybe if you had, you wouldn't be libs.
And if you could grasp the disparity, you'd change your mind. Will you please explain why Warren Buffet is in favor of the wealthy paying more in taxes? IIRC, he said his SECRETARY paid more than he did (percentage of income). That's the point I'm making.
FWIW, I'm in favor of a flat tax but that would increase the unemployment numbers.
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Hairy, do you think you will succeed in getting this thread poofed, which is your aim, or do you think you will only succeed in getting it locked.LOL! My only aim is to present you as you are, that's all. Sorry you don't like the way you look to the public.
I'm pretty sure "the public" has a much more favorable view of kimi than of HAIRY.
You're entitled to your mistaken beliefs.