Ah, so one could say that Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac are not responsible for what happens but the employees who worked there? Talk about dumb logic. Don't blame the company, blame the employees who work for the company.

you rly didnt read about ACORN did you? ACORN hired ppl in Nevada, ppl who ordinarily wouldn have much more to do w/ politics than anybody else. most of those employees turned in documents that were just fine. but some werent so honest (probably bcause if they didnt turn in enough documents they wouldnt b paid) the officials from ACORN who received the documents werent fooled & checked them out. the ones that proved to b false were flagged & not meant to b taken seriously. but some politicians who didnt like ACORN used that as an excuse to raid them. the exects behind Fannie & Freddie can b held responsible bcause they did nothing to stop al the bad deals. they were fully capable of dealing with it, but they didnt. ACORN wouldnt have let the fake registration affect the election. & as for "dumb logic", how dumb is it to call some1 crazy for standing up for the amazing achievements of an individual? especially 1 who is so well known.

That right there says it all. ACORN hired, they did not pass themselves as ACORN,they were ACORN employees. Leave it to me to believe a company should be to blame for the stupidities of it's employees.

So tell me then, if what you say is true then why is Florida man sueing a stripclub for an accident caused buy on of the strippers?

Link

Um...yeah, Obama's the one throwing the most mud atm, not McCain!

So if I'm reading the article right, Obama's 'nonsense' is to simply to say he'll cut taxes for 95% of people, instead of saying he'll benefit 95% of people (via benefits+tax cuts)? Doesn't exactly sound like a terrible illusion to me. Also while the article made a valid point wrt the marginal rates of tax faced (when factoring in benefits), it would've been nice if they could have given more than the one graph (since the graph they used was for a very specific group of people/households).

There is a fine line between genius and insanity, and it can certainly be argued that Hitler showed some of the former (and of course plenty of the latter). Getting parliament to vote itself out of existence, for example; managing to take Germany from a shell of a country, and practically take over most of the world (had it not been for the insanity that crept in, he would have likely succeeded); In fact managing to convince his neighbours to just sit tight while he broke the treaty of Versailles, and then to start letting him take over neighbours and even handing over parts of their country on a silver platter (e.g. Chechoslovakia) was a remarkable achievement. Meanwhile then being able to obliterate the more powerful countries in days or weeks, such as the French who had spent a fortune on building a defensive line with the sole purpose of protecting from a future German attack, again an achievement not to be sniffed at. Just because someone is evil/insane etc. doesn't mean that they can't have achieved anything worthy of recognition, and it also doesn't mean that someone who might recognise such actions is crazy (just that they're not politically correct). Of course if they started praising Hitler for everything he did, or for his policies towards Jews+other minorities, then that would be another matter entirely!

obama's tax cut redifine the meaning of CUT... the government sends you a check even if you don't pay taxes, it is a welfare program for non tax payers hidden as a "cut". And yes, obama is slinging tons of mud. And obama intends to fund his "tax cuts" by increasing taxes... now he calls it on the "rich"... but small business that make under 250K a year tend to be a single guy working under a business name, aka, self employment.

Take a small business that has an excellent 100% profit per item sold...

So they make 250K a year, that means 125K is spent on buying the stock they sell... than you have the renting of a store, lets say a modest 36k, then there have a bunch of taxes and administrative expenses... and then there is barely anything left to pay even a single employee, much less making the owner RICH.

How does CharlesCS qualify a bad background and policies that are dangerous? You need to give us some proof of this. Personally I think Charles is like a bad journalist---he does not check his sources. And HE called me a hypocrite!

the answer is simple, he was in the strip club at the time, & the stripper probably wouldnt have all the money he wanted readily available. or he coulve wanted an excuse to sue the strip club. or mayb during the whole economic crisis, he found a way to get some extra cash & decided to go for it. no matter what the reason, it was the strip clubs responsibility bcause that man was injured on their property, by their stuff, during 1 of their shows. now lets say that an employee at walmart puts on his vest & during his shift he robbed a bank. according to your logic, walmart would owe that bank however much their employee stole. in reality, the employee is liable, not walmart. thats bcause the employee willfully comitted the crime & walmart did not order him to or threaten him into doing it. as for ACORN, they didnt order their employees to create fake documents nor did they threaten them into doing it. teh employees did it themselves by their choice, & therefore, are reasponsible for it.

in the words of a certain Floridan paramedic, "I can't believe you even called us for this!"

Actually I'd imagine that to make walmart liable you'd just need to prove that the employee was acting to further walmart (their employer)'s interests, regardless of whether it was authorised or not. In fact even if an employee does something that their employer has specifically told them not to do, the employer could still be held liable by the person who suffers damage, providing they can show that.

Just because you didn't order an employee to do something, doesn't mean you're not responsible. If failings in your management have resulted in wrongful/illegal action taking place by your employees, that is a failing of your organisation, and hence you have some responsibility. Furthermore, referring back to the previous point, if those employees are acting in the organisations interests, again that organisation can be held responsible for the employees actions. So, a milkman who hires a child to do some of their work for them against instructions from their employer could result in the employer being held liable (since the milkman is undertaking that action for the benefit of the employer), while a miner who decides to light up a cigarrette by a mine (+causes an explosion that destroys a nearby home) probably wouldn't cause his employer to be liable (as lighting a cigarrette wouldn't have been in the employers interests).

As I mentioned elsewhere, Obama is almost certainly talking about profit not turnover. I.e. expenses such as purchasing stock, paying rent on your shop space, and hiring employees, would be taken off your turnover before determining tax.

A couple buy a home, in their twilight years decide to sell the home, and low and behold it's now worth $500K. The sale is reported as income and taxed (along with what ever money they earned for the year) at 38% tax rate. That's where their hard earned cash goes when they need it most. That's Obama's plan (repeal capital gains tax exclusion). This couple would need to have massive medical issue to recoup the tax disadvantage. Then the government would get another chunk because of the inheritance tax, if this couple was foolish enough to save money for their children's future.

Here's another example. I have a mutual fund. It earned $1000 this year in dividends , which are distributed back into the fund. Sounds great. The mutual fund that was worth $17k at the beginning of the year, is now worth $8k. But our righteous government just sees that 1000 bucks as earnings, it doesn't matter if I never touched it, or even if my mutual fund is worthless. Obama wants to raises the capital gains tax. The little guy don't know it yet. Sometime in the future they may not be rich but they will come into some money, through the sale of a home, inheritance, or a capital gain or any size. That's when the light will come on, but it will be too late then. They will have forgotten where the source of their loss came from. Who remembers President Kennedy for implementing the taxation of individual savings? Obama is going to get taxes you now or get them later...if your middle-class or not. 

I am not sure what you are taklking about adnau. Please elaborate.

Thank you for proving my point. Fraud done with ACORN employees, on ACORN supplied paperwork, during ACORN working hours (just because this kind of work does not have an office with it does not mean ACORN is not responsible). If you can prove to me that these people had nothing to do with ACORN directly, I will take back my comments. Otherwise, you will have to tell the FBI otherwise.

there is also the assumption that there was no higher up in ACORN directing this sort of thing under the table. which is nearly impossible to know.

you forgot to add "corrected by ACORN" they did flag the paper work & did not intend to take it seriously. they probably wouldve thrown it out if that wasnt illegal. Still, lets assume that officials from ACORN intended to create fradulent registration, they still only have limited connection to Barack Obama, years ago he worked up in chicago for them & some time later as a laywer. So far there hasnt been any real proof that hes doing much more w/ ACORN now than before, so whats the connection? why is it assumed that Obama automaticaly had a hand in it?

IN december 2007 he addressed a convention of Nuts - er ACORN members - and promised them a portion of the pie in his administration.

Not 10 years ago.  Not history. While he was running for president.  I think that kind of trumps his denials.

I saw the video of that, too.  He left no room for doubt.

finally found that obama acorn movie you mentioned. Pretty scary stuff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU&feature=related

Here he speaks before ACORN, an organization that uses intimidation tactics against bankers, that pressured clinton for loosening the regulations on giving bad loans, and that is currently under federal investigation for massive voter fraud (they register fake people as voters and use them to vote, in large quantities).
This is in 2007, barac has been a leader in acorn, started straight out of law school, sued citi bank, got quickly promoted, help train many acorn leaders, and has made many promises to acorn in regards to his presidency.

I see a video after video of obama cavorting with criminals, how come there are none of mccain?