The next president [Archive] - Page 7

arlskipshot1

Oct 15 2008, 08:59 PM

If it is so bad why do I keep hearing the same three quotes that came from the crowd? I mean do they all say the same thing or maybe it just isn't occuring with as much frequency as reported.

I can remember many times in Obama's rallies booes coming from just the mention of McCain or Bush. If Obama thinks this is bad I wonder how he will handle it in the presidency? I mean a few crazy things have been stated about Bush in the last 8 years.

Booing is not the same as yelling "Terrorist!", "Treason!", "Off with his head!", or "Kill him!" If you can't see the difference, you're an idiot.

McCain/Palin and their opening speakers are inciting and promoting this behavior -- and it's happening at every event. If you don't think there is something wrong with that, again, you're an idiot.

Notice how no one mentions that these hateful things are being said at Obama events? No mention even from the right-wing blogs or reporters.

I don't regularly watch Olbermann, but last night his comment about this situation was dead-on.
Olbermann's transcript. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27188346/)

T-Bender...I saw the Olbermann show you're referring to and just reading the transcript doesn't let you see the fury and fire it was delivered with. It truly was an extremely powerful commentary. I loved every minute of it. He usually spends his whole show ridiculing the right looking for some good yuks which he is very talented at doing, but that statement he made was absolutely fantastic.

arlskipshot1

Oct 15 2008, 09:12 PM

Yes, ignorant. If you don't realize the charges carried in your name-calling, then you are ignorant. If you do realize them, well, there are other words that could be used.

Why do you think that way? And why is it so much harder for people to give their reasons instead of falling back on name-calling and slander?

I was really just joking about him being a "former" muslim, really was just meant to be a joke. Do you ever say things jokingly, if so, does that make you ignorant??? Ever watch SNL? They must be completely ignorant from all the stuff they say.

Personally as a Veteran, I think someone should have to serve in the armed forces in some capacity to qualify to become president. To know what it is like to be overseas, involved in conflict before they send our troops anywhere.
I'm not a fan of McCain either, but I do prefer him over Obama Bin Laden. :D

I already know your response to liberal perspectives, but I'll have my say anyway. I chose not to serve and fight in an unjust war in Vietnam. This was by far a difficult thing to do because it opened the door for people like you to call me a coward and traitor. I believe that I support our troops because I want to bring them home and cease the mutilation and murder of the young people over there. You think that supporting buSh's warmongering is supporting the troops...I don't. Your jarhead mentallity only robs you of furthering your development of being a good American that acknowledges we all are entitled to an opinion. Even your candidate saw the need to scwelch the fear and hatred (that he helped start) by telling his own people that Mr. Obama was a good American and there is no reason to fear him.

arlskipshot1

Oct 15 2008, 09:20 PM

[quote

Old man, this is one kid you won't convince that a vote for Obama would mean a vote for a better future.

[/QUOTE]
Junior, I never fooled myself that your mind could be changed. My sole purpose of addressing you was the obvious carelessness of your remarks. You would do better to show a little more tact when attacking your counterparts should you ever want to be taken seriously in the political world.

CAMBAGGER

Oct 15 2008, 09:25 PM

Yes, ignorant. If you don't realize the charges carried in your name-calling, then you are ignorant. If you do realize them, well, there are other words that could be used.

Why do you think that way? And why is it so much harder for people to give their reasons instead of falling back on name-calling and slander?

I was really just joking about him being a "former" muslim, really was just meant to be a joke. Do you ever say things jokingly, if so, does that make you ignorant??? Ever watch SNL? They must be completely ignorant from all the stuff they say.

Personally as a Veteran, I think someone should have to serve in the armed forces in some capacity to qualify to become president. To know what it is like to be overseas, involved in conflict before they send our troops anywhere.
I'm not a fan of McCain either, but I do prefer him over Obama Bin Laden. :D

I already know your response to liberal perspectives, but I'll have my say anyway. I chose not to serve and fight in an unjust war in Vietnam. This was by far a difficult thing to do because it opened the door for people like you to call me a coward and traitor. I believe that I support our troops because I want to bring them home and cease the mutilation and murder of the young people over there. You think that supporting buSh's warmongering is supporting the troops...I don't. Your jarhead mentallity only robs you of furthering your development of being a good American that acknowledges we all are entitled to an opinion. Even your candidate saw the need to scwelch the fear and hatred (that he helped start) by telling his own people that Mr. Obama was a good American and there is no reason to fear him.

First of all, I would not even consider calling you a coward or a traitor. If you chose not to fight, that was your choice. But, if you signed up for the job, you gotta do what you signed up to do. Some people call it integrity.

Where do you get off saying I support Bushs' warmongering??? Have I even mentioned anything about that? Quit assuming, it makes an you an ... I disagreed with the war from the get go if you want to know my true opinion. Again, if the soldiers enlisted, they are at the mercy of our Govt, and do what they're told. You think I wanted to go to Samalia?? Getting shot at while trying to call home once every 2 weeks wasn't my idea of a good time. I signed up for it though. Those soldiers that signed up need to suck it up.

I would like nothing more then to bring the troops home. If it were up to me, they wouldn't have gone in the first place. Not only have we lost alot of lives, we've dug ourselves as a country a great hole of debt. I think we should charge them the amount we've spent over there- in oil. They can pay us somehow now that we've been there for that long.

"You think that supporting buSh's warmongering is supporting the troops...I don't. Your jarhead mentallity only robs you of furthering your development of being a good American that acknowledges we all are entitled to an opinion. Even your candidate saw the need to scwelch the fear and hatred (that he helped start) by telling his own people that Mr. Obama was a good American and there is no reason to fear him.

[/QUOTE]

Where in the world did you come up with this as my opinion? My candidate?

Tell mom it's time to put the mouthpiece back in and the helmet back on. Make sure the bus driver staps you in tightly tomorrow morning.

arlskipshot1

Oct 16 2008, 12:02 AM

You were sounding somewhat civil there for a moment. Your position on the war is admirable, but how you can support McCain with those views is beyond me. Your accusations aimed at the next President of the United States are vicious and unfounded which lends itself to a conclusion of you being an a--. Your childlike attack on me personally does nothing to make your point, son. I still respect your stance on the war and apologize for saying you were basically a sheep following blindly, but if you support McCain you're not gonna help those troops get home any time soon.

Pizza God

Oct 16 2008, 04:40 AM

CAMBAGGER

Oct 16 2008, 10:20 AM

You were sounding somewhat civil there for a moment. Your position on the war is admirable, but how you can support McCain with those views is beyond me. Your accusations aimed at the next President of the United States are vicious and unfounded which lends itself to a conclusion of you being an a--. Your childlike attack on me personally does nothing to make your point, son. I still respect your stance on the war and apologize for saying you were basically a sheep following blindly, but if you support McCain you're not gonna help those troops get home any time soon.

I basically think McCain is the lesser of 2 evils. I disagree with alot of his policies, as I also do with Obamas. Honestly, I wish people weren't so afraid to vote in a 3rd party candidate.

The 2 biggest issues I have a problem with, are ghey rights, and Abortion. I believe abortion is murder, plain and simple. There are certain times (when a mother will die) when I think there should be a choice. In todays society abortion, or the day after pill are a quick fix. How about not being a whoore?

On the ghey rights issue, I don't think they should get any special treatment. My Bible tells me that being ghey is against nature. They're not born that way. I don't hate ghey people at all, they need the same Christ I need. I dislike the sin that is being ghey, just as I dislike the sins that I do. But, that sin (being ghey) is no worse then me swearing, or saying what I said in an earlier post, a sin is a sin. They can be saved/forgiven as easily a me.
Sorry about the attack, I am an a.. sometimes, I do agreee. :D

Pizza God

Oct 16 2008, 02:17 PM

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ivotedtombstone.jpg Dead Voters in Houston Texas???? (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/)

arlskipshot1

Oct 16 2008, 04:54 PM

You're alright, Camerelli. We differ greatly on some issues, but I don't feel threatened by you. Good luck to you in all you do.

sschumacher

Oct 16 2008, 04:56 PM

Cam, I didn't know you were a veteran? Last time I saw you you were drunk and passed out on McCoy's couch. :confused:

I can't imagine you being a vet but if you were then I can only imagine you spent most of your time in the rear with the beer. :D

tbender

Oct 16 2008, 05:02 PM

Cam, thanks for responding. Like Skip, we don't see issues the same, but that's cool.

Given the last week when the Republican ticket was allowing and promoting similar name-calling garbage, it becomes much harder to draw the lines between (bad) jokes and real stuff.

Drawing that kind of comparison between anyone and a terrorist just isn't funny.

And after last night, I'm changing my vote to Joe the Plumber.

CAMBAGGER

Oct 16 2008, 06:52 PM

Cam, I didn't know you were a veteran? Last time I saw you you were drunk and passed out on McCoy's couch. :confused:

I can't imagine you being a vet but if you were then I can only imagine you spent most of your time in the rear with the beer. :D

USMC baby, bgotta love it. There used be an Army recruiting commercial on tv that said " we do more before 6 am then the average person does all day "..or something of that sort. Our USMC saying was " we do more useless shiat by 7am then most people do in a day"

I've been passed out on McCoys couch several times, it's hard to narrow it down to just once. :D

Pizza God

Oct 16 2008, 06:57 PM

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/GaryVarvel101608.jpg

CAMBAGGER

Oct 16 2008, 06:58 PM

Cam, thanks for responding. Like Skip, we don't see issues the same, but that's cool.

Given the last week when the Republican ticket was allowing and promoting similar name-calling garbage, it becomes much harder to draw the lines between (bad) jokes and real stuff.

Drawing that kind of comparison between anyone and a terrorist just isn't funny.

And after last night, I'm changing my vote to Joe the Plumber.

That's part of what make this such a great country, we don't all agree, several different ideas from different backgrounds.

Obama sure was a slick talker last night. He is smooth, but deceiving. I think he prolly has beat mccain in every debate.

Teemac

Oct 16 2008, 08:22 PM

The biggest problem for McCain is that he doesn't have a clear vision of where he wants to lead us and judging by his campaign he doesn't want to move toward a centrist view which would be more inclusive. The reality of politics is building consensus and uniting efforts to be effective. McCain doesn't present himself as someone who could do that. He had his last chance to sway undecided voters and instead pandered to his base which is fine at a rally, but when presented with a chance to debate issues, he chose to flog the dead horse of "character." Intelligent undecided voters can see that both are men of good character who are in this race to help the country. I'm sure they are those on both sides that disagree about each candidate's moral center, but the middle, those on the fence look at them as good men with different views how to make this country better. Unfortunately for McCain he concentrated on his telling everyone already on his bus where they were going instead of pulling over and picking up some new passengers.

Pizza God

Oct 16 2008, 10:36 PM

McCain is going to get all the Republican votes anyways. At least the votes from a lot of Republicans that actually show up to vote.

I talked with my GOTV Team captain just the other night and asked him how the signs were going. He stated that they will let him put Kenny Marchant (Congressman) but several don't want McCain signs. (some will allow them only if Palin is listed too)

The Denton Co Republican HQ emails me when they get new Palin stuff in, no one seems to want just McCain stuff. He really is not liked in the grassroots in this area. (McCain beat Huckabee by 70 votes in Denton Co)

Pizza God

Oct 16 2008, 11:17 PM

http://www.insideautomotive.com/images/joe_001.jpg
"Joe the Plumber" Local man focus of presidential debate (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418)

Here is the original conversation

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Ilwk_wmsQk&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Ilwk_wmsQk&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

When you spread the wealth around???

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JDVM7ODUBn8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JDVM7ODUBn8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aDEDx2fxl0c&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aDEDx2fxl0c&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Alacrity

Oct 17 2008, 10:19 AM

Your PM is to full to send messages.....

Teemac

Oct 17 2008, 12:59 PM

Like most people, Joe the plumber will get a tax reduction under Obama's plan.

chainmeister

Oct 17 2008, 01:24 PM

Joe the Plumber is apparently a graduate of University of Chicago and studied with Milton Friedman. He apparently believes in a flat tax. He does not want to pay a higher rate if he gets richer. He calls that "socialist". Most Americans have accepted the so-called progressive tax. We have had a progressive tax structure for aboutt 70 years. Obama's plan is a progressive tax. Higher rates at higher levels of income. Nothing new here. Joe seems like a sincere guy. I like him. The more I listen to him the more I am convinced that my vote for Obama is the correct vote.

Pizza God

Oct 17 2008, 01:29 PM

That is funny, because the more I listen to Joe, the more I want to vote for McCain to keep Obama out.
_____________________

I deleted several old PM's from back in 2005 (except the grunion ones), personally, I prefer email's.

mikeP

Oct 17 2008, 03:39 PM

Facts about "Joe the Plumber".

A: His real name is Samuel.
B: He does not not have a liscense to do plumbing or any other work.
C: He apparently doesn't believe in any tax structure (he owes $ to the IRS and has a lien on his property).

McCain should do some research before bringing on new "teamates". SNL was hilarious last night...

Pizza God

Oct 17 2008, 04:51 PM

Pizza God

Oct 18 2008, 11:58 AM

Facts about "Joe the Plumber".

A: His real name is Samuel. Actually his real name is "Samuel Joseph (Joe) Wurzelbacher" 
B: He does not not have a liscense to do plumbing or any other work. He works for a Plumber and if the licensed plummer is on site, he can do plumbing. His long term plan was to buy the plumbing business from his boss. 
C: He apparently doesn't believe in any tax structure (he owes $ to the IRS and has a lien on his property). Actually it is NOT owed to the IRS, it is owed to the State of Ohio. He has a $1,182.98 lean against his property as of January '07. I am unable to find out what the owed tax is because no one knows yet. 

McCain should do some research before bringing on new "teamates". SNL was hilarious last night...

 Joe the Plumber is probably regretting his quizzing Obama on his tax plan. This poor guy is getting raked over the coals for getting Obama to admit he is for Wealth Redistribution. (otherwise known as socialism)

Pizza God

Oct 18 2008, 12:01 PM

Pizza God

Oct 18 2008, 12:02 PM

I love Penn, this is a very good rant by him

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rr-tiCJFw3M&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rr-tiCJFw3M&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Pizza God

Oct 18 2008, 12:11 PM

Ok, if you watched the actual interview with Joe the Plumber, watch this and you will see how much Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Rush Limbah.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/suPPq_ga6q8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/suPPq_ga6q8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

He then goes into interviewing some kid from "The Nation"

the whole problem with this is that the liberal media is not listening to what Joe said, only that he is not what they think he is. Some common man that want to improve his life and he is asking Obama what incentive is there when the more you make, the more taxes you are forced to pay.

This is the reason Communism and true socialism always fail. If you don't dangle the carrot in front of the worker, they will not perform and have no reason to.

BTW, this kid does not understand that when you hit that $250,000 mark, your taxable rate goes from the currrent 36% to 39%. That is a $7,500 addition to your $90,000 tax liability already. (shoot I would love to be able to pay $90,000 in taxes)

Pizza God

Oct 18 2008, 12:15 PM

This guy really is "Joe American"

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OgQsZPuhG5g&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OgQsZPuhG5g&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Pizza God

Oct 18 2008, 01:52 PM

The Coming Backlash (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29093#continueA)

There are MANY of us to believe this is true. we will be there at the forefront when it happens. (and you can trust that I will post about it :D)

Pizza God

Oct 18 2008, 03:51 PM

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/MichaelRamirez101708.jpg

kkrasinski

Oct 18 2008, 11:33 PM

BTW, this kid does not understand that when you hit that $250,000 mark, your taxable rate goes from the currrent 36% to 39%. That is a $7,500 addition to your $90,000 tax liability already. (shoot I would love to be able to pay $90,000 in taxes)

From The Tax Policy Center's An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary - Revised September 15, 2008 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf)

"Including interest costs, Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion on top of the $2.3 trillion increase that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts for the next decade (see Summary Deficit Table).
The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers (see Figure 2). By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase—a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.
McCain would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012. But, in sharp contrast to Obama, he would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by more than $125,000, raising their after-tax income an average 9.5 percent.
These projections are built on descriptions of the candidates’ plans provided by senior McCain and Obama staff (see Table 1). However, TPC has also projected costs based upon what candidates have actually said on the campaign trail, and those promises paint a quite different picture (see the second panel of Summary Revenue Table, the bottom panel of Summary Deficit Table, and Figure 3)."

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/kk3_2/2008taxplans.jpg

Pizza God

Oct 19 2008, 01:01 AM

You do realize that neither plan will work or be done. It always gets changed in the end. Usually for the worse.

I still favor a flat tax based on any income. I even bet that a 10 to 15% across the board tax with ZERO deductions would cover it. (then you can have your stupid entitlements over that.)

I actually would support a national sales tax, but ONLY if the Income tax is removed.

Pizza God

Oct 19 2008, 09:06 PM

I think Joe got a lot of his 15 min of fame.

here is his interview from Saturday night with Mike Huckabee

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U85wrwZwNgk&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U85wrwZwNgk&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lD85pveazzg&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lD85pveazzg&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

kkrasinski

Oct 20 2008, 09:16 AM

You do realize that neither plan will work or be done.

You do realize that one looks at candidates' proposals to gain insight into how they look at various issues? Look at the above analysis of McCain's tax approach and relate it to the following graphs.

From www.sustainablemiddleclass.com (http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com):
Aggregate income as a percentage of total national income by quintile. Q5 = highest income quintile.
http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Image20.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Gini_since_WWII.gif

I actually would support a national sales tax, but ONLY if the Income tax is removed.

This is the Fair Tax which I support.

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 02:33 PM

sschumacher

Oct 20 2008, 04:04 PM

According to that chart, Norway seems like the place to be. :cool:

Teemac

Oct 20 2008, 04:46 PM

Ok, if you watched the actual interview with Joe the Plumber, watch this and you will see how much Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Rush Limbah.

(shoot I would love to be able to pay $90,000 in taxes)

Two questions: Are you using liberal to mean factual?

Would you love to be a socialist? :D

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 05:55 PM

Ok, if you watched the actual interview with Joe the Plumber, watch this and you will see how much Keith Olbermann is the liberal version of Rush Limbah.

(shoot I would love to be able to pay $90,000 in taxes)

Two questions: Are you using liberal to mean factual?

Would you love to be a socialist? :D

I can't stand listening to Rush, he is just a bunch of hot air. I do watch a lot of Olberman, but he can be hard to take too.

Both are just giving there spin on the same facts.

Would I love to be a Socialist. NO :mad:

Socialism does not work. Same as Communism. Both fail on so many fronts.

If I can find that video talking about governments again, I will post it.

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 05:56 PM

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 06:08 PM

McCain has finally called Obama's tax plan Socialist like it is. "Spreading the Wealth" IS Socialism.

50% of the taxpayers only pay 3% of the Taxes.

That means the other 50% pay 97% of the taxes.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WRF_Ys92WcU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WRF_Ys92WcU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

arlskipshot1

Oct 20 2008, 07:14 PM

McCain has finally called Obama's tax plan Socialist like it is. "Spreading the Wealth" IS Socialism.

50% of the taxpayers only pay 3% of the Taxes.

That means the other 50% pay 97% of the taxes.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WRF_Ys92WcU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WRF_Ys92WcU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

And 1% of the people have over 50% of the wealth. They can afford to pay more.....just cancel one safari a year. :cool:
Social change is not complete convergence to Socialism. We can all be glad that FDR knew that and wasn't afraid to make drastic changes to redirect this country from the greedy that couldn't care less about the country's welfare. Unchecked, power corrupts and lends itself to immoral and selfish decisions that are made by uncaring people. Government CAN be a good thing!!!!!!!!!!

kkrasinski

Oct 20 2008, 07:47 PM

BTW, this kid does not understand that when you hit that $250,000 mark, your taxable rate goes from the currrent 36% to 39%. That is a $7,500 addition to your $90,000 tax liability already.

This is false.

You are confusing marginal tax rate and effective tax rate. For 2008 a married couple filing jointly with a taxable income of $250,000 (33% bracket) would have a federal income tax burden of $69,091.50. Under Obama's proposed percentages and 2008 thresholds that couple's bracket would rise to 36% and their tax burden would increase to $71,947.50. Net increase = $2,856 or 1.14% of their original taxable income. But actually, Obama's proposal raises the 36% threshold, so in our example, the tax burden actually decreases.

Also, they would not be in the 39.6% bracket until their taxable income reached $357,700 at which point their effective tax burden would not rise to 39.6% but only their burden on taxable income above $357,699. That's why it's called a marginal tax rate.

Now compare Obama's proposed upper bracket for joint filing married couples (39.6%) with 1982-1986 when it was 50% of taxable income above $85,600 ('82) to $175,250 ('86). Or 1968 when it was 75.25% of taxable income above $200,000. Or 1944 and 1945 when it was 94% of taxable income above $200,000. **** Socialists!

Speaking of socialism:

I actually would support a national sales tax, but ONLY if the Income tax is removed.

A national sales tax on discrectionary spending (defined for simplicity's sake as spending above the poverty level) is a progressive (socialist, to you) tax.

Teemac

Oct 20 2008, 08:04 PM

I love peeling the labels off of things to see if they will stick to something else. Like putting socialism on Wall St. and patriotism on invasion of privacy.

kkrasinski

Oct 20 2008, 08:56 PM

Some common man that want to improve his life and he is asking Obama what incentive is there when the more you make, the more taxes you are forced to pay.

This illustrates the problem with putting "Joe Six Pack", or "common people" who think like Joe, into the government. What's the incentive for making more money when that additional money is taxed at a higher rate? Well, Joe, if your business made 100,000 more taxable income this year than the 250,000 it made last year, it would get to keep $64,000 of it. How many six packs would that buy?

kkrasinski

Oct 20 2008, 11:00 PM

I still favor a flat tax based on any income. I even bet that a 10 to 15% across the board tax with ZERO deductions would cover it. (then you can have your stupid entitlements over that.)

But wait, there's more! The real Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher), the one who makes about 40k, is tired of his hard earned money going to support entitlements and supports a flat tax! Let's see how that would affect smart Joe. Assuming a 40k gross salary (at least over the table), and ZERO deductions other than himself and his dependent son (no mortgage interest, no personal property taxes, no state taxes, nothing) Joe's 2007 tax burden was $3,246 or an effective tax rate of 12.8% of taxable income, or 8.1% of gross income.

Using Pizza's flat tax numbers of 10-15%, no deductions, and no entitlements Joe's flat tax burden could be as high as $6,000 or between 23.2% and 84.8% higher than his burden last year. Feel better now Joe? Better go get another six pack!

(edit -- corrected numbers include dependent son)

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 11:09 PM

We can all be glad that FDR knew that and wasn't afraid to make drastic changes to redirect this country from the greedy that couldn't care less about the country's welfare.

As Skip, FDR was a Socialist and took the Democratic Party from being conservative to Socialist.

Trust me, the wealthy give more than you and I make in a year to charity. The Charities depend on it.

BTW, Before Welfare and Social Security, FAMILIES, CHURCHES, Neighbors, and communities helped each other out. Now people expect the government to do it for them.

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 11:26 PM

kkrasinski, I don't make, and have never made anywhere close to that kind of money, so I have no idea.

Besides, I have my acct do my taxes because I have my business and a partership. It gets confusing and I don't want to mess with it.

I just help my employee's fill out there EZ1040 every year.

I will differ any and all questions of tax liabilities to my accountant from now on. (he only charges $200 per hour, man I am in the wrong business)

kkrasinski

Oct 20 2008, 11:35 PM

n/m

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 11:36 PM

Paul the Furniture guy interviews people after an Obama Rally
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ovcdb6csHBE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ovcdb6csHBE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Paul interview people on the beach (he lives in Clearwater Fl.)
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v49CVlpAv80&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v49CVlpAv80&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Paul interviews Ron Paul supporters asking the same question.
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7jeUSN03lo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7jeUSN03lo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>
At the Texas Republican Convention, a lady from Carrollton made a comment to me. She stated that nearly all the Ron Paul Republicans knew the issues and knew what they were talking about. I took that has a very nice complement.

Pizza God

Oct 20 2008, 11:56 PM

To be fair, it is hard to answer a question on camera

yes, that is me last year at the 5:13 mark
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSYeU0-6jG0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zSYeU0-6jG0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

BTW, all the signs you see painted were done by me and my meet-up group out of the Metrocrest area. I still have all of them in my garage.

Pizza God

Oct 21 2008, 05:02 PM

This guy is good

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbW64215HA8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbW64215HA8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Pizza God

Oct 22 2008, 12:06 AM

Joe the Plumber on Hannity and Colmbs

pt 1
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sQgp34zOA7Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sQgp34zOA7Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
pt 2
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CaxEF6W-cNw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CaxEF6W-cNw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Teemac

Oct 23 2008, 01:40 PM

I don't care what Joe Blow has to say anymore. I heard him talk to Obama and ask his questions which Obama answered quite genuinely. Turns out Joe Blow is better at blowing smoke up peoples' wazoos than plumbing peoples' loos. :D

sschumacher

Oct 23 2008, 04:07 PM

I think if McCain dumped Palin and picked up "Joe the wanna Plumber" he might stand a better chance. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

CRUISER

Oct 23 2008, 04:11 PM

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2743/nicetoseeeveryonegettinzq8.jpg

Pizza God

Oct 23 2008, 04:41 PM

Pizza God

Oct 23 2008, 04:45 PM

I don't care what Joe Blow has to say anymore. I heard him talk to Obama and ask his questions which Obama answered quite genuinely. Turns out Joe Blow is better at blowing smoke up peoples' wazoos than plumbing peoples' loos. :D

I think if McCain dumped Palin and picked up "Joe the wanna Plumber" he might stand a better chance.

Actually, Joe the Plumber, may be a large part of the reason Juan McCain's polling numbers are up to a virtual tie with Barry Obama (43% vs 44% AP poll)

No, Obama did not answer the question the way I would want him to answer it, in fact he said such the wrong thing, I am leaning towards voting McCain again.

I posted the interaction back on this thread a few days ago. (at this point is was a week ago)

How about Joe the Plumber for President with Sara Palin as his VP

Now that is a ticket I would vote for :D

chainmeister

Oct 23 2008, 06:20 PM

I don't care what Joe Blow has to say anymore. I heard him talk to Obama and ask his questions which Obama answered quite genuinely. Turns out Joe Blow is better at blowing smoke up peoples' wazoos than plumbing peoples' loos. :D

I think if McCain dumped Palin and picked up "Joe the wanna Plumber" he might stand a better chance.

Actually, Joe the Plumber, may be a large part of the reason Juan McCain's polling numbers are up to a virtual tie with Barry Obama (43% vs 44% AP poll)

No, Obama did not answer the question the way I would want him to answer it, in fact he said such the wrong thing, I am leaning towards voting McCain again.

I posted the interaction back on this thread a few days ago. (at this point is was a week ago)

How about Joe the Plumber for President with Sara Palin as his VP

Now that is a ticket I would vote for :D

If the "virtual tie" were a reality I would be very nervous. I read that its now 52-40 but who knows. If McCain truly comes close because of the Joe's of the world we might as well take what we deserve. I suspect that we will be taking it in a senstive region and the copious amounts of lubricant will be required.

I assume that most people earn less than 250k. I know that Joe does. Under Obama's plan, they will pay less taxes. Although I am a Democrat and presumably a left leaning socialist pinko, I still think with self interest. Lets take this from an Ann Rynd viewpoint. Joe sixpack, Joe the Plumber and most Americans will pay less taxes. Yet, Joe the plumber says, "No. That's socialist. I don't want to pay less taxes. I want to pay more taxes because that would be grossly unfair to the small percentage of Americans who earn more than 250k." If I am John McCain I am going to ride that pony as far as it will go. Good for him.

This is no different from the Incumbent. He was waging a war to nowhere and costing Joe the plumber and his grandchildren a fortune. He then convinced a majority of Ameicans to vote against their self interest. Don't vote for a guy who will stop spending billions of dollars on a folly in Iraq. You have to worry about this guy because unborn millions of future Americans are at risk in his vision of America. How did our country react to this rhetoric? We bought it. We reelected that guy. He actually won that time so nobody can complain. Its our fault. If we do it again, it is absolute proof that our education system is a complete mess. Our kids are not learning basic math and science. They can't count.

I said that and I have not mentioned one word of doing good or other such liberal nonsense. :o That being said, I still beleive in the American dream. I aspire to the day when I will be at the higher tax bracket. Yup, just good old Amerrican greed. And when I do, I will gladly pay more taxes and do my share for the rest of the country. It will be the least I can do.

tbender

Oct 23 2008, 07:35 PM

Bryan, you're cherrypicking a poll....

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1022.html
Look at the bottom of the chart to see all the national polls and you'll see some high and low outliers, but most in the 5-9% range.

kkrasinski

Oct 23 2008, 08:50 PM

Actually, Joe the Plumber, may be a large part of the reason Juan McCain's polling numbers are up to a virtual tie with Barry Obama (43% vs 44% AP poll)

Interesting to view the internals (http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf) on that poll.
- The 43%/44% number is among "likely voters". Among total respondents the number is 47% Obama 37% McCain.
- The margin of error for the "Total Respondents" is less than the margin of error for the "Likely Voters"
- 36% of the respondents were from the South. 19% were from the Northeast.
- 45% of the respondents characterized themselves as "born-again or evangelical Christian". Compare this implausible number to 2004 exit polls -- 23%

No, Obama did not answer the question the way I would want him to answer it, in fact he said such the wrong thing, I am leaning towards voting McCain again.

I'm interested in your discussion of all that Obama said in his answer. Joe characterized it as a "tap dance", but I thought it was quite specific and directly answered the question. All you seem to have focused on is the phrase "spread the wealth".

How about Joe the Plumber for President with Sara Palin as his VP

Now that is a ticket I would vote for :D

Yeah, they could head the ticket of the Simpleton party with Palin in charge of the Senate.

Pizza God

Oct 23 2008, 09:25 PM

Bryan, you're cherrypicking a poll....

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1022.html
Look at the bottom of the chart to see all the national polls and you'll see some high and low outliers, but most in the 5-9% range.

Actually I am only reporting what I saw on the news. As I stated, it was the AP poll. One of many out there. I see from your link that one poll even has McCain in the lead.

I know I live in the Burbs, but on my street, there are 2 Obama signs and 7 McCain signs. (I will not put a McCain sign in my yard)

I have not voted yet, I will not vote until I have looked at all the candidates in each race.

I have not decided on President or Senator (both voted for the bailout)

Will be voting for Kenny Marchant (Congressman)

Will be voting for Chris Harris (State Senator)

Dont know about
State Rep (choice is a Libertarian or Republican)
District Judge (Republican or Democrat)

I will be voting against BOTH Bond Propositions. (both will raise our property taxes and total up to 500 Million in debt)

Pizza God

Oct 23 2008, 09:34 PM

I'm interested in your discussion of all that Obama said in his answer. Joe characterized it as a "tap dance", but I thought it was quite specific and directly answered the question. All you seem to have focused on is the phrase "spread the wealth".

What Obama does not seem to realize is that if you tax Companies more, they have to make up that money from somewhere.

They will either not hire anyone or raise prices. Both would hurt us all.

qdbailey2

Oct 23 2008, 09:35 PM

You speak of Obama's plan on taxes. Which one is that? And do you really expect him to do what he says now, or what he has professed his entire , albeit short political life. Share the wealth baby.

Pizza God

Oct 24 2008, 02:18 AM

When was the last time Republican's won the White House without there being a Nixon or Bush on the ticket??????

The question is, did you know it without looking it up. I didn't.

Erroneous

Oct 24 2008, 02:19 AM

1928, heard it on the news today

kkrasinski

Oct 24 2008, 08:53 AM

kkrasinski

Oct 24 2008, 09:16 AM

What Obama does not seem to realize is that if you tax Companies more...

You do realize, don't you, that Obama's tax plan only addresses those small business owners who pay their taxes through personal income tax and who's taxable income exceeds $250,000 (married filing jointly)? You do realize, don't you, that those whose taxable income only marginally exceeds $250,000 will see their taxes actually decrease due to the raised bracket threshold? You do realize, don't you, that Obama's plan leaves the corporate tax rate untouched?

..., they have to make up that money from somewhere.

They will either not hire anyone or raise prices. Both would hurt us all.

You do realize, don't you, that Obama is proposing a $3,000 tax credit for each new job a business creates?

The smart business owner does not lay off workers or raise prices to increase revenues unless the workers are inefficient and the prices too low to begin with. The way to increase revenue is to grow the business. The way to increase profits is to be efficient. You do realize, don't you, that under nobody's tax plan does increasing revenues lead to lower profit?

Teemac

Oct 24 2008, 01:22 PM

Talk about real plumbers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

tbender

Oct 24 2008, 02:48 PM

Actually I am only reporting what I saw on the news. As I stated, it was the AP poll. One of many out there. I see from your link that one poll even has McCain in the lead.

As Kurt pointed out, the internals of that poll are screwy.

And point of clarification, none of the national polls show McCain winning. You were looking at the state polls to see McCain leading.

PS - Voted today. 8 booths, no waiting at the HCC outpost in my subdivision.

kkrasinski

Oct 24 2008, 04:34 PM

Abortion clinic bombers are not terrorists?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/__1Zn0F3F80&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/__1Zn0F3F80&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

the camera guy

Oct 24 2008, 10:11 PM

not an endorsement, just got a kick watching it...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d

Pizza God

Oct 25 2008, 05:59 AM

I will never be able to watch happy days again :p

________________________________

http://www.republicmagazine.com/images/rm-8-cover.gif

http://www.republicmagazine.com/

Pretty good mag if you like Liberty and Freedom :D

kkrasinski

Oct 25 2008, 12:41 PM

Redirected from Random Poll thread.

Now that is more like it and shows the true feeling of most people I know.

Of course, if any of the third party candidates faced the public scrutiny of the major party candidates their popularity would decrease substantially. It is unfortunate "Joe Six-Pack" responds more to low information fear mongering then to actual merit. Just reading this thread illustrates that for many their choice is dictated by who they don't want rather than who they do.

Pizza God

Oct 27 2008, 11:31 PM

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 02:56 AM

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 01:13 PM

Someone please tell me how Obama is not a Socialist, or at least, if you are an Obamamaniac, admit that he is a Socialist.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iivL4c_3pck&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iivL4c_3pck&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

This recent 2001 interview nearly has me voting for the lesser of two evils. (for the first time)

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 01:52 PM

I might have already posted this, but with recent events unfolding, I think this is nearly a correct view.
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l46t_nrySg4&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l46t_nrySg4&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 01:58 PM

http://www.texasinsider.org/images/news/cartoons/LisaBenson102708.jpg

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 02:01 PM

Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama�s Small Business Tax Hikes
Record Tax Hike on Small Businesses Will Kill Last Job-Creating Sector

WASHINGTON, DC� Americans for Tax Reform today released the following �top five� facts related to the Obama tax hike on small businesses:

1. Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year�the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*). Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America. This is the answer to the Obama campaign�s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small�the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike.
2. Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level. This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses�sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms
3. The tax rate on the lion�s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent. Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com))
4. This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office)
5. America�s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 42 million employees (Source: Census Bureau). When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.

�Obama�s tax increases will only affect you if you have a 401(k), have any savings, buy things from small businesses or are looking for a job,� said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. �If you fall into one of these categories, his policies will screw you. Otherwise, you�re fine.�

* �Small business profits� is equal to the net profits less net losses of sole proprietors, S-corporation shareholders, and partners. According to the IRS, two-thirds of these small business profits are earned in households with adjusted gross income (AGI) equal to or greater than $200,000. In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion (two-thirds) of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise tax rates on.

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 02:28 PM

Ok, the AOL AP video is now annoying.

I was just going to link to the 2:15 mark for this video (YouTube now lets you link to specific parts of videos) But in all fairness, I will just post the who video.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X2JPbQOHEkY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X2JPbQOHEkY&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Big E

Oct 28 2008, 03:21 PM

Hello, I am Aaron Michael Robichaux (38), my wife Kelly Daigle Robichaux (37), and my two beautiful kids, Gabriel (6) & Sydney (4) are wanting to announce the differences between the two candidates for PRESIDENT of theUNITED STATES of AMERICA. It is a very important election in 14 days and we feel it in our hearts to do this.

I am a business owner and employ between 8 to 12 workers. We do Lawn & Landscaping work in Louisiana. I have been in business for more than 5 years now, and we are doing pretty good. We both have college degrees and love our Country a great deal and WE BELEIVE this has to get out so everyone can make a sound decision on their own.

Here are the differences:

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON:

ISSUE
JOHN McCAIN
BARAK OBAMA

Favors new drilling offshore US
Yes
No

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
Yes
No

Served in the US Armed Forces
Yes
No

Amount of time served in the US Senate
22 YEARS
173 DAYS

Will institute a socialized national health care plan
No
Yes

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
No
Yes

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
No
Yes

Supports gun ownership rights
Yes
No

Supports homosexual marriage
No
Yes

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
No
Yes

Voted against making English the official language
No
Yes

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
No
Yes

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

McCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples).

McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales.

How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.

If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community,

28% of the money you make from your home sale will go to taxes.

This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on income from their homes as part of their retirement income.

DIVIDEND TAX

McCAIN
15% (no change)

OBAMA
39.6%

How will this affect you? If you have money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance,

retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will be paying nearly 40% of the money earned

on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would

crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'

INCOME TAX

McCAIN
(No changes)
Income Tax

Single, 30K $ 4,500
Single, 50K $12,500
Single, 75K $18,750
Married, 60K $ 9,000
Married, 75K $18,750
Married, 125K $31,250

OBAMA

(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single, 30K $ 8,400
Single, 50K $14,000
Single, 75K $23,250
Married, 60K $16,800
Married, 75K $21,000
Married, 125K $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

INHERITANCE TAX

McCAIN
- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA
Restore the inheritance tax
Many families lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations

because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will lose them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes more than 2,400 square feet.

New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)

New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)

New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....

New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

You can verify the above at following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_ob ama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

IT JUST SEEMS THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WANTS TO CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TO A SOCIALIST ONE (RE-DISTRUBUTION OF WEALTH) AND STRIP AWAY OUR FREE ENTERPRISE (CAPTIALIST) CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THIS IS A SCARY THING AND THAT IS WHY WE FEEL THE NEED TO SEND THIS.

IF YOU FEEL THIS INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT, PLEASE SEND IT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE...

THESE ARE THE FACTS, NO ATTACKS, BUT THE TRUTH...

I received this by email today looks a little old! I was woundering if anyone has seen any of this yet I am not sure this is totally true but thought I would put it out for discussion :D

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 03:48 PM

Pat does it again.

Obama's First 100 Days (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29227)

james_mccaine

Oct 28 2008, 03:50 PM

The first thing Obama should do if elected is to institute something like debate classes in our schools. Something to teach Americans critical thinking, discerning between facts and rhetoric, and a genuine committment to honest discussion.

The above paragraph is a response to the continuously stated idea that Obama is a socialist. First, people should learn what a socialist is, and if they are stupid enough to equate a progressive tax code with socialism, then they ought to at least have the courage to say "Obama is a socialist, McCain is a socialist and so is every freaking president in the recent past." The argument is idiotic blather. Are people too afraid to actually argue the merits, too dishonest, or too stupid?

bob

Oct 28 2008, 03:57 PM

too rooted in the dogma.

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 03:57 PM

and if they are stupid enough to equate a progressive tax code with socialism

yes, a progressive tax code is socialism, I guess I am stupid.

the Tax code has been much worse, we finally got it more reasonable and need to work to get rid of it, not make it worse.

james_mccaine

Oct 28 2008, 04:06 PM

Okay, if that is your understanding of socialism, why are you not also shouting that McCain is a socialist, as well as every other president in your lifetime? Why is Obama the only one who gets the socialist tag?

At least be true to your misguided understanding of socialism.

kkrasinski

Oct 28 2008, 05:04 PM

Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama&#8217;s Small Business Tax Hikes
Record Tax Hike on Small Businesses Will Kill Last Job-Creating Sector

WASHINGTON, DC&#8212; Americans for Tax Reform today released the following &#8220;top five&#8221; facts related to the Obama tax hike on small businesses:

1. Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year&#8212;the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*). Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America. This is the answer to the Obama campaign&#8217;s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small&#8212;the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike.
2. Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level. This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses&#8212;sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms
3. The tax rate on the lion&#8217;s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent. Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com))
4. This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office)
5. America&#8217;s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 42 million employees (Source: Census Bureau). When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.

&#8220;Obama&#8217;s tax increases will only affect you if you have a 401(k), have any savings, buy things from small businesses or are looking for a job,&#8221; said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. &#8220;If you fall into one of these categories, his policies will screw you. Otherwise, you&#8217;re fine.&#8221;

* &#8220;Small business profits&#8221; is equal to the net profits less net losses of sole proprietors, S-corporation shareholders, and partners. According to the IRS, two-thirds of these small business profits are earned in households with adjusted gross income (AGI) equal to or greater than $200,000. In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion (two-thirds) of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise tax rates on.

My god, man, I thought you were better than this.

Do you have any idea which of those "facts" are true, false, or misleading? Did the source of those "facts" cite any specific references? Do you cite any specific references? I'm not going to go through the "facts" one by one -- it's just not worth it. I will show you with just one example how ridiculous your post is.

"Fact" 4, 54.9% tax highest since Carter admin. The 54.9 is derived in "fact" 3 from a 39.6% marginal tax rate and a 15.3% combined OASDI and HI tax rate. But do they compare that 54.9% figure with other added tax rates? Let's see. Earlier I linked a table showing a marginal tax rate of 50% during most of the Reagan administration. Here (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html) are historical OASDI/HI rates. Notice that during 1984 for example that rate was 14% Let's see, 50% plus 14% = 64%, right? So, is 54.9% greater or less than 64%?

But are adding those numbers even valid? I know you are not tax expert as evidenced by your earlier misunderstanding of the most basic fundamental of marginal tax rates, but you ought to as least be able to answer this: Does someone in the (proposed) 39.6% bracket pay Social Security on any of their income above the 39.6% threshold? How 'bout on income above the threshold for the next lower bracket? NO! The maximum taxable income for Social Security is capped in 2009 at $106,800!!

Also, you're an employer so I expect you would know this. What is the current combined rates for OASDI and HI? Is it 2.9% as implied in your post? Or is it 7.65% for employers and employees or 15.3% for the self-employed?

Seriously, you should be embarrased to post something so obviously flawed.

kkrasinski

Oct 28 2008, 05:29 PM

I received this by email today looks a little old! I was woundering if anyone has seen any of this yet I am not sure this is totally true but thought I would put it out for discussion :D 

Yes, it's all true. Along with ...

Obama is a Muslim
Obama is a Terrorist
Obama is not really Black
Obama is an Arab
Obama hates America
...

(sigh)

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 05:35 PM

American for Tax Reform is a group I get emails from. I trust there facts on this issue.

Does someone in the (proposed) 39.6% bracket pay Social Security on any of their income above the 39.6% threshold? How 'bout on income above the threshold for the next lower bracket? NO! The maximum taxable income for Social Security is capped in 2009 at $106,800!!

Yes, you are correct, but you also need to realize that Obama wants to eliminate that cap

"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000, we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall." Obama, September '07

That took me all of 1 min to look up.

Now I sure wish I could make more than that $97,000 (which use to be lower in the 90's, I nearly hit it back then)

However, as I was talking to Mr. Jim yesterday, Obama would cost him over $33K in added taxes based on last years tax return. This comes from not only added Income taxes, but Payroll Taxes like Social Security taxes.

BTW, I have also seen where this summer Obama wants a "Doughnut plan" that will tax to $102,000 then not start taxing again till $250,000.

I am not fan of McCain BTW, he still does not have my vote, but at least I know he will not put me out of business like Obama will try.

No, Tax credits do not help those that don't pay taxes, so don't give me any of that. I have not made enough money to pay taxes for 9 years now.

However, if Obama does raise the SS Tax from 12.2 to 12.4, that would cost me money. Not only personally, but I have to pay that on all my employee's. (that comes out to over $1000 on the conservative side)

Now it is true I am no Tax Accountant. That is why I pay an Accountant to do my taxes for me for my personal and business paperwork.

I also realize the numbers I was using was not totally correct. I forget that the tax rate is for the amount above a certain amount. I have never used those tables and I forgot about them.

I will stand behind my statement that Obama will be bad for the US economy. (unless you like Socialism) McCain will only be a little better. Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin would be the best, but at best are only 5% of the national polls.

As a customer said to me just this weekend. "These days you vote for who will benefit you the most, you don't look at the big picture anymore, it is 'What can you do for me'"

This came from a 73 years old guy who I spent a good 15 min listening to him as his pizza was being made.

Teemac

Oct 28 2008, 05:52 PM

Yikes!!!!! Pat Buchanan's opinion is a bit over the top, but that is to be expected. The comments after the opinion are the scariest things I've read in a while. There's a lot of misinformation, anger, myopia, xenophobia and down right hate out there. It's truly troubling that people believe that Obama will somehow change our republic into a communist state if elected. John McCain should never have fed this these fears with talk of terrorist associations and the like. Very dismaying

pnkgtr

Oct 28 2008, 06:06 PM

If the middle class has more money to spend on your pizza you'll be fine. In a consumer based economy it's better for five 50K per year families to have more spending money than one family making 250K per year. To maintain a house they have to buy 5 times as much stuff. The trickle down thing just doesn't work unless it's new money. People that earned large sums of money are not crazy spenders. They got to the position they are in by being conservative with their money not by spending it like drunken rappers.

kkrasinski

Oct 28 2008, 06:11 PM

American for Tax Reform is a group I get emails from. I trust there facts on this issue.

There's your first mistake. Show me, where did they come up with the $403 billion and $706 billion? Those number are completely bogus.

Yes, you are correct, but you also need to realize that Obama wants to eliminate that cap

"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000, we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall." Obama, September '07

That took me all of 1 min to look up.

You should have taken another 30 seconds to read the sentences Obama wrote preceding that statement (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/09/21/opinion/opinion/doc46f35dac127eb409456532.txt): "I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax."

Obama has not proposed eliminating the cap. He has stated regarding Social Security that ALL options need to remain on the table. Fact checking Obama and Social Security (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/05/fact_check_on_clintons_false_a_1.php)

I have not made enough money to pay taxes for 9 years now.

And yet you benefit from dams and bridges built by the Army Corps of Engineers. You benefit from a strong military. You benefit from federal lands. I guess you're just the victim of socialism.

Pizza God

Oct 28 2008, 06:15 PM

I agree with Pat on nearly everything he writes.

I did not read this articles comments. Mostly it is just a bunch of arguing like here.

kkrasinski

Oct 28 2008, 07:56 PM

Teemac

Oct 28 2008, 09:42 PM

I agree with Pat on nearly everything he writes.

I did not read this articles comments. Mostly it is just a bunch of arguing like here.

Maybe you should read the comments before you dismiss them as just a bunch of arguing like here. The comments are not arguments. There are a disturbing collection of statements from people who have been misinformed by their idealogues to perpetuate the fear that keeps people like Pat in business.

qdbailey2

Oct 28 2008, 11:00 PM

Only Obama supporters are as smart as you. The rest of us are just stupid racist hicks who want to keep their hard earned money; instead of supporting every Tom Dick & Harry with their hand out. Careful that fall from your high horse might hurt.

pnkgtr

Oct 29 2008, 12:37 AM

Only Obama supporters are as smart as you. The rest of us are just stupid racist hicks who want to keep their hard earned money; instead of supporting every Tom Dick & Harry with their hand out. Careful that fall from your high horse might hurt.

It's not as though the Republicans are talking about abolishing the progressive tax system and the Democrats are talking about implementing it. The tax system where the the largest earners pay more has been with us since taxing began. Don't let McCain or his shills trick you into believing the Obama invented taxes. If it only comes down to taxes and not race with you, I would bet a vote for Obama would be in your future. As a mailman you'd get a tax break not an increase under Obama.

It costs more to insure an expensive car than a cheap one, is that fair in your world?

james_mccaine

Oct 29 2008, 10:11 AM

Only Obama supporters are as smart as you. The rest of us are just stupid racist hicks who want to keep their hard earned money; instead of supporting every Tom Dick & Harry with their hand out. Careful that fall from your high horse might hurt.

Assuming your income is <100K, is the FACT that you will pay less taxes under Obama lost on you?

I mean, I hear anger about Obama taking your hard earned money, but McCain will take more, yet your anger is directed at Obama: he is the one taking your money and giving it away to deadbeats. Where does this come from? Nothing about the policies that have been proposed by the candidates supports this conclusion, but it seems widely held. Kind of odd, imo.

High horses? What about a little honesty?

Pizza God

Oct 29 2008, 01:17 PM

neither Obama nor McCain are going to save us any money. One will save us money on what we spend it on, the other will save us money on what we make.

Truth is, Obama has to raise taxes or put us more into debt than McCain.

Neither is talking about cutting government. I mean really cutting government.

The candidate I would support would cut government first to the point they don't have to raise any taxes and balance the budget.

That is what i want.

Fact is, we have a Socialist leaning tax system that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. I know, I have been receiving EIC for several years now. Yet I would vote against it because it really does not help all that much (I used that check, plus my stimulus check to pay off debt)

I would rather think long term. My problem is not that my sales are down, it is that inflation has caused my costs to go up.

tbender

Oct 29 2008, 01:58 PM

Truth is, Obama has to raise taxes or put us more into debt than McCain.

Link please?

Analysis I've seen shows the opposite -- McCain increasing the debt more than Obama.

Pizza God

Oct 29 2008, 02:18 PM

You asked for it

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/inside-the-beltway-42417583/)
National Taxpayers Union (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141)

On the NTU web site, notice that of the 3 top presidential candidates, Only Bob Barr actually cuts government spending.

That is one of my problems with McCain. He is NOT a conservative Republican.

The tax I fear the most is the "Carbon Tax" - BOTH candidates like this idea.

jefferson

Oct 29 2008, 02:56 PM

Obama in REALeigh 2 hours ago, from my office building

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/juffman/obama.jpg

Pizza God

Oct 29 2008, 03:15 PM

[offensive material removed]

Pizza God

Oct 29 2008, 04:06 PM

If you live in the 4th district of North Carolina, there is a GREAT Republican running BJ Lawson

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pn1RSMMDMiY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pn1RSMMDMiY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Please help give David Price (who voted FOR the Bailout bill) his pink slip

http://kickthemallout.com/images/Misc/PinkSlip.jpg

CAMBAGGER

Oct 29 2008, 07:15 PM

[offensive material removed] 

These kind of posts will get us a phone call and a nice visit. :o

Pizza God

Oct 29 2008, 07:32 PM

I already know there is a file on me, not for a fact, but am sure there is one.

I am trying to justify to myself that Obama as president will not be the "End" of the World, it will just be a little worse.

I don't thing anyone would agree with 100% of everything a president does. I like a lot of what Bush said when he was running in 2000, but he did very little of it. (some was the opposite of what he has does is the exact opposite of his campaign)

I like Reagan, but he grew government regulations and government spending. He was not our greatest president.

I don't like Clinton, but respect the fact he ran the only balanced budget (with a Republican controlled house BTW) in the last 30+ years.

I did not like Bush Sr.

I don't remember any other president, not old enough.

qdbailey2

Oct 29 2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:
Only Obama supporters are as smart as you. The rest of us are just stupid racist hicks who want to keep their hard earned money; instead of supporting every Tom Dick & Harry with their hand out. Careful that fall from your high horse might hurt.

Assuming your income is <100K, is the FACT that you will pay less taxes under Obama lost on you?

I mean, I hear anger about Obama taking your hard earned money, but McCain will take more, yet your anger is directed at Obama: he is the one taking your money and giving it away to deadbeats. Where does this come from? Nothing about the policies that have been proposed by the candidates supports this conclusion, but it seems widely held. Kind of odd, imo.

High horses? What about a little honesty?

What fact are you talking about. The only fact I see is that whoever wins, I am going to be paying more tax not less. I base my opinion on how they have voted in the past not the BS they are saying to get elected. My sarcastic point was that Obama supporters can't stand anyone talking bad about their candidate; while at the same time calling McCain/Palin all sorts of things. And saying even worse about any who support them. Ex. Palin hanging in effigy in W. Hollywood is a "simple Halloween display", but same thing happens in Kentucky with an Obama effigy & "it's a hate crime & insult to our nation". Just latest example. There are more every day & its been going on since start.

" Honesty" ??? Am I a liar too; besides being a stupid, racist hick?
Just kidding, I'm sure you weren't inferring that. And yes I am a postal worker & make about half of that $100K & I have always fared worse when a Dem was President...but I mean to be fair that only includes Clinton, Carter, Johnson & Kennedy(he's 1st I remember being aware of). And speaking honestly; if the Democrats would have nominated an anywhere near moderate candidate, I might have voted for them. But Obama/Biden are 2 of the most liberal voting Senators today & we need someone near the middle at this time. Which leaves us with McCain. And 4 years ago the Dems all loved him; he was a man who could "reach across party lines & get things done". Now he's a "Bush Crony or a doddering old fool in Depends".

Whew. Wore myself out. Time to go clean ma shotgun & iron my white sheet.Then I got to study for my test or I 'll have to repeat 5th grade again.

Pizza God

Oct 29 2008, 11:05 PM

Technically, this one has no cuss words in it, but it may cross the line

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKUC-jpJ_kQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wKUC-jpJ_kQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

bob

Oct 29 2008, 11:53 PM

She's a fool, ask an alaskan.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/383843_alaska19.html?source=mypi

qdbailey2

Oct 30 2008, 12:10 AM

"She's a fool, ask an alaskan."

As I said above...

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 01:06 AM

I would not expect less from an Obama supporter

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 01:48 AM

[offensive material removed] 

These kind of posts will get us a phone call and a nice visit. :o

Didn't know it would be from the PDGA :o:p

pnkgtr

Oct 30 2008, 06:10 AM

Your Obama photo as a miniature.

Mini Obama (http://www.photoworks.com/servlet/GetThumb;jsessionid=209AE34434C3424ACF0114A328218F 02?588472175,600x800,0,0,0&cb=PW_APM&toh=&svr=web9 )

kkrasinski

Oct 30 2008, 08:51 AM

That Palin video is just plain stupid and unnecessary. Each candidate has an ample share of idiots in support.

kkrasinski

Oct 30 2008, 08:59 AM

On the lighter side...

Dear Red States:

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon , Washington , Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties. Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico
Peace out,
Blue States

(copied from another forum)

kkrasinski

Oct 30 2008, 09:14 AM

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 12:37 PM

p-katt

Oct 30 2008, 01:04 PM

Take a look at these candidates

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/athletics/passorcatch2008/

tbender

Oct 30 2008, 02:13 PM

Take a look at these candidates

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/athletics/passorcatch2008/

Now that's a ticket to support. :)

Crabtree is awesome. Not Calvin Johnson awesome, but awesome.

tbender

Oct 30 2008, 02:21 PM

Even Olbermann called out the Palin effigy as wrong. Please show me anyone other than the idiot creator who thinks otherwise.

McCain of 2000 and 2004 was a moderate. But he saw what happened to moderates in the Republican party -- the base destroys them. So, he moved to the base in 2008. The problem is, he didn't need the base to win - they'd eventually vote for him anyway. He needed the moderates this time around. His "Party first" shift killed his chances in a cycle that was clearly calling for a different strategy than the last 8 years.

tbender

Oct 30 2008, 02:44 PM

You asked for it

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/09/inside-the-beltway-42417583/)
National Taxpayers Union (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141)

On the NTU web site, notice that of the 3 top presidential candidates, Only Bob Barr actually cuts government spending.

That is one of my problems with McCain. He is NOT a conservative Republican.

The tax I fear the most is the "Carbon Tax" - BOTH candidates like this idea.

That I did.

Obama has almost 200 proposals (84 with costs)
McCain has 85 (34 with costs)
Barr has 19 (9 with costs)

Without seeing the monetary details, obviously Obama will lose this comparison right there.

I also notice that Bob Barr also thinks it's 1808, as do most Libertarians.

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 03:01 PM

That is not entirely the problem, the Conservative Right (not the Theo-Con's or Neo'Con's) are the grassroots of the Republican party. They are NOT happy about the leadership, but most don't want to break down the Republican party so they just blindly follow these people.

Why else would the party who championed "A humble Foriegn Policy" in 2000 would become the "bring Freedom to the World at the point of a gun" party.

It amazes me how many Republicans were and are against our actions in the Middle East, yet will still vote for McCain, who stands against a lot of there values.

But then again, when you compare McCain and Obama on there few differences, I can see why, if these were our only 2 choices, I would vote for McCain too, even though I only agree with him 50% of the time.

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 03:02 PM

I also notice that Bob Barr also thinks it's 1808, as do most Libertarians.

how do you figure that???

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 03:04 PM

Fired ACORN employee testifies (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20081030_Fired_ACORN_employee_testifies.html)

I only put this out there as information. Although I am no ACORN fan, they do occasionally do some good things. However, every election year, we hear how they try to register false information.

Maybe they should quit paying people based on these.

$2 for new voter registration, -$3 for every false one. That would also stop the practice.

tbender

Oct 30 2008, 04:03 PM

I also notice that Bob Barr also thinks it's 1808, as do most Libertarians.

how do you figure that???

They are applying a "small country, small government" line of thinking to a country has grown a wee bit since the Constitution was founded. Everything he wants to cut has developed from this growth.

We're not a united country if we have 50 different education policies or commerce regulatory bodies.

rollinghedge

Oct 30 2008, 05:36 PM

hahaha (http://www.centredaily.com/news/politics/story/933835.html)

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 06:07 PM

They are applying a "small country, small government" line of thinking to a country has grown a wee bit since the Constitution was founded. Everything he wants to cut has developed from this growth.

We're not a united country if we have 50 different education policies or commerce regulatory bodies.

I totally disagree, the government is suppose to regulate commerce between states and countries, that is not the question.

The problem starts when the Federal Government starts messing with states rights. This stuff has been going on for over 200 years.

Yes, there has always been a power struggle with the Federalist vs the Constructionist. However, neither camp would approve of what the Federal Government has become today.

If you believe in the American Dream, you believe in The Constitution. The Constitution is suppose to keep the Federal Government at bay. As I stated, for 200 years, the Constitution has been ignored from time to time. You can always argue sometimes it was for the best, but more often than not, you can argue it was the wrong thing to do.

It is the same reason our government was set up as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Remember Democracy is "mob rule"

What is important is for our Federal Government to protect Liberty, not take it away.

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 06:20 PM

50 different education policies

It is a lot more than that. Each ISD is suppose to set there own standards. That is why I live is the LISD instead of the CFBISD. I would have lived in the PISD if I could have afforded it.

Now in Texas, the ISD's are governed by the State. The state sets the standards. But thanks to Bush and the "No Child Left Behind" mess, all the teachers seem to do is teach how to test.

This is a result of the Federal Government regulating something the states should be in charge of.

You will never convince me that someone in Washington know better than someone in Austin, or that someone in Austin knows better than someone in my ISD, or someone at the ISD office knows better than someone in my son's school.

From the Texas Republican Platform

We respect and cherish the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our Founders� intent to restrict the power of the federal
government over the states and the people. We believe self-government, based on personal integrity of a proper moral foundation, is the best
government. This is best balanced with limited civil government, coupled with public trust, to provide collectively for the people those services
not efficiently achieved individually

U.S. Department of Education � The Federal Government has no constitutional jurisdiction over education. We call for abolition of the U. S.
Department of Education and prohibition of transfer of any of its functions to any other agency.
No Child Left Behind - The No Child Left Behind Act has been a massive failure and should be abolished.

james_mccaine

Oct 30 2008, 07:08 PM

You will never convince me that someone in Washington know better than someone in Austin, or that someone in Austin knows better than someone in my ISD, or someone at the ISD office knows better than someone in my son's school.

How much freedom should the ISDs have? What prevents the ISDs that don't care about education from not caring about education? The basic fact is that not all school districts in Texas would care about education unless they were forced to by the state, and not all states would care about education if they were not forced to by the feds. This dynamic plays itself out in so many issues.

Your libertariansism on this issue requires an individual responsibility or communal maturity that just doesn't exist in every locale. If it did, we wouldn't have pockets of the country, or swaths in some cases, where the public is poorly educated.

Pizza God

Oct 30 2008, 08:33 PM

Personal Responsibility - that is all I have to say.

qdbailey2

Oct 30 2008, 09:20 PM

"How much freedom should the ISDs have? What prevents the ISDs that don't care about education from not caring about education? The basic fact is that not all school districts in Texas would care about education unless they were forced to by the state, and not all states would care about education if they were not forced to by the feds. This dynamic plays itself out in so many issues.

Your libertariansism on this issue requires an individual responsibility or communal maturity that just doesn't exist in every locale. If it did, we wouldn't have pockets of the country, or swaths in some cases, where the public is poorly educated."

You mean like in Democrat dominated areas like Chicago or NYC or LA; these are some of the worst run schools in the country. Local politics benefit local citizens & a central system for all benefits no one. Texas tried that with the Robin Hood plan for school funding & it was a disaster.

qdbailey2

Oct 30 2008, 09:27 PM

I read this opinion today. Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Sorry for the length, but I figured only 1/2 would actually click on a link.

By David Kupelian
WorldNetDaily

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." � Abraham Lincoln

As Election Day rapidly approaches, many Americans are wondering why so many of their countrymen reject a genuine war hero with decades of experience, one whose pro-life, limited-government values pretty much reflect those of Middle America. Instead, these same countrymen are enthralled with a man who not only has no experience or qualifications for the job, but who is, in fact, the most radically left-wing major-party presidential candidate of our lifetime, having been mentored and supported for decades by terrorists (Ayers), communists (Davis), America-hating racists (Wright) and criminals (Rezko).

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

After all, in past presidential contests, Americans have flatly rejected ultraliberal candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis � and those guys weren't nearly as radicalized as Obama, who the nonpartisan National Journal rates as having the most left-wing voting record in the entire U.S. Senate � even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders! Moreover, recently it's been proven, despite his campaign's denials, that Obama was indeed a member of the socialist "New Party." And Obama himself confesses that during his college days he intentionally sought out Marxists as friends.

So, how do we explain all this? Why are so many of us eager to turn our nation, the greatest and noblest on earth, over to an angry-at-America, hardcore left-wing "change agent" who will � with the help of a like-minded, Democrat-dominated Congress and a liberal-activist federal judiciary � bring about radical "change" to every area of our lives? Just consider:

* Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, having announced publicly: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This would remove all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, making America the abortion capital of the world. Of course, you know what kind of Supreme Court justices he would nominate, which as I have pointed out previously would end all hope of overturning Roe v. Wade in our lifetimes.

* He's hands-down the most pro-homosexual candidate in history, promising to back virtually the entire radical "[censored] rights" agenda, including the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, essentially throwing open the door to [censored] marriage in all 50 states. And, as he proclaims in his "open letter to the LGBT community": "I have also called for us to repeal Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell." That will allow and encourage overt homosexuality throughout the armed forces, something military experts have long maintained will destroy the very fabric of America's armed services.

* Sounds bad for Judeo-Christian values, you say? Dr. James Dobson's influential Focus on the Family organization analyzed issue after issue and predicts � are you ready for this? � "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" as the fate of Christians if Obama becomes president.

(Column continues below)

* Obama "would be the most anti-gun president in American history," warns the National Rifle Association, which points out that he has supported a complete ban on handguns, voted to ban most rifle ammunition, and supported increasing the tax on guns by 500 percent.

* Obama would devastate an already deeply troubled U.S. economy. Jacking up taxes, as he promises to do, during the worst financial crisis and credit meltdown since the Great Depression is breathtakingly foolish. No wonder three out of four CEOs of American companies say Obama would be a disaster. Apparently Obama, who constantly badmouths "CEOs" and "corporations," doesn't realize it is these very companies that create over 120 million of America's 140 million jobs (the rest being created by government).

* In order to throttle the troublesome talk radio truth-tellers who caused him so much trouble during the election season, and to reward his cheerleaders in the elite press, Obama will attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by resurrecting the horrendous "Fairness Doctrine."

* Obama alone will be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory in Iraq. He is so weak, inexperienced and narcissistic, he will reflexively appease our nation's enemies and thereby encourage the growth of evil the world over. Millions will suffer as a direct result.

Then there's the issue of Obama's truly disturbing past. It seems that no matter how stunning the revelations � some of which are finally emerging, no thanks to a shockingly irresponsible and infantile "mainstream press" � they don't penetrate the public mind. Regardless of the evidence against him, people remain entranced by Obama:

* Amidst ever-growing evidence of vote fraud in multiple states perpetrated by ACORN � the notorious left-wing group with which Obama, despite his public statements, has long and deep ties � the Obama campaign's lawyers are now arguing that the Justice Department should not investigate any vote fraud claims until after the election. Instead, say Obama's attorneys, Justice should investigate those citizens who have brought to light the evidence of voter fraud, for supposedly trying to intimidate poor people into not voting. And no wonder: Thirteen of Obama's own campaign workers in Ohio have confessed to have fraudulently voted in that crucial swing state.

* Despite repeated indignant denials by the candidate and his campaign, Barack Obama was once a Muslim. If you question that fact as just a nasty "Internet rumor," examine for yourself Obama's registration papers to the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia, reproduced here by the Associated Press, which clearly indicate his religion at the time as "Islam." Much more troubling are the radical Islamist ties he maintains today, as respected Islam expert Daniel Pipes documents. Even rabid anti-Semite and leader of the radical Nation of Islam group, Louis Farrakhan, says "the Messiah is absolutely speaking" through Obama.

* Which brings us to his most troubling association of all: Obama sat in the church pews for 20 years listening to and absorbing the anti-American, racist, hate-filled sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who claims, among his other lunatic rants, that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks and deliberately created AIDS in order to commit genocide against black people. Wright's rage-filled preaching of "black liberation theology" � an anti-American, anti-White, Marxist philosophy disguised as Christianity � filled Obama's mind and soul for two decades, and they have unquestionably influenced his worldview.

Sitting at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for two decades and being filled each week with such venom against America and white people can fairly be called a form of brainwashing. If you doubt this statement, try spending 30-60 minutes on YouTube and just listen to random video clips of Wright's "sermons." Then, imagine swallowing this poisonous concoction, in person, every week for 20 years. It would be transformative.
*

One can go on and on, it's dizzying: Obama worked closely � for years � with William Ayers, a criminal and domestic terrorist who once bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings; there's absolutely compelling evidence � including independent scientific forensic analysis � showing that Ayers wrote all or part of Obama's best selling book "Dreams from My Father"; Obama received crucial funding and other financial benefits from notorious convicted Chicago criminal Tony Rezko; the Obama campaign refuses to produce a simple birth certificate to dispel persistent claims in multiple lawsuits that question the candidate's constitutional qualifications to be U.S. president � it goes on and on, and yet inexplicably, none of it seems to penetrate the minds of those entranced with Obama.

So again, the question: Why, despite a mountain of evidence utterly proving his profound unworthiness to be president, do so many millions of Americans worship Barack Obama? Let's take a closer look.

The magic of envy

In recent decades, more and more Americans have been conditioned by politicians to depend on government to solve their problems. This is how demagogues have long operated. They demonize "the rich," implying they obtained their wealth by exploiting the downtrodden; they stir up racial hatreds at every opportunity; they endlessly bash business and CEOs as evil exploiters; they promise "social justice" and universal happiness if only we will elevate them to power over us.

They do all this by appealing to anger and envy. They know instinctively that if they can stir up and ignite these dark, addictive passions in all of us, they will create a large voting bloc of people dependent on them, and thus be rewarded with great power. In its purest form, this phenomenon is called Marxism, communism, socialism � the spiritual core of which is raw envy. This philosophy of cradle-to-grave security and "wealth redistribution" exerts a powerfully seductive grip on people who have not discovered true inner "government." As William Penn famously said, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Communism, of course, is atheistic � where the government is the only true god, the giver of blessings, the solver of problems, the dispenser of justice and mercy. This envy-based, class-warfare-fueled revolutionary system talks always of justice, fairness, progress � but the only progress it delivers is from freedom to slavery.

This is the appeal more and more Americans have been conditioned over the years to respond to, as we have progressively fallen away from the Judeo-Christian values that once animated our culture and institutions. The envy-based system Marx unleashed on the world is alive and well, and in different forms it still dominates large parts of the world. In America, it has taken root in the Democrat Party. Ronald Reagan may have destroyed the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, but you cannot destroy evil itself. Evil remains, and continues to do its job of tempting and, if possible, corrupting the souls of men.

Even the encouragement of immorality � free sex, abortion, homosexuality, easy divorce and so on � is all part and parcel of the socialist modus operandi, because immoral, dysfunctional people who have crossed the moral line and thus become estranged from God now need the "god" of socialist government.

All of this, my friends, is what we're poised to elect as president in the person of Barack Obama.

This has been coming for quite awhile. Americans, many of us anyway, have become increasingly corrupted over the years. We've been conditioned by our leaders into voting for lying, unprincipled, seductive candidates. We almost elected certified wacko Al Gore as president � someone who seriously wants to outlaw the internal combustion engine. Then we almost elected John Kerry � a super-ambitious, unprincipled and thoroughly unlikable man who first achieved notoriety by betraying his Vietnam soldier colleagues, scandalously maligning them as baby-killers before Congress and the nation.

Now, we're very close to electing an even worse candidate � and the reasons for this tell us much about ourselves.

The power of guilt

If you've ever studied disasters like the explosion of the Challenger Space Shuttle or the sinking of the Titanic, you'll find there was not just one reason, but a whole series of factors that seemingly conspired to cause the catastrophe.

One of the "aiding and abetting" factors in the current election is the fact that Obama is black. Let's talk about race.

Americans � even though slavery and segregation are long gone from the national scene � still have a large and understandable reservoir of collective guilt over its past exploitation and mistreatment of blacks.

Guilt is a fantastically powerful factor in all of our lives. It is a very uncomfortable, nagging pain in our conscience, this thing we call guilt. When we're guilty we try to relieve this inner conflict, and this is often a good thing. If we're guilty toward God, for instance, then we naturally want to make up for that guilt by finding reconciliation and obedience to Him. If we've wronged our neighbor and our conscience bothers us, that guilt is the valuable, redeeming factor that prods us to apologize and make restitution if appropriate. Without being able to experience a guilty conscience, we'd all be amoral psychopaths � literally oblivious to whether or not we had done anything wrong.

However, there's another side to guilt. Manipulative and unprincipled humans soon discover how to use our guilt to get their way. They can even make us feel guilty when we haven't done anything wrong � for instance, by way of false accusation, a tactic the left has perfected.

Now, Barack Obama obviously is not to blame for being black � or more to the point, for how people feel about him because of his race. But the fact is, his being black pushes the guilt button in most of us and we simply see him differently than we would if he were white. (Imagine voting for a white guy with such flimsy credentials and ominous associations.) With white voters in particular, there is a strong urge to finally move beyond our collective guilt over slavery and to prove, once and for all, that we're not a nation beset by racism � by electing a black president.

It's not an exaggeration to call this guilt-induced way of looking at Obama, this conditioned attitude, a type of trance. We hold him to a different standard, we see and feel differently about him, than we would if he were white. We have a kindliness, a desire for his success, a form of love and admiration and well-wishing toward Obama, all based on guilt. But love based on guilt is not real love. It's just an unconscious attempt to rid ourselves of guilt. Shelby Steele, author of "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," puts it this way: "[Americans] struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with."

Yet this guilt phenomenon is also why craven race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still command media respect as "black leaders." We see them through the "white guilt trance," part of which means we're really afraid of being regarded as racists, so we don't criticize these men for their blatant serial demagoguery. Likewise with Obama, there is a great deal of hesitancy to criticize him out of fear of being thought a racist.

You might respond to this by saying: But I don't have any guilt over slavery or segregation. Fine, but it gets much subtler than that.

Did you ever get angry at your kids � and then find yourself "being nice" to them to make up for the guilt of having been impatient? With that in mind, consider just one of many ways guilt (in this case, racial guilt) can find its way into you: Let's say you're walking down the street and a group of black men are walking toward you, and you become fearful (very similar to the story Obama famously told about his white grandmother). That fear has a little resentment attached to it, for that's the nature of fear. But when you become resentful for any reason at all, you automatically incur guilt, because resentment is a wrong, failing way for mature human beings to respond to the stresses of life. Now, saddled with this new guilt associated with black people, a compulsion rises up from within you to make up for that guilt � which you do by discovering a mysterious affinity for black people that wasn't there before. But that "love" isn't real love � it's all rooted in guilt and resentment (just like when you got impatient with your kids, then suddenly became "nice" to them to compensate for your anger). Although my example here centers on race, this guilt principle is universal. Indeed, guilt-based false love is the basis of the ubiquitous "love-hate relationship" that so vexes the human race; hate easily turns into false love, to make up for the guilt of hating. Do you get it?

It's subtle, but this is exactly the kind of dynamic that leads to self-destructive relationships � from personal relationships to electing tyrants.

The Obama News Network

A third factor, shaped powerfully by both the secular love of government and the white guilt factor just discussed, is the incomprehensibly unprofessional way the news media have behaved during the 2008 election.

In my estimation, we basically don't have a free press in America any more, other than the "New Media" � that is, talk radio, the Internet and some cable TV. Most of the rest of the establishment media have pretty much committed suicide this year.

Get David Kupelian's best-selling expos�, "The Marketing of Evil," autographed, from WorldNetDaily.

Just imagine that radical activist groups like the ACLU or the strident abortion outfit NARAL decided to start up their own "news organizations," complete with broadcast "anchor people," "reporters" and "correspondents," as well as newspapers and news websites and so on � and with a straight face they called their output "news." Everybody would laugh. Why? Because, while it would have the familiar form of news, it would of course just have the substance of their radical propaganda. No one would take it seriously.

This is exactly what we have in the so-called "mainstream press" today. The New York Times and NBC News, for example, are not true news organizations any more. They've become political and cultural activist organizations pretending to do news. And after having dropped all pretense at fairness this year, everyone knows it. This is why they're more concerned about Joe the plumber's tax bill than about the election being stolen by ACORN � because the elite media have become nothing more nor less than the propaganda ministry and attack dogs for Barack Obama.

Obama, the Manchurian candidate

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others � most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on � all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

Yet, as I have documented previously, John McCain rendered more genuine service to his country each and every day of those five-and-a-half years he endured in a North Vietnamese prison than Barack Obama has in his entire life.

In "The Manchurian Candidate," several war heroes came back to America from abroad. But one of them harbored a dark agenda, lying in wait, secretly, until it could emerge and transform America.

America has a choice Tuesday between a genuine war hero and a genuine Manchurian candidate.

Choose well.

douglasraymond

Oct 30 2008, 11:13 PM

Thank you for the article.

AviarX

Oct 30 2008, 11:25 PM

Obama is intelligent, young, has vision and represents the best of what America is all about.

McCain in 2000 would have been good; we are now 8 years into the new century and need a leader who looks forward not backward. McCain isn't even computer saavy. Plus, he flip-flopped from being a Bush basher to becoming a Bush arse-kisser just to get the Republican nomination.

Obama wants to lead; McCain wants fame and power and it has changed him from being a great Senator to being just another politician. Anyone who would choose Palin as VP is showing they can't make good executive decisions.

Vote for Obama and celebrate the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth in style this January with the inauguration of Barak Obama as your President -- clearly the more intelligent and forward-thinking of the two candidates.

ask yourself this -- who would you rather get as your partner in a random draw doubles event?

AviarX

Oct 30 2008, 11:31 PM

On the lighter side...

Dear Red States:

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon , Washington , Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties. Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico
Peace out,
Blue States

(copied from another forum)

in the email i received the Intro to this was that *if* -- the Neo-Con backed Red states steal this election like they did the last two -- *then* we Blue states are leaving ;)

alirette

Oct 30 2008, 11:53 PM

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g75/albertlirette/sarah-palin-convent_801171f.jpg

gnduke

Oct 31 2008, 12:05 AM

who would you rather get as your partner in a random draw doubles event?

Palin

AviarX

Oct 31 2008, 12:09 AM

there are plenty of lady disc golfers who make her pale in comparison ;-)

pnkgtr

Oct 31 2008, 01:25 AM

Bailey your post should read-

A full page of lies. That would be libelous if it was about anyone other than a presidential candidate. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such a load of manure from an illegitimate online news site that is less wholesome than most porn sites. I know the right doesn't actually believe that junk they just hope that there are enough stupid people out there that will believe it and vote accordingly.

sschumacher

Oct 31 2008, 09:45 AM

who would you rather get as your partner in a random draw doubles event?

Palin

Forget Palin. :p

I would rather have Tina Fay. :)

gotcha

Oct 31 2008, 10:16 AM

Anyone who would choose Palin as VP is showing they can't make good executive decisions.

Serving as Mayor of Wasilla and as Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) has shown more fiscal responsibility than the majority of idiots we continue to elect and reelect each election cycle. Federal spending is out of control and both sides of the aisle are to blame. Though one may not agree with Palin's political positions, this great country could benefit from like-minded politicians who truly care about how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent.

sschumacher

Oct 31 2008, 10:29 AM

Palin's political positions,

Which position are you talking about? Missionary or doggie style? :)

Teemac

Oct 31 2008, 10:29 AM

I but I figured only 1/2 would actually click on a link.

.

A link would have been perfect! Saves space and time. :D

james_mccaine

Oct 31 2008, 10:36 AM

Uh, is this even true? Didn't the budget of Wasilla dramatically increase under her reign? Don't they have debt now, that they didn't before her arrival?

She is apparently a darling to some that can do no wrong, regardless of the facts.

The hard-earned tax dollars she cares about so much? You mean the ones used for per diems while she stays at her house, you mean the ones she uses to take her family on state business to stay at luxary hotels, all those hard -earned dollars?

Does anyone actually care about facts anymore? I mean it appears that people doggedly follow who they identify with, regardless of the truth.

sschumacher

Oct 31 2008, 10:41 AM

I don't understand why she didn't list "being able to see Canada from her door step" as part of her foreign policy. :confused:

Is it possible that one reason she got elected Gov is because Alaska's population is some thing like 80% male?

It's called "Skin to Win" baby!!!!! :D

gotcha

Oct 31 2008, 10:53 AM

Uh, is this even true? Didn't the budget of Wasilla dramatically increase under her reign? Don't they have debt now, that they didn't before her arrival?

She is apparently a darling to some that can do no wrong, regardless of the facts.

The hard-earned tax dollars she cares about so much? You mean the ones used for per diems while she stays at her house, you mean the ones she uses to take her family on state business to stay at luxary hotels, all those hard -earned dollars?

Does anyone actually care about facts anymore? I mean it appears that people doggedly follow who they identify with, regardless of the truth.

Budget, spending, and federal funds
Governor Palin signed a record $6.6 billion operating budget into law.[88] At the same time, she used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the construction budget in state history. The $237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the construction budget to $1.6 billion.[89] In 2008, Palin vetoed $286 million, cutting or reducing funding for 350 projects from the FY09 capital budget.[90]

Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet, a purchase made by the Murkowski administration for $2.7 million in 2005 against the wishes of the legislature.[91] In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay, but the sale fell through, and the plane was later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm.[92]

Expense reimbursements
Palin lives in Juneau during the legislative session and lives in Wasilla and works out of offices in Anchorage the rest of the year. Since the office in Anchorage is far from Juneau, while she works there, state officials say she is legally entitled to a $58 per diem travel allowance, which she has taken (a total of $16,951), and to reimbursement for hotels, which she has not, choosing instead to drive about 50 miles to her home in Wasilla.[93] She also chose not to use the former governor's private chef.[94] In response to criticism for taking the per diem, and for $43,490 in travel expenses for the times her family accompanied her on state business, the governor's staffers said that these practices were in line with state policy, that Palin's gubernatorial expenses are 80% below those of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski,[95] and that "many of the hundreds of invitations Palin receives include requests for her to bring her family, placing the definition of 'state business' with the party extending the invitation."[93]

Federal funding
In her State of the State Address on January 17, 2008, Palin declared that the people of Alaska "can and must continue to develop our economy, because we cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government [funding]."[96] Alaska's federal congressional representatives cut back on pork-barrel project requests during Palin's time as governor; despite this, in 2008 Alaska was still the largest per-capita recipient of federal earmarks, requesting nearly $750 million in special federal spending over a period of two years.[97]

While there is no sales tax or income tax in Alaska, state revenues doubled to $10 billion in 2008, For the 2009 budget, Palin gave a list of 31 proposed federal earmarks or requests for funding, totaling $197 million, to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.[98] Palin�s decreasing support for federal funding has been a leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation; Palin has requested less in federal funding each year than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year.[99]

mikeP

Oct 31 2008, 10:57 AM

I'm offering my trick'or'treaters double the candy if they bring me a neighborhood "McCain/Palin" yard sign. :D

james_mccaine

Oct 31 2008, 11:00 AM

You mean like in Democrat dominated areas like Chicago or NYC or LA; these are some of the worst run schools in the country. Local politics benefit local citizens & a central system for all benefits no one. Texas tried that with the Robin Hood plan for school funding & it was a disaster.

I suspect your claim about the schools in the big cities being bad (or worse) is just conjecture on your part. Just go to some rural areas in Texas and I bet you find underforming and uneducated students.

Not even using test score stats, just use the important fact: where do businesses that require an educated workforce locate? This is the sad result of this thinking. Pockets of this country have fallen into a hole, largely of their own making, fueled by mindset that knowledge and education is what those unamerican liberals care about. Real americans don't need education, and will look down on those who value it.

In some sense, Bryan and you are correct, it is about personal responsibility and that is exactly why we have areas with virtually no education system. Y'all are apparently OK with that and consider non-solutions such as "personal responsibility" and "let the locals decide" as just fine and dandy. I see that as equivalent to saying "let's just continue to let those areas rot while we feel comfortable in our ideological blanket."

gotcha

Oct 31 2008, 11:11 AM

Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.

GLENN BECK...what do the top 10 cities with the highest poverty have in common?...Democrat leadership.

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961; (47 years)

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954; (54 years)

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)... since 1984; (24 years)

Cleveland, OH (4th)... since 1989; (19 years)

Miami, FL (5th) has NEVER had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th).... since 1949; (59 years)

El Paso, TX (7th) has NEVER had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)... since 1908; (100 years)

Philadelphia, PA (9th)... since 1952; (56 years)

Newark, NJ (10th)... since 1907. (101 years)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/

james_mccaine

Oct 31 2008, 11:17 AM

Well, you are only referring to her governorship, which is a totally different animal. Alaska is like Russia: awash in oil money. So much so, that she took it from the oil companies to give to the citizens. Usually, this bothers conservatives, unless their darling lady is doing it. Anyways, when you are awash in oil money, have very little population to service, have traditionally received tons of federal pork, it is easy to look like a fiscal conservative. But like the bridge to nowhere, her fiscal responsibility is a function more of happenstance rather than intention.

As to expenses, you made a claim about her watching out after our hard earned dollars. Well, just because an expense is allowed by Alaskan law, doesn't mean it is "responsible." I hardly equate taking the family on trips, and staying at expensive hotels as "watching out after my hard earned money," whether it is legal or not.

Pizza God

Oct 31 2008, 11:23 AM

I'm offering my trick'or'treaters double the candy if they bring me a neighborhood "McCain/Palin" yard sign. :D

BTW, that is against the law :o

Pizza God

Oct 31 2008, 11:31 AM

Now I have not researched for facts on Gov Palin's expenses as governor.

But I would be willing to bet they are not out of line of what every Governor does across the country.

Except in Alaska, everything is spread out and you can't simply drive around to each town. That was one of the reasons the previous Governor purchased the private Jet.

They also used that jet to take prisoners to New Mexico (or was it Arizona) I have not seen a cost analysis, but I imagine it cost about the same as flying commercial.

For me, the jury is still out on Palin.

Listing to most of the attacks on her is no different that a lot of the attacks on Obama. I take most of them with a grain of salt.

That is why I base my opinion of someone based on what they say and do instead of what others say they did. (it is called spin)

gotcha

Oct 31 2008, 11:32 AM

I'm offering my trick'or'treaters double the candy if they bring me a neighborhood "McCain/Palin" yard sign. :D

BTW, that is against the law :o

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/yardsign.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/?action=view&current=yardsign.jpg)

Alacrity

Oct 31 2008, 11:37 AM

I suspect your claim about the schools in the big cities being bad (or worse) is just conjecture on your part. Just go to some rural areas in Texas and I bet you find underforming and uneducated students.

Not even using test score stats, just use the important fact: where do businesses that require an educated workforce locate? This is the sad result of this thinking. Pockets of this country have fallen into a hole, largely of their own making, fueled by mindset that knowledge and education is what those unamerican liberals care about. Real americans don't need education, and will look down on those who value it.

Not arguing, just questioning, but drop out rates are higher in cities than they are in rural areas. I could not find any info on standardized test scores though, so I cannot tell you if they are higher or lower city versus rural. I believe they are higher in rural areas which tend to be more conservative than liberal, but that is just my belief based on a short study. As for why manufacturers pick populated areas it is for several reasons:

- Transportation is generally better in cities
- Number of educated workers is larger, but not because the schools are better. More because cities tend to have a larger population and generally include colleges.
- Goods are more readily available in cities because of other manufacturers

As for areas being in holes I agree completely and it is happening in big cities and in rural areas. I don't think it is because conservative think education is the liberals kingdom. The reason why I say this is because my mother is a teacher and she is pretty progressive and conservative at the same time. She has told me that many conservative thinking teachers are pushed out of the cities because they don't think the same as liberal base of admin and teachers. Her take is that a lot of conservative minded teachers move to rural areas because there are more like minded individuals. Once again I do not know this to be fact, just what my mother has said to me over the years.

Back to their being holes in cities and rural areas, I see that we have an increasing population of students and yet the education budgets are either shrinking or not growing at the same pace. I guess I will be painted as a democrat on this one, but we simply are not spending enough money to educate our kids. On the other hand I think we should spend less on drop outs.

bob

Oct 31 2008, 11:48 AM

I'm offering my trick'or'treaters double the candy if they bring me a neighborhood "McCain/Palin" yard sign. :D

BTW, that is against the law :o

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/yardsign.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket (http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/?action=view�t=yardsign.jpg)

Gonna shoot some kids?

sschumacher

Oct 31 2008, 11:55 AM

I'm offering my trick'or'treaters double the candy if they bring me a neighborhood "McCain/Palin" yard sign. :D

That's funny. :).....I tried getting an Obama/Biden yard sign in Oklahoma but they all came with bullet holes in them. :confused:

james_mccaine

Oct 31 2008, 11:57 AM

I suspect you and I have some agreement on this: there are places in this country, in big cities, in the sticks and places in between where people just don't value education, and thus, the kids are not educated.

If we choose to acknowledge this fact, we are faced with an issue: what do we do? Bryan, in tune with his rigid ideology basically says "nothing, it is their personal responsibility." Darrell says that education is best when it is adminstered locally. He may be right, but I don't see his belief as a rebuttal to my original question. If education is best administered locally, why do we have these pockets of decay? Is that the best they can do? Apparently, there must be a kick in the [censored] from someone up high for some areas to even care about education, much less administer it properly.

the_kid

Oct 31 2008, 12:30 PM

Obama is intelligent, young, has vision and represents the best of what America is all about. That is your opinion but many disagree 

McCain in 2000 would have been good; we are now 8 years into the new century and need a leader who looks forward not backward. McCain isn't even computer saavy. Neither was Roosevelt (ask Biden) Plus, he flip-flopped from being a Bush basher to becoming a Bush arse-kisser just to get the Republican nomination. And Obama hasn't switched on anything since the primaries? 

Obama wants to lead; McCain wants fame and power and it has changed him from being a great Senator to being just another politician. Anyone who would choose Palin as VP is showing they can't make good executive decisions. So choosing Biden makes you a genius?

Vote for Obama and celebrate the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth in style this January with the inauguration of Barak Obama as your President -- clearly the more intelligent and forward-thinking of the two candidates. Who has the support of many youngsters who don't even pay attention to what is going on and just want CHANGE. They can't tell me one thing he stands for yet they are voting for him. Unfortunately they will vote for our Senators and Congresspeople as well. 

ask yourself this -- who would you rather get as your partner in a random draw doubles event?

Yet she has actually had to take responsibility for her decisions while in office while the other three can forget about thier decision once they vote since there are 99 others making the decision along with them.

McCain was the Dems favorite Republican up until he actualy won the nomination and now he is Bush in disguise.

Like I said if he gets within 3-4pts McCain will win.

Alacrity

Oct 31 2008, 12:52 PM

I am not sure what the answer is, but we have kids in temporary buildings, because the schools have been unable to keep up with the growth. We have teachers with way to many students, because there is either no other place to put them or not enough money to hire more teachers. Teachers give very little out of class work anymore, because with the number of students they cannot grade all the work they would generate. It is funny, but the best schools tend to be private schools, which pay more to the teachers, limit the class room sizes and teachers expect the students to perform. Throwing money at the problem is not an answer, but putting no money in is creating a whole 'nother set of problems.

I personnally think standardized tests does not work because the teachers spend part of the year teaching the test not teaching how to solve. There are reported cases of whole schools "stealing tests" and teaching them because schools with higher ratings get more money. Does that make since? The schools that need more attention get less money?

This is an added edit:

But the problem is not just the "government". A good bit of the problem is parents using schools as baby sitting agencies. Lots of parents, city and rural don't back the teachers they back the students. Don't get me wrong, if you have a child in public school and you watch their work, help and get involved, you will find teachers that do not do the right thing, however, lots of parents don't take the time to find the person in error, they just defend their kids right or wrong. So here is where more money won't help. Parents MUST be involved.

james_mccaine

Oct 31 2008, 01:22 PM

Matt, you make me laugh.

I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking Obama, but to deny his intelligence is out of step with the public at large. The guy is so much smarter than McCain, not to mention Palin, who basically has zip for intelligence. Most of the public realizes this also. Once the public finally saw him in the debates, it became apparent. They might distrust him, for whatever reasons; they might think he is a tax and spend liberal, but the majority of the public is fully aware of the relative mental capabilities of Obama and McCain. You would be much better off sticking to critiques of philosophy and policies.

You don't get into Harvard law without being able to process a lot of information in a critical way. You don't become a leader of the review without having interpersonal intelligence. The guy is one of the smartest politicians of my lifetime. I suspect if they released IQ tests of politicians, he would be top 5%.

Regarding Biden, seems like a no-brainer to me and apparently to the public at large. Polls consistently show that the Biden choice is considered far superior to the Palin choice. Like I said right after he picked that lightwieght hatemonger, she will bring him down, and she is very capable in that respect. So, you might argue that picking her was some stroke of genius, but like I said, the public wholeheartedly disagrees. Playing to the hatemongers is out of style at the moment.

Alacrity

Oct 31 2008, 01:25 PM

John,

I have to agree Obama is intelligent, but to say McCain is not is to confuse public speaking ability and chrisma with intelligance. Obama may have a higher IQ, I don't know.

james_mccaine

Oct 31 2008, 01:34 PM

John

How dare you ;)

As to McCain, I used to agree with you. Watching him closely this campaign, I realize his spot near the bottom of the Naval class wasn't about all about the partying.

kkrasinski

Oct 31 2008, 03:13 PM

kkrasinski

Oct 31 2008, 03:19 PM

Personal Responsibility - that is all I have to say.

So the eight year old inner city kid of the unwed alcoholic mother is responsible for his own education? Of course you don't mean this. It's the mother's responsibility. Even so, it's the child, and eventually society, that pays.

It's in your own best interest that your neighbor's child is well educated.

Alacrity

Oct 31 2008, 03:30 PM

John

How dare you ;)

Whoops, sorry. Typed faster than I thought.

mikeP

Oct 31 2008, 03:52 PM

I am not sure what the answer is, but we have kids in temporary buildings, because the schools have been unable to keep up with the growth. We have teachers with way to many students, because there is either no other place to put them or not enough money to hire more teachers. Teachers give very little out of class work anymore, because with the number of students they cannot grade all the work they would generate. It is funny, but the best schools tend to be private schools, which pay more to the teachers, limit the class room sizes and teachers expect the students to perform. Throwing money at the problem is not an answer, but putting no money in is creating a whole 'nother set of problems.

I personnally think standardized tests does not work because the teachers spend part of the year teaching the test not teaching how to solve. There are reported cases of whole schools "stealing tests" and teaching them because schools with higher ratings get more money. Does that make since? The schools that need more attention get less money?

This is an added edit:

But the problem is not just the "government". A good bit of the problem is parents using schools as baby sitting agencies. Lots of parents, city and rural don't back the teachers they back the students. Don't get me wrong, if you have a child in public school and you watch their work, help and get involved, you will find teachers that do not do the right thing, however, lots of parents don't take the time to find the person in error, they just defend their kids right or wrong. So here is where more money won't help. Parents MUST be involved.

Wow. Are you a teacher? I am and you voice my point of view just about 100%. This issue is what my vote hinges on more than all this other hoopla. I saw McCain give lip service to vouchers and privatization in 1 debate and that is ALL he has said about education. Basically let public schools fall into babysitting the unplanned children of the underpriviledged while the rest of society puts their kids in private schools and turn their backs on the poor. It may not sound like segregation in theory, but let it play out and the statistics will not lie. Sounds republican to me...I like Obama's response to being called a socialist--that McCain is basically taking pride in fighting for the virtue of selfishness.

Pizza God

Oct 31 2008, 04:09 PM

I am not sure what the answer is, but we have kids in temporary buildings, because the schools have been unable to keep up with the growth. We have teachers with way to many students, because there is either no other place to put them or not enough money to hire more teachers. Teachers give very little out of class work anymore, because with the number of students they cannot grade all the work they would generate. It is funny, but the best schools tend to be private schools, which pay more to the teachers, limit the class room sizes and teachers expect the students to perform. Throwing money at the problem is not an answer, but putting no money in is creating a whole 'nother set of problems.

I personnally think standardized tests does not work because the teachers spend part of the year teaching the test not teaching how to solve. There are reported cases of whole schools "stealing tests" and teaching them because schools with higher ratings get more money. Does that make since? The schools that need more attention get less money?

This is an added edit:

But the problem is not just the "government". A good bit of the problem is parents using schools as baby sitting agencies. Lots of parents, city and rural don't back the teachers they back the students. Don't get me wrong, if you have a child in public school and you watch their work, help and get involved, you will find teachers that do not do the right thing, however, lots of parents don't take the time to find the person in error, they just defend their kids right or wrong. So here is where more money won't help. Parents MUST be involved.

I could not say this better myself.

As far as that inner city student, it is his responsibility to get an education, along with his parents. If he doesn't, you can't blame the system, you can only blame the kid, if he does not want to learn, he wont. If he does want to learn, he will.

I see this with my own kids. If we didn't push him to get good grades and do his homework, he wouldn't. I can't force him to learn, that is up to him. (BTW, he lost use of his computer because he fell off the A Honor roll for the first time ever) He got one of those grades up from the 80's to 120 (lots of extra credit)

kkrasinski

Oct 31 2008, 04:16 PM

As far as that inner city student, it is his responsibility to get an education, along with his parents. If he doesn't, you can't blame the system, you can only blame the kid, if he does not want to learn, he wont. If he does want to learn, he will.

Wow.

kkrasinski

Oct 31 2008, 04:56 PM

Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html)

"Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

'If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,' Palin told host Chris Plante, 'then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.'"

Pizza God

Oct 31 2008, 06:50 PM

cool, a vote for Obama means we don't have to worry about putting gas in our car or paying our mortgage, I have just changed my vote :D
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/381gFG4Crr8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/381gFG4Crr8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Pizza God

Oct 31 2008, 07:01 PM

Pat does it again, another good article.

Comrade Obama? (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29302)

AviarX

Oct 31 2008, 11:31 PM

Anyone who would choose Palin as VP is showing they can't make good executive decisions.

Serving as Mayor of Wasilla and as Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) has shown more fiscal responsibility than the majority of idiots we continue to elect and reelect each election cycle. Federal spending is out of control and both sides of the aisle are to blame. Though one may not agree with Palin's political positions, this great country could benefit from like-minded politicians who truly care about how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent.

Palin and McCain want to give millionaires tax cuts while the rest of us foot the bill.

friends don't let friends vote Republican.

btw, the majority of well-educated people vote liberal and those uneducated on the issues overwhelmingly vote Republican. The Neo-Cons ran up huge deficits while controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. They have also depleted our military on stupid wars which have strengthened our enemies. both of those actions have greatly weakened our national security. waiving a flag doesn't change that fact.

todays conservative ideas were deemed liberal and radical decades ago. and history keeps repeating itself. we need vision and leadership and Obama is clearly the best choice available.

AviarX

Oct 31 2008, 11:48 PM

'If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,' Palin told host Chris Plante, 'then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.'"

apparently Palin and her supporters need to read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. the First Ammendment protects the media from the government; not vice versa ;)

Palin and McCain and the Rush Limbaugh lovers are attacking Obama based on his past associations because they can't attack Obama's character, vision and intelligence. When it comes to who better understands the world and who would hold the steadiest hand on our nation's proverbial rudder, Americans saw in the debates that Obama is the leader and that is why he jumped ahead in the polls after the debates were over. That, and they also have seen by watching Palin perform in the spotlight for the past several weeks that Palin was and is a poor choice as a Vice President (and that she also isn't nearly as attractive as Tina Fey). :D

qdbailey2

Nov 01 2008, 09:35 PM

friends don't let friends vote Republican.

btw, the majority of well-educated people vote liberal and those uneducated on the issues overwhelmingly vote Republican. The Neo-Cons ran up huge deficits while controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. They have also depleted our military on stupid wars which have strengthened our enemies. both of those actions have greatly weakened our national security. waiving a flag doesn't change that fact.

todays conservative ideas were deemed liberal and radical decades ago. and history keeps repeating itself. we need vision and leadership and Obama is clearly the best choice available.

[/QUOTE]

You must get your facts from MSNBC. Or is that from one of those pamphlets than Soros financed. Maybe you should clean your glasses too; because I'm not too sure about the clarity of your vision. :D

Pizza God

Nov 01 2008, 10:50 PM

Pizza God

Nov 01 2008, 11:11 PM

btw, the majority of well-educated people vote liberal and those uneducated on the issues overwhelmingly vote Republican. Interesting, I have found that to be the opposite. Yes, there are educated people who vote liberal, but most that I have met vote conservative. The Neo-Cons ran up huge deficits while controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. This I can not deny, the Neo-Cons are NOT conservative. They are liberal. We are working on throwing them out. They have also depleted our military on stupid wars which have strengthened our enemies. both of those actions have greatly weakened our national security. waiving a flag doesn't change that fact. Yes, the Neo-con's believe we should police the world. True Conservatives don't believe in a humble Foreign Policy. I have met a lot of Republican who are NOT happy with the Neo-Cons

todays conservative ideas were deemed liberal and radical decades ago. and history keeps repeating itself. we need vision and leadership and Obama is clearly the best choice available.

Obama is a Marxist/Socialist
McCain is a Neo-Con (don't you dare call him Conservative.)
Bob Barr is a Classic Conservative
Chuck Baldwin is a Classic Conservative

Both Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin are the two best choices. That is no question. Shoot Ralph Nader is a better choice than Obama or McCain.

Pizza God

Nov 02 2008, 12:30 AM

Has the Obama campaign kicked anyone off the plane who's company endorsed Obama??

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tvCA3RD9h54&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tvCA3RD9h54&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

3 major newspapers kicked off the plane, who got to stay on is really the question.

Pizza God

Nov 02 2008, 12:30 PM

kkrasinski

Nov 02 2008, 01:50 PM

Obama is a Marxist/Socialist

If you truly understand these labels you are applying, then you believe that Obama supports government ownership and administration of U.S. means of production. What evidence can you show that supports your view that Obama wants to nationalize U.S. businesses? Or are you perhaps misusing the terms?

AviarX

Nov 02 2008, 06:21 PM

Obama is a Marxist/Socialist

If you truly understand these labels you are applying, then you believe that Obama supports government ownership and administration of U.S. means of production. What evidence can you show that supports your view that Obama wants to nationalize U.S. businesses? Or are you perhaps misusing the terms?

a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on -- MARK TWAIN

they can't compete against Obama fairly -- Obama clearly won all three debates -- so they make up lies and slander.
Rush Limbaugh and the other right wing nuts have made a living off of mischaracterizing the position taken by liberals.
Obama wants to quit giving huge tax cuts to the very wealthy (oil companies for example) because it amounts to corporate welfare. Conservativism has been hijacked by right wing Neo-Con nuts like Limbaugh who promote stealing from the poor and giving to the rich while camouflaging the whole shebang under the cover of false rhetoric about tax cuts, guns, morals, big government, [censored]-marriage, and marxist liberals. the sad thing is that all too often Joe six-pack falls for all that BS. But this time they've ran us so far off-course that i think even Joe six-pack realizes he has been being taken for the past eight years.

edited note: moderators, why is "[ghay]" marriage auto-censored?

Pizza God

Nov 02 2008, 07:06 PM

Obama is a Marxist/Socialist

If you truly understand these labels you are applying, then you believe that Obama supports government ownership and administration of U.S. means of production. What evidence can you show that supports your view that Obama wants to nationalize U.S. businesses? Or are you perhaps misusing the terms?

$700 BILLION + bailout of Wall Street to begin with.

JHBlader86

Nov 03 2008, 11:28 AM

Did anyone not watch The Colbert Report last week when they had the actual socialist candidate for pres. on? Even he said Obama was a capitalist!

sschumacher

Nov 03 2008, 11:56 AM

Obama is a Marxist/Socialist

If you truly understand these labels you are applying, then you believe that Obama supports government ownership and administration of U.S. means of production. What evidence can you show that supports your view that Obama wants to nationalize U.S. businesses? Or are you perhaps misusing the terms?

$700 BILLION + bailout of Wall Street to begin with.

Are you really going to sit there and blame blame Wall Street all on the Democrats? I think both sides really have an equal blame.

gotcha

Nov 03 2008, 12:31 PM

139th Place (out of 172) (http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm)

the_kid

Nov 03 2008, 12:59 PM

Matt, you make me laugh.

I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking Obama, but to deny his intelligence is out of step with the public at large. When did I question his intellegence? The guy is so much smarter than McCain, not to mention Palin, who basically has zip for intelligence. Most of the public realizes this also. Once the public finally saw him in the debates, it became apparent. They might distrust him, for whatever reasons; they might think he is a tax and spend liberal, but the majority of the public is fully aware of the relative mental capabilities of Obama and McCain. You would be much better off sticking to critiques of philosophy and policies.

You don't get into Harvard law without being able to process a lot of information in a critical way. Or by haveing a few key people get you in. You don't become a leader of the review without having interpersonal intelligence. The guy is one of the smartest politicians of my lifetime. I suspect if they released IQ tests of politicians, he would be top 5%.

Regarding Biden, seems like a no-brainer to me and apparently to the public at large. Polls consistently show that the Biden choice is considered far superior to the Palin choice. Why? Because he voted for the war? Then voted against funding and the surge? Obama should have picked someone who wasn't at such odds on the Iraq issue but its not like any of the networks talk about how he voted or the War in Iraq anyway. Like I said right after he picked that lightwieght hatemonger, she will bring him down, and she is very capable in that respect. So, you might argue that picking her was some stroke of genius, but like I said, the public wholeheartedly disagrees. Playing to the hatemongers is out of style at the moment.

Obama's Booster shot on wednesday did enough IMO to coast him through the election. Too bad he broke a promise on finance reform which was mainly supported by DEMS. Too bad he says that energy prices under his cap and trade plan will "necessarily skyrocket". Too bad he said he will Tax coal plants so heavily that many will go bankrupt. I don't care what he says he isn't for Clean coal like he claims to now be and he also will NOT do anything to help us build more Nuclear plants.

Obama wins because he passes the message of change on and says that America is going to change. I'm sorry but I happen to enjoy this country we live in and sometimes he talks about all the wrongs we do as a country and how we need to fix it VS how great a country we are and how we can make it better.

Anyone know why Obama "CHANGED" his slogan from change we can believe in to change we need?

They knew if they had to believe Barack he might CHANGE his mind in a month or two like he has on many of the issues throughout this campaign.

playtowin

Nov 03 2008, 07:40 PM

CBS Campaign Travel Expenditure:

Obama/Biden $1.2 Million

McCain/Palin $220,000

Fox News Campaign Travel Expenditure:

Obama/Biden $496,000

McCain/Palin $313,000

kkrasinski

Nov 03 2008, 08:45 PM

Media spends double on Obama travel (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15154.html)

From above linked article:

"The gulf in spending is in part due to Obama's charging the press more to cover higher overhead costs, and the campaigns' divergent accounting techniques -- and also to Obama's protracted battle for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Clinton, which dominated media attention for four months after McCain had sewn up the GOP nomination.

Journalists also accompanied Obama on a costly trip to Europe and the Middle East, and Obama and Biden routinely hold more events than McCain and Palin, meaning more travel."

qdbailey2

Nov 03 2008, 09:08 PM

From WND:
A long-time Democratic speechwriter who claims to have written for both Barack and Michelle Obama has announced she is leaving the Democratic Party and endorsing John McCain for president.

Wendy Button, a frequent columnist for the Huffington Post, where she is credited with writing speeches for Democratic Sens. John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John Kerry and for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, made the announcement in a blog post called "So Long, Democrats" on The Daily Beast.

Button's reasons for defecting from the Democrats include false campaign slogans, poor economic policy and her admission that McCain was right about the surge in Iraq; but her argument begins with outrage over the way the Obama campaign attacked two women and a common man � Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber � the kind of people she thought the Democratic Party championed.

"I can no longer justify what this party has done and can't dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics," Button writes.
She says "the final straw" came when Democrats attacked and mocked Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) for balking at a tax hike during difficult economic times.

"The party I believed in wouldn't look down on working people under any circumstance," Button writes. "And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations."

Button further railed on Democratic fiscal policy, stating, "Our approach to problems � big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies � is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?

"That's not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat," she concludes.

Button takes exception in her article to the way her former party has mocked McCain's age, used Palin's wardrobe to score political points and portrayed the Republican VP candidate as stupid.

Button writes of Palin, "When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper." She even praises Palin for her determination and humility, despite stating she disagrees with the governor on social issues.

"Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008," Button writes. "It's not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.'"
Hello & Welcome Wendy

AviarX

Nov 03 2008, 10:06 PM

Cheney's Hometown Paper Endorses Obama

November 03, 2008 1:42 PM

With less than 24 hours before the polls open, Vice President Dick Cheney's hometown newspaper in Casper, Wyoming endorsed Sen Barack Obama for president.

"It is a foregone conclusion that Wyoming's three electoral votes will go to Sen. John McCain," the Casper Star-Tribune Editorial Board wrote. "It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president. But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one."

The Editorial Board attacked Sen. McCain's vice presidential pick saying, "McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, however, shows extremely poor judgment" adding, "She has shown repeatedly that she is simply not ready to fill McCain's shoes."

Commending Obama's advisers and recent endorsements, The Star-Tribune cited Warren Buffett and retired Gen. Colin Powell by name. "Obama's advisers are extremely capable leaders," the Board wrote.

"It's good to know that he turns to the likes of Warren Buffett for financial matters and retired Gen. Colin Powell on military issues. With his emphasis on diplomacy along with a commitment to protecting America, Obama gives us our best hope of regaining the respect of other nations."

Cheney stumped for Republican congressional candidates on Saturday in Laramie, Wyoming reiterating his own endorsement for the McCain/Palin ticket. "I believe the right leader for this moment in history is Senator John McCain," Cheney said as the crowd cheered. "I�m delighted to support John McCain, and I�m pleased that he has chosen a running mate with executive talent, toughness, and common sense: our next Vice President, Governor Sarah Palin."

Hours later, democrats pounced on Cheney's words using them in an attack ad to show the difference between McCain and Obama's endorsements

Obama also took the opportunity to once again link McCain to the Bush administration.

"Earlier today Dick Cheney came out of undisclosed location and he hit the campaign trail and he said that he is and I quote, 'delighted to support John McCain,'" Obama told a crowd in Colorado on Saturday. "So I would like to congratulate Sen. McCain on this endorsement. Because he really earned it. That endorsement didn�t come easy

Sen. McCain had to vote with George bush 90 percent of the time and agree with Dick Cheney to get it."

The McCain campaign immediately responded likening Obama to Cheney.

"Barack Obama and Dick Cheney aren't just cousins, they�ve shared support for the Bush energy policy and the out-of-control spending that John McCain has fought to oppose," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

sandalman

Nov 03 2008, 11:26 PM

Shoot Ralph Nader

-pizza god, 11.1.08
hey za, thats a bit overboard isnt it? :D

AviarX

Nov 03 2008, 11:35 PM

Obama is a Marxist/Socialist

If you truly understand these labels you are applying, then you believe that Obama supports government ownership and administration of U.S. means of production. What evidence can you show that supports your view that Obama wants to nationalize U.S. businesses? Or are you perhaps misusing the terms?

$700 BILLION + bailout of Wall Street to begin with.

McCain supported that too, and McCain was one of the Keating 5 -- pretty scary, huh?

From Wikipedia: The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

AviarX

Nov 03 2008, 11:50 PM

gnduke

Nov 03 2008, 11:53 PM

Accused and acquitted of any wrong doing if you care to read the results of the investigation.

From Wikipedia:
The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.

He owned up to his error in judgment and has worked to stay clean since (I'm guessing on this because the left had to go back to '89 to find this).

From Wikipedia:
Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life". Glenn has described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.

AviarX

Nov 04 2008, 12:22 AM

he took money from Keating and then participated in a meeting with 4 other Senators who had taken money to try to get the regulatory heat off Keating's bank. he wasn't acquitted of wrongdoing; he just didn't get convicted of breaking the law.

he would not have confessed it was the worst mistake of his life if he had done nothing wrong

CAMBAGGER

Nov 04 2008, 10:27 AM

Buddy of mine goes to Applebees to grab some dinner last week. As he goes in, he sees a bum standing out front asking for change. He passes the bum up, goes inside and enjoys his meal. At the end of his meal, the waiter brings him the bill. He notices that the waiter has on an "Vote for Obama" pin. Deciding to teach the young man a lesson, he signs the bill, then asks the waiter to come over for a second. He then tells the waiter that he did an excellent job, kept their drinks full, got their food when it was hot, and in a timely manner...but, on his way into the restaurant he saw a man that needed money more then he did. So he told the waiter he would leave his tip to the bum standing outside. He got up, left the building and handed $10 to the bum and told him it was from the nice waiter inside. I hope that made the waiter think about things for a minute.
Unfortunately, if Obama wins, I think it will be a much tougher lesson for America. :p

gotcha

Nov 04 2008, 10:42 AM

A young man named Lyle was about to finish his first year of college. Like so many others his age, he considered himself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

He was deeply ashamed that his father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling he openly expressed. Based on the lectures that he had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, he felt that his father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day he was challenging his father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by his professors had to be the truth and he indicated so to his father.

He responded by asking how he was doing in school.

Taken aback, Lyle answered rather haughtily that he had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that he was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left him no time to go out and party like other people he knew.

His father listened then asked, 'How is your friend Jerry doing?'

He replied, 'Jerry is barely getting by. All he takes are easy classes, he never studies, and he barely has a 2.0 GPA. He is so popular on campus; college for him is a blast. He's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times he doesn't even show up for classes because he's too hung over.'

His father asked him, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Jerry, who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

Lyle, visibly shocked by his father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea. How would that be fair? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work. Jerry has done next to nothing toward his degree. He played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

^ ^ ^ The above quote was posted by Cent earlier this year. :)

mikeP

Nov 04 2008, 10:49 AM

I am not sure what the answer is, but we have kids in temporary buildings, because the schools have been unable to keep up with the growth. We have teachers with way to many students, because there is either no other place to put them or not enough money to hire more teachers. Teachers give very little out of class work anymore, because with the number of students they cannot grade all the work they would generate. It is funny, but the best schools tend to be private schools, which pay more to the teachers, limit the class room sizes and teachers expect the students to perform. Throwing money at the problem is not an answer, but putting no money in is creating a whole 'nother set of problems.

I personnally think standardized tests does not work because the teachers spend part of the year teaching the test not teaching how to solve. There are reported cases of whole schools "stealing tests" and teaching them because schools with higher ratings get more money. Does that make since? The schools that need more attention get less money?

This is an added edit:

But the problem is not just the "government". A good bit of the problem is parents using schools as baby sitting agencies. Lots of parents, city and rural don't back the teachers they back the students. Don't get me wrong, if you have a child in public school and you watch their work, help and get involved, you will find teachers that do not do the right thing, however, lots of parents don't take the time to find the person in error, they just defend their kids right or wrong. So here is where more money won't help. Parents MUST be involved.

I could not say this better myself.

As far as that inner city student, it is his responsibility to get an education, along with his parents. If he doesn't, you can't blame the system, you can only blame the kid, if he does not want to learn, he wont. If he does want to learn, he will.

I see this with my own kids. If we didn't push him to get good grades and do his homework, he wouldn't. I can't force him to learn, that is up to him. (BTW, he lost use of his computer because he fell off the A Honor roll for the first time ever) He got one of those grades up from the 80's to 120 (lots of extra credit)

Do you see the contradiction in your statement--your son won't learn if he doesn't want to, yet he also won't learn unless you "push" him or exact consequences when he fails to make decisions to your standard? This is good parenting, so give yourself some credit here. Truth is kids are not equipped to make decisions about what they need learn. If you presented even the best 13 year old with the decision to play video games and eat candy with friends or to go to school each day, with absolutely no coaching, even the best kids would make the wrong decision again and again. The smarter of them would find all kinds of ways to justify their decision to play, and amoung this peer group few would dissent. Immediate consequences are much more motivating to kids than long term ones. This is why we are not resposible for ourselves legally until we are 18 (which is still an age decided on by society rather than scientists which suggest the brain is not fully formed for rational decision making until at least the age of 25).

So you are raising your son, supervising his behavior, helping him to learn the right lessons from his experience, and ensuring that he does not make decisions that will haunt him for the rest of his life. I'm glad that your son will likely be successful. Not that I'm bursting with altruism here...if your son is successful then he will contribute to society in a positive manner--behaviorally he will likely use his upbringing as a reference when raising his own family. Morally he will probably choose a legit way of making money so he will probably not end up in jail where society would have to support him. Financially he will be secure, paying taxes while not needing govt services. Do you see where I'm going?

I work in the public schools where a good number of kids have few or none of the advantages that you have been able to PROVIDE to your child. These provisions are moral, behavioral, and financial. And I don't think that we should support poor kids because I'm feeling white guilt or any of that mumbo jumbo. We need to support and educate the low end of the SES curve because it is the best chance we have at avoiding supporting them for the rest of their lives through jail, public programs, criminal activity, and loss of tax revenue. Do you really think that a 13 year old boy from the ghetto whose mom is addicted to drugs and on gov't assistance and whose dad is in prison for selling drugs is responsible for himself? It is amazing that great teachers can take a handful of these students and get them on the positive side of the ledger, but much more needs to be done.

james_mccaine

Nov 04 2008, 10:53 AM

Y'all eat these little fables up. Wise old conservative explaining the real world to naive Obama supporter. It's not about socialism, or redistribution; it's about fiscal responsibility. I wonder if the wise man also told the waiter how his ilk didn't have the balls to act in a responsible manner and have left a gigantic bill to the waiter's future.

There is hypocrisy to the core of the conservative movement. On paper, they believe in fiscal responsibility, but in practice, they can't seem to pull it off. They talk about cutting spending, but they apparently don't have the courage or the votes to do so. Maybe they should practice fiscal responsibility by raising taxes. Of course they won't, because they never actually believed in fiscal responsibility, they only believe in the no tax side of the equation.

It is a little tiresome to be lectured by the folks who, while they were in complete control, have run our financial house into the ground.

mikeP

Nov 04 2008, 10:57 AM

What I find funny is that most of the Republicans crying "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth" actually tell themselves that they believe in the spirit of Jesus Christ and his teachings. So I ask as an Atheist, who would Jesus vote for?

circle_2

Nov 04 2008, 11:09 AM

An old POW with his shaky finger near the button?
I don't think so.

CAMBAGGER

Nov 04 2008, 11:12 AM

What I find funny is that most of the Republicans crying "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth" actually tell themselves that they believe in the spirit of Jesus Christ and his teachings. So I ask as an Atheist, who would Jesus vote for?

If Jesus were here, there would be no vote because he would be King. ;)

What we have for choices are poor at best.

sschumacher

Nov 04 2008, 12:24 PM

Well Cam, if you hadn't "inhaled" back in high school maybe you could have ran for president.

I've got 50 cents for ya in 2012. :)

Teemac

Nov 04 2008, 12:45 PM

Soon - Very soon!

sandalman

Nov 04 2008, 12:53 PM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/2984013435_64619d352f.jpg?v=0

mannyd_928

Nov 04 2008, 02:40 PM

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=357563&altf=Ebwf&altl=Evojqbdf

mikeP

Nov 04 2008, 03:42 PM

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=357563&altf=Ebwf&altl=Evojqbdf

I got a kick out of this. :D

jamie

Nov 04 2008, 03:53 PM

hilarious

CAMBAGGER

Nov 04 2008, 04:31 PM

Well Cam, if you hadn't "inhaled" back in high school maybe you could have ran for president.

I've got 50 cents for ya in 2012. :)

I did inhale in HS and have several times since then, I guess that counts me out. I do have the military experience though :D

Pizza God

Nov 04 2008, 04:43 PM

Shoot Ralph Nader

-pizza god, 11.1.08
hey za, thats a bit overboard isnt it? :D

Filthy Feet, you trying to get me banned????? :D If referring to the angle and picture was a nice shot got me a warning, that misquote may get me banned.

JerryChesterson

Nov 04 2008, 05:16 PM

Its over ... Dan Rather has just called the election in favor of McCain. Of course we saw what happend last time :D

dryhistory

Nov 04 2008, 05:40 PM

What I find funny is that most of the Republicans crying "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth" actually tell themselves that they believe in the spirit of Jesus Christ and his teachings. So I ask as an Atheist, who would Jesus vote for?

Jesus wouldnt vote for anyone because state power is violence, and for that matter he wouldnt be a capitalist either. Maybe he would enlighten us and we would throw off the shackles and think a little more spiritually instead of materially about life. hmmm

Pizza God

Nov 04 2008, 07:20 PM

oh yea, that will help our economy........ NOT

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SMwBbl6RoIs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SMwBbl6RoIs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Pizza God

Nov 04 2008, 07:22 PM

Our Hero and savior of the world is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VcRZz_HQ5Mw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VcRZz_HQ5Mw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

aaahh, Congressman Rangel, arn't you setting the bar just a little hight??? :D

Pizza God

Nov 04 2008, 07:31 PM

I have a feeling that Obama is going to win in a Reagan type fashion.

But that is ok, it will give me something to write about for the next 4 years and point out how much worse our country is going to get if he gets all of his policies though.

then you may see a true r3VOLution in 2012.

Obama will not be a two term president. When his followers realize he will not do everything he said and will not "save" us, they will turn there back on him.

I only hope this country is not to far gone at that point.

xterramatt

Nov 04 2008, 11:00 PM

prediction: Obama 350+ Electoral Votes.

prediction: McCain retires.

prediction: Pizza God continues to grasp at straws.

Pizza God

Nov 04 2008, 11:39 PM

wow, it is a lot closer than I realized it would be, Obama would have lost if the Republicans put a good candidate out there.

Jeff_LaG

Nov 04 2008, 11:51 PM

prediction: Obama 350+ Electoral Votes.

prediction: McCain retires.

prediction: Pizza God continues to grasp at straws.

I'm pretty sure that at least one of those predictions will come true for sure. :D

Pizza God

Nov 04 2008, 11:59 PM

prediction: Pizza God continues to grasp at straws.

Someone has to do it. :D

AviarX

Nov 05 2008, 12:46 AM

looks like we'll celebrate Lincoln's 200th birthday with with an African American President. kind of poetic.

I hope the liberal bashers out there realize America is a pretty liberal place and that's one of the things that makes it so special ;)

i'm sure Rush Limbaugh won't be able to shut up

Pizza God

Nov 05 2008, 01:03 AM

Obama only won by 3.7% of the vote (as of 11pm CST)

considering a lot of Republicans didn't vote for McCain, I don't consider that much of a win. (But it is a win)

Pizza God

Nov 05 2008, 01:04 AM

looks like we'll celebrate Lincoln's 200th birthday with with an African American President. kind of poetic.

What, in the way that Lincoln may be one of our most Racist presidents????

JHBlader86

Nov 05 2008, 01:22 AM

looks like we'll celebrate Lincoln's 200th birthday with with an African American President. kind of poetic.

I hope the liberal bashers out there realize America is a pretty liberal place and that's one of the things that makes it so special ;)

i'm sure Rush Limbaugh won't be able to shut up

America is more of center to the right country, but Republicans have failed the country so horribly these past eight years that the majority sent a message by electing Democrats.

Do not make the mistakes that Pelosi, and Reid did in thinking that America became a leftist country when they elected Democrats into power.

billmh

Nov 05 2008, 01:33 AM

Might people of all sentiments on this Message Board take the example's of McCain's graciousness in his concession speech and apply it in our own discourse.

We might also note that such was spoken with a fair bit higher stakes than most of what passes for our topical matter.

pnkgtr

Nov 05 2008, 01:46 AM

What a great day today has been!

gotcha

Nov 05 2008, 07:44 AM

i'm sure Rush Limbaugh won't be able to shut up

When has Limbaugh ever shut up? :D

august

Nov 05 2008, 08:40 AM

wow, it is a lot closer than I realized it would be, Obama would have lost if the Republicans put a good candidate out there.

They did put a good candidate out there. The one they should have put out there in 2000. Unfortunately, the Republicans put a borderline moron in the White House who did 8 years of uncontrolled damage not only to their party, but also to this country and its reputation. That being the case, I don't believe there is anyone they could have nominated who could succeed against the backlash from the hatred this country feels for Geo. W. Bush.

Bottom line is that though times are not good here in America, we haven't completely gone down the drain with W - the worst president in living memory - and so, I do not buy the argument that Obama will complete the task of sending us down the drain and into the sewer. Yes, he may end up being a one-termer like Carter. One never knows. But he couldn't possibly be worse than W.

md21954

Nov 05 2008, 08:48 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

kkrasinski

Nov 05 2008, 09:22 AM

This day has dawned just a bit brighter than yesterday.

gotcha

Nov 05 2008, 10:17 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Thanks for posting this link.....a good opinion piece by JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO (Wall Street Journal).

"The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

"Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House."

dryhistory

Nov 05 2008, 10:23 AM

Obama only won by 3.7% of the vote (as of 11pm CST)

considering a lot of Republicans didn't vote for McCain, I don't consider that much of a win. (But it is a win)

US PRESIDENT

NATIONWIDE US PRES NATIONWIDE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRECINCTS REPORTING:
178913
Of
187040
95%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winner
Candidate
Incumbent
Votes
Vote %

*
BARACK OBAMA

62,436,451
52%

JOHN MCCAIN

55,379,371
46%

OTHERS

1,525,857
1%

That looks like 6% to me sir.

mikeP

Nov 05 2008, 10:48 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House."[/i]

The only shameful display of arrogance and weakness has been the way BUSH made us look to the rest of the World, not the other way around. They are partying in the streets in Europe right now b/c they have a new respect for an America that voted Barack Obama as president. Wait, I think I hear the world's smallest violin playing for W...

james_mccaine

Nov 05 2008, 10:53 AM

The author might want to consider the word "responsibility." Whining about the treatment of a man who had the whole country behind him after 9/11 and abused his "responsibility" to the nation is extremely bad form. He chose his fate, not the public.

Regarding McCain's speech, it reminded me why I used to think so highly of him. Truly country first and non-partisan. One of his finest moments. The line about "We are americans, and no association means more than that" was as close as "I am sorry" as one will get. It was very encouraging, as was Obama's speech later. Maybe civility aint dead.

august

Nov 05 2008, 11:16 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Thanks for posting this link.....a good opinion piece by JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO (Wall Street Journal).

"The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

"Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House."

This is equine feces. The audacity of this guy to suggest that we should simply ignore the transgressions of Geo. W. Bush and give him lemming-like support. Balderdash! I say throw him in the brig along with Cheney and Rove. Their rogue, brash incompetence has brought this country great disgrace.

Teemac

Nov 05 2008, 11:32 AM

While the brig door is open why not chuck in Gonzales, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld too! :mad:

tbender

Nov 05 2008, 11:45 AM

This day has dawned just a bit brighter than yesterday.

You know, I thought about that too this morning.

Obama may fail. He's got big ideas and a bigger mess to clean up. But given the way he organized and ran his campaign, I wouldn't bet against him.

august

Nov 05 2008, 12:07 PM

While the brig door is open why not chuck in Gonzales, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld too! :mad:

Yes, indeed, why not? In the least, Gonzales and Ashcroft should have their bar licenses revoked for feeding W a bunch of BS legal theories which he was too stupid to know were not valid. And Rumsfeld - what a pompous patootie!

It still makes me wonder about this country that W will never be impeached for what he has done, yet Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job.

The truth is that while these guys won't go to jail, they do have the rest of their lives to live out and I personally, if in their shoes, would be worried about some kook who would do me harm.

twoputtok

Nov 05 2008, 12:09 PM

Thats what Obama should be worrying about.

sschumacher

Nov 05 2008, 12:13 PM

Wow Dave. That almost sounds like a threat. :(

Do you really want the secret service checking into your activities? :confused:

twoputtok

Nov 05 2008, 12:15 PM

No threats, just an opinion. There are plenty of crazys out there.

tbender

Nov 05 2008, 12:15 PM

From a 538.com poster:

The error in the right's view of this election is that Obama supporters view him as a messiah. "He" is not a messiah but his message of rejecting fear, hate and ignorance based politics IS messianic. We voted for the message and a return to sanity. We don't expect Obama to perform miracles. We know the hole that's already been dug. All we expect is a return to intelligence, rationality and civility. I am certain that Obama can deliver that.

tbender

Nov 05 2008, 12:21 PM

No threats, just an opinion. There are plenty of crazys out there.

And may God have mercy on whatever is left of the soul of the crazie who tries something. Because the mortals won't.

sschumacher

Nov 05 2008, 12:30 PM

No threats, just an opinion. There are plenty of crazys out there.

You don't know how many Oklahoma DG'er's I heard this weekend share your same opinion. At a charity event for the United way of all things. :(

So much for peace, love, & Disc Golf.

Timothy McViegh sure taught everyone in Oklahoma about crazy and hating government.

Thanks for helping to pump up the crazies still out there looking for their 15 minutes of fame or some misguided sense of purpose in life. :p

Pizza God

Nov 05 2008, 03:59 PM

Obama only won by 3.7% of the vote (as of 11pm CST)

That looks like 6% to me sir.

Give me a break, that was at 11pm, none of the west coast states were included in those numbers.

Even 6% is less than I expected. I expected double digits.
_________________________________________________

As far as I am concerned, I will not attack Obama unless he does something I don't agree with, then YES you will hear from me.

I did the same thing with Bush. I would have done the same thing with McCain or Barr too.

So as of right now, I have NO problem with Obama as President. (well, president elect)

I do fear some of his policies will hurt the USA, but he has not attempted to pass them yet.

playtowin

Nov 06 2008, 12:59 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Thanks for posting that. Seven years, zero attacks. Thank God for a president who at least "got it" when it comes to protecting us. To acknowledge that Bush accomplished something that amazing must be hard for those who are willfully ignorant of those who wish harm on us. To do so doesn't mean you are endorsing his entire presidency! Neither does acknowledging the many other things he's faced in 8 years.

Despite his many failures, they will never be able to take away the fact that he comanded our troops in a way that protected us. But to point that fact out seems too much for some to handle.

What will they say IF we are attacked during an Obama presidency, "Bush didn't do enough to protect us after his presidency?"

playtowin

Nov 06 2008, 01:07 AM

Obama: "My Cabinet Would Be Bipartisan"

His first pick: Rahm Emanuel!!!

Pizza God

Nov 06 2008, 01:12 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Thanks for posting that. Seven years, zero attacks. Thank God for a president who at least "got it" when it comes to protecting us. To acknowledge that Bush accomplished something that amazing must be hard for those who are willfully ignorant of those who wish harm to us. To do so doesn't mean you are endorsing his entire presidency! Neither does acknowledging the many other things he's faced in 8 years.

Despite his many failures, they will never be able to take away the fact that he comanded our troops in a way that protected us. But to point that fact out seems too much for some to handle.
What will they say IF we are attacked during an Obama presidency, "Bush didn't do enough to protect us after his presidency?"

My argument to that is, would there have been another attack..........

Would there have been an attack if we didn't have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia for 10 years.

Would there have been an attack if we were not bombing Iraq almost daily.

Would there have been an attack if we didn't support Israel so blindly. (Please note, I support the right of Israel to exist, however the actions of the Israeli government against the Palestinians is borderline genocide) 

We will never know. The past is the past, we can't do anything other than learn from our mistakes. We have failed to do this as in we are acting exactly in the manor the terrorist attacked us for in the first place.

tbender

Nov 06 2008, 11:00 AM

Obama: "My Cabinet Would Be Bipartisan"

His first pick: Rahm Emanuel!!!

Good thing a presidential cabinet is more than one person. There's been mention of keeping Gates (good idea) and bringing in Lugar (who I think said no) and Hagel (who is thinking about it) for posts. So far the only name that's been mentioned that shouldn't be -- IMO -- is Summers.

Emanuel is very qualified for the job. I know it's hard for some on the right to understand the concept of selecting competent people for the job, but come on now.

Erroneous

Nov 06 2008, 11:26 AM

Thanks for posting that. Seven years, zero attacks. Thank God for a president who at least "got it" when it comes to protecting us. To acknowledge that Bush accomplished something that amazing must be hard for those who are willfully ignorant of those who wish harm on us. To do so doesn't mean you are endorsing his entire presidency! Neither does acknowledging the many other things he's faced in 8 years.

Despite his many failures, they will never be able to take away the fact that he comanded our troops in a way that protected us. But to point that fact out seems too much for some to handle.

[/QUOTE]

yeah!!! thank God he got Saddam before he dropped them BLT's on us /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

JerryChesterson

Nov 06 2008, 12:10 PM

Thanks for posting that. Seven years, zero attacks. Thank God for a president who at least "got it" when it comes to protecting us. To acknowledge that Bush accomplished something that amazing must be hard for those who are willfully ignorant of those who wish harm on us. To do so doesn't mean you are endorsing his entire presidency! Neither does acknowledging the many other things he's faced in 8 years.

Despite his many failures, they will never be able to take away the fact that he comanded our troops in a way that protected us. But to point that fact out seems too much for some to handle.

yeah!!! thank God he got Saddam before he dropped them BLT's on us /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/QUOTE]

IMO Bush did more to harm us than protect us ... he's helped further tie divsision between us the Muslim workd and now people hate us and want to attack us even more. Don't confused not getting attacked in 7 years with protecting us or us being safer.

tbender

Nov 06 2008, 12:40 PM

Thank God for a president who at least "got it" when it comes to protecting us.

But protecting the Constitution and our rights? Not so much.