WWTBAM Bored

Chuck Norris asks "How high, Ma'am?"

I like it!

I have no real opinion of Gov. Palin yet, but I have to admit that the negative and tasteless reactions here and elsewhere have biased me in her favor.

And as to the "Least qualified" tag, ain't nobody ever gona exceed our homeboy Danny Quayle in that regard. Unless it's one of the other many Hoosier VPs throughout history.

mrkelley23 wrote:I like it!

I have no real opinion of Gov. Palin yet, but I have to admit that the negative and tasteless reactions here and elsewhere have biased me in her favor.

And as to the "Least qualified" tag, ain't nobody ever gona exceed our homeboy Danny Quayle in that regard. Unless it's one of the other many Hoosier VPs throughout history.

You do realize that Quayle was more "qualified" than Obama is, right?

By current standards, George Washington could never have become President because he would be considered "unqualified."

That's why I don't understand the whole "qualified" argument.

We want a reform candidate, right? It seems the majority of the American people have finally come around to ABB mentality. So why are we quibbling about experience in certain areas.

Let me put it this way: I'm delighted with all 4 candidates. Heck, I would have been delighted with Kucinich against Romney if it meant there wouldn't have been a Bush or an old Nixonian within a hundred yards of the White House.

Dan Quayle could have held every elected office in this land, and he still wouldn't have been qualified to be President. Obama, McCain, Biden, and, at least as far as I can tell now, Palin are all qualified. So let's get back to a discussion of the issues and which side lines up most closely with what each of us individually believes. And don't spite-vote or sit out. Our system, like it or not, gives you 2 major choices and a bunch of minor ones, so vote for the candidate or the party you most believe in.

Sorry, that turned into a sermon, and I really didn't intend it to. It's obviously not aimed at Cal, since I know he'll vote.

vp selection day is similar to the debate over who should be the Steelers 3rd string QB.It lasts for a week and hardly ever matters.

Much like a candidates position on abortion and the death penalty.

BigDrawMan wrote:vp selection day is similar to the debate over who should be the Steelers 3rd string QB.It lasts for a week and hardly ever matters.

Much like a candidates position on abortion and the death penalty.

and..... when it does matter, it really matters.

peacock2121 wrote:

BigDrawMan wrote:vp selection day is similar to the debate over who should be the Steelers 3rd string QB.It lasts for a week and hardly ever matters.

Much like a candidates position on abortion and the death penalty.

and..... when it does matter, it really matters.

----------------

indeed

we went 15-1 the last time it mattered.
And Sarah aint no Big Ben.

BigDrawMan wrote:
Much like a candidates position on abortion and the death penalty.

Many voters use those two issues to line their beliefs up with the candidates, as MrKelley says to do. Two years ago, many local lawns sported Democratic Candidate A yard signs right next to those of Republican Candidate B because both are pro-choice, even though the offices the two were running for will never deal with it ever.

SportsFan68 wrote:

BigDrawMan wrote:
Much like a candidates position on abortion and the death penalty.

Many voters use those two issues to line their beliefs up with the candidates, as MrKelley says to do. Two years ago, many local lawns sported Democratic Candidate A yard signs right next to those of Republican Candidate B because both are pro-choice, even though the offices the two were running for will never deal with it ever.[/quot


I heard a report by a think tank analyst-i think from the Cato Inst- who said that if you make less than 250K, it is not in your financial best interests to vote for the GOP.Since those who make over that figure are a minority, they need to confuse their base with nonissues that they will do nothing about.

BigDrawMan wrote: I heard a report by a think tank analyst-i think from the Cato Inst- who said that if you make less than 250K, it is not in your financial best interests to vote for the GOP.Since those who make over that figure are a minority, they need to confuse their base with nonissues that they will do nothing about.

BS

Most of those not included in the over 205K group still work and need jobs.

The non-GOP folks talk about handouts, welfare, and other free stuff because their base doesn't care about working. At least that's what it seems like.

Or they talk about 'creating' jobs? How? They don't have a clue because all they want to talk about is taxing the the over 250K group more, so they can give it to those who don't care about working. What do you think happens to the jobs then?

BigDrawMan wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

BigDrawMan wrote:
Much like a candidates position on abortion and the death penalty.

Many voters use those two issues to line their beliefs up with the candidates, as MrKelley says to do. Two years ago, many local lawns sported Democratic Candidate A yard signs right next to those of Republican Candidate B because both are pro-choice, even though the offices the two were running for will never deal with it ever.[/quot


I heard a report by a think tank analyst-i think from the Cato Inst- who said that if you make less than 250K, it is not in your financial best interests to vote for the GOP.Since those who make over that figure are a minority, they need to confuse their base with nonissues that they will do nothing about.

Lawyers voting for their financial best interests usually vote for the Dems.

-----------

I will expand on what thinktank guy said.He was on Fresh Air a few weeks ago, along with Obama and McCains chief economic advisers to explain what the candidates tax plans would mean to various income groups.
He concluded that if you made under 250k, you would take home more money under Obama.If you made over that, you would take home more under McCain.
Also, Obama would increase the capital gains tax to so,dividend earners would be better off under MCCain.

An interesting point he made was that a large tax shelter industry which converts the wages of very high income types to capital gains would perish under Obama,as the gap between the top marginal rate and the cap gains rate would be too small to support it.

it is ok to vote against your own self interests.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:You do realize that Quayle was more "qualified" than Obama is, right?

Cal, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how to spell "potato." --Bob

BigDrawMan wrote:I heard a report by a think tank analyst-i think from the Cato Inst- who said that if you make less than 250K, it is not in your financial best interests to vote for the GOP.Since those who make over that figure are a minority, they need to confuse their base with nonissues that they will do nothing about.

I think that was a statement by the Dean Institute.

BigDrawMan wrote:I will expand on what thinktank guy said.He was on Fresh Air a few weeks ago, along with Obama and McCains chief economic advisers to explain what the candidates tax plans would mean to various income groups.
He concluded that if you made under 250k, you would take home more money under Obama.

If they still have a job, and are grossing the same amount. Both big ifs under Marxism.

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:You do realize that Quayle was more "qualified" than Obama is, right?

Cal, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how to spell "potato." --Bob

Doesn't anybody else know (or remember) the true story of the extra "e"?

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:You do realize that Quayle was more "qualified" than Obama is, right?

Cal, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how to spell "potato." --Bob

Doesn't anybody else know (or remember) the true story of the extra "e"?

I think Quayle said he spelled potato with the extra "e" because you put an "e" on the end of the word to make it plural.

But the kid wasn't asked to spell potatoes.

Tocqueville3 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Cal, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how to spell "potato." --Bob

Doesn't anybody else know (or remember) the true story of the extra "e"?

I think Quayle said he spelled potato with the extra "e" because you put an "e" on the end of the word to make it plural.

But the kid wasn't asked to spell potatoes.

No, Quayle was using the word cards provided by the classroom teacher. The card he was given had the extra "e" on the end, and he thought that might be the way the teacher had taught her students to spell it.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/potatoe.html

DQ:

"I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix."

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:You do realize that Quayle was more "qualified" than Obama is, right?

Cal, I'm pretty sure Obama knows how to spell "potato." --Bob

Doesn't anybody else know (or remember) the true story of the extra "e"?

I do. I also know and remember the true story of Gov. Gloom's "duty to die" remark.

My question is, who cares? Cal and me?

Probably.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Tocqueville3 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote: Doesn't anybody else know (or remember) the true story of the extra "e"?

I think Quayle said he spelled potato with the extra "e" because you put an "e" on the end of the word to make it plural.

But the kid wasn't asked to spell potatoes.

No, Quayle was using the word cards provided by the classroom teacher. The card he was given had the extra "e" on the end, and he thought that might be the way the teacher had taught her students to spell it.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/potatoe.html

Gee, I dint know there was gonna be quiz.

I also never heard that story. It surely doesn't make Dan Quayle look like the complete idiot "some" said he was.

He looked like an idiot for other reasons.

If they still have a job, and are grossing the same amount. Both big ifs under Marxism.[/quote]
-------------
I dont know whether to laugh or wind my watch.

You voted for that exact thing. twice.

Would you vote for Bush again vs Obama if he could run??

BigDrawMan wrote:If they still have a job, and are grossing the same amount. Both big ifs under Marxism.

-------------
I dont know whether to laugh or wind my watch.

You voted for that exact thing. twice.

Would you vote for Bush again vs Obama if he could run??[/quote]

Dude, it's all big govmint, all the time. Why would you ask a question without an answer?

I heard a report by a think tank analyst-i think from the Cato Inst- who said that if you make less than 250K, it is not in your financial best interests to vote for the GOP.Since those who make over that figure are a minority, they need to confuse their base with nonissues that they will do nothing about.[/quote]

BigDrawMan wrote:I heard a report by a think tank analyst-i think from the Cato Inst- who said that if you make less than 250K, it is not in your financial best interests to vote for the GOP.Since those who make over that figure are a minority, they need to confuse their base with nonissues that they will do nothing about.

[/quote]


Dude, you said that already.