Decision '08.

[Jae Onasi]

Well I just listened to all the speeches the GOP just had (I started by hearing Guiliani)...

 

Guiliani is plain out attacking the Dems... He's so annoyingly negative!

You didn't hear the same thing out of the Dems? I heard the same attacks on McCain as I've heard on Obama. This is typical of every single convention I've watched in the last 25 years. I would have been surprised if either party had said _nothing_ about the other party.

 

Palin is a very nice, and much more positive, but she still wasn't makign much sense about how Mccain would solve things. Just more typical GOP tactics, avoiding the real solutions and pursuing the appealing ones. Typical flock-herding tactics.

Welcome to politics, Arcesious. Neither party talked about the reality that we're going to see tax increases no matter who's in office to pay for the deficit and any increase in social programs. No one wants to say that, though.

 

They talka bout energy independence and victory in Iraq... I'm sorry but that's just crazy. Their energy plans are not effective. And there is no dishonor in withdrawing from war.

Why do you think that?

 

She solved the economic problem by raising taxes

Neither candidate will be able to avoid raising taxes, unfortunately. The question is if people in the Gen X/Gen Y will be able to make it through with the same prosperity our Baby Boomer predecessors enjoyed.

[Tommycat]

Meh, McCain listens to Democrats. How many Republican speakers were there for Obama?

 

If you think that McCain won't listen to other people, you're a fool. He's gone against party lines on quite a few issues. He had to bring in Palin for her strong pro-life stance because he has been more pro-choice. So claiming he'll make contraceprion the same as abortion is just silly. Saying he'll appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade is silly and borderline dishonest. I understand you want your guy to win, but he isn't that bad. Besides, we've seen how congress can keep those judges out.

 

Honestly I think the best government is when you have a dem congress and a republican pres, or the other way around. That way they keep eachother in check. it just doesn't seem like a good idea to have a republican pres and republican congress or dem with dem as that kinda defeats the whole checks and balances thing...

 

Also if you think assault rifles should be banned, keep in mind the framers realized that the gun was the way the common man could defend himself from his government. The gun isn't just for defending against criminals. It's also to defend against a criminal government.

[SD Nihil]

Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska, but did work to curtail their influence on state government. At this she was a very effective advocate for fair use and charges of a resource that really belongs to us all.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Neither candidate will be able to avoid raising taxes, unfortunately. The question is if people in the Gen X/Gen Y will be able to make it through with the same prosperity our Baby Boomer predecessors enjoyed.

Well I figure we can do it the way the Baby Boomers did it and just take whatever we want without regard for anyone else and **** **** up then just pass the mess along like a ****ing hot potato.

[mimartin]

Also if you think assault rifles should be banned, keep in mind the framers realized that the gun was the way the common man could defend himself from his government. The gun isn't just for defending against criminals. It's also to defend against a criminal government.

I believe their guns would still be bigger.

 

Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska,

Really Now. Explain this away.

[El Sitherino]

Meh, McCain listens to Democrats. How many Republican speakers were there for Obama?

 

If you think that McCain won't listen to other people, you're a fool. He's gone against party lines on quite a few issues. He had to bring in Palin for her strong pro-life stance because he has been more pro-choice. So claiming he'll make contraceprion the same as abortion is just silly. Saying he'll appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade is silly and borderline dishonest. I understand you want your guy to win, but he isn't that bad. Besides, we've seen how congress can keep those judges out.

Clearly you're unaware of what has taken place on the senate floor. And yeah, he is attempting to place contraception on the same terms as abortion.

 

Just because he used to be a person of integrity in the passed doesn't mean he is that person now. Infact he's pretty much countered his former stance entirely.

[Totenkopf]

Keep something in mind. Overturning Roe v Wade is not the same as outlawing abortion nationwide. That would require a whole new series of rulings. It would be punted back to the states, where it was in the first place. Since abortion is an elective procedure, all that crap about it's unfair that one state regulate it while another does nothing at all and that the "horror of back alley abortions" would be the law of the land, is just that, crap. There are 50 states (57 if you support Obama, I guess ) and if you couldn't it done in one, you could still go to another. The only way you might get screwed is if you're in HI.......lot of ocean till you see another state.

 

@Sithy--it's not the govt's money, unless you mean we are the govt and it's our money. Tax cuts are recognition by the govt that it extorted more than its fair share (perhaps to the point of being conterproductive) and that it's essentially giving you your money back. The problem with dems is that they don't know how to do anything other than tax. If they actually put the money down on what the taxes were supposed to be used for (paying down debt, repairing/building infrastructure, etc...), people would be less averse to paying the taxes*. Nobody likes paying taxes, but nobody likes seeing their money put to use fraudulently either (dumped into the general fund for pork and other "discretionary" items). Also, a lot of things go to the floor of the Senate......and stay there. Your new avi threw me for a second. Initially looked like a somewhat stylized pic of Stallone till I took a 2nd look and recognized Colbert.

 

*FTR, I don't support tax heavily and spend profigately, nor do I support tax and spend and borrow to cover spending you didn't raise enough $$ for in the first place either.

[Tommycat]

Bah, my personal opinion is it won't be much change either way. We either get tax and spend Dems, or Deficit and spend Reps. You want real change, we need a candidate that will tell congress, not to spend any more of our money.

 

Universal Healthcare? I think it's a great idea on paper, but the reality is it will be abused. Much like the welfare system and SSI, people will find ways to exploit it. It'll create a new government entity that will balloon out of control and become a huge mess. It'll hurt the average citizen in the long run. Much as Social Security has hurt us now. Social security was not meant to be a retirement fund. That's what it's being used as now. And chances are it will be gone before I get a chance to use it.

 

Knowing the way the government works what will probably end up happening is when I really need it, I'll be denied because I made too much money the previous month. Or they'll look at my prior year's tax statement and say that I made too much the previous year. Meanwhile someone that has never paid into the system will get great care because they already know how to work the system. I'll end up with huge medical bills for my ailments because I won't match up with some limited criteria, because they won't have enough funding to provide care to everyone.

 

You want universal health care, join the military. Then at least you're providing service to your country.

 

What happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Guess the same thing that happened to Republicans that believed in smaller government....

[Astor]

So i've just been catching up on the last few hours (i've been asleep) and I've been looking at the events at the Republican Convention. So let's see:

 

Mitt Romney has said that McCain is the best choice to 'destroy radical Islam'. Way to make friends, Mitt.

 

Sarah Palin has been attacking everyone who disagrees with her, and seems quite desperate to prove that she is a good choice. It's unimportant, but she doesn't seem to be a natural speaker - her voice throughout is dull and uninspiring - almost like my dad's satnav.

 

I did laugh when she talks about her husband's work as an Oil production operator. She then goes on to talk about getting oil by 'American Ingenuity'. Did she mention her husband works for British Petroleum? (I know it's inconsequential, but it made me laugh).

 

Oh, and this gem from the BBC's transcript of her speech:

 

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay... [/Quote]

 

Did she actually say it like that?

 

It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office. [/Quote]

 

Okay, we get it, he's been in a war.

 

And it's mostly the usual sort of blether i've come to expect from most (especially American) politicians.

 

EDIT: Also, she barely seems confident of her party's position. Unlike the Democrats, who use the term "When we are elected", she seems to mostly use "If we are elected".

 

I understand she's nervous, but surely she thinks they'll win?

[Tommycat]

Mitt Romney has said that McCain is the best choice to 'destroy radical Islam'. Way to make friends, Mitt.

The key being RADICAL. We're never going to make friends with the RADICAL islamists. because they are RADICALS.

 

Sarah Palin has been attacking everyone who disagrees with her, and seems quite desperate to prove that she is a good choice. It's unimportant, but she doesn't seem to be a natural speaker - her voice throughout is dull and uninspiring - almost like my dad's satnav.

well with all the talk of how she's not the best choice from the talking heads in teh media, kinda hard not to want to come out swinging. Of course I would rather not have someone who is a natural speaker... generally they can lie a lot easier...

 

I did laugh when she talks about her husband's work as an Oil production operator. She then goes on to talk about getting oil by 'American Ingenuity'. Did she mention her husband works for British Petroleum? (I know it's inconsequential, but it made me laugh).

Still American workers... American subcontractors... and while it may be BP, still a lot of room for American Ingenuity..

 

Did she actually say it like that?

Better than saying Nukyular isn't it?

 

Okay, we get it, he's been in a war.

Haha at least they can't say his daddy(the Admiral) was able to keep him out of Vietnam like they did with Bush.

EDIT: Also, she barely seems confident of her party's position. Unlike the Democrats, who use the term "When we are elected", she seems to mostly use "If we are elected".

 

I understand she's nervous, but surely she thinks they'll win?

It's called being humble. Maybe even a realist. Maybe she really didn't want to come off as a presumptuous arrogant egomaniacal twit? Of course it could also be because the current administration isn't exactly sitting real high in the opinion polls, and they really have a big hill to climb.

[Astor]

The key being RADICAL. We're never going to make friends with the RADICAL islamists. because they are RADICALS.[/Quote]

 

Unsurprisingly, I did understand that - but to many in the rest of the world (the Middle-East especially) there seems to be little distinction between 'Islam' and RADICAL (as you put it) Islam.

 

It's called being humble. Maybe even a realist. Maybe she really didn't want to come off as a presumptuous arrogant egomaniacal twit? Of course it could also be because the current administration isn't exactly sitting real high in the opinion polls, and they really have a big hill to climb.

 

You're right, but i'd expect someone in her position to at least indulge a little bit of fantasy.

 

And I thought that all politicians were presumtuous, arrogant, egomanical twits?

[Arcesious]

You didn't hear the same thing out of the Dems? I heard the same attacks on McCain as I've heard on Obama. This is typical of every single convention I've watched in the last 25 years. I would have been surprised if either party had said _nothing_ about the other party.

 

Indeed, but at least Obama said that Mccain was a good person who wants what's best for his country. (And then talked about why mcain's plans would not work.)

 

 

Welcome to politics, Arcesious. Neither party talked about the reality that we're going to see tax increases no matter who's in office to pay for the deficit and any increase in social programs. No one wants to say that, though.

 

Indeed. This is true. But you have to raise taxes if you want to get soemthing done. As for Obama, he wants to raise taxes for the big corporations, and lower them for the middle and lower class.

 

 

Why do you think that?

Their energy plans are not enviromentally efficient. More drilling and nuclear power plants. More fossil fuels. And only who knows how long after that would they start focusing on the efficeint power solutions. Let's face it- we're not the only country in the world. Drilling kills the underwater ecosystem. More oil means more carbon emissions. Building refineries on land also does. It is a temorary solution that only hurts us in the longrun.

 

Withdrawing from a war is not shameful- it would show that the country is smart enough to withdraw if it isn't working. This country needs to let go of it's military ego and start being smart about war.

[Totenkopf]

@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe. Perhaps the transcript was misspelled or they wanted her to avoid saying nucular, which members of both parties have fallen into over the past 3 decades (Carter and W come to mind).

 

@Arc--lets wait and see what McCain says about Obama before trying to set BO up as someone that doesn't "resort to cheap shots". Part of Palin's shots at BO are rooted in the man's own condescension and take on reality. Also, if BO doesn't understand that "corporate taxes" are really taxes on the population at large....perhaps he needs to go back to school. Higher taxes have a tendency to drive businesses to other areas where the govt isn't so regressive. Also, you don't go to war and then run w/your tail betwixt your legs at the first sign of trouble. If we'd taken that tack in WW2, where we were plagued with a lot of setbacks early on, the end would have been different. Vietnam taught us that leaving prematurely has negative consequences.....both for self image and international reputation. The mendacious and self defeating nature of the "mainstream press" does not reccomend it as reputable or believable. One could almost say that if no new news is coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan, then things are probably going mostly well. Reason being that most of the reporting is sensationalist in nature and not truly a dependable yardstick for measuring progress. ce le vie/ ce le guerre.

 

In general, BO and the dems in general remind me of the saying...if you try to please everyone....you end up pleasing no one. Also, I don't believe that McCain will be that much better (if at all) than BO on the illegal immigration issue.

 

@Tommy--at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers. But the fact is, regardless of party, that for over 200+ years most federal budgets have been in the red. The problem w/"tax and spend" is that those people actually have a tendency to overtax and still overspend. The luxury tax back in the 80s/90s was a key example. Make those "dirty rich white guys" pay more for their toys. Taxes went up, purchases went down and the toymakers lost revenue and had to put people out of work. Way to go.....tax till your base is gone and then raise everyone else's taxes to make up for the apparent misstake.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Their energy plans are not enviromentally efficient. More drilling and nuclear power plants. More fossil fuels. And only who knows how long after that would they start focusing on the efficeint power solutions. Let's face it- we're not the only country in the world. Drilling kills the underwater ecosystem. More oil means more carbon emissions. Building refineries on land also does. It is a temorary solution that only hurts us in the longrun.

Nuclear power is clean and can produce a massive amount of electricity compared to other more environmentally safe options.

 

@Tommy--at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers. But the fact is, regardless of party, that for over 200+ years most federal budgets have been in the red. The problem w/"tax and spend" is that those people actually have a tendency to overtax and still overspend. The luxury tax back in the 80s/90s was a key example. Make those "dirty rich white guys" pay more for their toys. Taxes went up, purchases went down and the toymakers lost revenue and had to put people out of work. Way to go.....tax till your base is gone and then raise everyone else's taxes to make up for the apparent misstake.

I'd rather have the luxury tax from back then if that meant we could trade our economy now for the one back then, because if you haven't noticed, the policies you're endorsing don't seem to work as well as the ones you're critiquing.

[SD Nihil]

Astor

Mitt Romney has said that McCain is the best choice to 'destroy radical Islam'. Way to make friends, Mitt.

 

Sarah Palin has been attacking everyone who disagrees with her, and seems quite desperate to prove that she is a good choice. It's unimportant, but she doesn't seem to be a natural speaker - her voice throughout is dull and uninspiring - almost like my dad's satnav.

 

I did laugh when she talks about her husband's work as an Oil production operator. She then goes on to talk about getting oil by 'American Ingenuity'. Did she mention her husband works for British Petroleum? (I know it's inconsequential, but it made me laugh).

 

To the winning over friends remark I think he (Romni) doesn't care about making everyone feel good or kiss everyone's tails. I think he believes that we are not here to (we meaning us concervatives) to say what's popular. We are here to say what we think.

 

Sarah has every right to defend herself after all the attacks she had been given over her creditinals and other things. I believe she made good contrasts against Oboma, and answered a lot of the democrate's comments with her rebut. I believe she did very well.

 

Yes people had attacked her and so last night she defended herself. And quite well I might add.

 

tolenkopt

@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe. Perhaps the transcript was misspelled or they wanted her to avoid saying nucular, which members of both parties have fallen into over the past 3 decades (Carter and W come to mind).[/quote

 

In my opinion that's nit picky. So what she refered to McCain as the next president. They want that to become fact so..guys this is your defense against Sarah's speech last night. She must have done better than I thought.

 

Did she actually say it like that?

 

Well if you can find a transcript I'm sure it would answer that and help to better the discussion on her speech by having the words right with us.

 

Okay, we get it, he's been in a war.

 

Exactly. And BO hasn't. And by that alone that makes McCain able to speak with more atthority and from first hand experience and how to fight a war and since he's delt with Putin. If you don't like attacks and contrast then I don't know this is just off the top of my head, but maybe people should now stop with the ridiclous attacks on Sarah. I mean she really defended herself well in my opinion.

 

mimartin

Really Now. Explain this away.[]QUOTE]

 

I'd be happy to explain it to you and everyone. The oil companies were looking to increase their profit margin through increased tax credits. This would have had merit if the money were to go to lower gas prices or to infrastructure improvement but it in fact would be used to increase the salaries of management.A comment was made concerning BP Oil that Gov Palin's husband works for you must understand that it's a "world market" that we deal with like it or not. You would be hard pressed to find any products in Walmart or Sears that say made in the USA on them Thats something to worry about much more then who is to be the next vice president

[Astor]

Exactly. And BO hasn't. And by that alone that makes McCain able to speak with more atthority and from first hand experience and how to fight a war and since he's delt with Putin.[/Quote]

 

If memory serves, wasn't he captured?

 

Simply having been in a war doesn't automatically give one the knowledge of how to fight and win a war.

 

From an outsider's point of view, I think he's still too attached to the Navy. He's letting his attachment to the military (and the two ongoing wars) overshadow his other policies and important matters in favour of expressing support for what has become a pretty unpopular war.

 

If you don't like attacks and contrast then I don't know this is just off the top of my head, but maybe people should now stop with the ridiclous attacks on Sarah.[/Quote]

 

I haven't made any attacks against Mrs. Palin. Aside from commenting that she didn't sound all too confident, and like she was reading from a script, I haven't said a single thing that could be construed as an attack.

[mimartin]

I'd be happy to explain it to you

I'm still waiting for you to explain away the tax increase.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.[/Quote]

Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.[/Quote]

Just in case we are having a miscommunication about what Taxes are:

A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state [/Quote]

So let us review. El Sitherino wrote:

She solved the economic problem by raising taxes and heavily taxing the oil businesses in Alaska and they saw a huge increase. Now she's stating the McCain plan is best.

To which you replied:

Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska,

So please explain where the 6 billion dollar increase in the state's revenue came from and where the $6 billion dollar added expense to the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska came from. I may not have a Doctorate degree in Finance, but I know the difference between a Tax and a Tax Credit and obviously so does El Sitherino.

[KinchyB]

Well if you can find a transcript I'm sure it would answer that and help to better the discussion on her speech by having the words right with us.

 

This look about right...? Didn't listen so want to check the accuracy...

 

Link

[Web Rider]

You would be hard pressed to find any products in Walmart or Sears that say made in the USA on them Thats something to worry about much more then who is to be the next vice president

 

Most ladders and rope are made in the US. Along with nails, various metal parts for houses, and most lumber. Of course, you won't find lumber at WalMart. Yeah I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

I don't think fighting in a war makes you better prepared to lead one. I'll give you that you're probably more aware of what happens when you send some guys in unprepared to do a job, but there's a huge matter of "big picture" strategy that the average soldier is not dealing with on a daily basis. And even the ones who are really paying attention, leading a democratic country is NOT the same as leading an army.

 

Even though our President can serve these dual roles, being good at one does not automatically make him better at the other.

 

*FTR, I don't support tax heavily and spend profigately, nor do I support tax and spend and borrow to cover spending you didn't raise enough $$ for in the first place either.

 

I just wanted to grab on this little note here and ask: would you support higher taxes combined with more frugal spending, at least in order to balance the budget?

[tk102]

Universal Healthcare? I think it's a great idea on paper, but the reality is it will be abused. Much like the welfare system and SSI, people will find ways to exploit it. It'll create a new government entity that will balloon out of control and become a huge mess. It'll hurt the average citizen in the long run.

You say this as if this is an untested program (looks at Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, etc etc etc). It works for other industrialized nations. We just have this American Dream thing that people are accountable for their own condition. I disagree with that when it comes to health -- anyone can be struck down with a malady. I would also point out that administrative costs for the private sector amount to approximately 14% of private payments made into it (source)whereas Medicare, the model program for which most UHC plans intend to expand has 2% admin costs (source).

 

Knowing the way the government works what will probably end up happening is when I really need it, I'll be denied because I made too much money the previous month. Or they'll look at my prior year's tax statement and say that I made too much the previous year. Meanwhile someone that has never paid into the system will get great care because they already know how to work the system. I'll end up with huge medical bills for my ailments because I won't match up with some limited criteria, because they won't have enough funding to provide care to everyone.

If the health care plan is based on need, it's not a Universal Health Care plan. The UNCs proposed either require everyone to sign on to governmental provided health insurance (making private coverage supplemental) or be guaranteed the option to use public health insurance if private was not available. Your income would not be factor.

[EnderWiggin]

You didn't hear the same thing out of the Dems?

 

Honestly? I thought that the DNC was a bit more civil than that of previous years. Even FoxNews was a bit surprised about that after Obama's speech last week.

 

Meh, McCain listens to Democrats.

 

Suuure he does. He listens, but does he act?

If you think that McCain won't listen to other people, you're a fool.

Please explain this flame.

So claiming he'll make contraceprion the same as abortion is just silly. Saying he'll appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade is silly and borderline dishonest.

 

Silly, and yet true.

 

Honestly I think the best government is when you have a dem congress and a republican pres, or the other way around. That way they keep eachother in check.

 

Yes, it's the best way to get absolutely nothing done.

 

Also if you think assault rifles should be banned, keep in mind the framers realized that the gun was the way the common man could defend himself from his government. The gun isn't just for defending against criminals. It's also to defend against a criminal government.

 

Yeah, well. Go look at the gun control thread here in Kavar's. That's what the original Right to Bear Arms was for, but now, allowing assault rifles would not protect the commonfolk from a "criminal government," and it's pretty obvious it's not good for the many who die each year that the guns are used for a purpose not intended by the constitution.

 

Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska

This is just plain wrong.

 

Bah, my personal opinion is it won't be much change either way. We either get tax and spend Dems, or Deficit and spend Reps. You want real change, we need a candidate that will tell congress, not to spend any more of our money.

 

You're right. They shouldn't spend any money at all. Let's disband the military. And the education system. And the post offices. And the police and the fire departments. (I trust you get my point?)

Knowing the way the government works what will probably end up happening is when I really need it, I'll be denied because I made too much money the previous month. Or they'll look at my prior year's tax statement and say that I made too much the previous year. Meanwhile someone that has never paid into the system will get great care because they already know how to work the system. I'll end up with huge medical bills for my ailments because I won't match up with some limited criteria, because they won't have enough funding to provide care to everyone.

 

You do realize the idea of universal healthcare is that you receive medical treatment regardless of income?

 

You want universal health care, join the military. Then at least you're providing service to your country.

 

Yeah, because the US Government is doing a great job taking care of our veterans. 12.1% of all civilians are veterans, and yet veterans make up over 25% of the homeless population.

 

Of course I would rather not have someone who is a natural speaker... generally they can lie a lot easier...

 

...So? So what if they can lie a lot easier? Luckily there's more than one person running our country, so it's not all that easy to lie to everyone. Plus, she's the damn vice presidential candidate, not the presidential one.

 

Still American workers... American subcontractors... and while it may be BP, still a lot of room for American Ingenuity..

 

Irrelevant.

Better than saying Nukyular isn't it?

 

You know what would be great? If the people leading our country were able to read on a fourth grade level! Then they could just say Nuclear like the rest of us educated folk.

 

It's called being humble. Maybe even a realist. Maybe she really didn't want to come off as a presumptuous arrogant egomaniacal twit? Of course it could also be because the current administration isn't exactly sitting real high in the opinion polls, and they really have a big hill to climb.

Bull****. It's called confident when they call Obama the next president of the United States. Plus, we're just arguing semantics now.

@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe.

 

You sound real confident.

Also, you don't go to war and then run w/your tail betwixt your legs at the first sign of trouble.

 

What? You're calling now as the first sign of trouble in Iraq? You're kidding me.

 

 

at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers.

 

You do know how we won the cold war, right?

 

Nuclear power is clean and can produce a massive amount of electricity compared to other more environmentally safe options.

 

I'd rather have the luxury tax from back then if that meant we could trade our economy now for the one back then, because if you haven't noticed, the policies you're endorsing don't seem to work as well as the ones you're critiquing.

QFE.

 

To the winning over friends remark I think he (Romni) doesn't care about making everyone feel good or kiss everyone's tails. I think he believes that we are not here to (we meaning us concervatives) to say what's popular. We are here to say what we think.

 

Why are you unable to spell crucial words such as "Romney" or "Conservative"?

 

Also, your point has nothing to do with what Astor was saying.

 

Yes people had attacked her and so last night she defended herself. And quite well I might add.

 

I would be inclined to disagree.

 

In my opinion that's nit picky. So what she refered to McCain as the next president. They want that to become fact so..guys this is your defense against Sarah's speech last night. She must have done better than I thought.

 

That's the point, friend. She didn't do that.

 

Exactly. And BO hasn't. And by that alone that makes McCain able to speak with more atthority and from first hand experience and how to fight a war and since he's delt with Putin.

 

First of all, being a POW (even though it's a sad and a heroic thing) does not qualify you to fight a war or to lead a country.

 

If you don't like attacks and contrast then I don't know this is just off the top of my head, but maybe people should now stop with the ridiclous attacks on Sarah. I mean she really defended herself well in my opinion.

 

Well, in my opinion she was a bad choice for John McCain. So if I want to attack her politics, I think I'll do so.

 

We'll see in November.

 

I'd be happy to explain it to you and everyone. The oil companies were looking to increase their profit margin through increased tax credits. This would have had merit if the money were to go to lower gas prices or to infrastructure improvement but it in fact would be used to increase the salaries of management.A comment was made concerning BP Oil that Gov Palin's husband works for you must understand that it's a "world market" that we deal with like it or not. You would be hard pressed to find any products in Walmart or Sears that say made in the USA on them Thats something to worry about much more then who is to be the next vice president

 

 

I don't think that this rant proves your point.

 

If memory serves, wasn't he captured?

 

Simply having been in a war doesn't automatically give one the knowledge of how to fight and win a war.

 

You are correct, sir.

 

Captured who? And it certinally doesn't hurt. Oboma sure hasn't.

 

What the **** is this? Obviously, McCain was captured. And it's "certainly" and "OBAMA".

 

As to your point? It doesn't hurt, sure. But then they can't use it as a reason for why he should be the next President or why he's able to win a war.

 

 

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about those in the democrate party, the media, and the bloggers who have.

 

Cry about it.

 

But you're still not grasping what i'm saying. Military experience isn't necessary to be able to fight a war, yes it would help, but lack of experience isn't important.

 

At least, not if you're a good diplomat and negotiator.

 

Point.

 

_EW_

 

So please explain where the 6 billion dollar increase in the state's revenue came from and where the $6 billion dollar added expense to the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska came from. I may not have a Doctorate degree in Finance, but I know the difference between a Tax and a Tax Credit and obviously so does El Sitherino.

[Jae Onasi]

Note to everyone:

1. Cut the swearing.

2. Cut the flaming.

3. Cut the sarcastic attitudes.

4. SD Nihil: Use a spell checker, please.

5. Everyone else: Not everyone has been blessed to have been taught by Ms. Tenuta (or a reasonable facsimile) in 8th grade English, so they don't always spell perfectly. Some people have dyslexia and have extreme trouble with spelling that a spellchecker doesn't always help. Deal with it and be a little more tolerant. I'm going to infract anyone from now on who gripes at someone about the spelling because discussion of spelling is completely off-topic and is just another excuse to give someone a hard time.

 

Congratulations, this thread is now on a very tight leash because I made the mistake of assuming everyone could discuss this subject with some reasonable level of consideration and courtesy. If you earn infractions from now on because of your own behavior, don't be surprised, and certainly don't come running to me to complain.

[Astor]

Well, in my opinion she was a bad choice for John McCain. So if I want to attack her politics, I think I'll do so.[/Quote]

 

I find a few of her policies and beliefs a bit unnerving. She's apparently gone on record as saying that she won't judge homosexual people, and she doesn't have a problem with their personal choices.

 

But then, she votes against health benefits for same-sex couples. Hypocrisy?

 

Also, I don't have an opinion on abortion, but I don't think that making it illegal in all cases (even for rape or sexual abuse cases) is right.

[jonathan7]

Note to everyone:

1. Cut the swearing.

2. Cut the flaming.

3. Cut the sarcastic attitudes.

4. SD Nihil: Use a spell checker, please.

5. Everyone else: Not everyone has been blessed to have been taught by Ms. Tenuta (or a reasonable facsimile) in 8th grade English, so they don't always spell perfectly. Some people have dyslexia and have extreme trouble with spelling that a spellchecker doesn't always help. Deal with it and be a little more tolerant. I'm going to infract anyone from now on who gripes at someone about the spelling because discussion of spelling is completely off-topic and is just another excuse to give someone a hard time.

 

Congratulations, this thread is now on a very tight leash because I made the mistake of assuming everyone could discuss this subject with some reasonable level of consideration and courtesy. If you earn infractions from now on because of your own behavior, don't be surprised, and certainly don't come running to me to complain.

 

Would now be a good time to me to point people towards this thread again? - http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=191081

[Totenkopf]

I'd rather have the luxury tax from back then if that meant we could trade our economy now for the one back then, because if you haven't noticed, the policies you're endorsing don't seem to work as well as the ones you're critiquing.

 

 

Which specific policies am I endorsing? Try to refrain from inferring words into my mouth.

 

tolenkopt

@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe. Perhaps the transcript was misspelled or they wanted her to avoid saying nucular, which members of both parties have fallen into over the past 3 decades (Carter and W come to mind).

 

In my opinion that's nit picky. So what she refered to McCain as the next president. They want that to become fact so..guys this is your defense against Sarah's speech last night. She must have done better than I thought.

 

Not sure how much of the speech you watched. She stated at one point that when a McCain/Palinm administration went to Washington in January in talking about energy policy. Hardly nit picky. What dif it makes in the end I'm not sure. Should a candidate feel it's their entitlement to be president?

 

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

Gov. Palin didn't raise taxation on oil industry in Alaska,

 

So please explain where the 6 billion dollar increase in the state's revenue came from and where the $6 billion dollar added expense to the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska came from. I may not have a Doctorate degree in Finance, but I know the difference between a Tax and a Tax Credit and obviously so does El Sitherino.

 

As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country......

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

*FTR, I don't support tax heavily and spend profigately, nor do I support tax and spend and borrow to cover spending you didn't raise enough $$ for in the first place either.

 

I just wanted to grab on this little note here and ask: would you support higher taxes combined with more frugal spending, at least in order to balance the budget?

 

If the feds actually put the money to where it was supposed to go, I'm guessing people would grumble, but not so much as the way they've been spending it for decades.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

@AK--she DID refer to McCain as the next president of the US, not prospective president...maybe.

 

You sound real confident.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Also, you don't go to war and then run w/your tail betwixt your legs at the first sign of trouble.

 

What? You're calling now as the first sign of trouble in Iraq? You're kidding me.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

at least under Reagan, we had a tax and spend and borrow Dem congress that spent $1.37 for every $ of revenue the administration brought in to the coffers.

 

You do know how we won the cold war, right?

 

To your 1st shot EW, I wasn't aware I had to sound anything. Was only pointing out the factual incorrectness of someone else's observation. To your second point, as you're clearly reaching w/your "point" (to be generous). On your last observation, we've always outspent the USSR in terms of $$ as our economy has always been larger (and more successful) than theirs. So, what exactly is your point again?

 

Whats really been funny has been the reaction of some people to this pick, the most notable being Sean Combs and his incoherent rant about the lack of blacks, crime and cokeheads in AK. Makes me wonder what ever happened to the UNCF and the saying "better the world think you a fool than you open your mouth and dispel all doubt".