PDA

View Full Version : Has anyone else noticed that...



cheesemouse
09-02-2008, 07:15 PM
Has anyone else noticed that when S Palin's experience is questioned the standard republican comeback talking point is: "she has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined". When I hear this my first thought is "using that logic she is also more experience than John McCain." Perhaps she should be at the top of the ticket, if she were I would be less scared...:)

Deeman3
09-03-2008, 09:16 AM
Cheese,

I think we are all making too much of experience as this is mainly a popularity contest, plain and simple. Sure, it would be nice if Obama and Palin had more experience but just maybe they will do better without it.

mike60
09-03-2008, 11:23 AM
Good call Deeman, it worked for Bush...


miguel james kopp doing forever as some guy's bitch

Gayle in MD
09-03-2008, 12:15 PM
I've noticed, and also noticed that his campaign is trying to say that because she is the closest governor to Russia, she has foreign policy experience! OMG! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

They're also crying sex discrimination every time anyone points to her lack of experience in foreign affairs, and inexperience in dealing with national domestic issues.

They don't want to consider that fact that at McCain's age, having had cancer four times, a careful VP choice holds more responsibility for good judgement than most, so what does he do, another right in your face styled Bush tactic.

F you all. I'll pick someone that I think can be used to get me in there, and to hell with whether or not I put the whole damned country at risk!

Postively the most telling move he could make, and it demonstrates that he should not even be allowed to run, given his spastic nature, and over reaching ambition.

This is a man who is a loose cannon. Obama's right about one thing, for sure. McCain does not have the judgement, or the temperament to be president of this country. This choice for VP says worlds about that, and also about his reckless nature.

He's basically shooting craps with the nations' national security in a desperate Hail Mary throw to the end zone.

He's totally nuts! This move proves it.

InTheZone
09-03-2008, 01:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's basically shooting craps with the nations' national security in a desperate Hail Mary throw to the end zone.

He's totally nuts! This mover proves it. </div></div>

He's shooting craps and you're spewing crap, need we say more?

Gayle in MD
09-03-2008, 02:10 PM
We? Who is WE? Obviously, you're a Republican. Another Republican who thinks he speaks for all.

Translation.

Republican.....wouldn't know crap if you had a mouthful.

wolfdancer
09-03-2008, 02:13 PM
My own belief is that no one has the experience demanded to become President;it's on the job training, but some are better equipped then others to handle the job. Occasionally a non-competent slips in, but this has been the first time one managed a second term...I credit the war for that as no one wants to change CinC's during a conflict....lucky for GW that the war had begun.
There was an old saying, which I have for the most part, forgotten, that went something like:
Truman proved you didn't have to know anything to become President, Eisenhower proved you didn't have to do anything, while FDR proved you could make a career out of the Presidency.
What the country really needs right now, is not McSame, nor Obama, but a Teddy Roosevelt:

"He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster". He was clear, however, to show he did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against corrupt, illegal practices. His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance.[5][6] As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources. After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions. In 1910, he broke with his friend and anointed successor William Howard Taft, but lost the Republican nomination to Taft and ran in the 1912 election on his own one-time Bull Moose ticket. He beat Taft in the popular vote and pulled so many Progressives out of the Republican Party that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in 1912, and the conservative faction took control of the Republican Party for the next two decades." ( and now they are back in ontrol, without ever having learned anything but rhetoric...no plans to back up what they preach)

Imagine that....some 90+ years ago, a Republican recognized the need for universal health care....
According to the article Teddy ranks between 3rd and 7th amongst our greatest Presidents, while GWB has nailed down the 43rd spot, and will soon move down to # 44

pooltchr
09-03-2008, 07:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GWB has nailed down the 43rd spot, and will soon move down to # 44 </div></div>

So you agree that McCain-Palin will be an improvement over the present administration??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 06:33 AM
It's going to be hard for him to get anyone other than his unwitting base to believe that any change will result from him!

He's been voting yes on everything that Bush has messed up, including billions more for the wealthy oil execs, and billions more for the Corporations that outsource American jobs. More tax cuts for the wealthy, and People aren't dumb enough to think that he will move the country away from a dig dig dig approach to energy!

Can you believe those Republican idiots screaming "Dig baby dig!

Incredible!

I guess they don't think the hole we're in is deep enough yet! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

cheesemouse
09-04-2008, 07:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GWB has nailed down the 43rd spot, and will soon move down to # 44 </div></div>

So you agree that McCain-Palin will be an improvement over the present administration??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Steve </div></div>Yes, I agree. Better yet if they flipped the ticket and let her take top it would be better still because she has more executive experience than he does. If executive experience is the benchmark she is the only one of the four who is qualified to be president.

Deeman3
09-04-2008, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GWB has nailed down the 43rd spot, and will soon move down to # 44 </div></div>

So you agree that McCain-Palin will be an improvement over the present administration??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Steve </div></div>Yes, I agree. Better yet if they flipped the ticket and let her take top it would be better still because she has more executive experience than he does. If executive experience is the benchmark she is the only one of the four who is qualified to be president. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> This is probably true and why we have not eleced a senator since 1960.</span>

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You will also recall that McCain and his supporters have been lecturing us about the grave and urgent dangers our country faces -- Islamic fundamentalism, the resurgence of Russia and other geopolitical threats. In a menacing world, McCain says, he will keep America safe.

So, at 72 and with a history of cancer, how could McCain choose a vice presidential nominee who has, let's face it, zero experience in foreign affairs? Being the nominal commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard doesn't count, unless you think Vladimir Putin is about to order an invasion across the Bering Strait.

At a time when the nation also confronts enormous challenges at home, Palin has, um, slightly more than zero experience in domestic affairs. The reason most people move to Alaska is that it's different from the rest of the country. Salmon fishing and snowmobile racing are not front-page news in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida.

McCain's political calculation in choosing Palin is obvious. Social conservatives, who had been unexcited by his candidacy, are ecstatic that he has picked a running mate who staunchly opposes abortion, favors the teaching of "intelligent design" in the public schools and generally embraces the agenda of the religious right.

</div></div>

A farce. She has NO experience that qualifies her for the office, zilch.

Deeman3
09-04-2008, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A farce. She has NO experience that qualifies her for the office, zilch. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Perhaps if she were to get in Congress, get a little seasoning and take millions from the oil lobbys for awhile as Obama and McCain have done, she might be a little more ready.

If she were to have experience in a more liberal legislative body like the Illinois House and have helped run a "corruption free" city like Chicago, she might be a little more ready.

If she only had the judgement of the present adminsitration and Senate in decisions in the war, she might be better qualified.

If she had waiting until she was running for office to make a trip to visit our troops in the Middle East, she might be better prepared and more politically astute.

If she had decided to make her case for the office of the American President in Berlin, she might be a better President.

If she had rejected over 18,000,000 voters to select a man for VP that had gotten fewer vote for President than she did for Mayor of a small town in Alaska, she might be ready.

I can assure you, if she "free stuff" for all, she'd be perfectly qualified. </span>

DickLeonard
09-04-2008, 10:15 AM
Gayle I am glad you kept that reply to seven words. They are all a waste of words.####

DickLeonard
09-04-2008, 10:22 AM
Deeman you are more Qualified than any canidate but Joe Biden. I have pointed out before 5 years in a hole doesn't qualify anyone for the Presidency just for a Psycharitic Exam. His behaviour seems to warrrant a closer look at 5 years in a hole. Well at least a song by Bob Dylan.####

Deeman3
09-04-2008, 10:32 AM
Dick,

I may agree with you that Biden may be the most qualified. I always said he was the one I would have nominated of all the democratic candidates.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ST. PAUL, Minn. — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere." </div></div>

She's been funded by Ted Stevens. Give up. Your efforts to paint this woman as Marry Poppins are absurd. She's a joke, and one look at that pregnant, unmarried daughter of her, makes her a huge joke.

<span style="color: #000066">Now go on and tell me I hate poor Sara, just because I got eyes in my head, and can see that the very women who rails against sex education, has a dughter who sure as hell could have used some! </span>

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps if she were to get in Congress, get a little seasoning and take millions from the oil lobbys for awhile as Obama and McCain have done, <span style="color: #000066">Another lie. </span> she might be a little more ready. <span style="color: #000066"> McCain is the one promising to increase billion more for big oil, not Obama.</span>

If she were to have experience in a more liberal legislative body like the Illinois House and have helped run a "corruption free" city like Chicago, she might be a little more ready.

<span style="color: #000066">She's under investigation for breaking the law in Alaska, so I'm sure she'd fit right in. In fact, only Biden and obama have never been under investigation for corruption. Palin was almost kicked out on a threatened recall, when she was mayor. </span>

If she only had the judgement of the present adminsitration and Senate in decisions in the war, she might be better qualified.

<span style="color: #000066">She professes the same illogical Republican foreing policies that they do, and from the same messenger, GOD, father of Jesus, who said, turn the other cheek, love thy enemies. </span>

If she had waiting until she was running for office to make a trip to visit our troops in the Middle East, she might be better prepared and more politically astute.

<span style="color: #000066">Maybe, and if she had been in more than one foreign country in her whole life, she woldn't have had to lie about being in Germany, when she never got off the airport. </span>

If she had decided to make her case for the office of the American President in Berlin, she might be a better President.
<span style="color: #000066"> And if frogs had longer legs they wouldn't bump their asses so much.</span>
If she had rejected over 18,000,000 voters to select a man for VP that had gotten fewer vote for President than she did for Mayor of a small town in Alaska, she might be ready.

<span style="color: #000066">Another lie, Deeman. I do wish you would stop lying, and just repeating those rr talking oints. don't you know by now that you can't believe anything that comes out of a Republican's mouth! </span>

I can assure you, if she "free stuff" for all, she'd be perfectly qualified.

<span style="color: #000066">No, not for all, just the usual no bid contractors, lobbyists, and corporate fascists, nothig for the middle class. </span>
_________________________
</div></div>

sack316
09-04-2008, 11:43 AM
Breaking news: Men in dark suits and sunglasses are rummaging through Alaskan pee-wee hockey league records to see if any of the Palin children actually played hockey--- in an attempt to ensure she can rightfully call herself a "hockey mom".

OK, maybe not really be happening, but wouldn't surprise me one bit either.

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 11:47 AM
They won't have to go to that extreme. There is plenty of proof on her hypocracy.

Here's another factoid. When she stood up there promising to be an advocate for children of special needs, she left out the part about how she cut funding for children with special needs by 62 million dollars.

She the pork queen of this country.

sack316
09-04-2008, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They won't have to go to that extreme. There is plenty of proof on her hypocracy.

Here's another factoid. When she stood up there promising to be an advocate for children of special needs, she left out the part about how she cut funding for children with special needs by 62 million dollars.

She the pork queen of this country. </div></div>

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/newest_palin_smear_she_cut_spe.asp

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I just watched CNN's Soledad O'Brien sandbag former White House Communications Director Nicole Wallace by asking her how Sarah Palin can claim to be a defender of special needs children when she cut the budget for that Alaska office by 62 percent. Wallace wasn't familiar with the charge -- which isn't surprising, since it's only being made on DailyKos and another liberal site. (Tip for Ms. O'Brien: DailyKos is not a reliable news site.)

This charge is based on looking at the budget for Alaska's Special Education Service Agency for 2007-2009. In fact, the December 2006 budget document that they cite would have been prepared by the outgoing administration -- that of Republican Frank Murkowski, whom Palin defeated.

What's gone unmentioned is that the Palin signed into law a dramatic reform of the state's education financing system that equalizes aid to rural and urban districts, while significantly increasing funding for special needs students. From the publication Education Week:


Gov. Sarah Palin and state lawmakers have gone ahead with an overhaul of Alaska’s school funding system that supporters predict will provide much-needed financial help to rural schools and those serving students with disabilities.

The plan, enacted in the recently concluded session of the legislature, is based on recommendations issued by a legislative task force last year. It will phase in a greater flow of money to districts outside of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, over the next five years.

Advocates for rural and remote schools have lobbied for years for more funding, in particular noting the higher fuel, transportation, and other costs associated with providing education in communities scattered across the vast state.

A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (emphasis added).


So the Netroots and CNN allege that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent, by crediting her with the budget proposed by a political opponent. And the truth is that rather than a 62 percent cut, she's actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent.

It's no wonder a majority of Americans think the media is trying to hurt Palin.
</div></div>

back to the hockey record idea I guess.

Sack

sack316
09-04-2008, 12:05 PM
Also of note here is that the DailyKos article mentioned here has a few "links" on it that are in their less-than-fully-researched article... links to nowhere as whoever wrote it was apparently not smart enough to know how to provide a link correctly. Now that's news you can('t) use!

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 12:07 PM
I will check this out, Sack, but I surely don't find the Weekly Standard to be non partisan.

sack316
09-04-2008, 12:12 PM
Nor do I DailyKos, which as far as I can see, would have been the first to present the side of the story you mentioned

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 12:21 PM
I think I read about this charge in the Anchorage news Papers. You'd think they would know what they're writing about their own state.

I'll try to find my original source. Regardless, this is plenty enough reason to call her a liar.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

</div></div>

sack316
09-04-2008, 12:51 PM
fair enough, for now. But suffice to say she can't be called a liar regarding the families with special needs... (and to give you room I'll even add it as) families with special needs for the reasons you mentioned above.

I don't know the whole big picture on her tax increase when she became governor... but I know part of it included that good ol' windfall tax on oil profits you revere so much. I would think that something you would like.

from time's article: "“She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. ---interview with Stein. Now I won't even pretend to know the whole story here. She may well have been injecting her religious beliefs in a way unsuitable for her office. Or she may well have been listneing to the public she was over and was presenting this as a hypotheritcal question, later to find out that was not doable. I've heard both sides, and don't know what is true. The stories will also say that she threatened to fire the librarian for not giving her full support to the mayor. As I said I don't know what is true, but to my knowlege no books are banned and the librarian still has her job.

The pork barrel spending, point well taken. Any and all such requests are inherently contradiciting to one part of the campaign. But from what i see from a CBS story on the 2nd "There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage." Obviously that does not detract from what your point actually was, but I feel it fair to note what the requests were actually for, and then weigh them out fully as far as if they are wasteful or usefel requests.

Sack

Deeman3
09-04-2008, 01:50 PM
Sack,

Unlike the pork in, say, a Woodstock Museum? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
09-04-2008, 02:16 PM
there's a slight exaggeration to the more votes then Biden story,
vote count (http://http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/92047/57894/350/584443)
And when Huckabee has to resort to a lie, in an attempt to discredit a candidate...it only discredits anything else he had to say.
When Fred was railing on about the "runaway spending" by the liberals, he used the term "here at home", and naturally included medicare, an abomination for the right...I guess runaway spending and missing billions connected to the war are ok!!

TAXES....both candidates have a plan (something Bush never understood)...CNN has a nice breakdown:
BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
That's a pretty healthy increase for the $3m folks....probably means thousands more yacht builders will be laid off.
I bet the under $19k folks though could really use that extra $548....now that is really trickle down economy at work.....
Robin Hood had it figured out a few centuries ago...rob from the rich, give to the poor (our first liberal leader...no wonder they put a price on his head)

Here's their analysis on the tax plans of both:
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
(hey, a trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money)

The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office.

Deeman3
09-04-2008, 02:30 PM
I could not getr the Daily Kos story to come up but I am, of course, very suspicious of anything they come up with.

I don't thnk Medicare is an abomination unless it is fraud. I also believe that war spending that is out of control should be prosecuted as fraud. I will not squeek when they haul off anyone who has stolen funds.

So, as I can't pull up the Kos story (Maybe my computer is afraid of such a lft wing place) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif can you give us the real numbers?

If you say he put 18,000,000 cracks in some sort of ceiling, I'm not gonna buy that either. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

You know, that I know, that all of them are crooks, McCain and especially Obama. The fact that Biden does not lie (ask Gayle) and identified Obama as unqualified at least gives me some respect for him. On the whole, they will all rob us. In a robery situation, a little like Bucktooth, I'd rather be robbed of less than more. I am not totally sure at this time, who will have their hand the deepest in my pocket. I am not wise enough to say it will not be McCain who is worse. The jumping on the gal has just stirred my blood a bit when I was starting to back off and not pay attention.

It may be that the McCain campaign is counting on that and that the piling on by the left will work to his favor. Could happen.

Sid_Vicious
09-04-2008, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there's a slight exaggeration to the more votes then Biden story,
vote count (http://http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/92047/57894/350/584443)
And when Huckabee has to resort to a lie, in an attempt to discredit a candidate...it only discredits anything else he had to say.
</div></div>

But hey! Huck is a pronounced man of God. Where in the Bible does it say "Thall shalt lie?" Seriously, be it Bush who touts his God relationship or the Huckster, just one obvious lie from either eliminates all credibility. Funny thing though, even the most honest and church going people I know "on the right" ignore this feature of their candidate. To me, this is really a terrible example to people trying to analyze the truth and value of joining the religious following. I also think that it is a sin for Godly people to ignore untruths, like it's ok in certain situations. The Bible never said that any place when I read it, nor has any Christian minister while in the pulpit, stated that during my lifetime experiences.

Yes, it discredits, as it should. If you are going to profess being religious, you damned(significant word) well best watch your outward presentations of the truth. sid

wolfdancer
09-04-2008, 02:36 PM
you and sid are too quick with your replies...I edited my post

wolfdancer
09-04-2008, 02:43 PM
from time's article: "“She asked the library how she could go about banning books,”

Apparently she is not a fan of Ray Bradbury:
book ban (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/)

Deeman3
09-04-2008, 03:18 PM
Of course, Robin Hood, a fictional character, was breaking the law. If he stole from the rich and gave to the poor, it has some resonance unless he was stealing your money.

I don't think the chart shows Obama or McCain making that much difference to anyone. My questions might be, how much tax does a person making $19K a year pay now? It may be their fair share, in some opinions but just because they are making that $19,000 a year does not, by itself, make them deserving. Maybe needy is enough. If that were it, not many would begrudge them that $500 a year. It is not all of it. The free health care may add another $12,000 per year, free University who knows?

While we do have semi permanent under-class in thie country and may always have it, despite efforts to make it go away. I fear if we disolve it all away into everyne at the bottom being given almost all they requite, they will be there in almost all cases, forever, which is not now the case.

If you guys are right and we can afford all you want and still burst this economy throught the seams and become prosperous again, I'll apologise when it happens. I do like one of Obama's proosals of not taxing retired folks on the first $50K. I could use some retirees that now don't want to work because of the taxes.

wolfdancer
09-04-2008, 03:37 PM
You mean there was no Sherwood forest, no Maid Marion?
I haven't been this disillusioned since I found out thar weren't no Easter Bunny laying them colored eggs.
There's poor in every country, but making $19k a year at least they are working poor, and not depending upon a welfare check....
I just found out today....that you can still qualify for food stamps....a family of 4, with an income of $40k.....
Now if the Gov't guidelines enable these families to get some help...a wage earner mailing below $19k, that $500" kickback" adds
probably 20% or more to his "disposable" income?? Not enough to buy American, but maybe some of them Chinese goods sold at Steve's favorite store, Wal-Mart

pooltchr
09-04-2008, 07:08 PM
<u>I'd love to change the world </u> Alvin Lee with 10 years after

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'till there are no rich no more"

Steve

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 07:23 PM
27 million dollar in a town of under ten thousand people?

Pahleeeze!

The sports center turned into a money pit, so said a man interviewed on cable news tonight.

She's no reform Candidate, and how about the story that was admitted to that her husband was involved in the independence movement in Alaska! Wanted to drop out of the united States, and she went to the meetings with him!

If that news came out about Babck Obama, you would all be howling!

McCain can't sell himself on change, bash Bush's policies, and expect people to forget that he backed Bush throughout his administration, on every damned thing, and said just last April, on Meet The Press, that he was fully in agreement with all of Bush's policies!

He's full of it! Now he wants to blame Democratics for everything the Republicans have messed up, when history shows that Democratics are better on Jobs, better with the budget, growth, and better with the economy in general.

McCain had to go all the way to Alaska to find a Republican Candidate that wasn't in jail or on their way to jail. This Abramoff thing isn't over yet, and you're going to see some more Republicans handcuffed before it's over.

sack316
09-04-2008, 09:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">from time's article: "“She asked the library how she could go about banning books,”

Apparently she is not a fan of Ray Bradbury:
book ban (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/)
</div></div>

I think she may have went after that one wolfie... but was too new and inexperienced, and thought she was going after Moore's "fahrenheit 9-11" rather than Bradbury's work.

See, I got jokes on everyone. I'm not that bad of a righty. Just mostly bad.

Sack

sack316
09-04-2008, 09:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">27 million dollar in a town of under ten thousand people?

Pahleeeze!

</div></div>

yeah yeah, I know. In this instance she is "wasteful". But had she never requested money, then she would be "do nothing". No request for the youth center stuff, then she would be neglecting the young men and women of the area. No part for the transportation hub? then she wouldn't care about the needs of her consituents. etc. etc. It's politics, I get it.

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-04-2008, 10:53 PM
LOL, so earmarks don't count either, as long as they're Republican earmarks.

OK, got it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

sack316
09-05-2008, 03:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, so earmarks don't count either, as long as they're Republican earmarks.

OK, got it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

nope. never said that. I've always maintained wasteful spending needs to be done away with, and a lot of earmarking is just that. But there are some good ones that actually are requested, granted, and used for good things as well. And I said that same thing during the primaries in regards to democrats as well. I did point out how many they had requested... which was a lot... and also gave note that some ARE indeed used for good things.

I never said they don't count, I never said all of hers may be good. I simply said that some of these things should be granted some merit. Just as I believe I did with Hillary in the past, and just as I did with Obama in the past, if I remember correctly. You, on the other hand, didn't see such a big problem with earmarks during the primaries when the issue fell on the heads of your candidates. And now, you do? So I should probably now ask you: earmarks don't count either, as long as the controversy behind them falls in republican hands?

OK, got it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-05-2008, 09:07 AM
I said that Earmarks are a small part of spending, overall, as in answer to some of you righties who made such a big deal out of them when democratics had a shot at getting some of them for their constituents, after years of Republican control, and earmark drought.

Overall, the last bunch of Republicans in control, were the biggest spenders of all time, including and aprticularly, Bush.
mcCain supported all of his wasteful spending, but denied any humanitarian spending for our troops, who have really needed it.

In fact, I didn't find Cindy's self agrandizing portrait particularly endearing, since they both advertise country first, and support our troops, while her money is offered overseas, and he votes against their incredibly urgent needs, and aid, while our own troops and Veterans are being so shabbily treated here at home.

Yet he is ready to give the oil companies an additional, what is it, 40 Billion more in tax cuts and subsidies a year!!! He wants to increase corporate tax cuts? He wants more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us?

Absolutely treasonist distribution of funds. i stocking up on crayons to distribute at the polls!