It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP Budget Proposal: Massive Tax Cut For Wealthy

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The word "DUH" comes to mind, lol.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Unfortunately, the rich will always remain rich. If we tax them more, they will simply cut back on other aspects such as new jobs, lower pay, and no new business.

I believe the republicans have it right, smaller government, lower taxes and the rich will thus spend the money to stimulate the economy.

At the end of the day, would you rather have a high paying job or a bunch of bureaucrats porking the money away into useless ventures?

reply to post by grover
 



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Can we please change the Thread Title it is DECeptive

I mean the fact that the huffington post editors chose to run with this shows you what level of intelligence they think there readers have

Grover you swung and missed on this initially but by the comments on the first couple pages so did many others....

The tax cut was across the board....and those under 100,000 will be paying
10 percent as other's have stated while those making over 100,000 get tax reduced to 25% ........okay good idea in principal and GREAT for middle class (and no i'm not a damn repub...or dem for that matter)

but tax receipts are CRASHING to the lowest levels in a very long time....massive tax cuts could lead to a huge problem funding all the obama administration's spending plans....

[edit on 26-3-2009 by cpdaman]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
So,while both parties and their masters loot the country they issue a so-called alternative budget to the upper 1% they have not yet robbed and in what way is this not theater?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
According to the Govt. I am now "Rich".

You don't like, tough crap!

I would like to know how many people making 12k a year work 60-80 hours a week. 12k is like 5.85 per hour. That is not min. wage, which in July is 7.25 per hour. That would be 31 hours per week.

Less than half the effort. Hell umemployment in my state right now is 23.4k per year. How hard is that?

Life is a Bitch, get used to it.

I've taken my licks over the years now and then, I had to pick myself up, work my butt off to get going again.

Utopia does not exist. You want everything equal? Either move to another country, or we will give you Calif. and just stay out of the rest of it.

I only mention that state as it's a good write off.

We wonder why know one will fight for our Freedom, our Constitution.

This is the problem. Entitlement. I was born, take care of me for the rest of my life.
Oh! I want a big house! Oh, I want a new SUV! and on and on and on.......

If any of you know whom Earl Pitts is on the radio, you will get this statement below.

YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK!

WAKE UP AMERICA!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


um, they already pay three times as much in taxes or so...how dare we stop robbing them for being successful? Long past due to abolish income tax entirely, anyways....this is nothing but mindless partisan bashing that has nothing to do with anything. Less taxes are always a good thing, when we are a nation that is overtaxed to an outrageous extent.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




Reagan had 8years to clean the mess but instead he tripled the debt that Carter left. Obama has been in office for just over two months, not close a year inheriting something much bigger than what Reagan inherited and already you folks usher his term a faliure.


By the end of Reagan's terms he managed to lower inflation and interest rates through his economic policies. Reagan was a Keynesian just like Obama and the presidents before him. Carter also hit a record high national debt before Reagan got into office.

If you are complaining about Reagan tripling the national debt, then why aren't you opposed to it because Obama is doing it? Obama is doing the same thing that Reagan did trying to spend our way out of this mess. Obama has also almost tripled the national deficit within his first 2 months and is on pace to triple the national debt.



Is this hypocrisy, or watching ones partisan line? I dont know you are the only one that can answer that.


I'll get to this is a second.




You mean the 1979 energy crises? The one that could be traced back to the price controls on domestic oil implemented by the Nixon(R) administration? The 1979 crises that was influenced greatly by the Iranian revution? What because Carter didnt "liberate" Iran like good ol' Bushy boy its all on him? How about the fact towards the end of Carters administration the energy crises began to decrease and continued so. Reagan didnt to squat but play the president nicely. He was an actor.


Nixon's failed economic policies might have made things bad, but Carter didn't start to repeal the price controls until the Iranian Revolution began to take place which started the Energy Crisis in 1979 Reagan finally finished removing all price controls.

Carter didn't have to do anything but back the Shaw, but he didn't instead he let the Iranians have a revolution and then they subsequently raided the US Embassy in Iran and held 70 Americans captive for 444 days. Something that could have completely been avoided.

Reagan finished removing pricing controls and freed the Hostages. I wouldn't exactly call that "not doing squat."




BS. 99% of the threads from conservative ATSers revolve around those darn "elite liberals" and those pesky dems. The only we hear of any criticism of republicans here is when your trying to sound impartial while bashing liberals. Seriously Id like to see a thread about republicans only by you folks, and you know who you are.

This has alot to do with dem, republican or ideology in general. Its a daily troll with you folks.


I'll get back to this is just a second.




Which was there on started by Truman. Mind you I do admire truman, one of the only true moderate conservatives, but he got the US into the war against the sub-neutrality foreign policies of the conservative platform.


Ok, so who injecting partisan politics into this now?

I believe it was Mental Modulator when he said we did just fine in the 50's and I pointed out we had TWO recessions. I didn't say anything about Democrat or Republican until Mental Modulator came along and injected partisan politics into it. Then you came along and injected even more partisan politics into it. You must have not read the whole thread.

And who is being the hypocrite? Obama is doing the same thing that Reagan did. So where is your outrage?

I'm for low taxes, small government, and freedom. I've said that before. Reagan expanded government but boosted spending. Obama is going to raise taxes on just the "rich" and dramatically increase spending.

They really don't look that much different. Or maybe it was because Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican, he left the Democrats because they don't do what they say the stand for.

I'm not a Keynesian and actually think it is a bunch of bologna. Obama is just towing the status quo and hasn't done anything except spend a bunch of money and weaken our position in the world.

I would actually like to see some real change, and to continue the class warfare bull crap, is doing nothing but diverting our attention away from the real issues.

So, no please give me a break.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
If you are complaining about Reagan tripling the national debt, then why aren't you opposed to it because Obama is doing it?


Government spending is whats keep this nation above ground and pushing it upwards. The stimulus is to invest in america and if you dont agree with that its all dandy, neither would it make difference to your attitude if Obama didnt do anything, infact if he did nothing as many preach, he would be more demonized. Its a catch 22 with you fellas. Theres no winning.

Obama has his term to go (or two) so come back to me then as to how far his debt went. Atleast by then we will actually know, as opposing to basing assumptions over his entire term yet to come.


Obama is doing the same thing that Reagan did trying to spend our way out of this mess. Obama has also almost tripled the national deficit within his first 2 months and is on pace to triple the national debt.


This decades record breaking economic crises dramatically increased a mere 5 months ago and no solution was going to stop it in its tracks within a period of afew months. The Obama administration came into a skyrocketing economic crises and it will take any solution a while to show any improvement in this economy. It took a while to get this mess to where it is, it will take a while to see any improvments, regardless.



Nixon's failed economic policies might have made things bad, but Carter didn't start to repeal the price controls until the Iranian Revolution began to take place which started the Energy Crisis in 1979 Reagan finally finished removing all price controls.


So you admit the Carter excuse is inaccurate? I hope you know what your admitting here. The 1970s mess can be traced back to the Nixon and Ford administrations, thats why Ford lost his second term run. Carter had his hand in this mess, but so did Ford and Nixon. Fringers always single out Carter because of the "D" and you know what, I dont mind calling yall out for that. As for Reagan he tripled the debt. Thats that. He had 8years and he tripled the debt. Conservatives should cut idolizing the man and making attempts to demonize Carter only without seeing the full picture.


Carter didn't have to do anything but back the Shaw, but he didn't instead he let the Iranians have a revolution and then they subsequently raided the US Embassy in Iran and held 70 Americans captive for 444 days. Something that could have completely been avoided.


It didnt matter what Carter did, that was an issue of Iran, we had no business in that revolution or any business in any other nation. We are not the police of the world and we should always make sure we preach democracy only, not support one dictatorship regime after the other if it benefits us with black gold. If we have to suffer thats fine, so long an we remain a non-global police state and so long as we continue to stick by democracy. If you thought he should have used military intervention, well look at Iraq. We have no business there.

As for the hostages that happened because we interfered in the business of Iran and other middle nations for too long, and you know what we continue to do so, and in turn we continue to see americans suffer because of it, and you folks continue to support it. We are not the world police, we have no business in the matters of other nations. We should not have any business.


Reagan finished removing pricing controls and freed the Hostages. I wouldn't exactly call that "not doing squat."


Any president would have gotten those hostages released. Those hostages would have been held for some time and then eventually released from some deal from any president. The islamist Iranians were putting on a show by hold them for that long.

So long as you contine to play partisan politics I will continue to call you out for it. If you dont want to play partisan politics then just simply stop.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




Government spending is whats keep this nation above ground and pushing it upwards.


I'm just going to say this, if you truly believe that then I have a bridge to sell you. There is no point is going any further to debate you. It's just a bunch of irrational hypocritical dribble.

I hate to break it to you, but you are notorious for sticking up for Obama and the democrats. I've always said it is both the D's and the R's fault. Think about that before you go jumping into the back end of debates and start accusing people of partisan politics. That is what is called a hypocrite. Everything you have accused me of fits you to a T. From now on I'm going to call you out on your hypocrisy and partisan politics.

Back on topic.

The tax issue is just another tool politicians use to turn your attention away from what is really going on. Classic distraction. It is also a way to control business and people. Simple as that.

If you can't see it for what it is, then I don't know what to tell you. You're being manipulated and used. It's as simple as that.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
A person making $12,000 a year feels it far more than someone making $12,000,000.


No, that's not right. Given the "standard deduction" and "personal exemption," the tax on $12,000 is $0. Moreover, the "earned income credit" would result in a REFUND up to $3,500.00.

No details of the 10%/25% program have been released, so the rest is only speculation.

As it stands, up to 50% of wage earners under BHO's proposal would pay no tax whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If there are tax cuts then they should be made proportionately. If 'rich' people pay 35% in taxes and 'poor' people pay 20%, then the bigger percentage of the tax cut should go to the one paying the most.


That argument doesn't wash... no matter how you cut it taxes effect those making the least the most.

A person making $12,000 a year feels it far more than someone making $12,000,000.


Spoken like a true pleb.

Someone who makes 300k a year, who makes payments on a 2.1 million dollar home, feels taxes just as much - actually MORE because of the higher taxes - compared to a person making 30k a year, who makes payments on a 210k home.

It's all about scale, and the fact is that "rich" people, who live at the same scale as "poor", pay a greater ratio of tax.

Poor guy makes $400 a week, and buys a $6 fast food meal (1.5% of weekly income)

Rich guy makes $4000 a week, and buys a $60 dollar meal... same thing.

1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 = 1500/3000.. It's all equivalent.

People always ask how millionaires can go bankrupt.. well, the same way as not-rich people. They make bad financial decisions. Rich people just make their decisions on a larger scale.

... and most rich people don't eat regularly at cheap fast food joints. Should you expect them to? Do you want them to, so that you can have a point?

No matter if the rich make their money or inherit it, a flat tax is the only fair tax.

Don't hate the rich because they live scales above you.

Don't hate the rich because they can enjoy a $600 dollar bottle of wine, while the poor suffer on $6 boxed wine.

What else is there to do with "all that money"?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
What's wrong with giving cuts to those who have worked hard and earned their money [except for those that inherited it...like paris hilton] why must we always insight classism and hatred of the upper class? I don't think it is far to over tax them, as they will move their money and investments elsewhere.
Also what is wrong with everyone making under 100k paying a flat rate of 10%?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover


Other than the tax proposal, however, the plan was absent any details.


More proof if any further was needed that the GOP has become totally clueless.

When are they going to realize that people just don't buy it anymore? Its the average Joe... the you and me that is hurting and needs tax relief... for someone for whom it would actually mean something as opposed to giving it to someone who probably wouldn't notice one way or the other... and still they expect us to buy the old, tired lie called tricked down economics.

You can only slash income i.e. taxes so far before the system begins to break down...

... Where the hell do these fools think the money for their earmarks and their favorite hobby, war comes from?

The Easter bunny?

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26-3-2009 by grover]


You obviously don't know much about economics or that "the rich" already carry the load for you and practically everyone below them. That includes me as well, so let's forget even discussing that.

Are you in favor of discrimination? Just how much money do you think the government has a legitimate claim to from a person? WHAT PERCENTAGE? 10? 20? 30? 40? 50? 90?

I support a FLAT TAX, period, with no deductions. Why should anyone be punished for being successful? Why should the government say "If you earn $200,000, we're going to take 20% of your money! If you dare earn $250,000 then we're going to take 35%! Ha!".

Yeah, way to reward hard work and ingenuity! Brilliant!

It's not IF, but WHEN, and WHEN this country crashes economically it will ultimately be for one reason - the golden goose was killed. You can only have producers pay the way for the non-producers for so long before the entire system crashes. Enjoy the free ride while you can.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
*Beats head against wall* Republicans, cutting taxes didn't work for 8 years. It caused this mess. Do you really want a Great Depression Sequel?

Second, you spent TRILLIONS on Iraq with no problem. In fact when the Dems balked at spending trillions on Halliburton profits you claimed they were anti American. Now that the Dems want to spend that same money ON AMERICA? Spending is anti American.

Third, is there any way we can have a transparent label appear over any and all posts by republicans that say "I Hate America" so every one knows they are partisan hacks that want America to fail like Boss Limbaugh calls for?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JMasters
*Beats head against wall* Republicans, cutting taxes didn't work for 8 years. It caused this mess. Do you really want a Great Depression Sequel?

Second, you spent TRILLIONS on Iraq with no problem. In fact when the Dems balked at spending trillions on Halliburton profits you claimed they were anti American. Now that the Dems want to spend that same money ON AMERICA? Spending is anti American.

Third, is there any way we can have a transparent label appear over any and all posts by republicans that say "I Hate America" so every one knows they are partisan hacks that want America to fail like Boss Limbaugh calls for?


Tax cuts did NOT cause this mess. Quit quoting democratic talking points and look up a few facts. We had a recession going when Bush took office and then we got hit by 9/11 - a double whammy. He said tax cuts will stimulate the economy. I would say 51 straight months of job growth (a USA record) backed him up. The "mess" we are in is because of too much credit going to too many people who should not have had it. Bush bears some blame there, but it's the democrats who were pushing for years to have banks make more and more risky loans. Now, the democrats like Bawny Fwank want to shrug their shoulders and say "who, me?"

You are intentionally lying when you say "Boss Limbaugh" wants "America to fail". Rush has made it EXTREMELY clear that he wants America to succeed, and the only way it has a chance is if Obama's Socialist wet dreams are defeated.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GLDNGUN
 


Boss Limbaugh is recorded saying he wants America to fail.

Tax Breaks for the rich caused this mess.

Claiming spending trillions on Halliburton, Exxon, and banks is good for America, but spending the same money on the American people is bad is partisan hackery.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Oh yea, the roaring 80's where Reagan was combating record high inflation, record high interest rates a recession, and then had the Savings and Loan crisis in 1987. Most of which was caused by Carter. Reagan was also dealing with the energy crisis when he took office also, Which was also caused by Carter.

Don't make this into a democrat republican thing because neither of them have a good track record of implementing conservative principles or sticking up for the people.

The 50's recession had nothing to do with paying off war debt, it was false highs brought on from the Korean War. It also had to do with the Fed Reserve tightening monetary supply to combat inflation because of Korean War spending.

Read this link

The fact is we are all about to get taxed into a oblivion to pay for Obama's all the money Obama wants to spend. If the republican tax plan got implemented it would work out for everybody.


What do you mean the 50's had nothing to do with paying off world war II debt?
You think resources on that scale came for free? We (government) had to feed millions
upon millions of people, pay for ten of millions of weapons, and on and on.

Nevermind all that, a better point is the comparing economic health of the 50's and 80's.
Reagan's policies were hardly spend thrift, or economically conservative.
189% increase in GND PGNI... COME ON, you hardly have a good model to reference with that figure. SO I ask you, why did you use such an example??? Why do people equate responsible spending by naming the REAGAN PRESIDENCY? REALLY?

THE point of Obamas spending is two fold, to extend his agenda and to create commerce. I think alot of you forget some of us voted for healthcare reform (change) and we voted for it on PURPOSE with intent by electing OBAMA.Thats what so many of you miss and are missing in the equation.

I think our country needs to invest in energy and infrastructure. I also believe that the disparity of wealth in AMERICA is out of control, thats how I see. YOU see I believe that when so few posses so many resources, resources and capital on par with nations that a danger to freedom exists. IS it not obvious the influence of concentrated pockets of money? AS it is many righties and libertarians fear OBAMA and his
allegiance the PTB and NWO entities, yet, yet they promote and side with economic policies that benefit the NWO and PTB.

STILL...

Who do you think has benefited from the REAGAN era/GWB policies? I'm sure you are aware the top 1% has experienced a sharper incline of growth then any other time in history. SO WHY on EARTH are you all so concerned with the a sector of the economy that is swimming in money?

OUR countries middle class is evaporating and the money is going UP faster then. The lower class is growing which does not indicate an influx of money to the bottom. THE STRENGTH of AMERICA has always been the ability to work hard, get paid well and spend money on products, which inturn, maintained others livelihoods. However in this time were top %1 TAX rates have been low historically speaking people are drowning in necessary expenses - GAS,FOOD,ENERGY,HEALTHCARE, MEDICATION, INSURANCE...


ONCE AGAIN TOP EARNERS HAVE DO VERY WELL, PER all available stats.


SO logically - ideology aside, if people are getting the screw, the middle class is shrinking and times have been FINANCIAL FRUITFUL to the HIGHER earners,
WHY DO YOU EQUATE GIVING A STEEPER BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE WEALTHY as a solution? Especially when such policies have not been beneficial to the economic health of OUR COUNTRY thus far?

When you have people who cannot find employment, receive dignified healthcare or pay for decent education a grand society has a problem.

You see I am flexible - in the MEGA wealthy were dying out and going poor I would have no problem changing my position, but thats not the case at all. My lefty, liberal POV informs me that if there is a imbalance and a growing disparity it needs to be addressed, with measure, nuance and care. OUR jobs are flying off the shelfs, our industry is drying, the quality of goods is crumbling and are economy is shifting faster and faster to the few. RED FLAG for me - once again I believe the government is the great equalizer - government should be used in a flexible and reactive manner.

THE GOPS response of massive tax cuts for the wealthy was done 2 time under GWB.
In one instance reallocating $1,000,000,000.00 - to the wealthy - A TRILLION DOLLARS
sir - in the last decade. HOW IS THAT WORKING?



[edit on 27-3-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




Reagan had 8years to clean the mess but instead he tripled the debt that Carter left. Obama has been in office for just over two months, not close a year inheriting something much bigger than what Reagan inherited and already you folks usher his term a faliure.


By the end of Reagan's terms he managed to lower inflation and interest rates through his economic policies. Reagan was a Keynesian just like Obama and the presidents before him. Carter also hit a record high national debt before Reagan got into office.



EXCUSE me but the CARTER DEBT is hardly in the same league as RR...

LETS once again refer to # numbers - real numbers which represent reality and a method of interpreting information from such figures...

Please note CARTER and then RR... 10% increases for JIMMY and 15% - 17% for RON.




12/31/1977 CARTER $ 718,943,000,000 10% $2,030,900,000,000 35.4%
12/31/1978 CARTER $ 789,207,000,000 10% $2,294,700,000,000 34.4%
12/31/1979 CARTER $ 845,116,000,000 7% $2,563,300,000,000 33.0%
12/31/1980 CARTER $ 930,210,000,000 10% 42% 10.6% $2,789,500,000,000 33.3%
12/31/1981 REAGAN $ 1,028,729,000,000 11% $3,128,400,000,000 32.9%
12/31/1982 REAGAN $ 1,197,073,000,000 16% $3,255,000,000,000 36.8%
12/31/1983 REAGAN $ 1,410,702,000,000 18% $3,536,700,000,000 39.9%
12/31/1984 REAGAN $ 1,662,966,000,000 18% $3,933,200,000,000 42.3%
12/31/1985 REAGAN $ 1,945,912,000,000 17% $4,220,300,000,000 46.1%
12/31/1986 REAGAN $ 2,214,835,000,000 14% $4,462,800,000,000 49.6%
12/31/1987 REAGAN $ 2,431,715,000,000 10% $4,739,500,000,000 51.3%
12/31/1988 REAGAN $ 2,684,392,000,000 10% 189% 23.6% $5,103,800,000,000 52.6%


Anyhow you inadvertently claim a political neutrality, yet you seem to defend RIGHT TENETS and ideology a whole bunch.

YOU see I think you believe there is a way to govern this country in a CORRECT FASHION as the constitution proclaims... But what does thats mean? Do you think your interpretation lines up with mine, or SG'S or EVEN DAVID 1976 - 2 the T?


You forget a few of us have been on the threads since the primaries,

I have read sooooooooooooo much disgusting fallacious BS directed towards OBAMA over the years that I see a very clear pattern of shotgun turd toss off.

A MAJORITY of those kicking OBAMAS head day after day here have been doing it for well over a year. Needless to say I have heard "wolf" hundreds of times here - IN a REPUBLIC of our nature the government is not stationary in its policies, People voted for OBAMA - Obama raises taxes of the RICH - thats how it is, for right now...



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


That's a lie. Regardless of whether they get all their taxes refunded at the end of the year... it is still taken out from every paycheck along with FICA and state taxes and so yes they pay taxes... call it a loan if you will but it still comes out of our paychecks...

PLUS we only get the standard deduction... not all the fancy ones the wealthy take advantage of to pay even less.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by grover]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I'm just going to say this, if you truly believe that then I have a bridge to sell you. There is no point is going any further to debate you.


If you dont want to debate anymore thats fine. Only shows you have have no more excuses left in the bag.


I hate to break it to you, but you are notorious for sticking up for Obama and the democrats.


I support Obama, my ideological beliefs lie more closely with the Democrats. Maybe you folks should come out and admit your parading of Bush over the last 8years. Maybe yall should admit your republicans?! Maybe the fringers should be more upfront about where they stand, instead of being deceptive as to formulate their trolling threads to suit their arguments.


I've always said it is both the D's and the R's fault.


BS. You are one of a group of members here who will spend 99% of their time bashing liberals and democrats, laying 99% of the mess on them. The only time you implicate republicans is when you try to sound impartial in an argument like this. I dont buy it. You folks have it in for the republicans and you had it in for Bush until he messed up and you folks decided to distance yourselves from him.


Think about that before you go jumping into the back end of debates and start accusing people of partisan politics.


Until you stop the partisan politics Ill stop calling you out and questioning your accusations.


The tax issue is just another tool politicians use to turn your attention away from what is really going on. Classic distraction. It is also a way to control business and people. Simple as that.


Oh then whats reaalllly going on eh? A bunch of fat men sitting round a table with the world map in the backround plotting global domination? Really is this regarding the NWO? One world government? Another fringer conspiracy? I see a pattern here with you folks. Whenever your cornered in a debate you go off topic into this NWO garbage, as if the "supposed bigger picture" justifies your argument.


If you can't see it for what it is, then I don't know what to tell you. You're being manipulated and used. It's as simple as that.


The disinformation agents are using you with these fringe conspiracies. What a better way to convert attention than to sweep up the mess of the prior imperialist administration and to put in place a bunch of propaganda implicating the new administration in some conspiracy. No no continue as you are Hasto. What will your next excuse be? Thats what Im asking myself at the moment.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Southern Guardian]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join