or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clinton to go "scorched earth" - Page 4

post #121 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Excellent post on both points. Well done. So often we forget that there WAS a partial government shutdown in 1996, and guess what... we're all still here. Indeed, most of the "quality of life" things like water, sewer, etc are locally controlled. But never mind me, I'm an anti-federalist at heart, bound to join rancor with people who sleep better knowing that a bloated, powerful central government is taxing successful people in the cause of "fixing" all the inequality and injustice in the world.

Nice ad hominem taken at Uncle Sam, care to back up your attack with with some actual facts.

No, never mind that isn't your style.
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 #122 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

That's a cute little post 'ry-cher, in line with the rest of your gems in this thread... but what exactly do you think I am "making up" ?

You referenced SDW10000BC lame ludicrous hypothetical, the money from nowhere gambit.

If you don't like our current form of government, go buy an island somewhere and start your own system of government (nee anarchy), that would certainly work for me.

You are talking about unfunded government, aren't you?
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 #123 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You are talking about unfunded government, aren't you?

No. Never was. You're wrong. It's OK, we all make mistakes.

Quote:
If you don't like our current form of government, go buy an island somewhere and start your own system of government (nee anarchy), that would certainly work for me.

Wow. And I thought it was just ignorant redneck Toby Keith types with the "love it or leave it" bullshit. Apparently it's spreading across jingoist lines.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #124 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Nice ad hominem taken at Uncle Sam, care to back up your attack with with some actual facts.

No, never mind that isn't your style.

Ad hom? At Uncle Sam? WTF are you talking about? Do you really think that your drinking water system is maintained and administered by a Washington bureaucrat at your local water plant? Talk about Stockholm Syndrome...

What exactly do you want facts on, frankie?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #125 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post



Got it. Unwilling to defend your faulty presuppositions.

Oh, and please make note of the claim that supporting personal freedoms of all kinds, live/let live, self-reliance, and personal responsibility are all old, naive Pts Of View in this new "utopia" we've so masterfully crafted since the Wilson administration.

You 'ol fuddy-duddy.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #126 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

An interesting story linked in Drudge.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html



So, let's review: Clinton says that whomever has the most delegates at convention time will win. But this doesn't preclude her from getting delegates to flop for her before the convention. Nice piece of spin there. Very nice.

Personally I think that if Obama is somehow deprived of the nomination (either by super delegates or faithless delegates), the party will implode. There may literally be riots. Despite disagreeing with Obama on numerous (if not all) issues, I would hate to see the man deprived of the nomination if he's legitimately won. I think that Clinton would be sealing the party's doom in the general election (and her own, of course) by taking the nom with these kinds of tactics.

I also think this speaks to Clinton's unbridled ambition. If she can't have the Presidency, no Democrat can. So, some questions here. Do you think she will do this if given the chance? Will it be successful, and what happens if she wins it this way? Or, will Obama deliver a crushing blow in the TX and OH primaries, thereby sealing the deal?


My god SDW do you really believe this crap?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #127 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Oh, and please make note of the claim that supporting personal freedoms of all kinds, live/let live, self-reliance, and personal responsibility are all old, naive Pts Of View in this new "utopia" we've so masterfully crafted since the Wilson administration.

You 'ol fuddy-duddy.

You are the one complaining all the time about the federal government (with sslarson, SDW10000BC, et. al), and that truly does make me happy seeing as you offer no solutions, and even if you did, would be powerless to ever live to see your solutions enacted into law, that also makes me happy.

I can't wait for the fall election. That one will really make me happy!

Now calm down and go to sleep, it's past your bedtime.
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 #128 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

seeing as you offer no solutions,

What would you like a solution for? Name a topic. Pick one. Any one.

Quote:
Now calm down and go to sleep, it's past your bedtime.

You can't help yourself, can you? You absolutely MUST head off into this juvenile condescension crap with anyone who disagrees with you.
You're entering jimmac/mojo territory. You're 54. Act it.

If you want to talk an issue, pick one... if not, at least work harder to make your critiques of my posts more sensical.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #129 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

What would you like a solution for? Name a topic. Pick one. Any one.



You can't help yourself, can you? You absolutely MUST head off into this juvenile condescension crap with anyone who disagrees with you.
You're entering jimmac/mojo territory. You're 54. Act it.

If you want to talk an issue, pick one... if not, at least work harder to make your critiques of my posts more sensical.

Alex, I'll take NON-DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURES for $2,000,000,000,000.00
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 #130 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

What would you like a solution for? Name a topic. Pick one. Any one.



You can't help yourself, can you? You absolutely MUST head off into this juvenile condescension crap with anyone who disagrees with you.
You're entering jimmac/mojo territory. You're 54. Act it.

If you want to talk an issue, pick one... if not, at least work harder to make your critiques of my posts more sensical.

" You're entering jimmac/mojo territory. You're 54. Act it. "

I made the mistake of looking through here without signing in.

It's funny as the rest of us put you in the same catagory you have for myself and mojo.

Still peddling the immature crap I see.

Don't bother replying as I'm signed in now and won't be able to read it. Nice to know you can count on certain things in this universe like yourself.

As far as the responses you get. Well.... you practically begg for them.

Try responding in a more mature manner and things may improve.

The thing is soon we'll have a democrat in the Whitehouse one way or another and I'm willing to bet that just eats you alive.

By the way how would you know what 54 is like?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #131 of 255
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 earlier in this thread.

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 two 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 four 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.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

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 #132 of 255
Just curious, but on topic, is Clinton going to go 'scorched earth' soon?
post #133 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Just curious, but on topic, is Clinton going to go 'scorched earth' soon?

Yes she started last night at a rally in San Antonio, Texas;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
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 #134 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Don't bother replying as I'm signed in now and won't be able to read it. Nice to know you can count on certain things in this universe like yourself.

Whatever, jimmac.

We both know that despite your seventh-grade beside-yourself "ignore" tantrum months ago that you still read the sage opining of the Jubelum.
And in your corner of 2D world, you are just so positive that I don't want a Democrat in the White House next January. How funny.

You consistently point out that you can't read my posts.. while referencing my posts. I much enjoy being on your ignore list. Can I go back there now?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #135 of 255
Has anyone else seen the Hillary and Obama ads from Texas? The difference between the two is rather stark... Obama's ads look MUCH more polished and energizing than HRCs. The Clinton ads look very, uh, "1992." It's amazing what a competent marketing crew can do with sweeping uplifting generalities and a simply guitar/drum loop- it's working for Obama.

In fact, I find it hard to believe that the Smartest Woman in the World cannot find someone to do an ad that is more than people holding Hillary signs and shaking them at the camera. She even dredged up poor old Henry Cisneros to be in them. Latinos will decide the Dem race in Texas... and looks like Obama is making some huge inroads among Texas Latinos.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #136 of 255
Look nothing can save the Hildebeast...her thighness is toast. She can't use the 'crying gal' routine again, charges of 'inexperience' sound hollow given her earned status as 'former first lady' and hapless Clinton consultant on medical care reform...and no amount of FBI file researching, PI strong arming, or hysterical diatribes' on the vast right wing conspiracy' and Bush administration has ANY impact on Obama.

And against the first serious black man running for the Presidency, being the first (and increasingly tiresome) woman is no longer chic or trendy (or worthy of crock tears). They have found a new icon of liberalism, one far more agreeable as a human being.

I thought Hillary would fight to the bitter end - but I think she knows she has nothing left and no way to win. As of now, she is on auto pilot. Texas and Ohio will be huge disappointments to her. The super delegates have decided her claims of "experience" will not hunt, they are bolting to Obama.

Hillary is old news...she is the 90's. The old Democratic Camelot cargo cult has found a new Kennedy ... the embodiment of nostalgia in a contemporary black man.

St. Hillary will put on a halo and wings, and will give up before the convention. She knows that any chance she might have in the future will disappear if she fights it too far...

It's now young Obama vs. the old curmudgeon.
post #137 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's a graph of average economic growth and is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. I am saying that economic growth happened AFTER tax cuts were enacted. Tax cuts were enacted for that purpose, actually. In other words, the average would have been much different without the stimulus the cuts provided.

The Reagan tax cuts were enacted in his first year in office.
The Bush tax cuts were enacted in his first year in office.
The Clinton tax increases were enacted in his first year in office.

If tax cuts so obviously increased growth, and tax increases so obviously curb it, you wouldn't see such anemic growth during the Reagan and Bush years. Come on, facts are facts. And unfortunately facts don't always support our pet theories.

Quote:
Do I really need to go look up that data for you? I guess I could, but I have a date tonight, so I'd appreciate not having to hold your hand on this one.

Those data I showed before aren't perfect, but they're pretty good. If the Reagan years were so great, why such relatively poor growth? If the Bush years are so great now, why such relatively poor growth? It's not that complicated.

Quote:
Also...if tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, what-if anything-does? Surely you must agree that if we raised taxes, say, 50%, it would have a hugely negative impact on economic growth?

Similarly, let's assume for a moment that revenue and the federal budget was of no consequence (heh..cough). What do you think would happen to the economy if income, payroll and capital gains taxes were suspended for a period of 1-2 years? Surely you agree that the economy would explode growth-wise?

If you agree with the above ideas, then it's not about whether tax cuts stimulate the economy or not, but what kind of tax cuts stimulate the economy. That's another matter.

What causes growth? Please, SDW. People creating stuff and selling it and buying stuff cause growth, not politicians. Your position is quasi-socialistic if you think the only thing that can cause growth is government fiddling with tax rates.

I've stated my position previously: Politicians fiddling with tax rates does virtually nothing for growth. There are economic cycles, and those cycles are very clear over the decades. The data show that when there have been tax cuts vs. tax increases has changed nothing in those basic cycles. The only thing they've done is increase or decrease deficits, and get politicians elected.
post #138 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

The Reagan tax cuts were enacted in his first year in office.
The Bush tax cuts were enacted in his first year in office.
The Clinton tax increases were enacted in his first year in office.

I've stated my position previously: Politicians fiddling with tax rates does virtually nothing for growth. There are economic cycles, and those cycles are very clear over the decades. The data show that when there have been tax cuts vs. tax increases has changed nothing in those basic cycles. The only thing they've done is increase or decrease deficits, and get politicians elected.

If lowering taxes are off set by borrowing AND assuming that HOW government extracts money from the economy is irrelevant to productivity THEN I tend to agree with you. Cutting taxes 100 Billion might intially gin up the economy a bit, but borrowing a 100 Billion FROM the economy to offset the tax loss would slow it down.

However, I am not sure that these have exactly the same effect on economic growth in the more moderate term. Capital is not just borrowed from the US economy, but from the international market...in other words, the stimulative effect from tax cuts most likely is NOT fully counter balanced by losses by 'taking it from' the US because these days much of it is taken from international pools. This may (in the short term to moderate term) juice a little extra growth. And as long as debt does not grow faster than the economy, the negative effects are not readily apparent...hmmmm.


Of course, that also means that an increased share of US economic growth is 'owed' to foriegn capital investors who expect a future return...thus assuring some indirect 'taxation' on the economy. And as I don't think there is ever a free lunch, I suspect there are consquences.

In any event, like you I think the business cycle is far more powerful than temporary measures UNLESS it is also accompanied by spending cuts.
post #139 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Whatever, jimmac.

We both know that despite your seventh-grade beside-yourself "ignore" tantrum months ago that you still read the sage opining of the Jubelum.
And in your corner of 2D world, you are just so positive that I don't want a Democrat in the White House next January. How funny.

You consistently point out that you can't read my posts.. while referencing my posts. I much enjoy being on your ignore list. Can I go back there now?

You know what Jube. You're 1 D! In other words you can't get past your broken record ( you know, something in the before time when you were just a little wet dream ). Now you can go back on my ignore list ( short for ignorant ). It's a very effective tool for types like yourself. This is just me taking the accidental opportunity to say Hi!

For your information I haven't read you in months. Only when someone quotes you or when I visit here without logging on. I came to the conclusion you're not really listening to the other person so why bother? You're too busy thinking about what you're going to say. You're really not that interesting.

This only happens by accident. That's why I'm so surprised that you're still spouting the same tired rhetoric.

Everything you've said points to you not liking the democrats so why should
I assume otherwise?

The democrats are coming, the democrats are coming!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #140 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're really not that interesting.

I can see how you might say that... I mean, with all these complex, dissected relationships and points that rise far beyond the woefully-immature "wait, let me finish, you interrupted my post" and "waiting to pounce" things.

ta ta, jimmac.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #141 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Look nothing can save the Hildebeast...her thighness is toast...
St. Hillary will put on a halo and wings, and will give up before the convention. She knows that any chance she might have in the future will disappear if she fights it too far...

It's now young Obama vs. the old curmudgeon.

I just cannot see her giving up that easily. The actual acceptance of the will of the people, when at cross purposes to the ascension or power of a Clinton is generally not the tack. If they are going to SwiftBoat Obama, Mark Penn better get to it, the hour is getting late.

I was in San Antonio today and saw two different people in Alamo Plaza handing out "Latinos for Obama" literature and talking to people. Really surprising... and equally surprising to not see a single HRC shirt, sign, or volunteer at the same event- or anywhere else downtown. SA is supposed to be the HQ for the Hillary pandering to Hispanics.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #142 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

ta ta, jimmac.

TTFN!

post #143 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I just cannot see her giving up that easily. The actual acceptance of the will of the people, when at cross purposes to the ascension or power of a Clinton is generally not the tack. If they are going to SwiftBoat Obama, Mark Penn better get to it, the hour is getting late.

I was in San Antonio today and saw two different people in Alamo Plaza handing out "Latinos for Obama" literature and talking to people. Really surprising... and equally surprising to not see a single HRC shirt, sign, or volunteer at the same event- or anywhere else downtown. SA is supposed to be the HQ for the Hillary pandering to Hispanics.

Hillary does not inspire the grassroots, not any more than other establishment politicos of the Washington beltway - no more than Ford, Dole, Mondale, Kerry and a number of other well aged beltway characters. Newbies and outsiders have had their share of groupies and/or grassroots troopers: Reagan, Hart, McCarthy, and even Carter come to mind. Even Bill ran as a 'new and fresh' voice...an unknown Southern governor.

16 years ago I'm sure Hillary felt like the leader of oppressed women, and the Clinton's as a new left of center force...hence her hapless plunge into secret committees to reform medical care and opening the military to gays. But time and exposure has worn thin...she is just another Senator looking for the nod. Her women's issues personae seems as dated as Pat Ireland and bra burning. Her years of harping, carping, side stepping, and cynical manipulation has even worn out the Democratic faithful. Aside from a core of adle-headed swooning women who love virile men (Bill's groupies) and nasty hard nosed, pock faced women who hate virile men and/or hope Hillary is a closet lesbian(Hillary's groupies) does anyone really like the Clinton's any more?

The emotional loyalty (as versus habit based democratic voter) has swung to Obama. Both he and his team are natural organizers and one of these days the press is going to have to explain how they did it (rather than stand back in awe). Without the machine like top down orders of the Kerry/Bush election managers of 2004, the Obama team has an image of organizing from the grass roots upward - almost seamlessly. There is an idealism at work - not necessarily logical but real. And where Obama has really pounded Hillary has been with independents AND in the many caucus deligates...her people were apathetic and her get out the caucus vote was disorganized and uninspired.

Mind you, I am a conservative (classical liberal). But having been in politics in the past, and run a few grassroots efforts, I have to really admire the Obama effort.

There are many ifs that make one wonder how it might have been different. What if Hillary had run in 2004? What if Gore had run either in 2004 or 2008? What if Rudi had fought through Iowa and New Hampshire, or if Huckabee had never run?

Well, all this is history. Hillary has matured a bit. She has seen that being a Senator requires the decent treatment of one's peers, and (compared to her first Senate election) she no longer has to robotically repeat her managers lines in order to hold her rage in check (although they did tell her to force a laugh whenever she is ready to unleash...hence those odd moments she cackles).

Hillary does not treat subordinates any better (I recently heard a story by the Fire Marshall of UC Berkeley and what he heard when working with her crew...yep she still screams obscenities at secret service people).

But she knows the rules and she has seen her loyal donors flee to Obama, she knows her once all powerful machine's core are now on his side..she has found that all glory is fleeting. She has a small shot at the office again in 4 or 8 years. She knows she cannot win...and she knows the rank and file (which nearly booed her in the debate when she started ragging on Obama) won't rally to her support. The golden Clinton days are over...no rightwing bogymen to excoriate, no choir to sing amen.

So yes, she will go with dignity (much to my disappointment) and (I predict) campaign hard for Obama. I have always found that Bully's are the least principled people, once they get kicked in the gut they seek to regain power by pleasing the top dog AND pushing out for power in other directions. That will be Hillary's way.
post #144 of 255



Holy Fonzie. She jumped the shark.

Hillary has (had) a choice: walk out the door or be carried kicking and screaming. I'm glad she's decided to discredit herself and her centrist warmonger friends. They've earned it.
post #145 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post





Holy Fonzie. She jumped the shark.

Hillary has (had) a choice: walk out the door or be carried kicking and screaming. I'm glad she's decided to discredit herself and her centrist warmonger friends. They've earned it.

Artman, those Obama health care ads might not be out of Karl Rove's playbook, but they're definitely out of the Republican playbook from Hillary's first attempt at health care reform in 1993. They are basically the same ads as the "Harry and Louise" ads. It's a pretty disgraceful attack job by the Obama campaign and they deserve criticism for it. However, these ads came out earlier in the campaign, so it's a little odd that she's criticizing them now.
post #146 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Artman, those Obama health care ads might not be out of Karl Rove's playbook, but they're definitely out of the Republican playbook from Hillary's first attempt at health care reform in 1993. They are basically the same ads as the "Harry and Louise" ads. It's a pretty disgraceful attack job by the Obama campaign and they deserve criticism for it. However, these ads came out earlier in the campaign, so it's a little odd that she's criticizing them now.

Because she's desperate. This is a competition and very similar to poker, Obama put his cards down and he wants a call on them. She either whines, cries or goes into a temper tantrum. She should call him out on this, but instead makes a fool of herself.

What I want is transparency. Clintons' tax returns would cast a wider light, but...

Quote:
While parties' nominees traditionally release their tax returns, Mr. Obama's disclosure during the primary season is unusual. Mr. Obama released his 2006 tax returns last April. They showed that he and his wife, Michelle, had income of $991,296 in 2006, down from $1.6 million the previous year.

Mrs. Clinton faced pressure to release her returns earlier this month, after announcing that she had lent her campaign $5 million. "I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from," Sen. Obama told reporters at the time. "I've disclosed my income-tax returns...I think we set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure."

The presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, hasn't released his tax returns either. His campaign has said it won't decide whether to release the returns until after he is officially the nominee.

neither of these candidates are "raising the bar" on anything, they are the old political hacks; McCain's coming from years of corrupt experience and Hillary's from her slick Willy partner.
post #147 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Artman, those Obama health care ads might not be out of Karl Rove's playbook, but they're definitely out of the Republican playbook from Hillary's first attempt at health care reform in 1993. They are basically the same ads as the "Harry and Louise" ads. It's a pretty disgraceful attack job by the Obama campaign and they deserve criticism for it. However, these ads came out earlier in the campaign, so it's a little odd that she's criticizing them now.

The odd thing about it to me is that there's nothing false about Obama's ad, and it is in fact something that she has run on. She says he's wrong to make the system voluntary, that it's not universal health care, and that her plan is universal because she has a mandate. She has brought it up frequently in debates and in her speeches. Of course that flyer spins it as a bad thing - but I don't see how she can whine about it when it's something she runs on. If she feels it's a weakness then she ought not propose it.
post #148 of 255
But at the same time, I wouldn't necessarily say the attacks are "true" either. The Obama mailer lacks context. It doesn't say that the Clinton plan gives a sort of subsidy to afford insurance and it doesn't say that the Obama plan *also* has a mandate and an enforcement mechanism for parents to buy health insurance for their children. The ad is misleading in this way.
post #149 of 255
Hillary 0WNS Obama!

Now that was pretty awesome campaigning on her part. Mockery is the perfect way to handle a candidate like Obama.
post #150 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Hillary 0WNS Obama!

Now that was pretty awesome campaigning on her part. Mockery is the perfect way to handle a candidate like Obama.

I can't agree. While the majority of voters are ignoramusus's and unable to read character accurately, Hillary is in a tight battle for the swing voters that can. She is searching for the magic of "Where's the Beef" that saved Mondale from upstart heart...and she can't get it.

Mocking requires authenticity, something deep in the gut that is conveyed. While Hillary is far better at campaigning than she was 7 years ago (when she was tutored to follow he script and shut up) even now she seems like a well coached actor...her personality and approach changing with the whims of staff tactics.

This "mocking" at times seems good (the first half), exactly timed by practice and physical arm motion...then it sounds false...as if her rehersal is just a bit "off"...then her timing and delivery seem flat. It's hard for an audience to share her emotions as it feels like they are looking AT THEM, not feeling them (nor does she seem so at the end).

People are tired of Hillary...of rage and indignation one moment, tears at another, then humor, now posturing "mocking". Each "emoticon' called up in the campaign as needed...nothing historically consistent about her approach.

Compare that to Obama, who regained his footing early, found a pattern and stuck with it. He has a charcter, unflappable, and never varies in good cheer. Hillary's a kubki mask, donning a new one every week.

Oh yes there is a true Hillary Clinton character - one that does not need rehearsal. But when that raging and vindictative person erupts she loses.

Face it....burnt toast.

Frankly, I thought she'd be planning a more graceful exit...I may be wrong. (I hear Bill had a fit today as well).
post #151 of 255
At this point there's no plausible way she can win outright. She'll have to win with some funny business like getting Michigan and Florida counted and getting the superdelegates to turn it around. That's not the way anyone wants their nominee to win.
post #152 of 255
I agree Max..

Hillary has decided not to appear steady handed during this rocky campaign of hers. She reminds me of Bush with the war in Iraq. Prepared for the initial "shock and awe" early on in the campaign expecting the "mission" to be a cake walk. Yet when reality shows that a victory for the mission is hard earned (if not impossible) the wheels come off. I mean Hillary can't just tell her supporters to "stay the course" Yet for so long SHE continued to use her failed rhetoric with the public of "ready on day one" etc. It is as if she thought she could stay the course while doing so was failing her campaign. Now that she can clearly see that her competition is narrowing the gap in the large states she must win she has gone "angry bitch". Within days of her saying how proud she was to sit next to Obama on the stage.

So she ditched her (internal) "stay the course" repeating the same old rhetoric "ready on day one" line for the new and improved "angry" tactic.

Meanwhile Obama is steady handed and much more electable.

So what else does Hillary do? She mocks Obama.

mockery will not inspire people to vote for the "angry candidate"

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #153 of 255


Good Morning, my name is Hillary Clinton. I'm here to bring you the good news of God's kingdom. Would you be interested in this issue of the Watchtower? All it'll cost you is one vote...
post #154 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

.

Thanks Fellows.
post #155 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You need the cool the sexist language.

Quotes don't save you.

he is an "angry bastard" (joke - not personal attack! Just a joke!)
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #156 of 255
EDIT:

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #157 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

S.

Thanks Fellows.
post #158 of 255
[QUOTE=ShawnJ;1219859]

EDIT
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #159 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I agree Max..

Hillary has decided not to appear steady handed during this rocky campaign of hers. She reminds me of Bush with the war in Iraq. Prepared for the initial "shock and awe" early on in the campaign expecting the "mission" to be a cake walk. Yet when reality shows that a victory for the mission is hard earned (if not impossible) the wheels come off. I mean Hillary can't just tell her supporters to "stay the course" Yet for so long SHE continued to use her failed rhetoric with the public of "ready on day one" etc.... It is as if she thought she could stay the course while doing so was failing her campaign. Now that she can clearly see that her competition is narrowing the gap in the large states she must win she has gone "angry bitch". Within days of her saying how proud she was to sit next to Obama on the stage....

mockery will not inspire people to vote for the "angry bitch"

Fellows

Hillary is a far more complicated person than Bill, who I think of as a walking DSM (?) reference. More of a hard nosed "insider" who harbored strong and angry views her naturally reactive, defensive personality (and territorial instincts) are not ideal for politics. She the type if you bump in a crowd will turn with a glare...thinking it was on purpose.

However, she also aims to prove she can suceed...do anything. She comes from the "press all the right buttons in life" (degree, approval, etc.) and you earn your status as a person on the top of the heap...on top of others that might bump you in a crowd.

Her emotional plea in NH was based on both artifice and authenticity - she was asking why after she did 'the right things' on the scorecard, the male society was not rewarding her. She was frustrated, and appealing to women who might harbor the same feelings.

She's worked hard to seem warm and yet professional. But there are some things you cannot earn - character comes from within. And she lacks it.

Obama? Well we shall see. So far the only flaw I see is that every political opinion he has is woefully wrong, and his polices will damage the country. Other than that, he seems to be a fine fellow.
post #160 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I think it's you that needs to keep up, since I've actually worked for the federal government, I know exactly what happens when the revenue stream is cut off, government stops dead in it's tracks.

Been there, done that!

So no, it's not a valid hypothetical, no matter what words you choose to inflict in this thread.

Government services (particularly in metropolitan areas) would start to decay in a matter of days.

What is it, sir, that you cannot understand. I KNOW that government services would come to a halt. That is not the point. I'm only making the point with respect to economic growth and tax policy to determine what is and is not effective at "moving" the economy. So, I'll ask again.

1. If tax cuts do not stimulate economic growth, what does?

2. If taxes were raised by 50%, would you expect a negative economic growth picture to follow?

3. If, HYPOTHETICALLY, taxes were eliminated, would you expect private sector growth to explode?


I'll even change the last one just for you to make it more "reasonable." Let's cut all federal income and capital gains taxes by 50%. This would result in a large deficit, but what would the economic impact be? You see Frank, I'm just trying to get a discussion moving on how tax policy affects economic growth.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"