kapkomet

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 06:48 PM) Won't happen IMO. The Dems who are currently complaining about it will fully endorse the electoral college if they think they have will have an advantage for a while. DING.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 05:29 PM) I was thinking this afternoon: With all these touch screen voting systems, one would think it wouldn't be hard to "time stamp" every vote. Is it legal to go back and look at the votes (minus personal information) and track basic voting trends like if republicans vote more during the day or at night. Stuff like that. Just curious. I'd be curious to see stats like that from ACTUAL votes rather than exit surveys. I don't know what the formal rules are, and it will vary district by district, but overall you probably can't because the point is to always protect the integrity of the voter at all costs...

Oh this is too rich. I can't.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 01:07 PM) After working a year and a half at RadioShack, I can see that. I work with two former Radio Shack Corporate employees, one in the cube behind me and the other two down... they are here and not there, which should say it all.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) Economics are like any large, complex natural system. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to completely isolate certain cause-effect relationships. One tiny, tiny little change in input values and you can get completely different results. So, while I often hear from conservatives that "cutting taxes always leads to increased tax revenue," I view it with a large dose of skepticism. The word always should be taken with a grain of salt, but I do think that as a whole tax cuts stimulate the economy and raise revenue inflows to the government over a relatively short period. Long term, of course that doesn't work.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 12:03 PM) So...you're willing to argue that tax cuts increase revenue but that it's totally possible for that effect to be drowned out by much stronger effects. Then saying "The last 3 tax cuts all led to increased revenues" is simply meaningless because I can easily pull that exact same argument out of my hat. The government went deep in to debt with Bush's tax cuts because of wartime spending, and this is a classic method of economic stimulus. Coming out of a recession at the same time. So it's entirely possible to believe that Bush's tax cuts would have decreased revenue had the government not dove headfirst in to deficit spending and if they hadn't happened as we were leaving a recession. Just look at pure revenues, not bottom line (spending). Problem is with that, though, is other monetary policy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) But here's the problem with your logic...if every one of the last 3 tax cuts drove increases in revenue, and it was solely those tax cuts responsible for the increase in revenue (and not, say, lucky timing)...then why didn't the Clinton era tax increases lead to decreases in revenue and larger deficits? The short answer is timing - and spending.

Here comes Katrina, er I mean, Hurricane Gustav. Its projected path is remarkably like Katrina's. Prices are about to go up 25 to 50 cents at the pump.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) It's a fraction of what it would otherwise be. But anyway taxes wouldn't be such a big deal if the spending wasn't crazy out of control. Why is it, then, that revenues to the government have gone up the last three times that taxes have been cut? Oh, now it would be more then it otherwise would have been? No. It would have stayed status quo because there would have been less income coming from below the highest levels.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 08:44 AM) Simply put, you need a certain amount of revenue if you want a fully functional government that lives up to its expectations. The money doesn't come out of thin air... and while I agree with the general idea that more money to invest leads to jobs I have to start laughing when I hear people claim that increases federal revenue. That makes about as much sense as me quitting my job for one where I work less and make half what I do now, and then saying it's easier for me to pay my bills. There's more sources of the income to make revenues higher. With that said, these dumbasses (my biggest beef with the GOP and their lack of control) need to stop spending so much. Period.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 08:38 AM) doesn't mean they don't want other Americans to pay more though It's been proven at least three times in the last 30 years that economic prosperity in this country happens more when the top income earners pay less in taxes, and it's no accident. Now, here comes the cynical bunch of you "libs" that say it can't possibly work (LAUGHER CURVE LOLERZ!!), but the results show otherwise - investments that these "ricj people" make come back around to actually help the lower wage earners by new jobs, etc. It's pretty hard to argue with actual results and not some theory of why it can't work.

But he had to write that in, why?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 07:11 AM) You clearly forgot that McCain was part of the Lollipop 6, the group of Senators that were rumored to have stolen candy from babies to help maintain subsidies for Big Oil! I wouldn't call Obama's tax position to be particularly leftist, rather than populist. In fact, with a few exceptions, I wouldn't classify either candidate as particularly extreme in one way or another. We are not dealing with ideologues in any way here. Rex, I'll be serious in a post for once. I posted somewhere else this morning that I think that majority of Americans, on a "liberal-conservative" scale, is generally pretty conservative. What I meant by that is: Americans would rather pay less in taxes Americans tend to be religous in some form or fashion (and I don't mean Christianity, per se, although that covers the majority of Americans). Americans don't want big brother government telling them how or what to do Americans don't want "CHANGE" - now in the RSO sort of way, they want change, but most are generally happy with thier life and would rather things stay "status quo" - so by that very nature, they're "conservative". What I'm trying to get at here is when you compare Americans to the rest of the world, they're a "conservative" bunch - not stupid "neo-con" conservative, but "content". That's more my definintion of "conservative". I guess really, my definition of "conservative" is more "libertarian" - meaning, leave me alone and shrink my government. I hope that makes sense. Now with all that said, I think that all candidates are trying to two the center line to pick off votes from either side of the spectrum. Duh. They've been doing it for years. The policy stances of RSO are more "left" then we've had in a while, and while he's not "far left" in the worldy point of view that Kip keeps trying to pin on me, he's certainly more "left" then a lot of candidates we've seen over the last 30 years. The "CITIZENS OF THE WORLD" speech is chock full of "leftist" ideas. Now, on the worldly scale, he's a "centrist". But not in the US. The pure distribution of wealth ideas alone could crumble our economic infastructure for decades, and that is something I don't want to "settle for" so that the government can control it all for us. The "free markets" aren't perfect, but they are certainly self correcting more then the government doing it for us. I hope I didn't post too many Kaperboles ™ in this post. Flaxx, where the hell ya been? I been using Kaperbole ™ about myself for months now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 09:28 PM) It's not what about fickle mainstream America wants right this second. Increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for social programs is absolutely leftist policy. At one point, over 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and were gung-ho about invasion -- does that make it a "centrist" policy, or just a popular one? It's not that ridiculous to claim Obama has a lot of far-left or heavily left-leaning policies. Many of those listed fit the description exactly. Government-run Health Care is left, Social Security is left, soaking the rich on taxes is left, gun control (at least to the level Obama supports) is left. I'm not arguing whether or not any of those policies is wrong, but I don't get how anyone can say they Obama isn't running on a pretty left platform. Thank you. And that's the tip of the proverbial iceberg. But he's a centrist!!! Give me a f***ing break. Anyone who says that is trying to spin it to fit their views. America by a "STANDARD" definition is pretty conservative on the political spectrum. Throw out the crazy bats*** gay marriage and abortion stances of the GOP and if people were really being honest, they'd fall more in line with GOP values. Now - much to AHB's point, and I agree 100% with that notion, the crazy bats*** ideals of the GOP is what hurts them, and that is where I disagree with them as well. Now I'm sure I'll get told Obama really values those "conservative" values as well, but that's again, pure bulls***. He's running to the center now that the primaries are done, and the majority of folks are buying it. Please. Maybe he just needs to say "faith" a couple of more times so you suckers can buy it. In terms of American politics, Obama is "far left" - he's not some communistic pig, ala Stalin, but in this country, he is.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) Most Americans favor Universal Health Care - so does Obama. Most Americans want to get out of Iraq asap - so does Obama. Most Americans want Social Security to be fixed - so does Obama. Most Americans want Bin Laden to be caught - so does Obama. Most Americans want a higher tax rate for millionaires - so does Obama. Most Americans want the new energy alternatives explored - so does Obama. Most Americans want some forms of gun control - so does Obama. etc etc etc. Seems pretty Centrist to me. The problem is the Right doesn't want what most Americans want - they want what a select few want. And that's not democracy. That's bulls***. PURE bulls***. I could cite and cite where what you say isn't true, but then you all will just disagree and/or say it's a bulls*** poll or whatever, because YOUR guy is a "centrist" because he matches what you want in a politician (someone pointed that out to me today, which is SO true... ).

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 05:13 PM) O's commentator even mentioning how the Sox seem to have a bet on who can hit a walkoff. If that's the case, put 2 L's on the board for tonight. f***tards.

ok, let's win this b**** right here, right now. Er, 4 months later.

So, what's happening?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) Sadly Mitt Romney makes the most sense. He would be the only one of the 4 who has real life economic experience. I am not sure who it will be. Like I said before, I wish he would get Alan Greenspan to run with him. Mitt Romney about makes me want to puke.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) one account. And it must be McCain's. The image war has begun - RSO's a centralist. Double

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) Let's be clear, Obama Has experience, it's just not Washington experience. What they fear is Barack Obama's Vision— a vision to empower people and to put people first again and they fear his power to inspire and ennoble men to have hope again — to believe again. They know that Barack offers real change (that means change from GOP domination and manipulation) and he offers forward thinking and progressive ideas and solutions to Really solve the current problems facing us today. One of Barrack's greatest assets is that he is unmired [sic] by the trappings of wealth and power that means big oil, as it is imperative that we find an alternative solution to oil, if the United States is to continue to be prosperous and to thrive. All of these attributes are which makes Barack a truly great leader of men, needed for these times! Some men are born for a holy mission, like the young King David who was made king over his older brothers. Their experience or annointing [sic] comes from God, such a man is Barack Drink some Kool-Aid. Where did you pull the quote from - need to cite it.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) according to a survey that just "happened" to have listed John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2004. Let's not get into this debate again. Been there, done that. Um, by most accounts, based on his LIMITED voting record, he's pretty damn far left.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) Obama is not far left. Period. What a definitive statement. His voting record says otherwise.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) Right and I understand that completely and all the Obama stuff aside, I understand why you'd vote for McCain even though I know you don't really like him. If you don't agree with somebody on basic ideologies why would you vote for them? It makes no sense. You may get into academic arguments on why to align with that ideology like we do here, but if you're rigid on all those things, unless the guy from your party is a criminal or something, then that's who you should vote for... although people are still free to do whatever they want with their vote. I'm sure most here have figured out that I don't agree with the Democrats on a lot of things and that I lean towards Democrats... I would vote Republican if I saw a guy I liked though. But I would never vote for a far right Republican. I'm pretty much right there with you, except swap out the Republican with Democrat on your post. And frankly I see RSO as a far left guy. FAR left. I also see much of the GWB syndrome with him (my way or the highway) except he's not a bumbling idiot about it like GWB is, which makes it that much more "dangerous".

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 11:54 AM) Yeah... I mean if you're serious about politics (and if you're a lifelong Democrat who is registered and is a loyal supporter of a prominent Democrat, I think that qualifies) I just can't understand how spite could be that strong unless you're just uneducated, ignorant, or otherwise don't care. I think some of those 26% will stop and think about what they're doing, and realize they are voting the exact opposite views of the candidate they supposedly support so strongly. I can understand abstaining from voting (or even better, writing in for Clinton), but don't vote AGAINST what you and your candidate believe in. That is like me getting pissed off at Jesse Jackson for saying he wants to cut Obama's nuts off and then declaring I'm going to a KKK rally next week. One of the Best Filibuster analogies ever.