Soxbadger

I understand the semantics argument, there just is no clear cut answer either way to prove Obama is or is not going to let the Bush tax cut lapse on those under 250k combined for families. I dont get into speculation, I just argue based on the facts that I have at my disposal. I dont think Obama is a savior and I certainly would never call him a messiah, I just tell it like I feel it is. At the end of the day I dont care if my taxes are 100% as long as it means that social conservatism is kept out of power. Im a social liberal and in that regard there is absolutely no choice for me in this election. If the Republican party ever decides to get back to keeping govt out of both business and morals, I would probably vote against Democrats. But the Republican model is basically just the same as the Democrats with slightly different tax decreases. Both are going to deficit spend out of this problem.

Hes never commented on the Bush tax cuts from what I can recollect. t This is entirely speculation about what is going to happen 2 years in the future, so in my opinion it is entirely irrelevant as its not based on fact. But from what I can find he only has said that he will reverse the Bush tax cuts on: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/18/oba...plan/index.html http://www.issues2000.org/economic/barack_..._tax_reform.htm The problem is that no one does research anymore, they just believe what they hear. The internet is a great gift and it is also a great curse on debate because people just source the same things and its some times impossible to get to the root of the situations. The problem here is the phrase "Bush tax cuts" is being interpreted 2 different ways. I believe that when Obama uses it he is referring to the cuts for the rich people only and when he says get rid of them he means that he will raise taxes on those people who are above the 250k threshold. Others are interpreting it to mean that he will let all of the tax cuts lapse, therefore effectively raising the taxes for everyone in 2 years. The only clear indication to my side Ive found is a year old article that says: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/27/nation/na-taxes27 Once again this is a matter of interpretation, I have never seen Obama say that he will let all of the Bush tax cuts lapse. {Edit} What policy has been to let the tax cuts lapse for 5 years? Thats a year old article where both Hillary and Obama say that they are are only going to let it lapse for families earning over 250k. It seems entirely consistent with the message Obama is still giving. Ive yet to see any quote from Obama saying that he will restore the tax level to pre-Bush era on anyone making less than 250k (or 160k if thats individual level).

Interesting, the one I got just says: Thanks for signing up for an election night ticket. You will receive further information in the coming days. Im wondering if they are giving out tickets to people who donated and/or volunteered first.

Did you get tickets? Or did you just get an email saying that you were on the list for tickets?

I dont donate to either school I went to. Maybe one day in the future Ill donate to both of them, but for the time being the tuitions I paid should be enough.

Most people dont appear and/or give a speech at their funeral. Just saying.

Yeah that was something I didnt even bring up. You are only taxed on the income over the tax bracket, thus your first XXX is taxed just like some one who only makes XXX. Its only the amount that is over the bracket that is taxed at the higher rate.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html Those are the correct brackets and judging from that if Obama does in fact increase the top 2 brackets it would be accurate to say that some people making $160k would have taxes raised. The problem is I cant find an all encompassing document on the tax plan. Here is a CNN break down of the tax plans and how it will affect people: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...s_tpc/index.htm It seems to suggest what Obama is saying is true, that under his plan only those above 250k would see a tax increase on their bill. Now this may be the case because of the following: Lets say that Obama is proposing a 2% tax increase on incomes between 100k and 250k. This would result in the 100k person paying $2,000 more in taxes and the 250k person paying $5,000 more in taxes. Now if the Obama plan also calls for in excess of $5,000 of rebates technically the persons tax liability has remained the same or decreased. IE: I make $100,000, I pay an extra $2,000 in taxes, but receive a discount/rebate of $5,000. My entire tax liability has gone down $3,000, even though my tax rate went up. The problem is there just is really no way to fully argue this unless we have the entire plan to try and figure out where the numbers come from. My guess is that my suggestion is correct, but its basically just taking ideas that ive heard Obama say and then creating a plan from them that fits the results hes claiming.

The problem for Opec right now is that their cartel or oligopoly is dependent on a natural resource and that there are other resources that can compete with it. In the general oligopoly model (like Coke or Beer) only a few competitors exist with the same product and they are thus able to set prices without much regard to other competitors because the price of entry into the market is so high that it is prohibitive to competition. Thus if a new brand of beer was introduced it would be very hard for them to compete because their costs would be so high and thus the product would cost much more compared to the other brands already on the market. Oil is different because its not the price to enter that dictates the oligopoly market, but instead it is the access to a resource. Like any resource oil is limited in its supply, so Opec needs to balance the supply it has versus the demand now, versus the demand in the future. And that is where things are starting to get tricky for Opec. The old model for Opec was that demand was constantly increasing, therefore over time the price of oil was going to continually rise. Therefore the only concern for Opec was supply, and in the simplest economic terms, the price of a product is where the supply curve and the demand curve intersect. Opec was artificially increasing the price by constantly controlling the supply, ie: If demand is equal or increasing and supply is equal or decreasing, the price of product has to go up. And this was good for OPEC because as stated earlier, oil is a resource and therefore it can be all used. By creating higher prices now they were protecting themselves in the future. The problem with this model began to show itself over the summer. As prices went up drastically, demand started to decline. This is problematic for the cartel because for most of its existence demand has been at worst equal, but normally increasing. Thus the cartel was forced to increase the supply of oil (increase of supply with decrease of demand equals decrease of prices) and gas prices went down. But now the question is did the last price gouging of oil start the process of decreased demand. Oil prices hit the point where driving and using gasoline was no longer considered "necessary" and instead was considered "luxury". If demand of oil is truly going to see a decrease in the future (next 10 years) then Opec has to start considering what is the best approach to oil sales. Is it best to sell lower quantities at higher prices, or is it best to sell higher quantities at lower prices. My belief is that the latter would be better for OPEC in that if they create low oil prices people will once again start to return to their old dependent ways. This will give Opec another X years of foreign oil dependence and they will still be able to make money. On the other hand if they try and just constantly raise prices I think that you will see other energy industries start to develop much faster. Thus in the simplest terms, decrease in supply with consistent demand should always equal higher prices, so oil/gas should go up in price. The question is what is OPEC really going to do, they have to see the writing on the wall and at some point they are going to have to ask have they killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

Bob Dole was a good guy. If I had the opportunity I would have voted for him.

I paid like $3.40 yesterday and thought it was the best deal of my life Although I only got a few gallons because Im going to the suburbs this weekend where gas is cheaper.

Rudy But a lot of other sports movies can make me tear up.

For some reason I can see the Rays in 5. Just like how many members the back street boys had before the one left.

So ive been posting on the wrong site for the last 6 years? I just thought all of the talk about doubles and home runs were sexual innuendo's.

Which is exactly why I dont think there is a problem with what was said. If he had said "can we give him the emperors new clothes" in reference to either McCain or Obama, no one would say a word, no one would say that the comment was sexist, crass, or in bad taste. The only reason we are having this discussion is because Palin is a woman and therefore society has placed certain restraints on the comments that can be made about women because they are to be protected and cherished. The idea that women need more protecting than men is in of itself sexist. If you can say a comment about a man and have it be nothing, than the exact same comment about a woman should be the same. So if we truly want to not "treat the other 10% different" then we should treat them exactly the same way as wed treat the other 90%. In this case if it was a comment about a man wed never be talking "sexism", so why are we talking "sexism" when its a woman? It can also be sexist to overly protect women and treat them like they are delicate flowers that can not protect themselves.

Oh please thats ridiculous, your comparing apples and oranges. (That remark is toward the Obama racism comment.) The comment was not sexist, it may have been demeaning, it may have been crass, it may have been bad taste (not saying it was any of those things, just saying may have been.) But I sincerely doubt that it was in anyway espousing the idea that women are not as smart as men, that women cant be as smart as men, that women shouldnt be taken seriously, that women dont deserve the same respect as men, and so on and so forth. Now maybe it was portraying her as a sexual object, but really it was just a joke. And Soxy you have to realize that for the most part these boards are like a locker room, jokes that are said here are things that many people would not repeat in public because the reality of the board is its like 99% male to 1% female (I can almost count the females who have posted here). So some of the jokes may be in bad taste, but thats generally because these boards are seen as more male dominated and thus people can say things that they would otherwise censor.

Counter argument: Or people in the media are actually educated and understood what Biden was saying and realized that it was just an honest assessment of the state of United States affairs. Anyone in office is going to be tested, W was tested on multiple occasions and continues to be contested. Perhaps the reason why the conservative media is not running this article (yes both sides can play the bias card) is because they dont want Obama/Biden to come off as truthful and that they actually understand that NO candidate could possibly have a resume to prepare them for the White House, so that they all in fact will be tested. I also wonder why the conservative news media who is so quick to point out how McCain's family has always served the United States military, fails to ever mention that prior to his grandfather, his family was serving the confederacy. Or perhaps why hasnt the conservative news media attacked McCain for being socialist, where as we always hear the word attributed to Obama? I mean the article itself just presupposes problems and does not even give credence to the truth versus what is entirely speculation. IE: The news media would have said if Bush raised this amount of money it was obscene. Thats a highly questionable conclusion supported by 0 facts. He does not link to an article about Republican money raising versus Democrat which shows any sort of bias, he instead just lists it as fact. On that same note the whole idea about the Powell endorsement. If he wanted a clear cut example he would have chosen where a Democratic Secretary of State endorsed McCain and the media said it was meaningless or who cares. The problem is once again the author fails to cite any real examples, instead just merely stating what happened and then saying how it was unfair or biased. The way that you prove bias is to show 2 sets of circumstances, 1 where the people acted with bias and 1 where the people acted without bias. For example a good argument for media bias would be which of these 2 terms get reported more, "Keating 5" or "Billy Ayers". In a google news search you will find that Ayers has been mentioned in over 3 pages of News articles in the last day. That means there have been over 30 articles on Ayers. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1...tnG=Search+News In a google news search you will find that Keating 5 is in 1 article today and then in no articles since October 6-7. If you include the search "Keating Five" you get another 1 or 2 occurrences. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1...tnG=Search+News http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1...tnG=Search+News When I started this experiment I honestly thought that Keating 5 and Bill Ayers would be covered equally. Upon the conclusion of my research I have found that the newspapers have covered Obama's connection to Bill Ayers 3-4x as much as they have covered the Keating 5 in the past few days. My conclusion from the data suggests that not only is there no liberal bias, but that it would seem that the newspapers are actually anti-liberal covering negative liberal stories at a 3 to 1 clip. Im sure some one will find something else to try and disprove this experiment, but thats neither here nor there. I started out believing that the media covers both sides negatively, and still believe that is the case. I dont think there is a bias towards either ideology nor either party, I believe that newspapers are comprised of individuals who each have their own biases. Newspapers are also about making a profit so they are going to write what sells. If it bleeds, it leads.

Thats what is scary about a Democracy, Republic or any govt where the people elect leaders. Some elections are won due to "popularity contests" instead of qualifications. But the hope is by creating such a big unwieldy govt that only the most popular laws that appeal to all walks of life will pass, where as the fringe ones never pass. I believe thats Madison and pluralism for all of those who are keeping count.

Well just because some one is in congress doesnt mean they understand whats going on. Im suspicious of this idea because it just doesnt seem to make sense at all, so in that regard I really have a hard time believing that its up for serious consideration.

The reason why McCain's running this campaign is because McCain and the Christian Coalition do not get a long that well. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C0A9669C8B63 Thats from 2000 when McCain was running against W. In that campaign McCain was attacked by social conservatives because he did not fit their ideology like W. Now in 2008, McCain needs to the conservative ideology to win, so his campaign has taken on the tone of those who preceded him in that regard. This campaign is just the fruits of the fact that the Republican party has 2 distinct ideas of what their party should be about. You have social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, and they are trying to live under the same house. Whereas in this election Democrats are united in an effort to win the Presidency. The pick of Palin by McCain was to appease the social conservatives, the problem is that many independents are termed as "social liberals and fiscal conservatives" so when given the choice between social liberal fiscal liberal or social conservative fiscal conservative, they are choosing the former as opposed to the latter.

I think at this point in time people in the North would just tell those in the South "good luck." With there being no slavery issue, I could really care less if people in the South wanted to secede and create a nation that better fit in with their ideals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state They also would learn that unfortunately the North pays more per capita and more total in taxes, which would mean that for all their "dont spread the wealth" they have failed to realize that the current tax system has been spreading the wealth from the richer Democratic areas, to the poorer Republican ones. Of the top 18 per capita states, only Arkansas and Texas would be former confederacy, although Nebraska didnt have a choice. But those type of things dont get much press in our current Conservative media. I mean how many times do you hear that people in the state of Illinois pay almost 3x as much per capita as some one in Mississippi in federal taxes. (We can all play the media bias game.)

HYIYM and Big Bang are both quality and depending on the week one might be better than the other. I also watch Heroes and Terminator on Monday. Heroes I actually think has been good this year (I know im in the minority but i like where the story arc is heading.) Terminator, well maybe its just cause as a kid I liked it, but whatever its a good waste of an hour.

So much for Palin and her "neighbor" being friendly... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,6044747.story The irony of this is that McCain's campaign is trying to allege that Obama has been getting illegal foreign contributions. Im sure it was a mistake, but still funny.

So were Guilliani and Huckabee against George W. Bush? Because Im pretty sure there is some evidence he may have taken part in a few recreational illegal activities. If anything some one admitting to drug use is more likely to get me to vote for them. When will big govt stop legislating morality?

Some what chicken or the egg here, if Banks dont have money in reserve they cant lend money. So in theory if they start building back their reserves eventually they will start lending again.