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

[Don Corleone]

I know from personal experience that 39% is perfectly affordable for anyone with enough income to be in the top tax bracket. Trust me, my personal economic outlook is far better under the Republicans than it is under the Democrats. My taxes will go up under Obama, but I'm not complaining because I know I can afford it. I know plenty of people who will qualify for that 39% bracket and trust me, not a single one of them will be defaulting on a mortgage or struggling in any way. Even without the absurd number of tax deductions available in the current tax code, anyone who can't live on $152k per year (61% of $250k) is seriously mismanaging their expenditures.

I'm thrilled that you're rich enough to throw your money around. Really, I am happy for you. I don't begrudge you it. I do resent the hell out of the fact that I make considerably less than you do, yet you feel free to take my money away too with these ivory tower notions of yours.

I'll make a bet with you too, chief. I am most definitely NOT in the top tax bracket, by any stretch, and I guarantee you that within 2 years, my federal income tax rate will be 39% (it's currently 25%). I also pay a state income tax rate of 5.3% because I work in Massachusetts (though I receive no services from them). I also pay Social Security to the tune of 12.4% on every last penny I make. So that means even though I'm not even at the 100K mark, let alone this 250K number Obama claims to be gunning for, I fully expect my taxes to go up, significantly. Right now, my total tax burden is 42.7%. If my tax burden in 2010 is <50%, I will buy you a six pack of your favorite beer. If it's over 50%, you buy me one.

I'm going to need all this free beer to stay drunk when I get evicted. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

If you two gentlemen wish me to judge your bet, I will need a PM stating the terms of the wager with both agreeing.

Unfortunately, I cannot be party to any hazard that rewards the winner with tins of Guinness. Such a collaboration would make me hang my head in shame and force me to retire forthwith to a monastery, there to spend my miserable life contemplating the evils of facilitating beer abuse.

:bow:

[Don Corleone]

And in my capacity as Official Spokesman for the Obama Campaign, I'm sorry I can't issue any further clarifiaction at this time.


Sounds good, let's take a look at your wishlist:


The only one I have trouble with is the last one. How do you quantify this coming to pass? No administration has been able to get our Southern border under control, so you could say that it has already happened. How will Obama's (inevitable) failure on immigration look any different from Bush's, Clinton's, Bush's, Reagans's or Carter's?

But other than that, you're on. Hand-delivered beer will occur within a year.

The last one relates to any effort whatsoever by INS to control the flow of illegal immigrants. It's my contention that the Obama White House will officially announce that INS is not in the business of treating immigrants like criminals any longer.

[Don Corleone]

I think one thing that you all should remember here is that 2 weeks ago, I was saying I didn't think an Obama presidency would be the worst thing in the world... that some regulation and oversight and an effort to pay down the defecit might just be what the doctor ordered.

My 'off the hook' response as I'm sure some of you are considering it all stems from articles I've read within the past 2 weeks about what not just Obama, but Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have planned to put their boot on our neck. To get a full appreciation for the magnitude of change coming our way, you have to consider... nobody said Obama had to initiate these measures. He can always claim he was pressured into it by a Congress that had a veto-proof majority, so he was dragged along unwillingly, which is exactly how I envision the next 4 years going.

[TinCow]

I'm thrilled that you're rich enough to throw your money around. Really, I am happy for you. I don't begrudge you it. I do resent the hell out of the fact that I make considerably less than you do, yet you feel free to take my money away too with these ivory tower notions of yours.

I'll make a bet with you too, chief. I am most definitely NOT in the top tax bracket, by any stretch, and I guarantee you that within 2 years, my federal income tax rate will be 39% (it's currently 25%). I also pay a state income tax rate of 5.3% because I work in Massachusetts (though I receive no services from them). I also pay Social Security to the tune of 12.4% on every last penny I make. So that means even though I'm not even at the 100K mark, let alone this 250K number Obama claims to be gunning for, I fully expect my taxes to go up, significantly. Right now, my total tax burden is 42.7%. If my tax burden in 2010 is <50%, I will buy you a six pack of your favorite beer. If it's over 50%, you buy me one.

I'm going to need all this free beer to stay drunk when I get evicted. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Not a chance. I'm not dumb enough to bet on the word of a politician. I am simply pointing out that Obama's tax plans, as enumerated in his campaigns, are legitimate and more than fair. Do I think he will keep his word? Yes, probably. Will I place a bet on it? Absolutely, not.

Since we're essentially talking about political honesty here, do you really think that McCain would keep his word on taxes as well?

[Strike For The South]

Don you are fighting a losing battle. We just need to shut up and pay like good Americans. Cant make ends meat? The government will help you! They just need a little more control a little more money and the rest of the American backbone.

Off topic. If someone wants to send me a twelve pack that would be much appreciated.

[Don Corleone]

Well, as long as we're talking about 'paying your fair share by paying more than 50% of your salary in taxes', 'the Fairness Doctrine', "government enforced retirement plans by means of seizing 401k funds', I think Democrats should complete the playbook and follow the one thing Lenin knew to do from day 1. Keep booze CHEAP. Subsidize the hell out of it. No matter how miserable your people get, you'll take ability to organize against you away if you keep them drunk all the time. I think Obama should implement "free beer soviets" at the end of the work day.

[Don Corleone]

Not a chance. I'm not dumb enough to bet on the word of a politician. I am simply pointing out that Obama's tax plans, as enumerated in his campaigns, are legitimate and more than fair. Do I think he will keep his word? Yes, probably. Will I place a bet on it? Absolutely, not.

Since we're essentially talking about political honesty here, do you really think that McCain would keep his word on taxes as well?


So, you admit even though I'm at less than half of the magic 250K 'soak the rich' cornerstone, I should be stocking up on vaseline, eh? Well, at least you're honest about it.

As for McCain's tax pledge, yes, I do think he'd work to implement everything he promised. And I'm actually not very happy about that either. He's talking about further tax breaks on the top 2 brackets. Again, not much for me. But in his plan, which I do believe, my current taxes won't be going up either. I am about as sure as I can be that come 2010, I'll be paying over 50% of my salary in taxes. And unlike you my friend, I cannot afford that. I will have to sell my house and start renting. I would never have bought the house I did with that in mind, and I did buy well below what the experts said I could afford: instead of the industry standard 28%, I keep my housing ratio at 23%, and I won't have that anymore once Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi come castate me.

[Strike For The South]

May I ask what the plebs are receiving? Or am I overstepping my bounds? I can go back to hopping!

[Hooahguy]

Well then, it's impossible for you to concede anything then, isn't it? If horrible things do happen, it's because Obama is an evil socialist, and if they don't happen it's because the people stopped the evil socialist. Are you familiar with Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic))? How about idée fixe (http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/idee%20fixe)?

By your logic, it is impossible for Obama to ever demonstrate himself to be anything but a monster. Kinda whacked-out, no? I may not support John McCain, but I hope turns out to be a good and reasonable President if he wins the election.

yeah, i guess it is a catch-22....
ah well, i guess were all in the fire now, arent we, gents? :smash:
:sweatdrop:

[Lemur]

Unfortunately, I cannot be party to any hazard that rewards the winner with tins of Guinness.
It's not such bad stuff (http://www.myscienceproject.org/head.html), BG. Not all of us can hop over to the Emerald Isle to taste it in its purest form.


May I ask what the plebs are receiving? Or am I overstepping my bounds?
Silence, peon. You will be allowed to live another day, and you will be thankful for the mercy of the Obamessiah. Now back to the salt mines with you!

[Spino]

As our current Vice President declared (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm), "Deficits don't matter." Until they do. Like, oh, now.

You certainly can't argue with a straight face that Republicans are about smaller government. Or even stable government. Not after the most expansive spending binge in our lifetime, all presided over by a Republican President and Congress.

Well the party used to be that way. On the other hand Democrats used to be about pro-active foreign policy, tax cuts & space programs. Clearly both parties have dragged the entire country through the proverbial looking glass. Personally I find siding with a party that is a pale shadow of its former self is far more agreeable than siding with the party that has become, for the most part, as ideological distant to me as Mars is from Earth. Hell, I find it incredibly amusing that I have something in common with a mid-20th century Democrat than I do with these Boomer generation Neo-Con, 'compassionate conservatives'.


If the Republican party were a kid of mine, I would take away his credit cards and ground the irresponsible brat until he learned how to manage his money like a grownup.

With that in mind I hope you've got one tough pair of scissors... Again, my generational ranting & raving comes into play. Every single generation born after WW2 has been the model of economic irresponsibility. Americans simply don't know how to manage their money responsibly anymore and what's worse is we've become a nation of credit card junkies. The Republicans running the show during GW's reign were simply representin' their peeps. Thus far the Democrats have proven themselves to be made of the same stuff so why apply the double standard?


You Republicans sure do love you some Kool Aid. But I gotta tell you, that stuff is pure sugar, very bad for you. Maybe you should move on to a less high-fructose metaphor for when you have no valid argument?

I must confess, growing up I was a grape flavored Hi-C drinking brat. Grandma never let me near Kool Aid, especially when they came out with that Jim Jones Messiah flavor. I ain't no Republican but I do confess to voting for a bunch. Thanks to the ex-Democrat Neo-Con taint that has permanently damaged the Republican party I am content to remain an independent with strong conservative leanings.


I'm still nervous about a single party having all the reins of power, but I don't think electing McCain is the answer to that. Not when he's got Sarah "Me No Likey Science or Reading" Palin in his tow. The correct answer is to vote Republican at the Congressional level.

I think your reluctance to vote for a Republican presidential candidate belies your dislike of the Republican brand. I mean seriously now, McCain is the most moderate candidate of any party to run in ages. The old man has a genuine history of bi-partisan cooperation versus Obama whose greatest bi-partisan efforts have been kissing up to conservatives in an election year in order to secure a win this November. I hate to say it but I'll wager you'd still be in favor of Obama if Romney or Giuliani was McCain's running mate instead of Palin. Palin's presence on the ticket simply makes it easier to dismiss a McCain presidency on 'other' grounds.


The last time we made any headway toward being fiscally responsible was when we had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. Why not try that again?

Because it's not on the radar for the forseeable future. The Republican brand is in deep trouble and until they abandon the New GOP formula and return to the GOP Classic flavor people loved then it's Skidsville, USA for GOP town. The sheeple are buying what the Dems are selling this election year and there's very little stopping the herd when it gets going. If we bet on the fact that the Congress' already rock bottom approval ratings will not improve during an Obama presidency then sure, we may see a Republican controlled Congress in 2 or 4 years. So the odds may be in favor of such a change taking place but it's not guaranteed. An awful lot of irreparable damage could take place over the next two years, especially if the Democrats get a supermajority. Until then it's four years of zero accountability, one party rule. I'll gladly take McCain's veto over Obama's rubber stamp in the White house thank you very much.

I don't understand this great fear of Palin, we've had other dolts serve as Vice President (i.e. Quayle, Gore-bot) and the country got along just fine. Palin may be a good ol' girl from the backwoods but she's done a competent job as governor in Alaska. Using the same excuses offered by the Democrats who defend Obama her lack of experience could be shored up with advice from experienced Cabinet members. And she's running for Vice President, not the number one slot. Would I have felt better with Romney or Giuliani as McCain's running mate? Absolutely. They're far more experienced, accomplished, intelligent and neither were former beauty queen divas (yes, I'm a sexist meanie). I think everyone who fears that McCain might kick the bucket in the next four years needs to get a grip. Clearly the man comes from hardy stock, his mother is in her 90s and still kicking. McCain has also survived a host of human & environmentally caused trauma that would have ruined or killed most people. On the other hand Joe Biden who is younger than McCain (late 60s) has already had TWO anyeurisms... if anyone is likely to kick the bucket over the next 4-8 years it's Joey Foot-in-mouth disease Biden. I don't mean to be ghoulish but Biden's health should be of much greater concern to Americans since Obama, by nature of his race and his far left leanings, is going to be awfully high on every rabid moonbat assassin's to-do list. And after Biden we're left with... NANCY PELOSI as our glorious leader! ~:shock: :sweatdrop:

[Spino]

I like this wager, but let's keep it simple — you're standing behind your very detailed assertion about Obama, with quite a string of predictions. Heck, I'll cede you the entire issue of tax percentages, you've got so much other unlikely stuff in there I don't need it. Nowhere have I claimed that he will offer "a tax cut on everyone but the wealthiest 5%", so I don't see why I should start doing it now. I do not think, however, that he's going to be raising taxes on the middle class. That way one-term Presidencies lie.

Yes but it's not going to be up to Obama to raise or lower taxes because he's running for President not Super Fantastic Yankee Doodle Emperor of our most glorious nation. All things tax related are going to lie in the hands of Obama's Democratic comrades in Congress. It is far more important to take note of what Pelosi, Reid & Franks are saying about what they will do as opposed to what Obama promises he'll do once elected. As I've said before, election year campaign promises usually amount to nothing. I firmly believe that once elected Obama is going to break out that rubber stamp and get to work!

So combine that with Obama's pre-election year positions (gotta love those audio clips from his 2001 radio interview in Chicago) and suddenly Don's predictions aren't so moonbat crazy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Democrats in Galax County need a reminder that breaking into a GOP office and macing people just ain't classy. (http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News)

More on Obama and taxes. (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/08/my_kind_of_tax_flip_flop.html)


It also seems clear that the Obama tax plan is not a growth policy, but a social policy that uses tax fairness as a means of redistributing income. There’s a long history of failed redistributionism, and this is where the Obama plan falls apart.

Plus, the world’s changed since the 1990s. The flat-tax revolution coming out of Eastern Europe has slashed marginal rates on individuals and corporations, resulting in strong growth and big revenue gains that keep budget deficits down.

CR

[Lemur]

So combine that with Obama's pre-election year positions (gotta love those audio clips from his 2001 radio interview in Chicago) and suddenly Don's predictions aren't so moonbat crazy.
I heard about that one. Redistribution: to quote Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Analysis (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html):


On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.

You can read the entire transcript of the interview here (http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27), courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:


Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:


One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."

While there are sharp differences between the two candidates on economic issues, they both favor a progressive income tax system in which people with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than people with low incomes.

[Don Corleone]

Lemur, regardless of whether he preferred a stilleto or a machete, he was still arguing for gutting the middle class. He says that the great tragedy of the Civil Rights movement is that they focused on the courts, who were traditionally loathe to get into income redistribution efforts instead of focusing on getting the legislature to go seize other people's money for themselves.

In other words, at the end of the day, he was assuming taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor, after his cut, natch, was the ultimate goal. He was bemoaning that the Civil Rights Movement picked the wrong vehicle to accomplish this great goal.

And your point is "woo, hoo, he's not the boogeyman you think, because he'd work through Congress, not the courts"? :dizzy2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, you admit even though I'm at less than half of the magic 250K 'soak the rich' cornerstone, I should be stocking up on vaseline, eh? Well, at least you're honest about it.

Try a quality personal lubricant, old friend. Petroleum jellies are not water soluble and can be difficult for the body to eliminate, so they're not for long term use in such a fashion. Remember, 4 years is a LONG time.

[TinCow]

Alright, someone needs to explain this to me. How is it that Obama's graduated tax plan is "socialist" and "wealth redistribution" while the graduated tax plans enacted by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, and proposed by McCain, are not? I can understand calling Obama's plan more socialist, but surely if graduated taxation is wealth redistribution, then the Republicans are just as guilty of it as the Democrats.

[Don Corleone]

Alright, someone needs to explain this to me. How is it that Obama's graduated tax plan is "socialist" and "wealth redistribution" while the graduated tax plans enacted by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, and proposed by McCain, are not? I can understand calling Obama's plan more socialist, but surely if graduated taxation is wealth redistribution, then the Republicans are just as guilty of it as the Democrats.

Oh, don't get me started. Everytime I bring up a flat tax rate, I get called a racist and a bigot and an elistist snob. Of course any progressive taxing scheme is inherently socialist. And the exemptions most politicians (of both flavors) write in for themselves and their friends (Obama pays at the 2nd lowest tax bracket, despite feeling its his duty to pay more, btw) make it corrupt socialism. See, this is what drives me insane.

I COULD stomach socialism. I would pass on the UK or the Netherlands, but someplace like Norway or Sweden, where socialism actually tries to meet its stated goals instead of just being a money grab for fat cats in the capital city, that's much more palatable. I don't like seeing my disposable income evaporate, but if the government is actually putting money into things I need, that's much more tolerable.

But buying every incarcerated felon his own Playstation, paying for transgender operations, setting up a permanent work-free welfare middle class? And oh yeah, the guys in Washington don't have to pay taxes? All the while, my kids are getting the :daisy: end of the stick? Yeah, that's more than I can stomach. And to have ivory tower snobs tell me to shut up and quit griping and just pay... well, it makes me a touch irritable.

[Lemur]

Lemur, regardless of whether he preferred a stilleto or a machete, he was still arguing for gutting the middle class. He says that the great tragedy of the Civil Rights movement is that they focused on the courts, who were traditionally loathe to get into income redistribution efforts instead of focusing on getting the legislature to go seize other people's money for themselves.
The dude never says "income redistribution," he says "redistributive change," which could mean just about anything. He was being an impenetrable wonk, not a rabble-rousing commie. Get your insults straight. A legal blogger (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-bombshell-redistribution-of.html) on the topic:


If this alarmed you, chances are, you are not a law professor. Let me tell you that, in this radio interview from 2001, Obama is making the most conventional observation about the limits of constitutional law litigation: The courts will recognize rights to formal equality, but they hesitate to enforce those rights with remedies that become too expensive or require too much judicial supervision and they resist identifying rights to economic equality. Such matters are better handled by legislatures, and courts tend to defer to legislatures for this reason.

Obama was not showing disrespect for constitutional law in any of this. More radical law professors would criticize the courts for not engaging in more expansive interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and for failing to provide much more expensive, invasive remedies. He did not do that. He accepted the limits the courts had recognized and advised against the unfruitful pursuit of economic justice in the judicial forum. It's a political matter. That is a moderate view of law.

I just don't get it — you love to rip on judges who "legislate from the bench," but when Obama says that the civil rights campaign should have depended less on courts and more on political process, that's a bad thing?


Drudge is linking to the video clip with the headline "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT." No, no, no, no. That is absolutely misstated. Shame on Drudge! Obama said:


One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

He's saying that civil rights activists made a tragic mistake by fighting for their cause in the judicial forum. It's part of his separation-of-powers point. Changes that involve complex economic choices need to be made in the political sphere. He never says he wishes the courts would have done more. He acknowledges the limitations of law and courts.

Let's play fair people. Words have meaning. Read carefully and don't distort.

[Lemur]

I ain't no Republican but I do confess to voting for a bunch. Thanks to the ex-Democrat Neo-Con taint that has permanently damaged the Republican party I am content to remain an independent with strong conservative leanings.
Being an Independent in Brooklyn sucks major eggs. Say bye-bye to ever voting in a primary again.


I mean seriously now, McCain is the most moderate candidate of any party to run in ages.
Ah, yes, I remember that McCain fondly. He seems to bear no relation to the McCain now campaigning.


I hate to say it but I'll wager you'd still be in favor of Obama if Romney or Giuliani was McCain's running mate instead of Palin.
I'd probably still wind up supporting Obama, but I would have gladly chosen McCain over Clinton. And if he had chosen a truly talented manager like Romney, I would certainly have stayed quieter. Palin is just a deal-breaker for me.


Palin may be a good ol' girl from the backwoods but she's done a competent job as governor in Alaska. [...] Would I have felt better with Romney or Giuliani as McCain's running mate? Absolutely.
Me too. Heck, I would have been more comfortable if Fred "Ultra-Relaxed" Thompson had been chosen for the #2 slot.

As for her competence, how much skill does it take to run an oil-based state during historically high oil prices? And how hard is it to be popular when you rape the oil companies (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html) for extra taxes, which you then redistribute to the peons? Every man, woman and infant in Alaska got at least an extra $2,000 from Palin's anti-corporate socialist income redistribution scheme. Oh, but that's right, it's not socialist redistribution of wealth if you're Republican. Just like the partial nationalization of our financial sector is barely palatable when done by a Republican, but would be the death of the nation if done by Obama. Yeah, the Dems really have a lock on double standards, sure they do.

Sorry, Palin's a deal-breaker, for me and for a majority of Americans (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/743802.html).

[TinCow]

Oh, don't get me started. Everytime I bring up a flat tax rate, I get called a racist and a bigot and an elistist snob. Of course any progressive taxing scheme is inherently socialist. And the exemptions most politicians (of both flavors) write in for themselves and their friends (Obama pays at the 2nd lowest tax bracket, despite feeling its his duty to pay more, btw) make it corrupt socialism. See, this is what drives me insane.

I COULD stomach socialism. I would pass on the UK or the Netherlands, but someplace like Norway or Sweden, where socialism actually tries to meet its stated goals instead of just being a money grab for fat cats in the capital city, that's much more palatable. I don't like seeing my disposable income evaporate, but if the government is actually putting money into things I need, that's much more tolerable.

But buying every incarcerated felon his own Playstation, paying for transgender operations, setting up a permanent work-free welfare middle class? And oh yeah, the guys in Washington don't have to pay taxes? All the while, my kids are getting the :daisy: end of the stick? Yeah, that's more than I can stomach. And to have ivory tower snobs tell me to shut up and quit griping and just pay... well, it makes me a touch irritable.

Just to avoid coming off like a party-line nutjob, I'd like to clarify a few things. I did say it is entirely proper to complain about how the money is spent. I fully believe that if the government was better managed and more efficient, it could accomplish far more with all tax income at half its current value. I am actively upset about the things our government funds and refuses to fund in varying degrees, and I fully expect that wasteful spending to continue no matter who is in office.

I am 'ok' with Obama's tax increases because they are relatively modest, I believe the people they will be inflicted upon can afford them, and I believe it is worth it to pay that extra amount of money to achieve the social reforms I want out of the Democrats. I am, above all else, a social issue voter. I voted against Clinton in the primary specifically because of her stance on censorship. If John McCain abandoned the conservative Christian stances on social issues, it might have been a difficult choice for me to make. In an ideal world, I would like to see everyone's taxes lowered and I do believe that is easily possible with proper governmental fiscal responsibility.

I do not want to take anyone's money, nor do I want the government taking any more of my money, but I don't live in the fantasy world where I have that option. My choice is conservative Christian policies on social issues and lower taxes, or liberal policies on social issues and higher taxes. I am thus forced to weigh the importance of taxes and social issues, and for the majority of my life social issues have always come out on top.

If a flat tax Libertarian had an actual legitimate shot at the Presidency, I would probably defect.

[Don Corleone]

The dude never says "income redistribution," he says "redistributive change," which could mean just about anything. He was being an impenetrable wonk, not a rabble-rousing commie. Get your insults straight. A legal blogger (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-bombshell-redistribution-of.html) on the topic:


If this alarmed you, chances are, you are not a law professor. Let me tell you that, in this radio interview from 2001, Obama is making the most conventional observation about the limits of constitutional law litigation: The courts will recognize rights to formal equality, but they hesitate to enforce those rights with remedies that become too expensive or require too much judicial supervision and they resist identifying rights to economic equality. Such matters are better handled by legislatures, and courts tend to defer to legislatures for this reason.

Obama was not showing disrespect for constitutional law in any of this. More radical law professors would criticize the courts for not engaging in more expansive interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and for failing to provide much more expensive, invasive remedies. He did not do that. He accepted the limits the courts had recognized and advised against the unfruitful pursuit of economic justice in the judicial forum. It's a political matter. That is a moderate view of law.

I just don't get it — you love to rip on judges who "legislate from the bench," but when Obama says that the civil rights campaign should have depended less on courts and more on political process, that's a bad thing?


Drudge is linking to the video clip with the headline "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT." No, no, no, no. That is absolutely misstated. Shame on Drudge! Obama said:


One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

He's saying that civil rights activists made a tragic mistake by fighting for their cause in the judicial forum. It's part of his separation-of-powers point. Changes that involve complex economic choices need to be made in the political sphere. He never says he wishes the courts would have done more. He acknowledges the limitations of law and courts.

Let's play fair people. Words have meaning. Read carefully and don't distort.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse on this. He's discussing action in the courts versus a legislative agenda as a less appropriate means to an end he desires. He's not discussing the merits of seeking redress in the courts, he's naming it as an inappropriate vehicle to what he wanted to accomplish. As for 'redistributive change' versus income redistribution, in light of the fact that he was talking about personal wealth and people's incomes, I'm going to quote one of your guys and say "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". But I'll be sure to send a nice email off to the DNC and say you hit every talking point precisely. ~:pat:

I'm not ripping him for acknowledging that the legislature is a more appropriate vehicle for his wealth redistribution goal. I applaud him for that. I'm ripping him for having it as a goal in the first place. If I scold my teenager for talking with food in their mouth while shouting obscenities, and my child decides that she should wait until the food is gone before resuming shouting obscenities, I might give them partial credit, but the major offense of the obscenities (the wealth redistribution, or the redistributive change if you prefer) remains.

[Lemur]

And you dismiss the opinions of the legal blogger out of hand because ...?

[Xiahou]

And you dismiss the opinions of the legal blogger out of hand because ...?I'll take that one:
1)Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I. Just because you use someone else on the Internet to make an argument for you doesn't make it authoritative.

2)More importantly, the scholarly legal blogger didn't comment on "redistribution"- he just said the same thing that Don has been saying. Obama acknowledged that the legislature is a better path to his redistributive goals than the courts.

Now, speaking for myself. I take little comfort in Obama's acknowledgment that the courts have historically been a bad vehicle for redistribution, considering that he'd be the one choosing who gets appointed to the courts.


And how hard is it to be popular when you rape the oil companies for extra taxes, which you then redistribute to the peons? Every man, woman and infant in Alaska got at least an extra $2,000 from Palin's anti-corporate socialist income redistribution scheme.:laugh4: Oh the irony, it hurts! Explain Obama's tax plan again.....

[Lemur]

1)Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I. Just because you use someone else on the Internet to make an argument for you doesn't make it authoritative.
See, this is what happens when you don't click the links. The blogger is a she, not a he, and she's a law professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Althouse) with a wide readership in the legal community. But don't let that get in your way.


Oh the irony, it hurts!
JUst like it's hurt for the last eight years of socialist redistribution and nationalization/bailouts of corporations that are "too big to fail," or does it hurt in some other way?

To move on to more amusing matters, here we have a study in contrasts. A minute from the actual porn film, Who's Nailin' Sarah Palin (http://www.236.com/feed/2008/10/25/wtsfw_way_too_safe_for_work_na_9801.php) (safe for work), as opposed to Thandie Morton and Ricky Gervais reading the exact same scene (http://defamer.com/5068356/ricky-gervais-and-thandie-newton-add-british-class-to-sarah-palin-porn-film). The weird thing is that I think the porn actors did a better job with the dialogue ...

Best line: "Come on, you tree-hugging hippie! What're you waiting for, Congressional approval?"

[Spino]

I heard about that one. Redistribution: to quote Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Fezzik, rip his arms off!

I've already seen the full transcript and it is Obama's implied position on the economic meaning of 'redistributive change' is what I'm talking about. Being an 'impenetrable wonk' for using the term 'redistributive change' doesn't excuse him of his implied position. Obama believes the Civil Rights movement should have concentrated more on bringing about economic 'redistributive change' via legislation and not the Supreme Court. How this absolves him of anything is beyond me. Why would he feel compelled to declare their failed strategy as being tragic unless he was sympathetic or supportive of the cause of economic 'redistributive change'? Were Obama ideologically neutral or opposed to economic 'redistributive change' then you can bet the word tragic would have never used to describe that failed strategy. And let me take a moment to attack the ridiculous phrase 'redistributive change'. Christ, talk about a cleverly politicized phrase masquerading as you know what! It immediately brings to mind George Carlin's act where he attacks the politicizing of words in order to remove the emotional impact of their original meaning (i.e. from 'shell shock' to 'battle fatigue' to the politicially palatable 'post-traumatic stress disorder').

Furthermore the redistribution of wealth via a progressive income tax was already in place at the time of the Civil Rights movement (and during a time when the rich paid a helluva lot more in income tax than they do now) so what in blazes could Obama be talking about when he drops the phrase 'redistributive change' within the context of an economic discussion relating to the Civil Rights movement?!?

Beyond that let's keep in mind that any legislation which deals with 'redistributive change' of the economic variety still needs to pass the SCOTUS Constitutional litmus test so ultimately having an ideological favorable court is in your best interest... if you're inclined towards that sort of ideology... which I'm sure Obama is not... :rolleyes:


Being an Independent in Brooklyn sucks major eggs. Say bye-bye to ever voting in a primary again.

Again?!? I have yet to vote in a primary! I'm not losing any sleep over it though.

[Xiahou]

See, this is what happens when you don't click the links. The blogger is a she, not a he, and she's a law professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Althouse) with a wide readership in the legal community. But don't let that get in your way.Uh-oh. That makes her authoritative then, obviously. We'd better all defer to her.... wait isn't there a logical fallacy for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)? :idea2:

I guess I'll just dredge up a poli sci blogger who says Obama is a communist and then that too will be irrefutable. :yes:

And then there's the second point, where it was noted that she doesn't even refute the argument that Don made- it's just restating the same point you claimed earlier. But nevermind that- you said a legal scholar agrees with you. Therefore you're right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority).


JUst like it's hurt for the last eight years of socialist redistribution and nationalization/bailouts of corporations that are "too big to fail," or does it hurt in some other way?We've been doing bailouts for 8yrs? Wow, where have I been? Regardless, I'm sure the Democrats will do much better with absolute control. They had been all rah-rah about reining in Fannie/Freddie afterall. :yes:

[Don Corleone]

I read the blogger's position, and she's building the same strawman you are. Nobody is criticizing Obama for trying to use the courts in an surreptitious way to sidestep the will of the people as expressed by the legislature on this particular issue, but your blogger scolds me for being a dummy for thinking that Obama is. Again, for the 20th time, I don't.

I. GET. IT. He was saying "Hey folks, if really want to get everyone's money spread around, we really should have done it in legislature. The courts were a bad choice to focus our energies on for that purpose. That's not the court's fault, that's not their job. It's ours, for not going and getting the money out of the legislature" Got it. Loud and clear.

But none of any of this changes his prima facta assumption that redistributing the wealth was a positive goal. Neither you nor your legal eagle buddy have made a compelling argument about predisposition, the inherent underlying assumption that redistributive change was a positive goal that was tragic in that it was not realized (granted, in the context of Obama saying they should have gone to legislatures, it wasn't the court's fault, just in case you really honestly still think I'm hung up there...).

[CrossLOPER]

See, this is what happens when you don't click the links. The blogger is a she, not a he, and she's a law professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Althouse) with a wide readership in the legal community. But don't let that get in your way.
:smartass:

[Lemur]

Uh-oh. That makes her authoritative then, obviously. We'd better all defer to her.... wait isn't there a logical fallacy for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)?
Oh, so directly responding to your argument is a logical fallacy. Who knew?


Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I.
Your entire point was that a blogger has no credibility. So I respond and point out that this person actually is a lawyer and a legal scholar, and you tell me that I'm illogically appealing to authority. Create circular reasoning much?


But nevermind that- you said a legal scholar agrees with you. Therefore you're right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority).
Wow, you think you have a winning issue here, don't you? Again, your initial reaction to my quotes from Althouse were to say, and I quote: "Because he's a blogger. That give him no more credibility than you or I." Refuting that does not qualify as an "appeal to authority," no matter how many times you repeat the talking point.

Crossloper, did you want to add anything to this sterling debate, or were you keen to show your command of smilies? Hate to tell you that Tribesman has you beat on that front.

Don C, I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for having the patience to walk me through it. I'm going to think about it, and read the entire transcript of this 2001 interview.

Spino, here's a handy interactive guide to the Palin effect (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/fullpage/the-palin-effec.php).

[CrossLOPER]

Crossloper, did you want to add anything to this sterling debate, or were you keen to show your command of smilies? Hate to tell you that Tribesman has you beat on that front.
He uses a hot key. That does not count.

[Lemur]

Don C, doing a little more reading on the subject, it really does seem that "redistributive change" is often used as legal shorthand for things like equal access to an attorney, educational access, etc. It does not need to mean commutard nirvana. Maybe that's what Obama meant in '01, but it's not necessarily so.

Lastly, I'm feeling really weirded out by this whole idea that progressive taxation and any form of safety net is "socialist." It's just ... strange, man. Is Obama's tax plan more socialist than Reagan's? Than Nixon's? Than Eisenhower's? How is he special and different and socialist?

This (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html) kinda sums it up:


With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

[PanzerJaeger]

Dear JohnnyMac,

I voted for you today. Over the course of this election cycle I convinced 6 of my friends who normally would not have voted to pull the lever for you, and I talked 3 of my liberal-minded friends into doing the same. I put stickers on all the family vehicles, and yard signs in the lawns(all free btw ~;)). I even wrote an uncharacteristically political note on Facebook urging practically everyone I know to vote for you.

You weren't my first choice, and the way you've run your campaign has reinforced my initial feelings about you. You've been a bumbling mess. However, you are by far the better choice to lead our nation through war and economic downturn, a fact made clear in comparison to your opponent. I've done all I can for you, even though I don't think you've done all you could for the Republican cause. Good luck with the Bradley Effect, and I'm done. :slomo:

[Don Corleone]

Don C, doing a little more reading on the subject, it really does seem that "redistributive change" is often used as legal shorthand for things like equal access to an attorney, educational access, etc. It does not need to mean commutard nirvana. Maybe that's what Obama meant in '01, but it's not necessarily so.

Lastly, I'm feeling really weirded out by this whole idea that progressive taxation and any form of safety net is "socialist." It's just ... strange, man. Is Obama's tax plan more socialist than Reagan's? Than Nixon's? Than Eisenhower's? How is he special and different and socialist?

This (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html) kinda sums it up:


With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

I rate the individual's personal economic bent not on the absolute value of their collectivism but the derivative of the curve. Reagan put the stake in the heart of the economic walking undead that was the "Great Society". He was still fighting "war on poverty" type mentality, and he did it all in the face of a Democrat Congress for 8 years (well, 2 years of a Republican senate). He pushed taxes down, though granted, they were higher than they are now. Bush1 raised taxes, and amazingly enough... a Republican that raised taxes... 1 term.

Next came Clinton. Say what you want about renting out the Lincoln bedroom and stealing the spoons, this boy also knew how to cut taxes. Again, downward trend on the collectivist scale, but taxes still higher than now. He also got bonus points for cutting welfare.

Other than cutting taxes, Bush 1 has been a dismal failure. Medicare Part D alone makes me cringe every time I think of it.

I'm not necessarily opposed to higher taxes. I'm opposed to Democrats showing up and kicking me out of my house so they can give it to some clowns fresh out of college that don't want to work, just want to sit around and smoke dope and play X-box all day. Sorry, I know in current sound bytes, that mean's I'm a bad citizen and don't care enough about America, but if people are going to put their hands in my wallet, I expect them to do something productive with what they take out.

In short, Obama's not going to get a free pass for breaking his "only the top 5%" tax raise promise before he's even elected by comparing himself to previous presidents. Not from me.

[Lemur]

I'm not necessarily opposed to higher taxes. I'm opposed to Democrats showing up and kicking me out of my house so they can give it to some clowns fresh out of college that don't want to work, just want to sit around and smoke dope and play X-box all day.
A vivid image, I'll grant you that, but does this really seem likely to you?

[ICantSpellDawg]

My prediction is that McCain will win the popular and Obama will win the Electoral! Place your bets!

[Strike For The South]

Obama both.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Don C, doing a little more reading on the subject, it really does seem that "redistributive change" is often used as legal shorthand for things like equal access to an attorney, educational access, etc. It does not need to mean commutard nirvana. Maybe that's what Obama meant in '01, but it's not necessarily so.


David Bernstein (http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste/) from the Volokh Conspiracy says (http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml):

FURTHER UPDATE: Obama advisor Cass Sunstein tells Politico's Ben Smith that Obama wasn't referring to redistribution of wealth in general,but "to the narrower forms of redistribution -- education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues --that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.

That's very hard to swallow, if one looks at the transcript.


If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

[Bolded parts are the author's]

Lemur, as for tax raising leading to one term - what of Bill Clinton? Who Dan Quayle rightly predicted who renege on his promise to only raise taxes on the rich and yet got reelected.

And as long as I remember you've touted gridlock. Now, with the prospect of a dem super-majority, you swear that off? A bit odd.

CR

[Lord Winter]

Obama both.

Agreed the Bradly effect isn't big enough to skew the polls to a McCain victory. I don't really see how McCain could win this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Agreed the Bradly effect isn't big enough to skew the polls to a McCain victory. I don't really see how McCain could win this.

I think that there is a real possibility of McCain coming back right before the election. People will get frightened... and then Obama will still be President. I wouldn't put it past McCain to win the popular.

It is a big stretch, but it is possible. I think McCain is absolutely going to lose, but by what split? I'd bet that it will be a smaller margin than many anticipate.

[Lemur]

David Bernstein (http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste/) from the Volokh Conspiracy says (http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml):
Oh, but you're quoting a blog, and Xiahou has told us that blogs are irrelevant. And if you think the blogger has some qualifications to speak on the subject, you're falling into an appeal to authority rhetorical error. You heard it right here in this thread, kids.


Lemur, as for tax raising leading to one term - what of Bill Clinton? Who Dan Quayle rightly predicted who renege on his promise to only raise taxes on the rich and yet got reelected.
Dan Quayle—man, you keep some fast company, Rabbit. If Congress hadn't thought to impeach Bill Clinton, he would have been a one-term President.


And as long as I remember you've touted gridlock. Now, with the prospect of a dem super-majority, you swear that off? A bit odd.
You know what's freaky? How nobody has raised this issue, and I've never addressed it. That's just weird, 'cause you would think that, I don't know, Spino, Don Corleone and TuffStuff might have brought it up at some point. You'd better ask them why they're going easy on me.

-edit-

Re: Electoral College/popular vote split, isn't that rather rare? By my count, it's only happened three times in the history of our Republic. 1876, 1888 and 2000, and that's it. So if I were a gambling man, I wouldn't bet on such a split this time.

[Strike For The South]

I think that there is a real possibility of McCain coming back right before the election. People will get frightened... and then Obama will still be President. I wouldn't put it past McCain to win the popular.

It is a big stretch, but it is possible. I think McCain is absolutely going to lose, but by what split? I'd bet that it will be a smaller margin than many anticipate.

I thought the same way a couple of weeks ago but now there are just to many fissures in McCain/Palin to win IMO

[Lemur]

This could help. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9NSVUu8nk) I can't believe the incompetence of the contractors creating these voting machines. I fully expect that we'll be hearing about corruption and vote-tampering somewhere down the line.

-edit-

More details (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/28/evoting_fears/):


In early balloting in West Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee, voters using e-voting machines made by Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software (ES&S) have reported the "flipping" of their vote from the presidential candidate they selected to the candidate's rival. In some cases, voters said their choice had been changed from Democrat Barack Obama to Republican John McCain while others reported just the opposite.

The reports prompted the Brennan Center for Justice and a group called Verified Voting on Tuesday to write voting officials in 16 states where the ES&S iVotronic machine is used to be on the lookout for problems.

"There is a real chance that voters using iVotronic machines in your state will experience 'vote flopping' similar to that experienced by voters in West Virginia," the letter warned. It went on to urge poll workers to recalibrate machines when in doubt, and when possible to confirm voters' candidate choices with a verified paper trail.

To paraphrase Heart of Darkness, "The incompetence ... the incompetence ..."

[woad&fangs]

I thought the same way a couple of weeks ago but now there are just to many fissures in McCain/Palin to win IMO

There is the possibility that Obama's college age supporters will get cocky about the big lead. Then, instead of voting on November 4th, they'll stay at home and have wild commie orgies. McCain wins by the slimmest of Margins.

Outside of that scenario I don't see McCain winning.

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh, don't get me started. Everytime I bring up a flat tax rate, I get called a racist and a bigot and an elistist snob. Of course any progressive taxing scheme is inherently socialist. And the exemptions most politicians (of both flavors) write in for themselves and their friends (Obama pays at the 2nd lowest tax bracket, despite feeling its his duty to pay more, btw) make it corrupt socialism. See, this is what drives me insane.

I COULD stomach socialism. I would pass on the UK or the Netherlands, but someplace like Norway or Sweden, where socialism actually tries to meet its stated goals instead of just being a money grab for fat cats in the capital city, that's much more palatable. I don't like seeing my disposable income evaporate, but if the government is actually putting money into things I need, that's much more tolerable.

But buying every incarcerated felon his own Playstation, paying for transgender operations, setting up a permanent work-free welfare middle class? And oh yeah, the guys in Washington don't have to pay taxes? All the while, my kids are getting the :daisy: end of the stick? Yeah, that's more than I can stomach. And to have ivory tower snobs tell me to shut up and quit griping and just pay... well, it makes me a touch irritable.

I actually said I understood your reasons and could respect them Don. :) I consider them sincere coming from you. I do not consider them sincere when coming from someone of the socioeconomic strata of let's say people with oil tankers named after them or connections to the royalty of other countries. I think in many cases with the super-rich, it's disingenuous of them to pretend that they support a so called "fair tax rate" for any reason other than self-interest.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am amazed at the explosion of tantrum taking over "wealth redistribution." Rather than quote a bunch of people and make responses, all I can do is return to my earlier sentiment on the topic: I don't understand how people are so up in arms about this as if graduated income tax or redistribution of wealth are brand new concepts that will begin when/if Obama takes office. All that we are talking about is reversing the trend of economic policies to favor and reward the wealthiest and most privileged Americans and corporations which George W. Bush implemented, and a tax cut for working families.

We are, in effect, going to be returning to the status quo if Obama is elected. Not moving into some new age of super-radical socialism in our tax policies.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I see Obama winning by a decent margin in the electoral college (ten points or more, possibly even breaking 300) while securing an even larger percentage of the popular vote.

I'd just like to note for those hoping for a Bradley Effect (something which I would label extremely cynical and generally disgusting) that there has generally been a reverse Bradley Effect of 3 percent since the mid nineties, so good luck with that!

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm kinda with Spino on this one. Starting somewhere before the 2006 election cycle, you became the self-anointed prophet of gridlock. Now that your party is warming up for a supermajority in both houses and the White House, you're all about letting people do things? Not the most consistent position I've ever seen you take.

I can't believe that given the huge problems facing our country right now people believe that the most preferrable course of action is to neuter our government to as great a degree as possible so that no serious change can be allowed to happen. Do you really believe that damage will be minimal, or repair itself, if we simply do nothing and allow the status quo to continue?

I don't really buy the gridlock argument, from anyone-- nothing personal against you, Don. I think that advocating partisan gridlock in government is not only counterproductive, but I see little reason to believe it isn't just selectively applied by the party and voters likely to be in the minority in government. I didn't see any Republicans saying that they needed to vote Dem in '06 because the Bush admin was getting too powerful or there was not enough Democratic opposition to gridlock his administration. On the contrary, the talking point from the GOP was that Dems were obstructionists... how DARE they ask questions of Bush's appointees, and any oppositional vote or even a whisper of possible filibuster was treated as disloyalty of the greatest anti-American McCarthyist order. Dems were castigated as everything from hating America to not supporting the troops to giving aid and succour to America's enemies.

So, I find this whole "now that Reps stand to be the minority, we favor gridlock and limits on partisan power" disingenuous and an argument of convenience from people who have voted Republican in the last couple of elections. Republicans have given up the right to non-hypocritically talk about how they are for limited Federal power or limited partisan power in government, because they have amply proven they support explosions of both, provided they are under Republicans.

And Don... on a direct note, it really is starting to look like you are very eagerly grasping onto every possible doomsday scenario about Dems in power, and asserting it as "things will definitely happen this way and we are all screwed." I think the partisan seams are beginning to show.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Terrorism;

It's what has held this country in the grip of fear for at least the past 7 years. Terrorists seek to create political change or spread an ideology through fear.

All I've heard from the Republican camp for the past several months is he's too "risky", or that he might be a Muslim or have ties to the Kenyan government, or that he might have similar ideas to his former pastor, that he might be a marxist, a socialist, a terrorist sympathizer, an Arab, a far-left Commie Pinko, and how dangerous he and his "liberal allies" are going to "destroy America" with their crazy, tinfoil-hat ideas are going to bankrupt this country, open our borders to criminals and terrorists, take away our freedoms, ignore the threat Al-Qaeda poses to this country, allow our economy to fail and create new bloated government programs which will mortgage our children's future.

Count the charges, count them up. All these smears have been cast towards Barack Obama by parts of the Republican machine.

1. He's obviously not a Muslim, because he picked one really dumb Christian pastor. Duh.
2. He has no ties to the Kenyan government, and there has never been any evidence thereof.
3. He publicly repudiated and renounced Wright and now has absolutely nothing to do with his dumb ---.
4. He's not a Marxist. If he's a Marxist, then FDR was a Marxist.
5. If social security and medicare are socialist, then Obama is a socialist. Then again, McCain is too. By the way, how much does the Alaskan government give each person? That's right, Palin is MORE of a socialist than Obama in that regard, which makes her a hypocrite.
6. Obama wants to go after Bin Laden, even if it means sending a strike against him inside Pakistan's totally ungoverned Afghan border. Which makes him more hawkish on terrorism than McCain.
7. He's a racial mix of white and black, and he's not Arab. Not that it should matter to ANYONE, ANYWHERE. *head slams against wall repeatedly in disgust
8. Commie Pinko... Oh yes, he is a commie pinko. I'm sorry I forgot, and he's also an terminator from the future come back to destroy John McConnor.
9. Under Bill Clinton and Obama's present-day "liberal allies in Congress" America prospered. Remember?
10. Democrats have had a majority in Congress, and held the executive before. Funny, America wasn't destroyed. In fact, I believe it got... stronger. *gasp*
11. America is already bankrupt (in terms of owing more money than we collect each year in federal taxes), but George Bush and his "conservative" (They aren't conservative by MY measure) allies in Congress doubled the national debt and caused a budget deficit of 500 billion dollars. Ouch.
12. Bush has done nothing to secure the borders, something I as a "conservative"/moderate feel is absolutely unacceptable. 20 million (approximately) illegal aliens roam free, and who is defending them? The REPUBLICANS and their corrupt friends in the business world. Who picks all those fruits in the "real America", the "red states"? I believe they are called "undocumented workers" there.
13. Under Bush, we lost certain freedoms... something about unwarranted wiretapping and being shuffled off to Gitmo without just cause. No biggie, right?
14. Bush has not defeated Al-Qaeda after 7 years. He's ignoring Bin Laden and the taliban. What happened to our war hawk? He's been replaced by a lame duck.
15. Under Bush, our economy failed. His solution to fix the economy is what? Oh yeah. Socialist.
Except this time, big government is bailing out big business, instead of poor people. Way to go.
16. Bush proposed "fixing" social security by privatizing it and putting your savings in the stock markets, which... crashed... under his watch.
17. Bush's "big government" solution to education, "No Child Left Behind" went underfunded in a Republican controlled Conrgess, and left millions of children behind.

18. McCain supported Bush, by his own admission, more than 90% of the time.


The solution the Republicans have for their losing three debates, two wars, a national budget, a sense of leadership, all credibility, and their conservative credentials? Spread fear and uncertainty. Specifically, about their opponent, who will likely become the next President of the United States. Also, they divided America into "real" and "fake", "Small towns" and those evil suburbs and big cities. They called their opponent socialist while supporting all that money Alaskans get for having an oil-exporting state, and also supporting a 700 billion dollar market bailout, with 150 billion dollars in what McCain calls "christmas tree ornaments".

Is McCain attacking Christmas????

No, of course not. But if I were a Republican strategist trying to smear John McCain, based on the history of Republican strategy, I'd say that John McCain is attacking Christmas, instead of I dunno debating the issues. Not one McCain supporter responded to my challenge of a debate, one-on-one.

All I hear from you McCain supporters is worry and fear. Where are all your big ideas? Can you try to win this country back, or even govern effectively, without invoking fear?




Honestly, it's disingenuous, it's disgusting, and I'm tired of it. That's why I would rather switch sides and vote for Obama, a liberal, than continue to support what Republicans have become, which is nothing even remotely resembling conservatism.

[Marshal Murat]

There's really a difference between the events of 9/11 and the Current Crisis. When Bush came into office, it wasn't as if he planned on revoking rights and invading Iraq*. When 9/11 happened, everyone sought to gain the most protection and strike back at the Foe. Attempts at preventing this were often construed as 'anti-American' in the belief that you were trying to gain something from hating America. Supreme Court nominations, blah-blah-blah, doesn't really impact it.

With the Current Crisis, it's a whole different story.
Democrats have a majority in Congress, both houses. Barack Obama has BIG plans for taxes, healthcare, military spending, foreign policy, etc. He also will soon pick a couple Supreme Court Justices.

So we have a "popular" president, with big plans, a majority in Congress, and the possibility of appointing court justices. His ideals, liberal (maybe to the extreme!). He's pretty much got a carte blanche to act as he sees fit, pushing big bills through Congress reforming who knows what. And who can stop him? He even picked a Senator VP, who can pull strings in the Senate. The Republican minority can't stop everything, and some might think it's a good thing. We face a president armed with almost unparalleled power.

This is really a lesson for the GOP...

Also


9. Under Bill Clinton and Obama's present-day "liberal allies in Congress" America prospered. Remember?
It's more like they caught an upswing in the business cycle that was spurred by technological growth. Bush got the downswing, hampered by an obstructionist Congress who failed to act on bad mortgages.

*I don't know if Bush did or didn't plan on invading Iraq. Pure conjecture to me, really.

[Koga No Goshi]

Very well said, Pizza.

I have always found the contradiction strange, that for all of the hawk tough-guy talk that you find over on the right, and the insistence on strength or the image of strength, the take-no-crap attitude, that these same voters are easily cowed into supporting just about anything from fear tactics. There is definitely a very fearful, very insecure undercurrent to Republican ideologues which is very easily evoked and manipulated.

It's like all the people in 2004 who gave, as their reason for voting Bush again, despite every bit of evidence that he was incompetent and was leading us into disaster after disaster, "the threat of terrorism" or "we'll be attacked again" as their reason. Somehow the risk of a terrorist attack fails to scare me into determining my whole political outlook or make me feel like if we aren't constantly talking about war and security (even if we're not actually doing anything to wage war effectively or take better security precautions), that will be the moment of weakness that terrorists need to strike again and kill us. Frankly, I don't think people willing to kill themselves to hurt America are much deterred by some Texan or Arizonan getting up and using bad western movie cliches. I think it's more likely, looking at what we've been gulled and fooled into doing to ourselves economically and in terms of foreign policy in the last 8 years, Osama is somewhere having a good laugh on his dialysis machine.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The Republicans and the Democrats do not seem fundamentally different to me. Naturally, they play on a few issues to try and get votes where they have to radically differ from another, but they don't seem to in practice. For example, take abortion. If I am correct, the Republicans did nothing to further their ideological interests against abortion while in office.

Obviously, they keep "the system" roughly intact. But neither of them actually offer any kind of real change or real reform, and they don't necessarily even stick true to their ideologies. As a conservative, I'd vote Constitution Party or Libertarian Party over the Republicans any day.

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that both parties seem similar, if not almost the same. So why all the partisanship for one or another? Why all of the ideological rhetoric when none of it actually means anything?

Why not vote for a third party and get some real change?

[Koga No Goshi]

By the way...


The Fellowship of the Believers
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

"wealth redistribution" and socialist lifestyles are in the Bible.

Acts II:40-46.

[Strike For The South]

religion has nothing to do with this

[Marshal Murat]

For example, take abortion. If I am correct, the Republicans did nothing to further their ideological interests against abortion while in office.

I think that's the beauty and flaw of the system. The Republicans can't blatantly outlaw abortion in all states, or 'furthering their ideological interests'; but by the same token, they can't really change the status-quo without vast popular support. So while the Republicans can't nationally outlaw abortion, the state governments can, and some have tried (South Dakota? maybe).



Obviously, they keep "the system" roughly intact. But neither of them actually offer any kind of real change or real reform, and they don't necessarily even stick true to their ideologies. As a conservative, I'd vote Constitution Party or Libertarian Party over the Republicans any day.


I'm sure you would, but that's not how you could possibly win an election in the US. Many 'third-parties' are, as I have stated, regional in nature. The 2-party system keeps it fairly moderate (as you have stated), and any 'good' ideals held by 3rd parties are absorbed by the two parties. Really cuts down on your options. It also hurts the "3rd party" when they aren't even actually acknowledged by the mainstream media.


Why all of the ideological rhetoric when none of it actually means anything?

Why not vote for a third party and get some real change?
Technically you could vote for a third-party, but to get 'real change' they would actually have to appeal directly to the citizens, with a message not heard from the Democrats or Republicans. It could happen, but it's very unlikely. So it's better to go with someone more ideologically aligned than to simply 'throw away the vote' on a 3rd party candidate.

I'm not disagreeing with your view about 3rd parties, but this is really the American reality of politics.

[Koga No Goshi]

religion has nothing to do with this

Sure it does. The GOP/McCain/Palin are going around saying they're representing the REAL America. You know, hard work, Christian, real America. Not like Obama. Who believes in spreading the wealth around.

[Xiahou]

By the way...



"wealth redistribution" and socialist lifestyles are in the Bible.

Acts II:40-46.
Hmm, people donating what they have to help others vs forcing others(via you vote) to give what they have to help whatever causes you support.

....Yeah, that's the same thing. :dizzy2:
Communism != Christianity :no:

[Askthepizzaguy]

religion has nothing to do with this

Thank God!


[/irony]




I really wish we could keep religion out of it, but some people believe that superstition is the basis of morality, and try to legislate it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Hmm, people donating what they have to help others vs forcing others(via you vote) to give what they have to help whatever causes you support.

....Yeah, that's the same thing. :dizzy2:
Communism != Christianity :no:


Taxes do not equal communism. If there was no private wealth, that would equal communism.

You really can't compare paying taxes for schools and police officers to communism, because every single nation has taxes.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hmm, people donating what they have to help others vs forcing others(via you vote) to give what they have to help whatever causes you support.

....Yeah, that's the same thing. :dizzy2:
Communism != Christianity :no:

Of COURSE, I'm sure the spirit of how Jesus wanted people to live was to just give whatever you felt comfortable with, after expenses like your daily latte and SUV and second investment property.

[Proletariat]

Of COURSE, I'm sure the spirit of how Jesus wanted people to live was to just give whatever you felt comfortable with, after expenses like your daily latte and SUV and second investment property.

You don't see the difference in virtue of someone giving voluntarily and someone who has no say in the matter?

[Koga No Goshi]

You don't see the difference in virtue of someone giving voluntarily and someone who has no say in the matter?

That's the problem. Christians in the richest nation on earth do not give enough voluntarily to seriously or meaningfully address the issue of poverty and need in the U.S. Even "forced" social programs do an inadequate job. With that in mind, I find political Christians running around calling, and attacking things, as "Socialist", to be extremely hypocritical and self-undermining. If Americans were such good Christians in the first place there would be no need for tax-paid social services, or a vastly decreased need.

[Xiahou]

That's the problem. Christians in the richest nation on earth do not give enough voluntarily to seriously or meaningfully address the issue of poverty and need in the U.S. Even "forced" social programs do an inadequate job.Right, so if people don't give enough of their free will, you take it from them. That's what Jesus would do. :dizzy2:

Supporting higher taxes is not "in the bible". Why is it always the people who are anti-religious that try to make this claim? It's silly.


Taxes do not equal communism. If there was no private wealth, that would equal communism.

You really can't compare paying taxes for schools and police officers to communism, because every single nation has taxes.Ok. I didn't say taxes=communism, but thanks for clearing that up nonetheless. :yes:

[Proletariat]

People who use their Christian beliefs to influence their politics baffle me too. I'll never understand how Greenspan and Falwell are in the same party. But nevertheless, you're WWJD argument was non-sense.

[OverKnight]

My prediction is that McCain will win the popular and Obama will win the Electoral! Place your bets!

Obama landslide => 375 EVs

Edit: Part of this is wishful thinking, because I don't want the result of the Election to be in doubt. The only way McCain can win is with a repeat of what happened in 2000, recounts and armies of lawyers descending on us like locusts. I don't want that.

[Koga No Goshi]

People who use their Christian beliefs to influence their politics baffle me too. I'll never understand how Greenspan and Falwell are in the same party. But nevertheless, you're WWJD argument was non-sense.

To each according to his need is right in the Bible. The Bible specifies no mention of how to get from A to B. I suppose that is left up to humans. I see nothing indicating that volunteerism is the only way. Especially when we're talking about a society which stresses individualism, selfishness and private acquisition of wealth.

And I think it was absolutely relevant. People calling themselves real Americans because they're more on the free market side, and Christian, attack an end result which is, by virtually every account, more in line with the kind of community Jesus encouraged people to build.

I consider the capitalist, private acquisition "adaptation" of American Christianity to be exactly that. And in the end sum, nothing but a political tool with very little visible moral application of Christian teachings. If people who think that the best route for society is to protect the rich, while also going around wearing their Christianity on a badge, it absolutely opens them up to this line of criticism.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You don't see the difference in virtue of someone giving voluntarily and someone who has no say in the matter?

It depends on what the issue is.

If someone gives voluntarily to a mission that spreads christian beliefs, it's not really a charity but more of a conversion mission, a political donation, not a charitable one.

When someone gives a portion of their income in taxes to a publicly regulated and funded school which educates all children, rich or poor, that may not be charity but it's the right thing to do.

Not all church donations are political or religious. Many, I would hope most, do the right thing. Others build superchurches and make a killing printing bibles and selling christian themed trinkets and t-shirts and bumper stickers and Jesus fish and crosses and cards and pamphlets and manger scenes and form political activist groups dedicated to denouncing evolution.

Some aspects of Christianity resemble the business organization of Scientology, which is a cult. Instead of buying Christ-laden collectibles (collect all 900 Jesus statues and get a free Pat Robertson coffee mug) maybe they could be doing some volunteer work or sending the poor something besides creamed corn in a can.

I don't mean to paint government as being virtuous, because it's rife with self-interest and waste and corruption too, but I feel it's to the same degree as so called wholesome organizations dedicated to a good christian cause, who are also rife with self-interest, waste, and corruption.

Publicly-regulated funds and causes have the benefit of being subjected to the scrutiny of the media and the public at large, and there are laws regulating and prohibiting certain behaviors. The church is a closed private organization which is very, very reluctant to tell anyone, even the federal government or its own membership, precisely what they do with all that money.

Something tells me all the Bibles and statuaries and paintings and ornate cathedrals and private schools funding a political cause are the end result of such charity, and that only a small portion actually reaches anyone in trouble, and when it does, it's accompanied with a message of conversion. Convert or burn in hell, heathen. Et cetera.

But my personal feelings about organized religion are not relevant nor are they the topic, I just mean to highlight the fact that government is subjected to regulation and scrutiny and is ultimately controlled by a democratic electorate, whereas religious groups are closed, not subjected to much regulation or scrutiny, are controlled by an elitist oligarchy, and spread a fiercely ideological political message with every bit of assistance they offer.

The government run schools I attended as a child did not hammer a message of conformity into me, and both liberal and conservative, secular and religious, flourished. We did not have to conform to an ideology to accept government aid or education.

Bottom line is, the definition of charity has been stretched rather thin by religion, and not everything that is tax deductible due to religious purposes should be, and not much of it constitutes actual charity, in my opinion, whereas most of what the government does is for the common good, does not force an ideology upon you, is available to the public at large, and answers to the people and the watchdog of the media.

Returning to the election... still no one refutes my long post earlier regarding Republican fear-mongering. I await the rebuttal with all due anxiousness.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ok. I didn't say taxes=communism, but thanks for clearing that up nonetheless. :yes:

What you did say was rather vague and ambiguous, I'm afraid. I'm no grammar nazi, but there was also plenty of sentence structure missing. You did compare paying taxes to communism.

[Strike For The South]

To each according to his need is right in the Bible. The Bible specifies no mention of how to get from A to B. I suppose that is left up to humans. I see nothing indicating that volunteerism is the only way. Especially when we're talking about a society which stresses individualism, selfishness and private acquisition of wealth.

And I think it was absolutely relevant. People calling themselves real Americans because they're more on the free market side, and Christian, attack an end result which is, by virtually every account, more in line with the kind of community Jesus encouraged people to build.

I consider the capitalist, private acquisition "adaptation" of American Christianity to be exactly that. And in the end sum, nothing but a political tool with very little visible moral application of Christian teachings. If people who think that the best route for society is to protect the rich, while also going around wearing their Christianity on a badge, it absolutely opens them up to this line of criticism.

My church gives out of there hear not because why are forced.

[Proletariat]

To each according to his need is right in the Bible. The Bible specifies no mention of how to get from A to B. I suppose that is left up to humans. I see nothing indicating that volunteerism is the only way. Especially when we're talking about a society which stresses individualism, selfishness and private acquisition of wealth.

You're right, it's left up to humans. Forced charity has nothing to do with the spirit of Christianity. If you do the right thing because you're forced to, there isn't any value to Jesus for that. An atheist rube like myself can understand this.



And I think it was absolutely relevant. People calling themselves real Americans because they're more on the free market side, and Christian, attack an end result which is, by virtually every account, more in line with the kind of community Jesus encouraged people to build.

I consider the capitalist, private acquisition "adaptation" of American Christianity to be exactly that. And in the end sum, nothing but a political tool with very little visible moral application of Christian teachings. If people who think that the best route for society is to protect the rich, while also going around wearing their Christianity on a badge, it absolutely opens them up to this line of criticism.

You're conflating two very different halves of the right. Falwell != Greenspan.

[Koga No Goshi]

What you did say was rather vague and ambiguous, I'm afraid. I'm no grammar nazi, but there was also plenty of sentence structure missing. You did compare paying taxes to communism.

I continue to believe that people who believe paying taxes is communist or socialist wealth redistribution would vomit pea soup if they lived in a real communism. :)

What gets called socialist around here is pretty laughable. Calling things socialist is the new version of calling everything unpatriotic, or against the troops, apparently.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're right, it's left up to humans. Forced charity has nothing to do with the spirit of Christianity. If you do the right thing because you're forced to, there isn't any value to Jesus for that. An atheist rube like myself can understand this.



You're conflating two very different halves of the right. Falwell != Greenspan.

McCain and Palin and the GOP leadership conflate the two, and speak to all crowds appealing to both beliefs at the same time. Take that up with the Republican leadership if you feel it's erroneous to conflate them.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The only issue I have here, Koga... with due respect of course :bow:

Proletariat is not McCain or Palin and doesn't have to answer for them. I'm sure Proletariat has her own viewpoint on the matter.

I for one favor Obama, but I don't have to defend everything he does, or some of his crazier constituents.


I continue to believe that people who believe paying taxes is communist or socialist wealth redistribution would vomit pea soup if they lived in a real communism. :)

What gets called socialist around here is pretty laughable. Calling things socialist is the new version of calling everything unpatriotic, or against the troops, apparently.

Agreed.

[Xiahou]

What you did say was rather vague and ambiguous, I'm afraid. I'm no grammar nazi, but there was also plenty of sentence structure missing. You did compare paying taxes to communism.
I said communism does not equal christianity. That was in response to Koga claiming that socialism was in the bible. Just because they decided amongst themselves to share equally what they had, doesn't mean it's an endorsement of the same as a form of government.


Returning to the election... still no one refutes my long post earlier regarding Republican fear-mongering. I await the rebuttal with all due anxiousness.The one where you drew the comparison between Republicans and terrorists? I'm sure someone will be with you shortly on that...

[Koga No Goshi]

The only issue I have here, Koga... with due respect of course :bow:

Proletariat is not McCain or Palin and doesn't have to answer for them. I'm sure Proletariat has her own viewpoint on the matter.

I for one favor Obama, but I don't have to defend everything he does, or some of his crazier constituents.



Agreed.

My point was, don't attack my criticism of Palin and McCain conflating Christianity and the free market as part of being a "real American", when it is, in fact, something that they are doing. And perfectly fair to criticize.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The one where you drew the comparison between Republicans and terrorists? I'm sure someone will be with you shortly on that...

After how many years of the Republicans not just comparing, but accusing their opponents of being terrorists or having ties to them?

Have fun! :laugh2:

All I did was draw a comparison; Terrorists spread an ideology through fear. Republicans, in this election, are spreading an ideology through fear. Those two points are completely factual.

[Koga No Goshi]

After how many years of the Republicans not just comparing, but accusing their opponents of being terrorists or having ties to them?

Have fun! :laugh2:

All I did was draw a comparison; Terrorists spread an ideology through fear. Republicans, in this election, are spreading an ideology through fear. Those two points are completely factual.

If America had half the balls it pretends to it wouldn't be influenced by scare tactics.

I'm sure I wasn't the only one who noticed that whole "orange alert!" crap mysteriously vanished, completely, right after Bush won the 2004 election.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have to admit... Koga... that is one point all of us should be able to agree on.

Even if you hate my guts and Obama's guts, you have to laugh at the 5 color chart system. Jumpin' freakin' Jesus on a stick, that was such a lame, lame, lame, lame ploy to spread fear and keep people in line.

Wave a red flag, make sure the nation is good and scared. Pass liberty-reducing legislation... and... we did our job making America better! Ta-da!

[KarlXII]

I have to admit... Koga... that is one point all of us should be able to agree on.

Even if you hate my guts and Obama's guts, you have to laugh at the 5 color chart system. Jumpin' freakin' Jesus on a stick, that was such a lame, lame, lame, lame ploy to spread fear and keep people in line.

Wave a red flag, make sure the nation is good and scared. Pass liberty-reducing legislation... and... we did our job making America better! Ta-da!

Sounds like a kindergarten routine.

"OK children, when the level is red, we hide under our desks!"

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's duck and cover, all over again.

:laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

All I hear from you McCain supporters is worry and fear. Where are all your big ideas? Can you try to win this country back, or even govern effectively, without invoking fear?

Honestly, it's disingenuous, it's disgusting, and I'm tired of it. That's why I would rather switch sides and vote for Obama, a liberal, than continue to support what Republicans have become, which is nothing even remotely resembling conservatism.

Give me a break. ~:rolleyes:

So you've switched your vote to a party that has for years used blatant scare tactics on the elderly by claiming the Republicans would take away their social security. You're now supporting a party that for eight years has done nothing but try to make the American people afraid of GWB, even propagating the ridiculous claim that he wants to reinstate the draft. You're pulling the lever for a party that scares black people with false Republican threats on their welfare, and tells Hispanic Americans the Republicans want to deport their illegal relatives - despite McCain authoring a bill that would have made a path to citizenship and the President supporting it.

Of course none of that happened under 8 years of Bush and 6 years of a Republican majority. However, your righteous indignation is fierce. Well done on that, bold text and all.

If you don't think the Republicans have what it takes this year, that’s fine, but spare us the hypocritical bitching over FEAR tactics. Both parties use them to sway the unwashed....

[KarlXII]

It's duck and cover, all over again.

:laugh4:

Desks do nicely against Nukes.

[Koga No Goshi]

Give me a break. ~:rolleyes:

So you've switched your vote to a party that has for years used blatant scare tactics on the elderly by claiming the Republicans would take away their social security.

Bush tried to do exactly that. And the public whacked him on the rearside. So how exactly was that just some empty scare tactic?


You're now supporting a party that for eight years has done nothing but try to make the American people afraid of GWB, even propagating the ridiculous claim that he wants to reinstate the draft. You're pulling the lever for a party that scares black people with false Republican threats on their welfare, and tells Hispanic Americans the Republicans want to deport their illegal relatives - despite McCain authoring a bill that would have made a path to citizenship and the President supporting it.

The American people need no help being disgusted with Bush. Even his own party.

Do you have ANYTHING of substance to argue with... or just things which were true, and helped make the Republicans look bad?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Give me a break. ~:rolleyes:

So you've switched your vote to a party that has for years used blatant scare tactics on the elderly by claiming the Republicans would take away their social security. You're now supporting a party that for eight years has done nothing but try to make the American people afraid of GWB, even propagating the ridiculous claim that he wants to reinstate the draft. You're pulling the lever for a party that scares black people with false Republican threats on their welfare, and tells Hispanic Americans the Republicans want to deport their illegal relatives - despite McCain authoring a bill that would have made a path to citizenship and the President supporting it.

Of course none of that happened under 8 years of Bush and 6 years of a Republican majority. However, your righteous indignation is fierce. Well done on that, bold text and all.

If you don't think the Republicans have what it takes this year, that’s fine, but spare us the hypocritical bitching over FEAR tactics. Both parties use them to sway the unwashed....

As usual, a respectful and balanced post, PJ.

1. A Republican president, Bush, just tried to privatize social security.

2. I don't defend the Democrats for things they have done which are wrong. I never once spread the notion that Bush wants to reinstate the draft. And Democrats accusing Bush of trying to bring back the draft, compared to Bush and co accusing the Democrats of being anti-American terrorist loving Marxists who hate the troops...

Sorry, but that argument you're using doesn't sway me one bit.

3. Scares black people... false threats on welfare... Republicans deporting illegal immigrants...

Those are some very vague accusations, none of which I even have to bother defending against. First of all, I'm voting Obama, this time, because McCain's campaign is the most childish I've ever seen, and his ideas are in line with the failed policies of GWB.

Specific incidents of hyper-partisanship by Democrats don't hold any water with me, because the Republicans are guilty of it too, arguably to a greater degree.

I'll spare you further bitching, but the bottom line is, nothing you just said resembles an argument for McCain.

[PanzerJaeger]

As usual, a respectful and balanced post, PJ.

Only taking your lead bud. ~;)

I am surprised that both you and Koga equate the Bush's privatization plan with taking away senior's social security, as the rather non-specific proposal was very specific in that it would not stop social security payments for anyone or anyone vaguely near retirement. Privatization itself is not the removal of retirement benefits at all. This is pretty basic stuff.

In any event, claiming disgust over "republican fear tactics" is just a little bit disengenuous.



I'll spare you further bitching, but the bottom line is, nothing you just said resembles an argument for McCain.

Good. Its best to stick to solid points rather than hypocritical whinging.

As for your inability to find an argument for McCain... have you been keeping up with this thread? There have been plenty made both on broad issues such as experience and judgement and on specific ones such as taxes and the war.

If you somehow cannot seem to locate one solitary argument for McCain in all these 137 pages, I'd suggest www.johnmccain.com. :2thumbsup:

You may not agree with our arguments, but please don't insult us by claiming we don't have any, and can only resort to FEAR. That is just inaccurate nonsense and you will be called on it. Nothing personal. ~:)

[Askthepizzaguy]

In any event, claiming disgust over "republican fear tactics" is just a little bit disengenuous.

It's not at all disingenuous. You didn't deny any of my claims against Republicans in this election smearing Obama or using fear-based tactics, or dividing America into "real" and "fake". You only made vague accusations against Democrats in general of being the same way.

That's all well and good, but since you didn't disprove or deny the childishness of the Republican campaign, you can't claim I'm being disingenuous in my disgust of it.

You don't know me, or my motivations. I am disgusted, and it's entirely honest disgust. I'm also disgusted by untruthfulness, illegal activity, and hyper-partisanship by the Democrats, in all instances.

I also disapprove of bad arguments given by my own fellow Obama supporters, and have REPEATEDLY called for a more respectful, issue-based debate, entirely focused on the issues.

You may have the right to call me disingenuous, but you have no rational basis for doing so, and therefore I may safely ignore it.



Good. Its best to stick to solid points rather than hypocritical whinging.

This right here is an example of disrespect, and I'll ask you to stick to the issues and the discussion rather than insult me personally.


As for your inability to find an argument for McCain... have you been keeping up with this thread? There have been plenty made both on personal issues such as experience and judgement and on specific ones such as taxes and the war.

I've found his judgment has been quite flawed on taxes and the war, and he has plenty of personal issues.

I haven't been following the thread religiously, but since you fail to point out again why McCain is better, I have to wonder if you have.


If you cannot seem to locate one solitary argument for McCain in all these 137 pages, I'd suggest www.johnmccain.com. :2thumbsup:

I am simply asking for someone here to articulate a case for McCain, rather than simply post links about fringe nutjobs on both sides which make Obama or McCain look bad. All I've seen is a discussion about taxes, honestly. Plus some people who are really anti-abortion.

Do you have anything further to add?

I know where McCain stands on the issues, that's why I am voting against him. Why are you voting for him, and can you answer in a way that doesn't mention Obama or the Democrats? We've covered taxes and abortion.

And if you do me the courtesy of answering, I'd appreciate a little more politeness and respect for your fellow orgahs.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am simply asking for someone here to articulate a case for McCain, rather than simply post links about fringe nutjobs on both sides which make Obama or McCain look bad. All I've seen is a discussion about taxes, honestly. Plus some people who are really anti-abortion.

Do you have anything further to add?



Pizza, do you mean to imply that "SOCIALISM!!!!!" does not constitute a compelling argument to you? :)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Pizza, do you mean to imply that "SOCIALISM!!!!!" does not constitute a compelling argument to you? :)

Actually, I believe it constitutes a VERY compelling argument. When one simply tosses labels at their opponents, and offers no ideas or solutions, and does not seem to understand that facets of the federal government are based on socialist ideas, not capitalist ones, and that the Republicans support most of those same socialist policies and toss in some of their own, (examples given just by myself including the Alaskan oil revenues, and the bailout... how about McCain's tax credit for healthcare, paid for by taxes?) the bottom line is, it's a self-destructive tactic to use, and a poor and misinformed argument at best.

Socialist is a dirty word, much like the word liberal, according to Rush Limbaugh. However, because people toss the word around without understanding its meaning and the context of this election, when they use the word, it's just a more compelling argument for the other side.

When someone calls an Arab person an (ethnic slur I will not repeat here), it makes me tend to defend them, whether I know them or not, and dislike the person throwing that slur around.

How that's different from my own argument, is that I don't blame everything on Bush and the Republicans, I take issue specifically with how the 2008 Republican campaign is running it's own disingenuous and hypocritical election, to borrow words from PJ. I don't call McCain a terrorist, but I point out how fallacious and irrational fear-based arguments are, and that unfortunately for the integrity and credibility of the McCain campaign, fear is a weapon used both by him, and also by the enemies of America, specifically terrorists.

Because the ads are 100% negative, or they have been recently, since the debates were half about attacking Obama and half vague talking points about oil and defense, since those associated with the campaign (not just nutjobs, but the VP pick and the presidential pick) are smearing Obama so nakedly and without shame, because the message they spread is about risk and fear, rather than positive reasons to vote McCain... I have to point out that the message is fear, not hope. And it plays to a very base part of the human psyche, the part that doesn't need a rational argument to vote for someone.

The fact that both republican and democrat ideologues have done this doesn't mean everyone should therefore get a free pass, that it's acceptable behavior, that it is a legitimate tactic, or that both sides do it equally, or that we shouldnt point out and condemn such behavior when we see it here in the 2008 election.

Had McCain an argument, at all, against Obama besides telling people to Fear Him, fear the possibility of higher taxes, fear a democrat in the white house, fear democrats running the congress, fear democrats running the war... if he had reason instead of fear, I couldn't point out that emperor McCain has no clothes.

He once was a moderate, now he's an ideologue bereft of ideas, who spends the majority of his time attacking the very people he claims to be bipartisan enough to work with, while his opponent doesn't mention the Keating Five scandal, or McCain's personal life, or Palin's personal life, he doesn't attack McCain personally, but he does attack his ideas. At worst, he claims that McCain might have made boneheaded decisions or he might use a term like erratic. Ouch.

I didn't hear a swift-boat argument. I didn't hear a "too old" argument coming from Obama or Biden. I didn't hear an attack on McCain's personal life. I didn't hear Barack talk about McCain's past scandals or even Palin's current ones. I didn't hear an argument saying that Republicans are destroying America, only that Republican policies have led us in the wrong direction. I didn't hear Obama say that Republicans werent Americans, or werent "real" Americans. I didn't hear an argument from fear. I didn't hear an argument from distrust. I didn't hear an argument ad hominem. All I heard were things Obama would do if he were president.

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but one side in this election has more consistently talked about the issues, offered solutions, offered respect for the opposing side, and did not resort to trying to discredit their opponent based on ethnicity, or religion, or political differences, and mostly discussed reasons why they would be a better candidate. All of these charges have yet to be refuted, in spite of some very vehement opposition.

I won't take sniping as a rebuttal, but I will take it as evidence that the opposition has lost touch with reason and refuses to debate the issues.

[CountArach]

Good luck with the Bradley Effect, and I'm done. :slomo:
That's a horrible thing to say.

[PanzerJaeger]

This right here is an example of disrespect, and I'll ask you to stick to the issues and the discussion rather than insult me personally.

Please, you set the tone with this initial shot at McCain supporters.


All I hear from you McCain supporters is worry and fear. Where are all your big ideas? Can you try to win this country back, or even govern effectively, without invoking fear?

Don't call me a fear monger and then cry about respect.

Your recent posts in this thread seemed an honest call for respectful discussion and and I responded to you with honesty and candor about my frustrations over the McCain campaign. If you choose to climb down off your high horse and start throwing mud, don't be surprised when you get a little dirty.



I am simply asking for someone here to articulate a case for McCain, rather than simply post links about fringe nutjobs on both sides which make Obama or McCain look bad. All I've seen is a discussion about taxes, honestly. Plus some people who are really anti-abortion.

Do you have anything further to add?

Get over yourself. Everyone knows the case for McCain and the case for Obama. (If for some reason you've been living under a rock, I'll kindly direct you to www.barackobama.com in addition to JohnnyMac's site.) They're the same cases for the Republican and Democratic candidates that have been around since Nixon first sought to break up the solid South. The platforms haven't changed that much. Big government versus limited, social liberalism versus conservatism... what do you need articulated exactly that you cannot readily find and interpret yourself?

You look down your nose at us and ask where our "big ideas" are, but I doubt you can name one substantial plank in the democrat's platform that wasn't there in 2004.. or 2000. Our big ideas are actually small ideas.. limited government, limited taxes, and limited spending. Did GWB live up to these goals? Absolutely not. Does that mean McCain won't either? Well anyone who tells you McCain is a Bush flunky hasn't been following politics for very long, or is supporting Obama. And does that mean we conservatives should throw our hands in the air and vote for the candidate most directly opposing our views? Only an idiot would do that.


You want to know the reason you get the latest Drudge headlines in this thread instead of some scholarly debate on "the issues"? It's because we've all been over the fundamentals again and again and picked our sides. I'd be glad to "debate" you on the issues. It won't be hard, as the issues have been debated ad nauseam. Each one has been picked apart, focus group tested, and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. In short, its boring.

It is not my prerogative to make a case for McCain to a decided Obama supporter at this stage of the game. It is, however, my (self appointed ~;)) obligation to point out decidedly hypocritical attacks directed towards groups that I'm affiliated with.



I know where McCain stands on the issues, that's why I am voting against him. Why are you voting for him?

Because I know where he stands on the issues... :rolleyes:


And if you do me the courtesy of answering, I'd appreciate a little more politeness and respect for your fellow orgahs.

You get what you give.. I personally liked the “above the fray” ATPG, but I’m perfectly willing to play dirty, always have been. ~:)

[Ronin]

Anyone catch the Colbert Report last night?

they actually had the US Socialist party presidential candidate on......I bet the man has never gotten so much press in his life! :laugh4:

Colbert asks him if he´s gonna vote for the "socialism" Obama :wiseguy:

[CountArach]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189688/october-28-2008/socialist-candidate-for-president---brian-moore

There's the video.

[Tribesman]

Wow this election gets even funnier .
After having someone widely shown to be not only a complete liar with no grasp of reality and a tax dodging cowboy builder for good measure , McCain has decided to add Joe not really the plumber to his campaign team driving round to rallies on his truth bus speaking his bullexcrement to voters .
Well if McCains judgement has been called into question over his bouncing off walls to try and find a right drection and picking a complete idiot as a runningmate then this really is the cherry on the cake .
Obama might be a capitalist communist african asian arabian muslim radical christian terrorist who is stupid yet intellectual and an outsider with no experience who is part of the establishment ...at least he isn't a complete idiot like McCain

[TinCow]

If there's one thing that I think we can all agree on, it's that this election has done a lot to re-ignite American interest in voting. I read a story a week or so ago that had Maryland officials anticipating an 85% turnout rate in their state. Today the Washington Post has an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102801788.html?hpid=topnews) saying that Virginia expects up to 90% turnout. Now, I'm not sure whether this is percent of the total registered or total eligible, but either way it's a significant improvement. This country can only benefit from increased citizen interest in the affairs of government, regardless of their individual views.

[ICantSpellDawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71Do4Fj8XU

Buy Now.

As one crazy commentor stated:

"You'd better buy a gun before Obama wins..

You'd better buy two guns if he loses."

[Strike For The South]

That's a horrible thing to say.

Horrible? How? The Bradley effect is a very real thing. In fact PJ is wishing you luck. You should thank him

[Spino]

By the way...



"wealth redistribution" and socialist lifestyles are in the Bible.

Acts II:40-46.

Gosh. Well since I'm an atheist and social darwinist it gives me even less of a reason to vote for Obama, no?

[Koga No Goshi]

Horrible? How? The Bradley effect is a very real thing. In fact PJ is wishing you luck. You should thank him

Bradley Effect is basically an urban legend Strike. Yes, Bradley did lose the election after polls showed he was a couple of points ahead. You could make the same case about Gore and Kerry, at least, depending on what polls you were looking at. The truth is there was no formal study or scientific examination of race effect in actualized voter turnout and people merely attribute Bradley's loss to white people not being able to actually cast the vote for a black man at the last minute. And, it was decades ago.

I think the big emphasis on Bradley Effect has been three things. One, it's a great controversial conflict topic for the media. Two, it's psych warfare to make the Dems think they can't really win even if they're polling ahead. Three, if there are funny business "flips" of votes in key states Hannity and such will be IMMEDIATELY on the air going "OH WELL, WE TOLD YA THE BRADLEY EFFECT!"


Gosh. Well since I'm an atheist and social darwinist it gives me even less of a reason to vote for Obama, no?

He never had a shot at your vote, so *shrug*.


Get over yourself. Everyone knows the case for McCain and the case for Obama. (If for some reason you've been living under a rock, I'll kindly direct you to www.barackobama.com in addition to JohnnyMac's site.) They're the same cases for the Republican and Democratic candidates that have been around since Nixon first sought to break up the solid South. The platforms haven't changed that much. Big government versus limited, social liberalism versus conservatism... what do you need articulated exactly that you cannot readily find and interpret yourself?

So you basically confirmed Pizza's point, the McCain campaign is offering nothing other than "we're Republicans." The clear differences between the campaigns is the same clear difference between any Democrat and any Republican, according to what you say. So there is no compelling reason to vote McCain, whatsoever, unless you were a Republican and stand for all things Republican and wink wink McCain's Republican too?

If that's the basis for voting, man... what a huge amount of money is utterly wasted on campaigns. So much simpler to just say Obama-D, McCain-R. Choose.

[Strike For The South]

Bradley Effect is basically an urban legend Strike. Yes, Bradley did lose the election after polls showed he was a couple of points ahead. You could make the same case about Gore and Kerry, at least, depending on what polls you were looking at. The truth is there was no formal study or scientific examination of race effect in actualized voter turnout and people merely attribute Bradley's loss to white people not being able to actually cast the vote for a black man at the last minute. And, it was decades ago.

I think the big emphasis on Bradley Effect has been three things. One, it's a great controversial conflict topic for the media. Two, it's psych warfare to make the Dems think they can't really win even if they're polling ahead. Three, if there are funny business "flips" of votes in key states Hannity and such will be IMMEDIATELY on the air going "OH WELL, WE TOLD YA THE BRADLEY EFFECT!"

If I know white America like I think I know white America it will have some effect. Not enough mind you but enough to make the messiah a bit uncomfortable.

[Koga No Goshi]

If I know white America like I think I know white America it will have some effect. Not enough mind you but enough to make the messiah a bit uncomfortable.

I don't deny there are people who can't or wont' vote for him because of race. But I doubt there are huge numbers of people who agree with him on most every issue, and SAY they will vote for him, but just can't do it because he's black.

[LittleGrizzly]

The wiki on the bradley effect talks of a reverse bradley effect having more of an effect these days...

So obama will win by even more than suggested!!

You can't really define jesus to a political label and that kind of thing, but i honestly think things like universal healthcare and a great education system would be far more up his street than small goverment and a strong military...

[Spino]

He never had a shot at your vote, so *shrug*.

Very true. Then again if Moses was running against Jesus the son of god still wouldn't get a look from me...

Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
It’s good enough for me
It was good for the Hebrew children
It was good for the Hebrew children
It was good for the Hebrew children
And it’s good enough for me

It will bring you out of bondage
It will bring you out of bondage
It will bring you out of bondage
And it’s good enough for me

It will do when the world’s on fire
It will do when the world’s on fire
It will do when the world’s on fire
And it’s good enough for me

[Koga No Goshi]

Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
It’s good enough for me
It was good for the Hebrew children
It was good for the Hebrew children
It was good for the Hebrew children
And it’s good enough for me


Stop!! Stop!!! Back ye demon! Sing not that song, or maggots shall fill thy mouth!

[Strike For The South]

ooppppssss

[LittleGrizzly]

I am really getting sick of Jesus and Christianity being brought up in a religious context.

Which is why i brought it up in a political context...

Jesus was never a political figure and never aspired to be.

Well thats debatable, but whether you like it or not, and whether or not he exists, jesus is very involved in modern day politics..

[Strike For The South]

I am really getting sick of Jesus and Christianity being brought up in a religious context.

Which is why i brought it up in a political context...

Jesus was never a political figure and never aspired to be.

Well thats debatable, but whether you like it or not, and whether or not he exists, jesus is very involved in modern day politics..

I misread your post and then mistyped my own. But for the record many of the leading social conservatives have perverted the true message of Christ. Mega churches and political sermons do nothing for the flock nor strengthening there relationship with Christ. They just give those demagogues a small sense of smugness. Churches like there people should be modest.

[Koga No Goshi]

Jesus was never a political figure and never aspired to be.

Well thats debatable, but whether you like it or not, and whether or not he exists, jesus is very involved in modern day politics..

That's how I feel too. You don't get to turn it on and off like a faucet. If the party you're voting for is running around screaming about how Christ-ly it is (as opposed to the Muslim Barack Obama... heh), you don't get to pull a "that's religion! That's separate!" argument when actual Christian teachings do not seem at all congruous with Republican policies of protect and favor the rich and already successful. I realize that many Republican voters are not themselves religious people, but, I'm not the one who conflated being American, conservative, Republican and Christian. The GOP made that unholy mixed marriage of interests and panders to it as if all crowds are one and the same.

[Xiahou]

Honestly, it's disingenuous, it's disgusting, and I'm tired of it. That's why I would rather switch sides and vote for Obama, a liberal, than continue to support what Republicans have become, which is nothing even remotely resembling conservatism.What conservative values do you support anyway? You've mocked religion as a superstition and are pro-choice. Clearly you're not a social conservative, yet you also speak favorably of tax increases and approvingly of more government spending on healthcare- basically, you support about every plank in the Obama platform. To me, it seems a little "disingenuous" to keep donning the conservative for Obama mantle when we've never heard a conservative viewpoint out of you.

You can support whoever you want, but I wish you'd drop the pretense- it just sounds like you're trying to give your endorsement more weight by claiming to be a conservative. :shrug:

On a similar note, I, as a hard left liberal, am so disgusted by the Obama campaign that I have no choice but to cross over and vote for McCain. :clown:

[Hooahguy]

this doesnt look good for the jews:
palestinians see a friend in obama, LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story)

[Uesugi Kenshin]

The wiki on the bradley effect talks of a reverse bradley effect having more of an effect these days...

So obama will win by even more than suggested!!


Finally someone agrees with me!

We just have to hope the trend keeps up, or actually that Bradley Effect votes and reverse-Bradley effect votes cancel each other out, because that way true equality lies!

[Ronin]

Pokemon Politics
https://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z113/carolinagomes/pokemon-politics.gif

[Koga No Goshi]

What conservative values do you support anyway? You've mocked religion as a superstition and are pro-choice.

You are either too young or too ideological to see the point ATPG was making. When did overt, political Christianity become "conservative"? When did government control of reproductive options (especially restricting them) become "conservative?" Conservatives of the pre-Reagan mold, real conservatives, in other words, spin in their graves at the implication that big government intervention into social controls based on Christian moral values is conservativism. When you use the "social conservative" title as it would be understood today, you are talking about the husbanded union of the loonie Christian far-right social values voters, and pro-big business pro-corporate economic agendas which constitute the present-day Republican Party. And I'm sorry, but an agenda just by virtue of being endorsed and practiced by the Republican Party at any given moment does not make it conservative.


Clearly you're not a social conservative, yet you also speak favorably of tax increases and approvingly of more government spending on healthcare- basically, you support about every plank in the Obama platform. To me, it seems a little "disingenuous" to keep donning the conservative for Obama mantle when we've never heard a conservative viewpoint out of you.

Fiscal conservatives would want to do something about the debt. Not just give rhetoric about cutting spending. Know what happens to my CC debt if I cut back on my spending? Nothing, it's still there.


You can support whoever you want, but I wish you'd drop the pretense- it just sounds like you're trying to give your endorsement more weight by claiming to be a conservative. :shrug:

On a similar note, I, as a hard left liberal, am so disgusted by the Obama campaign that I have no choice but to cross over and vote for McCain. :clown:

Oh please, like there aren't a lot of people around her poseuring as "Independents" who haven't been in the bin for McCain since day one, posting every single negative article that puts Obama in a bad light? ATPG is totally honest about his views, he cares only about end results, not "appearing" to walk the correct partisan line from A to B in order to qualify as x political ideology. And to argue that you are "conservative" for supporting Bush and now supporting McBush, is laughable. Supporting the current Republican Party doesn't make you conservative, it makes you a partisan Republican and that's all.

[Hooahguy]

ignore

[Strike For The South]

Im a real conservative...posers!

[Kralizec]

I read a newspaper article that speculated that if Stevens gets jailtime (wich doesn't seem that likely to me), Palin might appoint herself to replace him as senator and go to Washington.
I know that governors select replacements for senators, but can they actually chose themselves?

[Strike For The South]

I read a newspaper article that speculated that if Stevens gets jailtime (wich doesn't seem that likely to me), Palin might appoint herself to replace him as senator and go to Washington.
I know that governors select replacements for senators, but can they actually chose themselves?

I dont think thats possible....and if it is that is not good.

[Ronin]

Im a real conservative...posers!

I wanna see a a gangsta rap style east-side/west-side feud inside the republican party to see who the real conservatives are :laugh4:

it will be just the same....guns and over-inflated egos....just less bling. ~:pimp:

[Kralizec]

https://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj68/Anathema-nl/RNC-texas.jpg

[Strike For The South]

https://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj68/Anathema-nl/RNC-texas.jpg

We are our own people
https://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2474/61570409ci4.th.jpg (https://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=61570409ci4.jpg)https://img217.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

[Hooahguy]

hey, as a new yorker, i object the "loud, obnoxious new yorkers" part.....
lol

[CrossLOPER]

We are our own people
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/the_song_of_my_people.png

[Ronin]

~:eek:

OHHH MY EYES!!!

:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

this doesnt look good for the jews:

Yeah according to Joe not the plumber a vote for Obama is a vote for death to Israel .
Its kinda wierd though as the polls on Jewish-american vote seems to be increasingly very pro-Obama

[Hooahguy]

AUGH!
please put that pic in spoilers!!!!!
my eyes.... burned..... ouch.....
lol

[Hooahguy]

Yeah according to Joe not the plumber a vote for Obama is a vote for death to Israel .
Its kinda wierd though as the polls on Jewish-american vote seems to be increasingly very pro-Obama
heres the thing.
orthodox jews tend to vote conservative. reform jews vote liberal.

and no, we dont trust obama when it coems to israel b/c he will talk w/o preconditions to israels enemies, and that may not to be to our (israels) advantage....

[Strike For The South]

heres the thing.
orthodox jews tend to vote conservative. reform jews vote liberal.

and no, we dont trust obama when it coems to israel b/c he will talk w/o preconditions to israels enemies, and that may not to be to our (israels) advantage....

You live in America. You are an American. Our government should not be a tool for Israel to use to further there interests.

[Hooahguy]

no, were concerned that obama will lessen our ties to get better ones with the arabs.
considering israel is very reliant on the US.....

[Strike For The South]

no, were concerned that obama will lessen our ties to get better ones with the arabs.
considering israel is very reliant on the US.....

If its in Americas best interest to loosen ties with Israel I say do it.

[Hooahguy]

ok, you can say that, but as someone who had dual citizenship, i wouldnt want that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right, Israel has been a black spot in our foreign policy to date in my opinion. The reality, though is that it exists and within it are large number of people who are the target of constant apocalyptic threats. Because of this fact it is imperative that we stand with Israel as a firm but reasonable partner.

We must urge them to reform the overly aggressive and apartheid-eque aspects of their domestic agenda while supporting them when they are faced with threats of extermination. I do not believe that Israel should have been created in the first place, but the reality is that it is here now and there are men women and children who just want to live in peace.

Obama's positions on Israel do not scare me in the least and neither do McCains.

[Hooahguy]

both points are spoken be people who dont view israel as a homeland, and i respect thier opinions, but obamas positions scare me, and im firm on that.

[Koga No Goshi]

Right, Israel has been a black spot in our foreign policy to date in my opinion. The reality, though is that it exists and within it are large number of people who are the target of constant apocalyptic threats. Because of this fact it is imperative that we stand with Israel as a firm but reasonable partner.

We must urge them to reform the overly aggressive and apartheid-eque aspects of their domestic agenda while supporting them when they are faced with threats of extermination. I do not believe that Israel should have been created in the first place, but the reality is that it is here now and there are men women and children who just want to live in peace.

Obama's positions on Israel do not scare me in the least and neither do McCains.

Agreed with every point. Israel needs to back down from some of its hardliner policies, and it will never do that as long as it has absolute blanket unconditional support from the U.S., and the U.S. completely refuses negotiation with anyone Israel names a threat to its existence.

Besides, Hooah, no one could argue that Obama's statements about Israel have been anything less than vehemently supportive of Israel as one of the U.S.'s staunchest allies, which must be supported. All they could argue is that there is some minor anxiety from Zionists that Obama might actually play diplomatic ball with other hostile nations in the region, when they would prefer a more Bush-like approach (which did not stop N. Korea from developing nukes, I might add.)


both points are spoken be people who dont view israel as a homeland, and i respect thier opinions, but obamas positions scare me, and im firm on that.

Israel is not my homeland. You might be happy to see the U.S. ruined as long as Israel was protected in the process. I would not.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horrible? How? The Bradley effect is a very real thing. In fact PJ is wishing you luck. You should thank him

PJ was being snide and vindictive, about par for his usual :daisy: performance. Any well wishes ring very hollowly.

It is true that what people say about their vote and what vote they lodge in the privacy of a booth do not always coincide -- and this is one reason the Dems are not letting up in their efforts -- but PJ used it as a parthian shot, not an argument.

[Hooahguy]

considering the US and israel have been allies from the start, and the US seems fine for the most part, i dont b/c the US is allies w/ israel will destroy it.

now, look at who obama surrounds himself with. 20 years with a very anti-israel pastor, palestinian friends, ect.
that concerns me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

considering the US and israel have been allies from the start, and the US seems fine for the most part, i dont b/c the US is allies w/ israel will destroy it.

now, look at who obama surrounds himself with. 20 years with a very anti-israel pastor, palestinian friends, ect.
that concerns me.

Obama will return Israeli-US relations to the tone adopted during the latter 2/3rds of the Clinton administration. The USA will attempt a more "balanced" diplomacy with both the Israelis and the Palestinians while continuing to push for -- but never achieving -- removal of Syrian influence from Lebanon and Iranian influence from some of the Palestinian hardliner groups. More or less a modified status quo.

Hardline elements in the Democrat wing would prefer a more aggressive shift in position -- drastically curtailing aid to Israel and pressuring for them to return to the original UN borders as part of a two-state solution -- but Obama will not support such an effort.

His personal views on Israel/Palestine (unknown to me, but most of his influence sources in his life are fairly anti-Israel) are secondary to these political likelihoods.

[TinCow]

The American Jewish community is heavily divided on the Palestinian situation. hooahguy is correct that Orthodox and Reform tend to go right and left respectively, however there are far more Reform Jews in the US than Orthodox and Reform Jews tend to favor greater compromises with the Palestinians. Most of my fellow 'Reformites' support a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and would support US policies that would pressure Israel in that direction. However, I do not think this goes so far as encouraging a break in Israeli-US relations. Most simply want the US to exercise its influence to encourage Israel to change its policies.

[Hooahguy]

we dont know if obama will go against his party, considering he votes with them every single time.
we really have no idea what he will do with israel, b/c he says one thing but can be influenced by people who say "death to israel." if it wasnt for that i would have no problem w/ obama for israel, besides the fact that he will talk to israels enemies, which isnt always a bad thing.

EDIT: tincow, you're jewish as well? i guess that doesnt make the backrooms resident jew.... :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Most of my fellow 'Reformites' support a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and would support US policies that would pressure Israel in that direction.

Are you Jewish, Tin?

EDIT: Beaten to the punch

[TinCow]

Are you Jewish, Tin?

EDIT: Beaten to the punch

Yep. Reform. Had my Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem.

[Hooahguy]

Yep. Reform. Had my Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem.
cool!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yep. Reform. Had my Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem.

We are going to need to do another breakdown by poll for the boards! Now I'm interested.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yep. Reform. Had my Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem.

Yeah, but did you get through your right-to-left read-out-loud exercise without malfing it?

:wiseguy:

[TinCow]

Yeah, but did you get through your right-to-left read-out-loud exercise without malfing it?

:wiseguy:

Yeah, but only because I studied for the dang thing for EIGHT MONTHS beforehand. As cool as a Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem sounds, it had a lot of detriments as well. Instead of the usual superficial prayer, I was just helping to give the morning sermon at our affiliate temple. That means I had to read directly from the Torah. That may not mean much to you gentiles, but the Torah has no vowels in it. This essentially meant I had to memorize the entire thing. On top of it, I had to sing the entire thing. Keep in mind that most Hebrew Schools in the US teach kids to read and speak Hebrew, but only in a ritual form, not as a practical language. Thus even though I was able to read the words and speak them properly, I had no idea at all what I was saying.

Top it off with the fact that there were some introductory prayers that I was told I wouldn't have to do (and thus did not memorize) which the Rabbi informed me I would in fact be saying about 5 minutes before I started. Did I mention that I was also wearing Tefillin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin) for the first time in my life? All in all, the most terrifying moment of my as-then-short existence. Also, since it was in Jerusalem, none of my friends could attend, so that meant no presents.

Coincidentally, that was the last time I ever went to temple. This is one of the bizarre things about Judaism. I am very Jewish. I identify myself as Jewish, I call myself Jewish, and all the Jews I know consider me Jewish. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's a bizarre culture. I had hot pastrami for lunch. :2thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

I saw a "Voice for the Uninsured" ad on TV today- sponsored by the AMA. I was curious what their angle was, so I went to their website, http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/. I was actually a little surprised that their plan reads a lot like McCains.

The AMA favors reducing or eliminated the "tax break" people get on employer based insurance and support using the money to fund a tax credit that people could only use to buy private insurance.

[Hooahguy]

Yeah, but only because I studied for the dang thing for EIGHT MONTHS beforehand. As cool as a Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem sounds, it had a lot of detriments as well. Instead of the usual superficial prayer, I was just helping to give the morning sermon at our affiliate temple. That means I had to read directly from the Torah. That may not mean much to you gentiles, but the Torah has no vowels in it. This essentially meant I had to memorize the entire thing. On top of it, I had to sing the entire thing. Keep in mind that most Hebrew Schools in the US teach kids to read and speak Hebrew, but only in a ritual form, not as a practical language. Thus even though I was able to read the words and speak them properly, I had no idea at all what I was saying.

Top it off with the fact that there were some introductory prayers that I was told I wouldn't have to do (and thus did not memorize) which the Rabbi informed me I would in fact be saying about 5 minutes before I started. Did I mention that I was also wearing Tefillin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin) for the first time in my life? All in all, the most terrifying moment of my as-then-short existence. Also, since it was in Jerusalem, none of my friends could attend, so that meant no presents.

Coincidentally, that was the last time I ever went to temple. This is one of the bizarre things about Judaism. I am very Jewish. I identify myself as Jewish, I call myself Jewish, and all the Jews I know consider me Jewish. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's a bizarre culture. I had hot pastrami for lunch. :2thumbsup:
wow, tincow, that seems pretty painful event.... :laugh4:
now imagine doing that when youre a stutterer like me.

my parsha (torah portion) was pretty long, and i did the morning services and an 11 page speech.

[TinCow]

wow, tincow, that seems pretty painful event.... :laugh4:
now imagine doing that when youre a stutterer like me.

my parsha (torah portion) was pretty long, and i did the morning services and an 11 page speech.

Ah, for all my kvetching, I did enjoy it. I just nearly pissed myself beforehand. I've worn a chai around my neck ever since, and despite my change in religious views that symbol still means a lot to me. It will almost certainly still be around my neck the day I die. There is something extremely comforting about knowing that if anti-semitism ever rears its head again, there's a place that will shelter me without any questions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well this helps Obama get some of that fundraising money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html):

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
Contributions Reviewed After Deposits

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

And then the LA Times won't release a video of Obama at some dinner with more assorted unsavory characters. (http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/what_is_the_la_times_hiding.php)

What is the L.A. Times Hiding?

29 Oct 2008 01:01 pm
I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to explain, once again, why I believe that Rashid Khalidi is not a danger to the Republic. I also don't think I have to rehearse the controversial idea that Barack Obama was not, in fact, the Hyde Park chapter president of the PFLP-GC. (That was Rahm Emanuel.) But there's a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn't be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won't fully explain. And it's looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.

I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won't discuss in detail why it's keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper's "readers' representative," Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.

There is another reason why the tape should be posted: It might actually create interest in the L.A. Times. From what I understand, the mainstream media is in a bit of trouble these days. Perhaps -- this is just a thought here -- the L.A. Times could better its position in the world by drawing readers to its website.

Like I said, just a thought.

CR

[Hooahguy]

Ah, for all my kvetching, I did enjoy it. I just nearly pissed myself beforehand. I've worn a chai around my neck ever since, and despite my change in religious views that symbol still means a lot to me. It will almost certainly still be around my neck the day I die. There is something extremely comforting about knowing that if anti-semitism ever rears its head again, there's a place that will shelter me without any questions.
exactly. thats why we need israel.

on another note, i heard this story from a friend:


Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I 've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

[Koga No Goshi]

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

This guy is a prick, not a "socialist." Now, if he'd somehow taken five bucks from the guy who owned the restaurant chain, he'd have a flippin point-- maybe. At the very least the scenario would make sense. But the people Obama's tax plan would hit? Comparing them to people who live off tips, and taking money away from waiters?


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Excuse me, wiping away tears.

[CountArach]

Horrible? How? The Bradley effect is a very real thing. In fact PJ is wishing you luck. You should thank him
The Bradly effect has been made demonstrably false, but that is besides the point. Wishing on anyone that racism will change the vote is disgusting and reprehensible.

heres the thing.
orthodox jews tend to vote conservative. reform jews vote liberal.

and no, we dont trust obama when it coems to israel b/c he will talk w/o preconditions to israels enemies, and that may not to be to our (israels) advantage....
Obama winning Jewish vote 74-22% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111424/Obama-Winning-Over-Jewish-Vote.aspx)

[Tribesman]

now, look at who obama surrounds himself with. 20 years with a very anti-israel pastor, palestinian friends, ect.
that concerns me.
I would be more concerned at McCains actual membership of a group made up of various fascists neo nazis holocaust deniers and traitors who supported islamic fundamentalists and who he only left when the crap really hit the fan in the courts . And I wouldn't want to go too much on that pastor thing hooah as both McCain and Palin have had some very dodgy religious ties when it comes to anti semitism .
BTW
considering the US and israel have been allies from the start
errrrr....since when ?
You are not by any chance trying to re-write history there are you ?:inquisitive:

[Lemur]

on another note, i heard this story from a friend:
From a "friend," is it? Is this (http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/today_on_my_way_to_lunch_i_passed_a_homeless_guy_with_a_sign_that_read_vote/) your friend? hooahguy, if you're going to pass on anonymous emails that are getting re-mailed to you, just say so. Don't pretend you have some intimate connection with a story that is clearly fabricated, just to try to give it some weight.

[CountArach]

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/OReilly_map.jpg

Oh noes! We're behind!

Seriously, you have to love Bill O'Reilly...

[Hooahguy]

Obama winning Jewish vote 74-22% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111424/Obama-Winning-Over-Jewish-Vote.aspx)
well, considering what i said and that most american jews are reform......


errrrr....since when ?
You are not by any chance trying to re-write history there are you ?:inquisitive:
nope. we have been allies from the start. we gave them weapons through the back alley during the 1948 war of independence. says so in the book "Gideons spies: a history of the mossad" (by Gordon Thomas, a great read btw).
maybe not officially allies, but we were.


From a "friend," is it? Is this (http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/today_on_my_way_to_lunch_i_passed_a_homeless_guy_with_a_sign_that_read_vote/) your friend? hooahguy, if you're going to pass on anonymous emails that are getting re-mailed to you, just say so. Don't pretend you have some intimate connection with a story that is clearly fabricated, just to try to give it some weight.
no, i did hear the story from a friend. i just didnt know where it came from, so i said i heard it from a real friend. idk how that turned into i knew the guy who "fabricated" the story. some accusation. :inquisitive:
and no it wasnt through a chain email.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/OReilly_map.jpg

Oh noes! We're behind!

Seriously, you have to love Bill O'Reilly...

Hmmm. Looks good. Of course, the idea that East Oregon will outvote the Willamette valley or that the UP will be the only ones in Michigan casting votes seems a little chancy to me....:cheesy:

In other words, put OR, MN, WI, and MI into the blue category and take NC and put it into the greys and then, MAYBE, you're closer to on track.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hmmm. Looks good. Of course, the idea that East Oregon will outvote the Willamette valley or that the UP will be the only ones in Michigan casting votes seems a little chancy to me....:cheesy:

In other words, put OR, MN, WI, and MI into the blue category and take NC and put it into the greys and then, MAYBE, you're closer to on track.

From what I'm told by a Michigan friend, Michigan people are pretty shocked teh numbers are even as close as they are. Even throughout the UP you see a LOT of Obama signs. I was shocked to hear that and asked what the heck happened. Apparently McCain pulling out of Michigan really ticked them off, especially since they already felt shafted after the primary votes weren't counted.

[OverKnight]

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/OReilly_map.jpg

Oh noes! We're behind!

Seriously, you have to love Bill O'Reilly...

If that map isn't from two months ago, when it would have been somewhat accurate, then it's magical thinking.

[seireikhaan]

Hmmm. Looks good. Of course, the idea that East Oregon will outvote the Willamette valley or that the UP will be the only ones in Michigan casting votes seems a little chancy to me....:cheesy:

In other words, put OR, MN, WI, and MI into the blue category and take NC and put it into the greys and then, MAYBE, you're closer to on track.
Put IA into the blue category as well; I all but guarantee that Obama will win the state.

[Lemur]

idk how that turned into i knew the guy who "fabricated" the story. some accusation.
Well, if you didn't suspect that story of being invented from the ground up, then your lie-o-meter needs adjusting. The only thing that was missing to make it the perfect fabrication is the part where the hero gets held down by a huge black man and gets a "B" carved backward in his cheek.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well, if you didn't suspect that story of being invented from the ground up, then your lie-o-meter needs adjusting. The only thing that was missing to make it the perfect fabrication is the part where the hero gets held down by a huge black man and gets a "B" carved backward in his cheek.

Oh my God, you made me laugh out loud at my desk. Dang it.

[Hooahguy]

Well, if you didn't suspect that story of being invented from the ground up, then your lie-o-meter needs adjusting. The only thing that was missing to make it the perfect fabrication is the part where the hero gets held down by a huge black man and gets a "B" carved backward in his cheek.
how do you know it was made up?
sorry for being so ignorant.

[Lemur]

I don't "know" it was made up, but it has all the characteristics of a fabrication. Let's put it this way, I would wager any amount of money you'd care to name that this story will never be substantiated, never have a name attached to it, and never even be traced to a source. It's BS, pure and simple. It's exactly the sort of story people make up when they want to prove a rhetorical point, but it bears no relationship to how real people behave.

[CountArach]

Hmmm. Looks good. Of course, the idea that East Oregon will outvote the Willamette valley or that the UP will be the only ones in Michigan casting votes seems a little chancy to me....:cheesy:

In other words, put OR, MN, WI, and MI into the blue category and take NC and put it into the greys and then, MAYBE, you're closer to on track.
I would also put PA in Obama's column, as well as IA, where McCain has recently pulled out and was never really competitive.

Meanwhile,in music news: Joe the Plumber to get music deal (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15072.html)

[seireikhaan]

I would also put PA in Obama's column, as well as IA, where McCain has recently pulled out and was never really competitive.

Meanwhile,in music news: Joe the Plumber to get music deal (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15072.html)
:inquisitive: When did you hear this? I mean, he was literally across the street from me last Sunday. :inquisitive:

[Hooahguy]

I don't "know" it was made up, but it has all the characteristics of a fabrication. Let's put it this way, I would wager any amount of money you'd care to name that this story will never be substantiated, never have a name attached to it, and never even be traced to a source. It's BS, pure and simple. It's exactly the sort of story people make up when they want to prove a rhetorical point, but it bears no relationship to how real people behave.
ever heard of the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction?"

the truth is yo cant just write off any story unless it contains pure fanasy, like unicorns flying around as that happend.

[CountArach]

:inquisitive: When did you hear this? I mean, he was literally across the street from me last Sunday. :inquisitive:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/20/mccain_giving_up_on_colorado.html
"CNN reports that top officials of Sen. John McCain's campaign are "making tough decisions" as they now see Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa no longer winnable."

[Lemur]

ever heard of the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction?"
Yup, and that's why you should be very suspicious of an anonymous story that perfectly conforms to your beliefs. I'm telling you, that story is an invention. I'll eat two of my four pets if I'm wrong. 'Nuff said.

[Hooahguy]

what pets do you have?
b/c you may have to eat them... =P

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup, and that's why you should be very suspicious of an anonymous story that perfectly conforms to your beliefs. I'm telling you, that story is an invention. I'll eat two of my four pets if I'm wrong. 'Nuff said.

I hope you have cats

[seireikhaan]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/20/mccain_giving_up_on_colorado.html
"CNN reports that top officials of Sen. John McCain's campaign are "making tough decisions" as they now see Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa no longer winnable."
That's, uh, interesting. Wonder why he was in Cedar Falls, IA, then, when they consider the state to be unwinnable?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Continuing the ATPG-PJ discussion... in spoilers as it's lengthy.


Please, you set the tone with this initial shot at McCain supporters

I asked McCain supporters if they had an argument besides fear. That's different from calling them "idiots", "hypocrites", and "whiners". I know that you know the difference, so I won't condescend by asking you if you do.


Don't call me a fear monger and then cry about respect.

See? This is exactly what I am talking about. I said McCain's tactics were fearmongering, which you cannot for one single solitary moment, with any amount of credibility, deny. If you choose to take an argument about McCain's campaign personally, that's not my fault, and you can't ever claim that it is.


Your recent posts in this thread seemed an honest call for respectful discussion and and I responded to you with honesty and candor about my frustrations over the McCain campaign. If you choose to climb down off your high horse and start throwing mud, don't be surprised when you get a little dirty.

That's because they were an honest call. However, when I saw a steady stream of posts which were nothing but fear-based tactics, I pointed each and every one of them out. Until now, I haven't had a problem with your posts, either. However, I think you are overreacting and taking personally an argument based towards McCain. The part about his supporters was asking for a non-fear based argument. Then I even pointed out some examples of arguments that had been used, taxes and the war. I was asking, you know, what else do you have?

If you don't have anything else, that's fine. But you really are the only one climbing down in the mud and winging insults at your opponent here. Point out one instance where I insulted you. Attacking McCain for fearmongering and asking a McCain supporter to give me an issue-based argument, that's not a personal insult. Should you choose to take it that way, I can't help you.

I challenge you to quote me, once, where I did insult even one member of the opposition here on this thread. If you cannot, then you need to stop posturing and stop throwing insults. You haven't convinced anyone I warranted such disrespect.


Get over yourself.

You know, you can keep being nasty to me, and I'm just going to keep on doing what I've been doing, pointing out McCain's campaign has been nasty, and asking for a debate, especially one based on the issues.

The more you try to attack my feelings, the less effective your argument is, and the less credibility you have. If you would like to stop firing disrespect in my direction, we can discuss this further. I'm not sure what kind of case someone can make for a respectful campaign when all you're doing is disrespect. You may have feelings of righteous indignation, but they aren't coming from a rational criticism of my arguments. I don't know where they are coming from, but they are misplaced.


Everyone knows the case for McCain and the case for Obama. (If for some reason you've been living under a rock, I'll kindly direct you to www.barackobama.com in addition to JohnnyMac's site.) They're the same cases for the Republican and Democratic candidates that have been around since Nixon first sought to break up the solid South. The platforms haven't changed that much. Big government versus limited, social liberalism versus conservatism... what do you need articulated exactly that you cannot readily find and interpret yourself?

You fail to give me any specific reason you're supporting McCain, once again. Since we're going around in circles, and you aren't answering my pointed questions, I can safely say you've conceded the argument.



You look down your nose at us and ask where our "big ideas" are,

You paint a picture of me that is inaccurate. I am asking where the big ideas are, but I'm not looking down my nose at you, which is something you yourself are guilty of doing to me. I am respecting you enough to ask you, in this stage of the game, do you have anything besides an attack-Obama argument? And what is that argument, exactly?

I didn't really hear one from the 100% negative McCain advertisements, I didn't hear one from his or her stump speeches. What I heard was very vague, if they were referring to the issues. They spent more time invoking Obama's name than they did discussing why their ideas were better.

I didn't hear that argument from his political action committees, or any of the advertisers unaffiliated with the campaign, which admittedly McCain isn't technically responsible for. But it would be nice if someone down the line were spreading the word about conservatism, which is something I'd appreciate.

I'd like to hear McCain's conservative positions on issues. But since he's supported the Neoconservatives, in particular Bush and Cheney, he's gone far off-track from conservative principles. That would be fine, but he's failed to present an alternative ideology apart from neoconservatism, which has failed us for 8 years. And even if he were up there spreading neoconservative ideology, he could simply be honestly a believer in that philosophy. But since I've seen him spend more time discussing Obama, and not even about the issues Obama stands for, than his own big ideas, I question whether or not he has them, or if he's proud enough of those ideas to run a campaign based on those ideas.


but I doubt you can name one substantial plank in the democrat's platform that wasn't there in 2004.. or 2000.

I'd take that challenge. For one, Obama is supporting a tax cut or non-increase for the bottom 95% of wage earners. Obama is proposing a healthcare plan that is substantially different from Hillary's because it does not mandate coverage for adults that cannot afford it, i.e. me. Obama is talking about a withdrawl of the troops from Iraq, effective immediately, to be completed in roughly 18 months... but the precise details may change according to conditions on the ground.

I could go on, but since you've failed to show respect to me, and failed to answer my challenge, I don't feel obligated.



Our big ideas are actually small ideas.. limited government, limited taxes, and limited spending.

Your candidate has failed to live up to these ideals. I don't want to use an appeal to authority argument, but since I'm not qualified to say, ask anyone with expertise whether or not McCain's plan balances the budget. Ask any economist whether or not his plan is good for the economy. Even Republicans inside the McCain camp agree that his healthcare plan is actually worse than the current employer based plans. All of McCain's ideas are bad ideas that don't address the healthcare crisis, don't balance the budget, and don't jump-start the economy.

I can't speak to what he will do in office. I can only go by his track record, which is a supporter of GWB 90% of the time. I don't believe a 10% change is going to cut the mustard.



Did GWB live up to these goals? Absolutely not. Does that mean McCain won't either? Well anyone who tells you McCain is a Bush flunky hasn't been following politics for very long, or is supporting Obama. And does that mean we conservatives should throw our hands in the air and vote for the candidate most directly opposing our views? Only an idiot would do that.

"Only an idiot would do that" is a logical fallacy. It not only overgeneralizes, but it places an insult on anyone who might disagree with you. Argument ad hominem abusive. You discredit yourself by using such tone and rhetoric in your arguments. This has no place in a rational debate or discussion.

One could make the argument that someone who repeats the same action over and over, expecting a different result, is insane. Since McCain represents at least 90% of the same actions as George W Bush, expecting big changes from the McCain camp is irrational.

I could say further that when McCain's ideas are so bad and discredited that he's forced to spend all his time talking about his opponent in a fearmongering way, that he himself knows his ideas are bad, and it's plainly obvious to everyone who's watched this campaign, he's not very comfortable talking about the issues.

So far, I could safely say that you aren't either. You seem very reluctant. You keep directing me to McCain's page, but that's not a response to my inquiry. Why do YOU support John McCain, and is it possible for you to respond without attacking me in an ad hominem way, or relying on fallacy?

You admit that the Republicans under GWB have failed, utterly failed, to live up to their ideals. While McCain split with Bush in past elections, his positions have never been all that different. He had 8 years to show the difference between himself and Bush, and he failed to do so. Now, he's running his campaign and getting advice from the same people Bush and Cheney did, using the same smear tactics and talking points, and ignoring their record and denying any accountability.

You have to see this, whether you support McCain or not. He's living under the same ideology, relying on the same advisors, the same track record, and the same false arguments. So, I repeat, why are you supporting him? Why would he be any significant difference from GWB? How will he bring about more and better change than Obama, as a washington insider supporting current administration policy?

You can't just keep referring me back to McCain's page. If you wish to concede, do so. But don't insult me.


You want to know the reason you get the latest Drudge headlines in this thread instead of some scholarly debate on "the issues"?

Yes, I am wondering why good intelligent people continue to resort to pointing out wingnuts who will have no impact on the policy and direction of this country, rather than discuss why their candidate is better, particularly in an election year.


It's because we've all been over the fundamentals again and again and picked our sides. I'd be glad to "debate" you on the issues.

You have yet to touch any of the issues or respond to any of my arguments.


It won't be hard, as the issues have been debated ad nauseam. Each one has been picked apart, focus group tested, and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. In short, its boring.

Since this is a general election commentary and analysis page, may I suggest another more exciting thread? You've offered no analysis and you've criticized and insulted me for offering some.


It is not my prerogative to make a case for McCain to a decided Obama supporter at this stage of the game. It is, however, my (self appointed ~;)) obligation to point out decidedly hypocritical attacks directed towards groups that I'm affiliated with.

As soon as you point out one example of hypocrisy, I'd be delighted. If you aren't here to defend McCain, offer analysis, or any insight, then why are you here? If you don't want to debate the issues, why are you here? Since you won't respond to my points, won't begin to challenge my assertions, don't deny my arguments, and claim that to do so would be "boring", I have to wonder why you're even directing commentary toward me.


You get what you give.. I personally liked the “above the fray” ATPG, but I’m perfectly willing to play dirty, always have been.

I won't repeat myself, here, but I will summarize.

I haven't attacked you personally, as you have towards me. I have discussed the issues, you haven't. I have asked for a respectful tone, and you've demonstrated disrespect. I've challenged McCain supporters to a debate, and only one has responded so far, and he's admitted he's not a Bush or McCain apologist, and so therefore wouldn't be the one I should be debating here. We'll have a public or private discussion between us, respectfully, to see where one another stands, but until we figure out where we differ, we can't even debate. You claim you are willing to debate me, but won't deny any of my accusations, won't respond to my questions, continue to lob insults at me, and refuse to offer a case defending your own candidate, and claim that doing so would be boring.

In short, you've conceded the argument, in it's entirety. Unless you begin to respond to my points, I will have to do what so many others have done, which is ignore you. I don't want to do that, because I'd like for us to have a respectful discussion. I just haven't seen one from you, and I've done my best to offer mine.

If you dislike me personally, that's cool too. Fire me off a private message and get it out of your system. But don't pretend that anyone who might jump from the sinking ship of the Republican party must therefore be an idiot. Don't pretend I'm being hypocritical when your one example of such behavior is faulty. Don't accuse me of whining when you refuse to have a proper debate.

I'm perfectly capable, as I've shown here on this thread, of taking my own side to task for not having a respectful debate. I'm capable, as I've shown, in demonstrating respect and politeness for the opposing side, and with good humor. I'm capable, as you've seen, in talking to you with respect, even if I have to take you to task for not doing so consistently. We are both capable, I assume, of having a pleasant discussion which talks about the candidates in an impersonal way, and discussing the issues.

If you don't want to do that, then don't respond. I won't be offended and I'll probably forget the whole thing in a matter of hours. I really don't get my jollies offending people or sniping in a public forum, and if I've upset or offended you unintentionally, you have my sincere apologies. I will say, however, that nothing I've said was directed at you, aside from asking for a debate on the issues, and a more respectful one at that.

If you want to have a debate about Keating Five and Ayers, that's fine. If you want to have a debate on Obama's big ears or McCain's ear hair, that's fine. If you want to decry all Republicans or Democrats alike in one fell swoop, that's fine. But unless you want to debate the issues, let's move on. If you respond, I'll be obligated to do so, but not unless we start talking issues. If you don't, I'm not going to bother you about it.

I don't want to be condescending, as it's not my intention at all, so please keep in mind when I continue, I'm not looking down my nose at you, I'm trying to help. If I were to offer you advice, it's that criticizing a candidate on the issues, or their tactics, it's all perfectly legitimate, and it's nothing personal. Challenging someone to a debate on the issues, it may be boring, but it's not personal. In my opinion, you're taking this too personally. Just let it go, man.

Honest criticism is different from insults.

[Lemur]

what pets do you have?
b/c you may have to eat them... =P
Boxer, pug, french bulldog and a garden cat. I would definitely eat the pug and the bulldog, since they're very old and they're both shaped like Easter hams.

Sheesh, just lookit that back-and-forth between ATPG and our resident neo-fascist. I am so completely not going to force myself to read that.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sheesh, just lookit that back-and-forth between ATPG and our resident neo-fascist. I am so completely not going to force myself to read that.

Yeah, sorry about that.

I'm doing everyone in this thread a courtesy by putting that in spoilers, because it is boring, sadly.

[Koga No Goshi]

Wow.

ATPG, I think we can officially say, the pizza has been brought. Well argued post.

[seireikhaan]

ATPG- That made me :laugh2:. Very well done post, and thanks for the spoilers. Saves space and scrolling times.

[Tribesman]

Blimey Pizza you really put Panzer through the shredder there :yes:

Yes Hooah it is a good book , but no you were not allies until a long time afterwards .

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well I am sure Panzer would disagree. :laugh2:

I hope no one thinks there's any bad blood here. Apart from a minor disagreement, I don't have a problem with PJ and I'm not out to get him.

When it boils right down to it, we both love this country and we're doing our best to make it a better place. Don Corleone says PJ is a nice guy, and I believe him. Nothing we say here should be taken personally.

[Hooahguy]

Blimey Pizza you really put Panzer through the shredder there :yes:

Yes Hooah it is a good book , but no you were not allies until a long time afterwards .
maybe not official allies....
w/e

[Koga No Goshi]

I have a psychic friend who had a prescient dream. She e-mailed it to me and I'm sharing it with you all. All of you posting doomsday news about Obama were completely correct, look at this ghastly vision of the future:


a normal Christian (white) husband comes home from work to sit down to dinner with his family. Obama is speaking on the television set in the living room. The wife turns the channel but every station has Barack Obama on it, repeating the words, "If u makin' under $250K, I not be raisin' yo taxes!" The children want to know what they are having for appetizers before dinner. The mother screams, "We don't have enough money for appetizers anymore! We're just going to have dinner! The children start crying as the mother scoops portions of Almar Caviar into their plates. "But this used to be our appetizer, mommy!" says one child. "Yes," says the mother, "but thanks to liberals electing Barack Obama as their president, now its all we can afford for supper!" The father chokes back his tears, pulls out a gun and shoots his two children. He then shoots his wife and puts the gun to his own head and says, "We can't live like this, Obama has taxed us all to death." He pulls the trigger, blowing off his head.

Just kidding, LOL, it's satire from http://www.landoverbaptist.org/2008/october/hellhouse2008.html

[Don Corleone]

30 minutes of my life, waiting for a solid answer.... that never came. It was like waiting for the great pumpkin. :dizzy2: If the man believes in taking socialized housing, socialized medicine and socialized everything else, why doesn't he just have the balls to say so? ATPG and Koga talk about fear, and you have a point. But I would say the only thing worse than fear is deceit.

To say you're only going to soak the rich on income tax, then line Congress up to seize 401ks, to change the tax exemption on mortgages, and to abolish 529s? That's deceit. To say you believe paying higher taxes is a civic duty, then finding a way to get yourself into the lowest bracket for 8 straight years of earning 200K+... that's deceit. Sure, McCain is fearmongering. But Obama is playing 3 card monty with us.

[Koga No Goshi]

30 minutes of my life, waiting for a solid answer.... that never came. It was like waiting for the great pumpkin. :dizzy2: If the man believes in taking socialized housing, socialized medicine and socialized everything else, why doesn't he just have the balls to say so? ATPG and Koga talk about fear, and you have a point. But I would say the only thing worse than fear is deceit.

To say you're only going to soak the rich on income tax, then line Congress up to seize 401ks, to change the tax exemption on mortgages, and to abolish 529s? That's deceit. To say you believe paying higher taxes is a civic duty, then finding a way to get yourself into the lowest bracket for 8 straight years of earning 200K+... that's deceit. Sure, McCain is fearmongering. But Obama is playing 3 card monty with us.

DC, did you know under Eisenhower, the top taxation bracket ranged as high as 90%? And 70% under Nixon? And 50% under Reagan?

Under Obama the highest bracket is 39%. Do let's keep a sense of perspective and proportion, before throwing around terms like socialist, alright?

Apparently socialism has become loosely defined as "even one percent more than we're already overtaxed paying." And if you talk to Libertarians ANY level of taxation is unacceptable theft. So.... where do you cut it off?

Hopefully this (http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf) should put at least a little silence to the idea that Obama's tax plan is naked, shameless Socialism. Take a look at 1950's tax rates. Hello... and that was during the Cold War, when we were hellbent against "socialism" ;) 39% with two wars going on doesn't exactly strike me as at all unreasonable.

[Don Corleone]

DC, did you know under Eisenhower, the top taxation bracket ranged as high as 90%? And 70% under Nixon? And 50% under Reagan?

Under Obama the highest bracket is 39%. Do let's keep a sense of perspective and proportion, before throwing around terms like socialist, alright?

Apparently socialism has become loosely defined as "even one percent more than we're already overtaxed paying." And if you talk to Libertarians ANY level of taxation is unacceptable theft. So.... where do you cut it off?

I'm not just talking about income tax. I'm talking about jacking up people's mortgage payments by removing the ability to deduct the interest. I'm talking about seizing people's retirement accounts. I'm talking about taking people's education accounts. You say "well, if you have those things, you must be rich", but most people that do, aren't. If you define rich as owning a house, as having an IRA, then I understand what you and Obama are about now... because yes, according to your defintion, you are coming after the rich.

[Lemur]

To say you're only going to soak the rich on income tax, then line Congress up to seize 401ks, to change the tax exemption on mortgages, and to abolish 529s? That's deceit.
So Don, where does this train of thought take you? I mean, you're all worked up, and you're convinced that the Evil Obama is going to destroy personal finances as we know it, and your daughters are going to be cheated out of a home and an education so that slackers can smoke weed and play Xbox, etc.

The odds are in favor of an Obama Presidency, at least for now. So where will all of this fear and loathing leave you if the man enters office? I mean, I can understand blowing a gasket when he actually behaves like a scumbag, but you've built up a tower of fearful hypotheticals, and you're talking about them as though they've already come to pass. Where are you going with this?

[Don Corleone]

So Don, where does this train of thought take you? I mean, you're all worked up, and you're convinced that the Evil Obama is going to destroy personal finances as we know it, and your daughters are going to be cheated out of a home and an education so that slackers can smoke weed and play Xbox, etc.

The odds are in favor of an Obama Presidency, at least for now. So where will all of this fear and loathing leave you if the man enters office? I mean, I can understand blowing a gasket when he actually behaves like a scumbag, but you've built up a tower of fearful hypotheticals, and you're talking about them as though they've already come to pass. Where are you going with this?

I'm sure you've heard of Hoovervilles? I've got my own, nice Obamamininum all picked out... it's in a van, DOWN BY THE RIVER.

[Strike For The South]

I'm sure you've heard of Hoovervilles? I've got my own, nice Obamamininum all picked out... it's in a van, DOWN BY THE RIVER.

Hey dad is that Bill Shakespeare over there?

[Tribesman]

maybe not official allies....
w/e

Yeah w/e :dizzy2:,
so you were attempting to rewrite history then .

[Koga No Goshi]

Alright Don I have been looking around, and not at Dem blogs, at financial blogs.

From one:


House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html) Absolutely no mention on the status of this, just that this one person presented this one plan to the House. *Shrug* Ever watched West Wing? I'm sure they get all kinds of unworkable proposals and presentations all the time, like how to run the economy on foo foo string.

Here (http://kevincolby.com/2008/10/23/could-our-own-government-seize-control-of-your-retirement-accounts/) is a clearly right-wing blog talking about the same thing being done in Argentina and how the "Obama/Moveon.org left" would LOVE to do the same. Pure conjecture and fearmongering.


Mark fills us in on Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, who testified before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. From another blog (http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/after_we_take_over_the_government). This blogger insists that the Dems are going to do this.... on absolutely no basis which he bothers to cite.

From http://news-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/10/democrats-consider-eliminating-401-k.html
Want a glimpse into what an Obama administration and Democratic-controlled Congress will look at in the area of tax policy? House Democrats are already considering an overhaul of the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

Are considering. Then it quotes the same thing as above, that the House invited someone to present their theory.


Prof. Ghilarducci’s long term solution is to make the GRAs mandatory, in effect turning them into forced savings accounts:

Going forward, I propose Congress establish universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts and the federal government deposit $600 (inflation indexed) in those Guaranteed Retirement Accounts every year for every worker. from http://blog.freemarkets.ca/article/98.


Alright Don. I've read every article on the whole first page from doing a search on "seizing private retirement accounts." And they all gave precisely the same information, one economist came and spoke about her proposed plan. That's all. Not "and the Dems were excited about the idea", not "The Dems are moving ahead with a bill to implement it", nothing. Where you are getting your certitude that this is a sinister Democratic certainty in the works, unless it's from some lunatic far right news source, has eluded me.

Screaming bloody murder that the Dems are on the verge of wiping out your retirement seems just a TAD overdramatic at this point. One speaker came and gave a presentation to the House. If a Palestinian came and gave a presentation to the House I think it would be a bit premature to start screaming that we are about to nuke Israel.

You said earlier something to the effect of "make no mistake, Pelosi is trying to move ahead with this on the quiet." Where do you get this stuff? Leftover nightmares? Right wing blogs? I see nothing of the sort in any news I have been able to find.

[KarlXII]

exactly. thats why we need israel.

on another note, i heard this story from a friend:

Old copypasta is old.

[KarlXII]

Continuing the ATPG-PJ discussion... in spoilers as it's lengthy.



I asked McCain supporters if they had an argument besides fear. That's different from calling them "idiots", "hypocrites", and "whiners". I know that you know the difference, so I won't condescend by asking you if you do.



See? This is exactly what I am talking about. I said McCain's tactics were fearmongering, which you cannot for one single solitary moment, with any amount of credibility, deny. If you choose to take an argument about McCain's campaign personally, that's not my fault, and you can't ever claim that it is.



That's because they were an honest call. However, when I saw a steady stream of posts which were nothing but fear-based tactics, I pointed each and every one of them out. Until now, I haven't had a problem with your posts, either. However, I think you are overreacting and taking personally an argument based towards McCain. The part about his supporters was asking for a non-fear based argument. Then I even pointed out some examples of arguments that had been used, taxes and the war. I was asking, you know, what else do you have?

If you don't have anything else, that's fine. But you really are the only one climbing down in the mud and winging insults at your opponent here. Point out one instance where I insulted you. Attacking McCain for fearmongering and asking a McCain supporter to give me an issue-based argument, that's not a personal insult. Should you choose to take it that way, I can't help you.

I challenge you to quote me, once, where I did insult even one member of the opposition here on this thread. If you cannot, then you need to stop posturing and stop throwing insults. You haven't convinced anyone I warranted such disrespect.



You know, you can keep being nasty to me, and I'm just going to keep on doing what I've been doing, pointing out McCain's campaign has been nasty, and asking for a debate, especially one based on the issues.

The more you try to attack my feelings, the less effective your argument is, and the less credibility you have. If you would like to stop firing disrespect in my direction, we can discuss this further. I'm not sure what kind of case someone can make for a respectful campaign when all you're doing is disrespect. You may have feelings of righteous indignation, but they aren't coming from a rational criticism of my arguments. I don't know where they are coming from, but they are misplaced.



You fail to give me any specific reason you're supporting McCain, once again. Since we're going around in circles, and you aren't answering my pointed questions, I can safely say you've conceded the argument.




You paint a picture of me that is inaccurate. I am asking where the big ideas are, but I'm not looking down my nose at you, which is something you yourself are guilty of doing to me. I am respecting you enough to ask you, in this stage of the game, do you have anything besides an attack-Obama argument? And what is that argument, exactly?

I didn't really hear one from the 100% negative McCain advertisements, I didn't hear one from his or her stump speeches. What I heard was very vague, if they were referring to the issues. They spent more time invoking Obama's name than they did discussing why their ideas were better.

I didn't hear that argument from his political action committees, or any of the advertisers unaffiliated with the campaign, which admittedly McCain isn't technically responsible for. But it would be nice if someone down the line were spreading the word about conservatism, which is something I'd appreciate.

I'd like to hear McCain's conservative positions on issues. But since he's supported the Neoconservatives, in particular Bush and Cheney, he's gone far off-track from conservative principles. That would be fine, but he's failed to present an alternative ideology apart from neoconservatism, which has failed us for 8 years. And even if he were up there spreading neoconservative ideology, he could simply be honestly a believer in that philosophy. But since I've seen him spend more time discussing Obama, and not even about the issues Obama stands for, than his own big ideas, I question whether or not he has them, or if he's proud enough of those ideas to run a campaign based on those ideas.



I'd take that challenge. For one, Obama is supporting a tax cut or non-increase for the bottom 95% of wage earners. Obama is proposing a healthcare plan that is substantially different from Hillary's because it does not mandate coverage for adults that cannot afford it, i.e. me. Obama is talking about a withdrawl of the troops from Iraq, effective immediately, to be completed in roughly 18 months... but the precise details may change according to conditions on the ground.

I could go on, but since you've failed to show respect to me, and failed to answer my challenge, I don't feel obligated.


Your candidate has failed to live up to these ideals. I don't want to use an appeal to authority argument, but since I'm not qualified to say, ask anyone with expertise whether or not McCain's plan balances the budget. Ask any economist whether or not his plan is good for the economy. Even Republicans inside the McCain camp agree that his healthcare plan is actually worse than the current employer based plans. All of McCain's ideas are bad ideas that don't address the healthcare crisis, don't balance the budget, and don't jump-start the economy.

I can't speak to what he will do in office. I can only go by his track record, which is a supporter of GWB 90% of the time. I don't believe a 10% change is going to cut the mustard.



"Only an idiot would do that" is a logical fallacy. It not only overgeneralizes, but it places an insult on anyone who might disagree with you. Argument ad hominem abusive. You discredit yourself by using such tone and rhetoric in your arguments. This has no place in a rational debate or discussion.

One could make the argument that someone who repeats the same action over and over, expecting a different result, is insane. Since McCain represents at least 90% of the same actions as George W Bush, expecting big changes from the McCain camp is irrational.

I could say further that when McCain's ideas are so bad and discredited that he's forced to spend all his time talking about his opponent in a fearmongering way, that he himself knows his ideas are bad, and it's plainly obvious to everyone who's watched this campaign, he's not very comfortable talking about the issues.

So far, I could safely say that you aren't either. You seem very reluctant. You keep directing me to McCain's page, but that's not a response to my inquiry. Why do YOU support John McCain, and is it possible for you to respond without attacking me in an ad hominem way, or relying on fallacy?

You admit that the Republicans under GWB have failed, utterly failed, to live up to their ideals. While McCain split with Bush in past elections, his positions have never been all that different. He had 8 years to show the difference between himself and Bush, and he failed to do so. Now, he's running his campaign and getting advice from the same people Bush and Cheney did, using the same smear tactics and talking points, and ignoring their record and denying any accountability.

You have to see this, whether you support McCain or not. He's living under the same ideology, relying on the same advisors, the same track record, and the same false arguments. So, I repeat, why are you supporting him? Why would he be any significant difference from GWB? How will he bring about more and better change than Obama, as a washington insider supporting current administration policy?

You can't just keep referring me back to McCain's page. If you wish to concede, do so. But don't insult me.


Yes, I am wondering why good intelligent people continue to resort to pointing out wingnuts who will have no impact on the policy and direction of this country, rather than discuss why their candidate is better, particularly in an election year.



You have yet to touch any of the issues or respond to any of my arguments.



Since this is a general election commentary and analysis page, may I suggest another more exciting thread? You've offered no analysis and you've criticized and insulted me for offering some.



As soon as you point out one example of hypocrisy, I'd be delighted. If you aren't here to defend McCain, offer analysis, or any insight, then why are you here? If you don't want to debate the issues, why are you here? Since you won't respond to my points, won't begin to challenge my assertions, don't deny my arguments, and claim that to do so would be "boring", I have to wonder why you're even directing commentary toward me.



I won't repeat myself, here, but I will summarize.

I haven't attacked you personally, as you have towards me. I have discussed the issues, you haven't. I have asked for a respectful tone, and you've demonstrated disrespect. I've challenged McCain supporters to a debate, and only one has responded so far, and he's admitted he's not a Bush or McCain apologist, and so therefore wouldn't be the one I should be debating here. We'll have a public or private discussion between us, respectfully, to see where one another stands, but until we figure out where we differ, we can't even debate. You claim you are willing to debate me, but won't deny any of my accusations, won't respond to my questions, continue to lob insults at me, and refuse to offer a case defending your own candidate, and claim that doing so would be boring.

In short, you've conceded the argument, in it's entirety. Unless you begin to respond to my points, I will have to do what so many others have done, which is ignore you. I don't want to do that, because I'd like for us to have a respectful discussion. I just haven't seen one from you, and I've done my best to offer mine.

If you dislike me personally, that's cool too. Fire me off a private message and get it out of your system. But don't pretend that anyone who might jump from the sinking ship of the Republican party must therefore be an idiot. Don't pretend I'm being hypocritical when your one example of such behavior is faulty. Don't accuse me of whining when you refuse to have a proper debate.

I'm perfectly capable, as I've shown here on this thread, of taking my own side to task for not having a respectful debate. I'm capable, as I've shown, in demonstrating respect and politeness for the opposing side, and with good humor. I'm capable, as you've seen, in talking to you with respect, even if I have to take you to task for not doing so consistently. We are both capable, I assume, of having a pleasant discussion which talks about the candidates in an impersonal way, and discussing the issues.

If you don't want to do that, then don't respond. I won't be offended and I'll probably forget the whole thing in a matter of hours. I really don't get my jollies offending people or sniping in a public forum, and if I've upset or offended you unintentionally, you have my sincere apologies. I will say, however, that nothing I've said was directed at you, aside from asking for a debate on the issues, and a more respectful one at that.

If you want to have a debate about Keating Five and Ayers, that's fine. If you want to have a debate on Obama's big ears or McCain's ear hair, that's fine. If you want to decry all Republicans or Democrats alike in one fell swoop, that's fine. But unless you want to debate the issues, let's move on. If you respond, I'll be obligated to do so, but not unless we start talking issues. If you don't, I'm not going to bother you about it.

I don't want to be condescending, as it's not my intention at all, so please keep in mind when I continue, I'm not looking down my nose at you, I'm trying to help. If I were to offer you advice, it's that criticizing a candidate on the issues, or their tactics, it's all perfectly legitimate, and it's nothing personal. Challenging someone to a debate on the issues, it may be boring, but it's not personal. In my opinion, you're taking this too personally. Just let it go, man.

Honest criticism is different from insults.


PWNED!!!

[PanzerJaeger]

Continuing the ATPG-PJ discussion... in spoilers as it's lengthy.



I asked McCain supporters if they had an argument besides fear. That's different from calling them "idiots", "hypocrites", and "whiners". I know that you know the difference, so I won't condescend by asking you if you do.



See? This is exactly what I am talking about. I said McCain's tactics were fearmongering, which you cannot for one single solitary moment, with any amount of credibility, deny. If you choose to take an argument about McCain's campaign personally, that's not my fault, and you can't ever claim that it is.



That's because they were an honest call. However, when I saw a steady stream of posts which were nothing but fear-based tactics, I pointed each and every one of them out. Until now, I haven't had a problem with your posts, either. However, I think you are overreacting and taking personally an argument based towards McCain. The part about his supporters was asking for a non-fear based argument. Then I even pointed out some examples of arguments that had been used, taxes and the war. I was asking, you know, what else do you have?

If you don't have anything else, that's fine. But you really are the only one climbing down in the mud and winging insults at your opponent here. Point out one instance where I insulted you. Attacking McCain for fearmongering and asking a McCain supporter to give me an issue-based argument, that's not a personal insult. Should you choose to take it that way, I can't help you.

I challenge you to quote me, once, where I did insult even one member of the opposition here on this thread. If you cannot, then you need to stop posturing and stop throwing insults. You haven't convinced anyone I warranted such disrespect.



You know, you can keep being nasty to me, and I'm just going to keep on doing what I've been doing, pointing out McCain's campaign has been nasty, and asking for a debate, especially one based on the issues.

The more you try to attack my feelings, the less effective your argument is, and the less credibility you have. If you would like to stop firing disrespect in my direction, we can discuss this further. I'm not sure what kind of case someone can make for a respectful campaign when all you're doing is disrespect. You may have feelings of righteous indignation, but they aren't coming from a rational criticism of my arguments. I don't know where they are coming from, but they are misplaced.



You fail to give me any specific reason you're supporting McCain, once again. Since we're going around in circles, and you aren't answering my pointed questions, I can safely say you've conceded the argument.




You paint a picture of me that is inaccurate. I am asking where the big ideas are, but I'm not looking down my nose at you, which is something you yourself are guilty of doing to me. I am respecting you enough to ask you, in this stage of the game, do you have anything besides an attack-Obama argument? And what is that argument, exactly?

I didn't really hear one from the 100% negative McCain advertisements, I didn't hear one from his or her stump speeches. What I heard was very vague, if they were referring to the issues. They spent more time invoking Obama's name than they did discussing why their ideas were better.

I didn't hear that argument from his political action committees, or any of the advertisers unaffiliated with the campaign, which admittedly McCain isn't technically responsible for. But it would be nice if someone down the line were spreading the word about conservatism, which is something I'd appreciate.

I'd like to hear McCain's conservative positions on issues. But since he's supported the Neoconservatives, in particular Bush and Cheney, he's gone far off-track from conservative principles. That would be fine, but he's failed to present an alternative ideology apart from neoconservatism, which has failed us for 8 years. And even if he were up there spreading neoconservative ideology, he could simply be honestly a believer in that philosophy. But since I've seen him spend more time discussing Obama, and not even about the issues Obama stands for, than his own big ideas, I question whether or not he has them, or if he's proud enough of those ideas to run a campaign based on those ideas.



I'd take that challenge. For one, Obama is supporting a tax cut or non-increase for the bottom 95% of wage earners. Obama is proposing a healthcare plan that is substantially different from Hillary's because it does not mandate coverage for adults that cannot afford it, i.e. me. Obama is talking about a withdrawl of the troops from Iraq, effective immediately, to be completed in roughly 18 months... but the precise details may change according to conditions on the ground.

I could go on, but since you've failed to show respect to me, and failed to answer my challenge, I don't feel obligated.


Your candidate has failed to live up to these ideals. I don't want to use an appeal to authority argument, but since I'm not qualified to say, ask anyone with expertise whether or not McCain's plan balances the budget. Ask any economist whether or not his plan is good for the economy. Even Republicans inside the McCain camp agree that his healthcare plan is actually worse than the current employer based plans. All of McCain's ideas are bad ideas that don't address the healthcare crisis, don't balance the budget, and don't jump-start the economy.

I can't speak to what he will do in office. I can only go by his track record, which is a supporter of GWB 90% of the time. I don't believe a 10% change is going to cut the mustard.



"Only an idiot would do that" is a logical fallacy. It not only overgeneralizes, but it places an insult on anyone who might disagree with you. Argument ad hominem abusive. You discredit yourself by using such tone and rhetoric in your arguments. This has no place in a rational debate or discussion.

One could make the argument that someone who repeats the same action over and over, expecting a different result, is insane. Since McCain represents at least 90% of the same actions as George W Bush, expecting big changes from the McCain camp is irrational.

I could say further that when McCain's ideas are so bad and discredited that he's forced to spend all his time talking about his opponent in a fearmongering way, that he himself knows his ideas are bad, and it's plainly obvious to everyone who's watched this campaign, he's not very comfortable talking about the issues.

So far, I could safely say that you aren't either. You seem very reluctant. You keep directing me to McCain's page, but that's not a response to my inquiry. Why do YOU support John McCain, and is it possible for you to respond without attacking me in an ad hominem way, or relying on fallacy?

You admit that the Republicans under GWB have failed, utterly failed, to live up to their ideals. While McCain split with Bush in past elections, his positions have never been all that different. He had 8 years to show the difference between himself and Bush, and he failed to do so. Now, he's running his campaign and getting advice from the same people Bush and Cheney did, using the same smear tactics and talking points, and ignoring their record and denying any accountability.

You have to see this, whether you support McCain or not. He's living under the same ideology, relying on the same advisors, the same track record, and the same false arguments. So, I repeat, why are you supporting him? Why would he be any significant difference from GWB? How will he bring about more and better change than Obama, as a washington insider supporting current administration policy?

You can't just keep referring me back to McCain's page. If you wish to concede, do so. But don't insult me.


Yes, I am wondering why good intelligent people continue to resort to pointing out wingnuts who will have no impact on the policy and direction of this country, rather than discuss why their candidate is better, particularly in an election year.



You have yet to touch any of the issues or respond to any of my arguments.



Since this is a general election commentary and analysis page, may I suggest another more exciting thread? You've offered no analysis and you've criticized and insulted me for offering some.



As soon as you point out one example of hypocrisy, I'd be delighted. If you aren't here to defend McCain, offer analysis, or any insight, then why are you here? If you don't want to debate the issues, why are you here? Since you won't respond to my points, won't begin to challenge my assertions, don't deny my arguments, and claim that to do so would be "boring", I have to wonder why you're even directing commentary toward me.



I won't repeat myself, here, but I will summarize.

I haven't attacked you personally, as you have towards me. I have discussed the issues, you haven't. I have asked for a respectful tone, and you've demonstrated disrespect. I've challenged McCain supporters to a debate, and only one has responded so far, and he's admitted he's not a Bush or McCain apologist, and so therefore wouldn't be the one I should be debating here. We'll have a public or private discussion between us, respectfully, to see where one another stands, but until we figure out where we differ, we can't even debate. You claim you are willing to debate me, but won't deny any of my accusations, won't respond to my questions, continue to lob insults at me, and refuse to offer a case defending your own candidate, and claim that doing so would be boring.

In short, you've conceded the argument, in it's entirety. Unless you begin to respond to my points, I will have to do what so many others have done, which is ignore you. I don't want to do that, because I'd like for us to have a respectful discussion. I just haven't seen one from you, and I've done my best to offer mine.

If you dislike me personally, that's cool too. Fire me off a private message and get it out of your system. But don't pretend that anyone who might jump from the sinking ship of the Republican party must therefore be an idiot. Don't pretend I'm being hypocritical when your one example of such behavior is faulty. Don't accuse me of whining when you refuse to have a proper debate.

I'm perfectly capable, as I've shown here on this thread, of taking my own side to task for not having a respectful debate. I'm capable, as I've shown, in demonstrating respect and politeness for the opposing side, and with good humor. I'm capable, as you've seen, in talking to you with respect, even if I have to take you to task for not doing so consistently. We are both capable, I assume, of having a pleasant discussion which talks about the candidates in an impersonal way, and discussing the issues.

If you don't want to do that, then don't respond. I won't be offended and I'll probably forget the whole thing in a matter of hours. I really don't get my jollies offending people or sniping in a public forum, and if I've upset or offended you unintentionally, you have my sincere apologies. I will say, however, that nothing I've said was directed at you, aside from asking for a debate on the issues, and a more respectful one at that.

If you want to have a debate about Keating Five and Ayers, that's fine. If you want to have a debate on Obama's big ears or McCain's ear hair, that's fine. If you want to decry all Republicans or Democrats alike in one fell swoop, that's fine. But unless you want to debate the issues, let's move on. If you respond, I'll be obligated to do so, but not unless we start talking issues. If you don't, I'm not going to bother you about it.

I don't want to be condescending, as it's not my intention at all, so please keep in mind when I continue, I'm not looking down my nose at you, I'm trying to help. If I were to offer you advice, it's that criticizing a candidate on the issues, or their tactics, it's all perfectly legitimate, and it's nothing personal. Challenging someone to a debate on the issues, it may be boring, but it's not personal. In my opinion, you're taking this too personally. Just let it go, man.

Honest criticism is different from insults.


Oh my God that was long, brilliantly passive aggressive, and it played well with the peanut gallery. Well done. :2thumbsup:

I appreciate the time you took to write it, though.

I'll take your word for it that you were not trying to be insulting. I think that if I had come into the thread and made a statement such as:

"All I hear from you Obama supporters is bitching and moaning, can't you argue your points without whinging?"

... it would be taken as a personal shot at the Obama supporters on the board. I have a hard time seeing how it could be interpreted any other way.

Thats just semantics, though. As to your substantive points - "fear" and "Why are you voting for McCain?"

-First of all, as I said, I think its rather a stretch to claim the GOP is using fear tactics when Obama has continually stated that McCain wants to be in Iraq for the next 100 years, a scare tactic that any reporter will admit is completely taken out of context. This coming from a guy who has based a significant portion of his campaign on making people afraid that McCain will be 4 more years of Bush.

In any event, I'm not so sure what's wrong with questioning Obama's socialist tendencies. The man has repeatedly made comments about redistributing wealth, and even wrote himself that he aligned himself with marxist professors.

And what’s wrong with bringing up Obama's connection to Ayers? Its not fear, its the truth. Many Americans would not break bread with the man, and wonder why Obama would. (Note that Wrev. Wright has not been mentioned.

The muslim stuff and the rest of the crap you mentioned is not sanctioned by the McCain campaign so I don't feel the need to defend it.

In any event, these questions aren't so much fear tactics, as they are questions about the man's judgment, which are very valid for a political figure new to the scene. John McCain has been around for years and his history is well documented in the minds of the voters, but Obama's is not. You seem to be equating any questioning of his judgment with fear tactics.

Yes McCain & Co want the voter to question whether they know enough about Barack and his plans to vote for him. If you want to say that's evoking fear, well that’s your call - but I hope you'd apply that same standard to Obama's campaign.

-Personally, my biggest issues are taxes and the war. My family stands to lose a substantial amount of money under Obama, and I don't appreciate that our hard earned wealth will be delivered via government check to people who don't even pay taxes. It's insulting. Apart from the personal loss, the family business will stand to lose big - very big under a 15% rise in the capital gains tax among others. In this economy, I don't think a traditional tax and spend liberal is right for the job. As to the war, I think that’s self explanatory, but I will expand if you like.


I hope no one thinks there's any bad blood here. Apart from a minor disagreement, I don't have a problem with PJ and I'm not out to get him.


Yep, no problems here. It's all in fun.. :drama3:]


PJ was being snide and vindictive, about par for his usual performance. Any well wishes ring very hollowly.

Am I sensing some bitterness over the WW2 thread? Hopefully we can mend those bruised feelings.. :date:

[Koga No Goshi]

"All I hear from you Obama supporters is bitching and moaning, can't you argue your points without whinging?"

... it would be taken as a personal shot at the Obama supporters on the board. I have a hard time seeing how it could be interpreted any other way.


You honestly do not see the difference between "can someone give me an argument for McCain other than fear tactics and links to extremist doomsday predictions of an Obama presidency" and "all you do is b**** and moan and whine?"

That's not exactly a tit for tat.


Personally, my biggest issues are taxes and the war. My family stands to lose a substantial amount of money under Obama, and I don't appreciate that our hard earned wealth will be delivered via government check to people who don't even pay taxes. It's insulting. Apart from the personal loss, the family business will stand to lose big - very big under a 15% rise in the capital gains tax among others. In this economy, I don't think a traditional tax and spend liberal is right for the job. As to the war, I think that’s self explanatory, but I will expand if you like.

Other than reverting to an anarchy and cancelling public education, how do you propose these wars, which you so heavily support, should be paid for? Have you not noticed we are 10 trillion in debt? And the credit card cost of the war is off the books and we haven't even reckoned with it yet. No one "wants" to pay taxes. But I fail to see how "I don't like them" is a solution, especially when we are in enormous debt and deficit at the same time.

[KarlXII]

and it played well with the peanut gallery

I see.......you ever look into a mirror?

[PanzerJaeger]

You honestly do not see the difference between "can someone give me an argument for McCain other than fear tactics and links to extremist doomsday predictions of an Obama presidency" and "all you do is b**** and moan and whine?"

That's not exactly a tit for tat.

His exact quote was:


All I hear from you McCain supporters is worry and fear. Where are all your big ideas? Can you try to win this country back, or even govern effectively, without invoking fear?

That's slightly insulting, but as he said, that was not his intention.



Other than reverting to an anarchy and cancelling public education, how do you propose these wars, which you so heavily support, should be paid for?

Certainly not by sending checks to people who don't even pay taxes! :laugh4:




I see.......you ever look into a mirror?

Every day. Narcissism consumes. :thumbsdown:

[Koga No Goshi]

His exact quote was:

That's slightly insulting, but as he said, that was not his intention.

Pizza made a challenge to any of the McCain supporters to debate him. No one responded. People just continued to post links to extremist "oh noes" links about what will happen if Obama is President. If that is all anyone is capable of doing by way of supporting McCain, then Pizza's point stands as completely fair. If not, why is it not a single person is willing to take him up? If the points are evident and clear and numerous like you implied in your previous post, how come no one is discussing them, and instead only talking about how horrible and awful an Obama Presidency would be?


Certainly not by sending checks to people who don't even pay taxes! :laugh4:

Good thing you don't live in the "Socialist" 50's, where double Obama's 39% rate would have applied ey?

So, you're not in the armed forces, and you are deadset against taxes. We see the extent of your support for the war. It's a good war, if it's fought by others, and paid for by others. If anyone does have to pay for it, it should come at the cost of people far less fortunate than your family.

Got it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Pizza made a challenge to any of the McCain supporters to debate him. No one responded. People just continued to post links to extremist "oh noes" links about what will happen if Obama is President. If that is all anyone is capable of doing by way of supporting McCain, then Pizza's point stands as completely fair. If not, why is it not a single person is willing to take him up? If the points are evident and clear and numerous like you implied in your previous post, how come no one is discussing them, and instead only talking about how horrible and awful an Obama Presidency would be?

I'm finding the sudden outrage over links to extremists a little confusing, as my dear friend Lemur - now completely out of the closet for O - started that trend. :inquisitive:

I think it has proliferated not so much because no one can make an argument for McCain, but because the stories are quick to post and funny to read.

Not everyone has 2 hours a day to hash out the same issues that have been debated over and over again... 3 times by the candidates themselves.

Personally, I sometimes don't have time for the backroom so I missed his call for a debate.




So, you're not in the armed forces, and you are deadset against taxes. We see the extent of your support for the war. It's a good war, if it's fought by others, and paid for by others. If anyone does have to pay for it, it should come at the cost of people far less fortunate than your family.

Got it.

That argument would hold some credence if:

a) Obama was raising taxes to pay for the war, not send checks to America's Next Top Derilict

b) my family was not already paying a far larger percentage of taxes than people less fortunate.. 90% last time I checked... Hell, the fact that we do pay taxes at all makes us far more financially supportive of the war that a huge swath of the unwashed.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm finding the sudden outrage over links to extremists a little confusing, as my dear friend Lemur - now completely out of the closet for O - started that trend. :inquisitive:

I think it has proliferated not so much because no one can make an argument for McCain, but because the stories are quick to post and funny to read.

Not everyone has 2 hours a day to hash out the same issues that have been debated over and over again... 3 times by the candidates themselves.

Personally, I sometimes don't have time for the backroom so I missed his call for a debate.

The difference is, Lemur or I or anyone else could make a proactive case for Obama, like Pizza did. When called out to do the same all the rest of you just continue to point to how bad Obama would be.


That argument would hold some credence if:

a) Obama was raising taxes to pay for the war, not send checks to America's Next Top Derilict

b) my family was not already paying a far larger percentage of taxes than people less fortunate.. 90% last time I checked... Hell, the fact that we do pay taxes at all makes us far more financially supportive of the war that a huge swath of the unwashed.

Obama wants to RESTORE the tax rate to where it was before Bush's favor-the-rich tax policies were instituted, as one way to help reduce the deficit. I'm sure you're not implying that the underfunding of NCLB and Bush's large increases in social services to "people not paying taxes" are the reasons the deficit doubled under his Presidency, and government spending exploded. I'll give you a hint as to what did that in large part. One starts with an "I." The other starts with an "A."

Your family pays 90% of its income in taxes? That's amazing, considering it's not even possible in the current tax structure. It would, interestingly, have been possible in the "Socialist past." And under Reagan your rich daddy's tax burden would have been 11% higher than it will be under Obama. Following your argument to its most logical extreme, basically any tax burden is too high. Because your family's money is "hard earned" (as opposed to anyone else's, apparently) and the fact that it is far more than they need for things like basic housing or life necessities should be overlooked as the difference your family pays more than people earning massively less.

Honestly, I think you are just begging to be called out as a hypocrite when you feel your family has some kind of special entitlement to not help pay for the deficit that the wars you support helped create. Saying that you wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't going to "people who don't pay tax" sounds like just an excuse. I wouldn't mind paying more if none of it was going to pointless, fruitless overseas wars that direct hostility back to the U.S. and are counterproductive. But that doesn't stop me from paying my taxes. I was against this war from the start but I'm still going to do my share to help pay off the debt, because doing otherwise is just shafting it off on future generations. Very patriotic. At least this way we're sure it's not going to any non-workers, right?

[LittleGrizzly]

Out of interest what is McCain planning to do about the defecit ?

I haven't heard much in the way of spending cuts, and i imagine with mccain staying in iraq for a good few years that he needs even more money for all his plans, so he's going to spend more than mccain and tax less than obama... ok not the most sensible stratergy, this tax cutting and increased spending is just incredibly irresponsible... if you want incredibly expensive wars then you have to pay for them, putting it all on a credit card for your children and grandchildren is very selfish, don if your really worried about your children being homeless then think about what all these years of republican borrowing and spending will do to your childrens future, obama is doing the responsible thing by increasing taxes as if your going to spend huge amounts of money you also need to bring in huge amounts of money...

Honestly i see this 'obama is going to get my thrown out on the street' as either scare tactics working or a cheap excuse to stick to a republican vote... we constantly talk about how much politicians love power... what makes you think obama is going to be idiotic enough to make the middle classes homeless en masse ? the answer quite simply is he will not, he's going to raise taxes on the top (is 5% i forget ?) just reversing the tax cuts bush made, which considering the huge spending increases under his administration is just sensible policy...

Your average worker doesn't decide to work less hours and then massively increase his personal spending, it is a recipe for finaincial disastier... what confuses me even more is that its the party of finiancial responsibility (apparently, i don't believe this for a second, the party of wreckless spending and debts as far as im concerned) and its supporters that seem to think this is a good idea... why ?!


BTW, i remember hearing at the time of bush's tax cuts that the reduced taxes would increase growth to the point where the tax loss would be made up from extra taxes from new growth.... how did this work out ?

[Tribesman]

Alright Don I have been looking around, and not at Dem blogs, at financial blogs.

Bloody hell Koga , it took you quite a while to find that it all originated with one journalist who twisted facts to make up a story and that all the rest is based on that one misrepresentation .


Out of interest what is McCain planning to do about the defecit ?

He has a bag of magic beans which joe six pack can plant which should enable joe to reach the giants store of gold in the sky at which point a new tax on bean accessed capital gains will be imposed thus reducing the defecit considerably . Though of course some have pointed out that his bean linked tax would be a redistribution of wealth which is kinda like that really scary socialism .

[Ronin]

Everbody's going rogue!!! (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189759&title=goin-rogue)
*cue dramatic music* :wiseguy:

[Hooahguy]

Yeah w/e :dizzy2:,
so you were attempting to rewrite history then .
no, but arguing with you is pointless, since none of us will accept defeat.... :beam:

[Tribesman]

no,
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You made simple mistakes , firstly an assumption that I hadn't read the book you cite as your source of knowledge and secondly you missed that the nature of American-Israeli relations has been discussed many many times in this forum and as Redleg always likes to point out whenever someone mentions the relationship ...it didn't start at the begining of the creation of the state , it came about a long time later .
So while you may say
but arguing with you is pointless, since none of us will accept defeat.... what you mean is that you made a statement that wasn't true , you then tried to make it sorta true if you can manage to completely change the parameters of it , then you give it the big whatever ...so what you really mean is that you have been shown to be wrong but are too misguided to accept the obvious:thumbsdown:

[Don Corleone]

Alright Don I have been looking around, and not at Dem blogs, at financial blogs.

From one:

(http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html) Absolutely no mention on the status of this, just that this one person presented this one plan to the House. *Shrug* Ever watched West Wing? I'm sure they get all kinds of unworkable proposals and presentations all the time, like how to run the economy on foo foo string.

Here (http://kevincolby.com/2008/10/23/could-our-own-government-seize-control-of-your-retirement-accounts/) is a clearly right-wing blog talking about the same thing being done in Argentina and how the "Obama/Moveon.org left" would LOVE to do the same. Pure conjecture and fearmongering.

From another blog (http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/after_we_take_over_the_government). This blogger insists that the Dems are going to do this.... on absolutely no basis which he bothers to cite.

From http://news-cycle.blogspot.com/2008/10/democrats-consider-eliminating-401-k.html

Are considering. Then it quotes the same thing as above, that the House invited someone to present their theory.

from http://blog.freemarkets.ca/article/98.


Alright Don. I've read every article on the whole first page from doing a search on "seizing private retirement accounts." And they all gave precisely the same information, one economist came and spoke about her proposed plan. That's all. Not "and the Dems were excited about the idea", not "The Dems are moving ahead with a bill to implement it", nothing. Where you are getting your certitude that this is a sinister Democratic certainty in the works, unless it's from some lunatic far right news source, has eluded me.

Screaming bloody murder that the Dems are on the verge of wiping out your retirement seems just a TAD overdramatic at this point. One speaker came and gave a presentation to the House. If a Palestinian came and gave a presentation to the House I think it would be a bit premature to start screaming that we are about to nuke Israel.

You said earlier something to the effect of "make no mistake, Pelosi is trying to move ahead with this on the quiet." Where do you get this stuff? Leftover nightmares? Right wing blogs? I see nothing of the sort in any news I have been able to find.


Apparently you missed the quote from the Committee chariman that was holding the hearings. I'll repost it for you, for your information:

“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.

“That is part of the discussion,” he said.




She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.

Aspects of her plan (not necessarily what the committe is proposing) include:

-A mandated 5% tax on your gross earnings, to be put into an untouchable fund.
-The government will manage that money until you retire, including a $600 a year contribution of its own.
-You will get a guaranteed 3% return on your money, no more, no less.
-In short, she reinvented Social Security!


I've said all along that the most likely scenario is that the tax breaks will be halted. I said it was unlikely, but under consideration, that the committee would transfer 401k holdings into government managed accounts. I'm railing against the idea that they're even considering it. Sure, I'm being alarmist. If somebody walks into a playground, waving an Uzi, I'm not going to say "Well, he hasn't shot anybody yet, I should wait until he does".

[Don Corleone]

P.S. I'm deeply disappointed in everyone (except Strike) over the age of 25 that didn't get my Chris Farley reference. That was one of the best comedy skits of all time.

[Tribesman]

“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,”
That doesn't say "this plan is really good and we are going to adopt it" does it .

“That is part of the discussion,”
Wow , a part of the discussion was a part of the discussion .


I'm railing against the idea that they're even considering it.
The thing there Don is the pension plans are buggered at the moment so a meeting like that is supposed to consider all that is put to it , even if the pensions were not buggered the meeting would still have to consider all that was put to it .


Sure, I'm being alarmist.
You can go to the top of the street and shout that while holding a banner just in case someone didn't realise~;)

[Strike For The South]

P.S. I'm deeply disappointed in everyone (except Strike) over the age of 25 that didn't get my Chris Farley reference. That was one of the best comedy skits of all time.

It is the best followed closely by superfans.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Economist endorses Senator Obama (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box_main) for the presidency.


There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

[Kralizec]

Good article.


Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
[...]
Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
[...]
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

So true...

[Koga No Goshi]

The Economist endorses Senator Obama (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12516666&source=features_box_main) for the presidency.


There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrMVVO_iYxA

*Whistles and watches Obama speak*

[Lemur]

Meanwhile, George F. Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903199.html?nav%3Drss_op3/26http://www.washingtonpost.chttp://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&sub=AR) throws McCain under a bus. I guess Will is nota "conservative" anymore, right?


From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days. [...]

Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: "So, who is the villain?" [...]

"We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.

[Don Corleone]

George F. Will? That socialist? :laugh4:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :clown: Seriously, he did raise a silver lining. Obama's campaign, characterized by hundreds of thousands of small donations should once and for all settle the ridiculous notion that limiting free speech will somehow lead to cleaner politics.

[Spino]

Meanwhile, George F. Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903199.html?nav%3Drss_op3/26http://www.washingtonpost.chttp://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&sub=AR) throws McCain under a bus. I guess Will is nota "conservative" anymore, right?


From the invasion of Iraq to the selection of Sarah Palin, carelessness has characterized recent episodes of faux conservatism. Tuesday's probable repudiation of the Republican Party will punish characteristics displayed in the campaign's closing days. [...]

Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: "So, who is the villain?" [...]

"We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.

No, George Will is simply yet another conservative who feels they don't have a genuinely conservative horse in this race. Traditional Republicans like Will are bitter over GW's decidedly un-Republican policies and the prospect of having a Democratic friendly Republican in office who may lose his conservative backbone in face of overwhelming opposition in Congress is not encouraging. Overall it's safe to say the Republican party's view of McCain is lukewarm at best. Unlike Democrats who are content keep silent while tossing their ideological grandmother under the bus in order to get one of their own in office Republicans are balkanized, bitter and are lashing out.

[Louis VI the Fat]

[George F. Will]:
The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.

One excellent result of this election cycle is that public financing of presidential campaigns now seems sillier than ever. I fully agree with Will's characterisation of the Republicans and McCain. He is however a bit off with his description of small donations to Obama. Five hundred thousand people donating twenty dollars and three large givers of ten million dollars each makes for an average of roughly $80. Will should know this, I think? And he overlooks a fourth criticism that's levelled at private campaign financing. That of transparancy. Take, for example, questions about Obama's campaign donations.

One is, that there are reported irregularities about Obama's 'small' donations:

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold. “Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.


In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”


A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

A second question concerns Obama's lax - one would say: welcoming - attitude towards non-US citizen contributors. These contributions are illegal under US law.

Hillary would not accept donations from non-US citizens. No matter how hard some people tried and this was most frustrating and
Obama, on the other hand, does, or did, allow non-US citizen (http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html)contributions.
Which makes me think that all you conservatives here are amateurs. Because here's for some real scaremongering:

Obama financed by Palestinians, Nigerians, Libyans, Iran - and France?

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” which the FEC often uses as an abbreviation for "information requested." Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680. But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.


In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.


At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.


The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.


Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.


In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.


“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."


Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.


The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.


Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.


One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.


In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.


Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.


A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.


Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.


The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.


The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.


According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.


Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.


The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.


A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.


But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.


Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.


The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.


“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”


FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.


This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.


Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”


Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.


CLARIFICATION

The original version of this story, published on this Web site Sept. 29, reported that the "IR" listed on 520 overseas donations is "often an abbreviation for Iran."


However, FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said Oct. 7 that “IR” generally means “information requested,” not Iran. “That’s often, but not always, what it means,” he said.



Don't take Newsmax word for it. Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403) and the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html) reported about the similar issues.
(Hah! That's what you get for beating Hillary by foul means, such as accepting illegal foreign campaign contributions, Barack. The internets are full of vindictive people who remember your Libyan financers at inopportune moments :smash:)

[Koga No Goshi]

No, George Will is simply yet another conservative who feels they don't have a genuinely conservative horse in this race. Traditional Republicans like Will are bitter over GW's decidedly un-Republican policies

Completely understandable.

However, this very same point makes it a total mystery how anyone from Lemur to Askthepizzaguy get castigated as a partisan liberal socialist for voting Obama.

[LittleGrizzly]

Unlike Democrats who are content keep silent while tossing their ideological grandmother under the bus in order to get one of their own in office

I suppose all the conservatives supporting Bush in '04 must have a big goverment and defecit ideaology... but anyway let me get this straight... the majority of democrats are secretly marxist and so is obama... so aren't they holding to thier idealogical values ? whereas Mccain isn't to liked among our more conservative members, i forgotten what the acronym was but its a democrat dressed up as a republican... (swop socialist for pinko or commie or whatever you think of democrats and obama)

Your above this kind of partisan nonsene

[Koga No Goshi]

Unlike Democrats who are content keep silent while tossing their ideological grandmother under the bus in order to get one of their own in office

I suppose all the conservatives supporting Bush in '04 must have a big goverment and defecit ideaology... but anyway let me get this straight... the majority of democrats are secretly marxist and so is obama... so aren't they holding to thier idealogical values ? whereas Mccain isn't to liked among our more conservative members, i forgotten what the acronym was but its a democrat dressed up as a republican... (swop socialist for pinko or commie or whatever you think of democrats and obama)

Your above this kind of partisan nonsene

As a friend said, the cognitive dissonance among conservatives voting for the Republican party is much higher right now than progressives voting for Democrats. Anyone who voted Bush and is going to vote McCain should rightly be laughed off their soapbox calling themselves conservative or saying they stand for fiscal responsibility or small government.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Completely understandable.

However, this very same point makes it a total mystery how anyone from Lemur to Askthepizzaguy get castigated as a partisan liberal socialist for voting Obama.

Don't forget the "drug-addled, bed-wetting, effete snob" part. Didn't you get them memo?

[Xiahou]

Completely understandable.

However, this very same point makes it a total mystery how anyone from Lemur to Askthepizzaguy get castigated as a partisan liberal socialist for voting Obama.It's completely understandable that a conservative would not be satisfied with John McCain- I'm certainly not. What doesn't make sense is when a self-described conservative claims that, ideologically, Obama is the best choice. There is nothing conservative about his platform, or his voting record.

That is all....

[Strike For The South]

If you are a true conservative you should vote for Barr or Paul. Obama is the antithesis to all the rights belifs. If you feel the need to vote for a "big" party it might as well be for McCain 4 years of lame duck is better than 4 years of "economic justice"

[Strike For The South]

ALL HAIL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XyvhQzOCe0)

Funny stuff and here over the last two weeks I was told the GOP and right leaning members were idiots. Sheeple get what sheeple deserve but this is ridiculous. I wonder if people knew Obamas stance on denying health care to live babies if they would change there mind then. Have fun with your cult of personality. Im going to go drink myself into a coma.

[Lemur]

Pretty funny stuff, Strike, although I fear if you did random interviews on the streets with most people you'd wind up with similar results. I don't think the Dems have an exclusive lock on tribal, mindless voting, in other words.

As for the "live birth" controversy, which you seem to have discovered about eight months after everybody else, Obama's partner in opposing that bill was the well-known radical Communist front, the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/). Apparently there were things wrong with that bill that had nothing to do with laying babies out on rocks to be eaten by crows.

Have fun drinking yourself into a coma! From what I hear, it takes a while.

[Xiahou]

As for the "live birth" controversy, which you seem to have discovered about eight months after everybody else, Obama's partner in opposing that bill was the well-known radical Communist front, the American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/). Apparently there were things wrong with that bill that had nothing to do with laying babies out on rocks to be eaten by crows.Got a source for that? I heard the Illinois State Medical Society opposed it, but nothing about the AMA. Even FactCheck said that Obama misrepresented his opposition to the 2003 bill and that he, when pressed further, changed excuses for why he opposed it.

The AMA does seem to like McCain's health care plan though. :wink:

[Koga No Goshi]

If you are a true conservative you should vote for Barr or Paul. Obama is the antithesis to all the rights belifs. If you feel the need to vote for a "big" party it might as well be for McCain 4 years of lame duck is better than 4 years of "economic justice"

Lame duck (or McCain non-lameduck) = the wars continue = the deficit continues to climb = the debt continues to climb.

I don't see how anyone of any stripe can argue with a straight face that this is preferrable to Obama. If you don't like big spending I fail to see how big spending on Iraq and Wall Street and oil company subsidies is preferrable to investments in education, alternative energy, healthcare and infrastructure. You know, things which help us here, instead of helping private contractors over there.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, it would mainly change from paying blackwater to paying the local unions...

Both candidates are noxious.

[Xiahou]

Lame duck (or McCain non-lameduck) = the wars continue = the deficit continues to climb = the debt continues to climb.

I don't see how anyone of any stripe can argue with a straight face that this is preferrable to Obama. If you don't like big spending I fail to see how big spending on Iraq and Wall Street and oil company subsidies is preferrable to investments in education, alternative energy, healthcare and infrastructure. You know, things which help us here, instead of helping private contractors over there.
Stop getting your "facts" from campaign ads. It was Obama, not McCain that voted for the energy bill- blame him for tax breaks to "big oil" and both voted for the Wall Street bailout. As to Iraq, Id rather see the lives and resources we spent there end with a reasonably stable country rather than pulling out and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Frankly, I don't know how you can be so sure Obama will pull out of Iraq any sooner than McCain. His foreign policy statements have been all over the map- Iran was a small country that posed no serious threat at first, then when Obama went before a Jewish group, Iran became a grave threat that was harboring a dangerous illicit nuclear weapons program. He told the group that Jerusalem must be the undivided capitol of Israel, and later went on CNN and said it was up to the parties to negotiate.

What we do know is that Obama was completely wrong about the surge, which McCain was one of the first to call for. Even today, Obama has a hard time admitting that the surge was a success.

Considering that, I don't see how anyone of any stripe can argue with a straight face that Obama is preferable to McCain.

[CountArach]

Frankly, I don't know how you can be so sure Obama will pull out of Iraq any sooner than McCain.
Don't play the flip-flopper card again. It has been shown that Obama FROM THE VERY START said that it would be 16 months unless there were serious differences on the ground. A President willing to take advice from people who know, rather than a President who is Ideologically driven to stay in Iraq regardless of changing circumstances, is far better IMO.

[Tribesman]

What we do know is that Obama was completely wrong about the surge, which McCain was one of the first to call for. Even today, Obama has a hard time admitting that the surge was a success.

Thats because the surge wasn't a success , the surge was intended to provide a relatively safe window of oppertunity for political measures to be resolved and enacted . If you look at all the goals stated for happening due to the surge it reads no no no nope nil nix nada not quite not at all no no no .
Now I am sure that you can read that and call the surge a success ,but to do so you have to detatch yourself from reality .

the jaws of victory.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What did Petreaus say about victory in Iraq ? Did he by any chance say NO ?
But OK what would he know , so how about the co-author of the surge plan what did he say ? did he say no no no it ain't gonna work .
Now why would such people say it wouldn't work ?
Is it perhaps because the plan as implimented wasn't the plan as designed :yes:
So didn't McCain support a plan that had been so watered down by the Bush administration that it wasn't the same plan at all and didn't really stand a chance in its new revised form :yes:
Is that why so many senior military figures turned down the job offer to run the new revised surge plan :yes:
So does that suggest that McCain lacks judgement and just went in lockstep with that failure known as Bush:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


His foreign policy statements have been all over the map- Iran was a small country that posed no serious threat at first
Errrrr...didn't he say that the country posed no serious threat to the United States :yes:

[CountArach]

His foreign policy statements have been all over the map
At least he managed to get on the map, as opposed to McCain who names countries who aren't on the map :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Beats hanging out with people that want to see an allied country destroyed, like PLO-bama. What a creep this guy is bad news. Release that video.

[Tribesman]

Ah well , maybe McCain learnt a lesson today .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1TT7gt5F0w&eurl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog/2008/oct/30/uselections2008-johnmccain
You cannot rely on a cowboy builder to turn up for you :oops:



Beats hanging out with people that want to see an allied country destroyed, like PLO-bama.
Errrr...would that be the PLO who want a two state solution Frag or is that a different PLO ?
But hey that isn't like you at all , why did you choose a secular organisation to focus on instead of a Muslim one:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
But anyway lets forget all that piss taking for a very short moment and look at the actual nonsense you wrote .
Hanging out with the PLO ??????
Errrrrr...is that like Georrge Bush having them over to dinner in Washington ? Traveling to Egypt to have a nice sit down chat ? Sending his foriegn secatary to go and shake hands like good buddies ?.......it just goes on and on ??????
Hmmmmmm....Fragonys post is definately of the testicular variety .:yes:

[Hooahguy]

ech, tribesman, you failed my challenge......
ah well....

and no, its the PLO of wanting Israel wiped off the map. didnt we have this discussion before?

[FactionHeir]

That's what I posted earlier:
Hang a black man and its racism, hang a white woman and its free speech (http://www.reuters.com/article/sarahPalin/idUSN2733220120081028)

This is what just surfaced
Proof of the former (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/30/obama.effigy/index.html)

People just can't seem to see that Obama is a candidate rather than a representative of a certain ethnic group. Or they are just all too in love with him and try to defend him at all costs.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
and no, its the PLO of wanting Israel wiped off the map. didnt we have this discussion before?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Try again Hooah as you are a long way out and seem to be swimming in the wrong direction .

[Hooahguy]

it depends-
for me im swimming to the island that is just beyond the horizon, which you cant see.
:laugh4:

[Gregoshi]

Hang a black man and its racism, hang a white woman and its free speech (http://www.reuters.com/article/sarahPalin/idUSN2733220120081028)

But hang a chad and the whole country is in a uproar.

[TinCow]

the only thing there is is that he is black, the white people that like the idea of having a black president, and the blacks that would rather vote for Hillary but vote for Obama because he is a democrat.

You may be surprised to discover that some of us actually like him for his platform and find him to be an inspiring leader.

[Fragony]

You may be surprised to discover that some of us actually like him for his platform and find him to be an inspiring leader.

Sorry for doubting that but I do.

[TinCow]

If the only thing people cared about was his skin color, Jesse Jackson would have been President long ago. Skin color simply isn't enough, you've got to actually be an appealing candidate.

[Fragony]

If the only thing people cared about was his skin color, Jesse Jackson would have been President long ago. Skin color simply isn't enough, you've got to actually be an appealing candidate.

There is could and should, but also here and now. In my humble opinion people are too busy thinking about the ideal of Obama being the president rather then Obama actually being one. But this isn't therapy it's a country.

[TinCow]

There is could and should, but also here and now. In my humble opinion people are too busy thinking about the ideal of Obama being the president rather then Obama actually being one. But this isn't therapy it's a country.

I don't disagree with you on that actually. Most Obama supporters are definitely taking a leap of faith in voting for him any they know it. However, while skin color is certainly a factor, it's not the major one. The leap of faith is with the man himself. We like what he says he will do. We are not sure that he can do it, but we desire what he is offering badly enough to give him the benefit of the doubt with the knowledge that he might fail. This is the same reason Kennedy was elected in 1960 and their political style is extremely similar. It is also not lost on most Obama supporters that Kennedy was actually a very poor President.

We do not think that Obama necessarily will fix country, but we hope he will. After 8 years of Bush and an uninspiring campaign by McCain, hope is enough to win the election.

[Askthepizzaguy]

P.S. I'm deeply disappointed in everyone (except Strike) over the age of 25 that didn't get my Chris Farley reference. That was one of the best comedy skits of all time.

I was not here at the time, but I did laugh as soon as I saw it on the thread, and feel compelled to let you know as soon as I saw this post.

[Don Corleone]

Filed under the category of "Let's break major campaign promises before the votes are even in" category, Joe Biden changed the defintion of middle class on 10/28 (for tax increases purposes) to household incomes of 150K. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523819032678157.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Today, Bill Richardson announced that it's down to 120K (http://beltwayblips.com/video/richardson_under_obama_those_that_make_120k_get_tax/).

Do I hear 90K? Do I hear 75K? Do I hear there are no tax cuts, and raises on every household that makes 70k a year or more? :yes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

No, George Will is simply yet another conservative who feels they don't have a genuinely conservative horse in this race. Traditional Republicans like Will are bitter over GW's decidedly un-Republican policies and the prospect of having a Democratic friendly Republican in office who may lose his conservative backbone in face of overwhelming opposition in Congress is not encouraging. Overall it's safe to say the Republican party's view of McCain is lukewarm at best. Unlike Democrats who are content keep silent while tossing their ideological grandmother under the bus in order to get one of their own in office Republicans are balkanized, bitter and are lashing out.

Hear hear!

I was so happy when I heard McCain was running. He was on the Daily Show what, 14 times? He was available, he was articulate, he was funny, he was a clear alternative to Hillary Clinton.

I don't know who kidnapped John McCain and planted Dick Cheney eggs inside of his corpse, but that man isn't the John McCain I was going to vote for until Hillary lost the Democratic nomination, and McCain picked Palin and she opened her mouth.

[Don Corleone]

Let me guess.. No fair using direct quotes from the Vice-President and from presumptive cabinet members. That's just scare tactics. :scared: :skull:

[Strike For The South]

Im posting anecdotes to anger people

Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller".

I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any.

I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly.

From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).



A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills.

I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D..

Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.



I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas . 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2.

5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills.

Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.



2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me.

For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.



A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off.

Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.



Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty.

I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas . Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast.

I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards.

During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.



Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop.

The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months.

This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our countrys' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages.

You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets).

While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.



You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and wouldn't demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself.

I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture.

I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.



What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach on every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together.

We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance.

You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama?

The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government.

What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.



You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more.

People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.



Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged of less than 1% annually.

And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden (don't you just hate Google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.



In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate.

If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller

Just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If you are a true conservative you should vote for Barr or Paul. Obama is the antithesis to all the rights belifs. If you feel the need to vote for a "big" party it might as well be for McCain 4 years of lame duck is better than 4 years of "economic justice"

I was so going to vote for Ron Paul. I don't agree with him, but dang he would clean up the system. He's got a conscience.

[Strike For The South]

I was so going to vote for Ron Paul. I don't agree with him, but dang he would clean up the system. He's got a conscience.

ummmm then why dont you? A vote for Obama is steps away from conservative ideals.

[Hooahguy]

in the spirit of Halloween:

http://sayanythingblog.com/images/oh-crap-a-democrat.jpg

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

sorry i had to.:smash:

[Askthepizzaguy]

ummmm then why dont you? A vote for Obama is steps away from conservative ideals.

A vote for "Ron Paul" at this point is a vote for McCain, because I need to do my best to ensure McCain is defeated and the Iraq war comes to a close.

I can't surrender my support for Obama between McCain and Obama, and no realistic third party candidate. To do so would be staying neutral in the biggest election of my lifetime.

[Hooahguy]

i dont think the war will all of a sudden come to a close as soon as obama comes to power, if he does. withdrawing from a place such as the ME is a complicated thing, much to do im sure.
probably take a few years, and by then we dont know waht the world situation will be.