55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
okie
 
  5  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:20 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

I see that all of the above posters just logged in with their alter accounts and voted up their own posts....

No. Wait. You're all the same person, right?

Who are you?

Actually I have noticed of late that I can vote anybody up or down as many times as I want to. I don't do it as a practice at all, but every once in a while I notice it is possible when I try it. I have only done it a 3 or 4 times I think. Is it supposed to do that, and I even wondered if I was the only one seeing the number. Try it folks, and see what happens.

PS. I just voted mine up to a "5". Is everyone else seeing this too? Of course someone else to could vote it down pretty quickly from right now.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:21 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

I see that all of the above posters just logged in with their alter accounts and voted up their own posts....

No. Wait. You're all the same person, right?

Who are you?

Actually I have noticed of late that I can vote anybody up or down as many times as I want to. I don't do it as a practice at all, but every once in a while I notice it is possible when I try it. I have only done it a 3 or 4 times I think. Is it supposed to do that, and I even wondered if I was the only one seeing the number. Try it folks, and see what happens.


It doesn't save more than one vote; I noticed this a few months ago, but when I returned to the page, it only recorded one vote.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:22 pm
@JTT,
McCain's age and flip-flops have pretty much washed him out of the presidency.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:23 pm
@okie,
Interesting. I've never tried that, but you're right. I clicked a couple of times on your post, and it kept going up. Funny.

Reloading the page shows the correct count, though.
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:25 pm
@old europe,
Oh, I see I already answered that with my other account.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:27 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Oh, look! We're talking about alter egos, and pronto, okie shows up!

Has anyone ever seen okie's photo, name, address or phone number? I'm sure I haven't. Same goes for Foxfyre. How do we know Foxfyre and okie are not the same poster?

Be assured I am not Foxfyre. And I have not posted my identity because I like being anonymous, it is for a purpose. I am honest about my life's experiences and things that I feel are pertinent to a thread, and that ought to be good enough.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:28 pm
@okie,
truth is, I'm also okie...

i'm just bored.

(and i get as many thumbs up as i want, cuz i'm special like that)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:30 pm
@okie,
I am complimented being accused of being you though Okie though anybody other than a numbnut would have identified the difference in style and in many opinions expressed.. And I would give you my address and phone number and regular email with no qualms about that at all. There are others here that I would not want to have that information. (I just voted you up to a 10 on that post but nobody but me will see more than 1 positive vote cast.)
old europe
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:31 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Be assured I am not Foxfyre. And I have not posted my identity because I like being anonymous, it is for a purpose. I am honest about my life's experiences and things that I feel are pertinent to a thread, and that ought to be good enough.


Sure, Foxfyre. That's what you want us to think.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well, the above post truely must be someone else - Foxfyre would never lie.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I am complimented being accused of being you though Okie though anybody other than a numbnut would have identified the difference in style and in many opinions expressed.. And I would give you my address and phone number and regular email with no qualms about that at all. There are others here that I would not want to have that information. (I just voted you up to a 10 on that post but nobody but me will see more than 1 positive vote cast.)


Do you honestly believe that there are no stylistic differences between those of us who you consider to be duplicates of each other?

Cyclotpichorn
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Thats correct: when you, cyclo, made your England/Poland trip this summer, diest wrote a really better British English.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:47 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I misread, misremember, misinterpret get it wrong sometimes, understand wrongly sometimes, but I do not lie.

Now, back on topic:

Obama's little bounce from his much acclaimed speech to Congress didn't last long.

Quote:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends). Thirty-five percent (35%) believe the U.S. is generally heading in the right direction and investor confidence today reached the highest level of 2009.

Forty-four percent (44%) now favor the President’s health care plan. That’s unchanged from before the speech…and from July. Public opinion on the issue appears to be hardening. A Rasmussen video report notes that 53% of those with insurance believe they would be forced to change coverage if the proposed health care reform is approved.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:01 pm
Gleanings from today's email. I subscribe to daily updates from a NFP group called Human Events that describes themselves as the 'conservative underground'. I thought their promo sent out today was a pretty good one and pretty well sums up where I think American conservatives are mostly coming from these days:

Quote:
Join the Conservative
Counter-Revolution!


Dear Fellow Conservative:

Right now, something is happening in America that, try as they might, the liberal media can't stop simply by distorting or ignoring it.

I'm talking about the surging opposition to President Obama's plans to "remake" America (his word) from an independent republic of freedom-loving, self-reliant citizens into a Euro-socialist nanny state.

Call it a backlash. Call it a counter-revolution. Call it a conservative comeback. Call it what you will -- but it's real, it's massive, and it's about to boil over into something the liberals can't deny any longer.

How do I know? Because it's my job, as editor in chief of HUMAN EVENTS, to report on things that the liberal media won't.

And everywhere my staff and I look these days we see the signs of this extraordinary political uprising...

IN THE POLLS showing a sudden and dramatic erosion in President Obama's approval ratings -- and an even steeper, faster decline in support for his neo-socialist policies

ON THE STREETS of mainstream America where "tea party" tax protests and other expressions of populist outrage are spreading like wildfire from town to town, city to city nationwide

IN STATEHOUSES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS where voters are forcing legislators -- by popular referendum if necessary -- to roll back the tax-and-spend policies that have brought so many states and localities to the brink of bankruptcy

ON THE AIRWAVES where conservative TV and radio personalities such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are soaring to new heights of popularity -- while the ratings for liberals like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are plummeting

ON THE BESTSELLER LISTS where books like Mark Levin's " Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" and "Glenn Beck's Common Sense" have dominated for months, outselling liberal tomes by hundreds of thousands

AND EVEN, AT LONG LAST, IN CONGRESS where, after years of selling out conservative principles, a small but growing number of Republicans are loudly voicing and voting those principles once again -- despite the loud complaints of the liberal media.

What's driving this extraordinary phenomenon? In a word -- outrage.

After trusting Barack Obama's soothing promises, and the media's constant reassurances, that once in office he would "transcend" partisan politics, Americans quickly realized they had elected the most radical leftist ever to serve as President of the United States.

They also realized that for all Obama's talk of "transparency" and "accountability," his administration was creating the conditions for a level of political sleaze, corruption and back-room wheeling-and-dealing far worse than anything Washington has seen in a very long time.

And now that the gap between Obama's smooth-talking rhetoric and his actual performance has finally become plain to anyone but the most besotted of his admirers, Americans have had enough.

They have had enough of the out-of-control spending on bailouts and "stimulus" that have sent the federal deficit soaring to $1.8 trillion for 2009 alone -- and even higher down the road -- threatening to bankrupt our nation, destroy our currency, and impoverish our descendents for generations to come

They have had enough of Obama's crusade to replace private healthcare with a government-run system that will empower federal bureaucrats to make life-and-death decisions about your medical care -- and that will put all your private medical records in a government database (don't worry, they promise never to use them to harm you)

They have had enough of Obama's proposed tax hikes and tax "surcharges" to pay for all his spending programs that will drive U.S. tax rates higher even than the welfare-state economies of Europe (New Yorkers, for instance, could face a combined federal-state income tax rate of nearly 60 percent)

They have had enough of the appalling rogue's gallery of crooks, cronies, tax cheats, and political big-spending leftists that Obama has appointed to the highest levels of our government -- while firing or abruptly "retiring" official government watchdogs who have blown the whistle on his cronies and their schemes

They have had enough of the outrageous threats to investigate and prosecute Bush-era anti-terrorist agents and officials for the heroic work they did in keeping our country safe

They have had enough of the endless procession of unelected "czars" President Obama has appointed -- 32 at last count! -- to bring one sector after another of our economy and government under his direct control (come to think of it, why don't we just call him "Czar Obama"?)

They have had enough, in short, of how President Obama and his allies are rapidly destroying so much of what has made our country prosperous and free -- while arrogating to themselves a degree of power that would make Hugo Chavez blush. And what about you, my friend? Have you had enough? Are you ready to join the swelling ranks of Americans who are determined to put a stop to this madness? Are you ready to add your voice to theirs in demanding an end to this assault on our liberties... an end to this era of fiscal insanity... an end to this government "of the cronies, by the cronies, and for the cronies"?

And what about you, my friend? Have you had enough? Are you ready to join the swelling ranks of Americans who are determined to put a stop to this madness? Are you ready to add your voice to theirs in demanding an end to this assault on our liberties... an end to this era of fiscal insanity... an end to this government "of the cronies, by the cronies, and for the cronies"?

If you are -- if you are among those who refuse to tolerate even for one more day what is happening in our nation's capital, then I have only one thing to ask of you...

Join the conservative
counter-revolution today.
Foxfyre
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:11 pm
And here is just one example of why conservatives are so angry:

Quote:
Headline Story
Cap-and-Trade's Cost to Americans: $1,761 per Household
Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:07 PM
By: Dan Weil

The Obama administration has concluded privately that a cap-and-trade law would cost every American household $1,761 a year " or a national total of nearly $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.


The previously unreleased Treasury Department analysis, which CBS News reported this week, says the new law would require new taxes between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. That’s how Treasury analysts arrived at the $1,761 per household figure.


"Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually," according to the document, which was written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January.


Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 percent or 8 percent increase a year.


That finding has been echoed by other internal Obama administration documents on the subject.


"Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation," according to a second memorandum that was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election.


CBS reported these figures based on documents that the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and released on Tuesday.

Other figures developed in studies for a new cap-and-trade law have been even more prohibitive.

House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated that the additional tax bill would be at least $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."


Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request, told CBS, "Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately. It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."


Democrats pushing such legislation, meanwhile, have relied on estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family. They insist that tax credits to low-income households could offset part of the bite.


And responding to release of the document, The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement insisting that the figures ignore the cost savings to consumers from cap-and-trade legislation.


“Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers,” the environmental fund’s statement said. “It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.”


The Democrats are “not telling you the cost " they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cap_and_trade/2009/09/17/261416.html?s=al&promo_code=8938-1


Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:15 pm
@Foxfyre,
fox, you are not spamming with cut and pastes are you?

(cuz some would call that numnuttiness)
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:15 pm
@Foxfyre,
I think this is illustrative: Conservatives are angry, b/c they are focusing on parts of legislation while ignoring other parts.

From your piece:

Quote:

And responding to release of the document, The Environmental Defense Fund issued a statement insisting that the figures ignore the cost savings to consumers from cap-and-trade legislation.

“Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers,” the environmental fund’s statement said. “It only looks at one side of the balance sheet.
It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.”


How convenient, to talk about the cost but ignore the revenues produced by the program.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:16 pm
@ican711nm,
I'd rather pivate medical insurance companies profit billions of dollars than a federal government medical insurance bureaucracy squander trillions of dollars.

Obama Medical Care will enable a federal government medical insurance bureaucracy to squander trillions of dollars.

The cost of private medical insurance is reducible, if all medical insurance companies in America are required to compete with all medical insurance companies in America--not just the ones in their state.

The cost of private medical insurance is reducible, if the cost of medical care provided by medical practicianers were reduced.

The cost of medical care provided by medical practicianers is reducible, if the cost of medical tort insurance for medical practicianers were reduced.

The cost of medical tort insurance for medical practicianers is reducible, if the cost of medical tort rewards were reduced.

The cost of medical tort rewards are reducible, if maximum tort rewards were reduced to a maximum multiple of actual damages.

The maximum multiple of actual damages is reducible, if Congress passes and the President signs a bill specifying what that maximum multiple shall be.

The best and least corruptible way for the government to help finance health insurance, is for it to permit a portion of everyone's annual tax payment to be deducted to help pay for one's medical insurance.

Those who cannot afford to pay anything for medical insurance, can best be helped by private health care charities, to which one should be permitted to contribute a portion of one's annual taxes.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
"Conservative Counter-Revolution".

The British Crown will be pleased. But isn't it a bit late to start a counter revolution more than two hundred years after the actual revolution ...?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:29 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

fox, you are not spamming with cut and pastes are you?

(cuz some would call that numnuttiness)


Your spell checker isn't working very well today is it.

Or being careful in what was said regarding spamming. Nobody has ever accused ME of being shy about expressing my opinions or of expressing one that I am not prepared to defend. I did not object to posting articles. I object to those who post articles and then refuse to discuss the subject in them.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 06:39:21