You shouldn't have to care. That outlook just shows that you are looking out for yourself, rather than for the good of people that create jobs. I am voting on what will make IMO my country better. Not what will personally benefit me.

So then, tell me, how will that help produce more jobs? If the employers are taxed more...

No, Casey. The outlook says you don't care about anyone who is struggling to make it in this country. You care only about the wealthy.

And, produce more jobs? If these same employers that you push so hard gave a damn in the first place, why have so many jobs been outsorced by these very same people? I'm supposed to care about CEOs getting GIGANTIC stock option benifits and HUGE salaries while shutting down plants and factories and shipping those people's jobs out of the country?

I'm sorry. I'll remember that in the future.

I am not well versed on the economy but didn't Bill Clinton leave a budget surplus?

From personal experience I know that our property value declined while the senior Bush was in office and I attributed that to the Gulf War, rise in unemployment and all that not so good things that go along with it. Things improved economically under Clinton. Jr Bush started giving out the surplus funds to the taxpayers which is fine since it was our money anyway.

I don't believe Clinton's policies led the country into a recession unless it happened elsewhere and skipped over California. The economy vastly improved.

I happen to think that it's cyclical and "war" generally leads to a drain on the economy and rise in unemployment. I think it's wrong to blame Clinton since he had to deal with the economic mess caused by the Senior Bush who would have been re-elected if not for that mess.

Yes he did. His surpluses came from very high taxes on businesses that also lead to the last serious economic trouble.

The mortgage crisis has caused many to see decreases in property value. I urge everyone that is mad about the housing market to do a little research on which party pushed for relaxed guidelines for obtaining mortgages.

I know Clinton's policies drastically changed the face of Silicon Valley in CA. He wasn't shy in taxing their dot.com success...do death...in many cases.

The economy did improve under Clinton...unfortunately it was very short-lived. I would have loved it too...if it lasted longer..That is generally what will happen if the companies that provide jobs hold the majority of the tax burden.

Edited September 5, 200817 yr by Casey008

No, Casey. The outlook says you don't care about anyone who is struggling to make it in this country. You care only about the wealthy.

Sure I guess that is one way to look at it. I look to myself for success instead of waiting for the government to lend a hand. Hoping that others do the same does not make me side with only the wealthy. My side is against big government.

And, produce more jobs? If these same employers that you push so hard gave a damn in the first place, why have so many jobs been outsorced by these very same people? I'm supposed to care about CEOs getting GIGANTIC stock option benifits and HUGE salaries while shutting down plants and factories and shipping those people's jobs out of the country?

I'm sorry. I'll remember that in the future.

I guess Obama has a plan to stick his nose into the private affairs of companies and how their CEO's are paid as well.

I can tell you one thing. Taxing them more is not going to bring them back or keep less from leaving.

http://www.ctj.org/html/mcca00pr.htm

I just found this, so everyone can read it and decided for themselves.

Why should I care if some making A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR have their income taxes raised?

This article seems to be from primaries in 2000 and compares McCain's plan to Bush's plan. I would like to note that McCain's plan is probably still similar.

Also the plans state that there is really not much of a reduction in taxes for the lower income earners. Anyone know why that is? It's because the lowest bracket generally doesn't pay taxes. They do have taxes taken out of their income over the course of the year, but they will generally get it all back in the form of refunds when they prepare their taxes.

I know this from personal experience from when I was younger. When I had a low income level, I basically broke even from taxes taken out of my income and from the refunds I received back.

The reason I bring this up is because it is misleading to some to think lower income earners were not given a tax break under Bush. He didn't reduce the tax percentage for their income bracket because it was not needed.

I just had CNN on and Palin was speaking at a GOP rally in Michigan and her speech was the exact same one she spouted off the other night at the convention....

Like word for word....

I just had CNN on and Palin was speaking at a GOP rally in Michigan and her speech was the exact same one she spouted off the other night at the convention....

Like word for word....

She should leave out the eBay part since that story has been debunked. I saw a clip of McCain saying that it was his favorite part of her speech......too bad since the only thing true about it is she sold the plane. She forgot that it was at a loss and she forgot that it wasn't on eBay......unless by some strange coincidence the party contributor who bought it for a lower price was posing as a customer on eBay.

I just had CNN on and Palin was speaking at a GOP rally in Michigan and her speech was the exact same one she spouted off the other night at the convention....

Like word for word....

I did see that too and I noticed it automatically!! I sold the plane.....my kids loved the chef. Same [!@#$%^&*] Sarah!!

LOL. Are you serious? McCain will not raise taxes on ANYONE? That's bull, and anyone would be dumb to believe that.

I just had CNN on and Palin was speaking at a GOP rally in Michigan and her speech was the exact same one she spouted off the other night at the convention....

Like word for word....

That was a pretty long speech. Did they replay the whole thing?

LOL. Are you serious? McCain will not raise taxes on ANYONE? That's bull, and anyone would be dumb to believe that.

Completey serious, and It's true! Please explain, how you know otherwise.

Yes he did. His surpluses came from very high taxes on businesses that also lead to the last serious economic trouble.

The mortgage crisis has caused many to see decreases in property value. I urge everyone that is mad about the housing market to do a little research on which party pushed for relaxed guidelines for obtaining mortgages.

I know Clinton's policies drastically changed the face of Silicon Valley in CA. He wasn't shy in taxing their dot.com success...do death...in many cases.

The economy did improve under Clinton...unfortunately it was very short-lived. I would have loved it too...if it lasted longer..That is generally what will happen if the companies that provide jobs hold the majority of the tax burden.

This is why I don't like all the back and forth party nonsense because blaming one party for doing something if that thing isn't what created the underlying problem in the first place is a complete and utter waste. It's not as if one is all full of virtue and the other is the scum of the earth.

My post said our property value declined under the Senior Bush which has nothing to do with the current mortgage crisis. The value is down now and it the value is driven by the economy. I don't care who relaxed the guidellines for obtaining mortgages and how is that a bad thing anyway? It was designed to help more people purchase homes. The people who over extended themselves are ultimately responsible for their circumstances period.

I don't know what you define as short lived but by my definition it wasn't short lived. California wasn't suffering and if other states were, I had no idea.

The country spends ten billion dollars a month or so on the occupation of Iraq while they have a seventy-nine billion dollar surplus. We're in debt to China. Does McCain have a plan to get the country out of debt? He thinks the invasion was a good idea and the occupation is a good idea so he needs to have a plan to get the country out of debt.

I did see that too and I noticed it automatically!! I sold the plane.....my kids loved the chef. Same [!@#$%^&*] Sarah!!

Seriously she said she sold the plane on eBay again?

I learned about it on television years ago and I've never been to the south unless a layover in Miami counts. I guess it depends on how isolated people are from other races as to what they learn and don't about what can be considered and what's not.

Why do I feel a backhanded insult here? You really have no idea about my exposure to anything. I did not recognize the term as a racial slur and I am from the South. That's really all you know. Your assumptions make me bristle.

Edited September 5, 200817 yr by wiccachick_1

You can add my wife and my family to that list as well. We were all born and raised in GA, and after discussing this...we knew nothing of the racial tone.

Thats about 15 more people.

OK I'm finally delurking on this thread because I think there's something I want to highlight: the fact that one doesn't know the connotation and didn't mean it as an insult is kind of a secondary point. It's a basic fact of communication - interpersonal and mass - that just because a message is sent doesn't mean it's received.

Westmoreland made a mistake. I think he spent his life surrounded by this kind of language which is/was often used WITH racist connotations. But I'm willing to bet that he didn't know that he was being fed racism. As much as we'd like to believe that "everybody" knows how to respect others, obviously that isn't true. We have to learn and unlearn. I'm a straight, black woman who's also a vehement supporter of the gay community. I believe the gay rights battle is THE civil rights fight of the 21st century. I was raised by a proud, educated, kind, and brilliant black man who while respectful to women thought nothing of calling gay men "queers" and "fags" (apologies) or using that unfortunate hand gesture to describe them. I know that if he were alive today he would think differently but my point is, people can only learn when they are given the information.

And with all due respect Casey008, you may never have used the term "uppity" in a racist context but the real question is: does what you've learned here change the way you see the term? Will it change the way you use it?

When somebody tells us "this word hurts and here's why," we have to decide whether to respect that. If one chooses to, then we say "I'm sorry. I didn't know. I didn't mean it that way." Like I said I'm an active and devoted supporter of the GLBT community and I've made the mistake more than once. I've also readily apologized and I haven't always been forgiven.

If this Presidential race shows anything its that we're in uncharted territory and we are going to make a lot of mistakes along the way. I've heard there's a belief in the Old Testament (don't know if that's true)that forgiveness can only be given by the offended party and no one else. IOW, the only people that have to forgive Westmoreland are the Obamas. It looks like they did. It's up to the rest of us to learn from this.

Sorry for the long-windedness. At heart I'm just a Community Organizer.

Edited September 5, 200817 yr by marceline

This is not as good as the first one but still good enough.

The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage Vol.2 -- the People's Edition

John Ridley

This is the Vol. 2 of The Guide to the Conservative Palinguage. I'm calling this one the People's Edition because you, the people, have obviously been taking AP courses in talking Conservative. I've been slammed with responses. Enough that I can promise you there will be future volumes. Along with some of mine, I've mixed in a few of yours for everybody's linguistic pleasure.

Before we start, I'd like to note that I intimated in Vol. 1 that English is a Latin based language. Hondorf was among a few others who pointed out that English is "primarily German based, yes, but it is really a hybrid of Germanic and Romantic languages . . . by the way, I am a redneck."

Clearly, none of us should judge a neck by its color.

A reminder, we're collecting Palinisms here, and over at That Minority Thing.com. If you've got 'em, send 'em.

Ready? Let's begin!

If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you're a "phoney." Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you're "well loved."

SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to "get to know you." If you're white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you're "one of us."

If you give your wife a dap on stage, it's actually a "terrorist fist jab." If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child's hair on national TV it's an "adorable moment." (Seriously, forget about abstinence only, teach these folks some grooming skills).

DTD SAYS: If your pastor rails against inequality in the United States of America, you're an "extremist." If your pastor welcomes a sermon by a member of Jews for Jesus who preaches that the killing of Jews by terrorists is a lesson to Jews that they must convert to Christianity, you're a "fundamentalist."

If you're a black man and you use a scholarship to get into college, then work your way up to being the president of the Harvard Law Review, you're "uppity." If you're a conservative and your parents pay your way to Hawaii Pacific University . . . you only have four more schools to attend over the next five years before you somehow manage to graduate (it might be five more schools over the next five years. No one has yet verified whether or not Palin was actually ever registered at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. But, you know how shady people are who ever attended any kind of school in Hawaii).

SeanOcali says: If you're 18, white, and get a 16 year old girl pregnant "life happens." If you're 18, black, and impregnate a 16 year old girl, you're a "registered sex offender."

If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of "Change," it's just "empty rhetoric." If one week before your party's national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about "Change," that's "red meat."

And your last lesson for the day:

If you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a moderate Republican, if you're female, male, white, black, Asian, Hispanic, bi-racial, multi-ethnic, or GLBT, if you're a Jew, Gentile, Muslim, agnostic or atheist -- "Yes, we can!"

If you're a pitbull with lipstick from Alaska, "Yup, yup!"

Why do I feel a backhanded insult here? You really have no idea about my exposure to anything. I did not recognize the term as a racial slur and I am from the South. That's really all you know. Your assumptions make me bristle.

That's a general observation. If you want to take it as an insult or make assumptions about what I was saying. that's none of my business. I know nothing about you so it would not behoove me to pretend to know anything about you. But if I were making a comment about you I would have used the word "you" to avoid any confusion.

Bristle away.....

Edited September 5, 200817 yr by Wales2004