i don't put it past them planting someone in the audience to call Obama a "nigger". i really don't put it past McCain at this point.

10/6/2008 7:03:23 PM

And how would that help the McCain campaign exactly?

10/6/2008 7:04:44 PM

its teetering on that with the latest Palin attacks and the Sergeant in uniform at her introduction rally. these guys are desperate and divisive. they are implying that the guy is a "terrorist" for Christ's sakes.

10/6/2008 7:08:27 PM

well, Obama does scare me, so I guess that does make him a terrorist, right?

10/6/2008 7:11:45 PM

no, it makes you ignorant.

10/6/2008 7:28:38 PM

seriously, though, AmsterDUMB, how exactly would such a suicidal move help McCain?

10/6/2008 7:30:50 PM

Quote :

"seriously, though, AmsterDUMB, how exactly would such a suicidal move help McCain?"

Many wondered this when it seemed like he might choose Palin

10/6/2008 7:33:52 PM

lets be honest

they both suck

10/6/2008 7:34:17 PM

^^ yeah, but planting a "nigger"-yeller is uniquely different than making a bad pick for VP

10/6/2008 7:37:17 PM

"nigger"-yeller

LOL

10/6/2008 7:43:58 PM

Quote :

"no, it makes you ignorant."

No, the fact that you're voting for Obama makes you ignorant of the shit storm he's going to unleash on this country if he becomes president

10/6/2008 8:05:37 PM

If anybody would plant someone to yell the n-word, it would be on Obama's side. McCain hasn't done anything that would allow race to be brought into the campaign, but having somebody yell something racist and pin it on the other side would create a firestorm. A McCain supporter saying something racist would be terrible for his campaign.

10/6/2008 8:13:31 PM

Obama is pals with terr0rists!

10/6/2008 8:26:13 PM

well, I wouldn't put it past anyone in the McCain camp now. They have officially began the race politics. Shamefull.

10/6/2008 8:50:40 PM

at the risk of responding to a troll thread and saying the obvious, this would backfire because the dumb white woman demographic (palin's supporters) hates overt racism more than they hate black people.

10/6/2008 9:27:03 PM

ummmm, aren't the dumb white woman demographic more in the Obama camp than the Palin camp? I mean, originally they were all over Hillary...

10/6/2008 9:31:18 PM

Quote :

"They have officially began the race politics. Shamefull."

Any examples? Or just wishful thinking.

10/6/2008 10:23:52 PM

Wishful thinking.

10/6/2008 10:26:03 PM

Quote :

"No, the fact that you're voting for Obama makes you ignorant of the shit storm he's going to unleash on this country if he becomes president "

Haha, so we're already in a shitstorm, and McCain's economic policies are practically the same as Bush's, but it's Obama's policies that are going to be problematic?

haha, no wonder McCain is losing...

10/6/2008 10:33:02 PM

Obama's will make it far worse. Anyone that thinks that taxing something will lower the price of it is a pure retard.

and, it's actually debatable whether we are in a "shitstorm" right now. no matter what baby Bush tells you. Oh, that's right, you believed him when he said that, so that you could get more gubment control over the markets. How convenient... It's nice to see Liberals accepting Bush as one of their own.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 10:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 10:34:08 PM

^ taxes don't have such a direct linear effect as you imagine.

You realize the top marginal tax rate was at 90% up through the 60s, yet the CPI was drastically lower then?

Quote :

"and, it's actually debatable whether we are in a "shitstorm" right now."

It's debatable if it's a shitstorm, but we're definitely in something right now. You'd have to be a retard to think otherwise.

BTW you're really not helping mccain here now either. I know he thinks different than you, but now people are going to associate your dumb ideas with him.


[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 10:40 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 10:37:56 PM

well then. you are obviously a retard. thanks for proving it.

tell me, if I add a 5cent tax on oranges, will that increase the price of oranges, decrease the price, or keep it the same.

here's a hint: it'll add 5cents on to the amount of money that the consumer has to pay for an orange.



i'm not trying to help McCain. I can stand him only marginally more than I can stand Obama. which is why I will be voting for neither of them

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 10:40 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 10:39:18 PM

^ you obviously have no understanding of how the free market works.

All I have to do is find a way to squeeze 5cents more efficiency out of the production of oranges, and undercut you, and I win. You're eventually going to reduce your orange price.

Theory!=practice

Find some stats that show the price we pay for things is steered by taxes. You'll win a Nobel Prize.

10/6/2008 10:42:06 PM

and if you could find that way to squeeze 5cents, wouldn't you have done so already?

10/6/2008 10:43:34 PM

^ some would, some wouldn't.

necessity is the mother of invention as they say

you wouldn't think banks would give loans to people with no money, but that happened, didn't it?

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 10:46:42 PM

someone on the left trying to justify increased taxes with free market principles, albeit with a flawed argument, seems strange to me.

10/6/2008 10:49:11 PM

^ huh? I'm not trying to justify increased taxes, and there's nothing incompatible with being on the left and supporting the free market.

10/6/2008 10:50:42 PM

Quote :

"you wouldn't think banks would give loans to people with no money, but that happened, didn't it? "

Of course it did. After the federal government stepped and told them they pretty much had to. Or, after the federal government stepped in, created an agency that did just that, gave that agency an unfair advantage in the marketplace, and then told all of the other companies to try and compete with that.

10/6/2008 10:54:21 PM

^ and then the banks on their own decided to chop those loans up and sell that as good investments.



Thank you Heritage foundation, but here's some other things that also don't correlate with tax rates:




[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 10:58 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 10:57:31 PM

Quote :

"Haha, so we're already in a shitstorm"

After Obama jacks the taxes on the hardest working people in America up to one of the highest tax rates in the civilized world so the laziest people in American can continue to sit on their asses the end result will make this so called current "shit storm" look like the economic boom of the century

10/6/2008 10:57:47 PM

sigh. i'm not talking about income taxes, moron. your moniker is quite apt, my friend.

10/6/2008 11:00:03 PM

^^ you realize that the economic boom through the 60s was under a 90% marginal tax rate? It was at 70% up to the 80s, yet we still spawned Microsoft, Apple, HP, Texas Instruments, and IBM, the few still-great American companies.

Unless you can backup your chicken-little assertions with facts, you're just a delusional partisan hack.

^ principles are the same

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 11:00:47 PM

ummm. no, they aren't.

10/6/2008 11:03:21 PM

the effect of taxes is determined by demand elasticity, which itself is determined by a myriad of factors.

It's simply naive (which incidentally is the basis of most republican arguments) to assert all taxes instantly raise prices for something.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 11:11:57 PM

but, it is equally naive to assert that adding a tax on something will decrease its price immediately, or at all, for that matter. do cigarette taxes decrease the price of cigarettes? Do gas taxes decrease the price of gas? Do property taxes decrease the cost of home-ownership?

10/6/2008 11:13:37 PM

Quote :

"The Kennedy tax cuts. President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). According to President John F. Kennedy: Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

Quote :

"the economic boom through the 60s was under a 90% marginal tax rate? "

The economy might move along at high tax rates, but history has shown that lowering rates usually increases revenue for the gov't and creates happier more prosperous citizens.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 11:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2008 11:14:14 PM

Quote :

"it is equally naive to assert that adding a tax on something will decrease its price immediately, or at all, for that matter."

I never said anything like that.

You're becoming more like hooksaw every day.

^ did you just completely skip over the graphs I posted? The heritage institute, a conservative think tank (one of the better ones actually), concluded the exact opposite:



Look how much tax revenues spiked after we dropped it all those times

I agree that restrictive tax rates are bad. I would not support returning to a 90% tax rate, that's ludicrous.

But if I had to choose between the middle class paying more and the upper class, WhyTF, particularly since MOST people are middle class, wouldn't I choose the upper paying more? Especially when that "more" does not approach what it had been historically? And since it doesn't really seem to affect anything negatively?

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 11:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 11:15:02 PM

ummm, you took issue with my original statement about Obama being stupid to think that adding a tax on something would decrease the price. you continued to argue against that. That is NOT being "hooksaw". that is simply following the fucking argument.

you then posted several graphs. I told you I wasn't talking about income taxes. And you continued arguing.

so, either you didn't fucking understand what I said in the first place, and just started talking out of your ass, or you are now back-pedaling. which is it?

10/6/2008 11:17:08 PM

Quote :

"ummm, you took issue with my original statement about Obama being stupid to think that adding a tax on something would decrease the price. you continued to argue against that. That is NOT being "hooksaw". that is simply following the fucking argument. "

my point was that the effect of taxes isn't definite. You don't know what the effect will be, and it's naive to assert it means the price of something must go up. I don't think YOU are following the argument.

10/6/2008 11:20:28 PM

Here's another good one:



(light green line is adjusted for inflation)

Even the price of gas is decoupled overall from the tax on gas.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 11:22:57 PM

What possible benefit would calling Obama a "nigger" on public television do for McCain or the GOP in general? If anything, it's more likely to guilt white people who were hesitant about Obama to vote for him just to unconsciously disassociate themselves from the ignorant, blatant racists.

Heck, call me cynical, but I can more easily imagine a Democrat pulling off a stunt like this just to create this scandalous scenario (not that they would need to given that Obama has 6 points over McCain in the polls right now).

10/7/2008 1:07:33 AM

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 1:29 AM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 1:28:55 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSTRE49602520081007?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10279

Here is an interesting article in Reuters

The bias in that is obvious, even after it has been "CORRECTED"

10/7/2008 2:13:01 AM

Quote :

"Any examples? Or just wishful thinking."

Guess you aren't paying attention.

10/7/2008 9:58:16 AM

Quote :

"Sergeant in uniform at her introduction rally."

Tell me more.

Quote :

"here's a hint: it'll add 5cents on to the amount of money that the consumer has to pay for an orange. "

it will increase the price, but probably not 5 cents.

10/7/2008 10:24:48 AM

Quote :

"They have officially began the race politics"

As opposed to Obama, who began playing the race card in the primaries

10/7/2008 10:27:45 AM

Good christ, you are a troll.

10/7/2008 10:48:33 AM

Quote :

"What possible benefit would calling Obama a "nigger" on public television do for McCain or the GOP in general?"

it would fire up the Republican base.

10/7/2008 2:01:02 PM

^^You lie about McCain "officially" playing race politics when Obama has been using white guilt and the race card his entire campaign, and then you have the nerve to call me a troll for pointing out that little fact? You are a complete moron as usual, no big surprises. I feel sad for you that you are so hardheaded when it comes to common sense in favor of towing your party line. I wish Obama was white just so idiots like you could quit making race an issue.

10/7/2008 2:02:15 PM

^^ Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

10/7/2008 2:03:24 PM