Barack - What Are His Positions?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Mousse wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

What is commiserate training anyway? Is that where we learn how to seek solace from others who share similar political sorrows? Of course I’m just grinding your gears Jeff, I’m sure you meant commensurate, but how is it that the person who carries the most responsibility on the planet is possibly going to struggle being effective in Washington? I agree with another poster earlier who suggested that it is not as complicated as some would have us believe, but even if it were, I still can’t comprehend your message.

What can’t you comprehend ?

Sorry PB, my post wasn’t very clear at the end. What I take issue with is the fact that the US President needs excessive time on capitol hill to be effective. Comprehend doesn’t really fit…I just don’t understand this mentality that experience is a key qualification.

I’m not just speaking to his post (obviously) either since experience comes up a lot (military, foreign affairs etc.), to me it’s a nice add to your political resume but I just don’t see a valid argument for it being a must. If you’re the President you’ll be as effective as you want to be - period.

[/quote]

You and i agree

82

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I understand the pain first hand that taxes cause, I think right now we need to be more concerned about spending. I do not know how factual these figures are. And I know these are just numbers

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 26 Feb 2008 at 10:23:34 PM GMT is:

$9,322,441,468,600.78

The estimated population of the United States is 304,467,875
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $30,618.80.

A look at how we spend our ducats:

Congressional Budget Office [/quote]

If my accountant weren�??t so expensive, I would ask him to explain that policy brief.

83

Ask rainjack. He’s a cheap douche.

84

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp

During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.

Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.

How can anyone consider voting for this guy?

Uhh…the story was true?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=28242288

but other than it being true and all, and you looking like a jackass…a very insightful post

shorter:
why are you so f’ing gullible?
the weekly standard will lie to you every f’ing time. stop reading it. No wonder you never seem to what the hell you’re talking about.

Again this was a TRUE story.

but hilariously you said this:

“Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.”

You told the tale and scolded him. Jeebus.

Did you even read the links you posted? They claimed his story is “true” and then they go on to list the factual errors.

15 of the men in his platoon did not get shipped to Iraq. He went to Afghanistan with an understrength platoon and got the rest of the men after he got to Afghanistan.

They had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They were not forced to fight with Taliban weapons (although on occasion they did, like in all previous wars.)

I suppose you consider it a true story because there was a platoon that was sent to Afghanistan and they didn’t have as many Humvees as they wanted so they drove pick up trucks too. Give me a fucking break.

Obama told a false tale. Your sad bloggers are trying to spin it as truth but even they showed the many falsehoods.
[/quote]

The captain said this (in the damn link):

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain – then a Lieutenant – took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but – in ones and twos – 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains – before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, “we didn’t have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed.”

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun (“50 cal.”)

“We weren’t able to train in the way we needed to train,” he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn’t have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

“We should have had 4 up-armored humvees,” he said. “We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two.”

So what did they do? “To get the rest of the platoon to the fight,” he says, “we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees.” Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

“It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most – so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.

Uhhmmm dude, your just dead wrong. The issue is had he heard from this captain. He had. moving on…

85

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp

During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.

Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.

How can anyone consider voting for this guy?

Uhh…the story was true?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=28242288

but other than it being true and all, and you looking like a jackass…a very insightful post

shorter:
why are you so f’ing gullible?
the weekly standard will lie to you every f’ing time. stop reading it. No wonder you never seem to what the hell you’re talking about.

Again this was a TRUE story.

but hilariously you said this:

“Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.”

You told the tale and scolded him. Jeebus.

Did you even read the links you posted? They claimed his story is “true” and then they go on to list the factual errors.

15 of the men in his platoon did not get shipped to Iraq. He went to Afghanistan with an understrength platoon and got the rest of the men after he got to Afghanistan.

They had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They were not forced to fight with Taliban weapons (although on occasion they did, like in all previous wars.)

I suppose you consider it a true story because there was a platoon that was sent to Afghanistan and they didn’t have as many Humvees as they wanted so they drove pick up trucks too. Give me a fucking break.

Obama told a false tale. Your sad bloggers are trying to spin it as truth but even they showed the many falsehoods.

The captain said this (in the damn link):

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain – then a Lieutenant – took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but – in ones and twos – 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains – before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, “we didn’t have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed.”

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun (“50 cal.”)

“We weren’t able to train in the way we needed to train,” he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn’t have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

“We should have had 4 up-armored humvees,” he said. “We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two.”

So what did they do? “To get the rest of the platoon to the fight,” he says, “we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees.” Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

“It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most – so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.

Uhhmmm dude, your just dead wrong. The issue is had he heard from this captain. He had. moving on…[/quote]

Except he told the story wrong. Go ahead and move on.

Edit: I mean seriously, do you read any of this stuff or do you just post blogs without reading them?

Jesus Christ the Captain contradicts half of Obama’s story.

The Captain himself says:
“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

Obama says:
“They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

This is not remotely the same thing. I could go on and on picking apart Obama but why bother.

86

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

[/quote]

No they will not. Idealogy is not good economic policy. Obama will be an even worse version of Carter.

My predictive poweres, with regards to elections are quite good. You have only predicted one election correctly since you started posteing on T-Nation, on behalf of the DNC. By the way Casey has been a dismal failure for PA. Even the Democrats are embarrassed by him.

Your lack of basic economics is stunning. Continuing to argue false points is silly and reinforces the perception you do not know what you are talking about. Ooops your a Liberal Democrat…that’s not really a problem for you guys.

87

Very good article on why a do-nothing 3rd year Senator with a razor thin resume is beating Hillary:

[i]Hillary’s Close-Up
By Daniel Henninger

Has anyone else out there begun to find that it is easier to make sense of the struggle between Hillary and Barack if one thinks in terms of film tragedies? Several have been unspooling in my mind these days: “All About Eve,” “Sunset Boulevard,” “A Star Is Born,” even “Bonnie and Clyde,” if one assumes the Clintons are going to either pull off this heist or go down in a blaze of bullets.

Hillary’s star is being eclipsed. Why?

A year ago, Hillary Clinton assumed the effort would bring her the prize. Instead, it has brought her to the precipice. What happened? What was supposed to be triumph has turned to tragedy. Who rewrote the plot?

The first revision came at the hand of Howard Dean. The Vermont governor’s quixotic 2004 presidential run did one big thing: It let the netroots out. It empowered the Democratic Left. Web-based “progressives” proved they could raise lots of political money and bring pressure, especially when allied with labor unions.

They didn’t defeat centrist Joe Lieberman in 2006, but they drove him out of the party. They pushed the party’s Iraq policy under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi into total, rejectionist opposition. In this world, the Petraeus surge is a failure, period. Thus, Obama calmly gives the surge little or no credit. Also in this world, trade and Nafta are anathema, as seen in the House refusal to pass the trade agreement with Colombia, the U.S.'s strongest ally in South America.

What the netroots has done is bunch up the party ideologically. While the Republican Party slices conservative ideology as thinly as aged prosciutto, the Democrats, in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, are all swinging a populist anvil – with the left hand.

This pushed Hillary out of the Clinton comfort zone. She established her Senate career as a reasonable person, winning public compliments from GOP colleagues. Came the campaign and she finds herself onstage with wall-to-wall men of the ascendant populist left.

On trade, the Democratic Party is as far left as at any time in its history. Both Al Gore and John Kerry ran as economic populists, but there was nothing on trade like what we have heard in this campaign. In Al Gore’s 2000 nomination acceptance speech, trade was the last issue mentioned: “We must welcome and promote truly free trade.” His running mate was Joe Lieberman, also a Nafta supporter. Labor “held its nose” and voted for Gore.

The party next nominated another Nafta supporter, John Kerry, whose acceptance speech also reduced trade to a line, with a quick bow to “a fair playing field.” There was talk that Kerry would cover himself by putting the ardently antitrade, prounion Dick Gephardt on the ticket. Labor lost that one, too, but with the selection of John Edwards, the party became more invested in left-leaning populism.

Both Al Gore and John Kerry ran out of the trade tradition established by the Clintons and Democrats who straddled the center – free trade as a proven economic benefit but with pressure applied at the margins on labor and environmental standards.

Barack Obama slipped smoothly into the antifree-trade current in his party. Hillary Clinton, one guesses, operates inside a structure of intellectual integrity of her own devising, and her antitrade riffs (the “time out”) sound strained.

It’s often said that she lacks Bill’s political skills, whatever that means. Her retail skills are pretty darned good, though, good enough to defeat John Edwards or virtually any other Democrat one can imagine. So why is she losing to a three-year senator?

Partly because she’s running in the wrong century.

Hillary’s politics is the world of Eleanor Roosevelt, when it was all being born anew. The Washington of LBJ’s Great Society in the mid-1960s was alive with policy debates – among Democrats. By now, the Democratic Party’s ideas are largely generic. Everyone noticed that the Democratic presidential candidates were largely singing from the same script. Health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This common script means that the Democratic primaries are largely an audition. The candidates are reading for a role. The lines are known.

The part, however, is challenging. The Democratic platform may be familiar, but it is also infused with the quality of a dream. Actually, the word “dream” gets used a lot in Democratic rhetoric. What are essentially bureaucratic arrangements, such as health insurance or after-school programs, are promised as “universal.” Meanwhile, “the middle class” is being offered a version of never-never land – total public protection from the traps and betrayals of the private sector, which has been reduced to a kind of Grimm’s Fairy Tale abstraction, the wolves.

If you are selling a dream you need the best possible salesman to make it seem somehow possible. They found him in Barack Obama.

Hillary attacked Obama this week on exactly this basis – for selling dreams: “And you know the celestial choirs will be singing . . . and the world will be perfect.” In her world “none of the problems we face will be easily solved.” In her world, the real one, mediocre pols must be worked and massive bureaucracies pushed to do the right thing. And you know what? She just might be good at it.

The bitter irony is that what the Democrats want is someone like the original Clinton, another figure who can make the old-time religion sound not like a government program, but personally uplifting. She can’t. In the Cleveland debate Tuesday, even Brian Williams couldn’t resist noting “a 16-minute discussion on health care.”

We’re about six days away from the last close-up. What Hillary Clinton has invested, given and endured for her party to get to this moment is hard to imagine. Then the Democratic audience says: What difference does that make? A star has been born. Now comes the mad scene.[/i]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/hillarys_closeup.html

Best quote that sums the whole thing up, and it demonstrates the lack of seriousness on the left:

“Everyone noticed that the Democratic presidential candidates were largely singing from the same script. Health care, public schools, green energy, the eternal shafting of the middle class, the unions, protecting Social Security and Medicare. This common script means that the Democratic primaries are largely an audition. The candidates are reading for a role. The lines are known.”

88

Interesting identity politics w/r/t superdelegates and “blackness”:

[i]African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they�??ll stand up against threats, intimidation and �??Uncle Tom�?? smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

�??African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,�?? said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving �??nasty letters, phone calls, threats they�??ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

�??This is the politics of the 1950s,�?? he complained. �??A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They�??re not going to talk about it, but it�??s happening.�??

After civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) switched his support from Clinton to Obama earlier this week, other black superdelegates have come under renewed pressure to do a similar about-face. A handful have bowed to the entreaties in recent weeks, including Georgia Rep. David Scott, but many say they are steadfast in their support for Clinton and resent strong-arm tactics to make them change.

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a black lawmaker and Clinton backer, said the intense lobbying for Obama would not alter her vote.

�??I�??ve gotten threatening mail,�?? Watson said. �??They say, �??Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change.�?? But I don�??t intimidate. I can hold the ground. �?� I would lose my seat over my principles.�??
See Also

* Clinton seeks to regain the spotlight
* HRC announces best fundraising month yet
* Campaign ads are a mockery

Neither Watson nor Cleaver faces a strong reelection threat at this time. Cleaver�??s Kansas City-area district narrowly supported Obama in Missouri�??s Feb. 5 primary.

Black superdelegates are getting heavy pressure from such groups as ColorOfChange.org, a grass-roots organization backing Obama.

�??Some [Congressional Black Caucus] members are threatening to vote against their constituents, and perhaps against the will of the American people, by casting their superdelegate vote for Sen. Clinton,�?? the ColorOfChange.org website reads. �??We can prevent this from happen by letting black leadership know we’re watching.�??

But Watson said that she could not see switching her vote simply because Obama is black.

�??I don�??t support one type of person above all others. How would that message resonate with Koreatown?�?? she asked. Watson�??s Central Los Angeles district is 35 percent Latino, 30 percent black and 12 percent Asian-American, including many Korean-Americans.

The Clinton campaign, for its part, has been working hard to keep its superdelegates on board. On a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes said he and campaign manager Maggie Williams had �??spent a lot of time talking to our superdelegates over the past week,�?? and that they are �??holding fast.�??

The Clinton camp released a statement Thursday touting the defection of Obama supporter Veronica Escobar after polls in Texas, Escobar�??s home state, showed Clinton leading among registered Hispanic voters by 62 to 21 percent.

Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), a Black Caucus member, said he is still �??very strong�?? for Clinton even in the wake of Lewis�??s turnaround. He was unmoved by discord in his Queens district, which backed Obama in the New York primary.

�??Some people threw out flyers. That doesn�??t faze me at all. If someone wants to run against me, that�??s democracy,�?? he said. �??Sen. Obama is a very inspirational person. People in the district are proud. I�??m proud. You can�??t not be proud being an African-American�?� But I have to do overall what�??s in the best interests of my district.�??

Cleaver questioned why white superdelegates such as Massachusetts Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry weren�??t being targeted to support Clinton after she carried their state.

�??If white people were being harassed and threatened because they were not supporting a white candidate, we�??d see headlines,�?? he said.

Cleaver said he did not believe the Obama campaign was behind the disturbing e-mails and phone calls he has received.

�??I refuse to believe that Sen. Obama gave orders for something like this to happen. This is a contradiction of the new politics that Sen. Obama is running on,�?? he said. �??My fear is with all of the nastiness, we�??re going to have a whole lot of kissing and making up to do as a party.�??[/i]

89

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

No they will not. Idealogy is not good economic policy. Obama will be an even worse version of Carter.

My predictive poweres, with regards to elections are quite good. You have only predicted one election correctly since you started posteing on T-Nation, on behalf of the DNC. By the way Casey has been a dismal failure for PA. Even the Democrats are embarrassed by him.

Your lack of basic economics is stunning. Continuing to argue false points is silly and reinforces the perception you do not know what you are talking about. Ooops your a Liberal Democrat…that’s not really a problem for you guys.

[/quote]

They will because they have. Higher taxes did not prevent them from investing in the past. A tax rate of “x” percent is not the only factor involved. The point is not even really debatable, and again historically by almost any measure liberals better than conservatives on the economy. But facts are silly things…

90

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp

During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.

Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.

How can anyone consider voting for this guy?

Uhh…the story was true?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=28242288

but other than it being true and all, and you looking like a jackass…a very insightful post

shorter:
why are you so f’ing gullible?
the weekly standard will lie to you every f’ing time. stop reading it. No wonder you never seem to what the hell you’re talking about.

Again this was a TRUE story.

but hilariously you said this:

“Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.”

You told the tale and scolded him. Jeebus.

Did you even read the links you posted? They claimed his story is “true” and then they go on to list the factual errors.

15 of the men in his platoon did not get shipped to Iraq. He went to Afghanistan with an understrength platoon and got the rest of the men after he got to Afghanistan.

They had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They were not forced to fight with Taliban weapons (although on occasion they did, like in all previous wars.)

I suppose you consider it a true story because there was a platoon that was sent to Afghanistan and they didn’t have as many Humvees as they wanted so they drove pick up trucks too. Give me a fucking break.

Obama told a false tale. Your sad bloggers are trying to spin it as truth but even they showed the many falsehoods.

The captain said this (in the damn link):

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain – then a Lieutenant – took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but – in ones and twos – 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains – before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, “we didn’t have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed.”

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun (“50 cal.”)

“We weren’t able to train in the way we needed to train,” he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn’t have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

“We should have had 4 up-armored humvees,” he said. “We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two.”

So what did they do? “To get the rest of the platoon to the fight,” he says, “we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees.” Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

“It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most – so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.

Uhhmmm dude, your just dead wrong. The issue is had he heard from this captain. He had. moving on…

Except he told the story wrong. Go ahead and move on.

Edit: I mean seriously, do you read any of this stuff or do you just post blogs without reading them?

Jesus Christ the Captain contradicts half of Obama’s story.

The Captain himself says:
“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

Obama says:
“They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

This is not remotely the same thing. I could go on and on picking apart Obama but why bother.
[/quote]

Whew! that’s all ya got?
They did capture weapons. Check.
Used them. Check.
Couldn’t get parts for some of their own weapons. Check.
Because of Iraq. Check.
Says the captain. Check.

Again Obama didn’t say attack taliban to capture weapons, so there’s no contradiction there.

Clearly you were reaching with “bullshit” and “reprehensible”.

91

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp

During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.

Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.

How can anyone consider voting for this guy?

Uhh…the story was true?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=28242288

but other than it being true and all, and you looking like a jackass…a very insightful post

shorter:
why are you so f’ing gullible?
the weekly standard will lie to you every f’ing time. stop reading it. No wonder you never seem to what the hell you’re talking about.

Again this was a TRUE story.

but hilariously you said this:

“Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.”

You told the tale and scolded him. Jeebus.

Did you even read the links you posted? They claimed his story is “true” and then they go on to list the factual errors.

15 of the men in his platoon did not get shipped to Iraq. He went to Afghanistan with an understrength platoon and got the rest of the men after he got to Afghanistan.

They had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They were not forced to fight with Taliban weapons (although on occasion they did, like in all previous wars.)

I suppose you consider it a true story because there was a platoon that was sent to Afghanistan and they didn’t have as many Humvees as they wanted so they drove pick up trucks too. Give me a fucking break.

Obama told a false tale. Your sad bloggers are trying to spin it as truth but even they showed the many falsehoods.

The captain said this (in the damn link):

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain – then a Lieutenant – took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but – in ones and twos – 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains – before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, “we didn’t have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed.”

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun (“50 cal.”)

“We weren’t able to train in the way we needed to train,” he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn’t have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

“We should have had 4 up-armored humvees,” he said. “We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two.”

So what did they do? “To get the rest of the platoon to the fight,” he says, “we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees.” Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

“It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most – so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.

Uhhmmm dude, your just dead wrong. The issue is had he heard from this captain. He had. moving on…

Except he told the story wrong. Go ahead and move on.

Edit: I mean seriously, do you read any of this stuff or do you just post blogs without reading them?

Jesus Christ the Captain contradicts half of Obama’s story.

The Captain himself says:
“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

Obama says:
“They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

This is not remotely the same thing. I could go on and on picking apart Obama but why bother.

Whew! that’s all ya got?
They did capture weapons. Check.
Used them. Check.
Couldn’t get parts for some of their own weapons. Check.
Because of Iraq. Check.
Says the captain. Check.

Again Obama didn’t say attack taliban to capture weapons, so there’s no contradiction there.

Clearly you were reaching with “bullshit” and “reprehensible”.

[/quote]

Clearly you either didn’t read it, have no reading comprehension or are just lying. I am done with you.

92

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Talking without any knowledge appears to be one of his positions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/us_troops_scavenging_weapons.asp

During tonight’s debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon–supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he’d gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they’re properly equipped, and we’ve never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we’d join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama’s telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama’s version or not.

Is Obama just a bullshitter or does he believe his lies? Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.

How can anyone consider voting for this guy?

Uhh…the story was true?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/warner-to-obama-bring-me-your-captain/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=28242288

but other than it being true and all, and you looking like a jackass…a very insightful post

shorter:
why are you so f’ing gullible?
the weekly standard will lie to you every f’ing time. stop reading it. No wonder you never seem to what the hell you’re talking about.

Again this was a TRUE story.

but hilariously you said this:

“Spreading these kinds of tales is reprehensible.”

You told the tale and scolded him. Jeebus.

Did you even read the links you posted? They claimed his story is “true” and then they go on to list the factual errors.

15 of the men in his platoon did not get shipped to Iraq. He went to Afghanistan with an understrength platoon and got the rest of the men after he got to Afghanistan.

They had plenty of rifles and ammunition. They were not forced to fight with Taliban weapons (although on occasion they did, like in all previous wars.)

I suppose you consider it a true story because there was a platoon that was sent to Afghanistan and they didn’t have as many Humvees as they wanted so they drove pick up trucks too. Give me a fucking break.

Obama told a false tale. Your sad bloggers are trying to spin it as truth but even they showed the many falsehoods.

The captain said this (in the damn link):

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain – then a Lieutenant – took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but – in ones and twos – 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

“We should have deployed with 39,” he told me, “we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.”

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains – before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, “we didn’t have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed.”

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun (“50 cal.”)

“We weren’t able to train in the way we needed to train,” he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn’t have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

“We should have had 4 up-armored humvees,” he said. “We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two.”

So what did they do? “To get the rest of the platoon to the fight,” he says, “we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees.” Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

“It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most – so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.

Uhhmmm dude, your just dead wrong. The issue is had he heard from this captain. He had. moving on…

Except he told the story wrong. Go ahead and move on.

Edit: I mean seriously, do you read any of this stuff or do you just post blogs without reading them?

Jesus Christ the Captain contradicts half of Obama’s story.

The Captain himself says:
“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

Obama says:
“They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

This is not remotely the same thing. I could go on and on picking apart Obama but why bother.

Whew! that’s all ya got?
They did capture weapons. Check.
Used them. Check.
Couldn’t get parts for some of their own weapons. Check.
Because of Iraq. Check.
Says the captain. Check.

Again Obama didn’t say attack taliban to capture weapons, so there’s no contradiction there.

Clearly you were reaching with “bullshit” and “reprehensible”.

Clearly you either didn’t read it, have no reading comprehension or are just lying. I am done with you.[/quote]

Uhh… no, you just jumped on the right wing shit storm, that believed Obama had made this entire story up out of thin air, when in fact he hadn’t.

the only thing left to do now is save face, which for you means parsing words.

In short only a total idiot would say that Obama’s retelling of what he heard from the army captain was “reprehensible”

93

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

No they will not. Idealogy is not good economic policy. Obama will be an even worse version of Carter.

My predictive poweres, with regards to elections are quite good. You have only predicted one election correctly since you started posteing on T-Nation, on behalf of the DNC. By the way Casey has been a dismal failure for PA. Even the Democrats are embarrassed by him.

Your lack of basic economics is stunning. Continuing to argue false points is silly and reinforces the perception you do not know what you are talking about. Ooops your a Liberal Democrat…that’s not really a problem for you guys.

They will because they have. Higher taxes did not prevent them from investing in the past. A tax rate of “x” percent is not the only factor involved. The point is not even really debatable, and again historically by almost any measure liberals better than conservatives on the economy. But facts are silly things…

[/quote]

Facts do seem quite silly to you apparently. Liberals typically destroy the econonmy and rive it into recession. That’s why they don’t last and only 19% of the country is liberal.

Actually higher tax rates drive away investment in capital that produce things that make a profit that allow the tax to be paid. What are you in grade school or something…this is high school economics. Simply looking at finite periods of history and then making inaccurate observations about them is not debate. It’s stupid debating tricks and you are not using them well.

Try and make one valid point to hold my interst.

Does the DNC pay you by the post or by the hour by the way?

94

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Wow I never thought of that. If I have less money to invest and the capital I do invest, if it generates a profit, will be taxed more heavily I guess that is a major incentive to buy more capital goods and hire more employees right? As long as I “hope” it will work!

Screwball Democratic logic at it’s finest. Tax your way to prosperity. That’ll work right?

The wealthy already pay more then their fair share. Care to guess what Obama and HeHe consider wealthy?

Silliness. Taxes have been higher. The elite still invested.

You are addicted to idealogy and have a lack of understanding of basic economics…like Barack and Hillary.

Actually the wealthy don’t invest in high tax countries, they relocate and the elite are not what you and the other minions are after. Corporations are not the “elite”. They are business entities.

If you don’t have it. You don’t invest it. If you are taxed when taking a risk, then the incentive for risk taking in curtailed. Although you may consider me “elite” I simply own a few businesses and I will not reinvest into them if I am taxed heavily. I’ll simply save and wait until a friendlier administration is in place and will leverage tax advantaged investments.

You get less the more you regulate. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. It’s basic common sense…oh I forgot you are a liberal Democrat.

Taxes can and will be “higher” and you and others will still invest. Why bother arguing this?

No I won’t. I will save and wait. I’m not arguing with you. You are a fool and there is no point in arguing with a fool…and a poor fool at that.

Taxes will not be higher if the country comes to it’s senses and tosses out the Democrats, and their candidates, which is more then likely to happen.

With your predictive powers (Santorum!) it looks like dems will take even more seats.

And everybody but you will continue to invest, obviously (see history, nineties)

No they will not. Idealogy is not good economic policy. Obama will be an even worse version of Carter.

My predictive poweres, with regards to elections are quite good. You have only predicted one election correctly since you started posteing on T-Nation, on behalf of the DNC. By the way Casey has been a dismal failure for PA. Even the Democrats are embarrassed by him.

Your lack of basic economics is stunning. Continuing to argue false points is silly and reinforces the perception you do not know what you are talking about. Ooops your a Liberal Democrat…that’s not really a problem for you guys.

They will because they have. Higher taxes did not prevent them from investing in the past. A tax rate of “x” percent is not the only factor involved. The point is not even really debatable, and again historically by almost any measure liberals better than conservatives on the economy. But facts are silly things…

Facts do seem quite silly to you apparently. Liberals typically destroy the econonmy and rive it into recession. That’s why they don’t last and only 19% of the country is liberal.

Actually higher tax rates drive away investment in capital that produce things that make a profit that allow the tax to be paid. What are you in grade school or something…this is high school economics. Simply looking at finite periods of history and then making inaccurate observations about them is not debate. It’s stupid debating tricks and you are not using them well.

Try and make one valid point to hold my interst.

Does the DNC pay you by the post or by the hour by the way?
[/quote]
Factually in modern history Democrats outperform conservatives in nearly every single aspect of the economy, but don’t let that stop you from making stuff up…

Also as you know the vast majority of the public agree with liberals on, well just about everything, taxes included.

Also we have lower taxes now and are being driven into a recession. As I said before, tax rate “x” is not THE thing that moves the economy up or down, and just a decade ago taxes were higher with a much better economy.

That you think purely the tax rate drives things, shows your ignorance, not mine.

95

But you remain the one ignorant of facts or the ability to make common sense statements. You post opinion and expect everyone to believe you. It works for Barack Hussein Obama but not you.

19% of the populace define themselves as liberals and being a liberal is generally the kiss of death in an election outside of Ma., NJ,NY or Calif. You know that and your continued insistance that it is not true is transparent to everyone but you. Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama continually claim they are not liberals…why do you think that is?

The last Liberal president was Roosevelt and his economic policies were a disaster for the country prolonging the depression far longer then it should have and setting up and Era of big government that we still suffer with today. Kennedy and Johnson would be considered right wingers today. Carter was just a fool but at least he served his country. Clinton, was a moderate with socialist leanings but he had the Republican congress to limit the damage he was able to cause.

Please define, how a higher tax rate, is an incentive for the economy to grow and where higher taxes have lead to economic expansion. Please limit your geographic scope to “earth” and not some made up land you have in your mind. Also please use reality as a guideline and not the voices in your head when making a point. This will be difficult for you but well worth he effort.

You argue that higher taxes have not shut off economic growth completely. If that’s the best you and Barack can come up with then you are effectively communicating your message. Please make sure it becomes part of the Democratic platform. “Tax to prosperity!” I know that Democratic strategy is to “hide” your positions until after the election but this idea of higher taxes should be broadcast to everyone.

96

[quote]hedo wrote:
But you remain the one ignorant of facts or the ability to make common sense statements. You post opinion and expect everyone to believe you. It works for Barack Hussein Obama but not you.

19% of the populace define themselves as liberals and being a liberal is generally the kiss of death in an election outside of Ma., NJ,NY or Calif. You know that and your continued insistance that it is not true is transparent to everyone but you. Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama continually claim they are not liberals…why do you think that is?

The last Liberal president was Roosevelt and his economic policies were a disaster for the country prolonging the depression far longer then it should have and setting up and Era of big government that we still suffer with today. Kennedy and Johnson would be considered right wingers today. Carter was just a fool but at least he served his country. Clinton, was a moderate with socialist leanings but he had the Republican congress to limit the damage he was able to cause.

Please define, how a higher tax rate, is an incentive for the economy to grow and where higher taxes have lead to economic expansion. Please limit your geographic scope to “earth” and not some made up land you have in your mind. Also please use reality as a guideline and not the voices in your head when making a point. This will be difficult for you but well worth he effort.

You argue that higher taxes have not shut off economic growth completely. If that’s the best you and Barack can come up with then you are effectively communicating your message. Please make sure it becomes part of the Democratic platform. “Tax to prosperity!” I know that Democratic strategy is to “hide” your positions until after the election but this idea of higher taxes should be broadcast to everyone.[/quote]

Johnson and Carter were most certainly liberals.

97

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Jesus Christ the Captain contradicts half of Obama’s story.

The Captain himself says:
“The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

Obama says:
“They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

This is not remotely the same thing. I could go on and on picking apart Obama but why bother.
[/quote]

You’re clearly picking one sentence of what Obama said, which was probably driven more by ignorance than malice, while ignoring the main point of the (true) story, which is that the invasion of Iraq detracted significantly from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

98

[quote]hedo wrote:
But you remain the one ignorant of facts or the ability to make common sense statements. You post opinion and expect everyone to believe you. It works for Barack Hussein Obama but not you.

19% of the populace define themselves as liberals and being a liberal is generally the kiss of death in an election outside of Ma., NJ,NY or Calif. You know that and your continued insistance that it is not true is transparent to everyone but you. Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama continually claim they are not liberals…why do you think that is?

The last Liberal president was Roosevelt and his economic policies were a disaster for the country prolonging the depression far longer then it should have and setting up and Era of big government that we still suffer with today. Kennedy and Johnson would be considered right wingers today. Carter was just a fool but at least he served his country. Clinton, was a moderate with socialist leanings but he had the Republican congress to limit the damage he was able to cause.

Please define, how a higher tax rate, is an incentive for the economy to grow and where higher taxes have lead to economic expansion. Please limit your geographic scope to “earth” and not some made up land you have in your mind. Also please use reality as a guideline and not the voices in your head when making a point. This will be difficult for you but well worth he effort.

You argue that higher taxes have not shut off economic growth completely. If that’s the best you and Barack can come up with then you are effectively communicating your message. Please make sure it becomes part of the Democratic platform. “Tax to prosperity!” I know that Democratic strategy is to “hide” your positions until after the election but this idea of higher taxes should be broadcast to everyone.[/quote]

Did we have economic expansion in the nineties? In other words is your memory only capable of going back 8 years or are you just historically unaware?

Also I think Obama openly says he’ll roll back the bush tax cuts. This is obviously something a majority of the country will support.

And again, tax rates do not exist in a vacuum. There are multiple factors in an economy going up or down. I’ll refer you to the bush tax cuts and today’s economy.

99

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
…
Did we have economic expansion in the nineties? In other words is your memory only capable of going back 8 years or are you just historically unaware?

Also I think Obama openly says he’ll roll back the bush tax cuts. This is obviously something a majority of the country will support.

And again, tax rates do not exist in a vacuum. There are multiple factors in an economy going up or down. I’ll refer you to the bush tax cuts and today’s economy.

[/quote]

Well, 100meters, history seems to cut both ways here.

You may–or may not–recall that Clinton entered office in 1992 in a mild recession, promising a multi-billion dollar “jobs program,” whatever that was. It was Lloyd Bentsen, who outmatched an outgunned both Clinton and Robert Reich in the Cabinet, and quashed the unnecessary and feckless program of WJC.

Next, it was not Clinton, but Bentsen’s successor, Robert Rubin, and Alan Greenspan, who managed the the budget and deficits, under the pressure of Congress after the1996. WJC thought a balanced budget would be possible by 2010, but Mr. Rubin surprised everyone. Strange that Bill and Hillary are still collecting credit on others’ performance here.

Last, tax revenues peaked in 2000 because of general business activity and because a whole new industry—computers–arose, increasing productivity. The Bubble provided capital gains taxes at both Federal and State levels.

The point here is that only one of these conditions will exist for the Prez on 1/20/09; a recession in recession. What someone promised to do now may be a very foolish choice 10 months from now.

Thank you, Mssrs. Bentsen, Rubin, and Greenspan.

100

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
But you remain the one ignorant of facts or the ability to make common sense statements. You post opinion and expect everyone to believe you. It works for Barack Hussein Obama but not you.

19% of the populace define themselves as liberals and being a liberal is generally the kiss of death in an election outside of Ma., NJ,NY or Calif. You know that and your continued insistance that it is not true is transparent to everyone but you. Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama continually claim they are not liberals…why do you think that is?

The last Liberal president was Roosevelt and his economic policies were a disaster for the country prolonging the depression far longer then it should have and setting up and Era of big government that we still suffer with today. Kennedy and Johnson would be considered right wingers today. Carter was just a fool but at least he served his country. Clinton, was a moderate with socialist leanings but he had the Republican congress to limit the damage he was able to cause.

Please define, how a higher tax rate, is an incentive for the economy to grow and where higher taxes have lead to economic expansion. Please limit your geographic scope to “earth” and not some made up land you have in your mind. Also please use reality as a guideline and not the voices in your head when making a point. This will be difficult for you but well worth he effort.

You argue that higher taxes have not shut off economic growth completely. If that’s the best you and Barack can come up with then you are effectively communicating your message. Please make sure it becomes part of the Democratic platform. “Tax to prosperity!” I know that Democratic strategy is to “hide” your positions until after the election but this idea of higher taxes should be broadcast to everyone.

Did we have economic expansion in the nineties? In other words is your memory only capable of going back 8 years or are you just historically unaware?

Also I think Obama openly says he’ll roll back the bush tax cuts. This is obviously something a majority of the country will support.

And again, tax rates do not exist in a vacuum. There are multiple factors in an economy going up or down. I’ll refer you to the bush tax cuts and today’s economy.

[/quote]

Please refresh me over the expansion of the economy over the past 6 years. CLinto claims he was a centrist and most of his left leaning policies couldn’t get past the Republican Congress after the first mid year elections. Selective memory again.

Rolling back tax cuts, during a recession leads to a depression not economic prosperity.

Why did you jump ship from Hillary all of a sudden?