Law School Discussion

Why Obama will lose in the fall

Thistle

  • *****
  • 6324
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #790 on: September 20, 2008, 06:24:04 AM »
::giggles at turn thread has taken::

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #791 on: September 20, 2008, 07:07:42 AM »
You went after me for not being quick enough, and now I'm too quick.

Pick a position, assclown. 


My position is, of course, superior.

Yours appears to be prone.  Which, judging from your bow legs, must feel fairly natural.


Tasha Elizabeth:  Go away, you vapid, brainless, moron.  Is Sweep your daddy?

vercingetorix

  • ****
  • 707
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #792 on: September 20, 2008, 07:43:49 AM »
It's another needless, irrelevant, showboating opportunity for meddlesome legislators who have a profound need to make their personal beliefs govern the private lives of others. 
wait a minute....you just described liberals! the classic leftist position is more government is better.  didn't i just hear that boob Biden tell me that paying more taxes is somehow patriotic.  you make some good points Sax but the left wants "meddlesome legislators" to meddle even more, not conservatives (an intentional distinction here from republicans) who would be pretty happy if most of government just kind of vanished.  not all mind you, i agree with Holmes when he said taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society, but I think Holmes would suck start a gun if he saw how ridiculous entitlement programs have become today.

Your argument would make sense if conservatives and/or Republicans were interested in smaller government in any instance beyond those that allow them to make as much money as possible, morals and consequences aside.  The same people who whine and female dog about taxes paying for "entitlement" programs are now going to be bailed out with that same tax money, which is perfectly OK.  God forbid tax dollars should go to single working mothers or health care for the working uninsured, but hey, since the karma stick came back to hit greedy, selfish bastards upside the head, the government better open their checkbook! 

conservatives are interested in smaller government.  your impressions about who pays taxes are typical of somebody who has never filed an income tax form.  The bottom 50% of wage earners (you) pay less than 2.7% of the country's tax burden.  people who are in the top tax bracket (my wife and I before I went back to school) pay through the nose (and they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes, the top 10% pay over 75% of our nation's taxes).  I have no problem paying for a safety net for individuals who have fallen on hard times  but only to an extent. The abuses I saw while working with Americorps for example were legion and egregious. I am not for wealth redistribution.  It is simply anti-capitalistic and therefore unAmerican.  This is why raising the FICA cap, which Obama supports is so offensive to me.  I will be giving away money with no chance of ever seeing it again.  I already tithe 10% of my income to charity thank you very much.  I don't need uncle sam taking even more and giving me no say in how it is expended.  Most of the tax load is not going to help hard-working people going through a rough patch people but  to ridiculous programs like farm subsidies for example. i agree in theory with your problems surrounding corporate bailouts.  nothing is more corrosive to capitalism in my view than privitizing profits while socializing risk.  what is incorrect is your analysis of what is going on.  Fannie/Mac are actually government backed institutions.  There is tons of blame to go around both parties ESPECIALLY the Dems (and specifically Schumer, Dodd, and yes Obama who received vast sums of money from both of these now defunct institutions) who strongly resisted greater regulation of these companies back in 2004 and 2005 (McCain is on record demanding greater regulation of precisely these companies, can you imagine, a Republican asking for greater regulation? and the Democrats voting against, along with some Republicans, it because they were lining their pockets with contributions from the companies).  Note how companies not deemed crucial to our economic recovery like Lehman have been left to fend for themselves.  This is how it should be.  Keep in mind though that the impact of a truly cataclysmic collapse on wall street would be felt far more keenly by Joe and Jane six-pack than by the wealthy who have insulated themselves from such crises through diversification. how quickly people forget that vast numbers of middle class families are now rely on mutual funds and stock portfolios to secure their futures.  The bail-out the administration will eventually hammer out over the weekend is designed to avoid this kind of system-wide shock. Conservatives aren't happy about it, but they are realists.  You can't drink so much punch you aren't willing to admit that your preferred world view isn't answering the mail for the moment.  This is certainly better than Senator Reid's response which was shocking in it's ineptness "no one knows what to do at the moment...".  Wow. Really? You can think that as a leader but don't say it.  Amazing.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3677
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #793 on: September 20, 2008, 07:55:03 AM »
It's another needless, irrelevant, showboating opportunity for meddlesome legislators who have a profound need to make their personal beliefs govern the private lives of others. 
wait a minute....you just described liberals! the classic leftist position is more government is better.  didn't i just hear that boob Biden tell me that paying more taxes is somehow patriotic.  you make some good points Sax but the left wants "meddlesome legislators" to meddle even more, not conservatives (an intentional distinction here from republicans) who would be pretty happy if most of government just kind of vanished.  not all mind you, i agree with Holmes when he said taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society, but I think Holmes would suck start a gun if he saw how ridiculous entitlement programs have become today.

Your argument would make sense if conservatives and/or Republicans were interested in smaller government in any instance beyond those that allow them to make as much money as possible, morals and consequences aside.  The same people who whine and female dog about taxes paying for "entitlement" programs are now going to be bailed out with that same tax money, which is perfectly OK.  God forbid tax dollars should go to single working mothers or health care for the working uninsured, but hey, since the karma stick came back to hit greedy, selfish bastards upside the head, the government better open their checkbook! 

conservatives are interested in smaller government.  your impressions about who pays taxes are typical of somebody who has never filed an income tax form.  The bottom 50% of wage earners (you) pay less than 2.7% of the country's tax burden.  people who are in the top tax bracket (my wife and I before I went back to school) pay through the nose (and they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes, the top 10% pay over 75% of our nation's taxes).  I have no problem paying for a safety net for individuals who have fallen on hard times  but only to an extent. The abuses I saw while working with Americorps for example were legion and egregious. I am not for wealth redistribution.  It is simply anti-capitalistic and therefore unAmerican.  This is why raising the FICA cap, which Obama supports is so offensive to me.  I will be giving away money with no chance of ever seeing it again.  I already tithe 10% of my income to charity thank you very much.  I don't need uncle sam taking even more and giving me no say in how it is expended.  Most of the tax load is not going to help hard-working people going through a rough patch people but  to ridiculous programs like farm subsidies for example. i agree in theory with your problems surrounding corporate bailouts.  nothing is more corrosive to capitalism in my view than privitizing profits while socializing risk.  what is incorrect is your analysis of what is going on.  Fannie/Mac are actually government backed institutions.  There is tons of blame to go around both parties ESPECIALLY the Dems (and specifically Schumer, Dodd, and yes Obama who received vast sums of money from both of these now defunct institutions) who strongly resisted greater regulation of these companies back in 2004 and 2005 (McCain is on record demanding greater regulation of precisely these companies, can you imagine, a Republican asking for greater regulation? and the Democrats voting against, along with some Republicans, it because they were lining their pockets with contributions from the companies).  Note how companies not deemed crucial to our economic recovery like Lehman have been left to fend for themselves.  This is how it should be.  Keep in mind though that the impact of a truly cataclysmic collapse on wall street would be felt far more keenly by Joe and Jane six-pack than by the wealthy who have insulated themselves from such crises through diversification. how quickly people forget that vast numbers of middle class families are now rely on mutual funds and stock portfolios to secure their futures.  The bail-out the administration will eventually hammer out over the weekend is designed to avoid this kind of system-wide shock. Conservatives aren't happy about it, but they are realists.  You can't drink so much punch you aren't willing to admit that your preferred world view isn't answering the mail for the moment.  This is certainly better than Senator Reid's response which was shocking in it's ineptness "no one knows what to do at the moment...".  Wow. Really? You can think that as a leader but don't say it.  Amazing.

Paragraph breaks please, bloc text is very plebian 

Saxby Clemens II

  • ****
  • 801
  • I'm Chuck Bass.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #794 on: September 20, 2008, 09:21:31 AM »
It's another needless, irrelevant, showboating opportunity for meddlesome legislators who have a profound need to make their personal beliefs govern the private lives of others. 
wait a minute....you just described liberals! the classic leftist position is more government is better.  didn't i just hear that boob Biden tell me that paying more taxes is somehow patriotic.  you make some good points Sax but the left wants "meddlesome legislators" to meddle even more, not conservatives (an intentional distinction here from republicans) who would be pretty happy if most of government just kind of vanished.  not all mind you, i agree with Holmes when he said taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society, but I think Holmes would suck start a gun if he saw how ridiculous entitlement programs have become today.

Your argument would make sense if conservatives and/or Republicans were interested in smaller government in any instance beyond those that allow them to make as much money as possible, morals and consequences aside.  The same people who whine and female dog about taxes paying for "entitlement" programs are now going to be bailed out with that same tax money, which is perfectly OK.  God forbid tax dollars should go to single working mothers or health care for the working uninsured, but hey, since the karma stick came back to hit greedy, selfish bastards upside the head, the government better open their checkbook! 

conservatives are interested in smaller government.  your impressions about who pays taxes are typical of somebody who has never filed an income tax form.  The bottom 50% of wage earners (you) pay less than 2.7% of the country's tax burden.  people who are in the top tax bracket (my wife and I before I went back to school) pay through the nose (and they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes, the top 10% pay over 75% of our nation's taxes).  I have no problem paying for a safety net for individuals who have fallen on hard times  but only to an extent. The abuses I saw while working with Americorps for example were legion and egregious. I am not for wealth redistribution.  It is simply anti-capitalistic and therefore unAmerican.  This is why raising the FICA cap, which Obama supports is so offensive to me.  I will be giving away money with no chance of ever seeing it again.  I already tithe 10% of my income to charity thank you very much.  I don't need uncle sam taking even more and giving me no say in how it is expended.  Most of the tax load is not going to help hard-working people going through a rough patch people but  to ridiculous programs like farm subsidies for example. i agree in theory with your problems surrounding corporate bailouts.  nothing is more corrosive to capitalism in my view than privitizing profits while socializing risk.  what is incorrect is your analysis of what is going on.  Fannie/Mac are actually government backed institutions.  There is tons of blame to go around both parties ESPECIALLY the Dems (and specifically Schumer, Dodd, and yes Obama who received vast sums of money from both of these now defunct institutions) who strongly resisted greater regulation of these companies back in 2004 and 2005 (McCain is on record demanding greater regulation of precisely these companies, can you imagine, a Republican asking for greater regulation? and the Democrats voting against, along with some Republicans, it because they were lining their pockets with contributions from the companies).  Note how companies not deemed crucial to our economic recovery like Lehman have been left to fend for themselves.  This is how it should be.  Keep in mind though that the impact of a truly cataclysmic collapse on wall street would be felt far more keenly by Joe and Jane six-pack than by the wealthy who have insulated themselves from such crises through diversification. how quickly people forget that vast numbers of middle class families are now rely on mutual funds and stock portfolios to secure their futures.  The bail-out the administration will eventually hammer out over the weekend is designed to avoid this kind of system-wide shock. Conservatives aren't happy about it, but they are realists.  You can't drink so much punch you aren't willing to admit that your preferred world view isn't answering the mail for the moment.  This is certainly better than Senator Reid's response which was shocking in it's ineptness "no one knows what to do at the moment...".  Wow. Really? You can think that as a leader but don't say it.  Amazing.

None of the bolded is correct.

I'm not, however, interested in yet another "Democrats are to blame!  Republicans are to blame!" discussion.  At some point, the Republican Party will have to recognize that they've been in the White House for the past eight years and controlled Congress for the past six.  Personal responsibility seems to be yet another conservative virtue that only applies to others, especially when trying to be re-elected.  

Regardless, thank you for not being cunty as Defender of Freedom.    

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #795 on: September 20, 2008, 09:44:54 AM »
Good command of the language, Sexby!

Especially with the pretentious "II" after your name.  You must be a republican (even though I shudder at the thought).

vercingetorix

  • ****
  • 707
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #796 on: September 20, 2008, 10:18:02 AM »


Wow.  I never realized it was possible to listen to so many inane, empty talking-points long enough and intently enough to blithely parrot this many of them.  One or two, maybe, but this much idiotic text?  Impressive.
[/quote]

http://www.dickipedia.org/male private part.php?title=Your_mom



! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #797 on: September 20, 2008, 10:47:22 AM »
It's another needless, irrelevant, showboating opportunity for meddlesome legislators who have a profound need to make their personal beliefs govern the private lives of others. 
wait a minute....you just described liberals! the classic leftist position is more government is better.  didn't i just hear that boob Biden tell me that paying more taxes is somehow patriotic.  you make some good points Sax but the left wants "meddlesome legislators" to meddle even more, not conservatives (an intentional distinction here from republicans) who would be pretty happy if most of government just kind of vanished.  not all mind you, i agree with Holmes when he said taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society, but I think Holmes would suck start a gun if he saw how ridiculous entitlement programs have become today.

Your argument would make sense if conservatives and/or Republicans were interested in smaller government in any instance beyond those that allow them to make as much money as possible, morals and consequences aside.  The same people who whine and female dog about taxes paying for "entitlement" programs are now going to be bailed out with that same tax money, which is perfectly OK.  God forbid tax dollars should go to single working mothers or health care for the working uninsured, but hey, since the karma stick came back to hit greedy, selfish bastards upside the head, the government better open their checkbook! 

conservatives are interested in smaller government.  your impressions about who pays taxes are typical of somebody who has never filed an income tax form.  The bottom 50% of wage earners (you) pay less than 2.7% of the country's tax burden.  people who are in the top tax bracket (my wife and I before I went back to school) pay through the nose (and they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes, the top 10% pay over 75% of our nation's taxes).  I have no problem paying for a safety net for individuals who have fallen on hard times  but only to an extent. The abuses I saw while working with Americorps for example were legion and egregious. I am not for wealth redistribution.  It is simply anti-capitalistic and therefore unAmerican.  This is why raising the FICA cap, which Obama supports is so offensive to me.  I will be giving away money with no chance of ever seeing it again.  I already tithe 10% of my income to charity thank you very much.  I don't need uncle sam taking even more and giving me no say in how it is expended.  Most of the tax load is not going to help hard-working people going through a rough patch people but  to ridiculous programs like farm subsidies for example. i agree in theory with your problems surrounding corporate bailouts.  nothing is more corrosive to capitalism in my view than privitizing profits while socializing risk.  what is incorrect is your analysis of what is going on.  Fannie/Mac are actually government backed institutions.  There is tons of blame to go around both parties ESPECIALLY the Dems (and specifically Schumer, Dodd, and yes Obama who received vast sums of money from both of these now defunct institutions) who strongly resisted greater regulation of these companies back in 2004 and 2005 (McCain is on record demanding greater regulation of precisely these companies, can you imagine, a Republican asking for greater regulation? and the Democrats voting against, along with some Republicans, it because they were lining their pockets with contributions from the companies).  Note how companies not deemed crucial to our economic recovery like Lehman have been left to fend for themselves.  This is how it should be.  Keep in mind though that the impact of a truly cataclysmic collapse on wall street would be felt far more keenly by Joe and Jane six-pack than by the wealthy who have insulated themselves from such crises through diversification. how quickly people forget that vast numbers of middle class families are now rely on mutual funds and stock portfolios to secure their futures.  The bail-out the administration will eventually hammer out over the weekend is designed to avoid this kind of system-wide shock. Conservatives aren't happy about it, but they are realists.  You can't drink so much punch you aren't willing to admit that your preferred world view isn't answering the mail for the moment.  This is certainly better than Senator Reid's response which was shocking in it's ineptness "no one knows what to do at the moment...".  Wow. Really? You can think that as a leader but don't say it.  Amazing.

None of the bolded is correct.

I'm not, however, interested in yet another "Democrats are to blame!  Republicans are to blame!" discussion.  At some point, the Republican Party will have to recognize that they've been in the White House for the past eight years and controlled Congress for the past six.  Personal responsibility seems to be yet another conservative virtue that only applies to others, especially when trying to be re-elected.  

Regardless, thank you for not being cunty as Defender of Freedom.    

yes...and oh how effective the last two democratically controlled years have been...the democrats have accomplished a great deal...

now how are the offshore drilling talks going?

is obama pushing for offshore yet???

only a few weeks left...it will come onto the desktop again...we haven't forgotten.


drill off california...thirty miles out...twenty miles out...

will bam be commenting further on the offshore drilling issue????

tick tock...tick tock...

this is one of the firsts where a lame duck president has had his way with the congress all the way to the end of his tenure...

ah the enigmatic "w"....

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #798 on: September 20, 2008, 11:01:56 AM »
. . . because of the specter of the Republican filibuster in the Senate.  Let's not get it twisted.  I'm no fan of the Democrats, but you can hardly blame the fact that congress submits to Bush on them alone.


Saxby Clemens II

  • ****
  • 801
  • I'm Chuck Bass.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #799 on: September 20, 2008, 12:52:42 PM »
I've always had a soft-spot for Blue, but some of the morons in this thread make me appreciate him even more...

 ::)