Originally posted by god's shoeshine:for real, exactly what i was thinking….
also, it sure doesnt pay to work on the hill. damn
once again the jokes write themselves...
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:I'm far from rich, but you know that I willingly let the Government withhold more than the proper amount from my wages and give it back to me in the Spring interest free as a tax rebate, and I'm not opposed to a tax increase on the next tax level, which I may be at someday when Smackette earns a real pay check. I'm happy to give my fair share and some to this country.
[if all these rich democrats want their taxes raised, fine, but there's nothing keeping them from paying more to the government right now. the government takes checks, money orders and credit cards.
I'm also a volunteer of my time to government sponsored events, but you folks have made that a punchline now…
If Obama thinks there is a problem with the economy, and he thinks he can do a better job than his opponent, he would be extremely irresponsible not to do everything in his power to win the election - including maximizing his fundraising efforts.
His responsibility is to use the money to put himself in the best position to win the election. Period.
His responsibility is to use the money to put himself in the best position to win the election. Period.
Serious question: if I were to go to Michigan and get my driver's license up there and list a family member's house as my residence, would I be allowed to vote in Michigan in November, or am I stuck voting in Virginia?
Originally posted by vansmack:thanks, that's all i needed. . .
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Sure. 1999.
as for banking deregulation. . .would someone let me know when the gramm-leach-bliley act was passed? thanks.
And signed into law by President Clinton.
as for phil gramm and ubs. . .
opensecrets says obama has received $405,000 from UBS this cycle and mccain has received $140,000 this cycle.
btw, only of interest to vansmack and me. . .the university of california is his number 2 contributor at $611,000?!?! only goldman sachs has given more.
Originally posted by Mobius:If Obama wanted to do the responsible thing as opposed to the egotistical thing, he would cease campaigning and allow Biden to become the nominee. Destroying America and setting the Democratic Party and social progress back 6 decades is in no way responsible.
His responsibility is to use the money to put himself in the best position to win the election. Period.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Leeman Brothers employees gave Obama almost 10 million dollars so far.
opensecrets says obama has received $405,000 from UBS this cycle and mccain has received $140,000 this cycle.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Sure. But you could you break it down for me between individuals in lower and middle management (presumably thousands) vs. decision makers at the top (say, about 50)?
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:His responsibility as a candidate.
Originally posted by Mobius:If Obama wanted to do the responsible thing as opposed to the egotistical thing, he would cease campaigning and allow Biden to become the nominee. Destroying America and setting the Democratic Party and social progress back 6 decades is in no way responsible.
His responsibility is to use the money to put himself in the best position to win the election. Period.
Originally posted by vansmack:well, i guess mcccain finds more competent women.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:I don't see sex. I only see competence.
senator a is obama
senator b is biden
senator c is mccain
"Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women."
did you get laid off from your job, venerable?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:thank you for saving me the trouble of looking this up, this was just as i suspected…. the reason why mccain pays his women more than his men: he has more higher-ranking women on his staff. this is indeed a good thing, but it proves NOTHING about mccain's stance on pay equity - which was the implication of your deceitful "which senator is a-b-c" quiz.
well, i guess mcccain finds more competent women.
"Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women."
Why don't you guys start talking about what the candidates will actually do? Then you could disagree on policy, and perhaps reach some consensus on what directions y'all think the country should head in.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by callat703:Because the majority of this board are Obamaphiles and Obama's consistent track record once winning an election is (a) accomplishing nothing of substance for the electorate and (b) immediately campaigning for a more powerful office.
Why don't you guys start talking about what the candidates will actually do?
Originally posted by sweetcell:how does it prove nothing? whatever mccain's "stance," he has hired and placed more women at higher levels in his staff than either obama or biden. so, you can either talk about pay equity or you can do something about it. you can either talk about putting women in to higher ranking positions, or you can put women into higher ranking positions. which one would you choose?
thank you for saving me the trouble of looking this up, this was just as i suspected…. the reason why mccain pays his women more than his men: he has more higher-ranking women on his staff. this is indeed a good thing, but it proves NOTHING about mccain's stance on pay equity - which was the implication of your deceitful "which senator is a-b-c" quiz.
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:can you kindly explain why Senator Clinton represents the state of New York and not say the ones where she lived before becoming First Lady such as Illinois or Arkansas. Or how about one those sexy flyover states or a red state?
Originally posted by callat703:Because the majority of this board are Obamaphiles and Obama's consistent track record once winning an election is (a) accomplishing nothing of substance for the electorate and (b) immediately campaigning for a more powerful office.
Why don't you guys start talking about what the candidates will actually do?
Let's not go back there.
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:OK - tell me all about McCain's policies…
Because the majority of this board are Obamaphiles and Obama's consistent track record once winning an election is (a) accomplishing nothing of substance for the electorate and (b) immediately campaigning for a more powerful office.
Originally posted by vansmack:speaking of the mortgage crisis. . .ladies and gentlemen, obama advisor austan goolsbee!
While advising the McCain campaign, Gramm was being paid by UBS to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis.
I love how your response to Phil Gramm was "well more UBS employees give to Obama then McCain" and then you point to Goolsbee, who was wrong in his analysis without ever once acknowledging that McCain's economic advisor drafted this de-regulation legislation that is ABSOLUTLEY responsible for this mess. Just so I get ahead of your next delfection "sure Phil Gramm wrote it, but Clinton should have vetoed it!" - or how about the 54 Republican Senators shouldn't have let him get away with it!
So, answer me how Phil Gramm is not responsible for this legislation.
And to answer the question about what the candidates will do about it, I suspect that McCain will make Phil Gramm his Secretary of the Treasury. Sleep well tonight….
So, answer me how Phil Gramm is not responsible for this legislation.
And to answer the question about what the candidates will do about it, I suspect that McCain will make Phil Gramm his Secretary of the Treasury. Sleep well tonight….