Official Political Thread
- Thread starter Bill Cosby
- Start date
- Status
Originally posted by AustinTexasCat:
We ain't racist, we just don't really care for blacks, muslims, mexicans, teachers, or union workers. Think I got everyone...
***Breaking News****
A host on the Fox Business network?criticized last month for suggesting President Obama was "chugging 40's" during his trip to Europe?is facing allegations of racism after referring to the White House as the "Hizzouse," "Hizzy" and "The Big Crib," and guests of the administration as "hoods."
Eric Bolling, who hosts Fox Business' "Follow the Money," criticized Obama for inviting Gabon's president Ali Bongo at the White House this week, a month after the Fox News-fueled controversy over Common's invitation to perform at First Lady Michelle Obama's poetry event. Bolling's broadcast late last week came on the heels of another racially tinged controversy, courtesy of Bolling's Fox Business colleague John Stossel, who drew flak for bringing an Obama impersonator on air to stage a mock debate with a 2012 GOP presidential hopeful.
Can't wait to hear that this guy has resigned...oh wait, he works for Fox. This is actually encouraged.
fair and balanced
We ain't racist, we just don't really care for blacks, muslims, mexicans, teachers, or union workers. Think I got everyone...
***Breaking News****
A host on the Fox Business network?criticized last month for suggesting President Obama was "chugging 40's" during his trip to Europe?is facing allegations of racism after referring to the White House as the "Hizzouse," "Hizzy" and "The Big Crib," and guests of the administration as "hoods."
Eric Bolling, who hosts Fox Business' "Follow the Money," criticized Obama for inviting Gabon's president Ali Bongo at the White House this week, a month after the Fox News-fueled controversy over Common's invitation to perform at First Lady Michelle Obama's poetry event. Bolling's broadcast late last week came on the heels of another racially tinged controversy, courtesy of Bolling's Fox Business colleague John Stossel, who drew flak for bringing an Obama impersonator on air to stage a mock debate with a 2012 GOP presidential hopeful.
Can't wait to hear that this guy has resigned...oh wait, he works for Fox. This is actually encouraged.
fair and balanced
Originally posted by Mime-Is-Money:
Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:
Let me guess, you have a full proof computer data base which stores all of this vital information so there is no way for human error or voter fraud?? You're right I stand corrected.
Didn't say that there was no chance of voter fraud or human error, did I? It looks like I'm going to have to hold your hand through this process:
Me: we had a no ID system in Cambridge MA
Rex Kwon do: How does that work?
Me: people who are registered to vote are on the precinct's voter registration log. When they show up, they give their name and address. The people working the polls will then mark their name off the registration log
You: how do you remember who voted? Especially Latino names that all sound the same to me?!?!
Me: Really? Did you not read how it works?
You: voter registration grumble grumble full proof blah blah blah black people IDs
Mime . . . can you honestly not comprehend how your voting system in Cambridge, MA is susceptible to voter fraud given the absence of a means to confirm the person who shows up to cast a vote is actually the person who appears on the list of registered voters? Really?
Whenever I have voted, they scratch my name off of the role.
Is this what you guys think is happening? ACORN registers a whole bunch of fraudulent voter registration cards. These fake names wind up on a voter role. Then an ACORN operative walks into 10 different precincts and votes each time as someone else on that precinct voter role.
Is this how you see it working? Wouldn't it take hundreds and hundreds of conspirators to pull off this massive voter fraud scheme and no one ratting them out? It also has to occur only in elections where the vote was just close enough that these thousands? tens of thousands? of votes pull the win out.
Sounds pretty far fetched to me.
I mean, I guess they could steal small scale, local elections like school board, judge, town councilman.
Is this what you guys think is happening? ACORN registers a whole bunch of fraudulent voter registration cards. These fake names wind up on a voter role. Then an ACORN operative walks into 10 different precincts and votes each time as someone else on that precinct voter role.
Is this how you see it working? Wouldn't it take hundreds and hundreds of conspirators to pull off this massive voter fraud scheme and no one ratting them out? It also has to occur only in elections where the vote was just close enough that these thousands? tens of thousands? of votes pull the win out.
Sounds pretty far fetched to me.
I mean, I guess they could steal small scale, local elections like school board, judge, town councilman.
Yeah . . . it's pretty unheard of to have any elections with slim margins of victory.
Al Franken - US Senator from Minnesota - 2008 election margin of victory 312 votes (0.01%)
Maria Cantwell - US Senator from Washington - 2000 election margin of victory 2229 votes (0.09%)
George Bush - President of the United States - believe the final margin of victory in Florida in 2000 (which decided the election) was 537 votes (0.009%).
2008 Presidential Election:
John McCain - Missouri margin of victory 3903 votes (0.13%)
Barack Obama - North Carolina margin of victory 14,177 votes (0.33%)
I'm not accusing ACORN of anything, though I do think the organization is shady. Furthermore, the margin of victory is irrelevant. I'm arguing the point that verifying voter identification is a reasonable approach to ensuring the legitimacy of election results. There is simply no valid counterargument, yet the Libs seem to want to sink with the ship on this point. It makes no sense. This is a concept that should be universally supported no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Sick and tired of hearing this excuse. Since the beginning of free enterprise the unknown has been a factor and boom periods usher in an entirely new set of uncertainties. It’s one sorry a$$ excuse.
While there are plenty of legit reasons why some companies are sitting on record profits all you have to do is look at how most companies reward their C level executives: revenue/profits/stock value. So the people who make the decision to hire have zero motivation to do so.
Now go back to the last page and you’re going to see the problems the GOP will face if they actually stick to facts. You’ve got folks saying the economy is in the dump and then turning right around and crying that Pelosi made a bundle last year. Yeah, apparently the economy really sucks. Or is it just the rich that are making money now? Either way the GOP loses. Toss in Pelosi/Kerry and other wealthy democrats who are pushing to increase taxes on themselves and I can see why the right is already giving the sound bites all their lip service.
Then more pissing and moaning about the economy and yet almost every major economic indicator is trending upward: manufacturing, exports, the stock market, lot’s of positives. Sure they’ll see 2-3 months of progress and then a step back because that’s EXACTLY what a turnaround looks like.
If you are referring to my original post about 'uncertainty' regarding the idiot NYT journalist then you are missing the point.
Yes, there is always uncertainty in the economy. So much is out of the government's control (thankfully). One thing we can control is our tax policy. The economy is accustomed to changes in income tax policy larger chunks of time...4-10 years (my numbers, did not research). When you keep the rate the same but kick the can down the road only 2 years...at which time they will either kick it down the road another two or raise them (my opinion)=====> you are handing corporations a lot of uncertainty regarding the disposable income / purchasing power of the consumers of the corporation's products/services.
Someone (Deee or Mime?) after me made a great point about demand (or lack thereof) being the other huge factor in corporations not hiring and that is spot on. That is looking at it from the opposite (consumer) end of things where 'uncertainty' also comes into play especially in the top marginal bracket. People that do have money ($250K+) are also potentially sitting on it because they too are concerned that in '12 they are going to get hit with a sizable tax increase. Why wouldn't they feel that way? After all they have been the target of very strong rhetoric from the POTUS/Dem Leaders for years now...should they not be taking them at their word?
Bottom line, there is a difference in 'uncertainty' between uncontrollable market forces and controllable income/corporate/capital gains (we haven't even touched on that one, jagoffs...) tax policy.
This post was edited on 6/16 9:57 AM by Rex Kwon Do
Yes, there is always uncertainty in the economy. So much is out of the government's control (thankfully). One thing we can control is our tax policy. The economy is accustomed to changes in income tax policy larger chunks of time...4-10 years (my numbers, did not research). When you keep the rate the same but kick the can down the road only 2 years...at which time they will either kick it down the road another two or raise them (my opinion)=====> you are handing corporations a lot of uncertainty regarding the disposable income / purchasing power of the consumers of the corporation's products/services.
Someone (Deee or Mime?) after me made a great point about demand (or lack thereof) being the other huge factor in corporations not hiring and that is spot on. That is looking at it from the opposite (consumer) end of things where 'uncertainty' also comes into play especially in the top marginal bracket. People that do have money ($250K+) are also potentially sitting on it because they too are concerned that in '12 they are going to get hit with a sizable tax increase. Why wouldn't they feel that way? After all they have been the target of very strong rhetoric from the POTUS/Dem Leaders for years now...should they not be taking them at their word?
Bottom line, there is a difference in 'uncertainty' between uncontrollable market forces and controllable income/corporate/capital gains (we haven't even touched on that one, jagoffs...) tax policy.
This post was edited on 6/16 9:57 AM by Rex Kwon Do
Back to the horserace aspects.....I just read this quote by then Senator Obama, in June of 2006 well before he had designs on the White House (you'll recall that his wife famously said in 2007 he simply wasn't ready to be President). Interesting, coming from him -- I suppose both his fans and critics alike would have a hard time believing he said this:
By his standard, I see a lot of call for "practical absurdity" in this forum.....
This post was edited on 6/16 10:16 AM by Mojocat
By his standard, I see a lot of call for "practical absurdity" in this forum.....
This post was edited on 6/16 10:16 AM by Mojocat
Expect Marco Rubio to be the leading contender for VP. Florida and the Hispanic vote is critical in this election.
Hopefully Romney/Rubio. Win.
Talk about grabbing a bowl of popcorn while watching the Liberals (drink lol!!1) and the media try to rape and pillage Rubio...they will probably leave all things on the table, including murdering him on stage at the VP debate, to keep a conservative Latino out of a shot at the WH someday...let alone "first".
Talk about grabbing a bowl of popcorn while watching the Liberals (drink lol!!1) and the media try to rape and pillage Rubio...they will probably leave all things on the table, including murdering him on stage at the VP debate, to keep a conservative Latino out of a shot at the WH someday...let alone "first".
So let me see if I understand this correctly: throw Rubio on the ticket to get the Latino vote. No mention of his policy just get that critical voting bloc.
From the party that accuses the other side of pandering.
Desperation doesn’t suit the right very well, amusing, but not flattering. Hypocritical, certainly.
From the party that accuses the other side of pandering.
Desperation doesn’t suit the right very well, amusing, but not flattering. Hypocritical, certainly.
Yes, and that sort of thing certainly is foreign to politics, and always has been. Of course. Shame on the republicans.
You certainly have no use for the other side. Critical, which is fair, a little blinded, which happens to us all. At least you're not going nuclear and throwing profanity bombs, or insisting that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Shame that I have to commend someonefor employing basic courtesies, but such are the times in which we live....
Well to be clear, in my opinion putting Rubio on the ticket has about 95+% to do with trying to win Florida, and then perhaps 5% or less to do with attracting Hispanic voters. I have no idea how many Hispanic voters would vote based upon race rather than policy, nor do I know the current estimated proportion of conservative versus liberal Hispanic voters. In any event, Marco Rubio's conservative policy is not in question.
If you don't believe VP candidates are selected in order to balance a ticket, attract certain voting demographics, and win particular states, you are more naive than I previously suspected. Adding Rubio to the ticket would hardly be an act of "desperation." It would be a very savvy decision in the political arena.
this article pretty much sums up how I feel about conservatives right now.
"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.
Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.
conservatives lost touch with realities
"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.
Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.
conservatives lost touch with realities
There is cheating or shady things at best that occur in every election. See Al Franken. Mime I'm sure is an upstanding guy when it comes to his monitoring but I believe ACORN does anything they are capable of to make sure as many votes are cast for Democrats in every election.
Also in regards to having your name scratched off a list, sometimes indeed. I once voted in the clubhouse of my apartment complex and 3-4 very elderly ladies were working off a paper list and I gave them my name and address and they put a check mark next to it. No ID required.
Very interesting and not surprisingly, you won't see that covered anywhere in the MSM. Every time a conservative says they pray about an issue, all we hear from the left is that " God is telling them what to do".
"Now go back to the last page and you’re going to see the problems the GOP will face if they actually stick to facts. You’ve got folks saying the economy is in the dump and then turning right around and crying that Pelosi made a bundle last year. Yeah, apparently the economy really sucks."
So Pelosi's net worth going up 62% in one year helps the Democrats ey? By that rational, with Exxon's record profits the GOP should win in a landslide since they are the party of "big business". Unless the unemployment rate is well below 8%, Obama is in trouble.
There was a report the other day that even though the Administration still think they will win, they are think it will be a 1-2 point race. That's called a dead heat.
So Pelosi's net worth going up 62% in one year helps the Democrats ey? By that rational, with Exxon's record profits the GOP should win in a landslide since they are the party of "big business". Unless the unemployment rate is well below 8%, Obama is in trouble.
There was a report the other day that even though the Administration still think they will win, they are think it will be a 1-2 point race. That's called a dead heat.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
What newspapers do you still read?
- Latest: Someguywhodoesntlikeyou
