I expect him to be as keep his NASA pledge as much as he kept his stance against telecom immunity and his pledge not to exceed public financing limits.
You're half right, as the latter never happened. Obama promised to work with the Republican nominee on using public financing - that's all. Maybe you were thinking of McCain, who legally obligated himself to use public financing and then broke the law with his name on it.
Any argument for confiscating someone else's property and giving it to someone else for health care is easily extended to anything I've requested.
Eh, you one of those "tax is theft" people?
I'm simply taking these arguments to their logical conclusions. As things become more commonly available, at some point we decide that they are essential and people can not be allowed to exist without them. So, then we decide that it is acceptable to take other people's property and provide people with these "essential" things.
You want taxes and social spending because it what makes a sizable middle class. Even if you're the biggest self-centered elitist on the planet, you want public spending because it means more educated workers and more customers for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
Say what you want about rich people, but the one's I know are much less obsessed with money than most of the poor people I know.
Great, so they'll have no problem when we bring back the 91% marginal tax rates then.
Where were all the Republicans now Concerned with experience back in 2000? Bush's resume consisted of drinking, skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, running business into the ground and spending 5 years as the 5th most powerful politician in Texas (position is given little power by the Texas Constitution). Whereas Al Gore had 30 years of varied public service, from Vietnam to the Senate to the Vice Presidency.
Republicans can take their rank hypocrisy, double standards, situational ethics and shove them right up their asses.
Yeah, that's why actors, writers, directors and athletes are all paid based on seniority as opposed to ability. Or, maybe it's your tired anti-union talking points that should have been left in the 1800's.
So. By what definition would this make Democrats the "fiscally conservative party" over the past 30 years??
The fact that Clinton prevented the Republican Congress from slashing taxes on the rich and driving us back into deficits. Then George W. Bush took office, and they slashed taxes on the rich, driving us into record deficits.
Riiiight... which is why Republicans voted 2-to-1 against it
Here's why they voted against it: politics. Rather than offer some solutions to the mess they helped create, they tried for a win-win: blame the unpopular Bush (even though they backed him to the hilt for the previous 7 1/2 years) and Democrats at the same time. But none of that changes the fact that it was Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, the House and Senate GOP leadership, the Wall Street execs crying for bailouts - all conservative Republicans, all pushing the bailout authored by conservative Republicans. The fact that Democrats voted for it in a misguided attempt to prop up the economy in no way changes the fact that this is a baby of the corporate conservatives.
Conservative Republicans support more government spending, and liberals are fiscally conservative
You say that like it's a change. Everything Republicans campaign about - defense, budgeting, governing, family values, national security - Democrats are - and have always been - better at.
As if that would have made a difference if the shoe were on the other foot, if it were Michelle Obama who stole money from her charity to pay for her drug habit, or if one of Obama's daughters was 17, pregnant and unmarried. Republicans would have torn them to shreds.
Perhaps where you live. In the US historicaly the stock market and the GDP have done much better under Democratic presidents.
But so have the middle class and especially the lower class, as opposed to how they fair under Republicans. This is because Democrats grow the economy as a whole, as opposed to just funneling gains to the top.
Did you see the BBC's coverage of the Obama campaign? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Obama won, but it is galling to see my money being used to run what effectively became a cheerleading campaign. They might as well have had a statue to worship.
Given how well Bush's foreign policy has worked out for us (and McCain promised to continue), and the fact that McCain is a bigger hawk than Dick Cheney, just what do you think their coverage should have been?
That's what the wingnuts are really complaining about: that the media didn't put out enough negative stories about Obama to their liking, or failing that, just make shit up like they did to Gore in 2000. You can prove this yourself in about two seconds:
Just ask them how much they complained about how the press didn't vet Bush back in 2000. Or if they voted for Gore because Bush was woefully inexperienced. Situational ethics personified.
Because you've been getting more out of the economy than those that make less than $250,000. Because you can afford it. Because it's in your own self interest...
How about a 3% welfare cut? How about freezing spending for two years. How about removing wasteful programs that don't do anything?
Because taxes and spending on social programs is what makes the middle class. Even if you're the most self-centered elitist on the planet, you want that because it means more qualified employees and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in. It's why the rich do about as well under Democrats as they do Republicans, because the former increases the economy as a whole instead of funneling all the benefits to the top. But the middle class does twice as well under Democrats, and the poor are six times better off.
But you don't have a clue what most small business owners have to do, do you?
Do you know how many tax breaks they get and regulations they are exempt from? Do you know how much of the wingnut rhetoric involves taking fiscal policy that affects small businesses and stretching it to the top 1% of 1% of income earners?
I am simply following the hack example of grotesque false equivalency
Fixed that for you. When Clinton lied, he didn't lie us into a $3 trillion war needlessly, or start torturing people, or argue that he had the right to throw even Americans into jail without trials or even probable cause, turn the DOJ into the Department of Helping Republicans Steal Elections, etc etc.
Those who continue to claim a liberal media bias have about as much credibility as Nader after he said there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency.
Slashdot Mirror
which the Dems desperately want to do, mostly because the unions tell them they desperately want to do this
Yes, I'm sure the Big Business executives have nothing to do with it, it's all the work of those damn dirty unions.
I expect him to be as keep his NASA pledge as much as he kept his stance against telecom immunity and his pledge not to exceed public financing limits.
You're half right, as the latter never happened. Obama promised to work with the Republican nominee on using public financing - that's all. Maybe you were thinking of McCain, who legally obligated himself to use public financing and then broke the law with his name on it.
Do you really think that's a realistic option?
Of course it is. There's also healthy skepticism and then there's anti-government propaganda.
Any argument for confiscating someone else's property and giving it to someone else for health care is easily extended to anything I've requested.
Eh, you one of those "tax is theft" people?
I'm simply taking these arguments to their logical conclusions. As things become more commonly available, at some point we decide that they are essential and people can not be allowed to exist without them. So, then we decide that it is acceptable to take other people's property and provide people with these "essential" things.
You want taxes and social spending because it what makes a sizable middle class. Even if you're the biggest self-centered elitist on the planet, you want public spending because it means more educated workers and more customers for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
Say what you want about rich people, but the one's I know are much less obsessed with money than most of the poor people I know.
Great, so they'll have no problem when we bring back the 91% marginal tax rates then.
You're absolutely right, she deserves every bit of negative coverage that she got... she is a corrupt high spender who manages to make Bush look smart
Fixed that for you.
Where were all the Republicans now Concerned with experience back in 2000? Bush's resume consisted of drinking, skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, running business into the ground and spending 5 years as the 5th most powerful politician in Texas (position is given little power by the Texas Constitution). Whereas Al Gore had 30 years of varied public service, from Vietnam to the Senate to the Vice Presidency.
Republicans can take their rank hypocrisy, double standards, situational ethics and shove them right up their asses.
Does he also continue to use the term 'microcomputer'?
Yeah, that's why actors, writers, directors and athletes are all paid based on seniority as opposed to ability. Or, maybe it's your tired anti-union talking points that should have been left in the 1800's.
Will I be free to NOT join the union? Or will the union force "union only" rules on everyone?
As long as you're free to work without any of the benefits or increased wages won by said union, sure.
So. By what definition would this make Democrats the "fiscally conservative party" over the past 30 years??
The fact that Clinton prevented the Republican Congress from slashing taxes on the rich and driving us back into deficits. Then George W. Bush took office, and they slashed taxes on the rich, driving us into record deficits.
Any more questions?
Riiiight... which is why Republicans voted 2-to-1 against it
Here's why they voted against it: politics. Rather than offer some solutions to the mess they helped create, they tried for a win-win: blame the unpopular Bush (even though they backed him to the hilt for the previous 7 1/2 years) and Democrats at the same time. But none of that changes the fact that it was Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, the House and Senate GOP leadership, the Wall Street execs crying for bailouts - all conservative Republicans, all pushing the bailout authored by conservative Republicans. The fact that Democrats voted for it in a misguided attempt to prop up the economy in no way changes the fact that this is a baby of the corporate conservatives.
Conservative Republicans support more government spending, and liberals are fiscally conservative
You say that like it's a change. Everything Republicans campaign about - defense, budgeting, governing, family values, national security - Democrats are - and have always been - better at.
Cindy wasn't running for office.
As if that would have made a difference if the shoe were on the other foot, if it were Michelle Obama who stole money from her charity to pay for her drug habit, or if one of Obama's daughters was 17, pregnant and unmarried. Republicans would have torn them to shreds.
Yes, Pelosi and Reid - two people liberals would be happy to see sacked - backed the proposal that was made and pushed by conservative Republicans.
Perhaps where you live. In the US historicaly the stock market and the GDP have done much better under Democratic presidents.
But so have the middle class and especially the lower class, as opposed to how they fair under Republicans. This is because Democrats grow the economy as a whole, as opposed to just funneling gains to the top.
Did you see the BBC's coverage of the Obama campaign? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Obama won, but it is galling to see my money being used to run what effectively became a cheerleading campaign. They might as well have had a statue to worship.
Given how well Bush's foreign policy has worked out for us (and McCain promised to continue), and the fact that McCain is a bigger hawk than Dick Cheney, just what do you think their coverage should have been?
That's what the wingnuts are really complaining about: that the media didn't put out enough negative stories about Obama to their liking, or failing that, just make shit up like they did to Gore in 2000. You can prove this yourself in about two seconds:
Just ask them how much they complained about how the press didn't vet Bush back in 2000. Or if they voted for Gore because Bush was woefully inexperienced. Situational ethics personified.
Election outcomes. Ballot initiative outcomes. I pay attention.
Seems like you stopped paying attention in October 2006.
The hard-left folks are responding to the media's _establishment_ bias.
So you know the hard-left? How are the North Koreans doing these days?
How come we're expected to take a 3% tax hike?
Because you've been getting more out of the economy than those that make less than $250,000. Because you can afford it. Because it's in your own self interest...
How about a 3% welfare cut? How about freezing spending for two years. How about removing wasteful programs that don't do anything?
Because taxes and spending on social programs is what makes the middle class. Even if you're the most self-centered elitist on the planet, you want that because it means more qualified employees and more customers with more money in their hands for whatever business you are in or are invested in. It's why the rich do about as well under Democrats as they do Republicans, because the former increases the economy as a whole instead of funneling all the benefits to the top. But the middle class does twice as well under Democrats, and the poor are six times better off.
But you don't have a clue what most small business owners have to do, do you?
Do you know how many tax breaks they get and regulations they are exempt from? Do you know how much of the wingnut rhetoric involves taking fiscal policy that affects small businesses and stretching it to the top 1% of 1% of income earners?
Don't tell me I'm being absurd for asking for all of it.
No, but we might ask you to lay off the lame straw man arguments.
I am simply following the hack example of grotesque false equivalency
Fixed that for you. When Clinton lied, he didn't lie us into a $3 trillion war needlessly, or start torturing people, or argue that he had the right to throw even Americans into jail without trials or even probable cause, turn the DOJ into the Department of Helping Republicans Steal Elections, etc etc.
Like this?
Those who continue to claim a liberal media bias have about as much credibility as Nader after he said there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency.
Most US media outlets are biased towards universal health care (and most of them towards single-payer).
As does anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, as it provides better care for less money than private insurance.
Most US media outlets are biased towards gay marriage.
You should have a bias of keeping your nose out of other people's private lives.
Most US media outlets are biased towards greater regulation
1996 media deregulation. What color is the sky on your planet?