norcaljeff_IHB
New member
Several times a week I stoop that low.
Would you stoop so low as to eat at McDonalds?
- Thread starter WINEX_IHB
- Start date
stepping_up_IHB
New member
umm, you could be a knife catcher like me and have a yard where you grow your own arugula and some watercress to boot. Applebee's and McDonald's are the only choice, what is this, the IE?
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1219325990]umm, you could be a knife catcher like me and have a yard where you grow your own arugula and some watercress to boot. Applebee's and McDonald's are the only choice, what is this, the IE?</blockquote>
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.
Trooper_IHB
New member
Playing the part of the deer - Barack Obama
Playing the part of the man - WINEX
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
Playing the part of the man - WINEX
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
green_cactus_IHB
New member
[quote author="WINEX" date=1219351911][quote author="stepping_up" date=1219325990]umm, you could be a knife catcher like me and have a yard where you grow your own arugula and some watercress to boot. Applebee's and McDonald's are the only choice, what is this, the IE?</blockquote>
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.</blockquote>
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.</blockquote>
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).
Nude_IHB
New member
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1219363462][quote author="WINEX" date=1219351911][quote author="stepping_up" date=1219325990]umm, you could be a knife catcher like me and have a yard where you grow your own arugula and some watercress to boot. Applebee's and McDonald's are the only choice, what is this, the IE?</blockquote>
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.</blockquote>
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).</blockquote>
You know, proposed tax rates from a Presidential candidate really don't mean much when the Congress sets the budget, decides the tax rates, and apportions the spending. What's to prevent Barack from stating in his first State of the Union speech that "The nation as a whole must sacrifice in order to bring the budget into balance and, together, Congress and I have agreed that it is time for more Americans to pay their fair share. After a careful review of all the options, it is clear that we must raise taxes by 5% across the board on income above $60k a year and 10% on those making more than $250k in order to bring the budget back into balance and to guarantee healthcare for every American"? The answer is: nothing. Given that he clearly intends to raise taxes, and needs to in order to pay for his ideas, then it isn't much of a stretch to think that a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to give him everything he asks for and more.
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.</blockquote>
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).</blockquote>
You know, proposed tax rates from a Presidential candidate really don't mean much when the Congress sets the budget, decides the tax rates, and apportions the spending. What's to prevent Barack from stating in his first State of the Union speech that "The nation as a whole must sacrifice in order to bring the budget into balance and, together, Congress and I have agreed that it is time for more Americans to pay their fair share. After a careful review of all the options, it is clear that we must raise taxes by 5% across the board on income above $60k a year and 10% on those making more than $250k in order to bring the budget back into balance and to guarantee healthcare for every American"? The answer is: nothing. Given that he clearly intends to raise taxes, and needs to in order to pay for his ideas, then it isn't much of a stretch to think that a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to give him everything he asks for and more.
green_cactus_IHB
New member
[quote author="Nude" date=1219369731][quote author="green_cactus" date=1219363462][quote author="WINEX" date=1219351911][quote author="stepping_up" date=1219325990]umm, you could be a knife catcher like me and have a yard where you grow your own arugula and some watercress to boot. Applebee's and McDonald's are the only choice, what is this, the IE?</blockquote>
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.</blockquote>
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).</blockquote>
You know, proposed tax rates from a Presidential candidate really don't mean much when the Congress sets the budget, decides the tax rates, and apportions the spending. What's to prevent Barack from stating in his first State of the Union speech that "The nation as a whole must sacrifice in order to bring the budget into balance and, together, Congress and I have agreed that it is time for more Americans to pay their fair share. After a careful review of all the options, it is clear that we must raise taxes by 5% across the board on income above $60k a year and 10% on those making more than $250k in order to bring the budget back into balance and to guarantee healthcare for every American"? The answer is: nothing. Given that he clearly intends to raise taxes, and needs to in order to pay for his ideas, then it isn't much of a stretch to think that a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to give him everything he asks for and more.</blockquote>
You must be kidding. Instead of analyzing their proposed tax plans you'd rather concoct up an imaginary state of the union address and base your arguments on that?
Welcome to Obambi's vision of America. Even if you make $160k a year, you won't be able to afford Applebee's after he raises your taxes. You should keep quiet about that garden. It's likely to be counted as income if Obambi is elected.</blockquote>
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).</blockquote>
You know, proposed tax rates from a Presidential candidate really don't mean much when the Congress sets the budget, decides the tax rates, and apportions the spending. What's to prevent Barack from stating in his first State of the Union speech that "The nation as a whole must sacrifice in order to bring the budget into balance and, together, Congress and I have agreed that it is time for more Americans to pay their fair share. After a careful review of all the options, it is clear that we must raise taxes by 5% across the board on income above $60k a year and 10% on those making more than $250k in order to bring the budget back into balance and to guarantee healthcare for every American"? The answer is: nothing. Given that he clearly intends to raise taxes, and needs to in order to pay for his ideas, then it isn't much of a stretch to think that a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to give him everything he asks for and more.</blockquote>
You must be kidding. Instead of analyzing their proposed tax plans you'd rather concoct up an imaginary state of the union address and base your arguments on that?
Nude_IHB
New member
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1219375834][quote author="Nude" date=1219369731]
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).</blockquote>
You know, proposed tax rates from a Presidential candidate really don't mean much when the Congress sets the budget, decides the tax rates, and apportions the spending. What's to prevent Barack from stating in his first State of the Union speech that "The nation as a whole must sacrifice in order to bring the budget into balance and, together, Congress and I have agreed that it is time for more Americans to pay their fair share. After a careful review of all the options, it is clear that we must raise taxes by 5% across the board on income above $60k a year and 10% on those making more than $250k in order to bring the budget back into balance and to guarantee healthcare for every American"? The answer is: nothing. Given that he clearly intends to raise taxes, and needs to in order to pay for his ideas, then it isn't much of a stretch to think that a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to give him everything he asks for and more.</blockquote>
<blockquote>You must be kidding. Instead of analyzing their proposed tax plans you'd rather concoct up an imaginary state of the union address and base your arguments on that?</blockquote>
I did analyze all plans put forth since the primaries began. My argument is that defending a candidate based on his planned rates assumes that he has control of the situation and the ability to dictate rates, which he doesn't. You countered WINEX with a claim that rates will only rise by x% and y%, but the only certainty about Obama is that he plans to raise taxes in a recession. How much is irrelevant, but you seem to want to downplay the signifigance and I countered with a plausible scenario in which his plan goes out the window when it is too late to do anything but accept it. How is my imaginary situation any different than your imaginary situation when it comes to the basis of an argument?
Under the Obama plan, 90-95 percentile of earners (that is $160,972 - $226,918 income levels) would see +1.9% change in after tax income for 2009 and +3.8% in 2012. (<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org">http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</a>) There seems to be enough money left to afford Applebee's (if they are still<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2008/sb2008084_482588.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5"> in business</a>).</blockquote>
You know, proposed tax rates from a Presidential candidate really don't mean much when the Congress sets the budget, decides the tax rates, and apportions the spending. What's to prevent Barack from stating in his first State of the Union speech that "The nation as a whole must sacrifice in order to bring the budget into balance and, together, Congress and I have agreed that it is time for more Americans to pay their fair share. After a careful review of all the options, it is clear that we must raise taxes by 5% across the board on income above $60k a year and 10% on those making more than $250k in order to bring the budget back into balance and to guarantee healthcare for every American"? The answer is: nothing. Given that he clearly intends to raise taxes, and needs to in order to pay for his ideas, then it isn't much of a stretch to think that a Democrat-controlled Congress is going to give him everything he asks for and more.</blockquote>
<blockquote>You must be kidding. Instead of analyzing their proposed tax plans you'd rather concoct up an imaginary state of the union address and base your arguments on that?</blockquote>
I did analyze all plans put forth since the primaries began. My argument is that defending a candidate based on his planned rates assumes that he has control of the situation and the ability to dictate rates, which he doesn't. You countered WINEX with a claim that rates will only rise by x% and y%, but the only certainty about Obama is that he plans to raise taxes in a recession. How much is irrelevant, but you seem to want to downplay the signifigance and I countered with a plausible scenario in which his plan goes out the window when it is too late to do anything but accept it. How is my imaginary situation any different than your imaginary situation when it comes to the basis of an argument?
Green Cactus, since we are in an Obambi thread, lets look at an example of the affordability of McDonald's versus Applebee's for someone making $160k a year before and after Obambi raises taxes. (Note that I mentioned taxes, not just income taxes)
For the purpose of this discussion, let's say that an average meal at Applebee's will run a person $16 after tax and tip. (I haven't eaten at Applebee's in quite some time, so am using Carrow's or Coco's as a proxy and assuming a dinner plate of about $10, a soft drink of about $2.50 tax, and a small tip)
Let's say an average meal at McDonald's is $7. (It's been a while since I stooped so low as to eat at McDonald's, so I am using Jack in the Box, Carl's Jr. and Burger King as proxies)
The difference between the price of a single meal is $9.
Now let's take a look at Social Security taxes. (Payroll taxes are taxes too) Although Obama now claims he wants to subject incomes over $250k to Social Security taxes, this is a recent development. Though the majority of the campaign, he has said that he wants to eliminate the Social Security tax cap entirely. (As Nude correctly pointed out, you can't count on politicians keeping most of their election promises. But when a politician promises to raise your taxes, you can count on him exceeding everything he promised.) For 2008, that cap is $102,000.
This would subject our hypothetical person to Social Security taxes on an additional $58,000 in income.
At first glance, it would appear that this tax raise alone would amount to $4,437. That's enough to downgrade 493 Applebee's meals to McDonalds, or 1.35 meals a day.
But that is grossly underestimating the impact on the poor taxpayers culinary habits.
If the person in the hypothetical example is self employed, the hit is $8,874. This comes to 986 meal downgrades, or 2.7 meals a day.
But even if our hypothetical person is not self-employed, $4,437 is still to conservative. The increase in payroll taxes still results in $8,874 more going to the US government for Social Security taxes. The employee pays $4,437 extra and the employer matches that amount. Because the cost of keeping an employee goes up without a corresponding raise in productivity, the employer has to raise prices, lower employment levels, make future raises smaller, make less profit, or some combination of the previous choices. For this example, let's say that the employer and employee end up splitting the extra $4,437 that it costs the employer for that same employee. That results in a downgrade of 739.5 meals a year, or 2.03 meals a day.
Of course, that's just one of many taxes that Obambi wants to raise. You can't ignore the income tax increases, capital gains tax increases, and dividend income increases that are being promised.
The end result is that there are going to be a lot of Unhappy Meals for US taxpayers.
For the purpose of this discussion, let's say that an average meal at Applebee's will run a person $16 after tax and tip. (I haven't eaten at Applebee's in quite some time, so am using Carrow's or Coco's as a proxy and assuming a dinner plate of about $10, a soft drink of about $2.50 tax, and a small tip)
Let's say an average meal at McDonald's is $7. (It's been a while since I stooped so low as to eat at McDonald's, so I am using Jack in the Box, Carl's Jr. and Burger King as proxies)
The difference between the price of a single meal is $9.
Now let's take a look at Social Security taxes. (Payroll taxes are taxes too) Although Obama now claims he wants to subject incomes over $250k to Social Security taxes, this is a recent development. Though the majority of the campaign, he has said that he wants to eliminate the Social Security tax cap entirely. (As Nude correctly pointed out, you can't count on politicians keeping most of their election promises. But when a politician promises to raise your taxes, you can count on him exceeding everything he promised.) For 2008, that cap is $102,000.
This would subject our hypothetical person to Social Security taxes on an additional $58,000 in income.
At first glance, it would appear that this tax raise alone would amount to $4,437. That's enough to downgrade 493 Applebee's meals to McDonalds, or 1.35 meals a day.
But that is grossly underestimating the impact on the poor taxpayers culinary habits.
If the person in the hypothetical example is self employed, the hit is $8,874. This comes to 986 meal downgrades, or 2.7 meals a day.
But even if our hypothetical person is not self-employed, $4,437 is still to conservative. The increase in payroll taxes still results in $8,874 more going to the US government for Social Security taxes. The employee pays $4,437 extra and the employer matches that amount. Because the cost of keeping an employee goes up without a corresponding raise in productivity, the employer has to raise prices, lower employment levels, make future raises smaller, make less profit, or some combination of the previous choices. For this example, let's say that the employer and employee end up splitting the extra $4,437 that it costs the employer for that same employee. That results in a downgrade of 739.5 meals a year, or 2.03 meals a day.
Of course, that's just one of many taxes that Obambi wants to raise. You can't ignore the income tax increases, capital gains tax increases, and dividend income increases that are being promised.
The end result is that there are going to be a lot of Unhappy Meals for US taxpayers.
gwailo168_IHB
New member
[quote author="acpme" date=1219195536]mcdonalds ice cream with fries is a strange but delicious combo. sweet and savory at the same time.</blockquote>
That is very true!
I like the ice cream at McD's but I hardly get it...
I will eat at McD's, I actually enjoy their food. I usually get a 2 cheeseburger meal and stuff some french fries in to the burgers. (at least that is what I order when i want to be loose with my money.. Other wise ill get a couple double cheese burgers and 2 waters.)
i want to try that new fake chik fil a looking sandwich..
plus they have great sausage mcmuffins
That is very true!
I like the ice cream at McD's but I hardly get it...
I will eat at McD's, I actually enjoy their food. I usually get a 2 cheeseburger meal and stuff some french fries in to the burgers. (at least that is what I order when i want to be loose with my money.. Other wise ill get a couple double cheese burgers and 2 waters.)
i want to try that new fake chik fil a looking sandwich..
plus they have great sausage mcmuffins
QH Renter_IHB
New member
I've never been to Applebee's and I haven't eaten McDonald's in over 10 years. I guess I must be an elitist Obama supporter!
HB Bear Too_IHB
New member
I am going to admit something here: I have a deep-seated hatred of the Neocons.
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush
tenmagnet_IHB
New member
I thought this study/poll was interesting.
Kohl?s and JCPenney Shoppers Lean
Towards McCain; Macy?s & Target Shoppers Towards Obama
http://www.bigresearch.com/news/big081908.htm
Kohl?s and JCPenney Shoppers Lean
Towards McCain; Macy?s & Target Shoppers Towards Obama
http://www.bigresearch.com/news/big081908.htm
kcmkane_IHB
New member
[quote author="tenmagnet" date=1219451882]I thought this was study/poll was interesting.
Kohl?s and JCPenney Shoppers Lean
Towards McCain; Macy?s & Target Shoppers Towards Obama
http://www.bigresearch.com/news/big081908.htm</blockquote>
I shop at Target, and can't stand either Obama or McCain.
Kohl?s and JCPenney Shoppers Lean
Towards McCain; Macy?s & Target Shoppers Towards Obama
http://www.bigresearch.com/news/big081908.htm</blockquote>
I shop at Target, and can't stand either Obama or McCain.
bkshopr_IHB
New member
Hi my name is BoKoPi
Here is my presentation
<img src="http://www.minnesotarestaurantsearch.com/monticello/mcdonalds.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:FrPcmpnq55m1WM:http://www.allergizer.com/50226711/french_fries.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://wowdavao.com/catalog/images/bigmacLG.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:7WKp05ogz-YQdM:http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/egg-mcmuffin.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:xfaVW7IupMJHQM:http://bp3.blogger.com/_93v-KFPVGNM/RYR4pw2yV7I/AAAAAAAAA-k/v4R1FF3-Rec/s320/hashbrown.jpg" alt="" />
Here is my presentation
<img src="http://www.minnesotarestaurantsearch.com/monticello/mcdonalds.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:FrPcmpnq55m1WM:http://www.allergizer.com/50226711/french_fries.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://wowdavao.com/catalog/images/bigmacLG.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:7WKp05ogz-YQdM:http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/egg-mcmuffin.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:xfaVW7IupMJHQM:http://bp3.blogger.com/_93v-KFPVGNM/RYR4pw2yV7I/AAAAAAAAA-k/v4R1FF3-Rec/s320/hashbrown.jpg" alt="" />
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
[quote author="HB Bear, Too" date=1219451161]I am going to admit something here: I have a deep-seated hatred of the Neocons.
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush</blockquote>
I see what you mean when you speak of diversity, tolerance and acceptance.
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush</blockquote>
I see what you mean when you speak of diversity, tolerance and acceptance.
HB Bear Too_IHB
New member
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1219492574][quote author="HB Bear, Too" date=1219451161]I am going to admit something here: I have a deep-seated hatred of the Neocons.
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush</blockquote>
I see what you mean when you speak of diversity, tolerance and acceptance.</blockquote>
I hold neocons in the same esteem as I do Nazis, child molesters, dictators, terrorists and rapists. I don't claim any of them. You and McSame of course are welcome to be as inclusive as you'd like.
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush</blockquote>
I see what you mean when you speak of diversity, tolerance and acceptance.</blockquote>
I hold neocons in the same esteem as I do Nazis, child molesters, dictators, terrorists and rapists. I don't claim any of them. You and McSame of course are welcome to be as inclusive as you'd like.
[quote author="HB Bear, Too" date=1219535069][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1219492574][quote author="HB Bear, Too" date=1219451161]I am going to admit something here: I have a deep-seated hatred of the Neocons.
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush</blockquote>
I see what you mean when you speak of diversity, tolerance and acceptance.</blockquote>
I hold neocons in the same esteem as I do Nazis, child molesters, dictators, terrorists and rapists. I don't claim any of them. You and McSame of course are welcome to be as inclusive as you'd like.</blockquote>
My, what a stupid thing to say.
Both Bush and McCain listen carefully to, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/john-mccain-neocon_b_82530.html">take endorsements from </a>and have/will take seek and take advice from the Neocons. These are the folks that brought us the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24WN9jYcBI&feature=related">Iraq War.</a> So anyone can say what they want about Obama, that's fine, but he, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=592">unlike McCain, is a not a Neocon-jock-sniffing Kristol devotee.</a> and that, IMNSHO opinion is all I need to know.
Givens:
Bush = Neocon Boot-licker
McCain = Necon Boot-licker
Therefore under the transitive law:
McCain = Neocon Boot-licker = Bush
McCain = Bush</blockquote>
I see what you mean when you speak of diversity, tolerance and acceptance.</blockquote>
I hold neocons in the same esteem as I do Nazis, child molesters, dictators, terrorists and rapists. I don't claim any of them. You and McSame of course are welcome to be as inclusive as you'd like.</blockquote>
My, what a stupid thing to say.