Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

If only the Democrats would............

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buck160</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On the issue of drilling in Alaska the way I understand it is if you take a standard 8 1/2 X 11 paper and take your pen and make a dot with the tip of your pen. That is how much room they would need to drill in Alaska. I say DRILL ON! </div></div>

It really is not that simple. Other than the logistics of where ANWR is and what it takes to drill there, do you have any idea how long it's going to take to make an impact on the US oil shortage if they finally do drill up there? YEARS.

Good post there Risto - god that inheritance tax thing is the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Anyone that supports someone that would institue that needs their damn head examined.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A source would be nice on something like that. I'm guessing Obama would dispute your income tax figures, stance on iraq, judicial appointment statement, nationalized health care statement, and probably others....but the email FW is probably closer to truth than fiction all said and done IMO. It will be an interesting next couple of months! </div></div>

DOR,
I agree totally that a source would be very nice.
Main reason I posted it was to see if some of the Democratic supporters would shed some light on it if any were false.
No refuters yet. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I still suggest for everyone to do their own research into their own canidate and the issues.

My vote is already spoken for. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
 
I keep hearing the "10 years" thing but no sorce there either. I truely doubt it would take 10 years. Think about it on that TV series "Roughnecks" they were getting oil out in less then 60 days. Granted, it was shollow holes but 10 years, PLEASE! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
We do need more/bigger/better refineries, but no one wants then in their backyards. I say put them 3-5 miles off shore /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
 
I diasagree with the notion that it will take 10 years or whatever the media and the communist left nit wits are feeding us to make any difference /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif. I noticed that when Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling that the price of a gallon a gasoline in my town fell $.08 overnight, is that a coincidence, I think not!!

Please, I really hope people are not getting all of there so called truthfull information from the nightly news.

BE YOUR OWN PERSON, BE INFORMED AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS!! /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
 
turkeyriver,

I just read the article.

What the canadians are doing in Canada and what they are proposing to do in Alaska are two completley different things.

In canada they are strip mining for oil laden sand just under the surface level and extracting the oils out of it. Which tears up large tracts of land and creates the destruction shown in the field and stream article. You will never see that in the U.S.

In Alaska the oil is found deep within the bedrock and is drilled for and sucked out. A completely different process and no where even close to as disturbing to the environment. The most disturbance from that activity is the pipelines shipping it down to the lower 48. But, as someone put it above to place it in perspective. The impacted area is less than the dot of a pen on a peice of paper.


That aside, there are a lot more reasons than gun rights to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. As covered above.
 
If we need more oil refineries, why haven't they begun to build more?

Is it so the oil companies can keep the price of gas high?
 
The oil companies have some to do with it, but the bigger/biggest problem is that no one wants a plant built in their area. There has been only 1 federal permit issued since 1976. That permit is for a plant in Arizona, but the guy tring to build it has been working on it for over 6 years. the problems are many including investers, local, state and fed. permits, emission permits, oh and all these permits are far from free. This one guy has sunk BIG money(at least to me) into just getting a place where all the stars lineup just right and hasn't yet gotten anywhere. He is close now, he has a chunk of land next to the Mexcan border. We'll see if it works out.
Some say the big companies could build more plants but won't, I think they are just saying "why bother", too many headaches and red tape, and we are making money now. Makes bussiness sense to me. JMO
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SEIowaDeerslayer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still wouldn't vote for Obama due to his tax plan. I don't know about anyone else, but I like more money in my pockets, less government, and more guns! </div></div>
Unless you make more than $250k a year, you will get a tax break under Obama's plan. You might want to read more about both candidates from their websites rather than listen to the right wing media or the McCain is Jesus commercials /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
 
I think you need to do a bit more research: (I don't mean to sound like a personal attack, NOT meant to be)
What Obama's plan is to raise the Social Security tax on people that make over $250 K.
That segment of the population already pays over 90% of the real tax burden. We that make less $ get a % back in refunds, sometimes even more then was paid in! The Obama plan WILL repeal the Bush tax credits, and that will take $2000-$4000 out of almost every pocket here on IW.
You can't just read what the canidates website say or what their supporters say. I read a few papers written by a person and if that person only has good things to say about one canidate then I dismiss all he writes. Both McCain and Obama have their issues, IMO McCain will do less harm to our country then Obama.
Here is one fairly clear picture on Obama's tax plan.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obamas_tax_plan/
 
It would take too long a post, and I doubt anyone on here would read it anyway, to counter all of the right wing arguments and half truths posted online with regards to Obama, so I won't even try. Bottom line is Republican politicians have it figured out. They can be Pro Life (religion), Pro Guns, claim to be for small government and fiscal responsibility - which is a bold face lie, perhaps it was true decades ago, but not anymore, not even close - and then they get to handout all of the tax breaks and tax advantages to their rich buddies and the big corporations they manage and own. They aren't even pretending to care about the deficit anymore, or balancing the budget.

Bush has had 8 years to make his economic case for the Republican Party, and it's failed miserably. The idea that by giving big companies and rich people (you know, people making more than $5 million/year) all of the tax relief that somehow this handout will 'trickle down' their boot heels and create more high paying jobs for the middle class in this country is a joke. Unfortunately the joke's on us... most people on this site I dare say don't make more than $100k/year. Most of us probably make a lot less. The true strength of our country and our economy is middle class America. The middle class works harder than any other and buys the lions share of the products and services that drive our economy. Check out these links:
Stock Markets Historically Do Better Under Dems
Economist's view
Inequalities

I had a revealing conversation with a family member just the other day, after clarifying the issue of religion and that Obama has always been a Christian (how long has this Muslim lie been on the internet?), this close family member asked me what Democrats had against Rich people? This made me pause and think for a moment about the role of government and why this person thought that Democrats were engaged in class warfare. I responded: "Democratic politicians aren't against the wealthy, hell, most all of them are quite wealthy themselves...it's just that they know that the average man, woman and child in this country isn't, and that from time to time free markets left unchecked end up creating more disparity and inequality than we accept as a society. People need help sometimes. The wealthy don't need our help, they've already made it on their own. They are already living the American dream. It's not about redistributing the pieces of the pie, it's about baking more pies [for the future], so that perhaps we can all get a slice. Most of us aren't even looking for the biggest piece, just the opportunity to sit at the table. What's so wrong with that?".

Just for the record, I consider myself an Independent, as I've NEVER voted a straight ticket. I choose the candidate, not the party. I wonder how many people on this site can say the same? And I'm not just claiming to be Independent, because the right wing hacks in the media have successfully edited the meaning of Democrat to mean liberal, and liberal into a veritable four letter word meaning irrational, hazardous, whacky, risky, you name it. Funny how conservative now seems to mean: rational, moral, you know, just plain old "right" as in correct, or some bs like that.

Quick cap of MY values:

Fiscal responsibility, balanced budget, spend no more than we take in, but take in enough to pay the bills, taxes are necessary.

If two gay people want to get married, who cares? Let them already. Sheesh.

Pro-common sense-abortion: I'm sorry, but I feel that if you are raped, you have every right to have an abortion. The human condition does NOT begin with gametes lining up (the very beginning of conception). Late term abortions should be banned in all cases UNLESS the mother's health is in serious jeopardy. Period. Condoms and sex education should be readily available. Abstinence should be preached, however, but reality should be a factor - young people are having sex and there is nothing we can do to eliminate that reality. Just like prohibition. Also, if you are Pro Life, you better be against Capital Punishment, unless you want to get the ol' stamp of hypocrite in my book.

Not for big government OR small government. I want my government to be just the right size to get the job done, whatever that is... All earmarks or pork projects should be heavily scrutinized, if not eliminated.

We should drill for oil but realize that it's not an immediate fix to our problem of, you know, weaning ourselves OFF oil. All energy should be part of the mix: nuclear, coal, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, gas...by the way, Obama supports an energy policy that includes drilling for more oil - because he is willing to compromise to get the job done. Compromise is not a 4 letter word, it's a signal of progress.

Ahhh, I've rambled on too long, doubtful that anyone read this far anyhow... unlikely that I've changed any minds also /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
 
The Bush Tax Cuts during a time of war, were the most fiscally unresponsible decision he could have made. If you want to go to war over a gut instinct, fine, but at least have the 'guts' to pay for it. As it is, our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will probably pay the price.

Let's face it, we have to raise taxes somewhat to fix all the damage done in this country. If you believe that government should be run like a business, then it follows that it should NOT be run into the red - at least not perpetually. Even business sometimes has to take a loss in order to make a long term profit.
 
$250,000 a year is dang near middle class now. Do you own your own business? If so good for you, but the man who rights my paycheck is wealthy. If he wasn't wealthy, I wouldn't have a job. I suppose then I would need gvt assistance. Trying to raise a family now is tough with the price of goods and services. If you tax business then you are just going to be taxing yourself twice. The cost of goods will go up more to offset the higher taxes they are paying. The higher the taxes on the rich the higher we will pay in the long run. Really the only good tax plan is a flat tax. That way we could get rid of all the crying and bitching about fareshare taxes. IF you make $250,000 a year and pay 15% you would pay $37,500 a year in taxes. If you make $50,000 a year you would pay $7,500 a year. How would that not be fair? Really the only thing that the president will do is appoint Judges. If you really want to make a difference pay attention to the Congress. Have you notice the approval rating for the congress is below the president. I am all for donating to the less fortunate but let me decide who and when they get it. I don't want to be forced to help someone who isn't helping themselves.
 
I support the idea of a flat tax, which neither parties do at the moment. But my idea of a flat tax would include ALL forms of income, so as to include all persons... capital gains, inheritance, you name it. If you are reaping the benefit of any gov't service, which you are if you simply exist - you have access to law enforcement at the local level, and a military at the national level (security), public/state/federal roads and highways, local EMS with 911 etc, the list goes on, you shouldn't be able to completely shelter your income, whatever that might be (inheritance, trust fund, dividends etc) since you benefit from gov't services. That's what some Republicans are trying to get, an income tax free situation by eliminating estate taxes and capital gains taxes. You could argue that they can't get away from paying property tax, but even that has serious loopholes, and property tax only goes to help pay for local services.

Also, just to clarify my 2nd Amendment stance, which is probably further to the right of most people on this site - believe it or not. The 2nd Amendment has basically two goals, the first is to protect our rights to defend ourselves, our families and our property, and second to protect our right to arm ourselves against an unjust government - to overthrow it if need be, which is exactly what the founding fathers had to do.

The reality of our current situation is that while we might be able to accomplish that first goal, there is no way in hell we could even attempt the second. We'd have to get access to tanks, fighter jets, missiles...you name it. So where does that leave us? Unless they want to give us the ability to acquire similar armaments that are available to our modern military, we are up chit creek without a paddle should the need arise to make a drastic change. Now I know that they will never give us this access, and so I accept that that second goal is virtually unattainable. It still doesn't stop me from believing that all law abiding citizens should be able to buy fully automatic weapons, complete with every kind of ammunition under the sun. But I refuse to base my vote entirely on that issue, otherwise I would find myself voting against both parties.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I choose the candidate, not the party. </div></div>

when you choose the candidate, you CHOOSE the party....
unfortunately, its that simple.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, if you are Pro Life, you better be against Capital Punishment, unless you want to get the ol' stamp of hypocrite in my book. </div></div>


are you serious about this?? I was going to stay away from the guts of this discussion as political conversations on web site forums never go anywhere, but this comparison is so very different, and i cannot in clear conscience see how these two things are anywhere close to the same.......

you say "most members of this site" several times, and claim that they need to do some further investigating. maybe you oughta not judge the population that makes up Iowa Whitetail and do a little investigating yourself, as you obviously need to! You are doing a little too much preachin' in my opinion
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THA4</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I choose the candidate, not the party. </div></div>
when you choose the candidate, you CHOOSE the party....
unfortunately, its that simple.</div></div>

Spoken like a true straight ticket voter.

It's not that simple. That's like saying that the entire Democratic Party is Diane Feinstein, or the entire Republican Party is George Bush.

I voted for Jim Leach 6 times before he lost to Loebsack. He had a history of being middle of the road and willing to work across the aisle to get things done. I respect Chuck Grassley, and I don't care for Harkin. That being said, I also voted for Culver because I've never cared for Nussle. I don't particularly like people that simply tow the party line and refuse to compromise on anything, because the truth is that the best outcome is more often than not somewhere in the middle.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Avidhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would take too long a post, and I doubt anyone on here would read it anyway, to counter all of the right wing arguments and half truths posted online with regards to Obama, so I won't even try. Ahhh, I've rambled on too long, doubtful that anyone read this far anyhow... unlikely that I've changed any minds also /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Avid,
Just to let you know I respect and have read every word you wrote.

My job and time constraints will not let me write an essay
to let you know my feelings and my two finger typing technique is slow at best.

You are right though in that you will not change my mind.
I am not happy with either candidate but have to go with the lesser of both evils. Noone can tell me that someone with 173 days in the Senate is ready to run this country.

If you could though please look at what I put at the beginning of the thread and let us know what is a lie.






</div></div>
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Avidhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The idea that by giving big companies and rich people (you know, people making more than $5 million/year) all of the tax relief that somehow this handout will 'trickle down' their boot heels and create more high paying jobs for the middle class in this country is a joke. Unfortunately the joke's on us... most people on this site I dare say don't make more than $100k/year. Most of us probably make a lot less. The true strength of our country and our economy is middle class America. The middle class works harder than any other and buys the lions share of the products and services that drive our economy.
</div></div>

The $5m comment was intentional satire to make a point. McCain predicted that the comment would be distorted and 1 day later, sure enough there stands Obama at a stump speech acting as though McCain was "out of touch" and that he was serious. Then came the DNC ads that used only carefully and deliberate extractions of the comments to completely distort what was actually said. Classic. Speaks volumes of the integrity of Obama and the DNC if you ask me. If you follow politics, this is a <u>regular </u> occurence with these people. I saw this interview live and knew right away it would shake out like McCain predicted. For anyone that didn't see it, here's a video that might help shed some light on the situation:

How it actually happened
 
Top Bottom