Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[Kelly]

Ya, as someone who is in that demographic, I do feel challenged when I hear republican slogans and philosophies. It overall feels like a class, race, culture war. Instead of something that is political. Oh well, CC is waiting for the rise of a new party. Also it doesn't help that when you go conservative and are a minority you are almost labeled as a sell out and yada yada. :boba:


Yes, I teach in a school "outside" of Houston, but has the same demographics of a NYC inner city school...I live in Northeast Houston, in a nice apartment smack in the middle of one of the poorest areas of the city......I see the challenges every day, and the Republican Party just doesn't see it. Honestly, I don't think that the Democrats see areas like this either.....they focus on Megalopolis and forget the urban areas of the South......so both parties have some work to do.

BUT, on your 3rd party rise.....I wouldn't hold my breath.:csad:

[Marx]

PALIN OFFICIALLY JOINS 'RE-BRANDING EFFORT'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/palin-officially-joins-gop-rebranding-effort/

A few hours after Rush Limbaugh told listeners GOP leaders launching a Republican re-branding effort hated and feared Sarah Palin, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor announced that the Alaska governor had finally accepted an invitation to join the group.

On a conference call last week for the National Council for a New America, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain said he thought his running mate would probably be part of the effort as well — but there had been no immediate confirmation by her office.

The two groups of key Palin aides — those in the governor's office in Alaska, and at her Virginia-based political action committee SarahPAC — have often given very different messages on her participation with various groups: Congressional leaders and conservative activists have both announced Palin's planned attendance at major events this year after receiving assurances from one set of advisors, only to learn later from other aides that she hadn't yet made a decision.

The governor's decision to join the NCNA's panel of experts was confirmed Monday by spokeswoman Meg Stapleton.

[Matt]

Yes, I teach in a school "outside" of Houston, but has the same demographics of a NYC inner city school...I live in Northeast Houston, in a nice apartment smack in the middle of one of the poorest areas of the city......I see the challenges every day, and the Republican Party just doesn't see it. Honestly, I don't think that the Democrats see areas like this either.....they focus on Megalopolis and forget the urban areas of the South......so both parties have some work to do.

BUT, on your 3rd party rise.....I wouldn't hold my breath.:csad:

Neither party gives two ****s.The Democrats treat innercity urbanites and minorities the same way Republicans treat the anti-abortion lot. They string them along, and give them just enough to appear like they're doing something for them, when in reality, they're not.

[Marx]

Neither party gives two ****s.The Democrats treat innercity urbanites and minorities the same way Republicans treat the anti-abortion lot. They string them along, and give them just enough to appear like they're doing something for them, when in reality, they're not.

Matt. You ARE the resistance!

6lj-17kkUZ8

:oldrazz:

[Matt]

:funny:

[Superman]

Your point is wrong. The Republicans rode the "contract" to controlling congress. Just because Republicans broke that contract 10 years later means little. One of the biggest factors to the death of the GOP was not America changing - but the GOP changing. When the Republican Party continued to fail in addressing government spending and illegal immigration - conservatives lost faith in the party.And it all started with the "contract". The "Contract with America" gave the GOP control of congress. Once the GOP got control of congress they started changing. The GOP started in with the social issues, Gay marriage and so on, and they forgot all about being "Fiscal" conservatives. It wasn't 10 years later, It was as soon as they gained power.

This is the reason conservatives, Real conservatives anyway, lost faith in the party.

[Superman]

Pretty much what Norman said. The Contract with America was very successful for the Republicans, regardless of what your hatred of the Republican Party tells you.Can we stop with the personal attacks? That's twice you've attacked my opinion of your party. My personal feelings for your party has nothing to do with this. I haven't attacked your personal feelings for the Dems in this conversation, Please don't do it to me.

And I agree that the CWA was successful getting Republicans voted in but that's beside the point. It's AFTER they got into office is were it started going down hill for them.

[hippie_hunter]

Can we stop with the personal attacks? That's twice you've attacked my opinion of your party. My personal feelings for your party has nothing to do with this. I haven't attacked your personal feelings for the Dems in this conversation, Please don't do it to me.
I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out that your bias of pretty much hating anything remotely Republican is blinding you to plain and simple facts. And I also have no hatred towards the Democratic Party. I actually admire them for being far more open towards their moderates than the Republicans and I am impressed on how successful they have been in elections since 2006.

And I agree that the CWA was successful getting Republicans voted in but that's beside the point. It's AFTER they got into office is were it started going down hill for them.
No, it started going downhill ten years later when the Republicans ignored the government aspects of the Contract with America and focused only on the social aspects along with the rather poor Presidency of George W. Bush is when people started to get turned off the Republicans. But for 10+ years, the Republicans were very successful in elections because of the Contract with America.

Your argument of the Republicans not needing another Contract with America makes no sense because why would they NOT want to go back to what worked very well for them. Because the direction they are currently in is obviously failing and is putting them on a path towards irrelevance.

[Kelly]

HH I wholeheartedly agree with you....BUT there is a BIG difference between the Republicans of the 90's and those now. You could have a wonderful new CWA written, but you have absolutely no one....that can articulate to the people like they did before. The Republicans of that time are moving on.....and the one's left are the idiots that couldn't find their ass with both hands.

[hippie_hunter]

HH I wholeheartedly agree with you....BUT there is a BIG difference between the Republicans of the 90's and those now. You could have a wonderful new CWA written, but you have absolutely no one....that can articulate to the people like they did before. The Republicans of that time are moving on.....and the one's left are the idiots that couldn't find their ass with both hands.

I think that if the GOP tried hard enough instead of focusing on "superstars" like Jindal and Palin, I think they could find someone to pass the message and become a new Gingrich.

[Kelly]

I think that if the GOP tried hard enough instead of focusing on "superstars" like Jindal and Palin, I think they could find someone to pass the message and become a new Gingrich.

I think they have someone in a few years.....but "right now" there is no one.


I think Mark Kirk (R) Illinois US House of Represenatives, but he's not ready now....

[SsM]

I think they have someone in a few years.....but "right now" there is no one.


I like that kid prodigy that I saw on a talk show a month or so ago..

I don't remember his name.

[SuBe]

Johnathon Kronnan or something like that.

[Kelly]

That 12-13 year old kid?

Oh...lord no, he's far too right for my taste.

[SsM]

That 12-13 year old kid?

Oh...lord no, he's far too right for my taste.


He's a kid though! You gotta love him :cmad:


:grin:

[Marx]

He's a kid though! You gotta love him :cmad:


:grin:

Kids like that, and the ones that come from 'Jesus Camp' scare the bejeebies right out of me!

[SsM]

What the hell is a Jesus Camp?

[SuBe]

Its a "documentary" about the "evils" of Christianity.

[SsM]

I see.. There's nothing wrong with being a real Christian. It's the crazy "God hates ***s" people and Extremists that are the true problem for Christians and non Christians alike.

Judge not lest ye be judged yourself!

[SuBe]

I see.. There's nothing wrong with being a real Christian. It's the crazy "God hates ***s" people and Extremists that are the true problem for Christians and non Christians alike.

Judge not lest ye be judged yourself!
I agree. It's like people who say they are FOR the Constitution, but support programs that are against the fundamentals in it. How can you be a follower of Christ if you don't follow his teachings?

[SsM]

You just have to watch what people do instead of just listening to what they say.. I know it's cliche but hell. Actions speak louder than words, If someone says they are a Christian and then they go around drinking/cursing/ Judging people who they have no right to judge in the first place not only are they making fools of themselves in front of whoever is around them but they are mocking the teachings of the One they are supposedly following.


How did I derail this(thread)so much, I apologize >(

[SuBe]

You should apologize. It's all you fault.

[Kelly]

You just have to watch what people do instead of just listening to what they say.. I know it's cliche but hell. Actions speak louder than words, If someone says they are a Christian and then they go around drinking/cursing/ Judging people who they have no right to judge in the first place not only are they making fools of themselves in front of whoever is around them but they are mocking the teachings of the One they are supposedly following.


How did I derail this(thread)so much, I apologize >(


Well I guess 2 outta 3 ain't bad....:csad:


You are an expert at it bucko....:cmad:

[SsM]

I Try not to curse or judge people... and I don't drink!

No one is perfect..

[StorminNorman]

And it all started with the "contract". The "Contract with America" gave the GOP control of congress. Once the GOP got control of congress they started changing. The GOP started in with the social issues, Gay marriage and so on, and they forgot all about being "Fiscal" conservatives. It wasn't 10 years later, It was as soon as they gained power.

This is the reason conservatives, Real conservatives anyway, lost faith in the party.

But you misunderstand the point of the "Contract".

The point of the Contract wasn't really to guide the Party - it was to win votes. It was a campaign stunt.

Now, logic would dictate that since people elected Republicans BECAUSE of the Contract - the GOP would think it prudent to govern accordingly...but they didn't. Thus the failure was not with the Contract itself, but the GOP leadership post-Newt.

[StorminNorman]

HH I wholeheartedly agree with you....BUT there is a BIG difference between the Republicans of the 90's and those now. You could have a wonderful new CWA written, but you have absolutely no one....that can articulate to the people like they did before. The Republicans of that time are moving on.....and the one's left are the idiots that couldn't find their ass with both hands.

We need idea people first. It's always easier to find a charismatic face than it is a intelligent brain.

Form a message before you sell it.

[Carcharodon]

Its a "documentary" about the "evils" of Christianity.Hmmm....no. Nice try, though. Maybe try watching it first. :up:

[StorminNorman]

Powell Says Shrinking GOP Should Return To The Center
Tuesday, May 5, 2009

by Chris Strohm

The Republican Party is in big trouble and needs to find a way to move back to the middle of the country, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday.

Powell said the GOP is "getting smaller and smaller" and "that's not good for the nation." He also said he hopes that emerging GOP leaders, such as House Minority Whip Cantor, will not keep repeating mantras of the far right.

"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."

Powell, secretary of State during the first term of former President George W. Bush, made waves last year when he came out for the Democratic presidential candidate, then-Sen.Barack Obama of Illinois. Powell described the 2008 GOP candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, as "a beloved friend" but said he told him last summer that the party had developed a reputation for being mean-spirited and driven more by social conservatism than the economic problems that Americans faced.

Powell also criticized other GOP leaders, for bowing too much to the right.

He blasted radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, saying he does not believe that Limbaugh or conservative icon Ann Coulter serve the party well. He said the party lacks a "positive" spokesperson. "I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.

He also said that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate last year, is "a very accomplished person" but became "a very polarizing figure." He said the polarization was created by Palin's advisers.

Powell said he does not want Republicans to turn into Democrats but rather to build a vibrant party.

On other fronts, Powell said he was concerned that the Pentagon is reportedly going to create a new command to manage military cybersecurity affairs. "I smell a bureaucratic fight taking place inside the administration," he said. "I'm always nervous when people want to create new commands because new commands create new stovepipes."

According to Obama administration officials and media reports, U.S. government information networks are being attacked by criminals and attackers working for foreign governments, namely China and Russia. Powell said creating a command might be the correct solution, but he added: "My own view is take it slow, make sure you get it right."


I respect Powell, and I don't disagree with his message entirely - but I disagree with his comment about Americans wanting more Government. Listen to Powell about moderation, but he should have no say in building GOP policy.

It's important for the Republican Party to develop strong principals - and then hold their leaders to it. They should adapt strong small government principals and criticize any Republican who goes against them. "RINO" should be a big government Republican.

[Excel]

Americans want what fits the times best. Right now yeah, he is right, they do want more government help. And when they get tired of it, they'll want less.

[Matt]

Excel has returned from his probation as the John Madden of the political forums :wow:

What's next? "Whoever gets the most votes, usually wins an election,"? :cwink: Welcome back Ex.

[Kelly]

Americans want what fits the times best. Right now yeah, he is right, they do want more government help. And when they get tired of it, they'll want less.

Honestly Excel, this was a campaign of "talking points" on both sides. I don't know that many really understood what Obama stood for other than "change"....

I have to give it to the man though, he is putting a hell of alot out there to kill his next 2nd term if it doesn't work.

But to say that a small majority voted him into office, means what they are getting is what they wanted, I think is naive and just wrong.

[Excel]

Excel has returned from his probation as the John Madden of the political forums :wow:

I like John Madden :o But it obviously wasn't that obvious if Norms doesnt understand what Powells saying. If the GOP wants to remain relevant for the next few years, some of their principles will have to change with the times.

Welcome back Ex.

Thanks :up:

[Matt]

I like John Madden :o But it obviously wasn't that obvious if Norms doesnt understand what Powells saying. If the GOP wants to remain relevant for the next few years, some of their principles will have to change with the times.



Thanks :up:

I disagree. Their best move is keeping their heads down and letting chips fall where they may. At least for now, because then they hold all the cards if Obama's plans fail. Now if they start to show signs of success, it is definitely time to move into the center...but for now, they need to show strong opposition.

[Excel]

Well I agree with that...I guess our difference is I believe his plan will be a huge success :up:

[Matt]

I don't see how they can. They may have enough success to get him re-elected, and maybe even carry him through both terms with relative success. But the fact of the matter is he has spent more in 100 days than our past two presidents spent in a full term. That is alarming. We do not have this money and eventually we will have to pay it. What do we do when that day comes? No matter how you paint it, Obama is spending this money and offering no ideas on how to pay back what we're borrowing. That can only spell economic disaster down the road, the likes of which we've never seen.

[SsM]

Honestly Excel, this was a campaign of "talking points" on both sides. I don't know that many really understood what Obama stood for other than "change"....

I have to give it to the man though, he is putting a hell of alot out there to kill his next 2nd term if it doesn't work.

But to say that a small majority voted him into office, means what they are getting is what they wanted, I think is naive and just wrong.


I normally don't like posts that are simply... "I agree"

but... I agree..

[CaptainClown]

I want a party that will make unions unnecessary and merge them with the government so a union isn't 3rd party

[The Major]

I don't see how they can. They may have enough success to get him re-elected, and maybe even carry him through both terms with relative success. But the fact of the matter is he has spent more in 100 days than our past two presidents spent in a full term. That is alarming. We do not have this money and eventually we will have to pay it. What do we do when that day comes? No matter how you paint it, Obama is spending this money and offering no ideas on how to pay back what we're borrowing. That can only spell economic disaster down the road, the likes of which we've never seen.
Obama has said time and again how America will pay back it the money. He'll be repairing the economy in long term plan which includes making the green industry a new wing in the private sector, infrastructure, hiring people to record files online for the VA, expanding the medical sector, taxing the wealthy and more. Everything he's doing now all comes back into repairing the economy from the small stuff to the big picture.

[Excel]

Exactly. Matts point would be solid knocks if they were true. You wanna know why its so more expensive than Bushs; Obamas doing surgery on problems that have had bandaids put on them for years. Obama would have to be literally retarded to spend all this money without any sort of plan on how he would pay it back, and surely you can agree that the very least, he is not retarded ;) As Major already said, Obama will be increasing profits from a large amoung of little industries while revamping major industries; the profits these programs will earn will, in time, pay for the stimulus.

Even most Republicans know this, thats why you wont hear many of them say they were against the idea of a stimulus bill, rather the bill they got just wasnt the bill they wanted (because its Obamas bill, so of course its bad).

[SsM]

Well, he ran for president.. so something is wrong with him ._.

[Matt]

Obama has said time and again how America will pay back it the money. He'll be repairing the economy in long term plan which includes making the green industry a new wing in the private sector, infrastructure, hiring people to record files online for the VA, expanding the medical sector, taxing the wealthy and more. Everything he's doing now all comes back into repairing the economy from the small stuff to the big picture.

But most of this stuff won't help pay the debt. Yes, the government is taxing all its new employees...but it is also paying them. The green industry is quickly proving unviable as studies are coming out that discredit global warming and gas prices are lowering making the average American just not care about going green as much as they did this time last year. You can't have a wing of the private sector when there is not a market for it. It seems like his only plan for paying this off is, "Tax the wealthy more." News flash, that doesn't work. Y'know why? Because when you tax the wealthy more, they pass the price onto the consumer. The consumer stops buying as a result. Economy plunges, government stops taxing the wealthy more to avoid an economic crash. And on the off chance that our wealthiest citizens just say, "What the heck, I'm gonna pay these taxes out of my pocket!" that will still only make up for a very small fraction of the trillions of dollars he will have spent by the end of this year alone. In the end, for all your Obama love you still haven't explained how we are paying for this.

[Matt]

Exactly. Matts point would be solid knocks if they were true. You wanna know why its so more expensive than Bushs; Obamas doing surgery on problems that have had bandaids put on them for years. Obama would have to be literally retarded to spend all this money without any sort of plan on how he would pay it back, and surely you can agree that the very least, he is not retarded ;) As Major already said, Obama will be increasing profits from a large amoung of little industries while revamping major industries; the profits these programs will earn will, in time, pay for the stimulus.

Even most Republicans know this, thats why you wont hear many of them say they were against the idea of a stimulus bill, rather the bill they got just wasnt the bill they wanted (because its Obamas bill, so of course its bad).

Because the stimulus really helped Chrystler increase their profits. :oldrazz:

[Excel]

Its been working out ok on Wall Street :o

The stimulus plan is far too vast for us to possibly break it down piece by piece; just have faith in your Pres :up:

[Matt]

The stimulus plan is far too vast for us to possibly break it down piece by piece; just have faith in your Pres :up:

No. That is absurd. I'm pretty sure all of our founders just rolled in their graves upon hearing an American citizen say that.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile.

As Roosevelt also said, the president is merely the most important of a series of PUBLIC SERVANTS. And as he also said it is MORE important that we scrutinize them than any one else and we should scrutinize them harder. To have blind faith in any leader spells the end of democracy.

[Matt]

Its been working out ok on Wall Street :o

The market fluxuates. To claim these little bumps is the stimulus helping it is no more true than when the Bush administration said the recession was Bill Clinton's fault.

[StorminNorman]

Its been working out ok on Wall Street :o

The stimulus plan is far too vast for us to possibly break it down piece by piece; just have faith in your Pres :up:

But our Pres has proven he doesn't deserve our faith.

I mean come on - this is a guy who gave an important piece of legislation to Nancy friggin' Pelosi. That's one of the most idiotic decisions a President has ever made.

[SuBe]

Its been working out ok on Wall Street :o

The stimulus plan is far too vast for us to possibly break it down piece by piece; just have faith in your Pres :up:

Holy. Crap.

:facepalm:

[SsM]

Holy. Crap.

:facepalm:


I was waiting for that picture!

[Matt]

There is really nothing else that sums up such an absurd statement that so profoundly spits on everything our country is built upon

[Marx]

Its been working out ok on Wall Street :o

The stimulus plan is far too vast for us to possibly break it down piece by piece; just have faith in your Pres :up:

I realize that you have a tremendous amount of admiration for President Obama, but...

:huh:

[StorminNorman]

In Bo I Trust :up:

[StorminNorman]

Obama has said time and again how America will pay back it the money. He'll be repairing the economy in long term plan which includes making the green industry a new wing in the private sector, infrastructure, hiring people to record files online for the VA, expanding the medical sector, taxing the wealthy and more. Everything he's doing now all comes back into repairing the economy from the small stuff to the big picture.

It's okay guys. Building statues, hiring people to record files online at the VA and taxing the wealth well help us pay back trillions of dollars. Just relax. He's got it.

How much does he plan to tax the rich to get out of the trillion dollar hole? Is he aiming to simplify the tax code by ensuring no American can have enough money to be considered "wealthy"?

[The Major]

It's okay guys. Building statues, hiring people to record files online at the VA and taxing the wealth well help us pay back trillions of dollars. Just relax. He's got it.

There's more to it than that but overall, yes that is how Obama is getting the economy back on its feet. It's a long term plan that makes sense IMO. Not sure why you consider the government encouraging employment a bad thing during a recession.

How much does he plan to tax the rich to get out of the trillion dollar hole? Is he aiming to simplify the tax code by ensuring no American can have enough money to be considered "wealthy"?
He's simplifying the tax code so the wealthy contribute to society with taxes like the unwashed masses do. The wealthy's finance's won't be drained completely like you're implying. Unfortunately the government does need to clamp down on their avoiding taxes since it seems to have become a sport and they have gotten away with it for far to long since they have better resources than the average American to do it.

[StorminNorman]

There's more to it than that but overall, yes that is how Obama is getting the economy back on its feet. It's a long term plan that makes sense IMO. Not sure why you consider the government encouraging employment a bad thing during a recession.

That explains the wonderful employment numbers. :up:

He's simplifying the tax code so the wealthy contribute to society with taxes like the unwashed masses do. The wealthy's finance's won't be drained completely like you're implying. Unfortunately the government does need to clamp down on their avoiding taxes since it seems to have become a sport and they have gotten away with it for far to long since they have better resources than the average American to do it.

...

...

...

...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I mean I don't need to be rude - but you do realize that the rich (the top 20% of America's earners) pay 86% of America's taxes. But no, they aren't contributing to society like you do?

See, it's this complete lack of understanding of basic reality that explains Barack Obama's economic policy and the logic of its supporters.

[The Major]

That explains the wonderful employment numbers. :up:

The stimulus hasn't been fully used yet. It takes months before we'll see the whole effect. The economy is still in free fall, as well. Obama still has much to do until the economy is stable again.


...

...

...

...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I mean I don't need to be rude - but you do realize that the rich (the top 20% of America's earners) pay 86% of America's taxes.

Not according to this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent.

The wealthy can survive being taxed more than the middle class since they have far better financial reserves.

But no, they aren't contributing to society like you do?

The ones who aren't paying their taxes properly aren't. The wealthy don't have good relationship with the Cayman Islands and Switzerland just for the beaches and chocolate.

See, it's this complete lack of understanding of basic reality that explains Barack Obama's economic policy and the logic of its supporters.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[SsM]

:facepalm

I just wish I could use a bigger picture.. I'm too lazy to look though.

[StorminNorman]

The stimulus hasn't been fully used yet. It takes months before we'll see the whole effect.

So you all of your talk is based on faith, yes?

Not according to this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml


If you read that article, you didn't understand it. That story is about how the Bush tax cuts lead to the percentage of earnings, not the amount.

Link:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2420.cfm

The wealthy can survive being taxed more than the middle class since they have far better financial reserves.

So it's okay to place the burden on the rich...because they can afford it? You want to PENALIZE success! How smart is that?! It's unfair to punish the rich...for being rich.

The ones who aren't paying their taxes properly aren't. The wealthy don't have good relationship with the Cayman Islands and Switzerland just because of the beaches and chocolate.

This isn't even a valid response to anything. Again, the fact the top 20% pay the majority of taxes in this country isn't up for argument. If that is the case, then the actions of how-many-number of wealthy people putting money in other countries is completely irrelevant.

Also, if I was a billionaire...in Obama's America. I would hide my money too. You want to make sure more people take their money out of this country? Try increasing taxes on the rich.

[SuBe]

There's more to it than that but overall, yes that is how Obama is getting the economy back on its feet. It's a long term plan that makes sense IMO. Not sure why you consider the government encouraging employment a bad thing during a recession.


He's simplifying the tax code so the wealthy contribute to society with taxes like the unwashed masses do. The wealthy's finance's won't be drained completely like you're implying. Unfortunately the government does need to clamp down on their avoiding taxes since it seems to have become a sport and they have gotten away with it for far to long since they have better resources than the average American to do it.

The top 50% of Income Earners pay 97% of ALL income Taxes Collected. So, how is it that the Wealthy don't contribute enough? 40% do not pay ANY Taxes after rebates at all. I believe you are uninformed when it comes to who actually pays taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Don't you believe that it is wrong to take money way from those that earn it? And, don't you believe that if you keep less money that you earn, you can't spend or save as much? And that will be bad for the Economy? When the Government hires all these people, where does the money come from to pay Government workers?

[VampElvis]

.......You want to make sure more people take their money out of this country? Try increasing taxes on the rich.

:up:

Recall the recent discussion on the exodus of folks from CA as an example on a smaller scale. I'm not saying folks will be leaving the country - but their money may.

[SuBe]

The stimulus hasn't been fully used yet. It takes months before we'll see the whole effect. The economy is still in free fall, as well. Obama still has much to do until the economy is stable again.

Not according to this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

The wealthy can survive being taxed more than the middle class since they have far better financial reserves.



The ones who aren't paying their taxes properly aren't. The wealthy don't have good relationship with the Cayman Islands and Switzerland just for the beaches and chocolate.
.

For one, that Article you link from CBS, dated 3 months BEFORE the 2004 Election, by the same "news" organization the "outed" the Fake Memos about Bush. Don't you think that POSSIBLY, Mary Mapes and her anti-Republican Cronies may have publish any thing and everything to try and get Bush not elected?

The reason the Rich are sending their Money elsewhere is because or our Punishing Tax Code. Why should they take the beating, support our entire Imperial Federal Government? Atlas is shrugging right NOW!

Taxing someone JUST because they earned more money than you? It is disgusting and it reduces people initiative to create, to innovate, and to employ. When everyone has the equal amount of Stuff, then who are you going to tax?

[SuBe]

OH, and Major? About Obama "creating" Green Jobs, and wanting to use Spain as a model?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

[Kelly]

For one, that Article you link from CBS, dated 3 months BEFORE the 2004 Election, by the same "news" organization the "outed" the Fake Memos about Bush. Don't you think that POSSIBLY, Mary Mapes and her anti-Republican Cronies may have publish any thing and everything to try and get Bush not elected?

The reason the Rich are sending their Money elsewhere is because or our Punishing Tax Code. Why should they take the beating, support our entire Imperial Federal Government? Atlas is shrugging right NOW!

Taxing someone JUST because they earned more money than you? It is disgusting and it reduces people initiative to create, to innovate, and to employ. When everyone has the equal amount of Stuff, then who are you going to tax?


Obama and the Dems are working on legislation right now that will stop this as well.....

[SsM]

Stop the punishing tax code?

[SuBe]

Obama and the Dems are working on legislation right now that will stop this as well.....
They are building an Economic Berlin Wall. How does THAT help spread Liberty and makes it easier to live your life as you see fit?

They are going to make it so you have to PROVE that you are not using a foreign bank account to avoid our Tax Code. Instead of reducing the Governments role, they are making it so you have to prove your innocence. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144387757983265.html

[souvlaki]

The top 50% of Income Earners pay 97% of ALL income Taxes Collected. So, how is it that the Wealthy don't contribute enough? 40% do not pay ANY Taxes after rebates at all. I believe you are uninformed when it comes to who actually pays taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Don't you believe that it is wrong to take money way from those that earn it? And, don't you believe that if you keep less money that you earn, you can't spend or save as much? And that will be bad for the Economy? When the Government hires all these people, where does the money come from to pay Government workers?

During the 1950's the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Really, the rich is hardly paying anything compared to what they payed during the 1950's.

[VampElvis]

Segregation was also legal in the 1950s. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.

[SuBe]

During the 1950's the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Really, the rich is hardly paying anything compared to what they payed during the 1950's.
The Marginal Tax Rate was that high, but we don't live in the 50's, we live in the now. The Tax Code then, you had to deduct everything, hence, saving receipts. That brought DOWN their Taxes. That was until 1986, when they "simplified" the Tax Code. The Tax Code has been amended 10,000 times since then. Congress has meet less times since then, than how many times the Tax Code has been amended.

[StorminNorman]

During the 1950's the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Really, the rich is hardly paying anything compared to what they payed during the 1950's.

During the 60's blacks were treated better than they were in the 1800's - does that make the discrimination many suffered okay?

[The Major]

During the 60's blacks were treated better than they were in the 1800's - does that make the discrimination many suffered okay?
I'd love to see a wealthy socialite defending argument this in a court case against the government. :woot:

[The Major]

So you all of your talk is based on faith, yes?

I'm basing it on logic. It's the Republican recession plan that relies on faith.

If you read that article, you didn't understand it. That story is about how the Bush tax cuts lead to the percentage of earnings, not the amount.

It was an article about how the wealthy got less tax compared to those who earn less money than they do. We are talking about per centages here, exact figures with incomes are not needed to discuss taxes.

Link:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2420.cfm

Forgive me for not taking a Republican think tank deeply involved in the Bush administration as an unbiased source. Feel free to use a link to a news article which back's these claims. Fox News excluded, of course.

So it's okay to place the burden on the rich...because they can afford it?

Yes.

You want to PENALIZE success! How smart is that?! It's unfair to punish the rich...for being rich.

1. Isn't personal responsibility is a tent in Republican beliefs? The wealthy have more responsibility to society since their incomes are larger then your average citizen. They have to follow the law. That is not an option the wealthy should be able to ignore on a whim.

2. A fair tax code is not punishment. It allows the wealthy to assist society the most which helps everyone. They will still have more money than god to do with what they please. What $1 million to billionaire, any way? That's like you losing ten cents.

This isn't even a valid response to anything. Again, the fact the top 20% pay the majority of taxes in this country isn't up for argument.

If it isn't up for argument then give me a link where you learned this suppose fact from. I'd like to know where this exact figure comes from.

If that is the case, then the actions of how-many-number of wealthy people putting money in other countries is completely irrelevant.

It is when they're breaking the law to do it. That's why it's relevant to the tax debate.

Also, if I was a billionaire...in Obama's America. I would hide my money too.

Then if that happens you shouldn't complain when Obama's administration puts you in prison for breaking the law.

You want to make sure more people take their money out of this country? Try increasing taxes on the rich.The wealthy need to come to grips with the fact Dubya isn't president any more. It's time to act like responsible adults, not being obsessed with how much money they can get their hands on. They should be more concerned about helping the country in a crisis (which some of these guys caused), get a conscience and operate their businesses responsibly. They'll be better people for it.

[SuBe]

Then if that happens you shouldn't complain when Obama's administration puts you in prison for breaking the law.

The wealthy need to come to grips with the fact Dubya isn't president any more. It's time to act like responsible adults, not being obsessed with how much money they can get their hands on. They should be more concerned about helping the country in a crisis (which some of these guys caused), get a conscience and operate their businesses responsibly. They'll be better people for it.

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

The Law is a weapon to be used against a Free State by those that control the state.

[The Major]

The Law is a weapon to be used against a Free State by those that control the state.
You're confusing the law with corruption. The law as its supposed to be used is not corrupt.

[StorminNorman]

I'm basing it on logic. It's the Republican recession plan that relies on faith.

:sleepy:

It was an article about how the wealthy got less tax compared to those who earn less money than they do. We are talking about per centages here, exact figures with incomes are not needed to discuss taxes.

No - we are talking about who pays the majority of taxes. The rich pay the majority of taxes. That isn't up for dispute.

Forgive me for not taking a Republican think tank deeply involved in the Bush administration as an unbiased source. Feel free to use a link to a news article which back's these claims. Fox News excluded, of course.

So should I ignore a report by CBS? Fox News has never been caught up in a scandal like the one CBS did in 2004. Also the Heritage Foundation, while a conservative think tank, is a respected source used even by Obama. The Heritage Foundation provides sources.

Here is a nice article from the American about taxes.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

And here is the IRS
http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2000/10-16-0.htm

Yes.

:dry:

So...if you have 100 dollars of disposable income, and I am poor...is it okay for me to take your 100 dollars? After all, you can afford it. Or is theft only okay if it comes from the Government?

1. Isn't personal responsibility is a tent in Republican beliefs? The wealthy have more responsibility to society since their incomes are larger then your average citizen. They have to follow the law. That is not an option the wealthy should be able to ignore on a whim.

When the Rich pay the majority of the Taxes as it is, you can't play this card. If the government charges into your house to steal your money (to give to the poor) and let some 40 year old virgin rape your wife, it isn't your personal responsibility to let it happen...just because it's the government?

If the government becomes tyrannical and unfair (such as shifting the burden of taxes even more upon the wealthy), then equal response is only natural. Look at what's happening in California and New York - people are leaving...because of Taxes.

2. A fair tax code is not punishment. It allows the wealthy to assist society the most which helps everyone. They will still have more money than god to do with what they please. What $1 million to billionaire, any way? That's like you losing ten cents.

But the rich do more to help society than any other income group as it is! Most business owners are rich! Most employers are rich! The most charitable people are rich! It's not up to you to dictate that someone has too much money - they earned that money, or someone in their family earned that money. What's 1 million dollars to a billionaire? ONE MILLION ****IN DOLLARS!

If it isn't up for argument then give me a link where you learned this suppose fact from. I'd like to know where this exact figure comes from.

Done.

It is when they're breaking the law to do it. That's why it's relevant to the tax debate.

Tyrannical laws should be opposed.

Then if that happens you shouldn't complain when Obama's administration puts you in prison for breaking the law.

Bull. Not when I can just pay Eric Holder. Isn't that right Mark Rich?

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/StorminNormanTho/fingergunshf3.gif

The wealthy need to come to grips with the fact Dubya isn't president any more. It's time to act like responsible adults, not being obsessed with how much money they can get their hands on. They should be more concerned about helping the country in a crisis (which some of these guys caused), get a conscience and operate their businesses responsibly. They'll be better people for it.

Must...resist...urge...to post...lmao smiley...

:dry:

:dry:

:dry:

[SsM]

I'm basing it on logic. It's the Republican recession plan that relies on faith.



It was an article about how the wealthy got less tax compared to those who earn less money than they do. We are talking about per centages here, exact figures with incomes are not needed to discuss taxes.



Forgive me for not taking a Republican think tank deeply involved in the Bush administration as an unbiased source. Feel free to use a link to a news article which back's these claims. Fox News excluded, of course.



Yes.



1. Isn't personal responsibility is a tent in Republican beliefs? The wealthy have more responsibility to society since their incomes are larger then your average citizen. They have to follow the law. That is not an option the wealthy should be able to ignore on a whim.

2. A fair tax code is not punishment. It allows the wealthy to assist society the most which helps everyone. They will still have more money than god to do with what they please. What $1 million to billionaire, any way? That's like you losing ten cents.



If it isn't up for argument then give me a link where you learned this suppose fact from. I'd like to know where this exact figure comes from.



It is when they're breaking the law to do it. That's why it's relevant to the tax debate.



Then if that happens you shouldn't complain when Obama's administration puts you in prison for breaking the law.

The wealthy need to come to grips with the fact Dubya isn't president any more. It's time to act like responsible adults, not being obsessed with how much money they can get their hands on. They should be more concerned about helping the country in a crisis (which some of these guys caused), get a conscience and operate their businesses responsibly. They'll be better people for it.


You have a very warped sense of reality.

[dnno1]

He was doing pretty good in this interview until the issue came up about him taking welfare.

yrBrj2P0nv0

At least he didn't say that he wanted Obama to fail.

THERE'S NO TIME! I can repel Joe the Plumber right now by using the Necronomicon used to summon him. I might accidentally summon Cthulhu, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Speaking of TIME, there is a TIME article (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html) that indicates that Joe the Plumber is leaving the GOP. He basically says that he's "so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party". Is everybody satisfied now?

[Wiseman]

Who's "Joe the plumber"?

[Manic]

Is everybody satisfied now?
Not as satisfied as I was when I'd stopped talking about him back in November.

[The Major]

You have a very warped sense of reality.
The Republican party is in terrible shape when responsibility and having morals are considered bad things to have. Especially since it has ties to Christianity, a religion based on those beliefs.

Is this a confirmation that personal responsibility is just spin? That would be very interesting considering how the party is pro-death penalty and prides itself on being tough on crime.

[Matt]

Personal responsibility isn't taxing the wealthy at a higher rate so you can "spread out the wealth." We're not a welfare state. The fact is, if they pay 10 % of their income, and you and I pay 10 % of our income, they are still paying a hell of a lot more.

[The Major]

Personal responsibility isn't taxing the wealthy at a higher rate so you can "spread out the wealth."
Why not? The only reason many wealthy people in business keep their insane pay packages are because they control the money flow in their companies. It's their biggest leverage in control. The wealthy are merely another cog in the machine yet they're the ones who get the most compensation. How is that acting responsible?

We're not a welfare state.

Actually, America has been for a welfare state for decades. The country would be a mess without welfare. Even the wealthy depend on it in various guises whether it be for funding football stadiums or helping companies in a recession. Society depends on welfare so the vulnerable can survive.

The fact is, if they pay 10 % of their income, and you and I pay 10 % of our income, they are still paying a hell of a lot more.
It's all to do with proportion not exact figures. Some wealthy people also don't give the government what they're entitled to by hiding it, as well. That is not doing their part in society, they're white collar criminals.

[SuBe]

Actually, Share holders control that, not CEOs.

[The Major]

Actually, Share holders control that, not CEOs.Okay, I'll blame them instead. :up:

[StorminNorman]

So Major, you admit that the rich DO pay their fair share of taxes? Since you didn't respond to my post, I will assume that.

[Marx]

RIDGE NOT RUNNING FOR SENATE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/07/ridge-not-running-for-senate/

After much speculation, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge announced Thursday that he would not run for the Senate in 2010.

Ridge, a centrist Republican, had been courted by some elders in his party to seek the GOP nomination after Sen. Arlen Specter switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.

"I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues," Ridge said in a statement. "The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach."
Ridge said he will continue to stay involved in politics and added that he will help the GOP "craft solutions that both sides of the aisle can embrace."

"To those who believe that the Republican Party is facing challenges, they are right," Ridge said. "To those who believe the Democratic Party is without its own difficulties, they are wrong. No one party has a monopoly on all of the answers. The more important view, in my mind, is that we remember, whether Republican or Democrat, we are foremost Americans. And as Americans, we have always overcome challenges when we put partisanship aside and solutions first."

[souvlaki]

Wow, even Joe the Plumber is abandoning the Republican Party now.

Joe The Plumber Quitting The GOP: Time Magazine

Stop the presses... (even though we haven't received the press release yet). Time Magazine is reporting - burying rather - the news that Joe the Plumber, also known as Samuel Wurzelbacher, is quitting the GOP. That's big news considering Joe became the new GOP mascot during the McCain campaign and has since advised the party during conferences and in Capitol Hill briefings.

Below is the excerpt from the Time article.

Well, more elections. Big Government is never popular in theory, but the disaster aid, school lunches and prescription drugs that make up Big Government have become wildly popular in practice, especially now that so many people are hurting. Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party -- and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid -- which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits. It's no coincidence that many Republicans who voted against the stimulus have claimed credit for stimulus projects in their district -- or that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal stopped ridiculing volcano-monitoring programs after a volcano erupted in Alaska. "We can't be the antigovernment party," Snowe says. "That's not what people want."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/07/joe-the-plumber-quitting_n_198920.html

[StorminNorman]

After his homophobic statements, that's a win for the GOP.

[redfirebird2008]

After his homophobic statements, that's a win for the GOP.

Agree.

[Marx]

After his homophobic statements, that's a win for the GOP.

I agree.

[Marx]

CHENEY: MISTAKE FOR GOP TO 'MODERATE'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/07/cheney-mistake-for-gop-to-%e2%80%98moderate%e2%80%99/

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is weighing into the heated internal debate over the future of the Republican Party, declaring it would be a mistake for the GOP to "moderate."

"This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas … what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles," Cheney said in an interview with North Dakota radio host Scott Hennen Thursday, according to a transcript.

"You know, when you add all those things up, the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy," Cheney also said. "I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most of us aren’t. Most Republicans have a pretty good idea of values, and aren’t eager to have someone come along and say, 'Well, the only way you can win is if you start to act more like a Democrat.'"

Cheney's comments come a week after longtime Republican Sen. Arlen Specter formally left the GOP, in part, Specter said, because the party has "moved farther and farther to the right."

Specter's defection immediately unleashed a debate among Republicans over what type of candidates the party should embrace going forward as it seeks to regain control in Washington and establish a foothold in regions of the country where the GOP once dominated.

In the interview Thursday, Cheney also said it's time for the older leaders of the party — like him — to exit the stage.

If it's time for older leaders of the party to exit the stage like he says, then why is he trying to cling to the spotlight!?!?!

[VampElvis]

My guess would be because some people keep asking him what he thinks AND reference my earlier theory where he can come out and say all the controversial things, plant the seed of discontent in the mind of the public, they allow himself to be "silenced" by the next leader as that leader is to the center from Chaney et al.

[Kelly]

I think people need to understand how these interviews work.

1. Newspaper, radio, tv news outlet calls the person to be interviewed (the person does not call these outlets, unless it is an op ed for a newspaper, and even then most of the time they're asked)
2. Said person says yes I'll answer some questions, no I won't. There are usually a few minutes on the phone unless its an actual TV interview.
3. Then that interview goes from outlet, to outlet, to outlet. Which looks like 5 different interviews, but in reality it was only one where they were asked a few questions.

[The Major]

:sleepy:
Your making my argument for me. Obama's not putting his eggs in a basket that relies purely on economic Darwinism to save the economy. The Republicans are.

No - we are talking about who pays the majority of taxes. The rich pay the majority of taxes. That isn't up for dispute.

You're still dodging my question.
So should I ignore a report by CBS? Fox News has never been caught up in a scandal like the one CBS did in 2004.

CBS has a better track record than Fox News. Fox News has got plenty of scandals, just read the Fox News thread in this forum.

Also the Heritage Foundation, while a conservative think tank, is a respected source used even by Obama.

1. Give me a link proving Obama takes them seriously.

2. So what? I don't see them as unbiased since they've spent decades infiltrating the government to get their own agenda into official policy.
The Heritage Foundation provides sources.

Here is a nice article from the American about taxes.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

An article by a person who used to be in the Budgetary Affairs division at Heritage, a member of the Cato Institute and Dick Armey's senior economist on the Joint Task Committee in Congress. Can you find a link to someone who is a reporter that isn't neck deep in the Republican establishment?

And here is the IRS
http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2000/10-16-0.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.


So...if you have 100 dollars of disposable income, and I am poor...is it okay for me to take your 100 dollars? After all, you can afford it.

Sure.

Or is theft only okay if it comes from the Government?

Taxes are to help the government function. Many things in society were and are created by those taxes with infrastructure. They can benefit communities who need it. That's why it's not theft. Or would you prefer not to have schools, pavement, roads, stoplights, police, hospitals, football stadiums, fire fighters, government, bridges, military, spy agencies, NASA etc?

When the Rich pay the majority of the Taxes as it is, you can't play this card.

A fact you have failed to back up very well. Though if it was true is does not give them the right to break the law to keep money they're not meant to have.

If the government charges into your house to steal your money (to give to the poor) and let some 40 year old virgin rape your wife, it isn't your personal responsibility to let it happen...just because it's the government?
This doesn’t make any sense. The government aren’t stealing anything by taking your taxes. What exactly is the 40 year old virgin rape your wife metaphor about?
If the government becomes tyrannical and unfair (such as shifting the burden of taxes even more upon the wealthy), then equal response is only natural.

You're not giving this an equal response. You're over-reacting.

Look at what's happening in California and New York - people are leaving...because of Taxes.

Where are these people going to go? The whole world is in a recession.

But the rich do more to help society than any other income group as it is!

When they're not trying to bust unions, hire illegal immigrants, outsource jobs overseas, kill the green industry, give workers the least rather than the most, hoard money to themselves and their friends in "leadership" rather than sharing it with the people who actually did the hard work, lobby governments to go easy on their interests, create monopolies within industries etc.

Most business owners are rich! Most employers are rich! The most charitable people are rich!
Being rich doesn’t give them the right to break the law.

It's not up to you to dictate that someone has too much money - they earned that money, or someone in their family earned that money.
It is the government’s right to do that. They have done a really bad job enforcing tax laws already on the books with an outdated system full of loopholes the wealthy have exploited with reckless abandon for decades. Obama is finally fixing that. What’s good is that he’s going a step farther in making it harder for tax cheats to use loopholes and dodge taxes, which is another improvement that’s gravely needed for the IRS.
What's 1 million dollars to a billionaire? ONE MILLION ****IN DOLLARS!

1 million dollars to a billionaire is less than nothing.

Done.

Poorly.
Tyrannical laws should be opposed.

I agree. This isn't a tyrannical law, however.

Bull. Not when I can just pay Eric Holder. Isn't that right Mark Rich?
A deed Holder is heavily criticized for. This actually makes the law more important to stop events like this from occurring again. Bribing the DOJ is against the law, as well. You seem eager to go to prison just to save a few bucks.


Must...resist...urge...to post...lmao smiley...

:dry:

:dry:

:dry:
:facepalm

[Matt]

:dry:

[bell110]

Chaney is the best thing to happen to the GOP...

Unless, people take him seriously. :csad:

[VampElvis]

I'm probably gonna regret this......

CBS has a better track record than Fox News. Fox News has got plenty of scandals, just read the Fox News thread in this forum.
If you compare it from the Murrow days, yeah probably. If you compare it from when FOX came into existence - maybe. When FOX had an error everyone wants to pile on 'em and scream conspiracy. When CBS does, they're part of the club, and you have to dig to find things like they falsified documents used in an attempt to discredit conservative politicians...... and be honest. No one want to attack the pixie:yay:

Where are these people going to go? The whole world is in a recession.
They are going to place with less penalizing tax structures. Places where they can keep more of their money, invest it in the economy, and make it grow.
Your mixing apples and oranges by directly comparing tax structure to the recession.

When they're not trying to bust unions, hire illegal immigrants, outsource jobs overseas, kill the green industry, give workers the least rather than the most, hoard money to themselves and their friends in "leadership" rather than sharing it with the people who actually did the hard work, lobby governments to go easy on their interests, create monopolies within industries etc.
First, this is a sweeping genalization that doesn't apply to a lot of them.
Second, the green industry will only survive when it becomes viable. The uber-rich don't need to kill it, it will kill itsself.

Being rich doesn’t give them the right to break the law.
Of course not. Being rich gives them the means to hire people good at argument who can excuse their behavior in a world of moral relativism.:cwink:

It is the government’s right to do that. They have done a really bad job enforcing tax laws already on the books with an outdated system full of loopholes the wealthy have exploited with reckless abandon for decades. Obama is finally fixing that. What’s good is that he’s going a step farther in making it harder for tax cheats to use loopholes and dodge taxes, which is another improvement that’s gravely needed for the IRS.
If it's legal, how is is cheating?

1 million dollars to a billionaire is less than nothing.
I think most billionaires would disagree - that's probably how they got to be and remain millionaires. Through an ex I used to know family up in CT. The father was the CEO of a major clothing manufacturing firm that was HUGE for a while and still has a very good business. There's no telling how much these old were worth. BUT every Sunday they got the newspaper and clipped out the coupons just like I do.

[SuBe]

Hey, Major, what is Liberty and What is Tyranny? I would like your definition, please.

[Schlosser85]

Through an ex I used to know family up in CT. The father was the CEO of a major clothing manufacturing firm that was HUGE for a while and still has a very good business. There's no telling how much these old were worth. BUT every Sunday they got the newspaper and clipped out the coupons just like I do.

My boyfriend's aunt makes $3 million a year, and she lives in a very small, cozy little house that you'd never know was owned by a multi-millionaire. She doesn't want to spend $30 if she can help it. She would be appalled at the very idea of throwing money left and right on extravagancies.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Are there any Moderate Republicans left?

Because it seems like whatever ones there were, were being hunted down like the last Jedi Knights.

[Matt]

So...if you have 100 dollars of disposable income, and I am poor...is it okay for me to take your 100 dollars? After all, you can afford it.


Sure.

Being rich doesn’t give them the right to break the law.

But apparently being poor does.

Also Major, what about people who exploit the welfare system? There are tons of them out there. You claim since businesses are taking tax dollars, the government has the right to monitor it, and we (the poor) have the right to take their profit and give it to ourselves. However, since they are going to be taxed heavier to "spread their wealth around," shouldn't they and the government have the right to monitor people on welfare, force them to take any job, be it cleaning toilets, picking crops, or serving fast food. Shouldn't they have a right to monitor their spending and do bi-weekly audits? If we are giving them tax payer dollars, by your logic, we should be able to take some of their liberty, right?

[Marx]

Are there any Moderate Republicans left?

Because it seems like whatever ones there were, were being hunted down like the last Jedi Knights.

Unfortunately, there are very few left. Sadly, the ones who are left are being accused of 'not being real Republicans' by idiots like Rush Limbaugh.

[The Major]

But apparently being poor does.

When did I say that?

Also Major, what about people who exploit the welfare system?There are tons of them out there.

They deserve to be punished for breaking the law, as well.

You claim since businesses are taking tax dollars, the government has the right to monitor it, and we (the poor) have the right to take their profit and give it to ourselves.

You're mixing up the subjects I was discussing. Yes, the government has the right to monitor that money just like the wealthy do in whatever project their funding. When the government owns most of a business they get the same rights as an investor in thatt situation. The only minor difference is that the government has powers of regulation that company since they operate under their jurisdiction.

The poor should have the right to access profits they helped create. A business needs both its workers and management to function properly, so why should one get the majority of the profits?

However, since they are going to be taxed heavier to "spread their wealth around,"

That's a completely different subject. I was talking about the status quo of business which America has used for decades. You don't seem to like the thought of spreading the wealth around but I'm sure you like the work being spread around.

shouldn't they and the government have the right to monitor people on welfare, force them to take any job, be it cleaning toilets, picking crops, or serving fast food. Shouldn't they have a right to monitor their spending and do bi-weekly audits? If we are giving them tax payer dollars, by your logic, we should be able to take some of their liberty, right?
Good idea, Matt. :up:

[SuBe]

Government doesn't have Rights, they have Powers.

[Matt]

When did I say that?


In the last post I quoted. :huh:


They deserve to be punished for breaking the law, as well.


However, exploiting a loophole is not breaking the law per say. It is taking advantage of a hole in the law to avoid breaking it. If we close the loopholes and they continue to use them, then they are breaking the law.


You're mixing up the subjects I was discussing. Yes, the government has the right to monitor that money just like the wealthy do in whatever project their funding. When the government owns most of a business they get the same rights as an investor in thatt situation. The only minor difference is that the government has powers of regulation that company since they operate under their jurisdiction.

But there it is, the government should not own any portion of any business!


The poor should have the right to access profits they helped create. A business needs both its workers and management to function properly, so why should one get the majority of the profits?

The workers get their portion. It is called salary. They are not forced to work there, they can quit at any time and start their business. The person with the idea and capital to start the business owns it. It is their property. The employees enter into a contract to do said job for X amount of salary be it by the year or hour. What you are describing is communism, which as the Soviet Union proved does not work.


That's a completely different subject. I was talking about the status quo of business which America has used for decades. You don't seem to like the thought of spreading the wealth around but I'm sure you like the work being spread around.


As long as people are compensated, yes. If they do not like their compensation, they can go find another job. No one is whipping them and forcing them to be there.


Good idea, Matt. :up:

Thank you.

[The Major]

In the last post I quoted. :huh:
No, I didn't.

However, exploiting a loophole is not breaking the law per say. It is taking advantage of a hole in the law to avoid breaking it. If we close the loopholes and they continue to use them, then they are breaking the law.

I'm not talking about loopholes, I'm talking about crimes.

But there it is, the government should not own any portion of any business!

I agree but unfortunately the business community created a situation where they had to. Had they done their jobs properly the government wouldn't need to interfere.

The workers get their portion. It is called salary. They are not forced to work there, they can quit at any time and start their business.

They'll get the same option in most businesses they work for. I'd be very surprised if any American corporations uses a compensation model that benefits the worker equally to the management financally.

The person with the idea and capital to start the business owns it. It is their property. The employees enter into a contract to do said job for X amount of salary be it by the year or hour.
Yes, I know the system. Which is what it is. There is no competing system in business that workers can sign on to on that scale in America. That's been the only option for decades. Which is exactly how the wealthy class likes it.

What you are describing is communism, which as the Soviet Union proved does not work.
It's a good idea. So what if Soviet Union had a similar process? America has no problem using other good ideas from other countries.

As long as people are compensated, yes. If they do not like their compensation, they can go find another job.
The compensation system is terrible. It leaves the workers with little power and the management holding the best of the cards in negotiations.

No one is whipping them and forcing them to be there.

They are getting whipped with negotiations. Unions can only do so much. Some businesses don't even have those advantages.

Thank you.
:woot:

[StorminNorman]

Your making my argument for me. Obama's not putting his eggs in a basket that relies purely on economic Darwinism to save the economy. The Republicans are.

No, instead Obama is putting his eggs in a basket that gambles the future economic security of this country on the success or fail of his policy.

You're still dodging my question.

You had no question.

CBS has a better track record than Fox News. Fox News has got plenty of scandals, just read the Fox News thread in this forum.

The Fox News thread is about as fair and balanced as the Sarah Palin thread.

1. Give me a link proving Obama takes them seriously.

Go re-watch the third debate, Obama references the Heritage Foundation as a source while promoting one of his proposed policy points.

An article by a person who used to be in the Budgetary Affairs division at Heritage, a member of the Cato Institute and Dick Armey's senior economist on the Joint Task Committee in Congress. Can you find a link to someone who is a reporter that isn't neck deep in the Republican establishment?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

Wait...

Let me get this straight...

You are berating me about the objectivity of my sources...yet you combat a link by the IRS with a link from MSNBC!

:dry:

But again, for clarification, you have not even tried to counter the obvious truth that the top 20% pay the overwelming majority of the total taxes in this country. So your position is that with that being the case, they should STILL shoulder MORE of the tax burden - simply because the perecent they are taxed is higher than a middle class family?

Should the poor be forced to pay the same percent of their income as the middle class?

Sure.

:dry:

Really?

REALLY?!

Taxes are to help the government function. Many things in society were and are created by those taxes with infrastructure. They can benefit communities who need it. That's why it's not theft. Or would you prefer not to have schools, pavement, roads, stoplights, police, hospitals, football stadiums, fire fighters, government, bridges, military, spy agencies, NASA etc?

Robin Hood was a thief.

Also - you can have ALL OF THOSE and have a fair tax (not FairTax) code.

A fact you have failed to back up very well. Though if it was true is does not give them the right to break the law to keep money they're not meant to have.

A fact I failed to back up very well? I provided a damn link to the IRS report itself! What the hell man! Are you really this dense or is it an act! The links you have provided have been about another topic all together! I have not been sure if it was simply a somewhat clever attempt to dance around an issue because you know you are on the wrong side of it, or if you were truly so dense you didn't know better. You have proven that it was the latter, which is, quite frankly, astonishing.

You're not giving this an equal response. You're over-reacting.
How? The government punishing the rich for being rich is tyranny.

Where are these people going to go? The whole world is in a recession.

There are places. Rich places.

When they're not trying to bust unions, hire illegal immigrants, outsource jobs overseas, kill the green industry, give workers the least rather than the most, hoard money to themselves and their friends in "leadership" rather than sharing it with the people who actually did the hard work, lobby governments to go easy on their interests, create monopolies within industries etc.

Right. Because you can't be rich without being moral?

Being rich doesn’t give them the right to break the law.

You always have the right to protest an unjust law.

It is the government’s right to do that. They have done a really bad job enforcing tax laws already on the books with an outdated system full of loopholes the wealthy have exploited with reckless abandon for decades. Obama is finally fixing that. What’s good is that he’s going a step farther in making it harder for tax cheats to use loopholes and dodge taxes, which is another improvement that’s gravely needed for the IRS.

The government doesn't have rights.

1 million dollars to a billionaire is less than nothing.

...

...

Grow up.

Really, grow the up. The world isn't like this.

I agree. This isn't a tyrannical law, however.

It is, though, By definition it is.

[souvlaki]

No, instead Obama is putting his eggs in a basket that gambles the future economic security of this country on the success or fail of his policy.

You act as if any choice Obama would have made wouldn't have been gambling the future economic security of this country. Our economy was tanking before he took office, any choice you could possibly make at this time (or lack thereof) would be a gamble.

[Matt]

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. You said it is okay for someone who has no money to take 100 dollars off of someone who has money. That is theft.


I'm not talking about loopholes, I'm talking about crimes.


If they're committing crimes and it can be proven they should be prosecuted. No one is denying that.


I agree but unfortunately the business community created a situation where they had to. Had they done their jobs properly the government wouldn't need to interfere.

No, they didn't have to. If the government didn't interfere the economy would've fixed itself as it has countless times before.


They'll get the same option in most businesses they work for. I'd be very surprised if any American corporations uses a compensation model that benefits the worker equally to the management financally.

But why should they? The management has earned where they are. Most have went thousands of dollars in debt to get degrees and credentials to give them a job that pays better than working on the floor in a factory. Why should they be punished for working hard to obtain success, in your opinion?


Yes, I know the system. Which is what it is. There is no competing system in business that workers can sign on to on that scale in America. That's been the only option for decades. Which is exactly how the wealthy class likes it.

Because that is capitalism, which our country was founded on.


It's a good idea. So what if Soviet Union had a similar process? America has no problem using other good ideas from other countries.

Distribution of wealth and the means of production is not a good idea. Every country that has attempted it has failed.


The compensation system is terrible. It leaves the workers with little power and the management holding the best of the cards in negotiations.

Why should they have power over SOMEONE ELSES' COMPANY?


They are getting whipped with negotiations. Unions can only do so much. Some businesses don't even have those advantages.


:woot:

Oh that is a load, if anything unions are over powered now-a-days.

[SuBe]

I ask Major again: What is your personal definition of Liberty?

[Marx]

I hate long posts...they give me a headache! :csad:

[StorminNorman]

You act as if any choice Obama would have made wouldn't have been gambling the future economic security of this country. Our economy was tanking before he took office, any choice you could possibly make at this time (or lack thereof) would be a gamble.

Not to the extent Obama is taking this. The spending required for his plan is so massive that it makes an already impressive debt and multiplies it. The hole has become soo much deeper now than it could have been with another approach to the current crisis. That's the point I was making.

[Kelly]

"Grow the f*** up" comments are not needed, warranted, or tolerated. Debate the issues..... I don't want to infract on what is otherwise a very good debate. Let's keep it intelligent, and adult without those types of comments...please.

[StorminNorman]

Don't call it a good debate - it's not a good debate. A good debate requires two sides to be engaged in intelligent discussion. Instead the Major has stayed true to his reputation and responded with such gems as "a million dollars means nothing to rich people", "that's its okay to take 100 dollars from someone if they can afford it" and criticizing sources for being biased...and then using MSNBC. He can't seem to recognize the difference between the rich paying an exorbitant percent of the total taxes and the percent of income that is taxed.

Is my frustration fueled response the most intelligence and most adult response? Hell no. Was it appropriate? Probably not. Was it accurate? I will let the record speak for itself.

[Kelly]

Don't call it a good debate - it's not a good debate. A good debate requires two sides to be engaged in intelligent discussion. Instead the Major has stayed true to his reputation and responded with such gems as "a million dollars means nothing to rich people", "that's its okay to take 100 dollars from someone if they can afford it" and criticizing sources for being biased...and then using MSNBC. He can't seem to recognize the difference between the rich paying an exorbitant percent of the total taxes and the percent of income that is taxed.

Is my frustration fueled response the most intelligence and most adult response? Hell no. Was it appropriate? Probably not. Was it accurate? I will let the record speak for itself.

That is your opinion Stormin', please don't tell me what I can and cannot say about a debate. If I think the debate is solid on both sides, I'll sure as hell call it as I see it. You can disagree with that, thats fine with me, but please don't tell me what my opinion should be.

And let me make it very clear, the record will show an infraction if I see that kind of tone in a post again.

[hippie_hunter]

Are there any Moderate Republicans left?

Because it seems like whatever ones there were, were being hunted down like the last Jedi Knights.

Cheney decided to execute Order 66 :csad:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/09n0qd_n4c0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/09n0qd_n4c0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[souvlaki]

Not to the extent Obama is taking this. The spending required for his plan is so massive that it makes an already impressive debt and multiplies it. The hole has become soo much deeper now than it could have been with another approach to the current crisis. That's the point I was making.

And that approach is...? I hear people talking about what Obama shouldn't do, but short of tax cuts and/or just praying the market simply corrects itself (because that worked so well for Hoover and Carter) I'm not hearing much in the way of solutions. Not from the supposed leaders of the Republican Party at least.

[VampElvis]

Are there any Moderate Republicans left?.

Unfortunately, there are very few left. Sadly, the ones who are left are being accused of 'not being real Republicans' by idiots like Rush Limbaugh.


I've seen this mentioned quite a few times recently in the forum. Could you maybe list some positions, qualities, etc. of what, in your mind, would make a Moderate Republican?

[Matt]

And that approach is...? I hear people talking about what Obama shouldn't do, but short of tax cuts and/or just praying the market simply corrects itself (because that worked so well for Hoover and Carter) I'm not hearing much in the way of solutions. Not from the supposed leaders of the Republican Party at least.

You know, that's really not a valid defense of Obama's actions. "You don't have a better plan!" isn't a valid defense to a bad plan at all. If I rob a bank cause I don't have money, should I go to court and say "Well you didn't have a better plan!"?

[StorminNorman]

And that approach is...? I hear people talking about what Obama shouldn't do, but short of tax cuts and/or just praying the market simply corrects itself (because that worked so well for Hoover and Carter) I'm not hearing much in the way of solutions. Not from the supposed leaders of the Republican Party at least.

How about fixing the tax code? How about making America more attractive for overseas businesses by implementing the FairTax? How about letting the Free Market regulate itself, let businesses fail whose practices were wrong? How about less government intervention?

Big Government is not the only option.

[The Major]

How about fixing the tax code?
He is.
How about making America more attractive for overseas businesses by implementing the FairTax?
IIRC Obama's going to use tax incentives for businesses to stay in America.

How about letting the Free Market regulate itself,

1. No industry should regulate itself, especially with industries that rely on greed and shift enormous amounts of money around. You're advocating letting the inmates running the asylum.

2. Bush used this tactic for 8 years. It got America into a recession which is still taking a toll on the country.

let businesses fail whose practices were wrong?

Because America's economy relies on them succeeding to survive.

How about less government intervention?

During the greatest recession the country has ever seen? :whatever:

Big Government is not the only option.
It became the only option when the recession hit.

[souvlaki]

You know, that's really not a valid defense of Obama's actions. "You don't have a better plan!" isn't a valid defense to a bad plan at all. If I rob a bank cause I don't have money, should I go to court and say "Well you didn't have a better plan!"?

When the Republican Party is doing nothing more than criticizing the President but refuse to come up with a ridiculous alternative like a spending freeze and more tax cuts, yes, I'd say that is a valid criticism. I wasn't talking about StorminNormin, I was talking about the people that are in a position to do something about it. You don't win respect from people (or votes for that matter) by saying the other guy sucks. You have to offer good ideas.

[VampElvis]

He is.
No he's changing it. Many would saying making it more anti-wealth.

IIRC Obama's going to use tax incentives for businesses to stay in America.
That won't be as enticing as Norm and SuBe's option.


1. No industry should regulate itself, especially with industries that rely on greed and shift enormous amounts of money around. You're advocating letting the inmates running the asylum.
I agree there must be some kind of oversight. I believe unchecked capitalism is as dangerous as communism.

2. Bush used this tactic for 8 years. It got America into a recession which is still taking a toll on the country.
This is NOT Bush's reception! Everyone shares blame.


Because America's economy relies on them succeeding to survive.
No it relies on business to succeed. not necessarily the ones that are already in place. If they fail and there's a place in the market for that service, industry, etc. it will be filled. Or are you advocating a bailout for the rolodex industry?


During the greatest recession the country has ever seen? :whatever:
It's a little late to take action on that one - it's been over for what, 80 years?

It became the only option when the recession hit.
Only for those who either lack true vision or the fortitude to make tough decisions.

[The Major]

No he's changing it.

He's fixing it by changing it.

Many would saying making it more anti-wealth.
I'd say it's tougher on tax cheats, not anti-wealth.

That won't be as enticing as Norm and SuBe's option.
What was their option?

I agree there must be some kind of oversight. I believe unchecked capitalism is as dangerous as communism.
:up:

This is NOT Bush's reception! Everyone shares blame.
Bush's administration doesn't take all the blame. It does deserve the most, though. They were in charge of the regulation agencies which were missing in action for to long. That is the best prevention to stop a recession like this from occurring IMO.
No it relies on business to succeed. not necessarily the ones that are already in place.

I'd agree with you had the economy been stable. Unfortunately it isn't. It'll take a long time for the economy to recover with businesses failing left and right. America doesn't have the luxury to wait until that occurs. The more businesses go under the harder it will be to fix and the longer the recession will last.

If they fail and there's a place in the market for that service, industry, etc. it will be filled.
If they fail it'll be more difficult for the new comers to fill the void. There are far less resources for these new businesses to succeed. They'll spring up faster once the recession gets healthier IMO.

Or are you advocating a bailout for the rolodex industry?
I'm advocating the government do everything it can to keep the economy alive.

It's a little late to take action on that one - it's been over for what, 80 years?
Not sure what you mean. :huh:

Only for those who either lack true vision or the fortitude to make tough decisions.
I've been waiting for these people in the business community to stand up since the recession began. They have failed to come close to fixing the economy on the scale the government has been so far.

[redfirebird2008]

Holy crap, Wanda Sykes nailed some Republicans tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyRpV4ccAj4

She said Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but was so strung out on Oxycontin that he missed his flight. Ouch!

She said that Cheney is such a scary man that she tells her kids, if two cars pull up and one of them has a stranger in it while the other has Dick Cheney in it, get in the car with the stranger! LOL.

[Kelly]

Yeah, they said some were pretty raw. I'm not too big on those that make jokes about those not there in person. Kinda chicken ****, if you ask me.

[marcofthebeast]

I like Wanda Sykes and dislike both Rush and Dick, but those are terrible jokes.

[Matt]

Holy crap, Wanda Sykes nailed some Republicans tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyRpV4ccAj4

She said Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but was so strung out on Oxycontin that he missed his flight. Ouch!

She said that Cheney is such a scary man that she tells her kids, if two cars pull up and one of them has a stranger in it while the other has Dick Cheney in it, get in the car with the stranger! LOL.

Those are in horribly bad taste. Isn't the Press Correspondents Dinner supposed to be a roast of the president and the press, not the minority party? If Bush used it to make fun of Democrats there would be total hell.

[souvlaki]

Those are in horribly bad taste. Isn't the Press Correspondents Dinner supposed to be a roast of the president and the press, not the minority party? If Bush used it to make fun of Democrats there would be total hell.

No, he just used it to make jokes about not finding weapons of mass destruction. Nothing funnier than joking about the justification behind a war that killed thousands of people.

[Matt]

No, he just used it to make jokes about not finding weapons of mass destruction. Nothing funnier than joking about the justification behind a war that killed thousands of people.

And it was in bad taste too. It doesn't justify what Sykes said or what Obama said. You're better than defending this, Souv.

[souvlaki]

And it was in bad taste too. It doesn't justify what Sykes said or what Obama said. You're better than defending this, Souv.

Matt: If Bush ever made tasteless jokes like this he would have been attacked.

Souvlaki: He did.

Matt: Why are you defending Obama?

Come again, Matt?

I don't remember defending Obama, but since you mentioned it I think you are overreacting, and using really horrible examples to try to prove your point. No Matt, you are better than this.

[Kelly]

This was no different that what happens at the other media dinners over the years.

The President usually holds his comments to self-destruction type of jokes, which Bush was very good at.....which was part of his personality. So it wasn't anything new or different for him. Obama's joke on himself was about the teleprompter, and then he turned to others. Bush's usually hit Cheney, he wasn't one to go after many others. Obama's teleprompter joke seemed to go really well, his "if you can't beat'um, join'um joke about Hillary, some said was flat.

As far as Sykes, most hosts have jokes at this thing that are known for being of very bad taste, BUT usually the people are there and get a semi-comeback. Cheney, Bush were not there and it came off very distasteful from what I heard from people on CNN and Greta on Fox. But she said it wasn't really all that different from past ones as far as distasteful jokes, they have all had them, the only difference was the people were there for a funny retort.

I can assure you that you would not have EVER heard from Bush a joke about what the word "is" means......but oh hell you can bet he got all over Cheney shooting his friend on that hunting trip. And he always chided himself on his pronunciation of words.

This stuff was just in bad taste, and as I said pretty chicken **** kind of stuff considering they weren't there. Nothing overboard on that, that's just how it looks.

[redfirebird2008]

Those are in horribly bad taste. Isn't the Press Correspondents Dinner supposed to be a roast of the president and the press, not the minority party? If Bush used it to make fun of Democrats there would be total hell.

Yes, it is supposed to be a roast of the POTUS and press. She started off making fun of him, his wife, and the press but then she turned her attention to the Republicans. Her jokes about the POTUS and FLOTUS were lightweight. She did nail the press for being too favorable to Obama though.

[redfirebird2008]

Yeah, they said some were pretty raw. I'm not too big on those that make jokes about those not there in person. Kinda chicken ****, if you ask me.

Now that's not something I have a problem with. That goes on all the time in everyday life. Rush is notorious for taking pot shots at Obama on his radio show and Obama isn't sitting there to defend himself. People on this forum take pot shots at Obama all the time (me included) and he's not on here posting to defend himself. I am sure Rush will shoot back at Sykes on Monday. Likewise for Hannity. And I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney manages to get a comeback. He's been in the press quite a bit lately. What I have a problem with is that the roast is supposed to be of the POTUS and press rather than the opposition party.

[Kelly]

Now that's not something I have a problem with. That goes on all the time in everyday life. Rush is notorious for taking pot shots at Obama on his radio show and Obama isn't sitting there to defend himself. People on this forum take pot shots at Obama all the time (me included) and he's not on here posting to defend himself. I am sure Rush will shoot back at Sykes on Monday. Likewise for Hannity. And I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney manages to get a comeback. He's been in the press quite a bit lately. What I have a problem with is that the roast is supposed to be of the POTUS and press rather than the opposition party.


I understand that, but this dinner isn't exactly the "real world", or this forum. In the past these dinners have, which has been stated here, a roast of the President and the Press Corp (you roast people that are there in person)....they don't reach back into the last Administration for their material. Hell, Clinton's administration would have been an entire stand up routine. But it wasn't....I think they should take some pointers from Colbert when he hosted it......his were raw, cutting, but at least the people were facing him that he was roasting. I mean he slammed Bush, but Bush was there..... He didn't make chicken comments about people that weren't there. IMO, that is just chicken and extremely bad taste, and not a roast.

[redfirebird2008]

I understand that, but this dinner isn't exactly the "real world", or this forum. In the past these dinners have, which has been stated here, a roast of the President and the Press Corp (you roast people that are there in person)....they don't reach back into the last Administration for their material. Hell, Clinton's administration would have been an entire stand up routine. But it wasn't....I think they should take some pointers from Colbert when he hosted it......his were raw, cutting, but at least the people were facing him that he was roasting. I mean he slammed Bush, but Bush was there..... He didn't make chicken comments about people that weren't there. IMO, that is just chicken and extremely bad taste, and not a roast.

I agree that roasting the Republicans was wrong, but I disagree on the whole "they weren't there in person" idea. That doesn't bother me at all. It does bother me that a roast of the POTUS and press turned into a roast of the Republicans. That isn't the tradition of the dinner.

[Kelly]

I agree that roasting the Republicans was wrong, but I disagree on the whole "they weren't there in person" idea. That doesn't bother me at all. It does bother me that a roast of the POTUS and press turned into a roast of the Republicans. That isn't the tradition of the dinner.

Then its not a roast....the people you slam ARE THERE.....that's what makes it a roast. I mean the President had a line for Fox. The people at the Fox table were fine with it, they thought it was funny.....that is what the night is all about, because you are there eye to eye with the person so its much more "on the table" and easier to laugh off. When they aren't there and you name them, that's #1, not a roast, and #2, makes me wonder if she would have said those things had they been there, #3, just wasn't funny, and from what I hear of the reaction, it kind of was a dud in many cases. Which always happens at these things as well.

Bottomline, its just not a roast if the people you are slamming aren't there looking ya in the face. That is what makes roasts so funny.

[Marx]

CHENEY: POWELL 'NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/10/cheney-powell-no-longer-a-republican/

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday he no longer views Colin Powell as a Republican.

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Cheney was asked about a dispute between Powell — who was secretary of state in the Bush-Cheney administration — and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh over the role each plays in the GOP.

"My take on it was Colin had already left the party," Cheney said. "I didn't know he was still a Republican."

The former vice president noted that Powell endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama in last year's presidential race. "I assume that that's some indication of his loyalty and his interests," Cheney said.

Powell, in a speech last week, said "the Republican Party is in deep trouble" and said the GOP would be better off without Limbaugh, according to a report by the National Journal.

Limbaugh fired back on his program Wednesday, saying, "What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party."

In the interview Sunday, Cheney said he believes "there is room for moderates in the Republican Party."

But, he added, "I don't think the party ought to move dramatically to the left, for example, in order to try to redefine its base. We are what we are.
We're Republicans. We have certain things we believe in. And maintaining our loyalty and commitment to those principles is vital to our success."

For someone to be so willing to step aside, he seems to have quite a problem actually doing it. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Matt]

Cheney and Powell have never liked one another, so this isn't much of a suprise.

[redfirebird2008]

Then its not a roast....the people you slam ARE THERE.....that's what makes it a roast. I mean the President had a line for Fox. The people at the Fox table were fine with it, they thought it was funny.....that is what the night is all about, because you are there eye to eye with the person so its much more "on the table" and easier to laugh off. When they aren't there and you name them, that's #1, not a roast, and #2, makes me wonder if she would have said those things had they been there, #3, just wasn't funny, and from what I hear of the reaction, it kind of was a dud in many cases. Which always happens at these things as well.

Bottomline, its just not a roast if the people you are slamming aren't there looking ya in the face. That is what makes roasts so funny.

One thing about Wanda Sykes, I don't think she has any fear of anyone. She would have said those jokes to Limbaugh's and Cheney's faces if they were there. She obviously doesn't like them and she's an ultra raunchy comedienne. She had the soft gloves on for Obama though. It's obvious she didn't wanna hit him hard because she likes him.

[Kelly]

Yeah, I guess he could say no to these interviews. But, if he has something to say, he has every right to say it. He's writing a book, wait until he starts shopping that sucker. lol

[Kelly]

One thing about Wanda Sykes, I don't think she has any fear of anyone. She would have said those jokes to Limbaugh's and Cheney's faces if they were there. She obviously doesn't like them and she's an ultra raunchy comedienne. She had the soft gloves on for Obama though. It's obvious she didn't wanna hit him hard because she likes him.


And that's her perrogative, but I don't think some (even those that disliked Bush) really felt that it was kosher, so to speak. What I've seen of her she pretty much has no ability to stop talking and pretty much runs at the mouth, so I guess whoever booked her for this, KNEW what they were getting, and I'm sure they were very pleased. :word:


I have no idea who books all of this stuff, but it would be very interesting to find out.

[CaptainClown]

Matt: If Bush ever made tasteless jokes like this he would have been attacked.

Souvlaki: He did.

Matt: Why are you defending Obama?

Come again, Matt?

I don't remember defending Obama, but since you mentioned it I think you are overreacting, and using really horrible examples to try to prove your point. No Matt, you are better than this.
sometimes it just feels like people who don't care for obama nitpick everything and just damn him if he does and damn him if he doesn't

[Matt]

And it seems like the pro-Obama crowd calls any critique nitpicking. I'm not nitpicking. The Press Correspondant's dinner is not an event to attack the opposition.

[Marx]

Matt never nitpicks. Never. :oldrazz:

[Matt]

I personally find it insulting to have my opinion written off as nitpicking.

You should Tom Welling yourself :oldrazz:

[Kelly]

sometimes it just feels like people who don't care for obama nitpick everything and just damn him if he does and damn him if he doesn't

He's the president, that is what is going to happen.



I voted for him, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to question, analyze his decisions, or question how he is holding the title of President, or how his administration is doing in their decision making thought process.

The problem is, this forum was not open for all of Bush's administration....so we don't really have anything to compare all of this to......I didn't vote for Bush either time, and I honestly sat back and shook my head. If I vote for you, you better believe it that I'm going to watch you closely.....very closely. Especially since, in this instance I didn't really have a clear vote, very much like the 2004 election, but I didn't want to not vote for a President again.

[Marx]

I personally find it insulting to have my opinion written off as nitpicking.

You should Tom Welling yourself :oldrazz:

I'll Tom Welling you!

...again. :hehe:

[Matt]

Tyrant moderator :cmad:

[Marx]

Tyrant moderator :cmad:

I learned from the best. :cwink:

[Matt]

:lmao:

[StorminNorman]

He is.

How?

IIRC Obama's going to use tax incentives for businesses to stay in America.

How?

1. No industry should regulate itself, especially with industries that rely on greed and shift enormous amounts of money around. You're advocating letting the inmates running the asylum.

I never trust the Government more than the Free Market.

2. Bush used this tactic for 8 years. It got America into a recession which is still taking a toll on the country.

Many of the causes of the recession were the product OF Government Regulation!

The Community Reinvestment Act Anyone?

Because America's economy relies on them succeeding to survive.

You underestimate the American economy. Poorly run companies fail, well run companies succeed. When businesses become too big to fail, we become slaves to them. A Capitalist System depends on this.

During the greatest recession the country has ever seen? :whatever:

Yes. Absolutely.

It became the only option when the recession hit.

Why do you have this bizarre notion that there is only one solution to the recession? Big Government?

[StorminNorman]

CHENEY: POWELL 'NO LONGER A REPUBLICAN'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/10/cheney-powell-no-longer-a-republican/



For someone to be so willing to step aside, he seems to have quite a problem actually doing it. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

After Powell's statement that the people want more government, not less government (advocating big government policies), I wouldn't call Powell a Republican either.

[Kelly]

Powell hasn't been a Republican for awhile. When they stopped listening to him while he was Secretary of State (BTW, they should have listened to him), but since that time, I think he left the party emotionally, and he left it for good when he backed Obama.

But, who cares....if that's what he wants, then cool....I don't see a big deal with it.

[redfirebird2008]

After Powell's statement that the people want more government, not less government (advocating big government policies), I wouldn't call Powell a Republican either.

As if the Republican Party is some beacon of libertarianism. :hehe:

[StorminNorman]

As if the Republican Party is some beacon of libertarianism. :hehe:

The Republican Party of today is flawed and impotent.

I refer to what the Republican Party must become out of survival. The Republican Party of tomorrow.

[redfirebird2008]

The Republican Party of today is flawed and impotent.

I refer to what the Republican Party must become out of survival. The Republican Party of tomorrow.

This is true. We shall see what happens.

[Excel]

I love this. Democrats say what Obama is going to do, respond "why?" or "how?" and feel they've effectively won the debate. It makes the handful of conservatives/Obamahaters feel good, so its all good.

It like, everytime peopel would say "the ecnomy would fix itself" or "thge last thing the economy needs is government intervention", I'll wuote them and say "why?" or "how? and watch them be unable to explain themselves.

Theres a huge difference between hating on somebody for the sake of doing it and hating on them for different opinions; the majority of Obamas few haters seem to just be hating because their still bitter at how much of a joke their party has become, and how helpless they are to do anything about it.

[StorminNorman]

I love this. Democrats say what Obama is going to do, respond "why?" or "how?" and feel they've effectively won the debate. It makes the handful of conservatives/Obamahaters feel good, so its all good.

It like, everytime peopel would say "the ecnomy would fix itself" or "thge last thing the economy needs is government intervention", I'll wuote them and say "why?" or "how? and watch them be unable to explain themselves.

Theres a huge difference between hating on somebody for the sake of doing it and hating on them for different opinions; the majority of Obamas few haters seem to just be hating because their still bitter at how much of a joke their party has become, and how helpless they are to do anything about it.

Surely this isn't targeted to me - because I have never been unable to explain myself.

[Excel]

Its targeted at the handful of Republicans i see on T.V. or in person everyday; nobody specific :up: The word "How?" is prob. their favorite; like Im gonna sit there and explani Obamas what, 10,000 program stimulus bill to them? :lmao:

[Matt]

Its targeted at the handful of Republicans i see on T.V. or in person everyday; nobody specific :up: The word "How?" is prob. their favorite; like Im gonna sit there and explani Obamas what, 10,000 program stimulus bill to them? :lmao:

Don't voters have the right to know what their tax dollars are going to? Perhaps Obama should go on TV and instead of giving a speech that is little more than rhetoric or answering softball questions about his dog and NCAA bracket, explain the stimulus (that none of our Congressmen read before voting on) in detail being as nearly 1 trillion tax dollars are going into it. The people do not owe Obama or any president their support, loyalty, or faith. He on the other hand, as our employee does owe us an explanation for every single action he takes. Oh, and saying the big vast stimulus package is too complex for us simple folk to understand is NOT an explanation.

[redfirebird2008]

I love this. Democrats say what Obama is going to do, respond "why?" or "how?" and feel they've effectively won the debate. It makes the handful of conservatives/Obamahaters feel good, so its all good.

It like, everytime peopel would say "the ecnomy would fix itself" or "thge last thing the economy needs is government intervention", I'll wuote them and say "why?" or "how? and watch them be unable to explain themselves.

Theres a huge difference between hating on somebody for the sake of doing it and hating on them for different opinions; the majority of Obamas few haters seem to just be hating because their still bitter at how much of a joke their party has become, and how helpless they are to do anything about it.

This post is hilarious.

[redfirebird2008]

Don't voters have the right to know what their tax dollars are going to? Perhaps Obama should go on TV and instead of giving a speech that is little more than rhetoric or answering softball questions about his dog and NCAA bracket, explain the stimulus (that none of our Congressmen read before voting on) in detail being as nearly 1 trillion tax dollars are going into it. The people do not owe Obama or any president their support, loyalty, or faith. He on the other hand, as our employee does owe us an explanation for every single action he takes. Oh, and saying the big vast stimulus package is too complex for us simple folk to understand is NOT an explanation.

Explain the stimulus in detail? The thing was posted on the Internet. Do you want him to go on TV and read it to everyone? He's already getting griped at by the networks because their audiences flat-out don't give a damn what the POTUS has to say, especially when it's going to pre-empt their favorite TV shows. No amount of explanation would be good enough for people who are opposed to the stimulus such as yourself and myself. I've read enough of the bill to know that it's a garbage bill. His explanation of it wouldn't change your opinion on it and you know it.

[Matt]

Explain the stimulus in detail? The thing was posted on the Internet. Do you want him to go on TV and read it to everyone? He's already getting griped at by the networks because their audiences flat-out don't give a damn what the POTUS has to say, especially when it's going to pre-empt their favorite TV shows. No amount of explanation would be good enough for people who are opposed to the stimulus such as yourself and myself. I've read enough of the bill to know that it's a garbage bill. His explanation of it wouldn't change your opinion on it and you know it.

No, it wouldn't, as I think no matter what is done with the money, it is a waste of tax dollars, but I think I do have the right to know exactly where it is going and why it is going there.

[StorminNorman]

It's a shame the Stimulus wasn't released early enough that the public could have had a chance to look over it before politicians voted for it.

[Kelly]

lol, it would have had to be released 2 weeks in advance for people to have time to read the damn thing....


But yeah, he totally screwed up with me as far as that is concerned, because that was one thing that I thought was going to really be a change from the prior administration (transparency) and he totally dropped the ball right off the bat...it really has tainted my view of his administration at the moment.

[redfirebird2008]

No, it wouldn't, as I think no matter what is done with the money, it is a waste of tax dollars, but I think I do have the right to know exactly where it is going and why it is going there.

So apparently you can't read the bill yourself? Who is holding you back from reading it? Not Obama. It's posted on the Internet. Research it and read it. Obama has given a vague outline of what is in it because it's a ridiculously large bill full of garbage.

[redfirebird2008]

It's a shame the Stimulus wasn't released early enough that the public could have had a chance to look over it before politicians voted for it.

Now this, I agree with wholeheartedly.

[The Major]

No, it wouldn't, as I think no matter what is done with the money, it is a waste of tax dollars, but I think I do have the right to know exactly where it is going and why it is going there.
http://recovery.org/

[hippie_hunter]

If Crist wins the primary, it looks like the Republicans will be keeping their Florida Senate seat

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/crist.senate/index.html

[StorminNorman]

I wonder which Republican will try for the Governor seat.

[Marx]

BOEHNER: 'CHENEY, LIMBAUGH, GINGRICH NOT HURTING GOP'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/17/cheney-limbaugh-gingrich-not-hurting-gop-boehner-says/

As the Republican Party struggles to right itself after being caught up in rough political seas, House Minority Leader John Boehner said Sunday a slew of recent and sometimes controversial comments and media appearances by a trio of high-profile Republicans is helping his struggling party.

“Having these voices out there, it doesn’t hurt us, it helps us,” Boehner told CNN’s John King on State of the Union when asked about former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

“If we’re going to show the American people that we’ve got a better way forward, having a chorus of voices out there, I think is helpful to our effort,” added the Ohio Republican.

The GOP congressional leader had no illusions about how much work his party has to do.

“We’ve got a long way to come back. We’ve had two disastrous election cycles.”

And Boehner praised the National Council for a New America, a recent GOP effort spearheaded by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor that is intended to rebrand the GOP and help it reconnect with voters.

“All the wisdom in America isn’t found here in Washington, DC,” Boehner said of the new GOP group. “There’s nothing wrong with going out and listening to the American people, sharing our principles, trying to find ways to address the concerns of the American people. But address those concerns with solutions, solutions that are built on Republican principles. So, I think this dialogue is important.”

Boehner left open the possibility that in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, the GOP might use something like Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America” to brand its message to voters.

[Marx]

LINDSEY GRAHAM GETS 'COMBATIVE' OVER GOP FUTURE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/17/lindsey-graham-gets-combative-over-gop-future/

A combative Lindsey Graham got into a sharp back-and-forth with some audience members at the South Carolina GOP convention on Saturday as he made the case for an open-tent Republican party.

According to The State newspaper and video posted on YouTube, the South Carolina senator told the convention he wants to build a party that can compete in Pennsylvania and Connecticut as well as in his home state.

“You’re a hypocrite!,” one man in the audience yelled.

“I’m a winner, pal,” Graham retorted. Moments later, after saying he wants to the party to reach out to independent voters, he said: “Winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.”

The crowd in Columbia also featured some Ron Paul supporters who offered several libertarian resolutions during the convention that were rejected by the state party.

During his speech, Graham told the audience, "Ron Paul is not the leader of this party." That remark drew a few jeers, with several people yelling, "Yes he is!"

“I’m not going to give this party over to people who can’t win,” Graham responded.

[hippie_hunter]

“I’m a winner, pal,” Graham retorted. Moments later, after saying he wants to the party to reach out to independent voters, he said: “Winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.”

Pwnt :o

[Kelly]

Get'um Lindsey....lol

[StorminNorman]

Lindsey Graham is an idiot.

This is a rare example of him not showing it.

[Marx]

WEAVER: GOP 'HEADED FOR BLOWOUT' IN 2012 IF CHENEY, LIMBAUGH, PALIN LEAD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/john-weaver-gop-headed-fo_n_204695.html

Another leading Republican strategist has voiced concerns about the direction of the GOP.

John Weaver, a top adviser to Utah Governor John Huntsman, said this week that the Republican party is headed for an electoral "blowout" if it continues to be defined by "Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney."

The Washington Examiner reported:
"If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout," says strategist John Weaver, who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain. "That's just the truth."Until last week, Weaver was preparing for Utah Gov. John Huntsman's possible presidential run. Huntsman, who just accepted President Obama's invitation to become Ambassador to China, is a favorite of GOP moderates.

Weaver's comment is the latest in a series of calls from within the GOP for a more moderate tone. Last week, moreover, a National Journal poll of top GOP political insiders and strategists found last week that Republicans believe former Vice President Dick Cheney has hurt the party since leaving office.

Despite such warnings, top Republican leaders have continued to endorse the idea that Limbaugh and Cheney should represent the party.

I completely agree, Mr. Weaver.

[Kelly]

I don't want the two parties to look the same, I think differences in thinking, in platform, etc....make for a stronger, diverse government, I do not think that Palin, Limbaugh and Cheney should be the voice of anything.

I think the recent Gallup poll on pro/abortion,pro/life shows that there is still a strong conservative thinking in this country and it is growing.......so I do think there is a place for a more conservative mindset.......I do not think the tone that Palin, Limbaugh and Cheney bring to the table helps in any kind of strong debate. There tone is divisive and is not needed in a time where our parties are already polarized to the point of civil war in the house and senate.

[StorminNorman]

If people are looking at 2012, they are looking too far. 2010 is the election Republicans should be focusing on.

The GOP is in a tough position, it truly is. The party is, at best, split 50-50 between true "conservatives" and moderates. This major fraction could easily destroy the GOP - it could also easily help the GOP. It depends entirely how the GOP treats the other half. If you can get a moderate that appeals to conservatives (say a Tom Ridge?) it could work in the benefit of the party. If McCain had appealed to moderates the same way he did in 2000, he MAY be President this very day.

The 2010 election is, IMO, more important than 2012. In 2010 the Republicans will have in their favor the Tea Party movement. This movement is a populist driven movement that puts the Republican policy of small government (not abortion, not Christian values, not homeland security) as the key political issue. If the Republican Party (and by Republican Party I mean the National Republican Party) can realize that and act with that issue as it's flagpole, we could see GOP victories across the country and the start of a Republican resurgence (not unlike 2006 for Democrats), if they can not - if they go with Conservative Social issues as the flagship banner...the party can forget about 2012 and start looking towards 2020.

A GOP that focuses on people like Palin can be fine DEPENDING on how they define "Palin", depending on how they define "Limbaugh" and "Cheney". A successful Republican candidate WON'T be closer to Obama than they are Palin, for example, it all depends on what issues they focus on.

If you ask a conservative woman (who doesn't find Palin to be an idiot) to define "Palin", it's likely going to be different from John Weavers definition of Sarah Palin and far different than James Carvilles definition of Sarah Palin.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Wow...Michael Steele's speech right not just a load of ******** right now on tv.

[souvlaki]

I love how Steele was criticizing Obama for the lowering GDP and unemployment numbers for last quarter. If you want to criticize Obama for spending, fine, talk about how the things Obama is doing now will effect these numbers six months down the line. But that is really unfair to blame Obama for the GDP and unemployment rate from his first two months in office when those are clearly the effects of what happened before Obama entered office.

[Kelly]

No, the unemployment rate going up is no one's fault except the bad workings of the car companies.....they would have gone into bankruptcy had we let them do what the market needs to let BAD COMPANIES DO.....that is how it works.

So actually IMO, neither administration is to blame for that....BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS are to blame for spending too much.

The market going up and then down was the market doing its normal cycle....we can blame THIS administration for it going down again after April. It was a normal cycle up after being down, and his choices did not allow the cycle to continue up on a normal cycle up. THAT is this administrations screw up.

It doesn't look good, and it is now OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION, its all his. The buck stops with him.

[Marx]

Steele just needs to shut up...or at least get the facts straight before he speaks.

[BlackestNight]

He's just feeding chum to the base. :o

[Matt]

During his speech, Graham told the audience, "Ron Paul is not the leader of this party." That remark drew a few jeers, with several people yelling, "Yes he is!"

“I’m not going to give this party over to people who can’t win,” Graham responded.

A very good point. Paul has great ideas. The problem is, for every one great idea says he follows it up with five absolutely psychotic things.

[redfirebird2008]

No, the unemployment rate going up is no one's fault except the bad workings of the car companies.....they would have gone into bankruptcy had we let them do what the market needs to let BAD COMPANIES DO.....that is how it works.

So actually IMO, neither administration is to blame for that....BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS are to blame for spending too much.

The market going up and then down was the market doing its normal cycle....we can blame THIS administration for it going down again after April. It was a normal cycle up after being down, and his choices did not allow the cycle to continue up on a normal cycle up. THAT is this administrations screw up.

It doesn't look good, and it is now OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION, its all his. The buck stops with him.

Normal cycle = giant ponzi scheme where the elites gain more and more power each and every time the market allegedly crashes.

[Heretic]

I have never once, not a single time, heard Democrats say that they should broaden their base by altering the party position to include more conservative voters. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose...

Republicans will go to the left...lose...go further to the left...win...go further to the left...lose...go further to the left...win...and all the while get accused of pandering to the right wing. If george Bush was right wing then I'll eat my shoe.

And Lindsey Graham betrayed the Conservative movement and should be voted out ASAP. I no longer live in SC, but maintain my residency status there specifically to vote against him in primaries. Democrats say and do whatever it takes to win power...Conservatives have a core set of beliefs that they dont betray just to win an election. Graham is no Conservative.

[Addendum]

He may not be a conservative, but he's a republican

[Heretic]

He may not be a conservative, but he's a republican

So????

I am not a Republican, Im a Conservative. When the Republicans betray the Conservative movement, as they have for the past few years, I turn my back on them.

Again, for me, this isnt about winning an election, it's about standing by your principles and showing the leadership to change the hearts and minds of others. If our guys lose an election, thats okay...let the Republicans and Democrats say whatever the polls tell them to say to get elected...Id rather be true to myself.

For liberals the above makes no sense...as they spent decades fighting for womens rights, only to trash womens rights when Clinton was being accused of harassment in the workplace. To them, it didnt matter that they were betraying their cause...their guy had won...and whatever it took to protect him was okay...thats the same reason why rabid environmentalists are usually the worst offenders of the environment...its all talk to win...and thats okay.

[Zar25]

I have never once, not a single time, heard Democrats say that they should broaden their base by altering the party position to include more conservative voters. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose...

Republicans will go to the left...lose...go further to the left...win...go further to the left...lose...go further to the left...win...and all the while get accused of pandering to the right wing.

When did the Republicans go to the left ? In what way did they go to the left ? Cos maybe I missed that. What exact positions have they taken where they went left ?

The GOP is losing in almost every demographic there is and yet stubbornly they cling to a rapidly shrinking base and refuse to do any outreach. They have to realize that they should be more inclusive or they'll continue to wither as a party.

[Heretic]

When did the Republicans go to the left ? In what way did they go to the left ? Cos maybe I missed that. What exact positions have they taken where they went left ?

The GOP is losing in almost every demographic there is and yet stubbornly they cling to a rapidly shrinking base and refuse to do any outreach. They have to realize that they should be more inclusive or they'll continue to wither as a party.


See the entirety of the Bush presidency. The only reason why that isnt left wing policies is because as he went left, the left went further left just to keep bashing him for being right wing.

[Kelly]

When did the Republicans go to the left ? In what way did they go to the left ? Cos maybe I missed that. What exact positions have they taken where they went left ?

The GOP is losing in almost every demographic there is and yet stubbornly they cling to a rapidly shrinking base and refuse to do any outreach. They have to realize that they should be more inclusive or they'll continue to wither as a party.

Everytime he gave more power to the central government he went left....every time he decided to spend more, rather than look at how to effeciently and effectively spend within our governments means, he went left.

[SuBe]

So????

I am not a Republican, Im a Conservative. When the Republicans betray the Conservative movement, as they have for the past few years, I turn my back on them.

Again, for me, this isnt about winning an election, it's about standing by your principles and showing the leadership to change the hearts and minds of others. If our guys lose an election, thats okay...let the Republicans and Democrats say whatever the polls tell them to say to get elected...Id rather be true to myself.

For liberals the above makes no sense...as they spent decades fighting for womens rights, only to trash womens rights when Clinton was being accused of harassment in the workplace. To them, it didnt matter that they were betraying their cause...their guy had won...and whatever it took to protect him was okay...thats the same reason why rabid environmentalists are usually the worst offenders of the environment...its all talk to win...and thats okay.:heart:

[StorminNorman]

When did the Republicans go to the left ? In what way did they go to the left ? Cos maybe I missed that. What exact positions have they taken where they went left ?

The GOP is losing in almost every demographic there is and yet stubbornly they cling to a rapidly shrinking base and refuse to do any outreach. They have to realize that they should be more inclusive or they'll continue to wither as a party.

The GOP is losing in almost every demographic because they betrayed their principals.

The Republican leadership (Bush and McCain) were to the left on immigration (the forgotten issue).

The Republican leadership allowed Bush to spend like crazy, leaving us a huge debt and weakening our position with other countries and increasing the size of government in this country.

These two issues are huge to the conservative movement and were issues that the Republican Party betrayed.

[VampElvis]

Well said, sir, but I think simply the nomination of McCain would serve as example to show the party's move to the left. I don't see how you could really call him a conservative.

[StorminNorman]

McCain's nomination was not won on the backs of Republicans - it was won on the backs of Independents voting in a Republican Primary.

[Marx]

Well said, sir, but I think simply the nomination of McCain would serve as example to show the party's move to the left. I don't see how you could really call him a conservative.

McCain largely won the Republican nomination because of his Independent support, not the Republican Party.

[redfirebird2008]

I have never once, not a single time, heard Democrats say that they should broaden their base by altering the party position to include more conservative voters. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose...

Republicans will go to the left...lose...go further to the left...win...go further to the left...lose...go further to the left...win...and all the while get accused of pandering to the right wing. If george Bush was right wing then I'll eat my shoe.

And Lindsey Graham betrayed the Conservative movement and should be voted out ASAP. I no longer live in SC, but maintain my residency status there specifically to vote against him in primaries. Democrats say and do whatever it takes to win power...Conservatives have a core set of beliefs that they dont betray just to win an election. Graham is no Conservative.

Ever heard of the "Blue Dog" Democrats? Liberals can't stand them. They're practically Republicans.

[Matt]

McCain's nomination was not won on the backs of Republicans - it was won on the backs of Independents voting in a Republican Primary.

McCain largely won the Republican nomination because of his Independent support, not the Republican Party.

The irony being the same independents took the general election away from him because he continued to pander to the far right.

[Marx]

The irony being the same independents took the general election away from him because he continued to pander to the far right.

McCain deserved to lose after what he became during the campaign.

[StorminNorman]

The irony being the same independents took the general election away from him because he continued to pander to the far right.

McCain deserved to lose after what he became during the campaign.

Exactly. McCain ignored (or at least misinterpreted) one of the basic rules in politics "play towards your strength".

As soon as McCain started to play Fred Thompson and not John McCain in the election, he ensured his defeat.

[Superman]

GOP drops proposal to rename Dems 'Socialist'
Republican chairman had opposed the name-changing resolution


WASHINGTON - Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the "Democrat Socialist Party," ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.

Two Republican National Committee members who backed a resolution to ask the Democratic Party to change its name said supporters agreed to changing the measure's language to urge Americans to oppose what the GOP is calling the Democrats' "socialist" agenda.

The name-changing resolution supported by Jim Bopp of Indiana and David Norcross of New Jersey had drawn criticism from GOP Chairman Michael Steele. Other party leaders called the move "stupid" and "absurd," saying it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation.

The Democratic National Committee said the proposal reflected a political party so devoid of ideas that it was resorting to "name calling" and "petty politics."

Bopp and Norcross dismissed the criticism Wednesday and said the publicity generated by the proposal was good for the GOP.

"It has generated the debate we had hoped for," Bopp said. "It was an effort to educate the American people, and it was successful."

Norcross said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be "properly fearful."

Republicans were slated to vote on the "socialist" resolution and other measures late Wednesday afternoon.

At one point during informal discussions of the name change, those attending the meeting of state party leaders and other party officials said the proposed name might be "Nationalist Socialist Democrat Party." However, including the word "Nationalist" was not formally proposed.

Republicans are trying to chart a new course after election losses in 2006 and 2008 that left them out of power in the White House, Congress and statehouses across the country.

Without a successor to former President George W. Bush, the party is in the midst of an intense debate over its identity and facing an emboldened Democratic Party that's grown larger and stronger under President Barack Obama's leadership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846926/






It's stupid crap like this is the reason the Republicans are going down the drain. The fact that they even tried to do this shows how out of touch they are.:whatever:

[StorminNorman]

Both sides are guilty of stupid crap.

"Non Binding Resolution" ring a bell?

[Superman]

Both sides are guilty of stupid crap.

"Non Binding Resolution" ring a bell?Oh I agree with that 100% but we are talking about Republicans in this thread so...

[Kelly]

GOP drops proposal to rename Dems 'Socialist'
Republican chairman had opposed the name-changing resolution


WASHINGTON - Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the "Democrat Socialist Party," ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.

Two Republican National Committee members who backed a resolution to ask the Democratic Party to change its name said supporters agreed to changing the measure's language to urge Americans to oppose what the GOP is calling the Democrats' "socialist" agenda.

The name-changing resolution supported by Jim Bopp of Indiana and David Norcross of New Jersey had drawn criticism from GOP Chairman Michael Steele. Other party leaders called the move "stupid" and "absurd," saying it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation.

The Democratic National Committee said the proposal reflected a political party so devoid of ideas that it was resorting to "name calling" and "petty politics."

Bopp and Norcross dismissed the criticism Wednesday and said the publicity generated by the proposal was good for the GOP.

"It has generated the debate we had hoped for," Bopp said. "It was an effort to educate the American people, and it was successful."

Norcross said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be "properly fearful."

Republicans were slated to vote on the "socialist" resolution and other measures late Wednesday afternoon.

At one point during informal discussions of the name change, those attending the meeting of state party leaders and other party officials said the proposed name might be "Nationalist Socialist Democrat Party." However, including the word "Nationalist" was not formally proposed.

Republicans are trying to chart a new course after election losses in 2006 and 2008 that left them out of power in the White House, Congress and statehouses across the country.

Without a successor to former President George W. Bush, the party is in the midst of an intense debate over its identity and facing an emboldened Democratic Party that's grown larger and stronger under President Barack Obama's leadership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846926/






It's stupid crap like this is the reason the Republicans are going down the drain. The fact that they even tried to do this shows how out of touch they are.:whatever:


WASHINGTON - Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the "Democrat Socialist Party," ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.

THIS IS WHY I DON'T LIKE MSNBC....

There is NOTHING wrong with being a more aggressive, conservative voice....NOTHING AT ALL. It is the RADICAL RIGHT that wants crap like changing the name of the Democratic party. NOT normal, intelligent agressive conservatives.

That right there ruined the rest of the read for me.


AND, the Democratic party IS NOT larger and stronger. It simply has the majority, that does not make it stronger, nor is it because of Obama's leadership. He wasn't a leader in the Democratic party when he was in the Senate. He's not a leader now.....he is a man, who was "the man" of the hour, and it happened to have been his hour. Hell, even McCain realized that with his quote of...."this is Obama's time to win", "this is the time in history".....

NEITHER PARTY IS LARGE AND STRONG, nor are they LEADING.

That is a bunch of ********....

[SsM]

Holy crap, calm down. ._.

[Kelly]

It's typed words......its ok...:dry:

[SsM]

but.. but caps! it's just like yelling!

[Kelly]

No, it is simply making that point stronger. I don't yell....when I'm upset, I actually get much calmer, and my voice lowers.

[SsM]

No, it is simply making that point stronger. I don't yell....when I'm upset, I actually get much calmer, and my voice lowers.


Hey, me too, Sometimes if I'm really really pissed I'll get this **** eating grin on my face that I can't control. :(

[Kelly]

I just get even...

[ChrisBaleBatman]

THIS IS WHY I DON'T LIKE MSNBC....

There is NOTHING wrong with being a more aggressive, conservative voice....NOTHING AT ALL. It is the RADICAL RIGHT that wants crap like changing the name of the Democratic party. NOT normal, intelligent agressive conservatives.

That right there ruined the rest of the read for me.



But the radical right is the most prominent voices of the Right.

And when the RNC wants to change the name...c'mon, nobody's cherry picking. Isn't the RNC the blood of the Republican party for organizing?

I think you need to be fair here, man.

[Addendum]

So????

I am not a Republican, Im a Conservative. When the Republicans betray the Conservative movement, as they have for the past few years, I turn my back on them.

Again, for me, this isnt about winning an election, it's about standing by your principles and showing the leadership to change the hearts and minds of others. If our guys lose an election, thats okay...let the Republicans and Democrats say whatever the polls tell them to say to get elected...Id rather be true to myself.

For liberals the above makes no sense...as they spent decades fighting for womens rights, only to trash womens rights when Clinton was being accused of harassment in the workplace. To them, it didnt matter that they were betraying their cause...their guy had won...and whatever it took to protect him was okay...thats the same reason why rabid environmentalists are usually the worst offenders of the environment...its all talk to win...and thats okay.
Go ahead and turn your back on the republicans. The republican party will do what they think is necessary to win, just like the democratic party. If that means moving to the left or right of conservatives or liberals respectively, then they'll do that. I just disagree with the notion that if someone isn't a conservative that they should be forced to leave the republican party. And I also disagree with the notion that if someone isn't a liberal that they should be forced to leave the democratic party.

[StorminNorman]

But the radical right is the most prominent voices of the Right.

And when the RNC wants to change the name...c'mon, nobody's cherry picking. Isn't the RNC the blood of the Republican party for organizing?

I think you need to be fair here, man.

The RNC DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE THE NAME OF ANYTHING! IT WAS A HANDFUL OF COMPLETE IDIOTS - NOT THE GOP! IF IT WAS THE RNC THAT WANTED TO CHANGE THE NAME, IT WOULDN'T OF BEEN DEFEATED.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well the GOP isn't getting that message across.

the word "No" is all that seems to be getting heard.

[StorminNorman]

Well the GOP isn't getting that message across.

the word "No" is all that seems to be getting heard.

...And in this political climate, no is enough. The GOP, at this time, does not need alternative plans. Alternative plans don't work when you are the minority that they are. Now when elections come around? They need alternatives. If they can gain back several seats - making them a relevant group, you need a plan. Right now? The plan is just say no.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't think "no" is enough.

I think that's why the GOP tried (and failed) to propose a new budget. All in three pages with barely no numbers.

But...let's be honest. Playing offense is all they've got right now. Not until something happens. Anything, another terrorist attack...depression...anything. Right now, there's not much to jump on. Yet.

[Marx]

...And in this political climate, no is enough. The GOP, at this time, does not need alternative plans. Alternative plans don't work when you are the minority that they are. Now when elections come around? They need alternatives. If they can gain back several seats - making them a relevant group, you need a plan. Right now? The plan is just say no.

...being 'the party of no' isn't the greatest thing to be. Minority party or not, you should still be offering alternatives.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

...being 'the party of no' isn't the greatest thing to be. Minority party or not, you should still be offering alternatives.


But, that's like...really hard to do.

You have to do research, do math, talk to alot of people, spend a lot of time coming up with ideas.

It waaaayyyyy easier to just sit back, and toss up the finger everytime someone says something. Just say no, and attack, and you go home and get to eat dinner on time.

Instead of working overtime.

It's alot work, which I guess is a turn off from the onset.

[VampElvis]

I stand by my earlier claim. Those of the elected can "just say no" while Obama is still early in office and popular while the non-elected like Gingrich and Chaney rip Obama and plant seeds of discontent and take the lumps while the elected remain more or less "clean" from such activities. Then, as the election cycle approaches and BO's popularity wanes, it can't stay this high forever, the seeds are now saplings and more counter policies are proposed and a more aggressive stance is taken, and I believe more accepted, by Republocrats.

[Marx]

RNC USES CONTROVERSIAL 'DAISY AD' TO TARGET OBAMA
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/22/rnc-uses-controversial-daisy-ad-to-target-obama/

The Republican National Committee Friday unearthed one of the most controversial political ads in American history to take aim at President Obama's decision to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

Called "Daisy," The RNC's new 30-second web ad uses footage of the now-infamous 1964 Lyndon Johnson commercial by the same name that showed a young girl picking off the petals of a flower as a nuclear explosion is heard in the background.

That ad, which only ran once but was widely criticized as being extreme, ends with the image of a mushroom crowd and Johnson declaring, "We must either love each other, or we must die."

The New RNC ad splices the image of the girl with Obama's earlier declaration suggesting that closing Guantanamo Bay is "easy." This time the girl asks "To close it? To close it not?" as she picks off flower petals.

It also shows Senate Democrats — including Majority Leader Harry Reid — appearing to take issue with proposals to relocate current Guantanamo detainees in the United States.

The new iteration, which forgoes the original's dramatic mushroom-cloud ending, comes days after RNC Chairman Michael Steele declared an end to the Obama administration's "honeymoon" and pledged more aggressive opposition from the GOP.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

We're all going to die!

God...we're still in Year One.

I'm expecting Year Four to literally be like The Road Warrior.

Has to be.

[Zar25]

Everytime he gave more power to the central government he went left....every time he decided to spend more, rather than look at how to effeciently and effectively spend within our governments means, he went left.

Ugh, I'll concede that government expansion of powers and useless bureaucracy was unprecedented during the Bush admin but to label that particular move as 'left' leaves a disgusting taste in my mouth because nothing they ever did made sense in my bleeding liberal heart. That's just sheer incompetence to me. I'm a progressive. Calling Bush 'left' is a bad joke to me.

[The Major]

I have never once, not a single time, heard Democrats say that they should broaden their base by altering the party position to include more conservative voters. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose...

The Democratic party did that in the 90's. That group are known as the Reagan Democrats IIRC. It did well enough to get a Democrat in the White House. They're still with the party to this day.

[The Major]

Exactly. McCain ignored (or at least misinterpreted) one of the basic rules in politics "play towards your strength".
McCain barely knew what his strengths were. He's lucky Obama didn't accept his challenge for 10 town hall debates early during the election.

As soon as McCain started to play Fred Thompson and not John McCain in the election, he ensured his defeat.
Agreed.

[The Major]

THIS IS WHY I DON'T LIKE MSNBC....

There is NOTHING wrong with being a more aggressive, conservative voice....NOTHING AT ALL.

It is when there is barely any substance to their message beyond "no" or "Obama sucks".

It is the RADICAL RIGHT that wants crap like changing the name of the Democratic party. NOT normal, intelligent agressive conservatives.

That right there ruined the rest of the read for me.

I suggest the conservatives get control back otherwise the radical right wing will remain the face of the party.

AND, the Democratic party IS NOT larger and stronger. It simply has the majority, that does not make it stronger,
Being in the majority makes them stronger politically. That's why being in the minority is bad thing for the Senate and Congress.

nor is it because of Obama's leadership.

It's because of Obama's leadership the Democratic party has succeeded where it previously failed.

He wasn't a leader in the Democratic party when he was in the Senate.

True, but he's the leader now.

He's not a leader now.....

He's the president. He's the nation's and the Democratic party's leader.

he is a man, who was "the man" of the hour, and it happened to have been his hour.

He's a man whose hour came since he's a great leader.

Hell, even McCain realized that with his quote of...."this is Obama's time to win", "this is the time in history".....

It was his time to win since McCain failed to stop him. There can only be one winner in an election. Obama didn't just get it handed to him when he woke up one day for doing nothing.

NEITHER PARTY IS LARGE AND STRONG, nor are they LEADING.

That is a bunch of ********....
The Democrats have been beating the Republican party like a drum in the two previous elections. They've managed to take many steps in leading this country in a new direction greatly needed since the previous administration's endless blundering.

[Kelly]

It is when there is barely any substance to their message beyond "no" or "Obama sucks".

"Obama sucks..." ??? I will certainly agree that the republicans have not said "no" with a plan behind it....but "Obama sucks...." sounds more like something I read on here, not from Republicans in office...

I suggest the conservatives get control back otherwise the radical right wing will remain the face of the party. The radical right wing does not have control of the Republican party, NO ONE DOES.....they are just the loudest.


Being in the majority makes them stronger politically. That's why being in the minority is bad thing for the Senate and Congress. When I say "strong" I mean in integrity, strength of purpose, strength of message, etc.....sorry, they are not strong in any of those....neither party is.

It's because of Obama's leadership the Democratic party has succeeded where it previously failed. True, but he's the leader now.
I have to disagree, he had an excellent campaign, which is applause for far more people than just Obama....he has not, IMO, lead the way I thought he would when I voted for him. He has simply continued to give the talking points that he gave while campaigning....and seems to be continuing to campaign rather than lead. I will say though, that he has taken a strong dose of reality, and he seems to understand that some of his talking points will have to be tweaked, and he seems to be willing to do that.....that IMO is a positive.

He's the president. He's the nation's and the Democratic party's leader. I will point to my post above, and add that he has allowed Pelosi to set the standard's of this administration. I do not believe he has set the standard in a strong manner. That is not to say that I don't believe he desires strong standards, I just don't believe he has led in that manner.


He's a man whose hour came since he's a great leader. His hour came because of his look, his manner, his ability to give a speech, and a strong campaign.....not, IMO because he showed any great leadership before becoming President, and I fear it will take him a few years before he is ready to be the strong leader that I believe he can be. I see, on a daily basis, the words of "on the job, training".....I have to take my medicine though, because I was willing to take that chance. So I will have to "wait and see if my gut feeling was correct, so far I have not seen that....."

It was his time to win since McCain failed to stop him. There can only be one winner in an election. Obama didn't just get it handed to him when he woke up one day for doing nothing.
It was his time to win, because he had no competition, and to have won with as small of a difference has he did, speaks volumes to me. IMO, with the campaign and choices that McCain ran, had Obama been as strong as so many thought he was as a candidate, it should have been a Reagan vs. Carter landslide.....

The Democrats have been beating the Republican party like a drum in the two previous elections. They've managed to take many steps in leading this country in a new direction greatly needed since the previous administration's endless blundering.

The Republican party has been killing themselves, all the Democrats have had to do is sit back and watch. IMO, their winning has had NOTHING to do with their plans, rhetoric, or leadership.....it had everything to do with Bush.....nothing more.

This from Glenn Beck's show...(I know you can't stand him, I don't particularly like the guy either......but as an Independent, I can tell you that his guest is SPOT ON.......)

94rmLNZg9Fc

This is EXACTLY where I am as an American, and how I'm feeling right now, much better than I could ever say it here.....

[VampElvis]

Outstanding graphic. You can see that chart runs through April 2009 and shows that it looks like the Republicrats have pretty much bottomed out (or at least their decline has dramatically slowed) while the Demicans are driving folks out in their droves and just beginning their freefall. Boy, that really is some great leadership! ;-).

[StorminNorman]

...being 'the party of no' isn't the greatest thing to be. Minority party or not, you should still be offering alternatives.

And the Republican Party has. They have offered alternative plans for the stimulus, they have offered alternative plans for National Security, they have offered alternative plans for most issues.

The difference is their plans don't mean a thing because they have no chance of being used. So there is no reason to talk about them by political observers.

The Green Party's plan doesn't mean anything either.

[StorminNorman]

McCain barely knew what his strengths were. He's lucky Obama didn't accept his challenge for 10 town hall debates early during the election.

Bull, Obama wouldn't have had a teleprompter and would have ruined himself.

[Kelly]

I agree, Obama not taking that challenge was the smartest thing he did in his campaign.

[The Major]

Bull, Obama wouldn't have had a teleprompter and would have ruined himself.
The laughable teleprompter defense. At least Obama can read it. Can't say the same for the previous Republican president. Sure he makes mistakes but they are few and far between. Obama can't use teleprompters for town hall meetings IIRC. He's a lawyer, they do public speaking as a job. He did that long before he ran for office. Noways town halls are a strength. All he needed was some practice to curb whatever slight problems he had with it which McCain was happy to give him on the campaign.

[Kelly]

Obama did not beat McCain in any of the debates....they were all draws as far as I was concerned. McCain was very comfortable in town hall types of settings.....I think that he made the right decision not doing them.

BTW, what does Bush not being able to read a teleprompter have anything to do with McCain's challenge of Obama to the town hall meetings? Are just throwing stuff in about Bush in all posts now, just for the hell of it? Or is it the new thing to make the point stronger for Democrats we are just throwing in a Bush slam?

[StorminNorman]

The laughable teleprompter defense. At least Obama can read it. Can't say the same for the previous Republican president. Sure he makes mistakes but they are few and far between. Obama can't use teleprompters for town hall meetings IIRC. He's a lawyer, they do public speaking as a job. He did that long before he ran for office. Noways town halls are a strength. All he needed was some practice to curb whatever slight problems he had with it which McCain was happy to give him on the campaign.

No, scripited Town Halls are his strength. Campaign events are his strength. Truly answering questions, off the cuff, unrehearsed is not. It's why he has an abysmal showing at Saddleback, it's why he brings his teleprompter anywhere. He knows his weaknesses, and does his best to minimize them.

[The Major]

No, scripited Town Halls are his strength.
Which town halls were scripted?

Campaign events are his strength.
Agreed.

Truly answering questions, off the cuff, unrehearsed is not. It's why he has an abysmal showing at Saddleback, it's why he brings his teleprompter anywhere.

Got any footage with Saddleback? Obama always does well with the press IMO. Do you consider those scripted?

He knows his weaknesses, and does his best to minimize them.

Yes, he does. I just disagree that town halls are among them.

[VampElvis]

Just being a lawyer doesn't make you William Jennings Bryan. I know this to be true more than most. I narrowly avoided marrying a lawyer. But I think we've strayed off topic.............

[Kelly]

Most media felt that McCain did better at Saddleback, that is why they went after the possibility that he had the questions ahead of time. Obama didn't do badly, but he did do his usual...uuuh....uh....uhhhhs....which is normal for him.

The problem is this. He takes too long to make a point. I understand that he thinks before he speaks, and that is fine. But, when you have only a few minutes, as in a press conference, etc....to make your point, and when you take 15 of the 30 minute press conference to give a speech (with a teleprompter, to say what you have already said, numerous times) then you can get MAYBE 10 to 12 questions in....in a time when you could have gotten 2x that many questions.....why? Speech giving at a press conference, town hall meetings, kinda screws up the main idea of these venues, and uuuuhhhh..uuuuh ..uuuuh..takes up too much time.....he needs to work on these areas. AND HE CAN.....AND I'M SURE HE WILL. But, I'm not going to make excuses for him, those are weak areas, and hopefully he will work on those in the future, because he has already lost his TV audience as far as press conferences, not even all the networks carry them anymore because it is "much to do about nothing...." as I said before, he made a good decision in not doing the town halls.....he saw how well McCain did at Saddleback, he was in his element....why walk onto your opponents field if you don't have to. He wasn't an overwhelming winner in the debates, or even a moderate winner....most said they were draws....to the point of they lost viewers with each debate....the debates were supposed to be a strength. He is smart in not putting his weaknesses out there very often, and it did him well.

[metr0man]

National Journal. Republicans: Stronger in the South, weaker everywhere else:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090523_2195.php

[CaptainClown]

But, that's like...really hard to do.

You have to do research, do math, talk to alot of people, spend a lot of time coming up with ideas.

It waaaayyyyy easier to just sit back, and toss up the finger everytime someone says something. Just say no, and attack, and you go home and get to eat dinner on time.

Instead of working overtime.

It's alot work, which I guess is a turn off from the onset.
haha

[Matt]

Y'know, Gingrich may be a scum bag, but he is a smart man and the one that Republicans should be listening to, not Cheney. He is a very smart man, held his own against Durbin, criticized Obama while also acknowledging that the Republicans need to be an encompassing party that welcomes ideas, not scurge them out of the party. I don't think Gingrich is going to run for President in 2012. But I do think he would make a VERY strong running mate for any candidate.

[StorminNorman]

Which town halls were scripted?

The ones that are campaign events. The ones that are hand picked by the President to announce some new plan, or to sign some bill, or some other Presidential Publicity function.

Got any footage with Saddleback? Obama always does well with the press IMO. Do you consider those scripted?

Be a big boy and Google Saddleback Presidential Debate yourself. You will find all sorts of videos from it, as well as the reactions articles. You will see that almost everyone considered it to be a victory for McCain and said that Obama was less than impressive, frequently dodging questions. For example, on the issue of abortion he claimed that deciding where life begins is a question for "it’s above my pay grade" - that's not an acceptable answer for a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! There is no higher pay grade than President of the United States.

Yes, he does. I just disagree that town halls are among them.

Obama and his campaign would disagree - as evidenced by his lack of doing them.

Y'know, Gingrich may be a scum bag, but he is a smart man and the one that Republicans should be listening to, not Cheney. He is a very smart man, held his own against Durbin, criticized Obama while also acknowledging that the Republicans need to be an encompassing party that welcomes ideas, not scurge them out of the party. I don't think Gingrich is going to run for President in 2012. But I do think he would make a VERY strong running mate for any candidate.

Gingrich has no business being on any ballot any more. He should be in a Republican Administration - but not in an elected post.

[StorminNorman]

Steele’s standing has also benefited from the RNC’s solid recent fundraising performance — a critical determinant of a chairman’s success. The RNC raised more money (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22896_Page2.html#) than the Democratic National Committee in both March and April and reports a cash-on-hand advantage of $24.4 million to $9.1 million.
Read more: "Michael Steele critics: RNC chair finding his mojo - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22896_Page2.html#ixzz0GSn02QvP&A



An interesting article about Michael Steele and how he has handled his role.

[Marx]

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE WANTS TO END 'BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/nathan-deal-georgia-lawma_n_207485.html

U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.

Supporters of Deal's proposal say "birthright citizenship" encourages illegal immigration and makes enforcement of immigration laws more difficult.

Opponents say the proposed law wouldn't solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against this country's traditions of welcoming immigrants.

Automatic citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." That provision, ratified in 1868, was drafted with freed slaves in mind.

Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.

"This is a sensible, overdue measure that closes a clause that was never meant to be a loophole," said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks tighter immigration restrictions.

Under Deal's proposal, babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.

[StorminNorman]

He's hardly the first to propose that.

It's an issue that I am divided on. I can see Pro's and Con's to both sides.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Hmm.

I gotta go against that one.

[CaptainClown]

I just think that whole system needs an overhaul. There needs to be a thing where there is more of an incentive to become an American citizen. I would say that we should make it ok for immigrants to come over, however they would have their own union and have to pay taxes to the said organization so that it would give immigrants a reason to become a citizen. Maybe even give tax breaks to employers who use American citizens.

[dnno1]

I guess this is the future of the Republican Party:

lkeZ2P4SiY8

More of the same -- just different packaging.

[VampElvis]

He's hardly the first to propose that.

It's an issue that I am divided on. I can see Pro's and Con's to both sides.

I know this isn't the correct forum, but I'd like to see a list of your cons......

[Superman]

I guess this is the future of the Republican Party:

lkeZ2P4SiY8

More of the same -- just different packaging.Pretty much. They haven't learned a damn thing.:facepalm

[StorminNorman]

:lmao:

Like those people represent the Republican Party in any way.

[Matt]

Didn't you know Norman? To some, having an R by your name means fringe lunatics speak for you and you quite possibly may be the devil.

[Matt]

He's hardly the first to propose that.

It's an issue that I am divided on. I can see Pro's and Con's to both sides.

I too am mixed. I say the best solution is, we grant the children, but not the parents citizenship. If the parents want to put them in a US orphanage, fine. I'm sure couples who would kill for a baby will adopt them. However, the parents asses get deported. The problem is, we are allowing birthright citizenship to be a loophole for the parents as well.