View Full Version : Wouldn't It Be A Riot If.. (Also, VP Predictions?)
Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 08:31 AM
Wouldn't it be a riot if none of us turned up to vote! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
Imagine the message we'd be sending. "Hey, if you can't give us atleast ONE highly evolved, completely reasonable, fully capable and experienced, candidate, we're not coming!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
Any predictions on the VP selections?
I have several predictions.
1. Obama's VP will be either Biden, Hagle or Powell! I can't wait to find out which candidate Powell will support, but I don't think it will be McCain.
2. I think there will be a lot of trouble at the Democratic Convention, and that we will learn later that the Republicans were behind it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
3. Neither of the candidates will be truthful in addressing our most serious issues, (the Economy, Oil, debt, spending, Iraq) with any real solutions, candor or courage.
4. McCain's VP will be Romney.
5. Hillary Clinton will.....(fill in the blanks)
Now let's try to keep this pleasant. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
08-20-2008, 08:51 AM
I'll have to give predictions later when I have more time. But nobody showing up, that would be a hoot!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wouldn't it be a riot if none of us turned up to vote!
Imagine the message we'd be sending. "Hey, if you can't give us atleast ONE highly evolved, completely reasonable, fully capable and experienced, candidate, we're not coming!"</div></div>I think it would be awesome.
1. You might be right.
2. You might be right, but understand the opposite will be true at the RNC so we are even.
3. Absolutely true.
4. I have no idea, you might be true.
5. Hillary Clinton will be nominated and Obama's VP pick will mean nothing.
Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">5. Hillary Clinton will be nominated and Obama's VP pick will mean nothing.
Wow, if that happened it would be the first time that my choice, out of the possibles, won. I was too young to vote for Kennedy.
I think that if Biden, (My first choice of those who ran) for example, had announced early on that he would run with Hagle as his VP, they could have blown all the others away.
As young as I am, I have not been very happy with the choices that were left to vote for come election time. Ever since I was 18 my vote was one to keep the Dem out, but never FOR the Rep I was voting for.
Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 09:20 AM
I would have voted for Goldwater. Other than that, I vote to keep the repubs out !
08-20-2008, 10:31 AM
Would I win then as a write in candidate?
You bunch of whining, selfish un-American, stay at home, non -voters....
this is why the thinking has been in the last two elections....that voting is too important to be left in the hands of the voters....and Diebold is the only one that can truly decide who is the best man for the job
08-20-2008, 12:05 PM
"I can't wait to find out which candidate Powell will support, but I don't think it will be McCain"
Powell already said he's backing Obama...sid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Powell already said he's backing Obama...sid </div></div>Do you have a link? The last time Gayle insinuated this it was not so.
Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 12:08 PM
Thanks Martin. Gee, How'd I miss that! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif
08-20-2008, 12:22 PM
I always wondered how Powell would've done as an actual candidate for president. To me, Powell is probably one of the most qualified people when it comes to diplomacy and war conduction abilities. I said I'd never vote republican, but someone like Powell in the mix would seriously taunt me to do just that. I hope he's the pick, Powell is smart, balanced and a realistic thinker. Besides, he has good BS-filter features. jm2c sid
08-20-2008, 12:41 PM
Where did he say that? I have heard that he has not made an endorsement yet. Please let us know.
Gayle in MD
08-20-2008, 12:53 PM
Powell, Clarke and McClellan are the only two in the Bush circle who have acknowledged their roles in the administrations lies.
When Powell admitted that the cherry picked intelligence which he was to some degree reluctant to give, and to some degree, cornered into giving at the United Nations, would "forever be a black mark on his career" he did set himself aside from the scoundrels with whom he had been associated in the Bush/Cheney criminal administration.
I've always liked him, and thought that he had the misfortune to get tied up with a bunch who were the lowest of the low.
Atleast he owned up to his part of the scam. He truly should have resigned, as so many others did. That probably would hurt him in any future political campaign, but who knows, McCain is so comfortable with lying, making self-serving comments, and exloiting his POW experience for political purposes, maybe the public wouldn't care about powells relatively scarce blunders.
I've come to the conclusion that the public is so ignorant to the facts, anybody could win the White HOuse, as long as they had their "ACT" down. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif
08-20-2008, 02:09 PM
you admit then just voting along party guidelines, and not for who was best qualified....and you have the nerve to call others sheep?
I suppose that's how the other crook, Jebba the Hut, got to be Fla. Gov.
He was Republican, so his questionable past could be overlooked.
08-20-2008, 03:01 PM
I have, on many occasions voted for Democrats. In the south (I'm not talking WV, I mean the real south!), a typical democrat runs on the words conservative, Christian values and defense of the 2nd amendment even before they cite any other platform. Just ask Sack, he sees the commercials.
Even though I have only lived a few years in the North, I don't recall anyone running on a tax and spend liberal platform there as well. The saving grace of politics is, most of it is, of course, local. We still vote for Walkin Weddel Mitchel, a Democrat, although if you compared policy and talked to him with your eyes closed, you'd swear he was a right wing as they come. He wrote more Hillary is a dangerous person articles than our most robust Republican here. He would die before voting for gun legislation and, so, he's o.k. by us.
The really far left people, Pelosi, Kennedy and Obama would never have a shot at being elected in the flyover states but we will pull the lever for someone who packs in the pork for our local fire station, schools and hospitals as long as they don't saddle up too close to a guy like Larry Craig. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
As I have said, this time I just won't vote. Count it as a half vote for Obama, I guess.
08-20-2008, 09:59 PM
Deeman, as usual you are correct sir. Sometimes I think our "democrats" are only listed as so because there is a long term sitting republican in that office and they just wanna run, so they throw a (d) by their name in order to do so!
Any political campaign here in AL is always a conservative platform, regardless of the little letter appearing by their name. And somehow some people still want to debate along "party lines" here in local government... I wish they only realized how right wing "our" lefties really are. I think a shade right of center is as left as we go /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
08-20-2008, 11:01 PM
There's nothing wrong with being right or left of center...I only have problems with the extremists..and we seem to have our share here.
I think you folks down there might lynch FDR if he was alive and running for office....and proposing his new deal
Gayle in MD
08-21-2008, 09:16 AM
What else can you expect from Ed?
He's one of our resident economic experts in favor of the flat tax idea. Of course, none of the expert economists favor it. Estimates are that it would require a 50% rate to run this government! The entire middle class would fall into poverty.
So who do we vote for, the Republicans, whose policies are spend-spend, or Democratics, spend-tax the richest, a bit more, which they can readily afford.
(When polled, studies show that between 60 and 80% do not subscribe to trickle down economics,and most economists agree)
Republicans, who are borrowing to re-buid Iraq?
Or Democratics, who want to re-build America, and do it in a way which provides jobs that restore our own infracture, on job education, investments in solar, wind, and renewables.
Or more tax breaks for big oil, McCain intends to give them an additional 2 billion dollars a year! More corporate welfare, for corps that shipp our jobs overseas, and hide their money.
We went through this on the Gayle post in which when she used the "?" she thought she was tricking us into thinking she was asking a question. We all already knew her agenda especially when she screwed up and made it sound like fact in her first sentence. Now she is agreeing with it again, but maybe she will respond letting you know that she added a "?" at the end of her thread title. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Gayle in MD
08-21-2008, 09:38 AM
Actually the second (?) wouldn't fit on the title, Sherlock.
Do you ever get anything right?
LOL, more foolishness from gayole. We know your agenda and it does not matter how many "?'s" you put at the end. Your first sentence told the reader everything they needed to know about your agenda. And now on this thread you agree to it again, further proving I have been right all along.
08-21-2008, 10:30 AM
08-21-2008, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think you folks down there might lynch FDR if he was alive and running for office....and proposing his new deal </div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">No, in fact, our neighbors over in warm springs, GA. welcomed FDR. Of course, he would be considered a hawk in these times but, get his own parking space in Luverne! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>
Gayle in MD
08-21-2008, 10:41 AM
No, I don't think so. He didn't have to make up imaginary threats. People were aware, and Americans readily volunteer to fight to protect their country.
They don't do that for Oil companies, or to even old grudges for one son of one man.
FDR, didn't ask them to go attack a Phillipino gang of religious fanatics, because Japan had attacked us on our shores. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
08-21-2008, 10:41 AM
".......proving I have been right all along."
extreme right ...but you didn't have to prove that to us.
Both your denial about anything that exposes the wrong doing of this admin, your condemnation of anybody that doesn't agree with you...and your pig-headedness about global warming, conservation, oil depletion, tinkle down theory, etc...has exposed you as the #1
uber-right here (das is goot, ya wohl)
08-21-2008, 10:59 AM
"He's one of our resident economic experts in favor of the flat tax idea. Of course, none of the expert economists favor it. Estimates are that it would require a 50% rate to run this government"
Ed may be actually right on something here. Models I've seen for a flat tax, even at a measly 10% for EVERYONE, no exemptions except the poverty levels, BUT ABSOLUTELY no exemptions to the wealthy and corporate tax evaders, would more than support the government. I'll personally accept 25%, but the wealthy and corps pay the same.
The estimates of 50% is simply way wrong, unless you leave the same loopholes in place. The formula for overall revenue using a flat(un-skewed) rate is boo-koos easier and more fair that this junk we now call an IRS system, plus the IRS going away, saving that huge cost to this country, will gigantically offset those economists and their opinions. sid
Go back to your nap ankle biter, gayle will give you a treat later.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you admit then just voting along party guidelines, and not for who was best qualified</div></div>No you idiot. It was painfully obvious the left has not sent a qualified candidate to the election. They have all been worse than what the Reps had to offer even though the Rep candidate was not much better.
Has gayle given you your treat yet? Is that why you woke up from the nap?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's one of our resident economic experts in favor of the flat tax idea. </div></div>When have I said that? Can you please post a link? Gayle you can hardly get through spelling economics correctly let alone have a discussion about it. LOL, you crack me up.
08-21-2008, 11:15 AM
Sid, here's another take on the flat tax....
flat tax (http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html)
I am in favor of the Fair Tax which would definitely remove the IRS. People like gayle will never understand the far outweighing postives of the Fair tax. She likes the status quo because she can take advantage of all the tax loopholes which keep money from feeding starving children.
Gayle in MD
08-21-2008, 11:19 AM
According to my studies, the rate required to bring in the same amount of money we get now, is close to fiftty percent.
Also, economist say that the idea that we could do away with the IRS, even with a flat tax, is a falacy.
There are only two developed countries that have cheaper taxes than we do.
I wish I could recall what they are.
Gayle in MD
08-21-2008, 11:30 AM
"Some have complained that higher marginal rates act as a deterrent to the kind of wealth creation that trickles down to working people in the form of more jobs. Again, this is not an issue because the higher marginal rates only apply to the higher levels of income; all taxpayers still pay exactly the same rates on equivalent layers of income. Morever, this widely-believed fallacy simply fails to grasp the true nature of wealth (or job) creation which is based on the faulty view that if you give tax breaks to the rich, or otherwise put more money into the pockets of those who already have the most, that they will use it to create jobs. While it is primarily the wealthy who invest the capital needed to create more wealth (and jobs), jobs are not created just because people have money. If they just have money, and that's all, they'll just keep it or spend it on themselves, as they always have done in the past. Jobs are not created as acts of charity for working people that the wealthy elites don't even have personal acquaintance with. Jobs (and broad-based wealth) are created when those in a position to administer productive resources see a demand for goods to be produced. And if they see such a demand, they will generate the increased production -- create new jobs -- whether or not they have the money on hand -- even if they have to raise money by borrowing the necessary capital for financing. If the general public, which is made up far ore by working people than by the wealthy elite, does not have discretionary income to spend on products, the broad-based demand needed to stimulate wealth creation (and job creation) is inhibited. It has more to do with creating a broad base of demand than by making sure rich people have enough money. This concept is discussed in much more depth on my economics web page, at:
There isn't one single person here from the right who understands this.
Nothing can compare to six years of complete Republican control over our government, from the courts, to the WH to both houses of Congress, to the Agencies.
Same as always!
Bigger government, higher debt, more corruption, more hidden government, and a bad economy from their spend/spend, grow the government, policies. Tax cuts that reward the rich, and policies that encourage illegals to invade, and provide cheap labor for the corporate fascists. An endangered public due to deregulations on safety, oversight of industrial pollution, and increased abuse of the environment, and a decline in the living standards of the middle class. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif More money wasted on wars that don't serve our best interests, and more weapons spread around volital regions. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
08-21-2008, 11:31 AM
08-21-2008, 11:33 AM
08-21-2008, 11:35 AM
ain't that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, God!!
08-22-2008, 04:07 AM
I'm gonna toss out my prediction. I think y'all will be getting a text naming Joe Biden as Obama's running mate. No special reason for it other than reports that his house is a buzzing with family all coming into town, while other possibles have not had things so busy apparently.
I also thought tonight that it would be funny if Obama names McCain as his VP pick, and McCain names Obama as his. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif not sure if that would please most people or if we'd see a mass movement of people terminating their citizenship
08-22-2008, 07:27 AM
I have it on good authority that it will be Hillary. I hear that Obama had her secured in a cone of silence and that she is at this moment knawing her left foot off to escape by 3:00p.m. EST today to secure the appointment. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
08-22-2008, 09:54 AM
deeman, I think you mispoke. I think rather than securing the "appointment" you meant she as gonna bust out to go take the nomination /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif And in a way, I hope she would! Ooohh, wouldn't it be fun if she were to un-suspend her campaign and go ahead and run as an independent?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.