What's the big deal?

[j2k4]

Not his fault, agreed, but the association is easy:

Obama=Communism.



Wasn't Fox.

Was me.

I think that you have taken this too far Kev.

In Communism you win elections even if you lose the vote. Why did Florida suddenly come to mind. Sorry that's Fascism. Something completely different, or is it?

Once and for all, Bob, Bush won Florida in 2000, and the Dems even admitted it (after completing the count denied by the Supremes), though on like page 18 of that rag USA Today, and about eight months after the fact.

If even they got it, why won't you?

[bigboab]

I think that you have taken this too far Kev.

In Communism you win elections even if you lose the vote. Why did Florida suddenly come to mind. Sorry that's Fascism. Something completely different, or is it?

Once and for all, Bob, Bush won Florida in 2000, and the Dems even admitted it (after completing the count denied by the Supremes), though on like page 18 of that rag USA Today, and about eight months after the fact.

If even they got it, why won't you?

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are extreme right wing to me. The nearest thing we have in this country is The British National Party. Though you haven't gone that far right, yet!
When we think about it there is very little difference between the extreme right and the extreme left in politics. None of them represent the people unless you count 'First past the post' as democracy.

[j2k4]

Okay, okay.

Try it this way (relative to the last few posts):

Two different things going on, different dynamics, altogether.

1

B.O. is pushing (Dear God, how he is pushing) for sweeping (read: SWEEPING) changes, the results of which reasonable people are forecasting will resemble the communist example.

B

The two dominant parties are in turn dominated by incompetents and extremists.

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...


(break necessitated by run-on sentence)


.., because they make for more sympathetic or outrageous news leads to be interpreted for us by our lousy media.

That about sum it up for you?

[bigboab]

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

Exactly my sentiments. You need a Proportional Representation voting system. So do does the U.K. Under the present system you end up with two main parties who do nothing but nitpick. Under PR they would have to come and go in order to stay in power. The wee man/woman would have a say.

[j2k4]

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

Exactly my sentiments. You need a Proportional Representation voting system. So do does the U.K. Under the present system you end up with two main parties who do nothing but nitpick. Under PR they would have to come and go in order to stay in power. The wee man/woman would have a say.

So...you agree with me.

Isn't that something.

Well, that makes one of you.

[clocker]

B.O. is pushing (Dear God, how he is pushing) for sweeping (read: SWEEPING) changes, the results of which reasonable people are forecasting will resemble the communist example.

Oh pish and nonsense.
Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not reasonable people and no one else of sound mind thinks we're going to end up like the Soviet Union.

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

The "true middle class" of this country have actually done quite well over the past few decades and will probably continue to do so.
Compared to the extremely wealthy who, thanks to unceasing Republican pandering have done extremely well, the middle class might seem disadvantaged but compared to the rest of the world, we sit quite fat and happy.

[j2k4]

Oh pish and nonsense.
Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not reasonable people and no one else of sound mind thinks we're going to end up like the Soviet Union.

If polls were taken over that precise question (you should give thanks they are not), I believe you'd find you were wrong, but that's just a difference of opinion.

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

The "true middle class" of this country have actually done quite well over the past few decades and will probably continue to do so.
Compared to the extremely wealthy who, thanks to unceasing Republican pandering have done extremely well, the middle class might seem disadvantaged but compared to the rest of the world, we sit quite fat and happy.

"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.

The intended recipients of Obama's largesse - vis a vis health care - are the middle class...the people whose gripes about taxes have actual merit.

As an aside, apart from the insularity from economic suffering sought by the unionized auto workers, and taking into account the agenda-driven elasticity of statistics defining the middle-class, the auto-workers (who cry poverty at the drop of a hat) are hard-put to squeak in on the extreme statistical upper end of the class they claim as their own.

Hypocrites.

[bigboab]

Neither the parties nor the individuals running them are inclined to a true middle, hence the "middle" doesn't exist, except as represented by the true "middle-class" of this country, which class has historically been left out in the cold by our government in aid of it's compulsion toward the poor/minority/different-abled on the one hand, and the rich/connected on the other hand...

Exactly my sentiments. You need a Proportional Representation voting system. So do does the U.K. Under the present system you end up with two main parties who do nothing but nitpick. Under PR they would have to come and go in order to stay in power. The wee man/woman would have a say.

So...you agree with me.

Isn't that something.

Well, that makes one of you.

It's all about being a Mugwumper. I can see both sides of the fence I am sitting on.

[clocker]

If polls were taken over that precise question (you should give thanks they are not), I believe you'd find you were wrong, but that's just a difference of opinion.

Why should I give thanks?
Just because Fox piledrives a nonstop tsunami of Teabaggers, Birthers and Death Panelers through the airwaves doesn't mean that anyone who's learned to breathe through their nose believes any of that crap.

"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.



Hypocrites.

"Not good enough"?
You want guarantees?
Tell me one thing in life that's guaranteed...besides death.
Anyone who promises unconditionally that things will continue as they have been- or even get better- is just flat out lying to you.
You want "your America" back?
As Larry Wilmore said, "Tell that to the Indians".

Your obsession with the "fleecing of the rich" is completely inexplicable.
First of all, you're not rich, so why do you care?
Secondly, the Obama tax plan has planned to increase the taxes on those making over $250k a year by what, 3 or 4 percent?
Oh geez, that's brutal...totally a "fleecejob" if I ever heard of one.
My God, one less dinner party in the Hamptons, whatever will we do?
This whole "Obama is going to force the wealthy to support the lazy poor" has absolutely no basis in fact...and you know it.
So just stop with the crocodile tears for the "wealthy", I'm sure they'll manage.

[j2k4]

Why should I give thanks?
Just because Fox piledrives a nonstop tsunami of Teabaggers, Birthers and Death Panelers through the airwaves doesn't mean that anyone who's learned to breathe through their nose believes any of that crap.

Do you intend that^^^ to suffice as something other than a screed.

I am disappointed you have nothing to offer but insults.

"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.



Hypocrites.

"Not good enough"?
You want guarantees?
Tell me one thing in life that's guaranteed...besides death.

The answer to that is nothing - nothing at all...and we both know that's not the point.

Anyone who promises unconditionally that things will continue as they have been- or even get better- is just flat out lying to you.

So I guess we're just supposed to sit back and acquiesce to the B.O. machine...now, you want rich, that's rich, coming from a 60's, east coast, educated liberal.

When did you or your cohort begin to advocate staying home and letting the government roll over it's citizens...or have you come to prefer the government buyout?

What are you so afraid of?

We don't get too excited when you demonstrate or criticize, so why this animus from rank-and-file libs like you?

Unless your view is that such liberties are for liberals only to exercise?

Gee whiz, that's censorship you're advocating now.

You want "your America" back?
As Larry Wilmore said, "Tell that to the Indians".

After hauling out that stale old saw, you'd better never mention Bush in any context with the words Florida, election, or the number 2000 ever again.

Your obsession with the "fleecing of the rich" is completely inexplicable.
First of all, you're not rich, so why do you care?

That you continue to overlook the obvious is stunning.

I want to earn more than 250K, without being fettered by more onerous regulation and tax than already exists.

Secondly, the Obama tax plan has planned to increase the taxes on those making over $250k a year by what, 3 or 4 percent?
Oh geez, that's brutal...totally a "fleecejob" if I ever heard of one.

Do you also have exclusive rights to the term "slippery slope"?

Or the supplemental fact that less slope is required to go downhill when additional efforts are being expended in aid of "icing" the runway so comprehensively that disaster is all but assured?

Again, you assert I don't know what I'm talking about - why so one-note and shrill?

I mean, gee whiz...is it because I laughed at Hillary.

My God, one less dinner party in the Hamptons, whatever will we do?

YOU CAN VACATION IN THE HAMPTONS ON AN INCOME OF LESS THAN 250K A YEAR?!??

WHY WASN'T I INFORMED!!!

This whole "Obama is going to force the wealthy to support the lazy poor" has absolutely no basis in fact...and you know it.

No basis in fact?

I offer you the following, from the American Enterprise Institute:

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

I think that means it is already happening, and has been happening for a really good long while now.

So just stop with the crocodile tears for the "wealthy", I'm sure they'll manage.

Oh, they'll manage, I agree with you 100%.

But they'll pull in their financial horns, and put much less of their capital at risk to spur growth, which is what is needed.

What you and yours propose is confiscation by tax so the government can (with the attendent bureaucratic drainage) put that money in the pockets of the, uhm....let's see, what to call them...governmentally-defined needy, which will enable them to live better.

Right?

Your and Obama's solution, though, is not growth, it is what I called it - confiscation, followed by re-distribution.

That is by definition unsustainable, so what do you do then?

Take it all, I guess.