I just finished listening to a speech from the next United States president.

  • Thread starter 1X83Z
  • 48 comments
  • 1,158 views
1

1X83Z

Premium
20,944
United States
usa
At 9:20, Gary Locke, state governor of Washington wrapped up the Democrats' response to President Bush's State of the Union speech. Rather than choose one of the 'dueling for 2004' Democrats, the party chose Locke - a soft-spoken, articulate fellow who clearly understands what he's talking about on a national level (certainly more than Howard Dean, Vermont governor, running for president in '04) even being just a state governor.

Mark my words: Maybe not in 2008, but in 2012, Gary Locke will not only run for United States president, but you (yes you... no, not you, vat_man) will elect him. You heard it here first.
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
What are his views on nucular war? If it's the same as Bush, there might not be anyone to elect him in 2012.
Click to expand...

Do you think President Bush has a pro-Nuclear war stance or something?
 
Well, no. More of a pro-Nucular war stance. That is of course if someone else launches a nuke first. I doubt he'd be willing to end the world by dropping the first bombs. He isn't that dumb.
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Well, no. More of a pro-Nucular war stance. That is of course if someone else launches a nuke first. I doubt he'd be willing to end the world by dropping the first bombs. He isn't that dumb.
Click to expand...

Are you just engaging me in this discussion in order to spell nuclear like that?
 
Well, then, what's the problem? If they're scared to do it, and even Dubya is smart enough not to do it, then I'd say that we're doing our jobs.

On the 'tax cut' question, does anybody have a link to what the actual proposal is? All you ever get out of the friggin' liberal media is 'a tax cut that favors the wealthiest people'. That's probably not true in the same way I'd call it true.

After all, I call a flat-rate tax 'fair' while the liberal media insists this is somehow 'regressive'.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Well, then, what's the problem? If they're scared to do it, and even Dubya is smart enough not to do it, then I'd say that we're doing our jobs.

On the 'tax cut' question, does anybody have a link to what the actual proposal is? All you ever get out of the friggin' liberal media is 'a tax cut that favors the wealthiest people'. That's probably not true in the same way I'd call it true.

After all, I call a flat-rate tax 'fair' while the liberal media insists this is somehow 'regressive'.
Click to expand...

No, I still know nothing of the details except the most contested parts. Being well out of the wealthiest one percent, I would like to know the details, but that would be absurd...
 
I call a flat tax rate fair too. I don't see how it isn't. Why should someone who makes 100 grand pay a higher percentage than someone who makes 25 grand? It makes little sense to me.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Mark my words: Maybe not in 2008, but in 2012, Gary Locke will not only run for United States president, but you (yes you... no, not you, vat_man) will elect him. You heard it here first.
Click to expand...
Vote early, vote often, brother...

Actually, the Democratic response has been the more interesting aspect of the State of the Union speech (certainly more interesting than the speech itself, which was predictable).

Am I the only one getting severe deja vu here? I seem to recall the US being in domestic economic trouble around the last time this nonsense started, and didn't that work out well for the incumbent?
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
I call a flat tax rate fair too. I don't see how it isn't. Why should someone who makes 100 grand pay a higher percentage than someone who makes 25 grand? It makes little sense to me.
Click to expand...

The concept of flat taxes is associated with the economic concept of 'utility' - which is basically the value you place on something. It tries to provide a way to measure the benefit consumers perceive they get from something.

To illustrate - imagine a consumer likes chocolate bars. Now, he might value the first ten chocolate bars at a certain utility, but as he gets more chocolate bars past a certain level, the value, or 'utility' he places on each successive chocolate bar is less.

Progressive tax rates operate on the same principal, namely that someone on $20k a year will value an extra dollar more than someone on $60k, and therefore someone on $60k a year will therefore object less to being taxed more.

Now, I'm not defending or attacking progressive tax rates (and if you heard my current marginal tax rate you'd faint), but government does need to be funded (what was that deficit the US was running again?). Income tax in the US is actually only about 25% of revenue - I think from memory that payroll tax (which is actually regressive in the US!) is the largest source of tax revenue there.

It's a difficult one - I personally tend to lean towards 'consumption' type taxes, because it's a bit easier to enforce (people can play all sorts of games with 'income' to minimise tax)) and it's actually a hidden form of 'progressive tax', since the more you earn, the more you're likely to spend - it also provides an (admittedly marginal) incentive to save.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
At 9:20, Gary Locke, state governor of Washington wrapped up the Democrats' response to President Bush's State of the Union speech. Rather than choose one of the 'dueling for 2004' Democrats, the party chose Locke - a soft-spoken, articulate fellow who clearly understands what he's talking about on a national level (certainly more than Howard Dean, Vermont governor, running for president in '04) even being just a state governor.

Mark my words: Maybe not in 2008, but in 2012, Gary Locke will not only run for United States president, but you (yes you... no, not you, vat_man) will elect him. You heard it here first.
Click to expand...

I liked some of what he said but I think they should have picked someone else to say it. Someone who at least seemed passionate about what he was saying. It looked liked an infomercial.
 
Man I didn't see this thread and started another one. Sorry Doug.

So screw my other one and let's all discuss here. I'll try to get it deleted. It's been corrupted by idiocy and ignorance anyway.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Man I didn't see this thread and started another one. Sorry Doug.

So screw my other one and let's all discuss here. I'll try to get it deleted. It's been corrupted by idiocy and ignorance anyway.
Click to expand...


I guess I know where I rate:odd:
 
Originally posted by vat_man

Am I the only one getting severe deja vu here? I seem to recall the US being in domestic economic trouble around the last time this nonsense started, and didn't that work out well for the incumbent?
Click to expand...

The last time this country was in economic trouble, a governor from Arkansas capitalised on it and was elected on the economy platform defeating the incumbent and wowing everyone. What are you talking about?
 
Originally posted by DGB454
I liked some of what he said but I think they should have picked someone else to say it. Someone who at least seemed passionate about what he was saying. It looked liked an infomercial.
Click to expand...

Moderates don't want passion.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Moderates don't want passion.
Click to expand...

Ok but shouldn't he at least sounded like he believes what he was saying instead of reading it off cards. It was kind of like listening to Gore. No offense to those few who like Gore.

Don't get me wrong. I do like some of the ideas he expressed.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
Ok but shouldn't he at least sounded like he believes what he was saying instead of reading it off cards. It was kind of like listening to Gore. No offense to those few who like Gore.

Don't get me wrong. I do like some of the ideas he expressed.
Click to expand...

It seems more and more like Americans are afraid of empassioned speeches. They are a thing of the past. I love hearing recordings of Churchill or JFK. Empassioned leaders are action oriented and make noise and cause trouble, they make change. I believe Americans are too tired for change and are more into rhetoric and quaint head games. This is most satisfactory to the moderate's taste, and moderate is the only acceptable way to be anymore.
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Oh yeah. One for me, ninteen for you.

Britain was right! Damn. Oh well, they were bound to do something right, eh?
Click to expand...
Nice reference to an SRV song.

In choosing "dubya" we as a nation chose the lesser of two "evils".
It is my fervent belief that it is impossible for this nation to choose a truly "good" man for that job of president.
If a man has impeccable scruples, he will be poorly suited for the job.
All of our most successful presidents have been masters in political manuevering, blackmail, and double dealing.
I gusess what I'm saying is that if any man looks almost too perfect for the presidency. He may just be.
I learned a long time ago, in most things that matter, if a man has too much to say, he bears close scrutiny.
If this Gary Locke, is as good as he appears to be, he may very well turn out to be the nation's next Jimmy Carter. He was entirely, too moral to be the leader of our nation.
We need the heart of Jimmy Carter, and the Shrewness of Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
Ok but shouldn't he at least sounded like he believes what he was saying instead of reading it off cards. It was kind of like listening to Gore. No offense to those few who like Gore.

Don't get me wrong. I do like some of the ideas he expressed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he's about on the second-tier of good Democrats right now. He doesn't want to go up there and read a speech about anything other than what they tell him. In 2008, he'll be on the same tier as Kerry and Lieberman. You watch....
 
Originally posted by milefile
It seems more and more like Americans are afraid of empassioned speeches. They are a thing of the past. I love hearing recordings of Churchill or JFK. .
Click to expand...
Frankly, I even like hearing Reagan more than I like hearing second-term Clinton or Bush.
 
Originally posted by Gil

We need the heart of Jimmy Carter, and the Shrewness of Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon.
Click to expand...

Yes, we need the heart of Jimmy Carter and his brain so we can take it and bury it somewhere where no man will ever find it.

Worst president ever.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Reagan... the last of a dead breed.:(
Click to expand...
And granted, Reagan wasn't even all that good compared to Martin Luther King Jr or Jack Kennedy, but he was certainly better than the political speaking puppet that is George Bush.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Yes, we need the heart of Jimmy Carter and his brain so we can take it and bury it somewhere where no man will ever find it.

Worst president ever.
Click to expand...
I said his heart (compassion), mixed with the shrewdness of Clinton or Nixon.
His desire to do the right thing, no matter what, is what got him into so much difficulty.
 
Originally posted by milefile
Passion is scary :nervous:
Click to expand...

Passion is wonderful when you are entangled with the romantic partner of your choice. However, level-headedness and the ability to reason are far more desirable in a civic figure.
 

Similar threads

Sanji Himura
  • Poll
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
316 317 318
Replies
10K
Views
392K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Sanji Himura
  • Locked
  • Poll
[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016
343 344 345
Replies
10K
Views
405K
Famine
Famine
Delirious
White House paints a grim fiscal picture
2 3
Replies
75
Views
4K
Danoff
Danoff
ledhed
A Giant step toward the center
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Omnis
Omnis
YSSMAN
21,500 More US Troops Headed to Iraq
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
niky
niky

Latest Posts

Back