Wednesday, October 22, 2008


Yes, it's a legit issue, unfortunately. Can you imagine what we'd see eight years from now?


Anonymous Anonymous said...


To be fair, though, he always seems to get nervous and twitchy when he's on the attack in front of rabid crowds. (Listen to the crowd applaud-- they're walking all over his intended punchline, not really even listening to what he was saying.)

When McCain is on solid ground, speaking from the heart, he spits his words out like Teddy Roosevelt; when he's making stuff up he stumbles around worse than Geo Bush.

That's what makes Palin so creepy: she tosses verbal grenades without blinking.

10/22/2008 12:59 AM  
Blogger Dave S. said...

Agree with me more, shame on you. Disagree with you less, we -- we can't agree again.

Re the above comment, replace "heart" with "script" and you've got it.

10/22/2008 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Chad @ Sentient Money said...

Slightly off topic.

As a person who grew up in that part of Pennsylvania, I would have to say Murtha is right. There are a substantial number of racists in that area.

10/22/2008 10:06 AM  
Anonymous dave said...

It would be nice if both candidates ran less negative campaigns. But you can't blame McCain; the liberal media is in the tank for Obama and are doing everything they can to put him in the White House. Journalists have lost any pretense of objectivity or reporting, for that matter. They cover every single negative story about McCain while ignoring damaging stories about Obama. And liberal pundits have cried racism when a sharp critique of Obama's policies are raised. As a result, McCain has no choice but to be aggressive and establish a clear difference between himself and Obama. In terms of ideology and values, this is the biggest gap between two presidential candidates that we've seen since Carter and Reagan in 1980. Obama is a socialist who wants to redistribute wealth, punish success, and give the biggest expansion of government since the Great Society.

10/22/2008 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Cheryl said...

Anytime I hear or read anyone calling Obama a socialist who loves big government, I just assume what they really mean is they couldn't possibly vote for someone of his hue.

10/22/2008 1:39 PM  
Anonymous dave said...

Cheryl, thanks for your asinine comment. You, along with other Obama supporters, are shamelessly using the race card to silence any policy critique of Obama as being "racist" or "using the race card."

Under Obama's tax plan, (he has revised his plan multiple times, depending on which way the wind blows) the top marginal rate would get as high as 54%. He then wants to give refundable tax credits to the 40% of Americans who already don't pay income taxes, which basically is nothing more than welfare. And he wants to spend $3 trillion in the next ten years for new government programs, including giving health care to illegal immigrants and creating a "national civilian task force." He will also strengthen labor unions, which will do enormous damage to businesses.

So yes, because of his policies and beliefs, I do think Obama is a socialist. This is not about race or ethnic background. It's about his ideology, values, and policies. So please have some decency before you accuse strangers of racism.

10/22/2008 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Ghidorah said...

I assume dave's post is meant to be ironic.

But if not, I say "Yes, please". With the wealth gap being what it is, I'd say some major redistribution is in order. We can start with John Mack and keep going until we reach Bill Gates.

10/22/2008 1:58 PM  
Anonymous e. nonee moose said...

Obama is a socialist who wants to redistribute wealth, punish success, and give the biggest expansion of government since the Great Society.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

10/22/2008 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Ghidorah said...

Ah, sorry. I didn't see Dave's follow up post. No irony, it seems. Well, if high top marginal rates are so bad, how did we have the economic boom of the 1950's when we taxed income over $400,000 at 91%? See .

Personally, I like the rate from 1936. 79% of income over $5,000,000. Now there's a marginal rate I can support!

Dave and I part ways here, I'm sure. But I think that wealth dynasties are harmful to democracy. I don't have a problem with people getting rich. But there comes a point where a person's wealth gives them inordinate power over political and governing processes. We have a limit on political contributions for this reason. There are ways around that though, as we know.

So I say make the top rate confiscatory. I don't so much care where that top rate starts. But I think it is important that it is there. I think it makes a statement.

10/22/2008 2:12 PM  
Anonymous dave said...

ghidorah, so you are a full-blown socialist. Have you thought about moving to Europe?

10/22/2008 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...


You keep on using that word "Socialist". I do not think it means what you think it means.

10/22/2008 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Ghidorah said...


Yes, I have! Germany is actually really nice. Quality infrastructure, and fast driving!

I just think we can come up with something better than the "law of the jungle" when it comes to ordering society. Aren't Social Security and unemployment insurance socialistic? Both are pretty popular with the American public.

Like I said, I don't necessarily care where you put the top bracket. But there comes a point (one we are at now IMO) where a small group of extremely wealthy people can exert an undue influence on our society. I recently heard it compared to a poker game. Once one player gets enough chips, he can muscle around the other players. That's fine for poker, but not for a democratic society.

10/22/2008 5:39 PM  
Anonymous not sure said...

"give the biggest expansion of government since the Great Society."

The last 8 years notwithstanding.

Got to admit, he has almost every talking point in there. Just forgot about Ayers.

10/22/2008 7:12 PM  
Blogger Tally said...

Touche, "not sure".

10/23/2008 12:53 AM  
Anonymous goldhorder said...

hahahahaha...Obama will have his work cut out for him trying to top the Repugs. If the democrats are socialists...I would call the Repugs totalitarian communists. haha.

...nationalize the financial industry...medicare drug child left behind (dramatic increase in dept. of education that the Repugs always said they wanted to get rid of)...During Bush's 8 years and the Repugs control of congress from 94 to 06...I've just loved the balanced budgets, stable dollar, gutting of the federal government to skin and bones, the banning of abortion, the dramatic decrease in the taxes that I pay...hahahaha. Wow...What are you smoking Dave? Sure most of these posters are closet socialists but really...the only thing I can't figure out is why they don't like the Republican party.

10/23/2008 2:07 AM  
Anonymous goldhorder said...

The biggest gap...hahaha...ohhh boy...I missed commenting on that one...just had to bring it up. Are you talking policy implementation or political campaign rhetoric?

10/23/2008 2:08 AM  
Blogger Mr. Hedley Bowes said...

"I do think Obama is a socialist."

And that would make Hank Paulson a...what exactly?

10/23/2008 2:10 AM  
Anonymous todd said...

I'd like to know why McCain thinks a tax cut for the middle class is socialism while a tax cut for the wealthy is a tax cut?

I'd also like to know why McCain was proposing exactly the same tax rates in 2000 that Obama is proposing now, and why he isn't referring to himself as a former socialist.

10/23/2008 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Thomas Daulton said...

Dave: Under Obama's tax plan, ... He then wants to give refundable tax credits to the 40% of Americans who already don't pay income taxes, which basically is nothing more than welfare.

Yes, because everybody knows that people in the lowest income tax brackets don't actually pay 20-30% of their paychecks in payroll taxes, plus sales taxes, property taxes, etc. etc. etc. Those Lucky Duckies! It must be sooooooooooooooo great to be poor and have people hand you money on a silver platter all the time.

Or... wait, that "40% of Americans who don't pay income taxes" seems a bit high. Does that include Americans like Enron, the multibillion dollar company that didn't pay taxes for 5 of the 6 years before its bankruptcy?

10/23/2008 10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It's because McCain is a maverick that he contradicts himself on everything.

Oh, and he was a POW, too. Did you know that, smarty pants??

- Whammer

10/24/2008 1:13 PM  
Anonymous baby said...

McCain certainly takes risks and I think he's paying for it now with his slip ups?

10/25/2008 1:30 PM  
Anonymous not sure said...

Does anyone know how many planes a normal pilot is allowed to crash before they are reassigned ?

10/25/2008 6:21 PM  
Blogger Mr. Hedley Bowes said...

"Does anyone know how many planes a normal pilot is allowed to crash before they are reassigned?"

One, maybe two.

"In the Navy, if you crashed one airplane, nine times out of 10 you would lose your wings,"

10/26/2008 2:49 PM  
Anonymous not sure said...

Wow, soaring conceit and a craven coward. That was more information then I was prepared for. Mccain and Bush must have been separated at birth. Bush wanted to be president to out do his father in Iraq. Mccain wants to be president (C in C) so he can finally outrank his father and grandfather.

Thanks for the link Mr Bowes.

10/26/2008 7:20 PM  
Anonymous Недвижимость в испании купить said...

Pretty worthwhile piece of writing, much thanks for the post.

6/28/2011 3:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home