Cindy McCain and Drifting. Did you know...

Come on guys, you are being played, waky-waky. I'm not saying you should vote for either of te candidates, i'm from a totally different country anyway, but hell.. It's all a huge media war so get your act together, pretty please!
 
I like how there's footage of S13:s drifting in perfect harmony and then a C6 Vette overdoing it and spinning.
 
Her husband is running, she isn't.

That said, I went from disliking her (she seemed all proper, etc.) to really liking her. :eek:
 
LOL... I was just trying to picture Biden or Obama drifitng... :lmao:
 
Now they just have to discover that Michelle Obama races vintage motorcycles, and this race will really get interesting!
 
Spectre said:
Makes the choice pretty easy, then, doesn't it?

Vote Obama, watch him ban everything that's not a GWiz or Prius.

Or

Vote McCain, get gearheads in the White House.
Click to expand...

..and Obama would likely bring back the 55 mph speed limit. With an exception for the presidential limo, of course. Do as I say...
 
And right now, it's called taxpayer subsidies that are making those alternative fuels "viable". Factor that in, plus the NIMBY/envirowacko idiocy that the Democrats embrace, and there's a HUGE problem.

And, by the way, it's not *income* taxes I'm worried about. It's Obama's and the Democrats' proposed *business* taxes I'm worried about. Why? Because if they go into effect, I'm going to have to lay off two people, as I cannot afford to pay those taxes and stay in business at my current expense level, seeing as how I can't charge much more for my business's services and stay competitive in this economic environment. So, there's two more people on unemployment - how is this better than two people being employed at reasonably-paying jobs?

You do realize that tax increases on business *always* get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and that if that's not possible the business starts firing or laying off people, right?

(I'm thinking you weren't a business or econ major....)
 
No, you shouldn't have to be a business or econ major to figure this out - but I find that more and more people who claim that tax increases "won't hurt me, so why should I care" don't even have the rudiments of economic theory or a clue as to how businesses work. That leads me to believe that they aren't even teaching that in high school any more.

Ayn Rand should be *required* reading in high school, if nothing else.
 
Spectre said:
And right now, it's called taxpayer subsidies that are making those alternative fuels "viable". Factor that in, plus the NIMBY/envirowacko idiocy that the Democrats embrace, and there's a HUGE problem.

And, by the way, it's not *income* taxes I'm worried about. It's Obama's and the Democrats' proposed *business* taxes I'm worried about. Why? Because if they go into effect, I'm going to have to lay off two people, as I cannot afford to pay those taxes and stay in business at my current expense level, seeing as how I can't charge much more for my business's services and stay competitive in this economic environment. So, there's two more people on unemployment - how is this better than two people being employed at reasonably-paying jobs?

You do realize that tax increases on business *always* get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, and that if that's not possible the business starts firing or laying off people, right?

(I'm thinking you weren't a business or econ major....)
Click to expand...

You want to talk about people getting layed off? My dad's company (whom he worked for 10 years) was shut down last year during George Dubya's reign of terror. Now are you telling me that Mccain who voted with Bush 90% of the time will be better for this country than Obama?
 
Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you. Under Obama, it would get *worse*. I *was* a business major, I *am* a small business owner with clients around the country, and I am telling you - as bad as people (like you) think it was under Bush, under Obama's plan it would get a heck of a lot worse.

You *really* need to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." If you make it too onerous to run a business, businesses will close. If businesses close, people will be unemployed. If people are unemployed, there will be no tax revenue to pay welfare benefits. See Zimbabwe.

Oh, and before I get accused of "being a rich fatcat", let me let you in on something. I *don't* make $160K+ per year. In fact, I don't make anywhere near that, as I pour most everything back into my business. I've already had to lay off one person due to rising costs and the need to stay competitive. I didn't want to, but I had little choice. I don't want to lay off anyone else.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get all political here, but Bush has generally been a terrible president all-round. His policies aren't the problem, it's the way he executes them. Most of the problems are from his administration, which seems to pass every single dumb idea he has.

McCain has taken Dubya's ideas and tweaked them just enough to make sense, along with better delivery.
 
Spectre said:
Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you. Under Obama, it would get *worse*. I *was* a business major, I *am* a small business owner with clients around the country, and I am telling you - as bad as people (like you) think it was under Bush, under Obama's plan it would get a heck of a lot worse.

You *really* need to read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." If you make it too onerous to run a business, businesses will close. If businesses close, people will be unemployed. If people are unemployed, there will be no tax revenue to pay welfare benefits. See Zimbabwe.

Oh, and before I get accused of "being a rich fatcat", let me let you in on something. I *don't* make $160K+ per year. In fact, I don't make anywhere near that, as I pour most everything back into my business. I've already had to lay off one person due to rising costs and the need to stay competitive. I didn't want to, but I had little choice. I don't want to lay off anyone else.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is why Zimbabwe's economy is in ruins: (from wikipedia)
"The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption of the Mugabe regime and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land redistribution of 2000. Since this land redistribution began, agricultural exports, especially tobacco, have declined sharply. The Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force released a report in June 2007, estimating 60% of Zimbabwe's wildlife has died since 2000. The report warns that the loss of life combined with widespread deforestation is potentially disastrous for the tourist industry".

Feeding the rich so that the remains trickles down to the poor is not one of the policies I subscribe to I'm afraid. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have only resulted in a recession for the past year. If middle and lower income families (the gap between rich and poor is at it's highest) are given tax breaks, they are more likely to spend it back and boost the economy (remember stimulus packages?)
 
You mean the stimulus packages that don't seem to have done anything, to the point where once again the Democrat-controlled Congress is considering handing out yet MORE taxpayer money?

Thing about Zimbabwe is that, if you take it back to base issues, is that they have made it next to impossible to run a business or make an investment there, as I said. When you do that, business closes up or leaves (which it has) and the country goes to hell. After all, who's going to run a business when there's every chance that the government is going to come in, take EVERYTHING you worked for, throw you out and give you nothing?

Also, you might want to look at the real causes of the recession, from real economists. Not party flacks on either side (I am not a Republican.) The recession wasn't caused by tax cuts. And as for wealthy, do you know what the median family income is these days? And do you know where the tax cuts started in terms of income levels?

Finally, do you know what percentage of tax revenue the rich pay? Here's a hint - it is totally disproportionate to the number of people paying *and* if it goes up, the rich are perfectly capable of going somewhere else with less tax, thus depriving the country of all revenue from them. See U2 and Madonna.

Capital goes where it is wanted, and leaves where it is oppressed. Always.
 
It's funny how some of you are so sensitive when someone mentions something about politics.

You guys were going for McCain in regards to this topic.

I was just explaining why I would still go for Obama (And still relating it to cars). Lambos r4ever already backed up my reasoning (didn't wanted to go further in the debate, to avoid further distractions).

On topic: It's a shame Cindy McCain was injured during that interview, would've loved to see her in action.
 
Spectre said:
You mean the stimulus packages that don't seem to have done anything, to the point where once again the Democrat-controlled Congress is considering handing out yet MORE taxpayer money?


Exactly, we needed some relief from the failure of the Bush administration. I know it certainly helped my family.

Thing about Zimbabwe is that, if you take it back to base issues, is that they have made it next to impossible to run a business or make an investment there, as I said. When you do that, business closes up or leaves (which it has) and the country goes to hell. After all, who's going to run a business when there's every chance that the government is going to come in, take EVERYTHING you worked for, throw you out and give you nothing?

I suggest you seriously study about Robert Mugabe's policies before you compare him to Barrack Obama's (Yes you did compare them by putting it in your argument). Also, you are comparing Zimbabwe to America when only in America can you own a business, large collection of Jaguars, a motorcycle and a non-repossessed home and don't even consider yourself rich. Ever heard about genocide and totalitarianism?

Also, you might want to look at the real causes of the recession, from real economists. Not party flacks on either side (I am not a Republican.) The recession wasn't caused by tax cuts. And as for wealthy, do you know what the median family income is these days? And do you know where the tax cuts started in terms of income levels?

Finally, do you know what percentage of tax revenue the rich pay? Here's a hint - it is totally disproportionate to the number of people paying *and* if it goes up, the rich are perfectly capable of going somewhere else with less tax, thus depriving the country of all revenue from them. See U2 and Madonna.

Not Madonna! quick let's tax the poor people and stay in depression.
Click to expand...
 
There is actually a thread in Off Topic/Political discussion for all this. Just sayin'...

Spectre said:
No, you shouldn't have to be a business or econ major to figure this out - but I find that more and more people who claim that tax increases "won't hurt me, so why should I care" don't even have the rudiments of economic theory or a clue as to how businesses work. That leads me to believe that they aren't even teaching that in high school any more.
Click to expand...
The whole "those tax increases won't hurt me, so why should I care" attitude is nothing more than class warfare. Adding the "tax the rich to pay for my benefits" attitude is the same, with an entitlement complex thrown in.

Lambos r4ever said:
You want to talk about people getting layed off? My dad's company (whom he worked for 10 years) was shut down last year during George Dubya's reign of terror. Now are you telling me that Mccain who voted with Bush 90% of the time will be better for this country than Obama?
Click to expand...
How did Bush shut down your dad's company?

Also, Newt Gingrich has a list (somewhere on the web) of the times McCain opposed Bush (who doesn't vote in the senate, by the way). It knocks the "90% of the time" talking point down a few notches. Also, McCain has a record of voting with the taxpayers 100% of the time. How? A group called "Citizens Against Government Waste" have given McCain a 100% rating for the 2007 legislative season, and an 88% lifetime rating. McCain, you see, is opposed to a type of unaccountable government spending we call "pork".

By comparison, Obama got a 10% rating for 2007 and 18% lifetime (but then, he's only been in the senate for about two years). His running mate, Biden, got a 0% rating for 2007, 22% lifetime.

Lambos r4ever said:
Actually, this is why Zimbabwe's economy is in ruins: (from wikipedia)
"The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption of the Mugabe regime and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land redistribution of 2000. Since this land redistribution began, agricultural exports, especially tobacco, have declined sharply. The Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force released a report in June 2007, estimating 60% of Zimbabwe's wildlife has died since 2000. The report warns that the loss of life combined with widespread deforestation is potentially disastrous for the tourist industry".
Click to expand...
Yes, wealth redistribution, whether it's cash, cattle or land, doesn't contribute to economic growth.

Feeding the rich so that the remains trickles down to the poor is not one of the policies I subscribe to I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Worked for Reagan. Want me to put it in an automotive perspective for you?

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have only resulted in a recession for the past year. If middle and lower income families (the gap between rich and poor is at it's highest) are given tax breaks, they are more likely to spend it back and boost the economy (remember stimulus packages?)
Click to expand...
You're contradicting yourself. The gap between the rich and the poor has grown because 1) more of the middle class moved up than any time in post-WWII history and 2) the poor have more children than the middle class and wealthy.

quick let's tax the poor people and stay in depression.
Click to expand...
The bottom 50% of Americans don't even pay federal taxes. The top 1%, however, pay 36% of the tax burden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top