of supposed "debate" -- I can see why some people would prefer to avoid you.
It really adds nothing when you insult other posters like this. Why can't you accept an opinion, when everyone here who knows politics, is very aware of things that have happened over the past few months? Just because someone doesn't feel like typing out what has been discussed and debated here for the last few months does not make them less intellectual than you.
I rather admire them for refusing to be baited by your antagonistic style of posting.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement. If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."
He has already attracted a rebuke from Sarah Palin.
"Talking with complete sentences there and also, too, talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing, also."
Go stalk someone else, because you tend to only bother the conservative posters. We do try to skip over you as much as possible, but you tend to post all over the board these days, don't you.
that was quite in style and I accept
your apology. Thank you very much.
Yes, it's a new thing....Bush style.
All jokes on the liberal board must be approved by the CONS, and everyone's sense of humor MUST mirror their own. Any deviation from this will result in deletion of the jokes (and any accompanying posts).
It's the epitome of true freedom of speech -- Bush style!
BANGKOK (AFP) - Parliamentary candidates in Thailand's upcoming election are trying to buy the votes of elderly men by passing out free Viagra, a local government official said Friday.
Thais head to the polls on December 23 for the first time since the military toppled the elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup last year.
Residents in Prathumthani, on the northern outskirts of Bangkok, reported some of the candidates were passing out doses of the anti-impotence drug in exchange for promised votes, said Sayan Nopkham, a local government official.
"The villagers told me they have been given one or two pills of Viagra by candidates. Then they come to me to ask for more pills, or sometimes coffee, in exchange for voting for my brother, who is also running for a seat," he told AFP.
Thailand has a long history of vote-buying, but laws banning it have recently been toughened.
Anyone found guilty of buying votes could face up to 10 years in prison while voters who accept money face up to five years in jail.
Charungwit Phumma, an investigator with the Election Commission, said he had received no formal complaints about a Viagra-for-votes scheme.
"It's a funny claim," he said.
Charungwit said the most common complaints filed with his office were voters being paid to join a political party or being promised cash for going to the ballot box.
Sens. Barack Obama & D*ick Durbin Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Gov. Rod Blogojevich House leader Mike Madigan Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike) Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley).....
Chicago is a combat zone. Of course they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!
(Look them up if you want).
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook Co unty ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.
Chicago school system, one of the worst in country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois .
1. Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.
2. Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.Social insurance (Social Security). Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).Employee's share of this is 17.5%.
3. Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues.
4. Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues. Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.
5. "Other" 2%
So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%. If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950. For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.
"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion? Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information: Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS. The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS). To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade. I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages. Pay special attention to the last 3 items.
1. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s
2. Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s
3. Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s
4. Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s
5. Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s
6. Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s
7. Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.
From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture. I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth. This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another. This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.
By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
The composition of the tax hikes in the 2010 budget is frighteningly similar to the Revenue Act of 1932, the much-maligned Hoover tax hikes that put the “Great” in Great Depression by putting an enormous tax burden on millions of Americans, largely through excise taxes. These taxes, raised even further by FDR, were justified by the promise that the funds would be returned in the form of relief programs, which is to say that some portion of the tax revenue, after administrative costs in Washington, would go back to the states with strings attached, often to further political rather than economic objectives.
As the table below shows, the Obama budget blueprint, like the 1932 act, is split mainly between broad excise taxes and income tax hikes on high income earners. Unfortunately, there were no 10-years projections back then, so I had to use one year numbers, but it’s still an interesting comparison.
The 2010 budget assumes, probably correctly, that the only way to generate a big revenue increase in the face of severe economic weakness is to use a tax mechanism–the excise tax–that is collected in relatively small increments across millions of transactions made by Americans of all income levels. That is a direct lesson of 1932, when the income tax on the rich–then the only people who paid income taxes–was raised to capture as much revenue as possible before high-income earners fled the country or stopped working. Then, as now, that amount was about 0.3 percent of GDP.
Excise taxes did most of the revenue work in the 1932 act, including excises on everything from trucks, tires, jewelry, chewing gum, and soft drinks to gasoline and electricity. Those last two are especially interesting in light of the carbon cap-and-trade proposal in the 2010 budget, which is a DE facto excise tax on those items as well as every other energy technology that relies on the most affordable energy sources: natural gas, oil, and coal.
Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.
While the overall tax hike is smaller than 1932 (0.9 percent of GDP versus 1.6 percent of GDP) and the excise/energy component is only half the size (0.4 percent of GDP versus 0.8 percent of GDP) there is every reason to believe that the bite of the cap-and-trade tax will increase considerably beyond the initial projections, making this plan even more resemble 1932.
The cap-and-trade provisions are designed to get much, much more expensive over time, making the total impact hard to quantify but likely to be as or more expensive than the 1932 Revenue Act. In fact, Obama’s version of cap-and-trade is much more expensive than last year’s already outrageous Lieberman-Warner bill, mandating emissions cuts of 83 percent versus 63 percent in last year’s version.
I didn’t include the death tax in the chart, because there was no revenue estimate for it in 1932, but that’s another eerie parallel. In 1932 the rate was hiked from 20 percent to 45 percent, and in 2010, under Obama’s proposal (which is hidden in a footnote in the budget) it will go from zero under current law to that same 45 percent rate.
If we continue down a path of repeating the policies of the 1930s we risk a repeat of the same results. Let’s hope Congress has the good sense to say no to these Hoover-style tax hikes.
Shame on you for touting your song. Why be proud to be a racist? I grew up in a semi-southern town where they had one of the last lynchings of multiple black males in the U.S. There was a PBS special done on this town if you have any interest. It makes me sickened and ashamed, now proud.
I could cite the legion problems still present in today's south - poor counties/states in the US, worst school performance, corruption, civil rights issues.....but I won't.
Below is exactly why the south NEEDS a greater range of folks with differing philosophies/political persuasion. This is an excerpt by a musical analyst:
The lines in "Sweet Home Alabama" are a direct response to Young's anti-racist, anti-cross burning "Southern Man" and "Alabama" songs. Lynyrd Skynyrd's comeback was intended to mean, essentially, "Thank you for your opinion Neil, now leave us alone."
It is this perceived "attitude" which has led to Lynyrd Skynyrd earning a reputation as a "racist" band. Not withstanding the fact that the band often performed with a Confederate flag as a backdrop
Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" meaning is often interpreted as being "racist" because of the the lyrics reference "In Birmingham [where a black church was bombed killing 4 young girls] they love the governor [George Wallace]" who was a segrationist.
Furthermore, Lynyrd Skynyrd sang "Now Watergate does not bother me". Sadly, it would seem not only were Lynard Skynard untroubled by racism but were not terribly concerned by corruption at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Thank you Dr. Observer. sm
However, I have to believe your personal party affilitation is having way too much sway on your "diagnosis." There is plenty of dysfunction on here. I don't particularly like being called a liar. I defend myself and my country and a president I happen to admire. That irritates you into a frenzy and you take the logical calm approach to insult me with your lame diagnosis! If you don't like my posts, DON'T READ THEM. How hard is that? I ask you.
Hey observer
do 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage? Would you explain why God would take the life if life begins in utero?
Observer...sm
I suggest you don't put your faith in politics. I know that NOTHING will happen to me or my family for generations to come unless it is the will of the Lord. Forgive my optimism, but I will not have you sign my death certificate prematurily. If we are so weak that we fear going out in crowds, then we need to concentrate our efforts on securing our own country more so than Iraq.
Politically, I have NEVER agreed with invading Iraq, ever. I believed the head insepctor when he said there were no WMDs. I didn't see then and I don't see now how that was a logical response to 9-11. Go back and check it, Congress did not vote for going into Iraq specifically, but they did give Bush autonomy to make that decision should it become a necessary option. Bad decision. I disagree with Kerry, Hillary and all the other democrats who cosigned on that, but everyone's adrenalin was pumping after 9-11 and who wanted to look *soft on terror.* I think averting attention from bin Laden to Sadaam was the biggest spin of the century.
So now we're in Iraq, and the only news we get back from over there are death counts, bombings, etc. What is the progress? Seriously, what is the progress? Are we winning the minds and hearts of the Iraqis like we won the mind and heart of bin Laden when we helped him in Afghanistan? I have said before in order to win the war in Iraq we need to go in strong and hit them with all we got. I would not like it, but I would support that. I think that is the only way our soldiers can walk out of that country with the mission accomplished. More innocents will die, more US soldiers will die, but that is the only way to WIN. If we are not in it to win, then we should come home. What we are doing now is policing and I don't agree with that. The US taxpayers are not responsible for Iraqi citizens' safety. Tell that to people who are terrorized by criminals in their own homes right here in the US daily.
If we leave Iraq it will be a defeat for the US, but the battle was not ours to begin with. It is not easy, but we have a choice to make. I want to believe that most or ALL Iraqis will stand up and hold the US flag high and thank us for our sacrifice one day, but I don't believe in fairy tales. We should be careful, because we could be training the next group of 9-11 attackers.
Observer...
you have articulated excellently a lot of my concerns about a Democratic administration. One of my greatest frustrations with the war is that so many do not seem to understand that, in many ways, to this enemy (radical Islamist terrorists), appearance is everything.
In many ways they seem to me to be like Klingons - emboldened by and contemptuous of any show of weakness, even if it would seem superficially to be to their advantage.
If we are to succeed against this enemy, it seems to me that we must embrace two characteristics which have become somewhat foreign to the political process - strength and honor. We must be willing to do what we say we will do (i.e., stay in Iraq until they establish a stable government, as we promised them we would do) and enforce our own demands through whatever force is necessary. To do otherwise merely encourages the Jihadists to ongoing violence.
Unfortunately, I doubt in this era that any administration will have the fortitude for such action, particularly in the face of unrelenting media coverage of every setback. Like you, I have certainly seen nothing from any Democratic spokesperson save possibly Joe Lieberman to indicate to me any level of understanding of the enemy we face or the gravity of the consequences of failure.
It's all about them, Observer.
It has always been all about them. The leftists are starting to write articles now and make public appearances, admitting that they don't care about the troops at all. They don't even have much invested in peace. They want radical change by radical means and they do not care who gets hurt in the process. In the civil rights days, protest really did effect needed change. But it hasn't since then and is a tool of the left to get what they want. Imagine, Jane Fonda protesting at The Wall. How much more of a slap in the face to our veterans can you get. I am dumbfounded at this insult to our veterans. I know many of them will be there to protest HER being there and I wish I were one of them.
You are right, Observer. sm
These people are not what they seem. See link below for the real story.
Oh please, Observer.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said I supported partial-birth abortions. I definitely do not and never have. I'm talking about abortions that occur before 3 months gestational age. Do you really think that fetus can register pain at that point? Just because YOUR religion tells you that babies have a soul before they're born does not make it so - it's just a theory from your religion's mythology. It just drives me nuts when people act like their religion has the only correct answers and try to get others to believe it as well.
I think it is well known that many children are suffering in the US, and you are asking to put thousands (millions?) more kids into an already strained system. You must remember all of our discussions about the SCHIP program. Although many Republicans supported the bill, what the bill was ultimately missing was support from Republicans - the party that is almost exclusively pro-life yet didn't seem to mind children from lower-middle income families suffering without healthcare. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. (And yes, I know you think the bill was flawed, blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains kids are going without healthcare due to that decision).
You want state-to-state decisions made, so what happens to the women whose state doesn't allow abortion? What if she cannot afford to travel to a state where it is legal? You ask why her life is more important? What if she is a mother? What if she dies and leaves her other chidren motherless? Her family and friends would be devastated, whereas a fetus in the womb does not have these connections with others yet, and I still maintain that a fetus that young is not even capable of feeling pain. You have your opinion and your religious agenda, and that's your choice, but I don't think it is a smart choice to make abortions illegal, even in some states, as I truly believe women will have abortions regardless of legality.
it's Sunday, and I have a ton of work to do so I will try to make this brief. First of all, I do not hate you - I just don't like to be told the same things over and over again about your beliefs when I already know where you stand on pretty much every issue that is brought up. Some people may not have heard your views yet, and as I said, you certainly have the right to state them again and again, but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be annoyed by them.
As for hating George W. Bush. I don't recall ever stating that, but I do think he is the most horrible president in the history of America and that he is destroying our nation and running us into an enormous deficit. I personally do not like to argue with people who defend Bush simply because if nothing that has gone on over the last 7 years has convinced them that Bush is a horrible president, then obviously nothing I can say will either.
I also don't despise Christians. I just get sick of many religions starting wars in the name of God and hating others (gays, children out of wedlock, etc.) because the bible tells them these things are against God so therefore many religious people think this hate is justified. I know not all religious people are that hateful, and I actually have numerous friends who attend church regularly. I just think it's kind of silly to say we have to live by what the bible says when it was written sooooo long ago and so much has changed. It has also been interpreted so many times that who knows how much of the original content is even there or how it's been maneuvered. I do think the bible has some great stories and inspirational quotes - I just get annoyed when people are always like "bible says!" like they can't possibly be wrong because the "bible says." I actually believe in God and say prayers every night and teach my children about God too. Church just isn't for me. I live in the most beautiful state in America - I don't need to go sit in a church to get close to God! Church has helped some of my friends who have lost loved ones, and for them it is a great thing. So no, I don't hate Christians, but I am very sick of people killing others all over the world in the name of God - it's obviously the exact opposite of what God would want, and I will never understand their logic. Wouldn't God just be happy they are worshipping him in their own way?
Hey observer didn't you steal someone else's moniker also?
Thanks for posting, Observer
Also to those donating money, please be aware that the FEMA site list of receiving agencies includes mostly faith-based groups after the Red Cross, which is not necessarily a bad thing at all, except the Operation Blessings charity which is Pat Robertson's group. He must need another diamond mine in South Africa. You might want to skip that one.
Didn't say you did...it was Observer
who asked me. It went like this (I think) I asked if you and AG did anything besides rant on about the left. Did you have **legs** that led you to do anything constructive with or for the stay the course people. Observer answered and said a bunch of stuff and then at the end, she said, what do you do??? where are your legs and mouth, so I answered her. That is how it went.
Just an Observation, Observer.....
Approximately 65% of the posts on this board are made by you. I have read some of your posts, and in one of them you state that you come here, as a conservative, mainly to read and learn. Are you certain that this is, in fact, your main purpose for coming here? It would seem from the sheer number of your posts, well over 50% of them being made by you here, that your purpose is not to read and learn, but rather to dominate and monopolize. Just an observation....
Please do not respond observer
Please do not respond to my posts *Observer*. This is the liberal board and my posts are to my fellow democrat/liberals not to a ring winger. I have nothing in common with you or right wingers, in fact, I cannot stomach right wingers, their ideas, what they have done to this country under their president. Do youself a favor, go back to the conservative board or just skip over my posts and dont even read them.
On the contrary, Observer...
I am using my right of free speech to encourage others to disregard what I believe to be a forum that you created for your own personal agenda. This is not the forum for debate between conservative and liberal points of view. This posting site is not titled "political debate". Nor is it supposed to provide fodder for you to chew on.
I will speak for most of us in that we do not have a lot of time in the day to try to strike up a conversation amongst ourselves under the liberal forum, and when we to get time to log on, we don't want to have to sift through it, and we shouldn't have to.
If political debate is your preferred forum, perhaps you should email admin to add another posting site to accommodate it?
If you can accomplish this, I would gladly log on and argue point to point with you, but until then I would appreciate it if you stayed on the conservative posting.
Oh, Observer. I wondered where you'd been. sm
By the way, 'sm' means 'see message' (as opposed to 'nm' meaning 'no message'). Doesn't mean 'small message' as far as I know.
I agree with that last paragraph that kitty wrote. And I don't know where you're getting your statistics either, because poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of abortion remaining legal during the 1st trimester. Less (but still a majority) are in favor of abortion remaining legal up to the 2nd trimester, but not after that.
What I get from your posts is that when someone mentions 'abortion' you picture a healthy, full-term infant of 9 months' gestation, angelic and cooing happily in its crib, being viciously 'murdered.' Obviously, that is not what takes place when the pregnancy is under 3 months.
Me, I picture a cluster of cells that may or may not have gone on to become a person. After all, it's been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion ('miscarriage'), usually w/o a woman even knowing she was pregnant. And in fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages. That is just human biology. Are you weeping and wailing for all those 'children'?
I don't believe there is any suffering of the embryo in that case, or in a 1st (or even 2nd) trimester abortion, but there is *plenty* of suffering of the unwanted children that are already here on this Earth and being abused and neglected.
Make safe, medical abortions illegal, and that suffering will grow exponentially with more unwanted children, as well as more women who will die or be injured during an illegal, unsafe abortion - because abortions will still take place.
You religious right wingers, rednecks who were undereducated and/or raised by a long line of redneckers will never get it so I won't even address you as your perception of reality is hopelessly distorted.
However, I will say that, anyone who makes under 250 grand a year and who votes for the republican tick is a fool.
This next presidential term will all be about taxes now that Georgie has sold out the country to foreign lands to pay for his war and cover his tax cuts to the wealthy, and someone's taxes are going to be raised and if you vote republican and earn less than 250 grand, it will be YOURS.
Funding under republicans will also be cut to social services and that means more crime, and if your town is like mine, police and fire departments are laying off due to budget cuts - hey, what an oxymoron, cutting police forces while fighting terrorism.
Republicans are not for the people whatever you say. They pander to the religious right and those high school drop out rednecks for the votes. Abortion is and always will happen as it has since the beginning of time and I don't think you will ever stop it from happening. You can try to romanticize reproduction all you want but in this world, as we watch babies starving, dying from curable disease and, even raped, it just doesn't hold water.
It is from a right-wing pro-war blog called "Politico." If you read a more non-partisan source you'll find that Murtha added a very large caveat to his comment.
Observer's "facts" would be so much more credible if she would quit posting from right-wing partisan sources. If I were to repeatedly or constantly post on the Conservative board what I thought was the "truth" and all backed up by far left-wing blogs/publications I don't think I'd get very far and after I while I'd probably try to provide more non-partisan sources for my statements if I wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.
So patriotism is a mental illness. Well, it probably is to you, so that does make sense. Yes, mental illness is love of country, pride in the military and thanks for their sacrifices. You don't have any of that, so you are fine. No problem. Glad we cleared that up.
Speaking only for myself....it is getting....
harder and harder to distinguish between liberals and leftists, as there are more and more posting calling themselves *liberals* but posting the way left stuff that only used to come from what I call leftists...the far left. In other words, the lines are becoming REAL blurry...also difficult to separate Democrats from leftists as the party slides farther and farther left....or at least it appears so, or the moderate and conservative Democrats have just gone silent in shock or apathy....I don't have the answer. You just don't hear from them anymore....at least I don't.
Was I speaking to you?
Can't resist the impulse to interrupt somebody else's conversation, I see. That's what Hannity does whenever he is losing his grip on his liberal guests. Transparent.
I was speaking of
reasoning voters. Please excuse me for not clarifying that.
My hubs saw the "vote for Ron Paul" signs and asked me if it was a joke. I said what do you mean, and he said, "isn't that the tranny?"
Almost wrecked the car laughing so hard. Had to explain to DH that the tranny is Rue Paul. OMG LMAO!!!!
Speaking for myself,
there are not many born conservatives. I think conservatism is something that ''grows on you,'' or something that you grow into. I was a teenager in the sixties, with many of the attitudes that implies. As I aged and became more responsible and and started to ''get it,'' got a real job and wanted promotions, began earning money and wanting to hold onto it, bought a house and cared about what happened to my neighborhood, etc., I became more conservative. I dont think I am the only one to become more conservative as I've aged. I suspect celebrities are the same. You can only be a free spirit so long. As the Nationwide commercials say: Life comes at you fast.
Speaking of credibility...
You promised to grace us with your absence before, yet your posts are multiplying like bunnies all over this board. So much for YOUR credibility.
It was obvious you were speaking for
.
Your illness speaking for you again?
My take on your mental illness has nothing whatever to do with your political persuasion. But you have illustrated that you are too ill to understand that. You are annoying and I will not pay any more attention to your childish and sick comments.
It's actually a woman speaking. sm
This is very significant because this was on Al-Jazeera TV and what she says is pretty chilling. I clicked on it and it worked for me. I am sure you can find it somewhere else on the internet. Just for the record, I am not so sure he is president material myself. I dont doubt his leadership in the war on terror, but I am disappointed in other things.
marks the location of current message within thread
