DescentBB

I could report further, if anyone really gives a ★■◆●, but bottom line is that these things are massively overrated, if they're only going to have two. Thousands of people jammed into a massive set of rooms, can't really see squat, news media to stumble over, crappy food, slow drinks. The speech on Monday was the best part, despite nutsoid security to go through. At night,Stevie Wonder was close to being worth being there for, and despite hating country music, by and large,Brad Paisley(sp?) wasn't half bad.

Oh, and take my word for it....Biden's running. Although no one said it for sure, the vibe is there among folks who ought to know. No one tried to hit for money, that task was focused on Organizing for Action. And, judging by the overall response, I'd be damned alarmed if I was a right-wing GOP member of Congress.....

No, not Biden. He's too old and not very popular. I'm betting it's Hillary (God I hope not, too many shades of Bill) the Dems are grooming, although that Benghazi episode might put a crimp in her style.

Biden couldn't do anything the last time or the time before that. Couldn't even debate Sarah Palin so how in Gods name will he handle Marco Rubio or Bobbi Jindal ?

woodchip wrote:Biden couldn't do anything the last time or the time before that. Couldn't even debate Sarah Palin so how in Gods name will he handle Marco Rubio or Bobbi Jindal ?

two things; proven success on the big stage(and more big tasks on the agenda this term) and two, a steadily rising likeability. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal won't have a chance. At the current trajectory, no Republican OTHER THAN Christie will. The big fellow could be formidable, for anyone. Hell, I'd consider him if the other choice was Hilary.

You forget...Biden is just another old rich white guy and if you think someone like Rubio doesn't have a chance then you're delusional. First off Rubio will take all the Latino votes and he will have a strong backing of all the conservatives and the independents. He is also good looking so he will sway a good percentage of the female vote. But hey, if you want to think he won't stand a chance be my guest.

woodchip wrote:You forget...Biden is just another old rich white guy and if you think someone like Rubio doesn't have a chance then you're delusional. First off Rubio will take all the Latino votes and he will have a strong backing of all the conservatives and the independents. He is also good looking so he will sway a good percentage of the female vote. But hey, if you want to think he won't stand a chance be my guest.

like I say, he's on the wrong side of the trajectory. He wasn't popular enough to sway the final result in Florida this past year. Yup, Biden will be old in 2016, which is why I never thought he would go through the hell of running. As for rich, he wasn't born that way. The male factor IS interesting. Look at New Hampshire.....a mix of Reps and Dems, but every leadership post in the State and every Congressional post is held by a woman. Might be the wave of the future....and, it might not be a bad thing.

Biden ran in 2008 and couldn't handle Hillary nor Obama in the primary. Do you think Biden won't have competiton in the Dems primaries for 2016? Christie might as well flip to the Democratic party the way he's been acting lately.

woodchip wrote:Biden ran in 2008 and couldn't handle Hillary nor Obama in the primary. Do you think Biden won't have competiton in the Dems primaries for 2016?

hard to tell. Traditionally, the Dems will contest it somewhat, although Gore got a pass when he shouldn't have.I had a few rather public heated comments about Gore....basically arguing that if we were going to run a wooden boy, we ought to have gone with Pinnochio.

Christie might as well flip to the Democratic party the way he's been acting lately.

that is exactly the sort of thinking that will doom the Republican party. Christie is a strong fiscal conservative, a great traditional, pragmatic Republican. That the nitwit fringe will damn him with commentary above, when he is the only national level member with more than a 27% positive public image, is sheer lunacy. And, I might add, political suicide.

I've gained a massive amount of respect for Christie over the past year or so, precisely because he's exposed how batshit insane most of the vocal Republican leadership really is. I mean God forbid he say something nice about the President! Gasp!

Top Gun wrote:I've gained a massive amount of respect for Christie over the past year or so, precisely because he's exposed how **** insane most of the vocal Republican leadership really is. I mean God forbid he say something nice about the President! Gasp!

not just that, but he gets things done, all the while working with a Democratic-led legislature(both houses). Much of what he said he would try to accomplish, he has made strides toward. I may not agree with several parts of his agenda, or many of his end-goals, but I have to respect someone who tries to do what he says he will do, on the campaign trail. The whole Sandy situation showed his pragmatism and leadership, as well as the old fashioned notion that his job was to advocate for the citizens of the State he represents, not tow some ideological hard line or play political games.

Wow. Who knew callmeslick and Top Gun were voting Republican in 2016?!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Wow. Who knew callmeslick and Top Gun were voting Republican in 2016?!

not voting against Joe, but it surely wouldn't be the first time I've voted GOP. Up until the late 90's, I routinely did so. The early 00's, here and there.
From the Tea Party inception, not at all, and likely never, if Woody's views carry the day for that formerly great party.

callmeslick wrote:...

The whole Sandy situation showed his pragmatism and leadership, as well as the old fashioned notion that his job was to advocate for the citizens of the State he represents, not tow some ideological hard line or play political games.

Yet you don't seem to mind the "ideological hard line" and "political games" from Obama. You are like all those media hacks who loved John McCain when he was a thorn in the side of the Repubs but he became 'the enemy' on the day he won the repub party nomination!

I think when/if Christie is actually a candidate and his rep supporters talk about how 'he gets things done' etc. you will be saying the substance of his goals matters too much to give him credit for being effective.

Late night comedy skits to include Christie on all fours with a back ground voice saying,"Squeal boy! Squeal like a pig!". Cue the banjo music.

Will Robinson wrote:Yet you don't seem to mind the "ideological hard line" and "political games" from Obama.

if I ever saw Obama as failing to be more than open to diverse views, or merely playing politically driven politics with no end goal that was positive for the nation, I would complain. But, I do not and have not.

You are like all those media hacks who loved John McCain when he was a thorn in the side of the Repubs but he became 'the enemy' on the day he won the repub party nomination!

my view on McCain was this.....he was an interesting(hardly perfect)political figure at one point, and sold out what seemed to be his own principles to win the nomination. Further, since losing, he has become a bitter whiner. The whole time, most of the folks(of either party) I talked to from Arizona were sort of ambivalent about him, which, I suppose, is telling

I think when/if Christie is actually a candidate and his rep supporters talk about how 'he gets things done' etc. you will be saying the substance of his goals matters too much to give him credit for being effective.

you will just have to wait and see, but what I've seen so far is a mix of stuff I like and stuff I don't like. What I wholeheartedly like is his consistency of word and deed. That counts for something at Chez Slick.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Yet you don't seem to mind the "ideological hard line" and "political games" from Obama.

if I ever saw Obama as failing to be more than open to diverse views, or merely playing politically driven politics with no end goal that was positive for the nation, I would complain. But, I do not and have not.

So you turn a blind eye to the division of voters between the haves and have nots?
You don't care about running guns to Mexican drug gangs and Obama issuing executive orders to hide it?

How about the diverse view that we need to be fiscally responsible? Sadly with Obama it is all about politics and so far I see no positive end result for the nation. Perhaps you would care to list what you think is positive.

woodchip wrote:So you turn a blind eye to the division of voters between the haves and have nots?
You don't care about running guns to Mexican drug gangs and Obama issuing executive orders to hide it?

continuing to write fiction, I see. One day, you might be able to make a living at it.....

How about the diverse view that we need to be fiscally responsible? Sadly with Obama it is all about politics and so far I see no positive end result for the nation. Perhaps you would care to list what you think is positive.

if you cannot see for yourself, and clearly, you wear blinders, no sense me wasting the time to clarify. Sorry, if you can't stick to telling the truth, you aren't worth my time.

I haven’t personally seen any benefit whatsoever from this admin., and when it comes time to have to buy health insurance my life may become even more of a mess.

Spidey wrote:I haven’t personally seen any benefit whatsoever from this admin., and when it comes time to have to buy health insurance my life may become even more of a mess.

obviously, personal gain is a short-term view and varies from individual to individual. However, my take on the whole thing is this:

On a personal level--
I benefit mightily from the economy not going into a liquidity collapse in 2009, and an employment debacle with massive domino effects had the auto companies gone bankrupt without government intervention. Both events would have negatively impacted my net worth, which has more than doubled during the Obama administration(in real terms, actual cash value probably much more than doubled).
I benefit, as a citizen, living in a nation where no one could jam through legislation, nor pack a Supreme Court in order to prevent gay people from getting married, women can still have access to an abortion if they choose(and live with the consequences of that choice).
I benefit as a citizen, and specifically, economically down the road, knowing that less people will be uninsured for basic medical coverage. A few less folks whose emergency room visits I will have to underwrite, and eventually, less of an unequal burden of costs on me to underwrite skewed pools limited only to sick people.
I benefit every day simply realizing that I live in a nation which rejects the hatred and negativity of the Tea Party. I think of the daily words of advice that popped up recently on my desk calender: No one follows a pessimist into battle.
I benefit as a citizen from my nation slowly rejoining the world community, and losing the arrogant "America Uber Alles" foreign policy stances of the prior eight years. The idea that this change is ongoing, and that finally, we might address the overriding, economically crippling growth of military spending in the coming years heartens me, because I know full well that it was military spending that brought the USSR down, and don't wish to see my nation go the same way.

in a far more general sense, I feel that much(not all) of Obama's focus has been toward the LONG TERM health of our economy, the welfare of ALL of the people and an attempt to unite the nation, thus far not very successful, but I sense(or did the other days in DC) that might be changing, bit by bit.
I don't view campaign rhetoric(often fueled by secondary voices in a campaign, and others), which tends to be more divisive at times, as reflecting the policy or aims of an administration. I also don't view this, or any administration in the nation's history as perfect, or even close to it. I do view this as a very, very good Presidency, and much like Reagan, one that shifts the national thinking. This time, the shift is back toward a positive view of the role of government, and away from selfish concerns. So far, so good.

woodchip wrote:Late night comedy skits to include Christie on all fours with a back ground voice saying,"Squeal boy! Squeal like a pig!". Cue the banjo music.

more Republican-killing stupidity from Woodchip. What Christie stands for is a set of very solid, conservative, traditional Republican values. His sort of Conservatism, I agree with in principle. You see, his view of "revenue in equal to spending out over a long-term planned approach" is far different than the sort of "slash government to the ground" ideal that infuses the loony extreme right. What some of you don't want to see is that MOST Americans see the value of government, and see the soundness of Christie's viewpoint. There may be, it seems, some regions where such an idea isn't as widely embraced, but Christie knows, as does Obama, that the overwhelming majority of the nation thinks in their terms, with variations around the extent of social welfare and other budget priorities, but rejecting absolutism spouted by the extremes of both left and right wings.

What some of you don't want to see is that MOST Americans see the value of government

and MOST Americans say we have a spending problem. Houston we have a problem.

Spending must be cut. demonizing those that attempt to be fiscally responsible like the left does is just scaremongering and serves no purpose but to try to keep certain people/party in power. because eventually there will be no more money and programs WILL be cut because they can no longer be funded. and then the problem will be MUCH larger and tougher to deal with. the head in the sand mentality of some is stunning.

CUDA wrote:

What some of you don't want to see is that MOST Americans see the value of government

and MOST Americans say we have a spending problem. Houston we have a problem.

actually, I think, most Americans agree with have a balance problem, but are far from unanimous about spending versus a radically reduced stream of revenue which was imposed over a decade back.

Spending must be cut. demonizing those that attempt to be fiscally responsible like the left does is just scaremongering and serves no purpose but to try to keep certain people/party in power. because eventually there will be no more money and programs WILL be cut because they can no longer be funded. and then the problem will be MUCH larger and tougher to deal with. the head in the sand mentality of some is stunning.

most economic analysis would disagree with your assessment. Further, the matter of WHERE to cut spending is a very real matter for debate. Most folks know that as the economy improves, so too will revenue. Many economists agree that spending now to provide a solid base for longterm growth is a very sound strategy. No one is demonizing anyone, but I am saying that to blindly call for slashing government is stupid and shortsighted.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:No one is demonizing anyone,

UHM the President does, Nancy Pelosi does, Harry Reid does. The President could have gotten the revenue he wanted and more by closing loop hole in the tax code. but he HAD TO HAVE a tax increase on the rich. "the Rich need to pay their fair share" he said. that my friend is demonizing. now he wants even more from the "RICH" and the rhetoric/demonizing to get it will follow

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:No one is demonizing anyone,

UHM the President does, Nancy Pelosi does, Harry Reid does. The President could have gotten the revenue he wanted and more by closing loop hole in the tax code. but he HAD TO HAVE a tax increase on the rich. "the Rich need to pay their fair share" he said. that my friend is demonizing. now he wants even more from the "RICH" and the rhetoric/demonizing to get it will follow

probably agree with the Reid/Pelosi part, but the reasoning behind the Obama view on tax revenues, is that your suggested method hurts the people in society who currently are on shakiest ground, ie-the middle class.

Woodchip, do you still think Sarah Palin won that debate against Joe Biden? You've got to be kidding me...so the ★■◆● didn't fall flat on her face, that doesn't mean she won. Hah...who cares? The woman is old news and everyone but you seems to know it.

Cuda's right, we do have a spending problem. Cut the military spending in half and leave everything else alone. I'd rather pay for a new national park than a new bomb. As we've seen in the last ten years, spending a trillion dollars a year on national security doesn't really do all that much. I suggest we take our lumps like the rest of the world.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:No one is demonizing anyone,

UHM the President does, Nancy Pelosi does, Harry Reid does. The President could have gotten the revenue he wanted and more by closing loop hole in the tax code. but he HAD TO HAVE a tax increase on the rich. "the Rich need to pay their fair share" he said. that my friend is demonizing. now he wants even more from the "RICH" and the rhetoric/demonizing to get it will follow

probably agree with the Reid/Pelosi part, but the reasoning behind the Obama view on tax revenues, is that your suggested method hurts the people in society who currently are on shakiest ground, ie-the middle class.

that's a fallacy and you know it. he specifically said we had to raise the tax rates on the rich and didnt want any part of the closing loop holes. they could have structured the tax loophole closure that it wouldn't have affected the middle class. he played intentional class war fare and demonized the rich. his own words "the Rich need to pay their fare share" is his condemnation. only a fool bought into that. what is fair???

CobGobbler wrote:Woodchip, do you still think Sarah Palin won that debate against Joe Biden? You've got to be kidding me...so the ★■◆● didn't fall flat on her face, that doesn't mean she won. Hah...who cares? The woman is old news and everyone but you seems to know it.

well....ALMOST everyone. And, Joe mopped the floor with Ryan last fall, so his track record in debates isn't half bad.

Cuda's right, we do have a spending problem. Cut the military spending in half and leave everything else alone. I'd rather pay for a new national park than a new bomb. As we've seen in the last ten years, spending a trillion dollars a year on national security doesn't really do all that much. I suggest we take our lumps like the rest of the world.

this, I'll suggest, is almost as absolutist as the slash and burn approach. We have to think our way through effectiveness, efficiency and ultimate value to our nation on this matter as well as all others. Simplistic answers of any kind tend to be extremely dangerous.

CobGobbler wrote:Cuda's right, we do have a spending problem. Cut the military spending in half and leave everything else alone.

sorry your math is flawed

Mandatory entitlements (Unemployment, Medicaid, Medicare, SS) :about 62% of the Federal Budget
'
Defense Spending (including overseas operations): 19%....

all other spending 8% education, foreign affairs, interest on our debt

you couldn't cut enough of the defense budget to make a difference

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/b ... t-programs

CUDA wrote:...he specifically said we had to raise the tax rates on the rich and didnt want any part of the closing loop holes. they could have structured the tax loophole closure that it wouldn't have affected the middle class.

and, by doing so, he would have raised tax rates on the rich, correct?

... his own words "the Rich need to pay their fare share" is his condemnation. only a fool bought into that. what is fair???

fool? Hardly, a plurality of Americans both understood it and agreed in early November. What is fair? Good question, but a nice starting point for most people is a return to the rates that got us a surplus in a good economy in the late 90's. For me, I think the 1955 tax code(year I was born) was VERY fair, and should be returned to for the good of the nation. Would I pay more under each option? Yes. Do I think either is fairer than the Bush idea of taxation?
Yes, again.

The biggest factor in getting us the surplus in the 90's was Clinton's gutting the military and our bases and presence around the world. NOT the tax rates

CUDA wrote:The biggest factor in getting us the surplus in the 90's was Clinton's gutting the military and our bases and presence around the world. NOT the tax rates

ya may want to check your math, as you suggested to others. Both played a role, but Bush's tax cuts alone managed to wipe out the surplus.....

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:The biggest factor in getting us the surplus in the 90's was Clinton's gutting the military and our bases and presence around the world. NOT the tax rates

ya may want to check your math, as you suggested to others. Both played a role, but Bush's tax cuts alone managed to wipe out the surplus.....

ya may want to check your math, there was this little thing going on called Iraq and Afghanistan that wiped out the surplus

sorry, my friend, but that created the deficit. Bush's cuts took care of the surplus by his own accounting.

slick is quite right.

Bush came into office and declared that a surplus meant the Fed was taking too much so he was giving back. I don't see much wrong with that, but the tax cuts should have ended when he wanted to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Face it people, Republicans only care about the deficit when someone else is deciding where the money goes. I'll agree with Dick Cheney--deficits don't matter.

Raise taxes, gut the military, end industrial subsidies, end all support for the financial industry, and impose a heavy, heavy tax on all ammunition purchases. Done.

throw in legalize marijuana sales and tax the bejeepers out of it for adult use, and you might be on to something. I will disagree that Bush's cuts were proper. Good economic planning for government budgets is to run a surplus when times are good, and pay down standing debt, which is what had been briefly going on.

CobGobbler wrote:..and impose a heavy, heavy tax on all ammunition purchases. Done.

Why? Either civilians have a right to weapons or they don't. Using taxation as a penalty or as a social engineering cattle prod is bad . As a practice you should find it to be just as bad as the subsidies you want to eliminate, they both are tools for selectively causing injustice and lead to corruption in government.

CobGobbler wrote:
Face it people, Democrats don't care about the deficit at all and will keep spending with impunity.because they know they can buy votes to keep them in power, and we agree with Dick Cheney--deficits don't matter.

Raise taxes, on Everybody. gut the welfare state, end freeloader subsidies, end all support for the Friends of the Unions society, and impose a heavy, heavy tax on 51% that don't pay any federal income tax at all. Done.

Fixed it for ya

FYI the HARD CORE liberal agenda doesn't fly for most of this country, and what you just posted is about as a far left a theology as there is.

Will Robinson wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:..and impose a heavy, heavy tax on all ammunition purchases. Done.

Why? Either civilians have a right to weapons or they don't. Using taxation as a penalty or as a social engineering cattle prod is bad . As a practice you should find it to be just as bad as the subsidies you want to eliminate, they both are tools for selectively causing injustice and lead to corruption in government.

by your logic, weapons should be free of any taxation, which isn't the case. Nothing wrong with upping the taxation. Although, I wouldn't support a heavy, heavy tax, and meant to put that in my response above. Then, you would be penalizing hunters, many of whom need to hunt to help feed their families, and others give the meat to food banks to feed the families of others(the guys who hunt my land in VA for deer do the latter, one of the reasons I choose them as lessees).

What about penalizing people who use their firearm for self-defense?! That's where an ammo tax really hits home. Take a lot of practice to be proficient enough to confidently use a firearm in defense (not to mention in the presence of innocent bystanders). If it was just a matter of actually doing the job with a firearm I wouldn't care if bullets were $2 apiece (except that they don't have to be), but you've gotta get that practice in!

Hollywood's gonna go broke