race not an issue?

[TheDudeAbides]

more to do with palin already instituting some good ol fashion down home socialism!

"Q: Did Palin impose a windfall profits tax on Alaskan oil?
A: Yes. Alaskans will receive $1,200 each from the windfall tax, in addition to $2,069 they will receive from other oil taxes."

Still following me, comrads? Seems Comrad Palin is all about redistrubuting the wealth to the proliteriat. Let's see the devil in her details...

"In 2007 Palin pushed for and enacted a major increase in state oil taxes - a step that has generated stunning new revenues for Alaska as oil prices have soared. The Alaska Oil and Gas Association estimates the state collected $6 billion from Palin-imposed windfall taxes during the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008. Combined with other new and existing oil taxes, as well as royalties, the state's total oil revenue in the last fiscal year exceeded $10 billion - double the amount the state received the previous fiscal year. [1]

Palin's windfall tax will fund a $1,200 "rebate" that Alaska will give to every eligible man, woman and child in Alaska, to help offset soaring fuel prices. That money will be dispersed as part of larger, $3,269 check that Alaskans will receive that was paid for by state taxes on oil companies - a family of four will receive a check for $13,076. The fuel rebates will cost the state $750 million."

[AugustWest]

what does all of that have to do with the current administration?

last i checked McCain/Palin lost the election.

[AugustWest]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

more to do with palin already instituting some good ol fashion down home socialism!

Still following me, comrads? Seems Comrad Palin is all about redistrubuting the wealth to the proliteriat. Let's see the devil in her details...

hmm.. so you consider windfall profit tax and wealth re-distribution socialism?

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

If you want to talk about socialism I got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

What does her taxing corporate oil have to do with this bridge you referenced? It wasn't the same 'bridge to nowhere' which Obama/Biden supported?

Way to completely change your argument.



And corporate income taxes is a constitutional form of taxation, unlike the personal income tax, so I really have no problem with her tax policy there.

[fvaambush]

No- It is about race. Look around, the news, newspapers, signs by supporters.... have you been watching the daily show??? It makes me absolutely SICK that the ONLY thing they EVER talk about is his fucking race! They have black people coming on their show and saying shit like "they should paint the White House black!" or "did we just elect a black brother in office?!"

I hope most of America is happy with this election, I guess no real reprecussions will occur until he is actually IN office, then reality will settle in. And the worst of all is he isn't even really black. America's ignorant public is blindly following Barack and his race while muttering the words "change". Baracks campaign didn't do shit.

[Bank404]

Alot of people I know voted becasue he was balck and weren't ashamed to admit.

His credentials just back up his race.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by aaronman

What does her taxing corporate oil have to do with this bridge you referenced? It wasn't the same 'bridge to nowhere' which Obama/Biden supported?

Way to completely change your argument.



And corporate income taxes is a constitutional form of taxation, unlike the personal income tax, so I really have no problem with her tax policy there.

Uh dude, I didn't change my argument. It was a joke, but apparently it went waaaaay over your head . So yeah...not so much changing my argument as you not being able to grasp humor.
Do try to keep up.

And I brought up Sarah Palin taxing oil companies to cut a check to all her voters because the OP was leveling charges of Socialism at Barack Obama, which is pretty fucking silly. Seems like Barack isn't the only one who want's to "Spread the wealth around"

Oh and last I checked, didn't the 16th amendment give congress the authority to levy taxes on any income they want? Cause that seems to be what i remember it saying. Hang on, let's check;

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Yeah that seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by fvaambush

No- It is about race. Look around, the news, newspapers, signs by supporters.... have you been watching the daily show??? It makes me absolutely SICK that the ONLY thing they EVER talk about is his fucking race! They have black people coming on their show and saying shit like "they should paint the White House black!" or "did we just elect a black brother in office?!"

I hope most of America is happy with this election, I guess no real reprecussions will occur until he is actually IN office, then reality will settle in. And the worst of all is he isn't even really black. America's ignorant public is blindly following Barack and his race while muttering the words "change". Baracks campaign didn't do shit.

You ever think that maybe...just maybe...Black people are excited?
A hallmark of enthusiasm, you often say things that are stupid.
And once in a life time, history making events, often generate a fuckload of enthusiasm. And granted by the stagering amount of stupidity generated this campaign season from both sides, and seing as how he has barely touched on race, I think we should cut them some slack. And if you are to be believed, and the repercusions arnt felt until he leaves office, he's already 1 up on bush then! Hell, you should be happy about that! But no, one bad apple spoils the bushel for you. Well let me tell you something, friendo, while me and all my fellow volunteers were celebrating the election by dancing and laughing and singing, some good ol boy threw a glass bottle as us and then through a brick through someoens car and drove off. Am I pissed off at Deutschbag, or SB because of this? No, that's moronic. A handful of idiots are not repersentational of the community at large. You're always gonna see dumbfucks, wherever you look.

And i'm sorry Barack isn't black (Seriously? Are you going to argue the motherfucker with TWO black names isn't BLACK ENOUGH? You hear Barack Obama and you expect that motherfucker to be standing ontop of a dead lion, with a spear and a shield) he tried really hard to pass his black certification test. Maybe next time he can live up to your crazy fucked up expectations.

[agengo02]

Originally Posted by dankohzee

I can't believe i'm dignifying this absurdity, but do you really think that in all the years Mr. Obama has been employed in America nobody has ever substantiated his citizenship? As Americans you have every right to dislike Obama, but when you throw up stuff like this it just makes you look foolish. It reminds me of the McCain campaign: constantly on the attack but firing blanks. Come up with something real! Of course Obama is an American. Of course his birth cert has been verified. Oh my god what stupidity.

i cant believe you want to put someone in the highest position in our country without even caring about whether he meets the requirements?

as for palin "redistributing the wealth" its a completely different situation. palin: hey guys yall want a gas/oil line running through our state then you have to give some of the money back to the states residents. obama: if you make more than 250k per year we are going to tax the shit out of you and give it to poorer people. doesnt matter that you may work 80 hour weeks with a family of 5 and 3 are in college, your money will go to joe the douchebag who is popping out kids to stay on welfare.

he has already made a mistake with who he appointed his chief of staff. homeboy was on the board of freddie mac when they "overlooked" some shit which screwed half of america's homeowners.

wow glad to see all the responses and glad to see this is a pretty structured debate going on. lets make sure and keep the personal attacks out and make this only about policy and what not.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by agengo02

i cant believe you want to put someone in the highest position in our country without even caring about whether he meets the requirements?

He DOES meet the requirements. He has shown multiple times that he meets the requirements. I have posted proof earlier in this thread he meets the requirements. You can see it with your own two eyes. He has been elected to the highest ofice in our government. The man has been elected to the highest office in the most powerful nation in the world. If he wasn't elegeble, I think the state department would have found out by now.

as for palin "redistributing the wealth" its a completely different situation. palin: hey guys yall want a gas/oil line running through our state then you have to give some of the money back to the states residents. obama: if you make more than 250k per year we are going to tax the shit out of you and give it to poorer people. doesnt matter that you may work 80 hour weeks with a family of 5 and 3 are in college, your money will go to joe the douchebag who is popping out kids to stay on welfare.

Yeah, because lemme tell ya, there are sooo many people who are making 250k a year and are working 80 hours a week, versus people like my mother, who work 60 hours a week making minimum wage, cant get a doctor to give her proper treatment because all her healthcare will pay for is for her to go to some quack who just throws pills at it. The truth of the mater is, Palin saw that the oil companies were racking up, and decided to give her employer, the voters, a slice of the pie. It has nothing to do with them building a pipeline, it has everything to do with her wanting to take what wasn't hers, and give it to someone else. I think that borders pretty close to Socialism, Eh Comrade?

he has already made a mistake with who he appointed his chief of staff. homeboy was on the board of freddie mac when they "overlooked" some shit which screwed half of america's homeowners.

Uh, No. While you are right that Rahm served on the board of the FHLMC, he resigned in 2001 to run for congress, long before the real estate bubble formed. That left the ball in the republicans court for over 7 years before this happened. Mater of fact, I seem to remember another recession between the time he left, and the fall of our entire economy.

So, no. I don't think anything you said bares any significance to Obama's ability to lead.

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

So yeah...not so much changing my argument as you not being able to grasp humor.
Do try to keep up.

Oh and last I checked, didn't the 16th amendment give congress the authority to levy taxes on any income they want? Cause that seems to be what i remember it saying. Hang on, let's check;

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Yeah that seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Is it really my fault if your 'jokes' aren't funny? I'll try and keep a closer eye out for your sense of humor in the future though, my bad.

Anyways, the 16th amendment did not give congress any new taxing powers. Aside from the fact that it was improperly ratified by the states, the amendment contradicts prior amendments without repeal.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers,"

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

See how Article 1 declares direct taxes must be apportioned, so therefore the tax powers of the 16th amendment, which are unapportioned, must be indirect. Indirect taxes consisting of imposts, duties, and excises.

This confirmed in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.:

"...by the previous ruling [Brushaber], it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

Here are the rulings from Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co:

"...Taxation on income was in its nature an excise ... and taxes on such income had been sustained as excises in the past... In addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone..."

So the Income tax, which was originally recognized as an indirect "duty" in 1861, is now recognized as an indirect "excise".

An excise tax is explained in Flint vs Stone Tracy Co.:

"...taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."

So an excise is manufacturing tax, sales tax, and privilege tax. Privileges being licenses, corporate privileges, and other privileges granted by the state.

So no, it's not so cut and dry.

[TheDudeAbides]

Goddammit, I hate having to argue taxation.

People who think that the progresive income tax is unconstitutional are Nazi's!

There...that took all the work of having to build up an intellectual defense of my beliefs.

[agengo02]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

He DOES meet the requirements. He has shown multiple times that he meets the requirements. I have posted proof earlier in this thread he meets the requirements. You can see it with your own two eyes. He has been elected to the highest ofice in our government. The man has been elected to the highest office in the most powerful nation in the world. If he wasn't elegeble, I think the state department would have found out by now.

ok update on the court case i referenced earlier. federal judge in philly dismissed the case. i think the lawyer is taking it to the supreme court next. more on that as information progresses

Yeah, because lemme tell ya, there are sooo many people who are making 250k a year and are working 80 hours a week, versus people like my mother, who work 60 hours a week making minimum wage, cant get a doctor to give her proper treatment because all her healthcare will pay for is for her to go to some quack who just throws pills at it. The truth of the mater is, Palin saw that the oil companies were racking up, and decided to give her employer, the voters, a slice of the pie. It has nothing to do with them building a pipeline, it has everything to do with her wanting to take what wasn't hers, and give it to someone else. I think that borders pretty close to Socialism, Eh Comrade?

you cant make a generalization on people making 250k/year and thats the exact point i wanted to make. no matter what the case, its unfair and just plain old WRONG to take from one person and give to another. NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION because the argument about your mom could be made the other way with women who only have babies to keep on getting their welfare check each month. (i wouldnt argue that with me because i see this first hand down here in our area)

Uh, No. While you are right that Rahm served on the board of the FHLMC, he resigned in 2001 to run for congress, long before the real estate bubble formed. That left the ball in the republicans court for over 7 years before this happened. Mater of fact, I seem to remember another recession between the time he left, and the fall of our entire economy.

for the record the real estate "clusterfuck" started with the clinton administration. they pretty much forced fannie and freddie to lower their qualifications to allow more minorities to get approved for housing loans which it turns out they can not afford once the ARM went back up.

So, no. I don't think anything you said bares any significance to Obama's ability to lead.

thats fine. cant make everybody see the light! ...dang i need some pot!

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by agengo02

ok update on the court case i referenced earlier. federal judge in philly dismissed the case. i think the lawyer is taking it to the supreme court next. more on that as information progresses

The supreme court will never hear a case so baseless as this. Even I can provide evidence of Obama's certificate.

you cant make a generalization on people making 250k/year and thats the exact point i wanted to make. no matter what the case, its unfair and just plain old WRONG to take from one person and give to another. NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION because the argument about your mom could be made the other way with women who only have babies to keep on getting their welfare check each month. (i wouldnt argue that with me because i see this first hand down here in our area)

THIS JUST IN: People abuse the system, news at 11.
So by your logic, since some people drive drunk, we should elliminate cars?
The difference between someone who makes 250k and someone who like my mom, would be incredibly lucky just to have 20 bucks left over from her check, is the person making 250k has CHOICES available to them. Can they send all there children to yale? Maybe not. Will they have to pull there kids out of highschool to work so they can keep the family afloat? Doubtful. The other person is lucky to make it one more week.

for the record the real estate "clusterfuck" started with the clinton administration. they pretty much forced fannie and freddie to lower their qualifications to allow more minorities to get approved for housing loans which it turns out they can not afford once the ARM went back up.

yes, so the "clusterfuck" boiled on the back burner while republicans sat on there hands, somehow making it the fault of a guy who sat on the board for less then a year? Ok.

thats fine. cant make everybody see the light! ...dang i need some pot!

Yes, I am living in the glow of your enlightenment.

[agengo02]

wow you libs just cant handle ideas different than yalls. ok but lets see what ive got:

the supreme court has listened to cases waaaaaaaaay more baseless cases so thats sort of a weird point you made.


your 250k/year argument: again you cant make generalizations for a whole group of people because you only know your mom's situation, not mine, not your neighbors, etc. can we agree on that at least? ok so assuming we agree with the above statement; just like we dont know everyone's situation, obama doesnt know everybody's situation. 250k sounds like a lot to us (which it is) but for some its just getting by. my best friend has a doctor with a private practice in his family. the doc has 3 kids all of which are in college. he is paycheck to paycheck. you may not think so, but he is. mortgage, cell phones, cars, insurance, school, etc etc etc all adds up pretty quick. yes he has a big house (not a mansion by any means but still big) and decent cars, but our great country says that he has the choice to live that lifestyle because he worked hard in school. im not trying to say your mom doesnt work hard or anything like that, but just because someone isnt as fortunate or blessed as you doesnt mean they owe you anything.





ok go ahead and tear through all that. im gonna smoke a bowl and check back later.