tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post7253772329707952565..comments2023-11-02T06:56:57.999-04:00Comments on Saurly Yours: Let Me Be ClearSaur♥Krauthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-43109311334640880612008-11-02T07:43:00.000-05:002008-11-02T07:43:00.000-05:00Thanks for the compliment, Saur.And please pass th...Thanks for the compliment, Saur.<BR/><BR/>And please pass those meds, Doozie, when you find them.AQhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07994666950232114243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-85614210259091548962008-11-01T04:29:00.000-04:002008-11-01T04:29:00.000-04:00Well darnit, I think everyone is missing the key c...Well darnit, I think everyone is missing the key component of this discussion. There are meds out there that cause you to have poor decision making and unclear thinking? If so what are they and where can I get them because so far I've had no excuse for my idiocyDooziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14971254752562678591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-14584223301360524772008-10-30T08:54:00.000-04:002008-10-30T08:54:00.000-04:00Dave, Actually AQ's a 'she', though of course you ...<B>Dave,</B> Actually AQ's a 'she', though of course you can't tell from her pseudonym. We originally met years ago, and she's more frequently a contributor my the other blog on our local schools that Michelle supervises.<BR/><BR/>She <I>is</I> very sharp.<BR/><BR/>I like the wry comment about the code words. I think the reason you have that impression is that the entire speech isn't quoted here, so you don't get the flavor of it. Go <A HREF="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=" REL="nofollow">here</A> to read more on it. I apologize that it's National Review...I'm sure you're allergic to it. ;o) I'm psychologically allergic to country music and rap.Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-25677875961075631772008-10-29T22:46:00.000-04:002008-10-29T22:46:00.000-04:00I agree with AQ on the "fair vs. equal", at least ...I agree with AQ on the "fair vs. equal", at least as far as his examples go (further agreement pending). It's a large part of what's wrong with our schools, and with the welfare system.<BR/><BR/>I'm still not agreeing on the code-words, unless you can show me the code-book (get your spies crackin').daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-10078347019985269632008-10-29T19:53:00.000-04:002008-10-29T19:53:00.000-04:00I heard the interview. My issue is with the gover...I heard the interview. My issue is with the government having the power to "act on my behalf." How will it determine in what areas I need action on my behalf?<BR/><BR/>I think people use the words "fair" and "equal" interchangeably. This should not be. Having more than a couple of kids, I find myself explaining the difference often. <BR/><BR/>For example: It is okay for Child 1 to bring home a C in math, but not Child 2. Why? Because Child 2 can get a B with her eyes closed, and Child 1 needs to work for every bit of that C. They are not inherently equal in their math abilities so to be fair, I cannot punish Child 1, while Child 2 would not fair as well. In fact, Child 1 would be praised for a B, but Child 2 would be questioned on her work ethic. <BR/><BR/>Example 2: Child 3 is interested in piano. I pay for piano lessons. I don't give Child 4 an extra $15 a week spending money because he is not interested in piano and isn't spending the family's money on piano. <BR/><BR/>Fair, but not equal.AQhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07994666950232114243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-88959799242714972142008-10-29T16:25:00.000-04:002008-10-29T16:25:00.000-04:00Dave, Not code words, but plain English.<B>Dave,</B> Not code words, but plain English.Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-58796646714334728202008-10-29T15:57:00.000-04:002008-10-29T15:57:00.000-04:00So, your arguement is based on "code words"? No, ...So, your arguement is based on "code words"? No, sorry, I dont buy it.daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-87167138168521486402008-10-29T13:13:00.000-04:002008-10-29T13:13:00.000-04:00Jungle Mom, Impressive summation. I do agree with ...<B>Jungle Mom,</B> Impressive summation. I do agree with her, Dave. I heard the same interview.Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-75476578007858697942008-10-29T13:01:00.000-04:002008-10-29T13:01:00.000-04:00Basically, what the Illinois State Senator was tal...Basically, what the Illinois State Senator was talking about way back in 2001, was his dismay that the founding fathers had not codified “egalitarianism” into the US constitution and that the Warren court hadn’t taken the admittedly radical step when it had the chance. That’s what he means when he says that he could now sit down at a lunch counter and order, if he “could pay for it.” If he could not pay for it and the white guy sitting next to him could, then he’s not equal. This is why wealth has to be redistributed-in order to achieve “economic justice” - code for egalitarianism.<BR/> A Marxist thinks Man is equal if he has the same relative to every other man. As long as all men are given the same rights by the state, then its fair – “social justice”-again, socialist code words for “egalitarianism.”<BR/><BR/>So when Senator Obama talks about “negative liberties” he’s really talking about the protection of individual rights which are negative, in his view, because they limit the state from instituting “social and economic justice”, egalitarianism, by coercion-his goal.<BR/><BR/>In Obama’s view, the problem with the Constitution is that it doesn’t say “what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” In other words, Obama, believes that the Constitution is flawed because it doesn’t give the state the right to coerce another citizen to give you some of his wealth and achieve “social and economic justice” which code for egalitarianism.<BR/><BR/>So when you put Obama’s “spread the wealth” philosophy with his belief that the constitution is flawed because it stops short of giving the state the power to act “on your behalf,” you can see how the argument can be made that Obama’s “hope” and “change” are really just 'newspeak' euphemisms for the socialist reorganization of society based on the Marxist principles of egalitarianism through activist judicial reinterpretation of a flawed constitution.<BR/><BR/> I can not be any clearer.Rita Locahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09961929692808138092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-50650700519833236542008-10-29T10:56:00.000-04:002008-10-29T10:56:00.000-04:00"Dave, No, we do NOT want the Constitution freed f...<I>"Dave, No, we do NOT want the Constitution freed from the constraints the Founding Father's placed on it."</I><BR/><BR/>I dont see any evidence that Obama does either, certainly not in your quote. As for "redistribution", with the Bush tax cuts, money has flowed upwards from the people who do the work (which is what creates wealth, <I>not</I> stock markets and ownership) to the people who pay as little as they can get away with (increasingly overseas) to get it done. I'd call <I>that</I> "redistribution".<BR/>As someone who makes <I>considerably</I> less than a quarter million a year, and works fairly hard for it, I will cry not one tear for the sad millionaire, because almost none of them get there all by themselves.daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-31067003526452885662008-10-29T08:28:00.000-04:002008-10-29T08:28:00.000-04:00Uncle Joe, ;o)Dave, By today's standards, perhaps....<B>Uncle Joe,</B> ;o)<BR/><BR/><B>Dave,</B> By today's standards, perhaps. But Reagan was a Republican with radical new ideas that <I>hadn't</I> been tried out before. Hindsight is always 20/20, and I believe that if he were currently the President, he would not be heralding trickle down economics. <BR/><BR/>As for the other things you've mentioned - we will have to agree to disagree. <BR/><BR/>Reagan was very accessible to the public and the press (unlike Bush, who cows the press and ignores the public). Reagan listened to the polls (like the Clintons). And ANY President and his staff must operate with some secrecy when national concerns are at stake. <BR/><BR/>As for Star Wars (and the nuclear program), America ended up with peace of unprecedented proportions after a long reign of terror by Jimmy Carter (an example of what can happen when you let a socialist in the door for 4 years).<BR/><BR/><B>Dave,</B> Your comment about competitive governing - my thoughts <I>exactly</I>!<BR/><BR/>That's one reason why I think abortion is a non-issue. There is so much precendent set now that I sincerely do not believe it would <I>ever</I> be revoked. <BR/><BR/>But IF it ever was, it would merely recede to the states. Most would keep abortion, and the Bible belt wouldn't. Inconvenient for those who want an abortion in those states, but not insurmountable.<BR/><BR/>As for the bill you mentioned, that was in 2006. Did it pass? Very interesting - I'd missed that one (but I'm not surprised - Bush is always punching holes through the Constitution that are so wide you can drive a truck through them).<BR/><BR/>Interesting point about Pelosi et al. I hadn't thought of that.<BR/><BR/><B>Jungle Mom,</B> Ah, I see. And I agree with you about the Constitution. However, taxes themselves are (IMHO) un-Constitutional but, like abortion, they're here to stay.<BR/><BR/>So, it's a question of how <I>much</I>, and not <I>if</I>.<BR/><BR/>It's like this old story:<BR/><BR/>At a very elegant dinner party, a rich, elderly man was seated next to a young woman, renoun for her looks and possibly her lack of morals.<BR/><BR/>During their dinner conversation, the young girl engaged in a great deal of flirtatious behavior - nailing a rich old man could be very advantageous.<BR/><BR/>The elderly man finally felt comfortable enough to lean over and ask "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"<BR/><BR/>The girl blushed, and admitted coyly that she would.<BR/><BR/>"Would you sleep with me for a dollar?" asked the old man unexpectedly.<BR/><BR/>"Sir!" gasped the girl, "What kind of woman do you think I AM?"<BR/><BR/>"We've already established <I>that</I>," replied the elderly man. "We're just haggling about the price."Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-65853985170345294692008-10-29T06:42:00.000-04:002008-10-29T06:42:00.000-04:00Saur, I assume the spammer came from here because ...Saur,<BR/> I assume the spammer came from here because of the tone and topic. I could be wrong.<BR/> Dave, No, we do NOT want the Constitution freed from the constraints the Founding Father's placed on it. Did you miss the entire 'redistribution ' part?Rita Locahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09961929692808138092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-2155387310214339542008-10-29T01:21:00.000-04:002008-10-29T01:21:00.000-04:00One last thing, from the Underhanded Tricks depart...One last thing, from the Underhanded Tricks department: a <A HREF="http://www.newstrend.com/2006/10/war-crimes-detainees-bush.html" REL="nofollow">"War Crimes" bill</A> that includes provisions for letting the Bush administration off the hook for any war crimes they "may" have committed. <BR/>Isnt changing rules <I>ex post facto</I> unconstitional (as in, right there in the constitution)?<BR/><BR/>And Saur, as to why Pelosi et al arent persuing impeachment charges, it's not because the charges arent warranted, it's because Pelosi et al would be implicated also, since they were part of the bunch who aided and abetted this criminal Administration. One can only hope that an Obama administration will set loose a revitalized Justice Department to investigate BushCo, since Congress probably never will.daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-35197823130215340392008-10-29T01:12:00.000-04:002008-10-29T01:12:00.000-04:00"Each state should be able to set it's own laws un...<I>"Each state should be able to set it's own laws unless it's directly in conflict with Federal law."</I><BR/><BR/>I'd like to see more of that also, actually. Think of it as competetive governing. People will go to the state which has the best policies, and leave the ones with the worst (except maybe in the case of NY, CA and maybe IL, where they'll go for the Big Cities).daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-67863080708936732322008-10-29T01:10:00.000-04:002008-10-29T01:10:00.000-04:00"True conservatives (meaning Reagan Republicans) d...<I>"True conservatives (meaning Reagan Republicans) disagree with me in some areas. Although I was (and in many ways am) a Reagan Republican:"</I><BR/><BR/>St. Ron is not a "true" conservative, he is Neo-con Prime. Supply-side economics, war-mongering, ballooning deficits, tax-cuts as an answer to any situation, welfare to corporations but not the poor, the "Star Wars" boondoggle, high secrecy and low access - all these are Reagan traits. Do they sound familiar?<BR/><BR/>@ Jungle Mom: re: Obama on the Constitution.<BR/>Is that the quote you use to say that Obama wants to escape the Constitution? Read it again. He says that the Warren court wasnt that radical because it stayed within the bounds of the constitution. Then he goes on to lament that the courts became the focus of the Civil Rights Movement, rather than organization at the community level. How exactly does that make him a radical? Sounds to me like he wishes that the People had made the changes rather than the courts. Isnt that what conservatives want too?daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-80532505146986080952008-10-29T00:46:00.000-04:002008-10-29T00:46:00.000-04:00You had me at 'nuke them'.You had me at 'nuke them'.Whistle Britcheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01896698165547735903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-73008197697046949782008-10-28T22:39:00.000-04:002008-10-28T22:39:00.000-04:00Jungle Mom, WHAT? Do you think the spammer came fr...<B>Jungle Mom, WHAT?</B> Do you think the spammer came from <I>here?</I> What a poltroon. It's a shame that people can't behave like responsible adults.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, excellent point and I heard the same quote and feel it's significant. Thank you for the contribution. I'm glad you brought it up, as I didn't.<BR/><BR/><B>Lazy,</B> Well, I'd say it's a matter of degrees. I'd say Barack is a socialist because he's an extremist liberal who wants to go even further beyond the bounds of US law and the Constitution than Bush did. <BR/><BR/>I've thrown out the term 'fascist' when I've mentioned the Bush administration before. Yet, it doesn't completely describe the Bush administration and is a slight exaggeration. (For instance, Bush never encouraged or allowed violence against his opponents).<BR/><BR/>The same can be said of Obama - he's not <I>quite</I> a socialist in <I>all</I> ways, but in many ways, he fits the stereotype. IMHO, he comes closer to being a pure socialist than Bush comes to being a fascist. See Jungle Mom's comment below yours.<BR/><BR/>Your discussion of my definition of elite didn't seem to contradict it. In fact, it just goes to show that I'm right. Each state should be able to set it's own laws unless it's directly in conflict with Federal law. And, IMHO, Federal laws and regulations need to be reduced as much as possible so we can return more power to the states and the people.Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-76442559088675019422008-10-28T20:25:00.000-04:002008-10-28T20:25:00.000-04:00Obama on the Constitution, "And to that extent as...Obama on the Constitution,<BR/> <BR/> "And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that." Obama<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>How can Obama take the Presidential Oath to uphold, or more importantly, to preserve, the Constitution when he thinks it needs to " break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution "?<BR/> <BR/> And I am just asking a question! No need for the spammer to come over to my blog and leave me 50 vulgar comments!!!Rita Locahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09961929692808138092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-42460841765263029722008-10-28T18:45:00.000-04:002008-10-28T18:45:00.000-04:00Google "Cheney energy task force". There are only ...Google "Cheney energy task force". There are only about a billion sources that pop up. You can weed through it all yourself if you want. <BR/><BR/>Socialism is just a scare word thrown around by the rabid right. Obama's "liberal" voting record mostly consists of voting against the Republican agenda. Of course this is all it takes to be labeled a "communist" or "socialist" or even "liberal". <BR/><BR/>The scare tactic of "overthrowing the Constitution" is bullshit because the US Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. Any law or policy that is unconstitutional can be thrown out. All it has to be is challenged in court. And anyone can bring up the challenge - not just congress. <BR/><BR/>And lets take your definition of "elite". Government knows best and will do what it does regardless of what the people want. <BR/><BR/>The people of California voted - in a fair election - for medical marijuana. The Bush DEA did everything it could to squash that. Doctors that dared to write a prescription that Bush did not like was threatened with the revocation of their DEA number - meaning they would not be able to prescribe anything. <BR/><BR/>Voters in FL voted to limit class size. Jeb Bush said he had a "devious plan" to thwart it and tied funding for the program to a bullet train - then sent it to voters forcing them to fund BOTH projects or fund neither. <BR/><BR/>I am sure you remember that one. <BR/><BR/>Jeb Bush also tried EVERYTHING he could to over ride the voters of Broward County who authorized vegas style slot machines.<BR/><BR/>Who keeps trying to use the power of government to define marriage? Not the "liberals". No, it is the people who think they know what is best, and have no issues at all using government to enforce their views.<BR/><BR/>By the way - I voted no on 2. Florida has done just fine as a State so far, and there is simply no need to change the state constitution in that regard. <BR/><BR/>But I have a feeling that even if question 2 fails, the majority party in the State will try to override that vote too. Because we are too stupid to know how to vote. <BR/><BR/>Shall I continue here? I think you get my point.The Lazy Iguanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12826083852416577162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-71401194039557877842008-10-28T17:33:00.000-04:002008-10-28T17:33:00.000-04:00Joe, I never watch TV. So, it's one of the few I'v...<B>Joe,</B> I never watch TV. So, it's one of the few I've seen. And I avoid ads like crazy, cuz they make my blood pressure go up. ;o) One of the best ads I've seen was pointed out by <A HREF="http://daveawayfromhome.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Dave</A>. Go <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE" REL="nofollow">here</A> to see it. It's a brilliant blend of humor and the marketing group is fabulous, even though it IS for Obama.Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-17465462115402880342008-10-28T17:19:00.000-04:002008-10-28T17:19:00.000-04:00I couldn't figure out the last statement either.Th...I couldn't figure out the last statement either.<BR/>That's actuall the first political ad i've seen this year.Whistle Britcheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01896698165547735903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-84283249024560538342008-10-28T15:50:00.000-04:002008-10-28T15:50:00.000-04:00Lazy, There is a weak spot of mine. I have continu...<B>Lazy,</B> There is a weak spot of mine. I have continually wondered <I>why</I> Bush didn't undergo impeachment hearings. Since the Congress has been a Democratic Party-controlled one for a couple of years, and they initially threatened to do so, are we to assume there really was nothing to impeach?<BR/><BR/>Probably.<BR/><BR/>But I still don't like Bush, and I won't pretend I do. I think he's sneaky, and his real motives for the war overseas is NOT to protect the country or he'd be more worried about the borders and less worried about the war-demolished country of Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Anyway:<BR/><BR/>If you're not sure how the attendees were rooted out, I would want to know that before we could continue the discussion because we know how rumors can start on both sides and be equally inaccurate. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I really want facts.<BR/><BR/>You're right, a new administration MIGHT change this, or it might take advantage of the edits of the U.S. Constitution that the Bush administration somehow managed to create.<BR/><BR/>Elitist is not someone who is smart, or rich, or (in the case of reverse snobbery) poor or as dumb as George Bush. It's the belief that government (or the head of government) knows better than the people. It's the belief that once they've been elected, they must do what they believe is BEST for the country and not what the PEOPLE believe to be best for the country. <I> George Bush is a classic example of such an elitist.</I> We do not need another in Barack Obama.<BR/><BR/>You keep mentioning trickle down economics. You may not be reading my comments but I've already said that T.D. economics doesn't work.<BR/><BR/>I agree we need a tax cut for the middle class, and I'm happy with putting the rich in higher tax brackets, but BOTH sides will be doing this. There is no distinction here.<BR/><BR/>I also believe it's time to impose tariffs on imports to encourage production and jobs at home again. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps some <I>neo-cons</I> worry that Obama will succeed. But true <I>conservatives</I> (NOT neo-cons) worry about something else: The erosion of the Constitution which began in the Bush administration. The potential for socialism. And frankly, Obama has vastly different standards than them. In fact, he has different standards that even us moderates, as he is to the far left.<BR/><BR/>True conservatives (meaning Reagan Republicans) disagree with me in some areas. Although I was (and in many ways am) a Reagan Republican:<BR/><BR/>1. I don't believe in trickle down economics (it's been disproven over 20+ years). <BR/><BR/>2. I don't believe that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate is class warfare. I do believe they can spare more than we can. I realize that some people say this is a disincentive, but the people who would be at a higher tax rate are often being paid disproportionately more. In other words, they're not working harder for their money - in fact, sometimes they're not even working AS hard as the majority. Examples include McCain's wife, for instance. What has SHE done for Bush beer except skim the profits?<BR/><BR/>3. I don't believe in the current war(s). Which makes me sound as if I'm a classic liberal, but my reasons are different. I believe that IF we are to go to war with such people, we do not waste our citizens' lives on such an enterprise. I believe we nuke them, and then retreat. Once they rebuild their little civilization (or lack of it) if we don't like what they've done, we do it again until they get the picture.<BR/><BR/>If I were President, I would merely withdraw all the troops from overseas immediately and plant them at the borders. I would cut down on illegal aliens (which neither side will do for different reasons. The Democrats want more votes, and the neo-cons want cheap labor).Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-20063624916711287512008-10-28T15:31:00.000-04:002008-10-28T15:31:00.000-04:00I am not sure how some of the attendees were roote...I am not sure how some of the attendees were rooted out. There may have been witnesses who saw people come and go at the time in question. The VP does live on a Navy Base and there may be civilian employees there. <BR/><BR/>The Secret Service also usually makes visitor logs public. <BR/><BR/>But what the people were doing there in the first place remains a secret. Nobody is talking about that. <BR/><BR/>And thus is the secret power invented. See we are supposed to be able to find out what was discussed - but not always a full transcript. <BR/><BR/>There were many other things too. Like the expansion of executive privilege to cover people not usually considered covered. <BR/><BR/>And a whole lot more. Too much to even remember. <BR/><BR/>But this is not really the issue here. Bush will be gone soon - and the new administration will be able to undo all these executive branch policies in short order. <BR/><BR/>The bummer here is that no impeachment hearings were held. We impeached a President for lying about oral sex, but one who lied about a case for war, who may have allowed energy company executives to write policy (which resulted in record high prices and record high profits), blocked every attempt by congress to exercise oversight powers, and so on will get away with it. <BR/><BR/>So that future Presidents can make a case to get away with the same shit. <BR/><BR/>The issue I looked at was pretty basic. Did I want a President who graduated in the bottom of his class, or one who graduated with top honors? One who probably got into the school he went to because of a family tree loaded with Admirals, or one who got into the top schools in the nation based on merit? <BR/><BR/>As for the VP part of the ticket, Biden does not exactly claim top honors. But he did get a double major in history and political science, and later a law degree.<BR/><BR/>As opposed to a BA in journalism. And.....uhhhh.....well nothing. <BR/><BR/>Is education everything? Not exactly. But it is a starting point. Something to go on. And an indicator of how rapidly one can learn stuff and retain stuff. <BR/><BR/>So yes, being in the bottom 5 of your class and obtaining top honors from Harvard is a major difference. <BR/><BR/>But far be it from me to suggest that we let in an "elitist". And what exactly is an "elitist"? Someone who is smart? Someone who worked to get educated? Someone who obtained top honors? <BR/><BR/>Or someone who got by, simply based on family connections. Like a daddy who went to a fancy pants school (so junior gets in as a legacy) and was head of the CIA - or a daddy and grandfather who were Admirals? <BR/><BR/>As for the "socialism" charge - is that what one calls demand side economics? We have tried supply side twice. The first time ended in a recession, the second time ended in an even bigger recession. What the hell is trickling down? Where are all the jobs that this theory supposedly creates? I do not see any? <BR/><BR/>By the way - how is your job search going? Getting any good leads? Because you know, the Bush tax cuts have created so many jobs! Why just the other day 5 employers begged me to come work for them. They even started to bid for my employment on E-Bay! Demand to fill all these new jobs is that strong. <BR/><BR/>And how was your employment situation in the 90s, when those horrible higher taxes were in place? I bet it was nothing short of a full blown depression back then! No jobs for anyone!! <BR/><BR/>What we need right now is a cut for the middle. If that means a slight increase at the top fine. They can afford it. Then the middle can dig out of debt, or maybe start spending more. Either way the results will be positive. Digging out of debt means more money injected into the credit market - and less repos / foreclosures. Buying more stuff means business has a REASON TO EXPAND. <BR/><BR/>If I had a business and was given a 0% tax rate - I would not expand. I would sit on that money. Why expand if there are no customers to demand more stuff? <BR/><BR/>Contender makes a great boat that was in high demand. They are scaling back operations due to less demand. Other builders of popular boats are closing shop outright. What will a tax cut for them do to expand business? <BR/><BR/>Nothing. Not unless demand for the product increases. <BR/><BR/>But keep listening to people on the radio who make tens of millions a year talk about all the expansion business will do with a tax cut. And remember that they will also get a tax cut - which they will NOT use to expand anything except their personal bank account. <BR/><BR/>By the way, business sends jobs overseas not because of taxes! The company HQ buildings remain here in the USA where there is AC and the politics are stable. They send jobs to India and China because LABOR IS CHEAPER. You do not see company HQ operations going to India now do you? Nope - they remain in New York City. Because the executives like to live there. <BR/><BR/>It is the jobs that go over there - because labor is cheaper. Cheaper labor means you can sell the same crap for the same price you sold it for when it was made in the USA, but reap more profits. <BR/><BR/>Don't you think that taxing companies that send jobs overseas because of cheaper labor may counter balance that cheaper labor factor - and make American workers seem not so expensive? <BR/><BR/>Assuming of course that the goods in question have inelastic demand. Meaning you can not just raise the price of it and people will keep buying it. Otherwise, you can keep your labor overseas - raise consumer prices - pay the higher tax - and still make more profit than hiring domestic workers. <BR/><BR/>I will risk calling the bluff of big business. Move the HQ building to some third world country. Move the company to Bangladesh. Let the top executives live there, with their families. Behind gated mansions with military troops standing guard at the gates to keep the compound safe. And bomb proof cars to drive to and from work in. Go on - do it! Take your wife and kids there too. Send your kids to school there. See how the wife likes living in a nation with no Sacks Fifth Ave a short limo ride away. In a nation where the city smells like an open sewer, and diseases you never heard of are common place. Someplace where the political climate is so unstable that a military coup is always a possibility, or where armed rebels are more than just a bad movie plot. <BR/><BR/>You know executives will not do this. They like to live here, and they will continue to do so. HQ buildings are not going anywhere - or they already would have. And can you blame them? I would not want to live there either.<BR/><BR/>I think what the cons fear the most is that Obama may actually succeed. That the economy may recover. That he may win reelection. That at the end of it all, we are not any more socialist than we are now - and better off. <BR/><BR/>That is what they are afraid of.The Lazy Iguanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12826083852416577162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-86088846430091964382008-10-28T15:16:00.000-04:002008-10-28T15:16:00.000-04:00Joe, The end says "Barack Obama. He may be The One...<B>Joe,</B> The end says <I>"Barack Obama. He may be The One, but is he ready to lead?"</I> <BR/><BR/>My specialty is marketing, and I must ask: Who the heck thought up that last statement? Right there they're verifying that he IS The One. Why would they word it that way?!<BR/><BR/>How about "Barack Obama. He THINKS he's The One. But is he ready to lead?" <BR/><BR/>McCain's campaign remains a horrific amalgam of mismanagement.<BR/><BR/>But it IS a cute video, overall. I don't know if it achieves the goal they were aiming for, however.Saur♥Krauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01160101729455178399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11687945.post-1493948607721546162008-10-28T14:55:00.000-04:002008-10-28T14:55:00.000-04:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8I don't ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8<BR/><BR/><BR/>I don't watch enough tv to have actually seen any commercials.<BR/><BR/>have you seen this one?Whistle Britcheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01896698165547735903noreply@blogger.com