Liam
-
Posts
757 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Liam
-
-
I think everyone now recognizes it was a mistake to let Lehman implode. Many people think Lehman's failure caused the current crisis to get worse. Citi is no different (same with the car manufacturers): letting it fail will have enormous implications for the larger economy.
-
Certainly. It is wrong to make generalizations about the tens of millions of Americans who voted for either candidate.
However, I will mention as a point of interest that this is at least the 3rd video of people in authority evangelizing the virtues of Obama to children under their care. (along with the Obama Youth Regiment, and the music teacher who had her students sing Obama Carols.)
-k
Interesting. But ever see "Jesus Camp"? Indoctrination and evangelizing to the youth is hardly the sole domain of "leftists".
-
If you're reading it that way, it's either because you're not very good at reading, or intent on willfully misconstruing what she actually said. There's no reason to make yourself look foolish by pursuing this topic when there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Palin.
-k
I'm a little late to the discussion, but have to side with kimmy on this. I don't think an honest reading of Palin's statement could allow anyone to claim she thinks we're doing God's work. I think a fair reading is that she's praying the work we do is God's will.
-
There are no Palin haters. Thats absurd. The Dems would love to have her win the nomination, believe me.
Unless she suddenly became a candidate to be a Rhodes Scholar or something , she will be as clueless then as she is now. She is not a dumb woman, but she sure is naive. If what is being said is even remotely true, then she has made enemies that will last longer than two years.
The one big lie the Republican echo chamber convinced itself of this election cycle was that Democrats were afraid of Palin. Not in the slightest. It took a while to figure out how to address her nomination, and Obama hit the right tone by ignoring her, but it's laughable to think anyone was afraid of her.
I honestly think the only way Palin can make any attempt at a 2012 run is if she gets out of electoral politics and makes a big name for herself somewhere else (talk radio, the lecture and book circuit) when she can demonstrate a deep grasp of political issues. Even then, she'd have to start a national campaign by early 2011, which does not allow for much time to resurrect her reputation.
-
I think McCain and his avisors made a calculation: they could neutralize the Obama star factor and force Democrats to raise the issue of experience - which of course would shine the spotlight on Obama's lack of experience and it worked for awhile - I remember seeing the look on Pundits' faces - democrat pundits who are usually sharp and ruthless - and they looked genuinely at a loss - confused and defensive - for a couple of days.
What McCain didn't count on is the relentless MSMedia efforts at "investigating" her (and their complete and utter lack of similar efforts on Obama's past associations).
That sunk her.
She represents what every successful Republican candidate should be: a real conservative.
Americans want that in their hearts.
Unfortunately, the republicans have played their hand for awhile. People hate Bush, no thanks to the media, hollywood and just about every other country in the world.
Even a dyed in the wool, star power conservative like Palin can't beat those odds.
Next time, boys. Next time.
I really do not think the GOP will win races if this reflects the mindset of the national party leaders. Are you serious that Palin represents what every successful Republican candidate should be? Do intelligence and interest in larger domestic and international matters count for nothing? Stop kidding yourself - she was not a real conservative. She was, at best, a religious ideologue who was more than willing to benefit from government largesse (bridges to nowhere, the road to the bridge to nowhere, redistribution of oil revenues). Once she passed the theological test all her faults would be covered by the GOP spin machine and right wing radio yakkers.
Honestly, aside from Palin's magnetic personality, she contributed nothing to the ticket. If the GOP aspires to put up empty suit candidates because they look good on TV and wear their ignorance like a badge of honor, they will spend quite a lot of time in the political wilderness -- especially in times when people live in fear of losing their jobs and their homes.
-
Why was the market up, and gaining strength throughout last week, and early this week, as polls tightened, and then plunge so sharply after the election? I think you know the answers.
The DJIA dropped after election day because it rose 400+ points on election day for no reason.
Let me get this straight... people are willing to sell out of the market now, many at a loss, because six months from now, Congress might pass a revision to the tax code. So, they're locking in losses now so they don't need to pay higher taxes in April of 2010? I'd say people are pretty dumb if they take their money out now before an adjustment to cap gains taxes is even announced and before their investments have an opportunity to regain some of the lost ground.
Markets are dropping because the distraction of the election is over and people are now starting to see evidence that the economy is really in a recession (news stories of job losses, store closings, etc.).
I work in the investment industry (as of this hour
) and I see no evidence that what you're saying is true. Nor am I the slightest bit concerned that 401k's will lose their tax exempt status. Ain't gonna happen. -
...There is one thing that bothers me about Obama's win. It is the pedestal that Obama has been placed on by a significant number of Obama followers. This was evident in the faces of the assembled crowd in Chicago when he delivered his victory speech. There were tears, there were glowing faces, there was awe. It looked to me they were looking upon Obama, not as a human, but as a deity. I found the whole thing quite eerie...
I think you express one possible explanation, but I don't think people were crying because they think of him like some deity. Most of the people I saw crying were minorities and I interpreted those as tears of joy, tears in the shared success, at long last, of a minority long held out of power, and happiness that voters of all colors mostly put race aside and elected a man with brown skin as the next president. I saw those as tears of pride and joy, not of reverence.
-
History says otherwise. See Reagan, Nixon, etc.
True -- wasn't thinking of them, but they are good examples of rebirth after defeat. In my defense, I was thinking of Mondale, Quayle, Ferraro, Edwards, and Lieberman who tried national runs (without success) after defeat at the national level. Reagan never experienced defeat as a member of a national ticket. Only Nixon was able to rise to electoral success after an unsuccessful national run. It will be interesting to see if Palin tries to match Nixon's success.
-
Once politicians have the taint of electoral loss, it is very unlikely they'll be resurrected.
-
Obama has been mentored by a racist, anti-semetic divisive black liberation theology by the Rev, Jeremiah Wright for 20 years... Obama has anti-semetic friends who has his counsel.
Obama has been so under the influence of anti-semites that he named a Jewish man who once served as a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces as his Chief of Staff. Let me guess... there's some inverted conspiracy here...?
-
Yet he had to follow the wishes of the "base" who do not care if their candidate is brain dead, as long as he or she are right on the issues. He should have been honest, told the social conservative base where to go, and picked Liberman.
Not to disagree, but I think she was chosen to make the base feel that she was one of "them": i.e., a Christian fundamentalist. Once she met the theological test, her qualifications were immaterial.
-
Wishfull thinking but it won't happen. California is proof of that, besides whats wrong with being a socon? They have every right to exist and they counter the extreme lonney left, who want to engineer society.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but the notion that social conservatives don't want to engineer society has to be one of the most preposterously false claims in modern politics.
-
I'm sorry but you seem to be projecting WRT Obama. He's a far left activist who will might pick a token GOP, but governing from the middle will not be in the cards.
Advice, by it's very nature, is projective to a degree. But even in my advice, I didn't say what I thought he'd do, I merely said what I thought he should do. Actually, your statement about what is in the cards is infintely more projective and conclusory than anything I've said.
-
The first thing he should do is name a responsible cabinet from the best available advisors, regardless of party affiliation. First to be announced should be his team of financial advisors that is going to reassure the markets that his focus on the economy is going to be laser-like (e.g., Lawrence Summers as his Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin as economic advisor, maybe a known Republican as budget director, etc.).
I'd advise that he fill several cabinet posts with Republicans (keep Gates at the Pentagon, perhaps Hagel as Sec of State).
My long term advice would be for him to rule from and for the middle of the country. I think putting people of different ideologies around him would help him toward that aim.
-
So the Republicans are hypocritical is the message?
It seems to me that based upon the statistical evidence presented here that the Democrats should be voting Republican.
If you like those statistics then go ahead and vote Republican. It seems they are the real caring/sharing party.
It could be that those states that contribute more than they receive are just taxed more. Doncha think?
If they weren't taxed so heavily the Democratic States would be red too.
So, basically there are two sides to give and get. The Democratic States are obviously taxed more heavily. They shouldn't mind though it is within their philosophical politically correct caring/sharing ideal. It seems the Republican States are not taxed as much but the Federal government gives them a share of their take as well.
Hypocritical? I think a more in depth analysis should be made before charges are laid.
I think the lesson here is that governments know where the money is and tax accordingly.
And Liam charges that Republican States are welfare States! I suppose statistics like those presented here prove that? Are you Canadian, Liam? There are welfare provinces in Canada but I don't think there are welfare States in America.
Divorce, domestic abuse and teen pregnancies are more prevalent in red States? A little more analysis could be put into that as well.
Do the blue states, being more progressive, even bother with marriage these days? I see Nevada is at the top of the list for divorces. I suppose that is understandable but if I look at the electoral map today I see they are leaning toward being a blue State this time around.
I have to go with Mark Twain who said about Statistics, "There are lies, damn lies and then there are Statistics."
I believe the hypocrite is the red state voter who stands there decrying the evils of welfare queens living off his tax dollars yet whose state economy is augmented with blue state tax dollars. I'd have absolutely no problem if the federal government reapportioned tax revenues so they could only be spent in states where they are raised but I think you'd have an awful lot of southerners rethinking their opposition to federal spending if they were to be cut off.
As it stands, though, there IS a national redistribution of federal tax money from mostly northern states to mostly southern states. Isn't it the GOP position that wealth redistribution is socialism?
-
Lenin might be, but Marx sure isn't.
Obama wants to "give" 95% of working Americans an income tax cut, even though 40% of working Americans don't pay income tax, and only recently added the work provision in his plan, after taking heat for there not being one.
Obama wants to give 95% of American taxpayers a tax cut. Not all taxpayers pay income tax but all pay social security taxes and other government levies (FICA, for example).
-
This does not alter the meaning of his explicit statements on bankrupting coal plants nor does it alter his assertion (correct) that GHG regulations will cause electricity prices to skyrocket. It won't likely affect the outcome of tomorrow's election since most people have likely made up their minds but it does demonstrate Obama's habit of telling different audiences what they want to hear without any thought to how he will meet the impossible expectations he creates as a result.
It could also be used as another example of Sarah Palin's attacking Obama for espousing a policy that is remarkably similar to McCain's own position.
-
Again, another perfect example of how you cannot criticize the Messiah on actual government policy, without it being turned into some kind of racist attack.
Hold on... trying to... lift file of articles... by rightwingers... who turned any... criticism of Bush policy... into... hating... America
-
Desparation.......will we hear the "He is Muslim and Black" line today ?
My favorite are the whispers that Obama fathered not one, but two black babies.
-
Oh, and by the way, when Obama said that building more coal plants would end up bankrupting the coal industry, he was referring to costs associated with a market-based cap-and-trade system of controlling greenhouse emissions. Does anyone care to guess which other party's nominee supports a similar cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Anyone?
Seriously, I am beginning to think the current GOP should never be in charge of the military because none of 'em can shoot straight anymore.
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,6104195.story
"'That tape' is excerpted from a Jan. 17 San Francisco Chronicle editorial board interview with the Illinois senator.
The remarks posted on YouTube include a pledge by Obama to create a cap-and-trade system, under which polluters must buy credits to offset their emissions. Such an aggressive policy, he said, would spur the development of technology that uses cleaner sources of power.
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Obama said.
Palin did not mention remarks Obama made elsewhere in the interview about coal's role in the nation's energy future.
"But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion," he said. ". . . If we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, we can allow the market to determine, and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what's the best approach to take."
The Obama campaign called the tape "wildly edited" to take the candidate's remarks out of context."
The quote mas made in January. Someone decided to splice it up and post it to YouTube and a coal industry lobbyist (and Palin) now act like this is new or controversial.
-
The difference is, if it was a McCain revelation given to the Times with pre-conditions, the Times would agree to the terms in a heart beat, then put it on the front page the next day.
One more time, Obama's choice of friends and acquaintances are fair game, and the most damaging part of his history, even more than the lack of experience. That's why the Times won't release it. They grabbed the tapes with the sole purpose of making sure they stayed under wraps. And reasonable people are taking notice of the new levels the MSM has sunk.
The Times already reported the story months and months ago. They even published Obama's statement found on the video. Now you're railing against them for not reporting the same story when there's no story. Khalidi is a noted scholar and professor. Obama said some kind words at his faculty going away party. Numerous people of all faiths (including Jews) have come forward in the past week or more to say that Khalidi is not an anti-semite. I know you want there to be a scandal here and, finding none, are ready to keep flogging the "well, if it was John McCain" line. Whatever. Reporters protect sources of both parties. If you don't believe that, go take it up with Woodward and Bernstein.
But you want to play the guilt by association claim? OK, when is Sarah Palin going to be outed as a lesbian? She has said one of her best friends is a lesbian. Therefore, by your logic, since she associates with a lesbian she must also be a lesbian. Right?
-
Obama joined the church over 20 years ago not "some point in the ninties". If McCain had been going to a church with a white minister with similar views his political career would be over.
If Obama joined 20 years ago (1988) or some time in the early 90's when he finished Harvard Law and moved to Chicago... the difference of a few years is irrelevant. The more compelling part of your response is the sentence about McCain. My post points out this is pretty much what McCain has done. After the 9/11 attacks, Robertson and Falwell unleashed their own version of "God damn America" by blaming Americans for unleashing the wrath of God. AFTER they made these statements, John McCain began palling around with them.
Personally, I find it less troubling and less an indicator of bad character for Obama to attend a church whose minister becomes more of a firebrand over time than McCain's deliberate attempts to pal around with Robertson and Falwell, people he knows have made such blatant ant-American statements. Remember? He called them agents of intolerance when he was being the real John McCain. Candidate John McCain is their buddy.
-
Hold your wallets folks.
In the past week, Obama's tax plan has gone from those (and businesses) making $250,000 per year, to those making $200,000 per year, to those making $150,000 per year, and most recentlly down to $120,000 per year. How much further will it fall between now and inauguration day, if he's elected? My guess is probably down to somewhere around $75,000 by the time it's all said and done.
Obama's half hour infomercial lowered it to $200,000.
"Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year."
YouTube <--- Biden takes it down to $150,000
<--- Gov. Richardson takes it down to $120,000When Pelosi and Reid get their hands on it, I can onlly imagine what it might drop to. Not to mention that the Dems insist they'll let the Bush tax cuts expire, which will result in EVERYONE getting a tax increase, seeing as Bush cut all tax rates by 5%.
:angry:
I'd be willing to keep paying taxes at my currtnt rate alongside a 10% cut of federal aid to my region to fix the problem. The problem is that "red" America gets a HUGE chunk of federal $$ to keep their regions habitable. I subsidize them with my taxes -- are they willing to give up their status as welfare queens?
State Of The Union & Obama's Credibility
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Wow. Is it any wonder the GOP lost the election? Seriously, you need to get in touch with reality. Of the two major party campaigns, Obama ran the positive campaign, McCain the negative one. The voters put their trust in the more positive guy.