565 replies to this topic

[inawe]

Sarah Barracuda keeps referring to the 18 million people who voted for Hillary. Assuming an hoping these 18 million, since they voted for
Hillary, will now vote for her ticket. I voted for Hillary and I find this very insulting. It assumes these 18 million people are retads who vote for gender (or race, or whatever) and
not for the quality of the candidate. I voted for Hillary because I thought that, of all candidates, she had the best track record, ideas
and the possibility of carry them out.
So I do feel offended and I'll be justified in being offensive on my part.

8 years ago journalists were using the word "gravitas". Since Bush didn't have much himself, in picking Cheney Bush was grabbing some
gravitas.
Now it's McCain's turn. He went for gravitits. What's he trying to grab?

Palin[drome] = spelled in either direction is the wrong ticket.

[mike250]

Sarah Barracuda keeps referring to the 18 million people who voted for Hillary. Assuming an hoping these 18 million, since they voted for
Hillary, will now vote for her ticket. I voted for Hillary and I find this very insulting. It assumes these 18 million people are retads who vote for gender (or race, or whatever) and
not for the quality of the candidate. I voted for Hillary because I thought that, of all candidates, she had the best track record, ideas
and the possibility of carry them out.
So I do feel offended and I'll be justified in being offensive on my part.

8 years ago journalists were using the word "gravitas". Since Bush didn't have much himself, in picking Cheney Bush was grabbing some
gravitas.
Now it's McCain's turn. He went for gravitits. What's he trying to grab?

Palin[drome] = spelled in either direction is the wrong ticket.

Her speech was the best out of the bunch at the DNC. She would make a much better VP than Biden thats for sure (too little too late). Obama's speech was the same old stuff we've heard about before. The actions remain to be seen.

Edited by mike250, 31 August 2008 - 03:52 PM.

[AdamSummerfield]

I don't like the sound of her. She objected to the labelling of polar bears as endangered species seemingly so that oil drilling could continue in Alaska. I think people are not questioning her ability as a politician enough and are encouraging her being the next vice president simply because she's "the girl next door".

Edited by AdamSummerfield, 31 August 2008 - 07:06 PM.

[Athanasios]

She objected to the labelling of polar bears as endangered species

Not a surprise if she still has doubts on global warming. The population of polar bears is currently stable but was proposed to be put on the list because of a suspected decline in the future due to global warming.

[Heliotrope]

i don't like her fundamentalist views either. like someone said, palin and mccain are not gonna promote scientific developments, certainl y not as techno-progressive as obama. granted, mccain has some longevity genes, his mother is like 96 and still going strong, but when he becomes POTUS, i worry the most stressful job on earth is gonna send him to early grave and then we're left with an inexperienced sarah barracuda

i actually knew her name before this summer season b/c i was researching into alaska's il and was even contemplating to visit alaska/live there for a short while (somehow i used to be attracted to alaska, esp hearing from friends, and learned of this new governor and some senators) . interesting her wiki profile is edited to be quite a few pages long now and protected. it was a few short paragraphs and 1 picture just months ago

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Sarah_Palin


and the "first dude " got a page too , lol, http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Todd_Palin

Edited by HYP86, 01 September 2008 - 01:24 AM.

[Shannon Vyff]

Funny, HYP86 I think Alaskans would know her bette that I since I've not actually heard of her before, here is an Alaskan blogger's viewpoint:

http://mudflats.word...ns-perspective/

and commentary on the views of those who know her:

http://www.washingto...8_08/014477.php

I loved the following word written by a fellow Austinite:

"Remember how poorly the McCain campaign has vetted people in the past...and apparently he only met her once, briefly, before they started the VP selection process.

Already there are reports coming out that Palin was for the "bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it...That's going to make the "fiscal discipline" claim a tough sell. And since Austin has a larger population than the state of Alaska, I think Kirk Watson is more qualified to be president.

Her big selling point is appeasement to social conservatives. Whether this will motivate the base to get out the vote or donate money, we'll see.

I'm sure that the balanced-budget statements will be all over the news...I wonder if the small population, massive government subsidies (Alaska should have the nickname "The Welfare State"-it's time we start taxing those GOP f*ckers up there), and huge oil profits will be discussed at the same time. It's a bit akin to lauding the Amir of Kuwait for balancing the budget.

McCain could have made a much better choice, such as Olympia Snowe, although this would have angered his neocon masters...and yeah, he's replaced all his advisors with neocons and Rove clones-at the beginning of his campaign he had some reasonable foreign policy advisors.

I guess he can always just hope that the Republican dominated media will keep the fake maverick persona alive through the election."


___

Agreed! There are many other women who would be a better example of "breaking the glass ceiling" (or just being ethical and not firing those who don't support you...)

[Connor MacLeod]

Her speech was the best out of the bunch at the DNC. She would make a much better VP than Biden thats for sure (too little too late).

True, but it would have made Obama appear weak to have a strong woman like Clinton on the ticket.

[Connor MacLeod]

http://www.dailykos....8/30/121350/137
The evidence is still circumstantial, but it is still growing. Oh man McCain is boned. Although I'm still agnostic on the issue, I'm sorta now actually leaning towards believing this story, that Sarah Palin is NOT the mother of her 5th child, who helped her gain political points with pro-lifers. I went to parochial school, this shit definitely does happen. I feel so bad for Sarah's daughter and granddaughter(?)...

Big deal. I heard Barack Hussien Obama is actually a closet muslim and eats Christians babies for breakfast.

[TianZi]

This just in:

http://thecaucus.blo...er-is-pregnant/

The New York Times at the above link has reported the announcement by Sarah Palin that her 17 year old daughter Bristol is 5 months pregnant. The announcement is intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Trig is in fact the daughter of Bristol, and not Sarah, Palin. (????) Huh?

Color me baffled. However you slice it, not a victory for Sarah Palin's "abstinence only" sex education programs for teens.

[biknut]

This just in:

http://thecaucus.blo...er-is-pregnant/

The New York Times at the above link has reported the announcement by Sarah Palin that her 17 year old daughter Bristol is 5 months pregnant. The announcement is intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Trig is in fact the daughter of Bristol, and not Sarah, Palin. (????) Huh?

Color me baffled. However you slice it, not a victory for Sarah Palin's "abstinence only" sex education programs for teens.

You got some kind of problem with that? I hope the left keeps attacking Palin's family. The more they do the the more they make themselves look bad. BTW, Obama's turning all shades of red about this one. His mother was 18 when he was born. Life happens.

[modelcadet]

I think I finally get what Rove is up to this cycle: It's the Britney/Paris/Lindsay/etc., effect. He's Laguna Beach-ing the political process, and he intends to win with it.

[biknut]

Color me baffled. However you slice it, not a victory for Sarah Palin's "abstinence only" sex education programs for teens.

Quite a contrast to Obama's statement that if his daughter makes a mistake, she shouldn't be punished with a baby.

[biknut]

How can this be? Shouldn't the Messiah be far ahead of Bush's twin brother, McCain, at this point in time? Even most Republicans don't like McCain.

8/30/2008

Zogby Poll: Equilibrium in the POTUS Race!
Brash McCain pick of AK Gov. Palin neutralizes historic Obama speech, stunts the Dems' convention bounce

McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

http://www.zogby.com...adNews1547.html

[inawe]

This just in:

http://thecaucus.blo...er-is-pregnant/

The New York Times at the above link has reported the announcement by Sarah Palin that her 17 year old daughter Bristol is 5 months pregnant. The announcement is intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Trig is in fact the daughter of Bristol, and not Sarah, Palin. (????) Huh?

Color me baffled. However you slice it, not a victory for Sarah Palin's "abstinence only" sex education programs for teens.

Hey, are you a communist? Or worse, a liberal?
"A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites
and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream media outlets"

One new baby in the Palin family, blame it on the liberals.
Two new babies. Of course is the liberals fault.
We are involved in a war in which thousand of young Americans died. These dirty liberals.
Trillions of dollars are being waisted in that war. Commie liberals.
The economy is tanking. Liberal doing.

[biknut]

This just in:

http://thecaucus.blo...er-is-pregnant/

The New York Times at the above link has reported the announcement by Sarah Palin that her 17 year old daughter Bristol is 5 months pregnant. The announcement is intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Trig is in fact the daughter of Bristol, and not Sarah, Palin. (????) Huh?

Color me baffled. However you slice it, not a victory for Sarah Palin's "abstinence only" sex education programs for teens.

Hey, are you a communist? Or worse, a liberal?
"A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites
and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream media outlets"

One new baby in the Palin family, blame it on the liberals.
Two new babies. Of course is the liberals fault.
We are involved in a war in which thousand of young Americans died. These dirty liberals.
Trillions of dollars are being waisted in that war. Commie liberals.
The economy is tanking. Liberal doing.

So sorry, but the Story is a lie. The picture they refer to was taken in 2006, but the baby was born in 2008. The fact that there even is a story like that, and even more, that anyone believes it is evidence of just how desperate the left is now. I hope they keep this up because it's going to backfire on them.

And BTW the economy grew at 3.3% last QTR. That would have been considered great growth under Clinton. You could make a case that the economy is troubled because of the liberals. The problem people are having now is caused by high fuel costs. The liberals are the ones blocking new drilling. Since Bush declared that we should open up the continental shelf for drilling a few weeks ago, the price of oil has been dropping daily. Not 10 years later like the liberals said it would take.

[PWAIN]

Seeing something like this would actually make me vote for Obama despite being a conservative.



Together with her creationist beliefs and possibly illigitimate daughter (while appealing to religious types) I think this may be a turning point in the campaign but it will probably only be realised after the election. I see a lot of reasons NOT to like her and very few to like her. Sure gun nuts will love her as will creationists but they likely vote for mccain regardless.

Polls don't tell who is actually going to turn up on polling day. Traditionaly this has been a Democrat weakness but I suspect that the the tables may be turned on this election.

[niner]

Well, the Republicans like to claim they are for family values... Now Ms. Palin's little girl went out and got herself knocked up! The question is, are she and the baby going to live in Mom and Dad's trailer, or will she get her own?

Is this what they call vetting? Anyone want to trust these people to run a government?

[niner]

You got some kind of problem with that? I hope the left keeps attacking Palin's family. The more they do the the more they make themselves look bad. BTW, Obama's turning all shades of red about this one. His mother was 18 when he was born. Life happens.

Biknut, just answer this one little question: What would the Right have done if, say, Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant (out of wedlock, no less) at 16?

[biknut]

You got some kind of problem with that? I hope the left keeps attacking Palin's family. The more they do the the more they make themselves look bad. BTW, Obama's turning all shades of red about this one. His mother was 18 when he was born. Life happens.

Biknut, just answer this one little question: What would the Right have done if, say, Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant (out of wedlock, no less) at 16?

That's a fair question. I hope nothing, but probably not. My guess is she'd have gotten an abortion anyway, but I'm not judging that. I feel like it's none of my business. I think abortion in general is none of my business. It's one of the things I wish Republicans would change there views on. Drugs is another. The more telling thing would be how it was handled. If word got out, would the truth be told, or would an attempt be made to covere it up? That's what would be important to me, because it tells me alot about the persons character.

I think a lot of people are missing the point about this issue. It's not the parents fault the daughter got prego. What's important is how it's handled. So many people on both sides like to tell you how to live and what they think is right, but when it comes down to themselves, often they turn out to be hypocrites. Look at algore and his big damn gas lights, and old model gas guzzling private Lear jet......But anyway Palin talks pro life, but when life smacks her in the face, like it tends to do all of us from time to time, she showed courage and conviction of her principals, and practiced what she preaches. She didn't abort her downs syndrome child, and now she's not hiding her daughters pregnancy, nor should she. It tells me volumes about her character.

Remember Billy carter? Remember Hillary's brother? Bill Clinton's affairs? Why is this such a big deal?

[biknut]

Well, the Republicans like to claim they are for family values... Now Ms. Palin's little girl went out and got herself knocked up! The question is, are she and the baby going to live in Mom and Dad's trailer, or will she get her own?

Is this what they call vetting? Anyone want to trust these people to run a government?

This shows a real lack of class on your part. What this girl does in none of our business. What she says she's going to do is marry the father. I thought Domocrats didn't care if parents were married anyway as long as they take care of business and care for the child, or was that hippy's, I forget.

[niner]

But anyway Palin talks pro life, but when life smacks her in the face, like it tends to do all of us from time to time, she showed courage and conviction of her principals, and practiced what she preaches. She didn't abort her downs syndrome child, and now she's not hiding her daughters pregnancy, nor should she. It tells me volumes about her character.

Remember Billy carter? Remember Hillary's brother? Bill Clinton's affairs? Why is this such a big deal?

Palin didn't abort her Downs baby, but then she probably didn't know that it was going to have Downs, since if you aren't willing to abort, there's not much reason to do amniocentesis testing. If she knew the child would have Downs when it was early enough to abort, and chose not to, then that would indeed show that she had the courage of her convictions. Not to mention the resources that a governor can marshall to care for such a child.

From what I've read, it sounds like the Palins did in fact try to hide their daughter's pregnancy, and only went public when the cat was already out of the bag.

I think this really is different than Carter's oafish brother or Clinton's affairs; here's why: Palin and her conservative brethren are telling other people how to live their lives. They are telling them that reproductive freedom should not be allowed. They are holding themselves up as moral superiors. This event shows the failure of the abstinence-only plan, so it's a pretty big deal. It's at least as big a deal as Al Gore's household energy consumption, about which reams have been written. The other thing about it that I find pretty disturbing is the sheer incompetence evidenced by the McCain campaign in this pick. If they can blow something like this, how well are they going to handle Pakistan, or the economy?

[biknut]

From what I've read, it sounds like the Palins did in fact try to hide their daughter's pregnancy, and only went public when the cat was already out of the bag.

I think this really is different than Carter's oafish brother or Clinton's affairs; here's why: Palin and her conservative brethren are telling other people how to live their lives. They are telling them that reproductive freedom should not be allowed. They are holding themselves up as moral superiors. This event shows the failure of the abstinence-only plan, so it's a pretty big deal. It's at least as big a deal as Al Gore's household energy consumption, about which reams have been written. The other thing about it that I find pretty disturbing is the sheer incompetence evidenced by the McCain campaign in this pick. If they can blow something like this, how well are they going to handle Pakistan, or the economy?

I agree that telling someone they can or can't have an abortion is not cool. Every woman should be allowed to make the decision they feel is right for their situation. I've never known of any woman that had an abortion that was happy about it. Not being a woman though, it's not a make or break issue for me. If I was a female it probably would be a much bigger deal, but I'm not sure I'd trade my freedom to get it, and that's what I feel the Democrats want to take away.


This isn't a perfect world and it's never going to be. Voting for president is more a choice of the lesser evil. A bigger issue for me is redistribution of wealth. Even though I don't have much, tell the government to keep their damn hands off what little I've got. I worked hard for it, and it's mine. The government already takes more than they deserve. Bush made it a tiny little bit less. Obama will take more, a lot more. I do have a lot of other issues, but it would take too long to discuss each one right now. Basically I am a independent person and want less government control and more individual freedom. I can't see how the Democrats will promote that for me, and the Republicans are only slightly better, but that's the only choice we get.

I believe and hope that someone can have beliefs that they live their life by, but still realize that everyone doesn't feel the same way, and have enough compassion to allow people to make decisions different from what they think is right. Like having an abortion, or owning a gun. I read that one of the first decisions Palin made as Governor was to veto a bill that would have denied benefits to gay partners of state employees. If that's true it makes me think she might do the same on other issues possibly like abortion. She's also probably not to hard on pot either since she said she smoked it.

I'll also say that's not out of the realm of possibility that Obama might be the same, but I have more doubts about him because the people he looked up to when growing up, and in college, were Communists and Marxist's. If Obama gets elected I think he's going to be one of the biggest puppets ever. To some degree probably all presidents are.

[TianZi]

I think it's odd this disclosure was touted as a "counter" to claims that Trig was actually Bristol's child, and not Sarah's. A DNA test comparing Trig's and Sarah's husband's DNA would have been sufficient to kill this rumor, assuming the child is indeed Sarah's. Or even a birth certificate. Or just don't mention the internet rumors at all, because by doing so you just add fuel to the fire.

Teen pregnancies happen, and parents can't be entirely blamed for one. But if the same child has two back-to-back babies as a teen, this would indicate parental failure.

I don't think that's the case, but I still can't make sense of why Sarah Palin, after noticing amniotic fluid running down her leg while preparing to give a speech, would have decided to go ahead with her keynote speech in Texas at a governors' convention (thrown by Big Oil), flown back to Alaska (an 8 hour flight in and of itself), and then bypassed several nearby Alaskan hospitals to get to Mat-Su hospital. If Sarah's own account is true, it demonstrates to me extreme failure in judgment by a woman who is no stranger to pregnancy, and whose experiences as a mother of 5 are portrayed by the GOP as important parts of her "resume" qualifying her as the VP candidate.

How McCain must wish Lieberman, the candidate he desired, was his running mate and not Sarah Palin!

Edited by TianZi, 02 September 2008 - 07:42 AM.

[mike250]

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/7592636.stm

She's cute

I like Obama's remarks.

Edited by mike250, 02 September 2008 - 07:52 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

I think it's odd this disclosure was touted as a "counter" to claims that Trig was actually Bristol's child, and not Sarah's. A DNA test comparing Trig's and Sarah's husband's DNA would have been sufficient to kill this rumor, assuming the child is indeed Sarah's. Or even a birth certificate. Or just don't mention the internet rumors at all, because by doing so you just add fuel to the fire.

Teen pregnancies happen, and parents can't be entirely blamed for one. But if the same child has two back-to-back babies as a teen, this would indicate parental failure.

well it completely proves that Trig is not Bristol's as much as a DNA test. Trig is 4 months old, Bristol is 5 months pregnant.

These kids really should be left out of politics. But its not going to happen. At least Obama agrees.

Edited by elrond, 02 September 2008 - 08:07 AM.

[TianZi]

Biknut:

You mentioned something about "redistribution of wealth". Do you realize that Obama's tax plan will reduce taxes for 95% of the the US population, cutting taxes for considerably more people, and by a significantly greater amount per person, than McCain's plan?

FOX News article:

"Does McCain have a Tax Problem? Answer: Probably"

http://bourbonroom.b...answer-probably


"... Add to this the mounting evidence that McCain’s TV commercials assailing Obama’s tax policy contain serious distortions, if not out-right lies. ...

... Both McCain and Obama would cuts taxes, but Obama’s tax cuts would be targeted to the middle class and partially offset by higher taxes on the wealthy (those earning more than $250,000).

The tax debate has just begun and McCain is losing credibility among the non-partisan bean counters and the larger media organizations that have done their own compare and contrast exercises.

...McCain may have more to worry about on the tax front than any Republican presidential candidate in a generation."


This isn't the the NYT, or CNN, saying this; it is the most conservative mainstream media outlet in the US. Hard to reject as more "liberal lies". Again, you need to do a better job of analyzing the other side of the story, or you risk spouting off partisan claims that simply aren't true. If you can't argue both sides of an issue equally well, you haven't done your homework.

Said Fox News article approvingly cites a Washington Post article that discussed the differences between the tax plans of the two candidates, entitled "Continuing Deception: Mr. McCain's Ads on Taxes Are Just Plain False." Let's see what those specific differences were:

"... [T]he Obama plan would give households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) in 2009, while those in the middle fifth would get an average cut of 2.6 percent of income ($1,118). ... By contrast, Mr. McCain's tax plan would give those in the bottom fifth of income an average tax cut of $21 in 2009. The middle fifth would get $325 -- less than a third of the Obama cut. The wealthiest taxpayers make out terrifically."

http://www.washingto...8083001681.html


P.S. You mentioned the Zogby poll, which has your guy up by two points, without mentioning the latest Gallup and Ramussen polls from yesterday, both of which have him down. Gallup by 6 points, Ramussen by 3.

[eternaltraveler]

... Both McCain and Obama would cuts taxes, but Obama’s tax cuts would be targeted to the middle class and partially offset by higher taxes on the wealthy (those earning more than $250,000).

great. Turning even more of us into the parasitic class

[TianZi]

I think it's odd this disclosure was touted as a "counter" to claims that Trig was actually Bristol's child, and not Sarah's. A DNA test comparing Trig's and Sarah's husband's DNA would have been sufficient to kill this rumor, assuming the child is indeed Sarah's. Or even a birth certificate. Or just don't mention the internet rumors at all, because by doing so you just add fuel to the fire.

Teen pregnancies happen, and parents can't be entirely blamed for one. But if the same child has two back-to-back babies as a teen, this would indicate parental failure.

well it completely proves that Trig is not Bristol's as much as a DNA test. Trig is 4 months old, Bristol is 5 months pregnant.

These kids really should be left out of politics. But its not going to happen. At least Obama agrees.

Trig's date of birth was 4.5 months ago, actually. We don't know exactly how long Bristol has been pregnant. Unless it's physically impossible to become pregnant within about a month (or maybe a bit more in this case) of giving birth (?), Bristol's current pregnancy proves nothing. I just think it would have been better for Palin / the McCain campaign to have mentioned nothing about the internet rumors.

But I already said I thought the likelihood of Bristol having had so-called "Vatican Twins" was small. I agree it's tragic that children of candidates suffer collateral damage during a campaign like this. I remain concerned by Sarah Palin's own account of the circumstances leading to the birth of Trig.

Elrond: "These kids really should be left out of politics. But its not going to happen. At least Obama agrees."

Noble sentiments. Apparently McCain doesn't agree with them, judging from this comment made by him back in early 1998:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

Chelsea was a teenager at the time.

Edited by TianZi, 02 September 2008 - 08:31 AM.

[mike250]

Biknut:

You mentioned something about "redistribution of wealth". Do you realize that Obama's tax plan will reduce taxes for 95% of the the US population, cutting taxes for considerably more people, and by a significantly greater amount per person, than McCain's plan?

FOX News article:

"Does McCain have a Tax Problem? Answer: Probably"

http://bourbonroom.b...answer-probably


"... Add to this the mounting evidence that McCain’s TV commercials assailing Obama’s tax policy contain serious distortions, if not out-right lies. ...

... Both McCain and Obama would cuts taxes, but Obama’s tax cuts would be targeted to the middle class and partially offset by higher taxes on the wealthy (those earning more than $250,000).

The tax debate has just begun and McCain is losing credibility among the non-partisan bean counters and the larger media organizations that have done their own compare and contrast exercises.

...McCain may have more to worry about on the tax front than any Republican presidential candidate in a generation."


This isn't the the NYT, or CNN, saying this; it is the most conservative mainstream media outlet in the US. Hard to reject as more "liberal lies". Again, you need to do a better job of analyzing the other side of the story, or you risk spouting off partisan claims that simply aren't true. If you can't argue both sides of an issue equally well, you haven't done your homework.

Said Fox News article approvingly cites a Washington Post article that discussed the differences between the tax plans of the two candidates, entitled "Continuing Deception: Mr. McCain's Ads on Taxes Are Just Plain False." Let's see what those specific differences were:

"... [T]he Obama plan would give households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) in 2009, while those in the middle fifth would get an average cut of 2.6 percent of income ($1,118). ... By contrast, Mr. McCain's tax plan would give those in the bottom fifth of income an average tax cut of $21 in 2009. The middle fifth would get $325 -- less than a third of the Obama cut. The wealthiest taxpayers make out terrifically."

http://www.washingto...8083001681.html


P.S. You mentioned the Zogby poll, which has your guy up by two points, without mentioning the latest Gallup and Ramussen polls from yesterday, both of which have him down. Gallup by 6 points, Ramussen by 3.

I like those odds but the fact is polls are mostly crap, they're more effective in fueling discussions like we have here on this site than anything else, imo. Harry Truman learned to love the polls

regarding tax cuts and what have you, why not a flat 25% tax on ALL wealth and income? (the general idea of a flat consumption tax) instead of all those complex schemes & tax codes that our politicians come up with. Does it make too much sense?

what about a business tax with no subsidies and no loopholes that allows companies to be based in the US and file under Cayman Islands?

Regarding the ultra rich you can only increase the tax burden so much on them before they'll move or find a way around it.

Edited by mike250, 02 September 2008 - 09:35 AM.

[TianZi]

Mike,

I think one problem with the polls is that we don't know enough details about them. The AP, CNN, etc. don't get into the "nitty-gritty" of the differing methodologies of the polling organizations. Was it a poll of registered voters? "Likely voters"?

If "likely voters", who fit this definition, and who didn't? If the definition is based on voting trends in past presidential elections, are those trends likely to hold true for these two particular historic, trend-breaking candidacies?

As mentioned in another thread here by me, Zogby in particular is a problem in this regard, because it apparently refuses to disclose the criteria it uses to determine "likely voters".