The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

And then they just launch 10 flies at once and we're screwed anyway. Missile defense is a pipe dream because the aggressors will always have the technological upper-hand.

Actually it's 10 rocks that are dressed up as flies, because the rocks in fly costumes are cheaper.

 

Anyways. it's not always going to be a pipe dream, but the problem is the cost of the system. If it costs several orders of magnitude more to knock down the things than the countermeasures to the defense cost, then it's not workable. That was the dirty little secret of all those successful tests conducted over the last 8 years and the scrapping of the ABM treaty; the knockdowns were a nice step, but in an actual attack, all an opponent has to do is apply countermeasures that cost 1/10000th of the price of the ICBM and warhead.

[lostfan]

If missile defense was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Pastor Wiley Drake prays for Obama's death:

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama Orders General Odierno to Shave Stephen Colbert's Head:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Obama Orders Stephen's Haircut - Ray Odierno
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Keyboard Cat

[BigSqwert]

The future of the GOP:

 

"You know people say, “Hey, Alaska! Eight-five percent of your state budget is based on the price of a barrel of oil. Aren’t you glad the price is going up?” I say, “No!” The fewer dollars that the state of Alaska government has, the fewer dollars we spend. And that’s good for our families and for the private sector." —Sarah Palin

[HuskyCaucasian]

The future of the GOP:

I've said it before, I'll say it again, she wont get reelected as Gov.

[NorthSideSox72]

The future of the GOP:

I actually like that quote from her. She's a disaster overall, but that sentiment is just fine with me.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

The future of the GOP:

This is what happens when you elect a slutty flight attendant to be your governor.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I actually like that quote from her. She's a disaster overall, but that sentiment is just fine with me.

Ok, so let me try and flesh this out a bit. I presume the quote was about money that is brought in via a tax on oil, correct? Hence the part about how it's government income. And if her philosophy is the less money me make the less we'll spend... then there are 2 options.

 

1) Pocket the tax money for a "rainy day" fund, and dont spend it because government spending is evil.

2) Put in a sliding scale on the tax on oil. Just an example: 10% tax on $20-30 a barrol, 7% on $31-40, 5% on 41-50. You get the idea. That would keep your income down as prices go up.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, so let me try and flesh this out a bit. I presume the quote was about money that is brought in via a tax on oil, correct? Hence the part about how it's government income. And if her philosophy is the less money me make the less we'll spend... then there are 2 options.

 

1) Pocket the tax money for a "rainy day" fund, and dont spend it because government spending is evil.

2) Put in a sliding scale on the tax on oil. Just an example: 10% tax on $20-30 a barrol, 7% on $31-40, 5% on 41-50. You get the idea. That would keep your income down as prices go up.

OK, for one, Alaska already has a "rainy day" fund, its called the Alaska Permanent Fund. You can go google it. They get money from the government and from oil such that they run large budget surpluses, put the money in the fund, and everyone in AK gets a state tax refund, instead of paying taxes. But that is a whole different discussion there.

 

Second, the taxes don't work like that. There is no tax on oil per se, in the way you state.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

OK, for one, Alaska already has a "rainy day" fund, its called the Alaska Permanent Fund. You can go google it. They get money from the government and from oil such that they run large budget surpluses, put the money in the fund, and everyone in AK gets a state tax refund, instead of paying taxes. But that is a whole different discussion there.

 

Second, the taxes don't work like that. There is no tax on oil per se, in the way you state.

On the second point, please educate me, because I was always under the assumption that there was some sort of an tax on oil.

 

EDIT: and on the first point, all I hear from the GOP is that Obama is trying to make Americans dependent on government by just giving away free money and now with Palin saying that she wished the government spending was less, shouldn't she eliminate the free money to Alaskans? seems like she is helping make people dependent on government money.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[NorthSideSox72]

On the second point, please educate me, because I was always under the assumption that there was some sort of an tax on oil.

I don't even know all the dynamics, but it depends on lost of factors, such as where it is extracted, who buys it, who owns it first, etc. But its not like Exxon pulls it out of the ground and pays taxes on it as soon as they get it. They extract it, refine or process it into various states, and the resulting products are sold and taxed like other commodity items (sort of). And I do not know if Alaska specifically levies a tax on the commodities anyway, or if they even can, if the final sold product isn't producing in Alaska (even though the oil may come from there).

 

Also, if you use a sliding tax scale like that, you are actually doing damage to the effort to get off oil.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't even know all the dynamics, but it depends on lost of factors, such as where it is extracted, who buys it, who owns it first, etc. But its not like Exxon pulls it out of the ground and pays taxes on it as soon as they get it. They extract it, refine or process it into various states, and the resulting products are sold and taxed like other commodity items (sort of). And I do not know if Alaska specifically levies a tax on the commodities anyway, or if they even can, if the final sold product isn't producing in Alaska (even though the oil may come from there).

 

Also, if you use a sliding tax scale like that, you are actually doing damage to the effort to get off oil.

cool. thanks for the info. All I am trying to say is if you are soooo worried about your state making soooo much money off of oil, then find a way to make less.

[Rex Kickass]

EDIT: and on the first point, all I hear from the GOP is that Obama is trying to make Americans dependent on government by just giving away free money and now with Palin saying that she wished the government spending was less, shouldn't she eliminate the free money to Alaskans? seems like she is helping make people dependent on government money.

 

She's like any other politician. It's a do as i say, not as i do mentality. Truth is that she looks for more federal dollars for her state all the time. She looked to increase the bonanza Alaska residents get every year when that money could be used to keep Alaska more self-sufficient rather than having to depend on a "bloated" federal budget to build bridges to anywhere.

 

The difference between a fiscal conservative like Palin and the people she criticizes - is that the people she criticizes tend to be more honest about where that money is or isn't coming from when it hits their state or district.

[Balta1701]

By the way, I'd like to say again...how dare the Department of Homeland Security suggest that right-wing politically motivated violence/terrorism is a legitimate threat!

[Chet Lemon]

By the way, I'd like to say again...how dare the Department of Homeland Security suggest that right-wing politically motivated violence/terrorism is a legitimate threat!

 

This is the problem with those "activists" out there that lambasted H.S. for their report. In their minds, everything is broken down into 'left-wing' or 'the far left' (i.e. any democrat not named zell miller, anyone who protested the war, etc) and so they themselves must be the opposite (i.e. right, right-wing). Many of these activists viewed right-wing terrorist groups in the report as a slight against the conservative movement, which is grossly inaccurate.

 

"To me, it looks like the extremists are those running the DHS," said Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn. "An official document of the DHS lists right-wing extremists as 'groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,' and includes those 'rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.' So, apparently, according to Homeland Security Department, the American ideal of federalism is a threat to American ideals."

 

Bachmann and Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., joined Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, the No. 6 Republican in the House leadership, on the House floor Wednesday evening to demand that Napolitano either resign or be fired by President Obama.

 

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday morning that he is sure the subject of the former Arizona governor will come up at the White House Thursday afternoon when Obama meets with congressional leaders of both parties.

 

"I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do," said Boehner. "When you look at this report on right-wing extremism, it includes ... about two- thirds of Americans, who, you know, who might go to church, who may have served in the military, who may be involved in community activities.

 

"It's bizarre," he added.

 

"I and my colleagues are trying to understand who wrote this report, why wasn't it edited or-- I just don't understand how our government can look at the American people and say, "You're all potential terrorist threats,'" said Boehner.

 

Grover Norquist, the president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform group and author of "Leave Us Alone," responded to the DHS report by saying that Democrats should be worried about a political threat, not a security threat. (emphasis added)

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7412992&page=1

[BigSqwert]

Time to Apologize to Janet Napolitano?

 

 

[mr_genius]

Time to Apologize to Janet Napolitano?

 

Iraq war vets and people in the military, groups mentioned as suspects in the controversial report, are actually targets of terrorism in the US. not the other way around.

 

 

 

why would she get an apology? because a nationalist socialist killed someone?

Edited June 10, 2009 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

By the way, I'd like to say again...how dare the Department of Homeland Security suggest that right-wing politically motivated violence/terrorism is a legitimate threat!

 

Von Brunn is a known Holocaust denier who reportedly has claimed that the book "The Diary of Anne Frank," about a teenage girl's experiences under Nazi rule, was a hoax.

 

 

uh thats more of a far left conspiracy theory. Iran supporter type stuff.

[lostfan]

Iraq war vets and people in the military, the newest members of the terror watch list, are actually targets of terrorism in the US. not the other way around.

 

 

 

why would she get an apoology? because a nationalist socialist killed someone?

Well, first off "national socialists" = "right wing extremists" = the topic of that report. It's pretty much common knowledge that right wing extremists try to recruit vets, that report didn't even say anything new.

 

The DHS was doing its job. FFS, this is what *I* do at work, at least part of it and on a different scale/problem set. Outlining threats within the homeland, etc. Bachmann and those like her used that as a political opportunity to manufacture outrage over basically nothing, to kill 2 birds with one stone; on one hand to make the Obama administration look malicious and evil, and on the other, to make themselves look like victims. Actually Bachmann is dumb enough to actually believe what she's saying. But regardless, yes, she and the rest of them do owe Napolitano an apology. Not because, you know, there were actual incidents of violence from actual right-wing extremists after that report was published (let's go ahead and add the guy who shot the cops in Pittsburgh to that list) - but for just being dumb enough to actually insinuate there was some kind of conspiracy against them. And believe it.

Edited June 10, 2009 by lostfan

[lostfan]

uh thats more of a far left conspiracy theory. Iran supporter type stuff.

No, not even close. But you are right though, the holocaust deniers (in this country, usually white supremacists) are welcome in Iran, they go there for holocaust denial conferences etc.

[mr_genius]

Well, first off "national socialists" = "right wing extremists" = the topic of that report. It's pretty much common knowledge that right wing extremists try to recruit vets, that report didn't even say anything new.

 

The DHS was doing its job. FFS, this is what *I* do at work, at least part of it and on a different scale/problem set. Outlining threats within the homeland, etc. Bachmann and those like her used that as a political opportunity to manufacture outrage over basically nothing. Actually Bachmann is dumb enough to actually believe what she's saying. But regardless, yes, she and the rest of them do owe Napolitano an apology. Not because, you know, there were actual incidents of violence from actual right-wing extremists after that report was published (let's go ahead and add the guy who shot the cops in Pittsburgh to that list) - but for just being dumb enough to actually insinuate there was some kind of conspiracy against them. And believe it.

 

the report was cricized for it's specific finger pointing at vets and people with Ron Paul bumper stickers. no one would care if it was a 'neo-nazi' report. no one owes her an apology, and she won't get one.

Edited June 10, 2009 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

No, not even close. But you are right though, the holocaust deniers (in this country, usually white supremacists) are welcome in Iran, they go there for holocaust denial conferences etc.

 

how is that Ron Paul bumper stick free trade goofs? it's not.

 

how is that vets? it's not.

 

the report was rightly criticized and she apologized. now you guys think you have some 'win' here with this terrible tragedy. this is a win for no one, an innocent person died.

Edited June 10, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

the report was cricized for it's specific finger pointing at vets and people with Ron Paul bumper stickers. no one would care if it was a 'neo-nazi' report. no one owes her an apology, and she won't get one.

That's the fault of the person responsible for editing the report, because that's not how it was supposed to read. Any generic report you see on right-wing extremism will say something like that but it'll sound more politically correct to avoid this kind of fake brouhaha. That wasn't supposed to be the focus of it, the fact remains that nothing about that section was untrue from an analyst's perspective (that's who it was written for, I've no idea why in the f*** something marked FOUO got released to the media but it happens all the time). Putting the shoe on the other foot, did any left-wing politician flip a s*** when the DHS under Bush released a report on left-wing extremism that "singled out" environmental/animal rights activists or antiwar protesters? No, they did not. And no, they should not have because there was nothing to flip out about.

[lostfan]

how is that Ron Paul bumper stick free trade goofs? it's not.

 

how is that vets? it's not.

 

the report was rightly criticized and she apologized. now you guys think you have some 'win' here with this terrible tragedy. this is a win for no one, an innocent person died.

Quit putting words in my mouth, I'm not gonna acknowledge responses to things I didn't say. I don't know what you're talking about with this "you guys" stuff either.