I just cannot take Fred Thompson. *kill!

Awesome. Checking out his other work now

[edit]

Also, it occurred to me that I could take this opportunity to pimp a relevant video from my pq

Actually, it's not so much two perspectives on Obama's plan so much as the main video is an Obama campaign staffer explaining Obama's plan (with the usual stump speech language), and Steve Forbes distorting it.

Obama's tax middle class tax cuts are structured as fixed-dollar tax credits. That doesn't make them one-shot. One-shot means a Bush-style "rebate" where you cut people a bribe check for a fixed amount...once. New tax credits that people get every year doesn't sound one-shot to me.

Forbes (and other Republican supporters) insist that tax cuts for middle and lower classes won't have a stimulative effect on the economy. I don't understand, didn't even Fred Thompson make a joke about only taking water out of one half of the bucket, as if it didn't matter who got tax cuts, as long as they got cut?

So how's this, what if the Obama plan is an overall reduction of tax revenue, but it raises taxes on those making over $250,000, and cuts it for everyone else? Won't all that magic free-market mojo make our economy grow, no matter who gets the money?

I guess that's where the noise about redistribution of wealth comes in. Better when it's like Forbes' famed Flat Tax -- raise taxes on the poor and middle class, but cut it for the rich. More fair that way for sure. No redistribution in that idea, nosiree.

^ You mean Iraq-Pakistan border. Iran and Pakistan actually have a border.

He also thought Spain was a part of the western hemisphere.

Oh, and Fred Thompson thought the Soviet Union was still around, but now I'm just indiscriminately lampooning grumpy old men.

As much as I loath all the dirty anti-anything-but-far-left selectivity of the sift, it's not a news sight and no one said it had to be fair and balanced. The only problem with that of course, is that the sift could increase its viewers by probably 20-50% if it were not so vehemently one-sided. If I were less tolerant of sayyyyy leftists and atheists, I'd never come back to this site again.

I'm also surprised that other forums of more moderate to right wing thinkers have not tried to invade and balance the tables. That'd be a fun little war. I'd get some popcorn for sure.

I would DEFINITELY however vote to have a "democrat" and a "republican" channel during election time.

and dystopia...
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fred-Thompson-in-Iowa-Here-are-his-views-face-to-face
http://www.videosift.com/video/An-Overview-of-America-by-the-John-Birsch-Society
are 2 reasonable, unoffensive, educational conservative posts that are worth watching even if you disagree.

had a good book of these, called "Separated at Birth"

the victoria beckham and fred thompson ones are but a few other highlights...

I saw it as more of a tip of the hat to Ron Paul than a bash for changing parties, especially since he said something along the lines of "...respect to you, i don't know that you've changed much..." Romney and Giuliani got the worst of it, Romney by far.

Good transcript posting BTW. Ron Pual, mentioned something about the current way our government spends, cutting taxes, going to war, and borrowing from other countries (mainly china). Which I think is the crux of our economic woes right now. The republicans have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. I'd like to know in what dimension or fairy tale land you can drastically reduce your income while increasing your outgoing by massive proportions all the while borrowing barrels full of money and have everything be A-okay. And what did Fred Thompson say in response? He laughed and derisively ridiculed Paul for suggesting all of that has some how lead to our economic problems. While I think RP's economic strategy swings the pendulum too far in the other direction, something that would cause another kind of economic disaster, to have him laughed at for saying what he did just shows how idiotic and self-serving most of them are.

Title is somewhat misleading. He asks Fred Thompson specifically to drop out, talking for quite a bit. Then he mentions about 8 names at once, which include Ron Paul, all of which he identifies as having no chance of winning.

The only reason to title it like that is to make a point, and to make Ron Paul seem more like a serious threat than Conan does.

SilentPoet says: "That doesn't make sense. Most of the time, two canidates will get the majority of the votes. That is to say that most of the votes are split between two canidates. How do I end up with someone worse than the two canidates by voting for someone who I believe would make a better canidate?......How is choosing the canidate whom you believe would serve best irrational? That seems to simply go against the very meaning of democracy to me."

It makes perfect sense; you've just misunderstood the point. You don't end up with someone worse than the 2 candidates. Rather, you end up with the worst of the 2 candidates that have an actual chance to win, and the one farthest from your optimal outcome. Nader can't win, whether you vote for him or not. Hell, SP, he couldn't win even if everyone who was a true Green disregarded my advice and voted for him TWICE. There just aren't enough people as yet who support his ideas.

Given that fact, a vote for Nader is a vote to facilitate making the world more crappy (by your own lights) than it is right now. It purposely endorses the worst outcome--a Republican victory--over a better outcome, where the outcomes are ranked only by reference to your own values. Worse, it does so out of a misguided belief that somehow that's what the "meaning of democracy" requires. How is that NOT irrational?

Think of it this way: Say you have 3 choices, A, B, & C. You like A better than B, and B better than C. Thus, you like A better than C (by transitivity). Now, imagine that an evil wizard comes up to you and says, "You can choose A, but if you do, I will make it immediately disappear, and you will be stuck with C. If you choose B, you will get B. If you choose C, you will get C. Which do you want?"

It is obvious which choice you should make. You should choose B. You could choose your favorite choice (A), but you know if you do you will not get it anyway, and in fact will be stuck with the thing you like the least (C). You don't want to choose C right off, because then you'll get it, and you'd rather have B. If you choose B, though, you'll get B (and avoid C). B isn't perfect, but at least that way you end up with your second ranked outcome instead of your last ranked outcome.

Now, replace A with Nader, B with the Democrats, and C with the GOP, and you see why voting for Nader is irrational. It is the equivalent of choosing A in the thought experiment described above (the evil wizard is, of course, the American 2 party system).

Now, the argument above is based on 6 assumptions:

1) That Nader can't win.
2) That voting for him knowing he will lose will not make for any significant structural/institutional changes, even in the long term (and may even result in a regression away from your admirable political goals if the Republicans are helped to win by your so voting).
3) That the Democrats--while shitty--are not NEARLY so shitty as the GOP, and will not get alot of people killed by staying the course in Iraq, bombing Iran, etc.
4) That the Democrats are not MORE corrupt than the Republicans.
5) That your politics are closer to Nader's than, say, Fred Thompson's.
6) That the next presidential election will be close enough that if a good number of people follow your advice, we could see a repeat of the 2000 Nader/Gore/Bush debacle.

I think the first 4 are all indisputable. The fifth one is reasonable given that you are advocating a vote for Nader instead of a different "3rd party" candidate. Number 6 is a guess, but I think it's a decent one. Anyway, vote for who you like. I just hope you won't kid yourself into thinking that you are doing anyone but Nader a favor. You won't, if my argument is correct, even be doing yourself a favor.

"I admit that I usually have to read his comments several times before I figure out what he is saying. Like I said, he rambles a bit, but there may be some method in that madness."

This is proof that you are more intelligent than me. I cannot figure out what choggie is talking about. Ever.