Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JDN

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37
101
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:03:58 PM »
What’s more, even when it comes to cutting the deficit, most Americans don’t believe in doing it exclusively through tax cuts. According to Pew, in fact, even a majority of rank-and-file Republicans prefer cutting the deficit through both tax hikes and spending cuts than doing so through spending cuts alone. And when asked about Medicare spending, Americans want it to go up by a factor of more than 3 to 1. It’s not that most Americans could never stomach any cuts in, or changes to, Medicare, but given how much they value the program, they consider such changes a last resort. And they suspect that right-wing Republicans, given their ideological antipathy to federal domestic spending, consider such cuts a first resort instead.

It’s hard to blame Romney’s advisers for gambling on Ryan. Yes, turning the campaign into a referendum on Medicare cuts doesn’t bring the greatest odds of success. But if you believe Romney was on a losing trajectory already, what was there to lose? Except maybe the House and Senate.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/13/mitt-romney-s-pick-of-paul-ryan-bold-doesn-t-always-work.html

102
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: August 13, 2012, 12:31:36 PM »
Frankly, I bet a lot of other people are calling for vandalism too.  Calling the Palestinians "savages" doesn't seem like a positive step forward to a long term solution.  The only "savages" aka wackos might be Geller and Spencer. 

By the way, Ojectivist1, do you work for atlasshrugs2000 or jihadwatch? 

I mean it seems like it's the ONLY source you are able to reference.  Why is that?
No one else cares?   :evil:

103
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: August 10, 2012, 01:20:01 PM »
Objectivist1; it goes to credibility.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue.  Or liberal versus conservative.  I'm not biased.

When even the respected conservative blog "Little Green Footballs" calls Geller a wacko, I listen.  Not to mention prominent and RESPECTED Jewish individuals and organizations agree.

The same point applies to Abedin.  Prominent and RESPECTED conservatives support her and ridicule her critics.

You are not posting "evidence" but rather baseless rumors filled with innuendo.  It's like reading a fictional novel only you call it "truth".   :?

It's your sources Ojectivist1; they are a joke.  No one, or maybe you do  :-o believes them.  It's a non sequitur; it does not follow.
You should post in the humor thread.  Your posts are that funny.   :-D

Or find some respected and credible sources.
Or can't you?   :evil:

104
Politics & Religion / Re: Romney
« on: August 10, 2012, 11:13:12 AM »
Doug, the poll IS the news story.  Simply put, Romney isn't liked very much.  Personally, I think the guy is just fine.
As for my calling him "Mitts" well lots of new publications on the left and right call him Mitts.  I don't think it's derogatory
nor is it meant to be.

And while I agree, issues are important, many, most? people vote for who they simply "like".
So wrong or right, "likability" is very very important. 


105
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: August 10, 2012, 11:05:27 AM »
Actually Doug, my statement is true.

No one does seem to care, from conservatives like Rollins to McCord on the Senate Floor.  Except for wackos and right wings, no one, including respected Republicans
are criticizing Abedin; in fact, many are openly supporting her.  Objectivist1, note, these are people with character.   :-)

And I did refute the Andrew McCarthy piece; or I should say the piece I posted by the esteemed Professor from Georgetown Dr. Esposito in the Washington Post (often quoted here and primarily a right wing publication) tore McCarthy's piece to shreds.  "John Esposito is University Professor, Professor of Religion and International Affairs, and Professor of Islamic Studies. He is the Founding Director of the Center for Muslim/Christian Understanding, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. Dr. Esposito has served as President of the Middle East Studies Association, the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies, and Vice Chair of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. He has also worked as a consultant to governments, multinational corporations, and the media worldwide. He is Editor-in-Chief of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam, and The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. His more than 25 books include: Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam; What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam; The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality; Islam and Politics; and Islam and Democracy. "

And Doug, she was vetted.  Vetted enough that the leading Republicans, not to mention the Democrats think she is qualified and NOT a threat.  No on of any substance is criticizing Abedin.  It's a sick, partisan witch hunt; there is no substance to any charges. Odd that Andrew McCarthy's last name is McCarthy. 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-banality-of-american-islamophobia.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-alexander-muslim-sikh-20120810,0,6114417.story

As for character assassination, well Objectivist1 if you would post someone with character, I wouldn't have to assassinate them.   :-D

Geller is a well known wacko and Grover Norquist, a prominent Republican strategist, dismissed Gaffney as a “sick, little bigot.”


106
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: August 09, 2012, 01:31:52 PM »
It's a witch hunt going nowhere. 

"Grover Norquist, a prominent Republican strategist, who like others, has been attacked by Gaffney for alleged ties to radical Islamist groups during President George W. Bush’s administration, dismissing Gaffney as a “sick, little bigot.”"

Wow; I guess that sums it up rather well.     :-D   No one seems to care except you Objectionist1.   :evil:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/bachmann-affair-against-clinton-aide-huma-abedin-is-a-wake-up-call/2012/07/26/gJQAFHP4BX_blog.html

107
Politics & Religion / Re: Romney
« on: August 08, 2012, 11:01:52 AM »
If he wins, it's in spite of himself, not because of himself.

"The poll also shows that Romney's unfavorability rating has increased since May, when 45% had a negative view of the Republican candidate. According to the poll's release, Romney is "laboring under the lowest personal popularity ratings for a presumptive presidential nominee in midsummer election-year polls back to 1984."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/08/poll-romneys-unfavorability-rating-on-the-rise/

108
Politics & Religion / Does Mitts really know what he's doing?
« on: August 08, 2012, 10:55:05 AM »
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/07/mitt-hold-your-fire.html

109
Politics & Religion / Re: Notice to JDN: Engage in the debate or be ignored.
« on: August 03, 2012, 11:42:17 AM »
Quote from: objectivist1 on August 03, 2012, 06:26:50 AM
It's interesting to note that JDN seems to delight in name-calling and ad hominem attacks.  Funny how he never seems to actually engage in a dialogue or actual evidence-based debate.
This forum is populated overwhelmingly by thoughtful, intelligent individuals who are ready and willing to back up their arguments with evidence.  I and many others here choose not to respond to JDN's inanity because, as Mark Twain famously observed:  "Never argue with a fool.  Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

ev·i·dence/ˈevədəns/
Noun:   
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Objectivist, Another expression is if it walks like a fool, quacks like a fool, it must be a fool.  That must be you.   :-D

You said;
Frank Marshall Davis - Barack's biological father?

Are you really that stupid? :-o
Or are you just intentionally denigrating yourself?
Because that is what you are doing by posting such garbage.


110
Politics & Religion / Re: So, maybe Michelle Bachman was right after all?
« on: August 02, 2012, 02:41:27 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2012, 02:20:41 PM

http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/huma-abedin-associate-editor-islamist-journal

I guess the question is did Ms. Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Clinton ever hide her family or affiliation?
No doubt she was vetted.

Has she done anything secretive or wrong?

And so far the answer is a resounding "NO".  

It's a witch hunt.


111
Politics & Religion / Re: Romney
« on: July 31, 2012, 05:57:04 PM »
Given the state of the economy, beating Obama should be like shooting a sitting duck.  But Romney is a buffoon.  Too bad the Republicans couldn't find someone better.  Romney may still win, but it will be in spite of himself, not because of himself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/31/the-ugly-american-mitt-romney-s-disastrous-overseas-excursion2.html


112
Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: July 31, 2012, 05:43:53 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 31, 2012, 12:05:19 PM
Israel was the aggressor in '67?!?

"After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria."

Japan tried the same thing, claiming "high tension",  without nearly so much success.   :-)

Still, after soundly defeating Japan, we still didn't move our Capital to Tokyo.  Nor I bet if Japan had won the war would they have moved their capital to California.  But they might have moved the State capital to LA or SF.   :-)

It isn't just one country, or one group of people, but ALL, let me repeat, ALL nations think Israel is wrong, i.e. illegitimate, to make Jerusalem the capital. So Doug, quit making foolish analogies. And while I agree, Israel is our best ally in the region, even among friends, wrong is wrong.  I might point out that the the vast majority of Jews in America also support America's position and vote Democratic.  i.e. nearly everyone in the world thinks Israel is wrong on this issue.  As a side note, frankly, without us, Israel would have perished a long time ago.  They have no better friend.  Probably, they have no other friend, period.  Time for a little gratefulness.....

As for the other countries in the Middle East, I have also not forgotten that oil is oil.  Israel is our greatest ally, but let's be practical too.
Israel needs us a LOT more than we need them.

113
Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« on: July 31, 2012, 10:37:00 AM »
Hate Speech?   :?  When the entire world agrees with you?  That's not hate speech, hahaha that's the TRUTH.

Israel in a 1967 offensive move invaded and forcibly took over East Jerusalem.  Israel acted like the conquer; it still occupies this foreign territory nor has it seeked compromise nor has any compensation be been offered.  Defense of your country is fine.  No one has a problem if you defend your country.  This is simply wrong.  Maybe Israel's next move will be to conquer all of Jordan and move Israel's capital to Amman? I'm sure you would agree that moving the capital into conquered land would be perfectly legitimate.  Per your request, I would provide a list, but I don't have one of any countries other than Israel in the last 50 years that have forcibly taken land from another nation and moved their capital onto the foreign land.

Quoting your Wikipedia "The international community has rejected the latter annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation.  The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies."

What part don't you get?  The entire world does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital; it's a military occupation of a foreign land.

114
Politics & Religion / Re: Romney
« on: July 30, 2012, 04:20:37 PM »
Doug I have clearly said Israel, as a country,  is legitimate. However if Israel says Jeruselum is their capital THAT is illegitimate.  ALL countries seem to agree that Jeruselum is NOT the legitimate capital of Israel.
Got it?

115
Politics & Religion / Re: Romney
« on: July 30, 2012, 02:22:50 PM »
Quote from: DougMacG on July 30, 2012, 01:33:28 PM
Romney says Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel

Romney says a lot about what he doesn't know about.   :evil:
That was easy.  ]

In other news, Sacramento is still the capital of California, lol.
And IT'S LEGITIMATE.  That's more than Jerusalem can say! LOL   :-D
[/quote

116
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« on: July 30, 2012, 01:51:55 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2012, 04:30:37 PM
Sacramento is the capital of California whether Mexico likes it or not.

"Enemies of Israel attacked Israel and lost land in the process."

Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to you?   :?

Odd, it doesn't make sense to ANY other country.  Truly, NO other respected country or government supports Israel's position.

As for your 150 year old CA/Sacramento analogy...
I'm surprised you brought that up.

Yep, we fought and easily won a war with Mexico MORE THAN 150 years ago.

After, for California, we PAID Mexico 15 million dollars and assumed certain debts.

That's a little more than we paid for the entire Louisiana Purchase and more than
double what we paid for Alaska.

Israel is NOT illegitimate.  But forcibly taking over Jerusalem, giving no compensation, and calling land in the occupied territory your "capital" is illegitimate.

117
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« on: July 29, 2012, 12:03:59 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2012, 01:56:11 PM
Doug's logic seems sound to me , , ,
:? :? :?

Perhaps better to give it up, but I'll try again.

Quote from: DougMacG on July 28, 2012, 01:37:03 PM
"I guess the question is from whose perspective."

I was asking YOU. 

I gave you my perspective; I agree with the USA, England, Germany, Japan, et al (all our allies) that I do not recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel.

1. the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: Tokyo is the capital of Japan. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capital

If NK says somewhere other than Pyongyang or outside the country is the Capital of North Korea, it wouldn't be so. 

Did you read my analogy carefully?  I said IF NK invaded and attacked land over the 38th parallel that is not their land (similar to what Israel did) and then declared that the city they conquered is their new "capital" would it be so? 

If I have one dog and one cat but then I say my cat is a dog, how many dogs do I now have?  Still just 1.  Saying a cat is a dog doesn't make it so. 
Better to say if you have one dog and you stole a neighbor's dog, do you own two dogs?  Saying you have two dogs doesn't mean you OWN two dogs.

The official seat of the government of Israel is in Jerusalem.  Is it not?
Let me correct you; the official seat of the government of Israel is ILLEGALLY in Jerusalem. 

You think the President's spokesman does not know that?
And yes, the President's spokesman DOES know THAT.  It's like if you know you best friend stole something, he's still a good friend, but you don't respect or honor his theft. 
So like the President's spokesman, you simply don't talk about it.

Wikipedia: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel..." 
Wikipedia "..." goes on to say, "though not internationally recognize as such."


118
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:34:49 PM »
Quote from: DougMacG on July 28, 2012, 10:56:40 AM
Not following you JDN.  You didn't say what is the capital of Israel.  In what city is the Knesset?  Wouldn't that be the capital?  In what country is Jerusalem?

If the right answer is that the capital of Israel is in Tel Aviv, why didn't Jay Carney say that?

It's complicated.   :-)

I guess the question is from whose perspective.  Israel considers Jerusalem the Capital.  Ambassadors have to travel from Tel Aviv or from wherever they have their embassy to Jerusalem to present their papers.  Yet, nearly the entire world, friends and enemies of Israel, don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  Nor does almost any country consider that Jerusalem is entirely in Israel. 

As for Jay Carney, perhaps Tel Aviv isn't the capital, but then neither is Jerusalem.  So maybe he doesn't know; I don't know, but he knows and I know that the legitimate capital of Israel is not Jerusalem. 

You brought up North Korea.  Imagine if they crossed the 38th parallel, captured a city using force and declared it their new "capital".  Do you really think anyone in the world would honor that except North Korea?

119
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« on: July 27, 2012, 05:11:39 PM »
Quote from: DougMacG on July 27, 2012, 04:26:08 PM
The way we normally determine where the Capital is in a state of foreign land is ... ASK THEM.

The Capital of North Korea is ... Pyongyang.  How do we know that?  They said so.

Israel has declared in Israeli law that Jerusalem is the Capital.  How could the Capital be anywhere else?  Is Israel a less legitimate nation than North Korea?  Less of an ally??

Barack Obama and team don't want to say the longer story.  Israel says the Capital is Jerusalem, Israel's enemies object.  We the Obama administration side with the enemies on this one.  (Bush's fault.)

Life is complicated, foreign policy too, if you don't or can't distinguish between good and evil.

Doug, almost no other country accepts that Jerusalem is the legitimate capital of Israel; it isn't just "Israel's enemies" that object.  We have never accepted that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  Obviously, we as well and all other countries don't think it's a legitimate claim.  Nor would we accept North Korea's claim to a city below the 38th parallel as their legitimate capital. 

120
Politics & Religion / Re: Romney
« on: July 27, 2012, 12:51:37 PM »
John Adams once said, "facts are stubborn things." These days, another Massachusetts politician has found that saying to ring especially true.
While it's still unclear how Mitt Romney can be the CEO, chairman, president and sole shareholder of Bain Capital, a company that he claims no responsibility for, it's become increasingly evident that candidate Romney simply doesn't want to talk about the facts of his business record.
In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Romney suggested that to question his experiences is to "attack success." If this is the case, and if we're also not supposed to talk above a whisper about Mitt's record as governor, including his signature accomplishment in health care reform, then which parts of his biography remain on the table?

Donna Brazile
Romney clearly prefers his largely undisclosed experiences in the private sector over his publicly poor record in Boston. At every turn, Romney and his campaign have attempted to steer the discussion toward business matters for just this reason.
John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012?
But when the Washington Post took him up on it last month and published an article headlined "Romney's Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas," the Romney campaign was caught flatfooted. The Post found that Bain Capital, the firm Romney spent much of his professional life building up, had invested in companies that had not only shipped jobs overseas -- a practice of some concern to working- and middle-class Americans -- but had pioneered the practice.
 Romney defends Bain departure date More questions on Romney's Bain tenure
Romney's campaign pushed back hard, claiming that the Post had its facts wrong. The campaign met with the Post's editors and demanded a retraction, claiming that Romney had left Bain in 1999, supposedly before the outsourcing investment began. The Washington Post listened to the Romney side of the story but stood its ground.
Now we know why. The Boston Globe reported two weeks ago that Romney had signed official documents claiming to be the president and CEO of Bain Capital as late as 2002, when the company was actively building up firms that outsourced American jobs. He didn't just say this casually at some dinner party; he swore it was the truth on Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

What did the Romney campaign do this time? It hit the "repeat" button and demanded a retraction from the Globe. Who are you going to believe, the campaign asked its hometown paper, me or your lying eyes? Once again, the investigative journalists stood by their reporting.
Since the Globe story, the hits have kept coming. The AP reported this week that Romney stayed in "regular contact" with Bain during his so-called absence, "personally signing or approving a series of corporate and legal documents through the spring of 2001." Several sources are now saying that Romney made repeated trips to Boston to meet with Bain executives during this period, even though he recently told CBS's Jan Crawford that he doesn't "recall even coming back once to go to a Bain or a management meeting" during the period in question.

So despite what the Romney campaign claims, media interest in this story has nothing to do with attacking personal success in the private sector. It has nothing to do with avoiding the real issues of the campaign.
It has everything to do with attempting to get to the bottom of a situation in which what a candidate is saying seems to have come unglued from the stubborn facts.
Opinion: Why won't Romney release more tax returns?

Americans know that a level playing field empowers a successful economy. You want to talk about soaking the rich? Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, paid an effective tax rate of nearly 37% in 1967. The elder Romney didn't complain and released his tax returns to prove his compliance with the law of the land he wanted to lead. In 2010, Mitt Romney's tax rate bobbed and weaved its way below 15% -- and we know that only because the public had to pry his return (he has released only a full one) out of his clenched hands.

Even more fascinating than the fact that Romney's father released 12 years' worth when he ran for president in 1968 is the reason why. "One year could be a fluke," the elder Romney said, "perhaps done for show."

This country has a noble habit of withholding elected office from people who have trouble with the facts. Romney could end these discussions overnight by releasing his tax returns, as he has been called on to do by Republicans like Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.
Until he makes peace with the facts, Romney will be stuck at the intersection of what is both a character issue and a policy issue. If Romney won't stand by his record at Bain, just like he won't stand by his record as governor of Massachusetts, how exactly is the American public supposed to evaluate the candidate? And if he won't disclose his own relationship with tax loopholes and offshore tax havens, leaving voters more questions than answers, how can the American people trust him to reform our tax code in a way that closes loopholes, eliminates free-riding and ensures that everyone is playing by the same rules?

Facts and the Romney campaign have a difficult relationship these days. But they do share one thing in common: They're both stubborn.

121
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness - What is the Capital of Israel?
« on: July 27, 2012, 11:33:58 AM »
Quote from: DougMacG on July 27, 2012, 07:59:52 AM
Jay Carney Refuses To Identify Capital Of Israel Twice In White House Press Briefing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGEn1TZtEmQ&feature=player_embedded

White House Press Briefing,  July 26, 2012


It's complicated.
Most of the world, including the USA does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  Most embassies including ours is located in Tel Aviv. 

122
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: July 27, 2012, 11:24:55 AM »
Objectionist1; I have a suggestion.  This is the Islam in America Thread; not the Pam Geller lunatic rag.  Surely to make your point you can quote another source, someone with intelligence and reasonableness?  Or is she the best you can do?   :evil:

I think nearly all, except perhaps you, agree with Charles Johnson, who runs the blog Little Green Footballs:

"That would be Ms. Geller. She has a very long record of absolute lunacy, mixed with bigotry and racism and I am far from the only person to point this out."

The fact that even various Jewish Organizations also think she is a wacko says something too.

123
Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism:
« on: July 25, 2012, 11:49:52 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2012, 05:22:15 PM
Following up on the Snopes issue of a few posts ago:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm
About.com is owned by Pravda on the Hudson (the New York Times...... )

Snopes.com is not owned by or affiliated with the N.Y. Times.  Anyone who has spent even a few minutes browsing Snopes.com knows that the website is owned by two people. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson of southern California. This is stated on the website and has been common knowledge for quite some time.

Moreover, Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen, and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections or contribute to political campaigns. David Mikkelson said his "sole involvement in politics" is voting on election day. In 2000 he registered as a Republican and in 2008 Mikkelson didn't declare a party affiliation at all. Says Mikkelson: "I've never joined a party, worked for a campaign, or donated money to a candidate"

The left and the right looks to Snopes.com to clarify and find the truth versus the garbage printed by rumor mills.

http://snopes.com/info/articles.asp

124
Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena
« on: July 25, 2012, 11:35:34 AM »
FMD is Obama's father?   :-o :-o :-o

Odds are probably better that Romney's real biological father was a Martian.

What garbage in the pursuit of truth.

 :roll:

125
Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism:
« on: July 24, 2012, 07:56:32 AM »
No offense but your "two friends" are full of camel dung.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp

126
Politics & Religion / Tax Returns; The drumbeat gets LOUDER; and look who's playing the drums
« on: July 19, 2012, 02:02:24 PM »
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/19/right-wing-rips-mitt-romney-for-refusing-to-release-tax-returns.html

127
Politics & Religion / Bachmann - a bigot and a racist?
« on: July 19, 2012, 01:56:58 PM »
As a  member  of Congress, with a seat on the House Intelligence Committee, Mrs. Bachmann you know better. Shame on you, Michele! You should stand on the floor of the House and apologize to Huma Abedin and to Secretary Clinton and to the millions of hard working,loyal, Muslim Americans for your wild and unsubstantiated charges. As a devoted Christian, you need to ask forgiveness for this grievous lack of judgment and reckless behavior.

"These allegations about Huma, and the report from which they are drawn, are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant," McCain said.

"When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it," he added.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/18/bachmann-former-campaign-chief-shame-on-michele/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/boehner-calls-bachmann-accusations-pretty-dangerous/

128
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 18, 2012, 06:45:39 PM »
I definitely agree!  Discretionary is merely the tip of the iceberg. But sadly in my opinion,  it's a non sequitur until the election.  After that, regardless of who wins, I hope a bipartisan effort will be made. Simply increasing Social Security's age of retirement would make a big difference. Other issues of course exist.

129
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 18, 2012, 10:50:33 AM »
Interesting, the very next article on your  pjmedia link showed this opposing logic.

Drumbeat Grows from Right for Romney to Release Returns

The National Review, the Weekly Standard, columnists like George Will, and several prominent GOP lawmakers have all called on Mitt Romney to release additional tax returns. Even “objective” reporters have gotten into the act and criticized the candidate for keeping his filings to himself.

As the National Review puts it:

Romney may feel impatience with requirements that the political culture imposes on a presidential candidate that he feels are pointless (and inconvenient). But he’s a politician running for the highest office in the land, and his current posture is probably unsustainable. In all likelihood, he won’t be able to maintain a position that looks secretive and is a departure from campaign conventions. The only question is whether he releases more returns now, or later — after playing more defense on the issue and sustaining more hits. There will surely be a press feeding frenzy over new returns, but better to weather it in the middle of July.


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/18/drumbeat-grows-from-right-for-romney-to-release-returns/

130
Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant
« on: July 18, 2012, 10:42:43 AM »
The new links do work; thank you.

131
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Talented WI working mothers
« on: July 18, 2012, 07:25:40 AM »
Mayer hails from a small town in Wisconsin where she showed an early aptitude for science and math.

A top debater, she was on a high school team that won the Wisconsin state championship while her pompom squad was a state runner-up.

She pulled all-nighters studying artificial intelligence at Stanford and was leaning toward a consulting job at McKinsey advising Silicon Valley tech companies after graduation when, at the age of 24, she decided to take a gamble on a little-known Internet company called Google.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-yahoo-marissa-mayer-20120718,0,5425804.story

132
Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant
« on: July 18, 2012, 07:19:12 AM »
Welcome Russ!

I'm looking forward to reading about what you were doing in Tibet, but your links don't seems to work....


133
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« on: July 18, 2012, 07:08:32 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2012, 06:16:19 AM
Ummm , , , no.  NO ONE has to troll, and it is a bummer and a drag on this forum when someone does.  In this case Doug took the time to find and bring here considerable support/evidence of the point he was making.  Your response just ignores it.  This is tedious and a waste of our time.

My "troll" comment was tongue in cheek in response to Doug's snide troll comment.  I agree Doug posted an excellent piece although I would not call it "considerable support/evidence.  The FACTS remain that the Senate in a BIPARTISAN manner agreed it was a mistake, a mistake so little that they approved the man to be Secretary of the Treasury.  Further no other enforcement agency thought they were "major tax law compliance errors.  They were all minor; as proof he paid no penalty. 

Geithner called the tax issues "careless", "avoidable" and "unintentional" errors, and he said he wanted to "apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues".Geithner testified that he used TurboTax to prepare his 2001 return, but that the tax errors were his own responsibility. The Obama campaign stated that Geithner was advised by his accountant that he did not owe any taxes beyond those assessed by the IRS following the 2006 audit. Geithner said at the hearing that he had always believed he was an employee, not a self-employed contractor, while serving at the IMF

Nearly everyone, except for a few partisan critics said it was a non issue.  Hardly "tax evasion". 

Tedious and a waste of time; why because I don't agree that Secretary Geither is buffoon?  One is not a buffoon merely because they disagree with your economic policies.

Geithner spent most of his childhood in other countries, including present-day Zimbabwe, Zambia, India, and Thailand where he completed high school at the International School Bangkok. He attended Dartmouth College, in the tradition of his father and paternal grandfather, graduating with an A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983. In the process, he studied Mandarin at Peking University in 1981 and at Beijing Normal University in 1982. He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in 1985. He has studied Mandarin and Japanese.

In October 2003, at age 42, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. His salary in 2007 was $398,200. As President of the New York Fed, he served as Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty. In May 2007, he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank. In November he rejected Sanford Weill's offer to take over as Citigroup's chief executive.

During the 2008 Presidential election, as a registered Independent, Geithner was one of three people tipped to be nominated for Treasury Secretary regardless of whether John McCain or Barack Obama won.

Hardly a Buffoon or a tax evader. 





134
Politics & Religion / The uncommon man
« on: July 18, 2012, 06:29:46 AM »
"For 2010, the Romneys enjoyed a federal tax rate of only 13.9% on their adjusted gross income of roughly $22 million, which gave them a lower federal tax burden (including payroll, income and excise taxes) than the average American wage-earning family in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. The principal reason for this munificently low tax rate is that much of Romney's income, even today, comes from "carried interest," which is just the jargon used by the private equity industry for compensation received for managing other people's money."

The vast majority of tax scholars and policy experts agree that awarding a super-low tax rate to this one form of labor income is completely unjustified as a policy matter. Romney has not explained how, as president, he can bring objectivity to bear on this tax loophole that is estimated as costing all of us billions of dollars every year.

The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation by Romney of how his wealth was accumulated, where it is now invested, what purpose is served by all the various offshore vehicles in which he has an interest and what his financial relationship with Bain Capital has been since his retirement from the company.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

135
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:38:56 PM »
I'm just trying to help.   :-)  Someone has to "troll" and so you can "find the truth".  :evil:

136
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« on: July 17, 2012, 06:20:52 PM »
Doug, can YOU still not grasp that even the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan decision decided it was a "mistake" and approved him overwhelmingly.

There's nothing there....  You might want to move on to something of substance.


137
Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« on: July 17, 2012, 05:59:22 PM »
He made a "mistake" obviously not very serious since no penalties were assessed.

I've been audited before; after hours upon hours on haggling, I ended up paying a few dollars plus interest as well.  No penalties.  Absolutely no one accused me of "tax evasion". 

Further, as I also pointed out, it couldn't have been too bad in the opinion of those who matter since he was approved by the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 60-34 for Secretary of the Treasury.
Those that matter, on both sides of the aisle agreed, it was clearly a "mistake". 

138
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: July 17, 2012, 05:43:14 PM »
The search for truth is always a noble endeavor. That said, if one is seeking truth it would be nice if reliable sources other than Geller and Spencer could be found. Otherwise it seems like the aimless rants of a "lunatic" is the only source available. 

139
Politics & Religion / Romney and Personal Income Taxes
« on: July 17, 2012, 03:19:45 PM »
Quote from: ccp on July 17, 2012, 02:59:06 PM
"the sitting Treasury Secretary's tax evasion"

Good grief, Secretary Geithner made a mistake on his taxes.  He was neither charged nor convicted of any wrongdoing.
Further, he was approved by the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 60-34 for Secretary of the Treasury.

Also, I disagree.  I predict Independents and Undecideds will care if Romney continues to stonewall. 
Even a few respected conservatives like George Will already care and suggest full disclosure.

140
Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America
« on: July 17, 2012, 02:16:49 PM »
Ahhh Ms. Geller again.

"Her claims are so bizarre that one struggles to understand whether they are worthy of a response. Indeed, one can understand why Charles Johnson, who runs the blog Little Green Footballs, where Geller used to write, said about her: "That would be Ms. Geller. She has a very long record of absolute lunacy, mixed with bigotry and racism and I am far from the only person to point this out."

Geller's modus operandi is to use head-turning statements to merely draw attention to the message of Robert Spencer. The two of them co-founded an organization (Stop Islamization of America) whose actions the Anti-Defamation League concluded "promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam."

Geller has become hysterical with delusions of grandeur, coupled with paranoia of an imaginary global conspiracy.


I think that pretty well sums Geller up.  Yet Objectivist1, rather than quoting academic scholars or respected individuals, you continue to quote this "lunatic zealot".  Is that the best you can do?

For those who want to read both sides of the story, here is the original post by Harris Zafar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harris-zafar/confronting-pamela-geller_b_1668089.html

141
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 17, 2012, 09:28:21 AM »
Doug, perhaps because there is no defense, you seem to be merely trying to obfuscate the issue.  What does fast and furious have to do with personal tax returns?  Or the President's job record?  Or for that matter, my personal tax returns?  I'm not running for office; Romney is.  Let's get back to point.

Odd, Romney felt compelled and willing to release 21 years of tax returns to McCain when he was being vetted for VP and then was subsequently rejected by McCain, but now, for the public.....

Tax Returns ARE relevant.  It's not just me, or simply Democrats, but even prominent conservative Republicans say so. And more each day.

If this was Obama, you and everyone else on this forum would be clamoring for tax returns and insinuating that something is terribly possibly criminally wrong.  And you know it.

Frankly, as a politician it's indefensible that Romney won't release them especially given the 100's of millions of dollars he's made as a corporate raider.  Between Swiss Bank Accounts, the Cayman Islands, etc. he can probably move dollars around faster than you can hit a tennis ball. 

He's better off releasing everything now, face the ramifications if any for a few days, then move on.  This is a lot of money we are talking about, not his college grades or some other innocuous matter.  I don't think this issue will go away.

142
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 17, 2012, 08:11:35 AM »
That's why I and frankly a few other people I know won't run for Office.   :-)

Once you do run, your private life becomes public; but then that's how it should be in my opinion.  So IF you run for public office, you better accept it.

Note, even a growing number of prominent conservative Republicans are saying the same; Romney should release his returns.

143
Politics & Religion / Tax Returns - What's Romney afraid of?
« on: July 17, 2012, 07:49:53 AM »
On ABC’s This Week (George) Will said that the campaign “must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

Dowd, who is also a commentator on ABC’s This Week, agreed.  “There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said Sunday.

“I do not know why, given that Mitt Romney knew the day that [John] McCain lost in 2008 that he was going to run for president again that he didn’t get all of this out and tidy up some of his offshore accounts and all the rest,” said Will.

Appearing on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer” last week, former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said he’d go further than the financial disclosures required by law – and further than Romney has gone in releasing his taxes.

Former RNC chairman Michael Steele and Alabama governor Robert Bentley have agreed with the small, but growing gaggle of Republicans urging Romney to action in releasing his taxes.

“If you have things to hide, then maybe you’re doing things wrong,” Bentley said of Romney’s taxes at the National Governor’s Association last week.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/growing-conservative-voice-romney-should-release-taxes/

144
Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« on: July 16, 2012, 08:22:52 AM »
"BO illegally kills Welfare Work Requirement"     :? :? :?

Hardly, even Herman Cain who wrote the partisan piece didn't call it "illegal". 

"illegally"; a bit of hyperbole or worse don't you think? 

Besides, I thought most here on this forum supported states rights?   :evil:

All it is is a test if you will, for each state to do as it sees fit on how to handle the situation of welfare to work programs. Sounds reasonable to me.

"States will not be able to escape the work requirements of the landmark 1996 federal welfare reform law, the administration said, but they may get federal approval to try to accomplish the same goals by using different methods than those spelled out in the legislation."

145
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 14, 2012, 07:13:01 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2012, 06:35:34 PM
So, you acknowledge that the piece you cited didn't say what you said it did?  (presumably due to a careless read)

No, I only said that Kerry filed numerous tax returns; he did.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/was-romney-right-about-john-kerry/


High school?  NO ONE HERE BROUGHT UP HIS HIGH SCHOOL RECORDS so why would you?
Because people have brought up that Obama should disclose records relating to the absurd; my point is that it is equal to High School Records, i.e. irrelevant. 

More relevant is that there seems to be no discernable record of BO's time at Columbia--or even memory of him except for his composite girlfriends  :evil: -- though curiously enough apparently he did spend a goodly amount of money making sure that his time there go unrevealed.   IMHO college records are relevant (for example John McCain revealed his mediocre record at Annapolis) There are reports of him being guided into Harvard, which would be disproved by a quality record at Columbia, but more to the point, particulary in the case of a cipher like BO, college record would seem important to the sincere and unhypocritical.

College grades are not relevant.  At the time they ran for President, I don't care if John McCain was near the bottom of his class or if Bush got mostly "C's". I love your "there are reports", but no facts.....

And your lack of reference to BO's law school records in your reply is an acknowledgement of their relevance?
No, my lack of reference to BO's law school records is an acknowledgement of their irrelevance.  He was Editor of the Law Review at Harvard!  He was asked to be a Professor at University of Chicago. Not bad.   :evil:

Why the insinuation that dad helped MR with Harvard?  Any basis for that, or is it just a spontaneous smear on your part?
No more of a smear than your baseless "reports" of Obama.  Further, I acknowledged I don't care; lot's of people I know one way or another are getting help to get into the college of their choice.  At this point in their life, it's not relevant presuming it was legal.

As for MR's tax returns, they don't really matter to me-- the man's life and accomplishments are a substantial matter of record.  But apart for noting the utter hypocrisy in the double standards being applied, I'll leave the political gamesmanship to others and to those who follow in thinking it important.
Actually the whole point of my post was Romney's tax returns.  Numerous prominent Republicans are beginning to agree, yet Romney confirmed he will not release any more.  Yet, he gave 21 years to McCain for vetting (note McCain rejected him).  It is relevant, it is important; and you know it.  This issue will not go away.


146
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 13, 2012, 04:51:21 PM »
But don't you think that Mitts' tax returns, especially given his wealth and HOW he made his money, and the taxes he paid (or didn't) is a LOT more important than Obama's High School and College grades?  Kerry married rich; good for him - that's easy to track the money.  No one cares about that.  Most would say that's simply good luck. 

Mitts went to BYU, then transferred to Harvard.  Probably his Dad helped with that.  So what; I don't care nor does anyone else, but his tax records ARE important.

Or do you really think this will all blow away and that Mitts tax returns aren't fair game?

147
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 13, 2012, 04:08:39 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2012, 03:51:18 PM
Well, no one made any noise about gigolo John Kerry when he was running being worth hundreds of millions  , , , but perhaps that was because he didn't earn it (unlike Mitt who made his own fortune)  he got it by marrying two widows (one at a time of course) each worth hundreds of millions , , ,

That's the point; Kerry made it the old fashioned way; he (indirectly) inherited it.  :-)  It's easy to understand the money.  AND he did file numerous tax returns.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/04/17/466341/romney-lies-kerry-tax-returns/

Romney is different.  You understand that.  Smoke and mirrors are legal, but maybe not the best idea for a politician. 

Soon, they will be asking, "What is Romney hiding" if he doesn't soon release them.  Better to release them now; this is not going away.

148
Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential
« on: July 13, 2012, 03:03:59 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 13, 2012, 02:49:53 PM
Meanwhile, Obama repeated his call for Romney to release further tax records. He told a New Hampshire TV station, "What's important if you are running for president is that the American people know who you are and what you've done and that you're an open book." Good advice from the man who took three years to release his birth certificate, and who still refuses to produce his medical records, his college transcripts and papers, and his law school records. Indeed, Obama has been vague and dissembling about nearly every political and social affiliation he's ever had.

Come on Crafty; you've got to admit that tax returns are a LOT more important than college transcripts and school records. 

From the 'Non Compos Mentis' File

"[Mitt Romney's] father, George Romney, set the precedent that people running for president would file their tax returns, let everybody look at them. But Mitt Romney can't do that because he's basically paid no taxes in the prior 12 years." --Harry Reid

I think he's referring to the percentage.  Nothing illegal, but it is/will be a talking point if Mitts paid very low taxes versus the average middle class working stiff.  That's just politics.



149
Politics & Religion / Tax Returns
« on: July 13, 2012, 07:51:38 AM »
"Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) flatly told CNN Thursday that Romney needed to make at least six years’ worth of returns public — and soon.

“I think he should release his financial records and I think if he does it in July it would be a lot better than in October,” Jones said. “Whenever you are asking for the vote of the American people that you need to fully disclose what your holdings are, if you have any.”

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who considered running against Romney in the Republican primaries and advises the conservative American Crossroads on its election strategy, said this week that he saw value in disclosure as well.

Barbour told CNN Tuesday that he would release the returns if he was in Romney’s shoes.
“I would. But should it be an issue in the campaign? I don’t think it amounts to diddly.”

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele also called on Romney to release additional returns on MSNBC this week, reasoning that it would put Democratic attacks to rest. The Obama campaign highlighted Steele’s quote in a web video on Romney’s Cayman Islands and Bermuda assets.

“If there’s nothing there, there’s no ‘there’ there, don’t create a there,’” Steele said."

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/growing-republican-chorus-pushes-romney-to-release-tax-returns.php

150
Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues
« on: July 12, 2012, 07:39:16 AM »
Quote from: DougMacG on July 12, 2012, 07:04:46 AM
The boat is marked Texas Highway Patrol.  Don't let the facts get you off message.

Whoops!   :-o  Sorry, although my comments and point don't change.

Arizona doesn't blame immigrants for their problems.  What a bunch of Bullshit to intentional confuse armed robbers with invited guests.  Hard to say what the crime problems would be without Eric Holder arming them.

Actually, AZ and often TX does seem to blame immigrants for their problems.  And I don't get your point about the intention to "confuse armed robbers with invited guests". 
The point is that illegal immigration, although up in AZ and TX, CA and other border states in the period quoted, are not in fact the cause of an increase in violent crimes yet they seem to get blamed for everything.
TX would be better off spending the 2 million dollars on it's abominable K-12 educational system (ranking at the bottom) or it's health care (again, TX ranks at the bottom).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37