or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama! - Page 7

post #241 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

My God.

Police stopped checking for weapons at Obama rally!

What are they thinking!?

It's things like this that make me wonder why people think Obama should pick Hillary as VP.
Do you really want the guy looking over his shoulder for four years? Hasn't anyone ever heard of Vince Foster?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #242 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Here are a few, though I doubt you will accept them.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/reality...0/20000310.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/reality...0/20001213.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/reality...0/20000922.asp

Want some anecdotal evidence? Check out the headline for this:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/con...ns/democratic/



I love CNN.

Of course, that's just on this one issue. There are numerous studies and thousands of pieces of anecdotal evidence showing liberal bias in the media overall. I love how every time this subject comes up, our resident lefties respond with "What? The media has a liberal bias? I've never heard that before! Show me!" Then, seeing as this such a new an outrageous--OUTRAGEOUS--allegation, you'll ask for "proof." Of course, you'll accept no proof of any kind.

Right wing blog entries regarding: McCain vs. Bush, controversial Supreme Court decision, Gore nomination acceptance speech.

This is your "proof" that the press favored Bush over Gore in the general election? If there have been "numerous studies", why not cite them?

Right? Numerous studies. That should end the debate, right there.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #243 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Do the math in constant dollars.

Heck you're not doing any math, I wonder why?

I't took SIX years to return the federal revenue stream to pre tax cuts levels (in constant dollars, D'oh).

Or in real dollars, it took FIVE years, but that's not the correct way to look at these numbers since they MUST be adjusted for inflation! D'oh!

You have to drop five years (FY's 2001 thru 2005), let me repeat that, FIVE YEARS, to make the revenue curve look somewhat monotonic again.

This is where the hole in your argument is. You are assuming revenues would have otherwise continued on track. But they would not have, because as BRussell himself said, revenue growth depends in large part on the growth of the economy. The economy was stalled.

Quote:

I can see that math ISN'T one of your strong points.

That's twice in one post, and I've had about enough of it. If you cannot debate without that kind of attack, then please go away.

Quote:

EDIT: And why didn't you post this in it's original thread?

You posted a link to one of your posts. I replied to this thread, since that's where they link was contained.

Quote:
Let me guess, you are incapable of dealing with real facts that counter your own personal opinion, and that your personal opinion has nothing to do with the real facts of the matter.

Congratulations. Three personal attacks in one post. Strike three for you.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #244 of 266
You know what's going to be interesting. Watching the entire Republican apparatus having to make a complete U-turn on the issue of "expanding presidential powers."

Assuming Obama wins the election in November, I am going to pop some popcorn, pull up my comfy chair, and watch as the all the right-wing yapping dogs and their media enablers do an about face and start demanding, DEMANDING I tell you, that we need checks and balances against an out-of-control presidency.

It's going to make for amazing political theater.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #245 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

You know what's going to be interesting. Watching the entire Republican apparatus having to make a complete U-turn on the issue of "expanding presidential powers."

Assuming Obama wins the election in November, I am going to pop some popcorn, pull up my comfy chair, and watch as the all the right-wing yapping dogs and their media enablers do an about face and start demanding, DEMANDING I tell you, that we need checks and balances against an out-of-control presidency.

It's going to make for amazing political theater.

There are plenty of conservative Republicans making that case now.
But yes, the party establishment will definitely have to make a U-turn.

Democracy can be a wonderful thing to watch.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #246 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

You know what's going to be interesting. Watching the entire Republican apparatus having to make a complete U-turn on the issue of "expanding presidential powers."

Assuming Obama wins the election in November, I am going to pop some popcorn, pull up my comfy chair, and watch as the all the right-wing yapping dogs and their media enablers do an about face and start demanding, DEMANDING I tell you, that we need checks and balances against an out-of-control presidency.

It's going to make for amazing political theater.

If that happens I'll be asking you to make more popcorn for me. I for one won't be one of those people.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #247 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If that happens I'll be asking you to make more popcorn for me. I for one won't be one of those people.

You mind if I save this link? I might be referring to it again someday...
post #248 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

You mind if I save this link? I might be referring to it again someday...

Yep, go ahead. I just ask that you compare apples to apples if the time comes. In other words, the power Obama would use or claim would need to be substantially similar to one Bush claimed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #249 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If that happens I'll be asking you to make more popcorn for me. I for one won't be one of those people.

Alrighty. I like my popcorn with real butter but light on the salt. I hope you do too.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #250 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yep, go ahead. I just ask that you compare apples to apples if the time comes. In other words, the power Obama would use or claim would need to be substantially similar to one Bush claimed.



Gotcha.

By the way...there is something brewing on the Interweb about a potential scandal involving Barack Obama. One that if it is true will tear the whole Obamathon down to the ground. That's all I'll say about it. From what I've seen and read, it is far-fetched and utterly unbelievable. It may be nothing at all.

I'd say after February 26th of next week we'll all know about it, either way. \
post #251 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is where the hole in your argument is. You are assuming revenues would have otherwise continued on track. But they would not have, because as BRussell himself said, revenue growth depends in large part on the growth of the economy. The economy was stalled.

Wrong, dead wrong, and I have the facts to prove thay you are dead wrong on this one.

Download the OMB FY 2009 historical data (in PDF format) that I posted a link to in your infamous "scorched earth" thread (BTW, do all of your threads/posts have to be ~100% hyperbole? Just curious.).

BTW, I've imported Table 1.1 into an Excel spreadsheet, so I'm way ahead of you on this one.

An actual downturn in federal revenues has only occurred seven times in the past 50 years (1959 thru 2008 (this last year is an OMB projected estimate), those seven years were (or could be);

1959
1971
1983
2001
2002
2003
2008
(OMB projected)

That's at least three years of revenue losses that will go down in history as having fallen under one administration, your pal, Chimpy MacFlightsuit. In the worst case, 2008 and 2009, could also be added to GWB's list for a total of five revenue loss years.

Oh, and get this OMB is projecting federal outlays for FY 2010 ($3,091 Trillion), less than what Chimpy MacFlightsuit is asking for in FY 2009 ($3,107 Trillion). A downturn in federal expenditures has actually occured only once in the past 50 years, in 1965. Talk about a "cut and run" fiscal policy, GWB will be running out of the WH leaving a building full of broken toys for the next administration to clean up, to fix, and/or replace.

Now, let's see you talk your way out of this one.

Oh, and if the economy has truly stalled, your pal Chimpy MacFlightsuit and those neocon artists deserve the full blame, as it happened on their watch, with their abhorrent fiscal policies, and lack of fiscal responsibility

Why do I get the feeling that GWB is digging an ever deeper hole for himself and his ilk?.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #252 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Talk about a "cut and run" fiscal policy, GWB will be running out of the WH leaving a building full of broken toys for the next administration to clean up, to fix, and/or replace.

That's what Poppa Bush did to Clinton (on a much smaller scale mind you). He left him with the cooked books of his deficit. Clinton was left with nothing else to do but raise taxes (something he promised not to do).

Like father, like son. \

Quote:
Now, let's see you talk your way out of this one.

He's gone. Has a date. He score big time.
post #253 of 266
Double post. Figures.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #254 of 266
Did anybody see the debate where somebody questioned Obama's patriotism? Because he didn't put his hand over his heart once during the national anthem, because he doesn't wear an Amerikan flag pin, blah blah blah.

If that is the crud the anti-Obamites have to try to dig up, the country has sunk to new lows; it really is pathetic.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #255 of 266


CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA

Quote:
Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET

With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.

The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.

The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Developing...


EDITOR'S NOTE: Other leaders have worn local costumes:



post #256 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

That's what Poppa Bush did to Clinton (on a much smaller scale mind you). He left him with the cooked books of his deficit. Clinton was left with nothing else to do but raise taxes (something he promised not to do).

Like father, like son. \



He's gone. Has a date. He score big time.

Bush raised taxes. Clinton said he wanted middle class tax cuts. He lied. Don't tell me he got into office on day 1 and said "OMG! I have to raise taxes! Fuck!"

My date went well, btw. British chick.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #257 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Bush raised taxes.

Because he couldn't keep his 1988 "No New Taxes ™" promise.

Quote:
Clinton said he wanted middle class tax cuts. He lied.



Quote:
He also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, a subsidy for low income workers.

Quote:
In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It cut taxes for 15 million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[38] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.

A la wiki

Quote:
Don't tell me he got into office on day 1 and said "OMG! I have to raise taxes! Fuck!"

1992 (George H.W. Bush) DEFICIT 4.7 pct. of GDP

1999 (Bill Clinton) SURPLUS 2.4 pct. of GDP


Quote:
My date went well, btw. British chick.

Good for you!

I would expand on all this economic/tax stuff, but I'm lacking in it. With any presidency, there are cooked books though...\
post #258 of 266
I just donated $100 to Obama - my first non-libertarian political donation. I just hate every other candidate so much that I am switching to be an Obama democrat.

These campaign promises are so vague that you can read anything into them, but I am reading in my hope that Obama will more or less follow the recommendations of the Bush bi-partisan tax commission:

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-...orm_ExSumm.pdf
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #259 of 266
Thread Starter 
I donated $10 in Feb.

Went without ribeye to make up for it.

post #260 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I donated $10 in Feb.

Went without ribeye to make up for it.


There is another cut of meat that is basically the same as ribeye (better, maybe) and much cheaper - called "chuck eye" (different than "chuck steak", which is crap). You can't always find it, but try that out, maybe you can donate another $10...

try it with Thomas marinade: http://www.thomassauce.com/tgf_products.html
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #261 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Because he couldn't keep his 1988 "No New Taxes ™" promise.









A la wiki



1992 (George H.W. Bush) DEFICIT 4.7 pct. of GDP

1999 (Bill Clinton) SURPLUS 2.4 pct. of GDP




Good for you!

I would expand on all this economic/tax stuff, but I'm lacking in it. With any presidency, there are cooked books though...\

Ahhh...the "Clinton Tax Increase didn't hurt anyone" line:

Wiki says:

* It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals.
* It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
* The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
* Transportation fuels taxes were hiked by 4.3 cents per gallon.
* The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
* The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.

There were two income families that got NAILED on just the income tax provisions alone. Take two teachers making $70,000 per year each after 30 years of service, for example. The "rich" saw their income taxes rise a full 30%. The top tax rate was 28% when Reagan left office. After the Bush and Clinton increases, the new rate was 40%. Could they afford it? Sure. Did it punish them severely just because they earned more money? Yup. Did it give them incentive to avoid taxes? Yup.

Of course, that doesn't begin to get into the other taxes Billy lobbied for and got. Nuisance taxes exploded under Clinton. Clinton's tax increases, taken in total, were massive and affected nearly everyone.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #262 of 266
Treasury Tax Expert to Bush: Clinton's Increase WASN'T The Biggest.

Quote:
But that bit of political puffery has always been based on a simplistic tally of the number of dollars the Clinton tax bill yielded, without regard for population growth, rising incomes, or inflation.

Now comes a thorough study of every tax bill enacted since 1940, showing that the Clinton tax increase was indeed large, but not the largest.

A tax increase in 1942 boosted federal revenues by 71%, for example, as the US geared up for war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Measured in inflation-adjusted 1992 dollars, Roosevelt's wartime increase amounted to $73 billion a year, while Clinton's increase averaged $35 billion a year (average for the first two years.)

The study said that inflation-adjusted "constant dollars" is probably only the second -best measure of the size of a tax increase. "The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP." That's Gross Domestic Product, the way we gauge the size of the economy. Clinton's tax increase isn't the biggest by that "best" measure, either. In the period since 1968, the study said, "the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest increase." That was the tax increase signed by Ronald Reagan, rescinding some of the effects of his huge tax cut passed the year before.

That 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 0.8% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 0.5%.

Footnote: The study's author, Jerry Tempalski of the Office of Tax Analysis, put the following disclaimer on the cover page: "The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Treasury Department." Apparently they are not the views of the President, either. Why let the facts get in the way of a campaign zinger?

Correction, May 22 2007: This article originally misstated the figures comparing the 1982 and 1993 increases as a percentage of GDP as 4.6% of GDP and 2.7% respectively. Those figures actually represent the increases as a percent of tax receipts, not GDP. By either measure, Reagan's 1982 increase was larger than Clinton's 1993 increase.

Artman's head explodes.
post #263 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Treasury Tax Expert to Bush: Clinton's Increase WASN'T The Biggest.



Artman's head explodes.

I for one never claimed it was the biggest. Comparing it Reagan's is disingenuous as well, because of the huge tax decrease Reagan signed prior to 1982.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #264 of 266
Obama rose to his current status with very significant help from Republinsanes.
He won in Illinois because of moral failures of his Republinsane opponents.

Thanks.

I am curious to see who will run in 2015.
Maybe a president of Chinese decent?
A Chinese Jew perhaps.

it's going to be a tough act follow.
At present, being able to speak a full sentence is enough to convince people.

Obama has it way to easy.
post #265 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

At present, being able to speak a full sentence is enough to convince people.

Obama has it way to easy.

I know that Ann Richards, Al Gore and John Kerry all feel that way. I mean, I can just see them now, all sitting around watching Obama and saying to themselves, "Gah! Why didn't I think about speaking in complete sentences!?"
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #266 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I know that Ann Richards, Al Gore and John Kerry all feel that way. I mean, I can just see them now, all sitting around watching Obama and saying to themselves, "Gah! Why didn't I think about speaking in complete sentences!?"

You crack me up Mid.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider