|
First Tar Ball washes up in Panama City
1 Attachment(s)
First Tar Ball washes up in Panama City
|
Oh NO! Im going there this week for some R&R! So much for that.
|
Way to show your true colors there Grant
|
Wow Grant. Wow. Put on the flame suit.
|
I would not go there in general, but, we saw these types of posts almost every day about Bush. Pick the beam out of your own eye.
|
A.P My True Colors? What are they? That I don't like Obama. And I think that the picture and caption are funny. Yea that's correct.
I guess it's all how you look at it. I see Obama as being a slime ball that's comming out of the water and that's where I found the humor. If you are reffering to the color of a tar ball and the color of Obama's skin then mabey it's you that are showing your True Colors? |
Come on grant...you know better than to post humorous things on here! Haha
|
To post this and then to say that you in no manner were referencing his skin color is ridiculous. You can try and point fingers, but you are the one that made the post where racial imagery is front and center. You may not intend it, but that is the reality of it. If you can't see that, you are allowing your hatred of the O to cloud your moral filter.
|
Wow people, lighten up. Its a FAWKING JOKE.
|
I recognize that there could be 2 different jokes in that caption. I choose to ignore the one that points to skin color. I don’t see it as a racist joke, like I said I see Obama as a slime ball and that’s the first thing that came to MY mind. But I guess if you’re an Obama lover you don’t see him as a Slime Ball and then it MUST be a racist joke. Sounds like the O factor has YOUR judgment clouded.
|
The term "tar baby" has historically been directed in a negative connotation towards African Americans. You use the term "Tar Ball" and play off like that wasn't your intent. Seriously?
So defend yourself, why is Obama a slime ball? By the way, that picture of Obama is him in Hawaii, not Florida. |
OK I say we delete this. If What A.P is saying "Tar Baby" is true I had no Idea and don't want anything to do with it.
|
Yeah, I find it hard to believe it wasn't in reference to the forever old term "tar baby." Its the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the title and then the picture. I was floored that someone had the balls.
G, its absolutely true, and I doubt many people are buying the claim of ignorance. A delete would definitely the best move regardless your motives. |
screw that. Obama is a slime ball period. His policies are horrible. He has continued almost every single Bush policy that him and his party railed against and over reaching with his lack of understanding on insurance vs healthcare. They are going as far now as to taking credit for Iraq. Un freaking real. Well gear up for the fake cap and trade and the US government and Mexico teaming up to sue a sovereign state in regards to them enforce the law.
|
I think it's funny, just sayin'.
|
Its the GOVERNMENT, they are all terrible, you are always going to be voting for the least f%$ked one. Doesn't matter if your a yank, aussie, kiwi, scott, pom or pussy(french).
The post is a joke, get over it. Grant...or G as you prefer....champ u cant defend against it being a racist joke, and at the end of the day at least he's not a Bush, he could prob use some time on the stairmaster though by the looks of those man tweaters. |
Funny you mention he is not a Bush. Though I think people get tired of political families, I think people have lied to themselves and more importantly the democratic party lied like no other. They voted for the same policies as Bush. They have continued almost every policy as Bush. They lied that the voted for the policies and even got elected that they would end the wars and change our perspective in the world. Kind of funny. Gitmo is still open. The wars have continued and are even going to escalate. I thought the world was made at us because of these policies. Why did all the little democrats march in New York to oppose the war and the Bush policies (that the democrats voted for then lied that they did not)? Why are they not outraged now? That's right. It was not really about the war's or Gitmo or the Bush Tax Cuts. It was about grabbing power again and they rode the useful idiots to the bank.
|
well if that is a picture from Hawaii then it must be taken down! We need geographically correct jokes only on here!
I too had no idea that the term "tar baby" was used in the past. I was just thinking about the 234938828490405589879 times i have heard the news say "tar ball". |
I would like to hear one good thing(s) this president has done for our country, name some...
|
^^Over 90% of Americans are paying less taxes now than they did under Bush.
|
how much less?
|
P.S. The picture and caption in this post is reminiscent of jokes found in the 50's and 60's. Obama fan or not, I would imagine almost any person of color would find offensive.
G, the laundry mat just called, your white robe and hood is ready. |
oh that much huh?
|
|
I thought you were a math major? I don't see where the taxes are less in that table you posted. Matter of fact the current tax code is based on the evil "Bush Tax Cuts" that are set to expire this year. Now add on the "Health Insurance" scam that all people young and old are going to be required to put money at the tone of several hundred a month of their money into. How about if they get cap and trade passed? You will really be paying through the nose for that new global 3rd world UN tax. How about corporate taxes? Those the same? Hate to tell you, any tax pass on a provider always gets passed down to the user aka- you and me.
Tell me a policy that he has done so far that is different? War - no, Gitmo - no, Don't ask don't tell - no, Tax code - no. Allowing the EPA to regulate the exact air you exhale - yes, make you buy insurance you can't afford that does nothing to solve the actual cost of healthcare - yes, trying to pass a global cap and trade which is a direct tax from the UN - yes, teaming up with Mexico to sue a US State for enforcing our current federal immigration policy - yes, Stopping the prosecution of the black panthers who stood outside a voting center with clubs - yes, instructing NASA to start spreading the virtues of the muslim world on their contributions to science (yes, he did) - yes |
If you can't see, you are either blind or so full of it, your eyes see nothing but the crap you are spewing.
One example taken directly from the link I posted: For 2010, Married Filing Jointly: If claimed earnings were $373,650.00 or greater, you paid 35% in federal taxes. For 2006, Married Filing Jointly: If claimed earnings were $349,700.00 or greater, you paid 35% in federal taxes. Let me make it simple for you $373,650.00 > $349,700.00 by ~24,000.00. What does that mean? Well, in this particular case, you could make 24,000 dollars before you paid 2% more in taxes. That is simple math, third grade stuff that anyone can understand. Just about everything else you posted is chicken little stuff. IF, IF , IF is very prominent. What I posted is fact, that is directly from the IRS. Your stuff is possible scenarios,. |
Tar balls might be on the beach but we got some tard balls up in here... lol.
|
Uh Jeremy, nice spin and not fact. That was the Bush Tax cuts that the democrats railed against during the elections and it is still in effect. They are set to expire this fall and return to the previous levels unless the democratic congress votes to keep it. If they keep it, it will be a huge black eye on them since the president campaigned against them and if they let them pass, it will damn the democrats for basically raising taxes especially during a bad economy. Obama had ZERO to do with it. Matter of fact many democrats on this board were made about it because they said it was stupid to lower taxes and have a war.
What I posted is the exactly what has and is happening. They are not if's at all. I don't care if the truth does not match what you wished to happen. Also add in, how many large corporations had the government now taken over? Did you hear Biden taking credit for the success in Iraq the other day? He even gave Bush a little credit. I thought the war would be a horrible quagmire? Why are you democrats not bitching about the war anymore? I thought that was what made us so evil? |
I'm done delta. You're right, everything positive done in this country is all courtesy of the GOP, while everything negative is the Democrats.
Conservative reasoning never ceases to amaze me. |
Even if Obama had ordered BP to drill that hole in the gulf, he'd still be guilty of less of a f**k*p than Bush did going into Iraq. You guys should get over it, the problems with our economy are far more systematic than any President can fix.
And to make it worse the politcal partisanship has disabled the President from accomplishing anything. If McCain had won he'd probably already had a coronary and Palin would be in charge. The election is over. About time to get over the campaign arguments. |
Jeremy... you are a tool.
You made an incorrect statement, it was called out and corrected, and you did what most left wing nut jobs do. Try to flip it around and put blame on others. Get a life. |
Tard Balls lol Now thats funny
Nice Big D |
Jeremy, I never said every thing positive was from the GOP. the democrats had a great opportunity to fix all the banking/ stock market cheats. They did not want just that. They wanted put some sort of European socialist structure and majority of the people don't wan that. I am just saying democrats lied on this board for 6 years even when faced with voices of reason. Jokes and monkey pictures nearly everyday. Blaming him for everything under the sun including that he may have been responsible for 9/11 from some. Criticizing him for reading a book to children for a few minutes too long in some peoples opinion, blaming him for katrina, blaming him for a war while all the democrats before him spoke about going in and indeed voted for it. You mean all that stuff that that the guys on this board railed about day after day. I just want to hear after a year and a half of Obama in office and since 2006 the democrats took back congress, why are these things no longer important to the people on this board. They were important enough to bitch about daily before. Obama has pretty much continued nearly every policy that everyone found so reprehensible but are now completely silent on it. Could it be people were being dishonest with their feelings? Were they lead down the path? I would love to know. Everyone was so upset prior why not now???
Sorry John. Not sure what to get over. I tried to reason with you people for years on YOUR Bush bashing. Talk about getting over it. You still think Bush's policy on Iraq is horrible but YET acknowledge the democrats part in it. Matter of fact, the democrats have enough in it that they are taking credit for Iraq. Look into Biden's remarks about taking credit for it just recently. Turns out Iraq is becoming a pretty good success despite all the lefts negativity. Turns out the price tag was not that much compared to the one day bail out of the banks. If you were really worried about the budget then you would not like the what is it...over 3 to 3.5 trillion dollars now. Here is the budget differences in total debt. http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...et_deficit.jpg Bush deficits were around 4% of GNP. Obama's are 9.9% of GNP and rising. He is also promising to raise taxes. With all the bailouts and stimulus, the unemployment rate is near 10%. Your right. One man is not going to fix the economy. Most people don't understand finances. One of them is not Obama. You don't keep printing money and raising taxes. |
Great thread Grant! Love the picture and the caption.
|
love it!
and true |
"Jeremy... you are a tool.
You made an incorrect statement, it was called out and corrected, and you did what most left wing nut jobs do. Try to flip it around and put blame on others. Get a life." Barry, Show me the incorrect statement. If anyone made an incorrect statement, it was Delta. He said that tax rates are not less, I showed him an example. He immediately turned it around and credited that to Bush. It makes absolutely zero sense to say that these are the Bush tax cuts. Who would pass tax cuts that didn't take effect until the next president takes office, especially that it was almost a certainty that a democrat was going to win the election? He personally attacked my math skills, but it was his that were lacking. That is what conservatives (you guys idea of "Real Americans") do. When Clinton left office with a budget surplus, all the conservatives give the same spin, "That is because of Bush Sr". They then say all the economic downfall is because of Clinton, even 6 to 7 years after he left office. So in reality, you are the tool. I am not "left wing" simply because I'm a democrat. I have voted for republicans in the past, as I am one to look more at qualifications rather than the letter behind the name. |
I'm betting Grant is happy this thread turned a different direction.
|
G, Funny post but I can see how some people may take it the wrong way.
I could give a rats a$$ what color he is I think he sucks. Unemployment is out of control, and the health care bill is a joke. He spends more time on TV than any president I've ever seen. He likes being a celebrity and throwing parties and spending money. Unfortunately we will all be paying for this for sometime. Does this mean I'm a bush supporter..No I'm not but sadly Obama it's any better. Here's to whoever comes next! Jeremy you have some pretty serious anger issues it seems. Not to mention your lovely post about tax cuts. "Let me make it simple for you $373,650.00 > $349,700.00 by ~24,000.00. What does that mean? Well, in this particular case, you could make 24,000 dollars before you paid 2% more in taxes. That is simple math, third grade stuff that anyone can understand." I'm sure this applies to some people on this board but I'm damn sure this does not apply to the vast majority of the American population. I certainly do not make >349k a year and honestly if I was how much of a difference would 5-6k mean to me over the course of a year. I love all the right wing left wing crap statements in this post by the way. Get over yourselves this candidate and the last are both embarrassing. |
Actually Jeremy. You used a number from 2006 and compared to 2010. Bush left office in 2008 and Obama took office in 2009. I should not have attacked your math skills but should have rather attacked your intellectual honesty of the argument which the democrats on the board seem to have a problem with time after time. Also, no one is paying less taxes. The tax rates are exactly the same. The level at which people are tax has changed and that goes up every year according to the table and I am sure that is based on the general premise that people would make the same as inflation every year yielding a zero change.
Just because you don't understand why or how a tax cut is passed on to another president does not mean it is true. Here is a article regarding the Bush Tax cuts. They are true and they do expire this year.: http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-f...ts-affect-you/ How the Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You The so-called Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Although some of the cuts retain bipartisan support in Congress and may yet be extended, as of now, Washington has some severe changes in store for you and your family. Grab a scotch and sit down. Higher tax rates for all You may have been led to believe that only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will go up for everyone -- not just a sliver of the wealthiest Americans. The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. Just a few months ago, it seemed like a safe bet that Congress would make a fix to keep the existing 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rate brackets to help out lower and middle-income folks. That bet is now looking iffy. Higher capital gains and dividends taxes for all Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains will increase to 20%. The maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6% unless action is taken to limit the rate to 20%, as the president has repeatedly promised. Plan on 39.6%, and hope I’m wrong. Right now, an unbeatable 0% rate applies to long-term gains and dividends collected by folks in lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15%. Starting next year, those folks will pay 10% on long-term gains and 15% and 28% on dividends (compared with 0% now) unless a change is made. Otherwise, taxes on long-term gains and dividends will go up for everyone. Return of the marriage penalty Right now, the standard deduction for married joint-filing couples is double the amount for singles. For this, we can thank the Bush tax cuts, which included several provisions to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The penalty can force a married couple to pay more in taxes than when they were single. Starting next year, the joint-filer standard deduction will fall back to about 167% of the amount for singles unless Congress takes action and the president approves. We don’t know if that will happen. If not, lots of lower and middle-income couples will face higher tax bills. Now, the bottom two tax brackets for married joint-filing couples are exactly twice as wide as those for singles. That ratio helps keep the marriage penalty from biting lower- and middle-income couples. Starting next year, the joint-filer tax brackets will contract, causing higher tax bills, unless a change is made. Return of phase-out rule for itemized deductions Before the Bush tax cuts, a nasty phase-out rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual’s itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated this year. Next year, it will be back in full force unless Congress takes action -- which is unlikely. So if you itemize and have adjusted gross income above about $170,000 ($85,000 if you use married filing separate status), be ready for this phase-out rule to take a toll. Return of phase-out rule for personal exemptions Before the Bush tax cuts, another nasty phase-out rule could eliminate some or all of a higher-income individual’s personal exemption deductions. The rule was gradually cut back and finally eliminated this year. But it will be back with a vengeance next year unless Congress blocks it. So be ready for another tax hike if your adjusted gross income exceeds about $252,000 if you file jointly; about $168,000 if you’re single; about $210,000 if you’re a head of household; or about $126,000 if you use married filing separate status. (For 2010, personal exemption deductions are $3,650 each, and they will be about the same next year.) The bottom line The Bush tax cuts don’t just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board. Published July 7, 2010 Read more: How the Expiring Bush Tax Cuts Affect You - Personal Finance - Taxes - SmartMoney.com http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-f...#ixzz0tInMnrSx Now on the clinton issue: Clinton actually included the social security when talking about his numbers. That artificially boosted those numbers. Then the one thing that people tend to ignore is the internet bubble. Talking about a scam that screwed everything price wise for the masses. That produced a huge revenue stream of taxes. If you look at the last Bush deficits, the Iraq war was approx. 4% of GNP and the deficit was around 4% of GNP. If not for the wars, the budget looks as if it would have been balanced. Since wars traditionally are not forever, we would be back to a level state naturally. Clintons numbers would have come back to even as well with the .com bubble burst and not counting social security as part of the surplus. During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts. The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries. Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased. Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years. -Brooks Jackson |
Quote:
I'm worried more about the fundamentals of our economy than the deficit. The huge trade deficit and a jobless recovery are related. I don't think the recovery is sustainable. |
John. I have posted over and over again the democrats quote regarding Saddam and the need to take him out. The list included Al Gore and Sen Kerry and Bill Clinton. The democrats voted for the initial war and continued the war after gaining congress in 2006 and after Obama was elected. I know politicians will screw you, but I don't want the them pissing on me and telling me its raining either. Worst part is all the so called rational people repeating their crap as if they believed it. I just want honesty of the discussion.
Wether you believe it's idiotic or not is a totally different discussion. We have to agree to disagree on that. I think the middle east is cancer to the world. Matter of fact I believe they will be the next world war if not dealt with. We hopefully have established some pro western ideas in the cancerous area where they can regulate their own people. On the economy. I agree. You can not have recovery with "stimulus" funds. Roads and bridges are great but they are not a product that you can sell world wide. As much as people on the left like to hate Reagan, he invested in the technology build up that allowed for many spin offs that lasted several decades. WIth the free trade and our higher taxation and salaries, I am not sure there is a real reason for manufacturing to stay. California is going to be devastated shortly. Not sure what we are going to sell that only Americans can build in the near term. Only thing that may help is high fuels cost world wide that may force local manufacture due to the cost of shipping, we drop our wages to compete or we come up with energy technology that the world needs. The country only needs so many ditch diggers. I was talking to a guy the other day who is in the home and business brokerage and he said the business property bubble is just getting started. He was talking about all the crooked deals happening. Pay offs to get people approved. Fixing back tax statements to get people approved. Just complete dirt. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:44 PM. |