Jump to content
Rex Kickass

The Republican Thread

Recommended Posts

Good read CC. Unfortunately so many people wont read between the lines and see what kind of agenda Obama has no matter what. This has nothing to do with his race, religion, hell even party, it should scare people to think what this guy might do if he becomes president. There are so many issues about his character, whether it be his association with several radicals of varying levels or his past comments about the country and racism that should really make people scratch their heads. I hear people who only get their political news from CNN or MSNBC barking about everyone getting tax cuts if they make under $250k but theres never a mention of his 1 trillion dollar increase in spending. Where is that gonna come from?

 

Do people really think the numbers on his budget will add up? He is going to raise everyones taxes on one thing or another and to be honest, why should people who make over 250k have to pay even more now? The wealthy already pay the lions share of taxes and now they should have to be punished for being successful? Its socialism anyway you slice it and people might not worry about it now because most of us dont make that kind of money Im assuming but just wait until this kind of stuff starts to trickle down and it does effect you, which will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 12:23 PM)
ACORN clearly stole the election. Clearly.

Don't forget the Vote at Home folks, moving to battleground states and trying to claim residency, the Ohio officials trying to push 200,000 potentially bad registrations all atg once, and the Virgian AG invalidating military ballots, while pushing to get felons and inmates registered to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 12:29 PM)
Don't forget the Vote at Home folks, moving to battleground states and trying to claim residency, the Ohio officials trying to push 200,000 potentially bad registrations all atg once, and the Virgian AG invalidating military ballots, while pushing to get felons and inmates registered to vote.

A lot of this same kind of crap happened on the margins in 2004 too. Except it was the Dems making the same sort of complaints you are right now.

 

Some of these are real issues, that need to be investigated and addressed. Others are just conspiracy fodder. In any case, they aren't likely to make or break the election.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:39 PM)
A lot of this same kind of crap happened on the margins in 2004 too. Except it was the Dems making the same sort of complaints you are right now.

 

Some of these are real issues, that need to be investigated and addressed. Others are just conspiracy fodder. In any case, they aren't likely to make or break the election.

With such small victory totals in Ohio and Florida last time, why do you assume that they can't make or break an election? And I like how you point out that these charges were leveled at the repubs last cycle. Sort of like saying 'see, they did it too', without really saying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 01:56 PM)
With such small victory totals in Ohio and Florida last time, why do you assume that they can't make or break an election? And I like how you point out that these charges were leveled at the repubs last cycle. Sort of like saying 'see, they did it too', without really saying it.

My point is quite the opposite. "They did it too" is a defense of behavior by saying someone else did it too. I am saying, I think its OVERBLOWN in BOTH cases, not OK in both cases.

 

These sorts of things result in very few actual bad votes. So unless we get another Florida circa 2000, its not going to be a gamebreaker. That's what I am saying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question that has concerned me. What exactly does Obama mean by his constant comments about lifting tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. I have worked for a few multi-national based companies headquartered in the US. All of them have had production in the regions, some plants in China and in India and other parts of the world. Now is he going to go hogwild on taxes for multinational corporations because they are not all home grown. If thats the case, that should deck the economy because every single large international company has operations overseas. Some for regional legal requirements, some for cost, and some to have a competitive advantage with having local people speaking the local language. Now because a plant that services a client in say Indiana closes because the company were were supplying raw material for goes out of businesss the area, and one opens up in Shanghai because of a large contract with a Chinese vendor. Does that count as shipping jobs overseas. Its not black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:59 PM)
My point is quite the opposite. "They did it too" is a defense of behavior by saying someone else did it too. I am saying, I think its OVERBLOWN in BOTH cases, not OK in both cases.

 

These sorts of things result in very few actual bad votes. So unless we get another Florida circa 2000, its not going to be a gamebreaker. That's what I am saying.

BUt again, with races as tight as they are in some places, couldn't a swing of just 200 votes be pretty important? Especially in Ohio. And polls be damned, there WILL be a few places where the counts are just that close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:10 PM)
BUt again, with races as tight as they are in some places, couldn't a swing of just 200 votes be pretty important? Especially in Ohio. And polls be damned, there WILL be a few places where the counts are just that close.

The odds of a state coming down to 200 votes are extremely low. But it is possible.

 

Again, I agree that things need to be investigated. But you should also add to that list, things like voting machine error problems, and the embarrassingly bad poll situations where there aren't enough machines, especially in poor areas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:09 PM)
Here is a question that has concerned me. What exactly does Obama mean by his constant comments about lifting tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. I have worked for a few multi-national based companies headquartered in the US. All of them have had production in the regions, some plants in China and in India and other parts of the world. Now is he going to go hogwild on taxes for multinational corporations because they are not all home grown. If thats the case, that should deck the economy because every single large international company has operations overseas. Some for regional legal requirements, some for cost, and some to have a competitive advantage with having local people speaking the local language. Now because a plant that services a client in say Indiana closes because the company were were supplying raw material for goes out of businesss the area, and one opens up in Shanghai because of a large contract with a Chinese vendor. Does that count as shipping jobs overseas. Its not black and white.

I think he's referring to corporations that outsource jobs to save money. It's more of a principle than some major policy overhaul. He's saying that if you want your labor cheaper from India or China, fine, but there is no reason you should be getting a tax break to do that (how relevant this actually is in the big picture, I don't really know, but it resonates with certain people). This kind of stuff doesn't really get explained in detail during a campaign because your average American isn't going to sit and listen to a lecture, and it wouldn't get through. So during the primaries he was sounding like an anti-free trade protectionist. Of course he's not, but in order to keep the support of blue-collar workers, he has to sound attractive to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:09 PM)
Here is a question that has concerned me. What exactly does Obama mean by his constant comments about lifting tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. I have worked for a few multi-national based companies headquartered in the US. All of them have had production in the regions, some plants in China and in India and other parts of the world. Now is he going to go hogwild on taxes for multinational corporations because they are not all home grown. If thats the case, that should deck the economy because every single large international company has operations overseas. Some for regional legal requirements, some for cost, and some to have a competitive advantage with having local people speaking the local language. Now because a plant that services a client in say Indiana closes because the company were were supplying raw material for goes out of businesss the area, and one opens up in Shanghai because of a large contract with a Chinese vendor. Does that count as shipping jobs overseas. Its not black and white.

It certainly isn't black and white, I agree. There are some gaping holes in the tax code that do in fact encourage offshoring, and that's bad. But its not as simple as Obama says it is. BTW, McCain has made claims of wanting to do similar things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:21 PM)
But its not as simple as Obama says it is. BTW, McCain has made claims of wanting to do similar things.

You and me have talked about this before. The bottom line is that the actual distance between 2 candidates on certain issues can be pretty small but it gets exaggerated during a campaign. Take the Democratic primaries for example. Obama and Hillary may as well have been the exact same candidate, but you'd never guess that from what their supporters were talking like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:24 PM)
You and me have talked about this before. The bottom line is that the actual distance between 2 candidates on certain issues can be pretty small but it gets exaggerated during a campaign. Take the Democratic primaries for example. Obama and Hillary may as well have been the exact same candidate, but you'd never guess that from what their supporters were talking like.

Policy-wise, its true, Clinton and Obama are very similar. 95% on issues, I'd guess.

 

Its the leadership and management style that were key there.

 

And yes, McCain and Obama aren't so terribly distant as some think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems that Obama doesn't want ID for people to vote. But to come to his would-be victory party? Better have a state ID that matches your ticket, or you are out of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 04:53 PM)

It seems that Obama doesn't want ID for people to vote. But to come to his would-be victory party? Better have a state ID that matches your ticket, or you are out of luck.

:lolhitting

 

Those crazy f***ing democrats...

 

They want to make sure everyone can vote...

 

And want to keep their presidential candidate safe in a large audience...

 

f***ing hypocrites!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case of Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher is an object lesson in how Obama and his supporters try to destroy anyone who even inadvertently gets in their way. Once Wurzelbacher was thrust into the limelight after Obama approached him in his driveway, Democrats swung into action to try to discredit the plumber by ransacking records on file with the State of Ohio. These efforts--the ones that have come to light so far--are recounted in the Columbus Dispatch:

 

Authorities in Toledo and Cleveland confirmed today that workers accessed Wurzelbacher's driving record and vehicle information through state computer systems in checks uncovered by The Dispatch. ...

 

The Toledo Police Department announced that a records clerk improperly pulled Wurzelbacher's information on behalf of a reporter for a Toledo television station the day after the Oct. 15 presidential debate. ...

 

Altogether, the Dispatch identifies four separate violations of Wurzelbacher's privacy by Democrats in Ohio's state bureaucracy who improperly accessed his records, hoping to find information helpful to the Obama campaign. This is the worst one:

 

Inspector General Thomas P. Charles also is investigating why the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services approved a check on Wurzelbacher through the state's child-support computer system.

 

Director Helen Jones-Kelley said that after a "team meeting," she OK'd the check because the department often runs inquiries to check for unpaid child support on people thrust into "the public spotlight."

 

Is that disgusting, or what? They actually held a "team meeting" to decide to spy on Wurzelbacher on Obama's behalf. As it happens, Wurzelbacher doesn't pay child support, but they apparently thought there was no harm in checking. The Director of the Department of Job and Family Services denies that she was trying to help Obama:

 

Jones-Kelley said there were no political motivations behind the check. The Democratic appointee has contributed the maximum $2,300 to the Obama campaign this year, according to Federal Election Commission records.

 

 

 

 

 

This woman is so full of sh**.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it be Charlie Gibson tonite or Brian Williams on Friday who asks Obama: "Who ordered the anti-fraud protections turned off on your" website? Holds breath....waits....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holding All the Cards [Mark Steyn]

 

 

On the grubby little racket of his online credit card fraud, Senator Obama merely has to run out the clock now. If it's not exposed before Tuesday, no one is going to have any appetite for investigating it once he's won. So he must be relieved that this off-message headline - "Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations" - only gets as far as Page 2 of The Washington Post. (There is an element of art to these calculations: The Obamatron editors in the media want to be able to cover themselves by saying they raised the story, but the trick is to do so at a time and place that prevents it going anywhere before November 4th.) The reporter, Matthew Mosk, filed a bland and perfunctory on the subject a couple of days ago, but he seems belatedly to have woken up and got some of the key points:

 

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

 

"Largely" untraceable? "Potentially" be used? No, they have been used to evade limits. But not a bad start. Here's a glimpse of the scale of the operation:

 

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.

 

So two-thirds of Obama's record haul derives from a website that intentionally disabled all the default security checks that prevent basic fraud like fake addresses and no-name matches. The RNC chief counsel says:

 

"I think they've made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn't outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront..."

 

Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest.

 

Not true. Almost every fraudulent donation sails through, and real money leaves real accounts. To give to Obama his fellow "citizens of the world" don't even have to pretend to be American. As detailed yesterday, Mr A Hitler of Berlin, Germany is only the most obvious fake donor to make a contribution and receive shortly afterwards a Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome email thanking him for joining the active community of community activists:

 

Dear Adolfe,

 

Thanks for joining this movement...

 

Check out the resources below — learn how you can connect with fellow supporters, organize in your neighborhood, build our national grassroots organization, and stay informed with the very latest campaign news.

 

(In fairness, connecting with fellow supporters, organizing in his neighborhood and building grassroots organizations is not something Herr Hitler needs a lot of help with.)

 

The Fuhrer is only a non-Obama supporter seeking to expose the obvious fraudulence of his online fundraising operation. If you were actively trying to funnel money to the Obama campaign for real, you'd probably choose a less obvious name to hide behind - Frau E Braun, say.

 

Which brings us to the case of Mary T Biskup of Manchester, Mo, who discovered there were scores of small online donations made to the Obama campaign in her name, even though she hasn't given him a dime. They added up to $174,800, which is a wee bit over the $2,300 limit. This very generous donation was not billed to her own card, but to someone else's - meaning (as the Post says) "someone appropriated her name".

 

Ah, but who? And, if just one unwitting front is responsible for 175 grand of the Obama take, how many other Mary T Biskups are there out there?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HARRISBURG — A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.

 

Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

 

Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing to see here. Move along...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 02:07 PM)
HARRISBURG — A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.

 

Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

 

Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing to see here. Move along...

 

Forgive my ignorance here, but, what exactly is wrong with this? I mean, the whole federal limits on campaign contributions thing is ignored anyway - look at how much some poeple have given to each candidate. Is this a 529 thing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×