Arguments Against Idiots - Media Bias

The issue:
'Mainstream Media Bias' What the liberal whiners say:

'I am so sick of conservatives constantly whining about mainstream media bias, stop with this fairy tale already!' 'That's ONE tiny example from a magazine nobody even reads' 'What about talk radio! And, Fox News! How about the constant LIES Fox News tells, why don't you ever talk about that?'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. Fairy tale? How about the two recent covers of Us Magazine? One, a smiling Sarah Palin holding her precious newborn, with the headline: "Babies, Lies & Scandal. The other one, the loving "chosen one" and his "blessed wife Michelle" in a tender embrace, with the headline: "Why Barack Loves Her".

On one side the evil, lying conniving, scandal riddled, Sarah Palin. On the other, the sweet, caring, wondrous, innocent love between a couple fighting to effect change in America. That's not bias? I suppose it's also just an amazing coincidence that Us publisher, Jann Wenner happens to be a prominent Obama supporter and donor?

2. How about the New York Times then? In 3 days they carried 67 articles attacking Sarah Palin. Everything from "she's no Hillary"; to her hair looks "20 years out of date"; to "her Fargo accent"; mentioning her husband DUI charge from TWENTY-TWO YEARS ago; attacking her 17 year old pregnant daughter; bringing up "trooper gate" without key details, and on and on. Maybe a little over the top? Barack Obama has been on the cover of Time Magazine SEVEN times this year alone...McCain, twice. Obama stories have outnumbered McCain news stories by almost 4-1 in the media.

3. First of all, talk radio ISN'T just NEWS, and has never pretended to be. It's all about opinion and you know that up front. Talk radio isn't trying to deceive the American people the way that the NY Times and other are, by portraying themselves as objective news sources. As for Fox, they only seem biased compared to the one-sided reporting of NBC, ABC, CBS and especially MSNBC. The fact is, I don't know of ANY lies Fox News has told. Fox gives BOTH sides of the argument of virtually every issue. Hannity and Colmes is a great example. Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and many other democrats have a huge presence on the channel. Contrast that with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, who had a "thrill going up his leg" after an Obama speech, and declared that the speech should be required reading for school children for generations to come. Does that sound objective to you? I can't quite envision Edward R. Murrow talking about "wetting his pants" over a Harry Truman speech, but maybe that's just me.

Obama - Lies About McCain In Acceptance Speech

The accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination was checked , and noted the following:
Obama said he could "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That's wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain's, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, "When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources." Actually, McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of "working" families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain's plan at 66 million and finds that Obama's plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

He said McCain, far from being a maverick who's "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

Analysis Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination Aug. 28, speaking before more than 84,000 people in Denver's Mile High football stadium. Some of his comments were worthy of a ref's yellow flag.

Not Quite Every Dime Obama reassured voters that he can pay for all his spending proposals: Obama: Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow.

This is misleading. Even by his own campaign's estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won't pay for all of Obama's new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.

But Obama's claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama's plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama's new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.

Afghan Muddle Obama twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.Obama: When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.
Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. "may" muddle through, not that we could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was "guardedly optimistic" that the government could handle it.

McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that – in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.

So I'm guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.

Recently, however, both candidates have called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. In July, Obama proposed sending two more combat brigades, drawn down from Iraq. McCain immediately followed this with a call for three more brigades, but later clarified that some of those troops would be NATO forces. A McCain spokeswoman said that the U.S. would "contribute" troops to the increase under McCain's plan.

Tax Spin Obama said: "I will cut taxes ... for 95 percent of all working families." And he said McCain proposes "not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans," a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.

Obama is right about his plan's effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain's tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.
The TPC's calculations factor in what's in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of "loophole closings." Individuals wouldn't experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.

Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain's plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck's request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.

For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won't be as large as TPC says. "We dispute TPC's methodology here," says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the "loophole closers" that Obama is proposing won't affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.

We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.

Rich Humor Obama used a clumsy attempt at humor by McCain as evidence of his supposed insensitivity to middle-class economic realities:
Obama: Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?
What McCain actually said at the Saddleback Church forum on Aug. 16 was that he favors low taxes for all income levels. He drew a laugh, then said, "but seriously" as he struggled to make his point:

Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16: [G]ive me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?McCain: I don't want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?(LAUGHTER)
But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously – and I'm sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.

Health Care Half TruthsObama gave only half the story when he described a feature of McCain's health care plan: Obama: How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits... McCain proposes to grant families up to a $5,000 tax credit to use for health benefits. The flip side of that proposal, which McCain seldom if ever mentions, is that the value of employer-sponsored benefits would also become taxable. Both candidates are trading in half-truths here; McCain talks only about the pleasurable side of his plan, while Obama's speech mentioned only the painful aspect. Neither gives a complete picture.
Party Hearties

Obama painted McCain as a Republican partisan who's supported the unpopular President Bush consistently:Obama: And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.

It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly's vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure.
He Didn't Mean It Obama also pulled some sleight of hand when he stated that "the average American family" saw its income "go down $2,000" under George Bush. That's not correct. Census figures show average family income went down $348.

As it turns out, when Obama said "average family income," he didn't mean "average," and he didn't mean "family," either. An Obama aide says he was really referring to median income – which is the midpoint – and not to the average. And Obama was talking only about "working families," not retired couples. For all families, median family income actually inched up under Bush by $272.Reprinted with permission from Factcheck.org.

Sources:
Burman, Len, et. al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates'
Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008." Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.Table T08-0182, Senator McCain's Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008Nicholas, Peter. "Adding Up the Cost of Obama's agenda." 8 July 2008. The Los Angeles Times. 29 August 2008CQ member Profiles: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). 1 Apr. 2007. Congressional Quarterly, 9 June 2008.CQ member Profiles: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). February 2008. Congressional Quarterly, 12 June 2008.Transcript, "Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum" CNN.com 16 Aug. 2008.Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.
with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore

The Argument Against Idiots: Sarah Palin

How to win the argument with logic and facts

The issue:
"Sarah Palin" What the liberal whiners say: 'John McCain just gave us the election! Sarah Palin is NOT ready to be commander in chief, and she's just one heartbeat away from the Presidency!' 'Her experience can't compare to Joe Biden, who has been in the United States Senate for 35 years!' 'And, I see that she's just another gun-toting, war-mongering nutbag, like all the rest of you conservatives!' 'She has a down-syndrome baby...how can she possibly manage her responsibilities as a mother AND vice president?' 'Well, what do you think about her 17 year old daughter getting PREGNANT, not exactly a conservatives dream, is it?

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:
1. As the chief executive of her state, she is better prepared, and has more experience to bring to the presidency than the man who heads the democratic ticket, who had only a year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president.

2. I thought Washington was broken and we were looking for change? It seems to me that you can't get much further from Washington than Anchorage, Alaska.

3. Well, this "war-monger" has a son enlisted in the Army who is being deployed to Iraq on September 11th. Now, BOTH members of the Republican ticket now have, or did have sons in this war. I'd say they're pretty heavily invested in it, wouldn't you? Who does Obama have in it? What's HIS military record? I'm sorry, maybe "community organizer" on the South Side of Chicago qualifies?

4. Excuse me? Aren't you the "women can have-it-all" and "do-it-all", people? Now all of a sudden, you're saying she needs to be barefoot and pregnant at home with the kids?

5. I'm sure that's not anyone's dream for their children. But unlike Obama's stance, that if it happens to his daughters, their way out would be abortion because, he "doesn't want them punished with a baby". She is doing the responsible thing...marrying the father, and having the baby. Besides, I'm not sure with Obama's family tree and upbringing the way it is, you really want to get into this discussion.

Fred Thompson Blasts Obama & Gives McCain's BIO of Character

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Fred Thompson, the actor turned politician, recounted the harrowing story of John McCain's captivity as a Vietnam prisoner of war to tout the presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention and criticized Democrat Barack Obama's support for abortion rights.


"Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president," Thompson said Tuesday as images of McCain flashed behind him on a giant screen. "But it does reveal character."


Thompson went into detail describing McCain's 5 1/2 years in captivity in a Hanoi prison, describing how the Arizona senator's captors cracked his ribs and broke his teeth off at the gums. He also described how McCain refused to go home when his captors offered to release him for propaganda purposes.


"We hear a lot of talk about hope these days," Thompson said, a clear reference to one of Obama's campaign themes. "John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had."

Raps Obama on Abortion Issue:
Thompson also used his speech to denounce Obama for declining to say when human life begins, although Thompson's own record on abortion is mixed.

"We need a president who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade," Thompson said.

The comment was a clear reference to an answer that Obama gave at a forum at California's Saddleback Church sponsored by the popular evangelical pastor Rick Warren. On a question referring to the number of abortions in the country, Warren asked Obama at what point he believed babies had human rights.

"Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," the Illinois senator replied.

Obama supports abortion rights, while GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain is opposed. Thompson also is opposed, though he faced criticism during his presidential campaign because he lobbied in 1991 for an abortion rights group. He also answered a 1994 newspaper survey by saying, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government."

After Monday's opening session of the convention was abbreviated and toned down in deference to Hurricane Gustav, Thompson signaled that political rhetoric was back.

He called Obama the "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."

Best known recently as the gruff district attorney on NBC's "Law & Order," Thompson once was a rival of McCain. But the Tennessean dropped out of the presidential race in January after his much-anticipated campaign failed to gain strong support among conservatives.

Thompson's address included a defense of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose announcement as McCain's running mate has been overshadowed by disclosures that an attorney has been hired to represent Palin in an investigation into an Alaska controversy and that her unmarried daughter is pregnant.

"Give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the Union — and won — over the Beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week," Thompson said.

Shake up the Bureaucracy:
Thompson said he believes McCain and Palin will "take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking."

He also said that McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, has traveled to Iraq eight times since 2003 "seeking truth, not publicity.

"This man, John McCain, is not intimidated by what the polls say or what is politically safe or popular," Thompson said.

Thompson managed to slip in some of the more colorful aspects of McCain's biography — the high number of demerits he received at the Naval Academy and the fact he dated an exotic dancer nicknamed the Flame of Florida when he was in flight school.

Barack Obama's Socialist Speech - A World That Stands As One.

I'm going to give you a couple of things that this is the meat of the Obama speech that nobody in the media cares to focus on. In Barack Obama's overseas trip when moving to Paris and then to London we heard in his speech "partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the only way, the one way. Okay? Cooperation and partnership among nations is not a choice. Okay."

Obama in context: "True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy, of peace and progress. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other, and most of all, trust each other. True partnership requires true progress with constant work and sustained sacrifice. That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe." Now (Crowd cheering.) Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as the one that binds us across the Atlantic."

Why is nobody asking where do these new bridges go? Where do they go? He's talking about building new bridges. He's recognizing that we already have a bridge that is strong, that binds us together, America and Europe, so where do the new bridges go? One that would require us to listen to each other, learn from each other, and trust each other? Do they go to the Middle East? Do they go to Iran? Do they go to Russia? Do they go to China? Where are these bridges? Why is no one asking this question?

Obama Continues: "Now is the time to join together through constant cooperation and strong institutions and shared sacrifice and a global commitment to progress to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

So let me get this straight. Now is the time to join together through constant cooperation, through strong institutions, and shared sacrifice and a global commitment to progress to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Remember, one line is about Islamic extremism, followed immediately by those driving cars, melting the polar ice caps. Join together through constant cooperation, strong institutions, and shared sacrifice and a global commitment to progress. What are those global institutions, those strong institutions? What does it mean, shared sacrifice?

Obama States: "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Crowd cheering.) The two super powers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love."

Excuse me but the two super powers that faced each other across this wall came too close to often to destroying all that we have built and all that we have loved? The two super powers, Really? Just so you're informed, it was in the end the super power and the leader that was strong enough to stand up and say, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls. It was one leader that stood up in the face of adversity to do the right thing.

The last time Ronald Reagan gave a speech in Berlin, he had to have 10,000 riot police because what he was saying was we will not back down from freedom. We will not coexist with evil. Some want to enslave and some want to free. We are on the side of freedom and we will not share the sacrifice with everyone. We are willing to sacrifice ourselves in defense of liberty and freedom. It was a man who was the most unpopular on the planet because he had the nerve to stand up and say, you know what, they're building nuclear weapons. We're going to build a weapon that will shoot those weapons out of the sky and everyone said he's escalating. He's going to get us all killed, as Barack Obama says the two super powers that faced each other across the wall of the city, came too close too often to destroying all that we built and all that we love. One of those super powers saved everything that you love.

Obama: "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that opened markets have created"

Just so we are clear this is not the script but he spoke it or misspoke it. He bungled this line. It's important that you understand the script. The script is this is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open marks have created, not the wealth that opened markets, but we must build on the wealth that open markets have created.

Obama Attempts Correction: "This is the moment when we must build on wealth that opens markets have created and share its benefits more
equitably."

We just build on the wealth that open markets have created and share its benefits more equitably? Should anyone have to share his creativity or ability or profitability with me? Should I force my neighbor to share their money or wealth with me to be more equitable? That's his earning. He chooses to use it how he sees fit.

I have met people with varying levels of prosperity and means to earn that prosperity some of which do not use their talents toward financial freedom. It's their loss. Shared prosperity, sharing the benefits more equitably goes against everything that America stands. What we share is an idea and we want that idea to spread and, that is, man is free, man is free to create, man is free to do as he sees fit. That is the only thing that we should be sharing more equitably. We should be sharing it to every corner of the globe. We should be sharing it with everyone who will listen and if you don't listen, that's fine. You don't want freedom and that's fine.

If your people want freedom, we stand with your people. If your people decide they don't want freedom, they're happy living under totalitarianism state, they're happy handing their power back over to a totalitarian guilt of the like they do in Russia, that's fine, but not here and we'll continue to share that wealth of that idea that you can be successful, you can be happy, you can be rich, you can be poor, you can have all of the benefits because there is no end to wealth, there is no end to happiness. It is an infinite idea. It's a never ending idea. It is as vast as the oceans and far beyond.

Why should I share the oceans more equitably? There's enough water in there for all of us. Stop diminishing the size. Stop telling me that the ocean is a pond. It's not. Get into the water. It's fine. You might need directions to the beach, but I ain't putting a fence around that beach just for you. I'm not telling people who have been on that beach and use that beach and get into that water and swim and boat and water‑ski and turn it into energy, I'm not telling those people, no, no, no you can't because someday these people may need that water brought to them because they can't go to the beach, they don't believe in the beach, they just want all the benefits of the beach. The only thing we share is an idea and a love of freedom.

Barack Obama does not seem to see the same America I see. He has according to his own words fought to the top but his programs he wants to implement want to say to American you cannot do this without me. I personally do not believe he will be happy until we are an Islamic socialist state and has beaten the freedom from hard working Americans.

Gun Control, Who Does it Help?

Barack Obama supports taking your guns away from you. Not only is this a bad idea since only the criminals will have the guns but look what history has to say when citizens do not have the ability to defend themselves. I for one will support what Thomas Jefferson has said.

• In 1911, Turkey established gun control.From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1935, China established gun control.From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1938, Germany established gun control.From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



• In 1970, Uganda established gun control.From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: approximately 56 million.The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects. Thomas Jefferson stated: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Our founding fathers got it right. They thought this issue was important enough to protect the right to bear arms by putting it in our constitution. We need to protect our Constitutional rights.

Arguments against Idiots: Taxes

Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.
_________________________

August 1, 2008 - 12:33 ET

The issue:

Taxes

What the liberal whiners say:

1.'The rich don't pay their fair share'

2.'The working class carries the full load in this country, while the rich just keep getting richer, and paying LESS'

3.'How about those 50 hedge fund managers Barack Obama talks about all the time who made $29 billion, but actually paid less in taxes than their $60,000 a year SECRETARIES!'

4.'I'm sick and tired of all the corporate welfare in this country'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1.Really? According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of wage-earners in this country pays nearly 40% of the burden (an 11% INCREASE over 1999, when WHO was President? Oh that's right...Bill Clinton). Not fair? Well, you may be saying, 'that's because they have ALL the wealth!' Wrong again. The top 1% of earners account for just 21% of the total adjusted gross income. Hmm. Come to think of it...you're RIGHT! That really isn't fair. They're paying DOUBLE what they should be. By the way, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the load. When you get all the way down to the top 50% of earners, they account for 96.4% of the entire tax burden. The next 10% pays 3.6%. And the bottom 40% of wage earners...pay NOTHING. That's right, nothing. In fact, they pay nothing, and then often get a "refund" (handout) at years end.

2. Now this argument, to me, is null and void, since it comes straight from the "Communist Manifesto" by our friend, Karl Marx (no, not Richard Marx, the singer with the hair...this is the OTHER Marx brother) Simply substitute the words "working class" for proletariat and "rich" for bourgeousie, and voila! Class warfare, Marxist style. Besides, do you know ANY rich people who don't work hard? Only 2% of this country's rich inherited their money, like the Kennedy's...the rest, earned it.

3. The "50 Hedge Fund mangers' who made a combined $29 billion is one of my favorite Barack Obama campaign stories. It's true of course. At least the part about how much money they made. Legally, by the way. But for a billionaire to pay less in taxes than his secretary, is preposterous at best. It's impossible. I need to see their 1040 form for proof. If they pay a smaller percentage than their secretary did, their accountant needs to be made President of the United States of America, immediately. No campaign, no election. The first ever APPOINTMENT to President in American history...just based on amazing skills.

It's also interesting to note that one of those Hedge Fund managers, of whom Obam speaks, but never names, is....George Soros. $2.9 Billion last year. Keep those Moveon.org ads coming Georgie! being the big-hearted, big government guy he is, it's surprising he hasn't voluntarily written out huge extra checks to the Federal Government to make up the discrepancy.

4. For this, I refer you to yesterday's article on the evil oil companies...who, from 1977-2004 made over $643 billion in profits! But, during that time span, their disgusting "corporate welfare" situation allowed them to pay a paltry $1.343 TRILLION in state and federal taxes. What a free ride.

The Argument Against Idiots: Global Warming Part I

Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.
_________________________

August 6, 2008 - 14:09 ET

The issue:

Global Warming Part I: The altruistic planet savers

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'What do you have against Al Gore? That man is simply trying to save this planet!'
2. 'And that wonderful, handsome, Richard Branson has promised to unselfishly give almost $4 billion in proceeds from his aviation business to fight global warming!'
3. 'It really shows just how bad this problem is when a lifelong oil man like T. Boone Pickens says it's time to change to wind!!!!!!'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. What I have against Al Gore is simply this: he's a fat, stinking hypocrite. We'll cover his energy gorging next time. For now, let's focus on his motives. There's a famous quote by Al that I've always loved; "I live a carbon-neutral life, and both of my businesses are carbon neutral." The fact is, he's not even on the same planet as carbon-neutral, but here's the real story. He tells us his conscience is clear because he buys "carbon offsets". What Gore doesn't say is that the "offsets" he buys are from his own company, GIM (Generation Investment Management). He's saving the planet by investing in his own company?

2. It's true that big-hearted billionaire Richard Branson pledged all the profits from his Virgin Aviation business for the next 10 years to go toward combating the most critical problem the world has ever faced, global warming. But instead of Branson sending $4 billion to send polar bears life preservers, refrigerating Greenland or saving endangered Pygmy tribes in New Guinea, he's simply investing the money in his new business venture, Virgin Fuel. Like Gore, it seems he's just found another way to enhance his own bank account.

3. Yeah, good ole Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has a plan for alternative energy too. He's spending a TON of money to let us know that the country needs to break it's addiction to oil and switch to wind. Surely that has NOTHING to do with the fact that he's invested $2 billion to build wind turbines, and is working on hooking up a power grid from the wind farms in West Texas all the way to Dallas. The great thing about wind as opposed to oil is, wind is subsidized by the taxpayer dollars to the tune of $25 per kilowatt hour. In other words, we pay his expenses, HE reaps the profit. There's more. At Pickens behest, the Texas Legislature changed a law allowing him, through his wife and ranch manager, eminent domain rights over 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts, Texas that could bolster his budget another $1 billion. But it's all about the planet, right?

The Argument Against Idiots: Creeping Communism-Demonizing Big Oil

Glenn Beck is posting the Arguments against idiots. I thought I would pass these on.

August 5, 2008 - 12:37 ET

How to win the argument de jour with logic and facts

The issue:

'Creeping Communism-Demonizing Big Oil'
(This differs from last weeks "drilling in ANWR" thesis...and is just a quickie to SHUT LIBERAL PIE HOLES about oil companies!)

What the liberal whiners say:

1. 'None of these greedy oil companies are spending nearly enough money on alternative energy sources'
2. 'It's great that Barack Obama has promised to take their profits and give them to the states and working families'
3. 'But $11 BILLION in ONE quarter, that's just evil'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments:

1. Let's see. They're called OIL COMPANIES for a reason. They find, drill for, and deliver OIL. Some, like British Petroleum HAVE made the business decision to branch out and develop new sources of energy, but in the United States of America, should the government be dictating to private businesses what they spend their money on?

2. Is it, comrade? Glad you think so. If Obama is elected, and follows through with taking oil profits, do you think it will STOP with oil profits? Their profit margin is only 7-11%. Why take a chunk of Microsofts much larger profit margin? Or the cell phone industry or hoteliers? The markup on diamonds is up to 1000%...isn't that obscene? As for whether or not states and/or "working families" have the right to the profits oil companies have made, I guess that depends on whether you adhere to the U.S. Constitution or the Communist Manifesto.

3. If these money making oil companies are so bad because they make money, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be positively angelic for running their businesses into the ground and having to be bailed out by the government? IndyMac and Bear Stearns, truly saintly. Miserable failures, who required bailouts with taxpayer dollars seem to completely escape the ire of the democrat/liberal whining machine. Those who succeed at what they're doing and prosper, are vilified. Well, СЧАСТЛИВЫЙ СЛУЧАЙ, comrade.

Hollander Receives Union Support

Isn't it interesting that Tom Fann did not secure the Carpenters Union considering all his other support seems to be from Unions and Union workers.

Hollander Receives Endorsement from Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity

ST. CHARLES-- The Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity has embraced Terry's vision for the St. Charles area and officially endorsed his candidacy for County Council.

"Carpenters have played a vital part in the rapid expansion of St. Charles County. They have literally built and shaped our community and will continue to do so in the years to come," said Hollander. "My campaign has embraced the carpenters' union and other labor organizations as vital to our area, and I am proud to have received their endorsement. "