Obama '08?

Roxxxanne wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

blatham wrote:

Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.

LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.

Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.

I have no idea since I only pay them not lend them noney.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it isn't a tax increase.

Cycloptichorn

Liberal math 101:

Eliminating previous reductions of tax rates is not a tax increase.
And lowering the rate of growth of a yet still growing bureaucratic budget is a "budget cut." Often such cuts also starve children, kill old people, and cause children's education to suffer as never before, so that they can no longer learn to read, etc. etc.

McGentrix wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

blatham wrote:

Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.

LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.

Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.

Well I guess the punch line is:

McEccentrix wrote:

I have no idea since I only pay them not lend them noney.

ehBeth wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

blatham wrote:

Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.

LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

If Obama does win he will tax me and everyone else that $500 and much, much more.

so this be translated into "not prepared to put real money on it" ?

No. I'll put real money on it, but I know collecting my winnings will be a huge ordeal.]

Roxxxanne wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

blatham wrote:

Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.

LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.

Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.

Well I guess the punch line is:

McEccentrix wrote:

I have no idea since I only pay them not lend them noney.

No, more like "I'm sure you pay them eventually."

McGentrix wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

blatham wrote:

Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.

LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.

Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.

Well I guess the punch line is:

McEccentrix wrote:

I have no idea since I only pay them not lend them noney.

No, more like "I'm sure you pay them eventually."

That makes absolutely no sense as I would be the last person in the world to need the services of a crack whore. I thought the insinuation was that you were going to accuse me of something to do with being a crack whore.

McGentrix wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

blatham wrote:

Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.

LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.

Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.

Well I guess the punch line is:

McEccentrix wrote:

I have no idea since I only pay them not lend them noney.

No, more like "I'm sure you pay them eventually."

That makes absolutely no sense as I would be the last person in the world to need the services of a crack whore. I thought the insinuation was that you were going to accuse me of something to do with being a crack whore.

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it isn't a tax increase.

Cycloptichorn

Liberal math 101:

Eliminating previous reductions of tax rates is not a tax increase.
And lowering the rate of growth of a yet still growing bureaucratic budget is a "budget cut." Often such cuts also starve children, kill old people, and cause children's education to suffer as never before, so that they can no longer learn to read, etc. etc.

Funny, when Bush was running for president the first time, I remember him talking about "budget cuts" with a plan that followed exactly the definition you just posted there. Guess he's just a big liberal pussy then, huh?

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop writes

Quote:

Well, it isn't a tax increase.

If I pay in 2009 or 2010 a whole lot more taxes on the same amount of money than I am paying in 2008, I call that a tax increase. I don't care what anybody else wants to call it.

But, you understand that it won't be Hillary or Obama who made that happen. At all. The laws lowering the taxes were written that way by Republicans in Congress, and the bill was signed by Bush in the WH.

It's not as if there will be any legislation passed - there won't be. So it's fallacious to say that it's an increase; it's just returning to the normal state that it was at before Bush signed a LIMITED TIME tax break.

Okie,

Quote:

Eliminating previous reductions of tax rates is not a tax increase.

But, nobody is eliminating anything. The reductions were always a limited-time offer. You understand this, right?

Cycloptichorn

April 7, 2008, 11:05 AM
Ex-Clinton Staffer Launches Unity Ticket Petition
Posted by Vaughn Ververs|

A former aide to Hillary Clinton's initial campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle has launched a drive to gather signatures calling for a Democratic ticket featuring both Clinton and Barack Obama, reports CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder. The online petition, called "Vote Both," carries a simple message: "We the undersigned call upon the members of the Democratic National Committee to support a unity ticket with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

The creator of the petition is Adam Parkhomenko, a longtime aide to Doyle before she left the campaign earlier this year. Parkhomenko left the Clinton campaign three weeks ago. Read Ambinder's full report here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/07/politics/horserace/entry3998240.shtml

Quote:

April 7, 2008, 11:05 AM
Ex-Clinton Staffer Launches Unity Ticket Petition
Posted by Vaughn Ververs|

A former aide to Hillary Clinton's initial campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle has launched a drive to gather signatures calling for a Democratic ticket featuring both Clinton and Barack Obama, reports CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder. The online petition, called "Vote Both," carries a simple message: "We the undersigned call upon the members of the Democratic National Committee to support a unity ticket with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

The creator of the petition is Adam Parkhomenko, a longtime aide to Doyle before she left the campaign earlier this year. Parkhomenko left the Clinton campaign three weeks ago. Read Ambinder's full report here.

Be sure to read the Ambinder story linked in the above article. It has a different twist to the "unity" message.

Butrflynet wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/07/politics/horserace/entry3998240.shtml

Quote:

April 7, 2008, 11:05 AM
Ex-Clinton Staffer Launches Unity Ticket Petition
Posted by Vaughn Ververs|

A former aide to Hillary Clinton's initial campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle has launched a drive to gather signatures calling for a Democratic ticket featuring both Clinton and Barack Obama, reports CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder. The online petition, called "Vote Both," carries a simple message: "We the undersigned call upon the members of the Democratic National Committee to support a unity ticket with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

The creator of the petition is Adam Parkhomenko, a longtime aide to Doyle before she left the campaign earlier this year. Parkhomenko left the Clinton campaign three weeks ago. Read Ambinder's full report here.

Be sure to read the Ambinder story linked in the above article. It has a different twist to the "unity" message.

A unity ticket would be the only thing that would get me to vote Obama.

I wonder if there are many more who think the same way I do?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop writes

Quote:

Well, it isn't a tax increase.

If I pay in 2009 or 2010 a whole lot more taxes on the same amount of money than I am paying in 2008, I call that a tax increase. I don't care what anybody else wants to call it.

But, you understand that it won't be Hillary or Obama who made that happen. At all. The laws lowering the taxes were written that way by Republicans in Congress, and the bill was signed by Bush in the WH.

It's not as if there will be any legislation passed - there won't be. So it's fallacious to say that it's an increase; it's just returning to the normal state that it was at before Bush signed a LIMITED TIME tax break.

Okie,

Quote:

Eliminating previous reductions of tax rates is not a tax increase.

But, nobody is eliminating anything. The reductions were always a limited-time offer. You understand this, right?

Cycloptichorn

Wordplay.

The practical effect is that people will pay more taxes than they did before.

It won't be the "fault" of a President Obama or a President Clinton unless congress sends to one of them a bill which extends or makes permanent the cuts and they veto it.

It will be the "fault" of congress if they do not send such a bill to whomever is president.

The temporary nature of the tax cuts was a political compromise made to assure passage, and not the intent of the bill's sponsors or President Bush. You will recall that he began calling for them to made permanent almost immediately after he signed the bill into law.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop writes

Quote:

Well, it isn't a tax increase.

If I pay in 2009 or 2010 a whole lot more taxes on the same amount of money than I am paying in 2008, I call that a tax increase. I don't care what anybody else wants to call it.

But, you understand that it won't be Hillary or Obama who made that happen. At all. The laws lowering the taxes were written that way by Republicans in Congress, and the bill was signed by Bush in the WH.

It's not as if there will be any legislation passed - there won't be. So it's fallacious to say that it's an increase; it's just returning to the normal state that it was at before Bush signed a LIMITED TIME tax break.

Okie,

Quote:

Eliminating previous reductions of tax rates is not a tax increase.

But, nobody is eliminating anything. The reductions were always a limited-time offer. You understand this, right?

Cycloptichorn

Wordplay.

The practical effect is that people will pay more taxes than they did before.

It won't be the "fault" of a President Obama or a President Clinton unless congress sends to one of them a bill which extends or makes permanent the cuts and they veto it.

It will be the "fault" of congress if they do not send such a bill to whomever is president.

The temporary nature of the tax cuts was a political compromise made to assure passage, and not the intent of the bill's sponsors or President Bush. You will recall that he began calling for them to made permanent almost immediately after he signed the bill into law.

Under this methodology, every single congress which does not send tax cuts to the prez to sign is at 'fault.' Most people don't look at the issue that way.

Cycloptichorn

Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

Quote:

Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

How is this possible?
He has NEVER had a single meeting of the subcommittee he chairs, yet now he wants to claim he knows more about foreign affairs?

Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

"You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."

"Nobody is entirely prepared for being Commander-in-Chief. The question is when the 3 AM phone call comes do you have somebody who has the judgment, the temperament to ask the right questions, to weigh the costs and benefits of military action, who insists on good intelligence, who is not going to be swayed by the short-term politics. By most criteria, I've passed those tests and my two opponents have not."

mysteryman, quoting Obama, wrote:

Quote:

Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

How is this possible?
He has NEVER had a single meeting of the subcommittee he chairs, yet now he wants to claim he knows more about foreign affairs?

I 'm not willing to take your word that "he has NEVER had a single meeting of the subcommittee he chairs". But that point aside -- if you have read the rest of the article, Obama answered your question. Here's how it's possible, according to Obama:

Barack Obama wrote:

Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

"You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."

"Nobody is entirely prepared for being Commander-in-Chief. The question is when the 3 AM phone call comes do you have somebody who has the judgment, the temperament to ask the right questions, to weigh the costs and benefits of military action, who insists on good intelligence, who is not going to be swayed by the short-term politics. By most criteria, I've passed those tests and my two opponents have not."

Sounds like a plausible answer to your question. I predict that Obama may catch a raised eyebrow from Clinton, but certainly not hell.

There are a number of interesting things about Senator Obama's remarks. If Senators Clinton and McCain have not passed "those tests," likely they will be surprised to hear it. Secondly, even though I've researched and written on Hillary Clinton's trips abroad and consequently been critical of her claims, my estimation of her foreign travels is that they were sometimes quite a bit more than a dance, a briefing and a tour. What Barack Obama's remarks last night in San Francisco reveal, however, is his self-confidence--to the point of cockiness--right now. This is exactly the same demeanor on display last week in Pennsylvania.

So Bill Richardson and Joe Biden--to name two with foreign policy experience--should put aside any transient veep thoughts.