Would you define either George Bush or John McCain as "extreme right"?
Leftie Storms Off Set, Couldn't Answer Question
- Thread starter cwo_ghwebb
- Start date
Would you define either George Bush or John McCain as "extreme right"?
A centrists that only expresses fault with the right.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Exactly, neither plan makes sense and neither plan will work.
People also tend to forget that the President does not make laws, Congress does.
I wouldn't describe either Bush or McCain as far right (but Palin is working that crowd).
McCain was a distasteful compromise for the far right and they STILL don't trust him. That's why his campaign brought Palin onboard. As noted previously, following Palin's choice as VP, a number of traditional conservatives moved away from the McCain campaign.
The far right had the option of supporting the Libertarian Party but they don't like people that are inclined to think freely.
A centrists that only expresses fault with the right.
I defend my choice of Obama for President. Republicans have run the show for years and the nation is in deep poo. It's time for a change.
foodcritic
New Member
Rabid right? what are you talking about. More like mainstream. And you wan't to talk about calling names like Marxist and oohhh the C word Commies.
You have been doing this for the last 6-8 years branding every non socialist a "right wing" politician. What are you trying to imply by using that word? Hypocrasy sounds like to me. The only diffrence is Right wing in 2008 means traditional values.
I ams sorry if Chuck and George have not been able to see thrue the dogma of the overwhelmingly liberal biased press. But after all that is the medias job to provide propaganda.
You, like others have drank the kool-aid....
Poor baby! Took his Obama autographed basketball and went home. Still not ready for the big leagues.
I saw that! It was hilarious. Everyone else on the set was nearly speechless when he did it, because it was just so sudden.
The over-confidence of some of the Liberals right now is stunning. But this little snit fit shows that not all of them are able to pull that kind of act off.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
:shrug: If it quacks like a red duck....
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
...you could not be more correct with the first part; the GOP has failed, miseralbly, from the top on down. We just have.
However, what change? If Obama ever made anything that made sense, hell, I'd vote for him, but, where's the beef?
He's not offering tax 'cut's for anyone; he's offering tax increases on one group to give to another. That is not a cut. That is a transfer of wealth, simple as that and the fact that McCain does not posses the intellect to make such a simple argument against Obama's tax plan doesn't change the facts. Strike one.
On health care, Obama wants the government to run it. In my view, that is a bad idea. Strike two.
Obama supports the Wall Street bail out which I suppose is only fitting as he played as large a part in it happening with his blind support of Fanny and Freddie as anyone. Strike three.
Obama favors, kind of, getting us out of Iraq. Plus one if he means it. If he went along with the Wall Street welfare, why wouldn't he go along with the contractor boondoggle as well? 1/2 a plus point.
Obama says he'd go kill UBL. Plus a point.
Obama is not in favor of a full domestic reliance on oil, CNG, etc. Strike four.
Obama lied about his using public money for the general campaign. Strike five.
So, make a case for him. Changing course is meaningless if you're off course to begin with. Change course how? As he says? Sounds pretty bad.
Make a case for his ideas of change.
...you could not be more correct with the first part; the GOP has failed, miseralbly, from the top on down. We just have.
However, what change? If Obama ever made anything that made sense, hell, I'd vote for him, but, where's the beef?
He's not offering tax 'cut's for anyone; he's offering tax increases on one group to give to another. That is not a cut. That is a transfer of wealth, simple as that and the fact that McCain does not posses the intellect to make such a simple argument against Obama's tax plan doesn't change the facts. Strike one.
On health care, Obama wants the government to run it. In my view, that is a bad idea. Strike two.
Obama supports the Wall Street bail out which I suppose is only fitting as he played as large a part in it happening with his blind support of Fanny and Freddie as anyone. Strike three.
Obama favors, kind of, getting us out of Iraq. Plus one if he means it. If he went along with the Wall Street welfare, why wouldn't he go along with the contractor boondoggle as well? 1/2 a plus point.
Obama says he'd go kill UBL. Plus a point.
Obama is not in favor of a full domestic reliance on oil, CNG, etc. Strike four.
Obama lied about his using public money for the general campaign. Strike five.
So, make a case for him. Changing course is meaningless if you're off course to begin with. Change course how? As he says? Sounds pretty bad.
Make a case for his ideas of change.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
How can you accept redistribution of wealth as centrist?
Call me rabid right, but that sounds like a violation of the 14th Amendment. But I guess anyone to the right of someone who supports violation of the Constitution is a rabid rightie. It's just a shade of gray that we don't understand.
Rabid right? what are you talking about. More like mainstream. And you wan't to talk about calling names like Marxist and oohhh the C word Commies.
You have been doing this for the last 6-8 years branding every non socialist a "right wing" politician. What are you trying to imply by using that word? Hypocrasy sounds like to me. The only diffrence is Right wing in 2008 means traditional values.
I ams sorry if Chuck and George have not been able to see thrue the dogma of the overwhelmingly liberal biased press. But after all that is the medias job to provide propaganda.
You, like others have drank the kool-aid....
Contrary to what you may believe, I have only been a member of this forum for a short while. (Do you really think there are only 4 people in the US that don't toe the conservative line?)
I rarely used the term "right-wing" and prefer "self-proclaimed conservative".
Judging by the current distribution of wealth in the US, I would say wealth redistribution has already occurred.
According to Wiki: "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."
The total wealth of the top twenty has increased yearly while the wealth of the remaining 80% has dropped. Source
Republicans have taken to channeling Teddy Roosevelt lately. Here's Teddy's take on wealth:
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
Wiki...
Forest/anhoyingboyDamn you're an easy target
BRB, gotta go rewrite this in Wiki....
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
Seems to me the only one channeling is you, take your pick, Mao or Lenin.
Who is to say what is the amount a person may earn (and pass on to their children)? Obama? You keep making the argument the wealthy are getting wealthier. It's true. I look at it as a result of compound interest. Look it up.
Why do the American poor keep making the same financial decisions expecting a different result? Hence, their support for the Messiah. They don't have to change their habits. Their Zorro will rob the rich to compensate for their bad decisions. To heck with the 14th Amendment, the Constitution is a 'living' document, able to be changed via Court fiat rather than ratified by Amendment.
Just how 'poor' is the American 'poor'?
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
- Forty-three percent of all poor households actu#ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are over#crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
And after Obama has equalized all outcomes versus opportunity in the United States and we're another second tier (oh, I'm sorry, we'll all be first tier nations), will he move on to equalizing outcomes worldwide?
History has proven socialism just doesn't work. Just this little thing for which socialists have never been able to compensate - the human condition. Some folks are more ambitious, are willing to do what it takes to be successful. Others would rather have it handed to them on a platter for their vote.
The military is perhaps the ultimate meritocracy. Doesn't matter if you are a woman or man, green or purple, your pay grade is your pay grade. No difference in pay or respect. Advancing to the next pay grade is usually done via a test, which is a percentage of the final accumulation of points for promotion. The other factors which go into a performance evaluation (which many times is subjective), are the results of the individual's desire to do what it takes to advance. Some are willing to do the work, some aren't. That's life and folks have different priorities.
But according to your system, all military folks would retire as Generals or Admirals. Even those not willing to do the work. But that's 'fair' by your definition apparently.
P.S. Since you have been a business owner for over 30 years, I've a question. Do you spread your wealth around equally? Your newest employee makes as much as you and gets the same annual bonus as you?
Last edited:
Wiki...
Damn you're an easy target
BRB, gotta go rewrite this in Wiki....
I guess you put me in my place....
edinsomd
New Member
Unwritten board rule, don't invoke Wiki as a source, way too open and unregulated to be useful. There are other, more respected sources out there.
Ed
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
I think I could squeak by on 0-8, or even 0-7, retired pay! Can Obambi make it happen?
Ed
Me too! But I'm not complaining. I had a great career. Not perfect but personally satisfying.
Seems to me the only one channeling is you, take your pick, Mao or Lenin.
Who is to say what is the amount a person may earn (and pass on to their children)? Obama? You keep making the argument the wealthy are getting wealthier. It's true. I look at it as a result of compound interest. Look it up.
Why do the American poor keep making the same financial decisions expecting a different result? Hence, their support for the Messiah. They don't have to change their habits. Their Zorro will rob the rich to compensate for their bad decisions. To heck with the 14th Amendment, the Constitution is a 'living' document, able to be changed via Court fiat rather than ratified by Amendment.
Just how 'poor' is the American 'poor'?
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America
- Forty-three percent of all poor households actu#ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are over#crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
And after Obama has equalized all outcomes versus opportunity in the United States and we're another second tier (oh, I'm sorry, we'll all be first tier nations), will he move on to equalizing outcomes worldwide?
History has proven socialism just doesn't work. Just this little thing for which socialists have never been able to compensate - the human condition. Some folks are more ambitious, are willing to do what it takes to be successful. Others would rather have it handed to them on a platter for their vote.
The military is perhaps the ultimate meritocracy. Doesn't matter if you are a woman or man, green or purple, your pay grade is your pay grade. No difference in pay or respect. Advancing to the next pay grade is usually done via a test, which is a percentage of the final accumulation of points for promotion. The other factors which go into a performance evaluation (which many times is subjective), are the results of the individual's desire to do what it takes to advance. Some are willing to do the work, some aren't. That's life and folks have different priorities.
But according to your system, all military folks would retire as Generals or Admirals. Even those not willing to do the work. But that's 'fair' by your definition apparently.
P.S. Since you have been a business owner for over 30 years, I've a question. Do you spread your wealth around equally? Your newest employee makes as much as you and gets the same annual bonus as you?
I addressed the BS in your Heritage Org. article earlier so I'll ask you to refer to the previous thread.
Most people who have been in business for some time are well aware of one simple truth... "The owner gets paid last." (After paying all of the bills, if there is any money left over, that's what the owner gets.) By law, employees ALWAYS get paid first.
I have always rewarded loyal and competent employees with raises if the company is making money. They are a large part of what makes the company successful. We usually gave our employees annual bonuses if the company did well. As the owner of the company that's my preogative. Called it redistribution of the wealth. (I NEVER gave myself an annual bonus.) Were there perks for being the owner...Of course.