Time to put this to rest...
-
Harvey Leroy "Lee" Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican party. He was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He was also a political mentor and close friend of Republican strategist Karl Rove. Atwater invented or improved upon many of the techniques of modern electoral politics, including promulgating unflattering rumors and attempting to drive up opponents' "negative" poll numbers with the aggressive use of opposition research. He has been characterized as the "happy hatchet man" and "Darth Vader" of the Republican Party. In spite of criticisms of Atwater's tactics as unethical and dirty tricks, he was widely regarded as a near-brilliant political operative who helped candidates to win. Karl Rove used such smear tactics in the 2004 election causing a seven polling point drop for John Kerry just days before the election with his "swift boat" scandal that proved to be all lies after the fact.
Lies vs Fraud ... You decide.
-
I think lies and fraud are a world apart. Both sides lie, always have, always will. This is why I can't stand the negative ads. I agree with Tom here in that slight dishonesty or not telling the whole story is tantamount to lying. Fraud is more devious, more nefarious.
Lee Atwater was doing what political operatives have been doing for years. I'm not excusing him, I explaining him, I guess. Look at how Obama gained his Senate seat. He used underhanded, yet perfectly legal, means. What's the difference?
-
Chill guys! This will make you laugh
http://www.hopelessgeek.com/2008/10/10/careful-america -
LOL...Wow is that uncanny or what? I'll never watch King of the Hill the same way again.
-
@david. said:
I only responded to this thread because there was so little presentation of the other side. I believe I read somewhere else a comparison to "liberal love fest". So true. Schreiber has completely validated my description of the left and it's lack of reliance on truth and facts. There is no moral direction, no right and wrong, no ethical foundation. Just whatever makes one feel good. The left can happily condone millions of abortions of the innocent while expressing outrage about displacing a polar bear. A terrorist or murderer can be respected and contributing member of society as long as he has a PhD, written a few books, etc. Laziness is to be rewarded by taking from those that are independent and self reliant. Those are misguided rationalizations. I don't intend to try to understand it and I won't try to convince the leftists to see things my way. For me, I plan to annoy as many liberal leftists as I can by working hard and being happy.
You make many assumptions about the left which are wrong. I presume you aren't stupid or evil, but that you can learn and that you want the best for this country and for the world.
If you try to understand the views of other people, you may find that you can work with them and accomplish good. If you assume that they are totally unlike you and that there is no way to relate to them, that will contribute to the dysfunctional society we live in now.
-
Hi,
You guys might like to take a look at this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076957/MELANIE-PHILIPS-Everyone-destroy-Palin--Obamas-past-examine.htmlRegards
Mr S -
God i love the daily mail, only they could start an article with "With all eyes glued to the collapse of global capitalism as we know it..."
-
@mr s said:
Hi,
You guys might like to take a look at this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076957/MELANIE-PHILIPS-Everyone-destroy-Palin--Obamas-past-examine.htmlRegards
Mr SJust did. It repeats a number of charges which I feel have been addressed about Obama. Some of those charges are legitimate and are legitimate weaknesses of Obama, others are silly. All are over blown in true British tabloid style. The fact that we already know about them belies the accusation that the "liberal media" is hiding them.
I'm amazed that it seems so terrible that there are "dozens of reporters feverishly combing Alaska for any evidence to tarnish Sarah Palin." We have been examining the other candidates for years or decades. Palin was an unknown when we first heard her name. She's running for Vice President of the most powerful nation on earth, my nation. She is statistically more likely to become President than any VP before her. Doesn't it seem that her record should be "feverishly combed"?
Similar over blown articles are written from the left. I read some of those too. I prefer to look at significant facts which relate to how the candidate might govern. Check out this graph. The source is Parade Magazine, the Sunday supplement which comes with our conservative local paper.
Here's a clearer graphic with the same data. Searching the Internet, I don't see any serious refutation of the facts presented.
If you prefer one chart over the other, those are significant differences which we could and should discuss.
-
John, we get Parade as well and I saw this graph. What this graph does not show is Obama intends to raise the capital gains rate from 15% to "as much as" 28%. He said this in one of the debates. What the hell does "as much as" mean? I say it means exactly 28%. You talk about having a chilling effect on investments and growth.
-
i know i am a newbie here, but under Obama's plan, why is my family being penalized for making more money?
FYI - my wife is the one who's job pushes us into the higher tax bracket.
-
@dcke88 said:
i know i am a newbie here, but under Obama's plan, why is my family being penalized for making more money?
Because you can afford to give more.
-
-
@dcke88 said:
that is alright. we are used to picking up the slack for those who can't do it themselves
because they have not had any chance to do it
could be ?
-
@unknownuser said:
that is alright. we are used to picking up the slack for those who can't do it themselves.
um... If indeed Obama does win it will be the first time you 'pick up some slack' as currently you pay proportionately less taxes and the poor and middle class carry you thanks to Bush's tax cut for the rich.
-
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
that is alright. we are used to picking up the slack for those who can't do it themselves.
um... If indeed Obama does win it will be the first time you 'pick up some slack' as currently you pay proportionately less taxes and the poor and middle class carry you thanks to Bush's tax cut for the rich.
Whoa, this is flat out wrong! You'd better do some research on this Pete, because the facts are PRECISELY the opposite. The "rich" pay a disproportionate share of the taxes.
-
From the mouth of NOW America's richest man.
[flash=425,355:3tnzfdm6]http://www.youtube.com/v/Cu5B-2LoC4s[/flash:3tnzfdm6]
-
@bellwells said:
John, we get Parade as well and I saw this graph. What this graph does not show is Obama intends to raise the capital gains rate from 15% to "as much as" 28%. He said this in one of the debates. What the hell does "as much as" mean? I say it means exactly 28%. You talk about having a chilling effect on investments and growth.
Sounds like a good point, he said exactly that back in March.
I researched it. Here's the formal plan that Obama's campaign put out in August. That still seems to be his plan, but he has said that in light of the current financial mess, his plan may change to make recovery as easy as possible.
@unknownuser said:
- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.
- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
So for families making over $250K, yes capital-gains taxes will go up. Will that have a negative impact on growth? Perhaps a little, but it is still a lower tax rate than any time in the last century except for the last five years.
Personally, I've never understand the reason why capital-gains income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. It mostly seems to me to be a dodge so that the people with lots of capital gains (the rich) could pay less taxes.
The middle class has very little capital gains. They have little of the country's wealth in the first place and most of what they do have is in IRAs and 401(K)s and their homes which are tax sheltered anyway.
-
@bellwells said:
The "rich" pay a disproportionate share of the taxes.
Absolutely true.
But, the rich have a disproportionate share of the income and the wealth. That is part of capitalism, but right now the disproportion is extreme and I think dangerous.
Would you believe that the 400 richest American families have more wealth than the the bottom half of American families put together. Is this healthy? Inequality has never been this high before. The last time it was close was the year before the great depression. Could there be a connection?
Full image here: http://www.thenation.com/special/images/extreme_inequalitychart.jpg
-
@solo said:
From the mouth of NOW America's richest man.
[flash=425,355:3twkb4bn]http://www.youtube.com/v/Cu5B-2LoC4s[/flash:3twkb4bn]
Pete, I don't even need to watch the video to know what Buffet's opinion is. I already know. The fact remains that the top 5% (+/-) of earners pay something like 90%, or more, of all taxes.
-
"Would you believe that the 400 richest American families have more wealth than the the bottom half of American families put together. Is this healthy? Inequality has never been this high before. The last time it was close was the year before the great depression. Could there be a connection?"
DING>>>DING>>>>DING give that man a prize. This is precisely the problem. The culture of greed has been allowed to progress to the point that the wealthy literally have more money than they know what to do with. They certainly are not trickling it down. And if the tax laws allow them to keep more of it than they are not pulling their proportionate share of the cart.
How to reward people for attaining wealth appropriately is at question but a reward that is to the detriment of the masses seems inappropriate.
Advertisement