SuperJerk

I think it was a draw. McCain got points by dominating the agenda and asserting himself. Obama got points by sounding knowledgable and not looking like a dick.

Despite many GOP headliners, such as Ben Stein, dismissing the ticket after the convention? Well, yeah, there's that. And George Will. Hey, its not the beginning of the end, its the end of the beginning. Or something.

This National Review Online article about Mrs. Palin is getting quite a bit of press. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiM...MWMyYTUxZDkwNTE And with that, the right-wing rebellion begins. Wall Street Republicans are going to be exceeding pissed at McCain for dicking over the bail-out, he already looks like a jerk for not taking a coherent position on the economy, people are beginning to question Palin's qualifications, and well...most Republicans never really liked him anyways. It will take an awesome performance tonight to turn this around. If McCain still has a chance of winning, we'll know by the end of the weekend based on reactions to the debate.

Enjoy.

More Palin/Couric goodness... Wow...she's just, like...talking in circles there...and just keeps going...wow. To be fair, though... Palin defends Alaska-Russia foreign policy remark. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n

No. Entrepenuers are people. Businesses are organizations. They are taxed differently, and what they do with their incomes is also different. Your counter-argument was about the taxes on the new and pre-existing organizations, not the individual people starting the businesses or about to start the business using capital that isn't danger of being confiscated because the people who are starting them are not rich yet. Corporate taxes are a different situation, and your counter-argument was invalid. Also, your whole bit about "I really doubt that companies, and not individuals..." just proves you weren't paying attention, because I was talking about people (not companies). Again, your counter-argument was invalid. That's because I wasn't talking about reasons for the crisis, I was explaining why Huckabee's plan wouldn't work. Again, read a little before jumping people's asses. Calvin Coolidge tips his hat to you, sir. Let's just keep cutting taxes and shrinking government and our prosperity will last forever. I tend to spank disagreement and send it to bed without its supper.

Eric's not the one being stupid. How about reading a little more carefully and figuring out what I'm really talking about before jumping everyone's asses next time?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/159894 Some people are saying that the difference is that Spears was famous, and Bristol Palin wasn't, but does that really explain why it was okay in one case and it wasn't okay in another (according to popular opinion)? _________________________ Bail-out deals seems further and further away... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/25/cam...wrap/index.html

The argument for lowering taxes for wealthy people to encourage the economy is based on three flawed assumptions. 1) Entrepenuers will be less productive if you tax them higher. Well, no. It actually just means they have to work even harder to make it rich. If someone wnats to get rich, a 25% tax rate isn't going to make them work any harder than a 50% tax rate. They still want to be rich, it'll just take them 50% longer to get there. If anything, that's going to make them work harder. 2) Money saved from tax cuts will be used to invest and lead to increased productivity. Only if the money is invested in increasing productivity, and not used to buy pieces of other people's wealth, or spent on luxuries. Tax breaks are already available for productivity increases by corporations. You could argue that it effects the amount of capital available for entrepeneurship, but if these taxes are on people who are already wealthy, and not people starting a business who are not wealthy, then capital used to start new businesses isn't really being taxed. 3) When the government taxes, it takes money out of the economy. No, because the government spends every penny it collects in taxes, and that spending is immediately put back into the economy. It is taken from one group of tax-payers, and given to another group (government employees and businesses with government contracts). And then that money is, in turn, also taxed as income and become part of the money being spent by the government. ______________________________ MSNBC seems obligated to publish at least one "No Shit?" story every day. Today's was too good not to mention: Omitting cell phone users may affect polls People with only cell phones may differ enough from those with landlines http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26889731/

Yeah, but STAND UP TO RICH PEOPLE BY CUTTING THEIR TAXES is head-explodingly asinine.

So....Huckabee's answer to standing up to Wall Street fat cats and corporations is cutting the capital gains tax and implementing a "fair tax" (a national sales tax that would disproportionately tax poor people)? What. The. Fuck. To hell with Mike Huckabee. That's the shittiest idea ever.

So, a bail-out is both necessary and inevitable, and the perfect opportunity for the Republicans to look like populists by voting against it, knowing that its going to pass anyways. The crisis is averted, but the people who were against averting the crisis reap the political benefit. Its a win-win for them. Read this: http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffin...nst-the-bailout "IT'S A TRAP!"

George F(ucking) Will, of all people, unloaded on McCain the other day over his behavior, so far, during the bail-out mess... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8092202583.html

What can I say? I have a dream. Actually, I have two dreams. This one, and one about Krystal Steal. But this one seems more important. Snowplow Barbie emerges from her protective force field for the third time to spar with Katie Couric:

I won't be happy until 100% of Americans get past it.

Is it fair to guess that Marvin just doesn't get why racism is such a big issue? Speaking of people saying stupid things, Andrew Romano of Newsweek has a full recap on the spatial relationship between Joe Biden's foot and his mouth. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arc...fe-machine.aspx

We should just have one big "Why I hate Dane Cook" thread and get it over with.

The two seasons take place over a year apart, so you really don't miss anything continuity-wise by just watching this season except for some backstory of why certain people react to certain other people in wierd ways. Of course, if you go back and watch season 1, you'll be treating yourself to some good shit.

I hope that also means you think he'll lose.

Even if I don't come to the same conclusion as you, that DVD would be worth watching just to laugh at Rudy all over again. There's no way to really be able to predict 2012, even assuming a GOP loss, without knowing what rationale the party-faithful will give themselves for losing. If the past is any indication, though, it'll be the "we lost because we weren't conservative enough" line they used in 1992, 1996, and 2006. In that event, they will be looking for a pure-conservative right-on-every-issue messiah, and though I could be wrong, I don't see Mike Huckabee filling that role.

Remember, originally I was the guy saying Huckabee was going to win the nomination, but I don't see him with a lot of support after the so-called fiscal conservatives got done bashing him. I'm not saying Romney isn't a doofus, but a lot of Republicans are now wishing he was the nominee instead of McCain. Huckabee never got nearly the amount of press coverage Romney did. Huckbee won more delegates in the long-run, but Romney captured the headlines and rakced up his delegates quicker before dropping out. More people were talking about the possibility of a McCain/Romney ticket than a McCain/Huckabee ticket.