Patterico's Pontifications

8/19/2008

Obama’s Speech at the VFW Convention

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 1:08 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

I watched most of Barack Obama’s speech at the VFW Convention. I’ve become accustomed to his careful parsing of language when he speaks to groups that are not enthusiastic about his message so I won’t belabor that here. Suffice it to say Obama focused on presenting himself as a patriotic American who supports the military but not its recent mission in Iraq.

What was particularly noticeable was how cold and arguably angry he was compared to other speeches I’ve seen him give. Here’s how the New York Times’ blog The Caucus charitably described Obama’s delivery and his reception by the veterans:

“Mr. Obama appeared before the V.F.W. a day after his presumed Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, criticized him for advocating a policy of defeat in Iraq and suggested Mr. Obama put personal ambition before the interests of the country.

Mr. Obama struck back with tough language, although his delivery was largely without passion. He received a polite but not enthusiastic response from the estimated 3,000 veterans assembled in a cavernous convention hall here. Many seats were empty because a number of veterans left Orlando ahead of the advancing tropical storm Fay.”

If “largely without passion” means scowling throughout the speech, that’s a good description. Obama also delivered his speech quickly, probably because he was rarely interrupted by applause, and his demeanor reminded me of the cold attitude we’ve occasionally seen in his wife Michelle. He was also ‘on the attack’ to a degree I don’t recall seeing before. Here’s the The Caucus’ description:

“[Obama] paid the obligatory homage to Mr. McCain’s military service and sacrifice as a Vietnam prisoner of war, but then raked him for impugning his motives and patriotism.”

“Obligatory homage” to “service and sacrifice.” Got it.

Nevertheless, I doubt we will see much more of this Obama for a while since his Convention speech and appearances in the near future will be before enthusiastic crowds. It will be easy for Obama to stay upbeat in those environments. After all, Americans want their candidates to have hope and good will. I suspect Obama will either remember that from now on or be reminded of it by his campaign staff.

— DRJ

268 Responses to “Obama’s Speech at the VFW Convention”

  1. Interesting:

    Senator John McCain, criticized Obama for advocating a policy of defeat in Iraq and suggested Mr. Obama put personal ambition before the interests of the country.

    Why I find that interesting was Obama opposed the war from the start. At the time that was quite the risk. The interest of the our country was placed first by Senator Obama when you consider how many Americans were on the side of going to war in Iraq at that time.

    Oiram (983921)

  2. At the time that was quite the risk.

    I call bullshit. He was in the Illinois State Senate at the time, so I fail to see how being anti-war in an uber-Left State Senate district was in any way risky. Quite the contrary.

    JD (75f5c3)

  3. “At the time that was quite the risk.”
    Mmm. Yeah. Death defying. As if he were the lone voice in the wilderness or actually in the legislative body that had to cast votes in favor or opposed to the war. Truly brave man.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  4. Thank you Jack, truly lovely to hear a conservative such as yourself to praise Obama without petty sarcasm.

    Your Obama sticker is in the mail :)

    Oiram (983921)

  5. What I find interesting is how cheap and facile Obama’s position on Iraq changed – first he was against it, and ranted for months on end about getting out immediately. Not tomorrow, not next week, NOW. Then he miraculously changed his position on that pesky little timetable, when he realized no one was buying it.

    http://www.paxplena.com/2008/07/obama-flip-flops-on-iraq.html

    Come to think of it, no one’s buying anything he’s selling these days, unless you’re looking for cheap detergent. Oiram likes him some empty suits, yessiree Bob.

    Dmac (874677)

  6. Spare the ridiculous hyperbole about the bravery of someone taking a stand that risked absolutely nothing and the petty sarcasm will be duly ceased.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  7. No, Oiram, you’re wrong!
    Going to Iraq, and overthrowing the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein was in the interest of the United States, and was supported by the Congress, and the American People.
    It was only the MSM, and the intellectual elites, that opposed our policy and actions; and, their constant drumbeat of negativity finally wore-down the public, reinforced by the problem of keeping too small a force in-country to complete pacification.
    Public opinion turned around with the success of “The Surge”, and the MSM has begrudgingly followed. The elites will never acceed that what was done is correct since their Anti-Americanism is only exceeded by their BDS.
    Baracky was wrong from the start, voted to deny our forces in the field the funding they required, and still cannot bring himself to admit that “The Surge” was a proper, and successful policy.
    On top of that, he advocated expanding the conflict by attacking an ally, Pakistan; and now, wants to move our troops from Iraq, where they are putting the finishing touches to a successful mission; to Afghanistan, where the large units that were required in Iraq would be counter-productive to the style of mission there.

    Another Drew (061d78)

  8. Interesting sidenote – my hood is pretty much 100% Democratic, where many people left their Kerry/Edwards signs on their lawns for months after the election was over. Guess how many Obama signs I’m seeing these days? I count two in an eight block area as of yesterday – something tells me they’re getting sick and tired of the Messiah as well right about now…and that orgy of a convention coming up’s not going to help their attitudes at this point.

    Dmac (874677)

  9. The risk Jack, was that if the war had gone as planned, Obama would of had a tough time running for dog catcher.

    Obama mentioned in his speech today that he had wished he had been wrong about the decision to go to war with Iraq.

    I know you wont take that at face value, but he did say it.

    Oiram (983921)

  10. Oiram – What, exactly, was risky about his original position?

    JD (5f0e11)

  11. Obama has spoken out about the defense budget and unilateral disarmament. If he thought that would go over at the American Legion, he was listening to the wrong people. Give him a point for appearing in a hostile venue. Those who have been saying that McCain was with “his base” at the Saddleback Church are equally delusional. By the way the cross in the dirt story is coming back to bite the lefties like Sullivan.

    Mike K (c818fc)

  12. Oiram – How can you make such a BS assertion? He was a State Senator in one of the most consistently liberal districts.

    JD (5f0e11)

  13. That district is won in the Dem primary.

    JD (5f0e11)

  14. Oiram, Obama’s supposed brave positions seem to be those that have no consequence. He votes Present instead of Yes or No, and the second he was nominated, he flipped on Iraq.

    He was brave enough to oppose the surge when it was the right thing to do? If he was brave, why has his ‘out of Iraq ASAP’ policy changed now that the primary is over and that view is not a liability?

    No, supporting the Iraq war when the surge was suggested was extremely brave. Mccain wins again. Obama only held a liberal position in a very very liberal district.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  15. “The risk Jack, was that if the war had gone as planned, Obama would of had a tough time running for dog catcher.”
    Again with the hype. I highly doubt that the progress in the war would have stopped his senate campaign in ultra dem Ill.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  16. Tell me about it. It didn’t used to be this way, but the GOP here blew their party apart over the past decade. Complete and utter arseholes.

    Dmac (874677)

  17. #7, No Another Drew, history will be the true judge!

    Going to Iraq, and overthrowing the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein was in the interest of President George Bush, Chenney and our oil corporations, and yes was supported by the Congress, and the American People based on mislead propaganda.
    Much of the MSM, and the intellectual elites for that matter, bought the policy and actions.

    The constant drumbeat of war and fear by way of 9/11 wore-down the public, and made them believe that spending nearly a trillion dollars on a war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 was a good idea. Of course we weren’t told at the time that nearly a trillion dollars would be spent.

    Public opinion has not turned around with the success of “The Surge”. The public is wise to the fact that the Bush administration has let the military continue to make policy over and above the commander in chief, and try to fix a bad idea from the start.

    Obama was right from the very beginning.

    Oiram (983921)

  18. #15, Jack, you missed the point completely. No wonder you think voting for Obama is a bad idea.

    Oiram (983921)

  19. I’m surprised he didn’t bravely vote “Present.”

    After all, aren’t important issues “above his pay grade”?

    He’s such a weasel.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  20. Praise for Bambi’s courage under fire from fawning toadies, is about as justified as praise for Benedict Arnold’s individuality and self-determination.

    But, before the knives come out, let me say, clearly, I’m not equating Bambi with Benny. I’m only making light of certain absurd notions in play here.

    Ropelight (4a83c9)

  21. Oiram, there are a lot of free people in Iraq who are alive only because George W Bush is president. Given how bloody Saddam was (far more than this war), we’re talking serious life saving.

    And there are tens of millions of free voting people that would not exist of your righteous Obama had his way.

    I care about that. A lot of liberals would if Bill Clinton had followed through with his 1998 talk on Iraq, but refuse to accept what this war is about, because they are mad that Gore lost the 2000 election. If this Operation was about Iraqi Freedom, then Mission Accomplished.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  22. No I got your point. And to reiterate, it’s a complete oversell of Obama’s allegedly brave stand on a issue that had posed little if any political risk. I think voting for Obama is a bad idea because he is a laughably underqualified candidate for a job that is clearly over his head. I realize that in this day of slick packaging and market driven platitudes someone like Obama seems like an appealing candidate for many people. I’ll take someone with a proven track record, an ability to answer extemp and without teleprompters, and who has firm values and beliefs without sticking his finger in the wind and saying um um um um um um um um um um um Bush sucks! How ’bout some hope with that windfall tax?! Pffft. Sit down Barry.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  23. The mendoucheousness of the trolls seems to be inversely proportionate to how Baracky is doing on the campaign trail.

    JD (5f0e11)

  24. Bambi? Brave? He’s brave only when it’s safe to be brave. He was in front of a crowd of polite church goers and answered “present” when the questions got sticky. “Above my pay grade” == weasel.

    Now, how does that equal “brave”?

    steve miller (b589d7)

  25. The risk Jack, was that if the war had gone as planned, Obama would of had a tough time running for dog catcher.

    Not in Illinois. Not in his neighborhood.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  26. The mendoucheousness of the trolls seems to be inversely proportionate to how Baracky is doing on the campaign trail.

    Been that way for years — whenever the Dems are on the ropes, the trolls ramp up their efforts.

    Oiram — I feel sorry for people as delusional as you.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  27. Well, the LAT poll was as bad as feared. +2 on an ‘adults’ poll (after being +12 in June) indicates that the crater is going to be pretty big in November. It’s a setup for a “big convention bounce” story after Denver but that’s still a helluva drop.

    Rick Ballard (0a8990)

  28. Rick, it’s all the racists who won’t vote for Bambi, because (at least, this is what the Democrat Party keeps telling me) Bambi is black.

    There’s no other plausible reason why anyone would vote for a junior senator who votes “present” more often than not, who was bravely voting against the Iraq War while he’s a state senator and pretending that a state senate is the same as the Federal Senate.

    Yep, racism, pure and simple.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  29. “If “largely without passion” means [“]scowling throughout the speech[“], that’s a good description.

    But it doesn’t, so it’s not.

    Kevin (834f0d)

  30. Steve,

    I really have to agree. Spending twenty years listening to Rev. Wright’s heartfelt outreach to the white community is all the proof that I require to form the conviction that Barack Obama has truly transcended race – becoming aracial in the process. To oppose someone so convincingly aracial is prima facie evidence that the person in opposition is, in fact, deeply and completely racist. One might say that opposition to Obama can only be embraced by the most blackhearted of blackguards unenlightened.

    Rick Ballard (0a8990)

  31. Kool Aid Flowing

    Oiram (983921)

  32. Wow, the kool aid flows like water in this room.

    Drink up U.S.A. 4 more years of Bush like policies can’t be all that bad right?
    arrhhhh………..
    Sorry I have to leave you all and go back to work. But I have to figure out a way to make my middle class salary stretch, because it’s not going to be worth that much after McCain gets into office.
    God help us.

    Peace all.

    Oiram (983921)

  33. Oiram, you’re claiming we’re wrong and drinking cool-aid, but most here have criticized Mccain plenty. So perhaps you need to show us what we’re saying that isn’t true.

    I noticed you ignored my point: that Iraq under Bush is better than Iraq under Obama. And that Democrats talked about attacking Iraq for the reasons we did for years before Bush was President. Since it’s clear now that Iraq was/is Al Qaida’s central interest, and they lost tens of thousands of terrorists and billions (yeah, billions) of Dollars there, I’m glad we had a fight in Iraq, a much easier place for us than rocky Afghanistan.

    Obama’s idea of sticking Afghanistan would have failed. And left Saddam, who was a legit threat and WMD user. If it’s cool-aid to be thrilled about Iraq, then I guess I’m drinking it.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  34. The risk Jack, was that if the war had gone as planned, Obama would of had a tough time running for dog catcher.

    Not in Illinois, buddy…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  35. I caught a bit of Obama’s speech to the VFW today.
    The line that stuck in my mind was “I will permit no one to question my patriotism (or love of this country)”.

    Well excuse me and kiss my backside you little weasel. I don’t have to get your “permission” to have an opinion on your bonafides or qualifications for office. God the arrogance of that little sack of Bandini. In my house, it’s above Barack’s pay grade to decide what I’m allowed to think.

    I mean that man gets away from a teleprompter and he promptly sticks his foot in his mouth. I’ve got an idea where to stick my foot when he comes around. He’s going to need a proctological surgeon to remove my size 15D foot.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  36. #19

    After all, aren’t important issues “above his pay grade”?

    Life and death and the nature of love are above anyone’s pay grade, including the President of the U.S., or a candidate running for that office. An individual’s sacred and protected freedom at the very heart of the founding principles of this country, allow one to worship, or not worship, in any way he or she sees fit without any interference, whatsoever from the government.

    But, of course some feel they have a right to play God (their specific God) with other peoples lives.

    There is nothing “weaselly” about it.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  37. “I will permit no one to question my patriotism (or love of this country)”

    The arrogance. He hasn’t even been elected and he’s already promising to censor people. He’s really learned a few tricks from the Clintons.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  38. “The risk Jack, was that if the war had gone as planned, Obama would of had a tough time running for dog catcher.”

    As I am fond of pointing out, a substantial majority of the democrats in both houses of congress voted against the AUMF in the First Gulf War, when Iraq invaded our close ally Kuwait. That conflict went about as well as could be expected except that we didn’t finish Saddam off. Voting against it didn’t seem to have any adverse consequences for the political careers of those democrats, many of whom are still serving. For me though, it raised questions about what circumstances they would authorize the use of force under.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  39. Oiram, you seriously need a reality check!

    Just one question:
    You say that the Iraq War was driven by the oil companies.
    Which American Oil Company (Halliburton doesn’t count; it isn’t an oil company, but an oil-services company) has contracts with the Iraqi Government to produce oil in Iraq?

    Another Drew (061d78)

  40. I question Bambi’s patriotism.

    If he loved this country so much he wouldn’t be out there trying to change it, now would he?

    Ropelight (4a83c9)

  41. Cracks me up, Obama asserts his patriotism, and many of you here get offended.

    Make up your mind patriots.

    Oiram (983921)

  42. I have an open mind. I openly believe Bambi is making a false claim to patriotism to deflect legitimate questions about how his proposals fit into the fabric of American ideals.

    Someone once said thiat patriotism was the last resort for scoundrels, but in Bambi’s case, it’s his default position.

    If he can’t duck the the tough questions, then his dodge is it’s either above his pay grade, or it somehow questions his patriotism. Cheap double talkers don’t get to sit in the Oval Office, if you don’t count Slick Willy.

    Ropelight (4a83c9)

  43. Bambi, that’s funny. I hope is Mom doesn’t get shot by an NRA gun nut.

    Oiram (983921)

  44. “If he can’t duck the the tough questions, then his dodge is it’s either above his pay grade, or it somehow questions his patriotism.”

    Ropelight – Don’t forget “racist”, he’s already played that card several times and I fully expect to see it again if the race stays close.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  45. Ignoring all risks, defying the inflamed Hyde Park mobs clamoring for Iraqi blood, BHO stood alone then, a brave patriot. His service should be celebrated! Not to mention his Judgement to Lead, his steadfast support for Hope, and his unwavering defense of Change.

    g Hussein p (78ea4b)

  46. Well, the race card will have to counter McCain’s Fear card. I expect that card to be played all throughout. I mean why not, it worked for Bush right?

    Oiram (983921)

  47. Oiram – Baracky seems to be fond of fear-mongering as well.

    JD (5f0e11)

  48. Quick, Komrade, tell tell those poor devils over in the former USSR’s Republic of Georgia their fears are only “cards” being played in US politics. That will cheer them up.

    Ropelight (4a83c9)

  49. I like how Oiram sticks to the same message, regardless of how the facts refute it, regardless of how silly it makes him look.

    Its more than Obama is capable of, given recent events, but neither Oiram nor Obama has any judgment at all. Much less to lead a boy scout troop.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  50. Obama is still mad that he got his ass handed to him at Saddleback.

    Roy Mustang (a7923d)

  51. A man who is running for president of the most powerful nation on the planet is afraid to offer his personal opinion on a question like abortion? That’s somehow off-limits?

    Why?

    He’s a weasel who can’t speak the truth. Bambi with a forked tongue.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  52. #36:

    But, of course some feel they have a right to play God (their specific God) with other peoples lives.

    Now is that a perfect description of today’s Democrats, or what?

    EW1(SG) (873090)

  53. came here by accident abnd was astounded by the barely concealed intolerance toward Obama. Is it a requirement to post that one has to have logged in a specified number of hours listening to comedian Rush Limbaugh?

    so many inconsistencies. he is criticized for being ambitious . of course he took a risk denouncing a war that was so popular at the time based on bush/cheney lies about wmd and 9/11. maybe not in his district, but the risk was to his national aspirations.

    another thing: the idea that Barak is an empty suit.

    only the top tier of would be Law students APPLY to Harvard. of those only a few are accepted. The most prestigious pos in the school is Editor of the Law review. Barak served in that pos.haven’t we learned from the Bush fiasco that its a positive to have a president with at least an average IQ?

    graduating Harvard Law is a ticket to an invite to the most prestigious firms and BIG bucks. Instead he organized the youth of Chicago ghettos. do you yahoos see no altruism in that?

    final rant ot. yes its true that mosty Newspapers r liberal and talk radio is conservative

    but there is a reason for that

    as capitalists we should understand the dynamic.

    liberals tend 2 b better educated and READ

    Conservatives get THEIR news while driving their pickups with their confederate flags and mounted deer heads

    hey! its just supply and demand

    JacobR (fde52a)

  54. This must be a moby or a put-on: “liberals tend 2 b better educated and READ. Conservatives get THEIR news while driving their pickups with their confederate flags and mounted deer heads”

    /shenanigans

    g Hussein p (78ea4b)

  55. JacobR: liberals tend 2 b better educated and READ

    Yeah, kunsurvativs are jest to dum and wer all rednecs, thank gawd we hav yoo libruls to showe us the lite.

    aunursa (5daa82)

  56. Hey Jacob! Thanks for stopping by and indulging in laughable name calling and your masturbatory attempt to proclaim your intellectual superiority. Now get lost, you insufferable ignorant prick!

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  57. JacobR, looks like all the bigotry is yours.

    And by the way, it is amusing how many of the things you think are “facts” are not. Guess that not listening to Rush Limbaugh has not been working out for you. The idea that Bush has a below average IQ is a hoax. The idea that Bush and Cheney have been caught in some sort of lies about WMD has been disproven by bipartisan intelligence committee reports.

    It is Obama’s complete lack of legislative accomplishment and lack of knowledge of foreign affairs that establish that he is an empty suit.

    Unless you think you are posting some satire, in which case my usual advice is to leave satire to the professionals.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. “liberals tend 2 b better educated and READ”

    HAHAHA!!! Yes yes, so true. Your brilliant display of your impeccable genius and logic leaves no doubt. We all bow before that there superi’arty ye got there. Yeehaw!

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  59. Actually, I’m sorry I was so rude and cussed you out there, Jacob son. I realize it would be so much more fun to keep you around. Please share more wisdom!

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  60. The Left is soooooo predictable.
    Every time they are questioned on their national security policies, the respond by claiming that their patriotism is being questioned.
    Again, and again:
    No, we aren’t questioning your patriotism.
    We are questioning your sanity!

    Another Drew (061d78)

  61. Meanwhile, it turns out that Obama’s friends are working to cover up his past. Access to papers about his time with the Annenberg Challenge are being denied to researchers.

    Empty suit would be an improvement.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  62. #38, Daleyrocks

    Voting against [the first Gulf War] didn’t seem to have any adverse consequences for the political careers of those democrats, many of whom are still serving.

    Good point, Daley. Consider our own beloved Barbara Boxer. At the time of first Gulf War she was a Congressperson from the Bay Area. She gave an anti-war speech on the House floor in which she wailed that it made no sense to “throw our 19 yearolds at each other.”

    Notwithstanding the success of the war and the limited number of casualties, she has been elected and re-elected to the US Senate.

    Stu707 (6e4ad5)

  63. Re my 52~ Obviously I spoke too soon.

    EW1(SG) (873090)

  64. I like jAcObR. He has interesting views. I would subscribe to his newsletter.

    JD (5f0e11)

  65. I like jacob’s creative use of capitalization, punctuation, and abbreviation. He’s got a cross between ee cummings and some ditz texting instead of paying attention in junior high math class.

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  66. There has not been an Iraq under Obama. However, we have had an Iraq under Bush and the Republicans and there is an American under Bush and the Republicans. And you know something? America is broke, financial broke. Like Japan, Korea and ever place else we been with our brand of bullshit and white wash racism, one day we will be paying Iraq for their technology and know how.

    lemon head (8140b8)

  67. Uh, no, lemon head. Your understanding of reality is no improvement over JacobR’s … assuming its any different.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  68. Well, that’s a new angle.

    Another Drew (061d78)

  69. I’m sure glad that

    liberals tend 2 b better educated and READ

    because stoopid ol’ me sure has a hard time understanding them.

    EW1(SG) (873090)

  70. I think lemon head is channeling some hidden force that could be truly monumental. This enormous lemon head will devour us all.

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  71. What brand of bullshit and white wash racism are you referring to, lemon head? Or, are you just a sour puss ?

    JD (5f0e11)

  72. No! Big business is in Iraq for one reason, cheap labor! Overall how have we as Americans benefited from this war? Not at all. Trust me in the end, 20 years from now like Vietnam it will be the place to vacation, to send work because it can be done cheaper easier-no unions-no environmental standards, another up and coming economy like India, South America, China. Get the hell out of Iraq!!! It not your business nor your place but something tells me it will be the death of our once beautiful economy.

    lemon head (8140b8)

  73. Hitler didn’t kill the Jews first. Not the Communists, either. He killed the Brownshirts first. Would it be worth letting Obama become President just to purge our leftists?

    nk (3c7a86)

  74. lemon head, that’s completely incoherent. Although you are now starting to sound racist to me with your whining about India, South America and China ( all of which are peopled by wonderful people in my opinion ).

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. it will be the place to vacation, to send work because it can be done cheaper easier-no unions-no environmental standards, another up and coming economy like India

    I dunno, that sounds like an improvement over Iraq on March 18, 2003.

    aunursa (5daa82)

  76. Damn you, nk, I was confident in my opposition to Obama until you poisoned my mind with that evil thought.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. Listen I’m no lover of Obama don’t get me wrong or McCain. What I’m saying is there will be a New World Order no matter who’s president. The plan has been set into motion. A lot of shit happended under Clinton but no one noticed because folks were eating and meeting their bills. Under McCain people will rebel, the masses will rebel but under Obama they can get the same work under but no one will pay much attention becuase ha! We put a black man into office. Now we can pull even more shit over on the people. you’ve got to start thinking outside the box.

    lemon head (8140b8)

  78. Are the Stone Cutters involved in this diabolical plot somehow?

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  79. lemon head, I think its a little stuffy in your box.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  80. No! Big business is in Iraq for one reason, cheap labor!

    We’re moving our factories to Iraq?

    Anon (db8e0c)

  81. Oh, the low hanging fruit. The hanging curve balls. The farmer’s daughter. What’s a Boy Scout to do?

    I know, cold hip baths. That’s the ticket.

    Ropelight (4a83c9)

  82. Trust me in the end, 20 years from now like Vietnam it will be the place to vacation, to send work because it can be done cheaper easier-no unions-no environmental standards, another up and coming economy like India, South America, China.

    I sure hope so. I bought a mess of Dinars a few years back. W00t!

    Pablo (99243e)

  83. Think what you want! However look around you! Don’t be scared to think! You know what’s happening. Listen I’ve been living in the city a long time and I’ve seen many things. Good things happend in this country on a grassroot level. I don’t ever remember Martin Luther King or Malcom X trying to run for president. If he really wanted to do something for this country he would be in the streets doing it. Farrakhan gave a million man march but no run for president. Even your white grassroot leaders don’t run for president. He’s been given the ok!!

    lemon head (8140b8)

  84. Don’t sleep on Obama!!!!!

    lemon head (8140b8)

  85. A lot of shit happended under Clinton but no one noticed because folks were eating and meeting their bills.

    You know, I kind of agree with that. Clinton started changing the way our money looked. At the time, I thought he was just trying to boost the economy by making people in the underground economy exchange the old bills they had kept hidden under their mattresses. Now I wonder.

    I suppose we will know for sure when every baby is tattooed at birth with a UPC code that contains every bit of information about him including his credit rating and bank balance.

    nk (3c7a86)

  86. he is criticized for being ambitious . of course he took a risk denouncing a war that was so popular at the time based on bush/cheney lies about wmd and 9/11. maybe not in his district, but the risk was to his national aspirations.

    So in other words he didn’t take a risk.

    I take a risk in posting here in that, one day, it may come back to bite me when I’m nominated for Supreme Court Justice.

    However, I think that’s about as likely as Obama thought it was in ’03 that he’d be running for President.

    the idea that Barak is an empty suit.

    only the top tier of would be Law students APPLY to Harvard.

    Eh, a ton of people apply to Harvard as a Hail Mary, but there’s nothing about being smart that requires you not to be an empty suit, particularly among law students.

    For that matter, the chief requirement is being clever to pass a bunch of logic and reading comprehension games on the LSAT – you need good grades in undergrad, but there’s not much of a requirement that you know much of anything when it comes to government, public policy, etc. – something that’s glaringly obvious when Obama is asked a question that even slightly challenges his core beliefs.

    The most prestigious pos in the school is Editor of the Law review.

    No – the most prestigious position is the Editor-in-Chief. Barack Obama was the President of the Law Review–it’s an honorary position that confers no authority upon the man.

    haven’t we learned from the Bush fiasco that its a positive to have a president with at least an average IQ?

    Remind me again – where did Bush go to school?

    Anon (db8e0c)

  87. McCain is in your face, old, white and hard. People will rebel. And it will be young white first. Too young to remember Kent State!!! Under Obama business will go just the way they want it to go. Look the World loves this asshole. He’s almost at the point of worship. He is their man!

    They are going to use him to get you nice and greased-up for your fuck!

    lemon head (8140b8)

  88. But who are “they”, lemonhead?

    nk (3c7a86)

  89. And it will be young white first. Too young to remember Kent State!!!

    Oh come on, do you think there’s a single person posting here who wasn’t rooting for the National Guard?

    Anon (db8e0c)

  90. You know who they are and if you don’t you should by now. You can feel it every day. Under Bush the cat got out of the bag like w/BlackWater and all those other companies now making money in Iraq.

    Haven’t you noticed how much to the center Obama has moved lately. However, like a good Messiah he takes his worshipers w/him.

    lemon head (8140b8)

  91. Okay, sorry about that – I couldn’t resist.

    Anon (db8e0c)

  92. Nothing to see here; just Obama’s latest lame-ass bullshit-move-of-the-week. Last week it was falsely claiming that McCain was playing the race card, this week it’s falsely claiming that McCain is questioning his patriotism. You know, it may be that the extra-long campaign season is what will be his undoing. He gets slimier and more desperate day-by-day.

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  93. His followers are true and loyal. McCain people the Republicans from what I’m hearing are trying to get out of the GOP Convention this year but not Obama. They are willing to do extra work just to earn a ticket. Now that’s what you call worship!

    lemon head (8140b8)

  94. All this shit you’re talking about Obama is going to fall on death ears. He has the world at his feet. So much so even if he is not elected President of the US he can still do alot of damage. Don’t sleep on this man! The world will follow him and worst yet, they want to. Not just his district.

    lemon head (8140b8)

  95. #9 – Oiram

    Obama would of [sic] had a tough time running for dog catcher.

    — Dog Catcher is above his pay grade.

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  96. If Obama is not elected president and questions the election it will turn bad and people around the world will go to the streets for this man. Believe me I see it getting physical. Too many people need help in this country and our youth are on the edge. They will listen to him and they will follow him. People will not follow McCain. Don’t forget we have a young trained military coming home to no jobs, no way to pay for education, cuts into their medical care. They will not be very happy with the Republicans.

    lemon head (8140b8)

  97. I’m out!!! Remember the revolution will be on TV for you!!!

    lemon head (8140b8)

  98. All this shit you’re talking about Obama is going to fall on death ears.

    — A classic eggcorn if ever there was one.

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  99. #96 what a horse’s ass buffoon you are. Yes, let’s elect obama and he will form his special civilian ss divisions that rival the armed forces in size. If blacks want to riot because the neophyte negro got his ass whipped, that only shows just how ignorant they are. Do you think the Hollywood and intellectual elites will allow their gated communities to be stormed? Have fun with your BS liberal fever swamp talking points. You are no seer, but rather someone with his head way up his ass. Blame the Republicans for what? Congress is dem and the gas prices, etc. have soared under incompetent and corrupt leaders such as Pelosi and Reid. So Obambi is the Pied Piper? He’s a legend in his own mind. Now go give that bitter lemon head an emema because you’re so full of fecal matter.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  100. Is there a shortage of Lithium, Seroquel, and/or Haloperidol ? Good Allah. lemonade must be related to MKDP and David Petranos Esp.

    JD (5f0e11)

  101. #17 – Oiram

    in the interest of President George Bush, Chenney and our oil corporations

    — “Chenney”? . . . “Chenney”? . . . oh yeah! Now I remember:

    Chenney, I’ve got your number
    I need to make you mine
    Chenney, don’t change your number
    867-5309
    (867-5309)
    867-5309
    (867-5309)

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  102. According to Chrissie “I squat to pee” Matthews, John McCain, by calling Baracky “inexperienced”, has handed out permission slips to racists like me so we can oppose the Anointed One. I wonder if Chrissie masturbated with a picture of bare-chested Baracky during his vacation. Liberals are so egregiously insufferable and clueless.

    What kind of twat is Obama that he constantly mewls about how mean old McCain disses his experience and patriotism? He gets his ass whipped at that religious site and it is because McCain somehow cheated in his responses.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  103. Oiram,

    #18 – you missed the point completely. No wonder you think voting for Obama is a bad idea.
    — Missing the point is a prerequisite to voting for Obama.

    #31 – Kool Aid Flowing
    — … through your veins on a steady IV drip.

    #32 – God help us.
    We’re fine. Feel free to monopolize HIS time for a little while. I mean, if HE can’t help you . . .

    #41 – Make up your mind patriots.
    — I took your advice and put makeup on my mind patriot; but that just made it look like a tranny, so I stomped its little queer ass.

    #46 – Well, the race card will have to counter McCain’s Fear card.
    — I see. Playing the race card isn’t just good campaign strategy, it’s a necessary tactic. Well then, maybe those 20 years at Trinity United served as the perfect preparation for this historic moment.

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  104. bambi obortion entered harvard on the affirmative action airline. Was NOT in fact the president of, and OF ALL who were engaged there, bambi was THE ONLY ONE who wasn’t offered a clerkship with a judge… BO fled harvard and answered an advert in a newspaper to rabble-rouse some slum tenements in chicago, which today are abandoned, by the way; BO won both his elections by default in a terribly corrupt, democratic city FILLED african american welfare vampires, where he missed most votes, voted ‘present’ when present, and legislated against any measure to punish criminals, but suggested, instead of building more jails, why not just INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS… ( you can guess to whom…) HE FLED HARVARD BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED HIM AND HURRIED TO CHICAGO, A HORRID HOTBED OF DOUBLE-CORRUPT NEGRO DEMOCRAT GRAFT. where he was a star!

    BO presented a fake birth certificate to the US government, has lost BOTH his college transcripts AND his supposed college thesis. bambi obortion claims to be a constitutional SCHOLAR, but has been caught on several DOZEN occasions being flat out wrong on some of the very most basic legal tenets…

    bami obortion has never held a real job, has NO ECONOMIC EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER EXCEPT TO BANKRUPT THE ILLINOIS STATE SENATE …he immediately hired a political handler who specializes in BLACK CANDIDATES, BEGAN, ODDLY ENOUGH CAMPAIGNING FOR PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY ….
    BO has an illegal campaign-contribution ponzi-scheme rolling that would cripple even the mighty clintons, IF the MSN ever bothered to investigate it… WHEN PRESENTED WITH REAMS OF DATA, THEY TURN THE OTHER WAY…

    Bambi obortion hussein criticizes mr bush for the economy, AS IF BUSH HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY…!!! PRESIDENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY! ZERO…
    ANYONE WHO IS CARELESS ENOUGH IN THEIR THINKING TO BLAME PRESIDENT BUSH FOR THE ECONOMIC TROUBLES, IS AS CARELESS IN THEIR THINKING THAT BAMBI OBORTION CAN SOLVE THEM.
    and, MOST TELLING, that includes bambi obortion himself……………..

    to the muslim world, bambi is a child born of a muslim father, who left the faith, making his an APOSTATE, ALL THE WORSE ! MAKING CROCODILE TEARS WITH CHRISTIANITY; THEY CAN’T WAIT TO SEE HIM ELECTED,
    WHEREUPON THEY CAN REALLY MAKE A STORM SURGE OF THEIR JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    the housing crisis is the direct result of the give-away clintons forcing banks ten years ago to extend loans to jamal and tashiequeia. people (?) who should have never gotten loans…
    the gas crisis is a matter of supply – guess who in the last 8 /10 years starting DEMANDING oil??? the WHOLE rest of the world, partly to do with clinton selling all or most of our miliary secrets/technology to china and beyond, who finally began, with our purloined help, to catch up!

    democrats start wars and watch the world catch fire, and republicans wind up walking into them. nixon/vietnam, reagan/afghanistan, bush/9/11. clinton was too busy selling secrets and sodomizing interns in the oval office bathroom to take notice of the dire reports piling up on his desk about the whole world catching fire out there…REPORT AFTER REPORT FELL OFF HIS DESK….

    the reasons the democrats are so adamant about HEALTH CARE is so they can introduce a very gentle-sounding rider into law soon as we’re asleep. it’s called ‘essential
    health care…’ guess what that’s a euphemism for? FREE ABORTION! planned parenthood did a billion five in revenue last year aborting mostly black babies…
    Obortion vows to remove 300 or so statutes on abortions his first duty in office. BO said he didn’t want his daughters PUNISHED with a baby, either… one of BO’s spokespersons said ‘JESUS WOULD BE FINE WITH ABORTION…”

    IF YOU THINK DIRTY WILLIE THE CHILD PRESIDENT GUTTED OUR MILITARY, WAIT TILL YOU SEE WHAT BLACK MAGIC bambi hussein Obortion can do. talk about an obortion!!!!
    oh, poor cute little dreamy obortion!!! is he POUTING because his saddleback interview flung the crap back in his baby face?????/

    Obortion is already talking about a new AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN, the rotten plan we have now having quickly lost favor…how many big cities do you think now wished they resisted afirmative action?
    affirmative action was a band-aid for a whole culture that should have instead gotten their plug pulled… sorry…
    and considering obortion gets his best, wisest advice from his wife, the rat-face, black albatross, michelle (????????) you might want to read HER college thesis, captured online before THEY could disappear that one too. ………………. Don’t miss it, as it could define the ugly face of the next ruling party……

    SO, jacob r., and oreim, don’t even open your simian mouths about the mainstream media. if there IS a conservative media extant, it is simply in dire response to the crummy newshags spouting like Obortion’s mouthpiece…

    and it was fortunate that i was not in the building when Obortion announced what he’d NOT PERMIT. i don’t care how many people sat there like donkeys while he told them what he’d PERMIT…

    get some facts —- before you start typing your weak liberal vomit. talk about kool-aid! i’d say those two are drinking straight obortion ass arsenic!!!!

    cribsnake (ec66d8)

  105. Cleanup on aisle #104, bring Moby-mop please, thanks.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  106. Are Obama foes and supporters trolling the internet or did someone send them here?

    DRJ (a5243f)

  107. I’m not sure, but that was particularly obvious. A liberal trying to pretend they are conservative just doesn’t come across as believable most times. Same for conservative trolls at liberal sites… they can’t hide their true nature very long.

    You might be able to check sitemeter or the comments-admin page to see if they were referred from somewhere. It won’t stop them from coming, but you will identify new ones quicker that way.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  108. I’ve looked but I don’t see any obvious referral site.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  109. On the other hand, I linked several Daily Kos posts the other day. Maybe that triggered their interest.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  110. #53 – JacobR

    came here by accident [and] was astounded by the barely concealed intolerance toward Obama.
    — Wait a second. It’s “barely concealed”? ‘Scuse me a moment. . . .

    HEY! WHO THE HELL IS CONCEALING THEIR INTOLERANCE? CUT THAT SHIT OUT, RIGHT NOW!!!

    Okay. Where were we?

    Is it a requirement to post that one has to have logged in a specified number of hours listening to comedian Rush Limbaugh?
    — Well, since the only people that call him “comedian Rush Limbaugh” are Olbermannequins, maybe it would be best if you told us vhat ees vequired.

    so many inconsistencies. he is criticized for being ambitious.
    — First use of the word “ambitious” in this thread: yours.

    another thing: the idea that Barak is an empty suit.
    — Hey! Show the Chosen One the proper respect; spell his name correctly. Who the hell do you think you are . . . a comedian?

    only the top tier of would be [sic] Law students APPLY to Harvard. of those only a few are accepted.
    — Of those, only a few are affirmative action cases.

    The most prestigious pos in the school is Editor of the Law review. Barak served in that pos.
    — True. Barack was the most prestigious p.o.s. in the school.

    haven’t we learned from the Bush fiasco that its [sic] a positive to have a president with at least an average IQ?
    — Absolutely. I wonder how they’re coming along on those tests to measure wisdom and judgment.

    graduating Harvard Law is a ticket to an invite to the most prestigious firms and BIG bucks. Instead he organized the youth of Chicago ghettos. do you yahoos see no altruism in that?
    — Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. I do know that he worked for the law firms as well.

    liberals tend 2 b better educated and READ
    — Liberals are educated 2 b RED.

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  111. #110

    LOL! Fisking of the day to Icy Truth. :)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  112. I knew I was gonna screw that up. I meant to write, “Educated liberals tend 2 b RED”.
    Guess it worked out okay though.

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  113. Thanx, Stash! :-)

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  114. Bambi can’t speak extemporaneously on topics he should know by heart, and somehow this shows his supreme intelligence?

    No, it shows that he is unable to think clearly unless someone else writes his words.

    A bumbling speaker. A lack of experience. A lot of “bravery” when it’s convenient, but an inability to be brave when it’s difficult. And a weasel on the tough questions.

    Bambi is making me long for Jimmy Carter, who at least served in the Navy.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  115. Icy,

    I agree with Stash. That was terrific.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  116. #41 – Make up your mind patriots.
    – I took your advice and put makeup on my mind patriot; but that just made it look like a tranny, so I stomped its little queer ass.

    Comment by Icy Truth — 8/19/2008 @ 9:14 pm

    Thanks, IcyT – made my night!

    JSinAZ (4a9d9c)

  117. lemon head,

    Like Japan, Korea and ever place else we been with our brand of bullshit and white wash racism
    — So all this time we’ve been spreading bullshit and whitewash? I thought it was democracy and freedom. Go figure.

    Overall how have we as Americans benefited from this war? Not at all.
    — Dude. Look at all of this great material it’s provided you!

    Trust me in the end, 20 years from now
    — It might take longer; check us out in about 50.

    Get the hell out of Iraq!!!
    — Get the hell out of my head!!! Oh. Sorry, Dude; didn’t mean to read your line.

    It not your business nor your place but something tells me it will be the death of our once beautiful economy.
    — It’s not your sandwich lying there in the dirt, but something tells me you’re going to pick it up and munch on it anyway.

    Listen I’m no lover of Obama
    — The stack of photos ‘stuck together’ in your trashcan says different.

    don’t get me wrong
    — The odds are against you on this one.

    What I’m saying is there will be a New World Order no matter who’s president.
    — There will be a new round of treatments no matter who’s your new doctor.

    The plan has been set into motion.
    — The beanie-propeller has been spun.

    Under McCain people will rebel
    — Guess who will be the first to taste la lame de la guillotine? Whoa ha ha ha ha!!!

    you’ve got to start thinking outside the box.
    — You’ve got to start taking your meds.

    Think what you want!
    — Why not? It works so well for you.

    However look around you!
    — I see walls that are not padded.

    Don’t be scared to think!
    — Don’t be scared to sleep.

    You know what’s happening.
    — And if I tell you, then we’ll both know.

    Listen I’ve been living in the city a long time and I’ve seen many things.
    — Including many stamps of good acid.

    Good things happend in this country on a grassroot level.
    — Good things happened to you on a grass-leaf level.

    I don’t ever remember Martin Luther King or Malcom X trying to run for president.
    — Well, they were gonna, but they were delayed by pressassination.

    If he really wanted to do something for this country he would be in the streets doing it.
    — Pimpin’ out Michelle? Hell yeah!

    Farrakhan gave a million man march but no run for president.
    — Talk about guaranteed pressassination!

    Even your white grassroot leaders don’t run for president.
    — No, but they wrote a song about it:
    I was gonna go to work but then I got high
    I just got a new promotion but I got high
    now I’m selling dope and I know why
    – cause I got high

    He’s been given the ok!!
    — And you’ve been denied early release.

    Too young to remember Kent State!!!
    — Too stoned to remember last week!

    They are going to use him to get you nice and greased-up for your fuck!
    — Godzilla is going to use your pointy head to pop a carbuncle on his ass!

    You know who they are and if you don’t you should by now.
    — How could we know? They’re all following you.

    You can feel it every day.
    — Move out from underneath the cell tower.

    Under Bush the cat got out of the bag
    — Under Reagan people like you were let out of the home.

    Haven’t you noticed how much to the center Obama has moved lately.
    — Haven’t you noticed the chocolaty center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?

    However, like a good Messiah he takes his worshipers w/him.
    — Like a good host you give the voices a place to hang out.

    His followers are true and loyal.
    Your followers are a gerbil and a duck.

    MCain people the Republicans from what I’m hearing are trying to get out of the GOP Convention this year but not Obama.
    — Correct. Obama wants to get into the GOP convention, because he knows that’s the only way he could win.

    They are willing to do extra work just to earn a ticket. Now that’s what you call worship!
    — They are willing to give you additional electric-shock treatments. Now that’s what I call a waste of a carbon credit.

    He has the world at his feet.
    — You have spike-tracks between your toes.

    So much so even if he is not elected President of the US he can still do alot of damage.
    — Not to your brain cells. Someone (possibly you) beat him to it.

    Don’t sleep on this man!
    — Don’t sleep on that ram! or on that lamb! or on that clam!

    If Obama is not elected president and questions the election it will turn bad and people around the world will go to the streets for this man.
    — Quick! Someone call all of Bambi’s Hollywood pals. Let’s get rolling on “The Day The World Played The Race Card”.

    Believe me I see it getting physical.
    — What color is “getting physical” in your world?

    Too many people need help in this country and our youth are on the edge.
    — I defer to the expert regarding “on the edge”. Lesson 2: Over the ____

    They will listen to him and they will follow him.
    — All the while asking, “What did you mean by that?”

    People will not follow McCain.
    — Why not? It’s easy; he moves slowly.

    Don’t forget we have a young trained military coming home to no jobs, no way to pay for education, cuts into their medical care. They will not be very happy with the Republicans.
    — Holy Shit! It’s a perfect storm!! They’re all gonna go insurgent on our asses!!!

    I’m out!!!
    — Even with all of those exclamation points that’s still a massive understatement.

    Remember the revolution will be on TV for you!!!
    — Remember, the spy-cam is hidden inside that new CFL bulb they ‘encouraged’ you to buy.

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  118. #40 Ropelight

    If he [Obama] loved this country so much he wouldn’t be out there trying to change it, now would he?

    Did you really say that? Sometimes there’s a comment here that just sucks the air out of the room. I’m speechless.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  119. Thanks, JSinAZ

    — ITinAZ

    Icy Truth (bec4ce)

  120. #117

    That was actually pretty funny Icy. Bravo.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  121. 104 – I am dummerer for having read that.

    JD (5f0e11)

  122. Ok, #117 was fuckin’ hillarious…

    The guy is just freakin’ unhinged…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  123. cribsnake – Get help.

    JD (75f5c3)

  124. 119 JD
    104 – I am dummerer for having read that.
    You read that?
    There were so many clues of its excrescence.

    m (fbf320)

  125. “Don’t sleep on this man!”

    I had to read that statement at least twice over, and still have no idea what it meant. We’re not to sleep with him? We’re not to sleep – over with him? Have sex with him? What?

    Dmac (874677)

  126. m – I figure every gets a chance to state their postion, and I kept hoping that there would eventually be some nugget of goodness in there. Sadly, no.

    Dmac – Do not sleep on this man!

    JD (75f5c3)

  127. What in the hell is that supposed to mean?!?!

    cribsnake – I promise to not sleep on, in, next to, below, adjacent to, or anywhere near Baracky.

    JD (75f5c3)

  128. If Bambi had any boyfriends, they better lay low, and keep very still and very quiet, or Farakhan’s Fruit will be knocking on the door, and they won’t be there there to play pattycake.

    Ropelight (4a83c9)

  129. Wow, I’ve been reading some of these posts.

    Lemon Head is truly a piece of work.

    And you guys that I was crazy. :)

    Oiram (983921)

  130. And you guys thought that I was crazy :)

    (I need Coffee)

    Oiram (983921)

  131. It has been noted many times that BHO seems to have a bit of trouble speaking extemporaneously:
    BHO has mentioned that, in his youth, he experimented with drugs;
    …well, that solves that…
    Too many bong hits, Dude!

    Mr. Spicolli runs for President!

    Another Drew (813962)

  132. BTW, Oiram…
    Got an answer on that “Oil Comapany” question I posed to you about 100 comments back?

    Another Drew (813962)

  133. Another Drew #130, Ever tried doing what I do?

    Try going to a similar blog site as Patterico, only left leaning.

    Unfortunately, I don’t get paid to look at all replies to my comments.

    I have to work for a living. :(

    Perhaps, if you give me a number to your comment, I’ll throw some reality at you :)

    Oiram (983921)

  134. #131…
    Try #39!

    Another Drew (813962)

  135. #132 Drew

    So let me get this straight, you pose a question to me and tell me Halliburton doesn’t count.
    Reality check needs to be established in your corner first my friend.

    True, the Iraq War was not driven by the oil companies, but since the Bush administration is driven by the oil companies and the Bush administration made the “pre-emptive” strike, by mistake, you be the judge.

    I like to think of the Bush administration as the chauffeur to the oil companies.

    Oiram (983921)

  136. Icy, I’m rolling on the floor with laughter. You need to collect these in an Icy’s Greatest Hits post.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  137. The question posed, tool, is which oil companies have benefited.

    Care to answer that one?

    You admit as much that no oil companies have benefited to the tune that leftists wish.

    You can claim to think all you want. Evidence of that, however, is scanty.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  138. #137 Steve,

    Have you seen their latest earning reports??

    Have you seen how much we pay at the pumps now??

    I expected a much better reply than that one.

    I guess fingers are perusing right wing sites right about now.

    Oiram (983921)

  139. 9% profit margins, you moron. But, we know that economics is way above your pay grade.

    JD (75f5c3)

  140. Oiram, you said in #17:
    “…Going to Iraq, and overthrowing the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein was in the interest of President George Bush, Chenney and our oil corporations…”

    My question remains, how was this in the interest of the above? Where did anyone you mention gain from the actions involved in OIF?

    If we went to Iraq “for the Oil”, who has the oil?

    Another Drew (813962)

  141. JD #139, I love that, “9%”. And you call me a Moron. Sad.

    Ask any corporation, if they would be o.k. with 9% profits if they were the only game in town and everyone had to use their product every day.

    I have no idea what percentage McDonalds makes as a profit margin, but I’m sure they would jump at the chance to make only 9%. Providing of course they only had to compete with 4 other burger companies, and Americans were forced to eat only burgers, and every day.

    Please stop insulting our intelligence JD.

    Oiram (983921)

  142. #140, Drew, please read #141.

    Oiram (983921)

  143. No, tool, I really haven’t seen the latest earnings report. But remember the question was “how have oil companies benefited?”

    So, if you claim to answer that one, you would bring something rare into your arguments: facts and data.

    So far you bring in smears and allusions.

    If you want to admit ignorance (ignorance isn’t stupidity; it’s just lack of knowledge), do so honestly.

    If you want to pretend that by saying the oil companies have benefited, that then then have done so, then you need to brush up your debate and rhetorical skills, because just saying something doesn’t make it true.

    Even if you continually repeat it.

    But wait, that’s a Bambi trait, too. Are you posting from Hawaii?

    steve miller (b589d7)

  144. #141…
    Non-Responsive!

    Another Drew (813962)

  145. “Pay Grade”, I like that you guys are throwing that Obama phrase around. I only hope that Obama runs with it.

    This was a brilliant thing he said the other day in reference to abortion. He has to make sure that Americans see that and understand the nuance in his answer. Brilliant.

    He’s basically telling all of us that he is not God, nor should he be.

    Please keep repeating it people.

    Oiram (983921)

  146. Oiram #135,

    The conventional leftist talking point that the Bush administration is driven by the oil companies is not proof of same, just as the wingnut assertion that Obama is a Marxist is unproven. I also disagree that the Iraq War was “by mistake” as there were many good reasons for it that are conveniently ignored by the left.

    Many of our military folks and many Iraqi citizens would agree that getting rid of Saddam has been worth it. Now, if Iraq was truly a war for oil, why aren’t we getting much (if any) of their oil?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  147. #144, Our oil companies are holding most of the oil contracts in Iraq. No bid contracts were recovered in abundance. You do the math.

    Oiram (983921)

  148. You do the math.

    You made the assertion, the math should already be done, right? Show your work.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  149. I have no idea what percentage McDonalds makes as a profit margin, but I’m sure they would jump at the chance to make only 9%. Providing of course they only had to compete with 4 other burger companies, and Americans were forced to eat only burgers, and every day.

    They would be God Damn retarded to take 9%, since their profit margin for 2007 was 10.25%

    Scroll down and you’ll see the number.

    And that’s WITH there being so much competition, AND with us being allowed to eat whatever we want.

    How about you check some corp margins before claiming that oil’s margins are so insane…

    But I can hear you saying “But m’Lord!! How do you explain how much MONEY they make??” to which I would respond “There is no need to call me ‘m’Lord‘. Second, it is a matter of VOLUME… If I could make .5% profit selling something, I would merely need to sell a LOT of it, and I too could be raking in the billions…”

    Any other questions you would like to ask that make you look stupid?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  150. #147…
    Which companies?
    Name the companies that are holding oil contracts from the Government of Iraq?

    Another Drew (813962)

  151. Yes, Tool.

    You claim that “oil companies” have benefited from Iraq.

    And then you point to their profits.

    How, exactly, do those two relate? Are there secret Swiss bank accounts that are transferring money from Iraq to the oil companies?

    Are the oil companies getting Iraqi oil at reduced rates? If so, how much oil? At what price?

    You are the one that has asserted no FACTS.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  152. #150 Drew,

    Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total SA are “still on the table” and “none of them has pulled back”.

    Get back to me if and I mean if Mobil doesn’t get a contract their.

    Oiram (983921)

  153. How does repeating a list of names back up anything you’ve said?

    You are still 0 for infinity.

    Care to assert some FACTS?

    Is it that hard to find stuff at Daily Kos?

    steve miller (b589d7)

  154. “Our oil companies are holding most of the oil contracts in Iraq.”

    Oiram,

    Saying something doesn’t make it true – not even if you say it 10,000 times. The Iraqi government has not signed many (if any) new exploration contracts and is still renegotiating service contracts signed during Hussein’s reign. Like this deal, with the famous American oil entity, China National Petrolium Company. The article states, “If finalised, the revised deal would be the first oil service contract signed by the new Iraqi government since the fall of Saddam in 2003.”

    I know that ignorance is bliss but you’re a bit too blissful to contribute much of anything that anyone might consider useful.

    Rick Ballard (0a8990)

  155. #149 Oil companies are making record profits. And you say I look stupid?

    Yikes

    Oiram (983921)

  156. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total SA are “still on the table” and “none of them has pulled back”.

    And where, exactly, are each of those companies headquartered?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  157. “Making record profits” != “Profiting directly from Iraq’s oil”

    Do you care ever to back up your assertions with FACTS?

    steve miller (b589d7)

  158. Oiram #152,

    Since when is “still on the table” is the same as “holding a contract”? Also, a source would be appreciated (not saying your list is incorrect or incomplete), especially if you’re going to use quotes like “none of them has pulled back.” It sounds like somebody trying to prove a negative.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  159. Oiram – Assertion as argument is tiresome. Quiz – Does Exxon pay more in taxes than they make in profit? Does Exxon show any marked increase in profits when the cost of a barrel of oil increases? Has Exxon shown a marked increase in profits as a result of this illegal war for oil?

    JD (5f0e11)

  160. #149, Ummmmm……. First of all, I was wrong in assuming a previous comment, that 9% oil profit margins were correct. I’ve heard as low as 4%, I think no one really knows for sure.

    But we do know that they’ve made record profits on a small profit margin.

    How did they pull that magic off?

    I have to go back to work, so I’ll lose money if I respond to 35 comments here.
    (I’m going to need every one of my middle class pennies, especially if McCain gets elected)

    I just want to say that if you guys are comfortable with the oil companies making this much money without oversight, then by all means vote McCain and watch The U.S’s economic woes continue and possibly, but hopefully not, get even worse.

    Peace To All

    Oiram (983921)

  161. I think that every time a Lefty claims “making record profits” we should immediately not that they also have record costs, and are paying record taxes.

    JD (5f0e11)

  162. But we do know that they’ve made record profits on a small profit margin.

    You know how? What is your source for this?

    I’m sorry you think that a free market needs oversight so that you will sleep better. But think it’s so doesn’t make it so.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  163. #149 Oil companies are making record profits. And you say I look stupid?

    Did you even read what I wrote?

    I proved that your statement was utterly and completely false, and you think you WON?

    The total sum of money they made is due to VOLUME SOLD, not “record high margins”. They sell GAS, and we have been using record amounds of gas, ever increasing amounts of gas. So as the amount sold (what we buy and consume) increases, so too will their profit… At a rate of about $.09 per dollar sold.

    I just showed you that not only would McD’s HATE to have an oil company’s profit margin (since it would result in 1.25% less profit), there are MANY institutions that have even HIGHER margins.

    For example, JPMorgan Chase had an insane profit margin of 21.53% for fiscal 2007…

    Google had a profit margin of 25.33% in 2007…

    So, again I will ask, since yuo so rapidly spoke up last time…

    Wanna ask any more questions that make you look retarded?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  164. I love it when people like Oiram prove how patently unserious they are.

    JD (5f0e11)

  165. “I just want to say that if you guys are comfortable with the oil companies making this much money without oversight, then by all means vote McCain and watch The U.S’s economic woes continue and possibly, but hopefully not, get even worse.”
    Could someone please take one for the team and rip this pile apart??

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  166. How much money do the various gummint taxing authorities take off the top with gasoline prices? How much of the after yax profits are paid as dividends to the various widows and orphans/union pension funds/retirement funds? How much goes for energy exploration?

    I think the feds should impose an additonal $6 a gallon on gas sales, in order to emulate the eurotrashwieners’ granny states with multiple levels of bureaucracy. Maybe Obama can funnel oodles of the dough into those special proposed funds run by far left surrogates like Soros to advance the liberal agenda and pay off the lackeys sucking at the obama teat. There’s another interesting story for the media to ignore totally. Perhaps Michelle O can oversee one of the projects with a big bump in pay and perks?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  167. But we do know that they’ve made record profits on a small profit margin.

    How did they pull that magic off?

    By selling ALOT of what they sell.

    Seriously, were “logic” and “deductive reasoning” optional traits your parents skipped? Lordy man…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  168. Oiram #160,

    I won’t be voting for McCain, but don’t assume you’ll have more pennies left over with Obama. I would also suggest admitting you used a talking point without knowing the facts. Then, when you get a chance to look over some data that is worth sharing, you can make your own statement. It may be the same one as before, but at least you could support it. Much better than getting creamed like this. It really does look foolish to continue making assertions without providing any support after being asked over and over.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  169. I’m curious as to who in an Obama administration would have the requisite knowledge of the petroleum industry to provide the proper “oversight” that these evil oil companies so desperately need. Is there any reason to believe such insight would consist of anything more than “You make too much money. That’s not fair. I’m taking it.”?

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  170. Peace To All

    Translation: Please don’t rip my arguments to shreds and make me look like a fool.

    Pablo (99243e)

  171. Is there any reason to believe such insight would consist of anything more than “You make too much money. That’s not fair. I’m taking it.”?

    No, and in fact, Bambi is on record as stating that “fairness” is more important that revenue collected.

    ‘Cause taxes are about fairness.

    steve miller (b589d7)

  172. Please don’t rip my arguments to shreds and make me look like a fool.

    Too late.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  173. I was alluding to this in post 166:
    Lead story right now at http://www.michellemalkin.com

    The Democrat Party platform’s hidden Soros slush fund.

    That should be another scandal in the making. Acorn, moron.com and codepinko types would have to applaud the chutzpah.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  174. Profit Margin (ttm): 24.63%

    Guess who that is? Hint: they’re making record profits for a company that doesn’t produce a product.

    Pablo (99243e)

  175. Oiram – You contend that “oil companies” are holding contracts with the government of Iraq to develop oil resources. This doesn’t surprise me, as they are oil companies, and that is what they do. If, however, you were to find evidence that oil companies were buying up all the shawarma stands in Baghdad I would then be very surprised.

    Finding an association between oil companies and a middle eastern country with oil reserves is unremarkable. You do realize that, no matter what happened regarding Hussein and OIF, an ‘oil company’ would be necessary to develop oil reserves.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  176. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who joined in in my attempt have Oiram come up with real facts to back up his assertions of the great Bush/Cheney oil conspiracy.

    It is obvious that Oiram has absolutely no idea how private companies actually operate, or how they report “after-tax profits”, or what percentage of sales those profits represent.

    He is just a Lefty Troll, and will not change; and, further, is not worth our effort to engage.

    Thanks again, guys. It has been illuminating.

    Another Drew (813962)

  177. Apogee #175,

    But… all U.S. oil companies should automatically disqualify themselves from doing business in Iraq so that the administration’s evil plans are thwarted. Otherwise, it proves there was collusion and that Iraq was a “war for oil”.

    Yes, that is sarcasm that won’t be recognized by the left… some would be nodding their heads and saying, “Yeah, that’s the same thing I said over at DKos! Truth to Power!!”

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  178. “I just want to say that if you guys are comfortable with the oil companies making this much money without oversight …”

    I’m very comfortable. But I still don’t understand why profit makes lefties uncomfortable, nor why they regard petroleum as such a singularly evil substance.

    g Keep Rockin p (72be5d)

  179. #174

    It should be noted that the reason for the difference between my numbers and Pablo’s is that mine were for Fiscal 2007 (whatever their’s is), and Pablo’s show the last 12 months (Last reported to the same month in 2007).

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  180. Scott #179,

    No, the only reason numbers that disprove a leftist talking point can be different is that both are lying. Now, you and Pablo must vote for Obama as penance atonement the only hope for change America has!

    (Yes, more sarcasm for the lefties reading comments)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  181. Racists

    JD (5f0e11)

  182. Stashiu3 #177 – …all U.S. oil companies…

    But Oiram didn’t say U.S. oil companies, which at least would have made logical sense in that what he was really alluding to as you so rightly point out was a collusion to start a war for profit. He lists foreign oil companies in his vague anti-capitalist lefty smear, apparently completely unaware that Hussein had contracts with some on his list.

    What’s really telling is the complete reliance by leftists on innuendo, to the point where they will do logical gymnastics as the walls of their lie are knocked down by fact after fact.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  183. Apogee #182,

    What’s really telling is the complete reliance by leftists on innuendo

    And vile moral-equivalence arguments, judicial activism by leftist judges, exploiting race for votes and power, redistributing earnings by productive citizens in the interest of “fairness” (more votes and power for themselves), support from ex-hippies and wannabe’s that miss (or missed out on) the irresponsible sex and drug use of the 60’s and 70’s that was applauded as “progressive and enlightened”, promoting propaganda (knowing it’s not true) of jihadi’s and other groups that hate the United States because it weakens conservatives political influence, demagoguing political opponents with outright lies (as opposed to innuendo), accusing others of not respecting the rule of law while disregarding any inconvenient laws they wish, suppressing civil rights like free speech if they disagree with it or bearing arms to protect self/others/liberty, pandering to foreign governments that would love to see the United States fall into ruin, rewriting history that conflicts with the current leftist narrative, etc…

    Other than that stuff, they’re ok in my book. (Again, for the leftists who read the comments, that last line is sarcasm. It’s not ok.)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  184. Stashiu3 #183 – Yes. I stand corrected, and my comment was simply too small in scope. Oiram, by simply mentioning profits, oil companies in general and OIF, was attempting to imply a conspiratorial relationship between them of which he has absolutely no proof. This approach of unsubstantiated innuendo, you are correct to point out, is simply a facet of the many methods that the left uses in their quest for money and power.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  185. I think that every time a Lefty claims “making record profits” we should immediately not that they also have record costs, and are paying record taxes.

    Since profit is calculated after costs and taxes are taken into account, this would fail to undermine the “record profit” argument.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  186. I am also enamored of how something becomes conventional wisdom on the left – repetition – regardless whether there is any truth to the statement. Oiram’s contention that oil drives the Bush presidency or is the chauffeur or whatever is the standard lefty tripe solely due to repetition. Apart from public service, Dick Cheney’s only work experience prior to becoming VP was spending the last five years at Halliburton, hardly something which qualifies somebody as an oilman. Five years – scarred as an oil man for life! Right! And Bush, let’s conveniently forget about those years in the Texas statehouse and general partner of the Texas Rangers.

    You know how you can tell if a lib is lying – their lips are moving.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  187. It’s fun to google “record profits” and see all the articles about evil “big oil” come up. Buried in the mix you see the occasional mention of the record profits earned by industries such as tourism, hotels, and some sectors of the entertainment industry. The heads of those profit-making businesses don’t seem to be scheduled for a Congressional inquest demanding why they make so much money.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  188. #161 JD,

    (I only have time for a few replies here folks)

    JD Said:
    “I think that every time a Lefty claims “making record profits” we should immediately not that they also have record costs, and are paying record taxes.”

    Do you think that when we are exposed to Profit statements that it is the before taxes and costs amount? Really? You think that JD?
    O.k., do business your way.

    You are right about one thing though, oil companies do pay record taxes. But, they also pay record low taxes, percentage wise. I don’t say they are breaking laws, they are using the system to their advantage. You may be o.k. with this, I am not.

    Oiram (983921)

  189. Apogee #184,

    I wasn’t trying to correct your comment, just add to it (and rant a bit). :)

    For the record, my use of the term “leftist” does not refer to all Democrats or Liberals, just those on the far left who have undue influence for their numbers. At some point I may put up the rant against the far right “wingnuts” who give conservatives a bad rap. It’s almost as long and just as sincere. Extremists on both sides have so much influence on the major parties (in the interests of their own power and wealth) that it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between them. I would really like to see a third party that honestly embraces tolerance and values gain some ground. “We can help each other, just stay out of my business if it’s not hurting anyone.” would be a starting point.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  190. Since profit is calculated after costs and taxes are taken into account, this would fail to undermine the “record profit” argument.

    Though if the amount of Profit is after taxes, and the Profit was “record high”, then by logical deduction they would have paid a record amount in taxes, since Revenue would have to be record high…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  191. #162, Steve. You really feel “free market” doesn’t need oversight?

    Would you trust the roads that you drive on to free market? Or your health inspections at your favorite restaurant? Etc. and Etc.?

    I don’t sorry.

    I know I wont change your mind, but think about it. I have on the other end.

    Oiram (983921)

  192. Oiram #188,

    You are right about one thing though, oil companies do pay record taxes. But, they also pay record low taxes, percentage wise.

    Unsupported assertion again? Source please. Until then, it should be ignored (as you have been ignoring requests for data throughout the thread.) Again, using talking points without having the data to support them just makes you look foolish.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  193. According to istockanalyst.com:

    “According to CNN, Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter. That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second. Buried in the story we also find that “In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called ‘other taxes.'”
    In other words, Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes in the second quarter, which works out to $4,114 in taxes per second. Another way to look at it – Exxon paid almost $3 in taxes ($32.361 billion) for every $1 in profits ($11.68 billion.)

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  194. Oil companies are not getting off easy when it comes to taxes. In fact, they are supporting huge amounts of our government’s ridiculous spending.

    Anyone claiming otherwise isn’t reliable. The idea that they are making too much, and therefore deserve further taxes… solely because they make a lot in sheer dollars, is a great way to cripple America’s energy needs.

    Of course, we have prominent democrats who want to nationalize our energy industries. They would be more at home raping and looting Georgia with the rest of the fascist pigs.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  195. Scott #190, if they made record profits after paying taxes and their costs, how in the world can you say this fails to undermine my argument?

    I like the fact that you at least admit the above statement.

    I did agree with JD that they paid record amounts in taxes, if you read all my comments. (I know it’s difficult)(But I am the being focused on here)

    Again, higher tax dollars being spent, higher profits….. but lower tax percentages than you and I.

    Fair?

    Oiram (983921)

  196. #188 Oiram

    Do you think that when we are exposed to Profit statements that it is the before taxes and costs amount?

    He did not say that profits are calculated before taxes and costs. Though Corporate financial statements often show pre-income tax and post-income tax profits. You have created a straw man.

    You are right about one thing though, oil companies do pay record taxes. But, they also pay record low taxes, percentage wise. I don’t say they are breaking laws, they are using the system to their advantage. You may be o.k. with this, I am not.

    How did you calculate the “percentage of taxes” paid by the oil companies? How does this compare with other businesses? Do you think the Federal corporate tax rate is too low? If so, what should the rate be and why?

    Stu707 (6e4ad5)

  197. But, they also pay record low taxes, percentage wise. I don’t say they are breaking laws, they are using the system to their advantage. You may be o.k. with this, I am not.

    Cite, please.

    aphrael – Point taken, though I was not attempting to refute the point, just to show that running around screaming record profits ignores the context, and other factors.

    but lower tax percentages than you and I.

    Complete drivel. Personal income tax and corporate income taxes are simply not the same. You are comparing apples to giraffes.

    JD (75f5c3)

  198. Oiram #195

    But I am the being [emphasis mine] focused on here

    Messiah-complex much? “The being”?

    Besides, you’re being focused on because you keep making claims that you can’t support, despite others doing the research to debunk your words.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  199. Mendoucheous little troll, huh Stashiu?

    JD (75f5c3)

  200. #194 Juan, you want a rationalization for oil corporations to pay their fair share? And when I say fair, so that you could understand it, I mean the percentage you and I pay.

    The rational is simply the 500 billion dollar deficit.

    Sure you can address government’s ridiculous spending, I’m all for that. But how about we pay for that ridiculous spending fairly?

    Oiram (983921)

  201. Anytime a Leftist starts talking about fairness, you might as well just hand them your wallet.

    JD (75f5c3)

  202. Stashiu3,
    Yeah, I’ve seen some of the sites that debunk me. What a load of crap.

    Would be the equivalent of me using huffington post to debunk all of you. I don’t do that.

    Sure, I make mistakes, I don’t research enough, but I stay away from trash.

    Oiram (983921)

  203. You can keep your walled JD.

    I don’t expect you to pay any more than you’ve already paid for our war.

    Ridiculous.

    Oiram (983921)

  204. A guess at Oiram’s pattern of thought:
    It’s like a drunk epileptic trying to work an Etch-A-Sketch with his clubbed foot.

    Okay, that was just silly. Seriously now:
    Oil is a necessary energy source, as are the products sold by govt regulated utilities (natural gas, electricity, water). Therefore, just as state utility boards (here in AZ it’s called a Corporation Commission) regulate the price of utilities piped into your home, so should the federal government (since so many oil companies sell to all states) regulate the price of gasoline; for it is a necessity equal to the electricity that keeps your refrigerator running 24-7.

    — All of his other blather on this subject are just the excuses he’s floating out there in order to justify following this philosophy.

    Icy Truth (b55029)

  205. Oiram #200,

    But how about we pay for that ridiculous spending fairly?

    Knew it was coming. Still unsupported by anything, but right on time.

    …redistributing earnings by productive citizens in the interest of “fairness” (more votes and power for themselves)

    Predictable? I think I hit most of his points… yes.

    JD #199,

    Mendoucheous little troll, huh Stashiu?

    Won’t call him a troll until one of the hosts decides that he is not commenting in good faith. I will keep pointing out “opportunities for improvement” to him though.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  206. Oiram…

    Reread every single post I made replying to yours (I’ll dig up post #’s if you need me too), and tell me how you have succeeded in proving your point, and how I have failed to prove you wrong repeatedly…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  207. #197 JD,

    Here is one of the problems with our economy:

    Statements such as this one.

    JD writes:
    “Complete drivel. Personal income tax and corporate income taxes are simply not the same. You are comparing apples to giraffes.”

    Please tell me why they are not the same.

    Oiram (983921)

  208. Please tell me why they are not the same.

    One is a corporation, and one is an individual. Other than that ? If you do not understand the differences, the profound differences, then I am not sure I can help you.

    JD (75f5c3)

  209. #206, Scott I’ve said this before, I guess I need to say it again.

    I’m at work. It’s easy for a group of people who all agree with each other to focus on one man who they disagree with.

    The opposite is just not possible for me right now.

    I’m trying. And I’m learning a lot. Most of you are very intelligent people and in a weird way I feel honored that you feel the need to give me so much attention. Hopefully some of what I’m saying is getting through. A lot of what you all say gets through to me.

    Peace

    And to whomever it may concern, there is no hidden agenda behind me saying “peace”. Take it at face value, we may disagree but we all live in a society and are all true Americans.

    Oiram (983921)

  210. #208, JD, I didn’t ask what the difference is. I know that.

    Why shouldn’t a corporation pay as much of a percentage in taxes as we pay?

    I would love to know your answer.

    Oiram (983921)

  211. #200 – Oiram

    The rational[e] is simply the 500 billion dollar deficit.

    — The oil companies caused it, did they? Whichever business that, in your perception, has the most money should be forced to pay off the federal government’s yearly debt? Wow. Talk about the opposite of “he that dies with the most toys, wins”.

    BTW,”record profits” is beginning to sound like a broken record.

    Icy Truth (b55029)

  212. #205, So you suggest we don’t pay for the ridiculous spending?

    I’m with you. Start with Bush’s war, which as ridiculous as that spending was we still have to pay for it. I’m just suggesting we pay for it fairly.

    Oiram (983921)

  213. Because it would crush the economy, raise prices on every single item in the economy, and, in general, is just a painfully tired idea. The entire idea that we should be taking more money from people, or corporations, is horse puckey.

    JD (5f0e11)

  214. #211 Icy, no the oil companies were just playing by the rules formated by the Bush administration which helped contribute to our 500 billion dollar deficit.

    I’m not saying they broke laws, and I’m not saying I wouldn’t do the same if I were in their shoes.
    Still doesn’t make it right.

    Oiram (983921)

  215. Hold onto your wallets, folks. It is talking about fairness. Fairness to them means that people and corporations that actually already pay income taxes will be asked to pay more.

    JD (5f0e11)

  216. I think it would be fair to ask the Teamsters, SEIU, and AFSCME to pay off the deficit.

    JD (5f0e11)

  217. Start with Bush’s war

    That congress overwhelmingly authorized based on 30+ points…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  218. It cracks me up, you guys call me troll. Yet what would you guys do without the few liberals who come to this site?

    Please don’t leave Patterico folks (Great site), but attempt to not preach to your choir. Branch out a bit. You all make good points.

    Oiram (983921)

  219. #216 JD.

    Teamsters, SEIU, and AFSCME, you mean the ones that are helping ensure a middle class in this country which is buying whatever you make a living on?

    Oiram (983921)

  220. #211 Icy, no the oil companies were just playing by the rules formated by the Bush administration which helped contribute to our 500 billion dollar deficit.

    How? By paying far, FAR more in taxes than the entire population of this country combined???

    They have a MASSIVE tax rate which is far higher than yours, not to mention they then have payroll taxes (medicare/cade, Social Security, etc)…

    And you want them to pay more?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  221. #149 Scott Jacobs

    They would be God Damn retarded to take 9%, since their [McDonalds] profit margin for 2007 was 10.25%…

    So McDonalds makes a 10.25% profit w/o a monopoly on distribution (pretty close to one as fast food goes though if you’ve spent anytime on the highways), and w/o the ability to cash in on the fear of a shortage of Big Macs.

    Scott you just made Oiram’s case quite effectively> Also keep in mind that the oil contracts issued by the Iraq gov in June were awarded strictly to American companies and the British Petroleum Co. All other foreign oil co.’s were denied, even if they’d had previous contracts and had already done work:

    Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat. […] The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

    Expectations of these no bid contracts being ‘a done deal” would explain the anemic capital expenditures the big 5 oil co.s have been making in exploration, infrastructure and R&D.

    So Oiram is correct.

    And with apologies for going off topic, something else of curiosity that appeared today in the IHT: Iraq Invites Russian Oil Major Back.

    So Russia gets denied from the lucrative deals carved out the U.S and Brits and attacks Georgia, threatens the BP Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries oil from the Caspian sea through Turkey to the Mediterranean sea and Iraq suddenly offers Russia an oil deal.

    Curious.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  222. Oiram:

    Please don’t leave Patterico folks (Great site), but attempt to not preach to your choir. Branch out a bit. You all make good points.

    Our goal is for everyone else to come here.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  223. Why single out Oil, Oiram? Why not the unions too? Do the oil companies not provide incomes for thousands of families, and produce and distribute the energy that makes our way of life possible? Why one, but not the other?

    JD (5f0e11)

  224. #215 JD, I respect the need to fix the problems of overspending and then complaining about paying too much in taxes. I have nothing but respect for that.

    But, aligning yourself with an administration who has overspent and then not raising taxes to pay for it, it is down right insane.

    Oiram (983921)

  225. “Please don’t leave Patterico folks (Great site), but attempt to not preach to your choir. Branch out a bit. You all make good points.”

    Oiram – Why do you make the assumption that people haven’t commented at other sites? I hung out in Greenwald’s cesspool for almost two years as one of the few conservative commenters. Most of his people couldn’t stand to have alternative viewpoints around, but as long as you weren’t personally insulting to Glenn and could back up what you said, he would not ban you in spite of the encouragement of the other commenters. In that respect he was honorable. Other liberal sites
    I have visited have not been so and just flat out do not welcome any dissent.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  226. Ah yes the delightful unions that have been helping to ensure that good, quality teachers remain in the classrooms to help produce the next generation of well-educated workers and voters. They also do wonders to help grow the economies of large, urban areas making companies want to expand in those locations and provide more union jobs that always pay labor at its worthy rate. Just look at the economies of Detroit and Philadelphia. Wonderful models.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  227. DRJ, sorry, your right. I didn’t tell everyone to leave though. Actually I’ll tell all my leftie whacko friends to visit Patterico 😉

    Paging Roseane Barr and Sean Penn……. just kidding, I wouldn’t subject you all to their nonsense.

    Oiram (983921)

  228. Oiram – Your assumption is that you can simply tax your way out of a deficit. Lowering tax rates can, and usually does increase revenues. Raising taxes can decrease revenues. You start at the assumption of raising taxes to fix the problem. I think that is a problem in and if itself.

    JD (5f0e11)

  229. I wouldn’t subject you all to their nonsense.

    That you consider their words to be nonsense tells me that there is hope for you yet… :)

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  230. Scott, at 190: certainly. Record high profits imply record high revenue, which implies (but doesn’t guarantee) record high taxes.

    JD, at 227: while lowering tax rates can increase revenues, that really only works to a point. (The obvious case of this is that lowering tax rates to 0% will not increase revenue).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  231. #205 Oiram

    So you suggest we don’t pay for the ridiculous spending?

    You must take reading lessons from love2008. Where is any suggestion along those lines? But, if you want to go there… fine.

    If we agree to stop paying for ridiculous spending, let’s vote directly by being able to designate where our taxes are spent. You don’t get to arbitrarily decide where we start. I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ll repeat it. I think the Iraq War and the Global War on Terror would get fully funded far ahead of most (if not all) programs you designated for your votes/tax dollars. As a matter of fact, I would bet the government would be reduced by 50% almost immediately.

    Also, it’s not “Bush’s War”, it’s “America’s War”. Even yours.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  232. Correction: That was in response to Oiram’s #212, not my own #205.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  233. Agreed, aphrael. I was simply pointing out that the reflexive “raise taxes on evil profit makers” is not the magic elixir that the Left portrays it to be.

    Plus, Baracky does not even hide behind some nebulous idea of fairness. His idea is a punitive windfall profits tax. At least he is honest in that regard.

    JD (5f0e11)

  234. #220, Scott. BTW. Sorry I haven’t been able to respond to everything. I’m giving you an opportunity to school a Democrat here.

    I’m posing a question.

    Is it possible to own a business making a small profit, let’s say 50,000 per year, and still have payroll taxes (medicare/cade, Social Security, etc? Lots of employees even?

    Of course it’s possible, this is America right?

    But will that little, lets call it Mom and Pop shop pay the same percentage as a big corporation?

    I understand what you all are saying about oil companies paying more taxes than any other business. I get that.

    But that doesn’t mean they are paying their fair share when compared to a Mom and Pop business.

    Scott, you asked me “And you want them to pay more?”

    You bet I do.

    Oiram (983921)

  235. You bet I do.

    And you were also asked, why them? Why not entertainment, or another industry (professional sports comes to mind)? Why single out the oil industry except that you’ve been told by your leaders that they are the cause of evil and discontent? If only they paid their “fair share”, everything would be sweetness and light, right?

    You really don’t understand why they are targeted and other industries aren’t, do you?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  236. #230, stashiu3

    I agree with you on one point.

    You wrote:
    “Also, it’s not “Bush’s War”, it’s “America’s War”. Even yours.”

    I’m not prepared to give up on this country, and move, therefore yes it is my war. :(

    Oiram (983921)

  237. stashiu3 #234, I’m sorry if you thought I was singling out the oil corporations. It probably seems that way with this convoluted thread here (I’m partly to blame I guess).

    No absolutely, all corporations should pay fair taxes.

    Again, I’m not expecting to pay it voluntarily, there just needs to be oversight when it comes to all of the ridiculous loopholes they rely on to create untold wealth.

    Oiram (983921)

  238. Well, how do you know that oil companies aren’t paying “fair taxes” without having any data? It also sounds like you advocate a flat tax for both corporations and individuals since any difference might seem unfair.

    How about it? Flat tax? Or designate where our taxes go? Keep the same system until you understand it? Or make blind changes and hope things work out fairly? What’s your recommended course beyond saying someone else should be paying more?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  239. Heaven forbid they create wealth! Good Allah. That is why they exist. If you want fair, then we should have a flat tax.

    JD (5f0e11)

  240. #234, Wouldn’t that help make everything” sweetness and light”?

    “You really don’t understand why they are targeted and other industries aren’t, do you?”

    When you say “They” do you mean Mom and Pops paying more taxes?

    Oiram (983921)

  241. Did I mention Mom and Pops anywhere? Context. But, to spell it out I will revise my question (even though having to do it reflects more on you than me).

    You really don’t understand why the oil companies are targeted and other industries aren’t, do you?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  242. JD: If we had the information to do it, I would want a flat tax on the utility of a dollar.

    Which is to say: the utility of an individual instance of any good (including dollars) goes down as the number of them you have goes up.

    A single dollar is worth more to a man who has none than to a man who has ten thousand.

    So … ideally, each dollar would be taxed in such a fashion that the amount of utility paid in taxes is the same.

    (But this is utterly impractical and unimplementable; the progressive tax scheme is at best a rather weak approximation).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  243. Oiram –

    Corporate income tax returns make up 2% of the total number of returns filed; the amount of income tax paid by corporations is 22% of the total income tax dollars collected by the IRS. That number does not include employment taxes.

    Icy Truth (b55029)

  244. Icy Truth: those two statistics would be slightly more informative if it also included the percentage of total income received by corporations.

    22% of total income tax dollars on 2% of returns might be right if the corporations in question received 22% of total income.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  245. #240, You ask a vague question, and then have the nerve to say to me “(even though having to do it reflects more on you than me).”

    I’m not a mind reader.

    I’ll admit I’m not that smart if you admit you don’t know how to talk to someone who is not intellectually your equal.

    In other words, give up your teaching job.

    Oiram (983921)

  246. #242, ICY I’ve heard that all before, but it doesn’t mean they are paying their fair share. It helps them to create larger wealth an monopolize their industry. I guess this room is o.k. with that though.

    Weird, I don’t see it.

    Oiram (983921)

  247. aphrael – Why? I do not understand the idea that people that can afford to pay more should pay more.

    JD (5f0e11)

  248. aphrael,

    What that means is that the more productive someone is, the higher percentage you take from them. How is that fair when that money is distributed to the less productive? I see it as a disincentive to success. It also means larger government to assess, collect, manage, and distribute that money (which is why the IRS is so large).

    We need less government, not more. Let government be fee-for-service again. People pay taxes to support the services they want and use. If they can’t get enough people to fund it, it doesn’t need to be there.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  249. Apparently Oiram thinks that $4 a gallon for gas is not enough.

    JD (5f0e11)

  250. JD: it means that the value lost to taxation is equal for every dollar taxed; that is, that the pain of taxation is spread evenly.

    Stashiu3: this really depends on the meaning of “more”. My argument is that “more” is properly measured by the amount of lost utility (that is, the actual value to the person), rather than the nominal value.

    The fundamental flaws in this are (a) it’s difficult to impossible to determine the utility of a dollar for any given person, and (b) the opacity of the process would make sustaining political support impossible.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  251. You ask a vague question, and then have the nerve to say to me…

    I doubt that question was vague to anyone else, but yeah… I’ve got nerve. Plenty. I’ll continue to assume I’m talking to adults and if you fall behind again, happily revise anything you don’t understand. As I said, it reflects more on you than me.

    Answer the question instead of avoiding it again. You took the time to respond, why not answer?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  252. Oiram-

    Uder the current Federal income tax system, your mom and pop shop making $50,000 in profit pays a 15% tax rate. the tax rate is 25% on the next $25K, and then varies in a seemingly random manner between 34-39%.

    So Mom and Pop are already paying lower tax rates than big oil or any other, more profitable company.

    MartyH (52fae7)

  253. #243 – aphrael

    those two statistics would be slightly more informative if it also included the percentage of total income received by corporations.

    — Here’s the link; somebody else sort all of this out. My head hurts:

    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html

    — I much more enjoy dissecting people like lemon head anyway.

    Icy Truth (b55029)

  254. aphrael – To me, that seems like an even worse system than we have now. As is, an increasingly shrinking number of taxpayers actually pay the taxes. When the majority can impose their wishes, funded with someone else’s cash, it seems fundamentally unfair.

    JD (5f0e11)

  255. aphrael #249,

    My argument is that “more” is properly measured by the amount of lost utility (that is, the actual value to the person), rather than the nominal value.

    This assumes that money has an intrinsic value. It doesn’t. It represents value of services or goods, but on it’s own it is paper. The utility function you’re talking about has already been accomplished by someone producing something and being paid for it. The more it’s worth to the buyer, the more they can get paid. This applies whether it’s work, art, trades, entertainment, advice, whatever. The reason that person (or corporation) has more is because what they provided was worth more to whoever paid them.

    Taking more from the most successful producers is counter-productive at best. Look at how the tax brackets are now. Some people turn down a raise because it will put them in a higher bracket and they’ll end up with less money. How is that fair? Also, it matters it your man with one dollar once had a million dollars and blew it on hookers, gambling, and booze compared to your man with ten thousand dollars who scrimped and saved it from lesser earnings. That can’t really be adjusted for either unless you want to decide what people can or can’t spend their money on.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  256. This assumes that money has an intrinsic value.

    No; I don’t care about intrinsic value. I care about the value the dollar has for the individual being taxed which will, of course, vary from individual to individual.

    The utility function you’re talking about has already been accomplished by someone producing something and being paid for it.

    I think we’re measuring different things.

    The reason that person (or corporation) has more is because what they provided was worth more to whoever paid them.

    OK, fair enough. But what i’m interested in is what is the value of that dollar to the person receiving it? That can’t really be measured in nominal terms, nor can it be measured by the value to the purchaser of whatever they exchanged for the dollars.

    Taking more from the most successful producers is counter-productive at best.

    That’s not quite what I’m advocating; I’m advocating taking an equal amount of value from each dollar.

    Some people turn down a raise because it will put them in a higher bracket and they’ll end up with less money. How is that fair?

    Those people are misinformed: tax brackets don’t work that way. Only the amount earned *in excess of the boundary* is taxed at the new rate, so if you go from, say, 90K to 110K and the bracket line is 100K, only the last 10K will be taxed at the newer rate. As long as the tax rate on that 10K is less than 100%, you can’t make less money after-tax with an income of 110K than you did with an income of 90K.

    There are three things which sort of break this down:

    a) certain deductions / credits phase out at given income levels (a practice I think should be stopped).
    b) the rules for putting you into the AMT are bizarre and don’t seem to be susceptible to simple description
    c) for people who have really low incomes, crossing the line between 0% tax and some tax can result in less net income (due to the way things like the EITC phase out).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  257. As is, an increasingly shrinking number of taxpayers actually pay the taxes.

    Then why does a system which requires that everyone be hurt equally by taxes seem unfair to you? :) ISTM that – should it be practical, which it isn’t – such a system is vastly preferable to a system in which those who have fewer resources are hurt more. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  258. MartyH @ #251…
    Don’t forget that our mythical M&P would have to pay payroll taxes of 14+% on that 50K if they are sole-proprietors.

    Another Drew (813962)

  259. Another complication for aphrael…
    It would be very difficult to devise a tax code that would deal with business profits the same as individual earnings; in that, business can have profits and losses, individuals only have earnings – unless, of course, they are heavily invested in capital-gains activity that can generate losses that may off-set their personal income. But, I don’t think you really mean to come to the defense of individuals who have so much investment income/loss that it would overshadow their personal earnings, do you?

    Another Drew (813962)

  260. Those people are misinformed: tax brackets don’t work that way.

    Then so was I (not that I was ever in much danger of it happening to me… you can look at military pay scales and see that, lol). Thank you.

    OK, fair enough. But what i’m interested in is what is the value of that dollar to the person receiving it?

    If we ever implement your system and I care a bit less about my money (not enough to give it up, but enough to stop lazing away Sunday afternoons rolling around in it), do I get to keep more? I’ll sign something that says it’s worth less to me if I then get to keep more of it. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  261. #250 Stashiu3, (Busy here, all I have time for Brothers)

    Stashiu3,

    Your intellectual superiority is akin to Lex Luther. Sorry about the name calling, but when you refer to me as a child like in #250, you got it coming.

    You ask me questions without referring to comment numbers (brilliant). I even told you that I don’t think that oil companies should be singled out. I’m sure you didn’t read that part, I don’t hold that against you there’s a lot to read.

    Keep asking vague questions Lex. I’m sure you look like a rock star to your hench men.

    Oiram (983921)

  262. Oiram #214 – the oil companies were just playing by the rules formated by the Bush administration which helped contribute to our 500 billion dollar deficit.
    Do you dispute #193, in which Jack Klompus asserts that Exxon/Mobile pays $3 in tax for every $1 profit – (in other words, effectively 75% of the money left over after costs goes to taxes)? If you dispute this, please back it up. If you do not, how can you assert that Exxon/Mobile pays less tax than individuals, where the average tax rate since 1979 is 21.6%? If 75% of the money after costs goes to taxes, and this is how the Bush administration fellates the oil companies, I hate to think about what your solution would be.

    There is a deliberate treatment of corporations as though they were individuals by the left (as exemplified by the questions regarding tax rates). Corporations, especially large ones, are groups of individuals conducting business under a single entity. Corporations are formed to do business, and as such are entirely different than individuals, who have no choice to dissolve as an individual. Individuals are not formed to do business, as is rightly recognized in the tax codes. One might as well argue about the unfairness of family pets not having to file taxes at all.

    Also contradictory is Oiram’s admission that we should address government’s ridiculous spending by suggesting that we pay for that ridiculous spending fairly. Why would you concentrate on the method of payment for something you admit is ridiculous, rather than suggesting that government reduce spending?

    As for “paying their fair share”, how about the government? The government isn’t free, but its productivity and effectiveness are never questioned by the left. Why is the government exempt from scrutiny regarding how the taxed money is spent? If a government program is performing inefficiently, shouldn’t the program be re-worked to improve efficiency? And shouldn’t an ineffective program be eliminated? The costs of ineffective and inefficient government programs are also a drain on the available resources that the populace requires for a civil society, yet they continue to remain invisible, in preference to simplistic boogeymen.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  263. Stashiu3…re #261:
    See, it’s just not worth it!

    Another Drew (813962)

  264. Oiram,

    Where exactly did I call you a child? My comment was #251, not #250… but even there I don’t refer to you as a child. Actually, I don’t even imply it as (again, context) it assumes you are an adult, albeit a slow one apparently (from your description of yourself).

    I read your comment about believing oil companies should not be singled out. It doesn’t answer whether or not you know why they consistently are, which I’m now convinced you don’t. Fine. The fact is that you responded (#245) to the post in question (#241) by getting offended, but still not answering the question, then acting like you weren’t sure which question I referred to (despite having to revise it for you).

    Now, I haven’t called you names or joined in with anyone who has. In fact, I expressly distanced myself from it in #205. Please show me where this is not true so I understand fully why I “had it coming.”

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  265. If we ever implement your system and I care a bit less about my money (not enough to give it up, but enough to stop lazing away Sunday afternoons rolling around in it), do I get to keep more?

    Yes. Which is of course another flaw: self-reporting is unreliable, but what other mechanism would we have to determine utility?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  266. Another Drew: I don’t see any reason to discriminate between different classes of income if we’re taxing utility.

    For that matter, in the current tax system, i’d just as soon have capital gains taxed as ordinary income and allow offset for all capital loss, even if it exceeds capital gains. It would be a simpler system, for one thing, and it wouldn’t carry the taint of discrimination which the current system does.

    That said, you raise a good point about corporate income tax; it’s really not clear that the same model would work there. Perhaps we’d have to treat all corporations as partnerships, where the income is realized by the shareholder?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  267. AD, it’s worth it to show our hosts when someone is not commenting in good faith. Next time I call someone out as a troll (and I’m not doing so, even indirectly, here) there will be plenty of evidence for it besides scanning the last few comments when they were on good behavior.

    My mistake before was going by my own impressions and not having anything to back it up ready. So I apologized and have been on my best behavior with those two since then. Which will continue until there is absolutely no doubt about who is commenting in good faith and who isn’t.

    love2008 is not the only one who clearly comments dishonestly, but every time she does now, she can expect a likely response that proves it. Others can expect the same when the time comes.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  268. aphrael,

    If we have to have an income tax (and I still say we should go back to fee-for-service), and the most important criteria is fairness, then a flat-tax is the only solution. Anything else will get distorted, manipulated, and taken advantage of by those willing to cheat. I don’t really like even a flat-tax model, but it would be fairer than the current system.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9722 secs.