GatewayRedbirds.com

PujolJunkie wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:

I must be sexist, but I still think she's incredibly hot.

Whoa sailor, you've been out at sea too long

Freed Roger wrote:

PujolJunkie wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:

I must be sexist, but I still think she's incredibly hot.

Whoa sailor, you've been out at sea too long

So are you in the jim "I think she's ugly" crowd?

ThatGuy wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

PujolJunkie wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:

I must be sexist, but I still think she's incredibly hot.

Whoa sailor, you've been out at sea too long

So are you in the jim "I think she's ugly" crowd?

Not ugly by any means. But not hot. Yes above average.

If I put the ear plugs in maybe I could tolerate.

indyredbird wrote:I think corporate taxes are a bit high, 2nd highest in the world I believe.

The theoretical corporate tax rate is high here, but we offer a large portfolio of tax avoidance strategies, so that that actual amount of corporate tax paid is pretty much in line with comparable countries.

Radbird wrote:Interesting take from Robert J. Samuelson.

Young Voters, Get Mad

To: Voters Under 35
Subject: Your Future
Recommendation: Get Angry

You're being played for chumps. Barack Obama and John McCain want your votes, but they're ignoring your interests. You face a heavily mortgaged future. You'll pay Social Security and Medicare for aging baby boomers. The needed federal tax increase might total 50 percent over the next 25 years. Pension and health costs for state and local workers have doubtlessly been underestimated. There's the expense of decaying infrastructure—roads, bridges, water pipes. All this will squeeze other crucial government services: education, defense, police.

You're not hearing much of this in the campaign. One reason, frankly, is that you don't seem to care. Obama's your favorite candidate (by 64 percent to 33 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds, according to the latest Post-ABC News poll). But he's outsourced his position on these issues to AARP, the 40 million-member group for Americans 50 and over.

Click link above for the rest.

Samuelson's efforts to foment generational conflict are less than compelling. First, he trots out the same old tired nonsense about the crisis in Social Security. I'll skip going over this again, but this is an imaginary crisis. The Social Security trustees project that they can pay a benefit higher in real inflation adjusted terms than given to today's retirees indefinitely. There is a looming crisis in Medicare but this is due to the ever rising costs of medical care for everyone and has basically nothing to do with the Medicare program. We must contain these costs or face serious economic problems that would strike even if we canceled Medicare. Instead of going after our parents and grandparents, why don't we stand together for better medical system that would ultimately benefit everyone?

http://election-projection.net/

McCain Obama

Probability of Win: 0.0% 100.0%
Expected Electoral Votes: 182.9 355.1

maddash wrote:The counter-argument - that the McCain campaign is so inept at actually getting out - is that it's not about being rich or privileged, it's about thinking you know, or are, better than someone else. Basically, they're saying that being a "snob" is bad for America. Obama is an intellectual snob to them because he comes off as a "know it all".

Probably the reason they're so bad at getting that more nuanced version of their elitist claim out, is because it sounds so petty and childish.

As the resident left defender of anti-elitism, I must respond.

The notion of "elitism" is incredibly confused in America. The Republican party primarily uses anti-elitism as another name for anti-intellectualism or as a defense of a mostly imaginary narrative of American authenticity. I have no sympathy for this position. On the other hand, the traditional concept off the elite is exactly the one the McCain campaign is trying to avoid -- people with wealth, power, and privilege. An elitist would be someone who sees this group as superior and rightly so. I think liberals need to look in the mirror on this issue instead of reflexively lashing out when charges of elitism arise. U.S. liberals very often come from privileged sectors of society and are convinced that their advanced attitudes are much superior to those of the backwards "rednecks". The assumption of superior cultural values can be seen as an attempt at self-justification similar to the way British intellectuals justified their empire by claiming England had an obligation to dominate the world to spread its superior civilization to the savages. Let me make this concrete using a personal example. I grew up near a college town filled with liberals with all the usual attitudes including a professed deep concern for the less fortunate. The demographics of the town had been changing with a declining number of school age children leading to an over capacity of schools. It became clear that an elementary school would need to be closed. Which school would be closed? Would we make the decision based on concern for justice and the less fortunate? Nope. They closed the school in the poor neighborhood. When it came time to make a decision, we saw what really mattered. There are many other examples. Too often, liberalism is an affectation designed to establish a righteous identity apart from the unwashed masses.

Freed Roger wrote:

PujolJunkie wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:

I must be sexist, but I still think she's incredibly hot.

Whoa sailor, you've been out at sea too long

I would hate [expletive] the [expletive] out of her.

jim wrote:

PujolJunkie wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:

I must be sexist, but I still think she's incredibly hot.

Butt freaking ugly to me.

You'd better not look twice at her.

I mean, she's not bad for a woman who's had like 9 kids.