What is that BACKWARDS VOTER?

• I won't gloat when Obama lets you all down by being less than...sm - A conservative voice in the wilderness
  • BUT, they will NEVER admit that but will just - continue to blame someone else
  • Let us hope - shelly
    • Don't hold your breath waiting. - Backwards typist
      • expectations - shelly
        • Me, too, but.... - Backwards typist
          • I agree - shelly
          • What is that BACKWARDS VOTER? - OBAMA MAMMAS UNITE

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Wilson wrote that piece because the White House was trying to smear him because he wouldn't go along with their pretenses and lies....and when you go against the White House you are bound to lose.  Scooter turned out to be the fall guy for this. 

So anyway, no use trying to have a "lively debate" when your basic facts are radically different from most liberal's facts. 

BY the way, I would suggest for your own mental health that you get out in the world more.  You appear to LIVE on this board and spend the better portion of your waking hours reading posts and slamming the posters and cutting and pasting followed by more cutting and pasting.....it is mind-boggling. 

I opened my original post, and saw nothing wrong with it.  I'm not sure why it's so hard for some here to just go to wnd.com.  Another one to check out is ibd.com (Investors' Business Daily).

Incidentally, McCain isn't conservative enough for me, but I have little choice.  Sarah Palin is more my style.  Regardless of the outcome, I predict a future ticket with Sarah & Bobby Jindal, in no particular order.  Talk about a dream ticket!  In a very short time he's done wonders for New Orleans.

for picking an appropriate name for herself.

But gently, gently...don't want to accidentally hurt her.

(LOL...I get the idea that she'd be kickin' OUR butts instead!!!)

Frankly I do not see much good coming from the policies of the last 8 years. An out of sight deficit, home foreclosures, terrible price hikes and job losses, I can;t see the pluses in these. Has Iraq made us safer? My gut tells me no. If there had, in fact been weapons of mass destruction than I would feel differently. I think what has matterd the most protecting the US have been more careful survellience domestically in the form of airline survelliences and the like.

I think Obama has the potential to make some positive changes, domestically and worldwide as well. While there is no guarantee of that I really don't feel that McCain will do to much except to continue more or less to promote the same policies as in the last eight years. We can do better than that. The post 9/11 politics of fear are eating the country alive economically.  While there is never a guarantee that another terrorist attack will not occur, as they do every so often world-wide,  I think it is foolish to sink your economy and play on the fears of its people on the remote chance that another one 'might occur someday.'

I like the message of hope and change that Obama speaks of, and if elected I hope that he is able to achieve some of his goals.

CNN just reported in Raleigh, NC-- people standing in line for 2 hours, and opps, all the sudden there are no ballots....there they are.....they are wet and will not go through the machine, so just put those to the side and we'll run them later. 

Flyers going out saying if you are a dem then voting day is Nov 5.

If you are in college your parents will get taxed if you vote at school.

There seems to be a HUGE list of this kind of stuff.  And who benefits from a lower voter turnout?  Hmmm. 

First, let me say this testimony by a Cal State professor of economics pertaining to the proposed "cap-and-trade" program isn't light reading, but it isn't very long or overly technical, either. It's only a little over 3 pages, double-spaced with generous margins, and takes less than 10 minutes to read, especially since the whole first page is taken up with the economist's credentials and background which you can skip if you wish.

Second, we have to bring a certain mental framework to things like this, which I compare to digging the meat out of a walnut shell.  People like this don't typically use the kind of sensational language that we're accustomed to hearing on the news, and they tend to be rather polite and very low-key in the way they say things, especially when they're addressing a Congressional committee.

So nothing here is "bolded" or "underlined" in the way it's expressed, and ordinary reader like ourselves can easily miss the significance of what this economist is trying to tell the committee, which - if you want to cut right to the chase - is that "cap-and-trade" will destroy our economy.  Now, the economist uses somewhat less drastic terms but only SLIGHTLY less so, and if you simply think about the consequences of his predictions (which he expects the committee members to do), his meaning is quite clear. 

Cap-and-trade is admittedly INTENDED to make energy costs higher, on the theory that higher prices will induce reductions in energy use, hence pollution, etc., etc.  While this might sound like a good theory (odd, though, that those who support it are the very same people who laugh at "trickle-down" economics, which is exactly what this is, in reverse), it actually hides new taxes that consumers will ultimately pay for either directly or in the form of higher prices for literally everything because every good and every service includes an energy cost of one sort or another (and that, in turn, will also mean another layer of increased tax because you pay a higher sales tax when the price of anything goes up - a double whammy, in other words). At 8%, something that costs you $10 today = $10.80.  If the price goes up to $15, you pay $16.20 - which is not only a 50% increase in the price, but also a 50% tax increase on that item.  (It's critical to learn to think in percentages, and also to learn how prices are related to taxes!)

Cap-and-trade may just be the most horrendous idea ever to come down the pike.  This economist thinks so, calling it the "most anti-consumer" idea proposed to any Congress in our history.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with any political party.  It's simply another example of the absolute madness that seems to grip Washington these days - and members of both parties are afflicted with this insanity.

So, as always, here's the link for those who wish to paste it into their browsers, and it's also in the clickable link below.  This is a PDF file and I can assure you that there's no virus risk.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/robert-michaels-testimony-april-23-2009.pdf

.    

suburb up the road says farmer is an ignorant redneck who does not check facts.