McCain Veep Is Woman

Started by mn dave, August 29, 2008, 10:15:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kullervo

If I could but touch the hem of her Saks 5th Avenue blazer...

knight66

Touch Corey as in; with the toe of a boot. What a strange decision by her party to not just spend a great deal on her kit, but to dress her in such a way that she does not appear in any outfit more than once. If they had stopped at a small handful of even unnecessarily expensive items, I don't thin any interest would have been shown.

But then as I hope her party gets thrashed; more power to the out of touch decision makers in it. Another own goal in the comming week please.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

Shrunk

Quote from: M forever on October 28, 2008, 06:45:09 PM
No, no, no, no - why do people keep misunderstanding this? That's not her wardrobe. She is just borrowing it for a couple of weeks. The clothes are all supposed to go to charity. Then there will be a lot of unemployed and/or underpriviledged women who walk around in designer clothes. I think that is wonderful, and very generous of the Republican party.

I dunno.  Doesn't that sound just a little...socialist

Catison

Quote from: Shrunk on October 29, 2008, 05:39:34 AM
I dunno.  Doesn't that sound just a little...socialist

Socialism would be if such giving was imposed by the government.
-Brett

Al Moritz

Quote from: M forever on October 28, 2008, 06:45:09 PM
No, no, no, no - why do people keep misunderstanding this? That's not her wardrobe. She is just borrowing it for a couple of weeks. The clothes are all supposed to go to charity. Then there will be a lot of unemployed and/or underpriviledged women who walk around in designer clothes. I think that is wonderful, and very generous of the Republican party.

Hehe!

Florestan

Quote from: Shrunk on October 29, 2008, 05:39:34 AM
I dunno.  Doesn't that sound just a little...socialist

Quote from: Catison on October 29, 2008, 05:43:42 AM
Socialism would be if such giving was imposed by the government.

It's not socialism. It's Republican bleeding-heart liberalism.  :D
"Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part." - Claude Debussy

M forever

Quote from: Shrunk on October 29, 2008, 05:39:34 AM
I dunno.  Doesn't that sound just a little...socialist

No. Socialism is if everyone is badly dressed.


M forever

Time flies like an arrow and fruit flies like bananas.

Lethevich

Peanut butter, flour and sugar do not make cookies. They make FIRE.

Hector

Quote from: Lethe on October 30, 2008, 12:31:36 AM
Accurate?



I'll say again that a recent study demonstrated that the US economy tended to grow more rapidly and the income gap narrow under the Democrats than it did under the Republicans.

An explanation was not forthcoming although the Democrats supported the increase in the minimum wage thus narrowing the gap and giving people more spending power at the same time.


M forever

Quote from: Hector on October 30, 2008, 05:25:05 AM
An explanation was not forthcoming

The standard explanantion given by "fiscal conservatives" is that economic measures take several years to show effect, so the deficits during the Reagan and Bush I years were actually caused during the (Democrat) presidency of Carter, then under Reagan and Bush I they fixed the economy, so it looked good during the Clinton years while the Democrats started to screw everything up again, and the effects of that became visible then during the Bush II years. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Catison

Quote from: Hector on October 30, 2008, 05:25:05 AM
I'll say again that a recent study demonstrated that the US economy tended to grow more rapidly and the income gap narrow under the Democrats than it did under the Republicans.

An explanation was not forthcoming although the Democrats supported the increase in the minimum wage thus narrowing the gap and giving people more spending power at the same time.

The explanation would be interesting, because it is, of course, the congress that controls spending.  And raising the minimum wage can potentially increase unemployment, so it is not that simple I don't think.
-Brett

Bulldog

Quote from: Catison on October 30, 2008, 10:16:25 AM
The explanation would be interesting, because it is, of course, the congress that controls spending.  And raising the minimum wage can potentially increase unemployment, so it is not that simple I don't think.

I've been hearing that "increse unemployment" argument from Republicans for decades now, but I never read any evidence of it happening.  Do you know if it really ever takes place?

adamdavid80

Quote from: Bulldog on October 30, 2008, 11:28:56 AM
I've been hearing that "increse unemployment" argument from Republicans for decades now, but I never read any evidence of it happening.  Do you know if it really ever takes place?

That's difficult to measure, bc if you don't hire for a job that doesn't fit budget, it never existed.  If a company decdies that four workers will suffice (and work a little more, even maybe generating OT) rather than 5 - and the company has 400 minimum wage employees, the differences can become substantial.

(this is similar to states calculating high school graduation rates.  Can you include G.e.d. recipients?  Do you include people who dropped out before senior year, or is that when the drop-out measure begins?  What about students who are the children of undocumented workers?)

BTW, I've also heard the argument from the WSJ op-ed page that raising the minimum wage will reduce worker productivity b/c now they'll be up all night playing x-box or some such nonsense.  And, yes, I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.
Hardly any of us expects life to be completely fair; but for Eric, it's personal.

- Karl Henning

M forever

No, I think that actually makes a lot of sense. People shouldn't make so much money that they can afford useless toys like video games to waste their time with. They should have barely enough to survive, that will motivate them to work harder and longer hours.

lisa needs braces

I can't help it. I feel sorry for McCain sometimes.

Behold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TT7gt5F0w


Catison

Quote from: -abe- on October 30, 2008, 01:41:54 PM
I can't help it. I feel sorry for McCain sometimes.

Behold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TT7gt5F0w



Ugh!  That really is sad.

The Economist today came out for Obama.  Their argument is that Obama is not as bad as he might be made out to be, and that although he is a risk, the potential payoff is worth that risk.  They are worried that he might put too many protectionist strategies in place and that his lack of foreign policy experience could catch up to him.  And they are especially worried that the likely Democratic congress might see a blank check in the White House.  But right now, in the financial and foreign crisis that America faces, he is the leader America needs.

They argue that McCain, for all his maverick reputation, has ceased to be himself since becoming elected, and that the risk in voting for McCain is that he won't switch back to his former self.  He made many mistakes in his campaign, including selecting Palin for his running mate, a person who, in their opinion, has no business being president.

After reading that response, I tend to agree with them.
-Brett

M forever

Quote from: Catison on October 30, 2008, 02:50:05 PM
They are worried...that his lack of foreign policy experience could catch up to him.

I don't think that's a problem. He certainly makes the impression that he is smart enough to know that he has to listen to real experts in the field. I also think his world view is complex enough to enable him to put their information into the right perspective.