3.0

10/30/2008 2:22:51 PM

Quote :

"I assumed that your previous comment was sarcasm and in such tone you were saying "these candidates ftw" that may have been my misunderstanding. so you are/did vote for barack obama and those listed above?"

yes i voted for Obama, Hagen and Mcory

10/30/2008 2:32:16 PM

GG

i'll be happy if there remains a core conservative base in the congress.

i just hope they're fiscal conservatives, not social, and they get their fucking act together. i dont want the GOP to die. just evolve.

10/30/2008 4:50:48 PM

^Agreed. Joe, are you fiscally conservative? If so we might have something in common

10/30/2008 4:55:20 PM

I think you'll find that if you ignore the idiotic stereotypes of the "tax and spend liberal" just for a second, lots of Democrats and liberals, while not necessarily all the way "fiscally conservative", are very much in favor of restrained and responsible spending by the government.

10/30/2008 5:19:23 PM

Quote :

"yes i voted for Obama, Hagen and Mcory"

Boy I'll bet you are a real-informed voter. You at least got one of their names right.

10/30/2008 5:33:42 PM

Oops. Looks like MSLSD's Chris Matthews got yet another thrill running up his leg.

Quote :

"It was Hollywood. It was romance."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-zPTH-bjE8

Sweet Jesus.

10/30/2008 6:04:00 PM

Why are you so angry?

10/30/2008 6:06:53 PM

I'm not angry--but Chris Matthews is clearly in love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQMz0b-c54A

10/30/2008 6:13:00 PM

10/30/2008 7:29:27 PM

It's too boring.

10/30/2008 7:57:24 PM

Quote :

" lots of Democrats and liberals are very much in favor of restrained and responsible spending by the government."

Then why are they voting for Obama? Concepts of "spreading the wealth", "economic justice", and tax refunds for people who don't pay income taxes -are anything but fiscal conservatism.

He wants to spend an additional Trillion dollars on new projects, when the gov't is bankrupt. He wants to raise taxes on capital gains just because it's "fair". He wants to kill job growth with higher corporate taxes. He wants to chase businesses off-shore with his gift to labor unions- eliminating secret ballots. That is not fiscal conservatism.

You might as well admit it to yourselves... you're voting for a socialist. Obama is all about concentrating more power to the gov't, more control over your lives. He is a statist authoritarian-complete with his own ensignia.

A vote for Obama is not a vote for fiscal conservatism.

[Edited on October 30, 2008 at 8:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2008 8:01:48 PM

why are we voting for obama?

because we don't buy that those GOP talking points you keep tryign to pass off. politics of fear and division worked in 2004. sorry for you it won't work this time.

but it's not like you have any credibility anymore. you're gone on rambling on about the most illogical bullshit too much lately. its as if Obama has given you brain damage or something.

and it's spelled insignia

jeez






[Edited on October 30, 2008 at 8:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2008 8:05:52 PM

Quote :

"A vote for Obama is not a vote for fiscal conservatism"

A vote for Bush was not a vote for fiscal conservatism, and that was Bush's platform.

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.

A vote for McCain is not a vote for fiscal conservatism.

10/30/2008 8:13:26 PM

Quote :

"Then why are they voting for Obama? Concepts of "spreading the wealth", "economic justice", and tax refunds for people who don't pay income taxes -are anything but fiscal conservatism. "

All policies republicans have supported and expanded in their times.

Quote :

"He wants to spend an additional Trillion dollars on new projects, when the gov't is bankrupt. He wants to raise taxes on capital gains just because it's "fair". He wants to kill job growth with higher corporate taxes. He wants to chase businesses off-shore with his gift to labor unions- eliminating secret ballots. That is not fiscal conservatism."

The gov. has BEEN bankrupt, and grew its deficit DRASTICALLY under the current Republican regime. For 6 of the last 8 years, the congress, and president have been republican, and what happened? Biggest growth in deficit, relatively high unemployment, all while the middle class and poor get poorer.

Not to mention NONE of the assertions you made here are based in reality. There's no evidence that suggests Obama's policies would "kill job growth," that's just baseless right-wing fear mongering. His policies are designed to encourage businesses to NOT off shore jobs, some McCain has implicitly acknowledged will happen under his plans, and eliminating secret ballots would force more discourse about unions, which could ultimately lead to their marginalization.

Quote :

"You might as well admit it to yourselves... you're voting for a socialist. Obama is all about concentrating more power to the gov't, more control over your lives. He is a statist authoritarian-complete with his own ensignia. "

Wow, more baseless FUD. You righties sure have been advertising your psychic abilities, telling other people what they actually think. Under the current republican president, gov. power has grown significantly, as well as gov. exercise of their power, both things Obama has promised to revert. McCain and his republican friends are far more likely to encroach on our liberties than democrats and Obama.

Quote :

"A vote for Obama is not a vote for fiscal conservatism. "

By certain definitions, this is certainly true, but by those same definitions, neither is a vote for McCain.

10/30/2008 8:19:16 PM

Quote :

"By certain definitions, this is certainly true, but by those same definitions, neither is a vote for McCain."

how many times are you going to beat this dead horse? We know that, but its less so than Obama.

10/30/2008 8:45:52 PM

^ So why not just say that in the first place?

If you think socialist are evil, and McCain is a socialist, how can you conscionably support him?

In light of this, it's obvious that you either don't really think Obama is a socialist/marxist/communist/terrorist, you don't know what these terms means, or you DO know what they mean you just have an extremely high cognitive dissonance about your own beliefs.

10/30/2008 8:50:00 PM

Quote :

"A vote for Bush was not a vote for fiscal conservatism. ...we don't buy that those GOP talking points. ...policies republicans have supported and expanded in their times."

I am not a republican. It is not my goal to defend the GOP. As I have said before, if they lose- they richly deserve their fate.

Quote :

"His policies are designed to encourage businesses. ...eliminating secret ballots would force more discourse about unions, which could ultimately lead to their marginalization."

Forcing discourse is true. Union threats and violence are well-known- and would be used to intimidate employees. The secret ballot must be preserved. Taking it away is just a pay-off to the unions for their support of democrats.

Quote :

"By certain definitions, this is certainly true, but by those same definitions, neither is a vote for McCain."

I'd agree. But it's a matter of degree. Between the two, it's a safe bet that Obama would allow less economic liberty for both people and businesess.

10/30/2008 10:03:32 PM

Quote :

" But it's a matter of degree. Between the two, it's a safe bet that Obama would allow less economic liberty for both people and businesess."

This is not a true statement at all. Obama gives MORE money back to MORE people than McCain.

Considering that we just had a fairly large drop in consumer spending: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioHc80xKMiATnqCpK0cDKJzk_nPQD9454BFO0 And a DROP in the GDP, and that consumer spending represents about ~75% of the GDP: http://seekingalpha.com/article/19525-gdp-report-shows-u-s-economy-continues-to-be-driven-by-consumer-spending

Obama's plan actually makes more mathematical and practical sense to keep the economy going than McCain's, considering the situation the economy is currently in.

10/30/2008 10:15:33 PM

Quote :

"Obama gives MORE money back to MORE people than McCain."

40% of the people he wants to give money back to, don't pay any income tax. So in their case, they will be getting transfer payments from more wealthy citizens. Class warfare at its finest.

It's pretty obvious to me that Obama doesn't care much for business or those he derides as chasing the big houses in our "money culture." But punishing the rich and businesses with tax increases and non-secret union ballots will not help create more jobs.

And notice that when Obama promises more jobs, he doesn't say they will be from the private sector. It's usually in the form of gov't jobs to rebuild infrastructure. He has to be careful not to keep trying to turn the country's opinion against commerce-ot he risks killing the goose that is laying his welfare-allowing eggs.

10/30/2008 10:25:07 PM

^Sometimes I think that all conservatives like you were either asleep from 1992-2000, or you are just experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance overload.

Again...

Pay attention...

Let's look at Clinton's budget policy:

Quote :

"Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans."

As you can see, this tax plan is very similar to Obama's tax plan. According to you, it is "punishing the rich and businesses with tax increases."

Now, according to you, this would be disastrous by taxing business and cause job loss. Let's see what happened during the Clinton years:

Quote :

"-Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history. -Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector. -Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars). -Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Administration#The_economy


Clearly, what you are saying is going to happen did not happen under similar circumstances. Why do you think it will happen now?

[Edited on October 30, 2008 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2008 10:34:35 PM

Quote :

"40% of the people he wants to give money back to, don't pay any income tax. So in their case, they will be getting transfer payments from more wealthy citizens. Class warfare at its finest."

As most of them already would have gotten under EITC. This is not really "class warfare" either, because it's pretty sad that those 40% make so little money they don't incur a federal income tax, what does that say about "trickle down" economics?

Quote :

"It's pretty obvious to me that Obama doesn't care much for business or those he derides as chasing the big houses in our "money culture." But punishing the rich and businesses with tax increases and non-secret union ballots will not help create more jobs."

Few people would disagree that our culture is too materialistic, Obama is playing on these ideas that exist even among the wealthy.

And seriously, you have YET to prove the FUD about this whole "loss of jobs" thing. The numbers don't bear this out, and if there is money to be made, there are jobs to be made, regardless of taxes, this is a concept the numbers DO bear out.

Quote :

"And notice that when Obama promises more jobs, he doesn't say they will be from the private sector. It's usually in the form of gov't jobs to rebuild infrastructure. He has to be careful not to keep trying to turn the country's opinion against commerce-ot he risks killing the goose that is laying his welfare-allowing eggs. "

Do you realize how nutty you sound? The jobs Obama is talking about are going to come from increased consumer spending (which is where most of the top 1% get their $$$ from) since people will have more money, and growth of the alternative energy industry, growth from fair trade policies (hopefully), and growth in small businesses (since MOST will be paying less taxes).

10/30/2008 10:51:07 PM

Quote :

"^ So why not just say that in the first place? If you think socialist are evil, and McCain is a socialist, how can you conscionably support him? In light of this, it's obvious that you either don't really think Obama is a socialist/marxist/communist/terrorist, you don't know what these terms means, or you DO know what they mean you just have an extremely high cognitive dissonance about your own beliefs."

Dude, wake the fuck up. How many times do I have to state I don't like McCain! I don't like either of them! The GOP has lost its way, but a vote for McCain is still a better bet than Obama.

10/30/2008 11:29:58 PM

Quote :

"As you can see, this tax plan is very similar to Obama's tax plan. "

2/3rds of Clinton's tax increase was on those singles making $115K and couples at $140K.

Another 15% of his increase hit busnesses in the form of corporate tax increases and reduction of entertainment expenses.

He also reduced the income-tax exclusion for Social Security payments to retirees with incomes above $44,000 per couple- so they recieved less than before.

As his welfare yummy, Clinton increased the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers.

And the middle class? Well instead of a tax cut, Clinton raised the fed gas tax 4.3 cents per gallon.

As for the claims that the economy did well during the Clinton years- keep in mind that voter anger turned the purse-strings over to the GOP after '93. So for most of his term, we had a divided gov't checking each other.

We are looking into the maw of a total take-over of gov't by the democrats- a bullet-proof congress. If we had the type of huge Clinton tax-increase when he had only a simple majority in congress- imagine the mayhem that Obama and his congress could cause to tax-payers.

Quote :

"...you have to prove this whole "loss of jobs" thing. MOST will be paying less taxes"

Well if I have to prove the loss of jobs thing, you'll have to prove to me that a democrat-run congress is going to lower the middle class's taxes.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:11:33 AM

Quote :

"And the middle class? Well instead of a tax cut, Clinton raised the fed gas tax 4.3 cents per gallon."

ohhhh, what a bastard That's where all my family's money went in the 90's!!

10/31/2008 12:17:56 AM

^
And remember Clinton's excuse? Once he got into office and really checked out the economy--Surprise!! It was so bad that he couldn't give us the promised middle-class tax cut. Here's a gas tax increase instead.

And then on the eve of the '93 mid-term, he was begging the peeved middle class not to "vote their hate" Will Obama change it to "Don't vote your racism" ?

10/31/2008 12:48:21 AM

93? who the fuck was running in 93?

10/31/2008 1:51:42 AM

Quote :

"The GOP has lost its way, but a vote for McCain is still a better bet than Obama."

care to elaborate?

10/31/2008 1:55:44 AM

Quote :

"politics of fear and division worked in 2004. sorry for you it won't work this time."

seems to be working pretty well for Obama. OH MY GOD, BUSH!!! NO MORE BUSH!!! OMG!!!

10/31/2008 7:02:21 AM

This needs to be posted again.

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_ge/fact_check_obama_ad

10/31/2008 7:53:37 AM

Quote :

"seems to be working pretty well for Obama. OH MY GOD, BUSH!!! NO MORE BUSH!!! OMG!!!"

Yeah, but that's fear, not division.

I think everyone hates Bush at this point.

10/31/2008 8:31:17 AM

Quote :

"The GOP has lost its way, but a vote for McCain is still a better bet than Obama."

Why?

10/31/2008 8:55:41 AM

do I have to regurgitate all my posts for you two? just read these political threads and you'll figure it out.

10/31/2008 10:05:32 AM

Quote :

"This needs to be posted again. Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_ge/fact_check_obama_ad"

________
(--[ .]-[ .] /
(_____o__)

10/31/2008 10:10:57 AM

Quote :

"40% of the people he wants to give money back to, don't pay any income tax. So in their case, they will be getting transfer payments from more wealthy citizens. Class warfare at its finest."

Where do you get this number from. It doesn't seem plausable from the outline of the plan.

I think that some pundits may be conflating to facts:

1) 40% of households pay no income tax

2) Obama wants to give tax breaks to 95% of working families


However, the 95% of working families is a carefully worded statement. Most of the 40% who pay no tax are either not working (retirees, unemployed or on public assistance) or are singles. They would not be included in the 95% figure.

Sure some singles will get a tax cut and some nonworking senior citizens will get a tax cut but not nearly at the 95% level.

Quote :

"It's usually in the form of gov't jobs to rebuild infrastructure. He has to be careful not to keep trying to turn the country's opinion against commerce-ot he risks killing the goose that is laying his welfare-allowing eggs."

Just to be sure infrastructure jobs represent government spending but they are not government jobs. These jobs are outsourced to the private sector.

It can go the other way for example. The postal service is not funded by what most economists would think of as government spending but they are government jobs.

If you think the important thing for effeciency is free market competition then this distinction is important.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 10:29:22 AM

Quote :

"do I have to regurgitate all my posts for you two? just read these political threads and you'll figure it out."

If you cannot answer a simple straight-forward question, then you are flying blind.

Quote :

"The GOP has lost its way, but a vote for McCain is still a better bet than Obama."

Answer the question. Give me at least one simple reason why a vote for McCain is a "better bet." Convince me.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 1:07 PM. Reason : -]

10/31/2008 1:04:13 PM

Less big government, less useless government programs, less taxes to burden our economy and put us on the road to a depression, less budget deficet, more experience, more bi-partisan, no chance of an unchecked "supermajority", more foreign policy experience.

10/31/2008 1:13:33 PM

we have had posts and posts and threads and threads of "convincing me"

you've made up your mind, it would be a waste of time for anyone to respond to that

10/31/2008 3:10:03 PM

Quote :

"However, the 95% of working families is a carefully worded statement. Most of the 40% who pay no tax are either not working (retirees, unemployed or on public assistance) or are singles. They would not be included in the 95% figure. Sure some singles will get a tax cut and some nonworking senior citizens will get a tax cut but not nearly at the 95% level."

(emph. added)

Totally wrong. Please read the fucking web site (you know the one) before posting.

Quote :

"Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples."

(http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/)

Ugh. Please see the chart below on the same page.

Quote :

"Single Parent making $40,000 with two young children and childcare expenses. $2,100 [includes $500 making work pay; $500 universal mortgage credit, and $1,100 from Obama expansion of the child care tax credit]"

I think he is crystal clear that he wants to give anyone with a job money ($500 it would seem).

(if you don't believe me, please see http://taxcut.barackobama.com/ and set it to $20,000, single filer, no dependents)

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 4:08 PM. Reason : foo]

10/31/2008 4:04:08 PM

^^hey man don't knock me. I was just replying to those other two fellas who were begging me to say anything about why I voted for McCain.

10/31/2008 4:07:43 PM

Quote :

"Where do you get this number from. It doesn't seem plausable from the outline of the plan. I think that some pundits may be conflating to facts: 1) 40% of households pay no income tax 2) Obama wants to give tax breaks to 95% of working families "

everytime he gets a chance, Obama says he is going to give "95% of Americans" a tax cut.

it is well documented that ~33%-38% of the LEGAL population in this country have no income tax liability at the end of the year.

the fact that McCain has not hammered him on this discrepancy is appalling.

10/31/2008 4:43:35 PM

Quote :

"Less big government, less useless government programs, less taxes to burden our economy and put us on the road to a depression, less budget deficet, more experience, more bi-partisan, no chance of an unchecked "supermajority", more foreign policy experience."

Points taken.

Now, what if McCain was to die and Palin took his place?

Would you feel in safe hands in that scenario? She is obviously no substitute for McCain.

Frankly, I wouldn't feel safe.

However, If Obama was to die, I would still feel that the country is in safe hands.

Palin at backup is not a strong ticket.

Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

10/31/2008 4:45:30 PM

you dems dont realize that Palin and Obama are essentially the same 'bizarro' version of each other.

both are:

personable
attractive
young
inexperienced
ultra right/left

you just know less of her because she hasnt been in the national spotlight very long.

10/31/2008 4:51:25 PM

except for the small fact that he is incredibly intelligent

and she is a fucking black hole of knowledge

10/31/2008 5:14:02 PM

^ word

10/31/2008 5:49:41 PM

Quote :

"personable"

more like fucking annoying, which is probably because of ^^

10/31/2008 5:56:11 PM

^ double word

10/31/2008 6:01:29 PM

Hey look, he talked about the same things, again

11/1/2008 12:40:05 AM

three components of public speaking:

(1) tell them what you're going to tell them

(2) tell them

(3) tell them what you just told them.


this is the template for every single successful public speech. on a macro scale, it's also the framework for every single successful campaign.

like the man or not, the Obama campaign of 2008 will be the in-depth focus of every single political science text for the next generation.

11/1/2008 12:46:55 AM

Quote :

"Hey look, he talked about the same things, again"

That was the whole point. This infomercial wasn't for people who had made up their minds, it was for those undecideds who still hadn't heard his main talking points. Take up most of the major channels in the hope they'll actually listen and maybe he'd get some votes out of it. WTF else is he gonna talk about?

11/1/2008 1:02:40 AM