For general discussion and debate. Possible talking points:
- Will the NYT McCain story impact the election? Is this just a dirty trick by the Times to submarine McCain in favor of the eventual Democrat nominee? Or, is the Times trying to entice conservative talk radio hosts to support McCain thereby scaring away moderate Democrats and Independents?
- Is Jesse Jackson right about the rifts in the Democrat Party potentially being disastrous for the left in November? Has the Clinton race card damaged relations between blacks and Hispanics? Will the Clintons use the superdelegates to try and steal the nomination? Has this been such an ugly battle that there's no possible reconciliation between Obama and Clinton before or at the convention?
- Is Karl Rove right about Obama being much more vulnerable to attacks than the prevailing conventional wisdom?
Comments Policy
Hillary Clinton will...
February 21, 2008 - 11:19 ET by arbin82Hillary Clinton will do anything and everything to steal this election from Obama. It's very fun to watch the democrats freak out at the potential stealing of delegates. Delicious...
i don't think she could steal a thing
February 21, 2008 - 11:24 ET by lunaticcringeradioeven if she pulled a 45 on him she couldn't steal it. i'm just enjoying watching her dream of being the queen dislove. i can't wait to see her flip out and blame it on a vast right wing conspiracy soon.
lunaticcringeradio
Since she's not a big gun fan
February 21, 2008 - 12:02 ET by FastEdthat 45 must have been stolen! Unless it's what she used to shoot ducks, back in the day.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Now that it appears
February 21, 2008 - 12:03 ET by MassConservativeNow that it appears Hillary's hopes for the nomination are finished I suspect the Clinton machine will be hard at work destroying Obama in the general (albeit silently).
With McCain in office Hillary can come back in four years as the "see I told you Obama wasn't ready" candidate.
If Obama wins she couldn't get the back page of the NYT real estate section in four years and in eight years she would be really old news as people would have moved well beyond the Clinton years.
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
well we shot down that sattelite
February 21, 2008 - 11:22 ET by lunaticcringeradionow how many liberal politicians said that that kind of task was impossible, couldn't be done, can't do it can't do it can't do it and we should scrap all plans and programs was what i recalled hearing. wasn't it nancy harry and teddy? remember all the bad mouthing on how reagans space defense system is ridiculous and impossible. they are fine examples of the can't do political party, good thing they weren't around when kennedy prposed going to the moon.
or more than anything they are fine examples of politicians selling out their own countrys defense and security at the behest of foreign governments.
lunaticcringeradio
Be Careful Here
February 21, 2008 - 12:15 ET by CGatton"...all the bad mouthing on how reagans space defense system is ridiculous and impossible..."
This is a subject you might want to stay away from. Those who know the whole truth here very seldom speak, and for some very good reasons. Those who do pontificate, know very little. The technology that let us destroy the dead satellite is old technology, in its essence...only the software is of a new, improved variety.
So let's just say that the takedown was an excellent shot, and leave it at that. :o)
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Well said, just
February 21, 2008 - 12:19 ET by FastEdwondering if the VP was at the controls, it was one of ours after all. ;)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
CGatton, Yup No chaff, as in radar countermeasure,decoys etc.
February 21, 2008 - 15:38 ET by upcountrywater1969 to 1972 the only time man will EVER leave earth orbit, never again, very sad. In the shadow of the moon now in dvd. This was the pennicle of mans space exploration.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
my point was
February 21, 2008 - 19:47 ET by lunaticcringeradioi'm quite familiar with the technological differences that i know is old old technology and not the plans for a missile defense system that is generally thought of, considering my air force experience with the goings on at vandenburg afb left me quite familiar with what the differences are. i was simply pointing out how out who the political "can't do people" are, and the fact being it was an old system that was successful is proof that they are either pathetic in their vision or purposefully want to a weak america because they are sell outs to foreign nations. or both i tend to believe.
lunaticcringeradio
For the first time in my
February 21, 2008 - 12:47 ET by FranksamFor the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of our missile defense system. Oh, maybe for the second or third time, I kind of forget.
Franksam
OK, let's start out with
February 21, 2008 - 11:24 ET by motherbeltOK, let's start out with the "creme de la creme" of punditry analysis:
Chris Matthews says that this is a "generic" scandal story...legislator, lovely lady, affair, ...
Mika refutes that, saying that the "difference" this time, is that they are both denying it.... usually one claims it, the other denies...
Is Mika too young to remember Bill Clinton and both Gennifer Flowers AND Monica Lewinsky?????? Which one of THEM claimed an affair while Clinton was denying it?
Mika...last name.....cafeteria.....'nuff said.
The Media (alll media) must have things to talk about
February 21, 2008 - 11:24 ET by robertjacobThe media, and that includes talk radio, MUST have things to talk about - 24 hours a day is a lot of time to fill.
All media is moving more and more toward tabloid journalism - it's a fact.
And that includes the very best of talk radio.
The love the McCain story - even they openly attack it.
All media is moving more
February 21, 2008 - 11:49 ET by motherbeltAll media is moving more and more toward tabloid journalism - it's a fact. And that includes the very best of talk radio. -robertjacob
The difference is, robert, that talk radio doesn't present itself as "news," or as "journalism" which the MSM outlets do.
Response - Motherbelt
February 21, 2008 - 12:16 ET by robertjacobThe difference is, robert, that talk radio doesn't present itself as "news," or as "journalism" which the MSM outlets do.
That is a great point - but let's not give talk radio too much credit. While many attack this story as "trash" - they then proceed to spend their entire show talking about it.
It's called perpetuation of the days story line.
It's business - I understand that - but it's also crap.
Look robert, I didn't give
February 21, 2008 - 14:16 ET by motherbeltLook robert, I didn't give talk radio any credit at all. I simply pointed out that even if they are doing the same "tabloid" trash that you claim, they are doing it as "talkers" not as "journalists."
Just what do you expect of talk radio that you think it's "crap" and you worry about "giving them too much credit"?
Talk radio is what it is ...it is TALK. As opposed to NEWS. Save your anger for those who claim to be "journalists" but push their opinions as "analysis."
Ok - peace and love
February 21, 2008 - 15:03 ET by robertjacobSorry - I didn't mean to appear angry - I love talk radio.
Thanks for the discussion - I enjoyed the dialog.
Republicans responsible
February 21, 2008 - 11:25 ET by shawn228Surprised no one has ruled out that a Republican might be responsible for this, how many people in the GOP can't stand McCain and want his destruction to be swift.
The only people that are talking about this are his former closest aids and from what I understand they were/are Republicans. Why are they all of a sudden talking now?
Rocky and Apollo BFF!!
shawn... That very
February 21, 2008 - 11:38 ET by bigtimershawn...
That very thought has crossed my mind regarding the person responsible starting the ball rolling may have been from the same party with an agenda of their own regarding this Presidential race.
Time will tell, it will all come out in the rinse, I just hope it isn't too late for my view/side of the aisle...
Our country is at one of the biggest crossroads in history as far as I am concerned, the outcome of all of this is of the utmost of importance in my eyes....
I just pray that it does not drag on...one way or the other.
I plead ignorance
February 21, 2008 - 12:15 ET by HelenSThis may be a beginners question but I'm curious about something: what happened to the Republicans? All the callers in to shows like Rush or Sean sound outraged at what is going on with the trend toward the left. And then during the culling process, the good guys gradually get kicked to the curb until the last man standing is this McCain character. So, if all the voices I hear (in my head?) are outraged at what's happening...
What happened? What happened during the voting process that may (or may not?) show the truth of the majority (?) of Republicans?
And if those of us who feel the grief and the pain are the true Republicans, who managed to boot Thompson out? And then Romney?
Are the true conservatives or at least the more conservative Republicans becoming an endangered species? Are there really so many conservatives who have morphed into the compromising spineless types that are chewing away at the heart of the party?
Why are the voices of outrage not effective in getting the train back on the rails?
...and the more I try to clarify what I'm asking, the more confused I become. So, sorry and hopefully someone out there can decipher this and 'splain it to me.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Hi Helen... I can't
February 21, 2008 - 12:20 ET by bigtimerHi Helen...
I can't explain it to you because I feel the same.
I posted on Mark Finkelstein's thread something that resembles what you are trying to convey with my opinion on all of this...
I still maintain that the
February 21, 2008 - 14:54 ET by motherbeltI still maintain that the country as a whole is moving left, and that's why the change in the Republican party...they want to get elected and re-elected, and to do that, they have to pander to those that want higher minimum wages, free medical care, free drugs, etc. and rather than lose those voters to Democrats, they will go along with their own versions of those entitlements.
Have you seen the retirement fund commercial with Dennis Hopper where
he says "60 is the new 50"? Well, "conservatives" are the new
"moderates."
Does anyone think that President Bush pushed through that medicare drug program because he really thought we needed another entitlement? No, he did it because he knew that's what the public wanted, and if Republicans didn't do it for them, they would elect Democrats who would. Of course it didn't work, they lost control anyway. But they keep trying to win voters back by giving them what the Democrats are promising. Because getting elected and re-elected is the name of the game.
HelenS, trust me, you are no more confused than the rest of us.
February 21, 2008 - 15:38 ET by R D HelmLOL-And it is getting more confusing with each passing day.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
Shawn
February 21, 2008 - 11:58 ET by DelsaWhich republican do you suspect? You must have someone in mind?
Only the Huckster is hanging around like a vulture.
The ny times got wind the New Republic was going to ask in an article - Why is the NY tunes hanging on to this story. A story from 2002.
The ny times had to jump on it. I think they would have rather waited until After the Republican Convention. They got scooped.
Evil intent is evil no matter when it shows itself.
i would suspect some
February 21, 2008 - 12:26 ET by TruthMongeri would suspect some republican that hates McCain but is willing to conspire with the NYT
there are so many
Shawn - the point of who the leakers were is irrelevant
February 21, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Dee BunkThe NYT is the one using it's power to try and hurt McCain. It's already been established that the people talking were disgruntled employees.
I'm thinking it might be
February 21, 2008 - 12:06 ET by FastEdone of the guards at the Hanoi Hilton, who, after not getting any info, are still annoyed and just want to stir the pot.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Shawn, you may very well be right.
February 21, 2008 - 15:52 ET by R D HelmThere is no doubt a large number of high-powered conservatives who do not support McCain (I am of the no-powered variety, lol) and might very well be working behind the scenes to torpedo his candidacy.
Although I am not sure they would necessarily conspire with the NYT, but given the story they just willingly put out about McCain, just about anything is possible these days.
-See, this kind of intrigue is the really fun part of political campaigns. :-)
Yeah, Huck and Romney probably should keep their calendars clear.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
McCain should get a video
February 21, 2008 - 11:36 ET by Hunter12McCain should get a video of the Clinton finger-wagging speech and go out there and do it verbatim. I think it would be a riot.
As far as the NYT goes, why have none of their reporters made a little trip over to the state line and looked into a little thing called Coyote Springs? Oh wait, that's a Democrat selling his influence. Who would care about that?
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
The McCain story shouldn't
February 21, 2008 - 11:38 ET by balboaThe McCain story shouldn't impact anything. Sounds like a nothing story that was dusted off by Huckabee folks.
Nothing Can Stop John F'in McCain
February 21, 2008 - 12:15 ET by PopularTechNot even some nonsensical story about him being "adulterous". Even his ex-wife wouldn't buy that one! What crazy stuff with they think up next?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Let's just hope he's not a
February 21, 2008 - 14:53 ET by balboaLet's just hope he's not a drug addict...
The interesting part comes from election 2000
February 21, 2008 - 15:59 ET by sarcasmoYouTube clips (or something like this) may well decide this election based on an epithet spoken on the "Straight Talk Express" during the last primary, if my guess is right.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Pop, what are your thoughts on this topic...
February 21, 2008 - 21:40 ET by BritcomMcCain may be ineligible to be the President:
Link >>
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
George Soros & John McCain >>
If it's the Panama thing
February 21, 2008 - 21:52 ET by sarcasmoIt's bull. Hell, the Canal Zone back then was every bit as much the USA as anywhere in the 50 states, if not more-so. There are many reasons to object to John McCain's candidacy, but his being born in the Canal Zone isn't one of them IMO. If it had really been foreign soil back then, how could Jimmy Carter have given it back to them in the '70s? I just don't get it when people fixate on something like that issue with SO many other issues out-there...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
come on peopledo you
February 21, 2008 - 12:35 ET by TruthMongercome on people
this has DNC/MSM written all over it
do you really think the MSM actually loved McCain all those years?
he's been an extremely useful idiot
and sometimes it was useful to praise him
now the question for the MSM becomes:
HOW DO WE TREAT McCAIN TO GET OBAMA ELECTED?
everything is proceeding as the emporer has forseen it - and may the force be with the rest of us - so which one of us is gonna be luke skywalker?
trach can be yoda of course
NYT story made to get Hillary more than McCain?
February 21, 2008 - 11:52 ET by Daniel BakerEveryone will be talking about Clinton's affairs for the next few days.
Please bear with me as I
February 21, 2008 - 11:53 ET by jcrapes4Please bear with me as I fight through working last night as I try to get this thought out. I have not paid attention to tv news stories the past couple of months so this might have been covered and slipped my notice. My nephew's unit is currently deployed to Iraq around modern day Alexandria. There was a news report of soldiers killing 12 civilians recently from his unit. What the story failed to report was his unit came under fire from those susposed civilians from a building across the river. His unit was not able to adequately return fire due to the distance. They called in air support to take out the hostiles. I am not surprised but greatly irritated that I have to get stories from my brother-in-law via my nephew to learn the truth on what happens over there. I wonder if this is part of the reason for the ratings decline for traditional new agencies? Ie because of the ongoing deployments of our beloved military more and more Americans are discovering the piss poor reporting from the old media and are tuning out. Thoughts?
jcrapes... Please convey
February 21, 2008 - 12:11 ET by bigtimerjcrapes...
Please convey my appreciation to your nephew and all who are striving to get this war over with, my gratitude is endless.
As to the msm, it is maddening, if I was in your position or any of those serving I do not know how I could keep from anger when it comes to the msm and their reporting just about from the beginning of this all...
Thanks to all who have and are serving.
And now, today's Shrub
February 21, 2008 - 12:00 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
Celebrate, comrades! The Communist Manifesto was published 160 years ago today, leaving quite a successful track record, eh?
What's the media to do? This genius is black, had the Koran in his backpack, and was stupid enough to get arrested trying to smuggle a weapon onto an airplane, a federal offense. This really screws up the media's template, does it not?
Remember, in "Life of Brian", where the people find Brian's sandal and revere it? How pathetic is this?
Not sure of what Obama will bring to the table if president? Zimbabwe already knows. I am sure Carl Kolchak will be celebrating Bobby Mugabe's 84th birthday today!
Boo-freaking-hoo.
Speaking of the institutions of indoctrination, the socialists at the University of Colorado are near apoplectic over the hiring of a, *gasp!*, REPUBLICAN as school president. He has ties to oil! *Double-gasp!* Read the article, get a good glimpse of the tards teaching our kids.
And, finally, one more story of higher education scum, er, fun.
There should be no reason it should take 38 years and FOUR convictions of pedophilia to get a scumbag like this guy put away for life.
Today's Whale Sighting.
Who to blame for $100 oil?
Those Joos are such copycats. Wasn't this already done in Hannibal?
Today's Global Warming Update.
Speaking of nutjobs, ecotards are clashing in Kalifoooornia.
92 years ago this morning, the Germans launched 1 million artillery shells into the French front around Verdun, marking the beginning of a 10-month long battle that will leave over 700,000 dead and wounded in the trenches. It was a French victory, but it also sparked a false sense of security, since France built The Maginot Line in the 1930's, mistakenly believing a static line of forts would stop any German incursions. Whoops.
And, finally, which NFL team has the most female fans? Sure as hell ain't the choking scumbag Patsies!
Will Barry become Brian-like?
February 21, 2008 - 12:10 ET by FastEdAll bow before the hankie, 'tis the most we've gotten from the man, sorta like seeing the inside of his brain.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Roger...priceless
February 21, 2008 - 14:20 ET by LionKingThis quote from the ecotards link is priceless:
Rog
February 21, 2008 - 15:00 ET by ricklailI am very disappointed at you. You didn't mention about DOOK getting beat last night by Miami. First time in 45 years that they beat them.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
Life imitates Monty
February 21, 2008 - 15:16 ET by Jack BauerLife imitates Monty Python
Then,
February 21, 2008 - 15:32 ET by FastEdwhen can we start yelling, "Bring out your dead!" ??
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
ecotards,
February 21, 2008 - 16:03 ET by R D HelmWell, at the rate peole are fleeing California, pretty soon there won't be anything left but redwoods and illegals, anyway.
Once that guy's neighbors have joined in the exodus, he can hire a couple of illegals to cut down those pesky redwoods.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
Nice List!
February 21, 2008 - 12:01 ET by CGattonWhere to begin, where to begin...so many targets today, lol. In no particular (read 'hidden meaning,' since the order clearly is particular) order then.
"...no possible reconciliation between Obama and Clinton ..."
Other than those few, eg my one unenlightened son, who waver on an almost daily basis between Hillary and Obama, I think the Democrat side will be in a deadly quagmire come election time. There are sufficient splinter groups fanatically devoted to one camp or the other to potentially prevent either from being elected. Already the rancor is palpable, and the longer the battle goes on, the wider, deeper, and uncrossable the chasm will become.
"...race card damaged relations..."
From my perspective, the ideal solution would be for Obama to continue his run up of delegates, and for Hillary to use the time tested Clinton tactic of "we know what's best for you" to garner the nomination for herself. Under this scenario, I think very large numbers of Democrats will sit out the election, particularly the youth - who never vote in the numbers they promise anyway, but who might come out for an Obama touchy-feely good candidacy - and the black minority vote. If you want a firestorm, just point out the tremendous racism inherent in the numbers of voters lining up behind Obama, only because of his race - it certainly can't be because of his policies, because he has none - who will become wildly rabid at such an outcome to the election. For those of you who remember the racially charged politics and riots of the 60s and 70s - look out, here they come again.
"...Clintons use the superdelegates to try and steal ..."
While the politics of racism will have a major role in determining the final outcome in that case, it will be the disallusionment with the Clintons that will have the largest effect if the race goes to the wire, and Obama wins despite the attempts to derail his candidacy at the convention. The Clinton supporters will, by that time, have convinced themselves that only she can 'save the country,' and the failure of enough Obama backers to see this will disgust and turn them away from voting. Additionally, as the tactics prove futile, the ineveitable charge of racism will be leveled at Hillary and her supporters, and against those attacks the very will to vote will dissipate, though the eventual contest will be closer under this scenario.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Another flop?
February 21, 2008 - 12:14 ET by NCConservativeI've heard the title of the movie "Stop Loss" kicking around for a while now, but last night I saw a commercial for it for the first time. This is the summary provided by IMDb. I think that summary sounds fairly innocuous, but has anyone seen the preview on TV? The anti-war, anti-Bush message is so clear in this commercial that they literally have the word "liars" spelled out across the screen at one point.
(As an afterthought, I looked it up on youtube and found the preview here.)
I look forward to this movie flopping in the same way all of the rest ("Rendition" comes to mind) have. This movie is "presented" by MTV Films. Why am I not surprised?
The msm chose this candidate
February 21, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Delsathe msm chose this candidate. Why? Because they new he may be someone easy to destroy. McCain actually thinks he can make friends with the left. No no no!
Can you sip tea with terrorists and then trust them? No no no!
What if the lobbyiest was a hanger on and that it why the right hand of mccain told her to bug off and not come around any more??
Can we say groupie?
He can't beat obama or hillary anyway. All this does is keep us from talking about the issues! Period!
Liberals and taxes
February 21, 2008 - 12:28 ET by LionKingHere is yet another example of why you cannot trust a liberal with fiscal decisions.
California is facing a mass exodus of people...many millionaires, but many average folks also. The blame...high taxes.
Now, this exodus, as you can imagine, is causing another problem...a shortage of tax revenue. Guess what the California libs want to do to solve this problem? If you guessed raise taxes, you understand the liberal mind too well.
Only a liberal would try to solve a problem caused by high taxes by raising taxes even more.
NO NATION EVER TAXED ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY !!!
[ Every effort should be done to increase disposable income to the consumer...for libtards, that means lowering taxes, especially income taxes and property taxes. ]
LK, is the same on the Atlantic coast
February 21, 2008 - 12:39 ET by FastEdmy gov, "I'm gonna fix this mess" jon corzine, is using a borrowing scheme to pay down the debt, taxing drivers, so far without a gas tax (which will happen) and not reducing spending, because it would "hurt those in need" (meaning govt employees would need to work).
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
...not just leaving the dinner party, but the entire state...
February 21, 2008 - 13:10 ET by vrwc13This had to do more with tax cuts, but the "moral" at the end brings it into perspective of CA's new dilemma:
"Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore."
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten
comes to $100. If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like
this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate
dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said,
"I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group
still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would
still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the
fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be
fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid
nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%
savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25%
savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22%
savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16%
savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to
eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
men began to compare
their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the
sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I
only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should
he get $10 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in
unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
dinner, so the nine sat down
and ate without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for
even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes
get the most benefit from
a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore.
v
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
As to Karl Rove and Obama comments
February 21, 2008 - 12:41 ET by DelsaRove is correct. Obama could very well turn out to be the emperor with no clothes.
That can only happen if there is someone to able enough read, Conservative enough, to point it out.
Is McCain that person?
The news media may give us the gift of choosing another candidate at the convention.
Let the games begin!
Ron Paul REFUSES to Debate!
February 21, 2008 - 12:44 ET by TinianNot so long ago, whenever it was suggested that Ron Paul shouldn't be included in a presidential debate, his supporters went nuts.
Now Dr. Paul refuses to debate his opponent for the 14th Congressional District in Texas. Captain's Quarters notes:
Be sure to watch the hilarious response by crazy ol' Uncle Paul when he's asked why he's unwilling to debate.
Ron Paul will not debate
February 21, 2008 - 13:04 ET by Roger the ShrubberRon Paul will not debate because he is concentrating on his presidential campaign.
Oh wait, yesterday DasSarkbot told us that he is concentrating on the congressional race, not the presidential one.
Damn, the 4% Revolution is in trouble!
Next year, Dr. Paul might be soiling his Depends somewhere in Florida, not in Washington DC.
Meanwhile, DasSarkBot awaits his talking points from the Mothership.
Laughs
February 21, 2008 - 13:45 ET by UnsaneY'all have no idea how hard I am laughing over Paul's political demise.
The last time I laughed that hard, politically, was when my old man first saw Paul in debate, and said, "That jaundiced pipsqueak wants to be President???"
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Ron Paul has been
February 21, 2008 - 16:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberRon Paul has been representing his constituents well lately:
4Q 2007 he missed 60% of congressional votes.
1Q 2008 he has missed 50%.
I have issues with any sitting politician running for a higher office not resigning from the position they are currently in.
On this, we actually agree.
February 21, 2008 - 16:59 ET by sarcasmoI've publicly and privately advised him to withdraw from one or the other (first the congressional race to concentrate on the Presidency, and now the other way around). Such a "robot," I know...This is one of those areas that he's screwing-up, but that doesn't invalidate any of my mockery of the haters here or elsewhere.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Should you be revealing your
February 21, 2008 - 17:06 ET by Roger the ShrubberShould you be revealing your pillow-talk sessions with your Lord and Master so freely?
Just a question
February 21, 2008 - 17:22 ET by FastEdwas this close relationship with Dr. Paul mentioned before, and I missed it? Not being snarkey, just wondering, as it would explain many previous remarks.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
You guys are just too-smart for us!!
February 21, 2008 - 15:23 ET by sarcasmoI love that $149,000 Peden gave himself -- that kind of thing practically defines "grassroots." And as the very staid & dignified Shelley Sekula-Gibbs write-in effort proved (by irrationally-losing the Republican party a seat!) there's no irrational hatred for libertarians in the Texas Republican party at all. That was all just my fevered imagination! Thanks for educating me, folks!
JMR
PS Isn't refusing debates traditionally what leading candidates do to the losers? Dr. Paul must be once-again misinformed!
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Well, apparently from
February 21, 2008 - 16:28 ET by BDWell, apparently from watching you for the past couple of months there is GREAT hatred for the Republican Party amongst libertarians if your actions are to be observed.....
Uh, use that new-found clicking ability
February 21, 2008 - 16:37 ET by sarcasmoAnd see why you're once-again being unintentionally-funny. Another person, even one with a dreaded "L" after his name, caucusing & voting with Republicans is a better strategic result than a few months of a flake followed by a lefty-Democrat. Even if (ask Tim Graham...) Shelley's brief and ineffective inter-election hysteria allowed me months of mocking the Texas Republican Party here on NB for the results of their-not-my irrational hatred of any and all things fiscally-conservative. As ye sow, so shall ye reap, and 2006 reaped a LOSER.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Whoever SHELLEY is she is
February 21, 2008 - 17:25 ET by BDWhoever SHELLEY is she is immaterial to the question at hand since she has not been brought up previous in postings stretching back several months.
Nor did I bring up the Texas Rep Party so it is also immaterial to the discussion.
Nor the 2006 election.
Perhaps you are thinking back to conversations with others to which I have not been party to.
i must say though, it has been refreshing to hear something other than your typical rants regarding "Tax and Spend war on Drugs" which, while humorous in a way are apt to cause the reader to assume you suffer from a state of ennui.
Shelley is
February 21, 2008 - 18:25 ET by sarcasmoWho that "link" technology, combined with a bit of reading comprehension, would have already told you she is. An ugly episode of "hate libertarians" resulting in one-less Republican seat in 2006, an election which caused quite a few of you to melt-down.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
SARC: As stated before,
February 21, 2008 - 18:51 ET by BDSARC:
As stated before, niehter I, nor you referenced the woman in our conversations. Therefore she is not germaine to the discussion.
Nope.
February 21, 2008 - 20:57 ET by sarcasmoI referenced the hysterical (in more ways than one!!) Ms. Gibbs in the very comment you replied-to on this thread in the first place. Do you see why I keep saying you have some serious reading-comprehension issues? You need to do less hallicinating about me and more link-clicking when it comes to this stuff. Right now, you're arguing for the sake of trying not to admit the obvious & stupid "hate libertarians" agenda of the Texas Republican Party I've exposed (before 2006 and today) on this blog. It ain't workin'. Try something else -- like reading. It's fundamental.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Referring to yourself in
February 21, 2008 - 16:33 ET by Roger the ShrubberReferring to yourself in plural terms again, DasSarkbot? How many voices are in your head, anyway?
You cried and pitched a sh*t-fit when the GOP dropped your God from a debate, but now you are all for the actual voters (you know, the people who live in your God's district, not the mental giants like you who dump their money into Paul's lap) never getting a chance to hear their candidates actually face each other.
Not agreeing to debate your opponent at all is cowardly, and tells me your God is a scared little girl. Paul should At least debate the opponent once.
Whine whine whine
February 21, 2008 - 16:38 ET by sarcasmoIt's too-funny.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Is it "too-funny" for which
February 21, 2008 - 16:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberIs it "too-funny" for which personality?
BTW, are you still touching little boys, Sarky?
Such a master of debate
February 21, 2008 - 17:00 ET by sarcasmoNo wonder the left is quaking in their boots this time...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Huh? The "left" what,
February 21, 2008 - 17:05 ET by Roger the ShrubberHuh?
The "left" what, personality?
Ron Paul REFUSES to Debate!
February 21, 2008 - 18:18 ET by TinianSarc will never address why Dr. Paul flip-flopped on debating. He knows there's no way he can coherently defend it so he'll argue like a lefty -- change the subject, attack non-fellow Kool-Ade drinkers, etc.
It's pathetic. I wonder how Paulians can maintain their self-delusion.
If I'm flip-flopping (which I'm not, BTW)
February 21, 2008 - 18:27 ET by sarcasmoAren't YOU as well, in your sudden shift of positions on debate. Sauce for the goose is now applied to a few ganders, methinks...
JMR
PS This is too-easy, go back to the name-calling & the incessant whines about the blimp's effect on McCain-Feingold speech-control!
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Ron Paul REFUSES to Debate!
February 21, 2008 - 19:02 ET by TinianAren't YOU as well, in your sudden shift of positions on debate.
The question is why did Dr. Paul suddenly shift his position on debate.
Riddle me that one.
As soon as you answer my double-standard question
February 21, 2008 - 21:38 ET by sarcasmoI'll answer yours. Not until. So riddle me too. And get used to one standard for a change, this isn't the MSM.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Ron Paul REFUSES to Debate!
February 21, 2008 - 22:14 ET by TinianThe question still remains: why did Dr. Paul suddenly shift his position on debate.
And can you link to your claim?
Answer mine, and I'll
February 21, 2008 - 22:18 ET by sarcasmo