That's probably true. But there are influential people all over so this is nothing special. Your parents can be influential. A blog owner can be influential. News reporters and article writers can be influential. The ideal scenario would be that everyone is able to think for themselves based on facts and issues, and not blindly get influenced by other people.
BOOOOOOO Pfft, anything to give Obama extra votes. If he wasn't a celebrity he wouldn't be winning anyhow. He's gonna be in trouble come November when voters start to take this gig seriously lol.
And what qualifies him to think that his conceited political opinions have any more credibility than any other liberal loudmouth enamored with Obama or self-centered, has-been, delusional celebrity spewing their hatred of America and love of this bridge to nowhere?
Eric Schmidt is risking quite a bit backing Obama, especially when he's the CEO of the worlds largest internet company. I know people will still use Google, but that's pretty much as though you single handled are endorsing a presidential elect for your whole company. So your telling me you want to start "Sharing the wealth" with the people who sit on their ass all day and live off welfare? Because that's what Obama is planning on doing, he's going to start giving tax breaks to the "Middle Class" and cause millions of families to have to give their money to people who are too lazy to earn their own money. Tax Checks for the poor? More like Tax Checks for the bums.... I don't believe McCain is the best candidate, nor do I think Palin is perfect, but Obama is definitely NOT the alternative. Mitt Romney would of been by far the better choice, we would of saw 4 years of economic deliverance, rather then if Obama gets elected where we'll see the economy struggle even more...
This is interesting news, but it goes to show you that not everyone is greedy and thinks that taxes are horrible. This probably will have some effect on the race, but I'm okay with that I'm an Obama supporter too.
How is that "sharing the wealth" with people on welfare? Obama's plan has to do with income tax. People on welfare aren't making income, so a tax break wouldn't apply to them. Obama's plan isn't to hand out checks to bums. His plan is to cut the taxes for low to middle income families, and raise taxes for the top 5% of the wealthiest. So if you do the math, 95% of the people in America would benefit from Obama's tax plan, including you if you make less than $250,000. I think this is way better than McCain's plan which would give bigger tax breaks to the already rich CEOs and corporations. This is not a hard concept to understand. Also keep in mind that McCain's wife is the chairman of the 3rd largest wholesaler for Anheuser-Busch, and also owns shares in Anheuser-Busch. In order words, they are very rich. You see where I'm going with this...
"socialite." HA! I assume you meant "socialist." Which of course is absolute bunk. The entire claim of "socialist" comes from the fact that Obama wants to roll back the tax cuts for the rich that McCain himself was against in 2001 and 2003. Is McCain a reformed socialist? A forward looking company like Google can see past the immediate (tax hikes on big corporations and the very rich) and see to the future (a better economy for the country as a whole.) In the end everyone benefits (including the rich) from a more fair tax system and an economy that works for everyone rather than just the super rich.
I'd like to offer everyone in DP a chance to benefit in this same manner... just send ME some of what YOU earned last week and we all benefit. I will of course dutifully plug your earnings (now mine, quit being so stingy about this... have a little patriotism for once) back into the economy. Back in a second with my Paypal address. Stay tuned.
robjones, congratulations on the meaningless metaphor. That reminds me of what Obama said about people accusing him of being a communist because he shared his toys as a child. Just because you say something is like something else doesn't mean that it is. The economy is a lot more complicated than that. It's been shown that "trickle down" economics DOES NOT WORK. Why do folks like yourself want to keep on trying something that has been proven ineffective?
Exactly what I was thinking. Google is looking into the future here and if the CEO is endorsing Obama then he has to have a reason. Large corporations make more money, they can afford to pay more in taxes.
In weightlifting certainly. In brain power? I doubt it Vote Obama on TUESDAY. Tell everyone you know that they can find their voting location at VoteForChange.com