U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Big_John]

i can see why you heard that in a pub, because i feel like i need to get drunk after that joke. :sick:

[JR-]

Was that when the Spanish troops had been sent to Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate ?
Thats democracy Tuff

What right has america got to tell another country who it can sell stuff to ?


and spain may well pay a price. that's life.

every right. the other actor doesn't have to listen, but again there may be a price to be paid........

[JR-]

how serious is this 70 odd bishops denouncing Biden?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/19/joe_biden_loses_barack_obama_the_catholic_vote

[CountArach]

I'm not surprised. Of course the Pro-Life church is going to denounce the Pro-Choice Biden.

[JR-]

but is it serious, the catholic vote is important in all US elections it would appear........?

[CountArach]

There is still a substantial Catholic vote in working class areas (Irish immigrants, etc) from what I have read in the past. Whether they will vote for a Democrat on economic issues or for the Republican on social issues is another question.

[CountArach]

You can't make this stuff up... (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS02/809180364)

MONTPELIER (AP) — Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., calls himself a proud Democrat, but says he'll accept the Republican congressional nomination.

Welch says he was surprised to receive enough write-in votes on Republican ballots to secure the nomination of a party that didn't put up a candidate of its own.
My bet - Welch overcomes Welch in a tight race in November :laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

but is it serious, the catholic vote is important in all US elections it would appear........?

Not hugely significant on its face. US Catholics are accustomed to their clergy denouncing this, that, the other thing, and him/her - and then doing/voting as they see fit. Being Catholic isn't the same demograph is has been in the past, except as part of another demograph: blue-collar, working class.

OTOH: For the conspiracy theorists out there: this could be the beginning of a behind-the-scenes "Dump Joe, Pick Hil" move. If Sen Biden suddenly develops a 'personal problem' that requires his immediate, focused attention... expect a Biden dropout, Hilary to the rescue, and an Obama slam-dunk in November.

[SwordsMaster]

Jaysus (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/09/im_talking_about_the_president.cfm). Apparently McCain as another one of those whose geography is sub standard. He's either stupid or too old for the ticket.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

You can't make this stuff up... (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS02/809180364)

My bet - Welch overcomes Welch in a tight race in November :laugh4:

It's hard to imagine why we would have extremely low turnout, there was only one person up for 99% of slots in the major party primaries and most slots weren't filled by the third parties...

Still I think this sort of thing has happened a couple of times before in Vermont. We're a funky state. I believe the democrats tried to get Bernie Sanders (an extremely successful socialist senator) to accept their nomination, but he did decline in the end.

[Lemur]

A McCain supporter (http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/index.php/punditry/mccains_moronic_critique_of_cox/) trashes Senator John S. McCain on his recent economic pronouncements.


There’s so much stupidity here, it’s hard to know where to begin.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Peggy Noonan reads my mind. (http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html)

Excerpt:


The economic crisis brings a new question, unarticulated so far but there, and I know because when I mention it to people they go off like rockets. It is: Do you worry that neither of them is up to it? Up to the job in general? Is either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama actually up to getting us through this and other challenges? I haven't heard a single person say, "Yes, my guy is the answer." A lot of shrugging is going on out there. This is a read not only on the men but on the moment.

The overarching political question: In a time of heightened anxiety, will people inevitably lean toward the older congressional vet, the guy who's been around forever? Why take a chance on the new, young man at a time of crisis? Wouldn't that be akin to injecting an unstable element into an unstable environment? There's a lot at stake.

Or will people have the opposite reaction? I've had it, the system has been allowed to corrode and collapse under seven years of Republican stewardship. Throw the bums out. We need change. Obama may not be experienced, but that may help him cut through. He's not compromised.

[Crazed Rabbit]

how serious is this 70 odd bishops denouncing Biden?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/19/joe_biden_loses_barack_obama_the_catholic_vote

More serious than CA thinks, I believe. The Catholic Church is becoming more united is condemning the lies Biden and other Catholic (democratic) politicians say to excuse their support for abortion.


Archbishop Chaput of Denver had already announced Biden should not receive communion because of his pro-abortion views. Defiantly, Biden took communion in his home parish in Delaware in late August. On September 2 the Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania (a crucial swing state) banned him from communion in his diocese. That is effective excommunication. Then came the crucial provocation. On NBC's Meet the Press programme on September 7 Biden grossly misrepresented the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion and audaciously cited St Thomas Aquinas in his own cause.

That did it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already done the same thing on the same programme, in her instance citing St Augustine. Even the torpid US bishops could not have false doctrine glibly broadcast by public figures, misleading their flock. So the counterattack described here last week began, culminating in a statement from the US Bishops' Conference.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

More serious than CA thinks, I believe. The Catholic Church is becoming more united is condemning the lies Biden and other Catholic (democratic) politicians say to excuse their support for abortion.



CR

As fundamentally opposed to abortion as I am, Senator Joseph Biden has a more moderate record than his degenerate co-conspirators. He also understands that he is in a state of sin because of his position to the Church, but nonetheless supports abortion for his secular constituency.

I am a pro-life Catholic and I can't condemn him as harshly as some. Politicians need to be rewarded for attempting to approach a middle ground - even though a true middle ground would be overturning Roe and Doe and pursuing Federal or State level abortion legislation.

I can't join in the "outright lies" condemnation. He should simply avoid theological discussions as a Senator. I won't vote for his ticket because I disagree with their policies, not because he is a half-assed Catholic.

If he was pro-abortion but understood that Roe v Wade needed to go, I would be likely to vote for him. Pro-abortion supreme court justices on the are fine, unless they hallucinate abortion rights in the constitution - which is where the major problems began.

[Tribesman]

every right. the other actor doesn't have to listen, but again there may be a price to be paid........

oh there was a price , the Spanish had to sell the version which didn't have American parts which meant they got more money , and then America looked at the plane that didn't have American parts decided it was better than the other one so bought some which meant the spanish got more money again :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Now of course there is also another price to pay , the US decided that the Spanish planes were so much better that it might be worth looking at some more of the companies products , and they put in another order for new tankers .:yes:
But of course there is a price to pay , as in the american firms that had tankers for sale didn't like it and cried foul ...which results in the orders being placed for the crappier American model which means your military has to pay the price by recieving second rate equipment .
So you see Furunculus , when they want to play silly buggers you have to pay too .

[Lemur]

The Catholic Church is becoming more united is condemning the lies Senator Joseph Biden and other Catholic (democratic) politicians say to excuse their support for abortion.
Indeed. It gets interesting (http://abajournal.com/news/law_prof_denied_communion_for_supporting_obama/) quickly once you smash that church/state dichotomy:


Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec says he was denied communion because he supports Barack Obama, a candidate who backs abortion rights.

Kmiec, the former dean at Catholic University law school, told National Public Radio that he was asked to speak at a church about why he supported the candidate. Before the speech, the priest denounced Kmiec, saying those who support pro-choice candidates were “participating in a grave moral evil,” Kmiec said.

The priest held a mass and when Kmiec presented himself for communion, the priest shook his head from left to right. "I said to him, 'I think you're making a serious mistake, Father,' and he said, 'I don't think I've made any mistake,' ” Kmiec told NPR. Kmiec said his wife left the church in tears.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh please. This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

The outcry against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Joseph Biden was because they attempted to justify support for abortion through Catholic theology. They got shut down for their remarks, and rightfully so, because the Church is clear about their teachings and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Joseph Biden were wrong.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

and spain may well pay a price.

the other actor doesn't have to listen, but again there may be a price to be paid........A price to be paid? Hah! Even President George W. Bush learned that the price to be paid will be paid as much by the Americans as their allies.

I salute Spain for standing up to this sort of bullying. Spain will pay the price next time they're threatened? Last time their freedom really was threatened, US power politics led to military and financial support to Generalissimo Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde. That is Spanish experience with Anglosaxon power politics, and 'prices to be paid'. Like the whole Hispanic world, they are all too aware of the tension in foreign policy between Anglo democracy and Anglo realpolitik.

If you want to deal with the Spanish, ask them nicely. Few nations in Europe are as attached to democracy and as aware of the need to spread it as the Spanish. As to the other face of Anglo foreign policy, nope, they've had a taste of it themselves, and are culturally too aware of it through their ties with Spanish America. Spain is a big, mature democracy by now. Lest the world missed it, their GDP overtook Canada's in size several years ago. Generalissimo Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde is dead, they don't need to take daisy from the Anglosaxons anymore. Certainly not from the British, this eight year old schoolyard bully who threatens other eight year olds with his friend, the big twelve year old.

Haughtiness and insults don't work with the Spanish, then they're out - which, by Spanish standards, was a very polite and restrained reaction. They've cut off people's cojones for less. Lies and deceit don't work with them either. Aznar went to Washington (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001303). Spain tried to work with America, to take American interests into account. But, President George W. Bush gave Aznar nothing to work with, except stubborness and snubbery (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007092602485).
'The account offered a rare glimpse of how President George W. Bush interacted with a trusted foreign leader, offering blunt assessments and showing a determination that led even Prime Minister José María Aznar López, a close ally on Iraq, to ask that President George W. Bush show "a little more patience" in the march toward war. President George W. Bush expressed anger and irritation at those governments that disagreed with him, warning that they would pay a price. '


the note published yesterday by Spain’s El País of a conversation which occurred between President George W. Bush and then-Prime Minister José Maria Aznar López is a major further breakthrough in understanding the attitude of President George W. Bush in the weeks just preceding the invasion of Iraq. The document is not quite as damning at the Downing Street papers, but it does tend to reinforce the major thrust of the British notes on President George W. Bush’s pre-invasion rants.

It is to be stressed that, as was the case with the British documents, this note is particularly credible in that it was recorded by a close ally which was publicly committed to supporting, and did support, President George W. Bush in his drive against Iraq.

What emerges is a president full of swagger noting how he will use the great resources of the United States to press other nations (specifically here: members of the Security Council) into line in upcoming votes. He is also resolved to proceed with the invasion no matter what the Security Council does, and no matter what President Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti does. He feigns certitude about his conclusions on President Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti's involvement with WMD programs—though we now know that the intelligence community had come to discount the supposed evidence for President Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti's pursuit of WMDs at the time. His convictions are delusional, or they are mere pretense.

[...]

This is the President George W. Bush that at length Americans have come to understand: a man who is absolutely certain about things on which he is absolutely wrong. Prime Minister José Maria Aznar López's saving grace was his skepticism and adhesion to reason. He emerges from the discussion as a concerned friend trying tactfully to pull a friend back from the brink of disaster. He failed, of course, because once President George W. Bush has made up his mind, he does not listen—not even to his friends. He really has all the hallmarks of a disastrous leader.


Still Prime Minister José Maria Aznar López banked his political future on trusting Washington. Which cost him dearly. And when it became clear that besides bullying, Washington had also blatantly lied to its allies too, Spain was out (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3512144.stm). Spain is well-determined to stand up for democracy. But it doesn't want a life insurance from the Americans at all costs, unlike President George Bush I's closest friends: the Polish ultra-nationalists, the Bulgarian mobsters, the Georgian autocrat. And those other assorted clowns of Vice President Richard Cheney's 'New Europe'. :no:


Spain's Socialist Party prime minister-elect says he will pull troops out of Iraq - unless the UN takes charge. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said: "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster."

[...]

Prime Minister Zapatero said President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair needed to "engage in some self-criticism" over their decision to invade Iraq.

~~~

But more importantly, the world has moved on. Self-reflection learned the Europeans that antagonism is not the way an alliance can function. Washington in turn realises the very same thing. Why anybody on either side of the Atlantic still wants to be stuck in a 2003 mindset, is beyond me. It doesn't serve NATO, it doesn't serve Britain, it doesn't serve democracy, it doesn't serve any protection from terrorism. It serves..what really?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry for dragging this off-topic, but speaking of Aznar, why not share the latest rumors in a bid to liven up this thread with political sensationalism, Euro-style.

Aznar knocks up French minister (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88950)

short but plucky Jose Maria Aznar, (65 years - married - 2 children) former PM of Spain, friend and ally of Bush and rightwing thinktanker is indeed the mystery expectant father to the French minister of Justice, (48 years single) Rachida Dati's, baby.

Rachida had announced her surprise pregnancy earlier this week but declined to name the daddy thus sparking speculation.
Aznar denies everything. Me, I still have a tenner on Sarko being the father. We'll have to wait and see what the baby looks like...

[Strike For The South]

Sorry for dragging this off-topic, but speaking of Aznar, why not share the latest rumors in a bid to liven up this thread with political sensationalism, Euro-style.

Aznar knocks up French minister (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88950)
Aznar denies everything. Me, I still have a tenner on Sarko being the father. We'll have to wait and see what the baby looks like...

I want to be a European politician. You get to have relations with whomever you want and face no repercussions. What a great place.

[Xiahou]

eh the killing of wolves has to do with tourism and hunting. I would compare it to Texas Coyotes but with all the ranches and farmland down here its a different situation. I dont really care that an excess wolf population is being killed I find it disturbing that she would want to introduce a bill for a severed foreleg thats weird.
Actually, it's more about wildlife population control. In Alaska, there are people who actually depend on moose hunting for food. If the wolf population gets too high, or the moose population gets too low, some of the predators have to be killed off to make sure there are enough for people to hunt without doing permanent damage.

Read about it here (http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wolf.control). I'm sure being shot to death isn't much fun for the wolves- but neither is starvation. Similarly, I imagine the moose don't much like being ripped to pieces by wolves, but that's life. :yes:

[Tribesman]

It serves..what really?

Its a cycle Louis , or rather a zig-zag of bollox .
It goes .....help us , help us or else , help us please , we don't need your help , your country is crap anyway , why won't you help us , you will be sorry , your country is really crap , whats it got to do with your country anyway , help us , why won't you help us , its all your fault we are in this mess , help ....


You get to have relations with whomever you want and face no repercussions.
Not really , Aznar had relations with Bush and it cost him his job .~;)

[Xiahou]

This was interesting news (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/clinton-fundrai.html) to me:

Top Hillary Clinton fundraiser and member of the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee Lynn Forester de Rothschild endorsed Republican presidential nominee John McCain on Wednesday.How long til they kick her off the Platform Committee?

[Tribesman]

How long til they kick her off the Platform Committee?
Interesting question there Xiahou .
How do you kick someone off a committee if they leave the commitee ?:inquisitive:


from the article
a position she said on Wednesday that she will now abdicate.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think this is really cool! MCCain, Obama discuss science. (http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42)


In November, 2007, a small group of six citizens - two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist - began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. They called themselves Science Debate 2008, and they called for a presidential debate on science. The call tapped a wellspring of concern over the state of American science.

Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities.

Science Debate 2008 worked with the leading organizations listed to craft the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. These questions are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

The Questions and Answers, a Side by Side Comparison

*Warning. Link contains serious issues concerning American enterprise and science*


~~~~~~


Meanwhile in Palin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/19/uselections2008.sarahpalin2) news:


The Republicans today effectively won their battle to delay the findings of the Troopergate investigation into Sarah Palin until after the White House election on November 4.

Her husband, Todd, and other witnesses signalled late yesterday they would ignore subpoenas demanding they attend an Alaska senate judiciary hearing into the affair in Anchorage today.

One of the Democrats on the committee, Bill Wielechowski, admitted that Todd Palin and the others could continue to refuse to testify for months without facing a penalty.

[Lemur]

Ignoring subpoenas? Who do they think they are, Bush 43 staffers?

Meanwhile, a tart and enjoyable column about Alaskanomics (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html):


Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. [...]

Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

[m52nickerson]

I think this is really cool! MCCain, Obama discuss science. (http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42)

I think they both did well. They each had their good points and not so good points. Overall I think Obama had answers that were a little more thought out, but it was not by much. I think they were both weak on "Water". I liked McCain's views on space more then Obama's.

[CountArach]

More serious than CA thinks, I believe. The Catholic Church is becoming more united is condemning the lies Biden and other Catholic (democratic) politicians say to excuse their support for abortion.
The Church is, yes. However a recent national Quinnipiac Poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1215) shows Obama with a 51-42 lead with Catholics.

[Lemur]

However a recent national Quinnipiac Poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1215) shows Obama with a 51-42 lead with Catholics.
Quick! Deny them all Communion! Cast them from the Church!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I wonder what our leading energy expert has to say about the exportation of oil?


Oil and coal? Of course, it's a fungible commodity and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's going and where it's not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans that get stuck to holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first.

[OverKnight]

Gah?

[Xiahou]

Congratulations Obama supporters. Your guy just put out an Ad calling McCain and Rush Limbaugh part and parcel of the same package in his new Hispanic ad (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html).

This is like saying Elliot Ness and Organized Crime are the same thing. Two opposing sides on the Immigration issue, but since they are mentioned in the same sentence, they must be the same thing!

This is and outright dishonest Ad. It is safe to call the originator of this ad a liar. I wonder what Lemur thinks about it?FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sparring_in_spanish.html) comes to Limbaugh's defense and criticizes the dishonesty of the Obama ad. (while also criticizing McCain for blaming Democrats for the failure of the immigration bill.)


Unlike FactCheck, I think it's obvious that she was talking about "domestic" energy- she said as much in the quote. However, they go on to point out that, "domestic" aside, her statement was still factually wrong. Had she been talking specifically about domestic oil production, she would've still been exaggerating, but at least she would've been in the ball park. Did she misspeak? Did she not know the facts? Or was she shamelessly lying as Lemur believes? We don't know- but I think she should be further pressed on the issue.Turns out, she was pressed on the issue and explains that she meant oil and natural gas. FactCheck still disagrees with the 20% figure, but the campaign also provided it's source, the Alaska Resource Development Council- which listed the 20% figure, that they now caution is a 20yr average(they now peg the current number at 15% and FactCheck still disagrees). :dizzy2:

If it sounds confusing, just read their update (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html) on the topic, at the bottom of the page.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I wonder what our leading economics expert had to say about deregulation a couple months ago?


Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

[m52nickerson]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wonder what our leading economics expert had to say about deregulation a couple months ago?

Sasaki. "Regulation" is just a word. Of course we want good regulation and we want to get rid of bad regulation. The government should step in where there is widespread de-stabilization, but it should loosen the reigns were it looks like it would be a good idea.

It seems like some people will use this event to attack anyone who says that the government is doing too much regulating. That is crazy. There was obviously not enough regulation of honesty in numbers with regards to mortgages and securities, but I don't think it is reasonable to say; "because of that failure to regulate we now need to go overboard and regulate everything, even if it has very little to do with the problem at hand - anyone who stands in the way of regulation in any industry are enablers of the financial crisis".

Many are arguing for a federal de-regulation of marriage allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry. Oh my God - De-regulators!!!!! Crucify them for financial sabotage!

What would you say are the drawbacks to de-regulating interstate barriers in health care?

[Gregoshi]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?
Like the discussions in this thread?

[Strike For The South]

Insanity- Such a mental condition, as, either from the existence of delusions, or from incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong, with regard to any matter under action, does away with individual responsibility.

[KarlXII]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?

I thought that was the philosophy of the Republican Party......

[ICantSpellDawg]

I thought that was the philosophy of the Republican Party......

Oh this is a Republican thing now? I could have sworn it was a bi-partisan debacle, unless guys like Barney Frank switched over to red without notice.

[KarlXII]

Oh this is a Republican thing now? I could have sworn it was a bi-partisan debacle, unless Barney Frank switched over to red without notice.

Seems humor is lost to the right :juggle2:

Oh well......

[ICantSpellDawg]

Seems humor is lost to the right :juggle2:

Oh well......

It was very clever to say that Republicans are insane...

[KarlXII]

It was very clever to say that Republicans are insane...

Didn't say that, said their philosophy is insane

There's a difference :smash:

Just don't get your panties in a bunch.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Isn't the definition of insanity to try the samething over and over and expect a different result?

"I thought that was the philosophy of the democratic party..."

Nope. Wasn't funny then either. Vaguely related mainstream pot-shots are for morons. You are better than that, no?

[KarlXII]

"I thought that was the philosophy of the democratic party..."

Nope. Wasn't funny then either. Vaguely related mainstream pot-shots are for morons. You are better than that, no?

That wasn't funny because you plagarized....10 bucks please.

"Moron" is such a strong word. Getting angry, are we? I didn't think you'd get so hot headed over a stupid little comment.

[Big_John]

emocons. :undecided:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"Moron" is such a strong word. Getting angry, are we? I didn't think you'd get so hot headed over a stupid little comment.

...

Just don't get your panties in a bunch.

Don't be catty.


Like the discussions in this thread?

:laugh4:


Sasaki. "Regulation" is just a word. Of course we want good regulation and we want to get rid of bad regulation. The government should step in where there is widespread de-stabilization, but it should loosen the reigns were it looks like it would be a good idea.

It seems like some people will use this event to attack anyone who says that the government is doing too much regulating. That is crazy. There was obviously not enough regulation of honesty in numbers with regards to mortgages and securities, but I don't think it is reasonable to say; "because of that failure to regulate we now need to go overboard and regulate everything, even if it has very little to do with the problem at hand - anyone who stands in the way of regulation in any industry are enablers of the financial crisis".

Many are arguing for a federal de-regulation of marriage allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry. Oh my God - De-regulators!!!!! Crucify them for financial sabotage!

What would you say are the drawbacks to de-regulating interstate barriers in health care?

Well I don't have time to go into it now, but clearly there are times when deregulation is good and when it's bad, obviously we agree on that. That's a basic philosophy difference that republicans go for more free market solutions (free market solutions are great sometimes, so the remark about insanity doesn't follow).

The point of the quote to me was that a couple months ago McCain supported the deregulation of the financial industry...now look at his recent comments.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know, but he was using the good examples of reduced regulation in finance to support his plan of reducing regulation in the Health Insurance industry. I don't believe that anybody would have stood behind the idea that people were given unsafe loans that they had no ability or desire to pay back - without any check int other financial backgrounds. Nor would anyone have stood behind cooking financial books in such a dangerous way as to eventually scare everyone from investing money anywhere. I'm sure McCain wasn't talking about those unfortunate changes.

There needs to be common sense about this. After Bear Sterns there should have been task forces going in to investment firms and straightening the books, but nobody did tha. Hindsight is 20/20 - Certain developments have been terrible, but others have been pretty good. Mostly terrible as of late.

The question is - for all of the onslaught against McCain, does anyone here responsible really believe that Obama understands the economic situation or what needs to be done? I'm not so sure that many Presidents get finance unless they've worked in finance. Even financiers in general are confused and have little idea what to do or how to do it. Isn't it a little pompous to believe that Obama transcends things like snags in widely understood rational thought on things he has had little to nothing to do with in his entire life?

[m52nickerson]

Many are arguing for a federal de-regulation of marriage allowing 2 people of the same gender to marry. Oh my God - De-regulators!!!!! Crucify them for financial sabotage!

What would you say are the drawbacks to de-regulating interstate barriers in health care?

Well right now their are no federal laws that recognize the marriage of same sex couples, so you can't de-regulate something that is not their.


Drawbacks of removing interstate barriers in health care, none. Drawbacks in de-regulating the health care system in the whole, a future of failure. The health care system in this country is not failing because of state barriers and regulations. It is failing because insurance companies will take your money, then deny you meds and procedures everywhere they can. They cover only the people least likely to need them so they make more profits. They can change what meds they cover at their whim and in some cases tell you nad your doctors what treatments you can get. The insurance companies care only for their bottom line. That will continue less regulation or no regulation at all. That is why the rest of the industrial world has gone to universal health care.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Drawbacks of removing interstate barriers in health care, none. Drawbacks in de-regulating the health care system in the whole, a future of failure. The health care system in this country is not failing because of state barriers and regulations. It is failing because insurance companies will take your money, then deny you meds and procedures everywhere they can. They cover only the people least likely to need them so they make more profits. They can change what meds they cover at their whim and in some cases tell you nad your doctors what treatments you can get. The insurance companies care only for their bottom line. That will continue less regulation or no regulation at all. That is why the rest of the industrial world has gone to universal health care.

I don't remember hearing that he wanted all-around deregulation of the health care industry. Even in the quote he limits his statement to being for "nationwide competition". Of course feeding more sheep to infinitely gluttonous wolves is not the answer, but opening up competition in markets with terrible service and sky high prices tends to drive prices down. It is a good idea for starters.

Also - about the gay marriage thing - various State laws and common law interpretations "regulate" marriage as between one man and one woman. Any change allowing for different kinds of unions would technically be "de-regulation", No? Maybe "re-regulation" - but then so are most forms of things commonly understood to be "de-regulation".

[CountArach]

"I thought that was the philosophy of the democratic party..."

Nope. Wasn't funny then either. Vaguely related mainstream pot-shots are for morons. You are better than that, no?
I lol'ed.

[m52nickerson]

I don't remember hearing that he wanted all-around deregulation of the health care industry. Even in the quote he limits his statement to being for "nationwide competition". Of course feeding more sheep to infinitely gluttonous wolves is not the answer, but opening up competition in markets with terrible service and sky high prices tends to drive prices down. It is a good idea for starters.

Also - about the gay marriage thing - various State laws and common law interpretations "regulate" marriage as between one man and one woman. Any change allowing for different kinds of unions would technically be "de-regulation", No? Maybe "re-regulation" - but then so are most forms of things commonly understood to be "de-regulation".

What competition? all the major insurance companies all ready exist in all or at least most of the states.

As for same sex marriage, changing laws and regulations are not the same as de-regulations. If you de-regulated marriage the government would not be able to recognize any marriage as there would be no rules.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What competition? all the major insurance companies all ready exist in all or at least most of the states.

As for same sex marriage, changing laws and regulations are not the same as de-regulations. If you de-regulated marriage the government would not be able to recognize any marriage as there would be no rules.

Wrong. Is this why there people are having such a hard time understanding what de-regulation is? It is a general term for changing laws to lessen only one aspect out of the many. De-regulation means very little.

Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction) on business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) and individuals

Removing the restriction that "only one man may marry one woman" to allow any 2 people to wed is de-regulation. After the de-regulation, the law would effectively say "only one may marry one."

People are using de-regulation interchangeably with lawlessness which is inappropriate.

[m52nickerson]

Wrong. Is this why there people are having such a hard time understanding what de-regulation is? It is a general term for changing laws to lessen only one aspect out of the many. De-regulation means very little.

Deregulation, a term which gained widespread currency in the period 1970-2000, can be seen as a process by which governments remove, reduce, or simplify restrictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction) on business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business) and individuals

Removing the restriction that "only one man may marry one woman" to allow any 2 people to wed is de-regulation. After the de-regulation, the law would effectively say "only one may marry one."

People are using de-regulation interchangeably with lawlessness which is inappropriate.

Right now 2 men could go out and take vows in front of an ordained minister and marry. The problem is the law does not recognize that marriage because it does not fit into the current regulations. The law spells out the rights given to married man-woman couples, they currently don't not do the same for same sex couples. So same sex couples the rights of other married couples would be expanding laws and regulation, not remove, reduce, or simplify them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right now 2 men could go out and take vows in front of an ordained minister and marry. The problem is the law does not recognize that marriage because it does not fit into the current regulations. The law spells out the rights given to married man-woman couples, they currently don't not do the same for same sex couples. So same sex couples the rights of other married couples would be expanding laws and regulation, not remove, reduce, or simplify them.

That is a bad argument. You would be removing government impediment - that is de-regulation. There is currently a government impediment against 2 men marrying, requiring de-regulation of marriage.

I understand that there may be new laws made, but the fact is that the new laws would serve to reduce the government restriction. Neither of us seem to be agreeing on what seems like a pretty obvious argument. Am I on crazy pills here? Somebody else please take a crack at this.

[m52nickerson]

That is a bad argument. You would be removing government impediment - that is de-regulation. There is currently a government impediment against 2 men marrying, requiring de-regulation of marriage.

I understand that there may be new laws made, but the fact is that the new laws would serve to reduce the government restriction. Neither of us seem to be agreeing on what seems like a pretty obvious argument. Am I on crazy pills here? Somebody else please take a crack at this.

Unless a state has specific laws barring gay marriage their is no restriction, just not an option.

Current marriage laws give people the right to file taxes jointly, the right to not to testify against your spouse, etc....

Those right exist because of the laws. Currently in most places their is just not that option for gay couples. Giving them those rights is not de-regulation.

Even if you believe it is de-regulation, it would only show that some de-regulation is is good.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Further disrespect, insults and provocation will attract increasingly severe sanctions as I am getting bored with repeating myself in advisories.

:beadyeyes2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Here's a challenging analysis (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article4793410.ece) of both candidates' readiness for dealing with the economy. Well, maybe readiness is the wrong word.

The best part is the scathing summary of General Secretary Bush's Communist Fairy Land.


As the financial historian Ron Chernow told The New York Times last week: “We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.” That has been the story for eight years: spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, lie, lie, lie. The one liberal policy the Bush administration did not follow was any serious regulation or oversight of the banking and lending industries. And so they did not merely make the American government bankrupt, but they enabled the private sector to head directly off that cliff as well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Unless a state has specific laws barring gay marriage their is no restriction, just not an option.


That sounds awfully like a government restriction.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here's a challenging analysis (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article4793410.ece) of both candidates' readiness for dealing with the economy. Well, maybe readiness is the wrong word.

The best part is the scathing summary of General Secretary Bush's Communist Fairy Land.

As the financial historian Ron Chernow told The New York Times last week: “We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.” That has been the story for eight years: spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, lie, lie, lie. The one liberal policy the Bush administration did not follow was any serious regulation or oversight of the banking and lending industries. And so they did not merely make the American government bankrupt, but they enabled the private sector to head directly off that cliff as well.

That quote seems rather accurate.

[Lemur]

Yup, sad but true.

Meanwhile, the V.P. candidate who nobody is allowed to have at a press conference, whose press access is severely restricted, is also getting special treatment for the debates. 'Cause she's so ready to lead (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin).


McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges.

What a long, tedious joke.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup, sad but true.

Meanwhile, the V.P. candidate who nobody is allowed to have at a press conference, whose press access is severely restricted, is also getting special treatment for the debates. 'Cause she's so ready to lead (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin).

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges.What a long, tedious joke.

Wait wait wait. What I've understood was that Obama and McCain are using a much more relaxed than usual forum - While Biden and Palin are using the style that has been used for years. The reason that there is a disparity is that Obama and McCain just agreed to a different format. When you hear it like that does it sound like kids gloves or that Obama and McCain are groundbreakers?

[Lemur]

When you hear it like that does it sound like kids gloves or that Obama and McCain are groundbreakers?
Well, what does this sound like to you?


On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges.

[m52nickerson]

Sounds like they are protecting Palin from big bad Biden.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, what does this sound like to you?

Well if they haven't asked for kid gloves and are just doing it the way that is has been done, they haven't opted for a lighter system. The article makes it sound like McCain is looking to lighten the format.

Lets let people make up their own minds when they see the debate. No use making an issue out of it now (unless you are trying to score political points before the event even occurs). People will be pissed if they think that she got it easy in the debate.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, what does this sound like to you?

Like the normal presidential debates we've had lately. Did you make such a fuss when Obama ditched the idea of joint town halls over the summer?

CR

[m52nickerson]

Like the normal presidential debates we've had lately. Did you make such a fuss when Obama ditched the idea of joint town halls over the summer?

CR


....but the four presidential debates will be a more open style. So why can't the VP debate be the same?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Like the normal presidential debates we've had lately. Did you make such a fuss when Obama ditched the idea of joint town halls over the summer?

CR

McCain ditched the idea of joint town halls.

[ICantSpellDawg]

McCain ditched the idea of joint town halls.

That's news to me. I'm interested in a link if you've got one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

....but the four presidential debates will be a more open style. So why can't the VP debate be the same?

Because the McCain camp wanted to protect Palin. But its not like they went to extraordinary lengths.

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

Anyways, figured I'd update y'alls about some goings-on:
Obama is a filthy, filthy liar. He's outright lying about what McCain will do:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/scaring_seniors.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html

The NH Union Leader editorial: (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama+in+the+mud%3a+So+much+for+honesty&articleId=25fbff30-e785-4106-af08-92f0bbe63968)

We wonder what those same voters think of Obama's sincerity now. In the past few weeks, Obama has thrown so many false accusations against John McCain that just keeping track of them has become difficult. And these aren't innocent errors. They are deliberate distortions of the sort Obama has always said he reviles.
...
Yet here he is violating his own professed standards. This is not the Barack Obama so many voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere thought they knew. But it is the real Barack Obama. For despite his rhetoric, he is in fact campaigning so dishonestly that even The Washington Post and The New York Times have called him on it. Which means that he is in practice no different from those regular politicians against whom his entire campaign has been built.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's news to me. I'm interested in a link if you've got one.

Essentially it went like this:

McCain: I propose 10 town hall debates
Obama: I counteroffer with 2 town hall debates in addition to the 3 regular debates, let's negotiate
McCain: ...


a couple months later--


McCain (when asked about negative ads): It's a shame it's come to this, and I wish senator obama hadn't refused to meet me in town hall debates...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_is_the_first_real_debate_between.html mentions it

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Anyways, figured I'd update y'alls about some goings-on:
Obama is a filthy, filthy liar. He's outright lying about what McCain will do:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/scaring_seniors.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html



Aha, how dumb is that? Why can't he just describe how bad mccain's plan is without wildly exaggerating? :dizzy2:



The NH Union Leader editorial:


More Columns >>>

* > Charles Krauthammer: Bush could be the next Harry Truman (9)
* > John Stossel: Barack Obama and white privilege
* > Deroy Murdock: America is turning into a democratic-socialist state (1)
* > Thomas Sowell: Obama is little more than the idol of crowds (4)
* > Jonah Goldberg: Obama mocks McCain's war injuries (17)
* > Byron York: Yes, Obama did support sex-ed for kindergartners (12)
*> Crazed Rabbit: Obama is a filthy filthy filthy (x2) liar; McCain only speaks the truth (8)

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[m52nickerson]

Aha, how dumb is that? Why can't he just describe how bad mccain's plan is without wildly exaggerating? :dizzy2:


True very true. Now McCain and Obama are exchanging exaggerated adds.

[Incongruous]

Here is an article which I think really address's the politics and nature of the U.S.

It's a point blank salvo at anyone who thinks Obama is anything real or new.
It also blows up the idea some conservatives and Republicans on this board have that the media (men like Pilger are most definitely liberal) is constantly against them and in favour of the Dems.



Obama, the prince of bait-and-switch

24 Jul 2008

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes the devaluing of civilian casualties in colonial wars, and the anointing of Barack Obama, as he tours the battlefields, sounding more and more like George W. Bush.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=497

[Crazed Rabbit]

Aha, how dumb is that? Why can't he just describe how bad mccain's plan is without wildly exaggerating? :dizzy2:

He's just another ambitious politician. You really think he's going to make any major changes?


More Columns >>>
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Surely you can do better than just logical fallacies.

Anyways, here's an in-depth report on covert anti-GOP slime and rumor campaigns by professional PR firms with ties to Obama:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php


Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

* Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

* The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

* Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

* Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

* The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

* This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."

* David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.

* The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

...

WHO PRODUCED THE VIDEO? [UPDATE: Within 1 hour of posting, "eswinner" has removed all videos from YouTube and begun to try to remove any traces of his activities. But we have the video and all relevant websites backed up. Will update as soon as possible]


CR

[JR-]

they caught the hacker, and he is the son of a dem rep.

[CountArach]

they caught the hacker, and he is the son of a dem rep.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/09/19/palin_email_hack.html

What a way to destroy your father's career...

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/09/19/palin_email_hack.html

What a way to destroy your father's career...

That is very sad. I feel sorry for the father - not knowing if he is a scumbag or not.

Kids should have more respect for their parents careers.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Essentially it went like this:

McCain: I propose 10 town hall debates
Obama: I counteroffer with 2 town hall debates in addition to the 3 regular debates, let's negotiate
McCain: ...


a couple months later--


McCain (when asked about negative ads): It's a shame it's come to this, and I wish senator obama hadn't refused to meet me in town hall debates...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_is_the_first_real_debate_between.html mentions it

Very weak.

So McCain suggested 10 join town hall events and Obama countered with 2 (thereby declining the sizable commitment offered) and they never finished the discussion...

If he had counter offered with 5 or so it would be more reasonable. 2 is not a counter offer - 2 says that the request was unreasonable and not worthy of a legitimate response.

I still don't see how you can say that "McCain ditched the idea of town halls". That seems to not be supported, at least by the link posted. Logical leap.

[CountArach]

The superfluous crap of the day you guys will have to listen to:

McCain owns 13 cars (http://www.newsweek.com/id/160091)

13 is way too many, but seriously - hit him on the issues...

[ICantSpellDawg]

The superfluous crap of the day you guys will have to listen to:

McCain owns 13 cars (http://www.newsweek.com/id/160091)

13 is way too many, but seriously - hit him on the issues...

Lets get those rich people! God only knows that I want a middle class guy who makes 70k a year leading the free world!

[Tribesman]

Anyways, figured I'd update y'alls about some goings-on:
Obama is a filthy, filthy liar. He's outright lying about what McCain will do:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You link to a site that says that McCain is a liar too .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Of course it does. Good grief, you think that's some sort of surprise?

Is the fact that politicians lie so new and amazing to you that you are overcome by smugness and rush to inform people of that fact as though they've never heard it before?

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

More Columns >>>

* > Charles Krauthammer: Bush could be the next Harry Truman (9)
* > John Stossel: Barack Obama and white privilege
* > Deroy Murdock: America is turning into a democratic-socialist state (1)
* > Thomas Sowell: Obama is little more than the idol of crowds (4)
* > Jonah Goldberg: Obama mocks McCain's war injuries (17)
* > Byron York: Yes, Obama did support sex-ed for kindergartners (12)

:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4:

Those guys support McCain. I expect to hear his talking points from them. What is your point?

[Lemur]

George F. Will, a man who was once considered a "conservative", weighs in (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/abc-panel-tears-into-mcca_n_128055.html):


"I suppose the McCain campaign's hope is that when there's a big crisis, people will go for age and experience," said Will. "The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said 'let's fire somebody.' And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason ... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate." [...]

"John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."

[Tribesman]

Is the fact that politicians lie so new and amazing to you that you are overcome by smugness and rush to inform people of that fact as though they've never heard it before?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What , you mean by writing something like ....
Anyways, figured I'd update y'alls about some goings-on:
Obama is a filthy, filthy liar. He's outright lying about what McCain will do: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nope, not like that. I was not amazed or surprised by Obama; its not the fact that he's lying but the magnitude of his lies that are noteworthy.

You acted like having factcheck say McCain has lied was some great 'gotcha' moment.

CR

[TevashSzat]

That is very sad. I feel sorry for the father - not knowing if he is a scumbag or not.

Kids should have more respect for their parents careers.

Well, apparently the father is a real "Boy Scout" and follows all the rules and stuff. Shame that his son was so stupid (he apparently only realized how major and illegal his actions were AFTER getting into Palin's account) that he actually posted an email address associated to himself online

[PanzerJaeger]

The thing about Obama is that he has built his campaign based on the frustrations people have with "old style" of politics, so every lie he tells makes him that much more disengenuous than your "normal" politician.... It definitely takes a certain amoral pathology to call out the Washington establishment for attack politics while using the same dirty tactics.. maybe his next novel should be entitled The Audacity of a Scumbag?

[Strike For The South]

The thing about Obama is that he has built his campaign based on the frustrations people have with "old style" of politics, so every lie he tells makes him that much more disengenuous than your "normal" politician.... It definitely takes a certain amoral pathology to call out the Washington establishment for attack politics while using the same dirty tactics.. maybe his next novel should be entitled The Audacity of a Scumbag?

Well seeing how McCain and Palin are running the change campaign now to. I think it is safe to say we wont have an actual choice this year...which is good because I was scared there for a second.

[Xiahou]

In an otherwise depressing campaign, at least we can still count on Biden (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_garbles_Depression_history.html?showall) for amusement:
Joe Biden's denunciation of his own campaign's ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.

He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

As Reason's Jesse Walker footnotes it: "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, 'Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?'":laugh4:

I thought this was another good Biden line (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/20/1429325.aspx):
“Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey,” he said. “If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem.”
Contrast that with his statements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ) during the Democrat Youtube debates where he brags about his prominent role in the assault weapons ban and calls a gun owner crazy.

Democrats always manage to look silly when they pander to gun owners.
"Can I get me a hunting license here?":beam:

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow. This coming from the media appointed "Master of Foreign Policy and Debate"? That is not just mixing up Dachau and Auschwitz, it is basic American history. :shame:

(And what kind of imbecile thinks people had TV's in 1929???)

[Lemur]

The Economist had an interesting editorial (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12262173) this week:

America not quite at its best

The election has taken a nasty turn. This is mainly the Republicans’ fault

AS RECENTLY as a few months ago, it seemed possible to hope that this year’s presidential election would be a civilised affair. Barack Obama and John McCain both represent much that is best about their respective parties. Mr Obama is intelligent, inspiring and appears by instinct to be a consensus-seeking pragmatist. John McCain has always stood for limited, principled government, and has distanced himself throughout his career from the religious ideologues that have warped Republicanism. An intelligent debate about issues of the utmost importance—how America should rebuild its standing in the world, how more Americans could share in the proceeds of growth—seemed an attainable proposition.

It doesn’t seem so now. In the past two weeks, while banks have tottered and markets reeled, the contending Democrats and Republicans have squabbled and lied rather than debated. Mr McCain’s team has been nastier, accusing Mr Obama of sexism for calling the Republican vice-presidential candidate a pig, when he clearly did no such thing. Much nastier has been the assertion that Mr Obama once backed a bill that would give kindergarten children comprehensive sex education. Again, this was a distortion: the bill Mr Obama backed provided for age-appropriate sex education, and was intended to protect children from sex offenders.

These kinds of slurs seem much more personal, and therefore unpleasant, than the more routine distortions seen on both sides. Team McCain accuses Mr Obama of planning to raise taxes for middle-income Americans (in fact, the Democrat’s plan raises them only for those earning more than $250,000); Mr Obama claims Mr McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years (when the Republican merely agreed that he would gladly keep bases there for that long to help preserve the peace, as in Germany) and caricatures him far too readily as a Bush toady (when Mr McCain’s record as an independent senator has been anything but that).

An issue of life and life

The decision to descend into tactics such as the kindergarten slur shows that America is back in the territory of the “culture wars”, where the battle will be less about policy than about values and moral character. That is partly because Mr Obama’s campaign, perhaps foolishly, chose to make such a big deal of the virtues of their candidate’s character. Most people are more concerned about the alarming state of the economy than anything else; yet the Democrats spent far more time in Denver talking about Mr Obama’s family than his economic policy. The Republicans leapt in, partly because they have a candidate with a still more heroic life story; partly because economics is not Mr McCain’s strongest suit and his fiscal plan is pretty similar to Mr Bush’s; but mostly because painting Mr Obama as an arrogant, elitist, east-coast liberal is an easy way of revving up the Republican Party’s base and what Richard Nixon called the “silent majority” (see article (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12260881)).

The decision to play this election, like that of 2004, as a fresh instalment of the culture wars is disappointing to those who thought Mr McCain was more principled than that. By choosing Sarah Palin as his running-mate he made a cynical tryst with a party base that he has never much liked and that has never much liked him. Mr McCain’s whole candidacy rests on his assertion that these are perilous times that require a strong and experienced commander-in-chief; but he has chosen, as the person who may be a 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency, someone who demonstrably knows very little about international affairs or the economy.

What Mrs Palin does do, as a committed pro-lifer, is to ensure that the evangelical wing of the Republican party will turn out in their multitudes. Mr McCain has thus placed abortion, the most divisive cultural issue in America, at the centre of his campaign. His defenders claim that it is too big an issue to be ignored, that he has always opposed abortion, that culture wars are an inevitable part of American elections, and that it was only when he appointed Mrs Palin that the American public started to listen to him. All this is true: but the old Mr McCain, who derided the religious right as “agents of intolerance”, would not have stooped to that.

[Tribesman]

Wow. This coming from the media appointed "Master of Foreign Policy and Debate"? That is not just mixing up Dachau and Auschwitz, it is basic American history.

(And what kind of imbecile thinks people had TV's in 1929???)
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Note the words "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929
So Panzer what year were mechanical televisions introduced to the US and what year did they first telecast politicians on TV ? Was it the year before 1929 or the year before 1929 ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What kind of imbecile eh:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

The thing about Obama is that he has built his campaign based on the frustrations people have with "old style" of politics, so every lie he tells makes him that much more disengenuous than your "normal" politician.... It definitely takes a certain amoral pathology to call out the Washington establishment for attack politics while using the same dirty tactics.. maybe his next novel should be entitled The Audacity of a Scumbag?

Call me stupid here but I'm unaware of what huge frauds Obama has perpetrated upon the public. There have been some twists and spins mostly in retalitory attack ads which don't even approach the level of implying McCain is a pedophile like his ads do to Obama. It is certainly hard to piece together everything you could argue is untrue (I'm aware of any flat falsehoods from his campaign, honestly) from Obama's statements and somehow construe it as being more ridiculous than McCain's attempt to reinvent himself as a reformer and maverick. I want to say to McCain: Hint dude, mavericks almost by definition aren't 70 years old with 20+ years at an insider job you claim to be a fresh outsider to.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Koga, if you're looking for some flat out lies by Obama, check out the following links:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/scaring_seniors.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html

One can argue how much, if at all, of a maverick McCain is, but he's been pushing that line for over eight years at the least; I don't think it's a late stage reinvention.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Let me rephrase then, McCain has so frequently reversed course whenever expedient that it is pointless to assign any reinvention a date. He scolded the Falwell crowd of Christians and then embraced them. He stood up against torture and then supported its use. He's lived his whole career for deregulation and now he's supposedly a "good" regulator. He was moderate on abortion while senator of a western state and suddenly pro-life when a presidential candidate. He schmoozes with the Washington elite and press corp and has even had a practically dedicated press corps following him around for the last several years fawning over everything he says and he calls Obama a celebrity. He owns 9 houses and calls Obama the elitist.

There is almost nothing I can think of when it comes to McCain that he has been consistent on.

So, within that context, two examples of gaffes or misrepresentations on Obama's part aren't a compelling case that he's tit for tat just like any other politician, especially in light of running against McCain, who is 200 times the flip-flopper Kerry was yet seems to get a pass on that from the same GOP voting base who apparently considered flip-flopping an immediate disqualification for President in 2004.

[PanzerJaeger]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Note the words "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929
So Panzer what year were mechanical televisions introduced to the US and what year did they first telecast politicians on TV ? Was it the year before 1929 or the year before 1929 ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What kind of imbecile eh:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Can I borrow one of your smilies? :laugh4:

I'm sure you're aware of the definition of experimental? Better yet, could you tell me how many TVs were owned and operated in 1929? :beam:




Call me stupid

It's hard not to if you've paid attention at all to this campaign and can't think of any lies or distortions coming from the Obama campaign. I'm a kinder, gentler Panzer now though, so I wont.

Maybe you can answer what no one else has. How will he pay for everything he's promising within the parameters he has set (raising the top bracket only to 90s levels, capital gains, etc...)? The numbers don't add up. If he can't pay for the great changes he's planning on making, it all falls apart, and represents a huge deception.

[seireikhaan]

Maybe you can answer what no one else has. How will he pay for everything he's promising within the parameters he has set (raising the top bracket only to 90s levels, capital gains, etc...)? The numbers don't add up. If he can't pay for the great changes he's planning on making, it all falls apart, and represents a huge deception.
Well, certainly he can't pay for ALL of it, especially now after the debacle in the financial markets. Never mind, of course, that McCain's plans raise the debt even more than Obama's, and are thus actually (more) impossible to pay for.:smash:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667.html?hpid=topnews


The survey also found that the strong initial public reaction to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, has cooled somewhat. Overall, her unfavorable rating has gone up by 10 points in the past two weeks, from 28 percent to 38 percent.

She remains broadly popular -- 52 percent of voters view her positively -- but there have been some notable declines. Over the past two weeks, the percentage of independents with favorable views of Palin dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent. Among independent women, the decline was particularly sharp, going from 65 percent to 43 percent. Her favorable rating among whites without college degrees remained largely steady, but among those with college degrees, it dropped nearly 20 percentage points.

The survey also showed some backsliding in enthusiasm among McCain supporters. Overall, most supporters of each presidential candidate said they are enthusiastic about their choice, but 62 percent of Obama supporters said they are "very enthusiastic," compared with 34 percent of McCain's supporters. Coming out of the GOP convention, nearly half of those backing McCain said they did so fervently.

:laugh4:

[Lemur]

Thanks for the info, SK.

Here's a little nugget for those who feel abortion is the #1 issue of this (and every) election: Abortions are now down to the lowest rate they've been at since Roe v. Wade was made law. Note that they peaked during the Reagan years, and did their steepest declining under Clinton. Factor this in to your thinking the next time you take up abortion as your clarion call for voting.

Data (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=new_data_on_abortion):

The abortion rate is currently at its lowest since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Most of the change is due to declining abortion rates among women aged 20 to 24 since 1989. Experts disagree on the cause of this shift, with some pointing toward easier access to contraceptives, and others citing state laws that require parental notification for minors' abortions. Minors, however, account for only 7 percent of all abortions.
Since 1989, the only group whose abortion rate has increased is women over 40. It is likely that genetic screening for diseases such as Down Syndrome accounts for this increase. A large majority of expectant parents who receive a Down Syndrome diagnosis are now choosing to terminate the pregnancy.
The proportion of women accessing abortion who've already had an abortion is falling. In the words of Guttmacher, "There is no evidence that abortion is being used as a primary method of birth control."

And article at WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html?nav=rss_nation) adds further detail, as well as this graphic:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/GR2008092300540.gif

-edit-

As for PJ's little riff about how Obama can't pay for all of this campaign promises, well, why can't he take a page from the Republicans and just put everything on the national credit card? Really, I'm astonished when Republicans pretend to be fiscal conservatives. What a joke (http://jayma.posterous.com/maybe-its-time-to-become-an-ex)!


The White House just asked the national debt ceiling be raised another $700 billion, for the proposed financial-sector bailout. If that happens, in 2008 alone, $1.5 trillion will have been added to the national debt: every penny borrowed from your children and their children. Stated in today's dollars, in 1979 the entire national debt was $1.5 trillion. George W. Bush and Congress have in a single year added an amount equal to the entire national debt one generation ago. And the year's not over!

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667.html?hpid=topnews



:laugh4:

I guess the astroturf slime campaigns done covertly by Obama's campaign are paying off.

CR

[Lemur]

I guess the astroturf slime campaigns done covertly by Obama's campaign are paying off.
Yeah, 'cause the Obama campaign forced the McCain campaign to take steps that would alienate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/campbell-brown-rips-mccai_n_128782.html) and piss off the entire press corps. It's the Obama campaign's fault that Palin won't answer any questions from the press, and it's Obama's personal fault that Palin has never held a press conference.

I think maybe it's Nancy Pelosi's fault that Palin keeps saying disprovable falsehoods (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-twelve-odd.html). And it's Joe Biden's fault that Palin sounded like an uniformed, unprepared, incurious candidate in her ABC interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA).

That's what I like about "conservatives" -- they're all about taking responsibility for their own actions.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I guess the astroturf slime campaigns done covertly by Obama's campaign are paying off.

CR

Bit odd that the astroturf (???) is only paying off among people with college degrees isn't it? :laugh4:

You'd expect that the better educated people are the more they'd be able to see through slime...

[Lemur]

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, "astroturf" refers to a campaign-based imitation of public support (imitation grassroots support, in other words). For instance, if a campaign were to centralize a process of creating letters to the editor of local papers (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/24/mccain_letters/) full of false details, that would count as astroturf.

In this instance, I think CR has his talking points mixed up, which is forgivable since Johnny Mac does the same on a regular basis. CR, I believe you meant to use the "The Entire Free Press is in the Tank for Obama" talking point, not the "Obama's Support is All Astroturf" one. 'Cause in this context, yelling "No Fair! Astroturf!" doesn't even make sense.

[Spino]

Just back from a three week vacation in Spain and I feel the urge to rant in my favorite forum...

I must confess, the Darwinist in me is secretly hoping Obama does win this year because his Megalomaniacal Farcefulness combined with one party control of the Executive and Legislative branches will most certainly expedite our decline into disaster. Any nation that deems a Clinton, GW Bush or an Obama worthy of occupying the number one position deserves every bad thing that happens to it.

The root of the problem is that America's ailments are generational in nature and not related to any flaws in the system. These post-war generation politicians can pass as many laws and print as much paper money as they like but you cannot legislate culture or morality. Things were running just fine for 200 years until a cultural revolution took place that created a generation who thought it could reinvent the wheel and wound up breaking everything in their attempt to fix what wasn't broken. Nothing, and I mean nothing of our own short sighted conventional designs, will stop this downward slide which seems to be picking up the pace since the beginning of the Vietnam war. It comes down to a matter of faith, or lack thereof, in the ability, willpower and fortitude of post-war generation America to take the necessary steps to right the ship. It just ain't happening. Seriously now, what is the great plan for the future? To implement government control of our major financial institutions and print more monopoly money so they can spend it on frivolous, short sighted legislation? The inmates are running the asylum. What a joke.

Maybe this is all for the best. Perhaps post-war generation America needs a self inflicted disaster to take place and it looks like were perilously close to that happening. After all it's been a long time since our nation has know what it's like to experience the pain and anguish of failure on a national level. A dose of reality to the insular, delusional generations running the country into the ground might be just what the doctor ordered. I stand by my earlier assessment in that I believe only a bloody reboot or schism can save whatever remains of this country. The idea that we can return to a state of relative normalcy is the byproduct of denial and fanciful thinking. We have become the proverbial walking dead and simply don't know it.

[Koga No Goshi]

Nothing was broken 200 years ago? Well, I'm Native, I'm sure there are some black and female members of the forum, who'd laugh you off a stage for that one. Yes, these petty, destructive cultural revolutions that changed things that were working just fine are the reason our country is in decline. Not the mass explosion of corporate greed and its close ties to political establishments which have allowed it to gut our country. Schools struggle every single year for their budgets and we are talking about a 700 billion bailout for filthy rich Wall Street investment banks and financial institutions on taxpayer dimes. That's to blame on feminism and civil rights and such, right?

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah, 'cause the Obama campaign forced the McCain campaign to take steps that would alienate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/campbell-brown-rips-mccai_n_128782.html) and piss off the entire press corps. It's the Obama campaign's fault that Palin won't answer any questions from the press, and it's Obama's personal fault that Palin has never held a press conference.

I think maybe it's Nancy Pelosi's fault that Palin keeps saying disprovable falsehoods (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-twelve-odd.html). And it's Joe Biden's fault that Palin sounded like an uniformed, unprepared, incurious candidate in her ABC interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA).

That's what I like about "conservatives" -- they're all about taking responsibility for their own actions.

Haven't you figured out by now it's ALWAYS the fault of a Democrat? They blame us for 9/11, even. Clinton somehow reached his hand out from beyond his 2nd term and throttled Bush and prevented him from acting when he received 38 security warnings regarding terrorist threats, and the FBI was cancelling vacation times to work on the problem.

[TevashSzat]

Haven't you figured out by now it's ALWAYS the fault of a Democrat? They blame us for 9/11, even. Clinton somehow reached his hand out from beyond his 2nd term and throttled Bush and prevented him from acting when he received 38 security warnings regarding terrorist threats, and the FBI was cancelling vacation times to work on the problem.

Well.....Clinton could have magically known 9/11 was going to happen, launch a preemptive strike into Afghanistan and later Iraq only to get stuck there and thus give the Republicans firm control of Congress....and then all in the world would be right.....:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

Well.....Clinton could have magically known 9/11 was going to happen, launch a preemptive strike into Afghanistan and later Iraq only to get stuck there and thus give the Republicans firm control of Congress....and then all in the world would be right.....:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Clinton was actually paying attention to Bin Laden back when all of the people in the Bush Admin probably thought Al Qaida was a spicy food with hummus. And when he tried to act? The Republicans ramrod him politically and said he was wagging the dog. And the American people went with that because at that time no one knew nor cared who Bin Laden was.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, "astroturf" refers to a campaign-based imitation of public support (imitation grassroots support, in other words). For instance, if a campaign were to centralize a process of creating letters to the editor of local papers (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/24/mccain_letters/) full of false details, that would count as astroturf.

In this instance, I think CR has his talking points mixed up, which is forgivable since Johnny Mac does the same on a regular basis. CR, I believe you meant to use the "The Entire Free Press is in the Tank for Obama" talking point, not the "Obama's Support is All Astroturf" one. 'Cause in this context, yelling "No Fair! Astroturf!" doesn't even make sense.

No, I was talking about this:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194205.php
Which I mentioned earlier.

CR

[Tribesman]

I'm sure you're aware of the definition of experimental?
Well obviously you are unaware of the definition of "if" Panzer :dizzy2:

[Lemur]

And now McCain wants to suspend his campaign and delay the debates (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/24/mccain_suspending_campaign_ask.html?hpid=topnews)? What does that even mean? When he says he will "suspend his campaign," what does that consist of? Weird, seriously weird.

As Ben Smith (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCains_gambit.html?showall) wrote, "The only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling."

[Crazed Rabbit]

Call me a cynic, but I'm cynical of McCain's altruistic intentions.

CR

[Spino]

Nothing was broken 200 years ago? Well, I'm Native, I'm sure there are some black and female members of the forum, who'd laugh you off a stage for that one. Yes, these petty, destructive cultural revolutions that changed things that were working just fine are the reason our country is in decline. Not the mass explosion of corporate greed and its close ties to political establishments which have allowed it to gut our country. Schools struggle every single year for their budgets and we are talking about a 700 billion bailout for filthy rich Wall Street investment banks and financial institutions on taxpayer dimes. That's to blame on feminism and civil rights and such, right?

Touchy touchy. You need a little perspective on history. The generations largely responsible for womens' suffrage and those civil rights acts you're touting were born well before WW2 and are not the same one currently running the country into the ground at breakneck speed. Your points on slavery are well put but I was speaking largely to the rapid decline of Federalism and the explosive growth of government in the last 20-30 years. America operated quite successfully for a very long time without having an all controlling, all encompassing Federal government interfering in people's daily affairs and rewarding failed private enterprises with safety nets.

[Koga No Goshi]

Touchy touchy. You need a little perspective on history. The generations largely responsible for womens' suffrage and those civil rights acts you're touting were born well before WW2 and are not the same one currently running the country into the ground at breakneck speed. Your points on slavery are well put but I was speaking largely to the rapid decline of Federalism and the explosive growth of government in the last 20-30 years. America operated quite successfully for a very long time without having an all controlling, all encompassing Federal government interfering in people's daily affairs and rewarding failed private enterprises with safety nets.

You didn't specify 20-30 years ago, you said 200 years ago things were fine and it was the changes since then that have ruined this country. That includes an awful lot of stuff that many of us not only consider good things, but necessary things, that in no way should be blamed for the fact that an obsessive deregulation mindset and insisting on the myth that the market corrects itself without need for intervention is far more responsible.

[PanzerJaeger]

As for PJ's little riff about how Obama can't pay for all of this campaign promises, well, why can't he take a page from the Republicans and just put everything on the national credit card? Really, I'm astonished when Republicans pretend to be fiscal conservatives. What a joke (http://jayma.posterous.com/maybe-its-time-to-become-an-ex)!


What are you going to do in a couple of months when you can't divert any and all questions about Obama and his plans into a criticism of Bush and the Republicans? As a Democrat, you're going to have to learn to take responsibility for your man's plan. ~:)

[KarlXII]

Wow. This coming from the media appointed "Master of Foreign Policy and Debate"? That is not just mixing up Dachau and Auschwitz, it is basic American history. :shame:

Funny, didn't McCain refer to the defunct country of Czechoslovakia? Did he not refer to the president of Germany as Vladimir Putin? I thought that was common knowledge.


"And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him.

Hmmmm.....

[PanzerJaeger]

Clinton was actually paying attention to Bin Laden back when all of the people in the Bush Admin probably thought Al Qaida was a spicy food with hummus. And when he tried to act? The Republicans ramrod him politically and said he was wagging the dog. And the American people went with that because at that time no one knew nor cared who Bin Laden was.


:laugh4:

You're the one who just said..


Haven't you figured out by now it's ALWAYS the fault of a Democrat?


In any event, Clinton's dealings with Sudan are murky at best. It really depends on who you believe, Erwa or Sandy Berger(that guy convicted of stealing documents from Clintons national archives..).

Or we could just go by Clinton himself..


So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

[PanzerJaeger]

Funny, didn't McCain refer to the defunct country of Czechoslovakia? Did he not refer to the president of Germany as Vladimir Putin? I thought that was common knowledge.


You're suffering from the same problem Lemur is.


hmmmm.....

Unfortunately, Mr. Biden didn't say that. Go read the story again. :beam:

[Big_John]

Nothing was broken 200 years ago? Well, I'm Native, I'm sure there are some black and female members of the forum, who'd laugh you off a stage for that one. Yes, these petty, destructive cultural revolutions that changed things that were working just fine are the reason our country is in decline. Not the mass explosion of corporate greed and its close ties to political establishments which have allowed it to gut our country. Schools struggle every single year for their budgets and we are talking about a 700 billion bailout for filthy rich Wall Street investment banks and financial institutions on taxpayer dimes. That's to blame on feminism and civil rights and such, right?
don't forget abortion.

[Spino]

You didn't specify 20-30 years ago, you said 200 years ago things were fine and it was the changes since then that have ruined this country. That includes an awful lot of stuff that many of us not only consider good things, but necessary things, that in no way should be blamed for the fact that an obsessive deregulation mindset and insisting on the myth that the market corrects itself without need for intervention is far more responsible.


*sighs*

No... I said... "Things were running just fine for 200 years...". Meaning I was relatively content with the progress of this nation for the past 200 years until the generation born after WW2 matured and took over the reins.

[KarlXII]

You're suffering from the same problem Lemur is.



Unfortunately, Mr. Biden didn't say that. Go read the story again. :beam:

HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN AD WAS NOT GOOD????????????????????????????????????????????????

Besides, John "Obama is going to teach yourself how to do it" McCain hasn't been so ideal in his ads.

[Xiahou]

HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN AD WAS NOT GOOD????????????????????????????????????????????????At first he did. Then the Obama campaign slapped him around and released a statement "from" Biden that said now that he's seen it, it really was a good attack ad. :dizzy2:

[PanzerJaeger]

HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AN AD WAS NOT GOOD????????????????????????????????????????????????

Besides, John "Obama is going to teach yourself how to do it" McCain hasn't been so ideal in his ads.

I'm completely lost... :dancing:

[Lemur]

Is anybody else following this weird "suspension" with McCain? Does it make a lick of sense? And what's with snubbing a talk-show host and bald-faced lying (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cbm.htm) about it? Is that smart?


David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

-edit-

Man, the lengths McCain is willing to go to to avoid letting Palin speak in an unscripted environment are getting into self-parody territory (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Palin_gets_question_looks_to_McCain_demurs.html?showall).


McCain then looked around the room and gestured as if to welcome questions. The AP reporter shouted a question at Gov. Palin (“Governor, what have you learned from your meetings?”) but McCain aide Brooke Buchanan intervened and shepherded everybody out of the room.

Palin looked surprised, leaned over to McCain and asked him a question, to which your pooler thinks he shook his head as if to say “No.”

As another analyst (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/letting_sarah_palin_answer_que.php) pointed out: "What's really sobering is that the McCain campaign continues to block Palin from answering questions even though it's now resulting in reams and reams of bad press for the McCain-Palin ticket. That suggests McCain advisers know that letting her answer even the most elementary questions in an uncontrolled environment is so dangerous that it's worth weathering the current media drubbing they're taking in order to prevent it from happening at all costs."

[Koga No Goshi]

*sighs*

No... I said... "Things were running just fine for 200 years...". Meaning I was relatively content with the progress of this nation for the past 200 years until the generation born after WW2 matured and took over the reins.

Fine. Point taken. But if you are going to be so vague and cover such huge swaths of time with positive generalizations just be prepared for someone to immediately think you are saying a lot of really ugly things were good. Might I suggest being more specific with what exactly you are saying instead of leaving it up to the imagination.

Lemur-

Yes, the suspension makes total sense. For one, McCain is so deeply in bed with lobbyists against regulation for Freddie and Fannie (MANY WORK IN HIS CAMPAIGN, NOW!) that he needs to get as much distance as possible and present himself as hardcore for responsible regulation.

For two, everyone with a lick of sense has been saying that if McCain or at least his "vetters" are not extremely worried about the debates, they are either really stupid or really naive. Everytime McCain has to speak on his own without aids feeding him his lines he says something youtube worthy and makes himself look.... 72 years old and confused. People have been saying for weeks that Obama is probably going to mop the floor in the debates and now McCain has an out.

And, also significantly, pushing back the debate schedule would mean more time to prep Sarah Palin and vet her and train her with all the lines and talking points she needs to give for any possible topic that might come up in a question. We all know what happened the last time she gave an interview in an uncontrolled environment where someone other than Sean Hannity was giving her something other than playdough softball questions.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I love you too, TuffStuff, and I'm not afraid to say so. BTW, I posted an item in the Election Thread specifically for you, but I think it got buried. Here (http://https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2021850&postcount=2354) it is. I know abortion is an overriding issue for you, and I'd be curious to hear your reaction.

The terrorists only killed 10 hostages today, down from their usual 15. See - you people who said we should have gone in and stopped injustice should have just waited. Everything is fine now!

[Lemur]

The terrorists only killed 10 hostages today, down from their usual 15. See - you people who said we should have gone in and stopped injustice should have just waited. See? Everything is fine now!
So a marked, measurable reduction in abortions means nothing to you? Are you not even slightly interested in lowering the total number of abortions in this country, or is anything short of a blanket ban just foolishness?

[Koga No Goshi]

The terrorists only killed 10 hostages today, down from their usual 15. See - you people who said we should have gone in and stopped injustice should have just waited. Everything is fine now!

If 10 people were killed from dehydration in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike would you even be discussing it?

Sorry, but the whole "omg something is way worse because it's war/terrorist" related thing doesn't fly with me... after we watched a whole American city virtually destroyed and did almost nothing.

[Koga No Goshi]

What are you going to do in a couple of months when you can't divert any and all questions about Obama and his plans into a criticism of Bush and the Republicans? As a Democrat, you're going to have to learn to take responsibility for your man's plan. ~:)

Shouldn't all fiscal conservatives be on board with anyone who is talking about getting out of the war asap?

WHOEVER wins at this point is going to inherit a cripplingly large deficit. The top priority is to cut that down as soon as possible, and you're not going to do it by handing out enormous tax cuts to rich people and corporations. We've had 8 years of that junk. And the war spending...

Why is it that every minute detail of a campaign plan posed by a Democrat must be worthy of Congressional passage in advance, whereas McCain can just sort of mutter and make vague one-line soundbytes and he has a stamp of approval? What he promises to cut in earmarks is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the tax cuts he is planning to hand out to people who make over $400k.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So a marked, measurable reduction in abortions means nothing to you? Are you not even slightly interested in lowering the total number of abortions in this country, or is anything short of a blanket ban just foolishness?

Your chart and article literally suggest that people have abortions out of frustration with Republican administrations or due to their policies. I fail to see the logic in that. I'l bet that irrespective of whether we have a Rep or a Dem in the oval office, abortion rates will increase as the economy does more poorly.

You people think that overturning Roe would be a blanket ban. You simply won't hear us out. The issue of finding a right to have an abortion in the Constitution is not only an issue about abortion, but of constitutional law and respect for the Federal or State level legislature's role in writing laws. We couldn't even repeal slavery without a few amendments to the constitution and the words "all men were created equal" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were included in the declaration of Independence... But the question of abortion could be settled in a court by the decisions of 5 men. Abortion is such a massive issue because of the impact on life and what the Constitution means. Overturn the bad constitutional decision and maybe abortion will fall to #2 or 3 on my list of most important reasons to vote for or against a president. I believe that you can be agaisnt Roe v Wade and still be pro-choice.

Also - I don't understand why people "who support fetal homicide as an option" are looking to lower the abortion rate anyway. If it isn't wrong it's just an effective form of birth control, right? Do you just dislike it because it is a more invasive form of birth control for the mother?

[ICantSpellDawg]

If 10 people were killed from dehydration in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike would you even be discussing it?

Sorry, but the whole "omg something is way worse because it's war/terrorist" related thing doesn't fly with me... after we watched a whole American city virtually destroyed and did almost nothing.

What?

[Lemur]

Your chart and article literally suggest that people have abortions out of frustration with Republican administrations or due to their policies.
Say what? The data is what it is. How can a chart "suggest" something? Are you getting a little paranoid over there in Long Island?


You people think that overturning Roe would be a blanket ban. You simply won't hear us out.
Wow, a strawman and a "you people" construction. Twofer! When have I (sorry, "me people") said anything like that? When have I ("me people") failed to hear you out? Where's this tidal wave of frustration coming from?


Overturn the bad constitutional decision and maybe abortion will fall to #2 or 3 on my list of most important reasons to vote for or against a president.
So the real, practical reduction of abortion is meaningless compared to the constitutional issue of repealing Roe v. Wade? And you wonder why some people use the term "emo-con"?


I believe that you can be agaisnt Roe v Wade and still be pro-choice.
Agree 100%. As I have said on this board previously, Roe v. Wade prevents us from arriving at a sensible compromise. Do you recall "us people" saying that?


Also - I don't understand why people "who support fetal homicide as an option" are looking to lower the abortion rate anyway. If it isn't wrong it's just an effective form of birth control, right? Do you just dislike it because it is a more invasive form of birth control for the mother?
Man, you are on a troll roll! Go, cowboy! Rile 'em up! Yeee-hah!

There's no logical reason why one cannot want abortion to be legal and rare. If that strikes you as a hypocritical stance, then you're keen on frightening away any potential allies to your cause. Absolutism is its own undoing, you know.

[ICantSpellDawg]

My main agenda is having Roe v. Wade overturned and trying to convince people that the unborn are human beings; entitled to basic human rights. The legal aspects can be decided in the various legislatures. In the absence of laws that ban abortion except cases in which the life of the mother is in question - I will keep fighting and resign myself to the same position that people who believe that war is never just maintain. The practical reality is that I will die and my kids will be able to move on to the next issue. If we don't resolve it, I will die and my kids will still be yammering on about how Roe corrupts the constitution and leads to the deaths of innocent human beings.

It is the choice of those who refuse to entertain the repeal of Roe. We will never stop complaining about how absurdly unjust and illegitimate the decision was. You asked why it is our main political position. Is this an unreasonable explanation? Everyone comes to the table with their own specific concerns. What do you stand for as your #1, Lemur?

As for my main concern as a human I guess it is health and livelihood of myself and my loved ones. Since that is taken care of for now - what else should my main concern be? Animal cruelty? poverty? War? Green planet? Not everyone has to have the same major concerns, but they should listen to opposing arguements.

[Koga No Goshi]

What?

My point was that the pro-lifers seem to be totally indifferent to loss of human life in almost every other context, besides abortion. There is no consistency in the so called Pro Life movement, at all. There is no particular reverence for the lives of anyone who isn't a fetus or mentally vegetated.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My point was that the pro-lifers seem to be totally indifferent to loss of human life in almost every other context, besides abortion. There is no consistency in the so called Pro Life movement, at all. There is no particular reverence for the lives of anyone who isn't a fetus or mentally vegetated.

Totally indifferent to life in what situation specifically? The death penalty, war? Anything specific?

[Lemur]

You asked why it is our main political position.
I did? When? I wasn't asking for why you're pro-life, I think it's fairly self-explanatory. Rather, I wanted to hear what you thought of the fact that abortions have reached a 30-year low. Frankly, it doesn't appear you have any thoughts on that subject at all, which I find perplexing.


What do you stand for as your #1, Lemur?
Probably torture, with financial irresponsibility coming a close second. The amount of debt that has been added to the budget this year makes me want to scream. And I am extremely skeptical of giving anyone $700 billion with no strings, no oversight and no questions.

Torture is meat for a different thread. I predict, with a high degree of confidence, that many people who currently support "enhanced interrogation techniques" will be saying, "Oh, I had no idea they were doing that" a few years from now. And what's sad is that they will believe it. If anybody actually gives a **** about torture as anything beyond a talking point, you owe it to yourself to read The Dark Side (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0385526393/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222308486&sr=8-1). Read up, and then let's talk.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

At first he did. Then the Obama campaign slapped him around and released a statement "from" Biden that said now that he's seen it, it really was a good attack ad. :dizzy2:

Biden is a straight talking maverick ~D


What are you going to do in a couple of months when you can't divert any and all questions about Obama and his plans into a criticism of Bush and the Republicans? As a Democrat, you're going to have to learn to take responsibility for your man's plan. ~:)

Obama wont' be able to pay for his plan. The bailout (however big it ends up being) will prevent that. He's said as much. Now, what's the difference in tax revenue between his and McCain's plan? 600 billion?


No, I was talking about this:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194205.php
Which I mentioned earlier.

CR

Oh CR...


* Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

* The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

* Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

* Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

* The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

* This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."

* David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.

* The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.


I read this and wasn't convinced until I saw the last two points--


*The video was created on a macintosh
*THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ALSO USES MACINTOSHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh4:


stuff

America is better now culturally than it ever has been ~:cheers:

[Koga No Goshi]

Totally indifferent to life in what situation specifically? The death penalty, war? Anything specific?

Everything you said, plus quality of life issues. Pro Lifers don't seem particularly interested in practical things we could do (abortion will never, ever be gone entirely. That's as fruitless as the war on drugs.) For one they could help completely get rid of all the b.s. abstinence-only crap that is attached to all kinds of Federal funding for planned parenthood or medical programs or overseas planned parenthood/medical assistance. (Abstinence only programs INCREASE the rate of pregnancy and have no factual basis whatsoever upon which to argue that they work-- look at McCain's VP pick) Most Pro Lifers are pro death penalty but seem to think that the conditions that contribute to crime in our society are the fault of individuals and so if they wind up at 40 getting the death penalty, that's their problem. (Not that I disagree ENTIRELY with that idea, but I do think that if you really cared about human life, you'd care about fighting poverty and inequality and the other factors that contribute heavily to crime.) And war, of course- even unnecessary wars. As long as someone can be at least marginally construed to be not entirely submissive to our foreign policy will, killing them in virtually any numbers is acceptable to large numbers of the American voting base. It's not concern for the "enemy" anywhere near as much as concern over debt and American casualties that ever gets us out of even the most pointless and unending military conflicts.

The strong ideological/religious/moral core to the pro-life movement makes it irrational and unreasonable. They aren't willing to look for the ways to help shape society so that abortions are not a desirable option (not that I think they are anyway, for the huge overwhelming majority of women.) The insistence on taking rigid extremist moral stances, even when it goes against what's practical, what works, and what will effectively reduce unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates, doesn't seem to interest pro-life if it involves condoms.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Everything you said, plus quality of life issues.

You don't seem to be understanding the pro-life, generally right-wing, theory. The government guarantees you the right to life, but what you do with your life is up to you, the individual.

I can support the death penalty in principle (I don't actually support it in practice, except in exceptional circumstances) because the criminal in question has committed a crime so henious that they deserve it. An unborn fetus is guilty of no more than being an "inconvenience" to the mother.

[Koga No Goshi]

You don't seem to be understanding the pro-life, generally right-wing, theory. The government guarantees you the right to life, but what you do with your life is up to you, the individual.

I can support the death penalty in principle (I don't actually support it in practice, except in exceptional circumstances) because the criminal in question has committed a crime so henious that they deserve it. An unborn fetus is guilty of no more than being an "inconvenience" to the mother.

I would give a different interpretation of the death penalty. It is vesting the state with the right and the trust in its CAPACITY to fairly decide, beyond all reasonable doubts, that it has the integrity and capacity to make correct decisions about who is definitely guilty and warrants being killed by the state.

If you do not trust the government to correctly calculate your taxes, why would you trust them to decide if you should live or die?

And jury bias and incompetence, people even hurrying to make a decision so they can go home for the weekend and not have to come back, is so well documented it's not even funny.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I would give a different interpretation of the death penalty. It is vesting the state with the right and the trust in its CAPACITY to fairly decide, beyond all reasonable doubts, that it has the integrity and capacity to make correct decisions about who is definitely guilty and warrants being killed by the state.

If you do not trust the government to correctly calculate your taxes, why would you trust them to decide if you should live or die?

And jury bias and incompetence, people even hurrying to make a decision so they can go home for the weekend and not have to come back, is so well documented it's not even funny.

Which is exactly why I said I am for it in principle, but against it in practice. Some deserve to die, but how can we make sure the right person dies?

[Koga No Goshi]

Which is exactly why I said I am for it in principle, but against it in practice. Some deserve to die, but how can we make sure the right person dies?

It sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same page then about the death penalty. Absolutely some crimes merit it, but I have very little confidence in a state-managed system of randomly picked idiots herded into a courtroom (and most of them tend to be unemployed and/or undereducated because working people will bend over backwards to get out of it) to decide it in a way that engenders any confidence on such an important issue. Also, the fact that DNA evidence has retroactively cleared so many convicted people. AND the fact that it is well documented that discrimination still exists in the U.S., both formally (higher penalties for variants of cocaine used mostly by blacks, and lighter penalties for snort coke used mostly by rich whites, for example) and informally (non-white defendants are convicted MORE OFTEN and given HARSHER SENTENCES compared to white defendants convicted of exactly the same crimes.)

The difference is, it is you making the case that human life is supreme. I have a nuanced view about human life in some circumstances, but in general, I believe it is a paramount human right. Thus I think war in any context other than very literal self defense or conflict with a very real, provable imminent danger ("they COULD possibly attack us one day" does not cut it) is very immoral. I don't see this type of consistency in the pro life view, which seems deeply embedded in the neoconservative right-wing of American politics. As George Carlin said, they want to protect you up until you pop out of your mother, but then no healthcare, no education, no insurance, no equality, no equal opportunity, etc. etc., you are on your own.

[Lemur]

The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122221440058969313.html) harshes all over McCain:


Last week, Republican presidential candidate John McCain called for a commission to "find out what went wrong" on Wall Street. It was an excellent suggestion: Public inquiries into Wall Street practices served the country well in the 1930s.

And Mr. McCain has a special advantage to bring to any such investigation -- many of the relevant witnesses are friends or colleagues of his. In fact, he can probably get to the bottom of the whole mess just by cross-examining the people riding on his campaign bus. So the candidate should take a deep breath, remind himself that the country comes first, pull the Straight Talk Express over at a rest stop, whistle up his media pals, and begin.

Topic A should be deregulation. Financial institutions are dropping everywhere after playing with poorly regulated financial instruments; the last investment banks standing are begging the government for stricter oversight; and some of our nation's leading champions of laissez faire have ditched that theory in an extraordinary attempt to rescue the collapsing industry.

The philosophy of government that has dominated Washington for almost three decades is now in ruins, and it is up to Mr. McCain to find out exactly why we believed it in the first place. Why did government stand back and permit all the misconduct that generated all this bad debt? What particular ideas led us to believe that government should just keep its hands off and let markets run their course?

Man, and it only gets more harsh after that. Ouch! Somebody at WSJ got cranky, man.

[Koga No Goshi]

Man, and it only gets more harsh after that. Ouch! Somebody at WSJ got cranky, man.

I'm sure someone will call him out as a Democratic operative or something. ;) Working for that darn commie paper the Wall Street Journal!

[woad&fangs]

Why does Texas hate freedom?

The event (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/133/bob-barr-files-suit-in-texas-to-remove-mccain-obama-from-ballot/) Sep. 17

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.

"The seriousness of this issue is self-evident," the lawsuit states. "The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them."

Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.

"Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late," says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines."
The result (http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/barr-campaign-statement-on-texas-supreme-court-ruling) Sep. 22

"We are disappointed with the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of our request to have the Secretary of State abide by the law and remove the names of Senators Obama and McCain from the election ballot," stated Russell Verney, manager of Bob Barr's presidential campaign, following the Texas Supreme Court ruling.

"The Court’s one-sentence denial deprived us, and the voters of Texas, of any explanation of the Courts reasons for arbitrarily exempting the Republicans and the Democrats from the clear deadline set forth in the law," Verney continued. "Third parties and Independent candidates are consistently told that deadlines are deadlines. Texas has somehow determined that deadlines are just suggestions but we are left without the guidance of the Court’s reasons."

The campaign is consulting with its attorneys to decide whether to further challenge the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

McCain campaign reaches new level's of ridiculousness:


McCain camp to propose postponing VP debate
Posted: September 24, 2008 1828 GMT
(CNN) — McCain surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there’s no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.

In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.

Graham says the McCain camp is well aware of the position of the Obama campaign and the debate commission that the debate should go on, but both he and another senior McCain adviser insist the republican nominee will not go to the debate Friday if there’s no deal on the bailout.

Seriously? This whole "suspend campaign" thing is geared at delaying (perhaps eliminating) the VP debate? How can anyone defend the choice of palin?

[Koga No Goshi]

"He's fleeing the interview! He's fleeing the interview!"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie--that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

McCain is finished. His VP choice is so bad he has to make ridiculous political maneuvers to try and avoid her having a debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

[Lemur]

"He's fleeing the interview! He's fleeing the interview!"
I never once thought I'd run across a Fargo reference in this thread ...

[PanzerJaeger]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

McCain is finished. His VP choice is so bad he has to make ridiculous political maneuvers to try and avoid her having a debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

I bet she knows who was president in 1929... and I may be reaching on this one, but I would wager she has a basic understanding of technological progression during the 20th century. :yes:

But no, no, you're right. McCain made a bad pick.. :beam:

[Lemur]

Video of Letterman ripping on McCain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E) after getting stood up. It makes zero sense to piss off the latenight comics. This is the same Late Night with David Letterman where Johnny Mac announced his campaign in the first place ...

[Redleg]

Well for goofyness which VP candidate takes the cake, Biden or Palin.

Biden makes comments that directly contradict his running mate.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080923/pl_politico/21939


No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean."

"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal.

The answer seems to play into John McCain's case that Obama has been saying "no" to new sources of energy.

In the primary, Biden opposed Obama's push for clean coal, which is seen as a way of maintaining or expanding America's coal-burning power plants -- many of which are in rust belt swing states.

"I don't think there's much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there's a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change," he told Grist last year. "Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives," he said, but added that America should push for a "fundamental change in technology" to clean up China's plants.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I bet she knows who was president in 1929... and I may be reaching on this one, but I would wager she has a basic understanding of technological progression during the 20th century. :yes:

But no, no, you're right. McCain made a bad pick.. :beam:

Is McCain still going around claiming he invented the blackberry? You guys really ought to put a lid on that one :laugh4::laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well for goofyness which VP candidate takes the cake, Biden or Palin.

Biden makes comments that directly contradict his running mate.....



Biden is a straight talking maverick. He has his own beliefs and he isn't afraid to stick to them :)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Biden is a straight talking maverick. He has his own beliefs and he isn't afraid to stick to them :)

I like Biden. Remember what happened to the last goofy gaffe machine candidate we had? He became a two term president.

[Redleg]

Biden is a straight talking maverick. He has his own beliefs and he isn't afraid to stick to them :)

Good thing he's not afraid to stick to them, but lets see how the media reports the comments tomorrow...

or maybe you should of read farther down into the article, :oops::laugh4::laugh4:


He continued: "Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology. Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."

But the error here does seem to be Biden's, and his remarks, and his apparent return to his primary position Tuesday, were striking because just three days ago, he praised the possibilities of coal to a crowd at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Va.

“You know we have enough coal in the United States of America to meet out needs domestically for the better part of the next hundred to 200 years,” Biden said before launching into a critique of McCain’s energy priorities, slamming his support for billions in tax breaks for oil companies as the industry rakes in record profits.

“Imagine ... what Barack and I can do taking that $4 billion … and investing it in coal gasification, finding out what we can do with carbon sequestration, finding out how we can burn the coal that you dig that can free us from being dependent on foreign oil countries and at the same time not ruin the environment. That’s within our capacity to do it, if you give me $4 billion I promise you, I promise you we will find the answer,” Biden said.

He linked the ticket’s support for coal with their call to have U.S. automakers produce plug-in electric cars. “Where’s that [electricity] come from? That comes from a utility. What do utilities burn? They burn coal mostly.”



Politics is just so damn funny at times, especially when one is blind to the party politic

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think I lost you there Redleg...just remember, whenever Biden does something wacky, it's because he's a maverick ~D

[Koga No Goshi]

McCain campaign reaches new level's of ridiculousness:



Seriously? This whole "suspend campaign" thing is geared at delaying (perhaps eliminating) the VP debate? How can anyone defend the choice of palin?

Yes, there is talk that they may try to cancel it. That is a strong suspicion anyway. Or possibly shove back the Presidential so far that there isn't time for the vice Presidential.

And if anyone saw the interview with Katie Couric and Palin, it is SO OBVIOUS that they have had that poor woman backed up against the aluminum siding in the Straight Talk Express, yelling into her face nonstop SAY THIS AND ONLY AND EXACTLY THIS, DO NOT DIVERGE FROM MESSAGE, DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE MISDIRECTED OFF THE TALKING POINTS, SAY THIS AND ONLY THIS. What a huge difference from her at the convention. She looked tense and nervous, even scared, like she was terrified she was going to break the instructions she was given about exactly what to say.

If Obama had picked someone this bad, the election would be OVER.

[OverKnight]

86 percent (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02) of 1000 people polled want the debate to happen as scheduled on Friday, with some of those people wanting more of a focus on Economic matters.

I don't understand why Senator McCain finds the debate and the bail out mutually exclusive? Is he trying another "Hail Mary" pass now that his post-convention bump is gone? Is the campaign trying to push off the VP debate?

Obviously hammering out a bail out is very important, but so is selecting the next President. Whoever wins will have to have to deal with the fall out from the current debacle. Debates, while not ideal, are an important part of the election process.

[CountArach]

So let me get this straight - McCain thinks the best way to run his campaign is by postponing his campaign?

Just... wow... I mean I understand it, but seriously... I don't... I... wow...

[KukriKhan]

That points up one thing that's always bugged me about election/re-election campaigns: while these guys are out stumping for what they hope is their next job, who is doing their current job?

[CountArach]

That points up one thing that's always bugged me about election/re-election campaigns: while these guys are out stumping for what they hope is their next job, who is doing their current job?
Referring to the candidates as "guys" - that's very sexist of you Kukri!

Seriously though - the AP has a story (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9QcAwtQU_RJO9vrZGQr7XQF0hrQD93DKI600) that sort of answers that question in regards to Palin. It would probably be harder for the other three candidates.

[KukriKhan]

1. Informal. A man; a fellow.
2. guys Informal. Persons of either sex.
3. Chiefly British. A person of odd or grotesque appearance or dress.
4. often Guy An effigy of Guy Fawkes paraded through the streets of English towns and burned on Guy Fawkes Day.

I wrote "guys", so #2. In the US, anyway. Maybe hasn't infected UK or the colonies yet. :laugh4:

-edit-

In Palin's absence, messages left with the governor's office are usually returned by the McCain campaign.

That strikes me as totally wrong. But I'm no expert on Alaska's constitution, and what's suppoesed to happen when the Guv is on extended absence.

[CountArach]

I wrote "guys", so #2. In the US, anyway. Maybe hasn't infected UK or the colonies yet. :laugh4:
We speak proper like.

[Gregoshi]

Random thoughts:

The cynicism of the presidential campaign is disheartening. Every move either candidate makes, even the most sincere, non-political gesture, gets twisted into some kind of sleazy campaign tactic designed to one-up the other guy. Kiss your wife? You are just doing it to show the voter you are a loving husband and family man. These guys are nuts to want to be president.

Re Palin's "I'll get back to you..." in the Couric interview: I find the "I don't know" answer refreshing. If she had made up an answer just to give an answer, the media (and the Backroom crowd) would be all over her. Palin and Biden are just a few weeks into their new role as a running mate. I'm willing to cut them some slack and give them a little time to synch up with the head honchos.

If we had cameras recording everything we did or said during a day (let alone months on end), we'd all say some pretty stupid things and get our facts wrong too.

Re the McCain campaign suspension: Bush continued to push his education agenda (reading to a young school children) during the 9/11 attack. He was blasted for not dropping everything to deal with the crisis...

[CountArach]

I was looking over the first post of this thread for some reason today and I thought it might be interesting to get an update on people's views on how they believe the states will break come election day. Here's mine:
New England [65] (CT-7, ME-4, MA-12, NH-4, NY-31, RI-4, VT-3) - McCain 0, Obama 65
I think that the only real trouble here is New Hampshire. It has been polling at or around a dead heat for the last few weeks, and is leaning McCain by a point or two at the moment. There are a lot of 'Mavericks' there who may ultimately come to vote for him, but I don't think that Obama will lose a state that Kerry won in this electoral cycle.

Mid Atlantic [65] (DE –3, DC-3, MD-10, NJ-15, PA-21, VA-13): McCain 0; Obama = 65.
With these economic conditions I can't see Pennsylvania going Red. When you combine that with the fact that Biden has enormous personal popularity in Pennsylvania (They refer to him as their third Senator) you get a naturally Democratic state. Virginia is much harder to pick. You have a large military population combined with a large African American population. Obama has been leading here by 2-3 points recently and I think he will probably win it by about that. Of course, if I was Obama's campaign managers I wouldn't rely on it. The easiest and most probably way to win is Kerry States + IA + NM + CO. That is much more reliable than Virginia IMO.

South [142] (NC-15, SC-8, GA-15, FL-27, KY-8, TN-11, AL-9, MS-6, AR-6, LA-9, TX-34): McCain 142, Obama 0.
I used to think Obama could win NC, but I don't any more. It would perhaps be possible in a 2012 re-election bid, but not this year. He has been trailing by about 4-5 points in polling there, though there have been huge fluctuations recently. As for Florida, I used to think it was Solid McCain but it has tightened somewhat in recent polling and may represent an interesting opportunity if the Colorado and Virginia plans go belly-up. I believe it is still too Republican though.

West and SouthWest [105] (AK-3, AZ-10, CA-55, HI-4, OR-7, NM-5, NV-5, UT-5, WA-11): McCain 23, Obama 83
The most interesting states here are New Mexico and Nevada. New Mexico has been polling strongly for Obama and, as mentioned, it is one of the easiest routes to his victory. Nevada, on the other hand, has gone much stronger for McCain than I thought it would originally. It will probably go to McCain by a point or 2, but expect it to be a tight race that could go either way.

The Plains [43] (CO-9, ID-4, KS-6, MT-3, NE-5, ND-3, OK-7, SD-3, WY-3): McCain 34, Obama 9
Obama has a huge lead on the ground in Colorado and has been very solid in the polling lately. Just a quick note - watch out for Montana as a much closer state than usual. I'm not saying Obama will win it, but it will be much tighter.

Middle America [112] (IA-7, IL-21, IN-11, MI-17, MN-10, MO-11, OH-20, WV-5, WI-10): McCain 47, Obama 65
Iowa is strong for Obama so it won't be swinging as usual. Missouri is in a similar case for McCain. Minnesota and Wisconsin have been polling fairly well for McCain in the last week, but he simply hasn't go the resources he needs to compete there. I don't see them flipping in this electoral climate. Ohio has been trending McCain post-convention and Florida is probably better for Obama if he needs to pick up a big state.

So with that the result would be:
Obama wins 286 Electoral Votes to 252

I put my state-by-state results into the DailyKos scoreboard (http://images.dailykos.com/map/scoreboardc.html)(lots of other ones out there though) and the electoral map looked like this:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/ElectoralMap.jpg

So let's hear your predictions!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That points up one thing that's always bugged me about election/re-election campaigns: while these guys are out stumping for what they hope is their next job, who is doing their current job?


McCain was absent 65% of the time anyway ~D




Random thoughts:

The cynicism of the presidential campaign is disheartening. Every move either candidate makes, even the most sincere, non-political gesture, gets twisted into some kind of sleazy campaign tactic designed to one-up the other guy. Kiss your wife? You are just doing it to show the voter you are a loving husband and family man. These guys are nuts to want to be president.

[quote]Re Palin's "I'll get back to you..." in the Couric interview: I find the "I don't know" answer refreshing. If she had made up an answer just to give an answer, the media (and the Backroom crowd) would be all over her. Palin and Biden are just a few weeks into their new role as a running mate. I'm willing to cut them some slack and give them a little time to synch up with the head honchos.

She did try and make up an answer :dizzy2:


PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie--that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

...

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.


And McCain has been a big supporter of deregulation...


If we had cameras recording everything we did or said during a day (let alone months on end), we'd all say some pretty stupid things and get our facts wrong too.

Presidential candidates are held to a higher standard than regular citizens oddly enough.


Re the McCain campaign suspension: Bush continued to push his education agenda (reading to a young school children) during the 9/11 attack. He was blasted for not dropping everything to deal with the crisis...

McCain isn't the president. We had debates during the civil war. McCain isn't on the committee that was working on the bill. His presence in washington would bring presidential politics to where we don't need them. They finished the bill before he got there.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So with that the result would be:
Obama wins 286 Electoral Votes to 252

So let's hear your predictions!


https://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1488/imanoptimistvd5.png


I'm an optimist :tongue3:

This assumes that the McCain campaign continues to blunder and they don't do well in the debates.

Funny thing is, Obama could lose virginia, ohio, and florida and still win the race.

[ICantSpellDawg]

86 percent (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02) of 1000 people polled want the debate to happen as scheduled on Friday, with some of those people wanting more of a focus on Economic matters.

I don't understand why Senator McCain finds the debate and the bail out mutually exclusive? Is he trying another "Hail Mary" pass now that his post-convention bump is gone? Is the campaign trying to push off the VP debate?

Obviously hammering out a bail out is very important, but so is selecting the next President. Whoever wins will have to have to deal with the fall out from the current debacle. Debates, while not ideal, are an important part of the election process.

Republicans are slated to vote the bill down. Markets are popping because of optimism that the bill will go through. Higher level GOP congressmembers need to be pounding pavement to get this bill through or we've got this centuries great depression on our hands within the week - bank runs, lay offs, suicides, etc. I hope that they cancel the debate or postpone it. Maybe it seems like a gimmick - but isn't that just a bit cynical? Obama and McCain made a joint press release, but it was probably all for show... What kind of Presidents would either of them be if they couldn't get over petty squabbling in order to work on the biggest crisis since 9/11.

[Xiahou]

If Obama had picked someone this bad, the election would be OVER.
No, if Obama had picked Clinton, the election would be over- he'd have it wrapped up. Instead Obama picked a twit who brings nothing but foot-in-mouth disease to the ticket. :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

So let me get this straight - McCain thinks the best way to run his campaign is by postponing his campaign?
No, he thinks the best way to help the country is by actually doing his job in DC.

Bill Clinton, of all people, says McCain is requesting a debate delay in 'good faith':

"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html

So maybe the hysterical 'its a plan to save Palin' people should take a breather.

CR

[Lemur]

Higher level GOP congressmembers need to be pounding pavement to get this bill through or we've got this centuries great depression on our hands within the week - bank runs, lay offs, suicides, etc.
I'm still unclear on that. Why are we so certain that unless we give $700 billion with no strings attached to a person who will have no oversight and no accountability that we'll be in a Great Depression? I smell a rat.

Meanwhile, here's Palin's interview with Katie Couric. I find it cringe-inducing, but your mileage may vary.

Linky. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yup, I think I would too. I guess I'll have to reassure myself by watching debates with Dino Rossi.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, if Obama had picked Clinton, the election would be over- he'd have it wrapped up. Instead Obama picked a twit who brings nothing but foot-in-mouth disease to the ticket. :yes:

The election is over, and he made the choice for the better vp rather than making a more political choice.


So maybe the hysterical 'its a plan to save Palin' people should take a breather.

CR


In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined,

:laugh4:

[OverKnight]

Republicans are slated to vote the bill down. Markets are popping because of optimism that the bill will go through. Higher level GOP congressmembers need to be pounding pavement to get this bill through or we've got this centuries great depression on our hands within the week - bank runs, lay offs, suicides, etc. I hope that they cancel the debate or postpone it. Maybe it seems like a gimmick - but isn't that just a bit cynical? Obama and McCain made a joint press release, but it was probably all for show... What kind of Presidents would either of them be if they couldn't get over petty squabbling in order to work on the biggest crisis since 9/11.

But McCain isn't on the relevant commitee in the Senate that is crafting the bill. The only thing he needs to be in Washington for is the vote, which isn't going to take place on a Friday night. If he needs to do some arm twisting he can do it over the phone. He's trying to be the white knight while getting some free press and saving money on ads for later in the election.

At this point having a debate to help the electorate decide who's going to be cleaning up Bush's mess for the next four years is very important.

Also this rush to legislate reminds me of the same sales pitch used to get the Patriot act rammed through Congress without due process. No time to consider anything or how we got here, the big bad is coming, don't read it, just pass it! God forbid we have more than a week of debate before putting ourselves 700 billions dollars more in debt.

The markets will hold as long as the financial mandarins think there's a chance of a bail out.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm still unclear on that. Why are we so certain that unless we give $700 billion with no strings attached to a person who will have no oversight and no accountability that we'll be in a Great Depression? I smell a rat.

Meanwhile, here's Palin's interview with Katie Couric. I find it cringe-inducing, but your mileage may vary.

Linky. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ)


Lemur, the Dems are the ones pushing for this hard. We are liable for FDIC insured holdings anyway. If more investment banks and securities fold due to loan defaults, banks are poorer for it now their insurance has dried up. This means that individual defaults have a double impact. When banks find - just like their credit-default partners found out - that they don't have the funds to cover the defaults, they go belly up to. That means FDIC and other governmental insurance kicks in - which we pay for anyway.

We may as well make the decision now that there is a high risk return available instead of just high risk. I don't like the lack of transparency either, but I think that they will do something about that absurdity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The markets will hold as long as the financial mandarins think there's a chance of a bail out.

I'm afraid of what will happen if the bill is voted down. Sure, we could leave it to chance - but why?

[Lemur]

Lemur, the Dems are the ones pushing for this hard.
Who cares? They're perfectly capable of being stampeded into bad decisions. Lord knows they've done it enough times in the past.


We may as well make the decision now that there is a high risk return available instead of just high risk. I don't like the lack of transparency either, but I think that they will do something about that absurdity.
Honestly, I don't like the look of this thing from top to bottom. I hope they don't rush through a bill, and I hope they chew over what exactly it's going to be very carefully. And I hope whatever bill gets passed is as minimal as possible. I'm sorry, but my Spidey-sense is tingling, and I'm pretty sure we're being sold a box of ********.

[Spino]

Lemur, the Dems are the ones pushing for this hard. We are liable for FDIC insured holdings anyway. If more investment banks and securities fold due to loan defaults, banks are poorer for it now their insurance has dried up. This means that individual defaults have a double impact. When banks find - just like their credit-default partners found out - that they don't have the funds to cover the defaults, they go belly up to. That means FDIC and other governmental insurance kicks in - which we pay for anyway.

We may as well make the decision now that there is a high risk return available instead of just high risk. I don't like the lack of transparency either, but I think that they will do something about that absurdity.

All this bailout does it provide an oversized bandage for a severed artery. It will only prolong the inevitable and will do nothing to address the fact that the patient is suffering from a life threatening, self-inflicted wound. It's better to let these institutions fail and let the pain from the fallout provide some clarity and guidance for our long term picture than assume government control and prop them up with money that will no doubt be mishandled. Right now all Congress is doing is rewarding bad behavior on the part of irresponsible borrowers and lenders by devaluing our currency.

More good news, the word is Chinese regulators have told their banks to stop lending money to US financial institutions. Take it as a vote of no confidence from one of our largest (if not THE largest) trade partner. So I guess that means these we're going to need to print some more funny money to fix what done broke. Wait, I know, let's blame GW Bush!

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSPEK16693720080925

Even more good news! The Megalomaniacal Farce (Obama) himself went live on TV this morning and proposed a $2 billion dollar Global Education bill meant to stem the rise of malaria and other diseases in the third world. Fantastic! Because the US taxpayer has enough to worry about than helping some ignorant ninny living in a hovel in Africa. Did this fool not pay attention to the $1.5 trillion dollars or so we're spending on the Farm bill & mortgage crisis? At this rate the dollar will be worth less than the contents of a bowel movement the day after an expensive meal at a 4 star restaurant. This IS change I can believe in!

[Lemur]

The Megalomaniacal Farce (Obama) himself went live on TV this morning and proposed a $2 billion dollar Global Education bill meant to stem the rise of malaria and other diseases in the third world. Fantastic!
Silence you fool. Don't you realize Obama has wrapped up the Venetian gondolier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25jhBVaiQw0) vote? You're swimming against the tide, Spino.

[Spino]

Silence you fool. Don't you realize Obama has wrapped up the Venetian gondolier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25jhBVaiQw0) vote? You're swimming against the tide, Spino.

Give me your tired, your poor, your brackish water tenors yearning to break into song...

[Koga No Goshi]

Lemur, the Dems are the ones pushing for this hard. We are liable for FDIC insured holdings anyway. If more investment banks and securities fold due to loan defaults, banks are poorer for it now their insurance has dried up. This means that individual defaults have a double impact. When banks find - just like their credit-default partners found out - that they don't have the funds to cover the defaults, they go belly up to. That means FDIC and other governmental insurance kicks in - which we pay for anyway.

We may as well make the decision now that there is a high risk return available instead of just high risk. I don't like the lack of transparency either, but I think that they will do something about that absurdity.

No. Wall Street and Bush's Treasury department officials are the ones insisting this MUST BE DONE or else the world will end. The Democrats are being told all day long in sessions that we are going to have another Great Depression if something is not done. And McCain cancelled his campaign to run back and work on the bailout package. So let's not misidentify this as a Dem idea being shoved by Dems, please.

[Spino]

No. Wall Street and Bush's Treasury department officials are the ones insisting this MUST BE DONE or else the world will end. The Democrats are being told all day long in sessions that we are going to have another Great Depression if something is not done. And McCain cancelled his campaign to run back and work on the bailout package. So let's not misidentify this as a Dem idea being shoved by Dems, please.

Yeah, and were it not for the very existence of the Republican Party the Democrats could save the world and give every child a hug. If only... IF ONLY!

I don't know where you've been for the last two years but you do realize that the Democrats have been in control of the House & Senate since 2006? Nobody is dictating anything to them. I take it you must think the $300 billion Farm bill the Democrats 'rammed' through Congress, the same bill the American public was overwhelmingly opposed to, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think you need to re-adjust your tin foil hat because you are seriously zoned in on those Pelosi frequencies.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah, and were it not for the very existence of the Republican Party the Democrats could save the world and give every child a hug. If only... IF ONLY!

I don't know where you've been for the last two years but you do realize that the Democrats have been in control of the House & Senate since 2006? Nobody is dictating anything to them. I take it you must think the $300 billion Farm bill the Democrats 'rammed' through Congress, the same bill the American public was overwhelmingly opposed to, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think you need to re-adjust your tin foil hat because you are seriously zoned in on those Pelosi frequencies.

Democrats can vote incorrectly. You win a cookie. Though I wonder why is it that when Republicans shove scare tactics and flood Democratic congresspeople and Senators with doomsday information, which is happening now and which happened with the Patriot Act, the Resolution to use Force, and many other bad laws, you blame the Democrats. Is this an admission that Republicans are neurological psychopaths and the Democrats have to be the responsible mom and protect us from the things neocons and conservatives try to push through? If you were arguing that, I would partially agree actually, and i don't like how the Dems have been bulldozed into bad decisions by fear blitz tactics VOTE NOW NOW NOW NOW OR WE DIE!!! from the Republicans, but it's funny the way you place blame.

[Spino]

Democrats can vote incorrectly. You win a cookie. Though I wonder why is it that when Republicans shove scare tactics and flood Democratic congresspeople and Senators with doomsday information, which is happening now and which happened with the Patriot Act, the Resolution to use Force, and many other bad laws, you blame the Democrats. Is this an admission that Republicans are neurological psychopaths and the Democrats have to be the responsible mom and protect us from the things neocons and conservatives try to push through? If you were arguing that, I would partially agree actually, and i don't like how the Dems have been bulldozed into bad decisions by fear blitz tactics VOTE NOW NOW NOW NOW OR WE DIE!!! from the Republicans, but it's funny the way you place blame.

Basically you're saying all it takes to keep the Democrats from doing the right thing is to cast their 'noble' actions in an unfavorable light thus cowing them into the scheming hands of the Republicans. This doesn't speak very well to as to their principles or testicular fortitude now does it? It makes the Democrats seem more like sheep than shepards (or wolves for that matter). Historically speaking those who believe themselves to be truly 'righteous' have never been afraid of the consequences of their beliefs or their actions. If these Democrats you're clearly championing were made of better stuff then all the bullying and scare tactics in the world should not sway their decision to do the right thing at all times. So the real reason so many Democrats jumped on the Iraq bandwagon or the Patriot Act was because it was oh so convenient to be with the in crowd (read as 'politically expedient'). The poor dears, they were simply too scared of the prospect of going against the grain even when it meant doing the right thing! My goodness, I can't possibly vote against this legislation... I might not be *gasp* re-elected... ~:shock:

[Lemur]

American Conservative Magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/24/great-leadership/) unloads on McCain. I'm heartened to see so many conservative figures rejecting the unwatered bull feces coming out of the McCain campaign.


The GOP loyalist response to McCain’s stunt has been predictable [...], and it says a great deal about what these people think constitutes leadership: opportunism, trying to hog the credit for other people’s work and, above all, a mindless dedication to taking action. No doubt, if these were what made for great leaders McCain would be the new Augustus.

Laughably, Gingrich likens this to Eisenhower’s “I will go to Korea,” but unlike Eisenhower and the Korean war McCain has no credibility concerning the crisis he is supposedly addressing. In the end, knowing when you can contribute something and knowing when to avoid complicating an already difficult situation by intruding on ongoing negotiations is what separates grandstanding from leadership. It is what separates the simple egomaniacs from the ambitious pols who nonetheless have some idea what public service is. McCain’s belief that he is indispensable in a time of crisis is the surest sign that he is unfit for any office in republican government, much less the chief magistracy of the Republic.

-edit-

Spino, a question. Having listened to you, TuffStuff and (back in the day) Gawain, I have to wonder, what is it about living in New York that makes a Conservative extra-bonus angry? Is it having Hillary and Chuck for Senators? Is it being outnumbered by Dems everywhere you go? Is there a sub-culture of ultra-orthodox Republicanistas who meet every week to discuss their oppression?

I mean, sure, I'm kidding, but you have to admit that there is this pattern of vehement Republican anger that arises from those Orgahs who live in the Empire State.

[Koga No Goshi]

Basically you're saying all it takes to keep the Democrats from doing the right thing is to cast their 'noble' actions in an unfavorable light thus cowing them into the scheming hands of the Republicans. This doesn't speak very well to as to their principles or testicular fortitude now does it?

What, now just Democrats passed every bad law? :) Or is a law bad as a direct result of whether Republicans or Democrats were the majority vote in passing it? Welcome to politics, where people in office right before an election vote the safe way.


It makes the Democrats seem more like sheep than shepards (or wolves for that matter). Historically speaking those who believe themselves to be truly 'righteous' have never been afraid of the consequences of their beliefs or their actions. If these Democrats you're clearly championing were made of better stuff then all the bullying and scare tactics in the world should not sway their decision to do the right thing at all times. So the real reason so many Democrats jumped on the Iraq bandwagon or the Patriot Act was because it was oh so convenient to be with the in crowd (read as 'politically expedient'). The poor dears, they were simply too scared of the prospect of going against the grain even when it meant doing the right thing! My goodness, I can't possibly vote against this legislation... I might not be *gasp* re-elected... ~:shock:

I think the difference here is that Democrats are worried about doing right by the country. This can mean sometimes overriding your gut instinct if you are presented with overwhelming evidence that you should do something else, although even overwhelming evidence can later be found to be cherry picked and misleading. Bush and Cheney and others have flat out said, they know what they're doing is right, despite evidence, despite intelligence, despite popular sentiment, despite their initial evidence being proven wrong, despite changing circumstances, despite shifting contexts and new information. If anyone is convinced of their righteousness to the point where they can never believe they were ever wrong-- which again, far more typifies YOU and your party than it does mine, I would be scared of voting for them. But you guys, you made "flip flopping" a bad word. Someone changing their mind is a bad thing. You want someone deadset on a pre-chosen path, even if that path winds up being the path of destruction. You admit Bush is bad, but he's still better than the others. You admit his decisions have been poor, but I fail to see what you think should have been different. And you say Democrats have a problem staying on message. ;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

American Conservative Magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/24/great-leadership/) unloads on McCain. I'm heartened to see so many conservative figures rejecting the unwatered bull feces coming out of the McCain campaign.

The GOP loyalist response to McCain’s stunt has been predictable [...], and it says a great deal about what these people think constitutes leadership: opportunism, trying to hog the credit for other people’s work and, above all, a mindless dedication to taking action. No doubt, if these were what made for great leaders McCain would be the new Augustus.

Laughably, Gingrich likens this to Eisenhower’s “I will go to Korea,” but unlike Eisenhower and the Korean war McCain has no credibility concerning the crisis he is supposedly addressing. In the end, knowing when you can contribute something and knowing when to avoid complicating an already difficult situation by intruding on ongoing negotiations is what separates grandstanding from leadership. It is what separates the simple egomaniacs from the ambitious pols who nonetheless have some idea what public service is. McCain’s belief that he is indispensable in a time of crisis is the surest sign that he is unfit for any office in republican government, much less the chief magistracy of the Republic.-edit-

Spino, a question. Having listened to you, TuffStuff and (back in the day) Gawain, I have to wonder, what is it about living in New York that makes a Conservative extra-bonus angry? Is it having Hillary and Chuck for Senators? Is it being outnumbered by Dems everywhere you go? Is there a sub-culture of ultra-orthodox Republicanistas who meet every week to discuss their oppression?

I mean, sure, I'm kidding, but you have to admit that there is this pattern of vehement Republican anger that arises from those Orgahs who live in the Empire State.

I think so. Imagine being a homosexual New deal democrat in backwoods Alabama. Imagine the frustration you would feel when you were dismissed out of hand, even though you paid more attention to geopolitics than anyone else you knew. Imagine if you were represented by ignorant Republicans that thought the Constitution was written by the disciples and that we lived in a religious dictatorship.

That is an outlandish and inaccurate reality, but I bet a number of people on the left can identify with it.

I live in a religious Catholic family that adopts children, gives a tremendous amount to charity, and is responsible in its investments. We promote frugality and listen to the opinions of others. Our property and state taxes increase at exponential rates as school boards and teachers unions hold our children hostage both ideologically and financially. Our presidential and Senatorial vote do not really count as our State tends to landslide for democratic national candidates. The only real Republican leaders that we have tend to be Rino's (aside from their greed and business orientation). Leftism is so extreme in the city that it is a religion all to itself and rather irrational in implementation because they can get away with it just like conservative states get away with a corruption due to loaded decks.

These are just a few ideas that I have why conservatives are a bit more aggressive here - we have to be better in argument than the aggressive (and numerous) liberals that we spar with. Whenever people are piling onto one side of the see-saw I get frustrated and am compelled to jump to the other side. We root for the underdog.

I am not a Yankees or Mets fan either.

Good observation:yes:. I'm glad that somebody gets it. We are the guys on the ground, behind enemy lines - the crack troops. We have to be a bit more self-less as states rightists as we would most likely not benefit from it in the least. We are part of the gangrenous arm that selflessly cuts itself off so that the rest of the body doesn't become infected.

[Koga No Goshi]

Imagine if you were represented by ignorant Republicans that thought the Constitution was written by the disciples and that we lived in a religious dictatorship.


Trust me, we feel like it's heading that way. So we can understand. It's also irritating to live in an electoral process where if even 100% of the population turned out to vote and the popular went something like 70% Dem, we could still lose the election because of holdover "Civil War" balances of political power.

[Spino]

American Conservative Magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/24/great-leadership/) unloads on McCain. I'm heartened to see so many conservative figures rejecting the unwatered bull feces coming out of the McCain campaign.


The GOP loyalist response to McCain’s stunt has been predictable [...], and it says a great deal about what these people think constitutes leadership: opportunism, trying to hog the credit for other people’s work and, above all, a mindless dedication to taking action. No doubt, if these were what made for great leaders McCain would be the new Augustus.

Laughably, Gingrich likens this to Eisenhower’s “I will go to Korea,” but unlike Eisenhower and the Korean war McCain has no credibility concerning the crisis he is supposedly addressing. In the end, knowing when you can contribute something and knowing when to avoid complicating an already difficult situation by intruding on ongoing negotiations is what separates grandstanding from leadership. It is what separates the simple egomaniacs from the ambitious pols who nonetheless have some idea what public service is. McCain’s belief that he is indispensable in a time of crisis is the surest sign that he is unfit for any office in republican government, much less the chief magistracy of the Republic.

-edit-

Spino, a question. Having listened to you, TuffStuff and (back in the day) Gawain, I have to wonder, what is it about living in New York that makes a Conservative extra-bonus angry? Is it having Hillary and Chuck for Senators? Is it being outnumbered by Dems everywhere you go? Is there a sub-culture of ultra-orthodox Republicanistas who meet every week to discuss their oppression?

I mean, sure, I'm kidding, but you have to admit that there is this pattern of vehement Republican anger that arises from those Orgahs who live in the Empire State.

Because being extra bonus angry increases your chances of making the super fantastic triple Jeopardy round.

No, my primate friend you are absolutely correct. Living the life of a conservative can be quite trying here in NY. Although to be honest NY state is actually pretty moderate/conservative once you leave the NYC/Long Island area. The problem is that even though the NYC/LI area is dominated and run by liberals they still somehow find it in themselves to complain and point fingers at conservatives whenever something goes wrong, it's infuriating. Liberals run virtually everything but the private companies and financial institutions and whenever something politically goes wrong or their beloved bureaucracy screws up they refuse to acknowledge that they or their comrades are culpable (recall the late 70s when NY had to beg the Federal government to bail it out of a self inflicted bankruptcy caused by its mammoth social programs). Furthermore many think it is entirely reasonable for those that run our beloved institutions to demand more money from the City/State (i.e. MTA strikes) to compensate for their lack of efficiency. We're one of the richest states in the country and we have some of the worst schools, stifling unions, poorly run public transportation, bloated bureaucracy, etc. When Giuliani came in and cleaned up the city and helped lay the groundwork for economic revitalization so many people adamantly refused to give his administration credit. The quiet bitterness and loathing at the prospect of having a Republican (and merely a moderate one at that) be the one to clean things up was palpable. I remember countless people complaining about how NYC was better before he showed up; how Times Square was better when it was an unofficial red light district rife with porn theaters, prostitutes, junkies & dealers, how things were better when hookers polluted the West Side highway. Even people who are mildly conservative have issues living here (try to keep in mind I'm of the pro-choice Conservative persuasion). It's just something we're forced to deal with and vent about it in the company of friends (or in internet forums).

Furthermore NYC may be the world's capitol but it just has a stale feel to it which may also affect my disposition. Unfortunately I'm stuck here for now. Given the industry I work in I really am forced to choose between NY and LA, neither of which are even remotely moderate/conservative friendly. Despite my love/hate relationship with NYC I've been to California and was horrified by the flake factor out there and everyone I know who lives or has lived in LA (regardless of their political bias) hated it with a passion, it's arguably the phoniest place on Earth.

But my extra bonus anger really is grounded in my overall view of the country. I'd like to think I have a rather good grasp of history and sometime during my mid 20's I came to the realization that the we really are a nation in decline. It's made me somewhat bitter and frustrated because on some level I think I've been cheated by having been born at such a depressing point in history.

[Koga No Goshi]

Although to be honest NY state is actually pretty moderate/conservative once you leave the NYC/Long Island area.

This is true in reverse too. The major city areas of most red states are quite blue. Kansas is an example, the cities all blue, everything around them red. Like little pinpricks of blue light on a map.


The problem is that even though the NYC/LI area is dominated and run by liberals they still somehow find it in themselves to complain and point fingers at conservatives whenever something goes wrong, it's infuriating.

I can understand how this would be infuriating but this very much goes both ways. Here in CA we have Arnold as governor and he blames his own unpopular budget sabotage of education and such on "economic girlie men" aka the Democrats. Not to mention how Clinton has been blamed for everything that happened under Bush. :)


Furthermore NYC may be the world's capitol but it just has a stale feel to it which may also affect my disposition. Unfortunately I'm stuck here for now. Given the industry I work in I really am forced to choose between NY and LA, neither of which are even remotely moderate/conservative friendly. Despite my love/hate relationship with NYC I've been to California and was horrified by the flake factor out there and everyone I know who lives or has lived in LA (regardless of their political bias) hated it with a passion, it's arguably the phoniest place on Earth.

Anywhere there are uppity white areas there will be Republicans. Los Angeles may not be red overall but Orange County (basically part of LA but broke off because it was rich) is very red, as are most of the rich communities. Torrance is just one example of a suburb that is still trying pretty hard to attract whites and Asians and deter everyone else, has a great school district, and is full of Republicans. Palos Verdes even more so. And San Diego, if you don't like LA, is way red. Mostly because it's more or less a city founded by white yuppies imported from other states.

[Lemur]

I think shifting blame is a basic political thing, kind of like knowing how to use a level if you're a carpenter.

Anyway, thanks very much Spino and TuffStuff for taking the time to address my question semi-seriously. I really appreciate getting a glimpse into your situation, and as an ex-New Yawker I can relate somewhat.

-edit-

Part 2 of the Couric interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kjFn4s4sU). It doesn't get any better than last time.

[m52nickerson]

Well, it seems McCain's presence screws up any deal that had been struck. Add this to Palins interview, were is Putin's head, and McCain lying to Letterman, if McCain fails to show for the debate....


.......Mark my words, it will be the death blows of the McCain campaign.

[KukriKhan]

McCain's 'what' did 'what'?

[Koga No Goshi]

McCain's 'what' did 'what'?

I think he means McCain's PRESENCE screws up any deal that might have been made. And the heads of Congress did ask BOTH candidates NOT to come back to Washington, as it would merely infuse Presidential politics into something that Congress was already working on.

[m52nickerson]

I think he means McCain's PRESENCE screws up any deal that might have been made. And the heads of Congress did ask BOTH candidates NOT to come back to Washington, as it would merely infuse Presidential politics into something that Congress was already working on.

Fixed, listen to what I mean not what I mistype.

Yes they did ask both not to come back, but Obama was not part of a group that produced a different plan at the last minute.

[Koga No Goshi]

Fixed, listen to what I mean not what I mistype.

Yes they did ask both not to come back, but Obama was not part of a group that produced a different plan at the last minute.

I agree.

[KukriKhan]

Right. We petty little peasants shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about things we couldn't possibly understand. Just open up our wallets, and bend over. Don't worry, it'll be gentle.

At least the people/electorate of Arizona and Illinois finally get their money's worth in their elected officials.

[m52nickerson]

Right. We petty little peasants shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about things we couldn't possibly understand. Just open up our wallets, and bend over. Don't worry, it'll be gentle.

At least the people/electorate of Arizona and Illinois finally get their money's worth in their elected officials.

Right or wrong the plan was put together to try and prevent a major economic disaster, and it still had to go to a vote. McCain, who has never served on any economic committee in the senate came in and presented a different bail-out plan. He did not speak against it as a whole. He is staging nothing more then political theater in the middle of a real issue.

Country first my...........

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Someone said we'd end up + or - 200 billion is that accurate?

[KukriKhan]

Someone said we'd end up + or - 200 billion is that accurate?

That someone said it, or that it's an accurate estimate?

[Strike For The South]

That someone said it, or that it's an accurate estimate?

In my neck of the woods + or - 200 BILLION isnt accurate

[Koga No Goshi]

In my neck of the woods + or - 200 BILLION isnt accurate

I wish Tyler Durden would just blow up Wall Street fight club style, right now. That'd put an end to these hearings.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

^^I meant is it an accurate estimate. I've also heard we have a good chance of making money off of the AIG bailout because of the high interest rate on the loan.



Even more good news! The Megalomaniacal Farce (Obama) himself went live on TV this morning and proposed a $2 billion dollar Global Education bill meant to stem the rise of malaria and other diseases in the third world. Fantastic! Because the US taxpayer has enough to worry about than helping some ignorant ninny living in a hovel in Africa. Did this fool not pay attention to the $1.5 trillion dollars or so we're spending on the Farm bill & mortgage crisis? At this rate the dollar will be worth less than the contents of a bowel movement the day after an expensive meal at a 4 star restaurant. This IS change I can believe in!

A million people die each year from malaria. What kind of man whines about spending a few bucks to save millions of lives? One who thinks africans are ignorant ninny's? That's an appalling sentiment. :shame:

[Big_John]

Spino, a question. Having listened to you, TuffStuff and (back in the day) Gawain, I have to wonder, what is it about living in New York that makes a Conservative extra-bonus angry? Is it having Hillary and Chuck for Senators? Is it being outnumbered by Dems everywhere you go? Is there a sub-culture of ultra-orthodox Republicanistas who meet every week to discuss their oppression?
I think so. Imagine being a homosexual New deal democrat in backwoods Alabama. Imagine the frustration you would feel when you were dismissed out of hand, even though you paid more attention to geopolitics than anyone else you knew. Imagine if you were represented by ignorant Republicans that thought the Constitution was written by the disciples and that we lived in a religious dictatorship.the phrase is "siege mentality".

[ICantSpellDawg]

the phrase is "siege mentality".

Sure - that is fair enough to an extent.

[CountArach]

Don't worry about the banking bailout! McCain has a plan!
Video (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355918)

KATIE COURIC: And, Bob, I understand that John McCain actually floated an alternative plan. What can you tell us about that?

BOB ORR We're told at the White House Senator McCain offered an alternative plan that would include fewer regulations and more corporate tax breaks for businesses, kind of a private solution. But we're also told those ideas angered and surprised Democrats like banking chairman Chris Dodd who now says he thinks the White House summit was more of a political stunt for McCain.

[Incongruous]

I am just wondering, why those who support Obama think he will be any better, is it because you do not actually think at all?
I mean we all know that the Republicans are warmongers and that Mccain wishes to continue the unabated bloodbath in Iraq, but who actually thinks that Obama is anything other than a new Democratic form of Hawk?

[CountArach]

I am just wondering, why those who support Obama think he will be any better, is it because you do not actually think at all?
I mean we all know that the Republicans are warmongers and that Mccain wishes to continue the unabated bloodbath in Iraq, but who actually thinks that Obama is anything other than a new Democratic form of Hawk?
As one of those supporting Obama I know he is on the Hawkish side - no American can run for President and not be a Hawk. Trust me, if Nader had any chance of winning I would be singing his praises in thsi thread.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am just wondering, why those who support Obama think he will be any better, is it because you do not actually think at all?
I mean we all know that the Republicans are warmongers and that Mccain wishes to continue the unabated bloodbath in Iraq, but who actually thinks that Obama is anything other than a new Democratic form of Hawk?

As Arach said, if he wasn't as hawkish as he is (and he's still nothing next to a Republican--- hell Palin practically wants to take on Russia over Georgia... I'm gonna say thanks, but no thanks to that one) could you hear the screaming and temper tantrum taking? They already call him a super left wing idealistic San Francisco values radical liberal. Of course, they call Hillary that too. Anyone to the left of Lieberman, really. So you can't win.

1) Obama is intelligent. And not in the "my daddy got me into my schools" way.

2) Obama is the first President in ages who didn't come from a family that belonged to the sorts of country clubs that would exclude people like Angelina Jolie because she's "new money."

3) Obama is right on virtually every social issue, with a little tweaking on one or two. Or rather, in line with all of us who want to exist in the 21st century and not return to tent revivalism and the McCarthyism.

4) He had the good sense to vote against the war in Iraq which, despite all the excuses people make and continue to make, should have been obvious to anyone with a brain was smoke and mirrors and manipulation from the very beginning. I was telling people before Bush even started his first term that if he won, we'd be back in Iraq. 9/11 just helped it along.

5) He taught Constitutional law. He's the sort of person who would never refer to it as "just a god damn piece of paper" as our President did.

Contrary to what you seem to be implying, Bopa, some people don't think the solution to every single problem in the world is tax cuts for the rich and bombing someone. I have no idea how anyone who "thinks at all" and isn't cowering in fear behind their bed that terrorists are around every corner could consider Republicans preferrable for leading our country right now. I think our policies have made us more enemies than we had on the morning of 9/11, and cost us tons of strain on our foreign alliances and support generally in the international community. We've created an enormous deficit. We've emboldened Russia, North Korea and even Iran to go ahead and start flexing their muscle because we are completely bogged down in a pointless and meaningless war without end and are in no position to do anything about whatever else is going on. We allowed the destruction and mass exodus of an American city because Bush put a horse rancher in charge of FEMA and was playing gee-tar while there was a hurricane going on. (But made sure to show up with his sleeves rolled up for photo ops later.)

We need someone with a brain, a fresh perspective, and enough of the b.s. divide and conquer tactics, who isn't just in there to line the pockets of private contractors and campaign contributors. And someone who isn't about seven generations divorced from the life that actual, normal, working, voting Americans live. We need someone who isn't still under the delusion that Iraq was a good idea, that terrorism stands to hurt us more than natural disasters and deregulation and the gutting of our economy through outsourcing, who realizes that more of us are going to be in prolonged battles with insurance companies to get our cancer treated than will ever be within 1,000 miles of a terrorist, and help transition us off the oil economy.

Is McCain going to do ANY of that? Is any Republican? The answer is no, and that being said, I have no idea how anyone with a brain will go and vote Republican in November.

[Incongruous]

I posted a few pages ago a piece by Pilger in which that most respected of jounralists (the real ones) put it that Obama was just as Hawkish as George Bush. Pilger beleives that Americans are fooling themselves and falling for the siren song of the Democrats, whose foreign policy is never any better than that of the Republicans save perhaps the current regime.

I guess I'm trying to understand what people see in him that is so great from an international point of view. I can't find anything.

[Koga No Goshi]

I posted a few pages ago a piece by Pilger in which that most respected of jounralists (the real ones) put it that Obama was just as Hawkish as George Bush. Pilger beleives that Americans are fooling themselves and falling for the siren song of the Democrats, whose foreign policy is never any better than that of the Republicans save perhaps the current regime.

I guess I'm trying to understand what people see in him that is so great from an international point of view. I can't find anything.

What the heck has been great about Republicans of the last 20 years from an international point of view? Almost everything that has been done has been handled horrendously.

I guess in short what I'm saying is, I do not understand the microscope Obama is under when we are coming out of one of the most atrocious foreign policy disaster administrations of all U.S. history.

[Incongruous]

Uhuh, I guess you are failing to fully understand what I'm typing, or just not reading it.

[CountArach]

I guess I'm trying to understand what people see in him that is so great from an international point of view. I can't find anything.
The best examples would be negotiating with Iran and Cuba. Two things Bush has refused to do and McCain has said he would refuse to do. I also believe that Obama is more likely to be multi-lateral in his invasions (That still doesn't excuse them) whereas I believe McCain would be more Unilateral.

[seireikhaan]

I am just wondering, why those who support Obama think he will be any better, is it because you do not actually think at all?
That was an unnecessarily demeaning way to express your frustrations.

[PanzerJaeger]

I am just wondering, why those who support Obama think he will be any better, is it because you do not actually think at all?
I mean we all know that the Republicans are warmongers and that Mccain wishes to continue the unabated bloodbath in Iraq, but who actually thinks that Obama is anything other than a new Democratic form of Hawk?

You had better watch out taking such an uppity attitude towards America. Afghanistan is boring and Iraq just isn't the bloodbath it used to be, plus a new president means a new war... so... ya... we're going to be shopping around....:slomo:

[CrossLOPER]

Uhuh, I guess you are failing to fully understand what I'm typing, or just not reading it.
Supports Ron Paul.

More intelligent response: OK, Obama is hawkish. Who are people supposed to support instead of Obama?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I am just wondering, why those who support Obama think he will be any better, is it because you do not actually think at all?


Your words ring so true that they chill me to the bone. It is as if you have seen straight into my soul...

[Lemur]

Bopa, you might get a better quality of response if you didn't openly insult the people you want responding. Just sayin'.

Meanwhile, if you can't laugh at this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLhVGDy-ZXc), there's something horribly wrong with you.

-edit-

I will also give a shiny nickel to anyone who can un-pack this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec):

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."

-edit of the edit-

Very astute synthesis of what's been going on for the last 24 hours by ABC News here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1).

[Spino]

^^I meant is it an accurate estimate. I've also heard we have a good chance of making money off of the AIG bailout because of the high interest rate on the loan.

A million people die each year from malaria. What kind of man whines about spending a few bucks to save millions of lives? One who thinks africans are ignorant ninny's? That's an appalling sentiment. :shame:

Uh, two billion dollars isn't a 'few bucks'. It's irresponsible spending like that that got us into trouble in the first place. Considering the current financial situation this country is in right now it is appalling to even suggest that we'd place anyone but our own citizens first. Why not apply those two billion dollars rebuilding the hurricane stricken areas of New Orleans or Texas? Since the US is in such a bind why doesn't Europe or Asia take up the slack and save the world from itself?

[drone]

Is McCain going to do ANY of that? Is any Republican? The answer is no, and that being said, I have no idea how anyone with a brain will go and vote Republican in November.

Congress is going to be firmly in the grasp of the Democratic party after this election. That right there is reason enough. Neither party should be entrusted with control of both branches. The best years of this country in the past quarter century have come when Congress and the White House are opposed. It means ridiculous laws don't get passed, and the executive is closely watched for monkey business.

[Xiahou]

Uh, two billion dollars isn't a 'few bucks'. It's irresponsible spending like that that got us into trouble in the first place. Considering the current financial situation this country is in right now it is appalling to even suggest that we'd place anyone but our own citizens first. Why not apply those two billion dollars rebuilding the hurricane stricken areas of New Orleans or Texas? Since the US is in such a bind why doesn't Europe or Asia take up the slack and save the world from itself?I bet a few boatloads of DDT would cost a lot less than 2 billion dollars. :idea2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Very astute synthesis of what's been going on for the last 24 hours by ABC News here (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1).

So a bailout plan that house Republicans would not agree to was already agreed to? McCain sabotaged the process?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am curious to see this thing play out. There are plus sides to everything - if the bailout doesnt go through - oh well - we can see how capitalism really works, one way or another. I really should have started buying guns when I had the chance. It'll be an adventure if the U.S. economy collapses - a return to insane times where life is short, brutal and incredibly risky.

[Xiahou]

So a bailout plan that house Republicans would not agree to was already agreed to? McCain sabotaged the process?It still surprises me how quickly certain news outlets pick up Democrat talking points- you think I'd be used to it by now.

What really gets me is how the Democrats are blaming some of the House Republicans for obstructing the bailout. Democrats can force through any bill they want in the House- they have the majority. The problem is that the House leadership can't even sell the bill to their own party, let alone Republicans.

[Koga No Goshi]

Congress is going to be firmly in the grasp of the Democratic party after this election. That right there is reason enough. Neither party should be entrusted with control of both branches. The best years of this country in the past quarter century have come when Congress and the White House are opposed. It means ridiculous laws don't get passed, and the executive is closely watched for monkey business.

When the parties are crossed between Legislative and Executive, another word for that is "lame duck." It's not just that "Frivolous" legislation doesn't go through. Frequently even important legislation doesn't get through because of partisan lockstep voting (unless you are Republican and control the majority, then you just threaten the nuclear option and to up and change the rules of Congress if you don't get your way.)

Do you want Congress and the President deadlocked for the next 4-8 years while our deficit is at such an enormous level, a good hard economic shove could make last Tuesday look like a picnic?

Someone's gotta FIX this stuff. Maybe a lot of you are in denial about quite HOW BAD things under 6 years of Republican control and 8 years of Bush have become. But if you think the situation we're in is just "politics as usual" and it doesn't matter who's in office in November, and preferrably we'd just have a lame duck president and no real change going through, then I have to say you have a fascinatingly idealistic view of what kind of shape the country is in. You really do. Jobs aren't going to come back or be created by themselves, the deficit isn't going away by itself, the wars we're in aren't going away by themselves, and the exclusively oil, lip-service-to-other-things Chevron economy isn't going away by itself.

I really don't understand how people can write off these things and how big of a problem they are not only for us, but for the next generation and the one after that. What we do is going to have big repercussions for years to come, I believe. Somehow, I feel like if we had a terrorist attack two weeks ago inflict an identical amount of damage as Hurricane Ike, you would all be picking up spears and screaming from every mountaintop that we have to vote McCain/vote Republicans. But things that affect way more of us, and stand to affect our children and grandchildren, it's like eh....let's get a mixed government that is deadlocked and incapable of changing anything.

It makes me wish sometimes that an Arab guy screaming that he hates America and is doing this for Allah ran a major oil company as oil prices went up, or controlled health insurance company policies when letters went out rejecting medical claims, or lobbied for us to spend all our money on war entanglements and nothing on our infrastructure (bridges are falling apart, in case we forgot that). Because then suddenly the 51% of the population that voted for Bush would think those things were of the utmost importance.

[drone]

It's not "lame duck", it forces the sides to work together to get anything done. Look into the recent past and see what has happened when deadlock does not exist. First 6 years of Bush, first 2 of Clinton. Did anything good come out of those years?

A streamlined government is not the answer. The legislative and executive branches are supposed to check and balance each other, not act together to loot the treasury and become a tyranny of the majority. Back before the huge polarization of left/right politics this wasn't as much of a problem, but in today's environment it is necessity, until both main parties start acting civil to each other again.

Your reply is filled with lots of "you" and "a lot of you" pronouns. You seem to want to paint me as a hard-core conservative who thinks a 3rd term of Bush would be the best thing evar, just because I would prefer McCain over Obama. I have wasted many electrons on this board expressing my contempt for the current administration, as well as the do-nothing Congress (both pre and post 2006). I'm an independent, who votes with his brain and not based on who is in my "club". McCain is by no means my first choice (I voted Paul in my (open) primary), but he has shown a willingness to work both sides of the aisle which is a huge improvement over the current idiot. I am part of the silent majority, the swing voters both sides both desire and despise. The feeling on the latter is mutual, trust me.

I been politically observant since ~1990, and the one thing that scares me the most is the wave of euphoria that hits when candidate (party X) gets elected president when Congress is controlled by party X. It's a mandate, we can finally change things for the better, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. As Tribesman would say - bollocks. The unfettered power that results is the worst thing that can happen. It eliminates the time and discussion usually required to decide, "is this law really a good thing?"

[Koga No Goshi]

I hear this a lot around the board:

1) Bush is really bad, I don't pretend he was really good

2) He was still the better choice, twice

3) I prefer McCain.


If you think that Bush has been tremendously bad, continuing to vote for someone who is doing his best to be Bush's siamese twin is a bizarre way to show it.

[drone]

If you think that Bush has been tremendously bad, continuing to vote for someone who is doing his best to be Bush's siamese twin is a bizarre way to show it.

Technically, I have already voted against him. ~;)

And in the relevant thread, I have already stated that I never voted for Bush. 2000 - :gah2:, 2004 - Bednarik.

[Koga No Goshi]

Technically, I have already voted against him. ~;)

And in the relevant thread, I have already stated that I never voted for Bush. 2000 - :gah2:, 2004 - Bednarik.

Ah well I didn't know that. The "you's" in my thread are more at hardliner Republicans generally, not at you personally. I'm sort of engaging the same people across many threads on basically the same topics... heck the mortgage crisis alone keeps hopping and popping up in multiple threads. I just find it incredibly bizarre that people who all seem to agree that Bush was monument-worthy levels of bad then turn around and put everyone else on the defensive of WHAT MAKES YOU THINK A DEMOCRAT IS ANY GOOD WHATSOEVER AT ALL? Well, for one, at this point, they're not a Bush Republican. For starters.

[drone]

Ah well I didn't know that. The "you's" in my thread are more at hardliner Republicans generally, not at you personally. I'm sort of engaging the same people across many threads on basically the same topics... heck the mortgage crisis alone keeps hopping and popping up in multiple threads. I just find it incredibly bizarre that people who all seem to agree that Bush was monument-worthy levels of bad then turn around and put everyone else on the defensive of WHAT MAKES YOU THINK A DEMOCRAT IS ANY GOOD WHATSOEVER AT ALL? Well, for one, at this point, they're not a Bush Republican. For starters.

Another thing I have railed about before is the complete incompetence of the DNC. The results of the last two elections and the inability of the Democrats to win the White House after both a fairly successful Clinton administration and the first 4 years of Bush speak for themselves. The ball was on the tee, all they had to do was swing the bat. The lack of an electable candidate bit them both times, which is why you get those responses. I'm still waiting for them to screw this one up, but McCain seems to be falling apart in front of our eyes.

[Koga No Goshi]

Another thing I have railed about before is the complete incompetence of the DNC. The results of the last two elections and the inability of the Democrats to win the White House after both a fairly successful Clinton administration and the first 4 years of Bush speak for themselves. The ball was on the tee, all they had to do was swing the bat. The lack of an electable candidate bit them both times, which is why you get those responses. I'm still waiting for them to screw this one up, but McCain seems to be falling apart in front of our eyes.

I think there's an incredible double standard in terms of how the DNC and GOP get judged in the public's eyes. And I think if you took everything about the McCain campaigns and Obama campaigns and switched them, this election would be over. War hero works for McCain but was a liability for Kerry? Complete double standards, and the Dems are held to a higher one. When they try to go high ground like Kerry, they are called too weak. When they go aggressive like Hillary, they lose poll points from being "too harsh", even if it's nothing compared to standard tactics out of a Republican campaign.

But this is perhaps a topic for another topic. ;)

[drone]

I think there's an incredible double standard in terms of how the DNC and GOP get judged in the public's eyes. And I think if you took everything about the McCain campaigns and Obama campaigns and switched them, this election would be over. War hero works for McCain but was a liability for Kerry? Complete double standards, and the Dems are held to a higher one. When they try to go high ground like Kerry, they are called too weak. When they go aggressive like Hillary, they lose poll points from being "too harsh", even if it's nothing compared to standard tactics out of a Republican campaign.

But this is perhaps a topic for another topic. ;)

Actually, this is exactly the topic for it. :yes: It involves the spin and dirty tricks that go on in the background during the election. And everyone knows that the GOP is full of cold-hearted ********, so those attacks are just par for the course. The happy, friendly, PC-minded Dems would look bad if they retaliated. It's all about the image. I imagine Howard Dean and the rest of the DNC crew are struggling over the decision to release the secret Palin sex-tapes. Too soon and she is easily replaced by McCain, too late and she brings in more votes.

~D

[Lemur]

I've got a real time-saver for ya, friends — no need to watch the debate tonight. Turns out John McCain already won (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html), even though they haven't happened yet. Now that is leadership!

-edit-

Also, a tape of Palin's Miss Alaska contest keeps popping up and getting taken down. I don't see what the fuss is about. See for yourself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YYplAoEdDs), there's nothing incriminating or negative about it.

[drone]

I've got a real time-saver for ya, friends — no need to watch the debate tonight. Turns out John McCain already won (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html), even though they haven't happened yet. Now that is leadership!

Schmidt learned a lot from Rove, but he doesn't appear to be technologically savvy or secretive enough to deal with the internet. McCain should have never hired him, it would be a much better campaign without this kind of crap.

[ICantSpellDawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Check out this link - half of you will hate it. It only really focuses on the sub-prime bubble and not much on investment and security firms and their role in egging on self-destruction.

Can anyone verify if CRA's were 5% of overall loans but 50% of all foreclosures?

[Xiahou]

If McCain really did torpedo the bailout bill, maybe we should thank him. Apparently, the Democrats setup a provision to have 20% of any eventual revenues from the bailout siphoned into a slush fund (http://www.openmarket.org/2008/06/16/an-untrustworthy-housing-fund-housing-bill-has-likely-acorn-slush-fund/).

Here is the relevant portion of the proposed bill (http://publicmarkup.org/bill/dodds-legislative-proposal-treasury-department-aut/1/5/):
TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

1. DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
2. USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)
1. 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
2. 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).
Wow.... :no:

[m52nickerson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Check out this link - half of you will hate it. It only really focuses on the sub-prime bubble and not much on investment and security firms and their role in egging on self-destruction.

Can anyone verify if CRA's were 5% of overall loans but 50% of all foreclosures?

The problem with the video is that it states that banks had to issue sub-prime loans. The act only states banks must issue loans across the board. No how much those loans are for, or that they are to be adjustable rate loans.

[seireikhaan]

So does anyone else think the moderator looks like an alien? :alien:

[Koga No Goshi]

On the debates

On CNN, that little "audience response" bar graph on the bottom was pointlessly distracting. All it did was go up for Reps when McCain talked and up for blue when Obama talked. How were they measuring that? Was the audience holding little vote pads like on Oprah or something? It was pointless and I hope they don't use that again.

McCain's similarities to Bush: Interrupting and talking over his time or always making the last response (Obama just let it go and said let's move on instead of interrupting back several times) and used the term "have to understand"/"what Obama doesn't understand" about 80,000 times. His style was quite a lot like Bush in the '04 debates, actually.

[KukriKhan]

I put it at 21-21, with an Obama Hail Mary in the final 3 seconds of the game. Final score in Kukri-land: Obama 27 - 21 McCain.

Yes, Jim Lehrer is getting on, but he's still my journalistic hero.:beam:

[Marshal Murat]

From the little amount of debate I did see, McCain seems to have taken control of the debate and pushed it to Obama.

I only saw a little bit, but what I did see gave me a favorable opinion of McCain.

[Koga No Goshi]

From the little amount of debate I did see, McCain seems to have taken control of the debate and pushed it to Obama.

I only saw a little bit, but what I did see gave me a favorable opinion of McCain.

Superficial style points only. He interrupted a lot and just kept throwing out untruths or out of context quotes about Obama's positions and letting them stand knowing the average person wouldn't know any better.

All that came out of McCain was: tax cuts, cut pork, win in Iraq, win in Iraq, win in Iraq, don't talk to Iran.

I see the huge change from George W Bush so clearly now.

[m52nickerson]

I put it at 21-21, with an Obama Hail Mary in the final 3 seconds of the game. Final score in Kukri-land: Obama 27 - 21 McCain.

Yes, Jim Lehrer is getting on, but he's still my journalistic hero.:beam:

Obama did better when on economics and social issues, McCain had the advantage for a lot of the foreign policy.

I would agree with your tie. I don't think as far as point for point there was a clear winner.

One think I know Obama did better is in the fact that he directly addressed McCain more then once. McCain never directly addressed Obama, let alone look at him.

[Lemur]

Looking at negroes is one of the ways you get AIDs. Everybody over seventy knows that.

I thought it was a good debate. I like it when the moderators stay out of the exchanges. Yeah, McCain was pushier, but Obama was classier. Still watching it as I type this. Maybe more thoughts when I'm through it.

-edit-

I think Obama and McCain just agreed that we should go to war with Russia if they mess with Georgia. That strikes me as frickin' nuts. I thought maybe, just maybe, we would learn from Iraq that we should only go to war for immediate, clear reasons of national interest. What's our frickin' interest in Georgia? This is loony land.

[ICantSpellDawg]

McCain made some good points with good humor and didn't come off as impulsive.

Obama didn't stutter and looked at McCain when debating with him.

I think McCain won, but I would, wouldn't I?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Looking at negroes is one of the ways you get AIDs. Everybody over seventy knows that.

I thought it was a good debate. I like it when the moderators stay out of the exchanges. Yeah, McCain was pushier, but Obama was classier. Still watching it as I type this. Maybe more thoughts when I'm through it.

-edit-

I think Obama and McCain just agreed that we should go to war with Russia if they mess with Georgia. That strikes me as frickin' nuts. I thought maybe, just maybe, we would learn from Iraq that we should only go to war for immediate, clear reasons of national interest. What's our frickin' interest in Georgia? This is loony land.

What is clear national interest? You sound like an isolationist.