Eh, nevermind the blunt and borderline crass bit of reality there, but why on earth would he think Obama would nominate a conservative judge?

Edited February 23, 200917 yr by lostfan

Eh, nevermind the blunt and borderline crass bit of reality there, but why on earth would he think Obama would nominate a conservative judge?

 

Jim Bunning is not all there mentally. He was a great pitcher back in the day though.

Edited February 23, 200917 yr by Chet Lemon

Eh, nevermind the blunt and borderline crass bit of reality there, but why on earth would he think Obama would nominate a conservative judge?

Maybe my memory is wrong, but I thought Obama has expressed interest in keeping the supreme court "balanced". Basically, lean it to the left, but keep it 5-4... no "activist" supreme court. I may be totally wrong or misheard him.

Have any of these guys ever gone to Google and typed "obama birth certificate"?

Meghan McCain: The GOP isnt tech savvy

When I first suggested launching a blog chronicling my experience on my father's campaign for president, I was met with confusion and resistance. A few people even asked me what's a blog. Throughout the campaign, I did everything possible to showcase the fun and interesting parts of the campaign. I posted pictures. I wrote posts. I even included a playlist of my favorite songs. But often, I got the sense that people on the campaign thought I was wasting my time.

 

The Republican party isn't exactly Internet savvy. That's no secret. This has been a source of personal frustration for me for a very long time. Unless the GOP evolves as the party that can successfully utilize the Web, we'll continue to lose influence.

Edited February 23, 200917 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Maybe my memory is wrong, but I thought Obama has expressed interest in keeping the supreme court "balanced". Basically, lean it to the left, but keep it 5-4... no "activist" supreme court. I may be totally wrong or misheard him.

 

Probably are totally wrong. A big reason why people were pissed at hillary's win at all cost campaign was the high number of liberal court justices people felt were holding out for a democratic president. They were selling to her former supporters to remember that. Of course he supports a balanced court, but that would mean not appointing a conservative for a more liberal judge.

Wackjob Alan Keyes: "Obama is a radical communist... he is going to destroy America"

And it continues:

Sanford compares Obama admin to Stalin, Weimar

If we go too far in just spending too much money and borrowing money, we could put ourselves in the exact position Argentina found itself in the 1920s when they had, you know, cratering of their currency. If you look at the Weimar Republic, you know, between World War I and World War II, you had a cratering of their currency, so much that you had to carry a wheelbarrow load of currency to get so much as a loaf of bread. And horrible things happened in the wake of that experience.

 

...and on Fox News Sunday:

At times it sounds like the Soviet grain quotas of Stalin's time -- X number of jobs will be created because Washington says so.

yes, why can't we create Pinochet's chile??????

Eh, nevermind the blunt and borderline crass bit of reality there, but why on earth would he think Obama would nominate a conservative judge?

Because if the Democrats filibuster a judge, it's evil. If the Democrats nominate a judge, he needs 60 votes.

Senator Bunning's office issues a half-hearted apology.

"I apologize if my comments offended Justice Ginsberg," Bunning said. "That certainly was not my intent. It is great to see her back at the Supreme Court today and I hope she recovers quickly. My thoughts and prayers are with her and her family."

 

Note: Bunning's office misspelled Ginsburg's last name.

Senate GOP rejects Obama's $75 billion housing reform plan as too expensive, responds with $300 billion housing purchase subsidy plan.

The [senate GOP's] plan would potentially cover trillions of dollars of real estate and cost taxpayers up to $300 billion in subsidies. It's the sort of big-government spending plan that House Republicans have been railing against -- at least when they come from the lips of Democrats.

Senator Bunning's office issues a half-hearted apology.

 

What a f***ing douchebag. Apparently he thought her death would mean another conservative on the court. Idiot! Obama is the President - who the hell do you think he's gonna appoint?

Senator Bunning's office issues a half-hearted apology.

 

I love when people apologize for "if my remarks offended you," and not for their actual remarks.

I love when people apologize for "if my remarks offended you," and not for their actual remarks.

 

I know that is the new "apology" but it is complete bulls***. If you add qualifiers, you aren't actually apologizing. You are basically being an arrogant prick.

I know that is the new "apology" but it is complete bulls***. If you add qualifiers, you aren't actually apologizing. You are basically being an arrogant prick.

 

It's really just another insult. "I'm sorry that you (were so thin-skinned that you) were offended" is all it really means, at least to me.

New GOP Chair...

If you dont walk the party line, you're out!

 

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has threatened to withhold party funds from three GOP senators who voted for the stimulus package.

 

“Will you, as RNC head, recommend no RNC funds being provided to help them?” Steele was asked on Fox News.

 

“Oh, yes, I`m always open to everything, baby, absolutely," Steele said.

 

 

Deep Thought: If this is the new party philosophy... then it's a good thing McCain ran when he did. While I dont think he was much of a Maverick during hte campaign, he sure was one before... and with this new "walk the party line" mentality, he'd never have a chance.

Edited February 24, 200917 yr by Athomeboy_2000

But Obama's pathetic attempts at bipartisanship were a failure!

Raise taxes. There's no other way.

 

Raise taxes on the people that deserve it, and raise it to 91%.

Raise taxes on the people that deserve it, and raise it to 91%.

 

Who "deserves" having their taxes raised, and why to 91%?

 

What happens when those people decide to say "f*** it" and leave the country/ stop producing?

Who "deserves" having their taxes raised, and why to 91%?

 

What happens when those people decide to say "f*** it" and leave the country/ stop producing?

Oh, you mean like corporations already do? Hmmmmmmmmm.

 

Corporate tax rates are not what drives them out of the US. That is and always has been a red herring. What drives them out is either (take your pick, or take both) compensation levels for American workers or healthcare costs.

Corporate tax rates are not what drives them out of the US. That is and always has been a red herring. What drives them out is either (take your pick, or take both) compensation levels for American workers or healthcare costs.

That's not entirely true. Partly (a very small part), but not entirely.

 

There are so many MNE's set up for tax purposes only it's crazy. Compensation levels are NOT a part of it. Healthcare costs are a small consideration because they get a write off for that.

Corporate tax rates are not what drives them out of the US. That is and always has been a red herring. What drives them out is either (take your pick, or take both) compensation levels for American workers or healthcare costs.

Sort of. Tax rates, and breaks, WILL have an effect locally, for attracting businesses. But companies move production overseas for one or more of these reasons:

 

--Lower labor costs (pay, benefits)

--Tax situations (but its more about "special" tax shelters for profits overseas, not because of high rates here)

--Proximity to, or lower cost of, production-necessary hard resources

--As part of marketing/agreements on products to be sold in a new region or country

--General growth strategies for global businesses

--Certain financial concerns outside of taxes (related to FX, trade agreements, or other stuff)

 

And there may be others I am not thinking of.

 

That's not entirely true. Partly (a very small part), but not entirely.

 

There are so many MNE's set up for tax purposes only it's crazy. Compensation levels are NOT a part of it. Healthcare costs are a small consideration because they get a write off for that.

By compensation levels I mean the fact that you can pay someone in India or China considerably less to do the same work at the same level of quality since their standard of living is nowhere near what it is in the US.

 

Plus, aren't there a bunch of loopholes for US corporations that reduce the amount of tax they actually pay to begin with? So the phrase "2nd highest corporate taxes in the world" is misleading.

Edited February 24, 200917 yr by lostfan

That's not entirely true. Partly (a very small part), but not entirely.

 

There are so many MNE's set up for tax purposes only it's crazy. Compensation levels are NOT a part of it. Healthcare costs are a small consideration because they get a write off for that.

Its much more than a small part, its usually the biggest part. Labor costs moved overseas are almost always far lower than here.

 

Sort of. Tax rates, and breaks, WILL have an effect locally, for attracting businesses. But companies move production overseas for one or more of these reasons:

 

--Lower labor costs (pay, benefits)

--Tax situations (but its more about "special" tax shelters for profits overseas, not because of high rates here)

--Proximity to, or lower cost of, production-necessary hard resources

--As part of marketing/agreements on products to be sold in a new region or country

--General growth strategies for global businesses

--Certain financial concerns outside of taxes (related to FX, trade agreements, or other stuff)

 

And there may be others I am not thinking of.

I oversimplified it in that post yes, but I think for all the screaming that's done about US corporate tax rates, my point was that there are other factors that are just as big if not bigger.