Mountainphan wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:You can't tell from the echo chamber, but Palin is really really popular out there. Translate the deeper meaning of that however you want.

Vox, listening to all that heavy metal has rendered you tone deaf. Palin's 'popular' the way Michael Jackson is 'popular'. Did you see SNL? Even she knows it.

Her poll numbers (favorable/unfavorable) are on par with the other three candidates in a number of polls I've seen (and better than Biden's in some), so this notion that she is "widely" reviled is "greatly" exaggerated for reasons known only to the exaggerators.

funny, I never used the word widely anywhere. See, when you're reciting a talking point, you should amend it slightly to reflect the context in which you're dropping it. Otherwise it comes off sounding threadbare & robotic.

You don't follow well, do you. You implied as much and unless you want to be dishonest, you ought to admit it. When you unjumble many of your sentences, "talking points" can be found all over your place.

Oh, by the way, unsurprisingly, you fail to respond to my rather straightforward statement that Palin isn't as unpopular as some around here would like to believe. It's okay. Not really, but I understand why.

dajafi wrote:Just printed this out to read on subway...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opini ... nted=print

pacino wrote:

dajafi wrote:Just printed this out to read on subway...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opini ... nted=print

good piece...but it's tough for 'evidence based healthcare' to be sold to the public, a public which is comprised of a significant amount of people opposed to infant inoculations because of a perceived cause/effect in regards to autism. I could cite other examples of urban legends trumping logic.


Oh, and I just used the 'Obama tax calculator' and I would see a slight decrease in federal income tax. woohoo

Mountainphan wrote: When you unjumble many of your sentences, "talking points" can be found all over your place.

pacino wrote:Oh, and I just used the 'Obama tax calculator' and I would see a slight decrease in federal income tax. woohoo

pacino wrote:Oh, and I just used the 'Obama tax calculator' and I would see a slight decrease in federal income tax. woohoo

Mountainphan wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:How does one imply an adverb? And even further, how is that same person lying when they don't admit to implying a word they never implied?

Implied that she's "widely" reviled (like Michael Jackson). It's not that complicated.

FTN wrote:please eliminate the capital gains tax

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I know Palin is a rock star "out there." But here's a thought: Palin 2008 is to a certain tribe of Republican as Howard Dean 2003 was to a certain tribe of Democrat. (Or if you want to go old-school, and I know you do, Goldwater was to late-'50s/early-'60s Republican activists.) Intensity alone doesn't win--though maybe you're right to posit that without intensity, there's nothing to build upon.

I agree completely. I think there are a lot of parallels between Kerry and McCain as candidates. Kerry was a bit different because there was a specific candidate the primary electorate was aiming for and there was no clear "better alternative" like Dean was - but otherwise I think both bases selected the candidate they believed could win, not the candidate they "believed in". I wouldn't go the Goldwater comparison route only because I don't see Palin presenting any message that could continue the way Goldwater's did (after all, you can't have Reagan without Goldwater).

Yeah. I didn't mean Palin as visionary/prophet, just as someone who inspired a really fervent following among a small group of voters.

Kerry four years ago was entirely borne up by how much we (Kerry voters) hated and feared Bush. McCain isn't so lucky--though that's in part a tribute to Obama managing to make himself not easily hate-able, or scary for any reasons other than generic ones.

I hope that Grand New Party/Sam's Club Republican mindset takes hold (and I'm still very proud of having flagged that article for visionary potential 2-3 years ago...). It's the Republican/conservative answer to your current problems in the same way that the New Democrat vision that emerged in the late '80s was for exhausted old-skool liberalism. But that was a painful birthing process that, ironically, didn't really complete itself until the last three years. Maybe Jindal is your combination Bill Clinton/Obama.

Ay yi yi.

Clinton was a departure from old-skool leftism, Obama is a triumphant return to it.

dumb & blind, to go along with deaf

nothing new here

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I know Palin is a rock star "out there." But here's a thought: Palin 2008 is to a certain tribe of Republican as Howard Dean 2003 was to a certain tribe of Democrat. (Or if you want to go old-school, and I know you do, Goldwater was to late-'50s/early-'60s Republican activists.) Intensity alone doesn't win--though maybe you're right to posit that without intensity, there's nothing to build upon.

I agree completely. I think there are a lot of parallels between Kerry and McCain as candidates. Kerry was a bit different because there was a specific candidate the primary electorate was aiming for and there was no clear "better alternative" like Dean was - but otherwise I think both bases selected the candidate they believed could win, not the candidate they "believed in". I wouldn't go the Goldwater comparison route only because I don't see Palin presenting any message that could continue the way Goldwater's did (after all, you can't have Reagan without Goldwater).

Yeah. I didn't mean Palin as visionary/prophet, just as someone who inspired a really fervent following among a small group of voters.

Kerry four years ago was entirely borne up by how much we (Kerry voters) hated and feared Bush. McCain isn't so lucky--though that's in part a tribute to Obama managing to make himself not easily hate-able, or scary for any reasons other than generic ones.

I hope that Grand New Party/Sam's Club Republican mindset takes hold (and I'm still very proud of having flagged that article for visionary potential 2-3 years ago...). It's the Republican/conservative answer to your current problems in the same way that the New Democrat vision that emerged in the late '80s was for exhausted old-skool liberalism. But that was a painful birthing process that, ironically, didn't really complete itself until the last three years. Maybe Jindal is your combination Bill Clinton/Obama.

Ay yi yi.

Clinton was a departure from old-skool leftism, Obama is a triumphant return to it.

dumb & blind, to go along with deaf

nothing new here

So your view is that Obama is nothing more than Bill Clinton with his fly zipped?

FTN wrote:please eliminate the capital gains tax

pacino wrote:

FTN wrote:please eliminate the capital gains tax

it's already basically the lowest it's ever been, 15% and 5% for long-term holdings. Why eliminate it? Why should income not be taxed? You can report losses, you know.

pacino wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:I know Palin is a rock star "out there." But here's a thought: Palin 2008 is to a certain tribe of Republican as Howard Dean 2003 was to a certain tribe of Democrat. (Or if you want to go old-school, and I know you do, Goldwater was to late-'50s/early-'60s Republican activists.) Intensity alone doesn't win--though maybe you're right to posit that without intensity, there's nothing to build upon.

I agree completely. I think there are a lot of parallels between Kerry and McCain as candidates. Kerry was a bit different because there was a specific candidate the primary electorate was aiming for and there was no clear "better alternative" like Dean was - but otherwise I think both bases selected the candidate they believed could win, not the candidate they "believed in". I wouldn't go the Goldwater comparison route only because I don't see Palin presenting any message that could continue the way Goldwater's did (after all, you can't have Reagan without Goldwater).

Yeah. I didn't mean Palin as visionary/prophet, just as someone who inspired a really fervent following among a small group of voters.

Kerry four years ago was entirely borne up by how much we (Kerry voters) hated and feared Bush. McCain isn't so lucky--though that's in part a tribute to Obama managing to make himself not easily hate-able, or scary for any reasons other than generic ones.

I hope that Grand New Party/Sam's Club Republican mindset takes hold (and I'm still very proud of having flagged that article for visionary potential 2-3 years ago...). It's the Republican/conservative answer to your current problems in the same way that the New Democrat vision that emerged in the late '80s was for exhausted old-skool liberalism. But that was a painful birthing process that, ironically, didn't really complete itself until the last three years. Maybe Jindal is your combination Bill Clinton/Obama.

Ay yi yi.

Clinton was a departure from old-skool leftism, Obama is a triumphant return to it.

dumb & blind, to go along with deaf

nothing new here

So your view is that Obama is nothing more than Bill Clinton with his fly zipped?

Boy, wouldn't that be horrible?!

pacino wrote:I don't see why it shouldn't...just because you have a lot of stock? I have stock too. The long-term gains is 15% no matter what you make.

FTN wrote:

pacino wrote:I don't see why it shouldn't...just because you have a lot of stock? I have stock too. The long-term gains is 15% no matter what you make.

Long term capital gains = more than 1 year.