Cynical Nation

not to be mean, Barry, but - This man should be a nightmare to you. He was so far left at one time. Now he's willing to throw his best supporters under the bus, so shouldn't it bother you that maybe he's lying just to placate the middle? Don't forget that there is a good chance there will be a truly dominant Democratic Congress come 2009. So if he is elected, he will most certainly swing left, which will include those taxes he says he will raise and raise significantly. The only hope in that case are the Blue dog Dems.

The primary problem I have with Conservatives rejoicing over a pol like Obama throwing the "throw-away" fringe (the "MoveOns" and the "Kos Kids") under the bus, is that it falls to the same pathetic tactic some Left-wing extremists like to use when a relatively Conservative politician disappoints his base (ie. "How can you support a guy who...supports some serious gun restrictions?...spends excesively?...supports first trimester abortion?...etc., etc?")

The reality is that Conservatives will continue to vote for the MOST Conservative candidate available, regardless of disappointments and Left-wingers will continue to vote for the MOST Left-wing candidate regardless of disappointments.

Obama's claiming he opposed the Kennedy decision (on Capital punishment for child rapers) is a meaningless gesture, considering he'd appoint the same kind of "Kelo justices" (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter) who comprise the Liberal core of this court and have been on the WRONG side of every major decision, from Kelo (giving government the power to TAKE private property for "BETTER" (more tax revenue producing) uses, to Boumediene, which gave foreign terror suspects access to U.S. civilian courts.

I agree with Rachel, that as it looks now, the "Blue Dog" or Conservative Dems (who've comprised almost all the Democratic Congressional gains since 2006) may well be the key. They're currently almost 25% of the Congressional Dems and could significantly increase that percentage this November.

I am and remain a Conservative Democrat and am related to a Blue Dog Democrat FROM NYC who's opposed and helped defeat the ill-conceived Spitzer-backed Bill that would've required ALL hospitals in NY State to offer abortions and fought to make sure NY State's "gay marriage/civil union statutes DID NOT allow gays to fight in court to demand that Churches either conduct gay nuptials or recognize them.

I've been heartened by the rise of the Conservative Democrat and remain cautiously optimistic about that group - I want my Party back and so do millions of Americans in the South and out West.

Again, don't get me wrong, y'all. Not only will I be voting for John McCain, but I'm financially supporting his campaign, which is something I've never done for any other candidate, ever.

I'm just having fun because even in the worst-case scenario, I'm convinced that Obama will prove a bitter disappointment to the nutroots left who worshipped him as a god, and that will be fun to watch. :-)

Unconvinced? Spend some time researching corporate contributions to the Obama campaign, and compare them to recent norms. If you don't believe me, believe the money. Don't think that tidal wave of cash doesn't buy influence. Something tells me that Obama's plans to instituted European style socialism in American will abruptly get "tabled" once he takes his hand off the bible in January.

Obama knows that the left may whine and bitch when he disappoints him, but that they will continue to stand by him regardless

Barry,
You got it. We (the left) have no choice but to vote Obama, no matter what. I will vote for him even if he picks the devil as his VP. And Obama realizes that.

But I think there is something else for which Obama has appeal across both liberals and (some) right-wingers: He is extremely intelligent and he, somehow, brings common sense in the way people view things. Being an ultra-liberal, I already dont agree with many of the things Obama says or does. But I know that my "ideal candidate" would never be elected president. Obama is a compromise. But he is a golden compromise because he is extremely intelligent. And it is about time that we have someone very intelligent as president of the USA (especially as the I.Q. of the current president is right below room temperature).

P.S. 1. Dont forget, we are still up for a case of Foster's.
2. If you change your mind and you decide to vote Obama, I will forget about the case of beers. I would not want for the bet to be an impediment to your vote :-) So let me know in advance if that happens, so we can cancel the bet.

By the way, one thing that I forgot to mention in my previous post, and I am sure that you will enjoy is that I decided not to make any direct donation to Obama's campaign. All my donations this election will be to MoveOn. Only to MoveOn. These are the only people I trust to spend my money appropriately :-)

"You got it. We (the left) have no choice but to vote Obama, no matter what. I will vote for him even if he picks the devil as his VP." (BW)


That's the same box those on the Right are in, although with McCain as their man.

McCain is not a particularly good compromise for many Conservatives, BUT even if he does disappoint on some big issues, like ILLEGAL immigration, they're going to vote FOR him anyway, because the alternative (Obama) is no alterbative at all.

I still acknowledge that I'm torn. I WON'T/CAN'T vote for ANY liberal, BUT, IF we are headed for the dire economic times that many investors predict, and with the Democratic Congress set to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, only exacerbating that dire situation, I've often wondered aloud if it MIGHT be better to allow a Liberal like Obama to become this generation's Jimmy Carter.

I KNOW that Obama has come out in favor of slashing America's Corporate tax even further than McCain would (I LIKE) and he's since come out IN FAVOR of the new FISA Bill with its telecom immunities (I LIKE a lot), but his raising marginal across the board tax rates and lifting the cap on the FICA tax are idiotic!

Raising marginal, across the board tax rates will reduce tax revenues (OK, I DO like that end, though not the means), but they do that by INCENTIVIZING savings, making it far more likely than not that those with higher incomes and more disposable income WILL defer MORE of their income upfront into tax deferred vehicles.

Those with less disposable income (lower income earners, like teachers, cops, construction workers, etc.) won't be able to defer much of their income and will deal with a much larger tax bite.

I am concerned about a McCain Presidency "sharing the blame" for the coming economic storm, and I don't particularly like that prospect.




"He is extremely intelligent and he, somehow, brings common sense in the way people view things." (BW)


Now THAT'S funny!

Using liberalism" and "common sense" in the same sentence.

Common sense and Liberalism are antithetical to each other.

Here's WHY; Liberalism WRONGLY believes that "there's only so much wealth available and thus, 'rich people' are greedily taking 'more than their share' and selfishly depriving others in the process."

Common sense dicates that NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Investors, entrepreneurs, speculators and wealthy people of all stripes actually EXPAND the economy by expanding the amount of wealth in existence. They actually INCREASE the amount of wealth available for use throughout the economy.

Seeking to help/SUPPORT the poor/lazy/unskilled by taxing/punishing those who produce the most INCENTIVIZES sloth and non-productivity, while DEINCENTIVIZING work/production and wealth creation.

That's why those countries with large welfare states tend to have higher inflation rates, higher unemployment rates and are increasingly uncompetitive in the global economy.

That's also probably why in both France and Germany the voters soundly defeated their socialist regimes (Angela Merckel defeated Schroeder and Nikolas Sarkozy defeated Segolene Royal). Since his election, Sarkozy has lowered France's Corporate tax and capped an individual's tax burden at 50% of their income - we should do the same here, but cap it at a 40% total individual tax burden.

The people of those countries overwhelmingly agreed that Keynesian (more socialistic) policies DON'T WORK.




"All my donations this election will be to MoveOn. Only to MoveOn. These are the only people I trust to spend my money appropriately :-)" (BW)


How is that surprisng in ANY way? The same people Obama just tossed under the bus over the "General Betray-us" ad.

Funny story, as you know, I asked ANYone here to explain how Americans who vote the more Conservative candidate "vote against their own interests," and NO ONE could answer that question....that is, no one could explain HOW or WHY.

In THIS case, working dupes, such as yourself (BW) ARE INDEED voting against your own best interests and I CAN explain very clearly HOW and WHY.

Today, teachers (I like to call them "school marms") earn about $100,000/year at top pay ($105,000/year in NYC!

An Obama win means significantly higher tazxes for those folks who'll continue to get very little back for their tax dollar (NOTHING in the way of "social services"). A teacher husband and wife from NYC would stand to see their income tax bite go up FROM 35% federal to 43% federal and a total income tax burden of appx 53% IF the NYC and NYS income taxes remain unchanged (now totaling about 10% combined), add to that the exposure of more income to the FICA tax and that couple is looking at tax rate that rises from the current near 50% to near 60% of their income.

Guaranteed EVERY last teacher, cop, construction worker in that tax bracket believes that they are woefully OVERTAXED at today's tax rates!

Ironically enough, even with lower to mid-range income people paying more, the tax revenues will almost certainly go DOWN, as those with the highest incomes (the top 10% of wage earners already pay about 80% of the income taxes) defer more of their income in tax deferred vehicles.

SEE? I can show people HOW and WHY those folks voting for Obama are voting against their own best interests, as taking home LESS money is ALWAYS "against their best interests."

A strong, confident leftist, who really believed in liberalism/socialism would be able to at least try to explain in detail how working people who vote against liberals are "voting against their best interests" and would explain why the "fixed economic pie" is the a more accurate model than the expanding economic pie I outlined above.

In THIS case, working dupes, such as yourself (BW) ARE INDEED voting against your own best interests and I CAN explain very clearly HOW and WHY.

You dont need to explain. Yes, I am indeed voting against my personal financial interests. My taxes will go up under Obama (although they will not go up for the vast majority of Americans).

But I dont believe I exist alone on this planet. And there are thing far more important than the higher taxes I will have to pay. For instance, I dont think it is cool that there are millions of Americans without health care (although I dont have any problem like that myself). I think health care coverage is an absolute right of every human being. I am not happy with Obama's health care plan. I think we need full socialized health care like in France, England or Sweden. But Obama's plan is at least a step. Far better than the plan of McCain. Got it?

A large portion of the 14% of Americans without healthcare are young people who've opted out of their job heathcare programs to save money. They've made a conscious choice to trade that insurance (money invested to protect from a "what if" scenario), in exchange for more cash available for their immediate wants and desires.

My wife opted out of her company's health plan (she's now covered under mine) to save over $600 per month.

Hey! I'd be royally pissed if some sort of government run healthcare system was even on the table in this election. It's NOT.

Both Clinton and Obama ran on a rip-off of "Romney-care" (check out how well that's doing...it's easy to find). Romney-care, like Clinton-care and Obama-care doesn't PROVIDE health INSURANCE or ANY government-run healthcare. It doesn't even expand Medicare &/or Medicaid, it merely requires/mandates ALL people who aren't eligble for either Medicaid or Medicare to purchase their own health insurance.

In short, it takes AWAY that "freedom of choice" that all those reckless and irresponsible young people have been exercising in opting out of (often) expensive job insurance plans to save themselves some money for immediate use.

Hillary Clinton argued that her plan would've forced EVERYONE to purchase their own health insurance, while Obama's only forces those with children to purchase health insurance.

In that regard, Obama's plan is less ambitious but more practical (in that regard) than Hillary's.

Both are based on Romney's Bay State program that is highly unpopular now.

"On April 4th, 2006, the Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.

Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html

I very much like the idea of freeing employers from the burden of providing health insurance as "unreported income," to their workers, BUT I don't think the Romney-Clinton-Obama model is a particularly good one.

Sure, it's apparently far better than the "Universal healthcare" offered by the British NHS (National Health Service);

Cancer Patients Told Life-Prolonging Treatment is Too Expensive for NHS

by Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 The Scotsman
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukcancertx.html

PATIENTS with advanced kidney cancer in Scotland are to be denied a drug which could prolong their lives.

The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) yesterday refused to recommend Sutent for use on the NHS, meaning patients who fail on current treatment will have no other drug options.

The decision was criticised by doctors and charities, which said around 300 patients a year in Scotland would benefit from the treatment.

But others said such decisions were necessary in an NHS with limited resources.

Sutent works by stopping the signals in the body that tell cancer cells to grow and multiply. The drug also stops blood vessels growing into the tumour.

The manufacturer, Pfizer, applied for the drug to be approved for use in patients who failed to respond to interferon-alpha.

But the SMC ruled that "the economic case has not been demonstrated".

The drug costs around £2,000 a month, compared to £700-800 for interferon.

Pat Hanlon, from Kidney Cancer UK, said:

"We know the NHS has limited resources, but for patients with kidney cancer there are not many other treatments they can try.

"When they stop responding to interferon, there is nothing else for them."

Paul Nathan, a consultant medical oncologist, said data showed that Sutent doubled the length of time before kidney cancers started growing again.

Dr Nathan said, while it was not a cure, it could extend patients' lives by eight months or more.

A consultant oncologist working in the NHS in Scotland, who asked not to be named, said he understood that the NHS had a limited pot of resources.

"But for my patients, if you are diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer your chances of responding to current treatment are minimal - four out of five will get no benefit," he said.

"Then the NHS is saying to them, 'Tough luck, there's nothing we can give you'.

"But that is not the case. If you lived in North America you would get these drugs, but not in Scotland."


Between rationed care and UNAVAILABLE options, every experiment in socialized medicine or government-run healthcare has been a failure in providing urgently needed care.

I DO appreciate your acknowledging that you, like the vast majority of working Americans, would be "voting against your own interests" in voting for Left-wing candidates.

I appreciate your honesty on that matter.

>If you change your mind and you decide to vote Obama, I will forget about the case of beers.... So let me know...

I'll let you know, but it would take something pretty big. Mike Huckabee for VP would probably do it. ;)

I DO appreciate your acknowledging that you, like the vast majority of working Americans, would be "voting against your own interests" in voting for Left-wing candidates.

Do not misrepresent the facts. Dont distort the truth. I never said that. You are making it up. What I wrote is that the VAST majority (>95%) of Americans will NOT get a tax increase under an Obama administration. Any of those 95% who will be voting McCain, will be voting against their own interests.

"In THIS case, working dupes, such as yourself (BW) ARE INDEED voting against your own best interests and I CAN explain very clearly HOW and WHY." (JMK)


By way of explanation, I use the term "dupes" to differentiate those naive and idealistic folks, with kind hearts and good intentions from the far more nefarious and misanthropic types who actually understand the anti-human and anti-Liberty foundations of socialistic or Left-wing policies.

The "progressive income tax" is a perfect example of this. The truly wealthy DON'T rely upon INCOME for their wealth. Ergo the Tom Keane Jr's, the Teresa Heinz-Kerry's and the Kennedy's etc. are all virtually exempt from the viscisitudes of the INCOME tax. Remember BOTH Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Tom Keane Jr explaining how they only pay 5% of their total income in taxes, as opposed to the close to 50% many average Americans do?

The reason for that is that the bulk of such people's real wealth is shielded by Trusts and Foundations.

Many entrepreneurial people are able to incorporate themselves and claim everything they own as "property of the (for instance) Bluewind Inc., or BNJ Inc." and thus pay the somewhat lower corporate rate.

The progressive income tax is, in actuality, one of the most regressive forms of tax policy in existence, although it does what it's designed to do extremely well - keep high income earners (those with rare and valuable/in demand skills) from acruing much real wealth.

It also disproportionately impacts those with lower incomes (though above the so-called "average") and LESS disposable income, as those people tend to be less able to defer more of their income in tax deferred vehicles, when tax rates rise.

Higher income people (with MORE disposable income) can and almost always DO defer more of their income in such vehicles to defer their taxes to a time when the tax rate is lowered (ie. at their retirement).

"Dupes" talk of the progressive income tax as "tax fairness" and "economic justice," because they're misguided and don't understand the reality, that the progressive income virtually exempts the truly rich and places the bulk of the tax burden on working people who earn above the mean income.

The Fair Tax (a national retail sales tax) would actually INCREASE the tax burden of the truly wealthy (those who don't rely on income for wealth) while the tax burden for everyone else would either drop or, in the case of lower income earners, remain constant.

Socialistic policies almost always benefit the very wealthy and already established enterprises, at the expense of everyone else, by in effect, freezing the economy in place.

Even Stalin's USSR had government sanctioned monopolies, like Aramand Hammer's Occidental Petroleum and its many subsidiaries.

The USSR's virulent form of socialism didn't hurt the ultra-wealthy Armand Hammer any, nor did it hurt any of the other recognized monoplies, in fact, it shielded them from the competition that the market would normally bring to bear to produce goods and services cheaper and better for the consumers in that economy.

For that reason, socialism (Leftism) is misanthropic in nature and anti-individual Liberty by design.

“Do not misrepresent the facts. Don’t distort the truth.

What I wrote is that the VAST majority (>95%) of Americans will NOT get a tax increase under an Obama administration.” (BW)


Actually, that (what you’ve written above) is untrue, as anyone earning over $80,000/year would stand to have their income taxes hiked (that’s more than 5% of the F/T working population, including the likes of teachers, cops, construction workers, not to mention accountants, school custodians, nurses, truckers, etc.) and everyone who invests or sells a home would see their Capital Gains taxes rise.

Again, the “progressive income tax” is one of the most regressive taxes in existence, as it allows the truly wealthy to skate, while primarily impacting those who rely on income for the overwhelming bulk (90% or more) of their “wealth.”

I don’t understand how anyone who can understand that could naively support it.

Actually, that (what you’ve written above) is untrue, as anyone earning over $80,000/year would stand to have their income taxes hiked (that’s more than 5% of the F/T working population, including the likes of teachers, cops, construction workers, not to mention accountants, school custodians, nurses, truckers, etc.) and everyone who invests or sells a home would see their Capital Gains taxes rise.

That is simply not true. It is false. Like totally false. Obama has made crystal clear that he will repeal the Bush tax cuts only for incomes much higher than the numbers you mentioned above. Tax cuts will be repealed in only 2% (at the very most 4%) of all Americans (at the highest incomes). Stop distorting the truth. Check Obama's positions and then argue them. But do not fabricate Obama's positions in a way that fits your right-wing ideology. It is not cool.

All those American "families of four" earning less than $34,000 already pay NO income taxes!

Worse yet is that this "AVERAGE income" scam is merely a dishonest means of shifting more F/T regular workering folks into the class of the "hated rich."

Why ANYone would hate the most productive people in the country is puzzling, to say the least. The top 10% of American income earners already pay about 80% of all income taxes!

This "average income" scam is complete bullshit and here's why; This "average" includes p/t and per diem workers (HS kids working two nights per week at a store, while living with Mom and Dad, seniors working a per diem job to supplement their social security, even illegal immigrants working below minimum wage jobs are factored in) are all included in that "average."

Permanent F/T employees in this country earn a much higher income than the "average" suggests. That's why teachers, cops, truckers, secretaries, etc., all earn MORE than that "average" income.

In most places a school teacher couple, or a Corrections Officer couple at top pay are now considered among the "hated rich," while mazingly enough (at least for income tax purposes), the likes of Don Trump, Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Jay Rockefeller are NOT.

Moreover, as we all agree, people respond to incentives. High tax rates encourage capital and income flight to lower-taxed areas. There is ample evidence in the United States of individuals and businesses moving to states such as Florida or Delaware to take advantage of their tax-friendly laws. A higher federal tax rate would encourage individuals to move assets abroad to take advantage of lower tax rates in countries such as the Grand Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, etc.

High tax rates also tend to have a huge impact on the labor force. Many high skilled/high income workers may choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue a great deal about what effect minor changes in the tax code will have on incentives to work.

The Obama plan calls for tax increases so large that economists will be focusing on the harm to the overall economy rather than just the isolated effects on labor and on capital.

Perhaps the best analysis I've seen on this was done, by of all people, a lawyer's website called Above the Law;

"Above The Law, a website devoted to Law Firms, takes a look at what will happen to the income of associates if Obama is elected. Here is their analysis of the impact of the Obama tax hike on an associate making $164,000 per year:

"The effect is enormous. Betsy’s marginal tax rate goes up from an already ridiculous 42.5% to 51.4%—not including the new 6.2% marginal tax on your employer. Subject to how she structures her withholding, Betsy’s take home pay drops an average of $515 a paycheck—less in the early months of the year, but much more in the later months of the year. Add in the effects on her bonus, and Betsy loses nearly $20,000/year in take-home pay.

"I added a third column: how big a pay cut would you have to take to receive the same take-home income? The answer is that Obama’s tax increases have a bigger effect on your income than a law firm cutting New York salaries by $34,000.

"Yeah, someone making 160 grand isn’t hurting but don’t forget a couples income is considered as one in the eyes of the IRS and many couples living in the high cost of living areas can easily make that amount. That’s going to hurt.

"The thing is that someway, somehow, all these programs Obama wants to institute, including the Global Poverty program, will need to be paid for somehow. How? By taking it from the backend of our employers. Those people who sign our paychecks. But those businesses can only stay afloat if they make a profit, basic economics. So they keep those profits by taking away raises, benefits, new employees and so forth.

"Which means we are back to 1978 and Jimmah..."

Now, I probably revile lawyers (especially liberal lawyers) as much as anyone, but I still don't begrudge them the incomes their skill-levels and skill-values deserve.

Like I've said, I appreciate why so many naive people WISH that we could limit the "relative deprivation" that low income eaners have relative to high income earners via some kind of redistribution. Yeah, I wish it'd rain root beer too.

In reality I DON'T want such economic policies to work even if they could, because they penalize productivity, innovation and ability, while rewarding sloth, reckelessness and weakness. Such a policy inevitably leads to much MORE of the latter and much LESS of the former and THAT'S a prescription for economic disaster.

I'm just having fun because even in the worst-case scenario, I'm convinced that Obama will prove a bitter disappointment to the nutroots left who worshipped him as a god, and that will be fun to watch. :-)

I never thought of it that way

"I'm just having fun because even in the worst-case scenario, I'm convinced that Obama will prove a bitter disappointment to the nutroots left who worshipped him as a god, and that will be fun to watch. :-)" (BNJ)


I'm not sure if the prospects for much fun will last long, given that as tax rates rise, the top 10% of income earners, who ALREADY pay 80% of the taxes, defer more of their income and tax revenues fall.

Sure, there may be some amusement in seeing another generation learn about the folly of Liberalism and "government solutions" first-hand, but it'll almost certainly be a painful lesson.

Those poor, naive dolts who argue that "teachers are more valubale than bond traders and Hedge Fund managers and should be paid accoding to their real value," always find that WITHOUT investment and all those traders and investors making all that money, there isn't enough revenues to pay teachers, or cops, or firefighters, or judges.

It'll no doubt be amusing to see Liberalism fail, OR to see another politician (Obama) move Right in the general election and beyond, but I don't think it'll be all that much fun.

OK, it'll at least be a little fun, despite the almost inevitable pain.

Lost in all the debate posited here is the emerging fact that Obama represents no 'change' in politics.

Folks, it HAS to be clear now that Obama is merely a skilled politician, attempting to adopt the mantle of JMK while in reality possessing the superior, slippery skills of WJC.

I must ask one question to those of you who support him: do you REALLY believe he will reach across the aisle to solve (or salve) the rancor of DC as has been repeated by the mind-dead youth of our country?

If so, please provide me with chapter and verse from his short stint as senator. To my knowledge, it has never happened on any issue of substance.

Obama, as Clinton did, has one major goal in life: to become president. Anybody who thinks he has core beliefs is naive, IMO.

Barry, any attempt to tack to the center will be struck down by a newly empowered Pelosi.

Tne only enjoyment I will derive from an Obama presidency will be the diminishing poll ratings and the realization by the moderates and independents that they, yet again, bought into the real life version of the Warner Bros. singing frog.

Ribbit.

"I'm just having fun because even in the worst-case scenario, I'm convinced that Obama will prove a bitter disappointment to the nutroots left who worshipped him as a god, and that will be fun to watch. :-)

Well, will see. But you as the "nutroots right" yourself should be concerned about the upcoming collapse of the right-wing extremism ideology. That is already happening. The victory of Obama will solidify that.

Mal, good to see you again! Yeah, you're right. Obama is yet another calculating, triangulating politician, not the transformative figure he sold himself as. When I learned that was precisely the moment I stopped fearing him so much. :-)

I still fear his economic policy, however. Although his plan can't possibly be as horrific as outlined on his site, there are a number of tax increases already baked into the cake -- the Bush cuts are slated to expire, and Obama and the Democratic Congress won't have to do a damn thing to get a huge tax hike dropped in their lap with a bow on top. Ugh.

That "extreme Right-wing" ideology has become the savior of the Democratic Party, BW.

Virtually ALL the "New Democrats" in Congress (the ones who've been elected out West and down South) are Conservative Democrats, who are now almost 25% of the Congressional Democrats!

That's why Obama has supported a Blue Dog Democrat. He recently supported Ben Nelson (whom MSNBC called "more Conservative than many Republicans") AGAINST a more Liberal Democrat in the Nebraska Primary.

It's also why he lauded the recent FISA Bill that gave the telecom companies the protections from litigation for cooperating with government, claimed to disagree with the recent SC decision that (temporaily, hopefully) nixed the death penalty for child-rapers and again, according to MSNBC "has begun courting Evangelicals."

I'd seriously be concerned if Conservatism really seemed on the decline, because Liberalism just doesn't work, but with the presumtive Democratic nominee tacking RIGHT for the general election, with a Democratic Congress's approval ratings hitting SINGLE DIGITS (a first for Congressional approval ratings and LOWER than Bush's) and Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats flexing their muscle within my own Party, I don't see that happening.

In fact, it's the far-Left (the MoveOns and the Code Pinks) who've been tossed aside by an Obama camp which is now actively courting Conservatives and even Evangelicals.

SEE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12916999/wid/6448213

"I still fear his economic policy, however. Although his plan can't possibly be as horrific as outlined on his site, there are a number of tax increases already baked into the cake -- the Bush cuts are slated to expire, and Obama and the Democratic Congress won't have to do a damn thing to get a huge tax hike dropped in their lap with a bow on top. Ugh." (BNJ)


That's absolutely the problem Barry, but even if McCain gets in, the Congress will almost certainly let those ACROSS the board Bush tax cuts expire, raising the income tax rate on ALL income levels. Worse still, income tax revenues will fall as the higher income earners (the top 10% of income earners already pay about 80% of the income taxes) defer more of their income, tax defered.

The Rangel supported tax hikes on Capital Gains and Dividends will only make investment risk more expensive and that cuts job creating investment.

That's why I've been torn, lately, there's only so much harm an Obama can do, with so many New (Conservative) Dems in Congress and given the fact that the coming tax hikes amidst a period of economic turbulence, as China's and India's economies grow, will almost certainly wreak some significant economic havoc, it's hard to want to see a McCain elected only the "share the blame" for what seems a coming economic fiasco.

It might be better to let Obama become this generation's Jimmy Carter, tough as that would be to bear.

France, Germany, even Sweden have all turned away from the "Big Government" (Keynesian) policies that Liberals here adore, and for good reason - they DON'T WORK!

>That's absolutely the problem Barry, but even if McCain gets in, the Congress will almost certainly let those ACROSS the board Bush tax cuts expire, raising the income tax rate on ALL income levels....

I'm thinking that as much as they'd like to sit back and let that happen and absolve themselves of any responsibility, they will probably be *forced* to come up with an alternative bill that will keep the tax cuts for the middle class. (And since this is the new, Obama-fied Democratic Party, "middle class" probably means up to $200-250k.)

I don't know how they'll do it. Perhaps they'll let the tax cuts expire for everyone, and then heroically step in to "cut" taxes for lower incomes, allowing them to pretend they never actually "raised" any.

I think there's a BIG battle brewing over that, Barry. The "New (Conservative) Democrats" want lower tax rates, as do Conservative Republicans, but there are still a good number of Liberal (Keynesian) Democrats (Rangel is just one) AND some Keynesian Republicans as well, who will argue for higher across the board tax rates, as they've argued FOR foolishness like "wage and price controls," and so-called "windfall profits taxes" and AGAINST Free Trade.

I'm not as optimistic about Obama's pragmatism, when ideological push comes to shove, as you seem to be (I hope your right and I'm wrong), but I'm more than optimistic that the past failures of Keynesian, or "Big Government" Liberalism here (culminating in the Carter debacle) and in Europe (France, Germany and even Sweden have rejected Keynesian policies) would bring a renewed commitment to Capitalism (OK, our own highly regulated form of Capitalism) via knowledge through pain.

Often that's the most efficient means of learning - experiential. It's just that I don't like the prospect of suffering so deeply in order that the naive and misguided youth be educated in this regard.

I'm thinking that as much as they'd like to sit back and let that happen and absolve themselves of any responsibility, they will probably be *forced* to come up with an alternative bill that will keep the tax cuts for the middle class. (And since this is the new, Obama-fied Democratic Party, "middle class" probably means up to $200-250k.)

Ok Barry, what should be defined as "middle class" according to you? Just curious. In this country >250 K is top 1-2%. Also dont forget that under the policies of the current administration, we have been degenerating to a 3rd world country. Have you traveled recently? Do you have any idea how ridiculously weak the dollar is?

I understand being libertarian and hating taxes and government. But voting for McCain in this election is letting the decline of this country towards a 3rd world country continue. People who really care about this country should care less about their own taxes and vote for a change. Without a change, if the same policies continue (i.e. a McCain administration), dont be surprised if we become something like Mexico 4 to 8 years from now. And, no dont laugh. It is seriously sad and possible.

In 2005 the average income for a fulltime employee with a Bachelor’s degree or higher was $56,078/year, it is today closer to $60,000 per year.

The average dual earner household brings in nearly $70,000/year ($67,348 in 2005 and just under $69,000 in 2007).

There are indeed wide disparities in BOTH income and accrued wealth in the United States, always has been. In fact, the best of times (economically) are always marked by the widest of those disparities. The gilded age (the late 19th Century) was one of America’s greatest periods of economic expansion.

And again, THANKFULLY, the current tax system is NOT designed to impact the truly rich. The Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s and the Tom Keane Jr.’s all have Trusts and Foundations to shield their money from the tax man. That’s why both of those folks paid only 5% of their accrued wealth in taxes back in 2004.

Many successful investors and other entrepreneurial Americans simply Incorporate themselves and pay the prevailing Corporate income tax (the highest rate is currently 35%).

None of that is wrong. Anyone who argues, say, that Steven King isn’t worth his estimated $400 million, is really arguing that “Only X number of King’s books should’ve been printed and sold, no matter how many people wanted to read his stories.”

I doubt ANYone would argue that a neurosurgeon (top neurosurgeons earn upwards of $2.8 MILLION/year) aren’t worth that much more than say, a math teacher, or a cop or firefighter. They’re skills are indeed that demanding and vital.

The basic premise for income redistribution is posited on the view that the market rewards skills inefficiently and thus it’s based on a very flawed premise.

“Also dont forget that under the policies of the current administration, we have been degenerating to a 3rd world country.” (BW)


Gosh, I hate to ruin such a good and heartfelt cry with some stubborn facts (OK, no I don’t), but ironically enough, America’s standard of living remains 6th in the world. It’s been near that rank (a low of 4th and a high of 8th) over tha last quarter century!

And in terms of income equality, the U.S. ranks (gulp!) THIRD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Sometimes it just doesn't pay to parrot those MoveOn.org conspiracy theories.

Remember Rosie, with her idiotic rant, "...this must be the first time in the history of the world that fire melted steel."

Turns out steel DOES melt (in fire) at appax 2750 degrees F. ....and the steel supports of the WTC didn't have to MELT, see, they lose appx 90% of their strength at around 1800 degrees F. I suppose that's what you get when you listen to a bunch of Humanities Professors prattle on about impact loads, truss supports and other things they really don't know all that much about.

See? The "9/11 was an inside job," and "Third World America," are both the same sort of fact-challenged conspiracy theories, that tend to make thier purveyors look ill-informed.

"The Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s and the Tom Keane Jr.’s all have Trusts and Foundations to shield their money from the tax man. That’s why both of those folks paid only 5% of their accrued wealth in taxes back in 2004."....I SHOULD'VE said accruing wealth (investments and other income, for that's what they're taxed on NOT already accrued wealth.

Gosh, I hate to ruin such a good and heartfelt cry with some stubborn facts

Do you doubt that the Bush administration has put the country in the direction of becoming a 3rd world country? Want some examples? Here they are:

1. Katrina
2. Blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (reminiscent of the medieval times in history).
3. Dramatically decreasing federal funding for scientific research in general (beyond stem cell research).
4. Have you noticed how much several of the local airlines have deteriorated recently? With the first drop of rain tens (and sometimes hundreds) of flights are canceled? Something that was never happening in the past? The airline industry (at least some major airlines) is near bankruptcy and collapse.
5. Have you traveled outside of the country recently? Have you seen how ridiculously weak and worthless the dollar has become?

Vote McCain. If he is elected, you may realize down the road how people in countries like Mexico or Bolivia feel like.

Oh, and I forgot, incidents like this one also happen frequently in 3rd world countries.

Ah, at first, I thought you were making an economic statement, given that you WERE talking about disparities in wealth, etc.

The rest of your arguments are ill-informed.

In Katrina, an entire city was submerged and though FEMA Teams arrived in days, civil insurrection kept that help from getting into the city for over a week!

The country has never dealt with a disaster on that scale before.

The airlines (like everyone else) are reeling from higher fuel costs, brought in large part by America's inane enviro Lobby blocking drilling in the oil rich Bakken Ridge (Montana), off our oil rich coastlines, etc, not to mention stymying our building new and much needed refineries.

ETHICISTS continue to debate the use of embryonic stem cells, and BOTH sides have some good and bad points.

The weaker dollar is a function of the housing bubble bust, yet again brought on by misguided Liberal social policy, which sought to end red-lining and other loan requirements (you could only borrow a max of twice what you earned, minus personal debt, etc., which HAD and HAS a disparate impact on poorer borrowers).

Lenders have a right to financial self-protection, as we all do. They have a right, for instance, to charge higher interest rates to those with poorer credit scores, who live in high default areas and limit the money consumers can borrow.

Government policies that hamper that do harm to us all. That's why, very quietly, since the housing bubble bust, all those previous loan strictures are back in, as they say, "with a vengeance," and rightfully so.

And right now, the economic slowdown we're facing is een worse in much of Europe and Asia.

So, according to you, are Europe and Asia headed toward "4th World status?"

So, according to you, are Europe and Asia headed toward "4th World status?"

Nope. Europe and Asia (China, India) are becoming the new superpowers. There is no doubt that Europe as a whole is doing better than us these days. They do not have any of the problems I mentioned above, their economies are strong and continue improving and they have been expanding their investment in science and technology (in contrast to us that we have been decreasing dramatically such investment under Bush). They do not have religious fundamentalist (like we do here) having an effect on their government. Their are heading the right direction and in some areas have already surpassed the US.

As for China and India, check some basic facts. They are undoubtedly emerging as new superpowers. Face reality as it is. Not as you want it to be. The US has been damaged big time under the incompetent presidency of Bush.

The republican party has been totally blind to the obvious. Instead of picking a new fresh candidate who would be willing to re-assess and change things, they picked a semi-demented unprincipled old man (who looks older than his actual age) who will continue exactly the policies of Bush. Essentially, he has not said that he will do anything different than Bush. If this continues, 4-8 years from now, it will start feeling like Mexico (or other 3rd world countries) here. This election is not about ideology. It is about basic competency and understanding of the seriousness of the problem.

Europe, despite its lurch to the Right via the election of the likes of Angela Merckel and Nikolas Sarkozy, still has far more and much deeper economic woes than does the U.S.

For instance; "The reality of Europe’s ailing economy contrasts sharply with its economic potential and with the massive resources employed to cure its ailing growth. The whole arsenal of Keynesian remedies has now been tried and has failed one by one. Massive deficit spending throughout the eighties and nineties has left Europe with a public debt unequalled in history. The size of Europe's monumental public debt is only surpassed by the hidden liabilities accumulated in Europe’s shortsighted pay-as-you-go public pension schemes.

"Unfunded pension liabilities now average some 285% of GDP, more than 4 times the officially published public debt figures. Total public liabilities now exceed assets in most EU countries, and are causing runaway debt service. Richard Disney calculates that if social policies are kept unchanged, tax hikes of as much as 5 to 15 percentage points will be necessary over the next couple of decades merely to avoid the rate of indebtedness increasing any further.

"Unfortunately, this will just kill growth completely. Europe’s present social model is unsustainable because it is based on robbery of future generations. Keeping the system in place would jeopardize the next generation’s future with an unbearable and uncompressible tax burden, and would seriously add to the risk of a total collapse of Europe.

"Moreover these expansionary social policies have not worked so far. In spite of the largest debt buildup in history Europe’s growth has remained weak anyway.

"Europe’s social model is built largely on credit to be paid back by its own children."

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/933

China?!

The coming Beijing Olympics are highlighting China's myriad social and economic woes, with a pollution problem far worse than any other developped nation on earth and an economy built upon a veritable sweatshop labor workforce.

The current energy crisis, which is largely the fault of America's selfishness - we sit on over 800 BILLION barrels of oil and steadfastly refuse to drill and build new refineries.

That means LESS oil coming to the world market and higher prices, not only for U.S. consumers, but for consumers around the world. In FACT, many other nations around the globe are far more oil-sensitive than we are. Many are more oil-sensitive than we were back in the early 1980s when that "energy crisis" helped, in part, to implode the Carter Presidency.

"They do not have religious fundamentalist (like we do here) having an effect on their government. (BW)


Actually THEY DO!

Moreover, they are are far more virulent and far more influential than our own. America's "Religious Right" has not impacted America's government in ANY perceptable negative way.

Roe is still the law of the land. They dd not influence our federal stem cell research ban...as I noted, bioethicists are still fervently debating the ethics and morality of that issue.

In Europe, FOREIGN invaders who are out-and-out "religious fanatics" DO i directly and dangerously impact those governments! Denmark and the Netherlands have been noticibly and profoundly negativly impacted by these invading Muslim extremists.

It's kind of funny that you're apparently blithely unawware of that.

Actually THEY DO!
.............................
In Europe, FOREIGN invaders who are out-and-out "religious fanatics" DO i directly and dangerously impact those governments! Denmark and the Netherlands have been noticibly and profoundly negativly impacted by these invading Muslim extremists.

Are you drunk? It is still early in the day. Where do you get bizzare, non-existent, stuff like that? If you are dreaming, simply wake up. Reality should be kept separate from imagination.

Seriously BW, do you do any reading at all?

Do you read at all about European affairs???

England has a very large Muslim extremist population, so does Denmark, Belgium, France (Muslims are now 8 to 10 percent of France's population) and Italy has a large and growing Muslim population/menace.

Sarkozy won on a platform that included the mass deportations of many of the largely Muslim youths who've plauged that country recently. Remember the Muslim riots of the Summer of 2006?

Since you're either ill-informed or misinformed on the subject, I'll post an excerpt from, of all places, The Council on Foreign Relation's journal Foreign Affairs.

"Today, Muslims constitute the majority of immigrants in most western European countries, including Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, and the largest single component of the immigrant population in the United Kingdom...

"...it is estimated that between 15 and 20 million Muslims now call Europe home and make up four to five percent of its total population. (Muslims in the United States probably do not exceed 3 million, accounting for less than two percent of the total population.) France has the largest proportion of Muslims, followed by the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Given continued immigration and high Muslim fertility rates, the National Intelligence Council projects that Europe's Muslim population will double by 2025.

"The footprint of Muslim immigrants in Europe is already more visible than that of the Hispanic population in the United States. Unlike the jumble of nationalities that make up the American Latino community, the Muslims of western Europe are likely to be distinct, cohesive, and bitter."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8218/europes_angry_muslims.html

So now the Council on Foreign Relations AND the NY Times (which gets a lot of its foreign affairs information FROM the CFR) are "bizarre" organizations, in your mind, as they print information like this?

Please BW! Turn off Olbermann (he's deranged and unbalanced) and just read a little more.

"You are unbelievable. It is hard to know whether you deliberately misrepresent the facts and lie (that would be the best case scenario) or you really believe (!) the bizzare things that you frequently write. Really. Sorry, but it is true." (BW)


Typically, I offer the actual facts (see above) and you offer personal opinion/wishful thinking and inanely claim that your personal opinion is "reality"(?) and the facts (population stats for Europe, etc) are "fiction(?)....I think you have that reversed a bit.

You'd previously asked, "Where do you get bizzare, non-existent, stuff like that?

I showed you exactly where I got it, from a CFR report.

If you can find ANY facts or credible sources that run to the contrary, let me know ASAP, as I'd be keenly interested in viewing them.

Perhaps you could find something that might counter this UPI article;

Europe’s Muslim Menace

"Consider: In Manchester, England, a radical Muslim who does not even speak English has been elected to the city council, where he needs an interpreter.

"Consider: According to the German media, secret Shari'a courts appear to be meting out "justice" in Italy. In that country's north a man known to Muslims as a sex fiend recently showed up with a hand missing. It had obviously been amputated as punishment. Italian doctors report treating Muslim women who had evidently been lashed.

"Consider: In France about 70,000 young women, chiefly Muslim, are being subjected to forced marriages every year, according to the country's High Council for Integration. Every year, too, 35,000 girls are either circumcised or under threat of circumcision, HCI related.

"These vignettes highlight a dilemma troubling Islam experts on both sides of the Atlantic: Are European governments still masters in their own house? And to what extent will the growth of their Islamic communities have serious repercussions on foreign and domestic affairs?

"As terrorism expert Michael Radu of the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute points out, there are between 12 million and 16 million Muslims living in the European Union's 15 member states, "more than in most Arab countries."

"Given these figures, Radu wondered in a recent FPRI lecture if EU governments were becoming hostages to these minorities. Many of their members are, after all, voters, an important point to be considered by politicians of all stripes, especially in France.

"Radu suggested that this is an important factor in the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and its traditional European allies. "Will the Gulf be a permanent bone of contention between them?" he asked.

Strange Bedfellows Indeed

"And what about the conflict surrounding Israel and the Palestinians, with whom Islamism and the radical left share a common cause? Most French intellectuals still have a pro-Palestinian bias, he reminded his audience; they are driven by an "anti-Western, anti-capitalist and romantic Third-Worldism," Radu charged in an interview.

"But that's not all. "In certain countries Muslim communities have reached a critical mass, which pushes otherwise lucid politicians to see where their electoral weight lies. In France this is obviously the case. It could be the same elsewhere. In Germany, the number of voters of Turkish origin made the difference that allowed [Chancellor Gerhard] Schroeder to remain in power."

"It is not that the French government is indifferent to this peril. For 20 years, left-wing and right-wing administrations labored to form an umbrella group for the nation's leading Muslim organizations. They hoped to create an interlocutor analogous to the Catholic Church or the Protestant Federation, and an institute for training of imams who would preach, in French, the Koran and not politics.

"Earlier this year they thought they had succeeded. Elections were held in Muslim congregations for the 50 seats on the national council. The result was a shock. The group around Dalil Boubakeur, the moderate rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, who was supposed to be the council's first leader, won merely two seats. But the most radical organization came in second, with 14 seats.

"Worse Than French?

"France has 5 million to 6 million Muslims, whose young generation seems particularly troublesome, according to Radu. It is split right down the middle. Half of these young Muslims are almost indistinguishable from their non-Muslim contemporaries.

"But the other half pose a real problem," said Radu. "They reject the French identity. They reject their immigrant parents' national identity. They see them selves not as Frenchmen but as Muslims."

"And these young people, about 1 million, are "very vulnerable to recruitment by radicals."

"Similarly, a substantial segment of young Muslims in the United Kingdom does not identify with Britain but only with Islam. Thus, Radu said, "it is not surprising that of all Western nations [it] has the largest number of detainees in Guantanamo," where the U.S. holds al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects, including nine British subjects.

"In Germany, most of whose 3.5 million Muslims are of Turkish origin, the most unsettling reality is not their radicalism, but the radicalism of those who speak for then.

"The Central Islamic Council of Germany is dominated by Islamists," said Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, who teaches Islamic studies at Marburg University.

"She touched on one of the West's key problems in dealing with Islam, a problem Radu also acknowledged: a goofy inclination of Western secular authorities and clerics "to talk to the wrong Muslims," as Radu phrased it. "They seek out the least moderate elements in Islamic society."

Bush's Blunder

"This is not an exclusively European phenomenon. In preparing for the war on Iraq, Bush administration officials inexplicably sidelined Mohammed Mohammed Ali, a remarkable Shiite scholar and leader in the Iraqi National Congress, who advocated a secular nation providing a safe haven for his brand of Islam and all other faiths of his country.

"Spuler-Stegemann told this correspondent how this annoying "softy mentality" in dealing with Muslims gets in the way of her own efforts to help German educational authorities tackle these issues well.

P.C. Pastors

"To hear Spuler-Stegemann, "softy pastors," meaning politically correct clerics, seem to be particularly irksome. And here lies perhaps the greatest peril in the Western world's current Islamist challenge: If the old insight is true that the most efficacious antidote to a bad idea can only be a good idea, then Europe's and, to some extent, America's churches are not living up to expectations.

"As for Europe, Radu insists it has entered a "post-religious era," which is not quite correct. Post-post-religious is probably a better description. Spuler-Stegemann and others, this writer included, find an enormous spiritual quest among Europe's young. But this thirst for God is not sufficiently quenched by clerics stuck in 19th-century theological rationalism and inclined to embrace fads.

A Solution

"It seems that the answer to the "Islamist problem" is a dialogue between a new and reform-minded breed of Muslim scholars, who are present but often ignored, and the equally new breed of faithful Christian theologians that is emerging on both sides of the Atlantic.

"Look around. There are new sprouts of faith everywhere on the Old Continent: evangelical Anglicans in England, spiritually hungry Catholics and Protestants in France, blossoming new faith communities in almost every major European city, including in Germany, which spawned theological rationalism two centuries ago.

"That's where the future of a healthy dialogue with Islam lies – not in the cheap sellout of the faith that made Europe what it is, but in its rebirth."

Analysis by Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI religion editor.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International
All rights reserved.

Just wanted to add to your reading material.

Ok, you convinced me. You really believe that bizzare stuff and that is the way you perceive reality. And that is certainly worse than if you were deliberately lying.

P.S. And, yes, you are right the world is flat and Bush is a genius.

Your disagreement and vitriol ISN'T with ME, BW! It's apparently with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the UPI and the NY Times which has reported the same facts - "Europe's growing Muslim population has a larger footprint than Hispanics have had in America and are impacting European governments."

The French riots showed news reports (like the ones I posted above) to be more likely than not, all too accurate.

I didn't realize how frustrating my challenge ("If you can find ANY facts or credible sources that run to the contrary, let me know ASAP, as I'd be keenly interested in viewing them.") would be for you.

If it makes you feel any better, I couldn't find any reputable sources or reliable facts that ran counter to the ones I posted above either....AND I even LOOKED for them!

What I apparently underestimated is the personal stake you seem to have in believing things that have no basis in fact. I still don't get why that is. Perhaops that's why some call it "the religion of Liberalism."

Personally, I have no dog in this fight. IF someone, ANYone can offer facts (population stats, etc.) and reliable news sources that run counter to the ones I posted above, I'd certainly consider them and be open to changing my viewpoint on the matter.

All we need now (at least for comic relief) is to cue Barely Hanging, to offer a series of articles that actually support the ones I posted above as some sort of "refutation."

Still, all things considered, as lame as he is, Barely actually tries to make an argument, even if he does tend to quote sources that actually oppose the POV he claims they support (ie H-1Bs), you don't seem capable of doing even that.

Hey! You're not alone. Liberalism doesn't have many, if ANY true proponents capable of making compelling arguments. There have been no Liberal Milton Friedman's, no Leftist Tony Snow's.

Your disagreement and vitriol ISN'T with ME, BW!

I am sorry you dont get it. If you can not understand my point there is no way that I could ever explain it to you. It was so obvious in the original post that started this exchange. Anyway, congrats for your passion in fighting against your own interests and failing to understand some very obvious basic facts.

Still haven't found ANY facts (population figures, Muslim immigration rates to Europe, etc.) or news accounts that run counter to the ones I posted (from the CFR and the UPI, no less) above? NOTHING that would contest what I said about Europe actually having FOREIGN invaders (Muslim immigrants) who are out-and-out "religious fanatics" and who've directly and dangerously impact many of those governments.

I've done my part by looking for them, but I've come up as empty as you have.

Perhaps, while you're at it, you could also find a source that would counter the news reported in the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN and FoxNews that Vincent Van Gogh's great grandnephew (Theo Van Gogh) was murdered by Islamic radicals on the streets of Amsterdam back in 2004. I believe he was murdered by Islamic jihadists over his film Submission about the rampant violence against women in Islam...BUT, once again, IF you can find any credible sources that contest that view, the same one that CNN advanced here; http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/02/netherlands.filmmaker/index.html
by all means post them for our perusal.

In the mean time, if YOU can't find any facts to back up your view (that "Europe has no significant Muslim problem"), then you're ceding that yours is an invalid opinion.

HINT: It might be a good time to bow out gracefully and not further contest something you can't find any facts or evidence to contest it with.

"Anyway, congrats for your passion in fighting against your own interests and failing to understand some very obvious basic facts." (BW)


You seem a might confused there, BW.

LOWER tax rates, a LESS intrusive government, strong welfare reform (NYC's welfare rolls are at there lowest in 45 years), a tough-on-crime approach to criminal justice and opposition to race and gender based preferences are ALL very much in my best interests AND yours.

My cousin is a SI Assemlyman who supports the entire agenda I outlined above, as do the vast majority of the NEW "Blue Dog" Democrats (now nearly 25% of the Democrats in Congress).

I'm hoping and working toward the day that THAT will be the basic agenda of the entire Democratic Party!

And as far as "understanding the facts" goes, we ARE talking about "the Muslim menace in Europe?"

I've posted a number of articles and numerous facts above...you - NONE.

Could it be you, who doesn't understand the facts surrounding that issue?

I think it is...

And as far as "understanding the facts" goes, we ARE talking about "the Muslim menace in Europe?"

That's your problem. Instead of responding to the point (again go back and read what I wrote originally), you start discussing irrelevant and unrelated issues, because you think you are good at those issues. lol.

to back up your view (that "Europe has no significant Muslim problem")

LOL. And you like to fabricate statements that I never made. I never discussed this issue on this post. Not once. Not a hint of anything like that. Do you realize that when you fabricate statements like that (even in you imagination), it is equivalent to lying? Seriously, do you?

"In the mean time, if YOU can't find any facts to back up your view (that "Europe has no significant Muslim problem"), then you're ceding that yours is an invalid opinion." (JMK)


"I never discussed this issue on this post. Not once."


Uhhhh, yeah, you DID.

Let me refresh you on the particulars of the start of THIS particular exchange;
"They do not have religious fundamentalist (like we do here) having an effect on their government." (BW)


"Actually THEY DO!...

"...In Europe, FOREIGN invaders who are out-and-out "religious fanatics" DO indeed directly and dangerously impact those governments! Denmark and the Netherlands have been noticibly and profoundly negativly impacted by these invading Muslim extremists." (JMK)


Are you drunk? It is still early in the day. Where do you get bizzare, non-existent, stuff like that? If you are dreaming, simply wake up. Reality should be kept separate from imagination." (BW)


See? In vehemently disagreeing with my fact-based assertion that among other problems (including some very serious economic ones), Europe now faces, a virulent and malignant Muslim menace, you asserted, de facto, that more or less, "Europe has no significant Muslim problem."


So, I HAVE gone back to what you wrote originally in response to your assertion that the U.S. is heading toward Third World status.

I showed you the economic figures - the U.S. ranking 6th in standard of living (it's fluctuated between 4th and 8th over the past 25 years) and ranks 3rd in distribution of income.....AND, you then implied that (to paraphrase again) you didn't mean it in an economic sense.

Then I chronicled both Europe's and China's many, many problems, both social and economic and finally ended by responding to your charge that "unlike here in the U.S. those other nations don't have religious fundamentalists impacting their governments," with the "Actually, they DO..." quote...and from there on it was YOU vehemently claiming that Europe suffers no such thing, or to paraphrase, "Europe has no significant Muslim problem."

That is the logical flow of this exchange, such as it is.

I just wanted to recap all this for my own edification.....UNLESS.....this is the BW way of admitting you said something you can't defend?

Hey! That's nothing all that new on your part. I don't see why it's so hard to just say something like, "I didn't mean Europe has no Muslim problem," I mean you seemed to have little problem implying that you didn't mean the U.S. was "heading to Third World status" in any economic way, when you posted a list of non-economic reasons for supporting that inane MoveOn viewpoint - Katrina, federal Stem Cell funding, etc.

You seem to think I'm giving you a hard time over some personal animus on my part, that I can assure you is non-existent. What I'm giving you a hard time over is making statements that you can't back up with ANY facts!

In that regard, don't feel so bad, I'm certain that the folks over at MoveOn couldn't defend such statements either.