This was made clear in the most chilling passage of Palin’s acceptance speech. Aligning herself with “a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri” who “followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency,” she read a quote from an unidentified writer who, she claimed, had praised Truman: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” Then Palin added a snide observation of her own: Such small-town Americans, she said, “run our factories” and “fight our wars” and are “always proud” of their country. As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above....Don't you know that when Republicans praise the people of small towns, what they are doing is insulting urbanites? Right wingers are so sneaky.
Compare the forthright Barack Obama, who had the guts to come out and say that the people of small towns "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
If he'd been more underhanded and sneaky like Sarah Palin, he could have sent that message secretly coded in praise for big-city people.
Back to Frank Rich. I'm skipping a whole lot of stuff about Westbrook Pegler. If you want to know who Westbrook Pegler is and what he's got to do with the frightening threat that is Sarah Palin, you have to click over.
But suffice it to say, Pegler was a big right winger and -- to accept Rich's characterization -- an anti-Semite and a racist. If Pegler was a right winger and Palin is a right winger, then Palin must be a big racist. That's Rich logic.
The game is always to pit the good, patriotic real Americans against those subversive, probably gay “cosmopolitan” urbanites... who threaten to take away everything that small-town folk hold dear.Fairy tale, eh? Here's a quiz: What big right winger famously mocked Obama by saying "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen"?
The racial component to this brand of politics was undisguised in St. Paul. Americans saw a virtually all-white audience yuk it up when Giuliani ridiculed Barack Obama’s “only in America” success as an affirmative-action fairy tale — and when he and Palin mocked Obama’s history as a community organizer in Chicago.
344 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 344 of 344Well back to some good news! Apparently reading a lot of blog stories all over the internet today, the left is in a MASSIVE meltdown of historic proportions. I'd be scared if they knew that they were melting down and stopped it. But they can't help it. They're like raving mad dogs who keep barking at the moon. Moonbats, anyone?
Now I don't want to commit the sin of hubris, but I'm predicting McCain not only wins, but probably 300+ EV and has down-ticket impact. Not that the GOP will regain the House, but at least might cause no net gains for the Democrats.
BetaLiberal: First of all, I'm not here to persuade anybody to vote for anybody.
I personally support Obama, know full well that 99% of the people who post here regularly would support Charles Manson if he was running as a Republican. They demean Obama as being "exotic" (black) and "elitist" (educated) and as being a "leftist" (liberal).
And...I still say you have beautiful hair...do you do it yourself?
Kryovac- fixed it for you.
Does that mean you've been to a vet and been fixed? If so, I'm sure I'm not the only woman in America celebrating!
Minnesota is like the canary in the coal mine for GOP chances. ATM, it's 50/50 which is a shocker for Democrats, as Obama had +13 just 4-5 weeks ago. If MN is "purple" right now, what does that say for red states that Bush won in 2004? Not good news for the Democrats today. No way to spin it. Obama is trying to lash out and regain the momentum, but he's showing his absolute cluelessness.
You know, Obama has never run against a REAL opponent in his life. McCain is showing Obama for the piker that he is. It's almost not fair.
Alex says: "Apparently reading a lot of blog stories all over the internet today, the left is in a MASSIVE meltdown of historic proportions."
Which makes absolutely NO sense at all.
The "left" is "apparently" reading blog stories?
Good Lord...
Michael,
You just moved the goalposts. I wasn't talking about the hiring issue because even were they to arise from the same motive, one would be problematic and the other not so much.
I'm not sure why asking a question automatically makes me a Limbaugh-Hannity clone, especially because I don't listen to Limbaugh (save 3 hours in July while rolling along I-40 out of range of anything decent on FM) and only occasionally watch H&C. If you weren't a vicious imbecile, you might be able to grasp the concept that people can see your BS for what it is without being clones of a radio guy they don't listen to.
You still haven't answered the question.
Krylo,
I do understand. But assuming you're not moving the goalposts the way Michael is, it became a lot more problematic when Bush did it than it was when Clinton did it. You also haven't answered the question. I didn't ask you, but feel free to provide the info as a show of intellectual honesty.
Regarding the charitable giving, here's the link:
http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/mccainfinancial/final/2007_FedReturn.pdf
If your argument is that this amount doesn't matter because they file separately, fine, make that argument to counter Alex. But far from being B.S., Alex was factually accurate. I guess you spray bullshit whether the charge is warranted or not.
I should mention, WA state is also showing some scary news for Democrats.
1. Obama's lead is cut to 2 points.
2. Dino Rossi has pulled ahead in the governor's race by 6 points over the incumbent Democrat.
If the Democrats aren't trouncing the GOP in liberal-land like WA state, they are in HUGE trouble. EPIC trouble.
The McCains gave 27% of their net income to charity in 2007.
Bullshit. Based on limited income tax information available for the McCains, it appears that they gave a little less than 3% of their income to charity in 2006 and 2007.
Note to Alex: 3% is a LOT LESS than 27%. You ought to sign up for remedial math.
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainfinancial/
2007
In 2007, Senator and Mrs. McCain donated $210,933 from community assets to charity, of which Senator McCain's one-half allocation is $105,467. This is 27.2% of his adjusted gross income for the year.
An excellent column here.
But far from being B.S., Alex was factually accurate.
You republicans must be innumerate. That must suck.
Here's what Alex wrote:
The McCains gave 27% of their net income to charity in 2007.
Note his use of the plural: McCains.
Add Cindy and John's charitable donations for 2007 and divide by the sum of Cindy and John's income for 2007. Multiply by 100. What do you get?
You can apologize to me when you figure out the answer. Good luck!
Miller, show me where I "repeated again and again" that Obama grew up in Chicago.
Mikey,
You stated point blank that he grew up in Chicago and you stated categorically you knew that from his biographies, books, articles and interviews. Then you tried to backpedal that he was all of 23 when he moved there. Is a 23 YO man an adult or not?
Did you lie? Did you misspeak? Or are you just too proudly a stupid dumb fuck weasel to just admit you made a factual error?
What is a fact that no one can deny is that Obama is a product of the corrupt Chicago and Illinois Democratic Machine.
BTW, I can always go back and get all of your exact quotes; especially the ones where you cite materials claiming he grew up in Chicago.
Michael,
I asked you a very simple question.
Do you agree with Karl Rove that Obama's campaign ads have gone too far?
Apparently reading a lot of blog stories all over the internet today, the left is in a MASSIVE meltdown of historic proportions.
I'll bet it is being caused by global warming. Al Gore could stop it. Hell, he saved the planet didn't he?
krylovite: ok I was mistaken about the overall % of combined income. But McCain did give 27.2% of HIS gross income. You see, I can admit my errors - will you?
it became a lot more problematic when Bush did it than it was when Clinton did it.
You're drawing a false analogy. Clinton and Bush didn't "do" the ssame thing re: US attorney firings.
That's why your question is irrelevant.
You know, I bet if the election were held right now McCain would win 270-280 EV. With 7 weeks to go, that number will only increase if McCain doesn't commit any really, really crazy gaffes AND no huge Palin scandal.
Petey: ONCE AGAIN...for those who evidently cannot read:
"Miller, show me where I "repeated again and again" that Obama grew up in Chicago."
I didn't "lie" I misspoke, and admitted exactly that.
¿entienda, asshole?
Michael,
Providing the complete info on Rove now further proves the initial criticism. You took something you KNEW was directed at both campaigns and presented as something directed only at McCain.
Why not be honest-
Reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up false quotes of Palin. Nothing he posts is credible, and if you intend to argue with him be sure to demand links to verify.
and admit to an error or deliberate misrepresentation, then got on to your substantive point*.
Snell, I didn't move anything anywhere.
You asked how many attorneys Clinton fired and I responded.
If you actually think the U.S. Attorney scandal involving Gonzales and company is only related to a President having the right to fire attorneys you are absolutely wrong and need to read more.
You're being argumentative because you can't defend their actions...and again, do you not find it rather strange that 150 attorneys were hired via Pat Robertson University?
Be honest.
krylovite,
Rather than go around and around on this, please cite the specific US Code that was violated by the Bush Administration in firing the US Attorneys.
Alex,
You must be one helluva dumbass republican. You wrote this:
The McCains gave 27% of their net income to charity in 2007.
The McCains=John+Cindy. The percentage of John McCain's income that went to charity isn't relevant to what you said. Are you really stupid enough to think it is?
Fen, You're a lying piece of shit.
Provide evidence of a single Palin quote I made up.
Put up or shut up.
krylovite:
Hey dumbass! I admitted my error just a few minutes ago. Are you blind? Do you need assistance? Are you "special needs"?
You see, I can admit my errors - will you?
If you find one, let me know.
Donn, They ALL go too far on occasion, but please tell me what the fuck that has to do with the headline I posted????
It wasn't so much about either party going to far, it was interesting BECAUSE KARL ROVE SAID IT.
Why can't you grasp this concept??
Karl Rove...political hatchet man...architect of the campaign that accuse McCain having an illegitimate black baby...DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THAT??
Obama supporters - What, specifically is Obama's income tax plan? Don't post links, just answer the question, please.
Because I am uncertain about exactly what it is. Obama used to say that he'd roll back the tax cuts signed into law by the current administration. Later he said that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut (foolish because only about 45% of Americans pan income tax). Last week he said the under his plan everyone would get a tax cut.
So what is the tax plan? In specifics, not just platitudes.
How will he finance all the new spending he proposes? Who will pay for national health care if everyone gets a tax cut?
I'd like specifics. If you have them.
krylovite said...
You see, I can admit my errors - will you?
If you find one, let me know.
The sound of one hand clapping. Brilliance.
beta - his plan is to soak the top 5% and give it to the bottom 95% in the form of increased govt goodies. Just another tax-and-spend liberal. What is so innovative about Obama? Where is the hopenchange? All I see is Walter Mondale reincarnated...
Roger J. says:
Michael McNeil — you are apparently new to the blog —
Actually I've been following Althouse threads and posting occasionally in reply for years now — but I don't usually partake in extended conversations while posting dozens of replies like some here.
HD House hasnt had anything new or interesting to say in 3 years. You are picking low hanging fruit — HD is the epitome of low hanging fruit.
Oh, I know. And usually I ignore him. Sometimes though his posting may make a convenient vehicle for a point I wish to make (such as that comment at Talkleft) and I might occasionally reply in such a case.
(The other) Michael, now, he's just boring — though I can't guarantee that someday I might have a postable response to him too.
BetaLiberal: Listen, I'd love to post Obama's entire tax policy, but hey, this is just a silly right wing blog site...and nobody would understand or care anyway.
What I'm more interested in is your hair. Do you do you have Fen, Petey or Alex come in and do it for you?
It's stunning.
I admitted my error just a few minutes ago.
Hey, I'm trying to watch the Chargers at the same time and we cross-posted. Get over it. Anyway, it's good for you to admit your mistakes several times over. Trust me, chicks dig it.
Michael McNeil: Thanks for the shout out.
Coming from you, it's...well, it's overwhelming.
How long have you been full of yourself?
You see, that's the difference between conservatives(in general, not all) and ALL liberals. We admit our mistakes when presented with factual evidence, they never do. Being liberal means never having to say your sorry.
Michael said: "Listen, I'd love to post Obama's entire tax policy, but hey, this is just a silly right wing blog site...and nobody would understand or care anyway"
Just as I thought, there either isn't a coherent Obama tax plan, or you're just a wanking flamer who hasn't the ability to understand Obama's tax plan and discuss it in summary form.
Thanks for showing your true colors.
Based on the spectacular performance of the current administration, and John McCain supporting Bush 90-95% of the time, exactly what is it everybody is so afraid of relating to Obama's "tax policies?"
Nobody here is smart enough to in the top 2-5%, so in reality, a vast majority of you would benefit via Obama being elected.
Nobody here is smart enough to in the top 2-5%, so in reality, a vast majority of you would benefit via Obama being elected.
Awesome.
Obama: The candidate of morons.
BetaLiberal: Speaking of "true colors"...tell me the truth...what tint are you using on that wad of hair you've got plunked down that pointy head of yours?
Petey: ONCE AGAIN...for those who evidently cannot read:
"Miller, show me where I "repeated again and again" that Obama grew up in Chicago."
I didn't "lie" I misspoke, and admitted exactly that.
¿entienda, asshole?
Mikey, here are your exact words: (emphasis mine)
And to think, Obama was an Illinois State Senator ans is a U.S. Senator from Illinois...grew up in Chicago and lives in Chicgo...and he works in "politics."
What's next...
Petey: "Since you do not know anything about Obama, except what he tells you, you will believe anything."
You must mean, except for his books, biographies, 100's of articles, interviews, appearances, debates and speeches?
Are you daft?
Petey, Obama moved to Chicago when he was all of 23 years old.
Like we said over and over again. You did not misspeak, you insisted the lie was true. You even cited publications and interviews as your source. Comprende dumb fuck?
Blake, your comment makes no sense.
Try it again.
Alex said... Victoria - did you read that Minnestota is tied now? Just a month ago, Obama had +13.
I'll bet that's a lot of women in Minnesota who hear Sarah Palin speak and think she's one of them.
I think the cold of Alaska and Minnesota freezes up the face the same way which creates a similar accent.
Petey, You are such a dumbshit.
First of all, I admitted I misspoke, second, the articles, books, etc. don't just relate to Obama as a "Chicago politician," it relates to your inane comment that the only thing we know about Obama is "what he's told us."
Remember now?
What's with all of the lies and bullshit? You act as if you've never misspoke or made a mistake.
It tells me you are a very small and insecure person.
Micheal: [...]
Reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up false quotes of Palin. Nothing he posts is credible, and if you intend to argue with him be sure to demand links to verify.
Petey, are you actually saying that these two comments serve as my "repeating something over and over again"...
1. And to think, Obama was an Illinois State Senator ans is a U.S. Senator from Illinois...grew up in Chicago and lives in Chicgo...and he works in "politics."
2. Petey, Obama moved to Chicago when he was all of 23 years old.
Rather than go around and around on this, please cite the specific US Code that was violated by the Bush Administration in firing the US Attorneys.
The DOJ filed a grand jury referral in June. We'll see sometime soon what criminal charges are filed in that case.
In the meantime, here's an example of specific US Code that may have been violated in the DOJ hiring/firing scandal:
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 42.1(a) of 28 C.F.R. Part 42, Subpart A:
It is the policy of the Department of Justice to seek to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, political affiliation, age, or physical or mental handicap in employment within the Department and to assure equal employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment.
Fen, I repeat; You are a lying piece of shit.
Post one single quote I attribute to Palin that is not true.
Put up of shut up, chickenshit.
True, I'm not in the top 5% right now. But I aspire to be one day. I also don't believe in soaking the rich and giving it to people who will only spend it. There is a huge difference between basic consumption and investment. But I don't expect our liberal trollish morons to understand basic economics, and they claim to be educated! Puh-leeze.
Mikey,
One of the ways to tell if a person is lying is when they not only repeat the lie, but defend the lie; especially when faced with the truth.
This is the truth. Obama did not grow up in Chicago. Obama is a product, part and parcel, bought and paid for, of the corrupt Chicago/Illinois Democratic PArty machine. That is all we do knoe for sure. The rest is pure, unadulterated speculation.
More on the person who shot the cover of McCain for the new issue of the Atlantic Monthly here.
BTW, all 5 times that income & business tax rates were cut in the last 80 years, the economy grew. Now the budget deficit issue has to do with out of control spending, not a failure of supply-side economics. But that's a fact I'd expect a 5year old to know.
We admit our mistakes when presented with factual evidence
I imagine you've had lots of practice then.
they never do
I can't admit a mistake if I haven't made one. :o)
Micheal: Post one single quote I attribute to Palin that is not true.
I'll need to go back into some 2 dozen threads of over 300 comments each to harvest it. I will when I have time. But I wasn't the only poster to call you out on that - maybe they will step up and narrow my search down.
Be sure, I'll follow every post of yours I see with a reminder AND a link to your lies.
Meantime:
Reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up false quotes of Palin. Nothing he posts is credible, and if you intend to argue with him be sure to demand links to verify.
Oh yeah, keep up the potty mouth insults. Its important that everyone see the true colors of Obama's disciples. Very representative of what's to come if he's elected.
I can't admit a mistake if I haven't made one. :o)
Wow, you must be the most perfect person in the world then. Every person I ever met in my life has committed mistakes, but you are a god apparently.
I wonder what Ann is thinking, as she is perusing these comments. She's probably contemplating closing comments forever if it continues on like this...
But I don't expect our liberal trollish morons to understand basic economics, and they claim to be educated!
Hee hee! Alex is a comedian!
BTW, all 5 times that income & business tax rates were cut in the last 80 years, the economy grew.
Yada, yada, yada. The economy almost always grows from year to year. It's an exception when it doesn't grow. You don't and can't show cause and effect so your comment is meaningless.
Now the budget deficit issue has to do with out of control spending
The Bush deficits are a consequence of the decrease in the rate of revenue collection as a proportion of GDP.
It would be a mistake to argue this issue with me dude considering how badly I spanked you in the last exchange. :o)
Just ban Micheal. He's the main problem.
but you are a god apparently
A goddess actually. Thank you for noticing.
The Bush deficits are a consequence of the decrease in the rate of revenue collection as a proportion of GDP.
Spending went up far greater then tax receipts dummy. But I don't expect you to actually look up the figures. Of course you probably think that society has a god given right to have a $3 trillion budget, then $4 trillion, $5 trillion... When does it stop? How much government is enough for you liberals?
FIRING "SCANDAL" krylovite, not hiring. Don't change the argument. You know damn well that not a single law was violating in firing the US attorneys. You know that, like ambassadors and cabinet level officials, US attorney's serve at the pleasure of the president. He can release them for any reason whatsoever, including reasons that would result in a justified discrimination lawsuit in just about any other firing decision.
Fen, I repeat; You are a lying piece of shit.
Post one single quote I attribute to Palin that is not true.
Put up of shut up, chickenshit.
Micheal: [...]
Reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up false quotes of Palin. Nothing he posts is credible, and if you intend to argue with him be sure to demand links to verify.
Every person I ever met in my life has committed mistakes
Okay. Three months ago I accidentally drove the wrong way up a one-way street. Happy?
Reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up false quotes of Palin. Nothing he posts is credible, and if you intend to argue with him be sure to demand links to verify.
fen, just collapse the comments and peruse mine.
You're lying and can't dig your way out.
Fen, You are a very little man.
If you can back up what you say...do it.
You're lying.
You know damn well that not a single law was violating in firing the US attorneys.
One law was broken and it is the law that got every body mad; Democrats and Republicans. It was the law of unintended consequences.
The USAG had every right to fire each and every one of the attorneys for whatever reason he wanted. That is a fact.
Many, if not most, of those appointees were sponsored by Congressmen and Senators. They really do not like it when their people are fired. They get upset. What is the point of being a legislator if you cannot let your patronage workers keep their jobs?
Gonzales pissed off the guys that count. That is why he is gone. The scandal rests with the legislature. Funny, it is their scandal and they are investigating.
Michael said...
Fen, You are a very little man.
You really have that political pop psychology down pat don't you. When caught in lies, you belittle people in a hopelss attempt to make yourself look educated, witty, urbane, and oh so hip.
Clinton fired everyone for no reason at all but...
"It's not a relevant question and it leads me to believe that you don't understand what made the Bush DOJ firings problematic."
... Bush needs a good reason.
Because he's Bush.
And we don't like Bush.
Fen said...
Reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up false quotes of Palin. Nothing he posts is credible, and if you intend to argue with him be sure to demand links to verify.
He was busted yesterday and today for insisting that Obama grew up in Chicago. There ya go.
Spending went up far greater then tax receipts dummy.
Face it Alex, math isn't your strong suit.
If you look at federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, that percentage has dropped since 2000. In 2000 it was 20.9%. It dropped as low as 16.3% in 2004 and is about 18.4% now.
Spending as a percentage of GDP is more variable. During the Clinton era, spending dropped from 22% of GDP to 18.4% in 2000. It's now at about 20%, which is lower than the average percentage of GDP seen during the 80s and 90s.
Our current rate of revenue collection as a percentage of GDP is low relative to the rates of the 1990s. Our current rate of spending as a percentage of GDP is about the same as during the 90s.
That's why I'm right when I say that the Bush deficits are a consequence of the decrease in the rate of revenue collection as a proportion of GDP.
I warned you that it would be a mistake to argue this issue with me. Consider this your second spanking. :o)
"I personally support Obama, know full well that 99% of the people who post here regularly would support Charles Manson if he was running as a Republican."
Really?
Wow.
exactly what is it everybody is so afraid of relating to Obama's "tax policies?"
Bill Clinotn lied. He claimed he was rasing taxes on the top 5% of the income spectrum. He raised taxes on the middle class. He increased the with holding tax, cutting into our income.
Obama will do the same. that is what we fear. Another big lie.
krylovite - you still haven't explained to me why we need to increase tax revenues rather then cut spending.
"I personally support Obama, know full well that 99% of the people who post here regularly would support Charles Manson if he was running as a Republican."
Can you back that up with books, biographies, articles, and interviews? Can you provide google links? Is it in wikidikipikisiki? Did the NYT report on it?
Please prove it to us. We have time. Or is it one of your big lies again?
Petey: Reagan raised taxes 5 times.
Alex said...
krylovite - you still haven't explained to me why we need to increase tax revenues rather then cut spending.
It is easy. People cannot be trusted to spend their money in altruistic ways. They would rather save, spend, invest, or worse, waste their own money any way they please.
Government must step in to insure that money is spent on altruistic policies.
That is a rough quote of the Clinton tax plan. The same plan Obama is touting. Grab your wallets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Joe,
Congress is investigating all sorts of unusual behavior at the DOJ and in relation to the firing of US attorneys. You want to narrow the discussion to nothing but the actual firing and not examine or discuss the possibly illegal activities associated with the attorneys who were fired. I understand your reasons for wanting to ignore everything related to the scandal.
The original question raised is: Is the investigation of the hiring/firing practices at the DOJ a hit-job? Obviously it isn't since the DOJ has already referred one case to the grand jury.
You're the one changing the argument Joe. Check back on the thread if you can't remember.
peter - so if Obama will only increase taxes on the top 5% you will go for that?
The Reagan tax cut of 1981 was followed, under Reagan, by the biggest tax increase in American history, in terms of taxes raised as a proportion of GDP, and then followed by additional tax increases every year that Reagan was in office until the last.
In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.
Bruce Bartlett, A Taxing Experience, National Review Online, Oct. 29, 2003
krylovite,
I said the congressional investigation of the firings of the US Attorney was a political hit job. You then bring in the hiring controversy and everything else you can thing and then accuse me of changing the argument. I can't help but laugh at your infantile intellect.
Looks like little man Fen has backed out on trying to substantiate his claims about me.
Lying liars and the lies they tell...
Clinton fired everyone for no reason at all but...
That's not true. At the start of his first term, Clinton fired the political appointees of his predecessor, just as other presidents have done. What Bush did was different, because he fired his own appointees in his second term.
That's why the Clinton firings aren't relevant.
krylovite said..."That's not true. At the start of his first term, Clinton fired the political appointees of his predecessor, just as other presidents have done."
Are you familair with the expression: "save your breath?"
You're wasting your time trying to explain.
Krylovite- Damn, girlfriend, you are three for three. I am a veterinarian, I was fixed in 1989, four weeks after our fourth child stood and nursed, and the women in my life are indeed glad I am nowinfertile
I'm a gun-toting libertarian who digs smart women. I voted for McGovern and Carter when I was a youth. You'll grow out of it, too. Your tone reminds me of Sarah Palin. Very sexy. keep it up. Seriously.
you still haven't explained to me why we need to increase tax revenues rather then cut spending.
I'm not telling you what you need to do. The Republicans have completely mismanaged the budget and can't be trusted with government funds. If we are going to cut taxes, we have to cut spending accordingly to balance the budget. Simple.
How much government is enough for you liberals?
Alex, you seem like a nice guy, but don't lecture me or other liberals about big government and fiscal policy. Bush increased the size of government and mismanaged the budget. Republicans ought to shut up about those issues right now.
Alex said...
peter - so if Obama will only increase taxes on the top 5% you will go for that?
Absolutely not. I firmly believe that we all pay too much in taxes.
I would go for this:
Eliminate most of the personal tax deductions and credits. They are nothing but feel good scams. They make working people feel they are actually getting a break.
Impose a flat 15% tax on all income- all means all. From the very top to the very bottom. Everyone who earns income pays taxes. No exceptions.
Cut the corporate tax to 20%.
Eliminate the estate tax and the AMT.
BTW, our current tax system costs everyone, including the government twenty five cents of every dollar earned and spent to account for, manage, administer, and collect revenue. That cost does not include the taxes themselves.
Twenty five percent of all money earned and spent- the economy- goes to tax management.
"I personally support Obama, know full well that 99% of the people who post here regularly would support Charles Manson if he was running as a Republican."
Really?
Wow.
Oh, come on, Synova. Reps already elected Hitler. Manson would be a step up. Bonus: He's left of Hitler.
Bush increased the size of government and mismanaged the budget. Republicans ought to shut up about those issues right now.
Why? Are you afraid of your own failures? What about all of those Democratic Social Service progams and the Great Society programs and so called anti poverty programs that cost tax payers billions and billions of dollars and did nothing. It was a massive financial failure. They helped no one. They kept the poor poor, the ghettos ghettos and created more misery and despair. Oh, just to be honest, they did help some people; people who worked for social service agencies and bureaucrats who were hired to administer the programs.
So, we do not want to have a discussion about financing of failure do we?
I can't help but laugh at your infantile intellect.
The congressional investigation of practices at the DOJ was not restricted to firing practices, imbecile. In your mind, perhaps, but not in reality.
There are potential illegal practices connected with the fired US attorneys as well. It's perfectly reasonable for Congress to be investigating complaints of illegal activity within or involving employees of the DOJ.
As far as I can tell, you're just some dumbshit dittohead trying to cover for Bush administration scandals. You want to argue about whether or not the president can fire a political appointee. Go ahead, it's not an interesting or relevant argument. Congress isn't challenging the president's right to fire a US attorney. Unless you're a mental midget, you already know that. Quit pretending you know something significant or novel. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Keep your dittoing out of my face.
Oh, come on, Synova. Reps already elected Hitler.
Ah, I think you made a small unintentional mistake. FDR was a Democrat. He is the one who put Ameican citizens in internment camps.
because he fired his own appointees in his second term.
What part of appointee's have no job rights do you not understand. They were appointed and served at the pleasure of. They knew that going in too.
Your tone reminds me of Sarah Palin.
Damn Dr Kill, you know how to really hurt a girl.
Hope you and Mrs Kill are enjoying the four little Kills. :o)
I could explain the nuance of hyperkalemic periodic paralysis in the offspring of the American Quarter Horse Impressive,
and you could explain to me how Mumia Abu Jamal really is innocent.
Michael said...
Looks like little man Fen has backed out on trying to substantiate his claims about me.
Lying liars and the lies they tell...
Michael:
I am not a liar.
Richard Nixion:
I am not a crook.
Bill Clinton:
I did not have sex with that woman; Monica Lewinsky.
Which one is telling the truth?
Mr Bella,
There's a reason I don't respond to your posts. It would be a massive waste of time.
I'll let you interpret my comment any way you like.
Hey Mikey,
We are still waiting for proof that 99% of us would vote for Manson if he was running as a Republican.
Petey says: "What about all of those Democratic Social Service..."
Yeah, it's all those Deocratic "Social Service" programs that have our economy ready to implode.
Now, THAT'S funny.
Hey boys, I'm finished. Play nice.
Listen, I'd love to post Obama's entire tax policy, but hey, this is just a silly right wing blog site...and nobody would understand or care anyway.
Obama's tax policy is very simple. Tax the top 5% and redistribute it to everyone else, especially the bottom 50%.
Now, is this good economic policy or populism? Is it good policy to raise taxes the people who create 99% of the jobs in this country and then just redisribute the money to consumers?
It's not. Obama's plan is pure populism.
Moreover, Obama's tax "cut" (really its welfare to the bottom 50%) will get eaten away by the inflation that will be caused by obama's pro-union stance and anti-free trade positions.
The the end Obama's economic policy is a loser for the country.
Please some Obama supporter here needs to explain how Obama's tax policy will create jobs for the country....
Speaking of taxes and those damn Democratic tax raisers:
Reagan raised taxes not once but 6 times and the increase in 1983 was the largest in history at that time.
In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.
And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
Sloan, read my post and tell me if raising taxes won't help Americans...your God of all Gods...Ronnie...did what he did.
"Keep your dittoing out of my face."
If you don't like hearing opposing opinions why are you here? To grace us with the wonder that is you? You like listening to yourself?
And when the proles deign to pretend to have actual ideas you can say how stupid they are.
What is the point of hanging around just to repeat how impenetrable you are? Do you even wonder why people are attracted to Sarah Palin? Have you no curiosity at all? Do you even wonder why people might view government programs with a bit of skepticism? View experts with a grain of salt?
Can you comprehend the various flavors of political thought? Are you curious about what informs a libertarians point of view? Or does a smart person naturally come to the correct conclusion?
"Please some Obama supporter here needs to explain how Obama's tax policy will create jobs for the country...."
Uh... because they will be all fired up to solve their own problems through the wonder of his leadership?
I'm going to miss Krylovite, she has some sand. I would introduce her to my bride, but the bride isn't finished polishing my hockey skates yet.
Shhhh, Peter--
Play along: It's BUSH that's Hitler. And FDR and LBJ have NOTHING to do with our current budget problems. Everything they did was good, and perfect, and if it weren't for Reps there would be no money trouble at all.
BTW, our current tax system costs everyone, including the government twenty five cents of every dollar earned and spent to account for, manage, administer, and collect revenue. That cost does not include the taxes themselves.
That seems unlikely. Alarming, if true. But it can't cost the government 25 cents AND the people. That would mean 50 cents on every dollar (since the government gets money from the people), and then you factor in taxes and...
It just seems a big high.
I already outlined my tax proposal here but no takers, so far.
blake,
That figure, came from the one of the government auditing agencies and a Congressman tried presented it during a hearing. Unfortunately no one wanted to hearabout it. I believe it happened about two years ago, as I was still workingat the time.
"Please some Obama supporter here needs to explain how Obama's tax policy will create jobs for the country...."
There wil be massive funding to employ social workers and community organizers into high paying jobs.
Today is International Pickle Day.
I ask each of you--regardless of party affiliation--to come together as Americans. Go now to your refrigerator, spear a gerkhin, bring it back to your computer, and munch it in contemplation of the blessings of liberty.
Let us now pause to remember Thomas Jefferson who said, "On a hot day in Virginia, I know nothing more comforting than a fine spiced pickle, brought up trout-like from the sparkling depths of the aromatic jar below the stairs of Aunt Sally's cellar."
Thank you.
You may resume your political debate.
Mikey,
What part of the Legislature was majority Democrat under Reagan don't you understand? He signed legislation or singed into law bills that were presented by the legislature. They were probably veto proof too; Reagan did not have the votes. The legislature had the votes to override the veto.
GHW Bush signed an income tax increase too. For the same reason. He could not veto a bill that the legislature would override.
You may understand ideology, but you have no practical understanding of practical politics.
GW Bush was able to lower income taxes because he had a Republican majority. If the Dems had not taken the majority, he could have lowered taxes even more or made the tax cuts permanent.
BTW, why are you so enamoured of people paying higher taxes?
Krylo,
I will apologize re the 27.3% if you ackowledge that alex might have just made a good faith mistake in his original assertion--he might have accidentally pluralized McCain when he meant just John, or he might have not realized they file separately, or he might have relied on an MSM error.
Regardless, you could have provided an explanation and defended it instead of offering "BS", which a reasonable person could infer was an imputation of deceit when that was unlikely the case.
So you managed to take a good point and bury it in a morass of concealment.
Regardless of the alleged additional scandals, the original subject was the firings. And only the firings. If you add the other stuff, it is a different argument. You added other stuff because your original assertion regarding the firings only was pretty weak gruel.
And "a ton" of attorneys? So, like 11.1?
George, I will have you know that I bought a bottle of sweet gerkins today which I then sliced and put on a ham and cheese sandwich on rye for lunch. Just a dab of horseradish mustard and some lettuce and tomato. Sweet.
Gerkin, that is.
And Michael still hasn't answered the question unless he meant 2,000 pounds of attorneys, which I estimate at 11 or so.
What's the answer?
And Bush can't fire his own political appointees, is that your assertion?
Micheal: Looks like little man Fen has backed out on trying to substantiate his claims about me.
More lies. As I already said, I have to go through some 1800+ comments on the Palin threads [~300 per thread] to find it. I will this week, when I have more time.
Want to put your money where your mouth is? If I'm telling the truth, you will take your lies back to DU?
Until then:
Reminder: Micheal was busted last week making up false quotes of Palin. Nothing he posts is credible, and if you intend to argue with him be sure to demand links to verify.
Of course, if you're not spreading lies to begin with, then you should have no issue with my advice to others to scrutinize every "fact" you post without supporting links.
Mikey,
I also forgot to mention that the Chairman of the Ways and Means Commitee was one of the most powerful men in the Legislature. Both Democrats and Republicans feared and loathed him. No one had the courage to stand up to him; he would cut off funding for anything. He was thoroughly corrupt, venal, greedy, and powermad. A regular liberal facist.
His name was Dan Rostenkowski. A corrupt Chicago Democratic politician, just like Obama. Old Danny boy was convicted of felonies and went off to prison. There was a sigh of releif on both sides of the aisle when Rostenkowski left. Old Billy Bob Clinton pardoned the SOB.
You know I was standing at the shelf and wondering which one to choose. The one on the right or the one on the left. The bitter Kosher Dill chips or my sweet, sweet gerkins.
Fen,
Michael is one of the children Hillary Clinton talked about and named a book about.
You remember don't you? "It Takes a Village to Raise an Idiot."
Sloan, read my post and tell me if raising taxes won't help Americans...your God of all Gods...Ronnie...did what he did.
All those tax increases came after one big massive cut in 1982.
On Jan 1, 1981, federal revenues were at 20% GDP. After that revenues never really got above 19% and dipped below 18% in the mid 1980s. At 1/1/2000, moments before the stock market crash nad Clinton Recession, federal revenues increased to a whopping 21% GDP.
Today Revenues are back down to about 19% GDP, still higher than it was during most of the 1980s and part of the 1990s. Obama has no room to work with when it comes to raising taxes. Yet he wants to do it anyway.
From the Biographical Dictionary of the United States Congress:
ROSTENKOWSKI, Daniel David, a Representative from Illinois; born in Chicago, Ill., January 2, 1928; graduated from St. John’s Military Academy in 1946 and attended Loyola University; served in Korea with the United States Infantry 1946-1948; served in the State house of representatives in the sixty-eighth general assembly in 1952; delegate, Illinois State Democratic convention every four years since 1952; delegate, Democratic National Conventions, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, and 1976; member of State senate, 1954-1956; elected as a Democrat to the Eighty-sixth and to the seventeen succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1959-January 3, 1995); enjoyed the occasional pickle, especially Polish dills, both as a bipartisan relish and as an across-the-aisle snack; unsuccessful candidate for reelection to the One Hundred Fourth Congress; chairman, Committee on Ways and Means (Ninety-seventh through One Hundred Third Congresses), Joint Committee on Taxation (Ninety-seventh through One Hundred First Congresses).
Trooper York said...
You know I was standing at the shelf and wondering which one to choose. The one on the right or the one on the left. The bitter Kosher Dill chips or my sweet, sweet gerkins.
I love pickles. Today was a cornichon day. But the fridge has Polish dills, baby gerkins, butter chips, and some kind of kosher dills with a ton of garlic.
Stephen Snell said...
And Michael still hasn't answered the question...
Michael does not answer questions. He spews out memorized ideology like a true believer. There is only one god, the party. The party is all and anyone who goes against the party is evil.
Must have gone to one of those party education camp schools; or is it education camp party school.
Obama's economic plan is moronic. It's moronic because the basis of his plan is "equality" rather than growth. The problem with equality is in the end, everyone ends up poorer. The rich end up poorer (what Obama wants) and the poor end up poorer.
Now, it is arguable that if you tax the top 5% and used it to create an asset or reduce liabilities, such as reducing the federal debt, then it wouldn't be as moronic. This is what Clinton did with his tax increase in the early 1990s, which is why economic growth continued the way it did. However, Obama doesn't want to pay down debt, he wants to spend the tax increase by redistributing it to the poor in the name of equality.
The other pillar of the 1990s Clinton policy was free trade. Something Obama also opposes.
Democrats still get some credit for good economic policy from the 1990s and Obama is milking that. The problem with Obama, however, is that he opposes all the policies that Clinton used in the 1990s, i.e. free trade, deficit reduction, capital gains cut, reducing government (the last two were courtesy of the Republican Congress).
Obama's economic policy will be exposed for what it is - pure populism. Americans will vote against it as they always do in the end.
George,
Does it say wht kind of pickle he enjoyed while showering in prison?
Butchered Russian joke:
Woman: I'd like 1 cucumber.
Grocer: What shape?
Woman: Doesn't matter, I'm just making a salad.
Peter,
I detest people who shift the goalposts, and that is the off-tackle of the left's playbook.
Is that an internally or externally mixed metaphor?
I thought the Chargers got screwed over by the refs today, but at least it probably rained some of the bile off Krylo's parade.
GO PATS! The Marino theory is in play.
I had some errands to run and wound up in the Gold Coast area of Chicago. It was raining cats and dogs. I was finished with what I had to do and on the way home. I saw a cop writing a ticket on the car. The meter was expired. I went up to him and asked if he could give a retired cop a break, and offered to put money in the meter. He looked up and told me I should have know better.
I told him I would never, ever have written a retired cop a parking ticket. He pointed out that the car was too far from the curb and started writing another ticket.
My blood was boiling, as it was raining and we were both getting wet. I asked him if the only reson he was out in the rain was because he could not find a donut shop or too stupid to stay dry.
He sneered and pointed out that the plates were expired and started to write a third parking ticket.
I called him a bunch of names and walked away in disgust, went to the bust stop, caught a bus and went home. I love being retired. It gives one a better sense of power and abuse.
Excellent. Record rally in Achorage against Palin.
‘Alaska Women Reject Palin’ rally draws record crowds
AlphaLiberal said...
Excellent. Record rally in Achorage against Palin.
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AL,
I won't say you lied, but you are willfully ignorant or deceptive on this one.
That group provided its own count and based on the video, they're clicker person must have been walking in circles. They can say that it was a "record" and make up a count. But they are wrong.
Meanwhile, the ADN reported 2000 showed up for Palin:
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHA,TSHA:2006-03,TSHA:en&hl=en&resnum=1&ncl=1245868838
The 3rd one down (I can't open ADN).
USA Today reports "hundreds" for the anti-Palin rally:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-13-anti-Palin-rally_N.htm
Not "more than a thousand."
You're in Michael territory now, liar.
their clicker person.
sheesh.
The bigger question for Leftists willing to come out and protest the most popular Governor in the United States:
Don't you have something BETTER to do?
By the way......I noticed that local police officials in Carson City put the figure for Palin's rally last night at 10,000, but all the local SF Bay Area media I checked put the figure at 5,000. Interesting.
Instapudit:
"75% of Alaska Democrats Approve Palin’s Job Performance."
I wouldn't be surprised if those protesting today in Alaska were the MSM up there looking for dirt on Palin!
This is priceless. From the SF Chronicle:
It turns out that well before he was jettisoned for what he says was his refusal to fire trooper Wooten at the behest of Sarah Palin, Monegan had his own share of domestic troubles - some of them spilling all the way down to the Bay Area.
In October 1994, Monegan's estranged wife, who had moved from Alaska to the Peninsula with the couple's two daughters after more than 10 years of marriage, sought a temporary restraining order against him - accusing Monegan of threatening to kill her, waving a gun at her and dislocating her shoulder, according to her declaration on file in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
True, I'm not in the top 5% right now. But I aspire to be one day.
This is one of the strongest advantages that Republicans have -- the aspirational voter who, no matter how average his income or modest his means, yet feels that financial success is imminent. Because he identifies with the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of this world, he votes to keep their taxes low, even though tax balancing means he has less disposable income now.
And because of the upward mobility inherent in our culture, Alex may be right.
Not that this belief is limited to this country: all over Europe, conservative parties attract farmers, shop owners, and corporate tycoons alike.
the most popular Governor in the United States:
Don't you have something BETTER to do
Frankly I think it would be cruel to deprive Alaskans of their beloved Governor. Give Mitt Romney a chance; the unappreciative people of Massachusetts dumped him.
Actually mMitt Romney hit the term limits and was not dumped by the people of Mass at all.
local police officials in Carson City put the figure for Palin's rally last night at 10,000, but all the local SF Bay Area media I checked put the figure at 5,000. Interesting
Thats common. We're lucky the media even reported the existance of a Palin rally. The MSM is so far in the tank for Obama, its a wonder that anyone but idiots like Maureen Dowd fall for it [waves to the hacks at AP - blowback's a bitch, eh?]
Romney was neither dumped nor term-limited. He did not seek re-election after 1 term.
Michael McNeil said...
“how the Palin pick has seemed to make voters see McCain as an agent of change: someone willing to take a bold, risky, highly surprising step to shake things up. In a way, it's not even so important that Palin be regarded as a great choice, necessarily — it's really only important that McCain be perceived as making a bold one ”
By the way HD, the people over at Talkleft are looking horror in the face as a result of the latest polls ....."
Well McNeil....stupidity and blind idolation always seems to come home to roost doesn't it????
How are those polls 3 weeks later dumbo? Lookin' up for your guys? Landslide anyone?
YOU BETCHA!
hdhouse sez:
Well McNeil....stupidity and blind idolation always seems to come home to roost doesn't it???? How are those polls 3 weeks later dumbo? Lookin' up for your guys? Landslide anyone? YOU BETCHA!
I don't idolize either McCain or Palin, but you, idioticos, as is typical for you, are trying to obfuscate the fact that the real cause of the change in polls over the last few weeks (without even delving into the blizzard of slime blasted at Palin since her being brought onto the ticket, in a desperate attempt to turn people's heads, which has had some effect) is the historic financial meltdown that happened to occur during the same time period. Regardless of who is responsible for the financial crisis (and Democratic policies stand tall in this regard), such an event almost always tends to propel public opinion against the party that has been (at least at the executive level) in power. Nor is the Obama lead even now overwhelming.
Moreover, while it's likely at this point that Obama-Biden will win the election, the recent meltdown itself shows that a lot can happen in a few weeks. Recall that a month or so before that the Russian invasion of Georgia took place, which tended to turn heads in the opposite direction, towards McCain. Time and history will tell the tale of whether such a further show-changer occurs in the remaining month. (No, I'm not predicting that will happen but it certainly could — and Obama supporters will be biting their nails hoping that it doesn't.)
Post a Comment