In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 18, 2008 Author Share Posted May 18, 2008 Kerry was a weenie while in Vietnam saving a guys life ? Every single member of his swiftboat was backing him. The swiftboaters couldn't even lie well. They said that Kerry wrote his own performance review because it spoke of him glowingly and when it was proven he couldn't have because the initials on the report weren't his they never apologized and said they were wrong. So Kerry was a weenie while Dubya couldn't even report regularly for his cushy duty and I can't think of one Republican other than McCain that served in 'Nam and McCain is the most rational Republican in the party I'm aware of. good post Steely I'd add that while I despise negative campaigns, Kerry didn't listen to his advisers and hit back when he had to. IMO that cost him the victory for the very reasons you mentioned. Say what you want about Obama, at least he doesn't take it lying down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 Which brings us to another interesting point. Why are they trying to stimulate the economy by giving out money to the middle class? In their world the people who don't need the money should pay less while the people who actually, spend the money should be getting tax increases. Let that carom around your noggin for awhile. It doesn't make any sense? The rich invest their money in stocks and I have news for you. If Bill Gates sells a million shares of Kodak and Steve Forbes buys a million shares it does jack squat for Kodak. I have no problem with lowering capital gains taxes that are made from the purchase of an IPO. That would help business expansion. I'm also for tax cuts to multi-national countries who keep the majority of their work forces in America. Kerry was a weenie while in Vietnam saving a guys life ? Every single member of his swiftboat was backing him. The swiftboaters couldn't even lie well. They said that Kerry wrote his own performance review because it spoke of him glowingly and when it was proven he couldn't have because the initials on the report weren't his they never apologized and said they were wrong. So Kerry was a weenie while Dubya couldn't even report regularly for his cushy duty and I can't think of one Republican other than McCain that served in 'Nam and McCain is the most rational Republican in the party I'm aware of. It is false that the Democrats love the middle class and hate big business. It is also false that Republicans hate the mddle class and love big business. You need to stimulate one to help the other- there are just differing views on what needs to be stimulated in different situations. While its true that Kerry was the victim of dirty campaigning, I still think he is a weenie and was a terrible candidate. One must wonder what would have happened if Howard Dean wasn't paraphrased by the Curious George campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 It is false that the Democrats love the middle class and hate big business. It is also false that Republicans hate the mddle class and love big business. You need to stimulate one to help the other- there are just differing views on what needs to be stimulated in different situations. While its true that Kerry was the victim of dirty campaigning, I still think he is a weenie and was a terrible candidate. One must wonder what would have happened if Howard Dean wasn't paraphrased by the Curious George campaign. I agree and disagree with you. I agree it's not as cut and dried as people think but I also believe that if the Republicans could push through a flat tax they would in two seconds. Also too, when Bush originally made the big cuts for the rich his administration sold it as a tax break for the middle class while never talking about the vast majority of the cuts going to the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 good post Steely I'd add that while I despise negative campaigns, Kerry didn't listen to his advisers and hit back when he had to. IMO that cost him the victory for the very reasons you mentioned. Say what you want about Obama, at least he doesn't take it lying down. No matter how much you dislike Karl Rove you have to stand in awe of his political skills. Anyone who could get Dubya a second term is quite possibly the greatest political strategist in the history of our nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 I agree and disagree with you. I agree it's not as cut and dried as people think but I also believe that if the Republicans could push through a flat tax they would in two seconds. Also too, when Bush originally made the big cuts for the rich his administration sold it as a tax break for the middle class while never talking about the vast majority of the cuts going to the rich. His administration sold it, because he didn't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 He was off by 3 months. The Cole attack occurred on 10/18/2000. I'm not excusing his mistake but he has a much better command of history than that idiot Republican did. He also has a much better command of the word "appeasement". Yeah, he was off by 3 months and one President's administration. The point is: How the F do you not know when the USS Cole happened and still have your own show on MSNBC? How can NBC News rely on you for election and debate coverage when your grasp of recent U.S. history is below average? But thank goodness we have Chris Matthews around to pummel some dumbass Republican that no one has ever heard of. Rah Rah Rah. Is Obama still giving him the goosebumps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Yeah, he was off by 3 months and one President's administration. The point is: How the F do you not know when the USS Cole happened and still have your own show on MSNBC? How can NBC News rely on you for election and debate coverage when your grasp of recent U.S. history is below average? But thank goodness we have Chris Matthews around to pummel some dumbass Republican that no one has ever heard of. Rah Rah Rah. Is Obama still giving him the goosebumps? It's the tingles down his spine, and probably some place else too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 Yeah, he was off by 3 months and one President's administration. The point is: How the F do you not know when the USS Cole happened and still have your own show on MSNBC? How can NBC News rely on you for election and debate coverage when your grasp of recent U.S. history is below average? But thank goodness we have Chris Matthews around to pummel some dumbass Republican that no one has ever heard of. Rah Rah Rah. Is Obama still giving him the goosebumps? Because we live in an age where facts are unimportant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 19, 2008 Author Share Posted May 19, 2008 No matter how much you dislike Karl Rove you have to stand in awe of his political skills. Anyone who could get Dubya a second term is quite possibly the greatest political strategist in the history of our nation. totally agree, he's a scumbag, but very, very good at what he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Republicans don't give a about you unless you're making over $250,000 a year. They want nothing more than to keep their wealth at the expense of the middle class and poor. I understand the rich voting for the Republicans but I have no idea why the middle class votes against their own interests. The Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich a lot and the middle class a little, supposedly. Think about it because it doesn't add up. Let's say we went to a flat tax, a Republican favorite issue. It would be huge tax cut for the rich and a huge tax increase for the middle class, If you need X to run the government and your bringing in 60% of operating revenue from group A and 25% from group B and 15% from group C in order to keep X coming in you'll have to divide it up 33 1/3% for each bracket. Group A gets a 27% tax cut. Group B gets an 18% increase and group C gets a 28% increase. While the idea of everybody paying the same is a quaint idea that sounds like it's really fair, it's not. Why should one group pay more because they're more successful? The answer is it's what makes this country the land of opportunity. It's the system that makes it possible to be upwardly mobile. Not everyone paying in the highest brackets are hard working people. Do you want to give Paris Hilton a 27% tax cut so you can subsidize her lifestyle with an 18% increase? If you want to keep America the land of opportunity then taxing the rich more is an economic necessity and the Republican's tout it as a being a policy that is friendly to the middle class but to forget to mention those things. Just like letting it slip their minds that this stimulus package is an advance on next years taxes. If you owe money next April it will be more by the amount of your stimulus check. Which brings us to another interesting point. Why are they trying to stimulate the economy by giving out money to the middle class? In their world the people who don't need the money should pay less while the people who actually, spend the money should be getting tax increases. Let that carom around your noggin for awhile. It doesn't make any sense? The rich invest their money in stocks and I have news for you. If Bill Gates sells a million shares of Kodak and Steve Forbes buys a million shares it does jack squat for Kodak. I have no problem with lowering capital gains taxes that are made from the purchase of an IPO. That would help business expansion. I'm also for tax cuts to multi-national countries who keep the majority of their work forces in America. Wrong. The Republicans, and anyone who votes for them, believe(and they are right about this in terms of accepted, multiple-country, never fails, proven economic principles), that if you strip/limit an economy of its ability to invest in itself, and for individuals to profit by taking the risk of investing, that economy will never grow, will never stabilize and will never gain consumer confidence because there are no "latest and greatest" products coming out that inspire consumption = no increasing demand. No increased demand w/ set supply = no higher price = no profit = no new money for investing in the next new product = no next new product = same crap as last year = nobody wants to buy = no increasing demand. Those are the laws of economics, and you can talk for the next week straight, when you are done, they will still be true. This is why all socialist economies are eventually doomed to fail their people. And by fail I mean, at best things never get better, at worst it's major depression time = Soviet Union circa 1986. So, while socialists can talk all they like, the historical facts, economic truths and the #s are not on their side. Especially when you compare results. Why? Because investment is never made by socialists, by definition, they take the excess and redistribute it to everyone. So, the reason the middle class votes Republican is largely due to the fact that they understand basic economics(and hopefully now so do you). Their chief interest lies in making sure corporate investment happens = taxes aren't raised too high, because that's how they get/keep their jobs. Voting for someone who is going to increase taxes in an economic slowdown is suicide if you are in the middle class, because you are the first to be let go due to the higher taxes your company now has to pay, which restricts investment. Company execs don't care, they have to show a profit or they lose their jobs. So they downsize, and Bob Middle Class gets to trade giving free health care away to others(some deserving others not), who now have no economic responsibility for how well/poorly they take care of themselves, for his job. Perfect! Yeah, that's in the middle class's interest alright. Unfortunately, this whole thing is dependent on one thing: strong value of the $. When the government over-spends and then over-borrows to cover, that lowers the value. Worse, the government becomes Bob Middle Class's chief competitor for a loan, then Bob doesn't get the loan, or, if he does, he has to pay higher interest rates on it or he has to borrow more $$$. Neither things are in Bob's interests at all. This is how we have the trouble we have, the Compassionate Conservative crap is crazy. You can't expect to go into a war, cut taxes and over spend/borrow without consequences. You either have to cut spending or raise taxes to meet the need for new $$$. McCain was right in pointing that out in 2002, but now that we're where we are, we have to deal with the reality of today. So Bob, being a lot smarter than most liberals give him credit for, takes a look at all this and says: "Well, I hate all the Religious Right crap, but at least I won't lose my job and I can get the car loan I need" and votes Republican, which is usually far and away in his best interest economically. Why? Because Democrats have never been about the middle class, they are about giving away free shitt to the poor in exchange for votes. They talk about the middle class, but they have no problem dropping tax bombs on them to pay for their grossly overblown, ridiculously poorly managed spending projects that accomplish little in terms of solving the problems they were intended to fix. Your analysis of the flat tax is simply awfully bad math, at the very least misleading, and doesn't take into account corporate taxes. Nor does it take into account the billions that would be saved for the economy as a whole if the flat tax was implemented, as it has in the 12 countries where that has been done. Do yourself a favor and lgoogle Milton Friedman and the country of Chile. Then come back and talk to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Outstanding post, OCinPhilly. I'm always impressed by the number of closet libertarians at TBD PPP. For every molson douchebag and blzrul and PastaJoe here, there's also an Alaska Darin and BlueFire and DCTom around to maintain some semblance of a rational political debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 As if any of the media's oversimplified, non-nuanced positions will be accurate Isn't it amazing that this has to be said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Outstanding post, OCinPhilly. I'm always impressed by the number of closet libertarians at TBD PPP. For every molson douchebag and blzrul and PastaJoe here, there's also an Alaska Darin and BlueFire and DCTom around to maintain some semblance of a rational political debate. Me, I'm a Nord. We don't have closets or libertars. We do play "kick the can towards eternity", however. Not sure if there's a similar game here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Isn't it amazing that this has to be said? Heh, yup, though I think its easy for people to assume that if a journalist is writing about a topic, he would be well-educated in a topic, but that's not the way the media works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Heh, yup, though I think its easy for people to assume that if a journalist is writing about a topic, he would be well-educated in a topic, but that's not the way the media works. I think the assumption is that because it is written in a major publication, the journalist was vetted by the bosses to be knowledgeable about a topic. Anyone who's dealt with journalists knows that's usually not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Me, I'm a Nord. We don't have closets or libertars. We do play "kick the can towards eternity", however. Not sure if there's a similar game here. You Nords are an odd lot. A truly superior race that could have played a pivotal role in the fate of humankind. If only you guys hadn't started playing with your pink ponies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Outstanding post, OCinPhilly. I'm always impressed by the number of closet libertarians at TBD PPP. For every molson douchebag and blzrul and PastaJoe here, there's also an Alaska Darin and BlueFire and DCTom around to maintain some semblance of a rational political debate. Thank you. That's the problem for me, I suppose I identify with the Libertarians the most, but not on everything. This stems from the fact that most libertarian thinking is based on starting with the truth, and then devising solutions to problems based on the facts, as opposed to starting with a "solves everything" solution(ideology) and then trying to find truths that support the use of that solution, and ignoring everything else. For example, I want all drugs to be legalized tomorrow for purely economic reasons. There is no excuse for us creating a multi-billion $$$ industry that is highly inefficient, not regulated, not taxed at all and is run by the worst people in our society = shitbirds get money they don't really deserve. Wishing away/emotional campaigns against this multi-billion dollar industry have obviously done nothing. Right now we spend about 2 billion on illegal drugs a year, and we also spend 2 billion on stopping them. Anybody else see $2B - $2B = 0? And we wonder why we aren't getting anywhere. Meanwhile Democrats are the biggest supporters of keeping them illegal because they keep illegal money going into their constituents' neighborhoods on one side of the equation, and more government jobs on the other, while at the same time telling us that they are "tough on crime", and ensure that their will always be poor people who owe them something = votes. However, I don't agree with libertarians on how they handle property transfer. I am against creating an economic status for people that doesn't require them to do anything useful for the rest of us with their day, highly rich or highly poor(no welfare, ever, disability only). This is also why the retirement age should be changed immediately to reflect current demographics. As per Toby on West Wing: "When FDR created social security, he didn't mean 20 years of shuffle board". This does not mean that I favor inheritance taxes, as in: what will the government do with the money they take that is better than investing it into the economy? Answer: nothing. Rather, I would like to see a government trustee appointed to any estate/$$$ that is passed on that is >$500k. Wealth = responsibility and we have every right to enforce responsible behavior with wealth, especially when it's merely being handed to you. BTW, if we go to the flat tax, and get rid of most of the IRS, this would be a great way to give the best of the displaced IRS employees/tax accountants something to do. The trustee would work with the inheritor to establish a career path that actually does something useful and the inheritor has to stick to it, or, no $$$ for baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 after seeing over and over again the self congratulatory clips of Matthews grilling this guy it left me wondering who the hell is this talk show host? He's on no radio station in WNY (maybe Rachacha but that ain't Buff/Niagara) and he's likely to dissappear into the oblivion he so rightly deserves. The conservative era is thankfully over. After causing so much pain and destruction locally and abroad we can count our blessings that this kind of ill informed garbage will not be taken serioulsy anymore. We can only hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 26, 2008 Author Share Posted May 26, 2008 after seeing over and over again the self congratulatory clips of Matthews grilling this guy it left me wondering who the hell is this talk show host? He's on no radio station in WNY (maybe Rachacha but that ain't Buff/Niagara) and he's likely to dissappear into the oblivion he so rightly deserves. Kevin James on KRLA, left coast exspurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Outstanding post, OCinPhilly. I'm always impressed by the number of closet libertarians at TBD PPP. For every molson douchebag and blzrul and PastaJoe here, there's also an Alaska Darin and BlueFire and DCTom around to maintain some semblance of a rational political debate. Yeah, the folks you just dismissed are all dreadful. They should all be forced to hear the libritaitard/Con viewpoint (what's a libertairian besides a republican too afraid to mention he'a a conservatard?) in a Ben Stein documentary about evilution. Ya git wot u deserve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts