|
So seriously what are the chances of Ron Paul winning this? Cause I don't think I've ever really cared about a presidential candidate, and I really want Ron Paul to win.
|
Slim to none, sorry brosif.
At this point I'm thinking it'll be pretty much Gingrich vs Romney and then once one of them has the nomination. Once there is a for sure GOP candidate it will be him vs the incumbent, and I've heard that Paul wants to run as a 3rd party candidate if he doesn't get the GOP nod. If that happens then it will be 4 more years 'fo 'sho. |
4 more years of horseshit. Not looking forward to serving under Hussein Obama-Khan.
|
....Yeah, you summed it up Viper. If Paul doesn't get the nod, no matter who wins, we're screwed.
(Edit) Lol, nice edit there Viper. |
Fucking balls. It seems like so many people are jumping on the Ron Paul wagon though! Maaaaaaaaybe there is a chance?
|
Nope. Think about it, he's @ 9% of the polls in the GOP race last time I checked, meaning in all probability he is not going to get the nomination, and if he runs as 3rd party he will just take away votes from the GOP candidate. They all suck (including Paul), just gotta see which one sucks the lest. Pick your poison.
|
Gingrich and Romney are the only people ahead of Paul, Gearhead. (Gingrich@20%, Romney @ 19%, Paul @ 12% last I checked)
And I mean, come on, Gingrich? The dude is worse than Obama. For fucks sake, his own party kicked him out. |
I'm thinking people will look at Paul as further right then Romney, and therefor harder to elect. The only way I see a Republican getting into office is if it's Romney. Gingrich is full retard (all other candidates operating on 75%-90% retard), and to me looks unelectable.
(At this point poll numbers are going to very widely. Watch the Bullshit! episode on numbers and you'll never not question a poll again.) |
This is a great video. Don't let the title steer you away, it's full of really interesting stuff.
|
He puts atheists at 8%-20% of the population, Catholics @ around 20%. And we're gaining, nice.
lol @ Mitt Romney's magic underwear. lol @ "ak-15" Really good video. I wish ever believer would answer the questions he asked during the last few minutes. |
http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpre...ment.jpg?w=500 CALIFORNIA: The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out, bites the Governor and attacks his dog. 1. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie “Bambi” and then realizes he should stop; the coyote is only doing what is natural. 2. He calls animal control. Animal Control captures the coyote and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it. 3. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200 for testing it for diseases. 4. The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged. 5. The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is free of dangerous animals. 6. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds to implement a “coyote awareness” program for residents of the area. 7. The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world. 8. The Governor’s security agent is fired for not stopping the attack somehow and for letting the Governor attempt to intervene. 9. Additional cost to State of California: $75,000 to hire and train a new security agent with additional special training re: the nature of coyotes. 10. PETA protests the coyote’s relocation and files suit against the State. TEXAS: The Governor of Texas is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A Coyote jumps out, bites the Governor’s leather boot, and attacks his dog. 1. The Governor shoots the coyote with his State-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent $0.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge. 2. The buzzards eat the dead coyote. |
|
Acutally it leads to it.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 811193)
I mean, do you support mass rape, Brainy? |
But when Michael Moore does it in his "documentaries" it's okay?
And not really, the first dude is there to lobby congress to force rich people pay more in taxes, he gloats about being in the top % of the 1%...but then refuses to donate a few measely thousand dollars to the treasury, as do the others there to lobby for the same (I'm sure they know how pointless it is). Just like Warren Buffet won't pay his "fair share," but will continue to be the puppet master for these type of laws. I know the strawman ploy all too well here in my office--I've been called awful things for it. In fact, someone has gone as far as saying if they would meet me, they'd kill me and eat my dead body. It's kinda like how the media (left/right) is hating on Ron Paul for being a non-interventationist. I appreciate the Biden reference though, but I'm smart enough to know that more police doesn't = less crime. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 811340)
But when Michael Moore does it in his "documentaries" it's okay?
And not really, the first dude is there to lobby congress to force rich people pay more in taxes, he gloats about being in the top % of the 1%...but then refuses to donate a few measely thousand dollars to the treasury, as do the others there to lobby for the same (I'm sure they know how pointless it is). Just like Warren Buffet won't pay his "fair share," but will continue to be the puppet master for these type of laws. I know the strawman ploy all too well here in my office--I've been called awful things for it. In fact, someone has gone as far as saying if they would meet me, they'd kill me and eat my dead body. It's kinda like how the media (left/right) is hating on Ron Paul for being a non-interventationist. I appreciate the Biden reference though, but I'm smart enough to know that more police doesn't = less crime. *: From the same IRS document, we can see that the average tax rate for the top 400 returns was 29.93 percent in 1995 and 18.11 percent in 2008. That’s a decline of 39 percent -- for our purposes, close enough to Boxer’s claim to be accurate. |
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 811347)
Again, Brainy, it's literally logically equivalent. If you don't understand how ludicrous equating someone saying that their tax bracket is too low compared to everyone elses* to "You can donate money!"....well....
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ers-saw-incom/ which was taken from IRS tax documents. I can guarentee everyone in here pays upwards of 25% if they are in the US - the top 400 returns paid 18.11%. You do the math. I'm sure that 18.11%, plus all the other taxes they have to pay on other revenue sources is MUCH more than you and I will ever pay in taxes in our lifetimes. Again, I don't give a flying fuck how much these people pay in taxes. In fact I'd prefer it if they didn't pay a single penny. now what? Let's wait and see what happens to CA's state of affairs once they pass their millionare tax... I'll give you a hint: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...-no-income-tax …growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England. Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade. The American people have been voting with their feet, the Census Bureau announced on Tuesday, leaving states with heavy union influence and choosing to live in “right-to-work” states with higher job growth where they cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. …As a result of geographic shifts in population uncovered by the 2010 Census, nine congressional seats will move to right-to-work states from forced unionization states. Some winners are Texas, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina, while losers include New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and New Jersey. Over the past 25 years job growth in right-to-work states has been over twice as high as in unionized states. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 811347)
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ers-saw-incom/ which was taken from IRS tax documents. I can guarentee everyone in here pays upwards of 25% if they are in the US - the top 400 returns paid 18.11%. You do the math.
Second:
Originally Posted by blaen's Politifact.com article
As we’ve noted, extrapolating tax-burden patterns from the super-rich (like these 400 tax-paying units) to the merely very rich, the rich or the plain old affluent should be done with care. As the Congressional Budget Office has determined, the tax system is generally progressive, despite the lower tax rates for Buffett and his peers. The poorest one-fifth has an effective tax rate of 4.3 percent, the next fifth has a rate of 10.2 percent, the middle fifth has a rate of 14.2 percent, the second-highest has a rate of 17.6 percent, and the top fifth has a rate of 25.8 percent. And the rates keep going up the higher you climb. The top 10 percent of earners had an effective tax rate of 27.5 percent, the top 5 percent had a rate of 29 percent, and the top 1 percent had a rate of 31.2 percent.
|
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 811364)
First, what is meant by "tax rate?" Marginal or effective? I will gladly take up your challenge that everyone who posts on this site is in the 25%+ marginal bracket and I will double any wager if we switch that to effective tax burden.
Second: Secondly, sure. I could be completely wrong, but people like Joe and Brainy strike me as being in the top 20%/fifth of income in the US. Thirdly, how the fuck did YOU get negative props?!? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands