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

[LittleGrizzly]

I think it could only be defined as pork if there's only one party supporting the benefits and so getting the votes off it, if both partys are doing it then it's more like a big cash give away, of course in defence of the subsidies you could say that most other developed countrys support thier farmers as well, but everyone should just cut subsidies and tarrifs its the people of the third world that lose out most, and so need our charity...

[Kralizec]

That article puts one good argument that I had forgotten: reliance on foreign imports could make you vulnerable. But in the EU at least we vastly outproduce our own need and overflood the world market. There have been instances where the Neth's helped to set up farms in African countries only to see them being out"competed" by western foods.

The lower food prices: we have a phrase in Dutch "being treated on a cigar from your own box". It's like being forced to pay $10 for a $5 voucher for a local store. Other stores (the farmers from developing countries) might be able to ask as little as $6 for their products but that's still to much since they have no such coercive advantage.
I'm sceptical of the article's assertion that the subsidies lower production costs - I assume that they're scale effects, caused by a few behemoth companies consolidating all the food production. Aside from this being an unwanted phenomenon in itself, consumers would still be better off without the subsidies. They might be forced to pay slightly more for foods but this would be offset by the elimination of the taxes required.

The only downside to axing the European CAP that I can see is that the USA and other western governments might not follow the example, and simply reduces our farmer's ability to compete even more. In such a case tariffs would be the answer, though obviously only against nations that continue to support their own useless farmers.

[LittleGrizzly]

The only downside to axing the European CAP that I can see is that the USA and other western governments might not follow the example, and simply reduces our farmer's ability to compete even more. In such a case tariffs would be the answer, though obviously only against nations that continue to support their own useless farmers.

The main problem i can see is the lowest earners would be hit hardest but that could be offset by reducing sales tax on basic food items, and it would be a bit more of an impact if only the EU dropped subsidies and other countries continued thier subsidies and tarrifs...

[Lemur]

It's so much funnier when they aren't (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71144) kidding:


Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him – a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib and seemingly holding all the answers to all the world's questions.

And the Bible says that such a leader will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won't be Barack Obama, but Obama's world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive.

He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin.

The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance.

-edit-

And as long as we're on Antichrist watch, there's a group that's quite offended by the "One" ad, and I hadn't thought of them -- Christians (http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2008/08/new-mccain-ad-implies-obama-is.html) who do not necessarily support McCain.


At best, this ad implies that those who plan to support Senator Obama are looking for a new savior or a replacement Messiah. But many are reading it even more darkly as an attempt to portray Obama as an anti-Christ figure.

A vote for Senator Obama is a vote for the man we think will make the best President, not for a new Messiah. As Christians, we have one Lord And Savior. Jesus Christ. It is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

And it is beyond offensive to suggest that Senator Obama is a false Messiah or the anti-Christ himself. How low can we go? It shows the McCain campaign is willing to make a mockery of our faith to feed people's fears. Christians need to reject this out of hand.

[CountArach]

I think it could only be defined as pork if there's only one party supporting the benefits and so getting the votes off it, if both partys are doing it then it's more like a big cash give away, of course in defence of the subsidies you could say that most other developed countrys support thier farmers as well, but everyone should just cut subsidies and tarrifs its the people of the third world that lose out most, and so need our charity...
Can you link to statistics for that? I find it hard to believe. When Third World countries cut their tarriffs, everything goes horribly wrong... Sure their GDP rises, but none of that goes to the lowest levels.

[LittleGrizzly]

Can you link to statistics for that? I find it hard to believe. When Third World countries cut their tarriffs, everything goes horribly wrong... Sure their GDP rises, but none of that goes to the lowest levels.

I was more thinking of the EU US China India Brazil ect. if they cut thier tarrifs agriculture in the poorest countries can compete more effectively in thier markets, im assuming in a tarrif and subsidie free world a third world farmer can produce cheaper than most other farmers.

[m52nickerson]

It's so much funnier when they aren't (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71144) kidding:


Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him – a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib and seemingly holding all the answers to all the world's questions.

And the Bible says that such a leader will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won't be Barack Obama, but Obama's world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive.

He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin.

The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance.

-edit-

And as long as we're on Antichrist watch, there's a group that's quite offended by the "One" ad, and I hadn't thought of them -- Christians (http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2008/08/new-mccain-ad-implies-obama-is.html) who do not necessarily support McCain.


At best, this ad implies that those who plan to support Senator Obama are looking for a new savior or a replacement Messiah. But many are reading it even more darkly as an attempt to portray Obama as an anti-Christ figure.

A vote for Senator Obama is a vote for the man we think will make the best President, not for a new Messiah. As Christians, we have one Lord And Savior. Jesus Christ. It is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

And it is beyond offensive to suggest that Senator Obama is a false Messiah or the anti-Christ himself. How low can we go? It shows the McCain campaign is willing to make a mockery of our faith to feed people's fears. Christians need to reject this out of hand.

Fundamentalist websites have been saying he is the Anti-Christ for some time. I even have a clerk at work who is not very religious that believes that.

[Redleg]

Yes it does. A majority of people what change, but I bet you would be hard presses to find a consensus within those people of what specific type of change. I in no way meant that a majority of people want the exact same things as MoveOn, just that they want change.

And therefore you have just reasoned out that my point is correct - Moveon.org in no way represents the majority concerning the amount and type of change that the American People want



You mean about how he will fund it, no the part about the repealing of tax cuts is in there. Now a time line, no he has not given one, so yes that is one more detail he could put in.

Now me looking up "detail" in the dictionary would not have told me what you wanted to know. Here is one definition "An individual part or item; a particular."

Now what did you say it before?
well here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1978548&postcount=685), you stated you wanted to know how he was going to implement and pay for it. This then launched the discussion how things are implemented.

And you still haven't got it, I am not going to give you a complete answer at any one time, part of the equation is for you to understand how the government works - I alreadly know how it works. Again implementation consists of many things, I have only answered the part that I wish to answer. And yes looking into the dictionary would of told you what detail means, since its easily defined.



He has not provided enough for you. Now explain to me how I have shown his positions to be weak.


Take a look at your arguement and how you present it - you will become self-aware very quickly.




Ok you have said that you wanted to know how he would implement his plan. I responded with laws and regulations, which start as a bill. All you would have to say is you wanted to know how his bills would be written.

So you wish for me to place all my cards on the table - sorry there young man, if you don't know how presidents implement plans you might not have entered into the discussion.



Now your assumption the laws and regulations fund plans is incorrect. Laws and regulations are what is used to enact as plan. The president and other write a bill, that then goes through congress and the house were if passed becomes a law. Even new agencies need laws behind them. Now once the law is in place it is up to other government agencies, like EPA, to write regulations on how that law is going to be followed. Then individual states may have to adopt laws and then regulations so that state regulatory agencies can enforce those laws. Funding specifications may be included in the laws or regulations, such as a case of subsidies, most funding will come from funds dedicated the regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing the laws through there regulations.

Care to guess what congressional funding is called? Give you a hint its considered legislation which is a law or regulation.... For instance what is Title 10, a law, a bill, a regulation, a funding legislation? or is it all four.



Now if you feel that is the level of detail you need, fine. It is not accurate to say that without draft bills, or parts of bills, a plan has no substance. Substance can be defined as "the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing" - from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).

If a plan has no substance it is a weak plan - that is exactly what I am saying about the current campaign agenda's of both candidates. So again I did not say draft bills or parts of bills - I said how will the man implement the plan. Care to go around in that circle once again.



Yes, one by making better points and rebutting the points of your opponent and the other by talking more and louder.

Which is what both forms of debates allow to happen. Again your postion against town hall debates seems to stem from the desire to keep the average citizen from asking the candidates questions that they can not prepare for. Best kind of question to ask is one the candidate can not have rehearsed.



Nor would I want YOU to. My point was far from moot.


irrevelant and mote is exactly what your point is.



The candidates know what their plans are. I doubt most politicians will forget what they have spoke about before and then say something total different in a debate. It is not like the speech writer get no impute from the candidates, and the candidates do not go out and just riddle off a speech without reading it first.

Actually that has been know to have happened. So be careful in speaking in absolutes when discussing politicans.


If you feel that the candidates are not being honest in there speeches and plans, why would you even think about voting for one of them?

Bingo - hince the comment about Mickey Mouse looking better and better everyday.



Unless the country is under serious attack or serious threat.


Read it again - it mentions that and a few other things.



Now the US was in Somalia as part of a UN mission. They were sent there by president Bush Sr. under a Dem controlled congress.

And what happened under a congress and president controlled by one party.



So, your point is moot. Do you have any proof the when one party controls the White House and congress it leads to disaster.

Oh come on now - the main democratic talking point is the Iraq war and the claim of diaster. Are you that blind?



Well that is your opinion, but I don't see it.


Then care to explain the fact that our government does not have a balanced budget? Pork and riders are one of the reasons for the budget problem.



That is in the bill it self.

PART V--PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

SEC. 15361. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

To ensure that the assets of the trust funds established under
section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) are not reduced
as a result of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer annually from the general revenues of the Federal
Government to those trust funds the following amounts:


Again why is it in the bill, why is the government double paying the farmer. For instance all farmers have to pay into the social security fund from the profits of their farms. Why is the government funding the social security fund because of any action of this act? Cloudly language is what that is?



I found were Moyer talks about pork, and were he talks bout the farm bill, but not at the same time.


He does talk about both,



Back to your original example, the relief funds in the defense bill. The definition of Pork is-The term pork barrel politics refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. So is that relief money really pork, No. Is the social security funds in the farm bill pork, no.


Actually you are incorrect again - got the letter from the Representive to prove it. The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state. So yes it was for political return. And again social security funds in the farm bill represent something else that our government is doing.



But, by the definition I will take back my position that all pork is not bad, because by this it is. Now by reading the farm bill I can't find any pork.

Its there. As stated before most analysis of the bill find pork - different degrees based upon their own analysis but all agree pork is present.

[Tribesman]

It's so much funnier when they aren't kidding:

Oh come on Lemur thats Lindsey , even by evangelist standards he is nuttier than a sack of almonds .
Has he forgotten he said that the US won't be involved in the anti-christ stuff because he couldn't find America mentioned in the bible or that he said the anti christ was going to be either european or a soviet russian not an American .
Hold on ...maybe he has a point , Obama is really a soviet plant who is going to bring communism to America .:yes: all hail the dark lord who brings the red tide .
I can see McCains team coming up with some good adverts for this
Obama is the unpatriotic non white atheist communist european muslim with cloven feet , horns and the brains of britney spears ....VOTE REPUBLICAN

[m52nickerson]

And therefore you have just reasoned out that my point is correct - Moveon.org in no way represents the majority concerning the amount and type of change that the American People wantNo they do not represent the type of change, just the need for change.


And you still haven't got it, I am not going to give you a complete answer at any one time, part of the equation is for you to understand how the government works - I alreadly know how it works. Again implementation consists of many things, I have only answered the part that I wish to answer. And yes looking into the dictionary would of told you what detail means, since its easily defined.I'm am honored that you are trying to teach me something I already know. I believe you have not given a solid answer because you do not have one.


Take a look at your arguement and how you present it - you will become self-aware very quickly.Again, no answer because you don't have one.


So you wish for me to place all my cards on the table - sorry there young man, if you don't know how presidents implement plans you might not have entered into the discussion.See I have told you how it is done, you just cannot admit you are wrong.


Care to guess what congressional funding is called? Give you a hint its considered legislation which is a law or regulation.... For instance what is Title 10, a law, a bill, a regulation, a funding legislation? or is it all four.Title 10 would be a regulation regarding the United States military. Funding for the military is given through the federal budget which is enacted by the passing of appropriation bills. The current one for the military is Public Law 113-116. All funding for the government budget comes from 13 appropriation bills. So you have still failed to prove that I am wrong in stating that a president implements his plans through laws and regulations.


If a plan has no substance it is a weak plan - that is exactly what I am saying about the current campaign agenda's of both candidates. So again I did not say draft bills or parts of bills - I said how will the man implement the plan. Care to go around in that circle once again.Laws and regulations as I stated before.


Which is what both forms of debates allow to happen. Again your postion against town hall debates seems to stem from the desire to keep the average citizen from asking the candidates questions that they can not prepare for. Best kind of question to ask is one the candidate can not have rehearsed. Again a formal debate can involve question from the general public which are not submitted before hand. So your major reason for town halls falls flat.


irrevelant and mote is exactly what your point is.So it is not applicable and a small speck of dust?


Actually that has been know to have happened. So be careful in speaking in absolutes when discussing politicans.....because using word like doubt and most is speaking in absolutes.


Bingo - hince the comment about Mickey Mouse looking better and better everyday.Well have fun with the Mouse then.


Read it again - it mentions that and a few other things.It mentions a bunch of thing, non which pertain to our discussion below.


And what happened under a congress and president controlled by one party.

Oh come on now - the main democratic talking point is the Iraq war and the claim of diaster. Are you that blind?Yes it is, but since I have shown that the military involvement in Somalia was disaster as stated by your self, and your involvement began with a Republican President, and a Democratic congress it seems disasters happen no matter what.

See for you to prove that when control is held by one party it leads to disaster you would have to show that it happens every time, or nearly ever time. The current state of this country could be classified as a disaster, but this is only one time. Then you would also have to show that disasters do not normally happen when a single party is not in control. You have yet to do that.


Then care to explain the fact that our government does not have a balanced budget? Pork and riders are one of the reasons for the budget problem. Is that an opinion or do you have any proof of that?


Again why is it in the bill, why is the government double paying the farmer. For instance all farmers have to pay into the social security fund from the profits of their farms. Why is the government funding the social security fund because of any action of this act? Cloudly language is what that is?Perhaps you do not look at regulations very often, I do, everyday at work. It is in there because certain parts of the farm bill will cause less money to go into the social security fund, part of taking less money away from farmers. To compensate for this fund from general revenue are added to the fund. Now way would they do that, easy, because instead pf paying out more subsidies they just reduce the amount of SS payed, and replace that with general revenue.


He does talk about both, Just not at the same time.


Actually you are incorrect again - got the letter from the Representive to prove it. The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state. So yes it was for political return. And again social security funds in the farm bill represent something else that our government is doing.So it had nothing to do with fact they needed help?

How about you post a copy of that letter, and provide proof that it came from a Representative.


Its there. As stated before most analysis of the bill find pork - different degrees based upon their own analysis but all agree pork is present.Again, I don't see it. You will just have to prove me wrong and point it out.

[Redleg]

No they do not represent the type of change, just the need for change.

There you go - then your initial comment about change and Moveon.org was not accurate.



I'm am honored that you are trying to teach me something I already know. I believe you have gotten given a solid answer because you do not posses one.

See I have told you how it is done, you just cannot admit you are wrong.



Wrong again - you have been given solid answers - you just refuse to actually read them.





Title 10 would be a regulation regarding the United States military. Funding for the military is given through the federal budget which is enacted by the passing of appropriation bills. The current one for the military is Public Law 113-116. All funding for the government budget comes form 13 appropriation bills. So you have still failed to prove that I am wrong in stating that a president implements his plans through laws and regulations.

you failed to read the bit about executive orders now didn't you?



Laws and regulations as stated above.

Again forgetting executive orders - I find you arguement faulty.



Again a formal debate can involve question from the general public which are not submitted before hand. So your major reason for town halls falls flat.

Interesting - havent seen a formal debate that uses un-rehearshed questions from citizens. Only prescreened questions by the moderators.



So it is not applicable and a small speck of dust?

its mote.



....because using word like doubt and most is speaking in absolutes.

was refering to a spefic comment


Well have fun with the Mouse then.


used a protest vote before in a presidential election, when neither candidate meant the standards that I wanted in a leader, nor could I determine which one would be the least of two evils. So have fun with that one.



It mentions a bunch of thing, non which pertain to our discussion below.


Sure its pertain to the discussion - are you having problems again?



Yes it is, but since I have shown that the military involvement in Somalia was disaster as stated by your self, and your involvement began with a Republican President, and a Democratic congress it seems disasters happen no matter what.

Correct - never said it didn't. However when one party controls both elective branches its more likely. Hince the democratic talking points concerning the republican controled congress and presidential office, again you can't not claim its a faulty arguement from me, unless your willing to admitted that its a false campaign postion of the democratic party.



See for you to prove that when control is held by one party it leads to disaster you would have to show that it happens every time, or nearly ever time. The current state of this country could be classified as a disaster, but this is only one time. Then you would also have to show that disasters do not normally happen when a single party is not in control. You have yet to do that.

Actually I don't have to show diasters don't happen when the two branches are split. Because simply put mistakes happen. However as stated before one of the big democratic talking points is the diasters of the republican controled congress and the Presidential office. And then there was the alleged diasters during part of the Reagan Adminstration. And a few others.



Is that your opinion or do you have any proof of that?


Everything in this thread has been opinion of one type or another - to put it simply politics is nothing but opinions. Riders and pork spending are errors in how our government operates. Leads to wasteful spending for the sake of political gain.



Perhaps you do not look at regulations very often, I do, everyday at work. It is in there because certain parts of the farm bill will cause less money to go into the social security fund, part of taking less money away from farmers. To compensate for this fund from general revenue are added to the fund. Now way would they do that, easy, because instead pf paying out more subsidies they just reduce the amount of SS payed, and replace that with general revenue.

In otherwords bad spending - and poor budget planning by the government. Now I would classify this as wasteful spending being that the government is allowing the farmers to get away with not paying the same type of taxes as anyother business owner. Subsidies are a bad thing especially when it also goes to corporate farms - not just the family farms. So any bill that provides subsidies should be carefully monitored to insure its not wasting our taxdollars. So while you might not see it as pork - I see it as being at best a bad spending by the government and at worst pork. The farm bill has in it items that all about garnering votes from a specific voting block.



Just not at the same time.

So having difficultly then?



So it had nothing to do with fact they needed help?

As stated before it was a rider on that spending bill - which was done for political purposes - makes it pork. If it was needed they should of done it the right way through an emergency bill.



How about you post a copy of that letter, and provide proof that it came from a Representative.


LOL - careful on attempting to call me a liar, it might come back to bite you on your rear-end. But naw I wont post it yet. So I think I will await your next attempt at being clever....


Again, I don't see it. You will just have to prove me wrong and point it out.

Then that is your opinion - not going to attempt to provide to much additional information if your not willing to actually look for it yourself. As stated many analysis show it as pork, haven't seen a single one that says there is no pork in the farm bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-imhoff10apr10,0,4134558.story

[Crazed Rabbit]

Can you link to statistics for that? I find it hard to believe. When Third World countries cut their tarriffs, everything goes horribly wrong... Sure their GDP rises, but none of that goes to the lowest levels.

I was more thinking of the EU US China India Brazil ect. if they cut thier tarrifs agriculture in the poorest countries can compete more effectively in thier markets, im assuming in a tarrif and subsidie free world a third world farmer can produce cheaper than most other farmers.

"Everything goes horribly wrong"?

Ridiculous. Free trade is perhaps the greatest economic catalyst there is. Were the EU, USA, and other countries to cut tariffs in exchange for third world countries cutting tariffs, the poor in those third world countries would be among the biggest beneficiaries. The cheapness with which they can produce goods is a compelling economic advantage, but one negated by protectionist governments in the west (in the USA, the dems are holding the protectionist banner right now). Sadly, the latest round of talks at Doha saw no gains as some countries wanted others to lower tariffs but didn't want to return the favor themselves.

The anti-trade streak of the dems is one McCain should capitalize on.



Obama is the unpatriotic non white atheist communist european muslim with cloven feet , horns and the brains of britney spears ....VOTE REPUBLICAN

I daresay the last bit would likely be "But can he lead?"

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

https://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2199/cpuslogoclippedzp9.jpg

[Tribesman]

Free trade is perhaps the greatest economic catalyst there is.
So you want McCain to abolish all taxes and all immigration restrictions then ?

[CountArach]

Were the EU, USA, and other countries to cut tariffs in exchange for third world countries cutting tariffs, the poor in those third world countries would be among the biggest beneficiaries.
Yes, I agree. Sweat-shop labourers have a great life now :2thumbsup: What about Dumping? That benefits no one except the corporations in the richest countries.

Whatever, Free Trade isn't something I know enough about to really argue effectively.

The anti-trade streak of the dems is one McCain should capitalize on.
Because that will go down sooooo well in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
EDIT: Not to mention Michigan...

[Tribesman]

Whatever, Free Trade isn't something I know enough about to really argue effectively.

That may be because Free Trade is like the lord of the rings , its a fantasy .

[m52nickerson]

There you go - then your initial comment about change and Moveon.org was not accurate. Last time I will explain this, please follow along. I stated that the majority of people were inline with what MoveOn wanted. Then I clarified that statement in the fact that the majority of people what change and so does MoveOn. The type of change is irrelevant to that point.


Wrong again - you have been given solid answers - you just refuse to actually read them.No I get inane comments about teaching me or the same statements which I refuted time and again.


you failed to read the bit about executive orders now didn't you?Yes you could add them to how a president implements his plans. For the most part that will not be the case. Executive orders are normally given to direct operations, such as when FDR ordered the military to remove Americans of Japanese and German decent form military zone. Only executive orders that are issued pursuant to acts of congress do they carry the weight of law.


Again forgetting executive orders - I find you arguement faulty. The orders are normally used only in certain situations. They can get overturned.


Interesting - havent seen a formal debate that uses un-rehearshed questions from citizens. Only prescreened questions by the moderators.

Here is two from the Democratic party primary debates.
June 3, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire
July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina


its mote.Who needs a dictionary? Mote - a small spec or particle, esp. Dust.

Moot - open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful

Once again you are incorrect.


was refering to a spefic commentThe one I used those words, boy we are really reaching there now.


used a protest vote before in a presidential election, when neither candidate meant the standards that I wanted in a leader, nor could I determine which one would be the least of two evils. So have fun with that one.I'm sorry that you are so pessimistic that you believe that our country does not have two decent presidential candidates.


Correct - never said it didn't. However when one party controls both elective branches its more likely. Hince the democratic talking points concerning the republican controled congress and presidential office, again you can't not claim its a faulty arguement from me, unless your willing to admitted that its a false campaign postion of the democratic party.

Actually I don't have to show diasters don't happen when the two branches are split. Because simply put mistakes happen. However as stated before one of the big democratic talking points is the diasters of the republican controled congress and the Presidential office. And then there was the balleged diasters during part of the Reagan Adminstration. And a few others. In other words, you cannot backup your statement.


Everything in this thread has been opinion of one type or another - to put it simply politics is nothing but opinions. Riders and pork spending are errors in how our government operates. Leads to wasteful spending for the sake of political gain. Well you know what they say about opinions.


In otherwords bad spending - and poor budget planning by the government. Now I would classify this as wasteful spending being that the government is allowing the farmers to get away with not paying the same type of taxes as anyother business owner. Subsidies are a bad thing especially when it also goes to corporate farms - not just the family farms. So any bill that provides subsidies should be carefully monitored to insure its not wasting our taxdollars. So while you might not see it as pork - I see it as being at best a bad spending by the government and at worst pork. The farm bill has in it items that all about garnering votes from a specific voting block. I would agree with you that the farm subsidies are wasteful. Now it seems you fail at arguing. If you claim that there are items in the bill that are there for no reason then to garner votes the burden is on you to provide those. Sort of like how you want the details from the candidates.


So having difficultly then?At finding a story that may not exist, yes.


As stated before it was a rider on that spending bill - which was done for political purposes - makes it pork. If it was needed they should of done it the right way through an emergency bill.Not really, as you have yet to prove that it was solely for political gains.


LOL - careful on attempting to call me a liar, it might come back to bite you on your rear-end. But naw I wont post it yet. So I think I will await your next attempt at being clever....If you make claims and then do not provide proof, you do a good enough job of that yourself.


Then that is your opinion - not going to attempt to provide to much additional information if your not willing to actually look for it yourself. As stated many analysis show it as pork, haven't seen a single one that says there is no pork in the farm bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-imhoff10apr10,0,4134558.storyGreat you provided an article that has the work Pork in the tag line but then does not mention it again.

Perhaps you should give this up since it does not seem like you have anything new to add. It is almost getting embarrassing.

Post something new, some proof of your claims, something of substance if you want to continue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That may be because Free Trade is like the lord of the rings , its a fantasy .

What philosophical concept isn't?

I don't believe that many of us on these forums have the scope to condemn or champion Free Trade in the way that we might like to. How many of us are Economists? Of that tiny segment, how many of us are professional Economists? Of that probably non-existent percentage how many of us feel qualified to dictate the correct direction a global economies for all time?

It is interesting to discuss, but I don't believe strongly enough in Free-Trade to dismiss conflicting arguments out of hand. Likewise, I wouldn't condemn the concept as those who pursue it have effected a number of positive changes.

[Redleg]

Last time I will explain this, please follow along. I stated that the majority of people were inline with what MoveOn wanted. Then I clarified that statement in the fact that the majority of people what change and so does MoveOn. The type of change is irrelevant to that point.

And again you are mistaken - people wanting change is not inline with what MoveOn wants - MoveOn wants a specific type of change. The type of change is relevant to the initial statement because you claimed people were inline with what MoveOn wants - to different things.



No I get inane comments about teaching me or the same statements which I refuted time and again.


Actually you have been learning - to bad you dont follow.... as for refuting - it seems that is even doubtful given the burdern of proof you wish to have provided.



Yes you could add them to how a president implements his plans. For the most part that will not be the case. Executive orders are normally given to direct operations, such as when FDR ordered the military to remove Americans of Japanese and German decent form military zone. Only executive orders that are issued pursuant to acts of congress do they carry the weight of law.

Explain the executive order that created the Department of Homeland Defense? That congress then backed it up only means what? Sorry your losing your arguement once again.



The orders are normally used only in certain situations. They can get overturned.


Correct but they are part of the implenation process are they not? Again as stated before I want to know how the candidate plans to implement his plan. the process is far more detailed then just going to congress to get legislation to make laws and regulations. It also requires apporiation hearings and many other things. As before you focused on only one aspect without going for the full picture. To bad you didn't see it coming in your eagerness to defend Obama from an attack that was not there,



Here is two from the Democratic party primary debates.
June 3, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire
July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina


You did notice I said pre-screen questions - LOL



Who needs a dictionary? Mote - a small spec or particle, esp. Dust.

Moot - open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful


Again the term I use is mote - a small spec. A nothing, a piece of dust. Your point is mote nothing more then a small speck of dust in the big picture.


The one I used those words, boy we are really reaching there now.


Not at all.



I'm sorry that you are so pessimistic that you believe that our country does not have two decent presidential candidates.

Not pessimistic at all - I have not seen a single thing that convinces me that either candidate is a decent candidate for office. The political party process is broken. I had hope that maybe we would have a decent candidate but both parties shot down the candidates that actually provided the most hope for the nation.



In other words, you cannot backup your statement.


In otherwords it has alreadly been shown, and that all one has to do is look at history to actually see. So again you haven't disproved the opinion at all either.



Well you know what they say about opinions.


Yep - which is why politicans are all full of crap.



I would agree with you that the farm subsidies are wasteful. Now it seems you fail at arguing. If you claim that there are items in the bill that are there for no reason then to garner votes the burden is on you to provide those. Sort of like how you want the details from the candidates.


Burdern of proof has alreadly been established as stated before - professional analysis all agree that the farm bill contains pork. A google search provides amable evidence of that statement. No need for me to go into more detail then the two links alreadly provided. Sorry there party hack - even your own party agrees that there is pork in the farm bill.



At finding a story that may not exist, yes.

It exists.



Not really, as you have yet to prove that it was solely for political gains.


As before its common knowledge in the state.



If you make claims and then do not provide proof, you do a good enough job of that yourself.


Until you can prove an individual is lying you should provide them the benefit of the doubt - at worst there opinion is incorrect, and best they are wrong, politics is primarily about opinion, you have demonstrated once again that you are very foolish. Saying they looked at it incorrectly to draw the incorrect conclusion is one thing - however by trying to call someone a liar or imply such in a debate is a critical mistake.




Thank you for contacting me regarding your views about the ongoing Iraq war. I respect the time you took to share your ideas and concerns, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain my thoughts on the most recent war supplemental appropriations bill I voted for on May 24, 2007.

I voted for this bill because it became clear that President Bush would not compromise and that he would actually leave our troops unfunded. This was something I was not willing to risk.

Like every American, I hope and pray for a favorable outcome in Iraq and that over the next few months there will be a meaningful change on the ground in Iraq . By the next vote on war spending in September 2007, the President will have given Congress two reports on the situation in Iraq . If, there is no meaningful improvement by then, I believe that together, Republicans and Democrats must demonstrate to the President that things have to change.

The supplemental spending bill for the war was H.R. 2206. The bill's provisions include:

Like all of the previous supplemental bills, this bill provides 100% of the President's requested funding for the war.

$3.1 billion in BRAC funds that I have been working with my colleagues to include since the day I arrived in Congress. This is money that the previous Congress should have appropriated but failed to do.

$1.8 billion for veterans' health care and $2.1 billon for active duty military health care. This money will make it possible for us to live up to our commitments to those who serve our country so valiantly.

$3 billion in agriculture disaster relief. These funds were promised by the 109th Congress and delivered by the 110th Congress. These funds are critical to help offset crop losses for those Kansas farmers affected by the spring freeze and flooding.

$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas .

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me. As your representative, I both need and value your perspective on important policy matters. I hope you will not hesitate to be in contact with me - it is always good to hear from Kansans like yourself.

Sincerely,

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress

This is not an active email account, if you would like to contact our office through email, please go to our website: http://boyda.house.gov.


To bad you fell right into that trap wanting to be clever - you really are not very good at proving your points.



Great you provided an article that has the work Pork in the tag line but then does not mention it again.

Actually it mentions the pork, you just have to read the piece. As before there are other sources that say much of the same thing.


Perhaps you should give this up since it does not seem like you have anything new to add. It is almost getting embarrassing.


For you prehaps - I don't embarrass that easily, since you have yet to prove me wrong on anything that I have stated. You don't like my conclusions - fair enough, but the thing about political opinion is that its very difficult to prove that someone is flat out wrong.


Post something new, some proof of your claims, something of substance if you want to continue.

No need - its all opinion there, just like yours is all opinion. Opinion contains the substance of a political debate. For instance nothing I have stated have you been able to prove as wrong, only that you believe it to be incorrect. You might want to delve deeper into the process how the candidate's plan lacks detail and how it is implementated into policy - that is indeed my weakest political position - but again I also understand the process a bit. Presidential plans take a combination of Executive Orders, legislative actions to get laws and regulations for the plan, it takes congressional hearings for apporiations for the establishment of the program, and a sperate funding bill if necessary, if a new department is required it takes congressional hearings and approval for it to be instituted. In otherwords we both have left off enough significant detail to prove each other wrong and make further discussion points on the issue. The problem is you decided that detail was just to vague for you and wanted to attempt to show that no candidate can provide that level of detail. Which would be correct if I wanted the whole concept planned out. However what people are calling plans are not really plans - they are concepts that the candidate would like to pursue. For examble the current Obama Health Care Plan is really nothing more then a concept since it lacks the necessary detail to be a plan. Necessary details include the basic outline on how the plan is to be accomplished, which talks about funding, organization, how it be implemenated - phased or all at once, and a host of other details that would make it a viable plan and one that will require congress to begin its process on making the necessary legislation to bring about the laws and regulations that would implement it into national policy.

So like I said before you got all wrapped up in trying to defend a candidate where there was no attack only questions. Demonstrating the fundmental flaw of the democratic party, the average citizen can not question the candidate's agenda without it being called an attack on that candidate. You even stated that you had the right to defend him, which implies you believe I was attacking him.

Your very amusing -

[Kralizec]

Last time I will explain this, please follow along. I stated that the majority of people were inline with what MoveOn wanted. Then I clarified that statement in the fact that the majority of people what change and so does MoveOn. The type of change is irrelevant to that point.

Let's say that I want the United States to change into a fascist dictatorship. Does that mean that I'm in line with moveon.org and the American people, because change = change?

[LittleGrizzly]

Let's say that I want the United States to change into a fascist dictatorship. Does that mean that I'm in line with moveon.org and the American people, because change = change?

His point seemed to be just about wanting change so technically yes, it seems like a bit of a pointless point (there was no better way i could word that) because almost everyone slightly political wants some kind of change and almost every organisation to do with politics wants some political change however small, so moveon.org, the nra and the american people all have something in common...

[Kralizec]

Exactly.

[Redleg]

Let's say that I want the United States to change into a fascist dictatorship. Does that mean that I'm in line with moveon.org and the American people, because change = change?

His point seemed to be just about wanting change so technically yes, it seems like a bit of a pointless point (there was no better way i could word that) because almost everyone slightly political wants some kind of change and almost every organisation to do with politics wants some political change however small, so moveon.org, the nra and the american people all have something in common...

You are correct saying people want change makes it inline with what change Moveon.org wants is indeed a pointless point - the types and scope of change is of varing degrees. MoveOn.org is advocating a great bit of change to a specific agenda - which does not equate to the type and scope of change that the majority view would like.

[Lemur]

It seems that on the McCain blog (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/08/03/portrait_of_the_candidate_as_a_pile_of_words/), the Obama blog, and the Org thread, it's all Obama all the time. You'll pardon me if I find this perplexing.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/1217652386_7548.jpg

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe just an uneducated conclusion but obama supporters seem to be about how good thier guy is, mccain supporters seem to be about how bad the other guy is. If i was voting just on this i now i would be with the positive campaign, rather than the 'the other guy is terrible' campaign....

Figured i mention Obama once more to keep a 2:1 ratio going at least...

[m52nickerson]

And again you are mistaken - people wanting change is not inline with what MoveOn wants - MoveOn wants a specific type of change. The type of change is relevant to the initial statement because you claimed people were inline with what MoveOn wants - to different things.It may seem pointless but, I am technically correct.


Actually you have been learning - to bad you dont follow.... as for refuting - it seems that is even doubtful given the burdern of proof you wish to have provided.The only things I have been learning is things about you.


Explain the executive order that created the Department of Homeland Defense? That congress then backed it up only means what? Sorry your losing your arguement once again. The Department of Homeland Security was created by the Homeland Security Act, Public Law 107-296, the year 2002. Executive Order - 13284 came after the Homeland Security Act in 2003. So your time line is backward. Here are links to both documents

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0072.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf


Correct but they are part of the implenation process are they not? Again as stated before I want to know how the candidate plans to implement his plan. the process is far more detailed then just going to congress to get legislation to make laws and regulations. It also requires apporiation hearings and many other things. As before you focused on only one aspect without going for the full picture. To bad you didn't see it coming in your eagerness to defend Obama from an attack that was not there,Now how would one have an appropriation hearing before the initial legislation is passed? Or better yet what details of that appropriation would you like at this stage of the game, other then how much it will cost. The implementation of most plans is complicated, but will be along the same lines in most cases. Even without that level of detail it is still unfair to say that the candidates' plans lack substance.


You did notice I said pre-screen questions - LOLYes, they may have been pre-screened by the moderator, but were not known to the candidates, and they were asked by the people posing them.


Again the term I use is mote - a small spec. A nothing, a piece of dust. Your point is mote nothing more then a small speck of dust in the big picture. English - your doing it wrong! I'm sure that is what you meant right from the start.


Not pessimistic at all - I have not seen a single thing that convinces me that either candidate is a decent candidate for office. The political party process is broken. I had hope that maybe we would have a decent candidate but both parties shot down the candidates that actually provided the most hope for the nation.The political party process is broken, that does not sound pessimistic at all. It is not broken. If anything is broken it is the voters. The statement you make "Yep-which is why politicians are full of crap" shows it. I have been hearing that for years. "I have to choose the lesser of two evils" is another one. We should be holding the election up and saying this is what it is all about. We have two good candidates. One, younger with a lot of fire. The other a tested veteran who does not take any crap. Both willing to do what they feel is not the best interests of this country and its people. No, that is not the way it goes. Instead
voters pick candidates in the primaries based on little more then what prom queens are chosen, then when that person loses they cannot support the winner of that primary even when their positions are nearly the same. No, they are sore losers that now make statement such as "he has no plan", "he is not proven", "he is not honest", "he is to old", "he is to young".......and on and on, all because they refuse to look at the issues, because the might find they agree with someone they do not like. If a candidate puts more detail in a plan and then must change that, we call them a lier, a flip-flopper, indecisive. If politicians look two faces, or shady, it is because that is the way we paint then. No, not all politicians have our best interests in mind, that has been proven, but it is not the majority. Yes, I support Obama, and I do defend him. Not because I see him a savior. It is because I agree with is policies. He stands very near were I do on a great number of issues. That does not mean I vilify McCain, I disagree with his policies, but believe he has the best interests of the country at heart. If anything is broken it is us.


In otherwords it has alreadly been shown, and that all one has to do is look at history to actually see. So again you haven't disproved the opinion at all either.That is correct it is only an opinion, a baseless one at that.


Yep - which is why politicans are all full of crap.Who is speaking in absolutes now? Now we are at the heart of the issue It is this outlook way you feel that the candidates do not have substance in there plans, not because the don't, because you don't believe them. A politician could hand you the answers you want on a silver platter and you would not believe it. If they give you the detail you want, you will move on the question, as you put it, something else. In your eyes they are not good enough, in your eyes there is no true Scotsman! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)


Burdern of proof has alreadly been established as stated before - professional analysis all agree that the farm bill contains pork. A google search provides amable evidence of that statement. No need for me to go into more detail then the two links alreadly provided. Sorry there party hack - even your own party agrees that there is pork in the farm bill. A news writer is a professional analysis? Do you think I'm going to feed you ammo against my own argument? If you are not going to put in the work, get out of the argument.


It exists.Then prove me wrong.


As before its common knowledge in the state. One could say that the existence of God is common knowledge, but it cannot be proven. At one time it was common knowledge the world was flat.


Until you can prove an individual is lying you should provide them the benefit of the doubt - at worst there opinion is incorrect, and best they are wrong, politics is primarily about opinion, you have demonstrated once again that you are very foolish. Saying they looked at it incorrectly to draw the incorrect conclusion is one thing - however by trying to call someone a liar or imply such in a debate is a critical mistake.

To bad you fell right into that trap wanting to be clever - you really are not very good at proving your points. Oh, please help I've fallen into a trap!

Lets look at your trap. You stated "got the letter from the Representive to prove it. (Speaking of the relief funding to Kansas farmers as Pork) The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state.", but in the letter from Nancy Boyda she states "$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas.". She does not call it pork, or state that is was done for political gains. I would say that what the Kansas delegation did was their jobs. They were voted into office to represent and help the people of that state and some of those people needed help. If they do a good job they keep theirs. If you see that as pork then any time a politician gets any type of legislation or funding that helps the community that they represent it would be pork. So yes is was a trap, a trap full of a massive amount of fail.


Actually it mentions the pork, you just have to read the piece. As before there are other sources that say much of the same thing.It mentions spending and funds for programs that outside of those areas people may not care about, it also mentions spending that the author feels is unneeded and unwise, but is fails to show anything that is pork, unless you go with you inane definition.


For you prehaps - I don't embarrass that easily, since you have yet to prove me wrong on anything that I have stated. You don't like my conclusions - fair enough, but the thing about political opinion is that its very difficult to prove that someone is flat out wrong. True, but we can show they are not backed up by fact.


No need - its all opinion there, just like yours is all opinion. Opinion contains the substance of a political debate. For instance nothing I have stated have you been able to prove as wrong, only that you believe it to be incorrect. You might want to delve deeper into the process how the candidate's plan lacks detail and how it is implementated into policy - that is indeed my weakest political position - but again I also understand the process a bit. Presidential plans take a combination of Executive Orders, legislative actions to get laws and regulations for the plan, it takes congressional hearings for apporiations for the establishment of the program, and a sperate funding bill if necessary, if a new department is required it takes congressional hearings and approval for it to be instituted. In otherwords we both have left off enough significant detail to prove each other wrong and make further discussion points on the issue. The problem is you decided that detail was just to vague for you and wanted to attempt to show that no candidate can provide that level of detail. Which would be correct if I wanted the whole concept planned out. However what people are calling plans are not really plans - they are concepts that the candidate would like to pursue. For examble the current Obama Health Care Plan is really nothing more then a concept since it lacks the necessary detail to be a plan. Necessary details include the basic outline on how the plan is to be accomplished, which talks about funding, organization, how it be implemenated - phased or all at once, and a host of other details that would make it a viable plan and one that will require congress to begin its process on making the necessary legislation to bring about the laws and regulations that would implement it into national policy.Again the reason you "think" they are not plans stems from your beliefs that all politicians are full of the stinky stuff. You so want to show that they have provided nothing so you can justify your vote for an imaginary mouse.


So like I said before you got all wrapped up in trying to defend a candidate where there was no attack only questions. Demonstrating the fundmental flaw of the democratic party, the average citizen can not question the candidate's agenda without it being called an attack on that candidate. You even stated that you had the right to defend him, which implies you believe I was attacking him.Yet it was the Republican party famous for labeling anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic. Yes you questioned Obama's agenda. I questioned yours.


Your very amusing -I'm glad you think so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe just an uneducated conclusion but obama supporters seem to be about how good thier guy is, mccain supporters seem to be about how bad the other guy is. If i was voting just on this i now i would be with the positive campaign, rather than the 'the other guy is terrible' campaign....

Figured i mention Obama once more to keep a 2:1 ratio going at least...

This does concern me. This is essentially what the Kerry campaign did in 2004 and it didn't work. Te only thing is - McCain can't beat Obama in rhetorical vision other than the simple but realistically important "I am a legitimate bridge builder". If he were to make this election about appeal and charisma he would lose terribly. He is making it about middle grounded compromise and the inexperienced celebrity of Obama. I think that this is his best shot. Obama is an orator who lacks substance or experience in making executive decisions. McCain needs to hit him where he is vulnerable. We can afford to make this race about Obama since it is about him anyway. Maybe we can make people sick and wary of him instead of enamored.

It is worth a shot. I think McCain understands independents better than anyone else in the GOP. I'm not sure that many democrats understand it (other than Lemur), so maybe the codger knows what he is doing?

[CountArach]

Obama is an orator who lacks substance or experience in making executive decisions. McCain needs to hit him where he is vulnerable. We can afford to make this race about Obama since it is about him anyway. Maybe we can make people sick and wary of him instead of enamored.
Just as someone who isn't entirely familiar with McCain's record... what executive experience does McCain have? A quick google doesn't come up with any.

[m52nickerson]

This does concern me. This is essentially what the Kerry campaign did in 2004 and it didn't work. Te only thing is - McCain can't beat Obama in rhetorical vision other than the simple but realistically important "I am a legitimate bridge builder". If he were to make this election about appeal and charisma he would lose terribly. He is making it about middle grounded compromise and the inexperienced celebrity of Obama. I think that this is his best shot. Obama is an orator who lacks substance or experience in making executive decisions. McCain needs to hit him where he is vulnerable. We can afford to make this race about Obama since it is about him anyway. Maybe we can make people sick and wary of him instead of enamored.

It is worth a shot. I think McCain understands independents better than anyone else in the GOP. I'm not sure that many democrats understand it (other than Lemur), so maybe the codger knows what he is doing?So far the race is about Obama, and so far it seems he is Teflon coated. McCain needs to get out and show how his policies will work better for this country then Obama's. Remember it has been said, no publicity is bad publicity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So far the race is about Obama, and so far it seems he is Teflon coated.

This week we have seen a substantial dip in his polling results.

[Tribesman]

I don't believe that many of us on these forums have the scope to condemn or champion Free Trade in the way that we might like to.
Well the thing there Tuff is some people here really do like to champion free trade , and its easy to comdemn their view point because it contradicts their stance on other issues of freedom of trade , the main being the removal of restrictions on freedom of movement for labour which is an essential element of the equation as workers are just another commodity .
So while they are happy griping about tax and tarifs and restrictive labour laws they are not happy if the entire population of mexico comes across the river and takes their job away for a dollar a day .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just as someone who isn't entirely familiar with McCain's record... what executive experience does McCain have? A quick google doesn't come up with any.

I think that you can view his Military career as a type of executive experience that should never be discounted. He was involved for a long period of time and held commanding positions for a large part - he was a squadron commander and ran training at an airbase. Couple this with his staggeringly long and successful career in The U.S. Congress and it is a resume that Obama can't touch.

His record for getting things done is much more prolific and he has the "pull the trigger in a clutch mentality". McCain knows consequence well and calls decent shots even when times get tough.

I hope that he picks someone with good economic credentials, but neither he nor Obama are no Econ-Oracles.

There are quite a few used car salesman pushing the shiny Obama model - but they don't have any upkeep records. Take their word for it!


Who knows what will happen or what is best?

[Redleg]

It may seem pointless but, I am technically correct.

Actually nope - you attempted to make a direct link between the two that is not there.



The Department of Homeland Security was created by the Homeland Security Act, Public Law 107-296, the year 2002. Executive Order - 13284 came after the Homeland Security Act in 2003. So your time line is backward. Here are links to both documents

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0072.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf

Good - you actually can do some of your own google research, and proved my statement incorrect. Now how did the Department of Homeland Security get started? Its wasn't the brianchild of congress. There was a process the President had to follow in order to get the department implemented, was it some majically process where he went to congress to ask for laws and regulations, or did he present some requests that explained what he invisioned the department to be and how to organize it?



Now how would one have an appropriation hearing before the initial legislation is passed? Or better yet what details of that appropriation would you like at this stage of the game, other then how much it will cost. The implementation of most plans is complicated, but will be along the same lines in most cases. Even without that level of detail it is still unfair to say that the candidates' plans lack substance.

Unfortunetly for you it is not unfair. Your attempting to say that a candidate can convince me only by concepts of what he wants - sorry not so naive as that. As stated before if the candidate is going to have something more then a concept - if its a plan it has to have details in it, information about costs, how its going to be organized, time line for implenation, and a whole host of other details solely missing in his "Plan."



Yes, they may have been pre-screened by the moderator, but were not known to the candidates, and they were asked by the people posing them.


And what was my point? Yep that they were pre-screened.



English - your doing it wrong! I'm sure that is what you meant right from the start.


No I meant Mote from the very beginning there - my english is fine. Sometime you might figure out exactly why I used the term in the first place.



The political party process is broken, that does not sound pessimistic at all. It is not broken. If anything is broken it is the voters. The statement you make "Yep-which is why politicians are full of crap" shows it. I have been hearing that for years. "I have to choose the lesser of two evils" is another one. We should be holding the election up and saying this is what it is all about. We have two good candidates. One, younger with a lot of fire. The other a tested veteran who does not take any crap. Both willing to do what they feel is not the best interests of this country and its people. No, that is not the way it goes. Instead voters pick candidates in the primaries based on little more then what prom queens are chosen, then when that person loses they cannot support the winner of that primary even when their positions are nearly the same. No, they are sore losers that now make statement such as "he has no plan", "he is not proven", "he is not honest", "he is to old", "he is to young".......and on and on, all because they refuse to look at the issues, because the might find they agree with someone they do not like. If a candidate puts more detail in a plan and then must change that, we call them a lier, a flip-flopper, indecisive. If politicians look two faces, or shady, it is because that is the way we paint then. No, not all politicians have our best interests in mind, that has been proven, but it is not the majority. Yes, I support Obama, and I do defend him. Not because I see him a savior. It is because I agree with is policies. He stands very near were I do on a great number of issues. That does not mean I vilify McCain, I disagree with his policies, but believe he has the best interests of the country at heart. If anything is broken it is us.

So you argee then the political party process is indeed broken when we ourselves are the political parties? Like I said the political parties are broken. Voters primarily belong to one of two major parties.

But then again you seemly assume that I am attempting to vilify Obama - dont see any attempt to vilify Obama anywhere in my writting - only made the statement that he is just another typical politician.



That is correct it is only an opinion, a baseless one at that.


LOL - baseless nope, seems your have difficultly again.



Who is speaking in absolutes now? Now we are at the heart of the issue It is this outlook way you feel that the candidates do not have substance in there plans, not because the don't, because you don't believe them. A politician could hand you the answers you want on a silver platter and you would not believe it. If they give you the detail you want, you will move on the question, as you put it, something else. In your eyes they are not good enough, in your eyes there is no true Scotsman! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

Wrong arguement to present - if the candidate had substance in the plan I would be able to follow exactly what he is saying - unfortunately neither candidate has much substance in their political concepts that they are presenting to the american people.



A news writer is a professional analysis? Do you think I'm going to feed you ammo against my own argument? If you are not going to put in the work, get out of the argument.

Again pot calling the kettle black - as stated several times - most professional analysis agree that the farm bill contains pork. So what if I use a news writer's article as a link, it neither proves nor disproves my point - you haven't been able to dispute that the bill contains pork. And you darn well know you can't. And again when discussing politics its primarily about opinion. Therefore to say I am wrong requires a little bit of legwork besides saying that I am wrong.



Then prove me wrong.


Alreadly done



One could say that the existence of God is common knowledge, but it cannot be proven. At one time it was common knowledge the world was flat.

Yep you can't prove god exists but neither can you disprove his existance.



Oh, please help I've fallen into a trap!


Like I said be careful of what you call people.



Lets look at your trap. You stated "got the letter from the Representive to prove it. (Speaking of the relief funding to Kansas farmers as Pork) The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state.", but in the letter from Nancy Boyda she states "$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas.". She does not call it pork, or state that is was done for political gains. I would say that what the Kansas delegation did was their jobs. They were voted into office to represent and help the people of that state and some of those people needed help. If they do a good job they keep theirs. If you see that as pork then any time a politician gets any type of legislation or funding that helps the community that they represent it would be pork. So yes is was a trap, a trap full of a massive amount of fail.

Nope it shows your attempt at calling people a liar is misplaced. Now I didn't claim that the representive would say its pork now did I? you read into the statement what you wanted to read into it. Are you having reading comprehension problems again? ( I told you once before about how you present your arguement, and I dont have a problem going tit for tat with you with the personal slams.)

And as stated before both items should of been presented in an emergency relief bill just like its suppose to happen. Especially given that greensburg was a declared national emergency. Anything that does not follow the proper process for its own funding is wrong be it a rider or pork. Then there were the other measures in the bill that she didnt mention because it didnt support her position in her response. But then all I asked her was to do her duty in regards to the Constitution and the War Power's Act of 1973. To bad she didn't, she voted for political expidency (SP?)



It mentions spending and funds for programs that outside of those areas people may not care about, it also mentions spending that the author feels is unneeded and unwise, but is fails to show anything that is pork, unless you go with you inane definition.

Not at all - as stated before the bill contains pork - some of it might be just riders that are unneeded and unwise, but some of it is indeed pork, done for political gain to garner votes from the farming community throughout the nation.



True, but we can show they are not backed up by fact.


So far you have not done a very good job of that - you have primarily countered with your own opinion.



Again the reason you "think" they are not plans stems from your beliefs that all politicians are full of the stinky stuff. You so want to show that they have provided nothing so you can justify your vote for an imaginary mouse.

Actually I have a good understanding of what constitutes a plan and what constitutes a concept, having written many a military operations plan. What both candidates have posted on their websights is concepts, things that the candidate can provide to his staff a basis for developing a plan to accomplish the task that the candidate wants to accomplish, but plans they are not.



Yet it was the Republican party famous for labeling anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic. Yes you questioned Obama's agenda. I questioned yours.

Good thing I have no agenda, something you fail to realize. All I have is questions of the candidates. You chose to make it personal because someone dare question your favorite candidate, frankly I am not surprised but it rather amuses me to have such discussion. . However has stated before I have not made a decision about either candidate.



I'm glad you think so.

Yep very amused - your completely full of yourself without much ability to see when someone is messing with you completely.

[m52nickerson]

This week we have seen a substantial dip in his polling results.....and if they stay like that I would then agree with you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well the thing there Tuff is some people here really do like to champion free trade , and its easy to comdemn their view point because it contradicts their stance on other issues of freedom of trade , the main being the removal of restrictions on freedom of movement for labour which is an essential element of the equation as workers are just another commodity .
So while they are happy griping about tax and tarifs and restrictive labour laws they are not happy if the entire population of mexico comes across the river and takes their job away for a dollar a day .

Goods and ideas can be traded freely without mandatory mass-migration. Why do they get upset when diseases like malaria come across our borders? Hypocrites.

We want what is best - free trade is a tool to get that. When it doesn't get us what is best, it falls into question.

"Free Speech" is a similar concept. We say "Free Speech" but many of us don't mean that. I can't sing a Brittany Spears song in public for pay legally. I can't scream "fire" in crowded theater legally. I can't threaten people's lives legally. Would you call people who support those limits to free-speech hypocrites? Probably, but I wouldn't - it is a man-made concept, therefore I don't expect it to be 100% useful or accurate.

What should we call "Free-Trade" to avoid being called hypocrites? 80% Free Trade with a 20% regulation variable?

[ICantSpellDawg]

....and if they stay like that I would then agree with you.

This election is Obama's to lose. I learned from the democratic primaries that prolonged flat or negative trends were especially bad for Obama's results. If we saw his numbers decline slightly before the election he was likely to lose even if his pre-polls were still leading the opposition, sometimes by 5 to 10 points. This was in the Democratic primary - how will those trends play out in a general election? I don't know.

He has been doing a remarkable job, but people might be bored with him by election time. You never know with massive groups of people.

I don't know who would be better as President to be honest, but I will vote for McCain because he is a known entity and I trust his independence. I also don't want to see a Democratic Legislature, Executive (and, by extension, Judiciary). I think die hard democrats can see why a one party State led by a charismatic, but inexperienced demagogue might be a bad idea.

[CountArach]

I think Demagogue might be a bit harsh...

I think that you can view his Military career as a type of executive experience that should never be discounted. He was involved for a long period of time and held commanding positions for a large part - he was a squadron commander and ran training at an airbase. Couple this with his staggeringly long and successful career in The U.S. Congress and it is a resume that Obama can't touch.
Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.

In my opinion Rabbits don't count as lagomorphs. Please explain why you wouldn't consider military command executive experience and I'll explain my opinion on rabbits.

[CountArach]

In my opinion Rabbits arn't lagomorphs. Please explain why you wouldn't consider military command executive experience and I'll explain my opinion on rabbits.
Alright. Wiki makes my point for me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_previous_executive_experience):

Executive Experience is defined as experience where one is the top (or 2nd top) decision maker for the company, State, large military unit, etc. (See for example, Army General, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Vice President of the United States, prior President of the United States, and Chief Executive Officer.)
Large military units are anything like a General. Now, explain your opinion on Rabbits.

[LittleGrizzly]

Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.

I have always wondered why military experience is considered such a value, unless one was a top rank general i don't see it changing much in terms of being the head of the army, theres the main one about seeing the horrors of war but ex-military politicians seem to be pretty much in line with non-ex-military politicians when it comes to going to war or not (infact i think of them as a bit more up for it, this may be imagined though)

I don't know who would be better as President to be honest, but I will vote for McCain because he is a known entity and I trust his independence. I also don't want to see a Democratic Legislature, Executive (and, by extension, Judiciary). I think die hard democrats can see why a one party State led by a charismatic, but inexperienced demagogue might be a bad idea.

Is this the main reason for support of Mccain over Obama, i don't doubt you but i always thought of you as fairly conservative, whilst obama may not quite be 'most liberal eva!' he does seem more liberal than Mccain, or is this somewhat to do with Mccains questions conservative convictions ?

I have always thought that power being split across the houses between the partys was a better idea, unfortunatly even people who think this is a good idea will not vote against thier views... i remember having the conversation here back in 04 Bush Kerry (those were they days eh? bushisms and swiftboating...)with someone who said they disliked one party holding all the power, but they were still planning to vote bush because it was too important not too, i can symapthise with that, if the bush kerry situation was reversed despite my dislike for concentrated power i could not bring myself to vote for bush

and there you have it, Mccain just got mentioned twice as much as the other guy, its a first...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Alright. Wiki makes my point for me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_previous_executive_experience):

Large military units are anything like a General. Now, explain your opinion on Rabbits.

If you are referring to Government - I agree that he has had no real "executive" experience. If you consider a more colloquial definition of executive, it is apparent that he has had more of it than Obama by a long shot. Quite a few company's have a number of people called "executives" - senior managers.

Very few Senators have had the kind of Executive experience that we would like them to have, but when given an alternative between a Senator with a Green thumb or a Senator who has been in the business for many years and has commanded men through life or death decisions in wartime and out successfully, the decision becomes a bit easier.

[CountArach]

IVery few Senators have had the kind of Executive experience that we would like them to have, but when given an alternative between a Senator with a Green thumb or a Senator who has been in the business for many years and has commanded men through life or death decisions in wartime and out successfully, the decision becomes a bit easier.
That is why so few have ever been elected.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is this the main reason for support of Mccain over Obama, i don't doubt you but i always thought of you as fairly conservative, whilst obama may not quite be 'most liberal eva!' he does seem more liberal than Mccain, or is this somewhat to do with Mccains questions conservative convictions ?


It has to do with being upset with Republicans in a tough economic year. I see good things happening. Reform Repubs are getting more popular. Guys (and gals) like; Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Tom Coburn, Chuck Hagel, Eric Cantor, Ron Paul and Paul Ryan are getting more popular. I'd love to see the aforementioned types in a McCain cabinet rather than the creeps Obama would appoint. At the same time "MainStreet" pork spenders like Stevens and Craig are getting hit hard and leaving office.

Anti-reform Republicans are part of that problem and should be dealt with like the problems in question.


That is why so few have ever been elected.

7 out of 44 (I'm including either Obama or McCain). That is not too many at all.

[CountArach]

You still owe me an explanation of why Rabbits aren't lagomorphs :wink:

[ICantSpellDawg]

You still owe me an explanation of why Rabbits aren't lagomorphs :wink:

They clearly are. I was trying to make a stronger analogous point than my argument.

[CountArach]

They clearly are. I was trying to make a stronger analogous point than my argument.
I know, hence the :wink:

[Tribesman]

We want what is best - free trade is a tool to get that. When it doesn't get us what is best, it falls into question.

What you want is free trade as long as it is of maximum benefit to yourselves , that is called protectionism which is pretty contradictory to the idea of free trade .

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you want is free trade as long as it is of maximum benefit to yourselves , that is called protectionism which is pretty contradictory to the idea of free trade .

I meant "we" as in "all of us". If I was talking about the U.S. only - that would be protectionism. I view "Free-Trade" as a very effective tool to help everybody in the world do a bit better. When it ceases to help "everybody" and begins to target the U.S. and benefit totalitarian cheaters - the tool is not functioning properly. Some would argue that we should continue to use the tool as usual and that the problem is just a blip. I wouldn't agree. I also wouldn't support Free-Trade if it was detrimental to the U.S. and to the benefit of everybody else. I don't support heartless mercantilism either. There needs to be a good balance.

Analogy: If I was using a power drill to build a wooden house for my family and it started hissing and spewing sparks - I would modify, repair or replace the drill. Why would I risk losing the house? Which is more important - the drill or the house? I say the tool should benefit the house.

U.S. centered free-trade as a tool for the betterment of everybody is my objective. If either of those variables change, so does my support for the whole deal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It seems that on the McCain blog (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/08/03/portrait_of_the_candidate_as_a_pile_of_words/), the Obama blog, and the Org thread, it's all Obama all the time. You'll pardon me if I find this perplexing.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/1217652386_7548.jpgThat's odd. I would've sworn the number one word on Obama.com is 'donate'. Anywhere I click leads to a page asking for my credit card.

It's a funny election though. It's a referendum on Obama more than anything else.

I do hope the One wins. For a number of reasons:
- to punish the Republicans. The GOP descended into depths of sinister cynicism and depravity that deserves an unlimited spanking.
- Obama as president will be cool. There's no way around it.
- I do not want to run the risk of eternal damnation if he really is the Second Coming...

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's odd. I would've sworn the number one word on Obama.com is 'donate'. Anywhere I click leads to a page asking for my credit card.

It's a funny election though. It's a referendum on Obama more than anything else.

I do hope the One wins. For a number of reasons:
- to punish the Republicans. The GOP descended into depths of sinister cynicism and depravity that deserves an unlimited spanking.


Doesn't a Dem majority in both houses an McCain as the party leader already do that? That is a fitting punishment in my book.

[LittleGrizzly]

Doesn't a Dem majority in both houses an McCain as the party leader already do that? That is a fitting punishment in my book.

a fitting punishment would be electoral obscurity preferably vanishing altogether, obviously replaced though....

[m52nickerson]

Actually nope - you attempted to make a direct link between the two that is not there.It is there, do you need new glasses?


Good - you actually can do some of your own google research, and proved my statement incorrect. Now how did the Department of Homeland Security get started? Its wasn't the brianchild of congress. There was a process the President had to follow in order to get the department implemented, was it some majically process where he went to congress to ask for laws and regulations, or did he present some requests that explained what he invisioned the department to be and how to organize it? :laugh4:What an uninspired way to try and deflect the fact you were proven wrong. Yes, you were really trying to teach me something. Not quit you were trying to make a point and it failed. I'm sure you will come back with, no I was teaching you to do research. Weak, very weak. Yes I'm sure the president and his staff went to congress with a very detailed plan, but it still ultimately when through and became a law. No if you feel that the plans presented to the voters need to be as detailed as this (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf) then all I can say is :laugh4:.


Unfortunetly for you it is not unfair. Your attempting to say that a candidate can convince me only by concepts of what he wants - sorry not so naive as that. As stated before if the candidate is going to have something more then a concept - if its a plan it has to have details in it, information about costs, how its going to be organized, time line for implenation, and a whole host of other details solely missing in his "Plan."You call it a concept, I call it a plan. Please refer to the :laugh4: above.


And what was my point? Yep that they were pre-screened. That proves what? Do you think the moderators, being pay by the networks, want to see question thats the candidates can answer easily? No they want to see them stammer and stutter. That is what you see replayed again and again. Plus those pre-screened questions did come from the people. So there is nothing wrong with moderators pre-screening questions, unless you want to know what kind underwear the candidates are wearing.


No I meant Mote from the very beginning there - my english is fine. Sometime you might figure out exactly why I used the term in the first place.:laugh4:


So you argee then the political party process is indeed broken when we ourselves are the political parties? Like I said the political parties are broken. Voters primarily belong to one of two major parties.No the precess is not broken. It is the voters who take place in that process. Are you sure there are more dems and reps then independents


But then again you seemly assume that I am attempting to vilify Obama - dont see any attempt to vilify Obama anywhere in my writting - only made the statement that he is just another typical politician.No I think you are unfairly questioning because you think politicians are full of crap.


LOL - baseless nope, seems your have difficultly again.Here we go, I will say prove that they are not baseless, you will say I have, I will ask were, you will say look.....and so on. It is equivalent to having a yes, no argument with my two year old.


Wrong arguement to present - if the candidate had substance in the plan I would be able to follow exactly what he is saying - unfortunately neither candidate has much substance in their political concepts that they are presenting to the american people.Funny, I read the plans and can follow along fine, and I thought I was the one being accused of having a problems comprehending.


Again pot calling the kettle black - as stated several times - most professional analysis agree that the farm bill contains pork. So what if I use a news writer's article as a link, it neither proves nor disproves my point - you haven't been able to dispute that the bill contains pork. And you darn well know you can't. And again when discussing politics its primarily about opinion. Therefore to say I am wrong requires a little bit of legwork besides saying that I am wrong. You stated professional analysis then posted a link to a news article, I know how we can fix this, link to on of the professional analysis.


Alreadly done:laugh4:


Yep you can't prove god exists but neither can you disprove his existance.But I am not claiming his existence. Now what about the flat earth.


Like I said be careful of what you call people.I am.


Nope it shows your attempt at calling people a liar is misplaced. Now I didn't claim that the representive would say its pork now did I? you read into the statement what you wanted to read into it. Are you having reading comprehension problems again? ( I told you once before about how you present your arguement, and I dont have a problem going tit for tat with you with the personal slams.)May be but it served its purpose. No you implemented it by saying it was put in for personal political gains, which it was not.


And as stated before both items should of been presented in an emergency relief bill just like its suppose to happen. Especially given that greensburg was a declared national emergency. Anything that does not follow the proper process for its own funding is wrong be it a rider or pork. Then there were the other measures in the bill that she didnt mention because it didnt support her position in her response. But then all I asked her was to do her duty in regards to the Constitution and the War Power's Act of 1973. To bad she didn't, she voted for political expidency (SP?)It is a rider, but not pork. The delegates from Kansas were doing their jobs, not for personal gain but to help people. I guess you cannot believe that.

Some times speed saves lives.


Not at all - as stated before the bill contains pork - some of it might be just riders that are unneeded and unwise, but some of it is indeed pork, done for political gain to garner votes from the farming community throughout the nation. Helping the farm community would garner votes, but speaking in the interest of the people who put you in office will do the same thing.


So far you have not done a very good job of that - you have primarily countered with your own opinion.Ask for were that opinion is based. Unlike you I will back things up. Just don't come back with "Ok, do it" Give the the specifics.


Actually I have a good understanding of what constitutes a plan and what constitutes a concept, having written many a military operations plan. What both candidates have posted on their websights is concepts, things that the candidate can provide to his staff a basis for developing a plan to accomplish the task that the candidate wants to accomplish, but plans they are not. A military operations plan and a plans for an entire country just a little bit different, and by little bit I mean huge. Military Op plans have a pretty specific set of guidelines. While political plans do not, and since we have long time before those plans would be put into action adding the level of detail you want is unwarranted. Time lines would change, funding would change, and it would all open the candidates up to being called indecisive, or a flip flopper because they change.


Good thing I have no agenda, something you fail to realize. All I have is questions of the candidates. You chose to make it personal because someone dare question your favorite candidate, frankly I am not surprised but it rather amuses me to have such discussion. . However has stated before I have not made a decision about either candidate. What about Micky?


Yep very amused - your completely full of yourself without much ability to see when someone is messing with you completely.Hey whatever excuse you use to sleep at night. All I see is someone make claims to back out of an argument. I full of myself, yes that is proven when I referred to you as young man, and claimed that I was teaching you, and..........oh wait!

So if you want to claim you were just trolling, to get out of the argument be my guest. I don't think your heart is in it anymore anyways.

[m52nickerson]

Well so much for Obama not running misleading ads.

Pocket (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html)

Very, very disappointing.

[CountArach]

Yep, its also sad to hear he has taken money from big oil. Though I would be interested as to what is meant by "Oil company employees".

[Redleg]

It is there, do you need new glasses?

Nope I see just fine - The change the majority of People want is not in-line with the change that MoveOn.org wants.


:laugh4:What an uninspired way to try and deflect the fact you were proven wrong. Yes, you were really trying to teach me something. Not quit you were trying to make a point and it failed. I'm sure you will come back with, no I was teaching you to do research. Weak, very weak. Yes I'm sure the president and his staff went to congress with a very detailed plan, but it still ultimately when through and became a law. No if you feel that the plans presented to the voters need to be as detailed as this (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf) then all I can say is :laugh4:.


Again you read what you want to read - And again you attempt to place a definition that I did not say, oh well you can claim victory if you think you must - however you have not actually won an arguement since as before there is no details in the Health Care Plan. However one can not claim victory when one hasn't defeated the arguement in the first place.



You call it a concept, I call it a plan. .


Is there details in the campaign website? I think nought.



That proves what? Do you think the moderators, being pay by the networks, want to see question thats the candidates can answer easily? No they want to see them stammer and stutter. That is what you see replayed again and again. Plus those pre-screened questions did come from the people. So there is nothing wrong with moderators pre-screening questions, unless you want to know what kind underwear the candidates are wearing.

Like I said the questions were pre-screened, so it proves you have an inability to actually read.

Now I expect people to be more intelligent then ask what kind of underwear that candidates are wearing - however it seems you don't want citizens asking questions of candidates in a debate. Whats wrong you scared that your candidate of choice might stumble and fail?



No the precess is not broken. It is the voters who take place in that process. Are you sure there are more dems and reps then independents

LOL - voters are part of the political process - you can't claim that they are not either especially given the primary system.



No I think you are unfairly questioning because you think politicians are full of crap.


Then that is only your opinion - you have no proof that I am actually being unfair. I have the same cyncism of McCain as I have of Obama - so I am questioning both of them with the same standard. Your opinion here is irrevelant concerning my desire to question and hold politicans accountable. You can only claim unfair if you can prove I hold McCain to a different standard.
Something you are unable to prove.



Here we go, I will say prove that they are not baseless, you will say I have, I will ask were, you will say look.....and so on. It is equivalent to having a yes, no argument with my two year old.

Again it looks like I am speaking to a two year old then....



Funny, I read the plans and can follow along fine, and I thought I was the one being accused of having a problems comprehending.

Like I said before not enough detail for me to support the candidate's position on the his health care plan - so while you might find it acceptable does not equate to me having the same opinion. So what you have to deal with is that not everyone will agree with you concerning anyone subject on this election. Now you show me where I am missing the timeline, the implenation plan, as in phased or in total, and the cost estimates for the plan, then maybe we can reach a consensus. But wait your just going to try to belittle the opposition, so don't bother if that is all you got.



You stated professional analysis then posted a link to a news article, I know how we can fix this, link to on of the professional analysis.

As before - news print is sound enough, you have not refuted the article at all.



But I am not claiming his existence. Now what about the flat earth.


My arguement is not about a flat earth. So no need to prove an opinion.



May be but it served its purpose. No you implemented it by saying it was put in for personal political gains, which it was not.

Something you can't prove or disprove. Riders and pork are always done for political gain, to include personal gain via placating the voters .



It is a rider, but not pork. The delegates from Kansas were doing their jobs, not for personal gain but to help people. I guess you cannot believe that.

If they were doing there jobs they would of funded it in the initial congress that meant when the funding was first tought of being necessary, if they were doing their jobs they would of provided the emergency spending bill for the national emergency. So yep I believe they did it for personal gain, to garner votes, to ease their consience for being to darn lazy to do it right when they should of. Which at best makes it lazy politicans and at worst corrupt politicans using pork to gain votes.



Some times speed saves lives.

There is a converse to that statement.



Helping the farm community would garner votes, but speaking in the interest of the people who put you in office will do the same thing.

Speaking and providing funding is to different aspects - speaking to gain votes is something I can accept because its the political process. Wasting tax payer dollars to garner votes is unacceptable.



Ask for were that opinion is based. Unlike you I will back things up. Just don't come back with "Ok, do it" Give the the specifics.

Why would I do that - I dont have a problem with your opinion your entitled to it, just like I am entitle to mine. In fact you have not demonstrated that any of my opinions are necessarily wrong only different then yours.



A military operations plan and a plans for an entire country just a little bit different, and by little bit I mean huge. Military Op plans have a pretty specific set of guidelines. While political plans do not, and since we have long time before those plans would be put into action adding the level of detail you want is unwarranted. Time lines would change, funding would change, and it would all open the candidates up to being called indecisive, or a flip flopper because they change.

And I say its not unwarranted when the candidate is running a campaign to spend additional taxpayer dollars. The details I mentioned are easily planned and adjusted based upon the reality of the situation as it develops. If your defense is that your scared of your candidate being called indecisive or a flip flopper that is a weak arguement.



What about Micky?


Reading comprehension problems? What part of leaning toward Mickey Mouse did you not understand... That does not imply a decision has been made.



Hey whatever excuse you use to sleep at night. All I see is someone make claims to back out of an argument. I full of myself, yes that is proven when I referred to you as young man, and claimed that I was teaching you, and..........oh wait!

No problems sleeping at all - my consience is clear, no feelings of inadquecy that you seem to have given your nature of wanting to make certain comments directed at the individual versus the actual arguement - like I said before knucklehead tit for tat.



So if you want to claim you were just trolling, to get out of the argument be my guest. I don't think your heart is in it anymore anyways.

Give you a clue my heart wasn't ever in it, just my distracted mind.

[Redleg]

Well so much for Obama not running misleading ads.

Pocket (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html)

Very, very disappointing.

Get used to it he is a politican first and foremost.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pocket (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html)From the ad:
'Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.

Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.'

That sneaky bastard. It's been what, four or five months since Obama lambasted Clinton for her plan to give families a rebate to compensate for high oil prices? :no:

Certainly, there can be no doubts about Obama's experience and ability to lead anymore. Because already, he is the most accomplished lying, sneaky, flip-flopping, opinion-poll driven, untrusthworthy politician in the whole of Washington.

:soapbox: :drama:

[Redleg]

From the ad:
'Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.

Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.'

That sneaky bastard. It's been what, four or five months since Obama lambasted Clinton for her plan to give families a rebate to compensate for high oil prices? :no:

Certainly, there can be no doubts about Obama's experience and ability to lead anymore. Because already, he is the most accomplished lying, sneaky, flip-flopping, opinion-poll driven, untrusthworthy politician in the whole of Washington.

:soapbox: :drama:

Oh Louis don't be to upset with the political rethoric coming out of any politican, m52nickerson though might think your making an attack on his favorite candidate for the office.

Unfortunately for me I want a candidate for President that doesn't meet any of the above listed criteria to actually run for office. Haven't seen one yet actually get past the primary stage for the two main parties.

[m52nickerson]

Sorry double post.

[m52nickerson]

Nope I see just fine - The change the majority of People want is not in-line with the change that MoveOn.org wants. Once again both still want change, that simple fact all I was trying to convey.


Again you read what you want to read - And again you attempt to place a definition that I did not say, oh well you can claim victory if you think you must - however you have not actually won an arguement since as before there is no details in the Health Care Plan. However one can not claim victory when one hasn't defeated the arguement in the first place. No, I said that I did not believe your claim you purposely made a mistake. You seem to also forget what this part was about. It was about implantation and you trying to say the it is not through Laws and regulations. Now when I first put that out there the first time you have move from the stance that it is not right to it is more complicated. Yes it is more complicated, but ultimately laws and then regulations are used. Presidential Orders are sometimes used, but they are not the norm.


Is there details in the campaign website? I think nought.Yes there is detail, just not the level of detail you want. It would be different if say Obama's health care plan was "My plan will cover everybody, and will save people who already have health care"


Like I said the questions were pre-screened, so it proves you have an inability to actually read.

Now I expect people to be more intelligent then ask what kind of underwear that candidates are wearing - however it seems you don't want citizens asking questions of candidates in a debate. Whats wrong you scared that your candidate of choice might stumble and fail?Do you understand that the question in those two debates were asked by the citizens. That, and I gave you a very good reason that tough question would not have been excluded. No I do not have that fear. You seem to thing that the people will be asking tougher questions then others. Probable not true. I don't think most people have gone that deep into looking at the candidates to ask detailed questions. While the some of the media is able to get the the heart of the matter. The best was Tim Russert.


LOL - voters are part of the political process - you can't claim that they are not either especially given the primary system.No they take place in that process.


Then that is only your opinion - you have no proof that I am actually being unfair. I have the same cyncism of McCain as I have of Obama - so I am questioning both of them with the same standard. Your opinion here is irrevelant concerning my desire to question and hold politicans accountable. You can only claim unfair if you can prove I hold McCain to a different standard.
Something you are unable to prove.

Again it looks like I am speaking to a two year old then....
Did I say you were being unfair to just Obama? No, I stated that you expect an unfair amount of detail from the candidates. Yes that is my opinion. Here is the thing, what you want, you will not get. The candidates are not going to go into that level of detail, because it is unneeded for the majority of voters to decide. See you and I may not care about candidates being called flip-flopper, because we can see through that, and understand that they must change with information they are given. No one whats a robot for a president.

You are telling me even thou the candidates plans are in some instances completely opposite, the details are going to sway you one way or another. You would not go with the plan that is closer to your own stance on the issues?


Like I said before not enough detail for me to support the candidate's position on the his health care plan - so while you might find it acceptable does not equate to me having the same opinion. So what you have to deal with is that not everyone will agree with you concerning anyone subject on this election. Now you show me where I am missing the timeline, the implenation plan, as in phased or in total, and the cost estimates for the plan, then maybe we can reach a consensus. But wait your just going to try to belittle the opposition, so don't bother if that is all you got.The details you are asking for will all depend on the situation if he get into office. The time line would be impacted by how much of a fight he has on the implementation. Total or phased would be depended on the budget. All these will be affected by the economy and current event at that time. This is why that level of detail would be very hard to put out now.

Yes, I realize that not everyone will share my views. That does not mean I will not point out when feel that someones views are incorrect. So far you have explained what level of detail you want, but not why you feel it is needed.


As before - news print is sound enough, you have not refuted the article at all. I did, I stated that within the article it talked about spending the author felt was unneeded, and programs that were only for certain areas. It failed to prove these were pork.


My arguement is not about a flat earth. So no need to prove an opinion.No, but it does go back to your defense that it is common knowledge that the farm bill is full of pork. This example shows how common knowledge is not always correct.


Something you can't prove or disprove. Riders and pork are always done for political gain, to include personal gain via placating the voters.Riders are normally done when that specific line item would not stand on it's own. Pork my be considered a rider that is done for personal political gain. You were making the claim that the farm relief is pork, again the person making the claim has the burden of proof.


If they were doing there jobs they would of funded it in the initial congress that meant when the funding was first tought of being necessary, if they were doing their jobs they would of provided the emergency spending bill for the national emergency. So yep I believe they did it for personal gain, to garner votes, to ease their consience for being to darn lazy to do it right when they should of. Which at best makes it lazy politicans and at worst corrupt politicans using pork to gain votes.If they would have "done it the right way" would it have not also helped to garner vote? Do you think the farmer that will benefit from that funding will care how the paperwork was passed through. In essence you are upset because they cut through the "red tape" and did not follow procedures. In the end it accomplished the same goal, only quicker.


There is a converse to that statement. Yes there is, but for this example the converse does not come into play.


Speaking and providing funding is to different aspects - speaking to gain votes is something I can accept because its the political process. Wasting tax payer dollars to garner votes is unacceptable.Are you trying to say that the farm relief was a waste of tax payers money, no probable not. Now what funding you would determine waste may not be the same as the next person. I would say that the government providing money for a study of cross-connection control practices in potable water system would be money well spent. You may not.


Why would I do that - I dont have a problem with your opinion your entitled to it, just like I am entitle to mine. In fact you have not demonstrated that any of my opinions are necessarily wrong only different then yours.No, but we are still in the discussion.


And I say its not unwarranted when the candidate is running a campaign to spend additional taxpayer dollars. The details I mentioned are easily planned and adjusted based upon the reality of the situation as it develops. If your defense is that your scared of your candidate being called indecisive or a flip flopper that is a weak arguement.As stated above you and I may not care, but a vast number of not so informed voters do. Which goes to my point about the voters being the problem. Do what you are asking may get your vote, but in the end may lose far more. This is way it is an unfair request.


Reading comprehension problems? What part of leaning toward Mickey Mouse did you not understand... That does not imply a decision has been made.As it seem that the candidates will not be giving you what you demand, Mickey is looking like your Mouse.


No problems sleeping at all - my consience is clear, no feelings of inadquecy that you seem to have given your nature of wanting to make certain comments directed at the individual versus the actual arguement - like I said before knucklehead tit for tat.A few lite jabs, and I'm having feeling of inadequacy? They get the blood pumping.


Give you a clue my heart wasn't ever in it, just my distracted mind.How many pages and how many words, and your heart was not in it?


Get used to it he is a politican first and foremost.I was hopping that he and McCain would stay out of the muck, I guess not.

[m52nickerson]

Certainly, there can be no doubts about Obama's experience and ability to lead anymore. Because already, he is the most accomplished lying, sneaky, flip-flopping, opinion-poll driven, untrusthworthy politician in the whole of Washington. All that is a far stretch to take from a misleading ad. Do you hold the same opinion regarding McCain, since he has been using adds such as this?

[Xiahou]

Here's a piece from the New Republic, of all places, that discusses growing media frustration with the secrecy of Obama's campaign:

End of the Affair (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e9f4a42-9540-4d99-aba2-25adc276c25d&p=2)
Reporters who have covered Obama's biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. "They're terrified of people poking around Obama's life," one reporter says. "The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it's not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels." Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama's old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

[m52nickerson]

Here's a piece from the New Republic, of all places, that discusses growing media frustration with the secrecy of Obama's campaign:

End of the Affair (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e9f4a42-9540-4d99-aba2-25adc276c25d&p=2)
It has been said that this is Obama's race to lose. With things like this and the new ad right now he is doing a good job of losing it.

McCain may be able to get away with a little more BS right now because the media is not following him as close as Obama. Whatever Obama does the media will be all over it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It has been said that this is Obama's race to lose. With things like this and the new ad right now he is doing a good job of losing it.

McCain may be able to get away with a little more BS right now because the media is not following him as close as Obama.

What is the BS? Obama is a celebrity of celebrities and it has gone to his head. People should be urged to look past their emotion and look at the issues. McCain can win on issues, but we can't get to those until people open their eyes and look past the glamor and glitz of the Obamessiah.

Has there been real BS? The celebrity commercial included issues such as "no to oil drilling" (which was true until yesterday when Obama switched his opinion) and "New Taxes" (which is another promise of Obama, no matter how you look at it).

Nothing gold can stay. It is in all of our interests to drop the worship of Obama and ask hard questions. You can blame McCain for saying it, but it is true.

[Lemur]

It seems that Obama -- who is the antichrist's precursor -- is giving out free terrorist fist-jabs to the Long Island devil. Figures.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/U2hzH2zrEc6odlro3JAQ2xGy_500.jpg

[ICantSpellDawg]

It seems that Obama -- who is the antichrist's precursor -- is giving out free terrorist fist-jabs to the Long Island devil. Figures.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/U2hzH2zrEc6odlro3JAQ2xGy_500.jpg

How did you know about the Long Island Devil?! What was that thing?!

[LittleGrizzly]

Is it just me or does it look like the LID is sticking a middle finger up...

Tuff look in news of the weired, its something that washed up on a british beach...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff look in news of the weired, its something that washed up on a british beach...

What? This one just washed up at Montauk this month.

[m52nickerson]

What is the BS? Obama is a celebrity of celebrities and it has gone to his head. People should be urged to look past their emotion and look at the issues. McCain can win on issues, but we can't get to those until people open their eyes and look past the glamor and glitz of the Obamessiah.

Has there been real BS? The celebrity commercial included issues such as "no to oil drilling" (which was true until yesterday when Obama switched his opinion) and "New Taxes" (which is another promise of Obama, no matter how you look at it).

Nothing gold can stay. It is in all of our interests to drop the worship of Obama and ask hard questions. You can blame McCain for saying it, but it is true.There is BS now from both sides. The McCain commercials are just as much, if not more then the Obama's commercial.

I do agree with you that it should be about the issues, and the candidates should be focusing on showing undecided voters why there plan is the best.

Even past the glitz and glamor I still agree with Obama's stances on the issues over McCain's.

[Lemur]

I think you will find the Long Island Devil received extensive (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1979308&postcount=2393) coverage (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1979915&postcount=2402) in News of the Weird. But now that we know it's an Obama supporter, further posts about the LID will be in this thread.

[LittleGrizzly]

Don't where i got the british thing from, pertend i didn't say British and it all makes sense...

[CountArach]

So much for the Television News channels being Obama Centric (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/919/spears-hilton-obama)

[Lemur]

So while the mulatto antichrist fist-bumps with the LID, seems that the senior citizen has been volunteering his trophy wife for a topless pageant. We really are in the silly season (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/mccain-voluntee.html).


Sen. John McCain, R-Az., perhaps unknowingly, volunteered his wife for a beauty pageant on Monday that often features contestants topless -- and, occasionally, without any decency -- at the Sturgis, South Dakota, motorcycle rally.

"I was looking at the Sturgis schedule, and noticed that you had a beauty pageant, so I encouraged Cindy to compete," McCain told an audience at the rally. "I told her [that] with a little luck, she could be the only woman to serve as both the First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

The audience, clearly better versed in the details of the pageant, cheered and whistled their approval.

[m52nickerson]

So while the mulatto antichrist fist-bumps with the LID, seems that the senior citizen has been volunteering his trophy wife for a topless pageant. We really are in the silly season (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/mccain-voluntee.html).


Sen. John McCain, R-Az., perhaps unknowingly, volunteered his wife for a beauty pageant on Monday that often features contestants topless -- and, occasionally, without any decency -- at the Sturgis, South Dakota, motorcycle rally.

"I was looking at the Sturgis schedule, and noticed that you had a beauty pageant, so I encouraged Cindy to compete," McCain told an audience at the rally. "I told her [that] with a little luck, she could be the only woman to serve as both the First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

The audience, clearly better versed in the details of the pageant, cheered and whistled their approval.No one can say that McCain does not have a good sense of humor. The fact that he is a very likable guy is helping him stay in the race.

[Xiahou]

So much for the Television News channels being Obama Centric (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/919/spears-hilton-obama)


In total, the chain of events set in motion by the celebrity ad accounted for almost one-third of the campaign coverage last week.I for one, am thrilled that the media can always be counted on to follow the big issues. :wall:

[Tribesman]

http://sendables.jibjab.com/:2thumbsup:

[m52nickerson]

http://sendables.jibjab.com/:2thumbsup:

I love that one, have you ever put your self in it?

[Louis VI the Fat]

All that is
a far stretch
to take from
a misleading ad.
Do you hold
the same opinion
regarding McCain,
since he has
been using adds
such as this?

That would be a far stretch from a single add indeed. Hence, it isn't. My opinion of Obama is based on what I gathered of him over the last year or so. My frustration towards him is lingering spite over Clinton losing to him. I guess it shows. ~;)

I really do think though, that lambasting Clinton in April for her plan for an oil price rebate for American families, only to propose this very same plan himself four months later is deserving of a right good curse from me. That bloody, sneaky, opportunist bastard. :whip:


Why should I consider what McCain says or does when talking about Obama? I could think McCain America's saviour or the Antichrist, and it wouldn't mean a thing for what I think of Obama. I don't bend my perception of reality to what I want. I base it on what I see. I don't pick a candidate and then see every fact in light of this. I leave that to football matches. Where my guys never commit fouls, the others are always cheating bastards and the referee a blind fascist.

[Crazed Rabbit]

From CA's link:

For the first time since this general election campaign began in early June, Republican John McCain attracted virtually as much media attention as his Democratic rival last week.

So not much reason not to believe McCain's coverage will drop again.

The windfall tax idea really ticks me off- it's nothing more than barefaced theft, and does absolutely no good for the public or energy investment.

CR

[m52nickerson]

That would be a far stretch from a single add indeed. Hence, it isn't. My opinion of Obama is based on what I gathered of him over the last year or so. My frustration towards him is lingering spite over Clinton losing to him. I guess it shows. ~;)

I really do think though, that lambasting Clinton in April for her plan for an oil price rebate for American families, only to propose this very same plan himself four months later is deserving of a right good curse from me. That bloody, sneaky, opportunist bastard. :whip:

Why should I consider what McCain says or does when talking about Obama? I could think McCain America's saviour or the Antichrist, and it wouldn't mean a thing for what I think of Obama. I don't bend my perception of reality to what I want. I base it on what I see. I don't pick a candidate and then see every fact in light of this. I leave that to football matches. Where my guys never commit fouls, the others are always cheating bastards and the referee a blind fascist.

Well at least we know why your bitter.

My question to you is, because of your feeling about Obama are you going to vote for McCain or some one else even when Obama's views are almost the same as Clinton's?


From CA's link:
So not much reason not to believe McCain's coverage will drop again.

The windfall tax idea really ticks me off- it's nothing more than barefaced theft, and does absolutely no good for the public or energy investment.

CRSo collecting more taxes to then be used to help pay for say, Universal Health Care is not good for the public?

[KarlXII]

I just got a serious question here......

If McCain is elected and bombs Iran (like he will while Osama Hussein Obamaladin fist jabs Mr. A) will we be able to put hotels across Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan while shouting "MONOPOLY!"?

[GeneralHankerchief]

My question to you is, because of your feeling about Obama are you going to vote for McCain or some one else even when Obama's views are almost the same as Clinton's?

I'm fairly certain that Louis is not going to vote in the election at all. :wink:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If McCain is elected and bombs Iran (like he will while Osama Hussein Obamaladin fist jabs Mr. A) will we be able to put hotels across Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan while shouting "MONOPOLY!"?

Yes, but just a word of warning, your opponent cheats. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/15/afghan-arrest.html?ref=rss)

[LittleGrizzly]

I'm fairly certain that Louis is not going to vote in the election at all. :wink:

Yes for some strange reason french nationals are not allowed to vote in american elections, i am guessing Louis hypothetical vote would goto Obama though, unless he's holding out for a hilary 2012....

[Louis VI the Fat]

My question to you is, because of your feeling about Obama are you going to vote for McCain or some one else even when Obama's views are almost the same as Clinton's?Alas, some stork made a horrible mistake. ~:mecry:

Maybe he was drunk, maybe fierce Atlantic storms swept him off his course, maybe he just wasn't listening to the directions I shouted at him. As a result, one of the many injustices I must suffer is that I can't vote in American elections.

I am underwhelmed by both the main candidates. Between the two of them, I'd vote for Obama. I am a more natural Democrat than Republican for starters. And secondly, I'll refer you to this post by Odin (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1947203&postcount=140). It's full of great imagery about flushing the toilet.
I would consider a third party candidate, but none have sprung up this cycle that have caught my attention.

As for Obama sneaking himself into Clinton's place. Nope, doesn't work for me. I want originals, or I am not impressed.

Edit: to be more specific, Obama's creeping to the centre is precisely why I have doubts about him. I would like him better if he were less Clintonesque, if he would've stayed his course. Politician should be driven by inner conviction, not by opinion polls, opportunism, or, and this I fear above all about Obama, downright lack of inner conviction, opinion and sense of direction.

[KukriKhan]

Politician should be driven by inner conviction, not by opinion polls, opportunism, or, and this I fear above all about Obama, downright lack of inner conviction, opinion and sense of direction.


Can I get an "A-men"?

[CountArach]

So collecting more taxes to then be used to help pay for say, Universal Health Care is not good for the public?
Clearly you don't know CR very well. Universal Healthcare is the greatest evil and all traces of its existence must be purged from this planet.

[Tribesman]

Can I get an "A-men"?
Try here
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000WCT3SG/ref=dp_image?ie=UTF8&s=apparel&img=PT01&color%5Fname=x

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Edit: to be more specific, Obama's creeping to the centre is precisely why I have doubts about him. I would like him better if he were less Clintonesque, if he would've stayed his course. Politician should be driven by inner conviction, not by opinion polls, opportunism, or, and this I fear above all about Obama, downright lack of inner conviction, opinion and sense of direction.

Generally the republicans paint any democratic candidate as as an elite, out of touch liberal academic type. Shifting to the center when Obama did is a strategic move to prevent that. You can't have headlines that read like "McCain attacks Obama for being too liberal; this just two days after Obama announced (some centrist thing)". I disagree entirely with your fairy tale prescription for a candidate. Politicians should enact laws and take actions that benefit the people, without breaking the law themselves. The other bad stuff they do is just human nature and how democracy works.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Redleg, M52, if we could only harness the energy you're putting into this back-and-forth, we could power a smallish city for a week. Think about it. It's your duty to find a way to capture this brilliant and wasted effort.

With the imminent passing of Robert Novak (Prayers for he and for his family ~:() and his recently announced immediate retirement, there is the old Evans & Novak niche. Redleg? N52? Either of you telegenic enough?

[PanzerJaeger]

Finally, a viable third party candidate! (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d)

[Ice]

So collecting more taxes to then be used to help pay for say, Universal Health Care is not good for the public?

Before I say any more, let me get this straight. Do you actually the support the idea a windfall tax on oil companies?

Oh and by the way, Obama doesn't want to use the money to pay for "universal health care". He wants to give out $1000 rebates.

Wait, but this sounds familiar? Who else tried this idea? *Drum Roll* could it be... yes, YES, it was... Jimmy Carter!

[LittleGrizzly]

Finally, a viable third party candidate! (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d)


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

Got to apprieciate people willing to take the piss out of themselves, energy policy actually sounded half decent as well, someone with the celebrity to make a third party viable as well, is she can get her choice of vp are we looking at a dream ticket ?!

She's got my vote!

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Got to apprieciate people willing to take the piss out of themselves, energy policy actually sounded half decent as well, someone with the celebrity to make a third party viable as well, is she can get her choice of vp are we looking at a dream ticket ?!

She's got my vote!

I'm thinking Lincoln Bedroom sex tape...

...I'm PJ, and I approve. :2thumbsup:

[woad&fangs]

I may loath Paris Hilton's guts but...She does have the best energy policy and I certainly wouldn't mind Rihanna as VP:toff:

[Caius]

Finally, a viable third party candidate! (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d)
Thank God I didn't suffer from the Lemur Disease.

I can mind the 300 scene:

Barack Obama: This is blasfemy!
John McCain: This is madness!
Paris Hilton: Madness...This is... HOLLYWOOD! *boots them into a hole*

[Ice]

She isn't 35 :balloon2:

[KarlXII]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/mccain-woos-bikers/

See, I guess I understand now. When Obama has a concert open for him, it deserves all the critism in the world and is bad, but McCain does it, oh that's fine and all.

[m52nickerson]

Alas, some stork made a horrible mistake. ~:mecry:That whole location thing should have given me a hint.


Politician should be driven by inner conviction, not by opinion polls, opportunism, or, and this I fear above all about Obama, downright lack of inner conviction, opinion and sense of direction.Unfortunately inner convictions don't always get you into office.

Plus you have the question, is it an elected officials responsibility to follow his own convictions or move in the direction that the people want? Remember they were elected to represent the people.


With the imminent passing of Robert Novak (Prayers for he and for his family ) and his recently announced immediate retirement, there is the old Evans & Novak niche. Redleg? N52? Either of you telegenic enough?No, I look like a 100 year old re-animated corpse, luckily my wife is into necrophilia. Now a radio version my not be bad.


Before I say any more, let me get this straight. Do you actually the support the idea a windfall tax on oil companies?

Oh and by the way, Obama doesn't want to use the money to pay for "universal health care". He wants to give out $1000 rebates.

Wait, but this sounds familiar? Who else tried this idea? *Drum Roll* could it be... yes, YES, it was... Jimmy Carter!Personally I like the idea of forcing the energy companies to funnel a certain % into developing green energy, but overall I do not have a problem with it.

I know it will not be used to pay for health care, and I don't like the idea of the rebates. If you are going to implement a windfall profit tax you need to use it to advance renewable energy green energy, or environmental protection and cleanup.


I'm thinking Lincoln Bedroom sex tape...

...I'm PJ, and I approve. :2thumbsup:You know it is a bright sunny day in the underworld when myself and PJ agree on something.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Personally I like the idea of forcing the energy companies to funnel a certain % into developing green energy, but overall I do not have a problem with it.

:wall::wall:

Gah! Are you aware of how terrible it is for the government to try and force businesses to do what they want? That is; the results are always poor and it is against the principle of liberty.

CR

[m52nickerson]

:wall::wall:

Gah! Are you aware of how terrible it is for the government to try and force businesses to do what they want? That is; the results are always poor and it is against the principle of liberty.

CRThe principals of liberty are for individuals not large corporations, but just for fun what principal of liberty does that go against.

Do you have an example of how the results are poor.

[LittleGrizzly]

Gah! Are you aware of how terrible it is for the government to try and force businesses to do what they want? That is; the results are always poor and it is against the principle of liberty.

Well in cases where the unions didn't achieve it the goverment is essential in protecting workers against the greed of thier employers, several health and safety laws and minimum wage laws prove the point quite well, not just thier employers but all of it citizens need protection from companys who would posion the water or the land rather than spend some money to clear up thier mess, goverments need to force companys to do things quite alot otherwise we would all suffer under the bare faced greed of companys.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This article is an interesting new angle on the election. It will be obvious as to why I like it, but I guarantee that it is different.

Obama Victory Unlikely, Says Mr. Market (http://capitalistnexus.com/2008/08/06/obama-victory-unlikely-says-mr-market/)

Until recently, it was more or less a forgone conclusion that Barrack Obama would beat John McCain and become the next President of The United States. While the race has tightened, the major polls continue to show Obama winning the Electoral College contest, and market based forecast mechanisms such as Intrade.com show him with a 50% lead to win the election (8/6/08 Intrade data shows Obama to have a 60% chance to win the election vs. 40% for John McCain.). Unlike past elections that seem to have marginal differences between the candidates, this one is quite different. Barrack Obama is proposing an extensive set of tax increases on income and capital that have very negative ramifications for the stock market. Further, given the likelihood that Democrats will increase their control of Congress in 2008, Obama should easily pass his tax wish lists. Therefore, smart money will evaluate the odds of an Obama victory and take appropriate action. In this case, it is instructive to answer, “What area of the economy will be negatively affected by a President Obama?” The answer: growth stocks. Lets us first explore why Obama is bad for growth stocks, and then evaluate what the market is saying about an Obama victory.

In order to appreciate how Obama’s policies affect stock prices let us first review some basic concepts behind valuing a stock.

Example 1- No taxes, No cash flow growth

Company A is expected to generate $100 of cash flow forever, and investors require a 10% return. Through the wonders of algebra, the value of a company with these characteristics is captured by the following formula:

$ Flow / Investor Required Return, or $100 / 10% = $1000

So the value of a company that is not growing its cash flows is simply its current cash flow divided by the investor’s required rate of return.

Example 2- No taxes, Positive cash flow growth

Now lets assume that Company B also has $100 of cash flow, but it will grow at an annual rate of 5% a year. Again the wonders of algebra, the value of a company with these characteristics is captured by the following formula:

$ Flow / (Investor Required Return – Cash Flow Growth) or

$100 / (10% - 5%) = $2000

So the value of a company that is growing its cash flows is simply its current cash flow divided by the difference of the investor’s required rate of return and the cash flow growth rate.

Example 3- Taxes and Investor Required Rates of Return

In a world with no taxes, investors simply decide what they want to earn on their investments and then go shopping for investments that give them a satisfactory return for their capital. However, once the government begins to tax capital gains and dividends, investors must evaluate their investment opportunities on an after tax basis, which adds an extra layer of complexity to understand stock valuations. Lets evaluate how the investor required rate of return changes when the tax rate on capital gains increases from 0% to 28%. If investors require a 10% rate of return when capital gains taxes are 0%, those same investors will require a 13.9% required rate of return when the capital gains tax rate increases to 28%. Now lets value Companies A and B when investors have to pay capital gains taxes.

Company A: $100 / 13.9% = $719
Company B: $100 / (13.9% - 5%) = $1124

Notice that as taxes entered into the equation, Company A’s value fell by 28% (from $1000 to $ 719), while Company B’s value fell by 44% (from $2000 to $1124) illustrating how capital gains taxes affect growth and non-growth or “value” oriented companies differently. In other words, growth stocks are more severely affected (positively and negatively) by changes in capital gains tax policies as their cash flows are “back end” loaded.

Because changes in tax policy have such a dramatic effect on company valuations, market actors vigilantly analyze the likelihood of changes in tax policies and act accordingly. With respect to Obama, he has been very clear that he intends to increase taxes on capital gains and dividends from their current level of 15%. The exact level he seeks is unclear, but in past discussions he has indicated he will seek rates between 28% and 39%. Clearly, a President Obama will bring higher taxes and lower market valuations. But more specifically, as seen by our examples above, growth oriented stocks will suffer much more than value type stocks if higher capital gains taxes become part of the tax code.

This creates a unique and unbiased barometer of how likely Obama is to win this November, namely the relationship between growth and value stocks. Specifically, the more likely November brings a President Obama, the more growth stocks should under perform value stocks. The reason for this is very simple; as an Obama win becomes more likely investors will look to exit from growth stocks, causing them to sell-off and under perform stocks less affected by such tax increase. With the billions of dollars stake, investors have tremendous incentives to properly analyze and get to the right answer, unlike TV talking heads that inject their emotions, about who will win this coming November.

So what is the market saying? Through August 5, 2008, growth stocks are outperfoming value stocks as evidenced by the spreads between the mega cap value and growth stock ETFs tracked by Vanguard. Particularly interesting, value stocks tended to do as well or outperform the growth stocks through April. However, as it became likely that Obama would secure the nomination, growth stocks have significantly outperformed value stocks, indicating an Obama victory is unlikely. I cannot help but think that Hillary was indeed the stronger general election candidate.

Given the billions at stake, understanding how the market votes with its dollars everyday is likely to provide a more insightful glimpse to the election’s outcome than main street media pundit predictions or daily tracking polls. While much can and likely will happen between now and November to change things, today the market is clearly and confidently betting that Obama’s act is not yet ready for prime time.

[Redleg]

Once again both still want change, that simple fact all I was trying to convey.

And once again the change is not in-line with what MoveOn.org wants - which is your initial statement.



No, I said that I did not believe your claim you purposely made a mistake. You seem to also forget what this part was about. It was about implantation and you trying to say the it is not through Laws and regulations. Now when I first put that out there the first time you have move from the stance that it is not right to it is more complicated. Yes it is more complicated, but ultimately laws and then regulations are used. Presidential Orders are sometimes used, but they are not the norm.

Actually once again you misread what is written, rather amusing - and I said implantation is done with more then laws and regulations - I did not state is not done through laws and regulations. So where are we at - is where we started, that there is more detail needed in the current concept as posted on Obama's Health Care plan, that it does not contain any implantation information.



Yes there is detail, just not the level of detail you want. It would be different if say Obama's health care plan was "My plan will cover everybody, and will save people who already have health care"

Bingo the first sensible thing you have stated



Do you understand that the question in those two debates were asked by the citizens. That, and I gave you a very good reason that tough question would not have been excluded. No I do not have that fear. You seem to thing that the people will be asking tougher questions then others. Probable not true. I don't think most people have gone that deep into looking at the candidates to ask detailed questions. While the some of the media is able to get the the heart of the matter. The best was Tim Russert.

Oh I understand very clearly - the problem is that you don't want to acknowledge the point I am making because you do not agree with it. That is all fine and well, but you can not claim a superior position on the topic of debates, because there is no superior opinion - only opinions.



No they take place in that process.

Which again makes voters part of the political party process. You can not attempt to seperate the two from each other. The party system via the primaries make the card carrying members of each party part of the party process in selecting a candidate for the party.



Did I say you were being unfair to just Obama? No, I stated that you expect an unfair amount of detail from the candidates. Yes that is my opinion. Here is the thing, what you want, you will not get. The candidates are not going to go into that level of detail, because it is unneeded for the majority of voters to decide. See you and I may not care about candidates being called flip-flopper, because we can see through that, and understand that they must change with information they are given. No one whats a robot for a president.

Again you don't have to share my opinion on what details I expect to get from a candidate that wants to become president. Your arguement has been that I am being unfair, well may arguement is that most people don't want to look into what the candidate is actually saying. So yes detail is need for the people to make informed votes. Regardless if you believe this to be true, or not does not matter to me, what matters to me is my vote, I can determine how much detail is enough for me to decide who I want to vote for, and I don't have to agree with what your expectations for the candidate are. That is what is nice about the democracy.


You are telling me even thou the candidates plans are in some instances completely opposite, the details are going to sway you one way or another. You would not go with the plan that is closer to your own stance on the issues?

What I am saying is I want to know more then just a broad brush stroke on what the plan might be. I want to see how much the candidate is truely committed to his plan, the level of detail in the plan demonstrates that committment just fine to me. Yes I want him to be nailed down on issues that he is campaigning on, no wiggle room for waffling concerning what he plans on doing once achiveing the office that he is running for.



The details you are asking for will all depend on the situation if he get into office. The time line would be impacted by how much of a fight he has on the implementation. Total or phased would be depended on the budget. All these will be affected by the economy and current event at that time. This is why that level of detail would be very hard to put out now.

Your opinion is that it would be very hard to put out now, I do not share that opinion. Details are what make plans executable.



Yes, I realize that not everyone will share my views. That does not mean I will not point out when feel that someones views are incorrect. So far you have explained what level of detail you want, but not why you feel it is needed.

Again that does not mean you have the priveledge to try to belittle an individual that does not share your opinion on the issue. The way I feel it is needed has been explained several times, unfortunately you chose not to pay attention to it.



I did, I stated that within the article it talked about spending the author felt was unneeded, and programs that were only for certain areas. It failed to prove these were pork.

Then you may hold that opinion, I happen to think it demonstrates pork, because it talks about items that are unneeded and in the legislation anyway, and benefits a select group. Oh by the way I use the basic definition of pork found in numerous definitions that has pork defined as something more then just used to garner votes, you might not agree with the definition - all and fine but lets not pretend that you have been using the only accepted definition of pork, especially given that the one listed in Wikipedia is pretty darn common also.


The term pork barrel politics refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. The term originated early in American history, when slaves were sometimes given a barrel of salt pork as a reward and had to compete among themselves to get their share of the handout.[1][2] Typically, it involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples, but they do not exhaust the possibilities.[3] Pork barrel spending is often allocated through last-minute additions to appropriation bills.

In 1991, Citizens Against Government Waste and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition developed seven criteria for a project to qualify as pork:[4]

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.


You may argue all you want that the definition does not apply to the Farm Bill, however you will be hard pressed to actually prove that point.



No, but it does go back to your defense that it is common knowledge that the farm bill is full of pork. This example shows how common knowledge is not always correct.

Now your entitled to your opinion,



Riders are normally done when that specific line item would not stand on it's own. Pork my be considered a rider that is done for personal political gain. You were making the claim that the farm relief is pork, again the person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Again the proof has been provided, you can chose to accept that proof as valid or invalid - it makes no difference to me. Now as for riders, my opinion is that all riders are unneccessary and therefor wasteful spending by the government. Now some of them are indeed pork some are just bad comprises to get a poor bill through congress.


If they would have "done it the right way" would it have not also helped to garner vote? Do you think the farmer that will benefit from that funding will care how the paperwork was passed through. In essence you are upset because they cut through the "red tape" and did not follow procedures. In the end it accomplished the same goal, only quicker.

No I am upset that its a hibitual process with the government. If it was only done for emergencies I might accept it as doing the right thing. However its done way to often, and is done to fund some type of pork, not always of course but enough to make it very noticable.



Yes there is, but for this example the converse does not come into play.


Only via your opinion. Expendicy creates waste also, which does come into play.



Are you trying to say that the farm relief was a waste of tax payers money, no probable not. Now what funding you would determine waste may not be the same as the next person. I would say that the government providing money for a study of cross-connection control practices in potable water system would be money well spent. You may not.

Another sensible opinion - but yes I believe that much of the farm relief and the farm bill is a complete waste of taxpayer money. Many of the same farmers that got this emergency funding for corp failures also have crop insurance. I dislike this type double dipping into the tax payer's pockets.


As stated above you and I may not care, but a vast number of not so informed voters do. Which goes to my point about the voters being the problem. Do what you are asking may get your vote, but in the end may lose far more. This is way it is an unfair request.

Only unfair in your opinion - which does not count toward how I choice to vote for a candidate. So no its not an unfair request because I dont have that opinion concerning my questions of the candidate. So in other words I don't share your definition of what is fair or not to ask of a political candidate that is advocating spending our tax dollars.



As it seem that the candidates will not be giving you what you demand, Mickey is looking like your Mouse.

Tsk tsk did I say demand - or what I request in order to determine who I want to vote for?



A few lite jabs, and I'm having feeling of inadequacy? They get the blood pumping.
Like before I only respond how one decides to argue their positon.


How many pages and how many words, and your heart was not in it?

Yep - my heart is dedicated to my wife, my son, and my life, in that order, followed by doing the job I enjoy after seperating from the military. Political arguements are solely for enjoyment purposes - never for putting my heart into. Only my distracted mind is used to enter into political discussions.



I was hopping that he and McCain would stay out of the muck, I guess not.
They are only politicians after all. Both are attempting to pander to their prespective bases and get the center to vote for them. Both will lose votes because of this, and gain other votes. The best they can do is to temper the lost votes with actual gains. You can hold politicans accountable by making them committ to courses of action during their run for office, this is what happen to Bush Sr. He was held accountable for his failures and voted out of office.

[ICantSpellDawg]

These are the longest posts ever. I've never even heard of Mr. Nickerson, but he sure does like writing alot of stuff over and over. You and Redleg should start your own totalwar social group!:yes:

Also, I remember when McCain said that this race would be entirely above board. That was the only thing that he outright lied about so far. He is a mud-pig and has no business outside of the mud. The idea that a mud-pig would wear a suit and compete for a charisma medal against the golden child was absurd to me.

That isn't me condemning McCain, just calling a spade a spade.

[Ice]

Personally I like the idea of forcing the energy companies to funnel a certain % into developing green energy, but overall I do not have a problem with it.

The only thing energy companies will funnel is their cash into foreign markets.


I know it will not be used to pay for health care, and I don't like the idea of the rebates. If you are going to implement a windfall profit tax you need to use it to advance renewable energy green energy, or environmental protection and cleanup.


That wasn't what you said before, or do I have to quote you on the health care bit?

[Ironside]

:wall::wall:

Gah! Are you aware of how terrible it is for the government to try and force businesses to do what they want? That is; the results are always poor and it is against the principle of liberty.

CR

So less interference = no current market crisis?

And no bank buyouts = stronger economical situation?

(And yes the goverment can mess it up if they don't know what they're doing, but so does the free market aswell).

[CountArach]

Okay back to something electoral (Though admittedly I have de-railed the thread many times :wink: )...

I was wondering what the general opinion of the Electoral College is in America? Do people see it working? Do they believe it is better than having an election where a pure popular vote wins it? What about the other Orgahs?

[Lemur]

There are pros and cons to the electoral college. A lot of cons, really. It's a system that made eminent sense when the average land speed was four miles per hour, and your biggest transportation question was "Canter or trot?"

I'd love to see the Presidency done as a popular vote, if only because it would trick more Americans into thinking their votes counted. You would see a measurable boost in turnout. Also, it would prevent the embarrassing situation where the popular vote loser is the electoral vote winner, which is bound to tick a lot of people off.

Ain't gonna happen, though. I might as well wish for a flat income tax or legalized dueling.

[Xiahou]

I'd love to see the Presidency done as a popular vote, if only because it would trick more Americans into thinking their votes counted. You would see a measurable boost in turnout. Also, it would prevent the embarrassing situation where the popular vote loser is the electoral vote winner, which is bound to tick a lot of people off.I'd never want to see that. But, to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I would've opposed the change to direct election of Senators as well. Things that take away state's rights usually lead directly to a more bloated federal government. :yes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There are pros and cons to the electoral college. A lot of cons, really. It's a system that made eminent sense when the average land speed was four miles per hour, and your biggest transportation question was "Canter or trot?"

I'd love to see the Presidency done as a popular vote, if only because it would trick more Americans into thinking their votes counted. You would see a measurable boost in turnout. Also, it would prevent the embarrassing situation where the popular vote loser is the electoral vote winner, which is bound to tick a lot of people off.


It would be interesting. I bet we'd see a lot more democrats go to the polls in new york and illinois. I bet candidates would move away from the center as well. On the other hand some states would get ignored. It's best done away with in my opinion because the small states already get their coverage with the primaries and in the senate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'd never want to see that. But, to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I would've opposed the change to direct election of Senators as well. Things that take away state's rights usually lead directly to a more bloated federal government. :yes:

I'm sorry Xiahou, how does direct election of Senators negatively effect States rights? I'm probably missing something.

[Xiahou]

I'm sorry Xiahou, how does direct election of Senators negatively effect States rights? I'm probably missing something.
Most obvious would be that Senators chose by a state's legislature would be directly answerable to them and their interests.

The House is apportioned by population size, and is elected by the general population. The Senate is set up so that every state gets the same amount of representation. It was set up by the framers as the representatives of the sovereign states in the Federal government- chosen by their respective legislatures. With one house of the legislature chosen by the people, and one chosen by the states' governments every law passed would have approval of the people (House) and the states (Senate). Having the Senate also chosen by popular vote fundamentally changes this equation.

The 17th Amendment was pushed, using populist rhetoric, by those seeking a stronger federal government with less influence by the individual states.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Most obvious would be that Senators chose by a state's legislature would be directly answerable to them and their interests.

The House is apportioned by population size, and is elected by the general population. The Senate is set up so that every state gets the same amount of representation. It was set up by the framers as the representatives of the sovereign states in the Federal government- chosen by their respective legislatures. With one house of the legislature chosen by the people, and one chosen by the states' governments every law passed would have approval of the people (House) and the states (Senate). Having the Senate also chosen by popular vote fundamentally changes this equation.

The 17th Amendment was pushed, using populist rhetoric, by those seeking a stronger federal government with less influence by the individual states.

I guess. There are pluses and minuses to both I think. Senators that are answerable to a shadowy beurocracy wouldn't be the ideal to me. I rather like the direct election even though I live in NY where Republicans are drawn and quartered and we have the interminable scum Clinton and the liberal bulldog Schumer.

The people in government that I tend to like least are those who are not directly elected (aside for Clinton).

[GeneralHankerchief]

Okay back to something electoral (Though admittedly I have de-railed the thread many times :wink: )...

I was wondering what the general opinion of the Electoral College is in America? Do people see it working? Do they believe it is better than having an election where a pure popular vote wins it? What about the other Orgahs?

I do like the idea of it, however, it does have its flaws. Namely, 75-85% of the states completely get overlooked in the campaign season because they're considered "safe" for one party or the other, meaning the election is essentially decided by how 15% of the country vote. It also limits the effectiveness of independent candidates, since they're all but guaranteed never to win a state, and it's my belief that the current back-and-forth two-party system is why the government sucks so much today.

That said, I'll take the College over a popular vote any day of the week. The states are already weak enough as it is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I do like the idea of it, however, it does have its flaws. Namely, 75-85% of the states completely get overlooked in the campaign season because they're considered "safe" for one party or the other, meaning the election is essentially decided by how 15% of the country vote. It also limits the effectiveness of independent candidates, since they're all but guaranteed never to win a state, and it's my belief that the current back-and-forth two-party system is why the government sucks so much today.

That said, I'll take the College over a popular vote any day of the week. The states are already weak enough as it is.

I agree with you. Maybe I would should also agree with Xiahou on the Senator thing, but I haven't been convinced yet.

[LittleGrizzly]

I do like the idea of it, however, it does have its flaws. Namely, 75-85% of the states completely get overlooked in the campaign season because they're considered "safe" for one party or the other, meaning the election is essentially decided by how 15% of the country vote.

Thats my main problem with it, a huge state like texas is practically ignored by both partys because it is a safe republican seat, it just isn't right that such a huge population is not considered worth campaigning for, also vote apathy was mentioned, it is understandable that unless you live in a swing state it is almost pointless casting your vote, a bet theres a fair few democrats and republicans in texas who just don't bother as they already know the result...

It also limits the effectiveness of independent candidates, since they're all but guaranteed never to win a state, and it's my belief that the current back-and-forth two-party system is why the government sucks so much today.

Thats my other problem with it, if we had this system in the UK we would only have conservative and the labour party, whereas instead we have something more like a 2 1/2 party system (which isn't all that much better but at least for things like the iraq war we had 1/2 a party against it...) was it in one of clintons elections (ross perot ? was it) that a 3rd party got a good percentage of the vote but failed to pick up a single electoral vote, and subsequently dissapeared for the next election... if it had been a popular vote they could have built on thier previous succsess and maybe even taken over the republican party...

I do see the advantadges as well but imo the more cons to it than pros...

[Spino]

I'd never want to see that. But, to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I would've opposed the change to direct election of Senators as well. Things that take away state's rights usually lead directly to a more bloated federal government. :yes:

Ditto.


There are pros and cons to the electoral college. A lot of cons, really. It's a system that made eminent sense when the average land speed was four miles per hour, and your biggest transportation question was "Canter or trot?"

I'd love to see the Presidency done as a popular vote, if only because it would trick more Americans into thinking their votes counted. You would see a measurable boost in turnout. Also, it would prevent the embarrassing situation where the popular vote loser is the electoral vote winner, which is bound to tick a lot of people off.

Ain't gonna happen, though. I might as well wish for a flat income tax or legalized dueling.

I strongly disagree. The electoral college was never intended as a stopgap solution to effectively handle elections for a large and populous nation back when feet and hooves dominated our roadways. The electoral college exists (in part) to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority' over the minority and lends itself to maintaining the relative sovereignty of the States (at least, until the fallout of the Civil War began to settle). It is true that back in the day members of the Electoral College were never compelled by law to accurately represent the popular vote for their state but the system has evolved so that they do. Were the founding fathers so keen on establishing a true democracy then the Senate, as an integral part of our bi-cameral legislature, would have never been created and placed as a legislative 'gauntlet' a bill must endure on its way to being passed or rejected. The idea that a low population state like Rhode Island can have the same representation in the Senate as a high population state like California runs completely contrary to the notion of a truly representative Democracy. If we can justify the elimination of the Electoral College then we can also justify the elimination of the Senate, no joke.

Last but not least keep in mind the founding fathers never intended this nation to be the literal embodiment of vox populi, they were far more realistic and in touch with human nature than to simply hand everything over to the mob. Beyond our bi-cameral legislature the entire foundation of the US government ought to be viewed as one large system of checks and balances.

[Lemur]

If we can justify the elimination of the Electoral College then we can also justify the elimination of the Senate, no joke.
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following you here. Senators are fixed at two per state, always have been, always will be. Electoral college votes, on the other hand, are adjusted according to population. Seems like they are rather different phenomena. But please, go ahead and explain what I'm missing.

-edit-

I was a little too brief, let me try to be clearer: Senators are clearly meant to preserve the rights of the States. Hence the two-per-state, no matter how unrepresentative that may be nationally. (Also note that the concept of a bicameral house was taken from the House of Lords and the House of Commons, not plucked from thin air.) Now, if we were to take the Electoral College as another manifestation of States' Rights, why are they proportional to population? Why are they adjusted from cycle to cycle? Why does Delaware have fewer electors than Texas?

In other words, I take the Electoral College to be a holdover, not a bastion against Federalism. But I could be wrong; I often am.

[Kralizec]

The number of EC members isn't proportional to the size of the state though. California does have more electors than say, Kansas, but not enough to do justice to the larger population.

Is the same true for House representatives? If so that strikes me as overkill. Having one of the chambers of the assembly representing states equally seems enough for me personally as an outsider.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Thats my other problem with it, if we had this system in the UK we would only have conservative and the labour party, whereas instead we have something more like a 2 1/2 party system (which isn't all that much better but at least for things like the iraq war we had 1/2 a party against it...) was it in one of clintons elections (ross perot ? was it) that a 3rd party got a good percentage of the vote but failed to pick up a single electoral vote, and subsequently dissapeared for the next election... if it had been a popular vote they could have built on thier previous succsess and maybe even taken over the republican party...

Bingo.

Third parties in the US are primarily consigned to spoilers for one of the two major parties. In the case you cited, Perot took votes away from Bush 41, helping Clinton win. IIRC, his total percentage of the popular vote was in double digits, but didn't take a single state. I know Democrats who are still seething about how, in 2000, Ralph Nader's being on the ballot in New Hampshire swung the state from Gore to Bush.

[Redleg]

The number of EC members isn't proportional to the size of the state though. California does have more electors than say, Kansas, but not enough to do justice to the larger population.

Is the same true for House representatives? If so that strikes me as overkill. Having one of the chambers of the assembly representing states equally seems enough for me personally as an outsider.

Yes the house is portioned by how many people are present in the state. I believe there is now a fixed amount of Representives that can be in the house, but I am not really sure. The census taken every 10 years is suppose to have some type of effect on the number of representives per state, but once again not really sure if that is true or not. The elector college is also suppose to be adjusted by that same census, but that again I am not sure if its actually happening anylonger.

Now the idea between the two house and the senate was to force the states and the elected representives to form some sort of compramise on legislation.

[Lemur]

More silliness. (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/08/obama_unfazed_by_heckler.html) If this is one of our right-wing Orgahs, please 'fess up.

[ICantSpellDawg]

More silliness. (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/08/obama_unfazed_by_heckler.html) If this is one of our right-wing Orgahs, please 'fess up.

He has a point

[Spino]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following you here. Senators are fixed at two per state, always have been, always will be. Electoral college votes, on the other hand, are adjusted according to population. Seems like they are rather different phenomena. But please, go ahead and explain what I'm missing.

-edit-

I was a little too brief, let me try to be clearer: Senators are clearly meant to preserve the rights of the States. Hence the two-per-state, no matter how unrepresentative that may be nationally. (Also note that the concept of a bicameral house was taken from the House of Lords and the House of Commons, not plucked from thin air.) Now, if we were to take the Electoral College as another manifestation of States' Rights, why are they proportional to population? Why are they adjusted from cycle to cycle? Why does Delaware have fewer electors than Texas?

In other words, I take the Electoral College to be a holdover, not a bastion against Federalism. But I could be wrong; I often am.

From what I can recall in my High School Junior year history class...

Not quite. The Electoral College serves to prevent less populous States from being rendered completely irrelevant in general elections. The number of electoral votes a given State has are not directly representative of the population but are based on the number of Representatives and Senators that it has in Congress. The fact that Senators are counted in the equation demonstrates that there was clear intent by the founders to avoid a scenario where the will of more populous States would be the only determining factor in elections. Because of this no State can have less than three electoral votes regardless of how tiny its population may be. How States choose to have their electoral votes counted in the general elections is where the value of the Electoral College really comes into play. Most States go by an all-or-nothing system whereby the winner of the popular vote in that State gets all the electoral votes. By contributing their electoral votes in one committed chunk as opposed to splitting it up between the various candidates it serves to increase the value of their electoral contribution and again, prevent the general election from becoming purely the will of people living in high population states (which is typically those with numerous large urban areas). Thus thanks to the Senate and Electoral College low population States like Rhode Island & Alaska have much more weight in elections and the legislature than a general democracy would allow. And this is where the strengths of a Republic come into play.

Without the Electoral College candidates would completely ignore smaller states and concentrate solely on large population states. Not that they already don't to some degree but at least it forces the candidates (and elected legislators) to pay attention to the needs of these States on the Federal level lest they lose those votes. Furthermore without the Electoral College (and the Senate) the likelihood of these seemingly disenfranchised States opting to secede would probably increase... dramatically.

The downside to the Electoral college is that it has contributed to the obsession in the general elections with 'Swing States' and has contributed to the creation of our infamous and seemingly entrenched 'two party' system. Since most States opt for an all-or-nothing outcome for its electoral votes it makes it much harder for other parties to get a foothold. As GeneralHankerchief mentioned most of the time they simply serve to spoil the general election for the party whose popular vote in certain states count suffers the most (i.e. Perot in 1992 & Nader in 2000). This is my biggest beef with the system.

The Electoral College also negates the need or urgency for a massive voter turnout. Given the relative level of intelligence and ignorance of the average person I'm inclined to think this is a good thing.

As with the Senate the Electoral College has proven to be of value in protecting the political interests of the minority. As with the Senate it serves to provide one more measure of insurance against an immovable tyranny of the majority.

Wiki has a far more eloquent write-up about the Electoral College and sports a list of some decent pros and cons...

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

[Lemur]

Excellent write-up, Spino -- thanks so much for taking the time! I see the logic to all of the points you make, although the secession issue made me laugh. I, for one, welcome armed conflict with Rhode Island.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Well, there is proportionality that factors in it. Currently, the least populous state, Wyoming, has a population of 522,830 (according to Wiki) and three electoral votes. Whereas California has a population of 36,553,215 and has 55 electoral votes.

That's a 55:3 or 18.333:1 ratio in terms of votes but 70:1 in terms of population.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, there is proportionality that factors in it. Currently, the least populous state, Wyoming, has a population of 522,830 (according to Wiki) and three electoral votes. Whereas California has a population of 36,553,215 and has 55 electoral votes.

That's a 55:3 or 18.333:1 ratio in terms of votes but 70:1 in terms of population.

Right - it isn't ridiculous, it's just a handicap to keep them from getting sucked in the undertow. Some people make it seems like the electoral college is the unreasonable brainchild of evil redstates when it really exists as a fair attempt to preserve the legitimacy of the Union.

Lemur - you may laugh at the idea of State secession now and you'd be almost right to. However, if we were to eliminate the stop gap that smaller states currently have, that idea would become less laughable over time. With bad or unfair policies comes further deterioration of ideological cohesion. Secession is unlikely now for a number of reasons - one of them being the electoral college.

[Marshal Murat]

And a check against radical populists attitudes. Besides, everyone knows that the Founding Fathers were unimpeachable demi-gods of knowledge and virtue. :2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

Meanwhile, a loud-mouth in Miami (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEHwCanBeoqs&refer=home)threatens to kill Sen Obama using a sniper rifle. Someone reports it, and the Feds find firearms in his vehicle and arrest him. He claims post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Q: Is the prospect of assassination any kind of factor in our selection of POTUS? Does it play any role, do you think, in the vote for or against Obama?

[LittleGrizzly]

Well Obama may pick up extra votes from the crazy's who love the conspiracy theorys... nothing like an assasinated US president to help invent a conspiracy.... i suppose one or two people could be put off at the potential for obamas vp to take over (because of the VP or a dislike for dramatic change) i don't really see it being much of a factor...

[GeneralHankerchief]

It certainly makes his VP pick fall under more scrutiny.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think presidential assassination has been that viable a threat since Reagan was shot. Everything that they do is synthetic and heavily planned with absurd levels of security. Presidents may as well be the boyinthebubble these days.

[seireikhaan]

Excellent write-up, Spino -- thanks so much for taking the time! I see the logic to all of the points you make, although the secession issue made me laugh. I, for one, welcome armed conflict with Rhode Island.
Hehe. Ironically, in speech and debate last winter, I got a question when doing extemp speaking of "what should US foreign policy be towards Vermont after a successful 2008 secession?" T'was a joke question thrown in by the coach at the high school, who is, btw, netoriously hated by all extemp participants because of his incredibly annoying and ridiculous questions he puts in. However, it was so hilarious that I did it anyways, whereupon I then ranted for 6 minutes about General Petreaus' march to the St. Laurence. :beam:

[KukriKhan]

It certainly makes his VP pick fall under more scrutiny.

Although made in jest, I wonder if such silent consideration might be weighed by US voters in November. Also, might McCain's age and bouts with various cancers have the same effect - heavier consideration of his VP pick.

Might the VP race end up being more important in the long run, than the POTUS pick? Who will be in charge in 2012, the dem or repub poster-boy, or his demograph-gathering VP pick?

[Marshal Murat]

I've said it before, and I'll say it now.

The VP pick is going to be one of the major deciding factors. Alot of people know McCain is old, and probably going to kick the bucket, or Obama is a major assassination threat and will be shot at.

Taken together, the Vice-President will need to be examined. As such, were Obama to choose Weber from VA, then that would definitely cause some pause and consideration. However, the next VP candidate will either be to attract new demographics (Weber for Obama, Romney for McCain) or reinforce party faith in their stances (Clinton for Obama, Huckabee for McCain).

[m52nickerson]

And once again the change is not in-line with what MoveOn.org wants - which is your initial statement. ....and I have since, many times, clarified my statement.


Actually once again you misread what is written, rather amusing - and I said implantation is done with more then laws and regulations - I did not state is not done through laws and regulations. So where are we at - is where we started, that there is more detail needed in the current concept as posted on Obama's Health Care plan, that it does not contain any implantation information.I stated it was done through Laws and Regs, your response was "incorrect". That is pretty clear to me.


Oh I understand very clearly - the problem is that you don't want to acknowledge the point I am making because you do not agree with it. That is all fine and well, but you can not claim a superior position on the topic of debates, because there is no superior opinion - only opinions.A superior opinion is one that can be shown to be superior, as I have shown that a moderated debate can do everything a townhall style debate can and may prevent the asking of irrelevant questions and more boisterous personalities dominating.


Which again makes voters part of the political party process. You can not attempt to seperate the two from each other. The party system via the primaries make the card carrying members of each party part of the party process in selecting a candidate for the party.I can write down the process on a piece of paper, I can explain a process. I can do that if there are voters or not. So they may be involved in the process, but are not part of the process.

....but really we are arguing semantics. I say it is the voters faults that the candidates can't afford and will not give more details in there plans. This go to my point that what you want is unfair, and as such your opinion is inferior.


Again you don't have to share my opinion on what details I expect to get from a candidate that wants to become president. Your arguement has been that I am being unfair, well may arguement is that most people don't want to look into what the candidate is actually saying. So yes detail is need for the people to make informed votes. Regardless if you believe this to be true, or not does not matter to me, what matters to me is my vote, I can determine how much detail is enough for me to decide who I want to vote for, and I don't have to agree with what your expectations for the candidate are. That is what is nice about the democracy.Yes you can determine how you choose to vote. That does not mean it is not a poor way of choosing.


What I am saying is I want to know more then just a broad brush stroke on what the plan might be. I want to see how much the candidate is truely committed to his plan, the level of detail in the plan demonstrates that committment just fine to me. Yes I want him to be nailed down on issues that he is campaigning on, no wiggle room for waffling concerning what he plans on doing once achiveing the office that he is running for. No wiggle room, you mean no room for adjustments. Maybe you do want a robot.

You avoided my question, even if you get that the complete details to a plan would you not go with the plan that is closer to your own stances on the issues?


Your opinion is that it would be very hard to put out now, I do not share that opinion. Details are what make plans executable. That is true, but what is more important what the plan is or how it is to be implemented. A bad plan can be implemented well and it would still be bad.


Again that does not mean you have the priveledge to try to belittle an individual that does not share your opinion on the issue. The way I feel it is needed has been explained several times, unfortunately you chose not to pay attention to it.See, the thing is I can point out to people that there opinions are incorrect or simply inferior.


Then you may hold that opinion, I happen to think it demonstrates pork, because it talks about items that are unneeded and in the legislation anyway, and benefits a select group. Oh by the way I use the basic definition of pork found in numerous definitions that has pork defined as something more then just used to garner votes, you might not agree with the definition - all and fine but lets not pretend that you have been using the only accepted definition of pork, especially given that the one listed in Wikipedia is pretty darn common also.So let use that definition. I will say that under this definition I will say that all things defined as pork may not be bad. As the relief funds for the farmer in Kansas.


You may argue all you want that the definition does not apply to the Farm Bill, however you will be hard pressed to actually prove that point.Again, under this definition I would say that not all pork would be bad. It opens up the debate on each piece.


Now your entitled to your opinion, Yes, and I should that your opinion that it is common knowledge that the farm bill contains pork is flawed.


Again the proof has been provided, you can chose to accept that proof as valid or invalid - it makes no difference to me. Now as for riders, my opinion is that all riders are unnecessary and therefor wasteful spending by the government. Now some of them are indeed pork some are just bad comprises to get a poor bill through congress.So a rider that is added to a military spending bill to provide emergency funds to a disaster area would be unnecessary and wasteful spending?


No I am upset that its a habitual process with the government. If it was only done for emergencies I might accept it as doing the right thing. However its done way to often, and is done to fund some type of pork, not always of course but enough to make it very noticeable.So you would agree that it would be better to look at each item rather them condemn the whole practice?


Only via your opinion. Expendicy creates waste also, which does come into play. Was there waste in the relief funds for the Kansas farmer?


Another sensible opinion - but yes I believe that much of the farm relief and the farm bill is a complete waste of taxpayer money. Many of the same farmers that got this emergency funding for corp failures also have crop insurance. I dislike this type double dipping into the tax payer's pockets. Many, but not all. Again it would seem that you would agree that each item should be looked at rather that condemn the practice of riders and pork under the definition you posed, all together


Only unfair in your opinion - which does not count toward how I choice to vote for a candidate. So no its not an unfair request because I dont have that opinion concerning my questions of the candidate. So in other words I don't share your definition of what is fair or not to ask of a political candidate that is advocating spending our tax dollars.If your request causes that candidate to paint himself into a plan that he can't then change if the situation warrants and ultimately causes that candidate to lose support then yes it is unfair.


Tsk tsk did I say demand - or what I request in order to determine who I want to vote for?See that you hinted that you may go with the candidate who does give more detail, it seems very close to a demand.


They are only politicians after all. Both are attempting to pander to their prespective bases and get the center to vote for them. Both will lose votes because of this, and gain other votes. The best they can do is to temper the lost votes with actual gains. You can hold politicans accountable by making them committ to courses of action during their run for office, this is what happen to Bush Sr. He was held accountable for his failures and voted out of office.....and is that fair? When we force an elected office to commit to a well defined course of action we take away their ability to adjust to outside factors. Bush Sr, promised to not raise taxes, he did this of his own accord. That is different then blasting a politician who will not take a definite position on an issue because he wants to wait and see, or ask for more detailed plans, when those specifics are subject to change.

I guess in the interest of everyone else, if you agree, your response can the final one. Provided you do not pose any question that I will answer.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Although made in jest, I wonder if such silent consideration might be weighed by US voters in November. Also, might McCain's age and bouts with various cancers have the same effect - heavier consideration of his VP pick.

Might the VP race end up being more important in the long run, than the POTUS pick? Who will be in charge in 2012, the dem or repub poster-boy, or his demograph-gathering VP pick?

I'm almost certain that whoever gets elected in November is going to be a one-termer (or less). If I were a ambitious VP candidate, I'd secretly be hoping that my ticket loses, lest my name and who I associate with becomes poison in four years.

[m52nickerson]

Yes the house is portioned by how many people are present in the state. I believe there is now a fixed amount of Representives that can be in the house, but I am not really sure. The census taken every 10 years is suppose to have some type of effect on the number of representives per state, but once again not really sure if that is true or not. The elector college is also suppose to be adjusted by that same census, but that again I am not sure if its actually happening anylonger.

Now the idea between the two house and the senate was to force the states and the elected representives to form some sort of compramise on legislation.Not to start a new argument. I do know that after the last census Florida had to add two more Representatives. Redrawing the congressional districts was and still is a hot button issue.


These are the longest posts ever. I've never even heard of Mr. Nickerson, but he sure does like writing alot of stuff over and over. You and Redleg should start your own totalwar social group!:yes:Some times I just cannot come up with a better way of saying something.


He has a pointYes he did, and Obama did the right thing.


I've said it before, and I'll say it now.

The VP pick is going to be one of the major deciding factors. Alot of people know McCain is old, and probably going to kick the bucket, or Obama is a major assassination threat and will be shot at.

Taken together, the Vice-President will need to be examined. As such, were Obama to choose Weber from VA, then that would definitely cause some pause and consideration. However, the next VP candidate will either be to attract new demographics (Weber for Obama, Romney for McCain) or reinforce party faith in their stances (Clinton for Obama, Huckabee for McCain).In general I would say that the VP pick normally has more potential for good then it does bad for a candidate. Prime example Dick Chaney, no one likes Chaney.

[Redleg]

....and I have since, many times, clarified my statement.
Yet you continue to attempt to make the same initial conclusion.



I stated it was done through Laws and Regs, your response was "incorrect". That is pretty clear to me.
Yep its incorrect because you left out all the other aspects of implenation that happens when a new program is instituted. So what you get is an incorrect because you did not give a complete answer.



A superior opinion is one that can be shown to be superior, as I have shown that a moderated debate can do everything a townhall style debate can and may prevent the asking of irrelevant questions and more boisterous personalities dominating.

However you have not shown it to be superior. Again your entitled to your opinion but it doesn't necessarily make it superior. For instance I place more importance on the ability for any citizen to ask a question of the candidate, then a structured debate will produce. I do not claim its a superior opinion only that its my opinion. Attacking an opposing opinion does not make the opinion superior only that its an attack



I can write down the process on a piece of paper, I can explain a process. I can do that if there are voters or not. So they may be involved in the process, but are not part of the process.

Sorry voting is part of the poltical process - without voters one can not have a vote.



....but really we are arguing semantics. I say it is the voters faults that the candidates can't afford and will not give more details in there plans. This go to my point that what you want is unfair, and as such your opinion is inferior.

Your not seriousily claiming a superior postion because to provide details will cause the voters to find fault with the candidat?. Details will inform the voters on what the candidate is actually offering - hince the better informed the voter, the ability to make a informed decision becomes greater. You can not claim uniformed voters is a superior position to pick a candidate for president. Sorry I find your arguement faulty in the extreme sense of the word.



Yes you can determine how you choose to vote. That does not mean it is not a poor way of choosing.

however you haven't determined its a poor way of choosing a candidate to any degree.



No wiggle room, you mean no room for adjustments. Maybe you do want a robot.

You avoided my question, even if you get that the complete details to a plan would you not go with the plan that is closer to your own stances on the issues?

Plenty of room for adjustments to a plan, and no I dont want a robot - I want an honest individual with plently of intergity to be the President.
I want a president that can make ethical decisions that don't violate his basic principles.

The answer to your question is self-evident, I don't vote for a candidate on a single issue, hince I look at what the candidate is offering in total. Your seemly attempting to believe that I am a single issue voter - that would be an incorrect assumption on your part.



That is true, but what is more important what the plan is or how it is to be implemented. A bad plan can be implemented well and it would still be bad.

Hince the word detail was used. Take a common sense approach on what the term detail means, versus the course that you have elected to take.



See, the thing is I can point out to people that there opinions are incorrect or simply inferior.


To bad you have done neither in this case. You claim its simply inferior but when you attempt to belittle you actually demonstrate your own inferior postion.


So let use that definition. I will say that under this definition I will say that all things defined as pork may not be bad. As the relief funds for the farmer in Kansas.

Its still pork, which is the point.



Again, under this definition I would say that not all pork would be bad. It opens up the debate on each piece.

Your entitled to your opinion on Pork, mine is that all pork is a cheat on the system and therefor bad in the sense that it was not done correctly.


Yes, and I should that your opinion that it is common knowledge that the farm bill contains pork is flawed.
You still have not demonstrated that. Plenty of news write up demonstrate that many believe that the bill contains pork.



So a rider that is added to a military spending bill to provide emergency funds to a disaster area would be unnecessary and wasteful spending?

Read what the statement states and draw your own conclusion. I would ask why the proper process was not followed?



So you would agree that it would be better to look at each item rather them condemn the whole practice?

If it was the exception versus the rule, however it has become the rule, therefore it has to be condemned because the practice is full of waste and abuse.



Was there waste in the relief funds for the Kansas farmer?

Yep


Many, but not all. Again it would seem that you would agree that each item should be looked at rather that condemn the practice of riders and pork under the definition you posed, all together


That is not what I stated.



If your request causes that candidate to paint himself into a plan that he can't then change if the situation warrants and ultimately causes that candidate to lose support then yes it is unfair.

If the candidate is that stupid then he deserves to lose support. Your again looking at attempting to protect a candidate from making his own mistakes versus ensuring that the candidate is looking at the best possible course of direction for the nation. I happen to care less if a candidate looks foolish at the end of the day - only that in the end we can determine how much intergity and honesty the candidate has concerning his run for office.



See that you hinted that you may go with the candidate who does give more detail, it seems very close to a demand.
An assumption on your part does not make it a reality for me.



....and is that fair? When we force an elected office to commit to a well defined course of action we take away their ability to adjust to outside factors. Bush Sr, promised to not raise taxes, he did this of his own accord. That is different then blasting a politician who will not take a definite position on an issue because he wants to wait and see, or ask for more detailed plans, when those specifics are subject to change.

On concepts and agenda's I would agree, when one claims its a plan well I disagree. Plans require a level of detail that is not present in Obama's current health care plan.



I guess in the interest of everyone else, if you agree, your response can the final one. Provided you do not pose any question that I will answer.

Just answer the comments you wish to answer

[m52nickerson]

Just answer the comments you wish to answerThank you. Instead I will just say this in closing.

As it would be good to have candidates layout very detailed plans, it is not practical for them. The reason is, as I have argued, how we as voter view them. For most people any change in any plan of stance is seen as a negative for a vast majority of voters. You can see than right in this thread. Greater detail will only lead to more of that and fuel the feeling that politicians are less then honest. As well as feeling that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. More detail in the plans does not mean that they will be implemented.

In the end it is far better for us to look at and take an informed stand on the issues and then vote for the candidate that is closest to those stances.

It has been fun Red, hope we can do it again.:2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

In the end it is far better for us to look at and take an informed stand on the issues and then vote for the candidate that is closest to those stances.
And in the end it would also be better for everyone to love one another and live in a field full of dancing and lollipops. And it would be better if everyone had his very own unicorn.

Don't tell me you're another believer in the myth of the rational voter?

[LittleGrizzly]

Don't tell me you're another believer in the myth of the rational voter?

The rational voter realised he was outnumbered years ago, he rationalised that there was no point even bothering and went to get drunk instead ;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe in the "rational voter" - I just don't believe that their vote matters. The role of the rational voter is to convince other, less rational voters of the correct opinions using their emotional weakness and cheap effects as tools. You can also use reason if they seem receptive to it.

I'm actually very effective in oral abortion arguments with people who are pro-choice. I end up getting them to agree with overturning Roe v. wade using emotion and common ground, coupled with little shots of reason. Maybe not on these forums because everyone tends to have their minds made up on quite a few issues. Plus, it is easier to be called *********** when you have the text in front of you.

[m52nickerson]

I believe in the "rational voter" - I just don't believe that their vote matters. The role of the rational voter is to convince other, less rational voters of the correct opinions using their emotional weakness and cheap effects as tools. You can also use reason if they seem receptive to it.

I'm actually very effective in oral abortion arguments with people who are pro-choice. I end up getting them to agree with overturning Roe v. wade using emotion and common ground, coupled with little shots of reason. Maybe not on these forums because everyone tends to have their minds made up on quite a few issues. Plus, it is easier to be called *********** when you have the text in front of you.

I do the same thing, but as a liberal I get to use logic and reason first instead of emotional weakness and cheap effects. :beam:

[Lemur]

This is beginning to feel like a crossover thread with News of the Weird, but anyway, looks like some prankster got the the Straight Talk Express:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/0805082013.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/0805082013a.jpg

And maybe because of all the hope and audacity messing with the rear end, the Straight Talk Express promptly went and crushed a minivan (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080807-McCain-Bus-Hits-Minivan/), which prompts US News' automotive section to ask the burning question on everyone's minds:


Was your minivan recently crushed by an advocate of offshore drilling? Search for a replacement from the best minivans list at U.S. News. With five new minivans achieving near perfect safety scores, they're practically politician-proof.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So less interference = no current market crisis?

And no bank buyouts = stronger economical situation?

(And yes the goverment can mess it up if they don't know what they're doing, but so does the free market aswell).

A lot of the current mortgage trouble in the US is due to the implicit (well, now explicit) assumption that the Fed would bail out Fannie and Freddie if they ever were about to collapse. So, they didn't have the normal capitalistic fear of going out of business due to crappy business decisions. Since they do a lot of backing of loans of other banks in the nation, they were less apprehensive about taking on bad loans. So the banks giving out the loans directly to customers were less apprehensive, and lots of bad loans were given. And because of all the stupid decisions made by Fannie and Freddie, the lousy govt is going to bail them out with taxpayers money. I think it would be better to let them go under as an example to other businesses.

(One article I read raised questions about the constitutionality of helping certain groups of shareholders who invested in Fannie and Freddie - assuming the govt would bail them out if times got tough - and not helping all shareholders of collapsing companies)


The principals of liberty are for individuals not large corporations, but just for fun what principal of liberty does that go against.

Individuals own corporations. And it goes against the right to do with your assets as you please. One should be able to decide how they want to invest their money. If the government tells you what to do, you're nothing more than a serf, a tender of government property.

Basically, if a govt has to mandate something, then its something that wouldn't happen in a free market, because the economics don't work. Now sometimes, like with emissions regulations that can be necessary, but in mandating what to invest in the govt goes against what R&D departments want to invest in.


Do you have an example of how the results are poor.

California's current infatuation with H2 cars. That's going to end poorly, mainly because of the difficulties in efficiently getting pure H2. Or, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles), which already ended poorly.


I'd love to see the Presidency done as a popular vote, if only because it would trick more Americans into thinking their votes counted. You would see a measurable boost in turnout. Also, it would prevent the embarrassing situation where the popular vote loser is the electoral vote winner, which is bound to tick a lot of people off.

Ain't gonna happen, though. I might as well wish for a flat income tax or legalized dueling.

Oh, come on Lemur, you know better than that. That way the less populated states get completely ignored and voter turnout shenanigans by parties (and one, I daresay, in particular) will increase.

CR

[m52nickerson]

A lot of the current mortgage trouble in the US is due to the implicit (well, now explicit) assumption that the Fed would bail out Fannie and Freddie if they ever were about to collapse. So, they didn't have the normal capitalistic fear of going out of business due to crappy business decisions. Since they do a lot of backing of loans of other banks in the nation, they were less apprehensive about taking on bad loans. So the banks giving out the loans directly to customers were less apprehensive, and lots of bad loans were given. And because of all the stupid decisions made by Fannie and Freddie, the lousy govt is going to bail them out with taxpayers money. I think it would be better to let them go under as an example to other businesses.

(One article I read raised questions about the constitutionality of helping certain groups of shareholders who invested in Fannie and Freddie - assuming the govt would bail them out if times got tough - and not helping all shareholders of collapsing companies)Your example shows why more regulations should be required. To keep mortgage companies from having to rely on the Feds to bail them out. The problem with letting them go under is the fact that they hold more mortgages then all the other mortgage companies combined. Letting them go under would be absolutely disastrous.


Individuals own corporations. And it goes against the right to do with your assets as you please. One should be able to decide how they want to invest their money. If the government tells you what to do, you're nothing more than a serf, a tender of government property.I might go for that if it was a private corporation and not a publicly traded company. It would also be different if the government told them what to do with all of their profits, not just a part of them.


Basically, if a govt has to mandate something, then its something that wouldn't happen in a free market, because the economics don't work. Now sometimes, like with emissions regulations that can be necessary, but in mandating what to invest in the govt goes against what R&D departments want to invest in.A free market is most often focused on what will make the most money now, not what will be best for a county in the future.


California's current infatuation with H2 cars. That's going to end poorly, mainly because of the difficulties in efficiently getting pure H2. Or, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles), which already ended poorly.

CRHydrogen as fuel will take a build up of infrastructure, but ultimately may be the best option. If you can use green energies (like solar and wind) to power desalination plants, you now have you pure water you need to produce hydrogen.

[Lemur]

This is just sick (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBghD0XBN5M). And it's making me laugh tears of blood ...

[seireikhaan]

:laugh4: LMAO

Now if only we could make one for McCain...

[Lemur]

It's yet another sign ...


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obantichristsm.jpg

[Crazed Rabbit]

EDIT: Forgot the reason I started this post:
A tentacle of moveon.org wants to intimidate people from donating to the GOP:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/us/politics/08donate.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1218302048-IX2gQQFOXEMwmFxAEi73uQ


Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.

“We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground,” said Mr. Matzzie, who described his effort as “going for the jugular.”

So welcoming and tolerant, those lefties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your example shows why more regulations should be required. To keep mortgage companies from having to rely on the Feds to bail them out.

Or, we just don't bail out businesses that made stupid decisions in the first place.


The problem with letting them go under is the fact that they hold more mortgages then all the other mortgage companies combined. Letting them go under would be absolutely disastrous.

Says who? What makes you know that? The mortgages they own could be bought by other groups.


I might go for that if it was a private corporation and not a publicly traded company. It would also be different if the government told them what to do with all of their profits, not just a part of them.

Publicly traded companies are still owned by a bunch of private individuals. And you think just some oppression makes it alright?


A free market is most often focused on what will make the most money now, not what will be best for a county in the future.

No, it isn't. The whole history of the US is filled with private individuals inventing things and markets were there were none before. The govt is usually the opposite, a bunch of politicians pandering to the established special interests, or what they think should be done. Example; Cali's opposition to diesel, based on their wrong belief that it can't be made as particulate free as gas.


Hydrogen as fuel will take a build up of infrastructure, but ultimately may be the best option.
No, it very likely will not be. Infrastructure isn't the problem.


If you can use green energies (like solar and wind) to power desalination plants, you now have you pure water you need to produce hydrogen.

The main difficulty is in separating the hydrogen from the oxygen, so just getting pure H20 means little.

CR

[m52nickerson]

Or, we just don't bail out businesses that made stupid decisions in the first place.

Says who? What makes you know that? The mortgages they own could be bought by other groups.Seeing that a large % of those mortgages are fro people who didn't qualify for standard mortgages I doubt there are going to be many companies stepping up to buy them.


Publicly traded companies are still owned by a bunch of private individuals. And you think just some oppression makes it alright?If it helps this country as a whole, then yes.


No, it isn't. The whole history of the US is filled with private individuals inventing things and markets were there were none before. The govt is usually the opposite, a bunch of politicians pandering to the established special interests, or what they think should be done. Example; Cali's opposition to diesel, based on their wrong belief that it can't be made as particulate free as gas.Were are not talking about a new market. We are talking about new technologies within the energy market.

With new regulations that are going to come out regardless of who becomes president the Oil companies really need to invest in new techs. The move to reduce our dependence on petroleum will affect how profitable the oil companies are. So by forcing them to invest in those techs we would be helping them.


No, it very likely will not be. Infrastructure isn't the problem.
The main difficulty is in separating the hydrogen from the oxygen, so just getting pure H20 means little.

CRIf we use solar and wind to power electrolysis station then that separation is not a problem. See the is the infrastructure we need.

You would have a power grid using a combination of solar, wind, thermo and nuclear to provide power to the country, including desalination plants, and local electrolysis station to generate hydrogen for vehicle's. The whole system would be renewable and green.

[CountArach]

So welcoming and tolerant, those lefties.
Remind me - which side was it who swiftboated in 2004? Was it us tolerant lefties?

[Lemur]

So welcoming and tolerant, those lefties.
Yeah, I'm afraid this stuck out at me as a very strange sentiment, especially since the quote is from someone who's discussing defending against Swiftboat tactics, which have been pioneered and perfected by ... which party was it again?

And they're still at it (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/08/obamas-messiah-words-grotesque.html), distorting and distracting with the best of them. I mean, crimeny, who's the party running ads about Paris Hilton?


Putting aside for a moment the question of whether the McCain campaign intended to imply that Obama is the anti-Christ. They clearly did intend to imply that he has a Messianic complex and is breathtakingly arrogant. Rush Limbaugh calls him Lord Obama. Jonah Goldberg asks if Obama is the Messiah. This is a common theme throughout the conservative media.

Now I'm all for mockery and parody when it's taking a legitimate point and highlighting it through humor. And it's certainly true that some of Obama's supporters have gone overboard in declaring his magnificence. Oprah comes to mind. But let's remember a few things. First, it was at the Republican Convention in 2004 that several key primetime speakers declared that we had the Lord Almighty to thank for George Bush, and these were speeches approved by the Bush campaign.

Well, you might say, those were other people saying the candidate was served up to us by the Lord. This time around, it's the candidate himself.

That's the part that's just not true. Saying that Republicans are taking Obama's comments out of context doesn't come close to capturing this. What Obama probably meant is pretty much the opposite of what they're implying he meant.

The line used in the McCain ad, a campaign memo, and on just about every conservative blog in America is Obama's quote: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Witnesses who attended the closed-door talk at which Obama suposedly said this have claimed that Obama's actual words were:

"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Seeing that a large % of those mortgages are fro people who didn't qualify for standard mortgages I doubt there are going to be many companies stepping up to buy them.
Oh, so they were bad business decisions that shouldn't have been made, then? But you want the taxpayers to foot the bill for corporate execs getting greedy?


If it helps this country as a whole, then yes.
Geez, there's so much wrong with that.


Were are not talking about a new market. We are talking about new technologies within the energy market.

With new regulations that are going to come out regardless of who becomes president the Oil companies really need to invest in new techs. The move to reduce our dependence on petroleum will affect how profitable the oil companies are. So by forcing them to invest in those techs we would be helping them.

:dizzy2: If the regulations are to have any good, they'd have to deal with autos, as they are the main source of emissions, not refineries. And that would deal with auto manufacturers.

And no, don't even think you help people by dictating what they should invest in. They have people they employ to determine what to invest in, and for some pompous congressman to dictate, based on his own pet projects or ideas, what companies should invest in is the height of stupidity.


If we use solar and wind to power electrolysis station then that separation is not a problem. See the is the infrastructure we need.

You would have a power grid using a combination of solar, wind, thermo and nuclear to provide power to the country, including desalination plants, and local electrolysis station to generate hydrogen for vehicle's. The whole system would be renewable and green.

I'm glad you're practical enough to not be anti-nuclear, but the problem is that it takes more energy to get pure H2 than you can get from using it as fuel.

CR

[m52nickerson]

Oh, so they were bad business decisions that shouldn't have been made, then? But you want the taxpayers to foot the bill for corporate execs getting greedy?That was the purpose of those companies, to get people who normally could not into mortgages. So, then what happens all the people who have mortgages through them now? Should those people also have to pay for that mistake?


Geez, there's so much wrong with that.I guess that is why you are not a liberal.


If the regulations are to have any good, they'd have to deal with autos, as they are the main source of emissions, not refineries. And that would deal with auto manufacturers.

And no, don't even think you help people by dictating what they should invest in. They have people they employ to determine what to invest in, and for some pompous congressman to dictate, based on his own pet projects or ideas, what companies should invest in is the height of stupidity.
Yes the regulation will have to do with the auto industry. If suddenly all new cars have to be twice as efficient, that will affect how much gas is sold. When that trend continues less and less gas will be used and the oil companies will have to move in other directions or they will go the way of the dodo. So yes making them invest in the new techs, that are not pet projects, now may help them in the future.


I'm glad you're practical enough to not be anti-nuclear, but the problem is that it takes more energy to get pure H2 than you can get from using it as fuel.

CRYes it does, but that is not a problem when you are using green, non exhaustible energies to produce it. I don't think it would be advisable to power a electrolysis station with nuclear, but solar and wind would work fine.

The problem is the investment up front. Those forced investments from the oil companies would help.

[CountArach]

The Devil Speaks at Republican Convention (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/politics/09cheney.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Not a smart move from a campaign point of view. This is just going to motivate the left and give the Dems plenty to play with in terms of McCain = Bush III

[Crazed Rabbit]

I gotta agree, Cheney speaking is just stupid.


Yeah, I'm afraid this stuck out at me as a very strange sentiment, especially since the quote is from someone who's discussing defending against Swiftboat tactics, which have been pioneered and perfected by ... which party was it again?

I'm surprised how much dems cry over the swiftboat vets. Kerry started his political career by sticking a knife in the back of his fellow veterans and twisting it, and it came back to bite him. Boo-hoo.

And, do you not see the difference? A leftist group that wants to intimidate people into changing what they do politically versus an attack ad group - that's the same? I can't recall any other group who's stated goal is to have a chilling factor on donations for the other party.

CR

[m52nickerson]

I gotta agree, Cheney speaking is just stupid.Is he going to come out to The Imperial March? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsK3YQ-za2o&feature=related)

[Ironside]

A lot of the current mortgage trouble in the US is due to the implicit (well, now explicit) assumption that the Fed would bail out Fannie and Freddie if they ever were about to collapse. So, they didn't have the normal capitalistic fear of going out of business due to crappy business decisions. Since they do a lot of backing of loans of other banks in the nation, they were less apprehensive about taking on bad loans. So the banks giving out the loans directly to customers were less apprehensive, and lots of bad loans were given. And because of all the stupid decisions made by Fannie and Freddie, the lousy govt is going to bail them out with taxpayers money. I think it would be better to let them go under as an example to other businesses.

(One article I read raised questions about the constitutionality of helping certain groups of shareholders who invested in Fannie and Freddie - assuming the govt would bail them out if times got tough - and not helping all shareholders of collapsing companies).

Well bailing out banks is made to prevent the banking system from crashing, as that would be a considerble economic disaster and considering how poorly my money is going atm due to the current crisis I would say that your ideas are threatening my economic freedom. Now that simple idea is certainly not enough as the Swedish banks have known that the state will do this for atleast 16 years and haven't gotten these loaning ideas.

Now why is that? Well, we can look on how the banks at a whole is affected. Does getting bailed out by the state due to economic crash really benefit the shareholders? No. Does it benefit the company? No, in both cases, the conditions needed to get bailed out is too damaging. Does it benefit a small but powerful group in the top early on, that doesn't take any consideration about the bank's condition after thier profitable adventure? Very likely. And what does CR suggest? Less regulation? Yes, that will surely teach them.


Oh, so they were bad business decisions that shouldn't have been made, then? But you want the taxpayers to foot the bill for corporate execs getting greedy?

No, first you try to prevent the greedy execs to do considerble damage and if tht fail you try to reduce the damage that greedy execs are doing. Somehow I don't think a system driven by the ethics of greed will stop produce greedy execs willing to do anything for money, so I try to make up systems that contains the damage they can do.


I'm glad you're practical enough to not be anti-nuclear, but the problem is that it takes more energy to get pure H2 than you can get from using it as fuel.

CR

Uhm, what was that word? Ah right enthrophy. Any fuel got it, it's only that fossil fuel and nuclear fuel had thier energy investment in an earlier agwe. Ever wondered why fusion power is such a holy grail? It's even better, with enough energy you can get renewable plastics aswell. A practical solution in the between is the hard part.





The problem with letting them go under is the fact that they hold more mortgages then all the other mortgage companies combined. Letting them go under would be absolutely disastrous.
Says who? What makes you know that? The mortgages they own could be bought by other groups.

And you just have taste your table neighbour's meal after he suddenly went sick and blue in the face at a Medici dinner party. ~;p


No, it isn't. The whole history of the US is filled with private individuals inventing things and markets were there were none before. The govt is usually the opposite, a bunch of politicians pandering to the established special interests, or what they think should be done. Example; Cali's opposition to diesel, based on their wrong belief that it can't be made as particulate free as gas.


The two party system and the massive lobbying are the main horrors of the US system, but I guess that when the state prevents some means of eliminating the competition, they might aswell produce new ones.

Although you can mention more about Cali, as they seem demand filters and not banning diesel atm. Or are you refering to the older laws?

Demanding an installment of DPF in all diesel engines is an obvious example of goverment intervention on the free market though.


Edit:
To have something a bit more with the election to do, what more things are publically impossible to do when trying to become a US president?

Having a affair (a follow up, is mariage needed aswell?)
Not having to menton thier belive in God in about every speech

[CountArach]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/obama_poster_hitler_yesweca.gif
I had no idea you supported Obama, Panzer :wink:

[KukriKhan]

Well, if nothing else, the Russia v Georgia conflict gave Johnny Mac & Barry O something to talk about today (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5552954&page=1).

[Ice]

Honestly, I'm in favor of Obama for no simpler a reason than that he is so shockingly different--and I don't just mean skin color.

So far, everything he's done is (to both large and small degrees) fundamentally different from the way everyone else has been doing it for as long as I've been able to keep track of Presidential Elections. McCain seems like Old Hat. It feels like I already know how his presidency would go, and four or eight years down the road I think America would look shockingly similar to how it looks now.

Obama, for better or worse, seems to have the balls to mix things up--and he seems smart enough to figure out the best way to do that once he's in a position to see the big picture.

I remember the days when you held the right winged, libertarian views.

[Lemur]

Speaking of right-winged "libertarians," I just need to note for the record that Alan Keyes is out of his ******** mind. Just completely bonkers (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71830).


In terms of the conservative constituency of the Republican Party, Sen. McCain is an opportunistic infection that threatens to ravage and destroy its defenseless body. Tragically for America, in the larger context of our national political life he still plays the role of the AIDS virus, masquerading as a republican while opening the way for Barack Obama, the opportunistic infection that will ravage the defenseless body of our republic. If we accept the McCain/Obama choice, we resign the republic to its demise. I guess the "lesser of evils" crowd will take comfort in the notion that though infected with HIV, the patient actually died of pneumonia. Unfortunately, this is false comfort, since the choice they make increases the virulence of the opportunistic infection.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Speaking of right-winged "libertarians," I just need to note for the record that Alan Keyes is out of his ******** mind. Just completely bonkers (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71830).


In terms of the conservative constituency of the Republican Party, Sen. McCain is an opportunistic infection that threatens to ravage and destroy its defenseless body. Tragically for America, in the larger context of our national political life he still plays the role of the AIDS virus, masquerading as a republican while opening the way for Barack Obama, the opportunistic infection that will ravage the defenseless body of our republic. If we accept the McCain/Obama choice, we resign the republic to its demise. I guess the "lesser of evils" crowd will take comfort in the notion that though infected with HIV, the patient actually died of pneumonia. Unfortunately, this is false comfort, since the choice they make increases the virulence of the opportunistic infection.

He is totally crazy. I love the guy and would love to know him, but his rhetoric has become more and more of a side-show. Poor dude. I wouldn't vote for him for anything. He should have his own TV show though and I do tend to agree with his overarching points.

[Xiahou]

So far, everything he's done is (to both large and small degrees) fundamentally different from the way everyone else has been doing it for as long as I've been able to keep track of Presidential ElectionsCare to point out anything in particular?

[CountArach]

Care to point out anything in particular?
People powered politics
50 State Strategy

[Xiahou]

People powered politics
50 State Strategy
A little less vague/buzz wordy would be appreciated. :wink:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A little less vague/buzz wordy would be appreciated. :wink:

Your use of google would as well.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hmm i tried in google and got some stuff, it mainly seems to be about how good the stratergy is and what a good job howard dean has done, ill try looking some more...

[CountArach]

A little less vague/buzz wordy would be appreciated. :wink:
Alright then - name one candidate who has also raised as much money as Obama has from small donors and who has accepted as little money from PACs and lobbyists.

Name one candidate from the Democratic Partyy in recent years who has sought to compete in as many states as Obama.

[OverKnight]

Speaking of Howard Dean, I must say I've been impressed by the job he has done as party chair. Not only in handling the contentious primaries but in the 50 state strategy that allowed the Dems to make advances in 2006.

Who knew he had it in him? The meme on him was that he was a caterwauling hot head, and when he got the job, the reception was luke warm.

[PanzerJaeger]

Alright then - name one candidate who has also raised as much money as Obama has from small donors and who has accepted as little money from PACs and lobbyists.

Name one candidate from the Democratic Partyy in recent years who has sought to compete in as many states as Obama.

That does differentiate him!

[Lemur]

PJ, Xiahou, finally there's a way to channel all of your Obama hatred toward a productive goal (http://www.gazette.com/articles/focus_39213___article.html/video_action.html): James Dobson's group, Focus on Family, is asking millions of Christians to pray for "rain of Biblical proportions" during Barack Obama's Aug. 28 appearance at Invesco Field in Denver to accept the Democratic nomination for president.

You really can't make this stuff (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztO8wZz029Y) up. Request for rain prayers starts around 0:20. Man, if the pastor of my church were as blatantly political as these clowns, I'd turn her in to the IRS myself.

[Xiahou]

Alright then - name one candidate who has also raised as much money as Obama has from small donors and who has accepted as little money from PACs and lobbyists.He's done well with small donors- but its hardly been a revolution. He's done better than Kerry did, but not by a lot. Dean did a lot during his failed campaign to make it convenient for people to make small donations online and those numbers are bound to increase as the technique is refined.

According to an analysis by Joseph Graf, 31 percent of Bush's money in 2004 came from donations of $200 or less (compared to 16 percent in 2000). Kerry, meanwhile, raised 37 percent of his money in 2004 from small donors (as compared to 20 percent for Gore in 2000). That's only eight points less than Obama—and there's a strong chance that if Kerry were running this year, with improved technology and an improved environment for Dems, he would've done better. link (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/08/four-myths-of-obama-s-money-machine.aspx)


Name one candidate from the Democratic Partyy in recent years who has sought to compete in as many states as Obama.You'll have to elaborate there. Obama's campaign is competing in any state where he thinks he has a chance- he's not going to throw money away on states that are firmly Republican. There is a GOP backlash that allows Obama to be competitive in some GOP states, but you're delusional if you think he's competitive in all 50 states.

Regardless, I don't see how raising money effectively or polling well adds up to any kind of political revolution and I'd be surprised if that's what GelCube was referring to.

[Crazed Rabbit]

PJ, Xiahou, finally there's a way to channel all of your Obama hatred toward a productive goal (http://www.gazette.com/articles/focus_39213___article.html/video_action.html): James Dobson's group, Focus on Family, is asking millions of Christians to pray for "rain of Biblical proportions" during Barack Obama's Aug. 28 appearance at Invesco Field in Denver to accept the Democratic nomination for president.

You really can't make this stuff (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztO8wZz029Y) up. Request for rain prayers starts around 0:20. Man, if the pastor of my church were as blatantly political as these clowns, I'd turn her in to the IRS myself.

Actually, it's Focus on the Family Action; the political "wing", so they can get involved, somewhat, in politics:
http://www.citizenlink.org/focusaction/A000006808.cfm

CR

[Lemur]

Why is it that every organization with the word "family" in its title is—without exception—psychotic?

[LittleGrizzly]

Why is it that every organization with the word "family" in its title is—without exception—psychotic?

Because they are the self appointed protectors of it, and nothing on this earth could matter more, perfect recipe for psychosis...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why is it that every organization with the word "family" in its title is—without exception—psychotic?

Because the Manson Family is the model?

Nope, can't be that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Could Barack's latest pander possibly be... A Handout Too Far? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080811/D92GAVIO0.html)

Obama's 'no income taxes on seniors' draws critics

Aug 11, 5:28 PM (ET)

By ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON (AP) - If you're a senior citizen and earn less than $50,000 a year, Barack Obama has a deal for you: a life free of federal income tax.

Sounds appealing, right? Maybe to many seniors. But tax policy experts in Washington are giving it bad reviews. They see it as another subsidy for senior citizens, who already get federal help through Social Security and Medicare and often have economic advantages over other demographic groups.

Seniors typically have paid off their mortgages, many have investments and usually don't pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. The kids are usually grown, so they're not saddled with day care or college costs.

"The odds are the retired folks - they're getting pensions, they're getting Social Security, they have investment assets, they own a house - so ... they're better off than somebody who is 30 or 40 years younger who's trying to buy a house (and) trying to start saving," said Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy for Deloitte Tax.

The Obama campaign says the idea would give tax cuts averaging about $1,400 to 7 million seniors who are battling inflation with mostly fixed incomes. The campaign also says the plan would relieve millions of older people from having to file complicated tax returns.

"If you work hard and pay into the system, you've earned the right to a secure retirement," says a description of the plan on the Obama campaign's web site. "But too many seniors aren't getting that security, even though they've held up their end of the bargain. Lower and middle income seniors are struggling as their expenses on health and energy skyrocket while their incomes do not keep pace."

Some of Obama's allies in Washington think he's onto a bad idea.

"Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Among seniors with incomes below $50,000 who do owe income tax, a significant number have modest incomes because they are retired but possess substantial assets," said Robert Greenstein, who heads the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "Given all the problems and needs the nation faces, targeting relief to this group isn't a priority."

The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, gave the idea bad grades in a recent study of the two presidential candidates' tax plans.

Seniors already get preferential treatment in the tax code. They can claim an additional standard deduction and only a portion of their Social Security benefits are taxed. Many don't pay payroll taxes because their income is from investments rather than wages.

"The proposal would exempt comparatively well off, though not affluent, senior citizens from taxes and give them a benefit not generally available to working Americans," said the Tax Policy Center paper. It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax - arguably those most in need - would get no benefit."

Even the powerful seniors' lobby doesn't seem excited about Obama's idea. An AARP bulletin on the presidential candidates' tax plans barely mentions it, noting that Obama's proposal could partly offset additional taxes that Obama would impose on seniors through higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

Tax experts across the spectrum also fault the Obama plan's abrupt $50,000 per year threshold. As described by the campaign, seniors making $48,000, for example, would pay no income tax, while someone with income slightly more than $50,000 could pay several thousand dollars in income taxes. Seniors nearing the $50,000 threshold would have an incentive to quit working.

Lawmakers would likely add a phaseout, according to tax experts. "Everyone knows there would never be this $50,000 cliff," said Ben Harris, a senior research associate at Brookings.

The proposed new tax break for seniors is one of about a dozen tax changes proposed by Obama, including raising rates on people making more than $250,000 a year, extending most of the rest of President Bush's tax cuts, subsidizing Social Security and payroll taxes for low-income workers and boosting income and child care tax credits for low-income workers.

Add this latest handout to the growing list of massive spending and "tax cuts" that is supposedly going to be made up for with an ever-so-slight increase in the top tax bracket. This man is a financial genius!

[LittleGrizzly]

Add this latest handout to the growing list of massive spending and "tax cuts" that is supposedly going to be made up for with an ever-so-slight increase in the top tax bracket. This man is a financial genius!

Less taxes and more spending... remind you of anyone ? (hint GWB)

From the sounds of the article its just a pure vote grab, we all know the grey vote is all dominating.... i would imagine these would be the people least hit by recent price rises and the like, for example they don't need to fill up the car to get back and fore work, there could be some older people struggling with recent price rises but surely a slight subsidie to those old people at the very bottom of the economic ladder would be a better way to go about it...

[CountArach]

The Left wing are indeed the only people who seek to scare people into voting the correct way...

Anti-Obama Book to be released... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/us/politics/13book.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Almost exactly four years after that campaign began, Mr. Corsi has released a new attack book painting Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats’ presumed presidential nominee, as a stealth radical liberal who has tried to cover up “extensive connections to Islam” — Mr. Obama is Christian — and questioning whether his admitted experimentation with drugs in high school and college ever ceased.

Significant parts of the book, whose subtitle is “Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality,” have already been challenged as misleading or false in the days since its debut on Aug. 1. Nonetheless, it is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday — at No. 1.
...
“The goal is to defeat Obama,” Mr. Corsi said in a telephone interview. “I don’t want Obama to be in office.”

He said he was planning to aid several conservative groups that intend to run advertisements against Mr. Obama this fall, though he would not name them.
...
In its timing, authorship and style of reporting, the book is strikingly reminiscent of the one Mr. Corsi wrote with John O’Neill about Mr. Kerry, “Unfit for Command,” which included various accusations that were ultimately undermined by news reports pointing out the contradictions. (Some critics of Mr. Kerry quoted in the book had earlier praised his bravery in incidents they were now asserting he had fabricated; one had earned a medal for bravery in a gun battle he accused Mr. Kerry of concocting.)
...
For instance, Mr. Corsi writes that Mr. Obama had “yet to answer” whether he “stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or whether his drug usage extended to his law school days or beyond.” “How about in the U.S. Senate?” Mr. Corsi asks.

But Mr. Obama, who admitted to occasional marijuana and cocaine use in his high school and early college years, wrote in his memoir that he had “stopped getting high” when he moved to New York in the early 1980s. And in 2003 The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Ill., quoted him responding to a question of his drug use by saying, “I haven’t done anything since I was 20 years old.”
and my favourite line of all...

Mr. Corsi called the Media Matters critique inconsequential because it was advancing a liberal, political agenda.

[Marshal Murat]

Gitmo for the Convention (http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/denver.protesters.arrested.2.793930.html)

Just to whet your appetite...

Each of the fenced areas is about 5 yards by 5 yards and there is a lock on the door. A sign on the wall reads "Warning! Electric stun devices used in this facility."

CBS4 showed its video to leaders of groups that plan to demonstrate during the convention.

"Very bare bones and very reminiscent of a political prisoner camp or a concentration camp," said Zoe Williams of Code Pink.

Williams was one of those arrested at the Republican Convention in New York in 2004.

But shock!!!


"This is a secured environment," Capt. Frank Gale of the Denver Sheriff's Department told CBS4. "We're concerned about how that's going to be utilized by people who will be potentially disruptive."

Oh no, the freedom loving Democrats in Denver, and the city itself, has decided to build a mini Gitmo to hold in all those nasty protesters, using their First Amendment right.
:2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

Oh no, the freedom loving Democrats in Denver, and the city itself, has decided to build a mini Gitmo to hold in all those nasty protesters, using their First Amendment right.
Hey, this is a bigger issue than either party, and this has been going on for quite a while. What, you just noticed? Or are you suggesting that your preferred party is behaving differently? Would you like to talk to the Ron Paul supporters about this?

Hell, you should have been in New York when the Repugs had their convention in Manhattan. It was a freaking nightmare, especially if you had to get to work. Limos full of fat cats got around without bother (I personally made sure to give them a warm New Yorker welcome whenever I could), but for working stiffs it was like trying to break into a prison island.

"Free speech zones" are a joke, and not a very good one. The entire United freakin' States is a free speech zone.

[LittleGrizzly]

Treatment of protestors like that is absolutely shocking! and not entirely limited to the USA, it happened at a Labour convention a few years ago.

I wouldn't have thought there would be too much to protest, i would have assumed that protests would mainly be aimed at partys who have been in power... similar circumstances to republican convention in NY a few years back...

[Adrian II]

Why is it that every organization with the word "family" in its title is—without exception—psychotic?:laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Blacks (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/13/kristol-colin-powell-to-endorse-barack-obama/) of all political persuasions are lining up behind Barack. Nobody wants to play Uncle Tom to Obama's Eliza.

I'm confident Condi won't give in to such ignorance.

[Spino]

Blacks (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/13/kristol-colin-powell-to-endorse-barack-obama/) of all political persuasions are lining up behind Barack. Nobody wants to play Uncle Tom to Obama's Eliza.

I'm confident Condi won't give in to such ignorance.

Possibly but I wouldn't put good money on that. If Colin can cross party lines so can she. Both of them have spoke quite positively about Obama and both are ardent supporters of affirmative action and other selectively liberal positions that concern African Americans (I'm 100% certain Powell is pro AA, fairly sure Rice is as well). I get the impression that they might be of the 'ends justify the means' mindset when it comes to getting one of their own of the not-so-looney variety (i.e. Jackson or Sharpton being bonafide podium pounding loonies) into the Oval office. Yes, I am jaded but these are Baby Boomers and this is politics we're talking about.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/14/daily79.html


Republican presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program "a disgrace," the Associated Press reports.

"I'm receiving benefits," McCain told campaign reporters, but added, "the system is broken."

In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.

McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65.

Last week, McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers ... and that's a disgrace."

B.J. Jarrett from the Social Security Administration said that individuals can refuse retirement benefits.

In 2006, McCain's wife Cindy earned $6 million, and has a net worth of approximately $100 million.

[KarlXII]

I for one hope that Obama picks former General Wesley Clark as the VP. I mean, the man had more military and foreign experience than McCain. He's a supporter of pulling out of Iraq in an organized and stable manner, and I think he can help Obama a lot in the race. Any thoughts?

[CountArach]

I for one hope that Obama picks former General Wesley Clark as the VP. I mean, the man had more military and foreign experience than McCain. He's a supporter of pulling out of Iraq in an organized and stable manner, and I think he can help Obama a lot in the race. Any thoughts?
Plus he was an early and vocal supporter of Clinton, thus healing some of the rifts she has left in the Party. I think he is the best choice.

[Kralizec]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/14/daily79.html

How is this disgraceful, or even newsworthy? Many democrats who argue for more progressive income taxing are millionaires.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I for one hope that Obama picks former General Wesley Clark as the VP. I mean, the man had more military and foreign experience than McCain. He's a supporter of pulling out of Iraq in an organized and stable manner, and I think he can help Obama a lot in the race. Any thoughts?

From wiki:

Priština International Airport

One of Clark's most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation at Priština International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. Russian forces had arrived in Kosovo and were heading for the airport on June 12, 1999, two days after the bombing campaign ended, expecting to help police that section of Kosovo. Clark, on the other hand, had planned for the Kosovo Force to police the area. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, and was told "of course you have to get to the airport" and "you have transfer of authority" in the area. The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however refused to block the Russians through military action reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians. American General Hugh Shelton called Jackson's refusal "troubling," and hearings in the United States Senate suggested it may amount to insubordination, with Senator John Warner suggesting holding hearings regarding whether the refusal was legal and potentially changing those rules if it was.[73] British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie, however, agreed with Jackson and told Clark this on the day Jackson refused the order.[74] Russia eventually withdrew its aid when some nations - including Bulgaria and Romania - granted U.S. requests and disallowed Russian aircraft to fly over their territory, halting their ability to bring in reinforcements.[75][76]

[edit] Circumstances Surrounding Retirement

Clark received another call from General Shelton in July 1999 in which he was told that Secretary Cohen wanted Clark to leave his command in April 2000. Clark was surprised by this, as he saw SACEURs as being expected to serve at least 3 years and often asked to stay on for a 4th, while this date would give him less than 3 years of service at the post.[77] Clark was told that this was necessary because General Joseph Ralston was leaving his post as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would need another 4-star command within 60 days or he would be forced to retire. Ralston was not going to be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff due to an extramarital affair in his past, and the SACEUR position was said to be the last potential post for him.[78] Clark said this explanation "didn't wash" because he believed the legalities could have been sorted out to let him serve a full 3 years.[79] Clinton signed onto Ralston's reassignment, although David Halberstam wrote that both he and Madeleine Albright were angered at Clark's treatment. Clark spent the remainder of his time as SACEUR overseeing peacekeeper forces and, without a new command to take, was forced into retirement from the military on May 2, 2000.[80][81]

Rumors persisted that Clark was forced out due to his contentious relationship with some in Washington D.C.; however, he has dismissed such rumors, calling it a "routine personnel action," and the Department of Defense said it was merely a "general rotation of American senior ranks."[82] However, a NATO ambassador told the International Herald Tribune that Clark's dismissal seemed to be a "political thing from the United States."[83] General Hugh Shelton would say of Clark during his 2004 campaign that "the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote,"[84][85]. Shelton never elaborated further on what these issues were.[86]

I think Obama has better choices.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How is this disgraceful, or even newsworthy? Many democrats who argue for more progressive income taxing are millionaires.

You're confused. I'm talking about hypocrisy--if those millionaire democrats were speaking out about loopholes in the tax code while at the same time taking advantage of them then surely you'd see the problem?

[Lemur]

Wait a cotton-picking moment -- now you're saying Obama isn't the antichrist? I'm having trouble keeping this straight. The authors of the Left Behind series weigh in (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/371367426.html):


"I've gotten a lot of questions the last few weeks asking if Obama is the antichrist," says novelist Jenkins. "I tell everyone that I don't think the antichrist will come out of politics, especially American politics."

"I can see by the language he uses why people think he could be the antichrist," adds LaHaye, "but from my reading of scripture, he doesn't meet the criteria. There is no indication in the Bible that the antichrist will be an American."

[Kralizec]

You're confused. I'm talking about hypocrisy--if those millionaire democrats were speaking out about loopholes in the tax code while at the same time taking advantage of them then surely you'd see the problem?

I think you are confused. If McCain is hypocritical because he takes what he's entitled to based on a system he's criticizing, so are democrats who argue for heavier taxation on the rich while they themselves are wallowing in cash instead of spending it on charity.

[Lemur]

News of Obama's hilbilly half-brother may be trouble for the campaign. Full article. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obamas_hillbilly_half_brother)


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/cooter_article_large2article_large.jpg

[Ronin]

Why is it that every organization with the word "family" in its title is—without exception—psychotic?

because some people try to repress themselves by taking up public stances that go against their urges?

[KukriKhan]

Shades of Billy Carter, lol. One can only hope he's as successful with Cooter Hooch as Billy was with Billy Beer. https://jimcee.homestead.com/billybr.jpg

[ICantSpellDawg]

DNC unleashes partisan fury on Romney (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700250869,00.html)

[KukriKhan]

Other potential vice presidential picks attacked on the site include Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.;
former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge;
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty;
former Hewlett-Packard board chairwoman Carly Fiorina;
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist;
FedEx chairman Fred Smith; and
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va

So that's who the Dems think the Repubs are considering. Interesting.

vote to lynch*: Carly Fiorina for buying COMPAC computer and thereby trashing HP products for a decade.

*just kidding, on a Friday night

[CountArach]

Carly Fiorina was fired for incompetence :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

Based on this hit piece (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-30-2008/0004858947&EDATE=), Fred Smith gets my vote. :2thumbsup:
(I didn't really know much about him, and that was one of the first google hits when I looked.)

[KukriKhan]

My favorite F. Smith quip:


Credibility... What do we sell? We sell trust. We thought we were selling the transportation of goods. In fact, we were selling peace of mind.

[m52nickerson]

I just finish watching the Q & A with the Barack Obama, John McCain and the Pastor of the church Rick Warren. I think the event was great, Warren did a good job of asking tough question and did not focus overly on Christian issues. Overall McCain received more applause from the crowd, as to be expected from were the event was, but both did a good job answering the question with out much side stepping.

So, did any one else watch it? If so what was your take.

[Lemur]

Managed to catch some of it before collapsing. My impression was that it was eons better than any of the primary debates. Nice to hear the candidates talking like human beings, instead of condensed into sound bites and attack ads.

I'll try to make time to finish watching it tomorrow, and then I may have something interesting to say. Or not.

[woad&fangs]

I didn't realize they had a debate scheduled. I'm dissapointed that I missed it. I'll have to see if it's on youtube tomorrow.

[seireikhaan]

Its on right now on Fox News, and they're going to start airing it on CNN in about 8 minutes.

[Lemur]

Uh-oh, looks as though Johnny Mac's "cross in the dirt" story may be ... less than accurate. Apparently it never surfaced until 1999, and it's at odds with things he reported at the time. Details (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-dirt-in-the.html#more).


[W]hen a candidate tells a story that doesn't really add up with his previous accounts, and when he runs a campaign ad based on that story whose imagery is closer to someone else's account than his own, when a life changing moment is forgotten for a quarter of a century until a critical campaign when an appeal to conservative Christians was vital, the question is worth fleshing out - and I will gladly air any evidence that emerges in McCain's defense.

[Xiahou]

Here are two pieces analyzing the "debate" each favoring a different candidate.
McCain Shines at Saddleback Forum (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/small_hopes_and_large_upsets.html)
World's Apart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702080.html)
Both are worth looking at imo, but here was the most striking contrast between them:

Obama's world can be scarier. It's multicultural. It's realistic (yes, there is evil on the streets of this country as well as in other places, and a lot of evil has been perpetrated in the name of good). It's honest. When does life begin? Only the antiabortionists are clear on that. For the majority of Americans (who are pro-choice), it is "above my pay grade," in Obama's words, where there is no hard and fast line to draw on what's worth dying for, and where people of all faiths have to be respected.
Obama's response on abortion -- the issue that remains his largest obstacle to evangelical support -- bordered on a gaffe. Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains "human rights," Obama said that such determinations were "above my pay grade" -- a silly answer to a sophisticated question. If Obama is genuinely unsure about this matter, he (and the law) should err in favor of protecting innocent life. If Obama believes that a baby in the womb lacks human rights, he should say so -- pro-choice men and women must affirm (as many sincerely do) that developing life has a lesser status. Here the professor failed the test of logic.

Also from the first piece, I thought this was one of the more succinct descriptions of the problem that the Obama campaign is facing:
For many evangelicals, the theoretical Obama -- the Obama of hope and unity -- is intriguing, even appealing. But this opinion is not likely to improve upon closer inspection of his policy views. Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him. "I want people to know me well," said Obama at the forum. Among religious conservatives, that may not be an advantage.

[Lemur]

McCain Shines at Saddleback Forum (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/small_hopes_and_large_upsets.html)
Wow, one of George W. Bush's speechwriters favors McCain over Obama. Shocking, I tell ya. And as for the "silly answer" about the determination of when life begins, there are other (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/asked-at-saddleback-forum-when-does.html) interpretations:


"Above my pay grade" is an expression of humility and submission to God: I don't purport to answer the question that belongs to God. He's trying to be folksy, coining a phrase akin to "the man upstairs." When someone says "the man upstairs," you don't start railing about how we're on the top floor, but that's because we know we're dealing with a folksy expression. People are too touchy on the subject of abortion to process the less common "above my pay grade" as an expression.

Obama may have thought that, in a church, talking to a pastor, with religion hovering around every question, listeners would understand that he was putting himself beneath God. But I didn't pick that up last night, Roger Kimball isn't picking it up, and, scanning the articles on the subject this morning, I'd say almost no one heard it as a religious statement, so we must judge "above my pay grade" as a rhetorical misfire. But we shouldn't say it's "insulting and mendacious."

So I take it you're all on board the Straight Talk Express now, Xiahou? Did they finally get to you?

-edit-

And a far more honest assessment (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTBjN2RkY2Y3ODZhYmRmYTZjYTI1NTQ4ZGNkM2Y2YmU=&w=MQ==) of the evening, from a source even a Xiahou can love:


As far as the crowd is concerned, it was clear that McCain was the favorite. That was hardly a surprise; at a small gathering I attended a few years ago, someone asked Warren how many of his parishioners voted for John Kerry. He thought for a moment and said 15 percent. So the conservative Saddleback crowd, while happy to see Obama in their midst, was not going to be on his side. What they wanted was proof that John McCain was on theirs, and that’s what they got.

[PanzerJaeger]

I can arrange for a pack mule, Leemy...

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/carrying_water_hanna.jpg

[woad&fangs]

After seeing the "debate" I have to say that both did very well.

McCain came across as passionate, confident, conservative, and honest.

Obama came across as thoughtful, compassionate, humble, and christian.

[CountArach]

Obama came across as ...christian.
Which was 100% the best result he could have hoped for. How people in America still think he is Muslim is beyond me...

[Xiahou]

Wow, one of George W. Bush's speechwriters favors McCain over Obama. Shocking, I tell ya. And as for the "silly answer" about the determination of when life begins, there are other (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/asked-at-saddleback-forum-when-does.html) interpretations:


"Above my pay grade" is an expression of humility and submission to God: I don't purport to answer the question that belongs to God. It's still a stupid answer. It's obvious that he was trying to say "only God knows"- and that's what's so stupid about his answer. If you don't know whether or not abortion is murder, how the hell can you support it? As the above critique said, if there is any doubt as to whether you're committing murder, how could you be in favor? :dizzy2:


On a different note I heard, my governor, fast Eddie Rendell was on a local radio station and he said something that left me scratching my head. He was asked who he's going to vote for at the Democrat Convention- he said that even though he wants Obama to be president, he would vote for Hillary. Then, for some reason, he went on to say that no delegates (elected or super) are bound to any candidate in the roll call vote and he expected a few Obama delegates to vote Hillary. Why would he say that? Additionally, I don't see how the aforementioned roll call vote can be anything but a black eye for the Obama campaign- it's going to highlight how thin their win really was. Why did they agree to it in the first place?

Edit: Also, Rendell predicted Biden for the VP choice- although he said Hillary would be a better choice.

[CountArach]

It's still a stupid answer. It's obvious that he was trying to say "only God knows"- and that's what's so stupid about his answer. If you don't know whether or not abortion is murder, how the hell can you support it? As the above critique said, if there is any doubt, how could you be in favor? :dizzy2:
As Obama said he believes that women make this choice after a great deal of thought and isn't that what it is all about? Maybe in McCain's opinion life begins at conception, but certainly not in my view, or that of millions of people like me. So surely it is up to the woman to make the moral decision, not a government to dictate its own moral beliefs?

[m52nickerson]

It's still a stupid answer. It's obvious that he was trying to say "only God knows"- and that's what's so stupid about his answer. If you don't know whether or not abortion is murder, how the hell can you support it? As the above critique said, if there is any doubt as to whether you're committing murder, how could you be in favor? :dizzy2:

It was an honest answer. Many people who know that it is a womens right to choose struggle to reconcile that question.


After seeing the "debate" I have to say that both did very well.

McCain came across as passionate, confident, conservative, and honest.

Obama came across as thoughtful, compassionate, humble, and christian.

I agree with you, I think both did well.

[Lemur]

It's still a stupid answer.
Maybe it's a politically stupid answer, but intellectually and scientifically it's an honest answer. Defining what it means to be "alive" is only simple if you're stupid.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It was an honest answer. Many people who know hypothesize/think/believe that it is a womens right to choose struggle to reconcile that question.


Fixed.

[Xiahou]

Maybe it's a politically stupid answer, but intellectually and scientifically it's an honest answer. Defining what it means to be "alive" is only simple if you're stupid.

Try this:
1. I don't know if abortion is murder, therefore we should err on the safe side and not allow it.
2. I don't know if abortion is murder, therefore it should be allowed.
Which makes more sense?
Obama, based on his answer, believes the second. I think that's monstrous.

[Redleg]

Well the DNC is in Denver in one week, it should be interesting to see how it goes. Should be an interesting spectal.

[m52nickerson]

Try this:
1. I don't know if abortion is murder, therefore we should err on the safe side and not allow it.
2. I don't know if abortion is murder, therefore it should be allowed.
Which makes more sense?
Obama, based on his answer, believes the second. I think that's monstrous.

Or to step into the land of realism;

The issue of fetal rights is a tough one, while a women has the right to abort a pregnancy, society also has a responsibility to protect pregnant women and there unborn children from harm.

[Lemur]

Xiahou, I take it from your absolutism that you are opposed to any sort of attempt to reduce the number of abortions, since that's "monstrous." Anything that does not completely end the practice of legal abortion, by your formulation, is "monstrous."

And by extension, anyone who does not subscribe to your formulation is "monstrous." I'm amazed you bother to be polite to all of these heathens and unbelievers and nunace-hugging latte drinkers.

To every complex question there is a fundamentalist with a simple, wrong answer.

Anyway, take the last turn on this one. We don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, not unless we're also prepared to bring gay marriage and gun rights into the mix.


Well the DNC is in Denver in one week, it should be interesting to see how it goes. Should be an interesting spectal.
You know what's sad? My mother actually makes up her mind based on what she sees at the party conventions. I keep telling her, "Mom, that's just political theater. It's a circus." But mothers are not required to listen to their whippersnappers.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Xiahou, I take it from your absolutism that you are opposed to any sort of attempt to reduce the number of abortions, since that's "monstrous." Anything that does not completely end the practice of legal abortion, by your formulation, is "monstrous."

And by extension, anyone who does not subscribe to your formulation is "monstrous." I'm amazed you bother to be polite to all of these heathens and unbelievers and nunace-hugging latte drinkers.

To every complex question there is a fundamentalist with a simple, wrong answer.


Life begins at conception or creation. This answer is not wrong. Life begins when it begins - not some time after it begins. Are there times when people can take the life of another? Yes. Do I believe that abortions have their place in a civil society? Yes, but only at a time of medical emergency or to save the life of the mother. If you want to prevent pregnancy use birth control or abstinence - not homicide.

Obama's answer was asinine.

His opinions on abortion are detestable and covered up only by his unwillingness to let anyone know them in this election.
link to description (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24481)

[Devastatin Dave]

Jesus Lemur, come on. Even you can see Oboma dodged the question. :wall:

Obama must have some mind control skills to keep his minions in check. :laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him.

Whoever said that is dumb--all political figures grow smaller the closer you approach them. The reason jefferson and washington are heroes is because we only know a little about them.


Try this:

1. I don't know if abortion is murder, therefore we should err on the safe side and not allow it.
2. I don't know if abortion is murder, therefore it should be allowed.

Which makes more sense?
Obama, based on his answer, believes the second. I think that's monstrous.

No, you're framing the question poorly. The question is "where does a baby gain 'human rights'. What obama said was he doesn't know the exact point--neither do I. But I still know it's not at conception, and it sure isn't after 2 months, so some abortions are still ok. Come on Xiahou, you should be able to distinguish between a 5 day old baby and 9 month old baby.

[Xiahou]

But I still know it's not at conception, and it sure isn't after 2 months, so some abortions are still ok.Had Obama said that or something similar, he would've given a real answer- but no, he went with a weak non-answer. He could have said, for example, "I don't believe a baby should have human rights at conception, but after X months the issue is more cloudy and I'm uncomfortable with abortions after that point."- that would've been a real answer. Of course, he'd never do that because suggesting that a baby can't be aborted at any point before birth would upset the abortion fanatics in his base. So instead, he wimped out and didn't answer the question at all, or rather he said he doesn't know.

As I've said, if one really doesn't know if a fetus is human or not, it's morally reprehensible to say it's ok to terminate it- common decency suggests that you err on the side of human life. And that's the position Obama left himself with in claiming not to know while still supporting abortion.

Come on Xiahou, you should be able to distinguish between a 5 day old baby and 9 month old baby.I can. And I also know both are human and should be treated as such. :yes:

Anyhow, I didn't bring this up to rehash the abortion debate- it was to illustrate how well McCain outperformed Obama at this event. Where McCain came off as direct and confident, Obama stammered and prevaricated. I suspect it will be the debates that will do the most damage to Obama's campaign. I also suspect his campaign knows this- it's why they agreed to the bare minimum of them.

[CountArach]

Anyhow, I didn't bring this up to rehash the abortion debate- it was to illustrate how well McCain outperformed Obama at this event. Where McCain came off as direct and confident, Obama stammered and prevaricated. I suspect it will be the debates that will do the most damage to Obama's campaign. I also suspect his campaign knows this- it's why they agreed to the bare minimum of them.
Actually I can see the attack adds the Dems will be running:
"If you earn $4.5 Million McCain says you aren't rich."

That was a serious mistake on McCain's part.

[Devastatin Dave]

Which was 100% the best result he could have hoped for. How people in America still think he is Muslim is beyond me...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72667

Old school moon barker if I've ever seen one.

[KarlXII]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72667

Old school moon barker if I've ever seen one.

Why should the average intellectual (not how I said intellectual) care if Obama was brought up Muslim or is Muslim? Does it make him a terrorist? Does it mean he can't govern? Why the :furious3: should I care if he's Muslim, Christain, Jew or Zoroastrian?

[CountArach]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72667

Old school moon barker if I've ever seen one.
The list of things I don't care about just increased by 1.

Also I don't get how a child can be any religion at all. They aren't old enough to make that decision. Even if this is true (Which I doubt) it does not mean that Obama ever believed in the basic tenets of Islam.

[Devastatin Dave]

Why should the average intellectual (not how I said intellectual) care if Obama was brought up Muslim or is Muslim? Does it make him a terrorist? Does it mean he can't govern? Why the :furious3: should I care if he's Muslim, Christain, Jew or Zoroastrian?


Why can't he be hosest about his upbringing, whether it be muslim or a racist black theologen? He should be upfront with the good folks he wants votes from and show us his true self, not puff pieces from fawning media elites that crave European socialism within the good old US of A...
http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/08/18/the_marxist_brother

[CountArach]

Why can't he be hosest about his upbringing, whether it be muslim or a racist black theologen? He should be upfront with the good folks he wants votes from and show us his true self, not puff pieces from fawning media elites that crave European socialism within the good old US of A...
http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/08/18/the_marxist_brother
The only way I could express my thoughts at that article would get me banned from the site...

[KarlXII]

Why can't he be hosest about his upbringing, whether it be muslim or a racist black theologen? He should be upfront with the good folks he wants votes from and show us his true self, not puff pieces from fawning media elites that crave European socialism within the good old US of A...
http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/08/18/the_marxist_brother

Good ol' Snopes. Too bad the common folk don't read it more.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

[KarlXII]

The only way I could express my thoughts at that article would get me banned from the site...

The article had me laughing due to the fact that there was a "Country First" McCain ad next to it :laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

The list of things I don't care about just increased by 1.

Also I don't get how a child can be any religion at all. They aren't old enough to make that decision. Even if this is true (Which I doubt) it does not mean that Obama ever believed in the basic tenets of Islam.

Hey I somewhat agree about children and religion, but old Barry hasn't exactly been honest about his beliefs and upbringing. Read his books, there is some disturbing stuff in them. This guy isn't exactly fond of whites. I find it shocking that people get such a hardon for a dude that reads a great teleprompter but sounds like a retarded parot when asked any questions. He makes George Bush sound like Winston Churchill. Keep on praying to Obamamessiah, he'll deliver you, he's already healed Lemur from is objectional independent streak!!! (like there ever was one)

[Devastatin Dave]

The only way I could express my thoughts at that article would get me banned from the site...

I'm sure you could do a better job of expressing your thoughts than Obama has of expressing his beliefs and core values!!!

[KarlXII]

Hey I somewhat agree about children and religion, but old Barry hasn't exactly been honest about his beliefs and upbringing. Read his books, there is some disturbing stuff in them. This guy isn't exactly fond of whites. I find it shocking that people get such a hardon for a dude that reads a great teleprompter but sounds like a retarded parot when asked any questions. He makes George Bush sound like Winston Churchill. Keep on praying to Obamamessiah, he'll deliver you, he's already healed Lemur from is objectional independent streak!!! (like there ever was one)

I highly doubt that.

[KarlXII]

I'm sure you could do a better job of expressing your thoughts than Obama has of expressing his beliefs and core values!!!

Obvious troll is obvious.

[Devastatin Dave]

Obvious troll is obvious.

It was a compliment, a very small one, but a compliment indeed.:2thumbsup:

[KarlXII]

It was a compliment, a very small one, but a compliment indeed.:2thumbsup:

Weren't you the one that says you take pride in your record as a hooker takes pride in her sores?

Guess that settles it :2thumbsup:

[Devastatin Dave]

Weren't you the one that says you take pride in your record as a hooker takes pride in her sores?

Guess that settles it :2thumbsup:

Touche', goodnight, my insomnia is cured, unlike these pesky sores...:2thumbsup:

[KarlXII]

Touche', goodnight, my insomnia is cured, unlike these pesky sores...:2thumbsup:

Check under your bed, Obombus Hussein Saddam Osama bin Democrat will take you at night.

[CountArach]

It was a compliment, a very small one, but a compliment indeed.:2thumbsup:
Haha I'll take it :wink:

[PanzerJaeger]

Come on Xiahou, you should be able to distinguish between a 5 day old baby and 9 month old baby.

Ummm, what? :inquisitive:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:laugh4: I'm enjoying partisans on both sides of the "church debate." Apparently both groups of partisans are pointing to this debate as clear evidence that the other candidate is an incompetent and/or a cheat.

Both sides could compromise and agree to accept the other's position....:laugh4:


NOTE = this is post#1k! We're already up to 25% of Capo II!!

[CountArach]

NOTE = this is post#1k! We're already up to 25% of Capo II!!
Haha, stop bragging :wink:

We have 2 weeks to get another 3000 posts - ie before a new thread is started.

[LittleGrizzly]

What happens in 2 weeks ? (or why will we be starting a new thread ?)

Are the candidates officailly selected or something ?

[CountArach]

What happens in 2 weeks ? (or why will we be starting a new thread ?)

Are the candidates officailly selected or something ?
Wow... I could have sworn we were still in the "Race to the Conventions" thread... Nevermind...

Though perhaps a new thread might be a good idea.