Translation: give-aways to non-whites. Whites have no “urban leaders” because it would be racist.
This was basically Bush’s schtick in 2002-2003, documented on my other thread. Look where that got us now. I suppose we can try 4 more years of it, if China will fund it. I doubt they will.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The problem isn’t that she’s quaint. The problem is that she knows virtually nothing about the rest of the world. She clearly knows nothing about Afghanistan, or air strikes, or that this might be a problem in a counterinsurgency campaign.
As others have noted, if a Democrat had been in the same position, the right wing press would have howled that he knew nothing about national security and was unfit to be vice president. And they would probably have been right.
The comparisons to Reagan are moronic. He was making substantive foreign policy speeches in 1964, almost twenty years before he made it to the White House. She is so clearly scripted on the subject that it’s painful to watch. You’d think conservatives would be opposed to identity politics. Guess not.
A-fucking men.
You want quant, go find someone that sells antuques. You want a VP, don’t go to fuckin alaska.
Because Delaware is such a much better place - if you want cry-on-demand liars being “just a heartbeat away”.
Fucking bawl bag little pussy. Palin should have went over to his podium and knocked the fuck out of him for tearing up.
Yea really. What a big vagina.
Who the fuck cries when their wife and daughter die anyway?
What a pussy.
[/quote]
Oprah watching little fag boys. Or lying, grandstanding liberal VP candidates.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
what are the specific Obama/Biden proposals you are against?
Well, when they talk about only raising taxes on “the rich” I wonder who really gobbles that up?
If you over tax a guy who has an S Corp because his company makes say 500-K, don’t you think there are repercussions? Employees may not get a raise and his prices may go up. Do you really think he’s going to eat that tax hike alone?
If you’ve learned nothing else from this latest bailout fiasco, know this: We have ONE economy, when you “tax the rich” you absolutely hurt the middle class one way or another.
Make GE pay higher taxes and the cost of light bulbs go up.
DUH
In addition to that you don’t encourage business expansion which hurts the expansion of the actual tax base as it slows down growth.
But liberals never ever understood this why am I expecting them to understand now?
The top 5% already pay over 50% of all income tax anyway. I mean in all fairness much more should they have to pay?
Ha[/quote]
In theory I would agree with you. In practice, it doesn’t shake out like that. I talked to my Dad about this. Only 5% of small business owners actually make more than $250,000. And my Dad makes a good bit over $250,000 and said the plan as laid out would only result in about a $1000 increase in taxes for him.
So, I don’t expect this to have any appreciable affect on small businesses and jobs. He said he’d happily pay $10,000 more to get this country out of the whole and moving in the right direction.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But if we are going that route - he may not know how many homes, but McCain knows how many states we have in the union, as well as the fact that there were no TV’s in 1929, or that FDR was still 3 years from being president.
And I’m pretty damn sure he would know that the and France were never in Lebanon to kick out Hezbulah.
I’d hope McCain would know where his job description is found in the constitution.
Biden gaffed way more than Palin did.
[/quote]
Careful there-- Biden KNOWS there’s a country, um, directly to the north of Israel… (fucked if he knows the name of it, though…)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Huh. I’m the opposite. I thought Biden overplayed the urban routine. It just came off like he was trying to be too “Big City.”
How so? I thought he barely mentioned it. He did talk about Scranton a bit. Probably not as much as he should have.
Just the way he spoke and composed himself. Very “big city.”
That’s just the way he is. He wasn’t talking about representing ‘America’s underprivileged urban youth.’ I don’t like Palin’s accent or voice. But that’s just what my ears think. I don’t hold that against her at all. I have no problem with her background.
Hell, I don’t even mind her mannerisms. Nothing wrong with a shoutout to the third graders her brother teaches. That’s fine. That’s human. But ad nauseum references to Joe Six Pack and hockey moms? Come on.
And can you really tell me, it wasn’t contrived when she started to ramble about parents at kids soccer games in response to a question about the economy? I love soccer. I played soccer. Millions of kids across America have in the country and in suburbs have.
People are really not so different from state to state and across different backgrounds as some might like to think. No one really likes polished, stilted, career politicians. But is that really what you want to hear in response to a question about the economy?
Is that a natural reference? That’s not natural imagery to call up when the simple answer is that the economy’s in trouble. It’s just a transparent attempt to try and get all those soccer parents to identify with her.
Oh, I don’t think McCain or Palin are strong speaking about economic issues. But, after seeing the Obamessiah/Biden team brag about spending more money on liberal give aways while all this is going down? Tax and spend, now?
McCain hasn’t been particularly strong. Palin’s managed to avoid talking about the economy at all beyond saying that you know it’s bad because you can see the fear in the faces of parents at soccer games.
Which liberal giveaways? If we’re going to turn away from Sarah Palin and move to substantive differences between the tickets, what are the specific Obama/Biden proposals you are against?
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/rural/
Take your time.
You know that’s not what I was asking…I know what his plans are. What are your beefs with each initiative and what would you otherwise prefer in its place? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want, though.
This is way beyond the scope of an internet forum. It’s also Friday night and this kind of discussion would extend way past going out time. Probably best belongs in a separate thread as well.
I’ll make it simple. It’s not neccessary to go through each initiative, because I object to many of his “initiatives” for the same reasons over and over: Redistribution, welfarism, spending, more bureaucracy…hell, socialism.
But, a few examples, “Obama and Biden will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program and engage with urban leaders across the country to increase resources to the highest-need Americans.”
“Supports Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama has supported efforts to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.”
You can look through the links and see all the wonderful things his government will spend our money (will he be borrowing it from China) on. How about instead of bragging about how much government will spend on his pet charity programs, we cut spending.
No, not just slowing spending. How about actually CUTTING spending and the already bloated , overreaching, wasteful government. Tax/Borrow and spend? This is his solution, during the mess we’re in now?[/quote]
Funding some social programs is not tantamount to socialism. There are programs he has planned I disagree with. Some I think are positive. I need to look at the budget as a whole and see how it’s all allocated. And what the net result is. This is the important thing.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Funding some social programs is not tantamount to socialism. [/quote]
Like, which ones?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…In theory I would agree with you. In practice, it doesn’t shake out like that. I talked to my Dad about this. Only 5% of small business owners actually make more than $250,000.
And my Dad makes a good bit over $250,000 and said the plan as laid out would only result in about a $1000 increase in taxes for him. So, I don’t expect this to have any appreciable affect on small businesses and jobs.
He said he’d happily pay $10,000 more to get this country out of the whole and moving in the right direction.
Then tell him to do it. The U.S. Treasury takes donations. Put his money where his mouth is.[/quote]
[i]A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
–Alexis de Tocqueville [/i]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
…don’t go to fuckin alaska.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I’ve done some fuckin in Alaska. It works good there too.[/quote]
"…I don’t know but I’ve been TOLD…Eskimo Pussy is miiighty cold!!!..(…Uh gimme some…Uh gimme some…!!!)
(I couldn’t help it, Push…:)–! )
Mufasa
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[i]A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
–Alexis de Tocqueville [/i][/quote]
With all due respect to Alexis, I can think of a few dictatorial governments where the exact same thing takes place.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…In theory I would agree with you. In practice, it doesn’t shake out like that. I talked to my Dad about this. Only 5% of small business owners actually make more than $250,000.
And my Dad makes a good bit over $250,000 and said the plan as laid out would only result in about a $1000 increase in taxes for him.
So, I don’t expect this to have any appreciable affect on small businesses and jobs. He said he’d happily pay $10,000 more to get this country out of the whole and moving in the right direction.
Then tell him to do it. The U.S. Treasury takes donations. Put his money where his mouth is.[/quote]
A lot of people are willing to put there money where there mouth is. Which is why they are not opposed to a tax increase.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…In theory I would agree with you. In practice, it doesn’t shake out like that. I talked to my Dad about this. Only 5% of small business owners actually make more than $250,000.
And my Dad makes a good bit over $250,000 and said the plan as laid out would only result in about a $1000 increase in taxes for him. So, I don’t expect this to have any appreciable affect on small businesses and jobs.
He said he’d happily pay $10,000 more to get this country out of the whole and moving in the right direction.
Then tell him to do it. The U.S. Treasury takes donations. Put his money where his mouth is.[/quote]
Exactly, no one ever seems to give more than the govt asks for. It’s like that dipshit Perot. One year he made app. 100,00,00.00 and paid about 6 million in taxes, or 6%. Really easy to dump your money in tax free shelters when you make 100 million.
I’m sure he wouldn’t have been broke if he tossed them another 2-30 million.
P.J. O’Rourke once wrote, “Giving more money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenage boy”.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…In theory I would agree with you. In practice, it doesn’t shake out like that. I talked to my Dad about this. Only 5% of small business owners actually make more than $250,000.
And my Dad makes a good bit over $250,000 and said the plan as laid out would only result in about a $1000 increase in taxes for him. So, I don’t expect this to have any appreciable affect on small businesses and jobs.
He said he’d happily pay $10,000 more to get this country out of the whole and moving in the right direction.
Then tell him to do it. The U.S. Treasury takes donations. Put his money where his mouth is.
A lot of people are willing to put there money where there mouth is. Which is why they are not opposed to a tax increase.[/quote]
How about just not spending all that money Barrack plans to as our Community Organizer in Chief?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…I am not making a mountain out of anything. You said she over played her home town shtick. I said she isn’t. Push said she isn’t. You are a yankee with no clue about rural life…
Obviously, I agree. She is NOT acting. That IS her that you see. She was born (Sandpoint, Idaho) about a two hour drive from where I live. She lives in a town (Wasilla, AK) that I used to live in. She is the real thing. What you see is the real thing.
Left Coasters and big city Yankees can yap all they want about how quaint she is but a lot of that type shit was lobbed at Reagan too. It didn’t work then either.
The problem isn’t that she’s quaint. The problem is that she knows virtually nothing about the rest of the world. She clearly knows nothing about Afghanistan, or air strikes, or that this might be a problem in a counterinsurgency campaign.
As others have noted, if a Democrat had been in the same position, the right wing press would have howled that he knew nothing about national security and was unfit to be vice president. And they would probably have been right.
The comparisons to Reagan are moronic. He was making substantive foreign policy speeches in 1964, almost twenty years before he made it to the White House. She is so clearly scripted on the subject that it’s painful to watch. You’d think conservatives would be opposed to identity politics. Guess not.[/quote]
Not knowing shit is a lot better than being wrong about every foreign policy issue in the last thirty some years. At least you can learn if you don’t know. If you’ve been wrong with so many tries, well…
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Another thing that I wonder about. If this election is such a slam dunk for Obama, then why all this Palin bashing? If Obama is the obvious choice, then why is the left laying it on so thick? Why the attacks on Palin about the way she talks, and why attack McCain about his age?
Why do they need to keep reminding everyone that “George Bush and John McCain ruined the whole world, adn only Obama can save us all”?[/quote]
Who but the media and these loaded and leading “Polls” feel that the election is such a “slam dunk” for Obama?
This is FAR from being a slam dunk for Obama. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t be surprised by a large McCain victory…
Mufasa
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Funding some social programs is not tantamount to socialism.
Like, which ones?
[/quote]
In my mind, socialism means state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods with the goal of broadscale wealth redistribution and the creation of an egalitarian society.
That’s not what a slight tax increase on the wealthy and funding several social programs deemed to improve the lives of citizens with the goal of increasing overall longterm prosperity does or aims to do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…In theory I would agree with you. In practice, it doesn’t shake out like that. I talked to my Dad about this. Only 5% of small business owners actually make more than $250,000.
And my Dad makes a good bit over $250,000 and said the plan as laid out would only result in about a $1000 increase in taxes for him. So, I don’t expect this to have any appreciable affect on small businesses and jobs.
He said he’d happily pay $10,000 more to get this country out of the whole and moving in the right direction.
Then tell him to do it. The U.S. Treasury takes donations. Put his money where his mouth is.
A lot of people are willing to put there money where there mouth is. Which is why they are not opposed to a tax increase.
Then those “lot of people” should be willing to make donations to the U.S. Treasury. PROBLEM SOLVED!
(Brook, you’re making this too easy on me)[/quote]
Sure, sure. We shouldn’t have taxes at all. Everything should be voluntary contributions. Now I see the light.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…In theory I would agree with you. In practice, it doesn’t shake out like that. I talked to my Dad about this. Only 5% of small business owners actually make more than $250,000.
And my Dad makes a good bit over $250,000 and said the plan as laid out would only result in about a $1000 increase in taxes for him. So, I don’t expect this to have any appreciable affect on small businesses and jobs. He said he’d happily pay $10,000 more to get this country out of the whole and moving in the right direction.
Then tell him to do it. The U.S. Treasury takes donations. Put his money where his mouth is.
A lot of people are willing to put there money where there mouth is. Which is why they are not opposed to a tax increase.
Then those “lot of people” should be willing to make donations to the U.S. Treasury. PROBLEM SOLVED!
(Brook, you’re making this too easy on me)
Sure, sure. We shouldn’t have taxes at all. Everything should be voluntary contributions. Now I see the light.[/quote]
No, however helping people should be done by those who want to help, not the entire taxpaying body. I don’t want to go to college, or open a buisness to feed into a system providing for people who didn’t work as hard as me.
Look at all these initiatives. He’s about the most liberal crackpot you’ll find in the Senate. And these “initiatives” are what he’s willing to advertise while he’s campaigning, and can’t afford to scare people off.
So, I have to wonder at the size and expense of the programs he’ll roll out once he’s secured his presidency.
Who does he think he is, some kind of social welfare engineer? And that we’re his little welfare funding engines? That we’re going to work and toil so he can play Community Organizer in Cheif with taxpayer funds and borrowed money?