THE LIBERAL THREAD #3- No Debate Please

[dcentity2000]

What on God's green earth is that thing?!



Rich::

 

[Laura]

The Headless Horseman?

 

[LuvDuke]

This gets more interesting by the day:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...al_election/general_election_match_up_history

 

[Charade]

This gets more interesting by the day:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...al_election/general_election_match_up_history

What the hell is a "leaner"?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Originally Posted by crcormier View Post
Hello everyone.

We've never been called evil or stupid so many times as we have in the conservative thread over the last two months.

They really do know conservatism is a failed policy after eight years, don't they?

Nope. They don't. There are two kinds of conservative repugnantcans.
1. Multi-Millionaires of the I have mine, blank everyone else bent.
2. Delusional suckers that like to pretend they are in category 1.

 

[Charade]

Unfortunately for some of us, it's been by fellow Democrats.

Over the last 7 years, the housing market tanked, unemployment numbers are rising, gas is hitting record highs, the stock market's on a roller coaster ride, we're at war, the government's spending money it faster than they can print it, and phased in tax breaks for the top 1% of Americans continue to roll on without so much as an afterthought. Of course, according to to our buddies on the right, these are all simply normal occurrences in a typical economic cycle...

So the problem isn't Republican OR Democrat, it's politicians in general since the Dems have promised to fix (almost) all of that during the run up to the 2006 elections and as of today, nothing is any better. In fact, it's worse!

Food for thought...

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

 

[Charade]

Nope. They don't. There are two kinds of conservative repugnantcans.
1. Multi-Millionaires of the I have mine, blank everyone else bent.
2. Delusional suckers that like to pretend they are in category 1.

Oy...

but what do you call rich Democrats? Why don't they just take the minimum necessary for themselves and share the rest with poor people?

Irregardless... A recent poll showed that, on average, Republicans are more generous than Democrats when it comes to charitable giving.

 

[Tanuki]

Discussing the taxpayer boondoggles above which the oil companies (who are making record profits) want to put over on the public really deserves a separate thread.

Are there laws preventing research into turning coal into oil (or lead into gold for that matter)? Are there laws preventing research into how to extract oil from shale?

Or is the vote really on whether the taxpayer puts money into the oil companies pocket to fund their research efforts at no risk to them and if no one manages to turn lead into gold it is the taxpayer who is out of pocket and not the company.

Drilling off the continental shelf is in international waters. Why is congress even having to vote on that (unless tax dollars are being spent)? Couldn't the oil companies speculate with their own money?

And as for new refineries - we seem to have had enough refineries when the price of oil was a dollar a gallon just a few years ago. Why would putting taxpayer dollars into building new ones make a difference now?

And as for ANWAR - once again it isn't just permission to drill - there are taxpayer dollars subsidizing the effort. Shouldn't the oil companies put some of their record profits into it and leave the taxpayer alone?

 

[Charade]

Discussing the taxpayer boondoggles above which the oil companies (who are making record profits) want to put over on the public really deserves a separate thread.

Are there laws preventing research into turning coal into oil (or lead into gold for that matter)? Are there laws preventing research into how to extract oil from shale?

Or is the vote really on whether the taxpayer puts money into the oil companies pocket to fund their research efforts at no risk to them and if no one manages to turn lead into gold it is the taxpayer who is out of pocket and not the company.

Drilling off the continental shelf is in international waters. Why is congress even having to vote on that (unless tax dollars are being spent)? Couldn't the oil companies speculate with their own money?

And as for new refineries - we seem to have had enough refineries when the price of oil was a dollar a gallon just a few years ago. Why would putting taxpayer dollars into building new ones make a difference now?

And as for ANWAR - once again it isn't just permission to drill - there are taxpayer dollars subsidizing the effort. Shouldn't the oil companies put some of their record profits into it and leave the taxpayer alone?

I think a lot of has to do with mineral rights on federal land. Unless Congress approves it, nothing can happen. The environmentalists will sue. They recently used "global warming/climate change" to put the Polar Bear back on the endangered species list. First time that happened. They also said this is just the beginning. They'll attempt to do it again and again. I guess they really want us all to go back to the stone ages. IMO, as long as we can get oil from traditional and non-traditional sources without adversely affecting the environment, I just can't understand why we shouldn't.

If the of estimated (net) amount of oil in these places is even remotely accurate, and it costs a lot less than $130 a barrel to extract, it would drive down the price of gas and I think the oil companies would jump at the chance to not buy the bulk of their oil from foreign sources at the global commodity rate.

If we can't drill domestically, can't drill offshore, can't build new nukes, can't build dams, can't build coal to oil plants, can't extract oil from shale, etc.., how can we expect the price of gas to go down? The alternate sources such as ethanol from corn (or switch grass) is a complete joke. It's like the penny. It cost nearly TWO cents to make ONE penny. Someone has their head screwed on backward.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

but what do you call rich Democrats? Why don't they just take the minimum necessary for themselves and share the rest with poor people?

Those that advocate policies that make us all better off I call right.

So the problem isn't Republican OR Democrat, it's politicians in general since the Dems have promised to fix (almost) all of that during the run up to the 2006 elections and as of today, nothing is any better. In fact, it's worse!

Because 49 Democrats in the Senate +one independent+ LIEberman is enough to dictate policy and the liar in chief and the corrupt Repugs had nothing to do with it.

Food for thought...
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Opening ANWR up to big oil at taxpayer's expense would save us under $1 a barrel by the rosiest of estimates. Hence it should be called a pack of gum for thought assuming of course the oil companies don't just pocket the difference.

Are there laws preventing research into turning coal into oil (or lead into gold for that matter)? Are there laws preventing research into how to extract oil from shale?

Or is the vote really on whether the taxpayer puts money into the oil companies pocket to fund their research efforts at no risk to them and if no one manages to turn lead into gold it is the taxpayer who is out of pocket and not the company.

Drilling off the continental shelf is in international waters. Why is congress even having to vote on that (unless tax dollars are being spent)? Couldn't the oil companies speculate with their own money?

And as for new refineries - we seem to have had enough refineries when the price of oil was a dollar a gallon just a few years ago. Why would putting taxpayer dollars into building new ones make a difference now?

And as for ANWAR - once again it isn't just permission to drill - there are taxpayer dollars subsidizing the effort. Shouldn't the oil companies put some of their record profits into it and leave the taxpayer alone?

Record profits aren't enough. We need to give the oil companies more of our money. They wouldn't just pocket their subsidies. Would they?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Originally Posted by MassJester View Post
Did you see McCain proposed a weekly town meeting. I think his letter read, "Dear Sen. Obama, I'm having real trouble raising money and getting anyone to listen to me. Could I get you to an event so I can get the people to listen up? Oh, and can I have ride there as well? Thanks, John."

Dear Sen Obama I can't get more than 50 people to show up to my events. And 40 of them fall asleep. Can you appear with me so I can get some attention?

They recently used "global warming/climate change" to put the Polar Bear back on the endangered species list. First time that happened. They also said this is just the beginning. They'll attempt to do it again and again. I guess they really want us all to go back to the stone ages. IMO, as long as we can get oil from traditional and non-traditional sources without adversely affecting the environment, I just can't understand why we shouldn't.

ACHOOO!!! ACHOOO!!!

You'll have to excuse me. You see I'm allergic to B.S.

ACHOOO!!! ACHOOO!!!!

 

[Charade]

ACHOOO!!! ACHOOO!!!

You'll have to excuse me. You see I'm allergic to B.S.

ACHOOO!!! ACHOOO!!!!

Uh, where's the BS in my post? Nevermind... obviously you're not willing to have a rational conversation with someone you disagree with.

 

[Planogirl]

I think a lot of has to do with mineral rights on federal land. Unless Congress approves it, nothing can happen. The environmentalists will sue. They recently used "global warming/climate change" to put the Polar Bear back on the endangered species list. First time that happened. They also said this is just the beginning. They'll attempt to do it again and again. I guess they really want us all to go back to the stone ages. IMO, as long as we can get oil from traditional and non-traditional sources without adversely affecting the environment, I just can't understand why we shouldn't.

If the of estimated (net) amount of oil in these places is even remotely accurate, and it costs a lot less than $130 a barrel to extract, it would drive down the price of gas and I think the oil companies would jump at the chance to not buy the bulk of their oil from foreign sources at the global commodity rate.

If we can't drill domestically, can't drill offshore, can't build new nukes, can't build dams, can't build coal to oil plants, can't extract oil from shale, etc.., how can we expect the price of gas to go down? The alternate sources such as ethanol from corn (or switch grass) is a complete joke. It's like the penny. It cost nearly TWO cents to make ONE penny. Someone has their head screwed on backward.

I thought that even if we drilled offshore and in ANWR that the price of oil wouldn't be expected to change much if at all because the added oil would be such a small amount. I can't imagine a small amount of oil added to a vast amount would have that much of an impact. Am I wrong? Is the amount of oil in those areas expected to be so much that we can fall back on it to a large degree?

As for your other point, ethanol from corn is a mess. But you have to try new things before you can find the right solution.

 

[LuvDuke]

While our friends on the other side of the aisle are getting all ooey-gooey over an AOL straw poll ................ ............. yup, an AOL straw poll, they missed this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

And this:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0612/breaking21.htm

And this:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

And for the record, I do not believe Obama is "The "Second Coming". That would be Kucinich.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

While our friends on the other side of the aisle are getting all ooey-gooey over an AOL straw poll ................ ............. yup, an AOL straw poll, they missed this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

And this:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0612/breaking21.htm

And this:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

And for the record, I do not believe Obama is "The "Second Coming". That would be Kucinich.

I saw that, with the key word being "straw", as in grasping for some. Stay tuned, before you know it, they'll be quoting DISboards polls as the ultimate authority...

 

[chobie]

While our friends on the other side of the aisle are getting all ooey-gooey over an AOL straw poll ................ ............. yup, an AOL straw poll, they missed this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

And this:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0612/breaking21.htm

And this:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

And for the record, I do not believe Obama is "The "Second Coming". That would be Kucinich.

Well you have to admit, it's a refreshing break from the endless, infantile jokes about Obama's initials.

And I would give you a virtual fist bump about Kucinich being the second coming, but then we might be considered terrorists.

 

[shortbun]

Uh, where's the BS in my post? Nevermind... obviously you're not willing to have a rational conversation with someone you disagree with.

See thread title. You're right, we're not going to argue /have a 'rational' conversation with you here. Start a thread about it.

 

[chris1gill]

Tax plans evaluated.... Can we put to rest that Obama is raising taxes for people who make 50 grand a year, or whatever figure we want to use that is clearly less than wealthy....

McCain's Tax Plan Aids Wealthy, Says Group

By Perry Bacon Jr.
A detailed analysis of the candidates' tax plans confirms one of Barack Obama's top arguments against John McCain: the Arizona senator's proposals would offer substantial benefits to wealthy Americans.

An analysis of both campaigns proposals by the Washington-based, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that for people with incomes between $66,354 and $111,645, Obama's proposals would cut their taxes by more than $1000, compared to around $300 under McCain's plan. But for Americans with incomes above $603,402, Obama would raise their taxes dramatically, by more than $115,000 a year, while McCain would cut them by $45,000.

"The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners," the group concludes. "The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive.... It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution."

<SNIP>

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/12/mccains_tax_plan_aids_wealthy.html

**

The Obama Campaign Today – Thursday, June 12

On tap for today:

Tomorrow, on day four of our “Change that Works for You” economic tour, Obama will visit Kaukauna, Wisconsin, outside of Appleton, where he’ll discuss his middle class tax plan. Obama will also meet with the first in a series families who will help to demonstrate the relief American families will get from his plan as opposed to the policies of President Bush and John McCain. The event comes on the heels of a new Tax Policy Center report showing that one quarter of the tax benefits in John McCain’s plan benefit people making more than $2.8 million, and that Obama’s plan offers three times as much tax relief for the middle class.

Obama will visit with these tax relief families periodically on the campaign trail, and he’ll be discussing their stories every time he talks about tax relief—because this isn’t about numbers on a chart, it’s a bout real relief for struggling families.

New study: Obama offers three times the tax relief for the middle class

A new report from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center confirms what we already knew: Barack Obama economic proposals do more far more for middle class families and the economy than John McCain’s plan.

While McCain is fond of the false claim that Barack Obama will raise taxes, the new independent report finds that Obama’s tax plan will offer middle-class families three times the tax relief that they’d receive under McCain’s plan. Instead, McCain gives tax cuts to the rich: one-quarter of the benefits in McCain’s plan go to households making over $2.8 million annually.

The same independent study shows that John McCain’s budget proposals would increase the deficit over the ten years by $628 billion, even when you make generous use of George Bush’s gimmicks to hide the true cost. By contrast, the report found that by repealing tax cuts for the wealthy and closing corporate tax loopholes, Barack Obama’s plan would create enough revenue to pay for his middle-class tax cuts, while also paying for his health care plan.

And while McCain repeatedly points to his promise to eliminate earmarks, he refuses to name all the wasteful spending programs that he’d eliminate, and repeated analyses show that his claim that he’d save $100 billion is, as one analysis describes it, “largely fantasy.”

McCain’s promise to continue George Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and give big corporate interests a tax cut would cost $300 billion a year. But even the Wall Street Journal noted that McCain’s proposal to eliminate earmarks would not cover the cost of all of his tax cuts.

If he can’t come clean and explain specifically how he’d pay for the rest of his plan, it’s clear that, John McCain’s talk of reform simply doesn’t add up—just like his tax math. Americans can’t afford another four years of the George Bush’s soaring deficits and relief for the wealthy instead of the middle class, and that’s exactly what John McCain is offering in this election.

Must-Reads:

MSNBC (Mark Murray) “Post-primary bump for Obama”: Days after becoming his party’s presumptive nominee and receiving an endorsement from his chief rival, Hillary Clinton, Democrat Barack Obama has opened the general election campaign with a six-point edge over Republican John McCain, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Obama leads McCain among registered voters, 47 to 41 percent, which is outside the poll’s margin of error. In the previous NBC/Journal survey, released in late April, Obama was ahead by three points, 46-43 percent. LINK http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/

Nashua Telegraph (Kevin Landrigan) “Analysts say Obama offers three times the tax break for middle class”: The tax cut plan of Democratic nominee to be Barack Obama offers three times the break for middle class families than proposals of likely Republican nominee John McCain, according to analysts working for a left-leaning think tank. Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain’s tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states. LINK http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWSBLOG/244217910

Wall Street Journal (Deborah Solomon) “McCain’s Tax Plan Favors Wealthiest, Analysis Says”: Both John McCain and Barack Obama promise to cut taxes for the majority of Americans. But an Obama administration would redistribute income toward lower- and middle-class households, while a McCain White House would steer the bulk of the benefits to the wealthiest families, according to a nonpartisan analysis of the still-evolving tax plans of the presidential candidates. LINK http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121319990210164643.html

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Read on CNN this morning that the McCain supporters/GOP have plans to go after Michelle Obama. Does attacking a candidate's wife ever help put the opposing candidate over the top? I can't imagine it being very effective...

 

[LakeAriel]

I looked and looked and couldn't find this place! I didn't recognize it because John was here!