perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
thanks obama
- Thread starter perdition(troy
- Start date
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
So what would you do, troy? Let them sit there forever?
[quote name='dmaul1114']It sucks, but not much he can do. As the article notes, Congress has been vehemently opposed to trying them on US soil which precludes doing regular trials.[/QUOTE]
If only his party had controlled Congress and he had made GitMo a priority in his first year...
If only his party had controlled Congress and he had made GitMo a priority in his first year...
Democrats were mostly just as opposed to it as republicans. Most people just don't like the idea of bringing terrorists into their states to stand trial, and congressman have to avoid things that piss off their constituents to get re-elected.
If only they had term limits....and preferably a single term, things could get done.
If only they had term limits....and preferably a single term, things could get done.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
He's still an ultra liberal marxist socialist muslin, right?
God 2012 is gonna suck.
God 2012 is gonna suck.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Democrats were mostly just as opposed to it as republicans. Most people just don't like the idea of bringing terrorists into their states to stand trial, and congressman have to avoid things that piss off their constituents to get re-elected.[/QUOTE]
There was talk about building a federal prison for GitMo detainees in the lower half of Illinois some time back. I wrote my Congressmen in support of the plan. Obviously, that did a lot of good.
[quote name='mykevermin']God 2012 is gonna suck.[/QUOTE]
Yup.
There was talk about building a federal prison for GitMo detainees in the lower half of Illinois some time back. I wrote my Congressmen in support of the plan. Obviously, that did a lot of good.
[quote name='mykevermin']God 2012 is gonna suck.[/QUOTE]
Yup.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']If only his party had controlled Congress and he had made GitMo a priority in his first year...[/QUOTE]
Then you would've shit on him for neglecting two wars, a faltering economy, rising unemployment, a housing crisis, rising energy prices, tax rates for everyone in the country, or anything else you feel like bitching about at the moment.
Then you would've shit on him for neglecting two wars, a faltering economy, rising unemployment, a housing crisis, rising energy prices, tax rates for everyone in the country, or anything else you feel like bitching about at the moment.
I'll largely ignore the 2012 elections. I think Obama will win pretty easily so there's just not much point in listening to it.
An article I read the other day noted that the only time from the the mid 20th century on that incumbents have lost is when they've faced strong challenges from their own party in the primaries which shows a fractured base. No major democrats are going to challenge Obama.
Plus the Republicans currently don't have a strong candidate. Romney, Gingritch, Palin etc. aren't going to beat him. Maybe if a Jindal or something emerges and runs, but it's getting too close for someone like that to build a big enough national reputation.
Unless the economy crashes again, which is unlikely between now and then, Obama will get re-elected.
An article I read the other day noted that the only time from the the mid 20th century on that incumbents have lost is when they've faced strong challenges from their own party in the primaries which shows a fractured base. No major democrats are going to challenge Obama.
Plus the Republicans currently don't have a strong candidate. Romney, Gingritch, Palin etc. aren't going to beat him. Maybe if a Jindal or something emerges and runs, but it's getting too close for someone like that to build a big enough national reputation.
Unless the economy crashes again, which is unlikely between now and then, Obama will get re-elected.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
What were the House and/or Senate votes on the issue anyhow?
I dont think that Obama's re-election is guaranteed at all. Before Citizens United, sure. Now its probably 55-45 at best. It would be 50/50, except that he has home court advantage.
Right now intrade has the odds at 61.1%. Theres some serious money to be made if you're actually sure.
I dont think that Obama's re-election is guaranteed at all. Before Citizens United, sure. Now its probably 55-45 at best. It would be 50/50, except that he has home court advantage.
Right now intrade has the odds at 61.1%. Theres some serious money to be made if you're actually sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd put it more 60-40 as long as the economy keeps improving and someone like a Jindal or Pawlenty doesn't somehow make more of a national name for himself very rapidly between now and then.
Otherwise I can't see him losing to a Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Palin type.[/QUOTE]
I'd probably throw Pawlenty in with the other bunch. He wasn't very well liked upon his exit from the Minnesota governorship and a lot of that could come back to haunt him if he decides to run.
Jindal I don't know much about but of all those clowns I'd be the most inclined to say "maybe."
I nearly busted out laughing when I heard Gingrich was forming an exploratory committee. This guy, and Palin, have got to be the biggest clowns of the bunch. He consistently has shown himself to be a main stream groupie leaching himself onto any, and every, right wing group that gains any sort of notoriety at which point he has the audacity to imply that he was involved from the beginning.
And how the
(pardon my language, its merely due to my complete and utter disbelief) Palin thinks she could get elected after QUITTING her first term as governor of one of the easiest states to manage is beyond me. How you look the American public in the face and say "well I may not have been able to handle being governor of Alaska but I can handle being President" (somehow implying that the President's job is easier?) is utterly baffling.
Otherwise I can't see him losing to a Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Palin type.[/QUOTE]
I'd probably throw Pawlenty in with the other bunch. He wasn't very well liked upon his exit from the Minnesota governorship and a lot of that could come back to haunt him if he decides to run.
Jindal I don't know much about but of all those clowns I'd be the most inclined to say "maybe."
I nearly busted out laughing when I heard Gingrich was forming an exploratory committee. This guy, and Palin, have got to be the biggest clowns of the bunch. He consistently has shown himself to be a main stream groupie leaching himself onto any, and every, right wing group that gains any sort of notoriety at which point he has the audacity to imply that he was involved from the beginning.
And how the
(pardon my language, its merely due to my complete and utter disbelief) Palin thinks she could get elected after QUITTING her first term as governor of one of the easiest states to manage is beyond me. How you look the American public in the face and say "well I may not have been able to handle being governor of Alaska but I can handle being President" (somehow implying that the President's job is easier?) is utterly baffling.Jindal's biggest problem is there's a chunk of the far right who will never vote for a minority which will make it hard for him in some swing states like Ohio, NC, Indiana etc. that went for Obama last time as some McCain voters would stay home while I think Obama will get most of his base to the polls again aside from some independents.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Newt isnt actually running. He's just scamming people out of money right now that he can do with what he wants since its not a campaign donation.
Palin isnt running either. She hated governing in her last job and I suspect she really likes being filthy rich.
Palin isnt running either. She hated governing in her last job and I suspect she really likes being filthy rich.
[quote name='depascal22']Then you would've shit on him for neglecting two wars, a faltering economy, rising unemployment, a housing crisis, rising energy prices, tax rates for everyone in the country, or anything else you feel like bitching about at the moment.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I suppose you're right.
I mean, the Obama administration can barely do one thing right... why should anyone expect them to be able to juggle multiple things at once?
Oh, I suppose you're right.
I mean, the Obama administration can barely do one thing right... why should anyone expect them to be able to juggle multiple things at once?
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Newt isnt actually running. He's just scamming people out of money right now that he can do with what he wants since its not a campaign donation.
Palin isnt running either. She hated governing in her last job and I suspect she really likes being filthy rich.[/QUOTE]
In both cases that's what I'm truly hoping the situation is.
Palin isnt running either. She hated governing in her last job and I suspect she really likes being filthy rich.[/QUOTE]
In both cases that's what I'm truly hoping the situation is.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Oh, I suppose you're right.
I mean, the Obama administration can barely do one thing right... why should anyone expect them to be able to juggle multiple things at once?[/QUOTE]
My point exactly. You really don't care what he does. He could say, "Let the Marines take one off. I'm going in to assassinate Khadafi personally." and you would shit on him for saying the Marines weren't capable. We know you don't like the President. You can't make it more obvious.
I mean, the Obama administration can barely do one thing right... why should anyone expect them to be able to juggle multiple things at once?[/QUOTE]
My point exactly. You really don't care what he does. He could say, "Let the Marines take one off. I'm going in to assassinate Khadafi personally." and you would shit on him for saying the Marines weren't capable. We know you don't like the President. You can't make it more obvious.
[quote name='UncleBob']There was talk about building a federal prison for GitMo detainees in the lower half of Illinois some time back. I wrote my Congressmen in support of the plan. Obviously, that did a lot of good. [/QUOTE]
Indefinite detention, only this time on US soil. Victory!
[/QUOTE]Indefinite detention, only this time on US soil. Victory!
[quote name='IRHari']Indefinite detention, only this time on US soil. Victory![/QUOTE]
'meh... baby steps. While'd a love for someone to come into office and make huge, sweeping changes, I'll settle for realistic goals. Getting these detainees on US soil moves the goal a little closer of getting them either tried/convicted or released.
[quote name='depascal22']My point exactly. You really don't care what he does. He could say, "Let the Marines take one off. I'm going in to assassinate Khadafi personally." and you would shit on him for saying the Marines weren't capable. We know you don't like the President. You can't make it more obvious.[/QUOTE]
Curious, depascal... knowing me as well as you do, what are a couple of major actions taken by the Obama administration since he's taken office that you think I would be more positive towards if another individual had taken?
'meh... baby steps. While'd a love for someone to come into office and make huge, sweeping changes, I'll settle for realistic goals. Getting these detainees on US soil moves the goal a little closer of getting them either tried/convicted or released.
[quote name='depascal22']My point exactly. You really don't care what he does. He could say, "Let the Marines take one off. I'm going in to assassinate Khadafi personally." and you would shit on him for saying the Marines weren't capable. We know you don't like the President. You can't make it more obvious.[/QUOTE]
Curious, depascal... knowing me as well as you do, what are a couple of major actions taken by the Obama administration since he's taken office that you think I would be more positive towards if another individual had taken?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Curious, depascal... knowing me as well as you do, what are a couple of major actions taken by the Obama administration since he's taken office that you think I would be more positive towards if another individual had taken?[/QUOTE]
You're a party line Republican. You hate Obama for the progressive things he does, and you only find that you agree with the progressives when they criticize the things Obama does (and somehow that doesn't make you question how staunch your own ideology is).
You don't care about what Obama's policy is, you just enjoy gloating that he is doing the precise opposite of what he campaigned on. So it's never been a matter of him doing what you agree with or not - it's just a joyful troll game for you.
You're a party line Republican. You hate Obama for the progressive things he does, and you only find that you agree with the progressives when they criticize the things Obama does (and somehow that doesn't make you question how staunch your own ideology is).
You don't care about what Obama's policy is, you just enjoy gloating that he is doing the precise opposite of what he campaigned on. So it's never been a matter of him doing what you agree with or not - it's just a joyful troll game for you.
[quote name='mykevermin']You're a party line Republican. You hate Obama for the progressive things he does, and you only find that you agree with the progressives when they criticize the things Obama does (and somehow that doesn't make you question how staunch your own ideology is).
You don't care about what Obama's policy is, you just enjoy gloating that he is doing the precise opposite of what he campaigned on. So it's never been a matter of him doing what you agree with or not - it's just a joyful troll game for you.[/QUOTE]
You'd think as a "party line Republican", I'd vote for more Republicans. At least for one Republican candidate for President in the general election at some point in the three elections I've been eligible to vote for.
I guess things like repealing DADT, same-sex marriage, ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, cutting military spending by a large percentage, etc., etc. is "party line Republican" as well.
And yes, I do enjoy gloating that Obama isn't doing squat to fulfill his campaign promises. All these fools acted like Obama was some "sort of God" that was going to rush in to the White House and send out magic rainbows of Hope and Change - How's that working out for you? But that's nothing to do with him being a (D) or (R). It's nothing to do with him at all - I just would like for the general voting community to realize what a sham these career politicians are pulling over them. Of course, there are those of you who staunchly defend Democrats and deny 'till your head explodes that "both sides do it"... even though, time and time again, here's your precious idol failing - yet again - to follow through with what he promised you. Face it, he's Dubya II and it doesn't matter to you. So many of the people who voted for him last time are going to do it again next time.
You don't care about what Obama's policy is, you just enjoy gloating that he is doing the precise opposite of what he campaigned on. So it's never been a matter of him doing what you agree with or not - it's just a joyful troll game for you.[/QUOTE]
You'd think as a "party line Republican", I'd vote for more Republicans. At least for one Republican candidate for President in the general election at some point in the three elections I've been eligible to vote for.
I guess things like repealing DADT, same-sex marriage, ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, cutting military spending by a large percentage, etc., etc. is "party line Republican" as well.
And yes, I do enjoy gloating that Obama isn't doing squat to fulfill his campaign promises. All these fools acted like Obama was some "sort of God" that was going to rush in to the White House and send out magic rainbows of Hope and Change - How's that working out for you? But that's nothing to do with him being a (D) or (R). It's nothing to do with him at all - I just would like for the general voting community to realize what a sham these career politicians are pulling over them. Of course, there are those of you who staunchly defend Democrats and deny 'till your head explodes that "both sides do it"... even though, time and time again, here's your precious idol failing - yet again - to follow through with what he promised you. Face it, he's Dubya II and it doesn't matter to you. So many of the people who voted for him last time are going to do it again next time.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='UncleBob']
And yes, I do enjoy gloating that Obama isn't doing squat to fulfill his campaign promises. All these fools acted like Obama was some "sort of God" that was going to rush in to the White House and send out magic rainbows of Hope and Change - How's that working out for you? .[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. The people who said such nonsense were Repubs like you who were eager to create an image they could criticize.
Furthermore every non-incumbent campaigns on change, so you're little "a-ha" rings profoundly hollow.
And yes, I do enjoy gloating that Obama isn't doing squat to fulfill his campaign promises. All these fools acted like Obama was some "sort of God" that was going to rush in to the White House and send out magic rainbows of Hope and Change - How's that working out for you? .[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. The people who said such nonsense were Repubs like you who were eager to create an image they could criticize.
Furthermore every non-incumbent campaigns on change, so you're little "a-ha" rings profoundly hollow.
[quote name='usickenme']Bullshit. The people who said such nonsense were Repubs like you who were eager to create an image they could criticize.
Furthermore every non-incumbent campaigns on change, so you're little "a-ha" rings profoundly hollow.[/QUOTE]
You're right. Evan Thomas of Newsweek is well known for his Republican leanings.
Regardless, when 2012 starts going full blast, and everyone's chanting "Yes we can! Yes we can!", forgetting the past four years (just as Republicans did in 2004), I hope you'll at least remember this conversation.
Furthermore every non-incumbent campaigns on change, so you're little "a-ha" rings profoundly hollow.[/QUOTE]
You're right. Evan Thomas of Newsweek is well known for his Republican leanings.
Regardless, when 2012 starts going full blast, and everyone's chanting "Yes we can! Yes we can!", forgetting the past four years (just as Republicans did in 2004), I hope you'll at least remember this conversation.
So you quote some crazy Obama supporter making irrational statements about what Obama's election will mean.
Come on now...you don't want us quoting white supremacists praising your messiah Ron Paul and what his election will mean, right? Your desire to find the other side doing it and all...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']You'd think as a "party line Republican", I'd vote for more Republicans. At least for one Republican candidate for President in the general election at some point in the three elections I've been eligible to vote for.
I guess things like repealing DADT, same-sex marriage, ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, cutting military spending by a large percentage, etc., etc. is "party line Republican" as well.
And yes, I do enjoy gloating that Obama isn't doing squat to fulfill his campaign promises. All these fools acted like Obama was some "sort of God" that was going to rush in to the White House and send out magic rainbows of Hope and Change - How's that working out for you? But that's nothing to do with him being a (D) or (R). It's nothing to do with him at all - I just would like for the general voting community to realize what a sham these career politicians are pulling over them. Of course, there are those of you who staunchly defend Democrats and deny 'till your head explodes that "both sides do it"... even though, time and time again, here's your precious idol failing - yet again - to follow through with what he promised you. Face it, he's Dubya II and it doesn't matter to you. So many of the people who voted for him last time are going to do it again next time.[/QUOTE]
So you're just a shithead who wants to gloat - and, since being a cynic pays off in high amounts when following politics, you get to gloat a lot. Yet you confuse that for actually being right about something.
"Shit's gonna geted up" is your entire political philosophy. Which means you have many opportunities to say "I told you so." But you don't actually have any genuine conviction to stand on. That's more sad than it is impressive. You're proud of predicting that things don't always go according to plan, as if that requires clairvoyance or intellectual depth and insight.
Oh, speaking ofed up, how about the state of the states right now? I was just reading PA's budget proposal for this year, which is pure feudalism. Pure ing feudalism. But Corbett isn't breaking his campaign promises. Same for Wisconsin. Both states are being ed. Same in Ohio, another state that is eviscerating its middle class for another shot at trickle down economics. These guys are staying honest to some of their campaign promises, but in deeply insidious ways: the PA budget allows energy companies FREE, UNTAXED ACCESS TO FRACKING THE NATURAL GAS RESERVES OF THE STATE. It is the very epitome of a handout, of the idea of an undeserved entitlement (unless $800k in campaign contributions from energy companies negates the 'undeserved' part). Tax burdens and budget reductions for all...and free natural gas for the rich. Because Corbett said he would balance the budget without raising or adding a single tax. Do you see now where ideology is a danger to sensible policy?
Of course not. You're just a troll who doesn't care how the world works, you just want to be able to smirk and say "I told you so."
I guess things like repealing DADT, same-sex marriage, ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, cutting military spending by a large percentage, etc., etc. is "party line Republican" as well.
And yes, I do enjoy gloating that Obama isn't doing squat to fulfill his campaign promises. All these fools acted like Obama was some "sort of God" that was going to rush in to the White House and send out magic rainbows of Hope and Change - How's that working out for you? But that's nothing to do with him being a (D) or (R). It's nothing to do with him at all - I just would like for the general voting community to realize what a sham these career politicians are pulling over them. Of course, there are those of you who staunchly defend Democrats and deny 'till your head explodes that "both sides do it"... even though, time and time again, here's your precious idol failing - yet again - to follow through with what he promised you. Face it, he's Dubya II and it doesn't matter to you. So many of the people who voted for him last time are going to do it again next time.[/QUOTE]
So you're just a shithead who wants to gloat - and, since being a cynic pays off in high amounts when following politics, you get to gloat a lot. Yet you confuse that for actually being right about something.
"Shit's gonna get
ed up" is your entire political philosophy. Which means you have many opportunities to say "I told you so." But you don't actually have any genuine conviction to stand on. That's more sad than it is impressive. You're proud of predicting that things don't always go according to plan, as if that requires clairvoyance or intellectual depth and insight. Oh, speaking of
ed up, how about the state of the states right now? I was just reading PA's budget proposal for this year, which is pure feudalism. Pure ing feudalism. But Corbett isn't breaking his campaign promises. Same for Wisconsin. Both states are being ed. Same in Ohio, another state that is eviscerating its middle class for another shot at trickle down economics. These guys are staying honest to some of their campaign promises, but in deeply insidious ways: the PA budget allows energy companies FREE, UNTAXED ACCESS TO FRACKING THE NATURAL GAS RESERVES OF THE STATE. It is the very epitome of a handout, of the idea of an undeserved entitlement (unless $800k in campaign contributions from energy companies negates the 'undeserved' part). Tax burdens and budget reductions for all...and free natural gas for the rich. Because Corbett said he would balance the budget without raising or adding a single tax. Do you see now where ideology is a danger to sensible policy?Of course not. You're just a troll who doesn't care how the world works, you just want to be able to smirk and say "I told you so."
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course not. You're just a troll who doesn't care how the world works, you just want to be able to smirk and say "I told you so."[/QUOTE]
...as opposed to several of the more liberal CAGs on here, who's sole intent is to openly and honestly discuss the issues at hand (see: Stay Classy thread...)
As for individual states - let's look at states that are raising the taxes on the high income earners:
New York.
Maryland.
Oregon.
Rhode Island.
...as opposed to several of the more liberal CAGs on here, who's sole intent is to openly and honestly discuss the issues at hand (see: Stay Classy thread...)
As for individual states - let's look at states that are raising the taxes on the high income earners:
New York.
Maryland.
Oregon.
Rhode Island.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']...as opposed to several of the more liberal CAGs on here, who's sole intent is to openly and honestly discuss the issues at hand (see: Stay Classy thread...)
As for individual states - let's look at states that are raising the taxes on the high income earners:
New York.
Maryland.
Oregon.
Rhode Island.[/QUOTE]
Why not just hotlink to AEI's website and save yourself the time googling?
The articles you've cited are incorrect or flawed in so many more ways. Go look at the dates they used to measure "fleeing the state" and compare that with what you're talking about - changes in tax rates that are recent.
to call it sleight of hand would be to give it monumentally more credit than you deserve.
As for individual states - let's look at states that are raising the taxes on the high income earners:
New York.
Maryland.
Oregon.
Rhode Island.[/QUOTE]
Why not just hotlink to AEI's website and save yourself the time googling?The articles you've cited are incorrect or flawed in so many more ways. Go look at the dates they used to measure "fleeing the state" and compare that with what you're talking about - changes in tax rates that are recent.
to call it sleight of hand would be to give it monumentally more credit than you deserve.
[quote name='IRHari']How so?[/QUOTE]
I'll fully admit to not being an expert in this legal minefield, but MSNBC and the Obama administration seem to have the same belief I do with regards to this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40573608/ns/politics-more_politics/
I'll fully admit to not being an expert in this legal minefield, but MSNBC and the Obama administration seem to have the same belief I do with regards to this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40573608/ns/politics-more_politics/
[quote name='mykevermin']The articles you've cited are incorrect or flawed in so many more ways.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right, Myke. Multiple articles, citing multiple sources, all reaching the same conclusion, are all flawed because you know better. Meanwhile, Jimmy John Liautaud and his family leave Illinois for Florida... But you're right. Rich people aren't mobile and won't move when it comes to lowering their personal taxes. I mean, the fact that older people generally retire to Florida instead of California is just because they like living in "America's Wang" better.
You're absolutely right, Myke. Multiple articles, citing multiple sources, all reaching the same conclusion, are all flawed because you know better. Meanwhile, Jimmy John Liautaud and his family leave Illinois for Florida... But you're right. Rich people aren't mobile and won't move when it comes to lowering their personal taxes. I mean, the fact that older people generally retire to Florida instead of California is just because they like living in "America's Wang" better.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The Rhode Island article sources a bullshit libertarian think tank (OMGLIBERALMEDIA)
The Maryland article doesn't speculate on what happened - outmigration is only one possibility. a reduction in millionaires due to the economy is another. tax shelters yet another. the poor economy form 2008-2009 is another extremely likely possibility that reduced the number of millionaires. Another possibility is that the wealthy are exploiting tax loopholes and/or cheating on their taxes.
The Oregon article is similar to Maryland. Should we not encourage investigation and prosecution of people who violate the law?
The New York article compares two groups of people - those who have established NYC work histories and those who are moving to NYC. There is a $20,000 avg income difference, with those moving in earning ~$70K and those moving out earning ~$93K. Are people earning $93K per year millionaires?
You cut and pasted four google results and you're acting like you're proud of yourself. Yet you're an adult.
The Maryland article doesn't speculate on what happened - outmigration is only one possibility. a reduction in millionaires due to the economy is another. tax shelters yet another. the poor economy form 2008-2009 is another extremely likely possibility that reduced the number of millionaires. Another possibility is that the wealthy are exploiting tax loopholes and/or cheating on their taxes.
The Oregon article is similar to Maryland. Should we not encourage investigation and prosecution of people who violate the law?
The New York article compares two groups of people - those who have established NYC work histories and those who are moving to NYC. There is a $20,000 avg income difference, with those moving in earning ~$70K and those moving out earning ~$93K. Are people earning $93K per year millionaires?
You cut and pasted four google results and you're acting like you're proud of yourself. Yet you're an adult.
So, you don't like the source in the Rhode Island article, so you get to ignore it.
With Maryland and Oregon, the Maryland article gets it right:
These states create a tax-and-spend environment where there's no savings during the good times and an increased - and unsustainable - burden on the state (i.e.: taxpayers) during the bad times.
As for the New York article, I wasn't aware I said anything about "Millionaires". But, (and these numbers represent NYC alone) with 1.1 Million people, at an average of $20k a pop... that's $22,000,000,000... what's the loss in tax revenue for NYC on $22 Billion?
With Maryland and Oregon, the Maryland article gets it right:
These states create a tax-and-spend environment where there's no savings during the good times and an increased - and unsustainable - burden on the state (i.e.: taxpayers) during the bad times.
As for the New York article, I wasn't aware I said anything about "Millionaires". But, (and these numbers represent NYC alone) with 1.1 Million people, at an average of $20k a pop... that's $22,000,000,000... what's the loss in tax revenue for NYC on $22 Billion?
[quote name='usickenme']Furthermore every non-incumbent campaigns on change, so you're little "a-ha" rings profoundly hollow.[/QUOTE]
Well sure they campaign on change, that's what they have to do. But it's never been done on the same scale as with the Obama campaign.
I think the blind supporters of Bush (both of them) pretty much got what they paid for. On the other hand, as a previous supporter of Obama, I kind of want my money back... Then again there won't be a decent option running against him that has a chance in hell of winning (I still think Nader would probably be the best president we've had since Nixon but that won't ever happen because he's "loony") so we'll have Obama for another four years of absolute stagnation until someone else comes along and keeps us on the same worn out groove.
Meanwhile the scheming and scamming at the top allows everyone to double their money every few years while everyone else struggles to make a dollar out of fifteen cents. Oddly enough once someone from the lower classes breaks out they tend to completely ignore their previous peers, thus perpetuating the cycle until we get down to it and the lower class is basically just our food. Soylent Green, just add some ketchup and you'll never know the difference. Especially if you invest in the ketchup through the NYSE and then you're actually making money by eating the ketchup!
Well sure they campaign on change, that's what they have to do. But it's never been done on the same scale as with the Obama campaign.
I think the blind supporters of Bush (both of them) pretty much got what they paid for. On the other hand, as a previous supporter of Obama, I kind of want my money back... Then again there won't be a decent option running against him that has a chance in hell of winning (I still think Nader would probably be the best president we've had since Nixon but that won't ever happen because he's "loony") so we'll have Obama for another four years of absolute stagnation until someone else comes along and keeps us on the same worn out groove.
Meanwhile the scheming and scamming at the top allows everyone to double their money every few years while everyone else struggles to make a dollar out of fifteen cents. Oddly enough once someone from the lower classes breaks out they tend to completely ignore their previous peers, thus perpetuating the cycle until we get down to it and the lower class is basically just our food. Soylent Green, just add some ketchup and you'll never know the difference. Especially if you invest in the ketchup through the NYSE and then you're actually making money by eating the ketchup!
[quote name='depascal22']My point exactly. You really don't care what he does. He could say, "Let the Marines take one off. I'm going in to assassinate Khadafi personally." and you would shit on him for saying the Marines weren't capable. We know you don't like the President. You can't make it more obvious.[/QUOTE]
Flip this around on any argument you have against any elected official you don't like. Does it really hold water?
"Although your criticisms are justified, you just don't like him, so it doesn't count" Ha.
Flip this around on any argument you have against any elected official you don't like. Does it really hold water?
"Although your criticisms are justified, you just don't like him, so it doesn't count" Ha.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Flip this around on any argument you have against any elected official you don't like. Does it really hold water?
"Although your criticisms are justified, you just don't like him, so it doesn't count" Ha.[/QUOTE]
I think Obama doesn't get any credit for the absolute mess that Bush left. You guys act like he came into office with budget surpluses, all of our troops at home or at our bases, a strong housing market, a surging stock market, and America at the forefront of an exciting new technology called the Internet.
"Although your criticisms are justified, you just don't like him, so it doesn't count" Ha.[/QUOTE]
I think Obama doesn't get any credit for the absolute mess that Bush left. You guys act like he came into office with budget surpluses, all of our troops at home or at our bases, a strong housing market, a surging stock market, and America at the forefront of an exciting new technology called the Internet.
Maybe in the larger scheme, but I think even the Bush apologists around here have lost the sheet music for playing that tune. Really, other than "we didn't suffer another terrorist attack" (though that's debateable given the panty bomber and shoe bomber were able to get on planes, they just didn't succeed in blowing up anything) is there anything positive about that whole 8 years?
Then again, Obama came in with an agenda, and a D senate in his favor, and literally accomplished
Then again, Obama came in with an agenda, and a D senate in his favor, and literally accomplished
[quote name='mykevermin'] Oh, speaking of ed up, how about the state of the states right now? I was just reading PA's budget proposal for this year, which is pure feudalism. Pure ing feudalism. But Corbett isn't breaking his campaign promises. Same for Wisconsin. Both states are being ed. Same in Ohio, another state that is eviscerating its middle class for another shot at trickle down economics. These guys are staying honest to some of their campaign promises, but in deeply insidious ways: the PA budget allows energy companies FREE, UNTAXED ACCESS TO FRACKING THE NATURAL GAS RESERVES OF THE STATE. It is the very epitome of a handout, of the idea of an undeserved entitlement (unless $800k in campaign contributions from energy companies negates the 'undeserved' part). Tax burdens and budget reductions for all...and free natural gas for the rich. Because Corbett said he would balance the budget without raising or adding a single tax. Do you see now where ideology is a danger to sensible policy?
Of course not. You're just a troll who doesn't care how the world works, you just want to be able to smirk and say "I told you so."[/QUOTE]
It might get worse myke:
http://www.propublica.org/article/p...xe-environmental-permitting-to-be-streamlined
I don't know where in PA you are but if you're in the Philly area that's my neck of the woods (Philly burbs).
ed up, how about the state of the states right now? I was just reading PA's budget proposal for this year, which is pure feudalism. Pure ing feudalism. But Corbett isn't breaking his campaign promises. Same for Wisconsin. Both states are being ed. Same in Ohio, another state that is eviscerating its middle class for another shot at trickle down economics. These guys are staying honest to some of their campaign promises, but in deeply insidious ways: the PA budget allows energy companies FREE, UNTAXED ACCESS TO FRACKING THE NATURAL GAS RESERVES OF THE STATE. It is the very epitome of a handout, of the idea of an undeserved entitlement (unless $800k in campaign contributions from energy companies negates the 'undeserved' part). Tax burdens and budget reductions for all...and free natural gas for the rich. Because Corbett said he would balance the budget without raising or adding a single tax. Do you see now where ideology is a danger to sensible policy?Of course not. You're just a troll who doesn't care how the world works, you just want to be able to smirk and say "I told you so."[/QUOTE]
It might get worse myke:
http://www.propublica.org/article/p...xe-environmental-permitting-to-be-streamlined
I don't know where in PA you are but if you're in the Philly area that's my neck of the woods (Philly burbs).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[No message]
bread's done