Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:10 am
mysteryman wrote:
This is interesting, Obama now wants to define companies and corporations as "patriotic" or not.


Now?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:11 am
mysteryman wrote:
This is interesting, and I havent seen much if anything about it reported...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece?token=null&offset=0


Actually we had had exactly this a couple of pages back yesterday as well ...
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:30 am
nimh wrote:
Teeny, you really need to start picking up on sarcasm... :wink:


Try 'pithy' ... or 'sardonic'.

Might work.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:35 am
maporsche wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.

Really? He voted against the Orwellian named Patriot Act and Protect America Act then, I assume?


And what were the Clinton/Obama votes........oh yeah, they voted for it too.

It's not a differentiating factor in this election unfortunately.


No, Obama voted Nay on the Protect America Act, as did Clinton, and wasn't in the Senate to vote on the original Patriot Act.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309

McCain also voted for giving telecoms retroactive immunity in domestic spying cases. I don't think he's going to do much to protect civil liberties.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:42 am
Please. Let. This. Happen.

Quote:
Antiwar groups vow to "re-create '68" at the Democrat convention

A coalition of anti-war groups is vowing to protest this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver under the rubric "Re-create '68," prompting criticism from some on the left who are loath to revisit what they see as a disastrous time for both the anti-war movement and the Democratic Party.

Capping a year that saw the assassinations of both the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, the 1968 Democratic National Convention erupted in violence as thousands of Chicago police officers, supported by U.S. Army troops and National Guardsmen, battled in the streets with activists protesting the Vietnam War. Inside the convention hall, the Democrats chose as their presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose the general election to Richard Nixon.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8710.html
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:52 am
So what happened to "Made in the USA"? Even American Flags are being manufactured for 9 cents and sold for 1.00 here. Nafta allowed our jobs to flow overseas, then to make themselves 100% profitable, with the cheap labor, no unions to bargain for this inexhaustibel bodies being worked over 18 hours per day, Bush gives tax breaks to the already wealthy! This makes the Tea Pot Dome Scandal look paltry!

Why do you think the US imposed a 40 hour work week, minimum wage and child labor laws? Did you forget the triangle shirt factory fire, where the women couldn't escape, because they were locked in? The FTC and the State Department are merely shells of their former selves, being run by cronies, who have no idea, what they are doing, except gave big contributions to Bush, to dismantle government as we knew it!

Where in the world, do you squander a 9 trillion dollar surplus? Where do you NOT equip your troops, with the right armaments to prevent death, but send them over anyway, to a senseless war, against those who didn't attack us? In Bush's USA, that's where! Where do you balance your budget off the backs of the middle class and the already poor? No place but here! When Bush's boys, come for you, will you cheer? You'll be a muttering wimp, wondering, what happened, that's what! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

mysteryman wrote:
This is interesting, Obama now wants to define companies and corporations as "patriotic" or not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120407121574294919.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks&6

Quote:
The legislation takes four pages to define "patriotic" companies as those that: "pay at least 60 percent of each employee's health care premiums"; have a position of "neutrality in employee [union] organizing drives"; "maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States"; pay a salary to each employee "not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level"; and provide a pension plan.


Of course, he wants to raise taxes on any company that doesnt meet his qualifications.

Quote:
Under Mr. Obama's plan, "patriot employers" qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad.

Put another way, U.S. companies would suddenly have to pay a higher tax rate than their Chinese, Japanese and European competitors. According to research by Peter Merrill, an international tax expert at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, this change would "raise the cost of capital of U.S. multinationals and cause them to lose market share to foreign rivals." Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.


This plan of his doesnt make sense to me at all.
:wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:53 am
teenyboone wrote:
nimh wrote:
Teeny, you really need to start picking up on sarcasm... :wink:

Only YOU could find something offensive in a child's photo! Sarcastic? Re-read your own post, first! Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad Cool

No, Teeny - the "little white hat" comment I quoted was meant sarcastically. It wasnt serious. It was a funny send-off of those conservative talking points.

Same with Amigo's comment that you got angry about. He was being sarcastic.

Like I said, you need to start detecting what is ironic/sarcastic, and what is serious. But here's a starter rule: if something seems totally out of character for someone to seriously post, there's a fair chance that it wasnt actually intended seriously.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:59 am
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Please. Let. This. Happen.

Quote:
Antiwar groups vow to "re-create '68" at the Democrat convention

A coalition of anti-war groups is vowing to protest this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver under the rubric "Re-create '68," prompting criticism from some on the left who are loath to revisit what they see as a disastrous time for both the anti-war movement and the Democratic Party.

Capping a year that saw the assassinations of both the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, the 1968 Democratic National Convention erupted in violence as thousands of Chicago police officers, supported by U.S. Army troops and National Guardsmen, battled in the streets with activists protesting the Vietnam War. Inside the convention hall, the Democrats chose as their presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose the general election to Richard Nixon.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8710.html


so in order to see the party you don't like fracture itself you hope there will be riots, people will be hurt, property destroyed, national guard and police dispatched, a huge cluster f*ck, all at taxpayer expense, in order for this to happen? How about an assassination? that would be cool too wouldn't it? Maybe they could run some pictures of skull fragments and brain matter and you could print them off your computer to look at fondly.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 09:02 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Please. Let. This. Happen.

Quote:
Antiwar groups vow to "re-create '68" at the Democrat convention

A coalition of anti-war groups is vowing to protest this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver under the rubric "Re-create '68," prompting criticism from some on the left who are loath to revisit what they see as a disastrous time for both the anti-war movement and the Democratic Party.

Capping a year that saw the assassinations of both the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, the 1968 Democratic National Convention erupted in violence as thousands of Chicago police officers, supported by U.S. Army troops and National Guardsmen, battled in the streets with activists protesting the Vietnam War. Inside the convention hall, the Democrats chose as their presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose the general election to Richard Nixon.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8710.html


so in order to see the party you don't like fracture itself you hope there will be riots, people will be hurt, property destroyed, national guard and police dispatched, a huge cluster f*ck, all at taxpayer expense, in order for this to happen? How about an assassination? that would be cool too wouldn't it? Maybe they could run some pictures of skull fragments and brain matter and you could print them off your computer to look at fondly.


You left out teargas.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 09:04 am
nimh wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
nimh wrote:
Teeny, you really need to start picking up on sarcasm... :wink:

Only YOU could find something offensive in a child's photo! Sarcastic? Re-read your own post, first! Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad Cool

No, Teeny - the "little white hat" comment I quoted was meant sarcastically. It wasnt serious. It was a funny send-off of those conservative talking points.

Same with Amigo's comment that you got angry about. He was being sarcastic.

Like I said, you need to start detecting what is ironic/sarcastic, and what is serious. But here's a starter rule: if something seems totally out of character for someone to seriously post, there's a fair chance that it wasnt actually intended seriously.


I detect that you're a bit touchy! So why post it at all? I don't know you or your character. I don't know you at all. I read what I see. I can't see how you're saying it, can't read body language, without seeing you and I don't know where you're coming from. What's ironic about it? Sardonic, yes, ironic, no! What's ironic, is you, now trying to explain, what I don't see! I don't see anything ironic, here. You thought you were being cute. Too bad, you come off "looking" like a racist! At least where I was raised, that's what it looks like for me.

I am Southern/Black/female and Catholic; what don't I see? At 63, I see bigotry and racism. Was raised during the segregated period, where I eventually boycotted the buses/lunch counters and businesses, of downtown New Orleans in the 50's and 60's. Are you going to now, explain, what I'm supposed to feel, when I read your bigoted statements?

Please, tell it to Hillary. She's an expert at it. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 09:10 am
teeny, the central point is -- the statements nimh quoted weren't bigoted statements. They were parodies of bigoted statements... they were anti-bigotry. Does that make any sense?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 09:13 am
maporsche wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.

Really? He voted against the Orwellian named Patriot Act and Protect America Act then, I assume?


And what were the Clinton/Obama votes........oh yeah, they voted for it too.

It's not a differentiating factor in this election unfortunately.



It's not? Are you telling me McCain's and Obama's positions are identical vis a vis the current FISA bill?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 09:19 am
I mentioned the superdelegate trends a bit ago, did some of my own addition -- the latest from First Read is, "Since Feb. 5, Obama has picked up 33; Clinton has lost a net of six."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/28/712302.aspx
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 09:28 am
teenyboone wrote:
I detect that you're a bit touchy!

Not touchy at all - at least not about this one. Smile I just saw you getting all out of shape about posts by Amigo and me that you took literally - when they were meant sarcastically, ironically, whatever you wanna call it. They were parodies of the kind of anti-Obama nonsense that's out there. They're funny to some of us who just get so tired of the standard rightwing talking points, that we occasionally start taking the mickey out of 'em.

So there's really no need to get bent out of shape, is all I wanted to say - we're on the same side here (as I thought you would have known after x-hundred pages of this thread..).

Look, not everyone is equally good in picking up on sarcasm/irony, especially not here on a board where - as you say - you cant see each other, you cant see each other's body language. I'v seen you get upset about stuff that wasnt meant at all the way you took it before. So if you wanna save yourself some needless stress, this is just meant as a general tip: if you see someone that usually says normal enough stuff say something that to you suddenly seems like whacked out bigotry, then it might just be some kind of irony/sarcasm/parody that you're not picking up on. So before you get upset, you can always at least first ask, "do you actually really mean that seriously??!" Makes life easier perhaps Smile

Take care teeny Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 10:22 am
Wow, I've never seen someone admit that they are displaying sour grapes before.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:04 pm
Change you don't have to really believe in
CTV Canada

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made. "Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.


http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080227%2fdems_nafta_080227
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:07 pm
You stretched the page with your link. Not cool.

Also, as for your story:

Quote:


Canadians deny Obama call

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

Debunked.

Nice try tho. You really ought to post these things quicker, after they've been debunked, they just don't have that smear effect you go for.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:20 pm
Keep tryin tho, nappybrain. Your repetitious, juvenile and predictable attempts just keep looking sillier and more transparent.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:25 pm
snood wrote:
Keep tryin tho, nappybrain. Your repetitious, juvenile and predictable attempts just keep looking sillier and more transparent.


As do ci's, but that doesnt stop him from lying either.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You stretched the page with your link. Not cool.

Also, as for your story:

Quote:


Canadians deny Obama call

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

Debunked.

Nice try tho. You really ought to post these things quicker, after they've been debunked, they just don't have that smear effect you go for.

Cycloptichorn


I blame Karl Rove. From the comments:

Joe Szentirmay
Don't worry about NAFTA. President McCain won't touch it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 553
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/16/2025 at 11:14:02