kapkomet

Um, November 13th, not October 13th? (opening sentance)

QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) Just in time for cold/sinusitis season I got a neti pot. It is probably the oddest feeling in the world--not unpleasant, but not pleasant either. But hot dog, it works really well. Better than a decongestant. I just can never bring myself to getting one of those. But, I should have... as I said somewhere else, I'm a walking "itis" right now... ear infection, sinus infection, upper respiratory infection. Now if only I would have had that neti pot, I could have prevented all of this. But at least I can sleep at night; codiene cough syrup.

Hell, we know NOW, don't we?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:29 PM) I could say who cares to everything you say, it doesn't prove any point. What's your argument that he's so arrogant he'll tax increase every bracket without fear of re-election? That he eats arugula? Ahhh, but HE won't... it will just be the EVIL BUSHIES tax cuts will expire... gotta love semantics. It's going to change 700 times between now and then anyway. But, here's the deal. He CAN increase every tax bracket down to the current 15% and give it away to the rest of the people and it's STILL the majority of Americans who get the "breaks".

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) Right, but nebraska wouldn't turn red with him getting that district. He'd get 1 electoral vote. He wouldn't be able to claim victory there. So if he wants to win so badly that he has contingency plans to even get 1 electoral vote in NE, what does that say about how he'll play to get re-elected in your frame of Obama. Arrogance would be putting a ton of resources in Arizona and risking OH and FLA, not this. So why is he putting all those resources there, then? And frankly, who cares? It's because he can. No other reason, really.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) So he started running trying to push all these liberal things, then gets defeated re election runs as centrist. Obama's more arrogant than that...right. So arrogant that he's going to win that he has staff in Omaha nebraska just to try and pry away that one electoral vote. Um, no, he has more money then God and wants to wipe the map so he can claim (add REVERB - VICTORRRRYYYYYY) EVERYWHERE! And a "TRUE MANDATE OF CHANGE"... unlike the doofus ass we have for a president now said 4 years ago.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:04 PM) Clinton went left during elections then governed central? Right. That's the exact opposite of what he was accused of doing during his reign. This is all bunk. You are creating what you want to hear, that Obama is so pro taxes he's going to tax even more than tax itself! If the upper middle class sees an income tax increase when they were told they wouldn't, then his chances at a second term are over. And if you are accusing him to just be a politician who wants power, he wouldn't be dumb enough to seal his fate. A realist knows that Clinton would have never survived after 4 years. He learned something by HillaryCare getting hammered. Obama's more arrogant then that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 08:55 PM) I understand the semantics argument, there just is no clear cut answer either way to prove Obama is or is not going to let the Bush tax cut lapse on those under 250k combined for families. I dont get into speculation, I just argue based on the facts that I have at my disposal. I dont think Obama is a savior and I certainly would never call him a messiah, I just tell it like I feel it is. At the end of the day I dont care if my taxes are 100% as long as it means that social conservatism is kept out of power. Im a social liberal and in that regard there is absolutely no choice for me in this election. If the Republican party ever decides to get back to keeping govt out of both business and morals, I would probably vote against Democrats. But the Republican model is basically just the same as the Democrats with slightly different tax decreases. Both are going to deficit spend out of this problem. How many times do I have to see this? You, me, everyone, practically, says this, yet the GOP keeps trotting out the same old pile of s***, cycle after cycle. That's "conservatism", IMO, is to let people be who they are without government intervention. I think there's a lot of people like this - dare I say it, the majority of Americans. Yet, somehow, the majority of Americans seem to never get real representation.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 08:47 PM) You know how you know a change is coming? People on one side are building massive expectations and will be having them shattered in the next six months. People who previously had shattered expectations on the other side are sewing the seeds for years and years of manufactured outrage based on what isn't said. And these people will be all angry and all "I Told You So." Some things, even change, never change. You're partially right. The problem is, Rex, words should mean something. Obviously, they're "just words" and don't mean a damn thing anymore. And that's for either candidate who wins.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 07:51 PM) Hes never commented on the Bush tax cuts from what I can recollect. t This is entirely speculation about what is going to happen 2 years in the future, so in my opinion it is entirely irrelevant as its not based on fact. But from what I can find he only has said that he will reverse the Bush tax cuts on: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/oba...plan/index.html http://www.issues2000.org/economic/barack_..._tax_reform.htm The problem is that no one does research anymore, they just believe what they hear. The internet is a great gift and it is also a great curse on debate because people just source the same things and its some times impossible to get to the root of the situations. The problem here is the phrase "Bush tax cuts" is being interpreted 2 different ways. I believe that when Obama uses it he is referring to the cuts for the rich people only and when he says get rid of them he means that he will raise taxes on those people who are above the 250k threshold. Others are interpreting it to mean that he will let all of the tax cuts lapse, therefore effectively raising the taxes for everyone in 2 years. The only clear indication to my side Ive found is a year old article that says: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/27/nation/na-taxes27 Once again this is a matter of interpretation, I have never seen Obama say that he will let all of the Bush tax cuts lapse. {Edit} What policy has been to let the tax cuts lapse for 5 years? Thats a year old article where both Hillary and Obama say that they are are only going to let it lapse for families earning over 250k. It seems entirely consistent with the message Obama is still giving. Ive yet to see any quote from Obama saying that he will restore the tax level to pre-Bush era on anyone making less than 250k (or 160k if thats individual level). I've yet to see any quote from Obama saying he will NOT restore the tax level to pre-Bush era on anyone making anything. If the party line has been to not make permanent this set of cuts, why would they go back to all of a sudden reverting back on something they never wanted to begin with? This isn't HIS tax increase, it's only restoring what was there in the first place, right? It's semantics. All important semantics that everyone assumes Obama's a nice guy and will take care of everyone, which is bunk. The guy wants power, and his way of getting it is not like Bill Clinton (veer left to get elected and then be moderate), his way is his way or the highway, and you can shove that change right up your ass. His record proves it. But I forgot... the Messiah will save us all and "work together with everyone", INCLUDING our enemies, but whatever. It makes me sick to see the backbone of America just take it right up the ass purely because they hate George W. Bush so much.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 07:29 PM) Obama has voted for extended some of the Bush tax cuts in the past while letting others expire. Has he explicitly stated that he will let them all expire? I can't find any direct quotes through the googles, just a bunch of right-wing blogs and Hannity's website. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...enate-tax_n.htm Well, seeing as how it's been policy for 5+ years to NOT extend the cuts, why would all of a sudden they reverse course when they get power and make them permanent? And STILL pay for all the crap he wants to take over? It's not going to happen.

See, all these places that are "non-biased" forget to tell you the "facts" - or only those you want to be true so the medicine all tastes better going down.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 07:06 PM) It's on the 2008 California General Election ballot. I know. My question is, isn't that where it really belongs, and not legislated?

Wow, this is sort of strange for me. I'll have to read up on it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) I understood what you were saying, and I agree with you. Those who support prop. 8 and other laws like it typically rely on either religious arguments or ridiculous slippery slope arguments. I'll always have a hard time voting Republicans to national offices while the party contains a large dose of that element, and its one reason I was really, really turned off by the Palin pick. Question: shouldn't this be something on the ballot and not passed by legislation? (sorry, this may be in the thread and I didn't read the entire thing).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 06:54 PM) I don't think that's inconsistent. There's always been a group getting a tax cut (or tax 'relief'), a group in the middle with no net change (which I seem to remember being in the mid-100's through $250k), and a group at the top (250k+) getting a tax raise. But that's not going to happen. They conveniently forget to tell you that.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) It is really damn cold here. . . It is the one thing that drives me crazy about the Republicans. They can shove their "evangelical morality" and trying to tie government to it, right up their rear ends, because it has no business in government at all. It's the single biggest area that they need to improve on, besides the stupidity of the Bush spending sprees.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 05:46 PM) I know that isn't your logic, but the whole, if gays and lesbians can marry people will marry cows!!!!1!!!! drives me up the wall. A marriage is (for the intents and purposes of Prop 8) a legal contract. You cannot enter into a legal contract with a nintendo, or a dog, or a cat. So, I think that is really a straw man type of argument. Either way, I agree with NSS72, I think marriage should not be a government word. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be left as such. Civil unions are the only thing the government should regulate. And for the record, as a citizen I'm mortified that gays and lesbians can't enter into a government contract with each other like civil unions (or, if the government must meddle: marriage). As an Episcopalian, I'm proud of the recent inclusive steps my church governing structure has taken, but they still have quite a way to go. Bingo. You and I agree 100% on this issue. Has hell frozen over?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/sen...tax_increa.html Pretty damn clear to me what Obama's up to.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) Whoever comes in, is argubly going to have the hardest job as president since WW2 IMHO, when you look at the economy, the oil issue, global warming, and the war on terror with Iraq and Afghanistan. So I just personally think, if the next president can get the economy back on track, can sort out what's happening in Iraq / Afghanistan better (personally I think way more troops need to be in the latter ASAP), and can help create a better solution to help keep gas prices down and stop Americans being so dependent on Oil, then yeah, I think he's done a pretty good job. A lot better than GWB anyways. I have to say I'm no fan of McCain and I am going for Obama, because I think he'll improve America's relations with the world back to the days Clinton was president, but I think McCain would do a better job in charge than Bush. Palin as his #2, just worries the hell out of me I have to say though. I don't disagree with your point about the next four years being difficult. And, it's also what's not happened yet that will be the most difficult to deal with.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 10:56 AM) Well Kap, I'd say whoever gets the nod can't do as bad as the guy who's been in charge for the last 8 years, simple as that. So if you look at it from that point of view, then I don't think people are going to be disappointed. You're right. Because no matter what Obama does, he will be a saint. It's very obvious that no matter what the guy says or does, he's "above it all". Read around for perfect examples. For me, the standard's set very high. For most, if it's "their guy", it's good enough for them.

It amazes me how bats*** crazy all of you are becoming to "pedal your guy". The tendencies have always been there, but now, it's relentless. They're all f***tards, and your loyalty is going to turn into disappointment.

It's always a bad time for ST to be down, no matter when it is.

This election is going to prove a bigger sham then 2000. Think about it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2008 -> 07:07 PM) Or anyone who's paid in to the system who wouldn't get their money back if 2k5 was allowed to abolish it Yea, I figure that I'm paying in for nothing right now.