Obama '08?

@mysteryman,

Hey Mysteryman, off-topic -- it now appears Bunning won't run for reelection in your state next year, and Trey Grayson will be the likely GOP nominee for the Senate instead. Will you vote for Grayson? Would you have voted for Bunning? I mean, if you dont mind me asking of course!

1 Reply

@nimh,

I dont really know enough about Grayson to say one way or another about him.
I know he is the KY SecState, but thats about all I know.

I know that sounds like a dodge, but I truly dont know, and dont know means DONT KNOW.

As for Bunning, he has always been an eastern Ky Senator, more representing the eastern half of the state.
McConnell has been a better Senator for the western half of Ky.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

OK, thanks. I was wondering how much more persuasive a candidate Grayson was than Bunning, who's been pretty erratic. Since you're a conservative but not one who will just vote for anyone with a (R) behind his name, you're the kind of KY voter this is all about, so I was curious what you thought!

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

From YOUR post Woiyo

Quote:

Social Security's current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires.

Hmm.. Social Security currently has surpluses. Where did you hear that before?

Oh, that's right. You laughed at it when I said it but then posted The Social Security report that says EXACTLY what I said.

A projected deficit is NOT a deficit. It is only projected that there will be one in the future. The author you posted doesn't seem to understand that any better than you do.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Grayson hasnt started his campaign yet (as far as I know), so I really dont have anything to judge him on.
As Ky SecState, he has sort of been a non-entity.
I mean, people know who he is, but nobody is really sure just what he has done or even what his job actually is.

I will be watching his campaign as it unfolds, and will let you know later what I think of him.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

As for Bunning, he has always been an eastern Ky Senator, more representing the eastern half of the state.
McConnell has been a better Senator for the western half of Ky.

That initially struck me as an odd comment. Each state has 2 senators. My assumption was that each of them would commit to representing the entire state. But MM suggests that each of them is active in only in a portion of the state. That is going to complicate things for you, Nimh. There are 2 Kentucky's; the east and the west. I hope MM can watch this for us.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

If you thought thats what I was saying, then I obviously wasnt clear.
They both do represent the entire state, but it seems McConnell has paid more attntion to western Ky then Bunning has.

I was in no way trying to say that there are 2 different Ky's, nor was I saying that Bunning has ignored or has not represented western Ky.
I was saying that McConnell has, or has seemed to, pay more attention to western Ky then Bunning has.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Thanks! Always interesting to hear an inside view.

0 Replies

@parados,

I also said that this concept is over Cyclos head. Apparently, it is over your tiny little head also.

Go read a book about defined benefit plans and the statutory funding requirements. Educate yourself before you attempt to talk about a subject you know not a ******* thing about.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

As for Bunning, he has always been an eastern Ky Senator, more representing the eastern half of the state.
McConnell has been a better Senator for the western half of Ky.

That initially struck me as an odd comment. Each state has 2 senators. My assumption was that each of them would commit to representing the entire state. But MM suggests that each of them is active in only in a portion of the state. That is going to complicate things for you, Nimh. There are 2 Kentucky's; the east and the west. I hope MM can watch this for us.

IMO, senators are no more pure or noble than any other politician, and it is not at all unusual for a senator to favor the areas of his/her states from whence comes votes to keep him/her in his/her senate seat. A Republican might not bother to focus much on an area that hasn't voted Republican in 75 years and vice versa for a Democrat. If you are in a state that is pretty much a mixed bag throughout, you might not witness that phenomenon so much.

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

I also said that this concept is over Cyclos head. Apparently, it is over your tiny little head also.

Go read a book about defined benefit plans and the statutory funding requirements. Educate yourself before you attempt to talk about a subject you know not a ******* thing about.

Stop being such a ******* idiot. What we both said is perfectly true: Social security does run a surplus. That doesn't mean that it will always run a surplus, but sure does right now. You are trying to claim that you meant all along that it doesn't have a long-term projected surplus. But that's not what you said.

Parados and I understand more about SS and frankly our nation in general then you ever will, Woiyo. Seriously. You've shown little capacity for rational thought, and a lot of capacity for base insults and useless posts. And since Obama - not 'christ' as you put it, just a guy - got elected, you (and Okie) have really gone off the deep end. It's pathetic and a little funny, but doesn't make for good argumentation on your part.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Technically, your wrong as usual.

2 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Show some evidence for your claim from any federal department. As usual, all you know is based on your own opinion without any support for it.

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

Technically, your wrong as usual.

Do you mean to say 'you're' wrong?

No, I am not wrong. SS runs a surplus and is projected to for a while to go. Even after it no longer runs a surplus, it would have plenty of money to pay out for decades to come - IF we didn't jack 100 billion or so from it every year to settle general deficits.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Woiyo9 wrote:

Quote:

Technically, your wrong as usual.

Okay, provide some proof. Repeating lies does nothing for your posts.

0 Replies

Good afternoon. Every couple of weeks since the 1st of March, I have been posting polling results on President Obama's approval ratings as gathered by the polltaker Rasmussen. Here is the latest update:
The 1st set of numbers is the % of respondents who STRONGLY APPROVE of Mr Obama's performance vs the % who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The 2nd number is the index obtained by subtracting the DISAPPROVE from the APPROVE. The 3rd set is the % of folks who APPROVE vs DISAPPROVE, dropping the word "STRONGLY."

3/1/09: (38%-30%) = +8 (58%-40%)
3/15/09: (37%-31%) = +6 (56%-43%)
4/1/09: (37%-29%) = +5 (56%-44%)
4/14/09: (35%-32%) = +3 (55%-44%)
5/2/09: (33%-32%) = +1 (54%-45%)

The STRONGLY APPROVE % is the one affecting his index. As you read the narrative on Rasmussen, it isn't about foreign affairs or Mr Obama's personal popularity. Rather, it is all about the size of the Federal budget and the possibility of tax hikes for the "middle class."

Nimh noted that Rasmussen is regarded by some poll-nuts as having a conservative bias. I agreed and said that I chose it because I am a flaming liberal and didn't want to choose a poll that is regarded as being way to the left. I am sure yall can find polls that are much kinder to Mr Obama, but Rasmussen is the pony I decided to ride.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Not a bad pony to pick regardless of ideology as Rasmussen beat everybody else in accuracy in predicting the outcome of 2006 and 2008 elections. They must be getting it right even with a conservative leaning.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I will leave it to you and Nimh, if he is interested, to debate that. I must admit I am skeptical of your claim but it is not an issue I intend to pursue.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Whether any poll has a conservative or liberal leaning has nothing to do with the ultimate credibility of their polls; it's about accuracy - not political affiliation.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Not a bad pony to pick regardless of ideology as Rasmussen beat everybody else in accuracy in predicting the outcome of 2006 and 2008 elections. They must be getting it right even with a conservative leaning.

I'm pretty sure in 2008, they were not the most accurate once the votes were all tallied. Didn't Parados point this out to you the other day?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know