Lead by example...

[Cancel 2016.2]

See this, Freak? This is the crowd you're in w/ on threads like this. "Outright hypocritical"...I mean, my goodness!

See Onceler, you are in a crowd with Rune who doesn't comprehend the fact that Obama is campaigning on this issue. Making the rich 'pay their fair share'... yet he is not leading by example.

Instead all of you Obama apologists are out in force trying to deflect. Like you and Dung saying 'well he gave a lot to charity'... which is completely irrelevant to the federal income taxes he paid (outside of the deductions he got of course).

But do go on... apologize away.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes.

President Obama is campaigning on the rich paying 'their fair share'. I stated he should lead by example given his effective rate is so low.

Candidate Romney is NOT campaigning on 'tax the rich more'. So why would he 'lead by example' on something he is not promoting?

Why do you think that Obama's effective tax rate is "so low?" As compared to what?

 

[zappasguitar]

Seriously?

Haters gotta hate...it's all they got!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

He will pay more in taxes if it becomes law, but why should he pay more if it is legally required? He wishes to raise the rates on his own tax bracket, it is more than most are willing to do.

Which is what I stated in the original post. Yes, we know it is not law yet. But there is nothing to stop him from voluntarily paying more now. To show that he is willing to lead by example.

Wishing to raise his own bracket??? No, he is not. He could do that all on his own by not taking any deductions and by voluntarily paying more. He is wishing to change the brackets on the rich, like him, but he is most certainly not willing to pay more until he is forced to by law. He won't do it unless he can make everyone else do it to (and by everyone else, I mean the others in the upper brackets)

 

[zappasguitar]

You sound like the average BDSer who thought Bush should have sent his kids to Iraq.

As DH points out, he gave a ton to charity as well. And the Buffett rule is for incomes over $1 million.

You're a smart poster, SF - but when it comes to all things Obama, your intellect takes a back seat....

His hatred makes him incapable of discussing this topic rationally.

 

[Onceler]

See Onceler, you are in a crowd with Rune who doesn't comprehend the fact that Obama is campaigning on this issue. Making the rich 'pay their fair share'... yet he is not leading by example.

Instead all of you Obama apologists are out in force trying to deflect. Like you and Dung saying 'well he gave a lot to charity'... which is completely irrelevant to the federal income taxes he paid (outside of the deductions he got of course).

But do go on... apologize away.

Taxes & charity are 2 ways of giving back; it's 6 of one, a half dozen of the other. If you think it shows more leadership to "give" more to taxes, you're just someone who believes in symbolic BS.

I don't.

 

[Bonestorm]

you're kidding right....obama claims the rich paying more taxes will help the economy....why wait for the rules to change? lead now.

if i advocate for a law that advocates healthy eating, but now i gorge on junk food everyday....how is that not hypocritical?

I don't think Obama claims what you claim he claims.

Here are some other things that are not hypocritical: (1) advocating for earmarks for your district while saying that there should be no earmarks, (2) accepting federal stimulus money while being critical of federal stimulus.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fairly typical intellectual dishonesty out of you, fueled by your ODS. He has been talking about policy changes throughout his admin, and it's what he's talking about here.

You & SF should really have your own Obama-hate forum where you can call everything you see out of him "outright hypocrisy."

It is comical how you apologists for Obama continue on with the above type nonsense. He stated 'let me be clear, i should pay more taxes'... My question is:

Why didn't he then? If he believes so strongly that he should be paying more... why didn't he?

He obviously doesn't believe he should... or he would have.

But do go on apologizing for your master.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Why does Yurt keep repeating that horrific analogy?

you can't even explain why it is a bad analogy and instead have to use false analogies of your own.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yes.

President Obama is campaigning on the rich paying 'their fair share'. I stated he should lead by example given his effective rate is so low.

Candidate Romney is NOT campaigning on 'tax the rich more'. So why would he 'lead by example' on something he is not promoting?

i'm seriously laughing that you actually had to explain this to dune. he is such a retard.

 

[zappasguitar]

I concur.

Hey lookie there...another gutless douchebag without even the mental capability to respond to what Onceler REALLY wrote.

No, his irrational hatred of Obama and Onceler make it acceptable to him to change what another person wrote in order to demean the other person.

That's almost Yurtard level pathetic.

Here's what Onceler REALLY wrote:

Sorry, but there is no other way to say it: ODS.

These kinds of threads just make you look foolish.

And then brave ol Stuporfuck changed it to this:

Sorry, but there is no other way to say it: I am an Obama apologist.

These kinds of threads just make me look foolish.

Such bravery from one who incessantly demands intellectual honesty from others.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No need for a meltdown. I'm not a big believer in symbolic BS. Obama gives a ton to charity; that's enough for me. You sound like toppy telling anyone who believes in environmentalism that they're a hypocrite if their house is bigger than 1,200 square feet, or a BDSer telling Bush he should send his daughters to war.

He's pushing for a policy change. It's not rocket science, Yurtsie.

LMAO... you sound like an Obama apologist... 'oh, he gave to charity, so his taxes don't need to go up like Obama said they did'.

and again... it is NOTHING like the deranged BDS'ers who said Bush should send his daughters to war. He had no power to do so. None. He cannot force another adult to enlist. Period. Obama has complete control over whether or not he himself pays what he himself says he should be paying.

 

[zappasguitar]

It is comical how you apologists for Obama continue on with the above type nonsense. He stated 'let me be clear, i should pay more taxes'... My question is:

Why didn't he then? If he believes so strongly that he should be paying more... why didn't he?

He obviously doesn't believe he should... or he would have.

But do go on apologizing for your master.

Because he's following the current tax code.

How is that so hard for you to understand?

Not that I expect a response to this...you'll probably just change what I wrote anyway.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I don't think Obama claims what you claim he claims.

Here are some other things that are not hypocritical: (1) advocating for earmarks for your district while saying that there should be no earmarks, (2) accepting federal stimulus money while being critical of federal stimulus.

completely false analogies. your analogies have to do with representing the best interest of the your constituents. even if you don't agree with something, it is better if you do the best for your constituents.

here...obama says paying more taxes, himself included, is in the best interest of his constituents....yet...he won't pay more taxes.

see the difference?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hey lookie there...another gutless douchebag without even the mental capability to respond to what Onceler REALLY wrote.

No, his irrational hatred of Obama and Onceler make it acceptable to him to change what another person wrote in order to demean the other person.

That's almost Yurtard level pathetic.

LMAO... you have this weird opinion that people aren't able to see that I changed it. Everyone can. It was mocking what he wrote.

There is no hatred of Obama or Onceler. That is simply the pathetic attempt by another Obama apologist to deflect away from the discussion. It seems to happen every time someone criticizes dear leader.

 

[Onceler]

It is comical how you apologists for Obama continue on with the above type nonsense. He stated 'let me be clear, i should pay more taxes'... My question is:

Why didn't he then? If he believes so strongly that he should be paying more... why didn't he?

He obviously doesn't believe he should... or he would have.

But do go on apologizing for your master.

I've got my own issues with Obama, so I'm not beholden to him like some of you guys are to various politicians. I just don't see the need to make hay where none exists. Him upping his own tax rate (which would probably mean he'd give less to charity) is just symbolic BS. On a philisophical level, it's very much the same thing as a lot of what BDSers leveled at Bush and other politicians during Iraq, despite the dismissals of that inconvenient analogy by yourself and your intellectually-challenged little ally here....

 

[Phantasmal]

completely false analogies. your analogies have to do with representing the best interest of the your constituents. even if you don't agree with something, it is better if you do the best for your constituents.

here...obama says paying more taxes, himself included, is in the best interest of his constituents....yet...he won't pay more taxes.

see the difference?

He will if he gets the tax law changed.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Because he's following the current tax code.

How is that so hard for you to understand?

Try reading the OP moron.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

He will if he gets the tax law changed.

But why not sooner Rana? Why not show that he really believes in what he is saying and that he is willing to do so voluntarily?

Oh yeah, its because he knows its all just rhetoric and he wants to keep as much of his money out of the hands of the government as he can.

 

[Bonestorm]

completely false analogies. your analogies have to do with representing the best interest of the your constituents. even if you don't agree with something, it is better if you do the best for your constituents.

here...obama says paying more taxes, himself included, is in the best interest of his constituents....yet...he won't pay more taxes.

see the difference?

Oh, so my analogies (they weren't analogies, they were examples) are no good, but your junk food analogy is legitimate? That makes a lot of sense.

Obama says that the changing the tax laws to require the rich paying more in taxes is in the best interests of America, not that individual rich people voluntarily paying more of their income in taxes is in the best interests of America. Likewise, anti-earmark folks say that changing the rules to prohibit earmarks is in the best interests of America, not that individual lawmakers voluntarily not requesting earmarks is in the best interests of America. Finally, anti-stimulus people say that not enacting stimulus bills are in the best interest of America, not that individual states refusing to accept stimulus money is in the best interests of America.

I'm not seeing the difference.