American Politics during the Bush Presidency [Archive] - Page 5

Bacchus9

10-12-08, 13:49

Syd, old sport,

I see you are still bereft of the virtues of just posting a link to an article and enticing people to go check it out by virtue of your own erudite commentary.

Like this:

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/12/pittsburgh-paper-picks-obama-pans-on-mccainpalin-ticket/

Pittsburgh Post Gazette slams McCain / Palin and endorses Barack Obama.

Here's an excerpt of Pittsburgh's endorsement of Barack Obama.

" It is about the strengths of Barack Obama, whose rise to prominence is not a fluke or national infatuation but the consequence of his remarkable skills — a keen intellect, noble intentions and the wit and grace to express them in ways that have inspired millions across the country. He has a rare gift exactly suited to the fearful times — he knows the language of reassurance and hope.

If his were just empty words, this would be just another cheap political gift. But what he says is carefully considered. In the debates and on the hustings, Mr. Obama has been the voice of moderation, combining common sense and compassion on issue after issue. When the subject turns to foreign policy, supposedly Mr. McCain's strong suit, Mr. Obama gives no indication that he will have to learn on the job."

Read it and weep baby.

Miami Bob

10-12-08, 16:16

It looks like mccain has given up on miami--obama is running 5 tv spots for every mccain spot. I usually watch the busniness channels and the Sunday morning political / talk shows had zero mccain spots in miami.

Pulll a boone pickens. Boone financed the swift boat tv propaganda. Go drop us$10, 000, 000. If you really believe what you are writing.

Yesterday, McCain said that Obama is not a terorist or an arab. He said this a a town hall meeting when one of his supporters was talking like you about her fears of Obama.

Exon123

10-12-08, 17:39

Ah Sidney, finally the "October Suprise"

HANNITY and Jackson should be room mates, since there always in bed together.

Exon

Bacchus9

10-12-08, 18:42

Already, many (most) are weeping as they see the huge declines in their ''funds'', their businesses, their properties, etc as the markets discount the Obomination's election. But the ''naive'' supporters, propagandized by his rhetoric, will be the weeping the most!

Old Sport, SidSydney, old sport,

I used to think you were just obsessed and wandering in your own Dali like desert, an empty landscape with giant birth certificates and statues of god fearing blacks pledging to war torn American flags but now it seems you're just a robotic McCain disciple making things up (lying) to beat the band. ". Markets discount the Obama election" No wonder we're in this mess, the Repub financial "wizards" can't shoot straight and had to be lead by the English Prime Minister to a "bailout" solution.

Bacchus9

10-12-08, 19:05

He has a different point of view. Respect it. He does not try to convert you and you don't have to convert him. He sincerely believes and you are not going to change his world view. He provides us this forum at very little or no costs. So cut him some slack.

I don't aggree with any of his politics, but I like and respect him. This is what freedom of speach and democracy is all about. I like and respect sid and obama--who I will vote for almost surely----makes sid absolutely crazy. Sid and I will cancel out each others votes while we share a bottle of wine and talk about the many areas where we can have an enjoyable discussion. I will hope to call both sid and jackson friends for many years and through many elections.

BobI've thought a lot about this post and in the end I think you're misguided. This isn't the Buddy Forum. Although it doesn't have to be uncivil, this is about ideas on American Politics and although I also like and have reason to admire Syd and Jackson on other counts these points of view need to be called out for what they are. They are the lines of thought and advocacy that have gotten the US into the terrible position it has developed over the past 8 years and continued to support it. You cannot sweep this stuff under the rug. They cannot offer a balanced and thoughtful point of view, only a fringe partisan view. No one visiting this forum, which represents in it's own way American expats in Argentina, should come away thinking that these are acceptable American points of view. More articulate thinkers than myself need to keep confronting these corrupt ideas. This is the time, they're losing control and need all the help available rushing them out the door and back into the shadows.

BadMan

10-12-08, 21:40

: 55% Expect Obama Victory, 15% Expect McCain Victory.

In a poll conducted Oct. 10, 55% of the voters now expect Obama to win the election and 15% expect McCain to win it. In mid-September, these numbers were 35% and 34% , respectively. What a difference an economic crisis makes. Clearly the voters have judged Obama better than McCain on the economy. In retrospect, having McCain suspend his campaign and parachute into Washington to take over the bailout bill and then have the House Republicans vote against the bill by 2 to 1 didn't make him look like a leader. Only after he got out of the way so Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Reo. Barney Frank (D-MA) could craft a new bill did it pass.Regards,

BM.

Dickhead

10-12-08, 22:28

On the other hand, by November 2004 the Republicans had already fucked everything up badly enough it was intellectually inconceivable they would win the election, and look what happened. Go figure. You get media appealing to the lowest common denominator, popular culture appealing to the lowest common denominator, education appealing to the lowest common denominator, and you can see what the results are.

El Perro

10-12-08, 23:42

I don't remember any of you Obomination, propagandized liberals agreeing with me!This is one Obaminating, propagandizing conservative leftist who does.

El Sid-I want to give you a Rorschach test. I'm betting every response will be either "pussy" or "big dicked jigaboo".;)

Stowe

10-13-08, 00:03

Stowe,

I didn't say that George Bush did a good job.

What I said was that he did a good job on the two issues I specified.

Thanks,

JacksonJackson,

What a canard. You are now trying to re-write your words. About 4 weeks ago you responded to a post by posting-and I am quoting almost exactly as you posted it:

"another of his many accomplishments". You did not specify only 2 accomplishments but implied there have been many.

Now that shit is hitting the fan from so many directions, you are changing your position-or actually stating you never indicating something that you, in fact, did.

You have done nothing but praise Bush. I have not seen a single post from you criticizing even a single thing about the bushman.

Stowe

Stowe

10-13-08, 00:11

Here's one: I hold George Bush directly responsible for allowing this recent economic mess to develop. Sure, the Dems were the underlying cause for what happened by deregulating Fred and Fanny and pushing them to buy questionable loans, but it happened on George Bush's watch, and as the Captain of the ship, it was his responsibility to identify and prevent the problem. In this, he failed miserably.

Thanks,

JacksonI see it is the Dems that want total deregulation. Another fantasy as deregulation has been on the Rep platform for decades and NOT on the Dem platform. Besides, couldn't the Reps in the Senate have stopped it if they wished? And Bush could have vetoed it, which he didn't.

Dickhead

10-13-08, 02:10

Prior to voting in November, I'd encourage concerned US citizens to examine the events surrounding the 2004 Madrid bombings and the election that took place a couple of days thereafter. I had the misfortune to fly through there from the UK to Argentina on the day of the bombing, but the good fortune to be only minimally delayed. I don't want to bias anyone. Just check it out for yourselves: what were the issues in that election, what effect the bombings had, and what happened in the subsequent election. I see a lot of parallels.

Jackson

10-13-08, 02:20

Ah Sidney, finally the "October Suprise"

HANNITY and Jackson should be room mates, since there always in bed together.

ExonExon,

For the record, I do not like Sean Hannity as a news commentator (I don't know him personally, so I cannot express an opinion on him as a person) To me, he's a boorish, incessantly barking chihuahua.

Therefor, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make such inaccurate and ignorant statements about my political beliefs.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

10-13-08, 02:27

I see it is the Dems that want total deregulation. Another fantasy as deregulation has been on the Rep platform for decades and NOT on the Dem platform. Besides, couldn't the Reps in the Senate have stopped it if they wished? And Bush could have vetoed it, which he didn't.Stowe,

What color is the sky in your world?

The primary cause of the current mortgage meltdown was the Democrat's strategy of pushing Freddy and Fanny to lower the standards for the "conforming" loans that they would buy from the loan originators, said lowering specifically to "encourage" home ownership by previously unqualified applicants who ulitimately proved that they were incapable of making the mortage payments.

That's the deregulation that I'm referring to.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

10-13-08, 02:47

Cannot sweep this stuff under the rug. They cannot offer a balanced and thoughtful point of view, only a fringe partisan view. No one visiting this forum, which represents in it's own way American expats in Argentina, should come away thinking that these are acceptable American points of view. More articulate thinkers than myself need to keep confronting these corrupt ideas. This is the time, they're losing control and need all the help available rushing them out the door and back into the shadows.That's exactly how I feel about all the liberal drivel that's posted here.

Thanks,

Jackson

InArgentina

10-13-08, 10:21

Rock,

Because we're in a war, and I want us to win.

Thanks,

JacksonJackson,

You run a good website - it is a shame about your politics.

The United States Government is about to spend over $700 Billion in a bailout (or whatever you would like to call it)

This is irreversible (at least in your lifetime)

The reality is you have lost the war.

The Reagan revolution is totally DEAD.

Cheers,

Inargentina.

InArgentina

10-13-08, 10:36

This statement reveals a deep ignorance of the history, values and institutions of the USA. Setting aside the issue of whether or not socialism is good or bad, it's simply not part of the American character in any meaningful way.

A more reasoned prescription would take this into account.Darkme.

Judging by the proposed $700 Billion bailout it appears the American character is changing.

If Sweden does a bank bailout it is socialism. If Americans do a bailout it is not socialism.

Or is it just that Americans refuse to call it socialism.

The point is that America needs to and is rapidly moving to the Left.

Cheers,

Inargentina

BadMan

10-13-08, 10:38

The actual final figure is going to surpass 1 trillion dollars. There will be plenty of supplemental bills and aide packages to various corporations tacked on.

We all have different points of view and differing opinions, that is part of what makes America so great.

Regards,

BM

The United States Government is about to spend over $700 Billion in a bailout

InArgentina

10-13-08, 10:49

[QUOTE=Punter 127][I]"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Except of course when my bank is about to bust.

Then watch these 'No government types' cry like babies for help from the government.

No Government -deregulated economics just doesn't work.

It is about getting the right balance between the Private and Government sectors.

It is about good governement rather than no government.

Darkme

10-13-08, 11:51

Then watch these 'No government types' cry like babies for help from the government.

No Government -deregulated economics just doesn't work.

It is about getting the right balance between the Private and Government sectors.

It is about good governement rather than no government.Define good government?

Daddy Rulz

10-13-08, 19:00

Define good government?A watering hole for the well to do in Austin, Texas. There is a sign over the entrance "No mans honor or fortune is safe when the Legislature is in session."

There is no good government only less bad government.

Bacchus9

10-14-08, 00:02

Stowe,

What color is the sky in your world?

The primary cause of the current mortgage meltdown was the Democrat's strategy of pushing Freddy and Fanny to lower the standards for the "conforming" loans that they would buy from the loan originators, said lowering specifically to "encourage" home ownership by previously unqualified applicants who ulitimately proved that they were incapable of making the mortage payments.

That's the deregulation that I'm referring to.

Thanks,

JacksonActually, that's a popular talking point against Democrats but apparently not true. Here's the nut of the reason followed by a link to the article at McClatchy News:

" Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/53802.html

Bacchus9

10-14-08, 00:12

I will not vote for either. The Obomination is such a fraud, it is unbelievable to me that his supporters are so rabid! They even resort to unsupportable charges against me. I ask these men to prove their groundless drivel!-------- The 3 primary problems of the USA are the sub-prime loans, the Wars, and the costs associated with the illegals. All were ''engineered'' and supported by both parties! Without these problems and costs, other necessary corrections could easily be financed, such as health care, education, infrastructure, tax policies, more.Syd, old sport,

When we see you posting multi page talking point pages about Palin and McCain's lack of qualifications for the position they're running for we might take you at your word. Until then, we can tell you're lying because your lips are moving.

In addition it'll be easier for you, no need to dig around for Andy Martin's or Hannity's talking points of the lunatic fringe. You can just copy and paste from any credible news source. They're out there in plain view.

Stowe

10-14-08, 00:57

Don't confuse him with facts. Just let him keep believing his illusions. No doubt he will ignore the McClatchy report as being a liberal rag specifically because it doesn't agree with his preconceived ideas.

Suerte.

Stowe

Actually, that's a popular talking point against Democrats but apparently not true. Here's the nut of the reason followed by a link to the article at McClatchy News:

" Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/53802.html

Miami Bob

10-14-08, 02:00

The TV has been on for about 4 hours while I do various things half paying attention:

Obama at least 10 commercials.

McCain zero.

Has McCain given up on southeast florida: Miami / Ft Lauderdale? Or is he low on $$$$$? Maybe the state republican party has already fixed the election, like.

2000? So why waste money?

Punter 127

10-14-08, 21:23

[QUOTE=Punter 127][i]"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. "

Except of course when my bank is about to bust.

Then watch these 'No government types' cry like babies for help from the government.

No Government.deregulated economics just doesn't work.

It is about getting the right balance between the Private and Government sectors.

It is about good governement rather than no government. Who do you know that has lost money in an American bank "bust " that kept their deposits within the limits of the FDIC?

You seem to know little about the American system, but I would like to know which superior socialist government system you think the United States should pattern itself after?

============================================

"I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: 'Freedom of assembly' and 'freedom of speech' and so forth. Of course, they don't allow them to have those things, but they're in there in the constitution. But I began to wonder about the other constitutions.- everyone has one.- and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple.- that's why you don't notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference. All those other constitutions are documents that say, 'We, the government, allow the people the following rights, ' and our Constitution says 'We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights. ' We give our permission to government to do the things that it does. And that's the whole story of the difference.- why we're unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we're going to overcome. "-- Ronald Reagan

Daddy Rulz

10-14-08, 23:07

Why didn't President Raygun ever wear a flag pin? Was he embarrassed to be an American? Perhaps he was a secret Muslim. Seems very unpatriotic to me.

Punter 127

10-15-08, 01:07

Whats up with the Gipper.

Why didn't President Raygun ever wear a flag pin? Was he embarrassed to be an American? Perhaps he was a secret Muslim. Seems very unpatriotic to me."There you go again."……. Daddy, “I'm not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience."

Punter 127

10-15-08, 12:03

Early voting started in my home state yesterday, so I did my duty and cast my vote.

I should be able to vote everyday between now and the election, thanks ACORN!

===============================================

To quote a famous Chicagoan "vote early and vote often"!

Daddy Rulz

10-15-08, 20:26

Punter 127

10-15-08, 21:54

Well then.

McOldGuy might win if you could. "There you go again."……Spoken like a true Obama Sheeple.

I cast my vote against the messiah and socialism, as I refuse to bow down to Obama, but that doesn ’t necessarily equal a vote for McCain.

=================================================

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Dodger Bulldog

10-16-08, 00:20

Maybe the state republican party has already fixed the election, like.

2000? So why waste money?And 2004!

Stowe

10-16-08, 02:02

McOldGuy might win if you could.I think you are not being fair to McCain by calling him McOldGuy. I think a more accurate name is McAngryOldGuy.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-16-08, 02:06

SF is a city that provides so many interesting pieces of news.

First, they are trying to prevent / outlaw the ROTC from all schools which I think is absolutely wrong and contrary to freedom of choice.

Then then are planning to rename a sewer plant to be named Bush Sewer facility. That is soooo appropriate as the only thing that is more full of shit than a sewer plant is George Bush.

Suerte.

Stowe

InArgentina

10-16-08, 08:47

Who do you know that has lost money in an American bank "bust " that kept their deposits within the limits of the FDIC?Punter 127 or should I call you Comrade? Finally you see the light.

The FDIC is a GOVERNMENT agency set up to protect depositors from PRIVATE banks failing.

Your question simply proves my point. The Government needs to get involved.

InArgentina

10-16-08, 09:32

". But I would like to know which superior socialist government system you think the United States should pattern itself after?"Why not borrow ideas from different countries? You have already adopted a Swedish style bailout of the banks. Actually in the long run Sweden is not a bad model.

The USSA must care for the healthcare needs and education needs of millions of poor Mexicans etc that are migrating to the country. This is a huge task that can only be dealt with by a Government willing to get involved.

Do you want migrants to learn English - who is going to teach them? McDonalds? The local drug gang?

I say be compassionate and embrace socialism.

The USSA needs to reduce its dependence on oil. Again the Government needs to get involved.

The USSA needs to address Climate Change with greater urgency. Again the Government needs to get more actively involved.

Jackson

10-16-08, 13:59

I think you are not being fair to McCain by calling him McOldGuy. I think a more accurate name is McAngryOldGuy.

Suerte.

StoweThere's some more of that famous liberal name-calling.

Can't you guys make a point without personally denigrating people?

Apparently not.

Thanks,

Jackson

Punter 127

10-16-08, 16:04

I find your post totally ludicrous and really unworthy of a reply, however being the tolerant and compassionate person that I am, I ’m going to reply anyway. (This time)

Punter 127 or should I call you Comrade? Finally you see the light. You can call me anything you like from the safety of your computer, but don ’t be fooled by my mild-mannered demeanor; you would be gravely mistaken to think I won’t stand and fight for freedom!

The FDIC is a GOVERNMENT agency set up to protect depositors from PRIVATE banks failing. FDIC has been part of the American system for 75 years, it’s nothing new.

Your question simply proves my point. The Government needs to get involved. Wrong again, we’re a free country that was founded on the concept of limited government, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have laws and limited regulations.

Why not borrow ideas from different countries? You have already adopted a Swedish style bailout of the banks. Actually in the long run Sweden is not a bad model. El Alamo in the stock market thread said it best; “The U. S. Economy is the race horse and will should always do well relative to other economies.” I agree with him and I think it also applies to the USA in general.

BTW I did not favor the bank bailout, but please if you really like the Swedish system so much feel free to catch the next flight. I would offer to contribute to the cost, but that would be a little to socialist for me.

The USSA must care for the healthcare needs and education needs of millions of poor Mexicans etc that are migrating to the country. This is a huge task that can only be dealt with by a Government willing to get involved. The hell you say, I agree the government needs to get involved, but what they need to do is close the borders and send these illegals back where they came from. We don’t owe these people a damn thing, not one red cent!

Do you want migrants to learn English - who is going to teach them? McDonalds? The local drug gang? I want to send them back where they came from, if they are illegally in the USA. Learning English should be a condition of gaining citizenship, but not the government’s responsibility to teach it.

If I migrate to Sweden or Argentina or any other country will any of their governments take the responsibility to teach me their language? If they will lets send them our illegals.

I say be compassionate and embrace socialism. Yes Sirree Bob, that’s going to happen!

I hope you and your socialist buddies hold your breath waiting for me to “embrace socialism”!

Socialism is great for sheeple who are unable or unwilling to make decisions about their own destiny and those that need someone to take them by the hand and show them the way.

My forefathers came to the USA to escape government and religious oppression, and my family members have fought to defend our freedom, (and the freedom of others) I plan to continue supporting that family tradition.

The USSA needs to reduce its dependence on oil. Again the Government needs to get involved. Government involvement is the reason we’re dependent on foreign oil, when it becomes cost effective private enterprise will end that dependency.

The USSA needs to address Climate Change with greater urgency. Again the Government needs to get more actively involved. I think we have a thread for this subject and I’m not going to debate it here.

I’m a flag waving, tax paying United States Citizen, and I’m proud of it! With all it’s imperfections our system is still the best system in the world, bar none!

I find it interesting that you seem to always speak of the United States as a third party, so that brings a burning question to mind; Are you a United States Citizen?

El Alamo

10-16-08, 16:22

El Perro

10-16-08, 17:03

Joe the plumber is saying things that most of us would be afraid to say such as progressive taxation is not fair.

Joe won't say who he is going to vote for but I doubt there are many people as astute as JoeAs reported today, Joe "the plumber" is not a licensed plumber, owes back taxes and says he "feels like Britney Spears". Joe the non plumber is an attention seeking non entity.

El Alamo

10-16-08, 17:10

As reported today, Joe "the plumber" is not a licensed plumber, owes back taxes and says he "feels like Britney Spears". Joe the non plumber is an attention seeking non entity.I could be dead wrong but I would bet the ranch that Obama and his henchman are trying to destroy Joe's credibility solely because Joe hasn't bought into the philosophy of "THE ONE"

I have owed back taxes and I doubt that Joe is working as an unlicensed plumber - at least I hope not.

El Perro

10-16-08, 17:14

I could be dead wrong but I would bet the ranch the Obama and his henchman are trying to destroy Joe's credibility solely because Joe hasn't bought into the philosophy of "THE ONE"

I have owed back taxes and I doubt that Joe is working as an unlicensed plumber.

THEEA-you can check the facts. He is not a licensed plumber and according to records has not even done an apprenticeship. How do you destroy the credibility of someone who has no credibility?

Cheers

El Alamo

10-16-08, 17:26

My apologies. I think we should "tar and feather" Joe the Plumber.

P. S. I hope you know this is all a joke. I don't think it makes much difference who our next President is. We will survive.

Daddy Rulz

10-16-08, 19:26

There's some more of that famous liberal name-calling.

Can't you guys make a point without personally denigrating people?

Apparently not.

Thanks,

JacksonObamanation.

I noticed you didn't call this "famous conservative name calling." I started calling the Distinguished Gentleman from Arizona McOldGuy in response to Sids continual denigration (without comment in blue ink I might add) of Obama. I must admit though my friends, Stowe (that disgusting motherfucker) is right, McAngryOldGuy is much better.

El Alamo

10-16-08, 20:15

I empasize with Joe the Plumber. He is trying to start his own business. He doen't have a lot of resources. Making money is a dream not a reality. The likliehood of success is remote.

Then some son of ***** like Obama, who has never even run a popsicle stand in his life, comes along and tells Joe that he is required to pay health insurance for his employees. Health benefits that Joe and Joe's family do not enjoy.

At the end of the day Joe can't afford to have employees and his employees not only don't have health insurance, they don't have a job.

Alan23

10-16-08, 21:11

This election is now a forgone conclusion. So maybe we can move on to the proverbial "morning after". Without question Barack and Joe will be the next Executive Branch heads.

With that in mind, can we discuss the possible social ramifications and civil unrest that might occur if on the morning of November 5th the Democrats are not successful. How could this occur:

- There may be enough closet racists around that are willing to answer the poll questions for Obama, but on ballot day just will not be able to pull the lever "correctly"

- The pollsters have eligible, registered, and "likely" voters. I can envision the poll takers today not even interviewing black voters, but simply checking the box for Obama - as he truly has 99.999% of the black vote in the bag. However, Minority and youth voters have a tendency to not actually turn up at the polls due to events like bad weather, lack of transportation, etc.

- The ACORN type of voter drive fraud can be a double edged sword. The very small "sample space" of the pollsters may not generate the accurate predictions of the past - given that many of the "registered" voters do NOT exist. Statistics is not my specialty, however seems that when they interview 500 Democrats those results are applied across the "registered" Democrat voter base.

Back to the real question:

Will there be burning neighborhoods and carnage in the streets on Nov. 5th if McOldAngry-WeakDicked Guy and the Hockey-Playing Pig with the lipstick are headed to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

El Alamo

10-16-08, 21:38

Alan.

I think you are correct. If Obama cannot win this election with the economy trashed he cannot win any election.

Tomorrow you will read the latest Gallup poll Obama 49% McCain 47%

I agree this election should be in the bag for Obama.

However, the stock market is not going to fall much further. From here to the election the market will be more or less stable.

I personally am not sure who is the best candiate. I am not sure it is that important. We can live with either candidate.

I don't think Obama is a very appealing candidate. Hillary kicked his ass is almost every face to face contest I. E. Texas, Ohio, Pennsy lvania and probably New York and California but I am not sure about California.

This election should be in the bag for Obama but Obama is his own worst enemy I. E. He is not that appealing except for those who, for reasons unknown, consider him to be "THE ONE".

Daddy Rulz

10-16-08, 22:07

Jackson

10-16-08, 23:08

EA-you can check the facts. He is not a licensed plumber and according to records has not even done an apprenticeship. How do you destroy the credibility of someone who has no credibility?

CheersHi Guys,

First, As someone who actually knows something about contractor licensing, it's typical that only the owner of a general contracting or trade contracting company needs to hold a license. As I recall the details, Joe is currently an employee of the plumbing company that he wants to buy. Thus it's quite feasible that Joe does not currently hold a license, but that he does possess the necessary experience to qualify for licensure, and that he expects to stand for and pass the licensing exam at a later date.

Second, it's also a common practice for sellers of construction companies to stay on as the official license holder for a period of time after the actual sale, if for no other reason that the ensure that the projects in which they have pulled permits under their license number are correctly completed.

Third, in these modern times the concept of apprenticeships is pretty much passe.

Finally, does anyone actually know if the state in which Joe lives even requires licensing? 23 states in this country have no contractor licensing requirements.

Thanks,

Jackson

Stowe

10-16-08, 23:12

There's some more of that famous liberal name-calling.

Can't you guys make a point without personally denigrating people?

Apparently not.

Thanks,

JacksonNOPE!

Not in the case of McAngryOldGuy who initially promised to run a respectful campaign because he was 'honorable', then suddenly became a hypocrite and became nasty.

Jackson

10-16-08, 23:13

Obamanation.

I noticed you didn't call this "famous conservative name calling." I started calling the Distinguished Gentleman from Arizona McOldGuy in response to Sids continual denigration (without comment in blue ink I might add) of Obama. I must admit though my friends, Stowe (that disgusting motherfucker) is right, McAngryOldGuy is much better.Touche, although I personally prefer not to use derisive titles in either direction. Still, I'm also guilty in having referred to Obama as "The Messiah".

BTW, the blue ink is reserved solely for addressing issues related to forum administration.

Thanks,

Jackson

Stowe

10-16-08, 23:17

Obamanation.

I noticed you didn't call this "famous conservative name calling." I started calling the Distinguished Gentleman from Arizona McOldGuy in response to Sids continual denigration (without comment in blue ink I might add) of Obama. I must admit though my friends, Stowe (that disgusting motherfucker) is right, McAngryOldGuy is much better.DR, you sick fuck! You are so right about Jackson.

Jackson,

I guess it is ok to do name calling when it is attacking a politician you do not support but ok for someone you do support.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-16-08, 23:19

Then some son of ***** like Obama, who has never even run a popsicle stand in his life, comes along and tells Joe that he is required to pay health insurance for his employees. Health benefits that Joe and Joe's family do not enjoy.

At the end of the day Joe can't afford to have employees and his employees not only don't have health insurance, they don't have a job.I have it on good authority that Obama (the winner) DID run a popsicle stand-and a lemonaid stand as well.

How the do you know every single experience he, or McCain, or anyone else, has had in there lives? No objectivity with you.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-16-08, 23:22

I don't think he is "The One" I just like that he answers questions in specific and not "I know how to fix the economy." "I know how to get Bin Laden." "I know how to relieve our dependence on foreign oil."

I admit to the fact that I've been a Dem all my life so I'm predisposed to liking him. I said a lot if it came to Hillary v McAngryOldGuy I would have voted for the plane crasher. However I think his campaign would have lost me even against Hillary. If the campaign didn't do it the beauty queen would have.

Don't know what will happen if McAngryOldGuy wins but I imagine the country will survive with either. He isn't shrub, anything will be an improvement.No president has the power to make serious changes to our society (other than make war) Because of the special interest groups Congress and any and all presidents are too afraid to address real changes. Like addressing the debt, Social Security, Medicare, the energy crisis, climate change.

Suerte.

Stowe

Daddy Rulz

10-17-08, 00:22

Touche, although I personally prefer not to use derisive titles in either direction. Still, I'm also guilty in having referred to Obama as "The Messiah".

BTW, the blue ink is reserved solely for addressing issues related to forum administration.

Thanks,

JacksonNever noticed that before. Jax this is your ball and bat brother do as you wish. As one of the few moderates on this board though I would have been remiss in ignoring it.

BadMan

10-17-08, 07:33

Neither " joe " nor the owner of the business have a contracting or plumbing license. The state does not require them to have one, But the counties in which they work do. " Joe " also lied about being a union member. When reporters contacted the union which " joe " said he was a member of, they said they never heard of him.

When asked about it further, joe basically said it was a dream of his. The more I hear about the whole exchange the more ridiculous and contrived it sounds.

It's like me saying to Obama " You know, I am not currently a billionaire nor do I have the prospects to be one any time soon but I am planning on being a billionaire one day, does that mean I will get taxed more? ".

Are you kidding me?

Regards,

BM

El Alamo

10-17-08, 08:50

It is not clear whether Joe the Plumber, if and when he owns his own business, would do better under Obama's tax plan or under McCain's tax plan. In all liklihood it probably won't make much difference to Joe.

What is unsettling is the tendancy of Obama's campaign to engage in character assassination of anyone, like Joe the Plumber, who is not buying the idea that Obama is "THE ONE"

BadMan

10-17-08, 10:05

What is unsettling is the tendancy of Mccain's campaign to engage in character assassination of Obama, who is not buying the idea that Mccain is "THE ONE"Co-Sign.

Regards,

BM

El Perro

10-17-08, 10:09

Punter 127

10-17-08, 11:45

To me Joe the plumber is irrelevant, Joe ’s not running for president and we are seeing an attempt to kill the messenger. Even if what Joe said was put to Obama as a hypothetical, (which it kind of was) what ’s important is how Obama replied;

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it ’s good for everybody,".

Barack Hussein Steve Obama

El Alamo

10-17-08, 12:04

As I have posted before, I think we should "tar and feather" Joe the Plumber.

The nerve of Joe to question the tax plan of "THE ONE"

Jackson

10-17-08, 14:13

No president has the power to make serious changes to our society (other than make war) Because of the special interest groups Congress and any and all presidents are too afraid to address real changes. Like addressing the debt, Social Security, Medicare, the energy crisis, climate change.

Suerte.

StoweI agree, and so for me the decision boils down to this issue:

Who is best qualified to be the Commander in Chief?

John McCain: Annapolis graduate, Naval officer, aviator, former POW, 30 years of foreign policy experience.

Barak Obama: None of the above.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW, if you don't think it takes some stones to land a jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier, then you should talk to somebody who has done it. That group would not include a certain college professor.

El Perro

10-17-08, 14:30

Grshel1

10-17-08, 14:37

The undecided voters have been identified. They are the ones waiting for McCain to get younger or Obama to get whiter.

Hunt99

10-17-08, 15:13

Irish betting company settles bets on Obama early:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24511776-29677,00.html

Nice news for Obama supporters, but if I was a betting man I would wager that the owner of Paddy Power is a fan of Obama. Good on ya though!You guys holding one of those Obama tickets had better cash it, quick. It seems that without a daily bloodbath on Wall Street, The Messiah's lead is destined to drain away. Down from 10% to 2% in the most recent AP poll. People are getting the message that he intends to "take our wealth and spread it around" to people who don't work and don't intend to.

Ronald Reagan was behind at this point in 1980. President Obama is spending a lot of time measuring the Oval Office for draperies. I think he'll rue the day he made the mistake of exposing his Marxist soul to a plumber from Ohio.

El Perro

10-17-08, 15:26

You guys holding one of those Obama tickets had better cash it, quick. It seems that without a daily bloodbath on Wall Street, The Messiah's lead is destined to drain away. Down from 10% to 2% in the most recent AP poll. People are getting the message that he intends to "take our wealth and spread it around" to people who don't work and don't intend to.

Ronald Reagan was behind at this point in 1980. President Obama is spending a lot of time measuring the Oval Office for draperies. I think he'll rue the day he made the mistake of exposing his Marxist soul to a plumber from Ohio.Hunt-are you factoring in a positive spin on margin of error, or something? The news on the AP poll I saw today indicated a 57% to 52% margin for Obama.

http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9193983&nav=menu108_7

No sense in a futile debate about poll numbers, but you don't strike me as a disseminator of bogus info.

Cheers

El Alamo

10-17-08, 15:43

Punter 127

10-17-08, 16:08

No president has the power to make serious changes to our society (other than make war) Because of the special interest groups Congress and any and all presidents are too afraid to address real changes. Like addressing the debt, Social Security, Medicare, the energy crisis, climate change.

Suerte.

StoweWill that hold true if the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in Congress?

It was just such a majority that allowed Lyndon Johnson to pass his Great Society.

What would an Obama, Read, Pelosi team give us? Something similar to the Three Stooges I suspect.

But hey I survived Jimmy Carters first term and I can survive The Second Coming of J. C.... IF it happens.

El Alamo

10-17-08, 16:24

Punter,

I used think that it didn't matter much who we elected President in 2008. However, I remember Jimmy Carter. I think Billy Carter, Jimmy Carter's brother and famous for Billy Beer, would have been a better President than Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter had and has the backbone of a jellyfish.

If you think Obama might be the second coming of Jimmy Carter I am scared to death. This has the makings of a nightmare.

Daddy Rulz

10-17-08, 16:29

It is difficult to intrepret polling data. In 2004 Kerry was President for a few hours based on exit polls. We still don't know why those exit polls were so inaccurate.

I have said forever that 2008 should be Obama's election. That is just a feeling. It is not based on polls. The polls are meaningless.Diebold electronic voting.

""A new computer chip was flown to Snyder [Texas] from Dallas," County Clerk Lindsey told the Associated Press. With the new chip installed, the computer then verified that the Democrat had won the election. In another Texas anomaly, Republican state Senator Jeff Wentworth won his race with exactly 18,181 votes, Republican Carter Casteel won her state House seat with exactly 18,181 votes, and conservative Judge Danny Scheel won his seat with exactly 18,181 votes – all in Comal County. Apparently, however, no poll workers in Comal County thought to ask for a new chip."

Three separate races in the same county and all three got EXACTLY the same number of votes. I guess it could happen naturally.

Isola2000

10-17-08, 16:49

The exit polls that put Kerry in the lead, think it has to do with the time difference in the big country in the west. Kerry easily took all Eastern states, and especially the Northeastern (NY, N Jersey, Mass) The exit polls are not that sophisticated and cannot adjust for this. Even though California was a sure winner for him, the early exit polls failed to pick up the big following of Bush in Mid and South. Relied on early inputs in the East.

El Alamo

10-17-08, 18:17

El Alamo

10-17-08, 18:55

Let me preface this with I am not sure who I will vote for this year. I have a lot of respect for McCain and I think Obama has a lot of potential.

In 1976 we elected that worthless son of a ***** Carter to the Presidency. Carter had about the same expierience as Palin.

The difference is that Carter was and is an idiot, while Palin is a sharp cookie. I will take Palin over that fucking idiot Carter any day of the week.

What I am trying to say is that I have no fears of a Palin Presidency. By definition it would be one thousand times betters than a fucking Jimmy Carter Presidency

Isola2000

10-17-08, 19:00

I will say it again.

It is unsettling that Obama and his henchmen will resort to character assasination for anyone, like Joe the Plumber, who does not buy into the concept the Obama is "THE ONE"

Is this a signof what we can expect with an Obama Presidency?To El Alamo, try to take it to a higher level. Obama has 20 % support from Europe. We all wanted Hilary, and now again these stupid Ohios and what you have below that state messes it up.

Isola2000

10-17-08, 19:42

The World now needs the Clintons.

Punter 127

10-17-08, 19:57

Punter.

I used think that it didn't matter much who we elected President in 2008. However, I remember Jimmy Carter. I think Billy Carter, Jimmy Carter's brother and famous for Billy Beer, would have been a better President than Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter had and has the backbone of a jellyfish.

If you think Obama might be the second coming of Jimmy Carter I am scared to death. This has the makings of a nightmare.Hi El Alamo,

Think about it, the cry will be we ’ve got a mandate from the people.

Now the same folks that told us the war is bankrupting the country, just teamed up with that turn coat Bush and wrote a check for 700 billion plus to bail out Wall Street and the Bankers, and they didn ’t even bat an eye. They did it like we had the money and with the blessing of both candidates!

Who’s investigating and who’s going to jail? Why not?

At the same time imho they said Fuck Main Street; who ’s going to bail me out on the money I lost in the value of my home? (I had already moved my 401k money out of the Stock Market to safe havens.)

Oh but I forgot we ’re going to get that 700 billion back; really, how and in who ’s life time?

Have you heard Obama tell you what he ’s going to cut to pay for all this, all he ’ll say is we ’re going to look at everything. At least McCain called for a freeze, it ’s not much but it ’s something.

I remember double digit inflation and double digit prime interest rate, under Jimmy Carter. When we put Carter in office I was trying to support a family and raise two kids. I was also a blue collar worker, a union officer, and a Yellow Dog Democrat, and like so many of the young guys today I truly thought we could “change ” the world. Jimmy Carter gave the word change a new meaning, I lived his nightmare and it looks like Déjà vu all over again to me.

People were mad and voting against Nixon and Carter was promising “change ”. Today they are mad voting against Bush and Obama is promising “change ”.

Armed with a “mandate from the people ” and a “Filibuster Proof Congress ” the Three Stooges will put every social giveaway program they can think of into law, it ’s just the nature of the beast, and what ’s to stop them?

Now how will they pay for it? Crank up the printing presses and increase taxes. Ring any bells?

Unfortunately I see this as the best case scenario if Obama is elected, the worst case would be if we have another 911 type of attack. (I ’m talking economics here)

You, Sid, and Exon are the big money guys and I respect the financial savvy of all three, so tell me how I ’m wrong.

El Alamo

10-17-08, 20:09

Punter,

I understand what you are saying.

It's frightening.

This might be the future but the country we knew and loved (the United States) may be history

BadMan

10-17-08, 20:22

I will say it again.

It is unsettling that Mccain and his henchmen will resort to character assasination for anyone, like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, who does not buy into the concept the Mccain is "THE ONE"Triple co-sign.

Regards,

BM.

BadMan

10-17-08, 20:30

Let me preface this with I am not sure who I will vote for this year. * cough * bullshit * cough *

Rock Harders

10-17-08, 20:37

Punter and his ilk-

I seem to remember that back on January 20, 2001 (the day Bush took office) that 1 US Dollar was worth more than 1 Euro. I also remember that there was a massive projected federal budget SURPLUS. In addition, oil was less than $30 USD per barrel and gas floated around $1 USD per gallon. So just WHAT the fuck happened?

Well, for starters a complete idiot who happened to be born to an aristocratic family with deep military / industrial / oil complex connections ascended to the presidency after stealing an election in which he was not elected by the majority of US citizens. This complete idiot pissed away the massive federal budget surplus by giving massive tax cuts to rich guys who did not need it and by starting a quagmire-by-design war to enrich those military / industrial / oil complex connections previously mentioned. This quagmire-by-design war served to double the national debt in only 5 years time, and helped to drive the price of oil up fourfold. How are these war materials payed for? BY TURNING ON THE PRINTING PRESSES, AND THUS DEVALUING THE CURRENCY. The very act of turning on the printing presses and thus devaluing the currency causes the price of oil to rise, as oil is denominated in USD. Take a guess who has benefited from this?

Those of you who think that the Republicans are the party of "fiscal responsibility" should open your fucking eyes and see what a Republican President who had Republican majorities the first six years has done to a country that was in a dominant financial position the day he entered office. You people live in dreamland if you think the US can continue along its current path of deficit spending without raising taxes on those with the ability to pay. The current administration should be put on trial for crimes against the American people and for conspiracy to destroy the economy of a nation.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Hunt99

10-17-08, 20:57

Hunt-are you factoring in a positive spin on margin of error, or something? The news on the AP poll I saw today indicated a 57% to 52% margin for Obama.

http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9193983&nav=menu108_7

No sense in a futile debate about poll numbers, but you don't strike me as a disseminator of bogus info.

CheersHere's the AP poll from today showing The Messiah at +2:

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/elections/ap_election_wave8_topline_101308.pdf

The Gallup poll has The Messiah at +2, using their traditional methodology. The "new" methodology that "assumes" millions of new voters for Obama shows him at +6 or something like that.

Here's another tracking poll that using consistent methodology shows The Messiah's lead shrinking from +13 to +4 today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/BG_101708_2-way-ballot-trender.pdf

Plenty of time left in this ball game, but the trend is in McCain's favor. Anything can happen. I expect the usual Democratic October Surprise, probably McCain's love child, some bribery allegation, or the usual bullshit, following Weinberger's indictment in 1992, the Bush DUI in 2000, and the "missing" al-Qaqa explosives from 2004. (Did the pull one of these stunts in 1996? I think not, since Clinton was comfortably ahead of Bob Dole.)

I suspect that a big part of the con right now is the Democrats and their lackies in the press trying to convince people that "it's over" in order to depress Republican turnout and make the election a self-fulfilling prophecy.

El Alamo

10-17-08, 21:45

Punter,

I agree. The idea of a Democratic President with a vetoproof Congress is frightening.

Things could be worse. Carter could be running for the Presidency.

Maybe we will long for the days when Carter was President after Obama has been President I. E. That is frightening.

I wish I had some idea where Obama wants to lead us other than, and I could be dead wrong, taking from the people who are willing to work and giving tothe people who refuse to work

Punter 127

10-17-08, 22:18

The majority of people who are viciously anti-Obama are either the extremely wealthy who do not want to pay more taxes or ignorant redneck rascist types who simply cannot imagine having a black man in the white house. In your tirade you forgot this part of you normal stump speech.

You may well have your dream come true on November 4th, but be careful what you wish for.

We ’ll see what you got in four years, if that happens.

I apologize if I stepped on your toes and I ’m sorry that you ’re so angry; remember life goes on either way.

This may surprise you but, I agree that Bush has not been fiscally responsible and he has spent like a Democrat, (no argument from me on that issue) and I have called him a turn coat.

If I see Bush ’s name on the ballot next time I vote, I promise I will vote against him!

However I don ’t see the Three Amigos and socialism as being answer to what ails us, but hey that ’s just me.

Sorry I can ’t wish you luck in the election, but I wish you well.

But I can ’t speak for my “ilk ”.

Punter 127

Punter 127

10-17-08, 22:22

Punter.

I agree. The idea of a Democratic President with a vetoproof Congress is frightening.

Things could be worse. Carter could be running for the Presidency.

Maybe we will long for the days when Carter was President after Obama has been President I. E. That is frightening.

I wish I had some idea where Obama wants to lead us other than, and I could be dead wrong, taking from the people who are willing to work and giving tothe people who refuse to workI agree with you but I think Obama said it all the other day when he said;

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,".

Stowe

10-17-08, 23:52

Yeah, the president can wage war as evidenced so well by Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush W. It seems to be a pathological problem with Republicans-they like to kill-to push other countries around. Must make them feel powerful-they must have something lacking in their character-perhaps it is the only way they can feel like men. Kill, kill, kill. The bomb, bomb Iran mentality.

The president can impact the economy so evident by Bush W and the Repub Congress from 1994 to 2006 where it appears they have pushed this economy to a near depression-the worst economy in about 70 years. McAngryOldGuy would continue that as well as increase the debt, even more than Obama might, with his tax cut, tax, cut, tax cut mentality.

That reason alone is a reason to vote for Obama. We know what the Repubs will do-ruin the economy, increase the debt. We don't know what Obama will do. At least, voting for him allows us some hope.

McAngryOldGuy offers us the same old shit that has nearly ruined this country. Hopefully, Obama will offer us something different.

Suerte.

Stowe.

I agree, and so for me the decision boils down to this issue:

Who is best qualified to be the Commander in Chief?

John McCain: Annapolis graduate, Naval officer, aviator, former POW, 30 years of foreign policy experience.

Barak Obama: None of the above.

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, if you don't think it takes some stones to land a jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier, then you should talk to somebody who has done it. That group would not include a certain college professor.

Stowe

10-17-08, 23:58

I will say it again.

It is unsettling that Obama and his henchmen will resort to character assasination for anyone, like Joe the Plumber, who does not buy into the concept the Obama is "THE ONE"

Is this a signof what we can expect with an Obama Presidency?Right or wrong, it has actually been the media that has identified the Joe the Plumber issues with his not having a license and owing back taxes NOT the Obama campaign.

Oh, that's right. The media is all left-wing extremist liberals so everything that is printed that is negative towards the Repubs MUST be caused by the Democratic candidate.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-18-08, 00:00

Let me preface this with I am not sure who I will vote for this year. I have a lot of respect for McCain and I think Obama has a lot of potential.Boy that is believable! I believe everything you have posted has been anti-Obama and most everything for McAngryOldGuy has been positive, so of course you are open-minded toward Obama and would consider voting for him.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-18-08, 00:06

Punter.

I agree. The idea of a Democratic President with a vetoproof Congress is frightening.

Things could be worse. Carter could be running for the Presidency.

Maybe we will long for the days when Carter was President after Obama has been President I. E. That is frightening.

I wish I had some idea where Obama wants to lead us other than, and I could be dead wrong, taking from the people who are willing to work and giving tothe people who refuse to workI guess the vetoproof presidency of Bush was great! What did that get us? Violations of the constitution, an illegal war, economic destruction-$9 trillion dollars of our money gone, national debt increased more than under any other president. That is only a fraction of his abuses.

Yeah, it worked well when the Repubs had it.

Sorry but I don't recall you complaining when the Repubs had it.

Suerte.

Stowe

Jackson

10-18-08, 00:19

Jackson

10-18-08, 00:21

$9 trillion dollars of our money gone, national debt increased more than under any other president.We're in a war, remember?

We were attacked, remember?

Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?

Thanks,

Jackson

Stowe

10-18-08, 01:12

We're in a war, remember?

We were attacked, remember?

Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?

Thanks,

JacksonFirst, we seem to be in a war/major military action ever time there is a Republican president so what else is new.

You make a good point except Iraq NEVER attacked us!!!! Don't you realize that yet??

Also, in EVERY other war the public has been asked to sacrifice with higher taxes, less benefits, something! Instead, Bush gives massive tax cuts-90% to the top 1% of the richest individuals and corporations and nearly bankrupts the country.

Suerte.

Stowe

Daddy Rulz

10-18-08, 02:10

We're in a war, remember?

We were attacked, remember?

Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?

Thanks,

JacksonYes Jax we were attacked, by 19 Saudis and another guy from somewhere else, Trenton NJ I think. I remember seeing it on TV, I haven't forgotten. And for anybody who has forgotten, Rudy Giuliani will remind them.

Yes we are in a war, but strangely not with the people that attacked us, kind of like invading Sweden in 41 for the attack on Pearl Harbor no?

Punter, my brother, same thing for you, the two biggest deficits this country has ever had have been by Repub administrations with Repub Congresses, Ronnie Raygun and Shrub. Both of those deficits were from essentially the same thing, corporate welfare. Punter I have sat with you at Exedra and listened far to often to you extolling the virtue of this President, sorry brother but it's the truth. Calling Dems "tax and spend party" is a great sound bite, it's just not true. Of course taxes will be going up, they have to, somebody has to pay for the last 8 years. Let me put it to you like this, if you buy a new truck you have to work to make the payments right? We (Los Estados Unidos) are behind on the truck payment brother, the repo man is coming, we gots to pay it off.

Jax this isn't a war it's a spending spree, weapons, defense contracts, and support contracts. Stowe's right bubba, can't spend more without earning more. Running up deficits to buy guns is cool if you make somebody pay for it. I just don't think it's fair to saddle my Grandchildren with the debt.

The only conservative member of this board to consistently ask "what the fuck are these pseudo-conservatives doing?" has been Syd.

Punter 127

10-18-08, 05:01

Reagan was in office during the 97th, 98th, 99th, and 100th congresses. Republicans riding Reagan's coattails made gains in the congressional elections of 1980 and won the Senate majority for the first time in 26 years, but the House of Representatives retained a Democratic majority.

The 100th United States Congress from 1987 to 1989, during the last two years of the second administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Both chambers had a Democratic majority. You pretty much blew that, so lets move on;

“Extolling the virtue ” is a bit of a stretch imho, but it ’s your story tell it any way you want, I know your going to anyway.

You see I don ’t have any allegiance to any politician or party. I can like them today and turn on them tomorrow if they fuck up, that ’s the beauty of being an Independent. I don ’t have republican or democrat tattooed on my ass like you do, so I ’m not boxed in like you are.

I do however continue to agree with a lot of what Bush has done, but I have never condoned wasteful spending; now you and I may disagree on what ’s wasteful. But a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street and the Bankers is wasteful imho, especially since it left Main Street high and dry.

BTW your buddies Reid and Pelosi were right in there with Bush on this one, and I don't hear you b*tching about that, and I don't hear you or anybody else calling for any investigations, why is that?

Oh and speaking of Reid and Pelosi what have they done in the last two years to cut spending, where is all the defeated or Bush vetoed legislation they pushed?

For that matter didn't those hypocrites promise to cut the funding for the Iraqi war?

Tells us how they couldn't do that because it would look like they were not supportive of the troops.

Then tell us why they promised to cut that funding before the 2006 election.

Oh and whatever happened to impeaching Bush? You do remember that don't you?

Hell Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush!

Speaking of the war, have you forgotten about Afghanistan? You know that ’s that little place Obama wants to send more troops too.

I will tell you this Daddy given the options we were given, I would still pick Bush, so there you have it "my brother", run with it!

================================================

Oh, FYI when I buy a new truck I write a check for it!

Have a nice day Daddy!

Stormy

10-18-08, 07:52

For the first time in 161 years, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president. Now I think I will keep my subscription to that fine newspaper.

The editorial board also termed the selection of Sara Palin as VP candidate to be "irresponsible".

Daddy Rulz

10-18-08, 11:57

I don 't have republican or democrat tattooed on my ass like you do, so I 'm not boxed in like you are.The only tattoo on my ass is "Exit only no entrance!"

Daddy Rulz

10-18-08, 12:06

Oh and speaking of Reid and Pelosi what have they done in the last two years to cut spending, where is all the defeated or Bush vetoed legislation they pushed?

For that matter didn 't those hypocrites promise to cut the funding for the Iraqi war?

Tells us how they couldn 't do that because it would look like they were not supportive of the troops.

Then tell us why they promised to cut that funding before the 2006 election.

Oh and whatever happened to impeaching Bush? You do remember that don 't you?

Hell Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush!

Speaking of the war, have you forgotten about Afghanistan? You know that 's that little place Obama wants to send more troops too.

I will tell you this Daddy given the options we were given, I would still pick Bush, so there you have it "my brother ", run with it!

==================================================

Oh, FYI when I buy a new truck I write a check for it!

Have a nice day Daddy!Fucking Pelosi Congress sucks, you don't stop a war by not funding it. I'm not so naive to think we can just say "whups our bad we fucked up so now we are gonna take our shit and go." I don't pretend to understand how a country can make a monumental mistake such as our invasion of Irak and then disengage from a conflict like that. Too bad Colin was so disgraced by the UN thing, now that's who I wish I could be voting for this election, I bet he could get it done.

I haven't forgotten Afghanistan that would be the Shrubies that forgot that place. I was never in opposition to the little regime change thingy we did there.

Do you really write a check when you buy a new truck? Union graft must be pretty good if you can do that. But then again trucks are pretty cheap these days.

Hunt99

10-18-08, 12:40

The Messiah's lead in the Zogby tracking poll appears to be draining away too.

Down from +6.2 a week ago to +3.9 today.

The latest figures showed a bump for McCain following Wednesday's final presidential debate.

"Today was the first full sample post-debate and there's a clear indication that McCain is moving up," Zogby said.

He added that McCain's support among Republican voters appeared to be consolidating.Still plenty of time for this thing to change one way or another. However, what amazes me is that the supporters of a guy whose entire lead is based on a stock market panic think the game is over. And we haven't even started to factor in the Bradley effect, either.

I had an interesting conversation with a friend the other day. He's a classic swing voter, voted for Clinton once and W once. He confided that this time he's voting for McCain, but is not letting anybody know it for fear of being branded a racist. This followed a similar conversation with a cousin of mine last weekend whose words were almost identical. It may mean nothing. But it tracks an interesting article I also read this morning.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/16/frj_1016/

Jackson

10-18-08, 13:29

The Obomination and you supporters have convinced me that this is necessary. Could each of you send me 10% of your net worth? I will manage this fund using stocks, bonds, and commodities. The profits will be used to help the unfortunates. Who is willing contribute and / or serve on the Board of Directors?Hi Sid,

I'd be comfortable with you managing my portfolio, but do we have to give my earnings to "the unfortunates"?

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

10-18-08, 13:36

You make a good point except Iraq NEVER attacked us!!!! Don't you realize that yet??
Yes Jax we were attacked, by 19 Saudis and another guy from somewhere else, Trenton NJ I think. I remember seeing it on TV, I haven't forgotten. And for anybody who has forgotten, Rudy Giuliani will remind them.

Yes we are in a war, but strangely not with the people that attacked us, kind of like invading Sweden in 41 for the attack on Pearl Harbor no?Okay guys, I'll explain this again for those of you who didn't understand it the first several times.

We were attacked by a stateless organization named Al Qaeda.

To fight them, we established a battleground in another country and invited them to attack us there, which they did with all the intelligence of lemmings rushing into the sea, and where we have summarily decimated their "troops".

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Punter 127

10-18-08, 14:49

Fucking Pelosi Congress sucks, you don't stop a war by not funding it. I'm not so naive to think we can just say "whups our bad we fucked up so now we are gonna take our shit and go." I don't pretend to understand how a country can make a monumental mistake such as our invasion of Irak and then disengage from a conflict like that. We really must be nearing the end of the world; Daddy actually said something bad about a democrat. Are you being facetious or is the earth really flat?

I haven't forgotten Afghanistan that would be the Shrubies that forgot that place. I was never in opposition to the little regime change thingy we did there. Why did you favor this “little regime change thingy ”? Didn ’t you say “we were attacked, by 19 Saudis and another guy from somewhere else, Trenton NJ I think ”?

Do you really write a check when you buy a new truck? Union graft must be pretty good if you can do that. But then again trucks are pretty cheap these days. Daddy with the exception of my house if I can ’t pay for it, I don ’t buy it! I subscribe to this kind of old school thinking that people should live within or below their means. (Silly me)

I dumped the union about the same time I dumped Jimmy Carter and for the most part the Democrat party. (I have however voted for some democrats since then. Gasp!)

BTW did you know a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate – is something we haven ’t seen since Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, and that was a fucking disaster!

If trucks are that cheap down in that desert you live in “my brother ” I would like to remind you Christmas is coming and I like red this year.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'

Hunt99

10-18-08, 14:54

So far no money pledges. BTW, I will charge no management fees. The Board will choose ''the unfortunates'', who will benefit from our ''liberal'' generosity! C'Mon guys, send me your pledges. It is the right thing to do!I'm all in favor of taking DaddyRulz's, Stormy's and Stowe's money and "spreading it around" to the poor unfortunates. It's only fair for them to walk their talk! :D

Stormy

10-18-08, 16:01

Hunt99

10-18-08, 16:15

Unfortunately, we cannot bring about George Bush and the conservatives socialist utopia without the active participation of the big bucks guys like Hunt, Sydney, and Jackson. We, the Daddys and Stowes et. Al have contributed about all we had for money into the incompetence, greed, and corruption of the conservatives. We are tapped out and it is time you big bucks guys to step up to the plate and give as I am sure you generously will as the funnel is turned the other way.Me pay taxes to the Socialist Utopia? You must be joking. I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do. Check out how well the economy does then! ;) As things stand, the government takes a third of everything I earn. When they jack it to 50% like The One promises to do, it's time to pack it in and turn scrooge.

On the other hand, I have no qualms about expropriating property from true believers like yourself and giving "tax cuts" (cough - welfare - cough) to the lazy amongst us. And free health insurance for 25 million illegal aliens, too, let's not forget that little bit of The Messiah's agenda.

Tiny12

10-18-08, 16:42

Unfortunately, we cannot bring about George Bush and the conservatives socialist utopia without the active participation of the big bucks guys like Hunt, Sydney, and Jackson. We, the Daddys and Stowes et. Al have contributed about all we had for money into the incompetence, greed, and corruption of the conservatives. We are tapped out and it is time you big bucks guys to step up to the plate and give as I am sure you generously will as the funnel is turned the other way.Take a look at the table on this web page from a left wing, pro-Democrat group, the Citizens for Tax Justice. Look at the column labeled "Income tax":

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxshares.pdf

Note that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.1% of income taxes for 2007. If the Bush tax cuts hadn't been passed, the top 1% would have paid 37.4% of income taxes. Same goes for the next 4% of taxpayers. The wealthiest pay a higher percentage, AFTER the Bush tax cuts. The reason, people have more incentive to earn income if it's not all being taxed away. If you're a corporation, there's not much incentive to pay any dividends if your shareholders are going to pay 39.6% tax on the dividends (vs. 15% with Bush cuts) If the capital gains tax is lower, shareholders and business owners are more likely to sell and take a profit instead of holding on forever to avoid paying tax.

Stormy, like the Citizens for Tax Justice and most Democrats, seems to believe that it makes more sense for everyone to share a smaller piece of a smaller pie, if we can just fuck the rich. You're nuts Stormy.

Stowe

10-18-08, 18:48

Okay guys, I'll explain this again for those of you who didn't understand it the first several times.

We were attacked by a stateless organization named Al Qaeda.

To fight them, we established a battleground in another country and invited them to attack us there, which they did with all the intelligence of lemmings rushing into the sea, and where we have summarily decimated their "troops".

Get it?

Thanks,

JacksonI guess it is you who just doesn't understand.

Al Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq until after the bushman took our Sadam. We could have just stayed in Afghanistan where we ALREADY had a 'battleground' and let the crazies come to us there. There was no reason to invade Iraq just so we could 'fight them there rather than here'. That would have been achieved by our presence in Afghanistan.

Do you get it now?

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-18-08, 18:55

I'm all in favor of taking DaddyRulz's, Stormy's and Stowe's money and "spreading it around" to the poor unfortunates. It's only fair for them to walk their talk!:DI am willing to 'walk my talk'. I am willing to pay my share of taxes. That is how this country became as great as it 'was'. Roads, water, sewer, electricity to almost every house in the country. Dams that provide us more water than any other country. All of those, and MUCH more came from government projects, not private enterprise. None of this could have happened by private enterprise because the profit margin wouldn't be there.

Except for one LITTLE fact that you just don't seem to get, under Obama's plan I will get a tax cut, unlike under McAngryOldGuy. Having said that, I think any tax cuts in our current situation is not the correct direction to go-perhaps in 2 or 3 years.

Suerte

Stormy

10-18-08, 19:02

The problem is, it just doesn't trickle-down like it used to. The Bush years have managed to provide an amazing transfer of wealth so that now one per cent have twenty per cent of the wealth. If I was in the one per cent I would be depressed as well at the looming prospect. You have my full sympathy. I, too, know the frustration of my party's political failure and the turning over of power to lunatics. Especially lunatics with the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in the same party. I'm just saying that it seems like the pendulum is swinging the other way.

Stowe

10-18-08, 19:04

Me pay taxes to the Socialist Utopia? You must be joking. I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do. Check out how well the economy does then!;) As things stand, the government takes a third of everything I earn. When they jack it to 50% like The One promises to do, it's time to pack it in and turn scrooge.

On the other hand, I have no qualms about expropriating property from true believers like yourself and giving "tax cuts" (cough - welfare - cough) to the lazy amongst us. And free health insurance for 25 million illegal aliens, too, let's not forget that little bit of The Messiah's agenda.You just provide another example of the dishonesty (crookedness-corruption?) of so many Republicans. If you truly believe this and intend on doing as stated (and I suspect you mean it whether you do it or not) that indicates a total lack of have integrity or honesty. No surprise there!

Unlike you, and almost every other Repub that posts here, you never post a negative about anything Republican. I don't agree with everything that Obama (or the Dems) proposes, like his position on illegal aliens, but I disagree with ALMOST everything that the Republicans stand for in this day and age. Just look at their tactics. All they spew is fear and hate, fear and hate. That is the Republican platform nowadays: fear and hate.

Stowe

10-18-08, 19:10

Take a look at the table on this web page from a left wing, pro-Democrat group, the Citizens for Tax Justice. Look at the column labeled "Income tax":

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxshares.pdf

Note that the top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.1% of income taxes for 2007. If the Bush tax cuts hadn't been passed, the top 1% would have paid 37.4% of income taxes. Same goes for the next 4% of taxpayers. The wealthiest pay a higher percentage, AFTER the Bush tax cuts. The reason, people have more incentive to earn income if it's not all being taxed away. If you're a corporation, there's not much incentive to pay any dividends if your shareholders are going to pay 39.6% tax on the dividends (vs. 15% with Bush cuts) If the capital gains tax is lower, shareholders and business owners are more likely to sell and take a profit instead of holding on forever to avoid paying tax.

Stormy, like the Citizens for Tax Justice and most Democrats, seems to believe that it makes more sense for everyone to share a smaller piece of a smaller pie, if we can just fuck the rich. You're nuts Stormy.Warren Buffett believe that he, and all the rich, should be contributing more in taxes. He fears for the economic survival of middle class which is what made the US the economic powerhouse of the world. Without the middle class, the US would be a microcosm of what it is.

The Reagan trickle down theory has been proven to be nothing but a shame. And all stats indicate that the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are going bye, bye. Salaries the last 10 years for the middle class have decreased, when adjusted for inflation, while for the rich they have increased at a higher rate that any time in, something like, the past 40 years.

I would not consider him 'crazy'.

Stowe

10-18-08, 20:02

Not $1 of pledges yet. The unfortunates need you help! Maybe you guys are ''all talk, no action''!Why would we send you anything? If you follow standard conservative actions-the minute you got our money it would be confiscated for personal use.

Perhaps there are others out there naive enough to believe you would use any money we provide you to benefit anyone other than yourself.

FYI - I already have organizations I donate to to help others. What about you and all the other conservatives?

Hmm? No? Sorry I asked!

Suerte.

Stowe.

The conservative motto is not "1 for all and all for 1" but rather "1 for me and all for me".

With respect to Alexandre Dumas.

Hunt99

10-18-08, 20:11

You just provide another example of the dishonesty (crookedness-corruption? Of so many Republicans. If you truly believe this and intend on doing as stated (and I suspect you mean it whether you do it or not) that indicates a total lack of have integrity or honesty. No surprise there!

Unlike you, and almost every other Repub that posts here, you never post a negative about anything Republican. I don't agree with everything that Obama (or the Dems) proposes, like his position on illegal aliens, but I disagree with ALMOST everything that the Republicans stand for in this day and age. Just look at their tactics. All they spew is fear and hate, fear and hate. That is the Republican platform nowadays: fear and hate.You honestly think that anybody is going to work harder if half (or even more) of what they earn gets sucked down by the gaping maw of Big Government? Pshaw! At least I'm honestly telling you that I won't contribute to the larger economy when I have no incentive to do so. Most every guy who has capital and gumption will react the same way, and the results for the larger economy will not be pretty.

I've never been hired for a job by a poor man. And I doubt he's going to hire me now that he gets a check from Washington for sitting on his lazy ass (oops - "tax cut!").

A wise man said not so long ago: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." Capital is not static and doesn't respect national borders anymore. If the U. S. Government wants to steal my money with an outrageous level of taxation, there's no reason for me to sit still and allow them to take it and "spread it around" to somebody whose only claim to it is that he has a pulse. :D

No "fear and hate" in that - it's simple economics. And that's exactly why a guy like Joe the Plumber was able to put a human face on the Marxist policies of B. Hussein Obama.

Stowe

10-18-08, 20:25

I've never been hired for a job by a poor man.No, but based on your prior post where you stated "I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do" you indicate that you intend to break the law and not pay your taxes, you evidently wouldn't be above stealing from a poor man.

Hunt99

10-18-08, 20:31

No, but based on your prior post where you stated "I'm going to hide everything from the Obama IRS and engage in massive tax fraud, just like anybody else with a little bit of money and a lick of sense is going to do" you indicate that you intend to break the law and not pay your taxes, you evidently wouldn't be above stealing from a poor man.Hey Stowe baby, you seem to be hung up on personal slights, amigo! Did I fuck your private chica one time and get you upset?

I'm telling you how it is - shorn of the legalese and accounting sleight-of-hand. If you make it more expensive to make an honest living than to not make one at all, people with capital are going to do what it takes to protect it. Nobody is going to devote themselves to work just to enrich the tax man, not unless they have a screw loose. It's called capitalism, amigo!

Do you want prosperity? Drop the income tax code, enact a 10% sales tax on everything (or 15% , or whatever it is - including all financial transactions and everything else) and have at it. This nation will have prosperity like it has never seen.

This idea that the government is the source of all wealth, and that proper economic policy is to "spread it around" is simple Marxism. Heck, even the Chinese don't believe in that stuff anymore, but it's still taught as gospel at Columbia and Harvard. And advocated, in a prettified way, by their most prominent graduate.

Anyway, pleasure debating with you this afternoon, friend. I have to stop now and get dressed. I've got a hot chick I have to take out for dinner and then I have to ride her fine ass and blow some spooge in it in the back seat of my BMW. Filthy girl she is, she likes me to punish her!

I'll order a bottle of Dom and drink to your health! :D

Miami Bob

10-18-08, 20:36

We have all paid higher tax rates than the max that O is talking about. Since hunt99's agi is over $250,000. Why would he be concerned about saving 20 pesos. I am confused. The USA is economically falling apart. We are engaged in three wars. I need not say more.

I guess once a crook always a crook. Please do not discuss your plans to commit tax fraud or other serious crimes in the future on this board. I would hate to see this board busted. You can voice all of your negative emotions without planning criminal behavior here. This is the sort of thing that would cause a raid on the servers.

Hunt99

10-18-08, 20:39

We have all paid higher tax rates than the max that O is talking about. Since hunt99's agi is over $250,000. Why would he be concerned about saving 20 pesos. I am confused. The usa is economically falling apart. We are engaged in three wars. I need not say more.

I guess once a crook always a crook. Please do not discuss your plans to commit tax fraud or other serious crimes in the future on this board. I would hate to see this board busted. You can voice all of your negative emotions without planning criminal behavior here. This is the sort of thing that would cause a raid on the servers.LOL! I'm the last guy who haggles over 20 pesos. No Dom for you! You can drink that $5 a bottle stuff that has a ship on the label.

Stowe

10-18-08, 20:52

Hey Stowe baby, you seem to be hung up on personal slights, amigo! Did I fuck your private chica one time and get you upset?

I'm telling you how it is - shorn of the legalese and accounting sleight-of-hand. If you make it more expensive to make an honest living than to not make one at all, people are going to do it. Nobody is going to devote themselves to enriching the tax man, not unless they have a screw loose.

Do you want prosperity? Drop the income tax code, enact a 10% sales tax on everything (or 15% , or whatever it is - including all financial transactions and everything else) and have at it. This nation will have prosperity like it has never seen.

This idea that the government is the source of all wealth, and that proper economic policy is to "spread it around" is simple Marxism. Heck, even the Chinese don't believe in that stuff anymore, but it's still taught as gospel at Columbia and Harvard. And advocated, in a prettified way, by their most prominent graduate.

If I got a bit personal it was because I felt you attacked first - this time, as well as the last time a few months ago-the last time we traded barbs. I try not to initiate invectives (unless I am totally drunk-hehe) but I will respond accordingly and persistently (sometimes unfortunately!) If you attack someone, shouldn't you expect like in return?

You and I have a basic difference of opinion which is perfectly fine-I really enjoy most of these types of discussions-even with someone I disagree with. I would much prefer to disagree cordially.

I do have one question. If high taxes will negatively impact the economic / social health of a society, why do the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living (except Denmark) than the US, cheaper healthcare, free education and pay SIGNIFICANTLY more taxes?

I definitely do NOT like taxes but they are a necessary evil. Without taxes we would not have, what is considered by most, the best infrastructure in the world (unfortunately declining severley) Where almost EVERY single person has sewer, municipal water, electricity, roads, etc.

Stowe

Tiny12

10-18-08, 22:10

Warren Buffett believe that he, and all the rich, should be contributing more in taxes. He fears for the economic survival of middle class which is what made the US the economic powerhouse of the world. Without the middle class, the US would be a microcosm of what it is.

The Reagan trickle down theory has been proven to be nothing but a shame. And all stats indicate that the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are going bye, bye. Salaries the last 10 years for the middle class have decreased, when adjusted for inflation, while for the rich they have increased at a higher rate that any time in, something like, the past 40 years.

I would not consider him 'crazy'.Buffet's "beliefs" about taxes are self serving or result from his personal experience. A couple of examples -- he does believe dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Buffet's wealth has been from his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire is a corporation. Corporations have historically have gotten a 70% to 85% exemption from taxes on dividends. So while some poor schmo like me was paying 39.6% tax on my dividends, Buffet was getting away with a rate of more like 5% to 10%. If the dividend were a compelling reason to buy the shares, then Buffet could pay more than me. A high tax on dividends provides him with a competitive advantage.

You can expand this to individual taxes in general. What does Buffet care if the individual tax rate is 39.6% or 50% or 70%? He owns Berkshire Hathaway. What he gets directly in ordinary income, interest income, etc., is insignificant to him -- it's puny, tiny, infintesimal compared to what he has in Berkshire.

And the death tax. He'll leave some miniscule percentage of his wealth to his kids, a $100 million a piece or whatever, and the rest goes to the Gates Foundation. He favors the wealth tax, hey, it's a great way to get other billionaires to leave money to charity, so the government doesn't take 45% of it. But what about family businesses worth, say, $5 million, $50 million, $100 million, whatever. After they finish paying the 45% , they're wiped out. Their businesses are destroyed. Buffet has made a lot of money buying up private businesses on the cheap and incorporating them into Berkshire Hathaway. Why? I'd bet in many instances because the families couldn't pay the death tax. So they sell out to Buffet but they keep on working for him -- they were masters of their own destinies. Now they're slaves, albeit slaves with a lot of money.

About your other point, rising inequality. First the slanted studies you refer to
always use households, not individuals, for comparison. Since there are more households headed by single persons, the households aren't getting richer but the individuals are. Second they're based on income before tax. As a result of tax cuts by Bush etal, 50% of the population pays no or little income tax. If you look at the figures on an after tax basis they don't look so bad. Third, there have been improvements in purchasing power that the statistics don't capture, for example, the quality of a car or a television now vs. 20 or 30 years ago. Fourth, what you're blaming on Republicans shouldn't be blamed on Republicans. The studies you're talking about show a lot of the rising inequality occurring under Clinton or under governments where neither Republicans nor Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches. And for that matter most of this the politicians have no control over -- it results from changes in an industrial, labor intensive economy to something more knowlege based.

So really Stowe, what you want to do is tax the rich more so they'll become poorer, regardless of whether or not it will increase tax revenue. What you're after is to make everyone equal, regardless of whether that also makes everyone poorer. Hunt has valid points. The Laffer curve is real.

Tiny12

10-18-08, 22:17

I do have one question. If high taxes will negatively impact the economic / social health of a society, why do the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living (except Denmark) than the US, cheaper healthcare, free education and pay SIGNIFICANTLY more taxes?First of all, that's not true, except for Norway, which is the Abu Dhabi of Europe (lots of oil) After adjusting for purchasing power, the U. S. Has a higher standard of living. Second, why do Chinese in Singapore and Hong Kong and Swiss make a lot of money? Because they work their butts off and they value education. The Scandinavians too value education, and by European standards they're industrious. I did read some research that indicated these countries benefitted economically when they lowered tax rates, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

How about comparing the rate of growth in high tax states, like Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc., to low tax countries, like Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland or most of eastern Europe? There is a strong correlation between lower taxes and stronger economic growth.

Stowe

10-18-08, 23:29

First of all, that's not true, except for Norway, which is the Abu Dhabi of Europe (lots of oil) After adjusting for purchasing power, the U. S. Has a higher standard of living. Second, why do Chinese in Singapore and Hong Kong and Swiss make a lot of money? Because they work their butts off and they value education. The Scandinavians too value education, and by European standards they're industrious. I did read some research that indicated these countries benefitted economically when they lowered tax rates, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

How about comparing the rate of growth in high tax states, like Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc. To low tax countries, like Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland or most of eastern Europe? There is a strong correlation between lower taxes and stronger economic growth.Absolutely wrong based on the HDI (Human Development Index) which calculates we are 12th with all but Denmark with a higher standard of living.

Here is the calculation used-it measures life expectancy, education and standard of living based on the GDP-this is the formula used by all internation organizations (and the UN) to measure and compare:

In general, to transform a raw variable, say x, into a unit-free index between 0 and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together) the following formula is used: x-index = \frac{x - \min\left (x\right)} {\max\left (x\right)-\min\left (x\right)}

Where \min\left (x\right) and \max\left (x\right) are the lowest and highest values the variable x can attain, respectively.

The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the average of the following three general indices:

* Life Expectancy Index = \frac{LE - 25} {85-25}

* Education Index = \frac{2} {3} \times ALI + \frac{1} {3} \times GEI.

O Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = \frac{ALR - 0} {100 - 0}

O Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) = \frac{CGER - 0} {100 - 0}

* GDP Index = \frac{\log\left (GDPpc\right) - \log\left (100\right)} {\log\left (40000\right) - \log\left (100\right)}

LE: Life expectancy at birth.

ALR: Adult literacy rate (ages 15 and older)

CGER: Combined gross enrollment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools.

GDPpc: GDP per capita at PPP in USD

Tiny12

10-19-08, 00:36

Stowe, OK, I'm just considering your last variable, Per capita GDP adjusted for PPP.

The first three items on your list are life expectancy (i.e. health care), education, and literacy (i.e. education), and I don't understand the rest of the list, except for per capita GDP. We spend more per capita on health care than any country in the world. Adjusted for PPP, I bet we spend more per capita on education too. So do you think raising taxes and spending more on health and education are the solutions to our problems? That's what most democrat politicians think, we should just throw more money down a bottomless pit without fixing the root causes of the problem. Especially when it's their constituencies that benefit from the problems, like the members of the National Education Association and the trial lawyers who sue doctors, hospitals, drug and insurance companies.

And about your other post,

FYI - I already have organizations I donate to to help others. What about you and all the other conservatives?

Hmm? No? Sorry I asked!

The conservative motto is not "1 for all and all for 1" but rather "1 for me and all for me". I've donated more to nonprofits in the last two years than you will in your entire life. The arch conservative administrator of this site has spearheaded efforts at helping the poverty stricken. There are many conservatives that donate to help others. We'd prefer to use our money where it will actually do some good, instead of having government waste it.

Stowe

10-19-08, 00:58

I've donated more to nonprofits in the last two years than you will in your entire life. Why don't you just ignore my posts since you obviously missed the fact that those numbers were not mine but what the WORLD uses to measure standards-of-living.

Why don't you move on from my posts.

Suerte,

Stowe

Tiny12

10-19-08, 01:21

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 01:40

So while some poor schmo like me was paying 39.6% tax on my dividends.Is that really true, Tiny, or are you just bullshitting us?

Yes, I'm calling your bluff.

Because if it is so, you are such a "POOR SCHMO" that your taxable income was among the top 1% of all taxpayers in the entire United States of America! If that is the case, you should count your blessings that out great system has enabled you to earn such incredible wealth, and quit being such a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY!

My bet is that you didn't come close to earning that much or you would be WAY too busy to be writing your complaints here.

Your line about paying 39.6% has about as much credibility as the now infamous "Joe the Plumber," who is in the 15% bracket and still hasn't paid his taxes; has no money to buy a business; is not a licensed plumber; and isn't even named Joe, for Chrissakes!

Conservatives live in such a fantasy world, don't they?

If you actually did have an income among the top 1% in America, you would know that because of our graduated income tax brackets, even the 1% of the taxpayers who hit the marginal rate of 39.6% on their top dollars only average paying 25% on their overall income. You can even look it up:

http://www.cbpp.org/3-6-01tax2.htm

A pretty cheap price to pay to live in such a great country that provides the infrastucture, freedom, and public supports to become one of the wealthiest people on the planet!

Now, the fact that you use an inflamatory term such as "death tax" when referring to the estate tax shows that you are on a political mission and not actually interested in a reasonable policy discussion.

I HIGHLY doubt that you are among the 440 richest families in America. After all they are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax. You can look that up to:

http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

Furthermore, you would know that no tax of any kind has been paid upon the capitol gains in an estate, due to the "step up" cost basis at the time the estate passes to the heirs.

Thus, an estate tax serves as a replacement for the income tax which was never imposed on the capitol gains of those 440 families a year who would be so lucky to command such a store of wealth.

DB.

P. S. To Stowe: Are all these conservatives born so totally full of shit, or do they really have to work at being completely oblivious?

Tiny12

10-19-08, 02:09

DB, You're the one that's full of it. Read the thread. Go back to the original post that got Stowe on my case. The left wing, Democrat supported Citizens for Tax Justice published data showing the wealthy in 2007 paid a higher % of income taxes after the Bush tax cuts than they would have under the tax regime that was in effect under Clinton. You take a 39.6% marginal tax rate, in effect up to the year 2000, add to it state income tax, and you've got people paying close to half their marginal income in taxes. As Hunt says, they start doing what they can to avoid paying taxes. With a lower tax rate the government collected more income tax from the rich than it would have with higher tax rates, according to a bunch of lefties (Citizens for Tax Justice)

You and other Democrats want to tax the wealthy more, even if it means everyone ends up with less after tax income. That makes a lot of sense, huh?

I say Warren Buffet effectively pays 5% to 10% tax on dividends, and poor schmo's like me were paying 39.6% (before Bush tax cuts). Guess I should have deleted the words "like me", as that really wasn't necessary to make the point, and maybe you wouldn't have written an essay on how I'm a liar and a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY.

Only the 440 richest families are subject to the death tax? That's bull shit. Anybody with an estate worth over $2 million is subject to it. I've read that the costs associated with the estate tax are about as high as the revenue raised. I'm not sure I believe that's true, but either way it wouldn't make any difference to you -- I guess as long as we're soaking the rich you're all for it.

Jackson

10-19-08, 02:33

I guess it is you who just doesn't understand.

Al Qaeda WASN'T in Iraq until after the bushman took our Sadam. We could have just stayed in Afghanistan where we ALREADY had a 'battleground' and let the crazies come to us there. There was no reason to invade Iraq just so we could 'fight them there rather than here'. That would have been achieved by our presence in Afghanistan.

Do you get it now?

Suerte.

StoweIt seems that I have to explain everything to those who appear to be deliberately obtuse.

Afghanistan wasn't a sufficiently large enough prize to motivate Al Qaeda into committing "suicide by US military confrontation". Simply put, they didn't give a fuck if we succeeded in Afghanistan. Iraq however, was a different story in that they knew that if we were successful in establishing a secular democracy there that it would mark a major turning point in the ultimate demise of their radical philosophy.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

10-19-08, 02:39

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 03:00

Only the 440 richest families are subject to the death tax? That's bull shit.You don't read. I am not surprised.

I went to the trouble of doing the research for you, but it was too much trouble for you to click the link and educate yourself. So I will copy and paste the paragraph right here for you:

"And though the ad focuses on family farms and businesses, the truth is that very few actually pay the estate tax. The Tax Policy Center projects that roughly 440 taxable estates were primarily made up of farm and business assets in 2004."

BTW, I did not call you a liar. You can't find that word in my post. But I did have a hunch you were full of shit and called your bluff.

Hmmm, are you telling me my hunch was right?

Guess I should have deleted the words "like me", as that really wasn't necessary to make the point, and maybe you wouldn't have written an essay on how I'm a liar and a UNGRATEFUL fucking CRYBABY.

Tiny12

10-19-08, 03:16

You don't read. I am not surprised.

BTW, I did not call you a liar. You can't find that word in my post. But I did have a hunch you were full of shit and called your bluff.Here's what you wrote:

"the 440 richest families in America ... are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax."

Please go back to your link, read the web page, and let me know whether what you wrote is true. Or even remotely close to what it says on that site.

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 03:39

My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?Jackson, that is way TOO easy!

Let me take you back to a period in time when unemployment went lower than economists predicted it ever could, below the 4% "full employment" line. McDonalds and other companies had to pay a couple dollars over minimum wage just to find workers.

But it didn't hurt their profits any. Business profits were at an all-time high, to the point that the Dow Jones average more than tripled from 93-01.

Some say Republicans are good for the economy and Wall Street, but today the market is quite a bit below where it was when the conservatives wrested away control and took office in 2001, isn't it?

How is everyone's 401k doing out there?

Oh, and it had seemed completely impossible at the time, but the Treasury went from record deficits under Daddy Bush (remember Ross Perot's charts in the '92 election) to surpluses for as far as the eye could see.

Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.

Yes, Jackson, it is simple. Let's go back to the tax rates that brought us incredble prosperity in the 90's - the Clinton years!

If only we could go back in time to January '01 and start the millennium over agan, huh?

Too bad we can't.

But we can repeal EVERYTHING that Bush and the conservatives foisted on us to throw our economy under the bus, and QUIT pouring $10 billion a month into the spider hole he created for us in Iraq!

Now, I would like to ask you a question.

George H. W. Bush lost reelection because we remembered reading his lips and he did introduce a small tax increase for everyone.

But Clinton targeted his increase for only the upper income earners which brought us all of that prosperity, we have been cutting tax rates at both the federal and state level since Reaganomics took precedence in '80.

So when would you have us stop cutting taxes? I would like to see you pick a number.

Do you want the maximum rate to be 10%? 5%? 1%?

Or no taxes at all? 0.000000000%?

DB

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 04:00

Here's what you wrote:

"the 440 richest families in America. Are the only ones with enough assets to be subject to the estate tax."

Please go back to your link, read the web page, and let me know whether what you wrote is true. Or even remotely close to what it says on that site.Well Tiny, that is because there were two links in my original post, and you clicked on the WRONG one.

For some reason you were not capable of clicking on both links.

I copied and pasted paragraph six from the second link.

That is what quote marks mean, Tiny. They tell you I did not write any of it, I quoted it.

Apparently, you are so lacking in intellectually curiousity and initiative that you didn't even go back to read my post to learn how you screwed up.

Just dash off a thoughtless post that contains no meaning.

Congratulations. You just demonstrated that you are the perfect symbol of exactly how deep and insightful conservative thought is!

This is a hopeless discussion. I have no more time to waste on one who refuses to read for comprehension.

DB

Malthus

10-19-08, 04:24

The Muslim Liar's bullshit oratory will convince the financial community that all is ok! He will lead us to the ''promised land''! But, sometimes I get confused? Are the markets down partly because of his possible election? But then, I remember Musliah's prophecy--

''He will bring Change''!Give up your citizenship?

So much hatred. Post after post. What motivates all this?

Malthus

10-19-08, 04:58

Government involvement is the reason we're dependent on foreign oil,

See the world as it really is old man.

Q1 What is real reason the USA is dependent on foreign oil?

Answer because there are not enough reserves of oil within the borders of the USA.

Q2 Why did the USA invade Iraq.

Answer because there are not enough reserves of oil within the borders of the USA.

Malthus

10-19-08, 05:09

My question for all the liberals posting here is simple:

What percentage of the total income taxes should be paid by the top 1% of all taxpayers?

Should the top 1% pay 50% of the total bill?

60%?

90%?

Go ahead, put a number on it so we all know what you think is fair.

Thanks,

JacksonTop 1% should pay 33.3%

Next 19% should pay 33.3%

Bottom 80% should pay 33.3%

Malthus

10-19-08, 05:22

Lower taxes are not the answer to everything.

It is hard to see the US lowering taxes in the years after this credit crisis.

At some point the party comes to an end and the US will repay its debts.

And as a foreigner it is obvious how you will do this.

US debt is in US dollars.

The US will simply depreciate the value of its currency and then repay its debts.

With the consequence of lower living standards for America's citizens.

With the consequence of 'burning' foreign creditors.

Daddy Rulz

10-19-08, 05:24

1. Punter those 19 Saudis and 1 guy from Trenton trained in Afghanistan with the blessing of the regime in power those Taliban fellas, so that regime change thingy we did was proportional to the attack that was planned, rehearsed and launched from their country. The war in Afghanistan is and was righteous, abandoning it to attack Iraq was folly.

1b. Pelosi sucks and I don't see the Dems doing SHIT with the house and senate (lower case not an accident, they don't deserve capitals in the capitol) I want to vote for Colin. Since he's not running I'm gonna give the other brother a chance.

1c. Fire engine red? So it matches your lipstick? Hahahahahahaha.

2. Sid if your serious about managing a fund like that send me an email about who you would pick as unfortunates. I would send you checks up to, I don't know, say 5% of my take home. I don't make much but this sounds like a great idea, would you match it with 5% of your income. I really think it's a great idea and I'm serious about helping out. If you get tax exempt status so I can write it off (that pesky 39% bracket thingy) On the other hand if it's just some bullshit way to piss people off and you'll spend the money on Dominicanas with big butts count me out.

3. Jax, sorry bubba but that guy Al Quada was already in Afghanistan, havng shwarma with Joe Jihadist. What you're saying is that we needed to get them out of the country they were in and where our troops already were, into another country in order to attack them? I never went to college and I'm not very smart but that doesn't make any sense brother. There was already a secular government in Iraq, the Baathist, Saddam didn't wear one of those robes and funny hats like the Reverend Mothers from the movie Dune. Those guys were some party animals, drinking, whoring, raping, gambling, smoking hash kinda guys. We got rid of the secular government in Iraq and most likely when we leave there will be a Islamic Government there. Shaira pretty much cuts out all the fun stuff.

3b. I just gotta ask it again, we couldn't attack them in the place they were but had to entice them to move to another place (along with our Army) in order to let them commit suicide by flinging themselves on our bayonets? Because Afghanistan wasn't a big enough prize because they were there already?

Who else. Stowe you fucking lost me with those number thingys.

Malthus

10-19-08, 05:26

It was great to see Paul Krugman win the Nobel.

Jackson

10-19-08, 05:28

Jackson, that is way TOO easy!

Let me take you back to a period in time when unemployment went lower than economists predicted it ever could, below the 4% "full employment" line. McDonalds and other companies had to pay a couple dollars over minimum wage just to find workers.

But it didn't hurt their profits any. Business profits were at an all-time high, to the point that the Dow Jones average more than tripled from 93-01.

Some say Republicans are good for the economy and Wall Street, but today the market is quite a bit below where it was when the conservatives wrested away control and took office in 2001, isn't it?

How is everyone's 401k doing out there?

Oh, and it had seemed completely impossible at the time, but the Treasury went from record deficits under Daddy Bush (remember Ross Perot's charts in the '92 election) to surpluses for as far as the eye could see.

Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.

Yes, Jackson, it is simple. Let's go back to the tax rates that brought us incredble prosperity in the 90's - the Clinton years!

If only we could go back in time to January '01 and start the millennium over agan, huh?

Too bad we can't.

But we can repeal EVERYTHING that Bush and the conservatives foisted on us to throw our economy under the bus, and QUIT pouring $10 billion a month into the spider hole he created for us in Iraq!

Now, I would like to ask you a question.

George H. W. Bush lost reelection because we remembered reading his lips and he did introduce a small tax increase for everyone.

But Clinton targeted his increase for only the upper income earners which brought us all of that prosperity, we have been cutting tax rates at both the federal and state level since Reaganomics took precedence in '80.

So when would you have us stop cutting taxes? I would like to see you pick a number.

Do you want the maximum rate to be 10%? 5%? 1%?

Or no taxes at all? 0.000000000%?

DBIt figures, I've been asking liberals this question for years, and I've never received a straight answer.

The answer to the same question, which you failed to answer while simultaneously bouncing it back to me is: We should all pay the same percentage!

Right now, 51% of the voters (not 51% of the taxpayers) are telling the other 49% of the voters how much they have to pay.

"Democracy is not nine wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, Reagan's tax cuts are what made the US economy so strong during the Clinton terms, although Clinton had no compulsion against claiming the credit.

Jackson

10-19-08, 05:37

Until W. Destroyed the surplus and had us back in a deficit within three months in office.We were attacked, remember?

We're in a war, remember?

Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?

Thanks,

Jackson

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 05:50

It figures, I've been asking liberals this question for years, and I've never received a straight answer.

The answer to the same question, which you failed to answer while simultaneously bouncing it back to me is: We should all pay the same percentage!

Right now, 51% of the voters (not 51% of the taxpayers) are telling the other 49% of the voters how much they have to pay.

"Democracy is not nine wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, Reagan's tax cuts are what made the US economy so strong during the Clinton terms, although Clinton had no compulsion against claiming the credit.Jackson, I never expected you were one of those flat earthers.

America stands for a progressive tax system. The more you make, the more benefits you have gained from the system, and the more ability you have to pay. The Ron Paul, Nibu Raphael-type flat tax loonies will never carry the day.

It puzzles me why Reagan's policies didn't help during George H. W. Bush's term, which contained two more years of recession in addition to the earlier Reagan's recession.

We are to believe that all the benefits just skipped over Bush's four years and waited to take affect until the Clinton presidency? What a dirty trick on all of us!

Damn that tricky prosperity that keeps trying to fool all of us by only showing up during Democratic administrations!

I wish I was in Argentina to see you smiling (among many other reasons to be there) because I know that you are far too smart of a man to say any of that with a straight face.

DB

BadMan

10-19-08, 05:51

You're right.

I think they (the wolves) call it capitalism.

Regards,

BM.

"Democracy is not nine wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Thanks,

Jackson.

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 05:57

We were attacked, remember?

We're in a war, remember?

Every war-time administration has run up huge deficits, remember?

Thanks,

JacksonNice try, but so wrong.

The money was gone by June when he sent us all $300 checks. We weren't attacked until several months later. Well before September 11 the money was long gone.

Of course, by then Bush had already squandered Clinton's rainy day fund.

Conservatives used to believe in balanced budget, but they now hold every single record for setting a new record deficit: Bush, the other Bush, Reagan, Ford and Nixon.

Missing from the list of presidents who set a record deficit in their day are Clinton (surplus) Carter (he only needed one more year to reach a surplus) Johnson (surplus, and a war-time president to boot!)

You can look it up.

But I bet you won't.

DB

Daddy Rulz

10-19-08, 12:08

Nice try, but so wrong.

The money was gone by June when he sent us all $300 checks. We weren't attacked until several months later. Well before September 11 the money was long gone.

Of course, by then Bush had already squandered Clinton's rainy day fund.

Conservatives used to believe in balanced budget, but they hold every single record for setting a new record deficit: Bush, the other Bush, Reagan, Ford and Nixon.

Missing from the lst of presidents who set a record deficit n there day are Clinton (surplus) Carter (he only needed one more year to reach a surplus) Johnson (surplus, and a war-time president to boot!

You can look it up.

But I bet you won't.

DBJohnson's got his surplus from Ike, it skipped Kennedy, likewise Carters was from Nixon. Clinton? Don't get me started, Ronnie handed that to him. Zebra woman in the jungles of Africa knows that you only come to America when Democrats are in power because they will mail checks to anybody. Fucking tax and spend, tax and spend that's all they do. Spend the surplus that good Republican Presidents have set the economy up for them (Dems) to look good with.

But what can you expect from a neo hippy fag California baseball team loving commie pinko cocksucker! You and that disgusting pervert Stowe probably IM each other to coauthor this garbage. And Stormy! Fucking limo liberal from Chicago, he probably worked on "The One's" first campaign.

Liberal pinko commie faggots.

Syd can I in the will now? Exon (another pinko faggot cocksucker) won't write me in, so I'm changing horses.

Exon123

10-19-08, 13:57

Johnson's got his surplus from Ike, it skipped Kennedy, likewise Carters was from Nixon. Clinton? Don't get me started, Ronnie handed that to him. Zebra woman in the jungles of Africa knows that you only come to America when Democrats are in power because they will mail checks to anybody. Fucking tax and spend, tax and spend that's all they do. Spend the surplus that good Republican Presidents have set the economy up for them (Dems) to look good with.

But what can you expect from a neo hippy fag California baseball team loving commie pinko cocksucker! You and that disgusting pervert Stowe probably I'm each other to coauthor this garbage. And Stormy! Fucking limo liberal from Chicago, he probably worked on "The One's" first campaign.

Liberal pinko commie faggots.

Syd can I in the will now? Exon (another pinko faggot cocksucker) won't write me in, so I'm changing horses.I think Daddy is loseing it.

"Syd can I in the will now? Exon (another pinko faggot cocksucker) won't write me in, so I'm changing horses.[/ QUOTE"

I'm voting with my "Wallet" on November 4th, I'm voting for "Freedom" on the 4th of Novemeber.

For the first time in history a "Black man is going to Live in the White House" and its going to send a message to the entire world that America is a Democracy and things are about to change.

I'm proud to be: "Exon (another pinko faggot cocksucker)" and I hope and pray these Republicans don't get another look at the White House for the next 40 years.

The MotherFuckers.

Exon

Hunt99

10-19-08, 14:09

I'm voting with my "Wallet" on November 4th, I'm voting for "Freedom" on the 4th of Novemeber.

For the first time in history a "Black man is going to Live in the White House" and its going to send a message to the entire world that America is a Democracy and things are about to change.

I'm proud to be: "Exon (another pinko faggot cocksucker)" and I hope and pray these Republican MotherFucker CockSuckers don't get another look at the White House for the next 40 years.

The MotherFuckers.

ExonAs H. L. Mencken said, "The people should get what they voted for, and they should get it good and hard."

If you get your wish I will smirk with glee as you write those big checks from your bank account to pay for all the "spreading wealth around." Just don't whine when the big dick of government gets shoved deep in your ass, amigo! (The Democrats aren't going to use vaseline on you, my friend.)

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 14:25

But what can you expect from a neo hippy fag California baseball team loving commie pinko cocksucker!Unfortunately, I am not a cocksucking "fag."

I agree with their right to marry and all that, but I am a flaming heterosexual.

If sexual orientation was a choice I would certainly choose gay. It is so much easier to understand men than women.

But I can't help it that I need chicas. I was born this way and I can't change. Not even prayer helped me.

DB.

P. S. I am pretty cool with everything else you said about me, though.

Dodger Bulldog

10-19-08, 14:27

As H. L. Mencken said, "The people should get what they voted for, and they should get it good and hard."It sure seems that is exactly what happened the past eight years!

Starfe

10-19-08, 14:33

It's ok in my book to be a fag. Be proud. I am!

Tiny12

10-19-08, 14:35

Well Tiny, that is because there were two links in my original post, and you clicked on the WRONG one. No, DB, I read the correct link before your first response. You said only the wealthiest 440 families in the US are subject to estate tax. Your link said nothing of the sort.

Tiny12

10-19-08, 15:03

It figures, I've been asking liberals this question for years, and I've never received a straight answer.And you never will get a straight answer. About 40% of the U. S. Population pays no income tax. And many more pay very little income tax. Liberals from that group would like to milk the wealthy for as much as possible. If 1% of the population pays 60% of the income tax that's fine with them. Ideally, they'd like for government to rob as much as possible from the top 1% , 5% , 10% or whatever -- they want a free ride. Then, you've got wealthy people in favor of higher taxes. Of course, though, there should be loopholes in the tax code so that they don't have to pay. Like Teresa Heinze Kerry, John Kerry's wife, who pays very little federal income tax because her money is invested in municipal bonds. Or Warren Buffet, who pays very little individual income tax because all his assets are in a corporation that doesn't pay dividends.

I can't get a straight answer either. Under Bush's plan, the wealthiest 1% pay 39.1% of the income tax. Under Clinton's plan the wealthiest 1% would pay 37.4%. And that's straight off a liberal web site. So why would you want to revert to the Clinton plan, if it means the wealthy will pay a smaller percentage of the income tax?

Exon123

10-19-08, 17:37

And you never will get a straight answer. About 40% of the U. S. Population pays no income tax. And many more pay very little income tax. Liberals from that group would like to milk the wealthy for as much as possible. If 1% of the population pays 60% of the income tax that's fine with them. Ideally, they'd like for government to rob as much as possible from the top 1% , 5% , 10% or whatever -- they want a free ride. Then, you've got wealthy people in favor of higher taxes. Of course, though, there should be loopholes in the tax code so that they don't have to pay. Like Teresa Heinze Kerry, John Kerry's wife, who pays very little federal income tax because her money is invested in municipal bonds. Or Warren Buffet, who pays very little individual income tax because all his assets are in a corporation that doesn't pay dividends.

I can't get a straight answer either. Under Bush's plan, the wealthiest 1% pay 39.1% of the income tax. Under Clinton's plan the wealthiest 1% would pay 37.4%. And that's straight off a liberal web site. So why would you want to revert to the Clinton plan, if it means the wealthy will pay a smaller percentage of the income tax?First Clinton's not running, maybe you havent heard but Oboma got the nomination.

Second if You can prove you make a taxable income of over $250,000 a year I'll Suck Cock in front of the statute in Plaza San Martian Plaza and give you two days to draw a crowd to watch.

I know its a safe bet because no one making $250,000 a year is stupid enough to say some like that.

Exon

Bacchus9

10-19-08, 17:53

Time to pour on the coal. I just made a donation at the Obama website and encourage you to do the same. For the love of our country, don't give the dark side another chance. Every day of the week they demonstrate vividly how empty of good governance ideas they are and the slime they traffic in to stir up the white racist vote. Do what you can to turn the page. Here's the website -

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Hunt99

10-19-08, 18:04

Tiny12

10-19-08, 18:13

First Clinton's not running, maybe you havent heard but Oboma got the nomination. ExonThat's Bill Clinton. The taxes someone would pay if tax rates were the same now as they were under BILL Clinton. And you're offering to perform fellatio in public depending on the level of my income. I give up, this is like something out of Idiocracy, the movie.

Gauntlet77

10-19-08, 18:30

Unfortunately, I am not a cocksucking "fag."

P. S. I am pretty cool with everything else you said about me, though.LMAO!

Yuh know, in the end, we're all dead anyways.

What do you say we all take a deep breath, back off and turn down the volume?

Gauntlet77

10-19-08, 18:40

Berkley Breathed, the Pulitzer Prize winning comic strip artist is retiring his current nationally syndicated "Opus" because of the decline of civility in the "National Discourse".

A recent favorite:

http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2008/10/05/opus/

Is this going to be the last one?:

http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2008/10/19/opus/index.html?source=newsletter

Bacchus9

10-19-08, 20:57

Absolutely. Join Bacchus9 and the Hamas boys from the Gaza Strip supporting The Messiah. It's better than spending it on hookers!:DThanks for making my point. You guys have got nothing but bogeyman taunts. No positive ideas, plenty of race baiting, Red menace socialism and fear mongering. Nothing, an empty hand. It must be intoxicating because otherwise it's like waving a big sign saying "I'm an idiot, let me show you why".

Bacchus9

10-19-08, 21:01

I am awaiting your substantial contribution. You definitely deserve to be on the Board of Directors.For a guy who's supposed to be handy with numbers Syd, you really make me wonder. So how was the weekend partridge shooting in England with the boys from A. I. G. ?

Daddy Rulz

10-19-08, 21:08

So Sid I was driving home tonight and I thought of a good group of unfortunates. How about a college fund for the children of posthumous recipients of the DSC, Navy Cross, or Air force Cross?

Children of Medal of Honor winners are automatically accepted on a non-competitive basis to the service academy of their choice, but I don't think that privilege is extended to DSC winners.

I don't have much but I would contribute to something like this if you were serious about managing the fund and willing to help capitalize it. We could contribute money on a percentage of income basis. I would give 5% of a years income to something like that. My money is now where my mouth is.

Dodger my post was tongue in cheek, since I'm such a vocal commie pinko fag Democrat I thought you would recognize that. Apologies if I offended you. Stowe on the other hand is a disgusting pervert so gets no sorrys.

Hunt99

10-20-08, 00:00

Thanks for making my point. You guys have got nothing but bogeyman taunts. No positive ideas, plenty of race baiting, Red menace socialism and fear mongering. Nothing, an empty hand. It must be intoxicating because otherwise it's like waving a big sign saying "I'm an idiot, let me show you why".Bogeymen? Obama's moneymen from Palestine are well known. At least to people who care to look beyond the New York Times. You will not likely find their story there.

The Messiah promised that he would participate in the public financing system for the general election. Of course, he forgot all about that promise the same way he'll forget about not raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year. If you read the fine print, that's 250K per married couple - if you make 125K as a single he's going to raise your taxes too. Truth be told, if you have a job you will pay more under The Messiah. If you can get a job, because they will get scarce when he starts punishing businesses for making a profit.

Jackson

10-20-08, 02:13

First Clinton's not running, maybe you havent heard but Oboma got the nomination.

Second if You can prove you make a taxable income of over $250,000 a year I'll Suck Cock in front of the statute in Plaza San Martian Plaza and give you two days to draw a crowd to watch.

I know its a safe bet because no one making $250,000 a year is stupid enough to say some like that.

ExonCongratulations Exon. You've just espoused a disincentive to earn more that's even more powerful than higher taxes.

Stormy

10-20-08, 18:14

Way better the Messiah than the ignorant and corrupt devils we have in the White House now.

Exon123

10-20-08, 19:47

Congratulations Exon. You've just espoused a disincentive to earn more that's even more powerful than higher taxes.Sorta like maybe "Joe The Plumber" Jackson?

Exon

Punter 127

10-20-08, 22:01

Way better the Messiah than the ignorant and corrupt devils we have in the White House now. Stormy old Buddy, if I see those Rascals on the ballot next time I vote, I promise I ’ll vote against them, no matter what state I'm voting in!

(Thanks again Acorn!) ;)

Stowe

10-21-08, 01:45

Afghanistan wasn't a sufficiently large enough prize to motivate Al Qaeda into committing "suicide by US military confrontation".

Thanks,

JacksonAre you claiming to know what Al Qaeda thinks? How in the shit do you know what Al Qaeda is / was thinking? You just make things up to justify your position. Or provide the documentation from a non-Fox medium that supports your claim that Al Qaeda stated that Afghanistan wasn't a sufficiently large enough prize.

If there were enough Americans there it would have been sufficient reason for them but we decided to invade Iraq instead of fighting those in Afghanistan that really attacked us.

Living on a fantasy planet must be nice. Wish I could be there but I must live in reality.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-21-08, 01:54

No, YOU missed the point. I guess Cuba has one of the highest standards of living anywhere, as in terms of life expectancy, education and literacy it stacks up better than about 90% of the rest of the world. Scandinavian countries have a higher "standard of living" by your definition because they've done something right in education and health care, even though we throw more money at those problems than they do. Attributing the difference to taxes makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry Stowe, I know we're about to be out in the wilderness after this election, and I'm taking it all out on you. That's a lot safer than taking it out on somebody you know in real life that can beat the shit out of you.Sorry but I have to clarify once more-and finally.

You continue to state it is MY definition. Is it that difficult to understand these are NOT my numbers, my points-of-view, but that of the governments of the world-how they all calculate standards-of-living? Cuba ranks 51st based on the HDI. Not sure how else I can explain that these are NOT my definitions so, since you seem to be incapable of grasping that and continue to, I will cease to respond to or add to your confusion.

Perhaps your read somewhere in my prior post that I was making up the numbers or taking credit for them?

Suerte.

Stowe

Punter 127

10-21-08, 12:41

"Remember I said it standing here. We ’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. "

Mr Biden cited Russia and the Middle East as possible places that may cause problems, as well as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – "crawling with al-Qaeda " – as being of concern.

"He ’s gonna need help, " the senator added, "Because it ’s not gonna be apparent, initially, that we ’re right. "

He added: "I probably shouldn ’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here. " Unfortunately that fear mongering Biden is probably right for once!

Bacchus9

10-21-08, 21:50

Are you claiming to know what Al Qaeda thinks? How in the shit do you know what Al Qaeda is / was thinking? You just make things up to justify your position. Or provide the documentation from a non-Fox medium that supports your claim that Al Qaeda stated that Afghanistan wasn't a sufficiently large enough prize.

If there were enough Americans there it would have been sufficient reason for them but we decided to invade Iraq instead of fighting those in Afghanistan that really attacked us.

Living on a fantasy planet must be nice. Wish I could be there but I must live in reality.

Suerte.

StoweAhh! Stowe, I see you have not been fully briefed on the Wizard of Libido's cunning strategy of ze Desert Fox Bush. You see, you put a big mouse trap in the sand dune and put in it some tanks and planes and leeetle soldiers, so tiny you can hardly see them and then cover it up with date palm leaves and wait for the Al Qaida band of brothers in their best French accent to say "Awf! Those filthy Americans, look they are desecrating Allah." "Let us go then to the Euphrates, all of us together at the same time and martyr ourselves for Allah in the sands of Iraq until we are all dead".

And then the Lion of the Desert Donald Rumsfeld would say "Awf! Afghanistan, there's nothing to bomb there, no matter they attacked us from Afghanistan, we must create a monster someplace else where we can bomb something. So he put a big mouse trap in the sand dune and put in some tanks and planes and leeetle soldiers and.".

Hunt99

10-21-08, 21:59

The Kirchners are proposing to seize all the private pension funds in Argentina.

Interesting, as something similar may well happen with a Democrat government in Washington. Leading Congressional Democrats are already proposing abolishing 401(k) s. Good! Only rich people have those things, better for the government to take it away from them and "spread the wealth around" to those less fortunate and more likely to vote Democratic.

Argentina is indeed setting the example that America can follow if the election goes the Democrats' way.

Jackson

10-21-08, 22:00

Are you claiming to know what Al Qaeda thinks? How in the shit do you know what Al Qaeda is / was thinking? You just make things up to justify your position.Hi,

I assume that you remember how quickly Al Qaeda abandoned their positions in Afghanistan when we came looking for them?

Thanks,

Jackson

Bacchus9

10-21-08, 22:02

I am always eager to learn from a really smart guy. Please explain your methodology and the sources of your data.Methodology - I go on line in the morning and read a Nobel Prize winner of Economics.

Source of Data - Paul Krugman.

Syd, old sport,

Prepare to receive your new, dark overlord who will liberate you from your childish fixation on pointless symbolisms.

Get a rug and find out where the sun rises. The rest will be revealed to you by a mysterious bearded man, with a turbined head.

Jackson

10-21-08, 22:03

Congratulations Exon. You've just espoused a disincentive to earn more that's even more powerful than higher taxes.
Sorta like maybe "Joe The Plumber" Jackson?

ExonExon,

What does that mean?

Thanks,

Jackson

Exon123

10-21-08, 22:13

Exon,

What does that mean?

Thanks,

JacksonWell the latest from up here in sex prison is a bunch of Republican fascist MotherFuckers, (You know who they are Jackson) want to run "Joe The Plumber" for Congress.

Exon

Daddy Rulz

10-21-08, 22:42

Hi,

I assume that you remember how quickly Al Qaeda abandoned their positions in Afghanistan when we came looking for them?

Thanks,

JacksonDrumroll, Pakistan, well not really Pakistan, I guess on a map it was Pakistan but the border between Paki and Afgi. So where do we go? Iraq of course and lay a big mousetrap in zee desert with planes and tanks and leetle soldiers. Because obviously fighting Al and his band of Qaedas where they are wouldn't make sense.

I know, I know you're going to write something like.

"For the 50th time we invaded Iraq to make all the terrorist come there so we could fight them in another country and keep the US safe. Do you finally get it now?"

Something like that anyway.

We were already fighting them in another country, a country with less cities for them to hide in. Though more mountains, but not much collateral damage when a bomb misses a cave mouth, not like when you're off a house in a city.

What was the first thing secured? Oil fields. First government building secured? Whatever they call the "ministry of where the oil maps are."

Call it what it was, I can live with invading Iraq to have more ready access to the oil, though if we were going to do that we coulda left Saddam in power, but then there goes the justification for being there, because really, honestly, at the end of the day. It was about liberating all those poor Iraqi people from a mean, mean, man. Meanwhile Al Qaeda has less pressure, Bin Ladin is free to move around. They recruit like a 100,000 new people and operate with impunity in the mountains between Paki and Afgi for 5 years.

Where does it end with you bubba?

They (Iraq) attacked us, they didn't.

But that guy Al Qaeda did. Yes but they were not in Iraq.

It was the WMD's. Still none found but I'm sure Saddam got them out of the country before we invaded. But strangely just like Bin Ladin never found.

Well we liberated those poor Iraqi. More Iraqi's have died since we invaded than Saddam killed.

It was for the oil, which is a strategic need of the US. So Iraq can sell a billion dollars worth of oil to freaking China? What is UP with that! We kick their ass, get rid of their dictator, still have boots on the ground and are selling oil to our biggest competitor (who routinely sends us poisoned dolls to sell in Walmart) what the fuck is up with that?

Come on Jax just say it, you'll feel better after you do. Embrace reason and reality. The invasion in Iraq was stupid, one of the worst foreign policy mistakes the US has ever made. KBR, Blackwater, and Haliburton got rich off it but everybody else including the taxpayer and the troops fighting it got hosed.

It doesn't make conservatives as a whole bad, I'm glad we have parties that play off each other. This wasn't a conservative act, we didn't "kick anybodies ass" or "show them not to mess with the US." It was a fiasco from day one, will cost us for generations, and absolutely ruined the worldwide goodwill we had after 911.

Admit it, move on, be a conservative but one that embraces reality. Make more money buy some property and evict some poor helpless widow for not paying rent. Go back to doing what Conservatives have always done well, making money, avoiding paying taxes, and be mean to poor people.

Daddy's out of this discussion about the war from now on. Continued justification with twisted reality just pisses me off, so I'm done with it. I would rather bait Sid and Hunt about Obama.

If anybody has any experience with having their identity stolen PM me. Some idiot is using my birth certificate. Why they would steal my identity and not somebody with money or credit like Sid or Exon is beyond me. I probably shouldn't do anything about it, they can only improve my credit.

Tiny12

10-21-08, 22:59

Sorry but I have to clarify once more-andally.

You continue to state it is MY definition. Is it that difficult to understand these are NOT my numbers, my points-of-view, but that of the governments of the world-how they all calculate standards-of-living? Cuba ranks 51st based on the HDI. Not sure how else I can explain that these are NOT my definitions so, since you seem to be incapable of grasping that and continue to, I will cease to respond to or add to your confusion.

Perhaps your read somewhere in my prior post that I was making up the numbers or taking credit for them?

Suerte.

StoweIt is your definition. Your definition of standard of living is Human Development Index. From Wikipedia, "standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services available to people, and the way these goods and services are distributed within a population. " Some, like you, also choose to consider health, education, life span, literacy, or whatever. It's not true as you say that "all international organizations use HDI to measure compare", and I also doubt that HDI is used by the governments of the world as a proxy for standard of living.

You're right though, I was wrong about one thing. I took a look at HDI for countries of the world, and by your definition, Cuba is not better off in terms of standard of living than 90% of the world's population. It's just better off than about 85%. Again, by your definition. By my definition it's in the BOTTOM 20%.

Stowe

10-22-08, 00:31

Why? 1. Stowe has charged that I would ''confiscate the money for personal use''! What an asinine insinuation from Stowe!

2. Only Daddy Rules made a generous pledge of a significant amount of money!

Sadly, all the rest of you ''all talk, no action'' Liberals, pledged zero!You are the one that made inflammatory charges of "all talk and no action" because we didn't give YOU our money. My point is perhaps no one is doing it because we do not know you so we do not know your character. I have not seen you post any negative comments regarding the corruption that has taken place recently, perhaps I have missed them? Or perhaps you approve of what corporate American has done to this country and our economy.

Your claim of liberals being all talk and no action because we didn't give YOU our money is an asinine comment.

I do make significant donations but there is no reason to give you a damn penny and I really cannot imagine you expecting any so your post is nothing more than an attempt to ridicule others-a typical Republican tactic.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-22-08, 00:35

Ahh! Stowe, I see you have not been fully briefed on the Wizard of Libido's cunning strategy of ze Desert Fox Bush. You see, you put a big mouse trap in the sand dune and put in it some tanks and planes and leeetle soldiers, so tiny you can hardly see them and then cover it up with date palm leaves and wait for the Al Qaida band of brothers in their best French accent to say "Awf! Those filthy Americans, look they are desecrating Allah." "Let us go then to the Euphrates, all of us together at the same time and martyr ourselves for Allah in the sands of Iraq until we are all dead".

And then the Lion of the Desert Donald Rumsfeld would say "Awf! Afghanistan, there's nothing to bomb there, no matter they attacked us from Afghanistan, we must create a monster someplace else where we can bomb something. So he put a big mouse trap in the sand dune and put in some tanks and planes and leeetle soldiers and.".I have to step aside as Bacchus has taken my thunder.

Daddy Rulz

10-22-08, 01:25

You are the one that made inflammatory charges of "all talk and no action" because we didn't give YOU our money. My point is perhaps no one is doing it because we do not know you so we do not know your character. I have not seen you post any negative comments regarding the corruption that has taken place recently, perhaps I have missed them? Or perhaps you approve of what corporate American has done to this country and our economy.

Your claim of liberals being all talk and no action because we didn't give YOU our money is an asinine comment.

I do make significant donations but there is no reason to give you a damn penny and I really cannot imagine you expecting any so your post is nothing more than an attempt to ridicule others-a typical Republican tactic.

Suerte.

StoweStowe (you disgusting pervert) I know Sid pretty well. If he was serious about organizing a fund like this I believe he would manage it well and not abscond with a penny.

I called his bluff because I knew he was breaking balls, though I would contribute 5% of what I make in the next year to help get something like I described rolling.

Why he would say no liberals answered the call when I did confused me, he's pretty conservative and even though I think of myself as a moderate I reckon I'm pretty liberal by his standards.

By the way Sid I'm serious about contributing. I think it would be cool if 1000 of us gave a 1000 bucks and started a college fund for those kids. We could let Exon invest half and Sid could trade half.

Rock Harders

10-22-08, 05:36

Mongers,

Obama takes 10 point national lead, even in the famed "Zogby" Poll, released today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081022/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_poll

Hunt99

10-22-08, 09:28

Yet the battleground poll, which showed Obama +13 a couple of weeks ago, now shows his lead down to +1.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/BG_102108_2-way-ballot-trender.pdf

Zogby's hypothesis is that that the electorate has moved 7 points in Obama's direction in only 3 days. Not sure this is borne out in reality. Polls move, but not with such speed and not when there has been no external driver.

Obama should be 15 points ahead right now. The fact that he can't close the deal indicates that his message about seizing people's wealth is driving voters away. Americans don't typically support Marxists. But there's always a first time.

BadMan

10-22-08, 10:30

Ok so he's leading by 10 points and not 15, and the polls are trending in his direction. And your point is that he should be ass raping Mccain even harder by now? Oh boy, you Repubs are real gluttons for punishment.

Regards,

BM.
Obama should be 15 points ahead right now.

Punter 127

10-22-08, 16:37

I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second, uh, a second seat. I do think this is the time for a very important kind of dose of “Changism ”. Yes, I think later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money. Is this what we can expect if the democrats take total control? I guess deficits aren't so bad after all.

Daddy Rulz you’re right they’re not “tax and spend ”, Barney Frank admits they’re spend and tax!

Punter 127

10-22-08, 19:13

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkM0JvRRUl81LuDA_P2t_goU2kGAD93VOF4O1

For you guys that like polls, it's hot off the presses.

El Perro

10-22-08, 19:22

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkM0JvRRUl81LuDA_P2t_goU2kGAD93VOF4O1

For you guys that like polls, it's hot off the presses.Those fucking polls are never right.:)

Jackson

10-22-08, 19:33

Stowe, you continue to make other wrong, baseless comments ''that you have not seen any negative comments on corruption from me''. I'll assure no one on this Board has been more negative on the Bushies than me. I called for his impeachment more than 3 years ago. Both parties caused the sub prime mess, the reduction of FNM and FRE lending standards, deregulation, etc. The Obomination and Hillary were 2 of of the largest recipients of the lender's contributions. I recommend that you research the Board before you make more stupid deprecating remarks. Everyone but you had to know that the ''Fund'' idea was a joke. I have often stated that I am not a broker or investment adviser. BTW, I am not a Republican! I believe all 4 candidates are not sufficiently competent to be elected.I don't believe that Sidney likes anyone.

Punter 127

10-22-08, 19:44

Those fucking polls are never right.:)The Hell you say! :rolleyes:

BadMan

10-22-08, 20:09

This is looking mighty dire.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Regards,

BM

BadMan

10-22-08, 21:25

Back in 2007, when practically every pundit saw Rudy Giuliani as the inevitable Republican nominee, political guru Charlie Cook said he (Cook) was more likely to win the Tour de France than the Republicans were to nominate a thrice-married, gay-friendly, Catholic New Yorker. Cook didn't win the Tour de France and Giuliani didn't win the nomination, so Cook gets a certain amount of credit. Now he says there are six factors pointing to an Obama win in two weeks:

1. No candidate this far back two weeks out has ever won.

2. Early voting is going strong and even if something big happens, those votes are already cast.

3. The Democrats have a 10% advantage in party registration; in 2004 it was even.

4. Obama is outspending McCain 4 to 1 in many states.

5. There is no evidence for the so-called Bradley effect in the past 15 years.

6. Obama is safe in all the Kerry states and ahead in half a dozen states Bush won.

.http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ot_20081021_3912.php

Regards,

BM.

Hunt99

10-22-08, 21:51

With two weeks before the election, both Reagan in 1980 and Gore in 2000 were behind by about what McCain is today. Each of them came back to win the popular vote.

That Electoral Vote site is run by a partisan D. He had Kerry winning 300+ electoral votes in 2004. Caveat poll reader.

At this point, anything can happen. Obama has the better shot at this point but by no means is this a done deal. McCain has momentum and is closing the gap. Obama's own internals show him only +2 in Pennsylvania. He likely can't win the Presidency without Pennsylvania, and in the D primary in April his election results were significantly worse than his pre-election polls indicated. This "Bradley effect" is another (more recent) historical fact that Cook overlooked.

El Alamo

10-22-08, 22:00

El Perro

10-22-08, 22:31

The poll I go by is the Nickelodeon poll (poll of kids)

In 2004 Kerry won this poll by a landslide.

This year it was a dead heat between McCain and Obama.

This year I am torn. I live in Key West. Obama will open travel to Cuba. That is good for me.

In my heart I know Obama is a fucking joke but I may have to vote for him. If I put my country first I would vote for McCain.So, put yourself and the Cuban people first. And, help end this stupid embargo that has been nothing but a bad political joke for decades. Actually, I don't think Obama would end the embargo right away, but would loosen travel initially, and then maybe later look at ending the embargo altogether. Or one would hope.

Daddy Rulz

10-22-08, 22:44

I don't believe that Sidney likes anyone.Dominican girls, now those he likes a lot!

BadMan

10-22-08, 23:36

Ummmm,

That's bullshit.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/pennsylvania.html

Regards,

BM

Obama's own internals show him only +2 in Pennsylvania. He likely can't win the Presidency without Pennsylvania, and in the D primary in April his election results were significantly worse than his pre-election polls indicated. This "Bradley effect" is another (more recent) historical fact that Cook overlooked.Besides, you called it for the guinni and said Obama would be seeking a post in Hillary's cabinet. Your foresight is suspect.

Bacchus9

10-22-08, 23:37

Lots of Republicans and "independents" looking for a Democrat presidential candidate to curl up next to.

NBC is embedded in the war zone now and describe the disintegrating scene in the Republican campaign tent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-bHIqxkmdw

12 days and a wake up!

Hunt99

10-23-08, 09:38

Ummmm,

That's bullshit.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/pennsylvania.html

Regards,

BM. Besides, you called it for the guinni and said Obama would be seeking a post in Hillary's cabinet. Your foresight is suspect.My foresight says the advantage is now to Obama, so if you're banking on my suspect analysis, be careful, amigo!

Obama's own internal poll shows him only +2 in Pennsylvania:

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/10/22/report-obama-internal-poll-shows-two-point-race-in-pennsylvania/

And interestingly enough, here's his track record in Pennsylvania from last April's primary, where his result (loss by -9) was much worse than his polling (+2):

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Penn_Release_040208.pdf

Punter 127

10-23-08, 19:32

"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation ’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee ’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

Hmm …. “a system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.” That sounds very, very familiar, doesn ’t it? Don ’t we already do this with Social Security?

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller ’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal. …

Under Ghilarducci ’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U. S. Government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

That means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k) and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your “matching ” funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!

As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year … except, of course, you can ’t. It ’s in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option.

Maybe you ’ll be lucky, and they ’ll have Franklin Raines running the agency issuing those bonds.

The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.

If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k) s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."

Now that will be a "wake up"!

Bacchus9

10-23-08, 20:50

And beginning in January, he will begin to realize, as his business declines perceptibly, the subsequent severe decline in worldwide business, and much of the World's decline of stocks and bonds was anticipated by the Obomination's probable election. Bacchus9 and other ''O'' lovers will be severely disenchanted. Their glee will turn to tears! ----Sad Sid----Syd, old sport,

You are getting dangerously close to joining the Wizard of Libidos behind the green curtain there with the flashing lights and smoke machine. Actually, now that I think of it, you've gone far beyond - you are not in Kansas anymore Syd. You've really gotta give up smoking those 100 dollar bills, it's hazardous for your health and apparently causes delirium. The prospect of Obama's presidency brought on the worldwide financial crisis and will be responsible for a recession and my personal business failure?

I've got news for you Syd. I would of voted for a postage stamp of a dead president if I thought it would put an end to the train wreck the Republicans have engineered for America and the world. Thank god there's someone brave enough, skilled and smart enough like Obama to snatch the power out of their hands and try to find a way out. I'm sure it won't be pretty whatever comes next and I'm sure you'll be joining the Bob Barr's of the US to single mindedly bringing him down, like they relentlessly dogged Clinton, instead of giving credit where it's due and working for the general good.

11 days and a wake up!

Hunt99

10-23-08, 21:04

"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation 's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee 's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

Hmm. "a system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute." That sounds very, very familiar, doesn 't it? Don 't we already do this with Social Security?

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller 's Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

Under Ghilarducci 's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U. S. Government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

That means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k) and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your "matching " funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!

As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year. Except, of course, you can 't. It 's in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option.

Maybe you 'll be lucky, and they 'll have Franklin Raines running the agency issuing those bonds.

The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.

If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k) s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."

Now that will be a "wake up"!Don't you know those 401(k) things are just a tax dodge for the rich and super rich? Part of making them pay their fair share will be to seize those funds and spreading the wealth around to those less fortunate than those fat cats with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting in tax-sheltered accounts on Wall Street.

Stowe

10-24-08, 00:49

Republicans are deserting a sinking ship every day. Even Palin has been saying negative things about McAngryOldGuy positioning her for 2012. Such a supportive party they even hate one another.

As for the Dems controlling all branches of the government? We saw how well that worked when the Repubs had it (the worst in 70 years) so the last thing we need to total Dem control. The Repubs need to retain filibuster control in the Senate.

However, the fact that when they were in control they threatened to eliminate the ability to filibuster when the Dems tried to use it, and scared the Dems into submission, they have set a precedence that may come back to bit them in their fat asses-which would be unfortunate for all of us.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely-I just made that up but it sure sounds great:-)

Suerte.

Stowe

Of course, there wasn't ONE conservative on this forum that had a problem when the Repubs had total control-now they are crying because it could work against them.

Stowe

10-24-08, 00:55

"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation 's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee 's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

Hmm. "a system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute." That sounds very, very familiar, doesn 't it? Don 't we already do this with Social Security?

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller 's Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

Under Ghilarducci 's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U. S. Government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

That means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k) and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your "matching " funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!

As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year. Except, of course, you can 't. It 's in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option.

Maybe you 'll be lucky, and they 'll have Franklin Raines running the agency issuing those bonds.

The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.

If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k) s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."

Now that will be a "wake up"!Sorry P127,.

But there is no way the Dem would eliminate this-especially considering the economic situation. If they did, they would be out of power in 2 years. Just like the Repubs want to privatize Social Security. The crash proves that was a moronic idea and if they tried that THEY would be removed from power.

They might do this if they came up with something that would replace the lost write-off / pre-tax savings.

While the Repubs would try their idea, the Dems won't because they don't have balls to stand by their convictions-they only follow polls.

Suerte.

Stowe

Stowe

10-24-08, 00:59

Is this what we can expect if the democrats take total control? I guess deficits aren't so bad after all.

Daddy Rulz you're right they're not "tax and spend ", Barney Frank admits they're spend and tax!And yet the Repubs, during the past 6 years (prior to the Dems taking control of Congress) have spent more than any Dem controlled government since the Vietnam war-possibly longer.

And yet, I NEVER hear a conservative complain when the Repubs spend money.

Even since the Dems have taken control has the money been spent like a drunken sailor because the Dems didn't have the balls to stand up to the bushman.

Suerte.

Stowe

Punter 127

10-24-08, 02:57

Lets get the record correct ok? George W. Bush took Office in January of 2001

“In the 107th United States Congress (January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003,) Both chambers had a Republican majority only until June 6, 2001, after which the Senate had a Democratic majority.

January 3, 2001: The Senate began the Congress evenly split, 50-50, between two parties. In the House, there was merely a 9-seat Republican advantage.

June 6, 2001: Senator Jim Jeffords, previously a Republican, declared himself an independent and announced he will vote with the Democrats, giving Democrats control in the Senate with a one-seat advantage. Democrat Tom Daschle became Senate Majority Leader.”

So your six years of total control is incorrect, they controlled both houses for 4.5 years, (A case could be made that it was only 4 years, considering Jeffords voting record.) And the Republicans never had the filibuster proof kind of super majority the Democrats may see now, we haven ’t seen that since the Carter years.

Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of "a source of financial anxiety and fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets." Please, I'll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.

What effect would this plan have on an already battered stock market? Well, I would imagine it would send it even lower, sticking a shiv into the portfolios of everyone who didn't jump aboard. Stowe you ’re a friend and I respect your opinion, and we have had political difference of opinions for a long time.

However you telling me “there is no way the Dem would eliminate this-especially considering the economic situation.” And “the Dems won't because they don't have balls to stand by their convictions-they only follow polls.” Well I ’m sorry but it ’s just not very reassuring or comforting!

Stowe

10-24-08, 03:12

Stowe (you disgusting pervert) I know Sid pretty well. If he was serious about organizing a fund like this I believe he would manage it well and not abscond with a penny.

I called his bluff because I knew he was breaking balls, though I would contribute 5% of what I make in the next year to help get something like I described rolling.

Why he would say no liberals answered the call when I did confused me, he's pretty conservative and even though I think of myself as a moderate I reckon I'm pretty liberal by his standards.

By the way Sid I'm serious about contributing. I think it would be cool if 1000 of us gave a 1000 bucks and started a college fund for those kids. We could let Exon invest half and Sid could trade half.Hey DR, you sick fuck!

Of course he would probably not abscond with the money but if he uses it as a medium to denigrate and attack others, then he should not be surprised if he is attacked in retribution. If he is upset by the attack then he should either not attack others or he should grow up and expect to receive what he gives.

Suerte-you are the REAL pervert.

Stowe

Stowe

10-24-08, 03:46

Lets get the record correct ok? George W. Bush took Office in January of 2001

"In the 107th United States Congress (January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003, Both chambers had a Republican majority only until June 6, 2001, after which the Senate had a Democratic majority.

January 3, 2001: The Senate began the Congress evenly split, 50-50, between two parties. In the House, there was merely a 9-seat Republican advantage.

June 6, 2001: Senator Jim Jeffords, previously a Republican, declared himself an independent and announced he will vote with the Democrats, giving Democrats control in the Senate with a one-seat advantage. Democrat Tom Daschle became Senate Majority Leader."

So your six years of total control is incorrect, they controlled both houses for 4.5 years, (A case could be made that it was only 4 years, considering Jeffords voting record. And the republicans never had the filibuster proof kind of super majority the democrats may see now, we haven 't seen that since the Carter years.

Stowe you 're a friend and I respect your opinion, and we have had political difference of opinions for a long time.

However you telling me "there is no way the Dem would eliminate this-especially considering the economic situation." And "the Dems won't because they don't have balls to stand by their convictions-they only follow polls." Well I 'm sorry but it 's just not very reassuring or comforting!Hola Amigo,

Yeah, we do not agree on many political aspects but that is cool with me as you and I have had some good and interesting conversations in that regard!

The Dems did not control the House after the elections of 2002. The Dems has 210 eats, the Repubs 222 with 1 Indy. In the Senate in 2002 the Dems ended with 48 and the Repubs with 51. So when Jeffords moved over that still did not give them a majority-especially when considering Cheney was the tie breaker.

In the 108th Congress in 2004 the Dems STILL did not control the House as they had 202 seats to the Repubs 232 with 1 indy. In the Senate in 2004 the Dems had 45 to the Repubs 55.

It was not until 2006 when the Dems took the Senate 51 to 49 and the House 233 to 202.

So until 2006, the Repubs held control over both branches of the govt.

Thus, I was wrong when I indicated the Repubs held power for 6 years. Rather they held it from Jan. 2001 (when Bush took office) until Jan. 2006 (when the new Congress was seated) which is actually about 5 years-so I was off by 1 year. The point is still correct that they blew the crap out of the budget during that time and none of the conservatives on the forum were complaining then.

I cannot imagine the Dems changing the 401k situation-that would be a death sentence for them and I would not vote for them if they did that-unless they substituted it for something that provided the same benefit to us 'average' working-class Americans.

I could be wrong but it would be political suicide and the Dems are sooo afraid of losing their majority (basically ball-less. That is the reason there should NEVER be total control of both branches by either party-all position I would like to see even one conservative agree upon when it applies to Repub leadership as well as Dems (again, something I have not seen)

Suerte and take care, amigo.

Stowe.

BTY - I could not meet with 'our' chica as she never answered her phone and her voice mail box was always full--damn, I was really bummed. Thanks for the alert, anyway.

Punter 127

10-24-08, 14:11

The Dems did not control the House after the elections of 2002. The Dems has 210 eats, the Repubs 222 with 1 Indy. In the Senate in 2002 the Dems ended with 48 and the Repubs with 51. So when Jeffords moved over that still did not give them a majority-especially when considering Cheney was the tie breaker. January 3, 2001 was the start of the 107th Congress, the Senate began the Congress evenly split, 50-50, between the two parties, until June 6, 2001, after that and until January 3, 2003 we had a Democratic majority Senate. That looks like a year and seven months to me.

Remember the new members elected in the November 2002 election didn’t take office until January 2003 which means they were part of the 108th congress.

If you still disagree with my dates please explain how Tom Daschle could have been Senate Majority Leader from June 6, 2001 until January 3, 2003, again that looks like a year and seven months?

When you consider Jeffords voting record I think a case could be made that the Republicans only controlled both houses about 50% of Bush’s terms.

Please check your dates.

The 107th congress was from January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003.

The 108th congress was from January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords

I cannot imagine the Dems changing the 401k situation-that would be a death sentence for them and I would not vote for them if they did that-unless they substituted it for something that provided the same benefit to us 'average' working-class Americans.

I could be wrong but it would be political suicide and the Dems are sooo afraid of losing their majority (basically ball-less. That is the reason there should NEVER be total control of both branches by either party-all position I would like to see even one conservative agree upon when it applies to Repub leadership as well as Dems (again, something I have not seen) I can’t imagine it either but you saw my post and it’s all over the internet, Google it.

Having control and having a super majority is two different things, and I will go on record and say super majorities are not good for the country, regardless of the party. I can only remember one time in my lifetime that a party had a super majority and that was the Carter years. You may remember other times, but you’re a lot older then me …lol.

Pisses me off beyond words that they would even think about it, and I don’t like them even talking about fucking with my 401k.

I don’t care what party or who’s doing the talking.

However it does give us insight as to how they think, and we should be paying attention to what they’re saying!

Sorry to hear about your bad luck with our girl, but she has always been a bit of an elusive prey, but definitely one worthy of pursuit. ;)

Hunt99

10-24-08, 15:01

Pisses me off beyond words that they would even think about it, and I don't like them even talking about fucking with my 401k.

I don't care what party or who's doing the talking.

However it does give us insight as to how they think, and we should be paying attention to what they're saying!Of course they're going to take away your 401k - all the code words are already working. "Wealthy" "tax shelter" "fairness".

Coming soon will be proposals to abolish tax-favorable treatment of Roth IRAs.

Private wealth in private hands is antithetical to the economics theory that motivates Obama Democrats. Bill Clinton-style "triangulators" they ain't. They are redistribution of wealth Marxists.

As in Argentina, you will probably get some lip-service as to how the government is going to step in and "guarantee" (read: "expropriate") your private pension accounts against the dangers of the free market. Big Government to the rescue. If he wins, I think that before he leaves office Obama will try to increase spending as a percentage of GDP over 35%, up from 22 now. Taxes will probably rise by 50% over current levels.

Take a look at your paycheck, take out an extra 50% in taxes, and see how it will look after you "spread the wealth around" the way The Messiah wants.

Stormy

10-24-08, 18:42

Apparently the GOP has spent $150,000 at Neiman-Marcus and Saks for clothing for Sara Palin so she will not appear shabby and ordinary on the campaign trail. Her make-up person was paid $22,000 and her hair person $10,000 for the first two weeks of October. Might this money have been better spent on a course in political science at a good university so that she could be informed as to the duties of the Vice President? But then again, she has rallied the wing-nut base.

Polvo

10-24-08, 20:06

Of course they're going to take away your 401k.Now, mine is more like a 1K after the last few weeks!

Suerte!

Polvo

Bacchus9

10-25-08, 17:14

One of the most interesting and informative white flags rising from Republicans as we start to see more of their backsides heading into an ignominius future. Here David Frum gives marching orders to the inhabitants of the Alamo.

"We're almost certainly looking at a Democratic White House. I can work with a Democratic president to help this state. But we need balance in Washington."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302081.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

McCain / Palin apparently is not only sucking the life out of their own campaign prospects but Republican senators and house reps as well.

Maybe it won't be necessary to send two time Bush voters to Guantanamo after all. 8 long years of a Democrat president and Congress would have them leaping off of tall buildings or locking themselves up in their bomb shelters. What a bonanza.

BadMan

10-25-08, 17:45

Here is the next installment. The average is 7.8%

- Battleground (Obama +3)

- Diageo (Obama +7)

- Gallup expanded (Obama +7)

- IDB (Obama +4)

- Newsweek (Obama +12)

- Rasmussen (Obama +7)

- Research 2000 (Obama +12)

- WaPo / ABC (Obama +9)

- Zogby (Obama +9) Regards,

BM.

Daddy Rulz

10-25-08, 18:03

Will the Repub slate for this election be known as "McPain" when future generations study it?

Toymann

10-25-08, 20:12

Hunt99

10-26-08, 11:11

This will one will most likely be very close indeed. When you factor in liberal based media plus liberal based polls, I'm guessing that Obama needs almost a double digit lead to pull it off. As voting day approachs, the voter base always starts leaning towards the more conservative candidate. Obama does very poorly in maybe the most important last minute voting metric. Keeping America safe. I'll be in BA during the election and look forward to a close one. Happy Mongering All. ToymannPolls are important only in discerning trends, and only then when methodology is consistent over time. There is no good social science to suggest that averaging all polls together gives a correct picture.

Many polls now adjust their "party weighting" on a monthly basis, and in this cycle the practice has generally been to ascribe larger and larger shares of the electorate to the Democrats. This would not be a problem to discern trends IF the party weighting by pollsters was not shifting on a regular basis. The problem with this is that we know for certain that party affiliation does not change dramatically in a month's time.

What I can say to you is this: Obama's polling numbers in this campaign season almost always were inflated against his actual results. Whether this is because of pollster bias or because of respondents not telling the truth is not clear.

For example, some of Obama's last polling results before the New Hampshire primary showed him up by as much as 13% the day before the election. He actually lost by -3%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0433304720080108

(This is Zogby, whose poll has of late been all over the place, going from Obama +2 to +13 and now back to +5).

The same thing happened before Pennsylvania. According to one pollster, he was leading by +3% the day before the primary. He lost by -9%.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_042108.pdf

This race is not over. Because of this, I'm patiently awaiting Obama's "October surprise" against McCain. I still think it will be some allegation that McCain takes bribes. Or some other of the usual bullshit.

BadMan

10-26-08, 11:55

This race is not over.Keep hope alive my friend, keep hope alive.

Regards,

BM.

And meanwhile,

We men,

Touch the water,

Struggling and hoping,

We touch the sea.

Hoping.

And the waves tell the firm coast;

"Everything will be fulfilled".

Daddy Rulz

10-26-08, 12:10

This race is not over. Because of this, I'm patiently awaiting Obama's "October surprise" against McCain. I still think it will be some allegation that McCain takes bribes. Or some other of the usual bullshit.Something like "I'm not interested in some washed up radical from the 60's." sic (Isn't sic what you write when you have the content correct but perhaps the wording is wrong?

And then having your ads and mouthpiece do nothing but repeat that as a fucking mantra for a month. What a lack of balls that McAngryOldGuy has. Face to face in a debate he dismisses what is essentially the only plank in his platform.

Liberal bias in the media my ass, the only news program that even mentioned that was on the freaking comedy channel!

El Alamo

10-26-08, 12:18

This election may be decided by events on the day of the election or the day before the election.

In 1980 the race between Carter and Reagan was considered to be a dead heat. But on the morning of the election the news was filled with something the Iranians were doing with the American hostages (street demonstration or something like that) It was the only newsworthy topic that day.

Reagan won by a landslide because the voting public realized, seeing the carnage on the news reports, that Carter was incapable of handling foreign affairs.

In 2004 there was the last minute Bin Ladin (sp? Tape.

This year, a meltdown in the stock markets on the day before the election or the day of the election, could seal this for Obama. If not, this might be a closer election than some think.

Jackson

10-26-08, 15:43

Daddy Rulz

10-26-08, 16:05

One possible scenario would be the Israelis bombing Iran's nuclear facilities in the next few days.Like there isn't enough to fuggen worry about.

Daddy Rulz

10-26-08, 16:07

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

El Queso

10-26-08, 16:59

Isn't sic what you write when you have the content correct but perhaps the wording is wrong?I think you have the definition right. It is used when you are exactly quoting someone else, but are leaving any spelling or grammatical errors or unusual usage that they used in their quote.

Specifically, that the quote is word-for-word from the original source, and the wording used in your quote is indeed not due to an error you made when quoting it but is exactly as the original material.

Should be used like [sic] after the quote.

El Alamo

10-26-08, 18:48

http://www.borowitzreport.com/Dady Rulz.

I am glad you see the humorous side of this election.

Nobody knows who is best for the United States. Right now it is just a big crap shoot.

El Alamo

10-26-08, 21:41

BadMan

10-26-08, 22:14

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/26/palin-annoyed-with-cbs-interviewer/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

What's even worse is this retarded biatch is mad at Couric for asking her poignant questions regarding the economy, foreign relations and the $700 Billion bail out, that she couldn't even answer coherently.

But then again I guess the bail out really is about Health care, right?

Anyone who would choose this retard over Obama is an idiot.

Regards,

BM.

Toymann

10-26-08, 22:32

We so rarely dissagree brother but today is one of them! IMHO, I'd go with YOU over this total PRETENDER Obama for president everyday of the week. I am actually quite impressed with Sara's performance over the past several months considering the totally low-ball approach the WILD-ASS liberal media has confronted her with (COURIC IS A TOTAL C**T and I wouldn't fuck her with YOUR Dick) Furthermore, in some of the key midwest states she continues to add sexappeal to the Republican ticket. For me, without question, the highlight of the Democratic campaign so far was that worthless attorney Biden telling the world that Hillary would have been a better VP choice than he. So rarely does a politician actually speak what they are thinking and this was one of those times. HILLARIOUS! It's gonna be a close one, but I have confidence the Democrats will find away to lose this one yet. They have been stepping up their efforts quite nicely lately. Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

BadMan

10-26-08, 22:40

Palin is a MILF, I'll give you that, and I wouldn't fuck her with your dick (I'd use my own;)) but she's a retard. You can think what you want about Obama. But he isn't a retard, that's for sure.

I think your hope is a good thing, we all have unattainable dreams. That is what makes American grand.

Regards,

BM

We so rarely dissagree brother but today is one of them! IMHO, I'd go with YOU over this total PRETENDER Obama for president everyday of the week. I am actually quite impressed with Sara's performance over the past several months considering the totally low-ball approach the WILD-ASS liberal media has confronted her with (COURIC IS A TOTAL C**T and I wouldn't fuck her with YOUR Dick) Furthermore, in some of the key midwest states she continues to add sexappeal to the Republican ticket. For me, without question, the highlight of the Democratic campaign so far was that worthless attorney Biden telling the world that Hillary would have been a better VP choice than he. So rarely does a politician actually speak what they are thinking and this was one of those times. HILLARIOUS! It's gonna be a close one, but I have confidence the democrats will find away to lose this one yet. They have been stepping up their efforts quite nicely lately. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Toymann

10-26-08, 22:49

Yes my brother she certainly is a very FINE MILF! And, I also, would use my own equipment if given the opportinity. See ya in a week.

Happy Mongering,

Toymann

Jackson

10-26-08, 23:08

Just a reminder to those of you who think that the USA is an evil country.

Thanks,

Jackson

BadMan

10-26-08, 23:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DbFttBKKk

Regards,

BM
Just a reminder to those of you who think that the USA is an evil country.

Thanks,

Jackson

Miami Bob

10-27-08, 01:53

But a decent people with bad leadership.

Yes, the radical muslim jihadists think that all of western culture is evil, but they are sick mofo's.

Daddy Rulz

10-27-08, 09:56

I'd fuck her, I've always said I'd fuck her but a heartbeat from the Presidency? Will her science adviser agree that Dinos were only extinct 4000 years ago?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg&NR=1

Punter 127

10-27-08, 14:29

Might this money have been better spent on a course in political science at a good university so that she could be informed as to the duties of the Vice President? Does Bill Ayers teach that class as well as “How to Make a Pipe Bomb?”

Punter 127

10-27-08, 14:40

El Perro

10-27-08, 14:40

Does Bill Ayers teach that class as well as "How to Make a Pipe Bomb?"Punter- I saw Ayers at Maipu 359 the other day. He was laying pipe. I think you two would get along.

I also saw McCain at Cocodrilo. He was knocking the bottom out of some whoare's asshole while snorting blow offa a big black dildo. He said to tell you hello! Well, I think it was blow.

When are you and that worthless piece of shit Coach Schlembechler gonna be back in town?

Kisses

BadMan

10-27-08, 14:50

Are the guys that keep picking on Obama feminist? Or would Androphobia be a better description? Or perhaps just simple sexist?:confused:Word.

That shit made zero sense.

Regards,

BM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZh0Y0x75XA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqav9dhxobQ

Punter 127

10-27-08, 15:03

Punter-

When are you and that worthless piece of shit Coach Schlembechler gonna be back in town?

KissesHey Dogg,

I can ’t speak for Coach but the place has become a little rich for my blood, so I was waiting for the crash. But after reading Panos post I may have to consider. :rolleyes:

Bacchus9

10-27-08, 16:45

Will you include me in your will!

------

Old Sport Sid.

--------Now Syd, old sport, why would I put into my Will a guy that repeatedly can't seem to separate fact from fiction and has joined the "white is black & up is down" crowd. Sorry old sport you're just going to have to sweat it out in that remodeled atomic bomb shelter while the Democrats rule the air you used to breathe.

Halloween's coming up, why not dress up as Obama and scare all your Republican and "independent voter" pals.

I'm looking into a Wailing Wall setup at the foot of the Obelisk on 9 de Julio, so you guys have someplace locally to publicly start the long road to recovery.

Bacchus9

10-27-08, 17:03

This fucking Obama is such a baby. His boy Biden blows an interview and it is the fault of the interviewer. What type of bullshit is this?

Every candidate has tough questions. Not everybody is thrown softballs.

Is this what we can expect with an Obama presidency. Buy his bullshit hook, line, sinker and rowboat or be cut off.

P. S. I will take Palin over that idiot Obama and his sidekick Biden anyday of the week - for President or Vice PresidentI hope you get your wish Alamo, in some god foresaken country other than the US. Turn your hearing aid up and listen to what Palin has to say, unless you want to live in a fascist, backward country maybe you'll change your mind.

I'll bet you didn't actually listen to the interview with Biden. He didn't blow the interview but handled very well all the questions based on ridiculous Republican slime points. It was great to see him handle the topics that so far no one else has had the nerve to actually raise in public. I thought that was great, they should be brought into the light of day. The fact that they're not giving Republicans a platform and further aid in bringing them up in the Toss Up state of Florida a week before the election is a sign of intelligence not cowardice. So instead of banging your pot about the weakness of Obama / Biden why don't you go back to your ilk's other meme of lamenting the "liberal media" for not bringing these questions up? Maybe you'll figure out there's so little credibility in any of the topics that they wouldn't waste their time.

WorldTravel69

10-27-08, 17:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

Daddy Rulz

10-27-08, 19:25

Say It Ain't So, Joe!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djpqD2WrsQE&feature=related

Are the guys that keep picking on Palin misogynist? Or would gynophobia be a better description? Or perhaps just simple sexist?:confused:"I'm not interested in some washed up radical from the 60's."

Punter please a heartbeat from the Presidency? Actuarialy speaking McAngryOldGuy has a 1-3 chance of not living through his first term. She's hot, she buys clothes well, uses her office to settle personal vendettas really well and I want to spooge on her face but President? Come on brother it's not that she's a broad, Barbara Jordon woulda made a great President, but not Jenny McCarthy.

El Alamo

10-27-08, 19:44

Dady Rulz.

I can understand your concern about Palin becoming President.

But your concern about Palin becoming President pales compared to our concern about Obama becoming President

P.S. Not everyone would agree with me but Palin is my horse even if she never wins a race. I think she is terrific.

Thomaso276

10-27-08, 20:38

"P. S. Not everyone would agree with me but Palin is my horse even if she never wins a race. I think she is terrific"

Which one of the daughters are you talking about?

Stowe

10-28-08, 00:08

J.

I can't imagine it either but you saw my post and it's all over the internet, Google it.

Having control and having a super majority is two different things, and I will go on record and say super majorities are not good for the country, regardless of the party. I can only remember one time in my lifetime that a party had a super majority and that was the Carter years. You may remember other times, but you're a lot older then me. Lol.

Pisses me off beyond words that they would even think about it, and I don't like them even talking about fucking with my 401k.

I don't care what party or who's doing the talking.

However it does give us insight as to how they think, and we should be paying attention to what they're saying!

Sorry to hear about your bad luck with our girl, but she has always been a bit of an elusive prey, but definitely one worthy of pursuit.;)Amigo,

Personally, I do not believe what is out there on the internet because there are so many sites that are nothing but shill political sites from both parties. I only believe things on the internet if I get it from 3 different sources and at least one is from a NON-internet site-that has been successful so far from keeping me from becoming enraged due to garbage lies on the internet.

Raise my current taxes to address the debt, medicine, etc. No problem. Fuck with my future assets and I will vote them out of office.

Sorry to hear you are avoiding BA, at this time. Sure hope you visit again soon. I hope to be there in January and April so if you hit the lottery, perhaps I will see you then.

Personally, I am hoping for an economic correction there before I buy a place there.

Take care, amigo. Keep enjoying that asian pussy as I know you are not remaining celibate the whole time.

Suerte,

Stowe.

P. S. While most of my positions are liberal, there are conservative positions I support.

Jackson

10-28-08, 00:31

But your concern about Palin becoming President pales compared to our concern about Obama becoming PresidentEl Alamo,

I agree with you.

It's amazing how the Democrats have turned the "experience factor" completely around.

Thanks,

Jackson

BadMan

10-28-08, 01:00

A taste of your own medicine perhaps?

Regards,

BM.
It's amazing how the Democrats have turned the "experience factor" completely around.

Rock Harders

10-28-08, 01:47

Mongers,

Can any of you actually take Sarah Palin even remotely seriously? We are talking about a women who took the ten year five transfer plan from various Buttwipe State Universities and a women who has experience only as the governor of a state about as corrupt as several Argentine provinces (see her own actions, along with those of her mentor Ted Stevens, just today CONVICTED of 7 FELONY counts) We are talking about a women here who is married to a high school dropout who races snowmobiles for a living; this man pulls her strings with regularity. She is also a right wing religious fanactic of the worst ilk. How could anyone elect a ticket that would put her one step away from controlling the most powerful and influencial ship on state on the planet today?

People can say what they want about McCain, I think he would do a mediocre or sub-mediocre job as president (business as usual, no changes, continuing the decline of the American empire, continuation of the widening gap betwen rich and poor) but he has been around long enough to show he is not completely incompetant, just extremely mediocre. The big problem with him is that he is 72 years old and could very well die in office, which would bring a completely incompetent person to the highest office in the land. Palin lacks the temperment, cranial capacity, and experience to be Principal of a NYC High School let alone President of the United States.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

BadMan

10-28-08, 02:49

Palin lacks the temperment, cranial capacity, and experience to be Principal of a NYC High School let alone President of the United States. I bed to differ. She was mayor of Wasilla. Population at the time 5500. That could in fact qualify as a large high school. Plus she was governor of Alaska for about a year and a half. That has to count for something. I mean she was fighting off Putin's rearing head at the time of course. At this point I am quite convinced the Repubs would vote for Daffy Duck and defend him to the death as the best choice to run our country as long as they win.

Regards,

BM.

WorldTravel69

10-28-08, 04:36

I agree with what ex Pres Ronald Reagan had to say.

Less you forget.

"Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?"

NO Fucking Way!

Check your Stock Funds.

You are bull shitting about What Sarah's Pussy smells Like now.

You will never know!

Who cares?

Do you agree with what Reagan had to say?

Yes, the last four/eight years has not made you a lot of money and that the
World hates us!

Wake Up!

And I am surprised what Daddy Ruiz had to say, A working man like me had to say, stuck at home in U.S. because our leaders have Fucked us.

Reagan the M.F. said it in the 80s, not the 60s.

"Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?"

No Fucking Way!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

Edit /

El Alamo,

I agree with you.

It's amazing how the Democrats have turned the "experience factor" completely around.

Thanks,

Jackson

QuakHunter

10-28-08, 12:07

"Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?"

NO Fucking Way!

Check your Stock Funds.

Do you agree with what Reagan had to say?

Yes, the last four / eight years has not made you a lot of money and that the.

World hates us!I was a shitload better off before Clinton, Dodd and Frank forced a corrupt system of lending to people who had no ability or INTENTION of paying back the money.

It played into a greedy system where everyone participated. So lay the blame where you want. Blame it on the war, blame it on Palin's wardrobe, blame it on a Fucking Billy Goat curse if it makes everyone feel better. The pricks on both side of the aisle delivered this.

Actually I was much better off up until April 2007. Because of the then developing credit crisis, that is when the banks I deal with started realizing they were up a creek. They started pulling back established credit lines, which I use to operate and grow my businesses and sustain PAYROLL. I have never pulled over $250k out of my business and choose to reinvest and grow my pie through growth in equity.

As growth slows, my personal equity goes down and cash stalls. I am not deadbeat. I pay my all of my bills, I watch my credit rating and I try to save for my kid's college. If I have a good year, I go fishing and hunting and spend money at my favorite places in Buenos Aires. Kind of like my own "Trickle In" economic policy.

Currently to sustain my business I am selling property and assets at reduced prices. The result is my net worth goes down and I have to cut back on expenditures. It's not Dust Bowl Oklahoma, but it's much tougher.

The result is six direct employees do not have full employment, many indirect employees don't have work and my Darling Rosario in Bs Aires has to go without my affection on my two to three trips a year. (As well as a shitload of Cash)

I didn't want this to turn into a dissertation but since I am at it, it is totally disingenuous for any one of these partisan Mother F***ers to stand before our country and invoke Reagan's words. No one is clean in this mess and the question is who can best deal with the future. An Old Man with Character or an Intelligent man with great words?

My guess is neither, but since Ronnie lost his wits and died a couple of years back we have to choose between these two Boobs. (And I don't mean Palins)

I think we are screwed either way, but it isn't right to let one side go clean after their complicity in this mess.

But Carter really did suck and created his mess.

El Alamo

10-28-08, 13:21

Antes que nada, I have a big financial bet that Obama is going to win this election. For me, I will profit a lot.

However, as an American, this fuckin Obama is worse than Frankenstein.

Bueno, the polls are all over the board. But at the end of the day, every poll wants to be able to say they were close to the final result.

The final result probably will be close. How many Americans really want to elect a Black Muslim, who has more ties with Kenya and Indonesia than with the United States.

Look for the polls to get real. Obama has always been an election day disaster (which may be mitigated by how many drug addicts, people with no visible means of support, people who have been dead for 10 years, people who vote early and often, incorrigible felons and child molestors Obama can get to the polls)