NationStates Jolt Archive

Kyr, what he means to say is that he doesn't know how to convince someone in written form and that he's not approaching the discussions with an open mind.

Or, you know, that I've been on the internet (and, for that matter, before this last year, NSG) long enough to see that anonymity, intellectual arrogance, and natural human stubborness make the chance of successfully convincing someone of anything on the internet so low as to make it a quixotic adventure.

Of course, it is your perogative to take the opportunity to use ad hominems at third person, rather than to actually debate, but, then again, as I said, this is the internet, so I'm not too shocked.

No, I am synthesizing a conclusion from the evidence available to me. There is a difference.

And I asked you for evidence of their intent and you said it would require you to be mindreader. Then you provided "evidence" that requires people not to understand that the middle class is much more elastic than you realize and the nuclear program of Iran is disputed. But, hey, if they don't ignore the evidence you're ignoring, they're lying, right, mindreader?

Fine, I'll give you this one, but I would still assert that Gibson's framing was fundamentally dishonest.

Of course you do. You read minds.

No, the NIE clearly states that the weapon's development program was discontinued. To claim it is still going on is either to be ignorant or to lie. Now, given that Stephanopolous almost certainly covered the NIE when it came out, I would assume he knows what it said, so ignorance is out.

It does clearly state that. It also clearly states that it had the potential to resume and is expected to resume to continue enriching Uranium in the next few years. That was last year. So to follow that, it's totally reasonable to assume we once again do not know it's status. But, hey, if one selectively reads that report and ignores all of that, you're right.

Not really. Yes, the most difficult aspect of developing a nuclear weapon is enriching the uranium, but there is a little more to it than that. The detonator material for a collapsing core or gun-model bombs is not public data, and the proportioning and model construction may seem easy compared to other things done in science, but they aren't that easy. Either way, there is no proof that Iran is actually pursuing HEU, mearly that they can attain it.

Heh. How difficult do you really think it is to get it to react? It doesn't require that ALL of it react. And there are a lot of scientists capable of making it happen. Like I said, they don't even have to be that good. Getting the HEU is the real issue.

I see. So a minute ago, it was proven they weren't actually pursuing it. Now, it's that we can't prove they are (which is true). You don't notice the grave difference there?

Or I can make safe, rational assumptions based on the data presented to me. Now, you may choose to distort what I am saying however you please, but no, one can make a mistake and not be lying. However, when one is preparing for a nationally televised debate, one assumes that a basic fact-check is also not so difficult to aquire.

But you didn't. You're ignoring a lot of data. It's good to know that you're basing your "rational assumptions" on requiring their factcheckers to not only be infallible, but to ignore the same data you do. Otherwise, they're liars.


I'm of the opinion that the State Party SHOULD have been running the debates, but either way, I beleive that the role of the media in these debates is to ask questions that Democratic voters want to hear asked, not attack the candidates with Right Wing framing.

No, it isn't. The role of the media is to be impartial at best, and do whatever is good for ratings at worst. They aren't there to cater to the democrats.


It isn't the media's job to be water-boy for Rush Limbaugh (forgive me, Kyronea, by the by, you are correct. I purposefully misspelled his name as well). That is what the Ayers question was.

Heh. I'm glad Obama isn't as fragile as you think he is. The Ayers question comes up a lot. It's best to deal with it, not lob softballs to the candidates.


Clearly we haven't had enough discussion on Health Care policy if you still don't understand the difference between a mandated plan and a non-mandated plan. They are rather large differences, see.

Haha. Yes, perhaps I don't understand. I've never heard them discuss that before. I've never heard a large portion of the debate get nothing accomplished while they bickered about it. Really, what I need, is for them to discuss it again. That would definitely help. It ends up being petty and, in the end her plan, will undoubtedly end up just like his plan. So, yes, the differences are not really worth hearing about again.

Their plans are going to accomplish very similar goals. Many, many people would be happy with either plan. Many, many people would be happy with both their approaches to Iraq. They have incredibly similar policies, and the worst debates I've seen have been hugfests when they should have been highlighting the differences in the way they operate, which is far more significant since it will determine how we are viewed throughout the world and whether or not they are successful at getting their issues through.

Or, you know, that I've been on the internet (and, for that matter, before this last year, NSG) long enough to see that anonymity, intellectual arrogance, and natural human stubborness make the chance of successfully convincing someone of anything on the internet so low as to make it a quixotic adventure.

Of course, it is your perogative to take the opportunity to use ad hominems at third person, rather than to actually debate, but, then again, as I said, this is the internet, so I'm not too shocked.

Funny, I've had quite a different experience. I've found it's easier to convince people online because you have evidence available all the time. It's not an ad hominem to point out that if your experience in the same place with the same people is different than mine, it's probably because of differences between us. Ad hominem is when it's a substitute for the argument. Here we're talking about our personal experiences which make the "hominem" relevant.

But, hey, you're right, I was rude. Your reply about how Kyronea needed medication because he disagreed, however, was not.

Oh...

You know they have medicine for that, right?

Perhaps someday I'll elevate my debate to your level, right?

Perhaps, this is why Kyronea and I experience people being convinced of our arguments and you don't. Where exactly was this "debate" I avoided by pointed out that if your experience is different than ours it's likely your failing? Can you quote them?

It does clearly state that. It also clearly states that it had the potential to resume and is expected to resume to continue enriching Uranium in the next few years. That was last year. So to follow that, it's totally reasonable to assume we once again do not know it's status. But, hey, if one selectively reads that report and ignores all of that, you're right.

When the NIE says the program was discontinued, only the Bush administration is so pigheaded as to claim that means we just don't know it's status, because, you know, they could magically be really doing it, even when the intelligence community says they aren't.

I see. So a minute ago, it was proven they weren't actually pursuing it. Now, it's that we can't prove they are (which is true). You don't notice the grave difference there?

I notice that you're wasting my time by twisting the reality of the debate. The NIE says that the program was discontinued. Now, unless you have concrete proof that it has been restarted, it is safe to assume it has not.


But you didn't. You're ignoring a lot of data. It's good to know that you're basing your "rational assumptions" on requiring their factcheckers to not only be infallible, but to ignore the same data you do. Otherwise, they're liars.

Or, I'm expecting their fact checkers to be competant. Which, given that they are, y'know, employed to fact check, is probably a highly safe assumption to make.


Heh. I'm glad Obama isn't as fragile as you think he is. The Ayers question comes up a lot. It's best to deal with it, not lob softballs to the candidates.

This is patently false. The Ayers question has not been raised previously in the mass media by anyone other than Rush Limbaugh.

Honestly, you are being intellectually dishonest and highly agressive.

When the NIE says the program was discontinued, only the Bush administration is so pigheaded as to claim that means we just don't know it's status, because, you know, they could magically be really doing it, even when the intelligence community says they aren't.

The NIE says that activity is likely. Again, you're ignoring what it actually said. It said it was discontinued, not they expect it to remain inactive.

I notice that you're wasting my time by twisting the reality of the debate. The NIE says that the program was discontinued. Now, unless you have concrete proof that it has been restarted, it is safe to assume it has not.

It's safe to assume? Why? Why would we have immediate proof it began again? The same NIE said it's expected to resume, and not just resume, but be successful as early as next year. So, again, unless people ignore that information and come the same ASSUMPTION as you have, then they're liars. Good to know.

Or, I'm expecting their fact checkers to be competant. Which, given that they are, y'know, employed to fact check, is probably a highly safe assumption to make.

Yes, and since at least one of your 'facts' has been disproven and one is an admitted assumption, then I'd say it seems like they were competent. But, hey, I'm just going by the evidence. I'm not reading minds, making up intent, or assuming that Iran isn't going to enrich Uranium despite the findings of the same NIE you are citing.

This is patently false. The Ayers question has not been raised previously in the mass media by anyone other than Rush Limbaugh.

I'll make a deal with you. If I can find articles about Ayers, then you'll self-ban for a week. Agreed?

Honestly, you are being intellectually dishonest and highly agressive.

Am I intellectually dishonest? Why? Because my information isn't as limited as yours? I read the entire NIE, rather than citing a tiny part of it that the news tends to regurgitate. I'm aware of how the middle class is defined, rather than calling people liars because they are also aware of it. It seems like anyone whose information isn't as limited as yours is dishonest. I sense a trend.

You entered the discussion using misspelling their names to attack them (much the same as bringing up that BHO's middle name is HUSSEIN), telling one person he needed medication because he disagreed with you, and basically regurgitating punditry. You don't like when people respond to you in the same vein as you started with. When I start making fun of your name, then you can criticize my aggressiveness without being a hypocrite.

Funny, I've had quite a different experience. I've found it's easier to convince people online because you have evidence available all the time. It's not an ad hominem to point out that if your experience in the same place with the same people is different than mine, it's probably because of differences between us. Ad hominem is when it's a substitute for the argument. Here we're talking about our personal experiences which make the "hominem" relevant.

But, hey, you're right, I was rude. Your reply about how Kyronea needed medication because he disagreed, however, was not.

Perhaps someday I'll elevate my debate to your level, right?

Perhaps, this is why Kyronea and I experience people being convinced of our arguments and you don't. Where exactly was this "debate" I avoided by pointed out that if your experience is different than ours it's likely your failing.


I was attempting comedy. I shall, in the future, insure not to do so when there is a risk you might be present. Clearly it will be lost on you.

And, again, you attempt ad hominem attack. Your choice to use personal attacks merely makes you look more easily aggravated.

Of course, the question of what circumstance one can reasonably expect someone to change their mind because of an argument made in is more complex than "it can't be done on the internet". Nevertheless, I would note that when dealing with individuals with deeply entrenched views in an environment where one's social standing is largely irrelevant, and the only impetus towards politeness or civil discourse is moderation, it can be summarized as quixotic to attempt to convince anyone of anything. Now, in the case that the beleif is less deeply entrenched, that changes, and I, as well as you, have experienced success in that circumstance, but aside from cumulative affect, I have never seen a fundamental beleif that anyone holds change because of a single dissagreement on NSG. Sharpen and become better understood? Yes, but fundamentally change? Not in one, or even ten dissagreements.

The NIE says that activity is likely. Again, you're ignoring what it actually said. It said it was discontinued, not they expect it to remain inactive.

What Stephanopolous said was that the program was continuing. He had no proof that it was, and there were public statements by the NIE to the contrary. It would sound like that was a falsehood, would it not?

It's safe to assume? Why? Why would we have immediate proof it began again? The same NIE said it's expected to resume, and not just resume, but be successful as early as next year. So, again, unless people ignore that information and come the same ASSUMPTION as you have, then they're liars. Good to know.

As early as. And, again, you have no proof that it actually has, just broad, gossiping conjecture.


I'll make a deal with you. If I can find articles about Ayers, then you'll self-ban for a week. Agreed?

No. If you can find a significant number of articles from nationally syndicated sources of repute, I will cede the point. That, unlike your unreasonable and childish demand, is how an adult acts. I have done so regarding the middle class.


You entered the discussion using misspelling their names to attack them (much the same as bringing up that BHO's middle name is HUSSEIN), telling one person he needed medication because he disagreed with you, and basically regurgitating punditry. You don't like when people respond to you in the same vein as you started with. When I start making fun of your name, then you can criticize my aggressiveness without being a hypocrite.

And a wonderful judge of character you are, too. Aside from counterfactually twisting what has occurred to make yourself look good, and using ad hominem attacks to bolster your argument, you accuse me of regurgitating punditry because I actually bother to reason out the subject. Wonderful. I'm glad that such an upstanding and mature person as yourself has taken it upon them to lecture me about my wrongs.

Now, take a deep breath and debate the topic, not ad hominems. You are being excessively unpleasant.

Until then, I must depend on my observations, which say that Charles Gibson can't possibly be stupid enough to beleive that those earning over $100,000 a year are considered middle class,

IIRC, the upper middle class category encompasses families that bring in more than that.

I was attempting comedy. I shall, in the future, insure not to do so when there is a risk you might be present. Clearly it will be lost on you.

I am equally sarcastic, friend. But what you also did was completely avoid the point and make no debate whatsoever. Then when I replied at time where you entire "debate" was to tell him to get medication, YOU accused ME of avoiding the debate. You don't see why that is amusing?

By the way, I've not really mastered the ability to make people realize how amused I am. I tend to sound angry. This is my failing, but your assumption that I'm upset is wrong. (Notice, how when everyone finds me agnry I don't accuse the entire of internet of being broken, but instead recognize my failings.)

And, again, you attempt ad hominem attack. Your choice to use personal attacks merely makes you look more easily aggravated.

I'm not aggravated. If you, I and Kyronea all enter a forum with the same people, and we all hold fairly similar views, and two of us are successful in debating with people and one of us aren't, what do you propose we focus on? The problems of the forum? According to you the entire internet is broken. There's a saying "if everyone isn't listening to you, what's the common denominator?"


Of course, the question of what circumstance one can reasonably expect someone to change their mind because of an argument made in is more complex than "it can't be done on the internet". Nevertheless, I would note that when dealing with individuals with deeply entrenched views in an environment where one's social standing is largely irrelevant, and the only impetus towards politeness or civil discourse is moderation, it can be summarized as quixotic to attempt to convince anyone of anything. Now, in the case that the beleif is less deeply entrenched, that changes, and I, as well as you, have experienced success in that circumstance, but aside from cumulative affect, I have never seen a fundamental beleif that anyone holds change because of a single dissagreement on NSG. Sharpen and become better understood? Yes, but fundamentally change? Not in one, or even ten dissagreements.

More complex than can be done on the internet? Ha. Again, perhaps this is your shortcoming.

Like I said, I've seen tons and tons of successful debates. Including with those with very entrenched positions. Ask Corny if I've ever convinced him of anything. You'll find he's kind of a posterboy for deeply entrenched. Hardly comparable to tilting at windmills.

I notice your position is changing. Hehe. Truly harms your argument.

IIRC, the upper middle class category encompasses families that bring in more than that.

Yes. I was corrected upthread. I'm not sure I believe that tax policy for people earning less than $150,000 who are in the middle class should be the same as tax policy for those earning more than that value, and I consider the construction somewhat suspect, but I was wrong.

IIRC, the upper middle class category encompasses families that bring in more than that.

You recall correctly. He already admitted he's wrong. But that still means the moderator was lying, even if he was right. Amusing, no?

IIRC, the upper middle class category encompasses families that bring in more than that.

its far too easy for a family to make over $100k these days. my niece and her husband bring in about $150 with him being a middle school english teacher and her working payroll in a modest sized company.

By the way, I've not really mastered the ability to make people realize how amused I am. I tend to sound angry. This is my failing, but your assumption that I'm upset is wrong. (Notice, how when everyone finds me agnry I don't accuse the entire of internet of being broken, but instead recognize my failings.)

I apologize for assuming that you were angry, then.

I will also note to you that I do not blame the internet for anything. I merely recognize its real and present constraints. I was wrong to say it is impossible to convince anyone of anything on the internet, but I would still assert that it is much more difficult, because of the social disconnections and the quickly escalating hostility present therein.

Like I said, I've seen tons and tons of successful debates. Including with those with very entrenched positions. Ask Corny if I've ever convinced him of anything. You'll find he's kind of a posterboy for deeply entrenched. Hardly comparable to tilting at windmills.

Having debated with, and watched others debate with, Corny in the past, I have never seen him change his mind substantively (that is different, I would note, from the sharpening of an argument, if the deeply held belief remains). If you have, indeed accomplished this (and you may have, I've been gone for 7-ish months now), I would categorize you as more of a miracleworker than a competant debater.

I notice your position is changing. Hehe. Truly harms your argument.

Sharpening, yes. Mostly because I, being unused to NSG because of my vacation, and naive enough to believe I was still in practice, went and made broad, easily shredded assertions rather than attempting to actually note the complexity of the issue. Also, I'm rather playing with the whole concept, than really investing any particular personal belief.

You recall correctly. He already admitted he's wrong. But that still means the moderator was lying, even if he was right. Amusing, no?


Not exactly what I said, but a quaint twisting thereof. I was wrong and Gibson was right. He was not lying.

I would note that the broad condensation of the lower income middle class, and the upper-income middle class into one tax bracket is a mildly erronious understanding of tax policy, but that is not a lie so much as an inaccurate framing.

What Stephanopolous said was that the program was continuing. He had no proof that it was, and there were public statements by the NIE to the contrary. It would sound like that was a falsehood, would it not?

Again, if one reads the ENTIRE NIE, it's an entirely reasonable conclusion. Perhaps he needs medication? I mean, he does disagree with you and agree with the conclusions of the NIE.


As early as. And, again, you have no proof that it actually has, just broad, gossiping conjecture.

Gossipping? You mean the NIE? The NIE's conclusion, the one you keep touting is that we should be aware that success is possible as early as next year and becomes likely by 2015. I'll take reading my 'conjecture' in the NIE over assuming it's not making any movement. Claiming yours is the default assumption in order to call someone else a liar is just silly. The default is to assume that if they are right about it stopping they are equally likely to be right about when we can expect their program to be successful. Again, I don't cherrypick my evidence and people who don't do so aren't automatically liars because you don't agree with them.



No. If you can find a significant number of articles from nationally syndicated sources of repute, I will cede the point. That, unlike your unreasonable and childish demand, is how an adult acts. I have done so regarding the middle class.

Ah, so, your claim that it's only Rush Limbaugh is based on "gossipping conjecture". Would it surprise you that the story began in the British press in early February? It got a lot of airtime in February, mostly because the Clinton machine seized on it as an argument that Obama was going to take a beating in the general.

Go on, tell me I'm wrong (but I suggest you look it up first.)

And, wait, people change their opinion based on new information? On the internet? (I kind of baited you into that one, no? That's twice I've gotten you to admit that I can, in fact, completely flip your position with the right information. It's almost like *gasp* there are some reasonable people on the internet and you count yourself among them. Say it ain't so!)


And a wonderful judge of character you are, too. Aside from counterfactually twisting what has occurred to make yourself look good, and using ad hominem attacks to bolster your argument, you accuse me of regurgitating punditry because I actually bother to reason out the subject. Wonderful. I'm glad that such an upstanding and mature person as yourself has taken it upon them to lecture me about my wrongs.

Now, take a deep breath and debate the topic, not ad hominems. You are being excessively unpleasant.

Reason out the subject. On two counts, I've found you to be factually and provably ignorant. One of which, you used to accuse someone of lying. On a third I've shown that you're taking a bit of information out of context and ignoring the rest of the report that warns of Iran's likely success in the next few years.

I'm happy to avoid ad hominems. So, let's set the terms. I'll stop treating you, like you've been treating the subject. I won't make fun of your name, or tell you need medication, or accuse you of lying (unless I can actually prove you've made contradictory statements), or the various other things you were doing to dismiss the people we're discussing.

I mean, it's almost like I turned your tactics on you and exposed you for hypocrisy. Nah, that can't be it.

Not exactly what I said, but a quaint twisting thereof. I was wrong and Gibson was right. He was not lying.

I would note that the broad condensation of the lower income middle class, and the upper-income middle class into one tax bracket is a mildly erronious understanding of tax policy, but that is not a lie so much as an inaccurate framing.

Fine, I'll give you this one, but I would still assert that Gibson's framing was fundamentally dishonest.

Hmmm... quaint twisting, huh? Who's twisting?

You having fun yet?

I apologize for assuming that you were angry, then.

I will also note to you that I do not blame the internet for anything. I merely recognize its real and present constraints. I was wrong to say it is impossible to convince anyone of anything on the internet, but I would still assert that it is much more difficult, because of the social disconnections and the quickly escalating hostility present therein.

Actually, for the most part on NSG, we tend to have a mild hostility that rarely escalates. If you're good enough at searching you'll find me complimented Canuck quite genuinely, in fact. Most of use don't take this as personally as we would if we were at a luncheon in the 'real world'.


Having debated with, and watched others debate with, Corny in the past, I have never seen him change his mind substantively (that is different, I would note, from the sharpening of an argument, if the deeply held belief remains). If you have, indeed accomplished this (and you may have, I've been gone for 7-ish months now), I would categorize you as more of a miracleworker than a competant debater.

I think you're playing with words here. Corny was relatively uneducated when he got here, despite his personal claims. The effect of becoming more knowledgeable has been obvious and many, many people have served in the process of changing his mind.

I watched Smunkee, a fundamentalist, become an Atheist. There were a lot of factors, but that's about as core as you get.


Sharpening, yes. Mostly because I, being unused to NSG because of my vacation, and naive enough to believe I was still in practice, went and made broad, easily shredded assertions rather than attempting to actually note the complexity of the issue. Also, I'm rather playing with the whole concept, than really investing any particular personal belief.

You are getting noticeably sharper. I would agree. I can tell you're playing, and I taking you to task because of that. I think once people realize I'm not as angry as I sound, it's even a little fun, no?

By the by, no need to apologize. If you were alone, I'd blame you, but people frequently think I'm angry. To people who know me, the idea of me being angry as often as people on NSG think is ridiculous.

I think you're playing with words here. Corny was relatively uneducated when he got here, despite his personal claims. The effect of becoming more knowledgeable has been obvious and many, many people have served in the process of changing his mind.

I watched Smunkee, a fundamentalist, become an Atheist. There were a lot of factors, but that's about as core as you get.

The things I miss when I go away. I'd think of some way to argue the point, but I'm still trying to process the shock.


You are getting noticeably sharper. I would agree. I can tell you're playing, and I taking you to task because of that. I think once people realize I'm not as angry as I sound, it's even a little fun, no?

By the by, no need to apologize. If you were alone, I'd blame you, but people frequently think I'm angry. To people who know me, the idea of me being angry as often as people on NSG think is ridiculous.

Well, nevertheless, if apologizing gets me off of the sharp end of a stick I am clearly out of practice at being stabbed with, I think I shall take the opportunity to pull a fast one, as it were.

Hmmm... quaint twisting, huh? Who's twisting?

You having fun yet?

Eh. I'll waffle on this one: I would assert that the basic framing, which is to say, the idea that the tax policy we apply to those earning under $100,000 a year should be the same as the tax policy we apply to those earning over that, is a dishonest (perhaps disengenuous is a more accurate word?) framing. Gibson himself, however, is hardly the first to have used it, and so I would not say he is lying, per se.

Of course, that could, as easily, be applied to the point regarding Iran's Nuclear Status. So I'd say I should just cede the point and save myself further embaressment (excepting, perhaps, the fact that it means I must also cede the other point, regarding changing minds).

I'm still unhappy with a debate where I feel Obama faced a harder set of questions, and questions based on issues that really had died down in the last week, then Clinton, but I suppose that that is as much a product of not liking to see my guy under attack as anything else.

And, to bring us back to the election (and get my feet out of the fire), I just read an interesting little piece on CNN: (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/17/dean-i-need-a-decision-now/)

An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they’re for – and “I need them to say who they’re for starting now.”

“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”


Looks like we may well be entering the end game here. If O can top Clinton in SDs, I'm not sure she has an argument left for staying in.

IIRC, the upper middle class category encompasses families that bring in more than that.


only if we include an absolutely ridiculous range of incomes into 'middle class'. $100k+ household income puts you into the top 15ish% of the country. even accepting stupid usian notions of pseudo-classlessness, i'd put $100k towards the top of the upper middle.

Eh. I'll waffle on this one: I would assert that the basic framing, which is to say, the idea that the tax policy we apply to those earning under $100,000 a year should be the same as the tax policy we apply to those earning over that, is a dishonest (perhaps disengenuous is a more accurate word?) framing. Gibson himself, however, is hardly the first to have used it, and so I would not say he is lying, per se.

Of course, that could, as easily, be applied to the point regarding Iran's Nuclear Status. So I'd say I should just cede the point and save myself further embaressment (excepting, perhaps, the fact that it means I must also cede the other point, regarding changing minds).

I'm still unhappy with a debate where I feel Obama faced a harder set of questions, and questions based on issues that really had died down in the last week, then Clinton, but I suppose that that is as much a product of not liking to see my guy under attack as anything else.

Oh, you're doing fine. I'm being more than a little difficult.

As to the debate, like I said, it was GREAT. It was perfect for him. He needed to prove he could stand up to that kind of attack and we watched blow after blow fail and watched people rally behind Obama as a result. Unless he falls to pieces in the next few days, he just again proved he could take a lot of punches. All good news for our candidate.

only if we include an absolutely ridiculous range of incomes into 'middle class'. $100k+ household income puts you into the top 15ish% of the country. even accepting stupid usian notions of pseudo-classlessness, i'd put $100k towards the top of the upper middle.

Again, it's relative. 100K would buy a mansion in some rural areas and in some cities you'd be struggling to make rent. Salary is not the only factor in determining class.

And, frankly, like it or not, we're in the US, so the "usian" notions of class are what matter.

The Clinton campaign apparently vigorously denied this ever happened in a conference call this afternoon, according to Mark Halperin.

But then again...we all know how well the Clinton campaign is at telling the truth.

But then again...we all know how well the Clinton campaign is at telling the truth.

Oh, absolutely, I'm just a little cautious. I, for one, could go the next month without hearing another word about any of these really silly scandals.

I would think there would be better spin than this, though. Denying it keeps it in the news, while spinning it would take it off of the air in one cycle.

Hmmm... I read the article and I don't know. I don't particularly believe it. She had aspirations even then and that is a pretty damaging thing to say.

I agree entirely.

Again, it's relative. 100K would buy a mansion in some rural areas and in some cities you'd be struggling to make rent. Salary is not the only factor in determining class.

And, frankly, like it or not, we're in the US, so the "usian" notions of class are what matter.

no, you would not be struggling to make rent. i can prove this by pointing out that those cities are not filled entirely with the richest 15% of the country. in fact, they are full of both some of the poorest and some of the richest in the country.

the usian pseudo-classlessness of calling everything from $20K to $150K (and sometimes even $200k or $300K) 'middle class' is fucking foolish. these people do not form a single class on any reasonable measure. the fact that lots of merkans like to pretend otherwise doesn't matter.

actually, i should amend that. while most people (including flat-out capitalists) think themselves middle class, they do not actually extend the range out ridiculously from themselves. it is only when we lump all of these self-identifiers together that the spread gets silly.

the usian pseudo-classlessness of calling everything from $20K to $150K (and sometimes even $200k or $300K) 'middle class' is fucking foolish.

speaking of which, guess who thinks $200k is middle class?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801060004
During the January 5 ABC News-Facebook Democratic debate at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, moderator and ABC's World News anchor Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates' proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush's tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families. After Gibson noted that the Democratic candidates are "all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) replied that they would roll back "tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle class." Gibson continued: "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on."

no, you would not be struggling to make rent. i can prove this by pointing out that those cities are not filled entirely with the richest 15% of the country. in fact, they are full of both some of the poorest and some of the richest in the country.

the usian pseudo-classlessness of calling everything from $20K to $150K (and sometimes even $200k or $300K) 'middle class' is fucking foolish. these people do not form a single class on any reasonable measure. the fact that lots of merkans like to pretend otherwise doesn't matter.

actually, i should amend that. while most people (including flat-out capitalists) think themselves middle class, they do not actually extend the range out ridiculously from themselves. it is only when we lump all of these self-identifiers together that the spread gets silly.

Class is not defined by salary. But click those heels and maybe you can change the rules.

It's America. Oddly, people having a debate or moderating in a debate in America *gasp* went with US descriptions of class. Shocking, I know.

Meanwhile, that you don't seem to recognize that your situation matters as much as your salary seems like you're not actually looking to talk about class.

I mean, there are people making 120,000 a year, at about two thirds left after taxes. Paying sixth of that insurance. Paying a third on housing. Spending another tenth on bills. A several hundred a month on food. Without considering clothing or other normal expense they have a they have several hundred a month left. Yup, that's middle class for you.

Do I really need to explain what happens when you don't have health care? Do I really need to find the cost of housing in certain areas (particularly before it started falling)? Do I really need to show what it takes?

I work in an industry where the simple fact we're in it costs us a large portion of what we make. So much so, that I discourage people from coming into the industry for less than 80 grand a year. At that rate, you won't be very comfortable but it's a good start.

Oversimplifying any argument is a bad idea. When you made broad generalizations like that, you're pretty much bound to be shown to be wrong. Is it really necessary for me to find the numbers?

Oversimplifying any argument is a bad idea. When you made broad generalizations like that, you're pretty much bound to be shown to be wrong. Is it really necessary for me to find the numbers?

wait, so the fact that i think there are more classes in america than our discourse typically talks about means that i am oversimplifying?

the bite of gibson's question is that he is conflating middle class in the sense of "what most everybody is" with middle class in the sense of the professional/managerial class. distinctions are good.

wait, so the fact that i think there are more classes in america than our discourse typically talks about means that i am oversimplifying?

the bite of gibson's question is that he is conflating middle class in the sense of "what most everybody is" with middle class in the sense of the professional/managerial class. distinctions are good.

The fact that you think that it's just about your salary is oversimplifying. The fact is there are more than one class, but the term, "middle class", in the US, engulfs many of them.

He's conflating middle class with, you know, the American definition of middle class. Weird that he would do so. The professional/managerial class is part of the middle class, generally the upper part. Still part of the middle class, however, no matter how much you think it shouldn't be.

The fact that you think that it's just about your salary is oversimplifying.

it isn't just about salary, but you will have a fucking hard time finding anybody that does work involving class that doesn't see it as a huge factor which most other shit is determined by. it basically makes for a key component of any overview of class in america, and more than adequately does the job here.

the fact that people have to keep working to maintain their upper class lifestyle doesn't change the fact that it is an upper class lifestyle for their area.

He's conflating middle class with, you know, the American definition of middle class. Weird that he would do so. The professional/managerial class is part of the middle class, generally the upper part. Still part of the middle class, however, no matter how much you think it shouldn't be.

the usian definition of middle class is nonsensical and ought be abolished, for the good of our political discourse. our meaningless common definition obscures important information and allows ridiculous bullshit to be pushed on us. i mean, come on, you don't see the fundamental dishonesty this definition allows from someone who says they are going to cut taxes for the middle class, but means that they are going to only cut taxes for the richest 5%? or conversely, the fundamental dishonesty of someone claiming that raising taxes on people well into the richest quintile is raising taxes on the middle class?

saying that 90%+ of people in a country with essentially a third world income and wealth distribution are in the same class explicitly allows for equivocation between the barely out of abject poverty and the wealthy fucking elite. it serves only to benefit the tiny tiny tiny minority at the top.

yay for John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama being on The Colbert Report!

it isn't just about salary, but you will have a fucking hard time finding anybody that does work involving class that doesn't see it as a huge factor which most other shit is determined by. it basically makes for a key component of any overview of class in america, and more than adequately does the job here.

Not the specific salary, but the salary relative to the cost of living of the area, certainly. You don't think it matters if you make 25,000 in central IL (which, honestly, would be INCREDIBLY comfortable) or in DC?

The relative value of your salary is relevant, because cost of living, factoring in the size of your family, is thoroughly relevant. So, no, it doesn't do the job. I've been upper class for years. A family of five making the same salary as I do would be at best middle class until just this year.


the fact that people have to keep working to maintain their upper class lifestyle doesn't change the fact that it is an upper class lifestyle for their area.

I'm not talking about keeping working. The way classes work is about disposable income. Even if that disposable income is used to purchase housing that is larger than you specifically need, but in some cities you have to choose between two parents being away from home 20 more hours a week, each, or living in an area that costs a phenomenal amount for anormal home.

the usian definition of middle class is nonsensical and ought be abolished, for the good of our political discourse.

Bwahaha. You crack me up. Did you forget the discourse we're discussing wasn't with anyone but Americans? I know that the US isn't sovereign and should submit to the world to determine their internal policies and terminology, but I'm afraid nothing's getting abolished today. I love this. "I'm not wrong. Your terms you used correctly that I don't like the meaning of are wrong." So, in other words, he was correct, but you really, really want Americans to change the meaning.


our meaningless common definition obscures important information and allows ridiculous bullshit to be pushed on us. i mean, come on, you don't see the fundamental dishonesty this definition allows from someone who says they are going to cut taxes for the middle class, but means that they are going to only cut taxes for the richest 5%? or conversely, the fundamental dishonesty of someone claiming that raising taxes on people well into the richest quintile is raising taxes on the middle class?

No, I find it silly that taxes are based on. Where you live should be relevant to both taxes and minimum wage. But you're not proposing anything meaningful. You're proposing that we redefine middle class no more meaningfully because you don't like it.

saying that 90%+ of people in a country with essentially a third world income and wealth distribution are in the same class explicitly allows for equivocation between the barely out of abject poverty and the wealthy fucking elite. it serves only to benefit the tiny tiny tiny minority at the top.

90% of people in a country with a third world income? You know, I've never understood how some people think there is any value to just plainly making shit up to make your argument sound good. So most of the world thinks the US has one of the wealthiest populations in the world and you're claiming that 90% of the country has a "third-world income". I'm sorry, but I geniunely laughed. That's absurd.

By definition, if you're barely out of abject poverty, you're not middle class. For example, my family had a substantial salary most of my life, but because we ended up with about a million dollars in hospital bills not covered by insurance, your salary matters little. We were in poverty and that my parents had a familial income that put us in the top quintile matters little. But, hey, keep oversimplifying. That'll put food in the mouths of the poor.

yay for John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama being on The Colbert Report!

I am pleased that Barack Obama recognizes the dangerous and ominous threat on America posed by bears, as Stephen has warned us about in the past. Clearly, this shows he's in touch with the needs and issues facing America today.

Also, John Edwards on a jet-ski for President.

Tell you what, I'll concede, like so much of American Politics, they use the term to equivocate and we'll stop the hijack, yeah?

I fear, unfortunately, that nothing is going to change that. Kind of like if you were to lift a law that's shown to increase crime, you'd be presented as soft on crime. The truth of things rarely matters. I think we can agree on that much?

Not the specific salary, but the salary relative to the cost of living of the area, certainly. You don't think it matters if you make 25,000 in central IL (which, honestly, would be INCREDIBLY comfortable) or in DC?

except that the income distributions are actually quite similar in dc and, for example, mattoon. the class lifestyles differ by location, but the class divisions are more or less the same.

income distribution in dc
http://pics2.city-data.com/hin2005/3211.png

income distribution in mattoon, il
http://pics2.city-data.com/hin2005/5767.png

The relative value of your salary is relevant, because cost of living, factoring in the size of your family, is thoroughly relevant. So, no, it doesn't do the job. I've been upper class for years. A family of five making the same salary as I do would be at best middle class until just this year.

except that all those people making median wages have families living on them, and they are middle class.

The way classes work is about disposable income.

sure, provided you are using disposable income in the gross income minus taxes sense. or perhaps also taking out the absolute basic living expenses in an area. but that still just divides things up by income level.

90% of people in a country with a third world income? You know, I've never understood how some people think there is any value to just plainly making shit up to make your argument sound good. So most of the world thinks the US has one of the wealthiest populations in the world and you're claiming that 90% of the country has a "third-world income". I'm sorry, but I geniunely laughed. That's absurd.

try reading it again

except that the income distributions are actually quite similar in dc and, for example, mattoon. the class lifestyles differ by location, but the class divisions are more or less the same.

income distribution in dc
http://pics2.city-data.com/hin2005/3211.png

income distribution in mattoon, il
http://pics2.city-data.com/hin2005/5767.png

See what I mean about oversimplifying? So forget cost of living. It's all about income. For example, living in Mattoon, the housing costs approximately one-third for comparable places. But, hey, why look at anything other than salary. I mean what it costs to live doesn't matter. In fact, 30,000 dollars a year 30 years ago is the same as today. Because cost of living doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, that there are class distributions everywhere isn't the point. It's that an income that would be poverty in one area would comfortable in another.


except that all those people making median wages have families living on them, and they are middle class.

I think maybe you missed the point. The cost of living is affected by whether or not you have a family, and, no, not all of those people have families. Many of them do, but whether they do or not is relevant.

sure, provided you are using disposable income in the gross income minus taxes sense. or perhaps also taking out the absolute basic living expenses in an area. but that still just divides things up by income level.

I mean the cost of living in similar ways in different areas. We are talking about basic things like housing, food and whatnot, but it's also comparing apples to apples. And, yes, I mean minus taxes, of course. That's why taxes should consider cost of living and not just salary. Actually, I'd prefer there was only luxury taxes and inheritance taxes.

try reading it again

I did. You'll notice I got it right in the first sentence. I misread it at first, but corrected myself. I just missed it in one spot. However, your assessment is inaccurate. The actual measure of middle class considers your relative comfort, not just your income.

See what I mean about oversimplifying? So forget cost of living. It's all about income. For example, living in Mattoon, the housing costs approximately one-third for comparable places. But, hey, why look at anything other than salary. I mean what it costs to live doesn't matter. In fact, 30,000 dollars a year 30 years ago is the same as today. Because cost of living doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, that there are class distributions everywhere isn't the point. It's that an income that would be poverty in one area would comfortable in another.

local class lifestyles don't matter. you could live in places other than you do, either by commuting or by getting an equivalent job elsewhere. some people do, some don't. these are lifestyle choices, not class-membership decisions. members of the p/m class remain part of that class whether they take the mcmansion in the exurbs or the tiny apartment on the gold coast, or even the rat hole in the gentrification-coming-soon neighborhood.

I did. You'll notice I got it right in the first sentence. I misread it at first, but corrected myself. I just missed it in one spot. However, your assessment is inaccurate. The actual measure of middle class considers your relative comfort, not just your income.

where did you correct yourself? you missed the word 'distribution'. you know, gini coefficients and the like.

local class lifestyles don't matter. you could live in places other than you do, either by commuting or by getting an equivalent job elsewhere. some people do, some don't. these are lifestyle choices, not class-membership decisions. members of the p/m class remain part of that class whether they take the mcmansion in the exurbs or the tiny apartment on the gold coast, or even the rat hole in the gentrification-coming-soon neighborhood.

Um, you do realize that salaries often changed based on where you live to match cost of living, right? You do realize that commuting isn't free? You do realize that regardless of how much you want to simplify it, class is determined by how you live not what you make.

Where you live is a choice if you don't consider families and communities. You want people to leave their families and communities that they can afford to live in, to live a different community where they know no one and will end up living similarly just to falsely make it seem like they're part of a class the President should care about. How delightfully silly.


where did you correct yourself? you missed the word 'distribution'. you know, gini coefficients and the like.

Hehe. That makes SO much more sense. Seriously, I totally missed that word. It's still not relevant. Income distributions are generally modified bell curves. That it's similar is not as relevant as the general ability to live comfortably. It's weak argument. Comparing it to a third world isn't relevant.

For example, 99 percent of American homes own a television, a luxury. 66 percent own 3 or more. 56% have cable tv.

http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html

Five years ago 55% of American homes had computers and web access. One could assume it's gone up.

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3559991

Comparatively, half of Sub-Saharans live in abject poverty. Comparing us to a third-world country is a substitute for an argument, not an argument in itself.

can we end the hijack?

The longer the battle for the nomination goes on the more it hurts Hillary and helps Obama. This has been what I've been saying from the beginning.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains

yay for John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama being on The Colbert Report!

what a hoot ed-words was! i cant believe that edwards was so willing to make fun of himself. he should have gone on the report with it 9 months ago, it would have given his campaign the boost he needed.

Certainly debatable? At any rate, I think the following is relevant:

Dems enter the dead zone (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_dems_enter_the_dead_zone.html)

Apparently this long of a nominating process makes it harder for Clinton.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains

When you say they are lies while admitting you have no evidence they're lies, you're pretending to be a mindreader.




Class isn't determined specifically by income. Income is relative to where you live and who you're supporting. I'm certainly higher than middle class, but I fall in that range and am single. However, if I made the same income and was raising my four children, ailing wife, and housing our parents in NY, I'd certainly only be middle class, particularly if I had no health insurance (that's actually someone I know). The specific outliers for middle class is strongly debated.




The program is in dispute which was part of what the NIE was talking about. They could have HEU as little as a year from now. But hey, mindreader, just keep telling us what his intent was.

Dude, I could make a nuclear weapon with HEU. It's really all there is to it.




Okay, liar. Given what you claim to know, you're either lying about what you know or about whether these two were lying. Or perhaps, you could just be misunderstanding. You really want to jump to the point of calling all mistakes lies?




Heh. Like I said, those of us who would prefer that Dems be realistic are happy to see debates that aren't designed to be cushy and promote democrats. Now, if Dems had wanted that, then perhaps they should have actually done it themselves.

Again, political assassignation? If that was assassignation, then the Dems are in trouble in the general. Big trouble.




Those attacks have already occurred. They forced both candidates to address them in front of one another. It was wonderful to see them pressed there. It played well for Obama. It demonstrated he's ready for the general, which is what the supers and a lot of voters want to know.

But, hey, wouldn't it be great if they'd focused on health care. We could have had another hour of watching them argue about the tiniest little points in plans that are nearly identical.

I think middle class should be relevant to the state, city, area in which you live. My wife and I make enough money to not be considered poor by any means. Our income is probably higher than a great deal of the population in the US. We happen to live in the burbs directly outside of NYC (12 miles to be exact). Housing costs for us are astronomical. Gas prices for us are even worse and kill our budget when they go up. The price of car insurance here is higher than anywhere else in the nation (minus D.C.). So if we lived in Georgia we'd be regular aristocrats. Where we live makes us Joe and Jill just a little better than getting by. Having national numbers for these income levels does not make sense. Hell, I remember reading about people in California making over 150k for their family and having them living in homeless shelters because they couldn't afford housing. It's all relative.

Hehe. That makes SO much more sense. Seriously, I totally missed that word. It's still not relevant. Income distributions are generally modified bell curves. That it's similar is not as relevant as the general ability to live comfortably. It's weak argument. Comparing it to a third world isn't relevant.
...
Comparatively, half of Sub-Saharans live in abject poverty. Comparing us to a third-world country is a substitute for an argument, not an argument in itself.

i'm stopping this digression after one more clarification

the u.s. has income and wealth distributions more like mexico's than like canada or the european union's. my point is that it might make sense in those sorts of places to call 90%+ of the population 'middle class', because their distributions are so much flatter (except it still would obscure vastly more than it illuminates), but it certainly doesn't make sense here.

literally, you just completely misread what i said in a way that isn't even plausibly related to what was written, and continue to do so.

Hell, I remember reading about people in California making over 150k for their family and having them living in homeless shelters because they couldn't afford housing. It's all relative.

except that most households in california - shit, most households in san diego - have less than $55k. how is this possible? is it the case that 85% of the population that lives in san diego cannot live in san diego? of course not. it means that the low-end upper class lifestyle there is fucking expensive, but many people in that class are willing to shoulder those expenses for the lifestyle benefits.

Obama is almost bringing the superdelegates even with Hillary at this point. What will she do when he overtakes her even in supers?

Obama is almost bringing the superdelegates even with Hillary at this point. What will she do when he overtakes her even in supers?

demand a recount

except that most households in california - shit, most households in san diego - have less than $55k. how is this possible? is it the case that 85% of the population that lives in san diego cannot live in san diego? of course not. it means that the low-end upper class lifestyle there is fucking expensive, but many people in that class are willing to shoulder those expenses for the lifestyle benefits.

I was speaking more of the tech heavy areas.

Obama is almost bringing the superdelegates even with Hillary at this point. What will she do when he overtakes her even in supers?

demand a recount

LOL!!

What I found funny was when a couple more delegates declared for Obama AFTER the debate in Philadelphia.

Can ya'll take the "define the middle class debate" elsewhere, please?

I was speaking more of the tech heavy areas.

but most anywhere you look, the basic picture of income distribution is the same. except in very small restricted areas, most people earn nowhere near 150K. and even in those restricted areas, you don't have to go too far to find the rest of the population. after all, the people who do the service sector jobs in mountain view have to live somewhere. those gas stations and grocery stores don't run themselves. their public elementary school teachers ain't pulling down 150K.

what a hoot ed-words was! i cant believe that edwards was so willing to make fun of himself. he should have gone on the report with it 9 months ago, it would have given his campaign the boost he needed.



Do you think Hillary refused to have a serious discussion or The Colbert Report just didn't want to ask her questions? I think the former is more likely. I think the fact that she didn't do or say anything serious was a bad move.

They then went on to make fun of Hillary right after she came out and showed how a moderators for the debate they had just done was biased toward Hillary. That couldn't have helped her image.

THEN they had the only congressman who had served in Iraq come out and say he was for Obama.

Plus having Obama actually getting to make a serious point and put somethign on notice...

Overall - Hillary got moded.

Ed Words wad brilliant! Universal Haircare - hah! I agree - he should have gone on earlier.

Has anyone discussed the recent gaff that came out of the last debate? The one about capital gains taxes?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Obama said that, in spite of historical evidence that tax revenue is increased when capital gains taxes are decreased, he would increase those taxes. Not to increase revenue, mind you, but because it would be "to make sure . . . that our tax system is fair.

Fairness for who?

Turns out he only wanted to punish about 50 hedge fund managers. To punish the Unfair Fifty, he would also punish the rest of the 100 million of us that also own stocks and would benefit from lower capital gains taxes.

How can this the right way to use taxes?

Anyway, is Obama ignorant of the fact that decreased capital gains taxes yield even more money to fund his pie-in-the-sky programs, or is he committed to the idea of income redistribution, regardless of the revenue consequences? I don't think either option makes for good Presidential material...

Can we call him a Marxist, yet?

Do you think Hillary refused to have a serious discussion or The Colbert Report just didn't want to ask her questions? I think the former is more likely. I think the fact that she didn't do or say anything serious was a bad move.

They then went on to make fun of Hillary right after she came out and showed how a moderators for the debate they had just done was biased toward Hillary. That couldn't have helped her image.

THEN they had the only congressman who had served in Iraq come out and say he was for Obama.

Plus having Obama actually getting to make a serious point and put somethign on notice...

Overall - Hillary got moded.

Ed Words wad brilliant! Universal Haircare - hah! I agree - he should have gone on earlier.

Eh, I just watched it, and personally, I think they were all funny in their own way. That was the point anyway.

Myrmi: I'm not exactly certain what you're talking about, but I think we can safely say that Obama is not a Marxist.

except that most households in california - shit, most households in san diego - have less than $55k. how is this possible? is it the case that 85% of the population that lives in san diego cannot live in san diego? of course not. it means that the low-end upper class lifestyle there is fucking expensive, but many people in that class are willing to shoulder those expenses for the lifestyle benefits.

I'm not sure if you realize how it works, but it means that someone making that much lives in unsafe neighborhoods or commute long distances to make ends meet. And by long distances, I mean long. I mean 20 unpaid hours a week.

As far as misunderstanding, I get you now. You made the comparison because third-world carries a stigma. I was pointing out that your attempt to push such a stigma is just silly. It's like me saying that your rhetoric reminds me of Hitler. Whether you happen to actually have any resemblance to Hitler in some regard is irrelevant to the fact that just by saying it, I'm stigmatizing you and I know it.

Can we call him a Marxist, yet?

Until he openly advocates a proletariate revolt, no.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains;_ylt=AihklhEXOVvclWco.PTuQHOs0NUE

Clinton's electability is gone in favor of Obama.

Has anyone discussed the recent gaff that came out of the last debate? The one about capital gains taxes?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Obama said that, in spite of historical evidence that tax revenue is increased when capital gains taxes are decreased, he would increase those taxes. Not to increase revenue, mind you, but because it would be "to make sure . . . that our tax system is fair.

Fairness for who?

Turns out he only wanted to punish about 50 hedge fund managers. To punish the Unfair Fifty, he would also punish the rest of the 100 million of us that also own stocks and would benefit from lower capital gains taxes.

How can this the right way to use taxes?

Anyway, is Obama ignorant of the fact that decreased capital gains taxes yield even more money to fund his pie-in-the-sky programs, or is he committed to the idea of income redistribution, regardless of the revenue consequences? I don't think either option makes for good Presidential material...

Can we call him a Marxist, yet?

You're not going to vote for Obama? Say it ain't so.

Eh, I just watched it, and personally, I think they were all funny in their own way. That was the point anyway.

Myrmi: I'm not exactly certain what you're talking about, but I think we can safely say that Obama is not a Marxist.

They were all funny, but at least Edwards and Obama made serious points. Hillary didn't.

Obama seemed the most uptight but in a way I am glad.

Until he openly advocates a proletariate revolt, no.
It's more of an epithet. Kind of like calling someone a racist, even though the definition doesn't really apply.

You're not going to vote for Obama? Say it ain't so.

My hope is that y'all won't either.

It's good to see that 7 months haven't changed your subscription to the Naitonal(ist) Review, Myrmi.

We could discuss basic and simple economics to understand that Charlie Gibson clearly doesn't understand the difference between Keynsian Economics and the voodoo that Reagan and his cabal practiced, but I'm sure that you're as aware as I that it was deficit spending, and not lowering taxes, that caused market fluctuation.

But I'm sure that Jonah Goldburg has already told you that we liberal fascists are trying to steal your "hard earned" money. That is the nature of trickle down economics. The Republican Party pees on our legs and tells us that it's wealth trickling down from above.

My hope is that y'all won't either.

In other words, you're hoping for Four More Years. (of Bushevism in the form of either McCain or Clinthulhu)

My hope is that y'all won't either.

I'm casting my primary ballot for:

BARACK OBAMA!

In the General Election, my ballot goes to:

More than likely:

BARACK OBAMA!

Take your talking points and stick them up your ass.

Take your talking points and stick them up your ass.

Can I hug you?

Just a little?

Can I hug you?

Just a little?

I'll settle for a cookie or brownie instead :D

I'll settle for a cookie or brownie instead :D

Done (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Choco_chip_cookie.jpg)

You have no idea how often I have wanted to say that.

My hope is that y'all won't either.

I'd absolutely not vote for Obama if you could give me a real reason, but so far what I see is a lot of people who are so desperate for a reason they have use admitted epithets, talk about his middle name and whether or not he wears a flag pin, and try to make him guilty by association. Forgive me if you reasoning behind voting doesn't hinge on such trivialities.

I'd absolutely not vote for Obama if you could give me a real reason, but so far what I see is a lot of people who are so desperate for a reason they have use admitted epithets, talk about his middle name and whether or not he wears a flag pin, and try to make him guilty by association. Forgive me if you reasoning behind voting doesn't hinge on such trivialities.

Well, you see that's the thing about this point in the election. Obama called it the "silly season" and was right on point for that. If a guy's name was "Iwanna Killda Jews" then I might see there being a small problem. All of the nonsense is tired and boring to a good deal of Americans. We saw how the scorched Earth policies of the Bush Junta scarred America. We saw what it was like to pay more attention to these extraneous banter instead of real issues. These attitudes have brought us the incompetence of the Bush administration. We will not be fooled by these idiotic ploys any longer. We will rely on reason, honesty, and logic. We will throw off the shackles of what separates us, and embrace the commonality we have as a part of humanity. We will choose not to ignore our differences, but to use those differences to make opposing opinions heard. We will ignore the opposing points that Obama is both a Muslim, and yet he has a crazy America-hating (former Marine who served honorably) CHRISTIAN pastor. We will choose to ignore all of the swiftboating type attacks and instead rely on issues and our personal feelings. If you want us not to vote for Obama you'll have to do more than find comments taken out of context to lambast him. Like I said, we are willing to listen to reason. We are not willing to sign up for the "silly season" of American politics.

Well, didn't you know? I'm also America-hating, or so I've been told by many of the conservatives on this board. That's precisely why I served, by choice, as a Marine and even stayed in when my contract was done. It's why I recommend the military to almost everyone (or did before our President started acting like they were toys). It's all because I hate America.

Also, I'm not a REAL Christian. Real Christians, if I were to listen to some on this board, are required to treat God like he's their servant, to judge everyone around them, and to basically make a big display of what good Christians they are through blackmailing the government to enforce their will and mistreating anyone who doesn't believe the same as they do.

Perhaps, Wright spent too much time helping the needy and encouraging his members to do so and isn't a REAL Christian either.

I'd absolutely not vote for Obama if you could give me a real reason, but so far what I see is a lot of people who are so desperate for a reason they have use admitted epithets, talk about his middle name and whether or not he wears a flag pin, and try to make him guilty by association. Forgive me if you reasoning behind voting doesn't hinge on such trivialities.
I don't care about that and I've never said I do... I think I made a joke about Teddy Kennedy's misuse of his name, but it was a joke.

It's not a joke to find that Obama's rational for taxation should be to punish 50 people for being successful to the detriment of the 100,000,000 of us that own stocks.

When he claims that he must raise capital gains taxes to provide for fairness, that means one of two things. First, he doesn't understand that lowered capital gains have always resulted in increased federal tax revenues. Second, it means he doesn't care.

Neither alternative is something that we want in a Presidential candidate.

So the question is, "Are you so ideologically committed to tax increases and income redistribution that you are willing to raise taxes and suffer the reduced revenue that will result?" If the answer is yes, then you should vote for Obama. If you have some doubts, then don't do it.

If you had to chose between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama to be the president, who would you chose?

In other words, you're hoping for Four More Years. (of Bushevism in the form of either McCain or Clinthulhu)
I'm thinking about Bob Barr... Or maybe just not voting for President. This is truly going to be a "None of the Above" election.

Good thread

Good thread

LOL thx.

I'm casting my primary ballot for:

BARACK OBAMA!

In the General Election, my ballot goes to:

More than likely:

BARACK OBAMA!

Take your talking points and stick them up your ass.

So what you're interested in, besides my backside, is having a federal government that will enforce "fairness" by selective implementation of tax policy. Even though that tax policy will result in reduced tax revenue and in economic harm to over a third of all the citizens.

I'd choose Obama, actually I'd vote for Obama if I was eligible to vote in the US...however I'm not and so shall watch this race from here in England.

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:

Please, learn the definition of socialism. Calling the democratic party socialist is like calling the republican party fascist.

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:They're not socialists, actually.

So what you're interested in, besides my backside, is having a federal government that will enforce "fairness" by selective implementation of tax policy. Even though that tax policy will result in reduced tax revenue and in economic harm to over a third of all the citizens.

Except that anyone who actually understands economics in reality, rather than the magic wand-waving pseudo-economics of the Republican party understands that increased Capital Gains revenue does not come from tax cuts, it comes from deficit spending. Reagan and his Magical Taxcut Econmics worked because they cut taxes without cutting spending. Simple Keynsian economics. Trickle down only works in the demented minds of Bush Co., and we've seen just how well they have done by our economy, eh?

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:

If only we were so lucky...

I get the feeling the OP is a few years shy of being able to vote as it is.

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:
Yeah, and I'm the King of France.

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:

Ha! By your standards where I live (the UK) would be Communist! Obama and Clinton are centrist, slightly left leaning at best. Why does the concept of socialism make you sick?

Why does the concept of socialism make you sick?Because it preaches free health care, and he'd have to abuse it?

We will ignore the opposing points that Obama is both a Muslim, and yet he has a crazy America-hating (former Marine who served honorably) CHRISTIAN pastor.

It's more the crazy than the America-hating, really. The whole 'U.S. government creating AIDS to kill black people' was a twofer, but for the most part, it's the crazy. At least Obama has stepped back from his endorsement of the guy to some degree.

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:

Please do. The fewer people in America who haven't the basic political literacy to differentiate between socialism and liberalism in the American paradigm, the better off our country is. Might I suggest Russia or China as a destination? You'll get all of your wiretapping, and violation of privacy needs, human rights violations, and free markets in which the obscenely rich hold disproportionate power and the vast majority of the poor have yet to benefit from economic openness.

Of course, you're right. Every politician in the western world technically qualifies as a different variation of Social Democrat, but parsing that requires a little more basic understanding of comparitive politics than you seem to possess. For your purposes, they are not socialists. Period.

I don't care about that and I've never said I do... I think I made a joke about Teddy Kennedy's misuse of his name, but it was a joke.

It's not a joke to find that Obama's rational for taxation should be to punish 50 people for being successful to the detriment of the 100,000,000 of us that own stocks.

Punish? He said he wanted to make taxes fair. Good thing you want to have a rational discussion rather than twist things he said because you KNOW people aren't going to find what he actually said even remotely bothersome.

When he claims that he must raise capital gains taxes to provide for fairness, that means one of two things. First, he doesn't understand that lowered capital gains have always resulted in increased federal tax revenues. Second, it means he doesn't care.

Or he's intelligent enough to recognize that correllation and causation are not equal.

Neither alternative is something that we want in a Presidential candidate.

So the question is, "Are you so ideologically committed to tax increases and income redistribution that you are willing to raise taxes and suffer the reduced revenue that will result?" If the answer is yes, then you should vote for Obama. If you have some doubts, then don't do it.

Or perhaps we should look at the actual causation rather than a very simple analysis. I'm gonna take option three.

Obama because it would be nice to see what happens

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick.

don't lie, we all know exactly why your betraying the motherland comrade ;)

Because it preaches free health care, and he'd have to abuse it?

Eh. I'm of the mind that nationalized healthcare proponents could do themselves some good by not using the word "free" in conjunction with "health care." No one with a functioning brain is fooled into thinking it's in any way "free."

That said, I'd probably take Clinton over Obama by a hair. Not much of a choice, but meh.

Except that anyone who actually understands economics in reality, rather than the magic wand-waving pseudo-economics of the Republican party understands that increased Capital Gains revenue does not come from tax cuts, it comes from deficit spending. Reagan and his Magical Taxcut Econmics worked because they cut taxes without cutting spending. Simple Keynsian economics. Trickle down only works in the demented minds of Bush Co., and we've seen just how well they have done by our economy, eh?
Anyone, huh? I guess it's better that Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush didn't understand how that worked... You can see that when capital gains taxes are increased, capital gains realizations decrease. That means that there is less money to tax, leading to reduced tax revenues. There's a direct link between the two and no attribution to hand waving or voodoo will eliminate it.

If Obama is willing to cause decreased tax revenue by increasing capital gains taxes, then he is unsuited for any government office.

It's more the crazy than the America-hating, really. The whole 'U.S. government creating AIDS to kill black people' was a twofer, but for the most part, it's the crazy. At least Obama has stepped back from his endorsement of the guy to some degree.

Funny. I'm, uh, pretty sure that Obama never "endorsed" Wright's batshit quotes. In fact... I'm, uh, pretty sure he denounced them.

Of course, the fact that the Trinity United Church of Christ, and Wright's Ministry, are about a lot more than a few loony quotes, and that they are in fact both laudable for their service of the people of Chicago and their dedication to social justice and community building has been completely forgotten in this media shit storm, but knowing a few pastors of the UCC, I've been absolutely disgusted at what's been on the news.

I think a 'black' president would enrage the stereotypical redneck hicks more than a female president, so Obama. I want to see if they'll try to secede.

Except that anyone who actually understands economics in reality, rather than the magic wand-waving pseudo-economics of the Republican party understands that increased Capital Gains revenue does not come from tax cuts, it comes from deficit spending. Reagan and his Magical Taxcut Econmics worked because they cut taxes without cutting spending. Simple Keynsian economics. Trickle down only works in the demented minds of Bush Co., and we've seen just how well they have done by our economy, eh?

Actually, trickle down did work to some extent by a completely lucky happenstance. Reaganomics created a bunch of disposable income for a bunch of rich people who didn't adjust fast enough to a changing landscape. It allowed them to invest in internet companies creating enormous and fast growth and allowing smart tech CEO's to exploit the capital offered by those who had too much of it.

Reaganomics fueled the 90's. That bit of luck doesn't make it a good theory, however.

Anyone, huh? I guess it's better that Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush didn't understand how that worked... You can see that when capital gains taxes are increased, capital gains realizations decrease. That means that there is less money to tax, leading to reduced tax revenues. There's a direct link between the two and no attribution to hand waving or voodoo will eliminate it.

If Obama is willing to cause decreased tax revenue by increasing capital gains taxes, then he is unsuited for any government office.

Or, we can look at the actual cause, and not just try to imply correlation is causation. The actual cause was increased deficit spending. Voodoo economics can pretend that the cause was something else, but that doesn't change reality.

Moreover, I think that you'll find that the tax rate overall in the US rose under Bill Clinton, and we had eight years of prosperity and growth. With Dubya's tax cuts, the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us just keep getting payed less and less for producing more and more. And look where we are now.

Of course we can also talk about the fact that in the name of illusory economic growth, we've been increasing our international debt and bankrupting our government. I, for one, am willing to forgo a bit of growth to see that we stop pissing on the poor and calling it economic growth, and to see that the old folks of this nation stop borrowing money on MY tax dollar's credit from an abusive regime, to allow that regime to engage in the manipulation of it's currency, while it sends us cheap, sub-par products.

Now I'm sure that the rich, like you, would love to see John "I don't understand economics" McCain elected President, but Americans who actually do the work to hold this country up are suffering a recession which is the largest since 1929, and they want someone who actually will do something to keep them in their houses, and not take three tries to come up with a sub-par plan.

Actually, trickle down did work to some extent by a completely lucky happenstance. Reaganomics created a bunch of disposable income for a bunch of rich people who didn't adjust fast enough to a changing landscape. It allowed them to invest in internet companies creating enormous and fast growth and allowing smart tech CEO's to exploit the capital offered by those who had too much of it.

Reaganomics fueled the 90's. That bit of luck doesn't make it a good theory, however.

Well, actually, looking a bit deeper, what we see is that it wasn't so much tax cuts as deficit spending, and artificially inflating the economy that produced "growth" under Reagan. What we had was tax cuts without spending cuts which did, indeed, stimulate the economy: exactly as Keynsian economics predicts it will.

Anyone, huh? I guess it's better that Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush didn't understand how that worked... You can see that when capital gains taxes are increased, capital gains realizations decrease. That means that there is less money to tax, leading to reduced tax revenues. There's a direct link between the two and no attribution to hand waving or voodoo will eliminate it.

If Obama is willing to cause decreased tax revenue by increasing capital gains taxes, then he is unsuited for any government office.

Tax revenue overall decreased or tax revenue from capital gains?

I just compared it and during the nineties the ration of gains to GDP began to rise BEFORE they lowered the rate. Same with the late 70's. There is certainly reason to believe that gains and the GDP are sensitive to the rate, but your assertion requires us to ignore the facts.

Funny. I'm, uh, pretty sure that Obama never "endorsed" Wright's batshit quotes. In fact... I'm, uh, pretty sure he denounced them.


I could care less who Obama's preacher is, honestly, but that's not the case if you recall Obama's subsequent "race speech." I'm too lazy to YouTube it, but his lines were: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” and “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” which, while not an endorsement, certainly do gloss over some of the crazy.

Punish? He said he wanted to make taxes fair. Good thing you want to have a rational discussion rather than twist things he said because you KNOW people aren't going to find what he actually said even remotely bothersome.

But this is what he said,

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

It's not fair. What would you call the proposed treatment of making it fair? Punishment is as good of a description as anything.

Or he's intelligent enough to recognize that correllation and causation are not equal.



Or perhaps we should look at the actual causation rather than a very simple analysis. I'm gonna take option three.
Or perhaps it is so. You can easily look at capital gains tax rates and capitial gains realizations and see that the higher the tax rates, the lower the realizations. Less money to tax makes the revenue go down. Necessary and sufficient.
Looks like you AND Obama could stand to learn a couple lessons on economics.

Well, actually, looking a bit deeper, what we see is that it wasn't so much tax cuts as deficit spending, and artificially inflating the economy that produced "growth" under Reagan. What we had was tax cuts without spending cuts which did, indeed, stimulate the economy: exactly as Keynsian economics predicts it will.

I'm talking about the 90's, not the 80's. Disposable income among the rich allowed for ridiculous investments during the 90's. You could argue that it fueled the bubble as well, but given that the bubble only reversed 75% of the growth it wasn't such a bad thing. Again, that doesn't mean that it was what they intended with Reaganomics. Unless a brand new industry that is so enticing to investors occurs again, Reaganomics would be a bad idea.

Tax revenue overall decreased or tax revenue from capital gains?

I just compared it and during the nineties the ration of gains to GDP began to rise BEFORE they lowered the rate. Same with the late 70's. There is certainly reason to believe that gains and the GDP are sensitive to the rate, but your assertion requires us to ignore the facts.
I'm talking strictly capital gains taxes and revenues. Tax rates go up, tax revenues go down. There's a nice chart in the WSJ link that illustrates the correlation between tax rates and realizations.

I think a 'black' president would enrage the stereotypical redneck hicks more than a female president, so Obama. I want to see if they'll try to secede.

ah, good times (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI)

But this is what he said,

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

It's not fair. What would you call the proposed treatment of making it fair? Punishment is as good of a description as anything.

It is? So if I buy two cans of peaches and one of my nephews takes both of them pours them both into a bowl, and I take half of it and give it to his brother, I'm punishing the first one? Now, he might say I'm punishing him, but he's 10, he doesn't know any better.

Adults realize that making things fair isn't punishment. If you're making more money than me and paying less taxes then making you pay at least the same taxes as I do isn't punishment.

Quick question were they punishing Obama in the debates by trying to give Hillary the same amount of time to talk? I mean, how dare they attempt to be fair, right? Were they punishing white people when black people got the right to vote? I mean, it did diminish white influence. How dare they try to be fair?

Or perhaps it is so. You can easily look at capital gains tax rates and capitial gains realizations and see that the higher the tax rates, the lower the realizations. Less money to tax makes the revenue go down. Necessary and sufficient.
Looks like you AND Obama could stand to learn a couple lessons on economics.

Hmmm... so when I look at a rising ratio of gains and GDP that continues to rise when you lower gains taxes but not at an increased rate, I'm supposed to take from that that lowering the gains tax caused it, even though it started before it happened. You don't even have correllation here.

I'm sure your argument works on people who aren't aware enough to check them out, but, come on, who do you think you're fooling here? According to the actual events, your theory doesn't hold water.

Meanwhile, KSP is showing exactly why correllation doesn't work, but if you'd like we could talk about pirates and global warming. It's a fact that environmental problems have increased as pirates have decreased. Why look any further into that?

I'm talking strictly capital gains taxes and revenues. Tax rates go up, tax revenues go down. There's a nice chart in the WSJ link that illustrates the correlation between tax rates and realizations.

I know that you don't want to put things in context. I wanna talk strictly about pirates and global pollution. I don't want to look at any of what scientists call "actual causes" and just look at a loose correllation.

Do you think Hillary refused to have a serious discussion or The Colbert Report just didn't want to ask her questions? I think the former is more likely. I think the fact that she didn't do or say anything serious was a bad move.

They then went on to make fun of Hillary right after she came out and showed how a moderators for the debate they had just done was biased toward Hillary. That couldn't have helped her image.

THEN they had the only congressman who had served in Iraq come out and say he was for Obama.

Plus having Obama actually getting to make a serious point and put somethign on notice...

Overall - Hillary got moded.

Ed Words wad brilliant! Universal Haircare - hah! I agree - he should have gone on earlier.


i think they all got pitched an idea by the report staff and went with it. i expect that members of each staff looked at recent shows to see how they were being treated by colbert. then they took the chance.

i think they all got pitched an idea by the report staff and went with it. i expect that members of each staff looked at recent shows to see how they were being treated by colbert. then they took the chance.

I thought Hillary did a good job of making a fairly easy to grasp argument. That she's the one to call if you want things fixed. It's a pretty clear sentiment and I think it worked pretty well.

It's not fair. What would you call the proposed treatment of making it fair? Punishment is as good of a description as anything.

In a JUSTICE SYSTEM, yes.

In an economic one, no.

I wonder if I should or not assume you to be smart enough to know the difference.

I know that you don't want to put things in context. I wanna talk strictly about pirates and global pollution. I don't want to look at any of what scientists call "actual causes" and just look at a loose correlation.

You do know that when Jack Sparrow died, average world temperatures raised one degree, right? :D

It is? So if I buy two cans of peaches and one of my nephews takes both of them pours them both into a bowl, and I take half of it and give it to his brother, I'm punishing the first one? Now, he might say I'm punishing him, but he's 10, he doesn't know any better.

Adults realize that making things fair isn't punishment. If you're making more money than me and paying less taxes then making you pay at least the same taxes as I do isn't punishment.

Quick question were they punishing Obama in the debates by trying to give Hillary the same amount of time to talk? I mean, how dare they attempt to be fair, right? Were they punishing white people when black people got the right to vote? I mean, it did diminish white influence. How dare they try to be fair?



Hmmm... so when I look at a rising ratio of gains and GDP that continues to rise when you lower gains taxes but not at an increased rate, I'm supposed to take from that that lowering the gains tax caused it, even though it started before it happened. You don't even have correllation here.

I'm sure your argument works on people who aren't aware enough to check them out, but, come on, who do you think you're fooling here? According to the actual events, your theory doesn't hold water.

Meanwhile, KSP is showing exactly why correllation doesn't work, but if you'd like we could talk about pirates and global warming. It's a fact that environmental problems have increased as pirates have decreased. Why look any further into that?
Oh the gibberish... It's a fair thing to limit the discussion to tax rates and tax revenues on capital gains along. There's that word again. It's proper to limit the discussion to tax revenues from capital gains, when we also limit the discussion to tax rates on capital gains. No pirates or climate change, here.

As far as fairness goes, Obama singled out fifty fund managers for the reason to raise capital gains taxes. He ignored the fact that over 100 million of us also own stocks and would also be hurt by that same capital gain tax increase. His reasoning? To fund pie-in-the sky programs, it requires more money. His logic is wrong, his method is wrong, his target is wrong. This is one of those cases where NOT raising the capital gains tax would benefit more people. Is it not?

In a JUSTICE SYSTEM, yes.

In an economic one, no.

I wonder if I should or not assume you to be smart enough to know the difference.

So you tell me why raising the capital gains tax because 50 people make too much money is okay? Especially when it means that 100,000,000 people now are paying increased capital gains on much less income. Tax fairness was the excuse and it's a bad one.

So you tell me why raising the capital gains tax because 50 people make too much money is okay? Especially when it means that 100,000,000 people now are paying increased capital gains on much less income. Tax fairness was the excuse and it's a bad one.

1- Because the fact remains that these people are still paid a LOT.

2- Because, tax being a percentage as it is, it won't cost these people nearly as much as it will cost these other 50.

3- Because so far, all the Republicans have done were lower taxes on the richest. Look where it took you.

4- I was discussing your oh-so-very-fucking-poor choice of words here.

Oh the gibberish... It's a fair thing to limit the discussion to tax rates and tax revenues on capital gains along. There's that word again. It's proper to limit the discussion to tax revenues from capital gains, when we also limit the discussion to tax rates on capital gains. No pirates or climate change, here.

No, it isn't. Economics is more complicated than that. You don't want to look at the overall economics of it, because it contradicts your conclusion. Sorry, but as an informed voter, you're either going to have to show me that the overall effect is counter-productive, or expect me to see through your shallow analysis.

Hey, but we can all see you dropping arguments here, calling them "gibberish" because your stance doesn't stand up to reasoned analysis.

As far as fairness goes, Obama singled out fifty fund managers for the reason to raise capital gains taxes. He ignored the fact that over 100 million of us also own stocks and would also be hurt by that same capital gain tax increase. His reasoning? To fund pie-in-the sky programs, it requires more money. His logic is wrong, his method is wrong, his target is wrong.

His logic is wrong, unless you look at the big picture you refuse to see. His method is wrong, again, unless you look at the big picture that you not only refuse to see, but want to require us not acknowledge and his target is exactly who he said he would target. You don't like his target. That's not the same as being wrong.

This is one of those cases where NOT raising the capital gains tax would benefit more people. Is it not?
It is not. If it was, then you'd want to look at the big picture rather than the correllation between taxrate and the direct revenue from it. The big picture is more telling about who benefits. You don't want anyone to see who actually benefits. You want to use a weak correllation and pretend it's the only relevant facts.

I have news for you, if the entire population benefits from an increase in capital gains tax, then it should be done whether or not it increases revenue from that tax. But you don't want look at the entire population. Only those making capital gains. It's no wonder why.

interesting question.

the new mexico primary was back in february and i voted for obama.

Obama because it would be nice to see what happens

don't lie, we all know exactly why your betraying the motherland comrade ;)


DEATH TO THE TRAITOR!!!:mp5:

So you tell me why raising the capital gains tax because 50 people make too much money is okay? Especially when it means that 100,000,000 people now are paying increased capital gains on much less income. Tax fairness was the excuse and it's a bad one.

So now making billions is the only way to "make too much money"?* We can ignore the fact that it isn't just about 50 hedge fund managers' money? That's so disengenuous, and you know it.


* Notably, in fact, the problem is not that they are making too much money. It has to do with creating a fair taxation system.

If you had to chose between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama to be the president, who would you chose?

I'd flip a coin.

So now making billions is the only way to "make too much money"?* We can ignore the fact that it isn't just about 50 hedge fund managers' money? That's so disengenuous, and you know it.


* Notably, in fact, the problem is not that they are making too much money. It has to do with creating a fair taxation system.

Making things fair = punishing those who are unfairly advantaged, silly. Who would suggest otherwise?

EDIT: Also, notice how he fails to acknowledge that currently we have two rates in the US, one for those in the lowest two income brackets and one for everyone else.

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:



Aaah it is people like you that make me preach that only the educated should be allowed to vote.


Actually, Id wager youre about 13. So its not people like you. But still.

Making things fair = punishing those who are unfairly advantaged, silly. Who would suggest otherwise?

Marxists, of course. No one else would dare suggest that the point of a tax system is to fund necessary operations for government (defined by the public, not a few rich men) in a way that takes money from those who can afford it, rather than those who cannot.

What's the world coming to? Back in my day, stealing from the poor to fund wars to make the rich richer was all the craze.

Marxists, of course. No one else would dare suggest that the point of a tax system is to fund necessary operations for government (defined by the public, not a few rich men) in a way that takes money from those who can afford it, rather than those who cannot.

What's the world coming to? Back in my day, stealing from the poor to fund wars to make the rich richer was all the craze.

I can only go back to what Obama, himself, said in the debate. The reason for raising the capital gains tax is for "purposes of fairness". That sounds less like, "to raise the revenue I need for pie-in-the-sky", than it does like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I'm not ready for a government that uses taxation to decide what's fair.

I can only go back to what Obama, himself, said in the debate. The reason for raising the capital gains tax is for "purposes of fairness". That sounds less like, "to raise the revenue I need for pie-in-the-sky", than it does like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I'm not ready for a government that uses taxation to decide what's fair.


Might I suggest that the Enlightenment has long since passed, and the use of taxation to pay for the wars and balls of the elite is over. Often, I find Conservatives to be living in the 1950s, but Mymi, you're the first I've found to be living in the 1500s.

Put simply, we, the public, decide which programs we beleive are necessary for the government to enact. The government then must tax the citizenry to pay for those programs. Rationally speaking, a taxation model that taxes citizens in a manner that assumes taxation is harmful, and takes money from those who can afford to lose that money, rather than those who cannot, is the right model.

Of course, you'd rather keep on pre-spending the rest of my tax dollars on making Halliburton and KBR richer in Iraq, rather than fixing the problems with our tax system.

Obama and Clinton are both centrists, meaning too far right-wing for this country. But of course, the whole country is on the right, compared to the rest of the world. So it's a moot point.

I'd rather have Obama, because at least he doesn't value national security over human rights.

I can only go back to what Obama, himself, said in the debate. The reason for raising the capital gains tax is for "purposes of fairness". That sounds less like, "to raise the revenue I need for pie-in-the-sky", than it does like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I'm not ready for a government that uses taxation to decide what's fair.

Amusing. Keep trying to sell that. He's specifically talking about using taxation to, you know, make taxation fair. He specifically referenced ensuring a rich person isn't paying less taxes than someone making substantially less. That sounds a lot less like "from each according to his abilty" and a lot more like "from each in a way that doesn't entirely advantage rich people".

But, hey, it means he's a marxist. Why people who are reaping more benefit from our economy have to pay more taxes or even equal taxes?

Meanwhile, you gonna just keep ignoring the lowest two tax brackets already pay a lesser capital gains tax, so his increase would only be for people making over 30 grand a year?

Marxists, of course. No one else would dare suggest that the point of a tax system is to fund necessary operations for government (defined by the public, not a few rich men) in a way that takes money from those who can afford it, rather than those who cannot.

What's the world coming to? Back in my day, stealing from the poor to fund wars to make the rich richer was all the craze.

Remember when Republicans used to believe in smaller government? Now it's smaller government except for the parts of government that benefit corporations.

Obama and Clinton are both centrists, meaning too far right-wing for this country. But of course, the whole country is on the right, compared to the rest of the world. So it's a moot point.

I'd rather have Obama, because at least he doesn't value national security over human rights.

Wait, Obama and Clinton are too far right wing? I sense a typo.

Remember when Republicans used to believe in smaller government? Now it's smaller government except for the parts of government that benefit corporations.

Well of course. Didn't you know that democracy is government by the rich people, for the rich people, on the back of those poor folks and their families?

It's more the crazy than the America-hating, really. The whole 'U.S. government creating AIDS to kill black people' was a twofer, but for the most part, it's the crazy. At least Obama has stepped back from his endorsement of the guy to some degree.

Yet nobody has even attempted to call McCain on his "Spiritual Advisor" Rod "Christianity Must Wipe Out Teh Ebil Moslemz" Parsley. Go figure, it's the "Liberal Media" at it again.

Wait, Obama and Clinton are too far right wing? I sense a typo.
Wrong. I meant exactly what I typed. Obama and Clinton are both socially moderate to conservative, depending on the issue. They don't present a meaningful challenge to authoritarianism (unlike the left, which opposes authoritarianism on the basis of principle and common sense). On economics, they are mere capitalist reformists. They're both for the death penalty. Neither of them will end the Iraq occupation. Neither of them will stand for gun rights.

They are a couple of fake liberal statists who are appealing to the most vicious, evil and bigoted right-wing elements of this country to try and win an election without alienating the liberal base. It's the same dance the Democrats always try to pull.

What more do you want?

If they were genuinely left-wing, they'd

a) be against the Iraq occupation and advocate ending it immediately,
b) be against government power and oppose the PATRIOT Act without qualification,
c) either be for gay marriage or against the institution of marriage altogether,
d) support full, unqualified gun rights,
e) advocate union rights,
f) advocate a non-interventionist stance around the world.

snip

...
...
... Ron Paul in 2008?

If they were genuinely left-wing, they'd

a) be against the Iraq occupation and advocate ending it immediately,
b) be against government power and oppose the PATRIOT Act without qualification,
c) either be for gay marriage or against the institution of marriage altogether,
d) support full, unqualified gun rights,
e) advocate union rights,
f) advocate a non-interventionist stance around the world.

That's an extremely narrow definition of 'left-wing'. Especially as socialism is defined as left wing, and one theory of socialism is that government ownership is equivalent to public ownership and as such the government would have to be both large and powerful to own the means of production. Furthermore, nowhere in left wing politics is there a necessity to avoid meddling in other countries affairs, just a change in the nature of countries who are meddled with.

Ron Paul in 2008?

don't be silly, they lost that and started chanting root because he argued with himself enough to make discrediting him meaningless :p

d) support full, unqualified gun rights,

I get so scared when I go on the internet sometimes...

Wait, Obama and Clinton are too far right wing? I sense a typo.
There's a large difference between Left and Right Wing, likewise Liberalism and Conservativism.

For example, a typical "Left-Wing" thing today is to be non-interventionalist, which is a conservative foreign policy.

As a purely conservative myself, I sympathize with this. However, there are too many purely liberal aspects of all three candidates - Democrat and Republican alike - that I disagree with. I am not about to choose the lesser of the evils, either.

I'd rather not vote, or vote for someone who probably won't win, than know I helped lead the country in what I feel is the wrong direction.

I do agree, that some of those things he listed even still don't seem very "Left-Wing" to me, like supporting gun rights and small government. Most of the leftists I have talked to and seen are entirely against that.

Wrong. I meant exactly what I typed. Obama and Clinton are both socially moderate to conservative, depending on the issue. They don't present a meaningful challenge to authoritarianism (unlike the left, which opposes authoritarianism on the basis of principle and common sense). On economics, they are mere capitalist reformists. They're both for the death penalty. Neither of them will end the Iraq occupation. Neither of them will stand for gun rights.

They are a couple of fake liberal statists who are appealing to the most vicious, evil and bigoted right-wing elements of this country to try and win an election without alienating the liberal base. It's the same dance the Democrats always try to pull.

What more do you want?
Well yes, they are obviously not left wing from a global point of view, but too right wing for America? Every other candidate is further right.

If they were genuinely left-wing, they'd

a) be against the Iraq occupation and advocate ending it immediately,
b) be against government power and oppose the PATRIOT Act without qualification,
c) either be for gay marriage or against the institution of marriage altogether,
d) support full, unqualified gun rights,
e) advocate union rights,
f) advocate a non-interventionist stance around the world.

I know there's a name for the fallacy of redefining terms for the purpose of an argument, I just can't remember it.
There's a large difference between Left and Right Wing, likewise Liberalism and Conservativism.
I was going with the common, if inaccurate, liberal == left, conservative == right.

You could almost swear the OP was being deliberately ironic with using "Disastrous Government" as the thread title when it came to choosing between Obama and Clinthulhu after the country has endured 8 crippling years of the Bushevik Revolution.

...
...
... Ron Paul in 2008?
Don't give me that. Ron Paul wants a government of large corporations.

That's an extremely narrow definition of 'left-wing'.

No, it's just me being honest about how much US liberalism sucks.


Especially as socialism is defined as left wing, and one theory of socialism is that government ownership is equivalent to public ownership and as such the government would have to be both large and powerful to own the means of production.

What does this mean? Are you saying that socialism is left-wing and socialism is state ownership of the means of production? This is a revisionist definition. Socialism is worker control of the means of production. We can have socialism without a workers' state, and we better have it that way, because if we don't, it's not socialism, it's a murderous fraud.

If you think my definition of the left is too narrow, it's because you would prefer to believe that the left is not anti-authoritarian, which is intellectually dishonest.



Furthermore, nowhere in left wing politics is there a necessity to avoid meddling in other countries affairs, just a change in the nature of countries who are meddled with.

Sure there is. We're anti-imperialists and anti-militarists. I believe that if you want regime change, you support popular revolutions; you don't blow a country to smithereens.


I do agree, that some of those things he listed even still don't seem very "Left-Wing" to me, like supporting gun rights and small government. Most of the leftists I have talked to and seen are entirely against that.

Look, gun rights are fully supported by the more honest people on the left. What you're refusing to acknowledge is that the left is way against authoritarianism. That goes back to Kant, Rousseau, Paine and others...

Well yes, they are obviously not left wing from a global point of view, but too right wing for America? Every other candidate is further right.

That's because the center keeps shifting to the right.


I know there's a name for the fallacy of redefining terms for the purpose of an argument, I just can't remember it.

I'm not redefining the left. I am trying to recover socialism from everyone's false definition of state ownership. (Because it's wrong and not at all what modern socialists advocate, so what are you going to call these people?) I'm just telling you what the liberal left would support if US liberals paid heed to their own principles.


I was going with the common, if inaccurate, liberal == left, conservative == right.
Well, if you're admitting that your "common" definitions might be partly "inaccurate," why are you telling me that I'm distorting what the left stands for?

I was going with the common, if inaccurate, liberal == left, conservative == right.
I understand. I just hate those labels sometimes. People make assumptions based on their own perceptions occasionally of what left/right-wing is.

Hey, is there a website that has information on where the candidates stand on the issues? I'm pretty sure I've seen something like that posted here a while ago.

I know there's a name for the fallacy of redefining terms for the purpose of an argument, I just can't remember it.

Sounds kind of like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Don't give me that. Ron Paul wants a government of large corporations.

I'm sorry. That just really seemed like something a Paulista would say.

Sure there is. We're anti-imperialists and anti-militarists. I believe that if you want regime change, you support popular revolutions; you don't blow a country to smithereens.
Who is this "we"? I probably missed something earlier.

Who is this "we"? I probably missed something earlier.

Leftists.

Amusing. Keep trying to sell that. He's specifically talking about using taxation to, you know, make taxation fair. He specifically referenced ensuring a rich person isn't paying less taxes than someone making substantially less. That sounds a lot less like "from each according to his abilty" and a lot more like "from each in a way that doesn't entirely advantage rich people".

But, hey, it means he's a marxist. Why people who are reaping more benefit from our economy have to pay more taxes or even equal taxes?

Meanwhile, you gonna just keep ignoring the lowest two tax brackets already pay a lesser capital gains tax, so his increase would only be for people making over 30 grand a year?
I don't think it was all that clear just what "purposes of fairness" meant. It was far more clear that he thinks recouping some of the $29 million that these 50 fund managers make is far more important than what effect it will have on anyone else. I doubt all, or even more than 1 percent of those 100,00,000 are in the under $30k/year bracket. Most of them are like you and I -- we buy company stock in ESPPs or we have a DRIP, just something to make more money than what we can with interest on a savings account.
We're the ones that will be hurt by the capital gains tax increase. Again, it's a fix for a problem that just doesn't exist.

So what you're interested in, besides my backside, is having a federal government that will enforce "fairness" by selective implementation of tax policy. Even though that tax policy will result in reduced tax revenue and in economic harm to over a third of all the citizens.

I'll wait for your proof.

left wing represents big government, civil and political rights, more fair trade/socialist style economic views, evener distribution of wealth, and restrictions when they are helpful overall (btw this means they are not pro-gun rights). Right wing is the opposite of this. These are adjusted in each political playing field (I just made that term up to describe anywhere where politics take place) based on the center and how extreme each end may be.

What does this mean? Are you saying that socialism is left-wing and socialism is state ownership of the means of production? This is a revisionist definition. Socialism is worker control of the means of production. We can have socialism without a workers' state, and we better have it that way, because if we don't, it's not socialism, it's a murderous fraud.

If you think my definition of the left is too narrow, it's because you would prefer to believe that the left is not anti-authoritarian, which is intellectually dishonest.

Worker control is but one definition of socialism. Some socialists believe that the means of production should be controlled through the state by nationalisation. Others believe it should be controlled by the community. Your claim that your own personal definition of socialism is the correct one and all others false is, as has already been pointed out, a rather clear example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

"Only real socialists are anti-authority! Only real socialists are anti-militarism!"

Sure there is. We're anti-imperialists and anti-militarists. I believe that if you want regime change, you support popular revolutions; you don't blow a country to smithereens.

We? Has the left wing become a hivemind? Did they elect you as the mouthpiece?

Sounds kind of like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Just because you can name the structure of an argument as a "No True Scotsman" argument does not mean that you have proved the argument is fallacious. It's like if you do something evil, and I call you evil, my argument is "ad hominem," but that doesn't make my argument fallacious.

I am completely unashamed of the fact that I am arguing that an authoritarian is "No True Leftist." I'm saying that given the Left's philosophical grounding in the anti-authoritarian and humanistic ideas of Enlightenment philosophy, the Left is anti-authoritarian, and that's the way it is; period.

Worker control is but one definition of socialism.

And it's a good definition, while the others are bad definitions. If you want to call them "socialisms," fine, but then we aren't even talking about the same thing. I'm talking about socialism, and you're talking about a misanthropic brand of statism. If you want, I'll just concede the whole debate and call worker control "qwertyism." There, now I'm a qwertyist, not a socialist. Leftists are qwertyists.


Some socialists believe that the means of production should be controlled through the state by nationalisation. Others believe it should be controlled by the community. Your claim that your own personal definition of socialism is the correct one and all others false is, as has already been pointed out, a rather clear example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

You can't just cry "no true Scotsman" and win an argument. You have to show us what the Scotsman is and why he's that way. What we're eventually going to get to is that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are your Scotsmen, and it's really obvious why people want to call them the true Scotsmen. Because then you don't have to debate the merits of an alternative to capitalism.


"Only real socialists are anti-authority! Only real socialists are anti-militarism!"

In fact, yes, that's what I'm arguing. I don't really understand what the issue is. And in fact, real leftists are pro-gun. So ak-47s and m16a4s all around! Unless you want me to say qwertyists are pro-gun because you refuse to let individual political tendencies define themselves.


We? Has the left wing become a hivemind? Did they elect you as the mouthpiece?

Is it really necessary for you to be hostile? You have no point, and you're just being rude.

Just because you can name the structure of an argument as a "No True Scotsman" argument does not mean that you have proved the argument is fallacious..

Never claimed that it did, only trying to jog Ifreann's memory.
Not that I'm claiming it doesn't, either.

I don't have any patience for this kind of conservative distortionism.

'K.

I'd leave, they're both socialists, and that just makes me sick. It's horrible the way that they think.:mad:
This is why I'd support Obama. I think his lack of familiarity with the mechanisms of government would make him less able to enact his policies.

A paralysed government is an inactive government, and less governance is a good thing.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/18/clinton-friend-reich-backs-obama/

Another Clinton friend is backing Obama:

Robert Reich, a former Clinton cabinet member and longtime friend of the former president, has formally endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid, saying Friday that "my conscience won't let me be silent any longer."

"Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so," Reich wrote on his blog. He served as the Secretary of Labor from 1993-1997 and is currently a professor at UC Berkeley.

Is it me or are the friends see Hillary for what she is?

1) Obama

2) To bad this poll aint public.

I don't think it was all that clear just what "purposes of fairness" meant. It was far more clear that he thinks recouping some of the $29 million that these 50 fund managers make is far more important than what effect it will have on anyone else. I doubt all, or even more than 1 percent of those 100,00,000 are in the under $30k/year bracket. Most of them are like you and I -- we buy company stock in ESPPs or we have a DRIP, just something to make more money than what we can with interest on a savings account.
We're the ones that will be hurt by the capital gains tax increase. Again, it's a fix for a problem that just doesn't exist.

A problem you SAY doesn't exist, but it's true that tax gradually increases in the lower brackets and then levels off or even comes back down for the rich. The percentage of taxes paid by the rich ends up being much closer to that of the lower brackets when you factor in total income and not just taxable income. We get more rightoffs and considering for so many the income comes largely from long-term capital gains, it ends up being that I make more money, have more money to spare and pay less taxes, while when I was making chump change and was struggling with rent I was paying a similar burden. It's not punishment to make taxes reflect a more fair total of your income after basic expenses, or at least keep it so that the rich, like myself, aren't paying a smaller percentage of their income to tax than the people that work for them and make less.

Meanwhile, you keep talking about the 100,000 people, but 90% of all stocks are owned by the richest 20% of the country. We're hardly talking about the unfortunate here. We're talking about taxing the some of the richest people in the world at a rate that more closely resembles that of other income. There will be a small percentage of taxes paid by people who are not in that top 20% and, for those that can't afford them, they're in another tax bracket anyway.

Frankly, if you're really worried about protecting those that in the lower brackets why are you arguing it shouldn't happen at all, and instead argue for it being more graduated? Or is it possible you don't really believe this argument, which is why you're against the entire concept, not the concept that some of the lower class will be lumped in?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/18/clinton-friend-reich-backs-obama/

Another Clinton friend is backing Obama:



Is it me or are the friends see Hillary for what she is?

*fixed

I've got a crazy idea:

Why not just count capital gains in with other taxable income and tax it all at the same rate? What makes that one type of income so special?

*fixed

Thanks. And I edited my post :D

And it's a good definition, while the others are bad definitions. If you want to call them "socialisms," fine, but then we aren't even talking about the same thing. I'm talking about socialism, and you're talking about a misanthropic brand of statism. If you want, I'll just concede the whole debate and call worker control "qwertyism." There, now I'm a qwertyist, not a socialist. Leftists are qwertyists.

Logically incorrect; all qwertyists are leftists, but not all leftists are qwertyists. Believe it or not, its not up to you personally to decide who is or isn't a leftist.

You can't just cry "no true Scotsman" and win an argument. You have to show us what the Scotsman is and why he's that way. What we're eventually going to get to is that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are your Scotsmen, and it's really obvious why people want to call them the true Scotsmen. Because then you don't have to debate the merits of an alternative to capitalism.

Don't build up a strawman of what you think I'm going to argue to you, try waiting until I make such an argument before refuting it. The Scotsman in this case is 'the left wing'. You create a very narrow array of political beliefs and declare that one must believe them in order to be left wing, otherwise you are not left wing (not a true Scotsman). However, this is completely out of touch with the realities of the left wing across the world and people who identify as such. When you take a generalisation as broad as 'the left wing' which covers - depending on how you view centrism - either a half or a third of the entire poltical spectrum to claim that only people who think the same as you are left wing while everyone else is something else is nothing short of narrow-mindedness. The political left wing covers politcal theories as diverse as social democracy, democratic socialism, communism and anarchism. Just because you don't like some of those views doesn't mean that you get to claim that only your views are a direct heir to the ideals of the Enlightenment and therefor the 'correct' branch of left wing thought. Its as bad as the religious nutters who claim that there own particular sect is the one true form of Christianity/Islam/Buddhism and all others are heretics who aren't real Christians/Muslims/Buddhists.

In fact, yes, that's what I'm arguing. I don't really understand what the issue is. And in fact, real leftists are pro-gun. So ak-47s and m16a4s all around! Unless you want me to say qwertyists are pro-gun because you refuse to let individual political tendencies define themselves.

I'm not the one refusing to let political tendencies define themselves. You are the one claiming a monopoly on the correct usage of the term left wing.

Is it really necessary for you to be hostile? You have no point, and you're just being rude.

I haven't flamed; if you are too sensitive to handle the tone of my arguments then I suggest you grow up a bit then come back.

I've got a crazy idea:

Why not just count capital gains in with other taxable income and tax it all at the same rate? What makes that one type of income so special?

Cuz that's punishing the rich, of course. Obviously, the money that you largely need to live, the money you work 40+ hours a week to earn is far less important than the money you earned on someone else's work. Or it could be that capital gains are largely earned by the rich and like inheritance tax isn't realistic because the same people who earn also have disproportionate power with politicians.

Sounds kind of like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

That's the one!

Well, if you're admitting that your "common" definitions might be partly "inaccurate," why are you telling me that I'm distorting what the left stands for?

I've never encountered a definition of the left or of liberals that matches yours. If there's some new one I'm unaware of feel free to tell me about it.

If you had to chose between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama to be the president, who would you chose?

neither, I'm registered as Independant, thus cannot be forced to choose between two Democratic Party candidates.


either that, or I would choose the person who then brings up charges of Election Fraud against the Democratic party because the two candidates for President are from the same political party.

Logically incorrect; all qwertyists are leftists, but not all leftists are qwertyists. Believe it or not, its not up to you personally to decide who is or isn't a leftist.

Yet this is the reality of labeling. If a person is obviously not conservative, then I would be within my rights in saying "this person is not a conservative."


Don't build up a strawman of what you think I'm going to argue to you, try waiting until I make such an argument before refuting it. The Scotsman in this case is 'the left wing'. You create a very narrow array of political beliefs and declare that one must believe them in order to be left wing, otherwise you are not left wing (not a true Scotsman).

Fair enough. That was defensive of me.


However, this is completely out of touch with the realities of the left wing across the world and people who identify as such. When you take a generalisation as broad as 'the left wing' which covers - depending on how you view centrism - either a half or a third of the entire poltical spectrum to claim that only people who think the same as you are left wing while everyone else is something else is nothing short of narrow-mindedness. The political left wing covers politcal theories as diverse as social democracy, democratic socialism, communism and anarchism. Just because you don't like some of those views doesn't mean that you get to claim that only your views are a direct heir to the ideals of the Enlightenment and therefor the 'correct' branch of left wing thought.

1) Either the US liberal left has got to do away with its bad positions on issues like gun control or risk becoming irrelevant. The left stands against government control of people's personal lives. That's part of a commonly held set of beliefs that people call "social liberalism."

2) I'm not claiming that my views are directly descended from the ideals of the Enlightenment. I'm saying that they are more consistent with those ideals than certain views on the US liberal left.



I'm not the one refusing to let political tendencies define themselves. You are the one claiming a monopoly on the correct usage of the term left wing.

In claiming that state communists can't be socialists? How come we don't say state communists were democrats? After all, they claimed to put up "people's democracies." Yet we don't call them democrats. We call them socialists.

On the broader question, sure, I'll admit that I over-reached. The US liberal left at the moment does not agree with many of my positions. I maintain however, that the US liberal left is hypocritical insofar as it refuses to back down on gun control and authoritarianism.

This system just seems so troublesome. All this unnecessary stuff like speeches and debates and voting. Vote for the Fascist Party (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=s4-wicKsoi0).

Guys, some of you at least know there is another Democrat nomination thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=554117).

PLEASE DON'T POST IN THE STRAY THREADS.

I'll merge this with it and (maybe, if I'm feeling creative) hive off the what-meakes-a-leftie stuff into a separate thread.

But I'd rather not have to. Let's keep the US-vote menu clutter down.

I'm trying to restore the merged thread's Clinton/Obama poll. Here's the original poll:

View Poll Results: Was this a stupid thing for him to say?
American: Yes it was a stupid thing to say, though I happen to agree with it. 27 13.99%
American: Yes it was a stupid thing to say, and I don't agree with it. 37 19.17%
American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it. 60 31.09%
American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it. 2 1.04%
NON-American: Yes it was a stupid thing to say, though I happen to agree with it. 20 10.36%
NON-American: Yes it was a stupid thing to say, and I don't agree with it. 8 4.15%
NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it. 36 18.65%
NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it. 3 1.55%
Voters: 193. This poll is closed

Cuz that's punishing the rich, of course. Obviously, the money that you largely need to live, the money you work 40+ hours a week to earn is far less important than the money you earned on someone else's work. Or it could be that capital gains are largely earned by the rich and like inheritance tax isn't realistic because the same people who earn also have disproportionate power with politicians.

I don't know what it is about the rich that makes them hate taxes. I'd happily pay more taxes if I were richer, since I could afford it.

To be honest I wonder if we should tax below a certain income level at all. Poverty line and below probably shouldn't be taxed since they make so little anyway, I posit.

I've got a crazy idea:

Why not just count capital gains in with other taxable income and tax it all at the same rate? What makes that one type of income so special?
Because it discourages investment. Now, if you could get a low and flat income tax -- remove all the exemptions, deductions, credits, and other crap, there might be something to that idea. A couple percent of one's income seems right.

But to invest is to assume risk. You might lose everything. There ought to be a reward for successful investing and right now, that's taxing the gains at a lower rate.

I don't know what it is about the rich that makes them hate taxes. I'd happily pay more taxes if I were richer, since I could afford it.

To be honest I wonder if we should tax below a certain income level at all. Poverty line and below probably shouldn't be taxed since they make so little anyway, I posit.

Not that I qualify, but if I did, it would be the inequity of the taxation that I would object to.

And we don't tax below some level. In fact, if you earn money, but not much, we give you someone else's money. It's a welfare program called Earned Income Credit.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/18/clinton-friend-reich-backs-obama/

Just a repost.

Guys, some of you at least know there is another Democrat nomination thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=554117).

PLEASE DON'T POST IN THE STRAY THREADS.

I'll merge this with it and (maybe, if I'm feeling creative) hive off the what-meakes-a-leftie stuff into a separate thread.

But I'd rather not have to. Let's keep the US-vote menu clutter down.

I'm trying to restore the merged thread's Clinton/Obama poll. Here's the original poll:

sorry, I thought, being that the OP was asking an impossible situation (Two Democratic Nominees as the ONLY choice for Pres) I thought it was more of a hypothetical/fantasy situation.

thanks for all the work and headaches you and the other mods are going through with this.

Not that I qualify, but if I did, it would be the inequity of the taxation that I would object to.
It's unequal, yes, but it's also fair. The rich have more money and can afford to lose more income, and therefore should pay more, as part of their responsibility, the social contract with the nation they live in, if you will.

And we don't tax below some level. In fact, if you earn money, but not much, we give you someone else's money. It's a welfare program called Earned Income Credit.
Interesting...one thing though: It's not someone else's money. It's tax money. Once it's taxed it's just like any other bit of government money. I'm seriously upset with the way people who complain about taxes like to talk about their money or someone's money as though the taxing was specifically for that item. It's not. When someone is taxed their money is tossed into a pool from which all the necessary spending money is taking out of.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_go_pr_wh/delegate_challenge

WASHINGTON - Time is running out on Hillary Rodham Clinton, the long-ago front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination who now trails Barack Obama in delegates, states won and popular votes.

Compounding Clinton's woes, Obama appears on track to finish the primary campaign fewer than 100 delegates shy of the 2,025 needed to win.

A very compelling argument is made after that but it does stand to reason what everyone else has been saying, both here and in the media, that the only way she wins it to bring down the entire democratic party and I do not see that happening at all. The Democrats maybe many things but even they will not be that stupid. Not with the White House at hand.

It's unequal, yes, but it's also fair. The rich have more money and can afford to lose more income, and therefore should pay more, as part of their responsibility, the social contract with the nation they live in, if you will.

Interesting...one thing though: It's not someone else's money. It's tax money. Once it's taxed it's just like any other bit of government money. I'm seriously upset with the way people who complain about taxes like to talk about their money or someone's money as though the taxing was specifically for that item. It's not. When someone is taxed their money is tossed into a pool from which all the necessary spending money is taking out of.
Well take a goddamn TUMS then and sooth that upset. The government has NO money of its own. All it gets is what it can take from its citizens. All that revenue came from someone, making it someone's money.

Back to the top, what would you say the share of income earned by the top 5% of wage earners is? What do you think their share of taxes is? How 'bout the bottom 50%? Share of income and share of taxes?

If we're really fair, shouldn't the share of income and the share of taxes be equal?

If ya wanna debate the economy, there is an issues thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_go_pr_wh/delegate_challenge



A very compelling argument is made after that but it does stand to reason what everyone else has been saying, both here and in the media, that the only way she wins it to bring down the entire democratic party and I do not see that happening at all. The Democrats maybe many things but even they will not be that stupid. Not with the White House at hand.

Oh Corny, I assure you they are indeed that stupid. Theyre the Democratic party.

Oh Corny, I assure you they are indeed that stupid. Theyre the Democratic party.

In this case though, I do not believe they'll be that stupid. Look who is coming out in stating do not overturn the will of the people.

The Democrats maybe many things but even they will not be that stupid. Not with the White House at hand.
The Democrats have been shooting themselves in the foot right from the beginning. It is beginning to shape up as a McCain win.

Biggest mistake is not including Michigan and Florida.

The Democrats have been shooting themselves in the foot right from the beginning. It is beginning to shape up as a McCain win.

Biggest mistake is not including Michigan and Florida.

You still on this kick of allowing rule breakers to be seated? WHy the fuck should they be shown leniency? Oh yea...because of your lovefest with Hillary.

You still on this kick of allowing rule breakers to be seated? WHy the fuck should they be shown leniency? Oh yea...because of your lovefest with Hillary.
When the Democratic party breaks down on being democratic then they fail. It will cost them large.

When the Democratic party breaks down on being democratic then they fail. It will cost them large.

So you would rather them break their own rules which would hurt them far more than not breaking them. The only way they are seated is when Obama is declared the nominee and that their votes won't change the outcome.

This race is actually over as there is zero chance of Hillary actually overtaking Obama in both the Pledged Delegates and Popular Vote.

When the Democratic party breaks down on being democratic then they fail. It will cost them large.

Urusai!

How the hell can you say that with a straight face?

You support the notion of superdelegates overturning the will of the people.

You support the candidate that claimed pledged delegates should vote as they choose (read: for her) regardless of who they're pledged to!

You support the candidate that has ran a scorched earth campaign against THE candidate that has more chance against McCain!

Seriously, what kind of fools do you take us for?

But this is what he said,

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

It's not fair. What would you call the proposed treatment of making it fair? Punishment is as good of a description as anything.

Or perhaps it is so. You can easily look at capital gains tax rates and capitial gains realizations and see that the higher the tax rates, the lower the realizations. Less money to tax makes the revenue go down. Necessary and sufficient.
Looks like you AND Obama could stand to learn a couple lessons on economics.
I kinda agree with Obama in that paying a person a 3.7Billion salary is bordering on the obscene.
However, this case is rather interesting for a few reasons. Mainly, Paulson got that much money for having the foresight to see how screwed-up the whole sub-prime market was and betting his fund against it. Quite what this entails is beyond me and my limited understanding of what these guys do, but it did work in that it made his fund a bucketload of money. And for that he was rewarded for it. That I don't have a problem with per se. Only those who fuck things up totally, loss their company a fortune leading to mass lay-offs and then still get a whopping great bonus piss me off.
Which beings me to the main point - if he, and several other fund managers, could see where the subprime market was heading well over a year before it broke, why couldn't the Fed Reserve? Why do we still have people like Greenspan saying no-one could see what was going to eventuate? Paulson could and managed to save his fund (and thus all his investors) from crashing.

Maybe the US govt should hire Paulson for their next Fed Reserve chairman.

Urusai!

How the hell can you say that with a straight face?

You support the notion of superdelegates overturning the will of the people.

You support the candidate that claimed pledged delegates should vote as they choose (read: for her) regardless of who they're pledged to!

You support the candidate that has ran a scorched earth campaign against THE candidate that has more chance against McCain!

Seriously, what kind of fools do you take us for?

Gullible ones apparently.

sorry, I thought, being that the OP was asking an impossible situation (Two Democratic Nominees as the ONLY choice for Pres) I thought it was more of a hypothetical/fantasy situation.

thanks for all the work and headaches you and the other mods are going through with this.

It's a learning experience (she said, through gritted teeth).:D

It's also a cultural divide. I didn't see it as fantasy, my internal logic being -- one of the Yanks' big parties is going to win, so the OP's asking people which Democrat candidate they could most live with as president. Thus I shovelled it into the Obama/Clinton thread.

Haven't done anything about the bits that need splitting yet because it's Saturday, and I'm running Mum's Taxi.

Urusai!

How the hell can you say that with a straight face?
Easy.

You support the notion of superdelegates overturning the will of the people.
No, I support superdelegates exercising their democratic right to vote for the candidate of their choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Comparison_to_pledged_delegates).

You support the candidate that claimed pledged delegates should vote as they choose (read: for her) regardless of who they're pledged to!
I support the candidate but I don't necessarily agree with her on that point.

You support the candidate that has ran a scorched earth campaign against THE candidate that has more chance against McCain!
Do you have any examples of her "scorched earth campaign"? And you don't know for sure that Obama "has more chance against McCain".

Seriously, what kind of fools do you take us for?
Do you seriously want an answer? :p

So you would rather them break their own rules which would hurt them far more than not breaking them.
Too late for this nominating round, but the Dems need to seriously revamp their thinking in regards to selecting a candidate. This tail (Iowa) wagging the dog (Florida/Michigan) is totally inappropriate. Time to rise above the whistle stop fears, especially since it has now led to the exclusion of two States with a combined population of 29 Million. Heck.....those two States don't even get a whistle stop. Totally sad!!

The only way they are seated is when Obama is declared the nominee and that their votes won't change the outcome.
IF Obama is declared the nominee, and their votes won't mean squat. Why bother showing up?

This race is actually over as there is zero chance of Hillary actually overtaking Obama in both the Pledged Delegates and Popular Vote.
Actually, the race is still going on. In case you haven't heard, they are holding a nominating vote in PA next Tuesday, and I do believe that several other events are also scheduled.

When the Democratic party breaks down on being democratic then they fail. It will cost them large.

They are democratic. In fact, they left up to those states whether they would like to have legitimate elections. They chose not to.

I suppose it's also undemocratic to not allow people to vote who show up at voting stations with no ID. I mean, why should the rules matter, right? Clearly, it's undemocratic. Because democratic means no rules, or at least, don't enforce the rules you have. Don't believe me? Just ask CH. He's credible.

Because it discourages investment. Now, if you could get a low and flat income tax -- remove all the exemptions, deductions, credits, and other crap, there might be something to that idea. A couple percent of one's income seems right.

But to invest is to assume risk. You might lose everything. There ought to be a reward for successful investing and right now, that's taxing the gains at a lower rate.

Just like the higher taxes discourage working. There is a reward for successful investing. It's called money. You know that stuff you're being taxed on. Similarly, when your investment loses money, you get to right it off your income. It's almost like they alreadly thought of a system to help you deal with gains and losses and called it income tax.

The couple percent of one's income is laughable. That's less than people pay now with all the exemptions. How do you pay down a deficit and continue a war (of course, conservaties generally only want to do the latter) while lower taxes tenfold?

Not that I qualify, but if I did, it would be the inequity of the taxation that I would object to.

And we don't tax below some level. In fact, if you earn money, but not much, we give you someone else's money. It's a welfare program called Earned Income Credit.

That's okay, it only comes from people who actually care. Don't worry. All of your taxes are being used to kill people. That should make you feel better.

Apparently, it's not about inequity. We've been over this. When the inequity favors the rich, righting the ship is punishment. So you're not opposed to inequity. You're opposed inequity that doesn't benefit the rich.

By the way, while you're tooting on inequity, you should really look at the percentage of the total tax paid by the upper 5% relative to the amount of wealth they have (rather than by income). What you'll find is that the amount of taxes paid, by percentage, at any given time, very closely resembles the percentage of wealth owned by that group. That is up until the Bush tax cuts.

Well take a goddamn TUMS then and sooth that upset. The government has NO money of its own. All it gets is what it can take from its citizens. All that revenue came from someone, making it someone's money.

Back to the top, what would you say the share of income earned by the top 5% of wage earners is? What do you think their share of taxes is? How 'bout the bottom 50%? Share of income and share of taxes?

If we're really fair, shouldn't the share of income and the share of taxes be equal?

See there's the flaw. When you compare it to accumulated wealth, it's very fair. Conservatives fairly regularly trot out your numbers, because it favors them to complain about a group not paying enough taxes that will not accumulate any wealth in their entire lifetime. None. It's completely fair for an government that barely allows you to survive to not expect you to pay them for the privelege. However, the tycoons at the top who are amassing wealth in this system should pay taxes in an amont congruent with the amount of wealth they've accumulated. It's more than fair.

And what the heck do you mean "God pays attention"?That's the name he's currently using for the voices.

They are democratic. In fact, they left up to those states whether they would like to have legitimate elections. They chose not to.
Who is "they"? From what I have read, there are a lot of bitter Dems that are bitter over being disenfranchised.

I suppose it's also undemocratic to not allow people to vote who show up at voting stations with no ID.
Your analogy fails here due to the fact that almost 2 million Floridians showed up and legally voted. At least the Repubs were smart enough to impose only a partial penalty. The good thing about the Repub decision is that it allowed the candidates to campaign in Florida and get a leg up on the Dems.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the Dems don't deserve to win the White House.

Too late for this nominating round, but the Dems need to seriously revamp their thinking in regards to selecting a candidate. This tail (Iowa) wagging the dog (Florida/Michigan) is totally inappropriate. Time to rise above the whistle stop fears, especially since it has now led to the exclusion of two States with a combined population of 29 Million. Heck.....those two States don't even get a whistle stop. Totally sad!!

They broke the rules, they got punished and rightly so.

IF Obama is declared the nominee, and their votes won't mean squat. Why bother showing up?

No if about it unless the dems want to be morons.

Actually, the race is still going on. In case you haven't heard, they are holding a nominating vote in PA next Tuesday, and I do believe that several other events are also scheduled.

And so is the Republican Party. Shall we assume then that the Republican race is still going on even though McCain is the presumptive nominee? I guess you also failed to realize that we have more than one race going on across this grand country of mine. State senate seats and congressional races are also going on. Not to mention referendums etc.

And yes, this race is actually over, just not officially. Hillary needs blowout wins in all remaining states and that aint going to happen. That's not a prediction! It's a fact.

No, I support superdelegates exercising their democratic right to vote for the candidate of their choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#Comparison_to_pledged_delegates).

So you don't want FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN not to be considered when they agree with you, but you want EVERYONE not to be considered when they disagree with you.

Don't toy with me. It has been enough time with me here for you to realize I'm not a simple opponent.

Who is "they"? From what I have read, there are a lot of bitter Dems that are bitter over being disenfranchised.

Such is the Clinton camp claim. I see little proof that most voters in the states really care that much. Now, to be simple, Michigan's primary was not Democratic, because the only candidates on the ticket were Hillary Clinton and Dennis 'the Mennis' Kucinich. To seat the delegates from that election would be undemocratic. Florida's primary was a beauty contest where none of the campaigns was even allowed to campaign. To seat their delegates would be Undemocratic.

Now "they" are the voters of each state who allowed their representatives to break party rules. Actions have consequences. Only spoiled brats and children too young to have learned otherwise, beleive that the rules shouldn't apply to them.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the Dems don't deserve to win the White House.

Then go vote for John McCain and fuck us over with 100 more years of Bush-war and 4 more of bad economics. You and your candidate are clearly willing to put your own interests before the interests of the party.

Clinton "Democrats" need to chill the fuck out and stop tantruming. This is an election. Your candidate doesn't always win. Deal with it and act like adults.

Then go vote for John McCain and fuck us over with 100 more years of Bush-war and 4 more of bad economics.

Um...we debated the 100 year remark and it was taken out of context.

Um...we debated the 100 year remark and it was taken out of context.

Of course it was. So was "I created the internet" and "I was for it before I was against it". Phrases like that are almost always taken out of context, or even invented. The reason that they have "value" as talking points, however, is that they have a core of truth in them: John McCain certainly has compared Iraq to Japan and Korea, and he certainly seems unbothered by the prospect of unending war.

Of course it was. So was "I created the internet" and "I was for it before I was against it". Phrases like that are almost always taken out of context, or even invented. The reason that they have "value" as talking points, however, is that they have a core of truth in them: John McCain certainly has compared Iraq to Japan and Korea, and he certainly seems unbothered by the prospect of unending war.

We still have troops in Germany and Japan so what's your point?

Which beings me to the main point - if he, and several other fund managers, could see where the subprime market was heading well over a year before it broke, why couldn't the Fed Reserve? Why do we still have people like Greenspan saying no-one could see what was going to eventuate? Paulson could and managed to save his fund (and thus all his investors) from crashing.

Maybe the US govt should hire Paulson for their next Fed Reserve chairman.

My limited experience in finance leads me to believe a couple of things:
1) Famous economists are even more set in their views than other kinds of famous pundits. ("Funeral by funeral, theory advances." - Paul Samuelson.) I have no idea how Greenspan came up with his "nobody could have forseen this", but for all I know the ghost of Ayn Rand whispers in his ear at night.

2) Speaking of Greenspan, it's partly his fault that the masses know and/or care who the Fed Chair is, which only increases the pressure on the Fed to act, whether acting is the correct thing to do or not.

3) Hedge fund/Private Equity managers look fantastic when they guess right, and the press doesn't really notice when they guess wrong (unless it's really dramatic LTCM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management)-style wrong.) I'm not saying Paulson isn't a very smart cookie, but he also happened to be right when a lot of other cookies, also smart, guessed wrong. Paulson is likely to guess wrong eventually. We have more than a few clients in the office who are playing the "How do I get my money out of this crappy hedge fund?" game -- funds that reliably returned 15%-20% and are suddenly on the verge of shutting down.

The US economy's rather unfun right now, but I suspect anyone who thinks they can do anything to fix it in the short term doesn't have their head screwed on straight.

We still have troops in Germany and Japan so what's your point?

Exactly what he said. He's not saying that the spin or interpretation of those statements is necessarily correct. He's simply saying that it's understandable that they could be misconstrued, which is very true.

Who is "they"? From what I have read, there are a lot of bitter Dems that are bitter over being disenfranchised.

The states are "they". See, THEY have these things in place called local governments and parties. And THEY get to decide what THEY do. And THEY decided to break the rules. And then THEY decided THEY don't want to fix it. What would be undemocratic would be for the national party to completely ignore the state and their wishes. The state made a choice. I'm sorry that you and some people in the state don't agree with them.


Your analogy fails here due to the fact that almost 2 million Floridians showed up and legally voted. At least the Repubs were smart enough to impose only a partial penalty. The good thing about the Repub decision is that it allowed the candidates to campaign in Florida and get a leg up on the Dems.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the Dems don't deserve to win the White House.

My analogy is for the state. The state violated the rules. The individual voters are subject to the state. Sorry, but that's how governments work. The state violated the rules. In this case, because it's the state that sends the delegate and sets the format for their own elections, it's the state that deals with the national party. I know it's a bit complicated and perhaps you're struggling to understand how such a system works, but those people should be disenfranchised with their state, since it was their state that disenfranchised them.

You want a national party to override the state government?

And, yes, I know, you're finally realizing your candidate hasn't got a shot in hell of winning either the nomination or the white house, so it's sour grapes time.

But, hey, it is your candidate that you STILL support who is saying that no one's vote should count.

We still have troops in Germany and Japan so what's your point?

Um... That's my point. McCain keeps trying to turn Iraq into Korea or Japan, and turn this into the "long war".

Michigan's primary was not Democratic, because the only candidates on the ticket were Hillary Clinton and Dennis 'the Mennis' Kucinich.
Oh that's not true at all: we also had Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel!

Oh that's not true at all: we also had Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel!

My bad. Sadly, Mike Gravel had not yet released his hit single (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bA2LgJviH9w) and was unable to become significant at the time.

Who is "they"? From what I have read, there are a lot of bitter Dems that are bitter over being disenfranchised.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article462322.ece

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article462322.ece

Nice!

Nice!*bows*
I find myself agreeing with the piece, strongly. *nods emphatically*

Seems like Obama is popular in this poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/21/clinton-uses-pearl-harbor-bin-laden-images-in-new-ad/#comments

This is a brand new low for Billary! Now she is using a Republican tactic to win support. And people wonder why her unfavorability rating is what it is. :headbang:

The ad posted seems to have backfired on them judging by the comments posted under the article. She shot herself in the foot with this one.

What I found funny was this:

Obama's campaign responded to the ad by circulating an image of a 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign poster that states, "Vote your hopes, not your fears."

Using his opponet's husband's materials from his '92 campaign about hope. Now that's poetic justice.

*bows*
I find myself agreeing with the piece, strongly. *nods emphatically*

I quite liked it myself.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/21/clinton-uses-pearl-harbor-bin-laden-images-in-new-ad/#comments

This is a brand new low for Billary! Now she is using a Republican tactic to win support. And people wonder why her unfavorability rating is what it is. :headbang:

She is a Republican with a "D" in front of her name. Her using scare tactics does not shock me in the least.

The ad posted seems to have backfired on them judging by the comments posted under the article. She shot herself in the foot with this one.

What I found funny was this:



Using his opponet's husband's materials from his '92 campaign about hope. Now that's poetic justice.

Good on him.

I quite liked it myself.

Spread the word. :)

Spread the word. :)

Or spread the foul liguid. Take that Bears!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, the polls open in 30 minutes.

LLLLLLLLEEEEEEETTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSS GET READY TO RUMBLLLLEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

The Polls are officially opened. Let the fun begin.

*rushes off to get ready to vote*

The Polls are officially opened. Let the fun begin.

*rushes off to get ready to vote*

Do you have a special voting day routine?

That's okay, it only comes from people who actually care. Don't worry. All of your taxes are being used to kill people. That should make you feel better.

Apparently, it's not about inequity. We've been over this. When the inequity favors the rich, righting the ship is punishment. So you're not opposed to inequity. You're opposed inequity that doesn't benefit the rich.

By the way, while you're tooting on inequity, you should really look at the percentage of the total tax paid by the upper 5% relative to the amount of wealth they have (rather than by income). What you'll find is that the amount of taxes paid, by percentage, at any given time, very closely resembles the percentage of wealth owned by that group. That is up until the Bush tax cuts.
Damn good thing, too. Taxing people on wealth is a terrible way to get revenue. Capital flight out of France is losing the government about $125 Billion a year. But don't let little things like that stop you from planning on more ways to overtax the successful.

Damn good thing, too. Taxing people on wealth is a terrible way to get revenue. Capital flight out of France is losing the government about $125 Billion a year. But don't let little things like that stop you from planning on more ways to overtax the successful.

So you're actively claiming that Bush has made your economy so weak that companies will flee the US should they be taxed any more than they, the poor things, already are?

And yet you claim Bush made your economy STRONGER?

Also, nice definition of "success" you've got there. Almost makes it sound like all of these entrepreneurs actually built their fortune out of nothing, as opposed to the much, MUCH more frequent explanation, namely being born with a silver spoon on their mouths.

So you're actively claiming that Bush has made your economy so weak that companies will flee the US should they be taxed any more than they, the poor things, already are?

And yet you claim Bush made your economy STRONGER?

Also, nice definition of "success" you've got there. Almost makes it sound like all of these entrepreneurs actually built their fortune out of nothing, as opposed to the much, MUCH more frequent explanation, namely being born with a silver spoon on their mouths.
Also Enron style chicanery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7359957.stm

Aha, so this is her primary-day weapon. Not exactly very effective...I think she seems to miss the very obvious fact that Iran is not stupid enough to actually use nuclear weaponry. :headbang: They might try to acquire it--at this point I'd personally wager on it--but they wouldn't actually use it.

So you're actively claiming that Bush has made your economy so weak that companies will flee the US should they be taxed any more than they, the poor things, already are?

And yet you claim Bush made your economy STRONGER?

Also, nice definition of "success" you've got there. Almost makes it sound like all of these entrepreneurs actually built their fortune out of nothing, as opposed to the much, MUCH more frequent explanation, namely being born with a silver spoon on their mouths.
I've never seen this much nonsense from anyone. Do you just need to make things up in order to win arguments? I think there is a name for that sort of folly.

As to the idea of entrepreneurship, it's probably where all our new millionaires come from. Not everyone can win the lottery...

And yet you claim Bush made your economy STRONGER?


I dont agree with Myrm's economic ideas, but even I didnt see him saying the above...

Do you have a special voting day routine?

Nope. I get up, dress, and go and vote.

Nope. I get up, dress, and go and vote.

Did you get any sort of idea of how people are voting?

Did you get any sort of idea of how people are voting?

I believe that Lancaster County is going to go for Obama judging by the number of Obama signs I saw today while walking around the city getting people out to vote.

Very few Hillary signs in these parts.

This one is my personal homage to Hillary Clinton's most recent ad...

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm266/JayelWillow/WesternBrothel2rev-copy.jpg?t=1208897141

I believe that Lancaster County is going to go for Obama judging by the number of Obama signs I saw today while walking around the city getting people out to vote.

Very few Hillary signs in these parts.

One of the things I've noticed is that exit polls are almost as unreliable as the pre-election polls. Maybe yard signage is the way to judge support...

One of the things I've noticed is that exit polls are almost as unreliable as the pre-election polls. Maybe yard signage is the way to judge support...

It might give an idea, but overzealous supporters can really throw things off.

Based on the number of signs I saw around primary day here, Ron Paul should've have gotten lots of delegates. Didn't happen though. In fact, I don't think he got a single one in this state.

Nope. I get up, dress, and go and vote.

So THAT'S what I've been forgetting!

So THAT'S what I've been forgetting!

Explains the funny looks and the court summons, eh?

Hillary wins - Exits show 6% win, but analysts believe Barack's support is overstated in exits and the win could be double digits.

Hillary wins - Exits show 6% win, but analysts believe Barack's support is overstated in exits and the win could be double digits.

Um...ok?

3% of the votes counted and Hillary is already being counted as the projected winner. http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=PA&ref=ipb

It's probably true. Obama expects to lose. I'd like to see everyone be wrong though.

Gotta love the photo of Obama here: http://www.politico.com/


Arrrr! She stole me rum!

edit: nvrmnd, they changed the pic all quick-like on me

Oh results on the map: http://www.politico.com/paprimaries/

Well it is official. According to CNN, she won PA but it looks like it will be in single digits. No blowout here.

I really hope this means she's done. Are there any states up the road where she has any kind of advantage to fall back to?

I really hope this means she's done. Are there any states up the road where she has any kind of advantage to fall back to?

wellllll she could "win" indiana. not by enough to make a diffference but she could get more votes than obama.

what she really probably needs out of this primary is enough contributions to get her out of the hole so she can concede without having to pay off campaign debts.

Are there any states up the road where she has any kind of advantage to fall back to?

west virginia and kentucky. of course, by that point obama should have racked up 50%+ of the pledged delegates (absolutely certainly before kentucky, barring complete implosion), and probably have overtaken her in supers too.

Actually, Clinton leads in both Kentucky and West Virginia; the polls in Indiana are all over the place so you can't make a prediction there. Exit polls indicate Clinton wins tonight by 10 points, despite being outspent 3-to-1.

Obama leads handily in North Carolina.

I should point out that despite all the hoopla for Obama's supposed inevitability of late, he will not be able to win the nomination on pledged delegates alone; he needs the superdelegates just as much as Clinton does to pull out a win. Meanwhile, Obama's stumbling toward the finish, falling behind in the late contests, and unable so far to "close the sale," so to speak, among the superdelegates. Tonight's results will not make that any easier.

Well it is official. According to CNN, she won PA but it looks like it will be in single digits. No blowout here.

Really? Check the by-county map. She blasted Obama in most of the counties by huge margins. Overall it's a single digits, but seriously...she annihilated him in most of the state.

She's going to trumpet that to the moon, too.

Really? Check the by-county map. She blasted Obama in most of the counties by huge margins. Overall it's a single digits, but seriously...she annihilated him in most of the state.

She's going to trumpet that to the moon, too.

So now people living in the back country areas matter more than those in the cities? She won a lot of land area, but that's not how we tally the votes in either election. If it was, the Democrats would never win anything, ever.

So now people living in the back country areas matter more than those in the cities? She won a lot of land area, but that's not how we tally the votes in either election. If it was, the Democrats would never win anything, ever.

I didn't say any of that. I simply said she smashed him in most of the counties and that she'll use that for ammunition, which she will.

Exit polls indicate Clinton wins tonight by 10 points, despite being outspent 3-to-1.

of course, a month ago she led by 20%+ and had all the institutional advantages in the world.

oh, and the math still says she needed to start winning in obama-esque landslides back on the day she squeaked by with a 4 delegate advantage on super tuesday the lesser. she has won exactly 1 obama-esque landslide in this entire campaign, and that was months ago.

This will eek into double digits, methinks. We're gonna see the lead extend as the rural counties come in at the end.

Still not the victory she needed.

So basically, she lost on Super Tuesday. So she gives up 11 contests in a row to create a firewall of 4 delegates. FOUR. Then she gives up some more painting the PA win as a inevitable landslide. So much for a landslide.

And yet she keeps talking about he can close it out on her? She's a good candidate. According to her, a better candidate than McCain and she can't beat him. First, what does it say about her that she can't beat the guy who can't close? In fact, she can't even compete with him on any metric. Second, considering she claims she'll smoke McCain in the general and he's doing better than her... do the math.

Here is the answer. Tell me the question.

A landslide in PA.
Super Tuesday wasn't a turning point in the race.
Texas, Ohio, etc. will be a firewall.

This will eek into double digits, methinks. We're gonna see the lead extend as the rural counties come in at the end.

did the burbs come in yet?

To be honest I can't see either Democrat beating John McCain - when it comes down to it, the Republican strategy is fairly clear - portray him as the All-American man, the best person to deal with security, a man of the people.

Contrast this with someone raised in a foreign land, someone who can be portrayed as simply to radical, that his call for change 'won't work in reality' and lacking proper experience.

These are simple messages that can be driven home.

Add to this a fairly jaded Democrat party, for whom 'change' is becoming a little jaded as a message, and losing its appeal somewhat.

My only hope is that the intelligence Barack Obama has shown in this campaign is similarly effective in the presidential race but, I don't know, I feel a little steam has gone from the message of hope.

Whether it would be different if the race was over already I'm not sure, but I just don't hold out much hope - having said that, as before, a week is a long time in politics and who knows how John McCain might screw up or what might come out.

It's just that, right now, he's in the best position.

and who knows how John McCain might screw up or what might come out

he's a crazy old man and already screwed up tons. its more a matter that nobody is paying attention.

To be honest I can't see either Democrat beating John McCain - when it comes down to it, the Republican strategy is fairly clear - portray him as the All-American man, the best person to deal with security, a man of the people.

And they'll just have to hope no one will notice that he can't who is on which side straight. They'll have to hope no one will notice that what is supposed to be the one thing he's good for is the thing he entirely cannot seem to care about enough to educate himself.

But, hey, he's got a good smile, right?


Contrast this with someone raised in a foreign land, someone who can be portrayed as simply to radical, that his call for change 'won't work in reality' and lacking proper experience.

Experience is another word for more of the same thing. Remember Bill Clinton didn't have experience in Washington either. Nor did GWB.



These are simple messages that can be driven home.

Add to this a fairly jaded Democrat party, for whom 'change' is becoming a little jaded as a message, and losing its appeal somewhat.

My only hope is that the intelligence Barack Obama has shown in this campaign is similarly effective in the presidential race but, I don't know, I feel a little steam has gone from the message of hope.

Whether it would be different if the race was over already I'm not sure, but I just don't hold out much hope - having said that, as before, a week is a long time in politics and who knows how John McCain might screw up or what might come out.

It's just that, right now, he's in the best position.

Without an nominee, McCain can't do any better than a tie. Wait till the full focus of democratic money is on McCain. He can't win when he's running against no one.