Metal Reviews

Since when does Obama's intellectual abilities have anything to do with his fuckups on domestic and foreign policy? By your assessment Bush is intellectually inferior, yet as Obama has been in office for a while now, I don't see much difference largely on many issues other than both represent massive government on an unconstitutional level. Trump is as much of a joke as the torrent of idiots who will vote for Obozo in 2012 thereby assuring an even worse deficit, less civil liberties, and more of the same big government bs

I was a Kucinich guy myself. Ohio represent! But when the vote came down between McCain and Obama obv he was the best of the only two viable options.
What I call valid criticism is exactly what is not the nonsense spouted by Fox, and would be more of the criticisms you listed and which I could list myself. Why would I ever put Fox and valid in the same sentence given my knowledge of basic logic? If anyone knows what he has fucked up on more, it is the people he has disappointed. Politics just isn't about elections for me anymore and Obama is just a defense against the complete repeal of civil rights like abortion and free speech which are obviously hindered so deeply yet I wouldn't expect a candidate from the right would be aligning themselves on my beliefs on those subjects better than Obama.
My point fucking exactly! What does it matter what his grades were?
And a candidate from the right is going to solve those issues by cutting funding for necessary programs? Privatize. That always solves things. And the civil liberties comment being referred to a party which is outright against abortion and protest is laughable.

Judging by how much shilling your doing in defense of Obozo, it racks the brain to imagine your counterpoint of beng "critical" of him. Bush was torn to shreds and for good reason, yet on the same levelthe same vitriol from the left, has been virtually nonexistent. Save from a few "harsh" words from hacks like Ed Schultz, and Cenk Uygur, and that man Rachel Maddow. Let's face it the networks aren't critical of him as much as they were of Dubya

They did the same to Bush, his drinking, his grades, his own brand of AA being responsible for his higher education ( Poppies legacy and influence), his gaffes, calling his presidncy into question (stolen election), saying that he and his cabal were behind 911, etc... even his family were called into play, i.e., the Bush girls' drinking, Laura's running over some dude way back in the 60's or whenever it was... only difference was that back then comparing Bush to a chimp wasn't "racist" like it is today.
Yeah Fox is critical of Obama, but what about the AP, Reuters, Yahoo, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, HLN, etc etc...?


All of a sudden those same drones that hounded W are saying we need to respect the office of the president and behave in a civil manner. The same ones that were against going into Iraq are the same ones saying that Kadaffy's gotta go (regime change, anyone?). The same ones that blamed Bush for the crazy gas prices are the ones hat are attributing the even higher prices at the pump to anything and everytjhing but Zero. Etc.
Whatever happened to the daily death count in Iraq / Afghanistan?
All of a sudden they aren't plastered across the front page anymore... are we not still losing our young men and women in the ME? No more Gitmo editorials?
It's a joke, though not funny.

My criticism of him is for not being left enough. I don't imagine that would exactly fly here and hence don't say it. My facebook feed is booked with socialists pissed about Obama.

Unfortunately Trapt, as much as some of the integral programs are necessary most have to be cut to avert a catastrophe. We are in a massive debt you know, and unless you want our children to foot the bill sacrifices have to be made temporarily. I'm no fan of it either, but our friends on the right have done some good in putting Obozos feet to the fire, granted more has to be done in order to prevent a total collapse. No one on the left seems to understand this

Yeah, and those people would spend so much on a nanny state, we woudlve run ourselves into the ground long ago. Everything with moderation in the state, I'm not for a nanny state by any means, some social programs are quite good for individuals and families who need them to get on their feet, not useless leeches that are partially responsible for their horrid utilization. Socialists make the assumption of the states infallibility, which is not historically accurate as government is in and of itself inefficient without good MODERATES

Oh my fucking god, talk about talking points. Plea to common knowledge, citing my children's struggling as if the right would establish a utopia for my children by privatizing benefits to companies which would love to hike prices, "temporarily" as if these programs which will be cut will be able to be so easily reinstated, thanks for siding with me though and threatening "total collapse" if drastic cuts aren't made.

Before you cut programs which help the most of us, why not cut a program which helps the wealthy so much called fucking tax breaks. Let's go back to the tax bracket of the 1950s when America was all "a chicken in every pot and apple pie". I'd love for that to be proposed but the nostalgia the right has for the past is for one they've invented, not the one we actually had. How you pay back a deficit in this global economy is to take in more revenue, not cut spending. We can not expect that our governmental revenue will be so great indefinitely that simply cutting spending will leave us so much extra money. We need more revenue and if the right proposed increasing taxes, on the rich not on everyone else, and eliminating tax breaks then maybe the left would concede more in terms of cutting spending. Both have to be done but ultimately privatization is not the answer.

Left =/= a large state. The left associates with anarchists. Anarchists historically weren't on the right until Ron Paul fans started popping up. Regulations and social programs can be kept to a minimum while still promoting the common good or being entirely eviscerated. The fact is that they need to be funded properly rather than political battlegrounds which only hinder their smooth running.

Ron Paul is libertarian / minarchist... anarchy is as bad as socialism.

Talk about talking points... you do realize that the tax breaks that were extended were across the board, right?
As for taxing the rich... we've been over this before.
They pay the vast, vast, VAST majority of all tax already... the poor pay next to nothing as it is, yet receive all the benefits from the programs they DON'T pay for. Do you send more than you are required to Uncle Sam? You DO have that option, you know.
Do I need to break out the charts and graphs again?

BTW, everything Steve stated is 100% correct, which is why I supect you attempted to marginalize those facts as "talking points" in lieu of actually, you know, refuting them.

Isn't this the point of taxation?

Scare tactics nothing more.

The rich do not pay the majority of taxes. Does my point become less valid because I don't have excess income to send to the government? Taxation supplements what businesses don't pay their employees and contribute to the smooth running of our society insofar as we have a surplus population and taking care of them reduces crime and provides them a decent standard of living.

Could have fooled me. Your blind sense of perception on what is going on is really a sad state.

Seriously if you don't know what's going on around you then my friend you're the idiot.

Enjoy being the sheep in the blind man's herd.

Not necesarilly. Taxes are meant to be used for many things.

The point is, how can you give a tax break to someone that doesn't pay them to begin with, or at least pays so little that they may as well not, for all intents and purposes?
And why on earth should a bracket that pays 70% of all tax pay more? You have something like 10% of the population paying 70% of all tax already. They are already paying their share; it's not their fault the government is corrupt, blind and / or incompetent, so why should they be punished?
There are too many people that believe the role of government is to take care of them.
It is a mindest that is quite honestly, nauseating.

Another bald faced lie.
You, sir, are a liar.
And I am saying so.

•The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.


•The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.


•The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.


•The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.


•The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.


•The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10winbulinincome.pdf

Income taxes do not account for all individual taxes. Lets put all the cards on the table, shall we?

Nonsense! You can't just say left = anarchism and right = statism, or vice versa, since you get examples of both on both sides, as you well know. And Ron Paul was definitely not the first small-stater who was not also a Marxist.

Elaborate, please.