JZVOL
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,928
- Likes
- 0
I think the reaction she gets, both from the left and from those on the right that have the cajones to admit they don't think she's remotely qualified, is that we are all just dumbfounded that anyone ever really thought she could win.
I think the reaction she gets, both from the left and from those on the right that have the cajones to admit they don't think she's remotely qualified, is that we are all just dumbfounded that anyone ever really thought she could win.
who gives a crap about the vice president? this was about mccain. the fact that biden didn't hurt obama is example enough.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. When Palin was first selected by McCain and on the scene, the Republican machine went into overdrive with excitement that she was going to put McCain over the top, that she was going to turn it all around for him, that she was drawing bigger crowds than McCain.
And then when she fumbled everything she was given as though she were a UT running back approaching the goal line, suddenly it was just about McCain?
she ended up having zero effect as do 99% of all vice presidential nominations. the exit polls proved this. the people who hated palin never considered mccain in the first place.
I think the reaction she gets, both from the left and from those on the right that have the cajones to admit they don't think she's remotely qualified, is that we are all just dumbfounded that anyone ever really thought she could win.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. When Palin was first selected by McCain and on the scene, the Republican machine went into overdrive with excitement that she was going to put McCain over the top, that she was going to turn it all around for him, that she was drawing bigger crowds than McCain.
And then when she fumbled everything she was given as though she were a UT running back approaching the goal line, suddenly it was just about McCain?
she ended up having zero effect as do 99% of all vice presidential nominations. the exit polls proved this. the people who hated palin never considered mccain in the first place.
Warren Buffet posed this same question. He wanted somebody to explain the fairness of his secretary getting paid $60,000/year being taxed at a higher rate than he was, being one of the richest men in the world.
I am not making a judgement here, just reciting what Warren Buffet thinks (or did think at one time).
“You know, this is part of American culture,” Obama told Tapper. “Michael Jackson, like Elvis, like Sinatra, when somebody whose captivated the imagination of the country for that long passes away, people pay attention. And I assume at some point people will start focusing again on things like nuclear weapons.”
Your high wealth clients -- do they get taxed on income, or on the basis of what's accumulated? I assume its on income for the year.
What our progressive system theoretically recognizes is that ability to pay ought to have something to do with the taxation system. That is, if there are three people earning $50,000, $500,000, and $50 million respectively, and if we need $1 million in revenue, then we can't take it in equal amounts from each person. Nor would it make sense to tax at the same rate for each person because the effect on the lower income earner is magnified given the basic costs of existing in our economy.
Having said that, I completely agree with the premise that the tax code system is a complete mess and out of control. We give tax breaks and incentives supposedly to encourage spending and investment in areas we deem "good," but it ends up just being a giant shell game. I would agree that needs to end.
But if you want to scrap the progressive income tax system for something like Neil Boortz' flat tax based on consumption, people need to think long and hard about what that will do to spending and the placement of dollars in the world economy.
Hey LG, this is from your insightful leader. Today regarding the funeral of MJ:
This is your beacon of Hope? This is Mr. Insightful? Yea, those MJ followers are taking a break from worrying about nuclear weapons to mourn MJ. LOL. No teleprompter in sight I imagine.
Link? I'd like to see the quote and the context. Thanks.
Ahhhhh..... Well, I'll conceded it was a wierd quip, but really allvol you ought to have placed it in full context:
ABC's Jake Tapper writes that Obama "joked that hed have to discuss Michael Jackson in order to get media coverage of the U.S.-Russian summit."
You know, this is part of American culture, Obama told Tapper. Michael Jackson, like Elvis, like Sinatra, when somebody whose captivated the imagination of the country for that long passes away, people pay attention. And I assume at some point people will start focusing again on things like nuclear weapons.
I do think the context matters here.
I pasted the same piece that ABC played on the radio at the top of the hour news. No more, no less. Context does help but it is a dopy quote.
I agree it was kind of dopey, but his point -- that the world is oddly focused on the funeral for this entertainer when US and Russia are working on a nuke weapons agreement -- is pretty accurate.
that his approach to foreign affairs was already bearing modest fruit in efforts to disarm Iran and North Korea.
Mr. Obama said that Irans governing elites are going through a struggle that has been mirrored painfully and powerfully on the streets. He said that the fact that we have both said we are willing to work with Iran -- at the same time as we have been very clear about our grave deep concerns with respect to not just the violence, not just the detentions that have taken place -- has created a space where the international community can potentially join and pressure Iran more effectively than they have in the past.
Was Palin really running on that much of a religious platform?
Where were you during the campaign? Hell, yes she was!