God I hate being right via HufPo -- Clinton Heckled, Obama Cheered Over 'Bitter' Remarks The Clinton and Obama campaigns clearly have one thing in common in the wake of Barack Obama's "bitter" remarks: both sides believe the incident provides their candidates with the means to go on the offensive, with Clinton working to paint Obama as "elitist" and Obama seeking to demonstrate that he is "in touch" with the needs of working-class America. It is, of course, too early to assess what lasting impact this story is going to have on the race, but the way the audience at the Alliance For American Manufacturing forum in Pittsburgh received the candidates, and reacted to the issue, will be heartening for the Obama camp. Obama, who greeted the crowd at 8:45am, raised the issue and received applause. Clinton, addressing the same crowd later in the morning, brought up the remarks and received mostly silence, with a few audible impatient jeers. The videos are here . each about 30 seconds long. The reaction (from the same crowd) could not be more telling (BTW how the hell do you copy the url for video that doesn't provide the information)
looks like they disabled embedding. in any case, it'sa ll preaching to the choir, and the article doesn't share with us who this particular chorus is. fwiw, i think O'bama is toast. if not now, then in the general. this is the gaffe that will keep on gigging...o'bama's kerry has been gored, and if he's the nominee, the lection, at least from an EC standpoint, will not be close.
It still amusing that you stick to your corporate tax stick as the reason for job loses as far more important than labor costs. Labor costs are 1/3 of a manufacturing companies costs. Taxes? Typically 0.5%-2.5% Do the Math Mr Jorge. You can give corporations tax free incentives and guess what - they still will leave for cheaper labor!
That's OK. I don't expect you Democrats to know the Constitution. I can send you a copy if you'd like.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jorge about that 20 point lead. eh...not so much. from the Wall Street Journal Is Clinton’s Pennsylvania Lead Really 20 Points? A new survey showing Sen. Hillary Clinton leading Sen. Barack Obama by 20 percentage points in Pennsylvania comes from a polling firm with a shaky track record this election season. The poll, which topped the Drudge Report on Monday afternoon (”shock poll”), was issued by American Research Group Inc. (ARG). In the poll, conducted on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 57% of likely Democratic voters said they were supporting Sen. Clinton, compared with 37% for Sen. Obama. Just last week, each candidate received 45% in an ARG poll in the state. Other recent polls generally show a much smaller Clinton lead. But there are reasons to question ARG polling numbers. In a polling report card of 2008 primary accuracy issued by a rival survey company, ARG ranked in the bottom half of more than three dozen polling firms, among 2008 primaries through late February. It also ranked near the bottom in another ranking of pollster accuracy at fivethirtyeight.com, a Web site that tracks the Electoral College. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/is-clintons-pennsylvania-lead-really-20-points-319/
I've been ripping ARG's polls for some time. They are worthless garbage. Usually they overstate swings toward Obama, but this huge swing in one week makes no sense at all. Clinton is leading in the state, but not by 20 points.
I know you know the difference, FB. Welfare is taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. How is a tax break anywhere near that? Tax breaks by definition are letting people keep their own money.
Welfare is a service provided by the govt. Giving corporations the service of tax breaks that individuals don't get is giving something to somebody that hasn't strictly earned it.
You know that's not what people mean when they discuss welfare. You're purposefully ignoring this. I love the mindset that somehow that money belongs to the government, though, and that the government is doing people a favor by taking less of their money. 35% is an insane amount to take in taxes and only encourages taking business elsewhere. How much of your paycheck goes to the federal government in the form of taxes? I'm betting it's much less than 35%.
If I was in the same tax bracket as corporations it would easily be 35%. Again the argument people use against welfare is that it isn't people being responsible for themselves and getting breaks from the govt. That's why I mentioned the ironic thing is the arguments used against welfare. Yet somehow people expect the govt. to bend over backwards to give breaks to these wealthy corporations, but somehow it's wrong for the govt. to give breaks to needy people.
comparing personal income taxes and corporate taxes is idioic and you're smarter than that. a coporation has expensed all its costs before its taxed, and individual is taxed on gross.
Oh SNAP, Thomas Sowell, an African American of good standing, just NAILED IT! A Living Lie By Thomas Sowell An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years. Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed. There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter. Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk. Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality. Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered. Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people. In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said. Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco. People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public. However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi. Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings. Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda. Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves." Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times. It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues. Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/a_living_lie.html
its hilarious that you bolded this part because obama was actually addressing a question that suggested that these people didn't vote for him because they were racists. so he was actually trying to defend them and give a different reason he they wouldn't vote for him. the irony of soundbites.
First of all, I didn't bold that sentence. OOPSIE. EDIT: I see that you went in and changed your quote after recognizing your folly. Second, it's an elitist, out-of-touch, stereotypical statement by Snob-ama. Bigot Snob-ama was supposed to be the guy uniting the country. What happened to that? Well, I guess he just got caught thinking out loud. Dang it, snobs hate it when that happens!
These corporations will leave for either tax breaks, cheap labor or preferably both. They have absolutely no patriotism, but interestingly they are dutifully served by the likes of TJ who alleges patriotism. Exactly what good does a "US" corporation headquartered in an off-shore tax haven, who employs almost all Chinese, Indians etc. do for Americans except for a few, but ever dwindling number of managerial and IT jobs that, too, are being outsourced. If other Americans are lucky to make enough at other jobs to save a bit, then perhaps they can hold some of the company's stock in their 401(k). That is about it. The corporate line is that by going overseas the company has saved US jobs somehow, though they are talking just about the few managerial jobs perhaps still headquartered in the US. While the corporate defenders like to cite that 100 million Americans hold stocks, the vast majority have accounts of something like $50k and that hardly compensates for their loss of good manufacturing or other jobs.
What's the excuse when you post though? Seems there would be more time to reflect, when one is typing.
I'd really like to hear how Mr (I own 8 houses and haven't bought my own lunch in 30 years) McCain feels about Mr Obama's elitism. LOL!!!
