Rex Kickass

Here's the difference, Michael Moore isn't represented by folks like Tom Coburn, Rick Santorum, the Ten Commandments judge, and other people with power in the government. The Christian Coalition is. The Christian Coalition actively organize with the GOP every year, not just this year. Four years ago, Michael Moore campaigned for Nader. And if Michael Moore supported this, he'd be wrong too.

I don't know if all or any of this is true. But Keith Olbermann's MSNBC blog is showing some pretty interesting stuff right now. He's not a great anchor, but he's a great columnist, IMHO. Bloggerman

People don't vote for a presidential candidate because of who he nominated for Sec. of State. But that's beside the point. Ralph Reed and Richard Viguerie and other folks on the right are quick to take ownership of the Bush victory and the election. They claim it was because of the values they represent. The same people who campaigned for Bush on the basis of values, campaigned to keep this language in the AL constitution. So these must be some of the values they care about. And that's just sad.

If Australia was invaded, the U.S. would proabably help - but that's not really how the war on terror works. We aren't fighting governments, we're fighting loosely organized bands of people who want to destroy us.

I don't know the nuts and bolts of this proposal but I know that my tax rate falls between 10 and 15% federally depending on how many exemptions and credits I can get. I do live above the poverty level, which is in my opinion an absurdly low benchmark, so my tax burden would roughly double under this idea of a 23% VAT. The question I have though, is would such a radical shift in tax policy create a larger short term deficit - which would then be passed on to the states? Where funded mandates become unfunded? Because we already deal with sales taxes by state - some as high as 9%. And state income tax which won't go away. Wouldn't an elimination of federal income tax be an incentive for state governments to raise their income taxes instead, creating a net tax increase rather than decrease? Just questions from my not so econ expert head.

I think this would be a disaster for the economy. There is no way the price of a car is going to fall by 23% because taxes are reduced. Oh yeah, and they are talking payroll and income tax. Not corporate taxes. And if the poverty line is the line to make certain people exempt from sales taxes - this would be a huge increase in taxes on families making under 50,000 dollars.

What a freaking idiot.

A 23% National Sales Tax would be an unmitigated disaster. Instant inflation to the average consumer.

I remember reading something about a significant amount of Iraqi forces being compromised by the insurgency. Anyone got any figures about that? I really hope the Iraq situation can settle down soon.

Ted Rall is the Ann Coulter of the left. A no-talent ass-clown hack. Who lies to make points. He's not my spokesman.

Actually, I think my correlation is valid. Who led the fight against the constitutional changes in Alabama? The Christian Coalition. The ones who are doing their best to brag that this was a value based election. In the last three days, I've heard a ton of bashing about California, Massachussets and New York for being out of touch with the rest of America. Why? Because people on your side take quotes from people who happen to fall on my side of the fence politically that are stupid. Here, a whole state is stupid. When I was at the University of Kansas - the Republican party made it a political goal, and succeeded temporarily to remove the teaching of evolution from public schools. It wasn't even the compromise of putting ID teachings in public schools along evolution (which is equal bull s*** - but that's a whole other discussion). I could go into the fight about the rebel flag and how so many people in red states claim that the flying of it at state houses has to do with appreciation of the South and is an age old tradition - even though with many, it only dates back to the 1950's. Or was a reaction to reconstructionism to make clear that the black folk weren't gonna be in charge anytime soon. Attack me for painting a broad brush if you will - but you've attacked "culture." I've attacked policy.

It's your guys's fault

Hey, I don't think hate crime legislation is a good idea either. And I'm a bleeding heart. I think since judges have the ability to grow sentences based on the egregiousness of a crime, the need to make someone's thought behind the crime another crime is both needless and, frankly, a little frightening. The latest idea I've heard from people on my side is to let Bush and his GOP live with a mandate... even push his agenda even further. If the republicans believe in less government, just end Social Security and Medicare. Make abortion and gay marriage states rights issues. Repeal the income tax amendment. The thought behind it is that it would turn the conservative best case scenario quickly into the worst case scenario for most red states - because they receive more from the federal government they spend. In an average year, Mass. receives 70 cents in federal money for every dollar they put in. Mississippi receives over 1.90 for every dollar they put in. If this best case scenario were to happen, the blue states could more easily provide the same services than the red states. But in Alabama, or Montana, or Mississippi, where federal money is needed to provide basic services, the problems would quickly mount. Poor people would have no access to basic services, or the richer people would quickly find themselves paying even more than they already do to maintain a barebones level of what we expect in our society. Personally, I think this is a pipe dream idea, but an interesting notion of taking the conservative agenda and using it against conservatives.

So the talk of this election is that the difference was one of values. Same sex marriage ballots, traditional values vs. "Hollywood values" etc. One red state decided to show the kind of values it believes in. Alabama Faces Recount Over Segregationist Laws The question was why are the red states belittled by the blue states earlier? Now, I think you know the answer.

I'm not going to argue with you. All I'm saying is that the report that the Navy made said that the related job loss was less than half a million jobs. If we were already in a recession when this happened, you can't blame all the job loss between the last three months of 2001 on the terrorist incident. In fact, the Navy also said in the report that the economic effect of 9/11 was smaller than originally anticipated in the short and medium term.

Here's the Navy's estimate for jobs lost. The Economic Costs of 9/11 Their estimate, 430,000 jobs. Still significant but not a million. In fact, I think in your chart NUKE, the attack wiped out less than one fifth of the jobs created in 2000.

So what you're really showing me is that job loss reached its peak at the same time September 11th happened. What youre showing anecdotal evidence. Show me some data to prove that the majority of these 1 million jobs were caused by 9/11.

Coattails. People voting party line, rather than individual candidate. I ran my dad's town council campaign last year. He was a polarizing guy because of his previous stint before he got booted out. The key to getting him elected? Getting people to vote straight ticket. Out of 167 votes, over 25 placed straight Rep tickets. My father won by three votes.

OK: so you claim a shockwave. So show me data. Prove your claims.

Seriously, this is the best. Winners whining like victims who lost. The east and the west hurt the midwest feelings. They're either elitist or poor. They don't understand me. Waaaah. Grow a damn skin, seriously.

You don't get it. All Democrats are gay!

Actually, I'd love being in a governmentally designated situation referred to as butt pirates squared.

I'd love to see those who claim 1 million jobs lost on 9/11 back that up with data. Last time I checked 1 million people didn't work in World Trade Center. As of last month, I remember hearing there was a net job loss of 800,000 over four years. This report added 400,000 jobs to the economy. 800K-400K does not equal zero. At least, I didn't think it did. If you're going to talk about economic health - please make sure your simple math at least adds up correctly.

Democrats miss the point. They don't need to move an inch on the issues. They need to find a better way to phrase the argument. Elections are won and lost on perception, not policy.

We aren't red, we aren't blue. We're purple.