"the only way I am equating homosexuality with pedophilia is in the slippery slope they slide down."

That, and you don't know the definition of consent.

"That's how you can have a 1970 bomber of the Pentagon, cop stations and judges' house get a job as a professor at Chicago University and become friends with a POTUS candidate."

...at least that's what Sean Hannity told me while appearing onstage with Ollie North.

Oh, and here I thought she'd stolen drugs from a medical charity....

"Do you think that Bush and Co. will hand over power and leave quietly?"

Absolutely.

Wanna make it interesting?

The happiest? Easy...

Independents.

1. We get to bag on both parties.

2. We never have to like the current government's mistakes.

3. We're the only party with it's own National Holiday.

Reread the 5 mistakes, eliminating the word "caucus".

That's George Bush and Iraq.

"I guess we will have to make him president so we don't have a riot after the election."

And Republicans wonder why they don't get the black vote.

"well, you can't blame the Republicans for no good being done, because as you know they don't have enough of a majority to overcome a filibuster."

Had the Dems broken or tied the record, you'd have a point. Instead, they realized the majority of the country had elected the Rs, something the Rs have refused to admit about the Dems.

Hey, I'm not giving the Dems a pass, I'm just all about comparatives. And when someone breaks the all-time record for cloture refusals, one should take notice. When they do it in less than half the time, it's an identifiable plan of obstruction.

Again, give me 41 votes, and NOTHING will ever get done. Is that your fault, or mine?

"I'm also a vet of RROR meetings"

What percentage of them never closed a debate?

And what could your group have achieved if there was a determined minority who set record after record for refusing cloture?

The real irony is if the dumbass Democrats from MI and FL had played by the rules in the first place, there primaries would have had real meaning. But no, they wanted to leapfrog so their votes would "matter".

It seems the guys who purposely shot themselves in the foot are now pissed they're walking with a limp.

"but they don't..."

That's because Pelosi & Reid are jagoffs, and obviously never read the rules as well. They've postured and preened and guaranteed results they had no way to produce. They deserve plenty of blame, but as a veteran of hundreds of RROR meetings, trust me: if you can't close a debate, nothing else gets done.

"but they haven't done that"

Refusing to close debate is the same thing. Hasn't anyone on this blog ever read Robert's Rules of Order? Two facts: a determined minority of 41 or more in the Senate can grind anything to a halt they choose. And the Rs have set the all-time record for doing that, and in less than half the time. Do the math.

"Apparently no good bills could possibly make it until only the democrats have a major majority."

You're missing the point. It's misguided, at best, to look at the all-time record for filibusters (before the half-way mark, no less) and not assess blame that way. Under our Rules of governance, if one side has 41 votes, they can be as disruptive and counter-productive as they choose. Nothing passes, because debates never close. In the past, most minorities have realized the country elected the majority for a reason. This group of Republicans couldn't give a damn, and their mantra has been obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Your continued blaming of the Democrats for the Republicans' actions shows a profound misunderstanding of Robert's Rules of Order, where 41 votes in the Senate can put the brakes on everything.

"you see I would be putting up good bills for this nation not political bills for money pandering."

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't get anything out of committee, and if you did, nothing would ever come up for a vote.

"But it seems you can't seem to grasp good politics, just party pandering."

And it seems you can't seem to grasp the first thing about how governance works, and the rules thereunder. The Republicans have set the record for filibusters in less than half the time, and you've yet to address it.

"Well, Danforth, I would take that."

Then you're an idiot. Not only will you not pass a bill, you won't even close a debate.

Do-nothing.

"The democratic party has shown clearly they are a do nothing party"

Tell you what, Moneywar: You take 59 Senate votes, give me 41, let me set the record for fillilbusters in less than half the time, and let's see who "does nothing".

On another thread, we were discussing minimum standards for candidates and voters. Maybe knowledge of Robert's Rules of Order should be a requirement as well.

"Per capita? Absolutely"

Why is that the bar? Why not raw dollars?

"It's the wealthy Republicans subsidizing all of the scum-of-the-earth bottom dwelling Democrats in the state of Michigan. "

I asked earlier, on another thread, and didn't get an answer: are you actually claiming the state of Michigan gets more tax revenue from Oakland County than the city of Detroit?

"Yet, they voted for him in 68"

The "peaceniks"?!? Try reading a history book. Or talking to one of us who lived through it.

Wow, Joe...you remembered. I'm flattered.

Oh, and no one in the profession actually spells it T-H-E-A-T-E-R. We'd all laugh at you over our lattes while waiting in the unemployment line. ;-)

Newt suggesting another Contract With America?

What short memories we all have. Newt was 0-for-8 on the last one: of the 8 main tenets of the CWA, exactly ZERO became law.

"I'm guessing Nixon's anti-war stance got him an awful lot of votes from the peaceniks...so, I'd call that pandering to them"

You're guessing wrong. Nixon was the embodiment of us still being there. They hated him, and he returned the feeling.

"Peeps are really gross."

I agree. The only way I like them is to break the seal immediately, and wait a few weeks until they get really hard & crunchy.

Mmmmmm.....Peep-a-licious!

"Johnson truly scaled it up and made it an open war, all the while trying to fight it without trying hard to win it. Nixon, as much of a lefty as any Dem, pandered to the potheads and got re-elected promising to end the war "with honor""

One agreement, one disagreement:

First: Nixon never pandered to "the potheads" or even pretended to. He made no effort to hide his disdain for them.

Second: You're dead-on about Johnson. He wasn't playing to win, he was playing to tie. He would only bomb enough to affect the Paris Peace Talks.

We were supposed to learn from that the lesson we should never fight a war we're not prepared to win. Too bad too few learn from history.

"Peeps"

No way! You'll get my peeps when you pry them from my cold, dead...yellow-sugared hands.

"Do you want to 'debate' me on Michigan Demographics? "

It depends. Are you actually claiming more Michigan state revenue comes from Oakland County than Detroit?

"which I admitted"

You posted the bullshit multiple times, and "admitted" the "exaggeration" only after being caught. Wow, that's some barometer for hyperbole you've got there.

"Johnson escalated the war and then gave up, just as we were winning it"

That's some serious revisionist history.

"It's not like the dem's have the juevos to prevent it."

You're confusing "juevos" with "Constitution".

(Not that the dems have juevos, on that I agree.)

"No, actually it was my ass."

Oh....the usual place. That explains it.

" I looked at his website and didn't find anything of the sort"

Really? You looked at his website and couldn't find any evidence of your lie? What a surprise!

"So, you either admit it was bullshit (like I did), or you back it up."

Before you admitted it was bullshit, I knew you were wrong, and surmised the only place you could have gotten that (bullshit) number is from the S-chip debate, in which case, you were wildly misrepresenting the truth. Since being caught, you've decided to bag on me for pointing out your admittedly purposeful lie.

More feces please, Lie or Die.

"To say Nixon lost the war was foolish and inaccurate..."

I'm waiting for you to say that about our next President and Iraq.

"He won't touch the stuff."

But I'll bet he cashes the royalty checks.

You were barfing up a number which, you admitted, had no basis in reality. And now you want me to find what you admitted doesn't exist. Too precious.

More feces, please.

"On what basis?"

One, I'd say, was Nixon accepted virtually the same terms he and Kissinger had been offered four years prior. Another would be the theory of plausible deniability, where they made a deal to delay the takeover, effectively hanging our bravest out to die. Nixon wasn't "stuck"; he made many, many decisions, and could have changed course any time he wanted. The ultimate proof, though, is the treason Republican nominee Nixon committed in 1968, persuading Nguyen Van Thieu to avoid the talks by promising him a better deal for South Vietnam under him as President.

"Just how much of that $100 plus million is she willing to fork out to keep her lifeboat afloat?"

Let's not forget, in that tax bracket, and that state, they're lucky if they had $60 million after taxes.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

"And you cherry pick the " Independent groups agree with me"
Just proves my point.

Then I'm sure you can find independent groups who agree with you.

Or maybe proof from the governmental revenue numbers, the only "group" that truly matters. Until you can show where revenues, adjusted for inflation, beat the TY 2000 revenues, you're provably full of shit.

Ness, I knew there was a joke in there somewhere!

"especially since you're so concerned about me backing up an "assertion" which was really nothing more than hyperbole."

I'm not concerned. Keep throwing more feces for all I care. Just get accustomed to folks not believing a word you say. Fine by me.

" Vietnam ended the same way, dems quit."

Some idiotic posts defy comment.

"I've often thought that there should be educational, or I.Q., test thresh-holds for both voters and candidates for elected office..."

How about being able to pass a freshman Econ 101 midterm? I'd vote for that.

"See?"

You're missing the point. Those who claim "tax cuts increase revenue" are ignoring the facts in favor of their agenda.

"So you are willing to sensationalize the size of that fruit just to make a more impressive argument."

I'm not sensationalizing anything. That's exactly what the tax code says. And the point isn't the example, it's the principle. A generation ago, the idea of taxing sweat-of-the-brow work MORE than unearned income was considering appalling. Today, it's standard operational procedure, in every tax bracket.

Fair?

Reinheitsgebot, thanks for the link. I'll bookmark it and save it for the next Econ 101 flunk-out.

"we tend to gravitate toward the ones that reaffirm our own positions."

You're joking, right? The bottom line numbers reaffirm my position. One has to cherry-pick stats to reaffirm yours. Independent groups agree with me. Groups with an agenda (the WSJ, with a vested interest in tax cuts for the wealthiest) agree with you. BTW, if you really want the truth--sometimes brutal--about American markets, I'd suggest the UK Financial Times.

"to be taxed at the 35% rate one must include a pretty big lump(evil rich) in other income to kick one into that bracket ...right?"

True. But consider an upper-level exec (making, say, $500K) who gets laid off on November 1st. His neighbor makes $1000 in LTCG and pays $150. He makes $1000 in unemployment and pays $350.

Fair?

"can you name 5 Republicans in our federal government who you feel are not absolute pieces of shit?"

I can:

John Warner
Chuck Hagel
Olympia Snowe
Colin Powell
Arlen Specter

"Currently, we tax unemployment at higher rates "

Unemployment is taxed as regular income, as high as 35%. LTCGs have a top rate of 15%. That's more than double. In the middle bracket it's 25% vs. 15%. In the lower bracket it's 15% vs. 5%. In the lowest, it's 10% vs. 5%. There are no brackets where LTCGs are taxed as high as unemployment, unless the taxpayer has no taxable income and is in the zero bracket.

""the Wall Street Journal, capital gains realizations went from $269 billion in 2002, before the tax cut, to $729 billion in 2006. As a result, Treasury revenues more than doubled in the same time period from $49 billion to $110 billion."

You're taking one stat in a vacuum. Compare total revenues to total revenues, that's the only stat that truly matters. If "tax cuts increase revenues", revenues would be higher once adjusted for inflation. They're not.

Besides, when it comes to tax cuts for their "constituents", the WSJ has about as much credibility as Newsmax.

" what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness..... That's not fair."

Currently, we tax unemployment at higher rates than long term capital gain; in some cases, more than double.

Fair?

"And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased."

Charlie Gibson adds to the ranks of newspeople who would flunk a freshman Econ 101 midterm: he ddn't factor in inflation.

Once you do that, which every new Econ student must do before being dismissed for fall break, the truth emerges: tax cuts DO NOT increase revenue. The highest government revenues ever--once adjusted properly for inflation--were TY 2000, the last year of the Clinton tax codes.

"What are you even talking about?"

You should probably find out before you post.

"your phony study."

My study?!? Thanks for proving my point, dipshit.

"Check out their "speedometer" of when Jesus is coming back--pure narcissistic modern American insanity."

Not to mention blasphemy...which they would realize if they ever actually read the Bible.

"McCain didn't go to Cornerstone Church for 20 years."

Riiiiight. He just waited until Hagee claimed gays were responsible for Katrina, the Catholic Church was "the great whore", and suggested Jews were only good as pawns in the Apocalypse.

And then, McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement.

And then, after a study showed only 60% of that reduction went to the intended beneficiaries, and 40% into higher profits, he wised up. Isn't that what we want from our politicians, or will that be considered a flip-flop.

Of course, CPJ never felt the need to get the rest of the story. Typical.

And CPJ, remind us...what was/were your previous DR handle(s)?

" and in many cases free access to social security"

If there are "many cases" of illegals receiving social security, I'm sure you can link to at least one.

"any candidate who advocates government interference in any industry (including the medical industry) is a Socialist therefore Obama is a Socialist."

Well, by that barometer, we've been socialist since the day America wrote its first regulation, and moved onto a new plain with the bailout/rescue of Bear Stearns.

"I'm failing to see where his plan (as presented on his campaign's website) narrows down the offered subsidies to families with multiple children in only the most expensive areas of the country. Perhaps you could help me out."

You're right, you're "failing to see" it. So---what---you decided to throw feces against the wall to see what would stick?!?

You made the bogus assertion. That means the onus is on you to either prove or retract. We're going to have big enough problems, regardless who gets elected, to make up some pretend ones. For starters, look up "poverty level" and "cost of living".

"...he cannot carry the blue-collar vote needed to win the general."

Only if the Republicans run Hillary.

LOD, you're incredibly far off on that assertion. Please do a little research and come back with the truth. That number included entire family income, a spouse and multiple children, and only in the most expensive area(s) of the country. In no way is it the average, or the mean, or truly representative of the idea of S-chip. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot not to like about it, but you're being irresponsible by throwing out misleading crap like that.

"I answered, you don't like the answer."

Your "answer" contradicted your other posts, the references you made, and the study you pointed to. It was basically, "well, it won't happen that way". You'd even lose a high-school debate contest with crap like that.

"...tell us why Obama should not be held to his statement that, "Indiana is the tie-breaker"

Because that's not the rule. Should Hilary have "gone home", as Bill promised, after losing Texas? No. And why? That's not the rule.

Your turn: Do you think a gas-tax holiday, where the only study you've referenced showed only 60% went to the intended beneficiaries, is a good economic policy?

And: Are you being compensated in any way for your postings?

"I did, on that thread."

You claimed 100% would go back to the people, yet the one study you'd referenced earlier showed only 60% did.

So you still haven't answered the question.

"Still no answer, eh, Danny Boy?"

No, not from you, yet. Will you ever answer whether or not you believe an economic idea that comes with a 40% surcharge is a good one?

"Going to be millions more dying of starvation, so that liberals can feel good about themselves filling up the gas tanks of their SUV's with corn"

Well, then let's switch to hemp.

Oops, now it's the conservatives in the way.

Wow...that was easy.

" perhaps you will be able to formulate an answer to the question"

Says the guy who has steadfastly refused to answer if a plan with a 40% surcharge is a good economic idea.

Corky, are you being compensated in any way for your political postings?

"Shouldn't we hold him to that?"

As long as we hold Bill to his statements about Texas.

"Your silly quest for the truth in every instance detracts from the missions and the men who carry them out."

RIR, is it truly your position that a family who has sacrificed their son for the war effort doesn't deserve the truth?

"Hillary's proposal has nothing to do with the road fund. "

Are you daft? Where does the Federal gas tax go? And if it doesn't go to the road fund, why would Hillary propose a windfall profits tax to make up the lost revenue?

Being dishonest about this does nothing for your candidate. Or at least, nothing positive.

"Lessee, would I rather have 60 percent of a million dollars, or turn that down because I couldn't have the whole million?"

Lessee, would I rather take billions out of the Road Fund with 40% going to the oil companies, or not?

Why won't you answer the question directly: do you believe a proposal with a 40% surcharge is a good economic idea, or not?

"Hillary is willing to try"

Corky, just to see how tethered you are to reality, do you believe it's a good economic choice to suggest something which has proven to forgo 40% of the proposed "benefit"?

Considering that the new leader of the Repub Party and one of the Dem candidates is for some kind of gas holiday means it may have a chance, if not this year then next year.

Gee...and the already underfunded Road Funds---slated by GWB to be underfunded from minimal needs by $2 billion in FY 2009---will be even more underfunded.

And the one candidate who wants to tax the "windfall profits" is willing to forgo 40% of the proposed "benefit". Idiots, all.

" What they should have done is tell the family the name of the 22-year-old kid who shot Pat Tillman, so he can get hate mail the rest of his life. "

What a pile of bullshit. Names didn't have to be disclosed. A "litany" of friendly-fire accidents didn't need to be rehashed. But the truth is not too much to demand, especially when their son, brother, & friend has given his life. And the complete fabrication regarding the circumstances of his death is deplorable, suggesting there was no honor is his service, due to the manner of his death.

"If you think the Bush Administration is complicit in Tillman's death, say so and why. "

That, I don't know. The problem is, neither does the family, nor the country.

"or is he just ignorant of the only study done?"

What part of '40% didn't go to the intended beneficiaries' don't you understand?

"Now Bush and his evil cabal are handing out medals to people who didn't really deserve them"

You may need to recheck your taking points: the Bush administration has admitted it didn't tell the family (its version of) the truth until after the very public funeral. Cold, heartless, and agenda-driven, I'd say.

"I thought they were reported as income. Are you confusing that with short term capital gains?"

Most dividends are "qualified" dividends, that is, not derived from bank or bond interest, and culled from investments lasting (iirc) at least 4 months. The top rate, 38.5% when Bush took office, was slashed to 15%, a rate cut of about 60%.

Long term capital gains---on assets held over one year---also have a top rate of 15%. Short-term CGs, bank/bond interest, and non-qualified dividends are all treated as regular income.

And yes, that means in some cases we federally tax dividends at less than half of what we tax unemployment.

"This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists."

This also suggests 40% of what was intended for the consumers' pockets ended up in the pockets of the oil companies. That's an onerous surcharge on top of a lousy idea.

"The kiddie-fiddling in the Catholic Church is being addressed as a problem. "

You're joking, right? They only "addressed" it after they got caught so many times they couldn't sweep it under the rug any more.

"So that's a fairly stupid bit of equivocation."

I'll consider the source: Some idiot who actually believes a sermon from Reverend Wright is worse than the Catholic Church shuffling pedophilic priests from parish to parish, subjecting a new group of innocents each time.

Dan you really don't know anything about God and religion and baptism--do you?"

Can you taste the stupid when you post shit like that? I've attended thousands of religion classes, almost all Bible-centric.

I just have to chuckle at the raging hypocrisy from folks like (still) practicing Catholics O'Reilly and Hannity, bashing Obama for not leaving his church, as if ludicrous rhetoric is somehow worse than kid-diddling and deadly lies about condoms.

"What is your point?"

Since you haven't left the Catholic Church, does that mean you should be held responsible for the priestly pedophilia, and the Church's out-and-out lies regarding condoms in sub-Saharan Africa?

"ex post facto arguments"

Well, let's try a real-time argument: North did what Congress had expressly forbidden by law.

Oh, and according to Nancy Reagan, lied to Ronnie when discussing Iran-Contra.

"Hagee doesn't."

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. All Hagee says is gays caused Katrina, the Catholic Church is "the great whore", and he believes Jews are mere pawns for the Christian Apocalypse.

And after that, McCain actively sought his endorsement.

"And Obama is eternally attached to WRIGHT! "

Murphy...aren't you a Catholic?

"Why then does Ike disagree with You "

He has a right to his opinion. But he wasn't the guy who had to make the decision; Truman was. And Ike had the comfort of hindsight, as well as 15 years. Truman didn't have those luxuries.

"You really don't get it."

Oh, I get it: Republicans embrace those who break the law and subvert the will of Congress, as long as it's in the employ of other Republicans.

"It had absolutely Ziltch to do with saving lives."

I've read at least a dozen Truman biographies, and not a one agrees with that position. HST was agonizing over the decision, and finally did it as an attempt to save the lives of American soldiers. Iwo Jima was still a fresh and bloody memory, and invasion of the island would have made Iwo look like a cakewalk.

I had to laugh at sheer hypocrisy today: I was traveling in the car and at one point had Hannity on the radio for a few minutes. He was slamming Obama for his "relationship" with Ayres, in between basking in the weekend glory of appearing onstage once again with Ollie North.