TexasCHLforum.com

Not an everyday occurrence for her at the Houston Chomical:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 05693.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amazes me that so people believe that THEIR team winning, is somehow a win for themselves. It won't be long before Obama does something that will turn all his supporters against him.

Remember what Biden said about Obama being tested?

He's already flip flopped on tax reductions. Two days after the election was over Obama stated tax cuts may have to wait.

And speaking of idiotic tax policies:

Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue

Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.

A: What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Bar ... Reform.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the most historic thing here is that his race is NOT even in the top 20 lists of things people don't like about him.

nitrogen wrote:I think the most historic thing here is that his race is NOT even in the top 20 lists of things people don't like about him.

You are correct, that is quite historic. And that, for those who can't understand it, is why Colin Powell, Condi Rice and Jesse Jackson were beside themselves on Tuesday. One thing that I thought should have been noted was the majority of people who do have a problem with Obama's race are DEMOCRATS!!!!! I am not giving Republicans a free pass here as I think the party has it's own flaws. Still, it kills me to see people blindly aligning themselves with and voting for a party that has no more respect for them than plantation owners had for their ancestors.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

nitrogen wrote:I think the most historic thing here is that his race is NOT even in the top 20 lists of things people don't like about him.

. . . One thing that I thought should have been noted was the majority of people who do have a problem with Obama's race are DEMOCRATS!!!!! I am not giving Republicans a free pass here as I think the party has it's own flaws. Still, it kills me to see people blindly aligning themselves with and voting for a party that has no more respect for them than plantation owners had for their ancestors.

Very well said.

Chas.

Obama's election to the Presidency is indeed historically significant on account of his mixed race heritage. But funny how the media and certain others put the emphasis on his black half. To them, it's like the white part didn't run for office and gets no credit.

Without the support of significant numbers of white voters, Obama would not have won in the popular election, despite the overwhelming black and hispanic votes he received. At 46 per cent of the electorate for McCain versus 54 per cent for Obama, it was hardly the landslide victory some are making it out to be.

casingpoint wrote:Obama's election to the Presidency is indeed historically significant on account of his mixed race heritage. But funny how the media and certain others put the emphasis on his black half. To them, it's like the white part didn't run for office and gets no credit.

Without the support of significant numbers of white voters, Obama would not have won in the popular election, despite the overwhelming black and hispanic votes he received. At 46 per cent of the electorate for McCain versus 54 per cent for Obama, it was hardly the landslide victory some are making it out to be.

To be fair, the primary reason people keep calling the man “Black” is because Obama identified himself as Black first. Everyone knows of Obama's mixed heritage but, it was Obama who chose to identify himself as Black. Further, no one will ever look at Obama and accuse him of being anything but Black. Now if his lips were thinner, his nose narrower, his hair a little more like silk and less like Brillo pad, and his skin more pale/pink than dark/brown, then Obama probably could and would have identified himself as White and no one would have known the difference or cared. But, that's not the case and the fact is his features generally identify him as a Black man.

The point lurking here is that I disagree with your statement "...it's like the white part didn't run for office and gets no credit." Last time I checked, it doesn't workout well to cut the baby in half. You vote for the whole man or someone else. I voted for McCain even thought I thought we were screwed either way. To that end, I don’t think there’s "credit" to be given to either side of the man's heritage. As you noted, the Black and Latino vote just isn't that big. So it would seem the "credit," if there is any to be given, should be given to the American people (White, Black, Brown or Other) who didn't hold his heritage against him given our history or the stereotypes we perpetuate.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:The point lurking here is that I disagree with your statement "...it's like the white part didn't run for office and gets no credit." Last time I checked, it doesn't workout well to cut the baby in half. You vote for the whole man or someone else. I voted for McCain even thought I thought we were screwed either way. To that end, I don’t think there’s "credit" to be given to either side of the man's heritage. As you noted, the Black and Latino vote just isn't that big. So it would seem the "credit," if there is any to be given, should be given to the American people (White, Black, Brown or Other) who didn't hold his heritage against him given our history or the stereotypes we perpetuate.

Excellent point that can't be emphasized enough. He wasn't elected by one group, but by all groups (at least racially) of Americans.

Obama identified himself as Black first

That was to run on, to keep the minority vote from splintering. Now that he is headed to the "White House," black America will find Obama is no "brother."

You can split the baby any way you want if you're the baby. Now watch this con artist go to work on the American people.

OK, I get it...No point in confusing you with the facts because you've already made up your mind about how things are going to go. And apparently you've got all us "brothas" pegged and you know how we all think...

G.C.Montgomery wrote: OK, I get it...No point in confusing you with the facts because you've already made up your mind about how things are going to go. And apparently you've got all us "brothas" pegged and you know how we all think...

97% of we have a pretty good idea about

Chicago politics..but this time is country wide!!

WarHawk-AVG wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote: OK, I get it...No point in confusing you with the facts because you've already made up your mind about how things are going to go. And apparently you've got all us "brothas" pegged and you know how we all think...

97% of we have a pretty good idea about

Chicago politics..but this time is country wide!!

I certainly agree, we do know 97% of Chicago's politics and how the Daley crowd works. And yeah, it's a shame that show will now be nationwide. But a whole lot of folks from very different walks of life voted for it and all I can do is hope the classic Presidential honeymoon comes to an abrupt end.

I truly hope the Republicans finally take some notes, apply the lessons available to them and figure out how to grow the base without abandoning their best principals. It's hearts and minds folks...The party must take the time out of its day to explain to EVERYONE (regardless of heritage) why their way is better as opposed to assuming it's intuitively obvious. And they can't just preach to the choir because the pool of folks singing the same song is shrinking.

G.C.Montgomery wrote: It's hearts and minds folks...The party must take the time out of its day to explain to EVERYONE (regardless of heritage) why their way is better as opposed to assuming it's intuitively obvious. And they can't just preach to the choir because the pool of folks singing the same song is shrinking.

Deserves repeating.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:I truly hope the Republicans finally take some notes, apply the lessons available to them and figure out how to grow the base without abandoning their best principals. It's hearts and minds folks...The party must take the time out of its day to explain to EVERYONE (regardless of heritage) why their way is better as opposed to assuming it's intuitively obvious. And they can't just preach to the choir because the pool of folks singing the same song is shrinking.

The Ron Paul rallies were amazingly diverse, given how the libertarian crowd tends to be white and geeky. I believe this was a direct result of the strength of the message, not playing to any crowd.

People really do respond to the message of freedom and individual liberty; the rest of the GOP should try it sometime. As Dr. Paul said so often, "Freedom is popular!"