Obama keeps saying that he is RICH

LOL wrote: Aww LJ, we were just having a little fun with you, since we know you can take it.

Arlen will be back, he must be busy being a productive wage earner subject.

Oh BTW, did you hear that Obama is a rich, wealthy, millionaire? $$$$ LOL

Neener Neener Neener

I love to watch the righties deflect and obfuscate in order to wiggle out of having to cite actual sources for statements. It's quite entertaining.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The LDS church also promoted political campaigns, prostelyzing campaigns, conversion of the unwilling and dead, maintain a misogynistic hierarchy, etc. The point being is while Buffet, Gates and Oprah charitably give willingly without coercion directly, Mitt does so under threat of losing his standing in his religion and indirectly.

Sure you aren't talking about federal taxes there Dog? Sounds quite similar, doesn't it, especially the part about willingly participating in charitable endeavors instead of being compelled to participate under the coercion of the government's threats of reprisal. The parallels to proselytizing are strong as well. Conversion of the unwilling? Sounds a lot like the ACA to me. Whodathunkit?

Apples and oranges. But of course you have to deflect since you have been caught.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The LDS church also promoted political campaigns, prostelyzing campaigns, conversion of the unwilling and dead, maintain a misogynistic hierarchy, etc. The point being is while Buffet, Gates and Oprah charitably give willingly without coercion directly, Mitt does so under threat of losing his standing in his religion and indirectly.

Sure you aren't talking about federal taxes there Dog? Sounds quite similar, doesn't it, especially the part about willingly participating in charitable endeavors instead of being compelled to participate under the coercion of the government's threats of reprisal. The parallels to proselytizing are strong as well. Conversion of the unwilling? Sounds a lot like the ACA to me. Whodathunkit?

Apples and oranges. But of course you have to deflect since you have been caught.

I know you have a beef with the Mormons but tithing is not punishable by jail time and garnishments. It is voluntary. And the Mormons do bad things with that voluntarily donated money?

How about the US demanding money by force to be used on immoral activities I don't support?
Just the cost of being a US citizen right?

And now I heard Obama saying he is in the 2%, and no, I will not supply a quote.

Sidebar: Biden speaks to the NAACP today, this should be quite amusing, will he adopt the black, southern accent Hilary uses in African-American churches?

Not at all Dog - tithing to one's church to provide funding for that church's charitable operations has a long tradition not only in this union of ours, but across the globe and across all creeds. Most of the charity dispensed in this union of ours came from churches for the majority of the union's existence. It has only been the last 80 years or so that the federal government has sought to supplant them as the primary charity distribution hub of the union and sought to fundamentally transform charity from a voluntary action to a compulsory one via the tax code and the appropriations of the Congress.

Raees wrote: I love to watch the righties deflect and obfuscate in order to wiggle out of having to cite actual sources for statements. It's quite entertaining.

You can easily find such statements Raees - the 2012 State of the Union speech when Obama talks about the "Buffett Rule" is only one of the many examples out there.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/24/full- ... z20QgPXQxn

Sorry, the OP was complaining Obama says "I am rich" all the time. I've never heard him say "I am rich."

And he does. He continually includes himself as being among the wealthiest who should be paying more in taxes. Wealthy and rich are synonyms, are they not? Now if the left wing of 285bound wants to attempt to pick nits in a futile effort to pretend he hasn't, well, I suppose they can do that, but it's a transparent facade.

PrintSmith wrote: And he does. He continually includes himself as being among the wealthiest who should be paying more in taxes. Wealthy and rich are synonyms, are they not? Now if the left wing of 285bound wants to attempt to pick nits in a futile effort to pretend he hasn't, well, I suppose they can do that, but it's a transparent facade.

Yes, the nitpicking is overwhelming in this thread. The fact is Obama equates himself with the wealthy over and over again and quotes have been provided, but those on the left only have nitpicking left to deny it.

I guess they missed the study of synonyms or basic logic in grade school. The OP never even quoted the word "rich", and what does it matter? Obama places himself in the same group as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and they just can't seem to see it through the hands over their eyes.

Raees wrote: Sorry, the OP was complaining Obama says "I am rich" all the time. I've never heard him say "I am rich."

Really? Rich is fundamentally different than what Barack did say?

lol No wonder a man with no experience deluded you in 2008. Luckily America caught on and got rid of his majority in 2010.

PrintSmith wrote: Not at all Dog - tithing to one's church to provide funding for that church's charitable operations has a long tradition not only in this union of ours, but across the globe and across all creeds. Most of the charity dispensed in this union of ours came from churches for the majority of the union's existence. It has only been the last 80 years or so that the federal government has sought to supplant them as the primary charity distribution hub of the union and sought to fundamentally transform charity from a voluntary action to a compulsory one via the tax code and the appropriations of the Congress.

so being dishonest again are you. Tithing to the LDS funds much more than charitable operations, does it not? Such as their political operations, their misogynistic hierarchy, missionary work, unknowing baptism, etc. etc. You are attempting to mislead that all of the tithing goes directly to charitable work, but that is not true, is it? How is all of the other operations of the organization paid for? Further, the "voluntary" giving is based on whether the "giver" maintains their good standing in the organization and places their "immortal" status at risk.

this is opposed to my point that the giving by Gates, Buffet, Oprah is truly voluntary.