Obama: No more debates before May 6th

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
1.

Ayers protested the reporter's work in a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times published September 15: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

And I think based on the available evidence that Ayers is a liar.

This is a dumb, manufactured issue that real journalists should be ashamed of bringing up.

Something you might want to read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-...s_b_87036.html

[Ramo]

More manufactured nonsense, this time coming from a Clinton partisan. I'm surprised that you haven't brought up the nefarious Edward Said connection yet. The LA Times was all on that...

And I think based on the available evidence that Ayers is a liar.

I don't really care, but my point is that his true feelings are completely irrelevant. See the second point.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

The original point, again, was that a tax hike would have to occur in the midst of a recession. That is complete nonsense.

I have to wonder if you are intentionally dense or merely a product of inferior genetics. Given your proclivity to playing the lotto one can certainly be assured that you are indeed dense but not the root cause.

If my reading challenged comrade you took the time to read my posts you would understand my original point. Obama has forsaken any attempt to argue the benefits of a capital gains tax hike to economy or governmental revenues in favor of saying he was for the hikes for reasons of fairness. Like any good tinpot socialist this simply means "to hell with the good of the overall populace we gots rich fat cats that need to be punished".
Considering he was indeed using the pretext of CG hikes as a means of increasing governemental revenues when finally pushed by GIbson/Step he finally showed his true colors. Great unifier we got there stirring up the same ole same ole class warfare rhetoric. Me thinks lots of retiring baby boomers with 401K's are simply gonna love the prospect of increased CGs.

But far be it for me to guide you back to the original point which you have decided need not be addressed, Instead feel free to hash up the rest of my posts which clearly show you incapable of reading/comprehension. For the record original means first. Discussions of recession didn't occur until my third post and only after I decided it not worth arguing which side of the laffer curve the US resides as that is akin to how many angels dance on a pin discussions.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Can't you just get on with the election already? It's been going on for far longer than it should've been!

I'm all for a law requiring primaries not to start until 6 months prior to the election. I get tired of these ****ers dragging **** out for 1 to 1.5 years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm all for a law requiring primaries not to start until 6 months prior to the election. I get tired of these ****ers dragging **** out for 1 to 1.5 years.

This is one suggestion of yours that I can fully get behind.

[Ramo]

Given your proclivity to playing the lotto

Way to miss the point.
Never played the lotto in my life, actually.

If my reading challenged comrade you took the time to read my posts you would understand my original point.

Speaking of reading challenged (to supplement your problems with arithmetic and basic logic...).

I couldn't give two ****s about your psychoanalysis of Obama's motivations. I was discussing the merits of actual policy. This is what we were talking about:
"The thing is any change upward in CG at this point in time i.e. pending a recession if not already in one is pure idiocy, cept of course if one is a populist driven panderer."

Your point, I repeat, is total horse****.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Given your proclivity to playing the lotto

Way to miss the point.
Never played the lotto in my life, actually.

Way to miss the obvious insult as if I cared little about your game playing one way or the other. In other words if you are going to be flippant expect the same in return.

If my reading challenged comrade you took the time to read my posts you would understand my original point.

Speaking of reading challenged (to supplement your problems with arithmetic and basic logic...).

I couldn't give two ****s about your psychoanalysis of Obama's motivations. I was discussing the merits of actual policy. This is what we were talking about:
"The thing is any change upward in CG at this point in time i.e. pending a recession if not already in one is pure idiocy, cept of course if one is a populist driven panderer."

Your point, I repeat, is total horse****.

Likewise, I could give two ****s about what you were talking about. You attributed My original point not yours as recessionary warnings. To the contrary, my point is and was Obama is a lying sack of **** who claimed earlier that CG increases were all about increasing governemental revenues. When pressed he decided that even if it was deleterious (thats means bad btw if you aren't following closely) he addvocated it anyway. That's bad policy for bad reasons.

Btw, psychoanalytical??? How so? I spoke towards the mans lack of truthfulness and his politics of socialism not why he hates his daddy and mommy. Do you need some tutoring on English and phraseology as well?

[Ramo]

Are you willing to admit, then, that your point:
"The thing is any change upward in CG at this point in time i.e. pending a recession if not already in one is pure idiocy, cept of course if one is a populist driven panderer."
is total horse****? It sure does look like you want to desperately change the subject.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Are you willing to admit that you never addressed my point and that you changed the subject not I?

[Ramo]

Btw, psychoanalytical??? How so? I spoke towards the mans lack of truthfulness and his politics of socialism not why he hates his daddy and mommy. Do you need some tutoring on English and phraseology as well?

The psychoanalysis is that you're turning the idea that Obama wants a more progressive tax distribution into some kind of hatred of the rich. Utter nonsense. If you look at the transcript, it's pretty clear that he expects a capital gains tax increase that he'd pass to increase revenues. And specifically, that he'd time the tax increase to maximize revenue:
"It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market, and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well. And once again, I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3

[Ramo]

Are you willing to admit that you never addressed my point and that you changed the subject not I?

So you never intended to discuss policy. And your foray into turned out to be total bull****? Ok, thanks.

[Kidlicious]

Republicans

[DinoDoc]

Something for the CG debate:

Do You Favor or Oppose Increasing the Capital Gains Tax?

Favor 16%
Oppose 65%
Not Sure 20%

Fifty-two percent (52%) believe hiking the capital gains tax would hurt the economy. Just 17% say it would help the economy while 18% say it would have no impact. Republicans overwhelmingly believe raising this tax would harm the economy along with a plurality of Democrats.

Most voters, 56%, own at least $5,000 worth of stocks, bonds, or mutual funds and would be directly impacted by an increase in the capital gains tax. Not surprisingly, 71% of these investors are opposed to a capital gains tax increase.

More voters trust John McCain more than Barack Obama when it comes to the economy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/65_oppose_increase_in_capital_gains_tax

[Kidlicious]

DD,

Of course people should answer that question with the answer that increasing capital gains taxes will hurt the economy. But it would not necessarily do so. Taxes have to be collected and taxing capital gains is one way to collect them. Yes taxes hurt the economy, but to some extent we have to tax, so why not capital gains tax.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Kid, I think DD and Ogie would be ok with that statement. They may disagree, but if you think raising CG rates will increase overall revenue instead of discouraging investment, that's one thing. I think the objection is that Obama seems to have said he wants to raise the CG tax rate solely on fairness grounds, regardless of economic considerations (good or bad).