| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Finnforest 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
 Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:31 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:35 |
Even though he hates the pick, he admits being in the minority opinion among conservatives. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:37 |
 Henry Plainview wrote:
rileydog22 wrote:
Both candidates suck for me. Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself. I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote. |
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
As someone who is voting for McCain, he made a terrible choice. Obama made a fairly good one. |
We all saw how well the RON PAUL REVOLUTION went . The media never gave him any credibility. True some of his ideas are out there but sometimes you gotta think outside of the box to bring change.
Edited by crimhead - August 31 2008 at 13:38
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:38 |
hahahhahah.. oh man *spit Diet Coke on monitor from laughing so hard' 'He was the president of the
Harvard Law Review; she was the point guard on her high school basketball team. ' right on 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:53 |
again... said it yesterday.. stand by it still Think about how the key factor in this decision was not who could
defend this country were something dreadful happen to McCain in office
but how to tread as much on Obama's convention bounce and use women's
equality as a wedge issue among Democrats because it might secure a few
points here or there. Oh, and everyone would be surprised. And even
Rove would be annoyed.
This is his sense of honor and judgment. This is his sense of responsibility and service.
Here's the real slogan the McCain campaign should now adopt: Putting. Country. Last.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:53 |
And that's what is so scary. I would expect more conservatives to be wary.
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:57 |
|
just had a funny thought.
setting the VCR for the VP debate... suspect they are already coaching her on issues..
*Ms. Palin... can you find Georgia on a map
ehhhh
trick question*
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 14:30 |
oh boy. at least now we know what the most pressing issue of the election is...
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:06 |
Hmm I have a different take on all this. All of this conventions, VP choices are just smoke and mirrors. Lets look at an entirely objective view (well as objective that can be expected). I copied my post form another board. I leave you with a question if both of their finite proposals can be so torn down where does that leave the ones that are not finite? I think we are in for far more trouble whomever is elected:
I rarely laud columnists of any kind because they seem to be just mouthpieces for either side of the coin but this guy, Robert J Samuelson takes a real world approach and cites errors in both candidates logic in their promises. The last paragraph is the most poignant especially for those buying into the rhetoric of either Obama or McCain. Here is the link to the entire article the quoted paragraphs are taken from:
http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte
"The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both their health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.
Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq War -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.
McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.
Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.
All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose."
|
 "What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 17:25 |
|
I select fantasy quarterbacks based on the potential of the offense as a whole, rather than the accuracy of the individual quarterback, because I feel that a good offense is going to give even a mediocre quarterback plenty of scoring opportunities and that a good running game makes long-yardage passing significantly easier.
But seriously, that's a good article. And it's pretty much how I feel: whether Obama or McCain wins, we're screwed, because neither is going to make the unpopular but necessary decisions to significantly limit spending.
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 20:28 |
Garion81 wrote:
Hmm I have a different take on all this. All of this conventions, VP choices are just smoke and mirrors. Lets look at an entirely objective view (well as objective that can be expected). I copied my post form another board. I leave you with a question if both of their finite proposals can be so torn down where does that leave the ones that are not finite? I think we are in for far more trouble whomever is elected:
I rarely laud columnists of any kind because they seem to be just mouthpieces for either side of the coin but this guy, Robert J Samuelson takes a real world approach and cites errors in both candidates logic in their promises. The last paragraph is the most poignant especially for those buying into the rhetoric of either Obama or McCain. Here is the link to the entire article the quoted paragraphs are taken from:
http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte
"The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both their health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.
Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq War -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.
McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.
Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.
All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose."
|
Great article, thanks for posting this.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:08 |
Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP but the governor of Alaska!????!!!??  All 11 people and the thousands of polar bears
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:43 |
crimhead wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
rileydog22 wrote:
Both candidates suck for me. Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself. I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote. |
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
As someone who is voting for McCain, he made a terrible choice. Obama made a fairly good one. |
We all saw how well the RON PAUL REVOLUTION went . The media never gave him any credibility. True some of his ideas are out there but sometimes you gotta think outside of the box to bring change.
|
Almost all of his ideas were out there.
Alaska gets more federal funds per capita than any other state.
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:47 |
|
I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:55 |
micky wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
micky wrote:
My problems with him.. are economic. |
could you elaborate?
easy.... while very liberal socially... I am an economic moderate. One of the more interesting developments over the last 20 years or so is how the GOP have lost their way with regards to economic policy. They used to be the party of economic convservatism. They are not that anymore. They have become the party of tax-cuts at any cost. Holding on the silly idea that trickle down economics actually works. When the companies make extra profits.. ask yourself brother.. do we see it... no we don't. That money goes to larger executive saleries and benefit packages. The rich have gotten richer... the middle class lives in fear..and lower class continues to struggle just to survive. I believe in many of the old things that the GOP used to believe in. Fiscal responsibility. I pay taxes .. always have always will. I don't mind paying them.. I don't mind paying more... as long as I know that money is going to places where it is needed. Not into a CEO's pocket.
|
Wish I could disagree with you ... but how your economic moderate philosophy conforms to the democratic spending agenda? Obama came to the DNC with lots of nice promises. How is he going to pay for all his programs? We run budget deficits every year for tha past 40+ years. Last year tax revenues were about $2.5T. THe spendings were close to $3T annually. Where the money for the new programs will come from? Forget about Obama cutting taxes for the middle class. Let's hope he won't raise them. Tax your much-hated CEO's? Let's say they collectively make $20B a year (I don't want to waste my time to search for real numbers, sorry). Even if you tax them at a rate of 100%, it's a drop in the bucket. Who's left? Corporations and the rich. Let's assume the rich pay $250B in taxes presently (10%). How much do you want to tax them? Raise their bracket another 5%? It's bubkes. Double their rate? You know how much you'll collect then? Zero! They will leave the country the way the British rich left when they were taxed at the rate of 95% in the 60's. Now corporations. They're the best bet. According to the IRS, in 2002 the corporations paid $150B in taxes on the income of $560B with total receipts of $19, 700B. Again, double their rates? Come on my friend, you must know better that Obama will never do that. So what fiscal responcibility are you talking about?
micky wrote:
micky wrote:
Great politics.. but look where we ended up. |
He ended up where he deserved. There are no miracles in this world.
what I am concerned about is the direction of this country. The 'win at all costs' mentality that pervades the GOP. Division rather than unity. That is where we at today.. .did we deserve that. No.. and that is not because Clinton came on Monica's dress... that is because ...the politics of division.. and pursuit of power.. were far more important than the serious issues of governing and working FOR the people. Was it any surprise that years down the road the failure of the GOP led Congress became apparant to all. They never did care for governing.. only pursuing THEIR adjenda. |
I can say the same about the Democrats. Word for word. Except for Clinton and Monica, of course. And th Dems are more hypocritical at that.
micky wrote:
micky wrote:
We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing.
|
Don't you think we are still paying for the financial bubble he created just to get re-elected?
we are paying for a great many things... blaming Clinton for them is shortsited and partisan. And simply the easy way out dude. |
And not blaiming Clinton is even more shortsited and partisan. You refuse to admit obvious failures of the Dems and dare to accuse me of bias. At least I spread the blame evenly. Reagan and Bush presided over a huge deficit but that served some purpose, the cold war. Creating a bubble to get re-elected???
micky wrote:
P.S. Do you realize that Clinton did more for the big money than Reagan and Bush together? speaking of the new centrist Democratic Party
that again is the point... he did... and he did for common Americans as well... the is why the common peope.. AND big business loved him. Why the GOP so feared him..and his centrist policies.
|
|
What exactly did he do for common Americans? Created a stock market bubble? So everyone felt rich for a while until the paper profits were taken away? It's like having a nice dream that you're rich; then you wake up and go to work. It was done so artfully that people still recall it as his greatest achievment. THey don't even realize they were taken for a ride.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 22:59 |
oh christ.. . A little late in the evening to tackle that one hahahha. I'll get to that tomorrow. 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:05 |
Garion81 wrote:
Hmm I have a different take on all this. All of this conventions, VP choices are just smoke and mirrors. Lets look at an entirely objective view (well as objective that can be expected). I copied my post form another board. I leave you with a question if both of their finite proposals can be so torn down where does that leave the ones that are not finite? I think we are in for far more trouble whomever is elected:
I rarely laud columnists of any kind because they seem to be just mouthpieces for either side of the coin but this guy, Robert J Samuelson takes a real world approach and cites errors in both candidates logic in their promises. The last paragraph is the most poignant especially for those buying into the rhetoric of either Obama or McCain. Here is the link to the entire article the quoted paragraphs are taken from:
http://tinyurl.com/6kpxte
"The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both their health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.
Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq War -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.
McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.
Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.
All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose."
|
That's the p[roblem. Neither one talks real issues. Only symbolic gestures and unrealistic promises
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:08 |
JJLehto wrote:
Dont know much at all about Governor Palin, but it is pretty cool McCain chose a female VP
|
He certainly made a better choice because she would make a much better-looking VP than Biden
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:11 |
rileydog22 wrote:
I liked Ron Paul because the President has more influence on foreign policy than on anything else and Paul seems to be the only candidate who has the sense to want to get the hell out of this Iraq trainwreck as quickly as possible. |
Ron Paul has a few good ideas but he's so confused on the economy... is it true he used to be a Libertarian? His economic views are pretty close to theirs
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 23:24 |
|
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Vice President choices.