Stick a fork in this moron.

[sheepshead]

Obama: 'Lipstick on a pig'

Amie Parnes reports from Lebanon, VA:

Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

"We've had enough of the same old thing."

The crowd apparently took the "lipstick" line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: "lipstick."

[retailguy]

I hope he keeps up with this shit. It'll give those few remaining undecided voters the clearest possible view of who he really is....

Good Lord.

[packinpatland]

Please...........I hardly think that's what he meant. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

An old time expression..you guys are really reaching.

I guess it was ok for torie clark (former comm dir in the bush admin and mccain advisor) to use that as the title of her book. :oops:

[Joemailman]

At least he didn't say it's still an uppity pig.

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, those are some of the more intelligent things Obama has said--taking away his teleprompter does wonders.

Four straight days now, the Gallup Poll--the most respected and reputed to be objective poll--has had McCain/Palin up by 4 to 6 percentage points.

Go ahead and stick that fork in Obama. He indeed is done.

[SkinBasket]

Ty is on 24 hour damage control these days.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty is on 24 hour damage control these days.

LOL

Man, we aren't even close to the election. All this stuff is pretty inconsequential.

Don't have to do much..as the electoral college clearly, at this moment, favors Obama.

[SkinBasket]

Clearly.

[retailguy]

Ty is on 24 hour damage control these days.

LOL

Man, we aren't even close to the election. All this stuff is pretty inconsequential.

Don't have to do much..as the electoral college clearly, at this moment, favors Obama.



Many of the state polls used to determine the Electoral College standings, however, were conducted before the conventions.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/presidential.polls/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Twisting and turning. turning & twisting. That's the Tyrone way!

[HowardRoark]

Nice daily updated here too...Colorado, Nevada, Virginia. you guys will get all the ads on TV.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty is on 24 hour damage control these days.

LOL

Man, we aren't even close to the election. All this stuff is pretty inconsequential.

Don't have to do much..as the electoral college clearly, at this moment, favors Obama.



Many of the state polls used to determine the Electoral College standings, however, were conducted before the conventions.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/presidential.polls/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Twisting and turning. turning & twisting. That's the Tyrone way!

Who said differently? Should we not go on the last available data? You are a freakin moron.

But, as Howard posts...Obama still up. Buhbye.

[digitaldean]

If Obama and Biden can win their argument on the issues, I have no problem.

But both Biden and Obama have lately come across as condescending. Even if you discount the lipstick on a pig comments, they have still belittled Palin.

If Obama wasn't worried he wouldn't be having a flock of DNC lawyers dropped into Anchorage to dig up whatever dirt they could find on Palin.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122098190668515511.html?mod=opinion_journal_poli tical_diary

Face it, even though McCain is far from a charismatic figure, has a veep choice that may just energize independents enough to win it.

If Obama and Biden continue their current tack of patronizing toward McCain-Palin, they will go down.

[SkinBasket]

But, as Howard posts...Obama still up. Buhbye.

My goodness. I didn't know that I missed the vote. That's too bad.


Oh, wait. You mean up in those telephone survey polls? Those ones conducted mainly during working hours? The same ones that can't seem to explain the sudden conservative (read: employed) turnout?

Whew. I thought for a moment the fight was already lost.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know...thankfully I'm not in a battleground state, but they do seem to have a talent for calling me at dinnertime....

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But, as Howard posts...Obama still up. Buhbye.

My goodness. I didn't know that I missed the vote. That's too bad.


Oh, wait. You mean up in those telephone survey polls? Those ones conducted mainly during working hours? The same ones that can't seem to explain the sudden conservative (read: employed) turnout?

Whew. I thought for a moment the fight was already lost.

Ok. Please explain to your brethren then that the Gallup/ras/etc..mean nothing then. :roll:

Yours is a specious argument. :oops:

Can't explain..really? I guess all the pundits on fox explaining the palin bounce, the independents moving towards mccain, etc. are just figments of my imagination.

[SkinBasket]

just figments of my imagination.

I think you have a lot of figments. Or delusions. Specifying between the two might be difficult.

[Freak Out]

This race is far from over. Palin has little to no political history so the digging will die down soon enough and unless "troopergate" really gets legs it is going to come down to the debates and the issues like it should. There are a load of things really outside any of these wankers control that could play a big part in the outcome of the election but we'll see what happens in the next 40 days or so.
The polls and a bounce mean zero at the moment.
The specter of Dubya could yet play a very detrimental part as well.

[Tarlam!]

The World is watching very closely. The good news is, the World is in a Win/Win situation. Both candidates are light years better than Dubbya. So, the World gets improvement, no matter who you'all elect.

[sheepshead]

Ty in this case perception is reality. There is no two ways out of this one whatever the intent was.

I'm not sure he was necessarily being malicious but one thing is certain, he's an arrogant jerk.

Remember Barry, when you point a finger, three are pointing back at you.

What would you guys be saying if McCain said something similar about Michelle O?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA

[mraynrand]

not really confined to Obama:

"One can only hope that John McCain has an awfully big tube of lipstick, because he’ll need it to put lipstick on that pig."
http://canarypapers.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/putting-lipstick-on-a-pig-mccains-pygmalion-complex-with-sarah-palin/

"Joe Biden makes Sarah Palin look like a Lipstick-Wearing-Pig"
http://whitenoiseinsanity.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/joe-biden-makes-sarah-palin-look-like-lipstick-wearing-pig/


"The "PIG with LIPSTICK", Sarah PALIN finds out "TROOPER-GATE" SCANDAL goes to COURT with VERDICT coming before NOVEMBER 2008 ELECTION"
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=772177

[LL2]

The World is watching very closely. The good news is, the World is in a Win/Win situation. Both candidates are light years better than Dubbya. So, the World gets improvement, no matter who you'all elect.

Tarlam...does the U.S. political scene get coverage in the press (print and TV media) in Europe and England? What are they saying about Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin?

[LL2]

Please...........I hardly think that's what he meant. :roll:

Maybe not...but the Dems and the media would have a quite a day with it if McCain said anything about lipstick on a pig...and many would think they were referring to Hilary.

[mraynrand]

Please...........I hardly think that's what he meant. :roll:

Maybe not...but the Dems and the media would have a quite a day with it if McCain said anything about lipstick on a pig...and many would think they were referring to Hilary.

The Dems would. But in the end it won't mean much. Just like the lipstick jab at Palin. Ultimately, it's just a jab - and it is a play off her most memorabl line from the convention. It was a good comeback. The Dems are going to give her hell and she has to take it and dish it back. It's going to be a battle. Plus, let's be honest about the actual jab - 'lipstick on a pig' isn't calling the person a pig - it's a general comment about someone's political appeal, and how you can't pretty it up with lipstick. Next.

[hoosier]

Please...........I hardly think that's what he meant. :roll:

Maybe not...but the Dems and the media would have a quite a day with it if McCain said anything about lipstick on a pig...and many would think they were referring to Hilary.

The Dems would. But in the end it won't mean much. Just like the lipstick jab at Palin. Ultimately, it's just a jab - and it is a play off her most memorabl line from the convention. It was a good comeback. The Dems are going to give her hell and she has to take it and dish it back. It's going to be a battle. Plus, let's be honest about the actual jab - 'lipstick on a pig' isn't calling the person a pig - it's a general comment about someone's political appeal, and how you can't pretty it up with lipstick. Next.

I take back (at least partially) what I said in the other thread about hypocrisy. Mraynrand may well be the poster with whom I disagree most in here on political issues, but his intellectual honesty is unquestionable.

[texaspackerbacker]

The World is watching very closely. The good news is, the World is in a Win/Win situation. Both candidates are light years better than Dubbya. So, the World gets improvement, no matter who you'all elect.

Tarlam...does the U.S. political scene get coverage in the press (print and TV media) in Europe and England? What are they saying about Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin?

That's a good question. Tarlam, I know you have said in the past that Dem/lib candidates get a lot more positive media coverage. Obviously, they would be fascinated by Barak Obama. But with the Palin factor now in play, are most Europeans--media as well as regular people--star-struck with her? Or negative about her because of her generally conservative/pro-American attitude? Or something else altogether?

[sheepshead]

Tell your friends across the pond that every cheer for Obama means another 250,000 votes for McCain. We don't like outsiders meddling in our business ESPECIALLY national politics.

[HowardRoark]

Colorado moved to toss-up from the Dems overnight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

[Joemailman]

Ty in this case perception is reality. There is no two ways out of this one whatever the intent was.

I'm not sure he was necessarily being malicious but one thing is certain, he's an arrogant jerk.

Remember Barry, when you point a finger, three are pointing back at you.

What would you guys be saying if McCain said something similar about Michelle O?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA


Since you seem really knowledgeable about politics, I assume you know that McCain used the same phrase while talking about Hillary's health care plan earlier this year.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-piggish-debat.html
September 09, 2008 8:42 PM

Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt.

McCain said Clinton's proposal was “eerily” similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”

A common expression, right?

McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig.

After all, McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era."

Now McCain is running an internet ad accusing Obama of a smear for using the same phrase he used against Clinton. Maybe he should accuse Obama of plagiarism instead. Not that I would want to accuse Saint John of hypocrisy or anything...

[texaspackerbacker]

Colorado moved to toss-up from the Dems overnight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/
election_2008_electoral_college_update

Exactly, and on top of that, you have poll results skewed in favor of Obama because there are so many Hispanics in Colorado (and New Mexico) aren't going to tell the pollsters, but who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a black guy.

[Tarlam!]

The World is watching very closely. The good news is, the World is in a Win/Win situation. Both candidates are light years better than Dubbya. So, the World gets improvement, no matter who you'all elect.

Tarlam...does the U.S. political scene get coverage in the press (print and TV media) in Europe and England? What are they saying about Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin?

That's a good question. Tarlam, I know you have said in the past that Dem/lib candidates get a lot more positive media coverage. Obviously, they would be fascinated by Barak Obama. But with the Palin factor now in play, are most Europeans--media as well as regular people--star-struck with her? Or negative about her because of her generally conservative/pro-American attitude? Or something else altogether?

Absolutely! The extent of the coverage obviously plays out to how much local news there is. But, the US election is world news topic #1. I've lived in Australia and Europe and both parts of the world are totally tuned into the US Presidential Elections.

The interesting thing for me is, the world has no bias towards your elections. The press reall call it as they see it.

Palin has really changed the dynmics of the election. Many Euros are concerned by McCains age. He is one vintage dude. Palin coming in as his backstop has really helped his image in many Euo minds.

[sheepshead]

Ty in this case perception is reality. There is no two ways out of this one whatever the intent was.

I'm not sure he was necessarily being malicious but one thing is certain, he's an arrogant jerk.

Remember Barry, when you point a finger, three are pointing back at you.

What would you guys be saying if McCain said something similar about Michelle O?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA


Since you seem really knowledgeable about politics, I assume you know that McCain used the same phrase while talking about Hillary's health care plan earlier this year.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-piggish-debat.html
September 09, 2008 8:42 PM

Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt.

McCain said Clinton's proposal was “eerily” similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”

A common expression, right?

McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig.

After all, McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era."

Now McCain is running an internet ad accusing Obama of a smear for using the same phrase he used against Clinton. Maybe he should accuse Obama of plagiarism instead. Not that I would want to accuse Saint John of hypocrisy or anything...

It really doesnt matter what you and I think now does it.

[sheepshead]

Colorado moved to toss-up from the Dems overnight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/
election_2008_electoral_college_update

Exactly, and on top of that, you have poll results skewed in favor of Obama because there are so many Hispanics in Colorado (and New Mexico) aren't going to tell the pollsters, but who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a black guy.

I actually think Barry has to be UP 10 or more points to be even for a variety of reasons, this being one of them.

[LL2]

The World is watching very closely. The good news is, the World is in a Win/Win situation. Both candidates are light years better than Dubbya. So, the World gets improvement, no matter who you'all elect.

Tarlam...does the U.S. political scene get coverage in the press (print and TV media) in Europe and England? What are they saying about Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin?

That's a good question. Tarlam, I know you have said in the past that Dem/lib candidates get a lot more positive media coverage. Obviously, they would be fascinated by Barak Obama. But with the Palin factor now in play, are most Europeans--media as well as regular people--star-struck with her? Or negative about her because of her generally conservative/pro-American attitude? Or something else altogether?

Absolutely! The extent of the coverage obviously plays out to how much local news there is. But, the US election is world news topic #1. I've lived in Australia and Europe and both parts of the world are totally tuned into the US Presidential Elections.

The interesting thing for me is, the world has no bias towards your elections. The press reall call it as they see it.

Palin has really changed the dynmics of the election. Many Euros are concerned by McCains age. He is one vintage dude. Palin coming in as his backstop has really helped his image in many Euo minds.

Probably because Euro's have seen a hottie lead a country since Margaret Thatcher.

[The Leaper]

IMO, the biggest gaffe so far has been Biden PUBLICALLY ADMITING that Clinton would've been a better choice as a VP by Obama.

All McCain has to do is play that over and over again between now and November, and the election is his. You can't have your VP publically say he was not the best choice...and have any hope of convincing voters that you deserve the presidency.

Biden = dumbass
Obama = bigger dumbass for choosing him

Obama would have the White House locked up right now if his ego wasn't so monstrous that he could have selected Clinton as his VP.

That is precisely how Ronald Reagan won in 1980...hard fought primary with Bush Sr. but took him as a running mate. Two landslide elections later, Reagan clearly made the smart choice.

Obama? Not so smart. Why do I want a dumbass like that running the nation? I thought we were looking for a CHANGE from the current dumbass. Guess not. You can put lipstick on a pig...but it is still a dumbass pig.

[texaspackerbacker]

Colorado moved to toss-up from the Dems overnight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/
election_2008_electoral_college_update

Exactly, and on top of that, you have poll results skewed in favor of Obama because there are so many Hispanics in Colorado (and New Mexico) aren't going to tell the pollsters, but who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a black guy.

I actually think Barry has to be UP 10 or more points to be even for a variety of reasons, this being one of them.

Another one of those is that there are a lot of women who wouldn't tell pollsters, but when voting time comes, will vote to get a woman a heartbeat away from the presidency. I mean women who probably wouldn't be voting Republican anyway. They, of course, make up 53% of the voting population, and in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, maybe Minnesota, maybe even Wisconsin, it wouldn't take many to tip the scales.

In addition, the Dems say men are switching to Obama, compensating for women going to McCain. I can just see union guys up north saying no way I'll vote for that woman--then turning around and doing it. Ain't the secret ballot wonderful!

[Guiness]

Ok, talking with a friend who pays attention to politiking south of the border, and he said the feeling is that the reason Obama didn't pick Clinton as a running mate was because he didn't want Bill back in the White House - it would be a monster shadown, especially early in the term. Who's going to tell Bill he can't attend a meeting? Who's chair is that in the oval office - a guy who had it for 8yrs, or the guy who's been there for 8 minutes?

On another note, we're having our own federal election in these parts. The Conservatives just ran an add showing a pigeon pooping on the Liberal leader's head.

[texaspackerbacker]

Those pigeons can really be insightful.

Clinton's having Obama for lunch today. Or should i say, they had lunch together.

You mentioned the downside of having Clinton (Bill) around the White House. The upside is maybe getting some of Bill's leftovers. :P

[MJZiggy]

Colorado moved to toss-up from the Dems overnight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/
election_2008_electoral_college_update

Exactly, and on top of that, you have poll results skewed in favor of Obama because there are so many Hispanics in Colorado (and New Mexico) aren't going to tell the pollsters, but who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a black guy.

I think I found the poll that addresses this...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080906/cm_uc_crabox/op_477308;_ylt=A0wNcx11qMtIO04AzgWt8c8F

[LL2]

Colorado moved to toss-up from the Dems overnight.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/
election_2008_electoral_college_update

Exactly, and on top of that, you have poll results skewed in favor of Obama because there are so many Hispanics in Colorado (and New Mexico) aren't going to tell the pollsters, but who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a black guy.

I think I found the poll that addresses this...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080906/cm_uc_crabox/op_477308;_ylt=A0wNcx11qMtIO04AzgWt8c8F

I think that's a no brainer that racist will not be voting for Obama. I think Condoleeza Rice should've run for president. We would've had the first African-American and woman as president!

[texaspackerbacker]

How is it somehow racist when white people (or Hispanics) vote for the white guy, but it's NOT racist when the black people vote for the black guy?

Arguably, the huge majority of those white and Hispanics are just voting FOR the person who REFLECTS their own views and values and AGAINST the guy who is so blatantly against their views and values.

Black people, on the other hand, vote in 90% + numbers for the candidates who are diametrically opposed to their own views and values. How many black people do you know that are FOR the gay agenda, abortion, and all the other sick perversions that Democrats routinely support? How many black people want HIGHER taxes--and the resultant worse economy? How many black people have a rotten Michelle Obama-like attitude toward their country? How many black people WANT America to pull out of a war we are winning--that many of their sons and daughters have fought and sacrificed for?

I wouldn't accuse those 90% + black people voting Democrat of being racist, though. I WOULD, however, accuse their "slave overseers"--the black "leaders" who keep those black people down on the liberal "plantation" of being racist or worse.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Well, the recent Gallup Poll has the McCain lead from 5% just a week ago to 2%. Put Obama back on the grill, he's apparently not done yet.

[Kiwon]

Well, the recent Gallup Poll has the McCain lead from 5% just a week ago to 2%. Put Obama back on the grill, he's apparently not done yet.

This thing will not be decided until Election Night. The press will do what they always do, report on the most favorable exit polling in the East and hope that voters in the West will follow their lead.

I wish the crazy thing was over by tomorrow. It's going to be a long 50 days. Enough already!

[th87]

No one's concerned that Palin's woefully inexperienced?

[Harlan Huckleby]

No one's concerned that Palin's woefully inexperienced?

Obama was in Washington for only 1 year before he started running for office. He has no management experience, and limited experience overall.

I think it is RIDICULOUS that we have people as unqualified as Palin and Obama running for the White House. I value Palin's leadership role as governor and mayor more than OBama's legislative stints, but she is a joke too. Fortunately she is just a VP, who at most will be called-upon to be a caretaker for a couple years in the event of death.

[Scott Campbell]

Well, the recent Gallup Poll has the McCain lead from 5% just a week ago to 2%. Put Obama back on the grill, he's apparently not done yet.


I don't think that polls this far out mean much.

Obama is the odds on favorite to win this thing. Forget the polls and look at George's approval ratings.

[Joemailman]

Forget the national polls in a close election. They haven't abolished the electoral college.RealClearPolitics has 9 states rated as tossups (Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

This is likely where the election will be decided.

[texaspackerbacker]

No one's concerned that Palin's woefully inexperienced?

No one's concerned that Obama's woefully inexperienced--even more so than Palin?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Well, the recent Gallup Poll has the McCain lead from 5% just a week ago to 2%. Put Obama back on the grill, he's apparently not done yet.
Here we are 5 days later and now Obama is up 4% per the Gallup polls.

This is one roller coaster of a polling season we got here.

[mraynrand]

How is it somehow racist ......

Reminds me of the Democrat primaries. If you voted for Hilary, you're racist, if you voted for Obama, you're sexist, and if you voted for Edwards, well, you're a moron.

[cpk1994]

Well, the recent Gallup Poll has the McCain lead from 5% just a week ago to 2%. Put Obama back on the grill, he's apparently not done yet.


I don't think that polls this far out mean much.

Obama is the odds on favorite to win this thing. Forget the polls and look at George's approval ratings.Hopefully Obama doesn't think like that otherwise he'll lose in a landslide.

[packinpatland]

Actually, those are some of the more intelligent things Obama has said--taking away his teleprompter does wonders.

Four straight days now, the Gallup Poll--the most respected and reputed to be objective poll--has had McCain/Palin up by 4 to 6 percentage points.

Go ahead and stick that fork in Obama. He indeed is done.

Sept 19, 2008

From the most respected and reputed to be objective poll......

For the fourth straight day, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has "inched forward" in Gallup's presidential tracking poll and he now leads Republican John McCain among registered voters by 5 percentage points -- 49%-44%.


Might want to pull back the fork................ :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex now reformulating how this loss of lead in the gallup poll is actually a positive for Mac.

Tex missed his true calling....shoulda been in pr.

[mraynrand]

Tex now reformulating how this loss of lead in the gallup poll is actually a positive for Mac.

Tex missed his true calling....shoulda been in pr.

It seems like he is.

[MadScientist]

Black people, on the other hand, vote in 90% + numbers for the candidates who are diametrically opposed to their own views and values. How many black people do you know that are FOR the gay agenda, abortion, and all the other sick perversions that Democrats routinely support? How many black people want HIGHER taxes--and the resultant worse economy?

I'm not black, but I can point out a few obvious holes in your argument.
1) The 'gay agenda' is basically treat gays as people, without discrimination. Gays aren't any particular harm to blacks, but bigots are.
2) Most blacks, like most whites will get a tax cut under Obama, but not McCain. If you are pulling in more than $250,000 good for you, but don't expect that many to worry about your higher taxes.
3) Putting money into the hands of people who will spend most or all of it, as Obama's plan will do, will stimulate the economy far more than in the hands of people who are not spending it.
4) Obama's call for increasing the minimum wage, will boost more than just the very lowest wages, stimulating the economy (see #3), and getting people off welfare.
5) Obama's health care plan has a better chance of getting passed and covering people. McCain's plan that includes taxing employer paid health insurance is likely to cost many people more than the health tax rebate he proposes.
6) The best way to reduce abortions is by improving the economy and by giving kids a comprehensive sex ed (how's that abstinence only thing working for you Bristol Palin?)


Tex, if the Packers o-line would open up as many holes as are in your arguments, Grant, Jackson and Lumking would each get 200 yards a game.

[sheepshead]

Black people, on the other hand, vote in 90% + numbers for the candidates who are diametrically opposed to their own views and values. How many black people do you know that are FOR the gay agenda, abortion, and all the other sick perversions that Democrats routinely support? How many black people want HIGHER taxes--and the resultant worse economy?

I'm not black, but I can point out a few obvious holes in your argument.
1) The 'gay agenda' is basically treat gays as people, without discrimination. Gays aren't any particular harm to blacks, but bigots are.
2) Most blacks, like most whites will get a tax cut under Obama, but not McCain. If you are pulling in more than $250,000 good for you, but don't expect that many to worry about your higher taxes.
3) Putting money into the hands of people who will spend most or all of it, as Obama's plan will do, will stimulate the economy far more than in the hands of people who are not spending it.
4) Obama's call for increasing the minimum wage, will boost more than just the very lowest wages, stimulating the economy (see #3), and getting people off welfare.
5) Obama's health care plan has a better chance of getting passed and covering people. McCain's plan that includes taxing employer paid health insurance is likely to cost many people more than the health tax rebate he proposes.
6) The best way to reduce abortions is by improving the economy and by giving kids a comprehensive sex ed (how's that abstinence only thing working for you Bristol Palin?)


Tex, if the Packers o-line would open up as many holes as are in your arguments, Grant, Jackson and Lumking would each get 200 yards a game.

This...is crap.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well thought out response Sheep. Probably your best. :roll:

[hoosier]

Well thought out response Sheep. Probably your best. :roll:

Hey, he's a busy guy. Posts, what, at least 20 youtube and foxnews links each day? Give the guy a break.

[texaspackerbacker]

Black people, on the other hand, vote in 90% + numbers for the candidates who are diametrically opposed to their own views and values. How many black people do you know that are FOR the gay agenda, abortion, and all the other sick perversions that Democrats routinely support? How many black people want HIGHER taxes--and the resultant worse economy?

I'm not black, but I can point out a few obvious holes in your argument.
1) The 'gay agenda' is basically treat gays as people, without discrimination. Gays aren't any particular harm to blacks, but bigots are.
2) Most blacks, like most whites will get a tax cut under Obama, but not McCain. If you are pulling in more than $250,000 good for you, but don't expect that many to worry about your higher taxes.
3) Putting money into the hands of people who will spend most or all of it, as Obama's plan will do, will stimulate the economy far more than in the hands of people who are not spending it.
4) Obama's call for increasing the minimum wage, will boost more than just the very lowest wages, stimulating the economy (see #3), and getting people off welfare.
5) Obama's health care plan has a better chance of getting passed and covering people. McCain's plan that includes taxing employer paid health insurance is likely to cost many people more than the health tax rebate he proposes.
6) The best way to reduce abortions is by improving the economy and by giving kids a comprehensive sex ed (how's that abstinence only thing working for you Bristol Palin?)


Tex, if the Packers o-line would open up as many holes as are in your arguments, Grant, Jackson and Lumking would each get 200 yards a game.

MadScientist, a detailed post from a leftist is, indeed, rare, and merits a detailed response. I congratulate you for having a significantly higher level of brains and balls than practically all the other forum lefties. Just the same, you are wrong in your post as follows:

1. That's NOT what the "gay agenda" is. It is the promotion, teaching, and displaying in entertainment of the idea that homosexuality is nothing worse than a morally equivalent alternative to normal heterosexual behavior. Blacks I know, whether they are the moral church-going type or the ghetto thug type or any type in between are MORE opposed to gayness and any promotion of it than most white people. Anybody honestly disagree with that?

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.

3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.

4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.

5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.

6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.

My arguments actually are much more similar to the PASS BLOCKING of the Packer O Line, but then, I went all through that in the other side of the forum.

[packinpatland]

"1. That's NOT what the "gay agenda" is. It is the promotion, teaching, and displaying in entertainment of the idea that homosexuality is nothing worse than a morally equivalent alternative to normal heterosexual behavior. Blacks I know, whether they are the moral church-going type or the ghetto thug type or any type in between are MORE opposed to gayness and any promotion of it than most white people. Anybody honestly disagree with that? "

I disagree........where's your proof? Other than.. "Blacks I know"?
:roll:

[bobblehead]

Ok, let me get this straight, we are going to tax the rich (who invest) more, and then raise minimum wages (reducing return on investment). Sounds like a lock solid job destroying plan to me. Its also a good way to chase capital out of the country. An individual that I won't name is actively opening a corporation in a foreign country as we speak so he has somewhere to move his capital in december of '09 (right before the bush tax cuts expire). Should be good though, cuz he is evil and rich and we want him out of this country anyway...he is an exploiter who provides (low paying) jobs.

PS...yes national health care, I almost forgot. Lets add a huge social program to a country that is 9.6 Trillion in debt with a 460 billion dollar annual deficit and 59 Trillion in future unfunded Liabilities. Good plan, just in case we were going to grow out of this while spending more responsibly this will definately drive the final nail in the coffin.

[packinpatland]

Ok, let me get this straight, we are going to tax the rich (who invest) more, and then raise minimum wages (reducing return on investment). Sounds like a lock solid job destroying plan to me. Its also a good way to chase capital out of the country. An individual that I won't name is actively opening a corporation in a foreign country as we speak so he has somewhere to move his capital in december of '09 (right before the bush tax cuts expire). Should be good though, cuz he is evil and rich and we want him out of this country anyway...he is an exploiter who provides (low paying) jobs.

PS...yes national health care, I almost forgot. Lets add a huge social program to a country that is 9.6 Trillion in debt with a 460 billion dollar annual deficit and 59 Trillion in future unfunded Liabilities. Good plan, just in case we were going to grow out of this while spending more responsibly this will definately drive the final nail in the coffin.


Is this with or without the recent 700 billion bailout added in?

What a true patriot your 'individual' is............ :roll:

[MadScientist]

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.
From Factcheck.org:
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.


3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.
The independent analysis above shows more money would be put in the hands of lower income people. This will be more stimulating in the short term (see http://www.cbo.gov//ftpdocs/88xx/doc8893/blog-econstimulustable.htm). Your comments about investment would hold water for long-term growth only if the high end tax cuts were targeted specifically to investments that produce growth within the U.S.

4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.
Perahps because actual results do not agree with your opinions. Analysis showed states with higher minimum wages than the federal standard had higher job growth. A more detailed analysis of Oregon's 1997 minimum wage hike showed real wage gains for those on the bottom, no net job loss, even in the retail sector, and an increase in the proportion of welfare recipients moving to employment. Even looking at a generally negative projection by South Dakota, concludes that the amount of money gained by the low income earners by the hike would be about 5 times greater than the amount lost due to lost jobs.

5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.
What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?

6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.
You mentioned abortion in your rant about democrats and their immoral agenda. I just point out that the democratic position is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and comprehensive sex ed is effective in doing so. I would agree that given what this country is facing, abortion should be a minor issue.

[SkinBasket]

From Factcheck.org:
[i]We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “redistribute wealth for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would funnel wealth to 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average redistribution of $1,118 of someone else's hard earned money.

Fixed.

[hoosier]

I see the line item veto power that skinbasket has been lobbying for has finally been delivered.

MS, as soon as you cited the Brookings Institute you lost Tex. Since the Brookings played a key role in founding the UN, Tex undoubtedly considers it part of the fiendish and widespread left-wing, media-driven conspiracy he has discovered, which is hell-bent on undermining this country and corrupting all decent, normal, god-fearing Americans. So please keep the Romper Room free of all references to subversive, communist-infested institutions. :lol:

[mraynrand]

What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?

The COST of an ER visit is identical for people being treated for the same trauma, regardless of their ability to pay. With regard to non-emergencies, many hospitals are conducting more 'triage' in the ER and rescheduling non-emergency cases to a later time. People without insurance who appear the next day get treated in a regular clinic and receive 'economic triage' - that is, their ability to to pay is assessed and they are signed up for either an existing coverage or a payment plan. Fact is that the largest group of uninsured are people making at least 40K/year who choose not to carry insurance, and most everyone else is covered by some existing plan, except illegal aliens.

The question about health care is who will pay. Will we support turning it into a completely government run welfare program, or encourage personal responsibility. If those who can pay, do pay, and people are accountable for their treatment options, and mechanisms exist for individuals to get large group insurance, there would be a whole lot more money and resources available for those who truly cannot pay.

[mraynrand]

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.
From Factcheck.org:
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.

You can't have a tax cut when you're not paying any tazes. Under Bush's tax cuts, about 10 million stopped paying income tax and the lowest tax bracket went from 15% to 10%. When Obama gives a 'tax cut' to 95%, that includes all the folks making less than 37,595, including many who pay NO income tax. Thus, these folks would get a check from the government, courtesy of other tax payers. Now, some have called this a cut because it will essentially reduce the FICA withholding, but FICA isn't supposed to be a tax - it's supposed to be a 'pension/retirement' payment - even if it does work like a ponzi scheme. In effect, Obama's cut amounts to shift in FICA from a retirement plan to another welfare program.

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

[bobblehead]

Ok, let me get this straight, we are going to tax the rich (who invest) more, and then raise minimum wages (reducing return on investment). Sounds like a lock solid job destroying plan to me. Its also a good way to chase capital out of the country. An individual that I won't name is actively opening a corporation in a foreign country as we speak so he has somewhere to move his capital in december of '09 (right before the bush tax cuts expire). Should be good though, cuz he is evil and rich and we want him out of this country anyway...he is an exploiter who provides (low paying) jobs.

PS...yes national health care, I almost forgot. Lets add a huge social program to a country that is 9.6 Trillion in debt with a 460 billion dollar annual deficit and 59 Trillion in future unfunded Liabilities. Good plan, just in case we were going to grow out of this while spending more responsibly this will definately drive the final nail in the coffin.


Is this with or without the recent 700 billion bailout added in?

What a true patriot your 'individual' is............ :roll:

Since you know nothing about said individual making a judgement of him is kinda...well...

More importantly I think your definition of patriot is "one who allows an abusive gov't to confiscate his wealth and distribute it to those who have not earned it or be spent by those who have proven incapable of responsible behavior"

I personally have absolutely ZERO problems with someone moving capital out of this country if other countries offer a better environment for investing it....what would you expect to happen?

[bobblehead]

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

Barrack Obama should determine how valuable a job is and therefore determine what the pay scale should be.

[mraynrand]

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

Barrack Obama should determine how valuable a job is and therefore determine what the pay scale should be.

I think that's pretty much what the dems want to do under the 'equal pay' legislation they have lined up if he gets elected. Determine the 'absolute value' of each and every job and legislate wages, using equal protection and Title 19 precedent. (So that a teacher, social worker, for example, will be paid more than a truck driver or construction worker, based on 'objective criteria' such as training and education required involved, etc.).

[bobblehead]

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

Barrack Obama should determine how valuable a job is and therefore determine what the pay scale should be.

I think that's pretty much what the dems want to do under the 'equal pay' legislation they have lined up if he gets elected. Determine the 'absolute value' of each and every job and legislate wages, using equal protection and Title 19 precedent. (So that a teacher, social worker, for example, will be paid more than a truck driver or construction worker, based on 'objective criteria' such as training and education required involved, etc.).

This sounds suspiciously like socialism....

[MadScientist]

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

You are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence to say that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in jobs, as correlation != causality. However the original claim by Tex was that raising the minimum wage would cause net job losses. The lack of correlation certainly argues against causality.

The 'thought experiment' is of course just silliness, not much different than if you had said 'If you liberals think it was a good idea to drop the voting age from 21 to 18, why aren't you saying its an even better idea to drop it down to 3? Huh? Huh? Why? Why?'

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. 2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better :twisted: )

[HowardRoark]

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

You are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence to say that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in jobs, as correlation != causality. However the original claim by Tex was that raising the minimum wage would cause net job losses. The lack of correlation certainly argues against causality.

The 'thought experiment' is of course just silliness, not much different than if you had said 'If you liberals think it was a good idea to drop the voting age from 21 to 18, why aren't you saying its an even better idea to drop it down to 3? Huh? Huh? Why? Why?'

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. 2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better :twisted: )

Has there ever been a study on the "wage economics" (made up word?) in the Illegal Immigrant Community. I am being serious. I was reading this thread earlier today and was trying to think of a petri dish that might shed some light on the subject.

Real data, not anectodal. This is, after all, an unregulated model.

[mraynrand]

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. )

What times in the past? When minimum wages were originally instituted? Do you know why the minimum wage was put in pace in the first place? Do you know what it's affect was on employment, specifically for the most unskilled workers? Look it up.

I proposed a number of wages. You agreed with me that 50 dollars an hour for minimum wage is too much, because it would cause inflation. But again, at some point if you impose a minimum wage, you must know better than all the businesses what wage will not drive away business. How will you do this? How will you know what is the correct wage for millions of different jobs? If 6.75 an hour is better for workers, why not 6.80 or 7.50? Or 10?

[mraynrand]

2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better :twisted: )

It is a tax on business, and businesses always pass taxes onto the consumer. So, either prices will increase, or employees will be laid off. And unemployed person is a tax on society. So increasing the minimum wage artificially wipes out any gains SPECIFICALLY for low end workers - it is well documented that they are the first to lose jobs with higher minimum wage standards (or to not get jobs in the first place). From your final point, it's clear that you view raising the minimum wage as equivalent to a tax to generate a social program. I agree - it is like a hand out program, with the effect of discouraging hiring and encouraging firing employees and raising prices. That's why it's a bad thing.

[texaspackerbacker]

2. Obama's 95% getting a tax cut is pure fiction--an out and out LIE. McCain's tax cuts will be across the board, which means everybody gets them except those who pay no tax at all.
From Factcheck.org:
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

You can argue merits, likelihood of passing and impact, but when you call Obama's claim a lie, it is you who are lying.


3. Putting more money in the hands of low income people--"those who will spend most or all of it" would indeed be a good thing, but first of all, it would NOT be the result of Obama's plans, and secondly, would NOT be MORE beneficial than increasing the money in the hands of upper income people--who would invest it. If you don't believe me, just ask Howard.
The independent analysis above shows more money would be put in the hands of lower income people. This will be more stimulating in the short term (see http://www.cbo.gov//ftpdocs/88xx/doc8893/blog-econstimulustable.htm). Your comments about investment would hold water for long-term growth only if the high end tax cuts were targeted specifically to investments that produce growth within the U.S.

4. Historically, raising the minimum wage has been a nightmare for the very people the libs claim to want to help. Increasing the cost of employing individuals invariably causes employers to employ less individuals--a lot of working poor get laid off. Still, Dem/libs continue to push the same fail idea. More people end up ON welfare instead of getting off--assuming you include "unemployment compensation" as welfare. In addition, the economy is NOT stimulated by purely private sector transactions, but only by either government confiscating less tax money or injecting money. Forcing employers to pay higher wages does neither.
Perahps because actual results do not agree with your opinions. Analysis showed states with higher minimum wages than the federal standard had higher job growth. A more detailed analysis of Oregon's 1997 minimum wage hike showed real wage gains for those on the bottom, no net job loss, even in the retail sector, and an increase in the proportion of welfare recipients moving to employment. Even looking at a generally negative projection by South Dakota, concludes that the amount of money gained by the low income earners by the hike would be about 5 times greater than the amount lost due to lost jobs.

5. You're right that Obama's health care plan has a much better chance of getting through a Dem/lib controlled Congress. However, it also has a 100% chance of doing more harm to the country and everybody in it than McCain's. The best plan of all is NO PLAN AT ALL--leaving well enough alone.
What's the wait in emergency rooms where you are? How much money (ultimately coming out of our pockets) is wasted paying for high-priced ER visits for people with no insurance?

6. I don't recall commenting about sex ed. I'm pretty much neutral/don't care about that. Similarly, while I am tacitly against abortion, it ranks pretty far down the list of issues for me.
You mentioned abortion in your rant about democrats and their immoral agenda. I just point out that the democratic position is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and comprehensive sex ed is effective in doing so. I would agree that given what this country is facing, abortion should be a minor issue.

MadScientist a.k.a. LiberalWithBalls, you're a credit to your political persuasion--relatively formidable, as leftists go--maybe that's because most of them only "go" back under their rocks to run and hide.

On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.

On 3. above, I am actually a little bit receptive to your argument there. As I said, Howard and some other conservatives have gone around and around on this, and I've even been called "not conservative" and a "redistributionist". Yes, there is some credibility to your argument that the early burst of stimulus comes from consumers--who tend to be more on the lower end, although, as you admit, the longer term benefit comes from cutting the taxes of those who invest.

On 4. above, I tend to think you are citing one liberal-backed study and ignoring the preponderance of evidence. I'll just fall back on the other argument against raising minimum wage--that it tends to be inflationary, and thus, does relatively more harm to the people it's designed to help. And the best argument of all against raising the minimum wage, of course, is NOT an economic one at all. It goes completely against the grain of our free enterprise system for employers to be FORCED to pay more than market conditions dictate is necessary.

Regarding 5., my position--which seems to be roundly disagreed with by many conservatives AND liberals, is that any downside of leaving well enough alone--including your mention of uninsured visiting ERs--is insignificant compared to the Quantum Grab of our freedom and horrendous cost that goes with Obama's plan--or merely the Quantum Grab of freedom that comes from what some on the other side--especially in this forum--advocate, just legislating a requirement that people get insured--whether they like it or not. I say, we have the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD right now--including almost a monopoly on medical, pharmacological, and technical advancements. It's stupid to screw that all up--as, of course, the Obama plan would.

And lastly, on 6., I really don't give a damn. I can see pro and con about sex ed--pragmatic "pro" of less pregnancies--probably, and moral "con" of schools assuming the role parents should have--sometimes against the parents' wishes. And while abortion is a lesser issue to you, a liberal, and even to me, a conservative, I do feel a certain need to maintain solidarity with other conservatives, to whom the abortion issue is a very big deal.

[MJZiggy]

I doubt your cause and effect argument with regard to minimum wage. In the few instances were business has changed positively following minimum wage increases, there are multiple other factors involved. Minimum wage hikes are typically a loser, especially for the lowest paid people - unskilled (usually minorities) and new high school or college grads. Some estimates indicate that the 500,000 to 1,000,000 of the unemployed are new grads who can't find work because of the recent minimum wage increases.

Thought experiment: If raising the minimum wage to $7/hour was a good thing and raising it to $10/hour would be a good thing, why not raise it to $20 or even $50? Then everyone would be rich. IF you think $50 is absurd, why do you think that? How should wage rates most effectively be determined for a broad range of millions of distinct jobs in different locales through 50 states?

You are correct in saying that there is not enough evidence to say that raising the minimum wage causes an increase in jobs, as correlation != causality. However the original claim by Tex was that raising the minimum wage would cause net job losses. The lack of correlation certainly argues against causality.

The 'thought experiment' is of course just silliness, not much different than if you had said 'If you liberals think it was a good idea to drop the voting age from 21 to 18, why aren't you saying its an even better idea to drop it down to 3? Huh? Huh? Why? Why?'

If you insist on having the obvious flaws in your argument pointed out, here goes. 1) The numbers actually being proposed are in line with the minimum wage levels at times in the past, whereas the numbers you threw out are way out of line with that. 2) The big jumps you throw out can only cause massive inflation (you can't sell a burger for .99 when the guy flipping it is making $50 an hour). The actual proposals are slow enough and small enough that not all of the costs of the increase in salary will be turned immediately into higher prices. Yes this will cause a little inflation, but not so much as to wipe out the gains for low end workers. You can argue that this is effectively a tax on business / a redistribution of wealth program, etc, but the fact is there already are such programs in the form of welfare, food stamps, low income tax credits, so reducing them by increasing wages is a more efficient solution. (Or do you like more government programs better :twisted: )

Has there ever been a study on the "wage economics" (made up word?) in the Illegal Immigrant Community. I am being serious. I was reading this thread earlier today and was trying to think of a petri dish that might shed some light on the subject.

Real data, not anectodal. This is, after all, an unregulated model.

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

[HowardRoark]

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

As far as gathering the data, they could get Obama's donor list and interview the household help.

Forced is the point. Without any forcing at all, they could be earning more than minimum wage anyway. The invisible hand. There is always demand for good labor. That demand will "magically" push up wages.

I don't know the answers, but I think it would be interesting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How would they gather the data? They can't even track these people much less force wage increases to that sector of the population.

As far as gathering the data, they could get Obama's donor list and interview the household help.



THat wouldn't work, we wouldn't want to bust repubs for hiring illegals.

[MadScientist]

On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.
Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.


On 4. above, I tend to think you are citing one liberal-backed study and ignoring the preponderance of evidence. I'll just fall back on the other argument against raising minimum wage--that it tends to be inflationary, and thus, does relatively more harm to the people it's designed to help. And the best argument of all against raising the minimum wage, of course, is NOT an economic one at all. It goes completely against the grain of our free enterprise system for employers to be FORCED to pay more than market conditions dictate is necessary.
I found 3 studies (New Jersey 1992, Oregon 1997, and a 10 state study 1999-2003). None of those showed negative impact on jobs. I specifically mention the Oregon one as it was the only one that included welfare analysis. More data would of course be welcome, but this is a Packerrats debate, not a social-economic thesis. As for the inflation, it simply does not create anywhere near as much inflation as the percent increase in the minimum wage. We've had several 10%+ increases in that did not produce a 10% spike in inflation.


I say, we have the BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD right now--including almost a monopoly on medical, pharmacological, and technical advancements. It's stupid to screw that all up--as, of course, the Obama plan would.
Just a couple of points to consider. There are definite costs associated with the uninsured (lost productivity, ER costs that could have been reduced by prevention, etc). With the spiraling costs expected to continue, the number and therefore costs of uninsured will shoot up as well. With Glaxo-Smith-Kline and AstraZeneca based in the UK, I don't see how you can claim we have anything related to a monopoly in the pharmacological industry. Finally of all the plans put forth by the various candidates to reduce the number of uninsured, Obama's is designed to leave more of the existing insurance structure in place.

[SkinBasket]

Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

That's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.

[HowardRoark]

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

What are your thoughts on the Laffer Curve?

[MadScientist]

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

What are your thoughts on the Laffer Curve?
It's a joke :twisted:

Seriously the real questions on the Laffer curve are where is the maximum, vs where the current tax rates are, and how does the curve change with change in income levels. Note, in 2003, the United States Department of the Treasury released a non-partisan economic study showing that the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax act produced a major loss in government revenues of almost 3% of GDP.

[MadScientist]

Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

That's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.

Ah yes, the standard republican yakking point that a lesser tax cut is a tax increase :roll: Seriously, do you really think the deficit is a good thing? I don't approve of borrowing from China to pay for tax cuts. I don't approve of having a president needing to kiss Chinese ass so they won't cut our funding off.

You can go off on cutting spending, but it didn't happen when the republicans controlled everything (even if you remove the war spending, the deficit still shot up). So what makes you think anything will happen on that front if we give them another chance?

By the way Skin, what are you, lover of porn, doing hanging with the holy rollers?

[mraynrand]

Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

What are your thoughts on the Laffer Curve?
It's a joke :twisted:

Seriously the real questions on the Laffer curve are where is the maximum, vs where the current tax rates are, and how does the curve change with change in income levels. Note, in 2003, the United States Department of the Treasury released a non-partisan economic study showing that the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax act produced a major loss in government revenues of almost 3% of GDP.

That's dishonest. Absolute tax receipts increased dramatically, because the economy grew because of the tax cuts. Same as under Coolidge and Kennedy and Dubya's tax cuts, and same as reducing cap gains taxes here as well as business taxes in the former Soviet Republics and Ireland, etc. The revenues may decrease relative to the GDP, but it's because the GDP grows so much. Bush's tax cuts increased tax receipts by about 200 billion/year. Problem was that government grew at an absurd rate because of automatic spending increases overwhelmingly in entitlement programs, new entitlement and governmental programs and also defense and war spending.

[SkinBasket]

Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

That's a wonderful fucking plan. Tax the most overtaxed income bracket some more. A two income family busts it's ass to make 80-100k and you want them to help balance the budget. There's important federal social welfare programs to fund after all.

Ah yes, the standard republican yakking point that a lesser tax cut is a tax increase :roll: Seriously, do you really think the deficit is a good thing? I don't approve of borrowing from China to pay for tax cuts. I don't approve of having a president needing to kiss Chinese ass so they won't cut our funding off.

You can go off on cutting spending, but it didn't happen when the republicans controlled everything (even if you remove the war spending, the deficit still shot up). So what makes you think anything will happen on that front if we give them another chance?

By the way Skin, what are you, lover of porn, doing hanging with the holy rollers?

You're the one who wants "no tax break" and has been pointed out Obamarama is set on letting the current tax rate expire which *GASP* would equal a tax increase, no matter how cleverly you or his campaign want to phrase it.

I'll trust McCain to curb spending more than I will Obama, although as you point out, voting republican these days doesn't guarantee that. What I can guarantee is that McCain will take less money from me than Obama, and that's about as much as I can control by voting.

Just because I like watching people fuck doesn't mean I like a socialist cock in my ass. I like my money. I like spending my money. I don't want some motherfucker telling me he's going to take my money and give it out willy nilly to the poor simply because "I can afford it." Well, the poor can suck me off twice a week, because you know what, they've got the time, so why not?

[texaspackerbacker]

texaspackerbacker wrote:
On the most significant point above, Obama's claim of cutting taxes for 95% of the people, the HUGE reason why that simply is NOT true is because his figure begins at a point AFTER he fails to renew the Bush tax cuts--which in effect, is a LARGE tax increase. Yeah, maybe after taking THAT kind of a bite out of people's incomes, maybe 95% get a little bit back. The even MORE significant point is that even Obama admits that his program is a net TAX INCREASE--in other words, his sinister redistribution of wealth away from upper income people outweighs what he intends to give back on the lower end--even if you disregard his nonrenewal of the Bush Tax cuts. Thus, his program amounts to same ol' same ol'--liberal TAX AND SPEND crap.

MadScientist responded:
Just which current tax cuts for individuals earning under $200000 ($250000 for families) are set to expire that will not be renewed? Factcheck is usually good at pointing out inconsistencies like that, and they haven't. As for tax and spend, at least it's more responsible than the republican BORROW (from China, and Saudi Arabia) AND SPEND. Personally I'd prefer if Obama's plan had no or much reduced tax breaks for the $75K-$250K range, with that money set to work towards balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

Texaspackerbacker responds back:
In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them.

Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama. Even though the NET EFFECT of Obama NOT renewing the Bush tax cuts and pushing his own plan would benefit nowhere near the 95% he claims, at least his "cuts" would be a minor positive for growth. They WOULD be if not for the fact that the amount subtracted due to his cuts is greatly outweighed by the amount added in his massive redistribution of wealth scheme--confiscating much more of the income of people in the higher income ranges. So even if you disregard his NOT extending the Bush tax cuts, Obama's program STILL is a net tax INCREASE instead of a cut.

[MadScientist]

In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them. Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.


Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.
What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)

[mraynrand]

In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them. Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.


Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.
What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)

You're absolutely right about Obama and the 250K. And your post seems pretty reasonable. I too favor a pragmatic approach when it comes to governmental programs - they ought to work to stay funded. Problem with the 250K limit to the taxes is that it will hurt a lot of businesses, and ultimately, raising taxes will reduce tax receipts and Obama will be forced into more cuts and or more taxes. And taxing businesses via his proposed increase in the cap gains tax will drive businesses away, even as he claims to want to keep them here (no tax breaks for businesses that leave the country).

[texaspackerbacker]

In order to get the Bush tax cuts past the Democrats in Congress, Republicans had to agree to time limits of 2009/2010. The whole thing--which basically amounts to across the board cuts--will end within the next couple of years unless Congress--which is now heavily Democrat and likely to get worse that way--takes positive action to extend them. Again, Obama's plan will continue the existing tax cuts and add more tax cuts for all but those over $250000 ($200k for individuals). That's it, period. I don't know where you (and skin and others) are getting different ideas, but they are not from Obama's proposals, or independent analysis.


Based on your words, MS, it sounds like you are even more extreme of a tax and spend leftist than Obama.
What I am is a deficit hawk. I want to see it attacked asap, but in a sustainable way. To me it's more important than tax cuts including cuts for me, but given the current economic situation I recognize the need to try something for stimulation. As for spending, I tend to favor things that give the US good value for the $$ spent (education, research, infrastructure, and yes even defense). I'm in favor of early childhood development and intervention programs that are shown to reduce kids turning to crime later. (Is that tax and spend liberalism or pro-growth and smaller government?)

MadScientist, what evidence do you have that Obama intends to continue the Bush tax cuts as you say? This runs contrary to everything I've ever heard. Since you make so much use of these "truth squad" websites, some assurance from something with a reputation for objectivity would be nice.

As for your other point, you stated you would prefer that the government take the massive money grabbed by the government from his "redistribution" tax increase for people earning over $250,000, and NOT use it to decrease taxes for people of income less than $250 or 200,000. First of all, regardless of what you or other "deficit hawks" want, it's safe to say it ain't gonna happen. Far more likely, given the rotten and liely to get worse DEm/lib majority in Congress is the scenario of that money going for massive new social programs--as that, after all, is what Obama-esque liberals are all about.

If you DID get your way, however, the result could be even worse. Paying down the debt has a dampening/deflationary effect on the economy. That would definitely be the third best of the three scenarios: tax cut--best, spending--second best, pay down debt--third.

[digitaldean]

Look, changing the tax rates won't mean jack-crap if the feds don't CUT discretionary spending. The reason why the deficit is so huge is due to several factors, but the main one is that THEY SPEND TOO MUCH!

It's not the EEEEEEVIL Bush tax cuts, it's actions like the raiding of the Soc. Sec. trust fund plus all these new federal programs and "entitlements". When the baby boomers start retiring in the next few years, this problem will only balloon.

Government needs to come up with ideas such as means-testing Soc. Security (if you have enough assets on hand, you get either less paid out to you). With longer life expectancies and fewer paying into the Soc. Sec. system, the amt. of revenue to meet the obligations will dwindle. An even more effective idea would be to allow Americans the CHOICE of opting out of Soc. Security and into individual retirement accounts. Taking 8% off the top of my check (15% for self employed people) to a system we ALL know will die seems to be ludicrous at best.

Do we need to fund military bases in Korea, Germany and Japan? No. Even if we pare back to just 1-2 facilities in these countries, we could save significant tax revenue. It's not an isolationist view, it's a pragmatic view considering what the next several decades are going to mean to the U.S. economy.

[packinpatland]

Look, changing the tax rates won't mean jack-crap if the feds don't CUT discretionary spending. The reason why the deficit is so huge is due to several factors, but the main one is that THEY SPEND TOO MUCH!
It's not the EEEEEEVIL Bush tax cuts, it's actions like the raiding of the Soc. Sec. trust fund plus all these new federal programs and "entitlements". When the baby boomers start retiring in the next few years, this problem will only balloon.

Government needs to come up with ideas such as means-testing Soc. Security (if you have enough assets on hand, you get either less paid out to you). With longer life expectancies and fewer paying into the Soc. Sec. system, the amt. of revenue to meet the obligations will dwindle. An even more effective idea would be to allow Americans the CHOICE of opting out of Soc. Security and into individual retirement accounts. Taking 8% off the top of my check (15% for self employed people) to a system we ALL know will die seems to be ludicrous at best.

Do we need to fund military bases in Korea, Germany and Japan? No. Even if we pare back to just 1-2 facilities in these countries, we could save significant tax revenue. It's not an isolationist view, it's a pragmatic view considering what the next several decades are going to mean to the U.S. economy.

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit........

[digitaldean]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.

[digitaldean]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.

Look, I'm in favor of controlling ALL spending, not just military spending. There are some practical things that will have to be addressed (over the next few years).
-Cost effective replacements for the B-52 which is beyond ancient technology
-Replacements for the F-15 and F-16 which were started in the 1970s
and that's just for starters.

Reshaping how we fight future conflicts politically and militarily will greatly affect this. If we citizens do nothing re: staying informed on these topics and keeping on our Sens. and Reps. in DC then we deserve what happens to us. We can blame DC all we want regardless of who is in office. But if we as a nation have a passive approach on this and only get involved when it reaches crisis stage, then we have no one to pissed off at except ourselves.

[HowardRoark]

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008

Shouldn't this be a percentage, not a number? I am interested in the point, but it doesn't make sense.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.

Look, I'm in favor of controlling ALL spending, not just military spending. There are some practical things that will have to be addressed (over the next few years).
-Cost effective replacements for the B-52 which is beyond ancient technology
-Replacements for the F-15 and F-16 which were started in the 1970s
and that's just for starters.

Reshaping how we fight future conflicts politically and militarily will greatly affect this. If we citizens do nothing re: staying informed on these topics and keeping on our Sens. and Reps. in DC then we deserve what happens to us. We can blame DC all we want regardless of who is in office. But if we as a nation have a passive approach on this and only get involved when it reaches crisis stage, then we have no one to pissed off at except ourselves.

We spend money on the military frivolously...i agree we need it, but we can't give them a blank check.

Nor do i approve of outsourcing the military to Halliburton with no bid contracts. And the fraud that is perpetrated against us by our contractors.

Nor do i approve of losing track of 9 billion in Iraq.

[HowardRoark]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

[MadScientist]

MadScientist, what evidence do you have that Obama intends to continue the Bush tax cuts as you say? This runs contrary to everything I've ever heard. Since you make so much use of these "truth squad" websites, some assurance from something with a reputation for objectivity would be nice.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
If you scroll down a bit, you will find:
Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000
What's your source?


As for your other point, you stated you would prefer that the government take the massive money grabbed by the government from his "redistribution" tax increase for people earning over $250,000, and NOT use it to decrease taxes for people of income less than $250 or 200,000. First of all, regardless of what you or other "deficit hawks" want, it's safe to say it ain't gonna happen. Far more likely, given the rotten and liely to get worse DEm/lib majority in Congress is the scenario of that money going for massive new social programs--as that, after all, is what Obama-esque liberals are all about.

If you DID get your way, however, the result could be even worse. Paying down the debt has a dampening/deflationary effect on the economy. That would definitely be the third best of the three scenarios: tax cut--best, spending--second best, pay down debt--third.
1) I agree that something closer to straight tax increase (to levels that were not disastrous when they were in place) won't get passed in this climate. Note, don't bother blathering about dem spending, repubs spend just as much, they just like to go into debt (or deeper into debt) to do it.
2) In my post I recognized the need for stimulus with the tanking economy, which is why I mentioned keeping the cuts on the below 75K group, where most of the additional cash is likely to be spent, and spent right away.
3) My take is that the staggering debt and huge deficits are also a drag on the economy (higher interest rates, weaker dollar which is like a tax increase, without the benefit of potentially usful government spending). You act like debt and deficits are ways of getting free money. It also puts us at a huge risk - if China ever decides they can survive a collapse of the US economy, we are dead. Even if they don't do it, they'll own us.

[packinpatland]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

[packinpatland]

McCain suspends his campaign, wants to postpone the debate.
Then he gives a speech at The Clinton Global Initiative..........no less than 3 times he said "If I were elected President...."

As Letterman suggested..........why suspend the campaign? Send out your 2nd in command, your VP............alone ( :shock: ) to carry on.


http://utubecom.magnify.net/publish/search?term=david+letterman%2C+sept+24

[mraynrand]

McCain suspends his campaign, wants to postpone the debate.
Then he gives a speech at The Clinton Global Initiative..........no less than 3 times he said "If I were elected President...."

As Letterman suggested..........why suspend the campaign? Send out your 2nd in command, your VP............alone ( :shock: ) to carry on.


http://utubecom.magnify.net/publish/search?term=david+letterman%2C+sept+24

In McCain's announcement yesterday he said he was suspending his campaign but would give that talk. I's a political move of course, bu ton two fronts - to make himself look better in the campaign and to actually go to Washington where he has a track record of bipartisan accomplishments (for better or for worse).

Why don't you just write in 'Letterman' on your ballot?

[packinpatland]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/25/1445868.aspx

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie -- that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/25/1445868.aspx

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie -- that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Why don't we let them all go on Jeapordy, and the winner gets to be President?

[HowardRoark]

I think that McCain suggesting that they both go back to Washington is brilliant. Call the "post partisan" candidate's bluff. What in the hell has Barack ever done in Washington, or Springfield for that matter?

Barack says he will continue to campaign. Shocking. That's all he has ever done. Maybe he can write another book about himself and see if that helps.

I can see him now in these crucial debates......his one ace in the hole will be to say in a whiny voice, "come on."

[packinpatland]

McCain suspends his campaign, wants to postpone the debate.
Then he gives a speech at The Clinton Global Initiative..........no less than 3 times he said "If I were elected President...."

As Letterman suggested..........why suspend the campaign? Send out your 2nd in command, your VP............alone ( :shock: ) to carry on.


http://utubecom.magnify.net/publish/search?term=david+letterman%2C+sept+24

In McCain's announcement yesterday he said he was suspending his campaign but would give that talk. I's a political move of course, bu ton two fronts - to make himself look better in the campaign and to actually go to Washington where he has a track record of bipartisan accomplishments (for better or for worse).

Why don't you just write in 'Letterman' on your ballot?


Did you listen to McCain's speech? Was I wrong about his mentioning 'if I'm elected President' ? That, to me, doesn't sound like suspending his campaign. That's taking advantage of a primetime moment.
And why can't Palin carry on? Why can't his ads still air?


Letterman is just a funny man........and because of the 'lightness' of his show, I happen to agree with McCain for cancelling. Now is not exactly the time for levity. But to cancel, making it sound like he was 'racing back to Washington...then do the Couric interview, stay the night and speak at Clintons Global In.? ................Just be honest John.

[packinpatland]

I think that McCain suggesting that they both go back to Washington is brilliant. Call the "post partisan" candidate's bluff. What in the hell has Barack ever done in Washington, or Springfield for that matter?

Barack says he will continue to campaign. Shocking. That's all he has ever done. Maybe he can write another book about himself and see if that helps.

I can see him now in these crucial debates......his one ace in the hole will be to say in a whiny manner, "come on."

McCain conveniently forgot to mention that it was Obama who first called him yesterday morning.

[HowardRoark]

I think that McCain suggesting that they both go back to Washington is brilliant. Call the "post partisan" candidate's bluff. What in the hell has Barack ever done in Washington, or Springfield for that matter?

Barack says he will continue to campaign. Shocking. That's all he has ever done. Maybe he can write another book about himself and see if that helps.

I can see him now in these crucial debates......his one ace in the hole will be to say in a whiny manner, "come on."

McCain conveniently forgot to mention that it was Obama who first called him yesterday morning.

Fine. Then get your ass back to the Senate and show us some of that "post partisan" magic.

His time is now. Yes he can. He is the one the Senate is waiting for.

[mraynrand]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/25/1445868.aspx

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie -- that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's it? No political analysis from Letterman? Keep trying Keith.

[mraynrand]

I think that McCain suggesting that they both go back to Washington is brilliant. Call the "post partisan" candidate's bluff. What in the hell has Barack ever done in Washington, or Springfield for that matter?

Barack says he will continue to campaign. Shocking. That's all he has ever done. Maybe he can write another book about himself and see if that helps.

I can see him now in these crucial debates......his one ace in the hole will be to say in a whiny manner, "come on."

McCain conveniently forgot to mention that it was Obama who first called him yesterday morning.

sez you! Nyaaaah!

[MadScientist]

I think that McCain suggesting that they both go back to Washington is brilliant. Call the "post partisan" candidate's bluff. What in the hell has Barack ever done in Washington, or Springfield for that matter?

Barack says he will continue to campaign. Shocking. That's all he has ever done. Maybe he can write another book about himself and see if that helps.

I can see him now in these crucial debates......his one ace in the hole will be to say in a whiny manner, "come on."

McCain conveniently forgot to mention that it was Obama who first called him yesterday morning.

Fine. Then get your ass back to the Senate and show us some of that "post partisan" magic.

His time is now. Yes he can. He is the one the Senate is waiting for.
Neither McCain nor Obama are on the relevant committee, where the actual compromise bill will be hammered out. Until the bill is out, the only thing McCain or Obama could do in Washington on this issue is hold photo-ops. After the bill is hammered out, both can be useful in drumming up support to make it a true bipartisan effort.

What McCain is doing right now is just calculated showmanship. It may do some good to his campaign, but is of little value to the US economy.

[mraynrand]

Neither McCain nor Obama are on the relevant committee, where the actual compromise bill will be hammered out. Until the bill is out, the only thing McCain or Obama could do in Washington on this issue is hold photo-ops.

That's right. The entire congress is just sitting by the door waiting for the committee to emerge with the bill in hand. No one could possibly be doing anything to influence what's on the bill, except the people sequestered in that room, who have no contact with the outside world, except through the sandwich waiter.

[LL2]

Hey Ziggy, while your having fun pointing out the mistakes of Palin. Here's a good one for you and I think it's hilarious.

"Last night on CBS, Biden said when the stock market crashed in 1929, Franklin Roosevelt got on TV and didn't just talk about it. Franklin Roosevelt wasn't president in 1929. In 1929, there wasn't a TV, nobody was on TV because it wasn't invented."

This is from the guy who HAS 30 plus years of experience in Washington and he can't remember who was president at the time of the greatest stock market crash! If Biden is going to critize McCain and Palin for not getting fact right you better get them right yourself.

Maybe Biden was right when he slipped in another gaffe and said Hilary should've been chosen to be VP! :lol:

[Freak Out]

I think Hussein and Mac should get together Friday evening and talk about the situation this country finds itself in.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

Not sitting on oil.

[mraynrand]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

Not sitting on oil.

Clinton had other things on his.....err......mind.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

Not sitting on oil.

Clinton had other things on his.....err......mind.

It might be nice if you could be factual. The UN's mandate forbids intervening in the internal politics of any country unless the crime of genocide is being committed.

The United States government did not recognize the genocide. I dont' believe Clinton is solely the government.

Should we ask where was Bush were during the buildup years to the genocide?

[Partial]

Say it ain't so
I will not go
turn the lights off
carry me home
na na na nan nah nah nah nah nah nah

[packinpatland]

How could we, or any goverment not recognize this?


The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's minority Tutsis and the moderates of its Hutu majority. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from April 6 through to mid July, at least 500,000 people were killed. Most estimates are of a death toll between 800,000 and 1,000,000.


This answers my own question
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm

What a shame there wasn't any oil involved............

[mraynrand]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

Not sitting on oil.

Clinton had other things on his.....err......mind.

It might be nice if you could be factual.

I was. Clinton was busy with other things. Do you deny it?

[HowardRoark]

As long as we have been on the subject of logic fallacies lately, isn’t this a non sequitur?

I ask why we should not be in Iraq, and I hear that we should not be in Iraq because we did not stop genocide in Africa.

[packinpatland]

Non sequitur (IPA: /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for "it does not follow". It is most often used to indicate something which does not follow logically, such as a stated conclusion that is not supported by the facts.

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

[HowardRoark]

UN Resolutions

[Freak Out]

How much are we spending a day in Iraq right now? How are we financing this again?

[Joemailman]

UN Resolutions

Would you have us go to war with Israel because of their violation of UN resolutions? Over the years, Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Every settlement they have built on the West Bank is a violation of a UN resolution.

[texaspackerbacker]

UN Resolutions

Would you have us go to war with Israel because of their violation of UN resolutions? Over the years, Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Every settlement they have built on the West Bank is a violation of a UN resolution.

Joe, have you heard of the concept of good versus evil?

Do you accept that concept as applied to geopolitics?

You may be a Dem/lib or whatever, but I have never had you pegged as one of these extreme leftist America-hating moral equivalence purveyors who DENY the moral high ground on which America and a few loyal allies, INCLUDING Israel sit--while being sniped at by indisputably vile forces trying to inflict genocide, tyranny, poverty, ignorance, and depravity on the world. Tell me you aren't one of those extreme leftists.

[retailguy]

UN Resolutions

Would you have us go to war with Israel because of their violation of UN resolutions? Over the years, Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Every settlement they have built on the West Bank is a violation of a UN resolution.

C'mon Joe. Iraq agreed to the weapons inspections. THEY AGREED. then they disagreed. Those were part of the conditions of ending the Gulf War. Part of the responsibilities they had to accept after they lost.

Just when did Israel AGREE to limit their ability to have, hold and build their country? The fact that the UN passes resolutions that disagree with how Israel manages their own country, is very different than enforcing a previous agreement as was the case with IRAQ. You know that.

The situations and circumstances are completely different, and for you to imply this without giving the facts is disgusting.

You're normally more "fair" than this. very sad.

[Freak Out]

Joe...you've been a very bad boy....now go stand in the corner.

[SkinBasket]

Joe...you've been a very bad boy....now go stand in the corner.

Naked.

[bobblehead]

Hey Ziggy, while your having fun pointing out the mistakes of Palin. Here's a good one for you and I think it's hilarious.

"Last night on CBS, Biden said when the stock market crashed in 1929, Franklin Roosevelt got on TV and didn't just talk about it. Franklin Roosevelt wasn't president in 1929. In 1929, there wasn't a TV, nobody was on TV because it wasn't invented."

This is from the guy who HAS 30 plus years of experience in Washington and he can't remember who was president at the time of the greatest stock market crash! If Biden is going to critize McCain and Palin for not getting fact right you better get them right yourself.

Maybe Biden was right when he slipped in another gaffe and said Hilary should've been chosen to be VP! :lol:

while we are at it, how about obama's muslim faith and 57 states?

[bobblehead]

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

Absolutely correct...but what is your point, we need oil, we don't need the sands of africa. So what if we are trying to stabalize an area that we send 700 billion dollars to each year (for oil purchase).

[Joemailman]

UN Resolutions

Would you have us go to war with Israel because of their violation of UN resolutions? Over the years, Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Every settlement they have built on the West Bank is a violation of a UN resolution.

C'mon Joe. Iraq agreed to the weapons inspections. THEY AGREED. then they disagreed. Those were part of the conditions of ending the Gulf War. Part of the responsibilities they had to accept after they lost.

Just when did Israel AGREE to limit their ability to have, hold and build their country? The fact that the UN passes resolutions that disagree with how Israel manages their own country, is very different than enforcing a previous agreement as was the case with IRAQ. You know that.

The situations and circumstances are completely different, and for you to imply this without giving the facts is disgusting.

You're normally more "fair" than this. very sad.

So sorry to cause you such sadness. My point was that the fact that a country is violating UN resolutions is not a justification for the U.S. to invade said country. They are UN resolutions. It would be up to the UN, not the U.S., to decide whether to use force to enforce a resolution.

By the way, the Israeli settlements on the West Bank are violations of international law without any UN resolutions. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the transferring of civilian populations to areas under military occupation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

Not sitting on oil.

Clinton had other things on his.....err......mind.

It might be nice if you could be factual.

I was. Clinton was busy with other things. Do you deny it?

Yes. I deny it. Not recognizing it is quite a stretch to being busy with other things.

Are you going to say that RR, Bush, and the republicans were also busy?

[mraynrand]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

Not sitting on oil.

Clinton had other things on his.....err......mind.

It might be nice if you could be factual.

I was. Clinton was busy with other things. Do you deny it?

Yes. I deny it. Not recognizing it is quite a stretch to being busy with other things.


Then he should have recognized it.

[MJZiggy]

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

Absolutely correct...but what is your point, we need oil, we don't need the sands of africa. So what if we are trying to stabalize an area that we send 700 billion dollars to each year (for oil purchase).

It still could have waited a year or two until we had Afghanistan sorted out before we started a second war...

[packinpatland]

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

Absolutely correct...but what is your point, we need oil, we don't need the sands of africa. So what if we are trying to stabalize an area that we send 700 billion dollars to each year (for oil purchase).

"we don't need the sands of Africa"

You really meant to say 'we don't give a damn about the people of Africa'.....right?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

Not sitting on oil.

Clinton had other things on his.....err......mind.

It might be nice if you could be factual.

I was. Clinton was busy with other things. Do you deny it?

Yes. I deny it. Not recognizing it is quite a stretch to being busy with other things.


Then he should have recognized it.

Now i remember, Clinton is the government. :roll:

I guess United States officials arguing over the use of the word genocide for fear that it would compel the country to act, as it obviously would have was something that we all just imagined.

Policymakers made the mistake of characterizing the conflict as between two sides, the Hutus and the Tutsis, and focused on forging peace accords, which were “more comprehensible” to diplomats. The massacre began less than a year after the October 1993 killing and mutilation of American soldiers in Somalia, which made Washington wary of rushing into another human rights crisis..but, all this was Clinton. :oops:

You might wanna take some time and find out what really happened instead of just making it up.

I guess the Senate and congress had nothing to do with it. Might want to let the Armenians know about this...as they keep trying thru those channels.

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Must be nice to live on your planet. :oops:

[retailguy]

Joe...you've been a very bad boy....now go stand in the corner.

:shock: :lol: Very cute. :P

I'm just tired of "distorted politics". Can we vote tomorrow just to get this stupid season over with?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

Absolutely correct...but what is your point, we need oil, we don't need the sands of africa. So what if we are trying to stabalize an area that we send 700 billion dollars to each year (for oil purchase).

It still could have waited a year or two until we had Afghanistan sorted out before we started a second war...

Why, for them it is like cooking..you just double the recipe..no problem.

But, realistically, it is like baking..and you just can't double the recipe.

[HowardRoark]

Why, for them it is like cooking..you just double the recipe..no problem.

But, realistically, it is like baking..and you just can't double the recipe.

What about day old croissants?

Where are the articulate Liberals? Please.

[retailguy]

So sorry to cause you such sadness.

Cute :P




My point was that the fact that a country is violating UN resolutions is not a justification for the U.S. to invade said country. They are UN resolutions. It would be up to the UN, not the U.S., to decide whether to use force to enforce a resolution.

Funny. You seem to be leaving out a few details. If you recall back in 1990 the UN authorized the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Then later, when a cease fire was delcared, it was a condition of said cease fire that Iraq allow "unfettered access" to the inspectors. That didn't happen to the tune of over 20 resolutions.

In addition to "weapons of mass destruction" bandwagon that has been literally beat to death, you seem to have forgotten a few other things.

- The assasination attempt against Bush 41.
- The firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no fly zones.
- The previous willingness of Iraq to use chemical/biological weapons.
- The brutalization of it's own citizens. (Comical that you left this out of your whole Geneva convention argument.)
- The practice of supporting and providing safe haven for terrorists and terrorism
- Finally, The presence of Al Queda in Iraq. In the end, we've arrested and killed a few of those guys there, haven't we?...

Lots of reasons. end point - Iraq finally used up all of it's "second chances". The UN was well in process of showing just what a meaningless neutered organization it was and still is. The US finally said "ENOUGH". Were we right? I think so. You don't. It's done. Move on....




By the way, the Israeli settlements on the West Bank are violations of international law without any UN resolutions. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the transferring of civilian populations to areas under military occupation.

The main reasons these areas are under "military occupation" is because Hamas and it's supporters refuse to follow the very laws in place. Hamas has "designed" this to get Israel to violate these things.

Reality - The West Bank is part of Israel. Israel has the authority and moral responsibility to do what it wants with it's land. Israel has bent over backwards to placate, negotiate and be reasonable with hamas, who continue to refuse to negotiate, and to operate in good faith. Once a terrorist organization, ALWAYS a terrorist organization. Last time I checked they don't have "rights" under the Geneva convention.

What I find sad, more than anything, is that you "equate" the same, or more rights to Hamas than you do to Israel. don't the Israelies deserve a bit better than that?

They ought to "bomb them back to the stone age". I give them credit for restraint.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Why, for them it is like cooking..you just double the recipe..no problem.

But, realistically, it is like baking..and you just can't double the recipe.

What about day old croissants?

Where are the articulate Liberals? Please.

The croissant production was given to Halliburton on a no bid contract. They reasonably charge the service 5 bucks for each one, claiming they are as good as the fresh ones.

[texaspackerbacker]

UN Resolutions

Would you have us go to war with Israel because of their violation of UN resolutions? Over the years, Israel has been in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Every settlement they have built on the West Bank is a violation of a UN resolution.

Joe, have you heard of the concept of good versus evil?

Do you accept that concept as applied to geopolitics?

You may be a Dem/lib or whatever, but I have never had you pegged as one of these extreme leftist America-hating moral equivalence purveyors who DENY the moral high ground on which America and a few loyal allies, INCLUDING Israel sit--while being sniped at by indisputably vile forces trying to inflict genocide, tyranny, poverty, ignorance, and depravity on the world. Tell me you aren't one of those extreme leftists.

So, Joe, are you disputing the FACT that the world scene is a good versus evil scenario with America--and Israel--representing good, and the barbaric radical Muslims dedicated to terrorizing and destroying us and annihilating Israel representing evil?

I'm pretty sure you don't disagree, Joe, but I'd just like to hear you say it--as kind of an "in your face" to Tyrone and some of the other sick America-haters in here whose hatred, lunacy, and extremism probably WOULD cause them to dispute the FACT of that situation.

[mraynrand]

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

He should recognize it immediately, before more people are killed!

[retailguy]

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

He should recognize it immediately, before more people are killed!

Maybe that's what happened to my neighbor.... some military people were asking me all kinds of questions about him. He had an "obama" sign in front of his house. He's gone and so is his sign.... :wink: Bush must have completed the Hitler biography he was reading. got some new ideas. :wink:

One down, many to go for the "good guys"! :twisted:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

He should recognize it immediately, before more people are killed!

Oh, he wouldn't do that..it would require courage.

[mraynrand]

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

He should recognize it immediately, before more people are killed!

Oh, he wouldn't do that..it would require courage.

And Bush certainly doesn't have enough courage to label a 90 year old atrocity a genocide. Maybe he has enough courage to say slavery was wrong. Or overthrow Hussein and support the surge when 70% of Americans don't support him and 30% think he's more evil than Hitler. It's revealing that libs consider taking stands on century old academic historical issues courageous.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

He should recognize it immediately, before more people are killed!

Oh, he wouldn't do that..it would require courage.

And Bush certainly doesn't have enough courage to label a 90 year old atrocity a genocide. Maybe he has enough courage to say slavery was wrong. Or overthrow Hussein and support the surge when 70% of Americans don't support him and 30% think he's more evil than Hitler. It's revealing that libs consider taking stands on century old academic historical issues courageous.

Or maybe you aren't really as informed as you like to think..perhaps you should ask why he won't do it.

[mraynrand]

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

He should recognize it immediately, before more people are killed!

Oh, he wouldn't do that..it would require courage.

And Bush certainly doesn't have enough courage to label a 90 year old atrocity a genocide. Maybe he has enough courage to say slavery was wrong. Or overthrow Hussein and support the surge when 70% of Americans don't support him and 30% think he's more evil than Hitler. It's revealing that libs consider taking stands on century old academic historical issues courageous.

Or maybe you aren't really as informed as you like to think..perhaps you should ask why he won't do it.

I know why. And I think his other acts are far more courageous. But you can stand up at your liberal debating society and show your courage if you like:

"I hate Bush"

"I hate him more"

"He's Hitler!"

"Wow, that's courageous!"

"The killing of the Armenians 90 years ago was genocide"

"OMG, be careful...someone might hear you!"

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Meanwhile, Prez Bush still won't recognize the Armenian Genocide.

He should recognize it immediately, before more people are killed!

Oh, he wouldn't do that..it would require courage.

And Bush certainly doesn't have enough courage to label a 90 year old atrocity a genocide. Maybe he has enough courage to say slavery was wrong. Or overthrow Hussein and support the surge when 70% of Americans don't support him and 30% think he's more evil than Hitler. It's revealing that libs consider taking stands on century old academic historical issues courageous.

Or maybe you aren't really as informed as you like to think..perhaps you should ask why he won't do it.

I know why. And I think his other acts are far more courageous. But you can stand up at your liberal debating society and show your courage if you like:

"I hate Bush"

"I hate him more"

"He's Hitler!"

"Wow, that's courageous!"

"The killing of the Armenians 90 years ago was genocide"

"OMG, be careful...someone might hear you!"

Who hates Bush. He isn't even relevant. :lol:

[Cheesehead Craig]

After a one-day tie, Obama pulls ahead in the Gallup Poll to take a 3% lead for his 9th day of poll leading out of the last 10 days.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

After a one-day tie, Obama pulls ahead in the Gallup Poll to take a 3% lead for his 9th day of poll leading out of the last 10 days.

Polls dont' matter, cept when Mac is ahead!

[bobblehead]

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

Absolutely correct...but what is your point, we need oil, we don't need the sands of africa. So what if we are trying to stabalize an area that we send 700 billion dollars to each year (for oil purchase).

"we don't need the sands of Africa"

You really meant to say 'we don't give a damn about the people of Africa'.....right?

No, but its telling that that is the first thing that came to your mind.

[texaspackerbacker]

Neither McCain nor Obama are on the relevant committee, where the actual compromise bill will be hammered out. Until the bill is out, the only thing McCain or Obama could do in Washington on this issue is hold photo-ops.

That's right. The entire congress is just sitting by the door waiting for the committee to emerge with the bill in hand. No one could possibly be doing anything to influence what's on the bill, except the people sequestered in that room, who have no contact with the outside world, except through the sandwich waiter.

I think you're saying this seriously, aynrand--not sarcastically.

It is not exactly true about the committee being the only ones with any say in the matter. Those on the committee are for the most part, all pretty much like-minded. There are, however, a large bunch of House Republicans and supposedly, even some House Democrats who either oppose the whole idea of a "bail out" or are pushing a much milder version where the government does not put in money up front, but merely guaranteeing the mortgages in question--similar to what currently is done for VA and FHA mortgages. That sounds like a decent compromise to me. However, Dirty Harry Reid was on this morning claiming the Dems in the Senate would accept no compromise on the basic structure of the thing. Reid was blaming McCain for hardening the resolve of those dissident Republicans. Obama echoed the same line. IMO, if they are successful at associating McCain with preventing the deal--or trying to, that will HELP--not hurt--McCain.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Right Tex. It will help him.

He suspends his campaign to work on the deal...but, then he is associated with it falling apart...yep, that will help him. :cry:

How stupid will he look for continuous saying the fundamentals are good, then declaringa state of emergency that requires a bye week for him in the campaign, and then he doesn't solve the problem..after rushing to D.C. like a superhero.

It will only help him in your bizarro world.

[texaspackerbacker]

Right Tex. It will help him.

He suspends his campaign to work on the deal...but, then he is associated with it falling apart...yep, that will help him. :cry:

How stupid will he look for continuous saying the fundamentals are good, then declaringa state of emergency that requires a bye week for him in the campaign, and then he doesn't solve the problem..after rushing to D.C. like a superhero.

It will only help him in your bizarro world.

Preventing Dirty Harry and Nanny State Nancy from ramming through the mother of all government power grabs, THAT'S what it's all about. That's the way House Republicans see it. I'm not sure whether that's where McCain is at or not.

[packinpatland]

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

Absolutely correct...but what is your point, we need oil, we don't need the sands of africa. So what if we are trying to stabalize an area that we send 700 billion dollars to each year (for oil purchase).

"we don't need the sands of Africa"

You really meant to say 'we don't give a damn about the people of Africa'.....right?

No, but its telling that that is the first thing that came to your mind.


Oh please...........

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Right Tex. It will help him.

He suspends his campaign to work on the deal...but, then he is associated with it falling apart...yep, that will help him. :cry:

How stupid will he look for continuous saying the fundamentals are good, then declaringa state of emergency that requires a bye week for him in the campaign, and then he doesn't solve the problem..after rushing to D.C. like a superhero.

It will only help him in your bizarro world.

Preventing Dirty Harry and Nanny State Nancy from ramming through the mother of all government power grabs, THAT'S what it's all about. That's the way House Republicans see it. I'm not sure whether that's where McCain is at or not.

Nice of you to change your argument. :oops:

[texaspackerbacker]

Right Tex. It will help him.

He suspends his campaign to work on the deal...but, then he is associated with it falling apart...yep, that will help him. :cry:

How stupid will he look for continuous saying the fundamentals are good, then declaringa state of emergency that requires a bye week for him in the campaign, and then he doesn't solve the problem..after rushing to D.C. like a superhero.

It will only help him in your bizarro world.

Preventing Dirty Harry and Nanny State Nancy from ramming through the mother of all government power grabs, THAT'S what it's all about. That's the way House Republicans see it. I'm not sure whether that's where McCain is at or not.

Nice of you to change your argument. :oops:

????? How?

[BallHawk]

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w85/JoshOMS8/OBAMAECON.gif

[falco]

thanks ballhawk...just wasted a minute of my fucking life

[bobblehead]

My point was this: One of the reasons for justifying going into Iraq was the heinous things that Hussein did to his own countrymen, and the fact that he had the supposed WMD's. I'm saying that we didn't get involved in other equal or more horrible mass murders...........but had there been a barrel of oil or two in the mix...........

Absolutely correct...but what is your point, we need oil, we don't need the sands of africa. So what if we are trying to stabalize an area that we send 700 billion dollars to each year (for oil purchase).

"we don't need the sands of Africa"

You really meant to say 'we don't give a damn about the people of Africa'.....right?

No, but its telling that that is the first thing that came to your mind.


Oh please...........

excellent rebuttle...I feel defeated.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Right Tex. It will help him.

He suspends his campaign to work on the deal...but, then he is associated with it falling apart...yep, that will help him. :cry:

How stupid will he look for continuous saying the fundamentals are good, then declaringa state of emergency that requires a bye week for him in the campaign, and then he doesn't solve the problem..after rushing to D.C. like a superhero.

It will only help him in your bizarro world.

Preventing Dirty Harry and Nanny State Nancy from ramming through the mother of all government power grabs, THAT'S what it's all about. That's the way House Republicans see it. I'm not sure whether that's where McCain is at or not.

Nice of you to change your argument. :oops:

????? How?

One minute you are talking about how it will help Mac...now you switch to prevention.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The most recent Gallup poll has Obama at an 8 pt lead 50-42.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Normally I wait a week to post this, but given the VP debate tonight I'd thought I'd do a before look.

Gallup poll has it 48 to 43 Obama. McCain has shrunk the 8 pt lead from just a few days ago. Let's see if Palin can give another boost to the GOP in the polls like the RNC did.

[sheepshead]

Worth a look for you undecideds:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

[Cheesehead Craig]

Going into tonight's debate, the Gallup poll has Obama with an 8 pt lead 50-42. It seems that the VP debate really did nothing overall to affect the race. McCain seems to need a victory tonight to start eating into a lead Obama has had for the last 3 weeks in the polls.

[texaspackerbacker]

8 years ago today, Gore led Bush 51-40%.

[Cheesehead Craig]

8 years ago today, Gore led Bush 51-40%.
Tex - I'm not sure where you got that number from but going into the first debate back in 2000 (Oct 3) per Gallup, Gore was up 8% but then 3 days afterwards they were tied in their poll. Going into debate #2 on 10/11 Gore was up 5% but then Bush was up in the next days by 2%. The 3rd debate on 10/17 was a dead heat but Bush was up 4% right after it.

It's obvious that Bush benefitted greatly from the debates and really used them as a launching pad for his election that year. After each debate, Bush gained ground or put distance between him and Gore.

McCain is not doing that as he is not a clearly better debater than Obama is as compared to how Bush was to Gore.

While Bush did comeback from a big deficit in the polls in the last month, McCain isn't having the same kind of comeback at all. Bush made the most of his opportunities and made up ground while McCain is not finding the openings against Obama as is evident in the 10 pt lead Obama has as of today 51-41%.

[arcilite]

What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?

What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5?

What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker?


PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter....

[mraynrand]

PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter....

First, that would be astounding, considering how young they are and second, they wouldn't be pregnant long, because Barack doesn't want them punished with a baby if they make a mistake.

[lod01]

Obama: 'Lipstick on a pig'

Amie Parnes reports from Lebanon, VA:

Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

"We've had enough of the same old thing."

The crowd apparently took the "lipstick" line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: "lipstick."

Yeah, we can stick a fork in McCain/Palin. :lol:

They are done. Intelligence finally wins over low IQ wal-mart shoppers (Bush supporters). Too bad it took a total financial meltdown for the majority to wake up to the disaster called the republican party.

[HowardRoark]

They are done. Intelligence finally wins over low IQ wal-mart shoppers (Bush supporters). Too bad it took a total financial meltdown for the majority to wake up to the disaster called the republican party.

Gosh, thanks for the heads up on the dumb Wal-Mart shoppers. I am going to buy a case of smokes and buy a few votes.

In your view, why exactly is the Republican party a disaster?

[MJZiggy]

Gosh, thanks for the heads up on the dumb Wal-Mart shoppers. I am going to buy a case of smokes and buy a few votes.



And then I read things like this...

[HowardRoark]

Gosh, thanks for the heads up on the dumb Wal-Mart shoppers. I am going to buy a case of smokes and buy a few votes.



And then I read things like this...

http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs27/f/2008/139/b/0/Howard_Roark_laughed__by_lulie.png

[Cheesehead Craig]

Going into the 3rd and final debate Obama is up by 7pts 50-43 in the Gallup Poll. This lead was 11 pts just a few days ago. Is McCain starting to make up ground? He's going to need a very solid performance tonight in the debate and hope he can catch Obama off-guard and make him slip up.

[sheepshead]

What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?

What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5?

What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker?


PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter....

Yeah I have seen this email too. Its over the top insulting. Truly, typical liberal bullshit. Telling us were racists. Then telling us how to think.

If it just took the smartest guy to be president, the guy with the best GPA why not put a college professor in there every 4 years.

This is insulting on so many levels its quite sick actually.

p.s. I was a teenage father.

p.s. this isnt directed at you necessarily because i happen to know you didnt write it.

[sheepshead]

Obama: 'Lipstick on a pig'

Amie Parnes reports from Lebanon, VA:

Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

"We've had enough of the same old thing."

The crowd apparently took the "lipstick" line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: "lipstick."

Yeah, we can stick a fork in McCain/Palin. :lol:

They are done. Intelligence finally wins over low IQ wal-mart shoppers (Bush supporters). Too bad it took a total financial meltdown for the majority to wake up to the disaster called the republican party.


psssst hey junior, the election is November 4th.

[sheepshead]

Ever notice how the lefts only defense is "they are dumb" I asked this at dinner the other night . Palin dumb? YES

Reagan - dumb
Bush - dumb
Quayle - dumb
Bush W - dumb
Cheney - scary - not real bright either
Palin - dumb
McCain - sounds dumb

Of course, it's Republicans lashing out with the personal attacks.

[Zool]

Ever notice how the lefts only defense is "they are dumb" I asked this at dinner the other night . Palin dumb? YES

Reagan - dumb
Bush - dumb
Quayle - dumb
Bush W - dumb
Cheney - scary - not real bright either
Palin - dumb
McCain - sounds dumb

Of course, it's Republicans lashing out with the personal attacks.

You know by belittling the opinion of the "lefts", you're calling them dumb. You dont have to actually say the words to mean the same thing.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't know where I was last Friday, but this is the first I read Arcilite's list above.

The answer to your question, Arcilite, is that all of those things, if they pertained to Obama would have either never seen the light of day in the media or been severely de-emphasized or been "positivized" by the media or the old standby, been completely drowned out by lesser or bogus issues pertaining to the other side.

For evidence of your little "what if", just consider how the media treatment--and thus, exposure to the public--has been about Wright, Ayers, Flaggert, Rezco, Obama's Muslim upbringing, Obama's Kenyan connections, Obama's eligibility uncertainty, Obama's mother, step-father, long lost brother, etc., Obama's activities as a "community organizer", the life and quotes of Michelle Obama, on and on and on.

Yeah, 7 points down, and somehow, I doubt that McCain is gonna come out swinging and say anything to make a difference tonight.

The better hope to cling to is the prospect of the polls being flawed, as I have discussed several times.

[LL2]

Yeah, 7 points down, and somehow, I doubt that McCain is gonna come out swinging and say anything to make a difference tonight.


They pointed out on the news last night that in 2000 Bush down 8% points behind Gore and came back and won the election. They were making the comparison and saying Obama shouldn’t rest on his laurels, but I think that these polls do not really capture the true voting picture on election day.

[sheepshead]

Yeah, 7 points down, and somehow, I doubt that McCain is gonna come out swinging and say anything to make a difference tonight.


They pointed out on the news last night that in 2000 Bush down 8% points behind Gore and came back and won the election. They were making the comparison and saying Obama shouldn’t rest on his laurels, but I think that these polls do not really capture the true voting picture on election day.

Carter was 30 points up (many compare the general mood to those times) and won by 2 points.

[mraynrand]

You know by belittling the opinion of the "lefts", you're calling them dumb. You dont have to actually say the words to mean the same thing.

I'd say by pointing out that people on the left don't know the difference between intelligence and opinion is evidence they are dumb.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, 7 points down, and somehow, I doubt that McCain is gonna come out swinging and say anything to make a difference tonight.


They pointed out on the news last night that in 2000 Bush down 8% points behind Gore and came back and won the election. They were making the comparison and saying Obama shouldn’t rest on his laurels, but I think that these polls do not really capture the true voting picture on election day.

These poll shift examples are better arguments for flawed polling than for drastic last minute changes.

As I have mentioned several times, the Bradley effect as well as a "reverse Bradley effect" of women not telling pollsters they will vote for the ticket with the woman on it, these could make major differences, particularly in states key where there is less than a 5% difference.

I was actually disappointed and in fact, disgusted with McCain tonight--I was yelling at the TV like I do in football and basketball games sometimes because he was such a wimp for not confronting Obama over the association with terrorists and America-haters, etc. I suppose McCain thinks he has to be that way due to the fact that the God damned leftist media has so poisoned the electorate to the extent that speaking out on that would hurt his chances.

[BallHawk]

The debate was interesting, but it means little at this point.

The electoral map is pretty much set. Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, and Ohio are the only states to be decided. Even if McCain picks up all of those he's still short and Obama wins.

Anybody wanna tell me, specifically, how McCain wins the electoral map?

[Freak Out]

The debate was interesting, but it means little at this point.

The electoral map is pretty much set. Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, and Ohio are the only states to be decided. Even if McCain picks up all of those he's still short and Obama wins.

Anybody wanna tell me, specifically, how McCain wins the electoral map?

This thing is far from over as far as I'm concerned....even with Republican leadership running the country to the brink of oblivion this thing is still to close.

[texaspackerbacker]

Ballhawk, you must be giving Obama something that is still in doubt. I've got McCain with 174 solid. I have him winning by small margins in Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Missouri, even though the polls don't reflect it that way. That is 86 more, bringing it up to 260.

From there, it gets kinda hairy. You have Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Vermont (3), Michigan (17), Pennsylvania (21), Wisconsin (10), and Minnesota (10), ALL of which easily could go to Obama, but only one or a couple of which need to swing to McCain for a McCain win.

I see Nevada and Colorado as the best bets, as there are a lot of Hispanics who are probably showing in polls as pro-Obama, but more likely to vote for McCain--the Bradley effect in action.

It ain't lookin' good at this point, but McCain is far from out of it.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Obama up by 10 pts 52-42 in the latest Gallup Poll. McCain's running out of time.

[MJZiggy]

I just don't think the moron's quite done yet, Cheese...

[Joemailman]

Virginia is the key, where polls are showing Obama up by about 8. If Obama wins Virginia, he can win the election even if he loses Missouri, Ohio and Florida.

[hoosier]

Virginia is the key, where polls are showing Obama up by about 8. If Obama wins Virginia, he can win the election even if he loses Missouri, Ohio and Florida.

Colin Powell endorsed Obama yesterday. Barring some rock-our-world event that really plays well for Repubs in next three weeks, I think Powell's endorsement sews up VA for That One.

[MJZiggy]

Yes, Powell still has a lot of respect in them thar hills (and around the beltway as well.)

[sheepshead]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

[sheepshead]

Obama up by 10 pts 52-42 in the latest Gallup Poll. McCain's running out of time.

Less than 3. The Bradley effect is worth at least 6 - maybe more-this maybe a landslide.

[Joemailman]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

[texaspackerbacker]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

Powell's endorsement isn't going to have much effect, especially in the battleground states.

A black guy endorses another black guy--just because he's black, contrary to practically everything the endorsing black guy ever stood for ..........

That somehow is NOT blatant RACISM?

It will be seen as such by a helluva lot more undecideds than what will be convinced by the endorsement. The resulting backlash will do Obama more harm than good.

Yeah, I admit that's wishful thinking, but it damn well better come true, or else this country is SCREWED by having an Obama presidency inflicted on it--and the horrendous terrorist consequence that will bring.

[bobblehead]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

ah yes the mindless robot attack...very nice. Next time you give someone credit for your post can i hope that person never tells you to go jump off a cliff....again...when is the last time powell endorsed an inexperienced liberal white guy? This is about race and nothing else.

[MJZiggy]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

ah yes the mindless robot attack...very nice. Next time you give someone credit for your post can i hope that person never tells you to go jump off a cliff....again...when is the last time powell endorsed an inexperienced liberal white guy? This is about race and nothing else.

When's the last time an inexperienced white guy ran for president? I'm pretty sure he endorsed a white guy last time around.

[sheepshead]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

ah yes the mindless robot attack...very nice. Next time you give someone credit for your post can i hope that person never tells you to go jump off a cliff....again...when is the last time powell endorsed an inexperienced liberal white guy? This is about race and nothing else.

When's the last time an inexperienced white guy ran for president? I'm pretty sure he endorsed a white guy last time around.

EXACTLY!!!!!!

There's the whole point!

[hoosier]

This is about race and nothing else.

No, it's not. We're witnessing the fracturing of the Republican party here, folks. The political alliance between the christian right, the corporate right, the neocon foreign policy hawks is broken and done for. Moderates like Powell and Hagel are coming to the realization that their party is dominated by extremists. Too bad it took so long for that to sink in.

[bobblehead]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

ah yes the mindless robot attack...very nice. Next time you give someone credit for your post can i hope that person never tells you to go jump off a cliff....again...when is the last time powell endorsed an inexperienced liberal white guy? This is about race and nothing else.

When's the last time an inexperienced white guy ran for president? I'm pretty sure he endorsed a white guy last time around.

Point was more towards liberal...as in colin powell is a republican who endorses republicans....now all of a sudden he is endorsing the most liberal member of the senate over a war hero....why do you suppose that might be?

[bobblehead]

This is about race and nothing else.

No, it's not. We're witnessing the fracturing of the Republican party here, folks. The political alliance between the christian right, the corporate right, the neocon foreign policy hawks is broken and done for. Moderates like Powell and Hagel are coming to the realization that their party is dominated by extremists. Too bad it took so long for that to sink in.

No, if it were dominated by extremists..as in extremist small gov't, lower taxes, less spending types they would have a huge majority still. It was only when the party became mealy mouthed stay in power spenders and promisers that they lost their majority. You are exactly dead opposite wrong in how you are percieving things...but you aren't alone, the same stay in power spenders don't get it, they think they lost cuz they weren't liberal enough and the chemo for the republican party is going to be the '08 election.

[hoosier]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

ah yes the mindless robot attack...very nice. Next time you give someone credit for your post can i hope that person never tells you to go jump off a cliff....again...when is the last time powell endorsed an inexperienced liberal white guy? This is about race and nothing else.

When's the last time an inexperienced white guy ran for president? I'm pretty sure he endorsed a white guy last time around.

Point was more towards liberal...as in colin powell is a republican who endorses republicans....now all of a sudden he is endorsing the most liberal member of the senate over a war hero....why do you suppose that might be?

It might be because the other candidate has 1) run an extremely negative campaign largely devoid of constructive ideas for fixing the economic crisis we're currently in; and 2) chose a VP candidate who is clearly both unqualified for the position and out of touch with the majority of voters. Or it could be that he just thinks Obama, for reasons of personality, demeanor, intelligence, and whatever, is more likely to be able to show real political leadership at a time when this country desparately needs it.

Your insinuation that Powell would endorse Obama simply because he is black is itself based on a silly little racial stereotype--that blacks always stick together. If you had been following Powell's political and professional career over the last few decades you would know that he doesn't fit that in the least.

[sheepshead]

Rush made those comments from Appleton prior to attending the Packer Game!

[Freak Out]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

[mraynrand]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

Eloquence and rhetoric.

I'll paraphrase Mark Steyn who said of Obama: "The music is great, but the lyrics are terrible."

[sheepshead]

As Rush said, who was the last inexperienced liberal white guy Powell endorsed? This is racial, so sad to see a fine man being reduced to decisions made by skin color.

I hope Rush never tells you to go jump off a cliff. We'd miss you. As Powell said, if his decision was based on race, he could have made this announcement a long time ago.

ah yes the mindless robot attack...very nice. Next time you give someone credit for your post can i hope that person never tells you to go jump off a cliff....again...when is the last time powell endorsed an inexperienced liberal white guy? This is about race and nothing else.

When's the last time an inexperienced white guy ran for president? I'm pretty sure he endorsed a white guy last time around.

Point was more towards liberal...as in colin powell is a republican who endorses republicans....now all of a sudden he is endorsing the most liberal member of the senate over a war hero....why do you suppose that might be?

It might be because the other candidate has 1) run an extremely negative campaign largely devoid of constructive ideas for fixing the economic crisis we're currently in; and 2) chose a VP candidate who is clearly both unqualified for the position and out of touch with the majority of voters. Or it could be that he just thinks Obama, for reasons of personality, demeanor, intelligence, and whatever, is more likely to be able to show real political leadership at a time when this country desparately needs it.

Your insinuation that Powell would endorse Obama simply because he is black is itself based on a silly little racial stereotype--that blacks always stick together. If you had been following Powell's political and professional career over the last few decades you would know that he doesn't fit that in the least.

This is...crap

[MJZiggy]

This is...crap

Care to elaborate or is this the best you've got?

[sheepshead]

This is...crap

Care to elaborate or is this the best you've got?

every word is garbage, the whole premise is flawed.

[sheepshead]

personality, demeanor, intelligence, and whatever



like this brilliant run down of attributes and qualifications.

[MJZiggy]

It's Colin Powell's opinion and he has every right to endorse any candidate for any reason he chooses--and quite frankly, I'll take his opinion over yours every time he cares to share it. Powell may be a member of the republican party, but he is a moderate. This endorsement does not surprise me in the least. I just wish it were Powell on the ticket instead of McCain.

[hoosier]

This is...crap

Care to elaborate or is this the best you've got?

every word is garbage, the whole premise is flawed.

In Muttonhead's case the lyrics are terrible and the music sucks too. :lol:

[hoosier]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

Eloquence and rhetoric.

I'll paraphrase Mark Steyn who said of Obama: "The music is great, but the lyrics are terrible."

You're coming across here as someone who believes what is convenient and discards the rest. I understand that you may not agree with Powell's assessment of the two candidates, but to write what he said off as "eloquence and rhetoric" is to approach Tex-like myopia.

[sheepshead]

artist: Irving Berlin lyrics
title: What Can You Do With A General?


[Verse:]
When the war was over, why, there were jobs galore
For the G.I. Josephs who were in the war
But for generals things were not so grand
And it's not so hard to understand

[Refrain:]
What can you do with a general
When he stops being a general?
Oh, what can you do with a general who retires?

Who's got a job for a general
When he stops being a general?
They all get a job but a general no one hires

They fill his chest with medals while he's across the foam
And they spread the crimson carpet when he comes marching home
The next day someone hollers when he comes into view
"Here comes the general" and they all say "General who?"
They're delighted that he came
But they can't recall his name

Nobody thinks of assigning him
When they stop wining and dining him
It seems this country never has enjoyed
So many one and two and three and four star generals
Unemployed

[mraynrand]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

Eloquence and rhetoric.

I'll paraphrase Mark Steyn who said of Obama: "The music is great, but the lyrics are terrible."

You're coming across here as someone who believes what is convenient and discards the rest. I understand that you may not agree with Powell's assessment of the two candidates, but to write what he said off as "eloquence and rhetoric" is to approach Tex-like myopia.

Those were some of his most prominent comments. I considered everything he said, pretty much. I found his explanation for his endorsement overall quite shallow - and transparent. I would have liked some challenging questions asked. My comment on his endorsing Obama for his eloquence and rhetoric was an opportunity for a quip from Steyn that I think sums up the Obama phenomenon quite nicely in a snap shot. I see and talk to a lot of people who love Obama and the whole idea of him as president, but who know relatively little about what he is going to do and what he stands for.

[packinpatland]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

[mraynrand]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

[LL2]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

No, that isn't an important issue to folks like PIP.

The media and the left like to point out Palin's wardrobe, but wasn't there an article about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviare with room service. Oh, that sounds like the average person eating at Cracker Barrel. Here' is comes.... :roll: We could nit pick that stuff all day long but that's not what is important.

[Freak Out]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

No...she would be in favor of invading Syria to trigger the apocalypse.

[HowardRoark]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

This is incredible stuff……did Joe the Plumber uncover it?

[HowardRoark]

We could nit pick that stuff all day long but that's not what is important.

What exactly is important this election?

[mraynrand]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

This is incredible stuff……did Joe the Plumber uncover it?

I'd like to uncover it.

[mraynrand]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

No, that isn't an important issue to folks like PIP.

The media and the left like to point out Palin's wardrobe, but wasn't there an article about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviare with room service. Oh, that sounds like the average person eating at Cracker Barrel. Here' is comes.... :roll: We could nit pick that stuff all day long but that's not what is important.

Cracker Barrel? Isn't that racist?

[LL2]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

No, that isn't an important issue to folks like PIP.

The media and the left like to point out Palin's wardrobe, but wasn't there an article about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviare with room service. Oh, that sounds like the average person eating at Cracker Barrel. Here' is comes.... :roll: We could nit pick that stuff all day long but that's not what is important.

Cracker Barrel? Isn't that racist?

No, at least not to me. My family is white and we love Cracker Barrel.

[packinpatland]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

No, that isn't an important issue to folks like PIP.

The media and the left like to point out Palin's wardrobe, but wasn't there an article about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviare with room service. Oh, that sounds like the average person eating at Cracker Barrel. Here' is comes.... :roll: We could nit pick that stuff all day long but that's not what is important.

Cracker Barrel? Isn't that racist?


You guys are too much. Michele Obama wasn't even staying at the Waldorf.

My point was this.......the RNC is spending alot of money on 'window dressing'.

"But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?"

President Bush has reportedly told Syrian President Bashar Assad that he will press Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights if Syria vows to cut its relations with Iran.
At the Vice Presidential debate Mrs Palin said, concerning this land: “a two-state solution is the solution.”
Maybe in her expanded role as VP, using her brand-new passport, she can fly on over there and broker a deal.

[sheepshead]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

8 years as vice president and 8 years as president, I'd say that's a pretty good investment!!



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VM4PO0&show_article=1

[mraynrand]

My point was this.......the RNC is spending alot of money on 'window dressing'.

.

And of course, you're just as interested in what the other side is spending on 'window dressing,' right? Riiiiiiggghht.


http://internetservices.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/dr_evil.jpg

[packinpatland]

[quote=packinpatland]

My point was this.......the RNC is spending alot of money on 'window dressing'.

.

And of course, you're just as interested in what the other side is spending on 'window dressing,' right? Riiiiiiggghht.


Of course I am.........you got the numbers?

[mraynrand]

[quote=packinpatland]

My point was this.......the RNC is spending alot of money on 'window dressing'.

.

And of course, you're just as interested in what the other side is spending on 'window dressing,' right? Riiiiiiggghht.


Of course I am.........you got the numbers?

I'm sure they will talk about them on CNN and MSNBC tonight. Just tune in at your regular time.

[retailguy]

[quote=packinpatland]

My point was this.......the RNC is spending alot of money on 'window dressing'.

.

And of course, you're just as interested in what the other side is spending on 'window dressing,' right? Riiiiiiggghht.


Of course I am.........you got the numbers?

Nobody is looking to character assasinate Obama or Biden.... Therefore no one has pulled the numbers together. The fact that you don't have them readily available should prove to you that there is a demonstrated media bias towards attacking Palin on anything they can find.

This is almost as despicable as it was when they "talked" about Cindy McCains $300k wardrobe....

There is no end to this.... That should mean something to those on the left, but it's "win at any cost"....

[hoosier]

[quote=packinpatland]

My point was this.......the RNC is spending alot of money on 'window dressing'.

.

And of course, you're just as interested in what the other side is spending on 'window dressing,' right? Riiiiiiggghht.


Of course I am.........you got the numbers?

Nobody is looking to character assasinate Obama or Biden.... Therefore no one has pulled the numbers together. The fact that you don't have them readily available should prove to you that there is a demonstrated media bias towards attacking Palin on anything they can find.

This is almost as despicable as it was when they "talked" about Cindy McCains $300k wardrobe....

There is no end to this.... That should mean something to those on the left, but it's "win at any cost"....

You mean nobody outside of the McCain-Palin campaign and the right-wing media that supports them, right?

[HowardRoark]

My family is white and we love Cracker Barrel.

Typical white folks.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe in her expanded role as VP, using her brand-new passport, she can fly on over there and broker a deal.

As opposed to Biden who'll show the Syrians his impressive collection of passport stamps to effect change?

http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Images/Travel_Article_Library/Spanish_Walking_Tour/Passport/Stamps.gif

You get hot just looking at them all don't you? Imagine if he let you TOUCH them? Image what the Syrians will do! Hell, al-Assad might just take him deep before agreeing to become our 58th state.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88



Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

And, here comes the hypocrisy. You and the rest of your conservative brethren were all over Edwards and his attention to grooming. You and the rest were all over Clinton's expensive haircuts.

But, now, it isn't relevant. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88

Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

No, that isn't an important issue to folks like PIP.

The media and the left like to point out Palin's wardrobe, but wasn't there an article about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviare with room service. Oh, that sounds like the average person eating at Cracker Barrel. Here' is comes.... :roll: We could nit pick that stuff all day long but that's not what is important.

There wasn't an article because it was a RUMOR. A rumor that has subsequently been disproven.

You might want to actually read the news and not just get it from Rush's mouth. The Post ran a retraction...oh, i guess it wasnt' in the media. Guess the Post isnt' media. :oops:

Obama wasn't even staying at the Waldorf.

But, where are the retractions from the rightwing blogosphere.

Corrections have yet to appear at USS Neverdock, Atlas Shrugs, Clayton Cramer, American Power, Sweetness & Light, Flopping Aces, and a million other rightwing citizen journalist outlets where the story was disseminated. But don't worry, it'll all be forgotten as soon as they get those new Michelle Obama tapes!

Game, Set, Match.

[mraynrand]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88



Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

And, here comes the hypocrisy. You and the rest of your conservative brethren were all over Edwards and his attention to grooming. You and the rest were all over Clinton's expensive haircuts.

But, now, it isn't relevant. :roll:

Holy shit. Edwards is a guy. I know it's probably hard for you to tell. Most guys think it's pretty weird for a guy to blow hundreds on a haircut when most of us get a 10-20 dollar hair cut, wash our hair with a bar of soap, dry it with a towel and 'comb' it with our hands half the time. Women's clothes and hair are a whole different ball game - didn't you figure that out - you were married, right? My wife is totally low maintenance and she outspends me 10 to one on clothes.

Plus the point is that it's totally one sided (again) and another attempt at a gotcha. Maybe Palin should just wear some sweats and jogging shoes.
-------
Did Clinton get expensive haircuts? I thought the criticism was that he held up flights waiting to get a haircut - not the cost. But I didn't much care.

[mraynrand]

Corrections have yet to appear at USS Neverdock, Atlas Shrugs, Clayton Cramer, American Power, Sweetness & Light, Flopping Aces, and a million other rightwing citizen journalist outlets where the story was disseminated. But don't worry, it'll all be forgotten as soon as they get those new Michelle Obama tapes!

Game, Set, Match.

I gotta check out that Atlas Shrugs site. Sounds interesting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

On August 29, McCain announced that Gov. Palin would be his choice for VP.
It has been reported that the RNC has spent, give or take, $150,000 on her wardrobe, hair and makeup. From 8-29 till today......55 days......that's an average of $2727.27 a day.
I DO NOT have problem with the RNC spending money making her look her best, whether it be facials, clothes, shoes, whatever.........but to appeal to the large majority of 'middle class'........what was wrong with going to places like Sears, JCPenney, ColdWaterCreek, or even Talbots?
$2727 is a hefty monthly mortgage payment, it's too much for a daily clothing expenditure.

Edit.........to be fair, if you take it thru Nov 4, 68 days, it does drop to $2205.88



Very interesting and relevant. But do you think she'll be in favor of surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria?

And, here comes the hypocrisy. You and the rest of your conservative brethren were all over Edwards and his attention to grooming. You and the rest were all over Clinton's expensive haircuts.

But, now, it isn't relevant. :roll:

Holy shit. Edwards is a guy. I know it's probably hard for you to tell. Most guys think it's pretty weird for a guy to blow hundreds on a haircut when most of us get a 10-20 dollar hair cut, wash our hair with a bar of soap, dry it with a towel and 'comb' it with our hands half the time. Women's clothes and hair are a whole different ball game - didn't you figure that out - you were married, right? My wife is totally low maintenance and she outspends me 10 to one on clothes.

Plus the point is that it's totally one sided (again) and another attempt at a gotcha. Maybe Palin should just wear some sweats and jogging shoes.
-------
Did Clinton get expensive haircuts? I thought the criticism was that he held up flights waiting to get a haircut - not the cost. But I didn't much care.

Right. All the comments regarding Edwards were about how wierd it was. You are caught red handed and you don't have the intellectual honesty to come clean.

No matter how you spin it..edwards hair, clinton's hair or waiting for a jet..have nothing to do with substantive issues.

[mraynrand]

..edwards hair, clinton's hair or waiting for a jet..have nothing to do with substantive issues.

I agree.

[mraynrand]

Corrections have yet to appear at USS Neverdock, Atlas Shrugs, Clayton Cramer, American Power, Sweetness & Light, Flopping Aces, and a million other rightwing citizen journalist outlets where the story was disseminated. But don't worry, it'll all be forgotten as soon as they get those new Michelle Obama tapes!

Game, Set, Match.


You might want to check your own sources before you post incorrect items. I only looked to one site. I suspect you're wrong about many of the others. It is your way

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/the-audacity-of.html (Dated Monday Oct 20)

[mraynrand]

And, here comes the hypocrisy...etc...

At least you tangentially admit it's a non-story.

[hoosier]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

Eloquence and rhetoric.

I'll paraphrase Mark Steyn who said of Obama: "The music is great, but the lyrics are terrible."

You're coming across here as someone who believes what is convenient and discards the rest. I understand that you may not agree with Powell's assessment of the two candidates, but to write what he said off as "eloquence and rhetoric" is to approach Tex-like myopia.

Those were some of his most prominent comments. I considered everything he said, pretty much. I found his explanation for his endorsement overall quite shallow - and transparent. I would have liked some challenging questions asked. My comment on his endorsing Obama for his eloquence and rhetoric was an opportunity for a quip from Steyn that I think sums up the Obama phenomenon quite nicely in a snap shot. I see and talk to a lot of people who love Obama and the whole idea of him as president, but who know relatively little about what he is going to do and what he stands for.

You mention "eloquence," but what happened to the issues of substance that Powell mentions: Obama's "steadiness," his "intellectual curiosity," his judgment, and his leadership? You say you found Powell's endorsement "shallow" and "transparent" because you don't see in Obama the qualities that Powell does. And if you can't see them, they must not be there--right?

At the same time, Powell's endorsement of Obama is as much a criticism of the kind of campaign run by McCain as it is an affirmation of Obama's campaign. Powell recognizes that McCain's discourse has become increasingly narrow-minded and negative, and that his lapse in judgment in choosing a VP was a total failure to live up to the presidential mandate. McCain screwed it up big time, and he's continuing to tarnish his legacy--that's what Powell is saying. You can't see what Powell is talking about because of ideological differences, but that's where he's pointing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Corrections have yet to appear at USS Neverdock, Atlas Shrugs, Clayton Cramer, American Power, Sweetness & Light, Flopping Aces, and a million other rightwing citizen journalist outlets where the story was disseminated. But don't worry, it'll all be forgotten as soon as they get those new Michelle Obama tapes!

Game, Set, Match.


You might want to check your own sources before you post incorrect items. I only looked to one site. I suspect you're wrong about many of the others. It is your way

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/the-audacity-of.html (Dated Monday Oct 20)

At the time of the post retraction they hadn't. Now, they have. I can't be expected to wallow thru shit all the time.

More to the point, i didn't see you castigating the poster for this type of worthless story. Ooops.

Guess that only works when a liberal does it. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And, here comes the hypocrisy...etc...

At least you tangentially admit it's a non-story.

Which is 100% more than you do.

Your intellectual dishonesty has been noted. Again.

[gex]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

Eloquence and rhetoric.

I'll paraphrase Mark Steyn who said of Obama: "The music is great, but the lyrics are terrible."

You're coming across here as someone who believes what is convenient and discards the rest. I understand that you may not agree with Powell's assessment of the two candidates, but to write what he said off as "eloquence and rhetoric" is to approach Tex-like myopia.

Those were some of his most prominent comments. I considered everything he said, pretty much. I found his explanation for his endorsement overall quite shallow - and transparent. I would have liked some challenging questions asked. My comment on his endorsing Obama for his eloquence and rhetoric was an opportunity for a quip from Steyn that I think sums up the Obama phenomenon quite nicely in a snap shot. I see and talk to a lot of people who love Obama and the whole idea of him as president, but who know relatively little about what he is going to do and what he stands for.

You mention "eloquence," but what happened to the issues of substance that Powell mentions: Obama's "steadiness," his "intellectual curiosity," his judgment, and his leadership? You say you found Powell's endorsement "shallow" and "transparent" because you don't see in Obama the qualities that Powell does. And if you can't see them, they must not be there--right?

At the same time, Powell's endorsement of Obama is as much a criticism of the kind of campaign run by McCain as it is an affirmation of Obama's campaign. Powell recognizes that McCain's discourse has become increasingly narrow-minded and negative, and that his lapse in judgment in choosing a VP was a total failure to live up to the presidential mandate. McCain screwed it up big time, and he's continuing to tarnish his legacy--that's what Powell is saying. You can't see what Powell is talking about because of ideological differences, but that's where he's pointing.


WOW mrayn got PWNED!

[HowardRoark]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

Eloquence and rhetoric.

I'll paraphrase Mark Steyn who said of Obama: "The music is great, but the lyrics are terrible."

You're coming across here as someone who believes what is convenient and discards the rest. I understand that you may not agree with Powell's assessment of the two candidates, but to write what he said off as "eloquence and rhetoric" is to approach Tex-like myopia.

Those were some of his most prominent comments. I considered everything he said, pretty much. I found his explanation for his endorsement overall quite shallow - and transparent. I would have liked some challenging questions asked. My comment on his endorsing Obama for his eloquence and rhetoric was an opportunity for a quip from Steyn that I think sums up the Obama phenomenon quite nicely in a snap shot. I see and talk to a lot of people who love Obama and the whole idea of him as president, but who know relatively little about what he is going to do and what he stands for.

You mention "eloquence," but what happened to the issues of substance that Powell mentions: Obama's "steadiness," his "intellectual curiosity," his judgment, and his leadership? You say you found Powell's endorsement "shallow" and "transparent" because you don't see in Obama the qualities that Powell does. And if you can't see them, they must not be there--right?

At the same time, Powell's endorsement of Obama is as much a criticism of the kind of campaign run by McCain as it is an affirmation of Obama's campaign. Powell recognizes that McCain's discourse has become increasingly narrow-minded and negative, and that his lapse in judgment in choosing a VP was a total failure to live up to the presidential mandate. McCain screwed it up big time, and he's continuing to tarnish his legacy--that's what Powell is saying. You can't see what Powell is talking about because of ideological differences, but that's where he's pointing.


WOW mrayn got PWNED!

Obama's "steadiness".........examples?

his "intellectual curiosity".......I'll give you this one; he is curious abot eveything on the Left or Marxist. Anything else?

his judgment........any examples? "Present" doesn't count.

and his leadership .......(see above)


You say you found Powell's endorsement "shallow" and "transparent" ......I think this is a big "make up call" for when he was at the UN talking about aluminum cylinders and whatnot. He is proud man, as well he should be.



BTW, I am putting my budget together for next year, any word yet as to whether or not we will have to tithe to Obama?

[mraynrand]

Corrections have yet to appear at USS Neverdock, Atlas Shrugs, Clayton Cramer, American Power, Sweetness & Light, Flopping Aces, and a million other rightwing citizen journalist outlets where the story was disseminated. But don't worry, it'll all be forgotten as soon as they get those new Michelle Obama tapes!

Game, Set, Match.


You might want to check your own sources before you post incorrect items. I only looked to one site. I suspect you're wrong about many of the others. It is your way

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/the-audacity-of.html (Dated Monday Oct 20)

At the time of the post retraction they hadn't. Now, they have. I can't be expected to wallow thru shit all the time.

More to the point, i didn't see you castigating the poster for this type of worthless story. Ooops.

Guess that only works when a liberal does it. :oops:

I didn't have to, because you took care of it. I also didn't know it had been shown to be false. You were incorrect in your facts. Wallow through your own shit sometime so we don't have to.

[mraynrand]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

Eloquence and rhetoric.

I'll paraphrase Mark Steyn who said of Obama: "The music is great, but the lyrics are terrible."

You're coming across here as someone who believes what is convenient and discards the rest. I understand that you may not agree with Powell's assessment of the two candidates, but to write what he said off as "eloquence and rhetoric" is to approach Tex-like myopia.

Those were some of his most prominent comments. I considered everything he said, pretty much. I found his explanation for his endorsement overall quite shallow - and transparent. I would have liked some challenging questions asked. My comment on his endorsing Obama for his eloquence and rhetoric was an opportunity for a quip from Steyn that I think sums up the Obama phenomenon quite nicely in a snap shot. I see and talk to a lot of people who love Obama and the whole idea of him as president, but who know relatively little about what he is going to do and what he stands for.

You mention "eloquence," but what happened to the issues of substance that Powell mentions: Obama's "steadiness," his "intellectual curiosity," his judgment, and his leadership? You say you found Powell's endorsement "shallow" and "transparent" because you don't see in Obama the qualities that Powell does. And if you can't see them, they must not be there--right?

At the same time, Powell's endorsement of Obama is as much a criticism of the kind of campaign run by McCain as it is an affirmation of Obama's campaign. Powell recognizes that McCain's discourse has become increasingly narrow-minded and negative, and that his lapse in judgment in choosing a VP was a total failure to live up to the presidential mandate. McCain screwed it up big time, and he's continuing to tarnish his legacy--that's what Powell is saying. You can't see what Powell is talking about because of ideological differences, but that's where he's pointing.

Yes, I fundamentally disagree with Powell. I see no curiosity from Obama. No ability to work across the aisle on anything other than the obvious (Obama wanted to secure Russian nukes - who wouldn't?). I also disagree on the McCain campaign. He's covered all the issues. He has to point out Obama's past because the press other than FOX and online stuff won't do it in any honest way. Powell completely ignores the compltely biased and one side nature of the coverage of McCain and Palin by most major news outlets. What is the presidential mandate for VPs? Shouldn't they at least agree with their running mate about the most important foreign policy decision of our generation? What does Powell think about Obama's judgment in picking a VP candidate who openly lies in his debate, who disagreed with Powell on Powell's most important role in his lifetime?

[bobblehead]

Bobble....did you listen to what Powell said? Did you listen to all the reasons he gave for endorsing Hussein and not Mac and Palin?

yes...i listened...he is lying. He and mccain were lock step on the iraq war while obama was screaming pull out like a 17 year old on prom night.

Hoosier...my stereotype that blacks stick together...recent polls show obama winning 94-1 in the black vote...your right, i'm flawed.

Powell has always endorsed socially liberal republicans...guys like mccain. You don't have to like it, and you can try and make a bad arguement, but powell sold us iraq, was fully vested in iraq, and is now backing the candidate who got his nomination based on never wishing to go into iraq...why would that be?? I don't care, its his right, but to tell me its cuz of barry's politics is to piss on me and tell me its raining.