Obama v. McCain Rd. 3

[Waterston_Fan]

THis is boring!!!

[Dr. John Becker]

Pretty much the same things they said during the last two debates.

[Hollow]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. i was all excited for the dr. phil episode about that suicide thing, and then i turn on the tv and see john mccain's ugly stupid fat ass chipmunk face.
ps. don't anyone bitch at me about how the election is more important. it's my right to be disappointed about missing the doc.

[platinumblondelife]

[I am Roboto]

Originally Posted by Dr. John Becker

Pretty much the same things they said during the last two debates.

I haven't seen gotten around to watching the second debate yet, but imo this was McCain's best performance.

I was surprised to hear Brit Hume & the gang acting like he sucked afterwards. I mean, I know I'm a biased partisan as a McCain supporter, but didn't any of you all think it was a good performance?

[platinumblondelife]

Originally Posted by I am Roboto

I haven't seen gotten around to watching the second debate yet, but imo this was McCain's best performance.

I was surprised to hear Brit Hume & the gang acting like he sucked afterwards. I mean, I know I'm a biased partisan as a McCain supporter, but didn't any of you all think it was a good performance?

Nope.

The split screen killed him; he looked like a grumpy old man making weird facial contortions. He also kept rolling his eyes, snorting and interrupting.

Independents and undecideds chose Obama over McCain overwhelmingly post-debate. Like someone said, I think a lot of what McCain said was speaking more to the people who read townhall.com with terms like "pro-abortion lobby" than undecideds and indies unhappy with Bush and are mostly pro-choice....

[LuLu Rogers]

I think McCain did very well, it's about time someone revealed what a liar Obama is

[Janice]

McCain did fine. He's an articulate and experienced person. I thought the debate was interesting.

[Tweety]

McCain wiped the floor with Obama in terms of substance.

Obama showed he hasn't the foggiest notion as to what a "small business" is.
He might want to check with the Small Business Administration.

Obama said that "98% of small businesses out there make less than $250,000". That's an absurd statement.

http://www.sba.gov/services/contract...aqs/index.html


Q. How does the SBA define a small business?

A. A small business is an concern that is organized for profit, with a place of business in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor. Further, the concern cannot be dominant in its field, on a national basis. Finally, the concern must meet the numerical small business size standard for its industry. SBA has established a size standard for most industries in the U.S. economy. The most common size standards are as follow:

500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries

100 employees for all wholesale trade industries

$7.0 million for most retail and service industries

$33.5 million for most general & heavy construction industries

$14.0 million for all special trade contractors

$0.75 million for most agricultural industries

About one-fourth of industries have a size standard that is different from these levels. They vary from $0.75 million to $33.5 million for size standards based on average annual revenues and from 100 to 1500 employees for size standards based on number of employees.



A complete listing of size standards is available at:

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public...d_tablepdf.pdf

This loads immediately as a PDF file.


The other way to look at this, if you work for someone that owns a small business, is to simply take your salary, multiply it by the number of other employees (other than the owner) and see what you come up with in terms of just salary expense.

Then figure that the owner is gonna be making a bit more than you are.

Then consider that there's still bills to pay... there's insurance on the building (as well as contents/inventory), either a mortgage or rental payment, advertising, maintenance, utilities & phone, etc... easy to see how these salaries and expenses add up to WAY more than $250,000. Which means that your employer's taxes WILL be raised... now, from a business owner's POV, if you've just been told that your taxes are going up because you're suddenly "rich" by Obama's definition, you either have to raise the price of your products, or you're going to have to cut costs... probably both, because if you raise prices, you'll sell fewer items in the long run... you might try shopping around for insurance or getting a different long distance carrier, but when it comes down to it, you're going to have to lay off an employee or two.

Raising taxes on producers is never a good thing. Democrats keep telling us that WE need to "sacrifice" and "get by with less"... how about the GOVERNMENT "sacrificing" and "getting by with less"? Why don't THEY try it?

Obama knows that the $250,000 figure is a totally bogus number. He's simply appealing to a bunch of people who think $250K a year is too much and that no one "deserves" to make that kind of money...and who have no idea how businesses actually work.



Also, in the first few minutes of the debate, Obama actually said that "anyone making less than $200,000 (not $250,000) will not see a tax increase". So he's already lowered his level of being "rich" by $50,000. By the time he takes office in January, if he wins, it'll be back to the $42,000 or so that he has voted for in the past as being too rich.

[James"Thunder"Early]

McCain was on the attack more than in previous debates and was very repetitive at times, he didn't come off very presidential at all. He also stated that Obama voted against Justice Breyer, which is untrue since Obama was not in the Senate at the time.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by James"Thunder"Early

McCain was on the attack more than in previous debates and was very repetitive at times, he didn't come off very presidential at all. He also stated that Obama voted against Justice Breyer, which is untrue since Obama was not in the Senate at the time.

True. I noticed that too when he said that, but McCain meant to say that Obama voted against Alito and Roberts, not Breyer and Roberts. And Obama did so based on ideological grounds, not lack of qualifications. Obama has also made ridiculous statements about Clarence Thomas.

McCain made the point that he voted for Breyer and Ginsberg , even though they are extremely liberal, because he felt they were qualified to be on the court (yet another reason conservatives aren't crazy about McCain).

Of course, Obama likes to "brag" that he was against the Iraq War, but he wasn't in the Senate at the time either, so there's no way for him to prove how he would have actually voted, other than the fact that we know he would have voted however the party leaders told him to vote, just like every other time.