BREAKING NEWS!
Politician uses RHETORIC.
Movie at eleven.
Politician uses RHETORIC.
Movie at eleven.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BREAKING NEWS!
Politician uses RHETORIC.
Movie at eleven.
BREAKING NEWS!
Politician uses RHETORIC.
Movie at eleven.
So, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" was merely rhetoric? If so, what other statements Obama made are "merely rhetoric" and shouldn't be taken seriously? What statements should we take seriously from Obama or other Democratic candidates?
BREAKING NEWS!
Politician uses RHETORIC.
Movie at eleven.
So, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" was merely rhetoric? If so, what other statements Obama made are "merely rhetoric" and shouldn't be taken seriously? What statements should we take seriously from Obama or other Democratic candidates?
I think you might want to look up what the word "rhetoric" means. You seem to be a bit confused.
But yes, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" is rhetoric.
"The same people who didn't have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn't offer relief to middle-class Americans," Obama said.
Analysis: Democrat-Controlled House Passed At Least $1.171 Trillion in Net Tax Increases in 2009 | House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican
Not a Dime in Increases under the DemocRATS... Really?...
So, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" was merely rhetoric? If so, what other statements Obama made are "merely rhetoric" and shouldn't be taken seriously? What statements should we take seriously from Obama or other Democratic candidates?
I think you might want to look up what the word "rhetoric" means. You seem to be a bit confused.
But yes, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" is rhetoric.
I know what the term "rhetoric" means. Probably better than you do.
So please answer the other questions.
^For the Love of God... Does he even Understand what he's saying?...
The question is.....do you? Seriously, please justify how the rich should be given tax breaks but the middle class who are struggling shouldn't be given assistance.
Um... It's NOT Barry's Money to Give to us... Or to give to other People.
Not getting Tax Increases is NOT "Spending" on the Part of the Government...
Are you High on Barry Flavor?...
peace...
I think you might want to look up what the word "rhetoric" means. You seem to be a bit confused.
But yes, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" is rhetoric.
I know what the term "rhetoric" means. Probably better than you do.
So please answer the other questions.
Of course you do. Everyone knows the great Rabbi knows everything.
I write rhetoric for a living, friend.
And to answer your questions, everything you hear a politician say is rhetoric. Democrat, Republican, whatever.
It's all, by definition, rhetoric.
I know what the term "rhetoric" means. Probably better than you do.
So please answer the other questions.
Of course you do. Everyone knows the great Rabbi knows everything.
I write rhetoric for a living, friend.
And to answer your questions, everything you hear a politician say is rhetoric. Democrat, Republican, whatever.
It's all, by definition, rhetoric.
"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?
Seriously?... I'm NOT Rich by ANY Stretch and my Taxes are going to go up because Barry and his Party are in Power...
The Government should do with LESS when Times are Lean...
And those who have Generationally Fed @ the Teat of the Beast should do with Less...
Lord Knows I have Done with Less since 2008...
And now I get to Pay Higher Taxes.
peace...
Of course you do. Everyone knows the great Rabbi knows everything.
I write rhetoric for a living, friend.
And to answer your questions, everything you hear a politician say is rhetoric. Democrat, Republican, whatever.
It's all, by definition, rhetoric.
"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?
Oh, ok. I get it.
You DON'T know what rhetoric is.
In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.
In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.
"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?
Oh, ok. I get it.
You DON'T know what rhetoric is.
In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.
In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.
So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.
"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?
Oh, ok. I get it.
You DON'T know what rhetoric is.
In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.
In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.
So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.
Oh, ok. I get it.
You DON'T know what rhetoric is.
In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.
In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.
So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.
And once again you show how dishonest you truly are.
He said he pays attention to what they do and how they actually vote, so why try to claim that he doesn't judge them based on what they DO when he clearly says that he does? It seems to me that the doctor is a firm believer in "actions speak louder than words" and all you can try to do is put words into his mouth as you try to attack him for something he never said.
Thanks for once again proving how dishonest you are.
So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.
And once again you show how dishonest you truly are.
He said he pays attention to what they do and how they actually vote, so why try to claim that he doesn't judge them based on what they DO when he clearly says that he does? It seems to me that the doctor is a firm believer in "actions speak louder than words" and all you can try to do is put words into his mouth as you try to attack him for something he never said.
Thanks for once again proving how dishonest you are.
Thanks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who understood what I was saying.
And once again you show how dishonest you truly are.
He said he pays attention to what they do and how they actually vote, so why try to claim that he doesn't judge them based on what they DO when he clearly says that he does? It seems to me that the doctor is a firm believer in "actions speak louder than words" and all you can try to do is put words into his mouth as you try to attack him for something he never said.
Thanks for once again proving how dishonest you are.
Thanks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who understood what I was saying.
The blind leading the blind.
So you must always vote for the incumbent, since the challenger, especially in local elections, has little to no track record in voting.