Anybody notice that John McCain only got 72 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania yesterday, where Ron Paul supporters spent heavily to air ads like this?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
And we’ll know how genuine that message is when Paul endorses either the anti-war Obama or the pro-war McCain.
Lee,
I don’t think Ron Paul is going to endorse either Obama or McCain. In fact, he’ll just be silent on that issue, and a lot of us who like his message will write-in Ron Paul in November.
If Ron Paul gets 16% of the vote in November, for instance, it’ll show that at least 16% of voters in the election didn’t like either of the main stream candidates. There are a lot of us out there who don’t like either the Dems or Reps.
@2
Actually, I expect him to endorse the Libertarian candidate (who will probably be Bob Barr). Whether or not the Ron Paul coalition lines up behind Barr will likely decide whether or not McCain makes it a race or gets completely blown out.
@2 Why would anyone vote for a candidate who supports a 40% federal sales tax so rich Republicans can pay even less taxes than they do now, and Roger Rabbit can get away with paying absolutely nothing on his stock market winnings?
Roger Rabbit @ 4:
You make it sound as if you’re breaking the law by not paying taxes???
Aren’t you just taking advantage of the legal tax deductions provided for in the IRS Tax Codes?
Roger Rabbit, you know how you like to post like 10 times in a row and then make a comment about the shitty (un)SP blog?
You ought to set the record and make 15 comments in a row so you’re the only poster in the “cess pool” area.
:)
5 Since we now live under The Finest Government Money Can Buy(tm), avoiding paying taxes in proportion to the mess one makes is just one of many crimes that are now officially “legal”.
None of the remaining Presidential candidates is directly addressing one of the long-term ecomonic problems of the U.S. – the loss of manufacturing capacity, and the flight of capital from the U.S. overseas. It’s easy to understand why: Presidents have only a very limited control over such macro-economic trends, and they need to show results within three years if they want to be re-elected during their fourth year in office.
Likewise, U.S. corporations are generally unconcerned, as they profit from the lower prices they pay for products elswhere and sell to U.S. customers. When those U.S. customers run out of money and can’t buy anymore – then they will just try to sell to other customers overseas, but in general it will be some other CEO’s problem.
But I thought I would provide a couple of quotes from people who are concerned about the future economic status of the U.S.:
1. From Warren Buffet’s 2007 letter to shareholders:
“Already the prediction I made last year about one fall-out from our spending binge has come true: The “investment income” account of our country – positive in every previous year since 1915 – turned negative in 2006. Foreigners now earn more on their U.S. investments than we do on our investments abroad. In effect, we’ve used up our bank account and turned to our credit card. And, like everyone who gets in hock, the U.S. will now experience “reversecompounding” as we pay ever-increasing amounts of interest on interest.”
Source: http://209.85.173.104/search?q.....#038;gl=us (p. 16).
2. Author Kevin Philips, in “Bad Money”, decries the increasing reliance in the U.S. on “financial services”, rather than producing goods:
“…U.S. politicians have made the fatal error of betting the nation’s future on finance. In 1950, manufacturing represented 29.3 percent of U.S. GDP, while financial services accounted for 10.9 percent, he shows. By 2005, the roles had reversed, with financial services accounting for 20.4 percent and manufacturing for 12 percent.”
Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ney24.html
And in today’s news, one insurance company (Safeco) is being acquired by another insurance company (Liberty Mutual). Note that insurance companies are primarily financial investment/services companies, and this multi-billion dollar transaction creates no product or service in and of itself, other than making those involved even more wealthy.
I haven’t been paying attention, is Ron Paul still in the race?
If you’re open-minded you’ll go to angryrenter.com and click on the video down to the right to see another point of view about why bailing out homeowners is unfair. I dare you
http://www.ExposeObama.com
The truth about Mythical Man!!
“President Barack Hussein Obama,” those have to be the scariest four words in the English language!
**Ask yourself… do you really want the next President of the United States of America to be a man with ties to known Marxists such as Frank Marshall Davis and terrorists such as Bill Ayers and former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi?
**Consider the fact that Barack Hussein Obama refuses to wear the flag on his lapel, or that he does not place his hand over his heart in the presence of the American flag.
**Consider the fact that Barack Hussein Obama embraces Jeremiah Wright, a man who has preached the most vile racial hatred and anti-American sentiments from the pulpit for twenty years, while at the same time Barack Hussein Obama accuses decent hard-working Americans of bigotry when he says things like, “It’s not surprising that they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them… .”
**Consider the fact that Barack Hussein Obama’s wife Michelle said that her husband’s candidacy marked, “the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”
If PA is anything like the WA GOP county conventions, a lot of the Ron Paul (and even Romney and Huckabee) voters are casting primary votes for their candidate, but are committed to McCain in the general. Their intent is to give their candidate (and issues) higher standing in the state conventions and in future elections. I wouldn’t be reading too much into inconsequential primary results.
Barack Hussein Obama slapped hard-working Americans in the face when he said that “bitter” people “cling to guns or religion.”
But how does Obama react when he actually encounters bigotry?
Do you remember what Jeremiah Wright, the man who preached to Obama for 20 years, married him to his wife, baptized his children and served as his spiritual advisor said about the United States?
Here’s what Wright said:
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God Bless America? No, no, no! Not God bless America. God d*** America! It’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God d*** America…”
Wright actually said that when terrorists killed over 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001, “America had it coming!”
Wright once called the United States of America, “the U.S. of K.K.K.A”
Wright even accused the United States government of developing the AIDS virus to exterminate blacks.
For 20 years, Barack Hussein Obama listened to Jeremiah Wright preach hate and didn’t say a word. When confronted with Wright’s race-baiting he refused to disown the man… and yet he has no problem insinuating that hard-working, God-fearing Americans are bigots!
What does that tell you about Barack Hussein Obama?
When it comes to the issues, most people simply don’t know where Barack Hussein Obama stands. The liberal media won’t give you that information!
For example, when it comes to crime, Barack Hussein Obama seems to care for criminals more than victims:
In 2002, while gang related crime infected Chicago like an open, festering sore, Barack Hussein Obama voted NO on HB 1812, a bill designed to toughen penalties for crimes committed in furtherance of gang activities.
expose obama Take the broom you rode in on and stick it up your ass.
Exposed @ 12: “Consider the fact that Barack Hussein Obama refuses to wear the flag on his lapel, or that he does not place his hand over his heart in the presence of the American flag.”
Politicians who wear a flag pin on their lapel are utter cowards, and I don’t give a damn what party they belong to. The flag lapel horseshit is juvenile, follow-the-leader crap that any mature American should laugh at. (Sorry for all the preposition-ending sentences–this topic pisses me off.) Of all the political pandering acts that we have seen during the Bush years, the flag on the lapel is the most repugnant. Patriotism comes from a lapel pin? Spare me. Obama showed his leadership and cojones by refusing to wear one.
‘Oh fuck the world is going to come to an end!!!!!
Keep up the good work the more crazy ass shit you spew the more people you drive away from the right.
Reagan called AIDS the gay plague and let 10’s of thousands of people die do to his inaction. Who’s worse?
@13
Thanks!
11, 12, 14:
Fuck right off, pig.
8:
‘Liberty Mutual Field’ just ain’t gonna sound right……
WHATTTTTTTT????
Barak Obama doesn’t put his hand over his heart in the presence of the American Flag??!?!?
Shit, man, doesn’t any one KNOW proper flag etiquette any more.
Don’t they know it’s just as proper to stand at attention, like Barak does, to properly give Honors???
Damn it! Barak uses proper flag etiquette. That means he honors and reveres the flag.
You know what else Barak honors and respects? The Constitution.
No wonder Republicans are so outraged at Barak’s conduct. Totally unbecoming if you’re a Republican.
Those are hard hitting reasons not to vote for Barak.
You fucking moron.
Roger,
If a national sales tax replaces income taxes, then I’m all for it. 40% sounds way, way to large. I think 23% was the number being tossed around by the Ron Paul campaign.
Imagine – NO INCOME TAXES!! No tedious forms to fill-out, no record keeping required. Government power reduced. It doesn’t get much better!
Right now I’ll settle for a flat rate income tax: it’s the first step towards eliminating income taxes and the government bureaucrats in the IRS!
Republicans and Democrats alike support an income tax because it’s how both groups get to weild power, and that’s all they care about!
@5 That’s the hell of it — everything I do is perfectly legal. What an insult to the people who work for a living! If you work, you make less money and pay higher taxes! What kind of cockamamie country is that?
@6 Why should I give a shitty little rival blog a free plug on HA? If they want to advertise themselves to HA’s audience, they can buy a fucking ad like everyone else!
@7 “The Finest Government Money Can Buy(tm)”
Not really. With GOP government, the more you pay the less you get. That seems to be carrying over into how they run their businesses now, too.
@9 Only in his imagination.
@22 “I think 23% was the number being tossed around by the Ron Paul campaign.”
That’s right, but wait until you see how they came up with that number.
Let’s say you make a $1 purchase. Under the “Fair Tax” you will pay 30 cents federal sales tax on it, i.e. the register will ring up $1.30 (plus any state and local sales taxes). “Fair Tax” proponents argue 30 cents is 23% of $1.30. But they don’t deny that you will pay 30 cents tax on every $1 of retail purchases under their proposal. So — is it a 23% tax or a 30% tax?
However, apart from the mathematical games being played by “Fair Tax” proponents, many economists question their assumption that it would be revenue neutral at the proposed 30% rate, and suggest that it would take a sales tax of anywhere from 40% to 54% to replace all of the revenue from all of the taxes that the FT would supplant.
And then there’s the question of fairness. Without question, replacing the income tax with a sales tax would result in a large shift of tax burden from the rich to middle and low income households. FT proponents propose overcoming this with a rebate system. But this approach would require a huge bureaucracy to issue what amounts to monthly welfare checks to every taxpayer in the country. Also, lower-income taxpayers would not have the use of this money while waiting for their rebate checks to arrive.
Dem candidates raise approximately $60 million last reporting period to McCain’s $12 million – uh oh! Look out republican turds – your guy is falling behind when he’s at his best. Once we have a nominee and start pointing out Johnboy’s problems – i.e., Keating Five, Flip Flopping, refusal to release all tax info, refusal to release medical info, refusal to release military records, ties to lobbyists, affairs and lack of buy in from his own party – it will only get worse.
Quote from MSNBC “Depending on how you count — and who you ask — Clinton and Obama are both ahead. Hoping to sway superdelegates, she is claiming votes from races in which he didn’t compete.”
Billary Lies Again!!!
So John McCain gets over seventy percent of the vote in an uncontested Republican election. Oooh, we should worry.
29 Me
It’s more fair to say that Hillary is counting votes from elections in states from which no candidate received delegates. So the states don’t count (and shouldn’t), but the votes do?
Daddy Love–
I just looked at http://www.exposeobama.com
Good luck with your teflon candidate once the teflon is scraped away.
O-blah-blah will snatch defeat outta the jaws of victory. The ultimate issue that will seal his defeat is race-baiting & pulling out the race card waaaaaaaaaaaay too often…either directly or thru his surrogates to attempt to hide his true beliefs & affiliations.
Hillary’s troops and Hillary herslf have been interviewed all over FOX NEWS. Finally Jesse Jackson, Jr. went on O’reilly last night to attempt to offend Obama’s actions.
ALL Hillary folks say the issues of Wright, Avery, Rezko, bitterness, Michelle’s comments are FAIR GAME!!!! Out in the public sector.
This is great to watch.
Give ’em hell Hillary!!
DL @ 30
Read my post @ 13. The 72% has nothing to do with how the GOP will vote in November. Those votes simply mean that Paul and Huckabee delegates will go to their state (and possibly national) conventions, but 99% are voting McCain. They simply want to get their guy more exposure at the national convention. Why do you think Huckabee stayed in the race?
Having been to a GOP county convention, I can tell you that the party is very united — at least in Western WA. We’ll see how things look in Spokane.
So, yes… Oooh, you SHOULD worry.
For a more informed understanding of Reagan and the gay plague than michael spews @18, read And the Band Played On, by Randy Shilts, and Dragon Within the Gates by Dr. Stephen Joseph.
The phrase ‘gay plague’ was first used by gays to attract attention to the 4th or 5th gay plague to attack the bathhouse brotherhood.
Reagan, like everyone, was clueless thru 1983 about the origin/etiology of the mystery plague that singled out liberated gays who needed pocket calculators to count their dangerous liaisons. The best guess of some of the biggest guns at CDC was that AIDS was chemically induced by a bad batch of amyls, and that it would soon burn itself out when the bad drugs ran out; no massive infusions of nonexistent federal revenue were needed, experts said, during the post-Carter despression.
Shilts notes that toxic shock syndrome and Legionnaires Disease got more immediate funding than HIV-AIDS, but fails to note how quickly Reagan’s administration gave in to political pressure surrounding a politicized disease and started dumping more money into AIDS than into more concerted killers such as heart disease.
If tens of thousands needlessly died, as michael avers, blame the bathhouses, bloodbanks, and bathhouse gays who insisted they had legal and moral rights to give or sell blood and plasma. That’s where Shilts put the blame, before Shilts allowed a bad television movie to be made from his good book, and before Shilts died. From AIDS.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=89803657
That’s NPR’s report about nuclear terrorism. The report is a supplement to warnings from George Tenet and Michael Scheuer, the author formerly known as Anonymous, that bin Laden wants The Bomb and can probably get it.
I thought you Seattlites would be interested in a chance to meet Al Giordano Friday.
Roger, you don’t want a “fair” tax: you want a “favorable” tax.
I’ll meet you half way: how about a flat-rate income tax with one single deduction from taxable income for the number of people supported by that income?
For example, a family of 4 with $175,000 in gross income gets an $80,000 deduction for the four people, then pays 10% of the amount over: $175,000 – $80,000 = $95,000 * 10% = $9,500 in income taxes for the year. No H&R Block, no CPAs, no tax attorneys and easy to compute. Simple, flat & fair.
What do you think?
@37 I think the federal government would be bankrupt within a month. You’re nuts if you think an effective tax rate of 5.4% on people making $175,000 a year can support a government whose expenditures historically have averaged about 20% of GDP over the last 75 years. You’d have to cut government spending by 80%.