Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 98): Well, why can't you produce a link? If he really said that, it should be easy to find. No tin hat here buddy, I just want to read for myself that Sen. Obama said exactly what you said he did. Where have I shown in the past to have a tin foil hat Nicholas?

He said it buddy, accept it.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 98): Interesting you don't have a problem with the gap between the rich and poor in this country. You don't see that as a problem

Why is it a problem? We have to punish people that acheive something because of the ones who don't? You failed to answer my question. Oprah is rich beyond belief. Why isn't your pal Obama going after her? Why does he call out a CEO and not her? Reason you can't answer it because you would have to admit he is a liar. He is just blowing this smoke up your ass and then kissing her ass to get her endorsement. It's pure hypocracy. Quit making the rich your scapegoat because you support Karl Marx. It's not the upper classes fault.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 100): He said it buddy, accept it.

Link please. Again, if he did say it, the link should be easy to find.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 100): Why is it a problem? We have to punish people that acheive something because of the ones who don't? You failed to answer my question. Oprah is rich beyond belief. Why isn't your pal Obama going after her? Why does he call out a CEO and not her? Reason you can't answer it because you would have to admit he is a liar. He is just blowing this smoke up your ass and then kissing her ass to get her endorsement. It's pure hypocracy. Quit making the rich your scapegoat because you support Karl Marx. It's not the upper classes fault.

It's a problem because the poorer families aren't getting the benefit of economic growth. Further, Sen. Obama isn't "going after" anyone. How is it hypocrisy?

   Show me the quote where I said I supported Karl Marx. Do you even know what you're saying anymore? You make these accusations but fail to back them up with facts. Or are you going to link another YouTube video of a movie written and directed by the Hollywood liberal Oliver Stone?

Have a good one.

Dave

[Edited 2008-03-08 01:47:10]

Did you hear about this story?
"Boeing Supports Target McCain" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/..._on_el_pr/mccain_air_force_tankers
From Associated Press, via Yahoo

G

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 99): Yes we wouldn't want to alarm anybody by saying that the unemployment rate actually dropped now would we?

The only reason the overall report was not worse was the addition of 38,000 government jobs, and the unemployment rate is misleading because it fails to take into account the individuals that have used up their unemployment insurance, and the others that have just given up.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 101): It's a problem because the poorer families aren't getting the benefit of economic growth.

Tell me, do you think it's a "right" to benefit from economic growth? Don't you think that everyone carries a burden of responsibility to take advantage of a free K-12 education, State universities with subsidized tuition, Thousands upon thousands of scholarships, and if all else fails, the GI Bill? Not to mention a dose of common sense not to drop out, and not to choose a subject that is all but useless in the real world, like French Literature and basketweaving.

The idea that some people have no chance in America of making their lives a success because of where they were born or the color of their skin is a myth, perhaps true in the past, but no more. And apart from a bare minimum safety net like I described before (minimal sustainance), I don't like the idea of any form of income redistribution such as you seem to like.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 103): The only reason the overall report was not worse was the addition of 38,000 government jobs, and the unemployment rate is misleading because it fails to take into account the individuals that have used up their unemployment insurance, and the others that have just given up.

Yes if it hadn't been for those 38,000 government jobs the rate would have been even! I've been waiting for the old liberal line "the count is misleading because" sort of like, "there are far more homeless than are ever counted because they hide in broad daylight". Unfortunately you don't have any proof of either. In most areas of the country, if you want job, there is one waiting for you.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 105): In most areas of the country, if you want job, there is one waiting for you.

Do you have proof of that?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 101): Show me the quote where I said I supported Karl Marx

Hmmm

On the other hand, Marx argued that socioeconomic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. On this model, capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class

From how you are tallking sounds pretty convincing.

Quoting Continental (Reply 106): Quoting RJdxer (Reply 105): In most areas of the country, if you want job, there is one waiting for you. Do you have proof of that?

RJdxer never provides any documentation to his statements. Jobs and careers are two different things. Let see Intel just laid off 432 individuals (engineers and such) in our area; guessing they make $70-100,000 a year, do they go to the local Wal-Mart (#1 private employer in Arizona) and take a $8/hr position just to take a job? I don't know the answer to that.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 108): Let see Intel just laid off 432 individuals (engineers and such) in our area; guessing they make $70-100,000 a year, do they go to the local Wal-Mart (#1 private employer in Arizona) and take a $8/hr position just to take a job? I don't know the answer to that.

If they need it that bad then yes, they will. Just like anyone else who truly needs one. But because they are engineers and such, based on their salary they should have something to fall on until they find a job. I'm sure their credentials will go a long way and help them get a job in their field of work. So i am not completely devastated that they lost their jobs.

Beggars cant be choosers.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 7): No, better we had a democrat who will tax us to death so the lower class can get free everything and will let the middle east walk all over us.

lol, who cares about the lower classes... they are all worthless, right?

And as far as the middle east walking all over us...What are you talking about? If you havent noticed- we are the ones that have invaded, razed, and are now occupying an entire country. I guess the idea of treating others fairly so that they dont hate us, rather than oppressing them (and still expecting them not to hate us) is foreign to you...

-AA777

Quoting Continental (Reply 106): Do you have proof of that?

Yes, they are called the want ads, found in virtually every newspaper and on several internet sites devoted exclusively to that aim.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 108): RJdxer never provides any documentation to his statements.

Now your full of s--t and you know it. In this thread alone I've corrected you with the accurate figures from the BLM since you were trying to pass of a news story with a chart as accurate figures.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 108): Jobs and careers are two different things.

Never said otherwise but you take a job until you can get your career going. Now how many of them were engineers and how many of them were "such". You guess, as usual, at their salaries.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 111): Quoting Continental (Reply 106): Do you have proof of that? Yes, they are called the want ads, found in virtually every newspaper and on several internet sites devoted exclusively to that aim.

Plenty of A&P mechanic openings out there.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 98): Well, why can't you produce a link? If he really said that, it should be easy to find. No tin hat here buddy, I just want to read for myself that Sen. Obama said exactly what you said he did. Where have I shown in the past to have a tin foil hat Nicholas?

I guess he is talking about the Obama/Frank bill on CEO pay


http://obama.senate.gov/press/070530-obama_calls_for_5/index.php


Barack Obama needs to sponsor a bill that gives taxpayers an advisory vote on Congressional pay.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): DId you really expect a sitting Republican President to say of the nominee in his party for the next election "don't Vote For Him, He Sucks" . . . .

Like has been said in this thread, Clinton didn't give much open support for Gore. I remember reading how Ike didn't give much to Nixon in '60, although, I read in Reagan's Diaries that Reagan was open to supporting Bush 41 . . . it just depends on the characters. It's hard to see Bush getting too chummy with McCain, though, after how they thrashed each other in the summer of '00.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 39): Sen. Obama gives hope

But few details.

Quoting Flanker (Reply 42): Believing in us is getting the government out of the way, reducing taxes and letting the market and private businesses continue to build this great nation.

Amen, dude.

Quoting Pope (Reply 55): So are you advocating that we disband the TSA and dramatically downsize the DHS?

From the airline perspective, yes - TSA's a joke (not their fault, so much) and the DHS should be engrafted into the DoD (homeland security and defense - a bit synonymous, don't you think?) - but that's for another thread.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 68): One can hope that our government will be run so that it benefits the people.

That's all fine and good, but, like said, Obama needs to offer more substance about the hope he offers instead of a lot of wishful thinking.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 107): Hmmm On the other hand, Marx argued that socioeconomic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. On this model, capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class From how you are tallking sounds pretty convincing.

   I guess you missed the part, Nicholas, where I said this:

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 91): In a perfect world, I would like tax breaks for all and fiscally speaking, I see myself sometimes disagreeing with aspects of liberalism, such as increasing taxing on the upper percent of the society.

But keep on throwing out wild accusations, it's quite entertaining.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 112): I guess he is talking about the Obama/Frank bill on CEO pay http://obama.senate.gov/press/070530...x.php

Cool, thanks for digging up the link. I appreciate it, sir. However, that bill isn't exactly this:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 95): In a speech when he said he would go after CEOs because they make too much money.

That bill states,

"(1) IN GENERAL- Any proxy or consent or authorization for an annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring on or after January 1, 2009, shall permit a separate shareholder vote to approve the compensation of executives as disclosed pursuant to the Commission's compensation disclosure rules (which disclosure shall include the compensation discussion and analysis, the compensation tables, and any related material). The shareholder vote shall not be binding on the board of directors and shall not be construed as overruling a decision by such board, nor to create or imply any additional fiduciary duty by such board, nor shall such vote be construed to restrict or limit the ability of shareholders to make proposals for inclusion in such proxy materials related to executive compensation."

'(2) SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL OF GOLDEN PARACHUTE COMPENSATION-

'(A) DISCLOSURE- In any proxy solicitation material for an annual or other meeting of the shareholders occurring on or after January 1, 2009, that concerns an acquisition, merger, consolidation, or proposed sale or other disposition of substantially all the assets of an issuer, the person making such solicitation shall disclose in the proxy solicitation material, in a clear and simple form in accordance with regulations of the Commission, any agreements or understandings that such person has with any principal executive officers of such issuer (or of the acquiring issuer, if such issuer is not the acquiring issuer) concerning any type of compensation (whether present, deferred, or contingent) that are based on or otherwise relate to the acquisition, merger, consolidation, sale, or other disposition, and that have not been subject to a shareholder vote under paragraph (1).

'(B) SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL- The proxy solicitation material containing the disclosure required by subparagraph (A) shall require a separate shareholder vote to approve such agreements or understandings. A vote by the shareholders shall not be binding on the board of directors and shall not be construed as overruling a decision by such board, nor to create or imply any additional fiduciary duty by such board, nor shall such vote be construed to restrict or limit the ability of shareholders to make proposals for inclusion in such proxy materials related to executive compensation.'.

I see nothing in there that shows that Sen. Obama will "go after CEO's."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1181:

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 113): But few details.

Only if you don't want to know them. Sen. Obama's stances are easy to find. Please see:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 113): That's all fine and good, but, like said, Obama needs to offer more substance about the hope he offers instead of a lot of wishful thinking.

And he does. Again, the information is widely available to anyone.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 114): I see nothing in there that shows that Sen. Obama will "go after CEO's."

I know, it's not in there. He said it in one of his speeches where he was just blurting out talking points to get the crowd to start screaming "change"!. If he ever tried to actually do it he would fail miserably. As Hillary would in trying to take Exxon's profits. It's all useless rhetoric and propaganda. Similiar to "we went into Iraq for the oil!" or "There were bombs planted at the WTC or they wouldn't have collapsed!" Enough already.   

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 111): Yes, they are called the want ads, found in virtually every newspaper and on several internet sites devoted exclusively to that aim.

And all those jobs pay well and anyone qualifies to get any of those jobs, right? It'd be asinine to disregard the socioeconomic status of individuals, and the fact of the matter is, people were better off prior to Bush's terms. Sure there are jobs available, but when you get laid off from your company where you were getting paid well and you only qualify for crap jobs, then everything is not ok.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 111): Now your full of s--t and you know it. In this thread alone I've corrected you with the accurate figures from the BLM since you were trying to pass of a news story with a chart as accurate figures

Right; then why this.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 53): Here are the real facts. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...rvlet

The real facts are the link you provided doesn't work and has worked for what this four days now. This is what you get on your link:
Notice

Sunday, March 9, 2008 6:39 PM

Sorry, the survey does not exist. If you need to contact someone about the program or its data, please send a message to the data questions e-mail address below or call the phone number below.

Like I stated no facts..just personal opinion.
The most current information (3/7/08) is found here:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Quoting AirCop (Reply 117): The real facts are the link you provided doesn't work and has worked for what this four days now. This is what you get on your link:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 117): Like I stated no facts..just personal opinion.

Reply 71.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

At work it will not show up as a link you can click on, you have to do a little work like copying and pasting. So you still don't read well and you're still full of s--t.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 118): So you still don't read well and you're still full of s--t.

I can read. Looks like the avg. unemployment rate under Bush was 5.2% but the footnote states:
1 Not strictly comparable with data for prior years.

So basically the chart is just a bunch of numbers...   

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 115): I know, it's not in there. He said it in one of his speeches where he was just blurting out talking points to get the crowd to start screaming "change"!. If he ever tried to actually do it he would fail miserably. As Hillary would in trying to take Exxon's profits. It's all useless rhetoric and propaganda. Similiar to "we went into Iraq for the oil!" or "There were bombs planted at the WTC or they wouldn't have collapsed!" Enough already

Sigh. Show me where Sen. Obama said it Nicholas. Show me please. Can you do that simple task? Can you? As for the rest of your post, it's getting to to point where you're grasping at straws for anything you can, and trying to connect them.

Dave

Quoting AirCop (Reply 119): So basically the chart is just a bunch of numbers...

Yes, the ones directly from BLM which is what Media Matters sourced and then put together their own chart which doesn't match the governments figures. BTW, I didn't say you can't read, I said you can't read well. And now your math is suspect. Add them up and do the average like I did.

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 8): I seem to remember when Clinton was president, we had a bustling economy, unemployment was low, and the dollar was worth... *GASP* more than a dollar.

The economy is affected by the American people way more than it is affected by the government. Our dollar is falling because the U.S. government has to keep handing out more and more money because Americans are persistent on spending it faster than they make it. Explain to me how Bush (and the Republicans) are responsible for the housing/banking mess we are currently in. Last time I checked, this crisis was caused by irresponsible home owners and irresponsible banks (both of which are private entities completely independent of the U.S. government). This mess was bound to happen. Unfortunately President Bush just happened to be the guy in power when it did.

Name one good suggestion the Democrats have made to end this "recession." Building a strong economy is up to the American people. The day the government runs the economy is the day we officially become a socialist state.

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, the fact that you would compare McCain to Bush (or any other Conservative politician for that matter) shows you may want to brush up on your knowledge of Republicans. McCain has more in common with Hillary and Barack than he does with any Republican.

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 123): Our dollar is falling because the U.S. government has to keep handing out more and more money because Americans are persistent on spending it faster than they make it.

Or how about, going to war without paying for it, (the Iraqi oil will pay for it!) so my kids and their kids will end up paying for the mess.

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 123): Last time I checked, this crisis was caused by irresponsible home owners and irresponsible banks (both of which are private entities completely independent of the U.S. government)

Actually banks are not completely independent of the US government. But I will agree with you that the banks/mortgage companies bear a great deal of the responsibility for the current mess. One could argue that home re-fin in the 2000's is what really kept the economy going over the past 5-6 years.

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 123): The day the government runs the economy is the day we officially become a socialist state.

Ever hear of the Federal Reserve, they happen to control the money supply, so if they tighten the money supply, credit is harder to get for everyone including business.

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 123): McCain has more in common with Hillary and Barack than he does with any Republican.

I wouldn't go that far.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 120): Sigh. Show me where Sen. Obama said it Nicholas. Show me please. Can you do that simple task? Can you? As for the rest of your post, it's getting to to point where you're grasping at straws for anything you can, and trying to connect them.

I can't because the news did not quote him. It's ok, you are in denial about a lot of things he says. Fact remains that Hillary and Obama have been openly vocal about attacking big business because they make a lot of money. Not to mention it's a great talking point to rile up the lower class and it's a cheap tactic to try to win an election they can't on their own merit. It's great to see Obama start to stammer all the time now because the press has taken the kid gloves off. I loved how Obama refused to answer a question about NAFTA and told the reporter "I have already answered 8 questions" LOLOL. I guess I wasn't in class for the "8 question limit" day. This guy is a clown. No substance whatsoever. Going to be fun to watch him lose. Then cry foul and then his wife will go back to not being proud of her country again.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16): It's a cycle dude and it's not our presidents fault one way or the other. Stop with the talking points already.

You say that, then you immediately give a check mark to GuitrThree. So which is it? If Clinton couldn't be responsible for the economic growth during his time, how could he be responsible for the economic slowdown that started toward the end of his term? Don't bother. I don't expect you to think logically.

Quoting Flanker (Reply 80): And as of the "i cant get health care crowd" they are either bunch of illegals, people who choose not to have health care, and finally there are those who would rather have a 62' plasma over health care.

Wow. If that wasn't a gross generalization if I ever saw one. How about the fact that health insurance is expensive in this country and that not every hard working individual can afford it? Otherwise, Samsung and Sony must be chomping at the bit at the idea of selling 40 million additional TVs to people who'd rather not see a doctor.

Quoting Flanker (Reply 83): These psychos are all about wealth redistribution.

You want a civil conversation yet then you go and call the Democratic contenders (and by extension, their voters) "psychos". Very civil.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 90): 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water; 50 homeless assistance programs; 45 federal agencies conducting federal crimi­nal investigations; 40 separate employment and training pro­grams; 28 rural development programs; 27 teen pregnancy programs; 26 small, extraneous K–12 school grant pro­grams; 23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics; 19 programs fighting substance abuse; 17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies; 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 interna­tional trade agreements; 12 food safety agencies; 11 principal statistics agencies; and 4 overlapping land management agencies.

Are you opposed to all of those programs or just the fact that there are so many, seemingly redundant, programs?

Quoting RSWA330 (Reply 123): Last time I checked, this crisis was caused by irresponsible home owners and irresponsible banks (both of which are private entities completely independent of the U.S. government). This mess was bound to happen. Unfortunately President Bush just happened to be the guy in power when it did.

The dollar has been in decline for WAY longer than the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the subsequent fall out in the housing market.

This chart shows the Euro slowly rising over the past 5 years.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EURUSD=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Here's the same chart in comparison to the Canadian dollar over 5 years
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CADUSD=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

And another comparison showing the Euro to the Canadian dollar. While the Euro has been doing exceptionally well as of late, it still shows that the CAD has, in general, been improving against the Euro.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EURCAD=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

While Bush isn't responsible for the decline of the dollar, he hasn't done much either to prop it up. Fact is, the lower dollar is good for exports. It's good for American companies to expand in foreign markets. The downfall, is that it makes imports more expensive. Guess what? The US imports significantly more than it exports giving is an increased trade deficit and adding on to the national debt.

LH423

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 125): I can't because the news did not quote him. It's ok, you are in denial about a lot of things he says.

Such as....? Show me where I'm in denial about the things Sen. Obama says please. Can you at least do that?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 125): It's great to see Obama start to stammer all the time now because the press has taken the kid gloves off. I loved how Obama refused to answer a question about NAFTA and told the reporter "I have already answered 8 questions"

Well, did he answer 8 questions? Seems quite repetitive to me. Did you actually read the answers? Further, I'd like to see a source please. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to see the context. Thanks in advance.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 125): This guy is a clown. No substance whatsoever.

Very intelligent Nicholas, resorting to childish name calling again. Sen. Obama has very deep substance, you're just so partisan you're not willing to understand it.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 125): Going to be fun to watch him lose.

Just like your prediction that Mr. Giuliani would be the next President?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 125): Then cry foul and then his wife will go back to not being proud of her country again.

Resorting to cheap shots, are we? Further, she is proud of her country. You obviously haven't been paying close attention.



Dave

[Edited 2008-03-09 22:22:22]

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 114): Sen. Obama's stances are easy to find.

But there's plenty of sources out there (right/left, good/bad/ugly/you name it) who are calling him nothing much more than vague. Remember that Cheney back in 2000 had the term "gravitas" stuck to him. "Vague" is the term sticking to Obama in like manner.

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/430865.html Obama vague on spending

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=14689 Obama vague on Latin America (don't know much about that link, though - just trying to spread the wealth on resourcing)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1975602/posts Obama vague on promises of change

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ml?source=search&aim=/news/feature Obama's unconvential message is elusive

http://www.slate.com/id/2183968/ Obama hides behind airy generalities and vague-but-uplifiting rhetoric

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...tml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_3831079 Obama's vague promise of change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/barack-obama-vague Simply "vague"

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 127): But there's plenty of sources out there (right/left, good/bad/ugly/you name it) who are calling him nothing much more than vague.

Oh, I agree totally that there are many sources calling him vague. However, I don't think it's totally valid criticism. I mean, with all the technology we have in this day and age at our fingertips, it's not hard to find Sen. Obama's stances on issues.

Dave