|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
From a New York Times article: quote:
The (left) temple melanoma was at least 2.2 millimeters deep as measured in a biopsy that was performed at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center on Aug. 4. Such depth is a critical factor in determining a melanoma patient's prognosis. Mr. McCain's temple melanoma would be classified as type 2 for which textbooks cite 10-year survival figures of about 60 percent to 70 percent.
Yeah, but that was in 2000. He'll take office in 2009 if he wins and serve (in theory) to 2013. Moreover, age is another predictor - the 10 year 'textbook' survival figures quoted by the times would be the average for all type 2 melanomas. If he is significantly older than the average melanoma patient, then his survival chances would be less. It might be 50-50 or worse that he survives his term (13 years post-diagnosis).
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Breaking news: Moderates won't touch Huckabee with a barge pole, and right-wingers seem to feel the same way about McCain. Could this be how such a split happens?
Although neither candidate would want to discuss it now, Huckabee has been proposed as a running mate for McCain. Wouldn't this pairing constitute a formidable ticket?
McCain's choice of a running mate will be particularly important because of his age. There would be an unusual likelihood that he would be unable to finish his term(s) for health reasons. Since the religious right hasn't yet been able to orchestrate the direct election of a sufficiently sympathetic President, they could find quite mouth-watering the novel prospect of installing an heir apparent "a heartbeat away" on the coattails of a moderate. With that done, by 2012 people will at least have stopped laughing at his name.
The religious right has been in bed with the golf-course Republicans so long that I still don't see why they would divorce now. This is wishful thinking. Does anyone believe that the big names in the Religious Right really care as much about abortion and "defense of marriage" as they care about power? Rabble-rousing over these issues is a means to that end. Continuing a tactical alliance is the best choice for either of these groups to go on tasting it. History is full of such symbiotic relationships.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I haven't been watching the debates, though, so maybe they are singing a different tune to the far left party activists in their efforts to get the nomination.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) "Far left" = About 70% of the population.
70%? How do you get that number? When I think of the far left, I think of the ones who are drifting off into conspiracy theory land and havve almost gone full circle to meet up with those from the far right, such as Ron Paul supporters.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Obama won some states where he was behind in the polls -- Minnesota, and Missouri, which is a bellwether state, and most notably to my mind Connecticut, which is right next door to New York and part of that media market and which was supposed to be Clinton territory.
I've been doing some reading up about the significance of the states he's taken following on from your post (I had to look up the meaning of 'bellwether', which is shameful for me as an English graduate given that it's a Middle English word). He does seem to have quietly encroached doesn't he? I visited his website after the South Carolina win and it was a very slick operation. He seems to have really gotten himself together.
quote:
Obama is flush with cash, having taken in a record $32 million in January, while Clinton is not.
How did he manage that? I know that the American elections always suck in huge amounts of cash, but he does appear to have done especially well on the finance front. I heard somewhere that Clinton is dipping into her own finances now. Is that accurate?
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Then there are his liabilities such as age
Why do you think age is a liability? A landlady I had a couple of years back was 70 but went off hiking in South America on one of her vacations. Age need not be a barrier to anything; it depends on the person. What makes this election so much fun for those of us with only a peripheral stake in it (being as we are not American but nonetheless are affected by what happens in America) is that so many barriers are coming down all at once.
McCain is being portrayed over here as the moderate. That is how Bush was portrayed over there when he moved into the position of front runner before his first election (I was volunteering in DC at the time). Do the two men look anything alike to you?
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
I think he stands a decent chance. Two weeks ago he was down 20 points in national polls, and now he appears to be ahead by a nose. The more people see him the more they like him; the more people see of Hillary, the more they dislike her.
I can appreciate that. I've been having similar feelings myself of late, especially since ole Bill started to make repeated appearances (What was that about anyway? Has it stopped now?) Unless I've fallen for his skilful oratory, there's something authentic (for a politician I mean) in Obama. I'm sure he's got a good few weaknesses too and I'm not even talking policies, but there does seem to be something about the guy which stands out from the rest, of either side.
[ 07. February 2008, 19:45: Message edited by: Littlelady ]
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
PollingReport.com
The numbers are fairly consistent across multiple polls. 65-70% of respondents want us out of Iraq within the year.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
[qb]Obama is flush with cash, having taken in a record $32 million in January, while Clinton is not.
How did he manage that?
Lots of people have given him money! He's been able to get a lot of new donors, people who haven't already given the legal limit.
quote:
I know that the American elections always suck in huge amounts of cash, but he does appear to have done especially well on the finance front. I heard somewhere that Clinton is dipping into her own finances now. Is that accurate?
Yes, she's said she loaned $5 million of her own money to her campaign.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Then there are his liabilities such as age
Why do you think age is a liability? A landlady I had a couple of years back was 70 but went off hiking in South America on one of her vacations. Age need not be a barrier to anything; it depends on the person.[/quote]
True. And this is a guy who's had a good-sized melanoma removed from his face and who got the crap beat out of him for five years when he was young.
quote:
McCain is being portrayed over here as the moderate. That is how Bush was portrayed over there when he moved into the position of front runner before his first election (I was volunteering in DC at the time). Do the two men look anything alike to you?
Bush portrayed himself as a "compassionate conservative" when he ran in 2000, and that pretty much went out the window with 9/11, though many of us naturally had our doubts about his sincerity long before that. I for one never thought of Bush as a moderate, though perhaps the fact that he was willing to talk about reasonable immigration reform (again, before 9/11) made him more moderate on that one issue than the rest of his party.
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady: quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
I think he stands a decent chance. Two weeks ago he was down 20 points in national polls, and now he appears to be ahead by a nose. The more people see him the more they like him; the more people see of Hillary, the more they dislike her.
I can appreciate that. I've been having similar feelings myself of late, especially since ole Bill started to make repeated appearances (What was that about anyway? Has it stopped now?) Unless I've fallen for his skilful oratory, there's something authentic (for a politician I mean) in Obama. I'm sure he's got a good few weaknesses too and I'm not even talking policies, but there does seem to be something about the guy which stands out from the rest, of either side.
I think his relative youth and lack of political experience may end up being to his advantage as he's had less time to make enemies and to make mistakes for the opposition to dig up and use against him.
Before he was a politician, Obama was a community organizer. To me that speaks volumes about his values and priorities.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
I'm probably being really thick here, but surrender to who (or should that be whom)? We deposed Saddam, found no weapons of mass destruction, and then created a big mess. I'm not sure where surrender comes into it?
Withdrawal equals a surrender to the various terrorist factions that would try to take over or at least destabilize Iraq (and possibly Iranian mischief as well). That is bad for the US and the Western World.
Those who say pull out now no matter what the result disagree.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
I tell you, it's moving fast around here.
A girl can't even go into town for an interview without having some big news, like, oh, maybe Mitt Romney suspending his campaign, waiting for her when she gets back home ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
None of them could destabilize Iraq better then we did! USA! USA! USA! USA!....
Seriously though, we went to war against Iraq. We defeated the government of Saddam Hussein and we are now allies with the successor regime. We have turned over sovereignty to the government of Iraq.
The "war" we declared is over and has been for some time. What we have now is an overlong occupation or trying to stand between sides of a civil war. This is not a military problem, but a political one.
[ETA crossposted]
[ 07. February 2008, 20:23: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I would not rule out either Romney or huckabee at this point. Unless and until McCain has enough delegates to win on the first ballot, all it would take is a major blunder by McCain to throw the the convention wide open, and that blunder could easily be a temper tantrum or a perceived sign of senility.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I think the actual fear is that some Saddam-like power, perhaps with ties to Iran and/or Al Qaida, would take over and stabilize Iraq.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Withdrawal equals a surrender to the various terrorist factions that would try to take over or at least destabilize Iraq (and possibly Iranian mischief as well). That is bad for the US and the Western World.
You're joking, right? Iraq's instability and Iran's mischief are direct results of our invasion.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Withdrawal equals a surrender to the various terrorist factions that would try to take over or at least destabilize Iraq (and possibly Iranian mischief as well). That is bad for the US and the Western World.
You're joking, right? Iraq's instability and Iran's mischief are direct results of our invasion.
To a point I would agree - at least with the first part of your statement. Regarding, Iran, I think they make mischief where they can regardless of what we do.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
None of them could destabilize Iraq better then we did! USA! USA! USA! USA!....
Seriously though, we went to war against Iraq. We defeated the government of Saddam Hussein and we are now allies with the successor regime. We have turned over sovereignty to the government of Iraq.
The "war" we declared is over and has been for some time. What we have now is an overlong occupation or trying to stand between sides of a civil war. This is not a military problem, but a political one.
[ETA crossposted]
Yeah, every last one of them is missing the middle ground. Declare victory and go home. We went in looking for WMD's. There were none...check. We removed a brutal dictator and his family...check. We oversaw the establishment of a democratically elected government...check. We beat the insurgents into submission (the surge worked)...check. Our work is done. Lets go home.
If the government holds together, we all look good. If it doesn't, its the fault of the Iraqis. Its not our fault they don't love their children more than they hate each other. We gave them a momentous opporunity to have a free and harmonious society. They blew it. (The latter was the narrative proposed by several Democratic senators such as Carl Levin D-MI).
This version makes most everybody happy. We won the war so the hawkish conservatives are happy. We are out of Iraq so everybody else is happy. This avoids the war was a total failure on one hand and the we'll be there for 100 years on the other.
Sure, its a cop out. But, the US saves face and get to move towards something else. I can't believe nobody has thought of it. It would probably only work for a Republican. Hillary could have pulled it off but she switched her position too soon.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I see Romney has pulled out!
Making a really rather loopy going-out speech. The terrors of being France ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
Damn those French, with their clean energy, fast trains, and effective healthcare!
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Sure, its a cop out. But, the US saves face and get to move towards something else. I can't believe nobody has thought of it. It would probably only work for a Republican. Hillary could have pulled it off but she switched her position too soon.
In and of itself, that position is simply the truth, not a cop out. The cop out is not fulfilling the much-despised (by this administration) 'nation building' and infrastructure repair. But the solution there is not troops; it's diplomacy and serious amounts of cash.
Simply leaving troops in there - or even increasing their numbers greatly - won't do a damn thing to end the violence. For example, Israel has been working on this locally for quite some time.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Damn those French, with their clean energy, fast trains, and effective healthcare!
Not to mention those wonderful Cabernets, Bordeaux...cream sauces,pastries...the architecture, the culture...
We could do a lot worse than be a 21st century France.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Yeah, every last one of them is missing the middle ground. Declare victory and go home. We went in looking for WMD's. There were none...check. We removed a brutal dictator and his family...check. We oversaw the establishment of a democratically elected government...check. We beat the insurgents into submission (the surge worked)...check. Our work is done. Lets go home...
US foreign policy is centered on stability and predictability in other nations. Our intentions are not and never have been to establish a democracy in Iraq or anywhere else despite the propaganda fed American citizens and the world. Don't be fooled into thinking the US has any motives more profound than "Yer either wid us or agin us". Does anyone believe we went into Iraq because Hussein was gassing Kurds or murdering Shiites? It was simply because he was no longer our lapdog and that sort of radical thinking needs to be stopped before it spreads.
Which is why I hold a glimmer of hope (and ultimately despair) that Barack Obama could change our operating manual. At the very least, he represents a change in image from the standard fat, white businessman firmly entrenched in corporate interests. But, although I believe he will be elected this fall in a groundswell of popular support, I'm also convinced it will be impossible for him to unseat corporate control of American foreign policy and the legislative branch.
It's too late. When push comes to shove, the majority of american citizens don't give a damn for anything beyond their comfortable lifestyles and won't give Obama (or any leader) the real sacrifice needed for a change in priorities. We will continue to drive our gas-guzzling cars till the world collapses in chaos, environmental catastrophe and war. The legacy of the Great American Dream will be the end of civilization as we know it.
We can talk the fucking talk, but you can damned-well be assured, we won't get off our asses and walk the walk.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Why do you think age is a liability? A landlady I had a couple of years back was 70 but went off hiking in South America on one of her vacations. Age need not be a barrier to anything; it depends on the person.
When she went off hiking in South America, did she promise to keep hiking for four years? Did she undertake to shoulder the world like Atlas? Is the Presidency of the United States a vacation?
I think it's wonderful when people can feel they're in their primes at age 70, but any POTUS ages fast. The responsibility is tremendous.
While I still think that Ronald Reagan was a good President, and just what we needed at the time, in retrospect we can be almost certain that his latter days in office were beclouded by Alzheimer's. Had we known beforehand that this would happen, I doubt that we would have dared to re-elect him no matter how much we loved him. I recall being relieved when George Bush Sr. took over, because I had my doubts that old Ronald would have been up to coping with a major crisis. We were lucky there was none.
Romney's outgoing speech reinforces my suspicion that he harbored a dangerous excess of American exceptionalism, probably encouraged by his religion. It would be disastrous, he implied, for the U.S. to become just one great nation among several, rather than remaining king-of-the-hill forever; and he assumed that he could somehow perpetuate this hegemony by the choices open to him. But what reason is there to suppose that the 21st century can be an American century as the 20th was? What do we have going for us? Not population. Not natural resources, anymore. Not a sound currency or a balance of payments surplus. Not energy independence or efficiency. Not industrial might. We still predominate in higher education and research, but we're losing that edge, too, and with right-wing policies will only lose it faster. As Bill Clinton once warned, not even the most powerful nation in the world can have everything it wants: sooner or later "we'll have to make a deal." A leader who, in effect, believes that unless his people are the firstest with the mostest, life is not worth living is liable to overplay his hand with catastrophic results.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
We can talk the fucking talk, but you can damned-well be assured, we won't get off our asses and walk the walk.
We should change our national motto to "Pass the chips and hand me the remote."
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I haven't been watching the debates, though, so maybe they are singing a different tune to the far left party activists in their efforts to get the nomination.
"Far left" = About 70% of the population.
70%? How do you get that number? When I think of the far left, I think of the ones who are drifting off into conspiracy theory land and havve almost gone full circle to meet up with those from the far right, such as Ron Paul supporters.
I think he agrees with you about the far left, but would like to point out that the nearly 70% of Americans who now think it was a bad idea to invade Iraq, the 60% who want to pull out, and the 80% who want to get Iran involved in a peace process within Iraq, are not all far left. Some of them are even right-wing.
Of course from where I am you are all bloody right-wingers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Did this statement by Romnut make anyone else want to hurl?:
[QUOTE] [qb] "I forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Why should it make me want to hurl? It's true. Obama and Clinton both want to surrender and withdraw from Iraq. McCain and Romney do not.
You said "Surrender and withdraw from IRAQ".
Romnut said "Surrender to terror".
Not The Same Thing.
Nowm I am not in favor of walking away either, but I do not delude myself into thinking that the Iraq War, was, is, or will be a War on Terror any more than Vietnam or World War II was.
Romnut has been drinking from Bushes athletic cup and it's gone to his feeble brain.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: Who Pays Income Taxes That's a weird way of showing the portion of tax revenue.
What's the no-income-tax threshold? Seems a bit strange that half of the population basically pays no tax, on the assumption (I suppose) that they are too poor. Or are many of those 50% dependent children (who don't declare income, so shouldn't show up in the stats at all)?
Could we have a link that isn't trying to prove that the sponsors don't want to pay tax?
For those still interested in the tax question, the numbers in the link Mere Nick provided are from Table 5 on this IRS web page. They're counting federal personal income tax returns, not individuals, so people with little or no income to declare aren't included. (The table also omits returns recording negative adjusted gross income.) In 2005 about 133 million returns were filed; half of them reported AGI greater than $30,880. That top half paid $906B of the $935B personal income tax collected that year, or about 97%; they also reported 87% of the total AGI. The average tax rate for the top half was 13.84%; the average tax rate for the bottom half was 2.98%; for the top 1% it was 23.13%.
According to the instructions for the 1040EZ form, most people should file a return if they have a gross income greater than $8,750 ($17,500 for married couples filing jointly.)
(Note that all these numbers are just for federal income tax; they don't include state income tax or taxes which may place a larger fraction relative burden on low incomes, like social security, Medicare/Medicaid, or sales tax.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course from where I am you are all bloody right-wingers.
From where you are, the Soviet Union was right wing.
I jest, but only slightly.....
[ 08. February 2008, 01:46: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You said "Surrender and withdraw from IRAQ".
Romnut said "Surrender to terror".
Not The Same Thing.
Nowm I am not in favor of walking away either, but I do not delude myself into thinking that the Iraq War, was, is, or will be a War on Terror any more than Vietnam or World War II was.
Romnut has been drinking from Bushes athletic cup and it's gone to his feeble brain.
I guess we disagree. I think withdrawal from Iraq - too soon - is a surrender to the terrorists. I think the fight in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. I live in NYC. I'm glad we're fighting them there rather than here.
[ 08. February 2008, 01:53: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joyeux
Ship's Lady of Laughter
# 3851
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
...all it would take is a major blunder by McCain to throw the the convention wide open, and that blunder could easily be a temper tantrum or a perceived sign of senility.
I live in hope of this... although, as stated in another thread, I don't like Romney as an option, and would die choking on my own vomit before supporting either Hillary or Obama.
I wonder if we could persuade Ross Perot to try again?
(I know, technically Huckabee and Paul are still in it for the Republicans, but I don't actually think either has a chance.)
Did Romney actually withdraw? I thought I saw one article say that he was "suspending" his campaign; wouldn't that allow him to jump back in, should McCain have a public showing of insanity?
New Yorker - I agree with you about the importance of not withdrawing from Iraq prematurely. The local, Iraqi, forces have to be able to maintain the stability of their own country. If we pull out too soon, the insurgents will over-whelm, and the world would be left with an even bigger mess to clean up.
--------------------
Float?...Do science too
Posts: 4318 | From: over th... no, there! | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
JH Christ.
Could we please not drink the Bush word Koolaid and use words where they belong? We are not fighting terrorists in Iraq, we are fighting pissed off Iraqis. We might even be fighting pissed off Iranies. But while we are fighting those guys, the real terrorists are ANYWHERE but there. They got better places to be and to do, duh. If we were serious about the war on terror, we would have the entire U.S. army hunting bin Laden.
So please don't twist words like the politico hacks and try to sell something for what its not.
Iraqi Guerillas? Yes.
Terrorists? Pulleasse.
End Rant.
On a more humorous note:
Buychanon says "McCain will make Cheney look like Ghandi". It's worth watching the video short for the punchline.....
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I guess we disagree. I think withdrawal from Iraq - too soon - is a surrender to the terrorists. I think the fight in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. I live in NYC. I'm glad we're fighting them there rather than here.
Them? What "them"? If you are referring to Al Qaeda, there was no support in Iraq for that terrorist group until the US presence there. But then, you knew that. You should seriously reconsider the urge to parrot right-wing media propaganda.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
For those still interested in the tax question, the numbers in the link Mere Nick provided are from Table 5 on this IRS web page. (Note that all these numbers are just for federal income tax; they don't include state income tax or taxes which may place a larger fraction relative burden on low incomes, like social security, Medicare/Medicaid, or sales tax.) [/QB]
Thanks, and to show an example of your note
I just ran a tax return for a hypothetical couple living in NC. They are in their early 40s and the three kids all under 16. Both parents work and they take the standard deduction.
With an AGI of $52,900 their federal income tax would be one buck.
Their state income tax would be $1,897.
If all $52,900 of income was from wages, FICA and Medicare would be $4,048. $8,096 if you count what their employers would have to match.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
JH Christ.
call on someone you believe in ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyeux:
New Yorker - I agree with you about the importance of not withdrawing from Iraq prematurely. The local, Iraqi, forces have to be able to maintain the stability of their own country. If we pull out too soon, the insurgents will over-whelm, and the world would be left with an even bigger mess to clean up. [/QB]
I agree, too, even though I disagreed with the bi-partisan decision to invade Iraq. I figured that if we were going to go after anyone besides Afghanistan it should have been the root, Saudi Arabia.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyeux:
Did Romney actually withdraw? I thought I saw one article say that he was "suspending" his campaign; wouldn't that allow him to jump back in, should McCain have a public showing of insanity?
He suspended his campaign, which means he hangs onto the delegates he's already got and thus is in a position to bargain for a plank or two in the official party platform and/or a speech during primetime at the convention.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyeux:
Did Romney actually withdraw? I thought I saw one article say that he was "suspending" his campaign; wouldn't that allow him to jump back in, should McCain have a public showing of insanity?
He suspended his campaign, which means he hangs onto the delegates he's already got and thus is in a position to bargain for a plank or two in the official party platform and/or a speech during primetime at the convention.
Probably more the second than the first. It is my understanding that the reason folks just suspend their campaign instead of folding the tent is so they can still receive campaign contributions. Both Edwards and Romney put in lots of personal money. Why someone would contribute to a suspended campaign beats me, though.
The Clintons have put in $5 million of personal money. Bill Clinton seems to be working for a Dubai outfit for $10 million a year. Is Dubai buying US candidates, now?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Again, many of us just disagree.
There were connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq during Sadaam's reign.
Those we are fighting in Iraq include non-Iraqi terrorists not just Iraqi terrorists. I seem to recall an article in the NY Times that said the vast majority of terrorists were non-Iraqi. So it sounds good to me that the bad guys are going to Iraq to fight the USA rather than coming to NYC to fight us.
I am accused of drinking right-wing Kool-Aid. I would counter and say that many here on the Ship continue to drink the left-wing Kool-Aid. I would encourage you to stop and seek help.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
There were connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq during Sadaam's reign.
These were thoroughly disproven. Not even the Bush administration buys this anymore.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Seems a bit strange that half of the population basically pays no tax, on the assumption (I suppose) that they are too poor.
The site shows no such thing. It's all about percentages: percentages of revenue, percentiles of income. What it suggests to any middle-American is (1) the vast scale of the U.S. government, such that the thousands he and everyone like him contributes annually (and don't we know it) amount to a widow's mite; and (2) the vast disparities in income and wealth in this country, such that these operations are largely funded by a small minority, even though they are sending little or no more of a percentage of their income to do it than we are.
One might also resent the accusation that people who pay little or no personal income tax pay no tax. There are numerous other taxes and fees which they pay, and probably disproportionately.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
I guess we disagree. I think withdrawal from Iraq - too soon - is a surrender to the terrorists. I think the fight in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. I live in NYC. I'm glad we're fighting them there rather than here.
Yeah, well I live in NYC too, and I'm sick and tired of being used as a poster-child for a war that had nothing to do with what we suffered on 9/11.
We should have stayed with Afganhistan, finished the job, and never stuck our nosees into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
And all we're doing there now is creating more terorists, who eventually _will_ come over here if we keep up this nonsense.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Seems a bit strange that half of the population basically pays no tax, on the assumption (I suppose) that they are too poor.
The site shows no such thing. It's all about percentages: percentages of revenue, percentiles of income. What it suggests to any middle-American is (1) the vast scale of the U.S. government, such that the thousands he and everyone like him contributes annually (and don't we know it) amount to a widow's mite; and (2) the vast disparities in income and wealth in this country, such that these operations are largely funded by a small minority, even though they are sending little or no more of a percentage of their income to do it than we are.
One might also resent the accusation that people who pay little or no personal income tax pay no tax. There are numerous other taxes and fees which they pay, and probably disproportionately.
When it comes to the federal income tax, most folks pay somewhere in the diddly to chump change range. Scroll up a bit and look at my example and see that there's certainly other ways to get hit.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I guess I'll have to hire you as my tax advisor, because my income is not much more than in your example, and I pay thousands every year-- at least 25% of my gross. If you can legally get it down to "chump change," be my guest and split the difference.
We can also note from that site that the disparities in income, and hence the percentage of total government revenue, of the upper vs. lower percentiles, have widened palpably year by year.
[ 08. February 2008, 16:15: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Yes - not to mention that the "Income" here is "Adjusted Gross Income" - that is, your income after all your tax deductions, including capital losses on investments, other business losses, etc.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Again, many of us just disagree.
And many of us are just plain wrong.
quote:
There were connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq during Sadaam's reign.
If you mean they lived on the same planet and occasionally watched the same TV shows, then yeah, there were "connections". But liek the man said, no-one now pretends to believe them
Hell, I've got "connections" to Al Qaeda. Someone I've never met who used to work part-time in the same building as me before I did was arrested and sent to Guantanamo. Someone else who used to work for me had a family member who used to work for the Sultan of Oman in the 1980s who very likely met Osama bin Laden's father at official functions. Hey, I'm only three handshakes from the Dark Lord in the East. Invade me already.
quote:
Those we are fighting in Iraq include non-Iraqi terrorists not just Iraqi terrorists.
That's because we let them in. We invaded, got rid of the very vicious and brutal Iraqi government, and made Iraq safe for terrorists.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I guess I'll have to hire you as my tax advisor, because my income is not much more than in your example, and I pay thousands every year-- at least 25% of my gross. If you can legally get it down to "chump change," be my guest and split the difference.
We can also note from that site that the disparities in income, and hence the percentage of total government revenue, of the upper vs. lower percentiles, have widened palpably year by year.
Keep in mind those three kids I mentioned who are under 16. There's a $1,000 tax credit for each of them.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And many of us are just plain wrong.
How very true!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
My advice to McCain:
1. Stop laughing so loudly at your own jokes.
2. Invest in a bottle of Grecian Formula.
3. Have your wife dye her hair gray and scrape off her make-up.
4. Enroll in a 12-step program for users of vile language.
5. Add "John 3:16" to all your campaign signs.
6. Stop campaigning in person. The myth will get more votes than the man.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
We should have stayed with Afganhistan, finished the job, and never stuck our nosees into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
...
Leaving Afghanistan undone seemed to fit into that administration's modus operandi to invasions.
Not enough and not finished beyond the shock and awe.
If Iraq hadn't happened, Canada wouldn't now be pleading with France and the rest of NATO for a measly 1000 troops.
Oh well......
Onto the OP, what is it with the rush to claim how much money is raised? Is there going to be money left for the main campaign?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Leaving Afghanistan undone seemed to fit into that administration's modus operandi to invasions.
Not enough and not finished beyond the shock and awe.
Bush farts around in Iraq while Osama laughs at us, and NYC blood cries out for justice.
Bastards. Both of them.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
[qb]Obama is flush with cash, having taken in a record $32 million in January, while Clinton is not.
How did he manage that?
Lots of people have given him money! He's been able to get a lot of new donors, people who haven't already given the legal limit.
What is the legal limit for donations? Or does it vary depending on a certain criteria?
quote:
Before he was a politician, Obama was a community organizer. To me that speaks volumes about his values and priorities.
Interesting. I would agree. It also suggests why he's so well organised! But I wonder whether he was a good motivator before or as a result of his previous life?
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
When she went off hiking in South America, did she promise to keep hiking for four years? Did she undertake to shoulder the world like Atlas? Is the Presidency of the United States a vacation?
Obviously not. But this is where she ended up. That takes a helluva lot of endurance. I know I couldn't do it. And she would go on two more equally active vacations in a year as well as live a full and active life back home (physically and mentally). Some people are old before their time either through circumstance or attitude, but others go on forever it seems.
There was a lovely little story here just a couple of weeks ago about a man who is 106. He has recently remarried and she is 90 and from New Zealand and they have just emigrated to start a new life over there. He didn't look or sound 106. He was sprite, lively, totally 'with it' in his head. As was she. Who would have thought a 106 year old could endure a flight to New Zealand and starting life over? Anecdotal all of it, obviously, but then so is ageing. Insurance companies might write off older people but I don't think anyone else needs to do so. In terms of how age may impact the role, being President needs mental agility and endurance (both mental and physical) so far as I can see. Is there any reason to believe that McCain doesn't have either of these? He certainly sounds mentally agile and looks mobile enough! I guess his degree of endurance is an unknown quantity but if he's survived cancer and managed to hit the campaign trail in person, my guess is he has a decent measure of it.
Obviously there are risks attached to electing an older person to such a demanding position. (But then there are risks attached to all the candidates it would seem.) I have no idea whether a Republican of any age would be good for American just now - that's for you guys to decide and me just to speculate over! But it would be a real shame to write him off solely on the basis that he is a certain age.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
I just heard a most extraordinary radio presentation about the election. The president, George W Bush spoke about the need to keep taxes low and win the war and keep going with the conservative values that typify his administration. He followed that with the "great majority of Americans" are behind him in this.
This was followed by a report that Hillary Clinton is now claiming that Barack Obama is the establishment candidate while she is the outsider.
I'm feeling as though I'm peering through the looking-glass.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
I just heard a most extraordinary radio presentation about the election. The president, George W Bush spoke about the need to keep taxes low and win the war and keep going with the conservative values that typify his administration. He followed that with the "great majority of Americans" are behind him in this.
This was followed by a report that Hillary Clinton is now claiming that Barack Obama is the establishment candidate while she is the outsider.
I'm feeling as though I'm peering through the looking-glass.
Extraordinary, indeed. I consider myself a conservative and it seems after coming through with a bit of tax reform, Bush folded up his conservative tent and headed off for parts unknown. With conservatives like that, who needs liberals?
Are you suggesting Hillary's hitting the sauce?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
