The New Republican

he would be to the thousands of republicans who stayed home this time

Dream on......the "thousands" of republicans are racists..as evidenced by the campaign ran against Obama which Palin did....

Sorry, lick your wounds and then start helping rebuild this nation the republicans have destroyed in the 30years of their domination with the evangelical dominionists.
 
Werbung:
I'm not too impressed. I think the 52% vote for Obama won't make this guy's politics too friendly for most Americans, either.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

Let me refresh your memory. After the Kerry defeat the pundits all but declared the Democratic Party dead. A party for old people, old ideas.
Same thing with the GOP's defeat this time around. Obama won because of the economy, Bush's failures, and his charisma. Don't count your chickens quite yet.;)
 
Let me refresh your memory. After the Kerry defeat the pundits all but declared the Democratic Party dead. A party for old people, old ideas.
Same thing with the GOP's defeat this time around. Obama won because of the economy, Bush's failures, and his charisma. Don't count your chickens quite yet.;)


Let me provide you with the truth...Ohio stole the 2004 election and the court charges are still pending pre-Supreme Court against the republican Ohio governor....

We were hardly counted out....and with this economy in the crapper and bush refusing to help American workers while giving money to the rich to get richer, republicans will not be surfacing for a long, long time...especially wrapped in the warped minds of the fundamentalists...
 
The only thing people talk about, re Jindal, including in the media and here, is the "race thing".

Do you always go along with "the only thing" people talk about?

YOU only named one qualification, viz that he was governor of Louisiana (admittedly that makes him more qualified than, say, Obama)

His being the governor of Louisiana is the only thing I know about him - because that article was, at the time, all I'd read about him - and I was asking people what they thought of him as an attempt to learn more.

and you underline it's the "race thing" being considered by saying that he's being called the "other Obama". Bag it. :rolleyes:

First of all, I didn't write those things. That's an article from an outside source. Second of all, calling someone the "other Obama" is not necessarily a race reference - as, like Jindal, there are other attributes to Obama than skin color.
 
Let me provide you with the truth...Ohio stole the 2004 election and the court charges are still pending pre-Supreme Court against the republican Ohio governor....

We were hardly counted out....and with this economy in the crapper and bush refusing to help American workers while giving money to the rich to get richer, republicans will not be surfacing for a long, long time...especially wrapped in the warped minds of the fundamentalists...

You'll have to supply me with links on Ohio I really hadn't heard this. Not sure how it slipped by me.

I'm Independant and don't have a dog in these races so if Obama works out that's fine with me. But, I believe the country is right of center as a whole and the three items I listed Economy, Bush and Chrasima were the factors that won the presidency. Alot of moderates and conservatives helped Obama win.

I'm not sure about the rich getting richer comment. I travel all over this country and middle class homes were being built, middle class suburbs expanding like gang busters over the past 4 yrs. I'd say the economy was moving along at a very brisk pace and jobs were plentiful excluding the rust belt of course. Who's the rich in your mind?
 
You'll have to supply me with links on Ohio I really hadn't heard this. Not sure how it slipped by me.

I'm Independant and don't have a dog in these races so if Obama works out that's fine with me. But, I believe the country is right of center as a whole and the three items I listed Economy, Bush and Chrasima were the factors that won the presidency. Alot of moderates and conservatives helped Obama win.

I'm not sure about the rich getting richer comment. I travel all over this country and middle class homes were being built, middle class suburbs expanding like gang busters over the past 4 yrs. I'd say the economy was moving along at a very brisk pace and jobs were plentiful excluding the rust belt of course. Who's the rich in your mind?

Well, then maybe you slant more to the right. I've read about so many"Independent" voters on forums who are really republicans. You seem to have that slant to you. You are not speaking as other independents I know who truly are independents.

http://ohioelection2004.com/evidence.htm

Some background for you of the Ohio 2004 presidential elections scandals.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/996

Ohio court involvement of the 2004 election

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428556700546435.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Sorry, but this was all I could find with a recent supreme court ruling which squashed attempts on the republicans to throw the election in Ohio again.

I'm not sure where you traveled, but it sure couldn't not have been all over America with our jobless claims are so high and rising. Hence, the economic crisis we are seeing.

As to the rich getting richer? Again, your slant leaves me to believe you are a closet republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html

The people at the top of America's money pyramid have so prospered in recent years that they have pulled far ahead of the rest of the population, an analysis of tax records and other government data by The New York Times shows. They have even left behind people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Call them the hyper-rich.

They are not just a few Croesus-like rarities. Draw a line under the top 0.1 percent of income earners - the top one-thousandth. Above that line are about 145,000 taxpayers, each with at least $1.6 million in income and often much more.

The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

The share of the nation's income earned by those in this uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980, to 7.4 percent in 2002. The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell.

Next, examine the net worth of American households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million comprised 338,400 households in 2001, the last year for which data are available. The number has grown more than 400 percent since 1980, after adjusting for inflation, while the total number of households has grown only 27 percent.

The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.

The Times set out to create a financial portrait of the very richest Americans, how their incomes have changed over the decades and how the tax cuts will affect them. It is no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everyone else behind is not widely known.

The Treasury Department uses a computer model to examine the effects of tax cuts on various income groups but does not look in detail fine enough to differentiate among those within the top 1 percent. To determine those differences, The Times relied on a computer model based on the Treasury's. Experts at organizations representing a range of views, including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Citizens for Tax Justice, reviewed the projections and said they were reasonable, and the Treasury Department said through a spokesman that the model was reliable.

The analysis also found the following:

¶Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.

¶Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.

¶The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million - thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.
 
Dream on......the "thousands" of republicans are racists..as evidenced by the campaign ran against Obama which Palin did....

Sorry, lick your wounds and then start helping rebuild this nation the republicans have destroyed in the 30years of their domination with the evangelical dominionists.

the thousands I am talking about did not vote this time around, turns out a number of republicans did not turn out to vote because there was no conservative on the ballot. They did not vote for Obama but they did not vote for McCain either because neither of them fit in with conservative values. If next time around an actual conservative is on the ballot more people will vote for the republican nominee.

Not sure how you can twist that into saying they are racist but I am sure to you anyone who does not vote for Obama is racist. or anyone who does not vote at all is racist.
 
Just out of curiosity, will all the derogatory remarks about Obama's foreign sounding name continue when Piyush Jindal runs for President?
 
Just out of curiosity, will all the derogatory remarks about Obama's foreign sounding name continue when Piyush Jindal runs for President?

People were not upset about a "foreign sounding name" they were upset about a "muslim sounding name."
 
I dont even care about muslim sounding names, I would not care if obama was a muslim. I would rather he was a moderate muslim than in the racist church he was in.

but his name never bothered me, his policy's bothered me
 
Sometimes I wonder if they'll even know the difference...

I personally found that whole line of thought to be quite ridiculous as well. I think the majority of Americans did understand that Obama was not a muslim, and I would be surprised if people really voted solely based on his middle name. Of course, I might be putting to much faith in the American electorate.
 
I personally found that whole line of thought to be quite ridiculous as well. I think the majority of Americans did understand that Obama was not a muslim, and I would be surprised if people really voted solely based on his middle name. Of course, I might be putting to much faith in the American electorate.

I think the number of people who wanted to think Obama was a Muslim far outstripped the number who actually thought so.
 
Werbung:
I dont even care about muslim sounding names, I would not care if obama was a muslim. I would rather he was a moderate muslim than in the racist church he was in.

but his name never bothered me, his policy's bothered me
You must know that you cannot criticize Obama without first accepting your racial predisposition. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top