The Drum Corps Discussion Group
Presented by The Sound Machine Drum Corps Scores Archive

Links to Other Sites: 

* FAQ   * Search   * Login   * Register 
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:57 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Excellent video!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:08 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98VKFHTX1-Y

I went to high school with this guy. He was class president his senior year and just one of those guys you just knew would go do something amazing with his life. This is a guy who you would think would have every reason to vote for Barack (as he presents in this video) and instead presents some overwhelming evidence why he feels Obama is a terrible choice.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:22 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
Nope...still in full support of Obama.

Dangerous? Nope. Questionable character? Nope.

These arguments don't do much for me frankly.


Now, if he asked if Palin would be dangerous as President of the U.S., I would be in full agreement. The slightest possibility that she could be President scares the s**t out of me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:30 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
chadwick wrote:
Nope...still in full support of Obama.

Dangerous? Nope. Questionable character? Nope.

These arguments don't do much for me frankly.


Now, if he asked if Palin would be dangerous as President of the U.S., I would be in full agreement. The slightest possibility that she could be President scares the s**t out of me.


You don't question the character of Obama? Wow.

What exactly about Palin scares you? If it is her religious views, what about Obama's views (without letting him off the hook that he "didn't know")?

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:00 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
If you are asking whether or not I ever questioned Obama's character then yes, I did. But after doing so, I have no issues with his character. Do I agree with him on all issues, no...pretty hard to find any candidate that I do.

Now Palin - well, yes, I fully disagree with her religious views but its not her views that I would be scared of perse, but the fact that her views would be used in the way she would lead. I don't think she currently has the knowledge it would take to be Vice President or President of this country. Hell, she didn't even know what relationship the VP has with the U.S. Senate.

As I have mentioned before, should McCain lose this election, I really think his supporters will look back and target his choice for VP as one of the reasons he did not win. I think many have already done so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:22 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
chadwick wrote:
Now Palin - well, yes, I fully disagree with her religious views but its not her views that I would be scared of perse, but the fact that her views would be used in the way she would lead.


Don't you think the same will be true of Obama?

Have you seen what went on in the church he attended for 20 years?

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:34 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
I don't mind people voicing their opinions. And he spoke very well while doing it..But he needs to read up on the tax plans..I don't know why people think if a business owner makes $250,000 in revenues, they will be taxed to death under Obama's plan. They won't..It's just not true. And this mix up has happened ever since Joe the Plumber. Here's an article from a small business owner regarding this:

"I, too, own a small business. It does between $2.5 million and $3 million in gross revenue per year. The business is organized as what's called a "subchapter S," which means any profits that the business generates flow through to my family's personal income. So our personal income is the total of what we pay ourselves for running the business, plus any net profits the business generates.

Wages paid to employees plus any payroll taxes paid on employee wages (that's Social Security plus Medicare plus a few other small taxes like unemployment taxes and workers' compensation) are part of what is taken out of gross profit to generate net profit.

I don't fault people for their ignorance about complex tax matters -- why should they be expected to know the arcane details of business taxes -- but I do fault those taking advantage of that ignorance to confuse the issue for political gain.

Here's the bottom line: For my small business, which employs 16 people, we don't generate more than $250,000 in net profit. Therefore, we wouldn't be adversely affected by Obama's tax proposals. If we saw that we were about to be affected, we'd work to minimize our tax exposure. We might do that by squirreling away up to $40,000 per year in a 401(k). We might do it (and have done this in the past) by giving end-of-year bonuses to our employees, without whom we could not have the success we do. We might do it by reinvesting in our business. There are always investments that small businesses need to make, and those count toward reducing their tax exposure.

In fact, Obama has proposed that, for each additional employee I take on, I would get a $3,500 tax credit. A credit differs from a write-off. A credit reduces my tax bill directly. A write-off just reduces my net profit. So if I'm in the 35 percent tax bracket, a $3,500 credit is equivalent to about a $10,000 write-off. Not a bad deal.

Someone like me is in that middle zone where I can never seem to escape payroll tax (not paid on income over about $102,000 now) nor do I have enough money lying around to invest in something other than my business. Someone who earns $500,000 pays the same in payroll tax that I do -- and, remember, payroll tax is 15 percent (7.5 percent for the wage earner plus 7.5 percent for the employer; in my case, I'm both). So if I earn $102,000 in wages, I pay $15,300 in payroll tax. If I earn $500,000 in wages, I pay the same $15,300 in payroll tax. This is a truly regressive tax.

Further, if I had a bunch of money to invest, I could earn a significant amount of my income from capital gains. Capital gains tax is 15 percent, and there is no payroll tax on capital gains. So if you are fortunate enough to be able to earn $500,000 in income from capital gains rather than wages, you pay $75,000 in taxes compared to the wage earner who pays $190,750 (35 percent income tax plus 15 percent payroll tax on the first $102,000).

True patriots would quit complaining about paying their fair share. They would not place the burden on the poor and middle class today and our children and grandchildren tomorrow. "

Brad Averill owns and operates Wildtime Foods in Eugene.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:07 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
I understand Obama's church was racially oriented. I don't think I'd want to belong to it even if I could. However, I am a Catholic, I don't like some of the business that goes on there. But then again, I don't get involved with it either. I go there to worship, period. I let all the other stuff to others. The problem with churches is religion is run by man, faith is an entirely different matter......................Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:35 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
Blurae1 wrote:
I understand Obama's church was racially oriented. I don't think I'd want to belong to it even if I could. However, I am a Catholic, I don't like some of the business that goes on there. But then again, I don't get involved with it either. I go there to worship, period. I let all the other stuff to others. The problem with churches is religion is run by man, faith is an entirely different matter......................Bill


I agree. If churches were run the way they should, which is by faith, then churches would be full and growing each week (and some are).

On the note of religion and this election, it bothers me a great deal how much Palin has been hammered for her faith, while Obama (who obviously has lied in this instance) has been given a pass. Anyone who thinks the mindset coming from Obama's church will not effect his Presidency is dead wrong.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:02 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
Agreed for the most part. But I don't believe we will find out as I don't think he has a chance of winnning...............Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:37 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
Blurae1 wrote:
Agreed for the most part. But I don't believe we will find out as I don't think he has a chance of winnning...............Bill


That is a bold statement that I hope you are correct about.

Part of me wants to think the polls are wrong based on a few different factors, a couple of which have historical perspective. As much as many of you detest her, Ann Coulter wrote an op-ed piece about how in many national elections the polls have been way off, and the errors have NEVER been in favor of the Republican candidate. I think with race being an issue in this election, the margin of error increases.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:34 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
I, of course, have no particular insight into the election, but I baes the prediction on racism. I believe that when questioned people may say Obama in public, but in the booth do something different.........Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:01 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm
Posts: 70
I just don't see how Obama can lose this election. Right now, McCain should be fighting hard to help keep some Senate seats. He's going to lose the election, but he can at least push hard to block the dems from getting 60 seats. He should move his resources into those tight senate races as soon as possible. Here's a summary of an email I got from a pollster friend of mine..He's been doing this for 35 years.

First off, Obama has a firm hold on every Kerry state. He has a 19 point average lead in those states, with PA being the only state he "could" lose. He's up in every poll in the state..And the Philly area could turn out a 400,000 plus advantage for Obama. So off the bat, Obama has 252 electoral votes. McCain is fighting in one Kerry State-PA. The chances of Obama winning every Kerry state is 96%..While the chances of McCain winning every Bush state is 0.03%.

Obama on the other hand is either leading or tied in 13 Bush States. And he has considerable advantages in 5 of those states..Including CO, NV, OH, IA, and VA. And Obama has actually closed the gap in Arizona to 6, 4, and 2 points in different polls. Obama just has so many roads to reaching 270. Obama is leading in OH, FL, and PA. But even if McCain could pull a win in all three of those states, Obama still has a clear path to 270. The key to this race will be Virginia. The state closes it's state polls rather early, so look at Virgina as a clear sign of what could happen. If Obama wins PA and VA, the race is pretty much over. McCain could win every other battlegound state, yet will still lose the election 272-266. We have to remember that IA is a solid Obama state right now. Which actually gives Obama a 259 electoral start. And Virginia will be all he needs to reach the magic number. If McCain wins Virginia, Obama could still win by taking just one of these states (NC, OH, IN, MO, or FL)..Obama is either ahead or tied in those states. Now lets go even further into how hard it will be on McCain..Lets say McCain somehow wins VA, FL, OH, IN, NC, and MO. Obama could still reach 270 by simply winning CO + NV or CO + NM. And Obama is also leading in all three of those states, with CO starting to shift strongly to Obama. And to add to McCain's troubles, AZ, MT, and ND are now considered toss up states.

So given the odds, McCain needs to help out down ticket. Dole and Stevens could be a lost cause..But he could help in NH, GA, and MN. Now's the time to put "Country First" and put everything you have into blocking the Dems in the Senate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:12 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
Blurae1 wrote:
Agreed for the most part. But I don't believe we will find out as I don't think he has a chance of winnning...............Bill


I agree with TX in that the above statement is very bold! Believe or don't believe in polls as you will, but to say that he doesn't have a chance in winning is frankly ridiculous. I am skeptical of the polls as well...I'll believe it when I see it. On any given day you can hear about a poll that says candidate A is leading by 4 points over candidate B and then flip the channel and hear just the opposite. I will be very curious to see how accurate these polls are when all is said and done for each of these states that have been in question the past few months. Even my state, Georgia, has had polls that have McCain up by 7 points to Obama up by a point and everywhere in between.

I agree with SCV though...it is Obama's election to lose right now. While McCain is fighting to bring up anything that might sway the undecideds over, Obama is in a position where he just needs to play it safe in these final 5 days.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:18 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Leesville, LA
chadwick wrote:
Blurae1 wrote:
Agreed for the most part. But I don't believe we will find out as I don't think he has a chance of winnning...............Bill


I agree with TX in that the above statement is very bold! Believe or don't believe in polls as you will, but to say that he doesn't have a chance in winning is frankly ridiculous. I am skeptical of the polls as well...I'll believe it when I see it. On any given day you can hear about a poll that says candidate A is leading by 4 points over candidate B and then flip the channel and hear just the opposite. I will be very curious to see how accurate these polls are when all is said and done for each of these states that have been in question the past few months. Even my state, Georgia, has had polls that have McCain up by 7 points to Obama up by a point and everywhere in between.

I agree with SCV though...it is Obama's election to lose right now. While McCain is fighting to bring up anything that might sway the undecideds over, Obama is in a position where he just needs to play it safe in these final 5 days.


I won't say it is his to lose. I do think he has an obvious advantage, which could be slight to large. Even though he leads in all polls, the dramatic differences in the polls makes me wonder how accurate any of them are.

_________________
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Yes, his character is lacking...
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:29 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1076
Location: North Beach MD
Nice video, and he does have a point that character should be a determining factor when deciding one's vote.

I could not stand by Obama's unconscionable views on post-birth abortions.

From a Michael Gerson editorial in the Washington Post...

Quote:
Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.


For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Perhaps this is a revolt against a culture of disposability. Perhaps it reflects the continuing revolution of ultrasound technology -- what might be called the "Juno" effect. In the delightful movie by that name, the protagonist, a pregnant teen seeking an abortion, is confronted by a classmate who informs her that the unborn child already has fingernails -- which causes second thoughts. A worthless part of its mother's body -- a clump of protoplasmic rubbish -- doesn't have fingernails.

Abortion is an unavoidable moral issue. It also has broader political significance. Democrats of a past generation -- the generation of Hubert Humphrey and Martin Luther King Jr. -- spoke about building a beloved community that cared especially for the elderly, the weak, the disadvantaged and the young.

The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community.

These trends reached their logical culmination during a congressional debate on partial-birth abortion in 1999. When Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether this included the car trip.

Having endorsed partial-birth abortion, Obama has little room to maneuver on the broader issue. But he does have some. He could take the wise counsel of evangelical Democrats such as Amy Sullivan and come out strongly for policies that would reduce the number of abortions -- support for pregnant women, abstinence education, the responsible promotion of birth control. An organization called Democrats for Life has proposed the creation of a "95-10 Initiative" in which states and the federal government would work toward the reduction of abortion rates by 95 percent within 10 years. That would be a unifying national goal.


In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Ironically, Senator Boxer did not consider the Born Alive Infants Act as an attack on Roe v Wade.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group