Log in

View Full Version : U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

PanzerJaeger
08-21-2008, 01:38
Wow. Obama led efforts to defeat a bill protecting babies born from botched abortions, then accused those who brought it up of being lyers. (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012004195)

It really doesn't matter what your stance on abortion is, this is a disgusting position and shows just how far Obama is from the mainstream.

More damaging, it has come out that the bill he voted against was virtually the same as the national bill that Obama claimed to support while calling his accusers lyers.

woad&fangs
08-21-2008, 01:44
I'm going to assume that the story is bull unless someone shows the 2 bills side by side.

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 02:48
Wait a minute. If the baby survived the abortion attempt and was born, he would be disfigured and more than likely in a lot of pain, right?

Devastatin Dave
08-21-2008, 03:59
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

My Brother's keeper?

Wow, Obamamessiah can't even help his own brother. Sad... Man what is it with these "fathers".:no:

Xiahou
08-21-2008, 04:11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

My Brother's keeper?

Wow, Obamamessiah can't even help his own brother. Sad...
I'm sure he'll tax the crap out me to help one of his dad's bastard children. Man what is it with these "fathers".:no:
What did he say his favorite Bible verse was at the debate again? :beam:

Sasaki Kojiro
08-21-2008, 04:56
What do yall think about the part of McCain's health care plan that includes taxing worker's health benefits?

drone
08-21-2008, 05:45
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

My Brother's keeper?

Wow, Obamamessiah can't even help his own brother. Sad...
I'm sure he'll tax the crap out me to help one of his dad's bastard children. Man what is it with these "fathers".:no:

Got to be a fake. Why would he have posters of both AC and Inter in his shack? Insulation? :inquisitive:

PanzerJaeger
08-21-2008, 07:33
Wait a minute. If the baby survived the abortion attempt and was born, he would be disfigured and more than likely in a lot of pain, right?

Wow - that is an incredibly disgusting rationalization. I cannot believe anyone would support what is essentially infanticide.


I'm going to assume that the story is bull unless someone shows the 2 bills side by side.

Here ya go..

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/index.html


And looks like Obama's campaign has admitted he's the real lyer.


Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/


Finally, the AP (http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/) has picked this story up. Hopefully it will get a lot more attention now.

The best part is his reasoning for supporting the federal legislation, but not the - now admittedly - identical state version. The state version would actually do something!


The Obama campaign's explanation is that even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences.

The federal government doesn't have a law regulating abortion, so Congress could pass a "born alive" measure without actually affecting anything. But Illinois has an abortion law that would be muddled by changing the definition of a person with full rights, the campaign says.

Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, backs Obama's position. The federal law essentially does nothing, she said, but the same language in Illinois would complicate state abortion laws.

Essentially, Barack says that he supports a bill protecting babies born in abortion clinics if it doesn't actually do anything, but he's against it if it would truly affect aborted but living babies thrown into the dumpster - an occurrence which prompted the bill in the first case.

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 07:40
Wow - that is an incredibly disgusting rationalization. I cannot believe anyone would support what is essentially infanticide.

And there we go with your gross moronic labeling, it's really starting to piss me off, you know that?.

You would rather have them suffer a failed abortion attempt? And what if the mother is, say, 16? You do realize she will more than likely not be even able to take care of a baby, if she cared for it at all? Same goes for someone who could be incapable of having a baby, be it living conditions, wealth, or mentality.

PanzerJaeger
08-21-2008, 07:47
And there we go with your gross moronic labeling, it's really starting to piss me off, you know that?.

You would rather have them suffer a failed abortion attempt? And what if the mother is, say, 16? You do realize she will more than likely not be even able to take care of a baby, if she cared for it at all? Same goes for someone who could be incapable of having a baby, be it living conditions, wealth, or mentality.

So a baby only has a right to live if it is born healthy and is ensured a good home?

You have very similar views to certain historical figures, but I shant name them as Godwin has not made an appearance in this thread yet.

Gross indeed... :no:

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 07:54
And, from your own article, I guess you forgot this nifty quote:


"I would have been completely in, full support of the federal bill that everyone support- which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was the consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level"

Read it a couple times, you may find (That is, if you aren't to blind by the right wing xenophobia) that he did not vote for it because it is not the kind of bill he envisioned, one that would provide assistance to any infant, regardless if the infant survived the abortion attempt. In this case, the bill did not provide that.

Hell, he also said a mother's "Mental distress" is not a proper reason for late abortion.

Do you even read your articles?

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 08:00
So a baby only has a right to live if it is born healthy and is ensured a good home?

You have very similar views to certain historical figures, but I shant name them as Godwin has not made an appearance in this thread yet.

Gross indeed... :no:

Yes, you got me. I am in fact, Hitler. I am also Gorring, Himmler, Guderian, Rommel, Speer, and every other Nazi. I love Nazism. I love Fascism, I love death. I love killing and pillaging. Really nice, slick. You may not have broken Godwins law, but you came close enough to put yourself in a lower level than you already are. Really now, because I don't want a baby who can be horribly disfigured and in pain due to failed abortions suffer through that, I'm a Nazi?

You want a baby who has been horribly disfigured and more than likely in a great, GREAT, amount of pain suffer?

I really want to break Godwins Law. I really want to say it. I really want to burst. However, I don't want to be banned, and certainly don't want to waste breath on someone who will never see past Faux News.

I don't think I can continue. Good day.

PanzerJaeger
08-21-2008, 08:01
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama was lying. If you would have read the rest of my post, you would have seen that even his camp admitted it was an identical bill, instead of just slobbering his now debunked excuse from the CBN interview. ~:rolleyes:

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 08:06
Last post. Here you go:

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

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

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

Some interesting pages.

Good night. :thumbsdown:

PanzerJaeger
08-21-2008, 08:09
Yes, you got me. I am in fact, Hitler. I am also Gorring, Himmler, Guderian, Rommel, Speer, and every other Nazi. I love Nazism. I love Fascism, I love death. I love killing and pillaging. Really nice, slick. You may not have broken Godwins law, but you came close enough to put yourself in a lower level than you already are. Really now, because I don't want a baby who can be horribly disfigured and in pain due to failed abortions suffer through that, I'm a Nazi?

You want a baby who has been horribly disfigured and more than likely in a great, GREAT, amount of pain suffer?

I really want to break Godwins Law. I really want to say it. I really want to burst. However, I don't want to be banned, and certainly don't want to waste breath on someone who will never see past Faux News.

I don't think I can continue. Good day.

Oh this is too good. Do you realize how many conditions a child can be born into where it is in severe pain? And how many kids are born into unfortunate home lives? Lets put them all down, like dogs. Tell me, do you even remember anything from from infancy? Would you rather have gone through severe pain as an infant and be living today, or dead?

No, sir, your rationalizations are sick.

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 08:17
Oh this is too good. Do you realize how many conditions a child can be born into where it is in severe pain? Lets put them all down, like dogs. Tell me, do you even remember anything from from infancy? Would you rather have gone through severe pain as an infant and be living today, or dead?

No, sir, your rationalizations are sick.

Guess I can't stay away.

We are discussing if an infant who survived an abortion attempt should live. Now, the baby would be horribly disfigured (I think we both agree abortion should be outlawed) and in a severe amount of pain. Would you really want the baby to go through that? Would you really like a baby, a disfigured and pain ridden baby, to actually have to feel that pain every moment? Would you really?

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 08:28
For the sake of everyone, I have encased, in the spoiler tags, pictures of aborted fetus's, which are in links so you have the option of not looking. Now, look, and tell me, if a baby survived through what they died through, would it not be in pain and disfigured? I may sound brutal, or as PJ would call, Nazism (You realize you have a lot of balls to say that, right?) but I find it more humane to not make a baby suffer through that. And besides, I find it more humane to outlaw abortion in general. So no, I do not support killing babies still in the mother's womb. However, I do not support making anyone go through what survivors of abortions do.

http://img501.imagshack.us/my.php?image=abortionhb4.pg

http://img172.imagshack.us/my.php?image=abortion2cm1.pg

http://img501.imagshack.us/my.php?image=abortion3bx0.pg

PanzerJaeger
08-21-2008, 09:08
We are discussing if an infant who survived an abortion attempt should live. Now, the baby would be horribly disfigured (I think we both agree abortion should be outlawed) and in a severe amount of pain. Would you really want the baby to go through that? Would you really like a baby, a disfigured and pain ridden baby, to actually have to feel that pain every moment? Would you really?

Yes. And I think in 20 years when that pain isn't even a conscious memory, s/he would thank me.

But this isn't the point. Whether a viable baby out of the womb should be allowed to live is not up to me, you, Barack Obama, or the seedy abortion clinic doctors he wanted to place their lives in. That baby has an inalienable right to life, as the Illinois state congress finally proclaimed after Barack was out of a leadership position.

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 09:15
And I believe a born baby also has the right to not suffer because of an abortion attempt.

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 09:16
So I'm guessing you're alright with allowing babies to suffer, correct?

Kralizec
08-21-2008, 09:24
Swedishfish, I'd advise you to delete those pictures before a moderator sees them.

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 09:28
Swedishfish, I'd advise you to delete those pictures before a moderator sees them.

Are they not allowed? I did clarify what they were, put them in a spoil tag, and they're in links so you have the choice and know what you're opening. If a mod has a problem, please, remove them.

CountArach
08-21-2008, 12:59
Are they not allowed? I did clarify what they were, put them in a spoil tag, and they're in links so you have the choice and know what you're opening. If a mod has a problem, please, remove them.
A thread was closed a while ago which contained links to aborted foetuses.

I'm sick of abortion topics... seriously... it seems like all we get are the following three topics on this forum:
1) Abortion
2) Gun Control
3) Fascism = Socialism

And that's it...

KukriKhan
08-21-2008, 14:23
1. This is the US General Election thread, not an abortion thread.
2. SwedishFish is relatively new here; we don't/won't host or link to abortion pix. I've disabled the pic links. Readers can easily find such material on their own, or, if interested, via PM.
3. To his credit, SF did follow 'best practices' in referring to controversial material: warn, spoil, link. Good job on that; but no abort pics, please.

Sasaki Kojiro
08-21-2008, 16:43
McCain not sure how many houses he and wife own (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5KYVj3b7Jr4YUPxf8ppl1QM8QtwD92MNTJG0)


"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain responded to a question posed by Politico, according to a story Thursday on the publication's Web site. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

Later, the McCain campaign told Politico that McCain and his wife, Cindy, have at least four in three states, Arizona, California and Virginia. Newsweek recently estimated the two owned at least seven properties.

On the campaign trail, McCain doesn't refer to his wife's wealth, estimated by some at $100 million and based on her late father's Arizona beer distributorship.

Democratic rival Barack Obama's campaign has been trying to make their wealth more widely known to blunt criticism that Obama is an elitist out of touch with ordinary Americans. Obama owns one house, the family home in Chicago, his campaign said.

According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. She has not released her 2007 returns, which she files separately from her husband. McCain's tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007.

In a forum last week with the Rev. Rick Warren, McCain was asked to define the word "rich" and to give a figure. After promoting his tax policies, McCain said: "I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?" The audience laughed, and he added: "But seriously, I don't think you can — I don't think seriously that — the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues."

Obama, asked the same question at the forum, said those making $250,000 and higher are in the top 3 to 4 percent and "doing well." Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007.

:smash:

PanzerJaeger
08-21-2008, 17:01
I'm sick of abortion topics.....

I apologize. The point is that Obama took an extreme position in 2003 which many would find reprehensible, then lied about it when questioned in 2008. Now he is justifying his support of a federal law but not an identical state law because the federal law would do absolutely nothing. That leaves many questions unanswered...

Crazed Rabbit
08-21-2008, 17:21
McCain not sure how many houses he and wife own (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5KYVj3b7Jr4YUPxf8ppl1QM8QtwD92MNTJG0)



:smash:

That's gonna hurt him.

CR

Lemur
08-21-2008, 17:51
I apologize. The point is that Obama took an extreme position in 2003 which many would find reprehensible, then lied about it when questioned in 2008.
We're always happy to accept your apologies, PJ. A Chicago Tribune reporter has put together an exhaustive and complete examination of this controversy, which you can read here (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html). If you can find a more detailed enumeration of the events and issues, I'll give you a shiny nickel.


The history makes it clear that Obama's role in delaying "born-alive" legislation was minor and based on very understandable reservations of many pro abortion rights legislators in Springfield. There is simply no way to paint him as an "extremist" when multiple versions of this same legislation failed in both chambers, often over bi-partisan concerns -- though Jill Stanek is apparently having some success pushing this angle with those who don't have the patience you've had to wade through all the bills and arguments.

Kralizec
08-21-2008, 19:30
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E4D4EF61-18FE-70B2-A897C50223D7ECD3


"Somebody asked John McCain, 'How many houses do you have?’ And he said, I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff. True quote: I’m not sure, I’ll have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four! ...

"If you’re like me and you’ve got one house – or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they don’t lose their home — you might have a different perspective. By the way, the answer is: John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain's world and what people are going through every single day here in America."

Mind you, this is coming from a guy who made over $4.000.000 (along with his wife) last year :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat
08-21-2008, 19:47
Mind you, this is coming from a guy who made over $4.000.000 (along with his wife) last year :laugh4:Hey, Obama's got to hit back. The McCain Machine is portraying Obama as elitist and out of touch with ordinary citizens. It works. The drawback for McCain camp is that it is not a clever move if your own candidate belongs to the super-rich.

The problem though is that Obama works better as an unassailable, almost aloof candidate. New, fresh, unspoiled by dirty tricks.
The Republicans are trying to turn this into a mud slinging fight so they can beat him from experience. Obama faces Luke's 'Return of the Jedi dilemma': strike back, give in to the dark side, and you lose by becoming one of them. Don't strike back, and they'll destroy you.

Clinton tried it against Obama, and failed. But this was because the democratic electorate was fed up with mud-slinging, and, more importantly, because it made Hillary resemble the Republican cartoon of the Clintons, that the Democrats bought hook, line and sinker: power hungry maniacs who won't shy away from any dirty means to gain power.

Alas, Clinton lost. The Democrats are now left with Obama, the candidate that by default is not capable of defeating the Republicans at their own dirty games.

Devastatin Dave
08-21-2008, 20:39
McCain not sure how many houses he and wife own (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5KYVj3b7Jr4YUPxf8ppl1QM8QtwD92MNTJG0)



:smash:

Atleast McCain doesn't have any brothers living on $1 a month. But then again, Obamamessiah only makes 4 million a year, so I guess he doesn't have the means to "help a brutha out"...:laugh4:

Xiahou
08-21-2008, 21:55
McCain not sure how many houses he and wife own (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5KYVj3b7Jr4YUPxf8ppl1QM8QtwD92MNTJG0)Whats the angle here? Everyone knows he's filthy rich. When's that last time we had a candidate who wasn't wealthier than all of us put together?


What do yall think about the part of McCain's health care plan that includes taxing worker's health benefits? This is better. Got any links so I can read up?

woad&fangs
08-21-2008, 22:27
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26336195

I guess we get to find out on Saturday who Obama's VP will be...

CountArach
08-21-2008, 23:15
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26336195

I guess we get to find out on Saturday who Obama's VP will be...
He won't announce on a Saturday - no one watches news over the weekend and as such the news is less likely to impact. The Obama campaign will announce on Friday.

Mind you, this is coming from a guy who made over $4.000.000 (along with his wife) last year :laugh4:
According to McCain that isn't rich.

KarlXII
08-21-2008, 23:22
Atleast McCain doesn't have any brothers living on $1 a month. But then again, Obamamessiah only makes 4 million a year, so I guess he doesn't have the means to "help a brutha out"...:laugh4:

LOL WUT?

m52nickerson
08-22-2008, 01:11
What do yall think about the part of McCain's health care plan that includes taxing worker's health benefits?

Were did you see that?

CountArach
08-22-2008, 01:22
Were did you see that?
Links and explanation here (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/14/mccain%E2%80%99s-plan-to-tax-health-insurance/)

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 01:51
LOL WUT?

wut? yo aint gotz de 4-1-1 on dis? I dun postit jus abit ago...

CountArach
08-22-2008, 02:00
wut? yo aint gotz de 4-1-1 on dis? I dun postit jus abit ago...
Since when was Obama Jamaican? :wink:

CountArach
08-22-2008, 03:02
The debates have been agreed to (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/presidential_de.html). 3 debates and a VP debate.

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 04:57
I just thought of something...
If Obama sent his brother $50, and a couple of empty Zenith refrigerator boxes, Obamamessiah could have MTV do a cribs episode and call it "Pimp my Shack". I'd watch that and even consider voting for "The One".:2thumbsup:

Sasaki Kojiro
08-22-2008, 04:57
Whats the angle here? Everyone knows he's filthy rich. When's that last time we had a candidate who wasn't wealthier than all of us put together?

No angle, it's just pretty funny. Dude doesn't know how many houses he owns.


This is better. Got any links so I can read up?

CA posted one. Basically his plan makes health care benefits part of taxable income--so someone making 18,000 with 6,000 taken out for health care will pay taxes on 18 thousand instead of 12. It's a new tax on the working class. The tax credit that's supposed to offset it isn't enough and will quickly erode.

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 05:03
CA posted one. Basically his plan makes health care benefits part of taxable income--so someone making 18,000 with 6,000 taken out for health care will pay taxes on 18 thousand instead of 12. It's a new tax on the working class. The tax credit that's supposed to offset it isn't enough and will quickly erode.

This is a good thing? 1/3 of your pay is going to "health care"? Or am I misunderstanding you? Not to sound snobbish, what what "working class" individual is only making 18,000? Sound like a lazy dumbass underachiever who was too busy smoking dope or squirting out kids to better themslves. Let them eat cake!!!

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 05:07
The debates have been agreed to (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/presidential_de.html). 3 debates and a VP debate.

Goody, I can't what for the second debate. Obamamessiah will "uhmmm, ahhh, change, mmmm, uhhhh fiarness, uhhhh, duuuuh, hope" and make George Bush sound like James Earl Jones. McCain will wipe the floor with him. :yes:

ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2008, 16:14
An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he's hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background. Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business. Famous Name Obama? No, it's a new name, an unusual one. Longtime Southern Governor Obama? No. He's a community organizer (what's that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so's my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121935481067161515.html?mod=todays_columnists)

They're Paying Attention Now
August 22, 2008

Why is it a real race now, with John McCain rising in the polls and Barack Obama falling? There are many answers, but here I think is an essential one: The American people have begun paying attention.

It's hard for our political class to remember that Mr. Obama has been famous in America only since the winter of '08. America met him barely six months ago! The political class first interviewed him, or read the interview, in 2003 or '04, when he was a rising star. They know him. Everyone else is still absorbing.

This is what they see:

An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he's hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background. Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business. Famous Name Obama? No, it's a new name, an unusual one. Longtime Southern Governor Obama? No. He's a community organizer (what's that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so's my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).

There is no pre-existing category for him.

Add to that the wear and tear of Jeremiah Wright, secret Muslim rumors, media darling and, this week, abortion.

It took a toll, which led to a readjustment. His uniqueness, once his great power, is now his great problem.

And over there is Mr. McCain, and—well, we know him. He's POW/senator/prickly, irritating John McCain.

The Rick Warren debate mattered. Why? It took place at exactly the moment America was starting to pay attention. This is what it looked like by the end of the night: Mr. McCain, normal. Mr. Obama, not normal. You've seen this discussed elsewhere. Mr. McCain was direct and clear, Mr. Obama both more careful and more scattered. But on abortion in particular, Mr. McCain seemed old-time conservative, which is something we all understand, whether we like such a stance or not, and Mr. Obama seemed either radical or dodgy. He is "in … favor of limits" on late-term abortions, though some would consider those limits "inadequate." (In the past week much legal parsing on emanations of penumbras as to the viability of Roe v. Wade followed.)

As I watched I thought: How about "Let the baby live"? Don't parse it. Just "Let the baby live."

As to the question when human life begins, the answer to which is above Mr. Obama's pay grade, oh, let's go on a little tear. You know why they call it birth control? Because it's meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins.

To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?

If you want to argue whether legal abortion is morally defensible, have at it and go to it, but Mr. Obama's answers here seemed to me strange and disturbing.

Mr. Obama's upcoming convention speech will be good. All Obama speeches are good. Not as interesting as he is—he is more compelling as a person than his words tend to be in text. But the speech will be good, and just in case it isn't good, people will still come away with an impression that it must have been, because the media is going to say it was, because they expect it to be, and what they expect is what they will see.

Will Mr. Obama dig deep as to meaning? As to political predicates? During the primary campaigns Republicans were always saying, "This is what I'll do." Mr. Obama has a greater tendency to say, "This is how we'll feel." Republicans talk to their base with, "If we pass this bill, which the Democrats irresponsibly oppose, we'll solve this problem." Democrats are more inclined toward, "If we bring a new attitude of hopefulness and respect for the world, we'll make the seas higher and the fish more numerous." Will Mr. Obama be, in terms of programs and plans, specific? And will his specifics be grounded in something that appears to amount to a political philosophy?

I suspect everyone has the convention speeches wrong. Everyone expects Mr. Obama to rouse, but the speech I'd watch is Mr. McCain's.

He's the one with the real opportunity, because no one expects anything. He's never been especially good at making speeches. (The number of men who've made it to the top of the GOP who don't particularly like making speeches, both Bushes and Mr. McCain, is astonishing, and at odds with the presumed requirements of the media age. The first Bush saw speeches as show biz, part of the weary requirement of leadership, and the second's approach reflects a sense that words, though interesting, were not his friend.)

But Mr. McCain provided, in 2004, one of the most exciting and certainly the most charged moment of the Republican Convention, when he looked up at Michael Moore in the press stands and said, "Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war, it was between war and a greater threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. . . . And certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace." It blew the roof off. And the smile he gave Mr. Moore was one of pure, delighted malice. When Mr. McCain comes to play, he comes to play.

Look for a certain populist stance. He signaled it this week in Politico. He called lobbyists "birds of prey" in pursuit of "their share of the spoils." Great stuff. (Boy, will he have trouble staffing his White House.)

I still think a one-term pledge could win it for him, because it would allow America to punt. It would make the 2008 choice seem less fateful. People don't mind the chance to defer a choice when they're not at all sure about the product. It would give bitter Democrats a chance to regroup, and it would give those who like Obama but consider him a little half-baked to vote against him guiltlessly while he becomes fully baked. (Imagine the Q&A when Sen. Obama announces his second presidential run in 2011: "Well, Brian, I think, looking back, there is something to be said for the idea that I will be a better president now than frankly I would have been four years ago. Experience, if you allow it, is still the best of all teachers.") More, it would allow Mr. McCain to say he means to face the tough problems ahead with a uniquely bipartisan attitude and without having to care a fig for re-election. That itself would give him a new power, one that would make up for the lost juice of lame duckdom. It would also serve to separate him from the hyperpolitical operating styles of the Clinton-Bush years, from the constant campaign.

And Mr. McCain would still have what he always wanted, the presidency, perhaps a serious and respectable one that accrued special respect because it involved some sacrifice on his part.

A move that would help him win doubtful voters, win disaffected Democrats, allow some Republicans to not have to get drunk to vote for him, and that could possibly yield real results for his country. This seems to me such a potentially electrifying idea that he'd likely walk out of his convention as the future president.

Mr. McCain told Politico on Wednesday that he's not considering a one-term pledge.

Why would he not? Such modesty of intent is at odds with the political personality. The thing that makes them want to rule America is the thing that stops them from thinking of prudent limits. This mindset crosses all political categories.

Ronin
08-22-2008, 16:25
Goody, I can't what for the second debate. Obamamessiah will "uhmmm, ahhh, change, mmmm, uhhhh fiarness, uhhhh, duuuuh, hope" and make George Bush sound like James Earl Jones. McCain will wipe the floor with him. :yes:

only if McCain remembers to take his memory medicine on the day of the debate :laugh4:

Sasaki Kojiro
08-22-2008, 18:02
This is a good thing? 1/3 of your pay is going to "health care"? Or am I misunderstanding you? Not to sound snobbish, what what "working class" individual is only making 18,000? Sound like a lazy dumbass underachiever who was too busy smoking dope or squirting out kids to better themslves. Let them eat cake!!!

Or my mother who works as an assistant teacher and has to use her health care plan to cover the whole family...

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 21:31
Or my mother who works as an assistant teacher and has to use her health care plan to cover the whole family...

Where's your dad?

PanzerJaeger
08-22-2008, 21:42
We're always happy to accept your apologies, PJ. A Chicago Tribune reporter has put together an exhaustive and complete examination of this controversy, which you can read here (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html). If you can find a more detailed enumeration of the events and issues, I'll give you a shiny nickel.


Forget a pack mule, your going to need a camel for that water - preferably of the multi-humped variety.

From your own article...


The fact that the truth is far more complicated -- l6 bills related to "born alive" in the General Assembly over the years, many different concerns discussed-- doesn't excuse Obama's superficial misstatement of the facts.

Lemur
08-22-2008, 22:01
Again with the water-carrying personal attacks? Do you think you're getting good mileage out of that? Lots of LOLs and supportive PMs, I take it? 'Cause from here it looks like you're flogging yourself into a sweat without the slightest bit of audience appreciation.

If all you can get from that article is that you're right and everybody else is wrong, then have a lovely day. Don't let facts get in your way.

Lemur
08-22-2008, 22:27
Let's not make this an abortion thread, shall we? And to answer your question, no, I don't think that's any form of right. I'm opposed to late-term abortions, period. Most people are. This is yet another area where I think some compromise and middle ground would yield good results—note that eight years of Republican dominance has done nothing to reduce abortion rates. A little compromise and common sense would lead us toward a European model where we don't allow late-term abortions except under the most extreme circumstances.

I also think you guys are overplaying this way too hard. As has been discussed at least one of our 400 abortion threads, late-term abortions are a rarity. Failed late-term abortions in which the baby survives, well, I can't even hazard a guess at how rare that is, but I'd bet money that death by falling into a vat of marmalade while dressed like a walrus are more common.

Also, a born-alive bill did pass. Read the frickin' coverage that I provided (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html). So all of this lather and outrage is focused on ... what, exactly?

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 22:35
So all of this lather and outrage is focused on ... what, exactly?

Without the Chosen Ones support though...
But regardless thank you for answering my question. Now I let you go for your afternoon prayers to Obamamessiah. I believe he is in Springfield IL today so be sure to point your prayer rug to the West. Just trying to be helpful, its hard to type while my nipples are so erect.

Lemur
08-22-2008, 22:40
It's true, The Chosen One curried favor with extremist groups such as the Illinois State Medical Society when he raised objections to the bill's language. All part of his extremist ways, I guess.

And darling Dave, Springfield is south of me, not west. I would have piched my prayer rug all wrong if I listened to you.

Marshal Murat
08-22-2008, 23:18
Obama Prepares to Announce Mate
Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/)
With a new bumper sticker.

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 23:53
Its Bayh...
Obama/Bayh...
I always had a feeling Obama swung both ways


First!!!!:2thumbsup:

Lemur
08-22-2008, 23:54
Finally, Illinois and Indiana united in an axis of corn. Let the potato states tremble in fear!

Devastatin Dave
08-22-2008, 23:57
In tonights sacrafice, after the blood letting of the corn of course, could you send them my way. I like rubbing them on my freshly spanked rosey bottom. Thanks Lemm...:whip::beam:

GeneralHankerchief
08-22-2008, 23:58
I'm not seeing it anywhere. Is this another fake text message or is there an actual link?

-edit- Waitaminute, I see the bumper sticker on Drudge. There we go then.

Lemur
08-23-2008, 00:06
It's Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/), naturally. From his site:


FLASH: Fri Aug 22 2008 17:52:03 ET /// KMBC's Micheal Mahoney reports a company in Kansas City, which specializes in political literature, has been printing Obama-Bayh material... MORE... Gill Studios, would not confirm information about the material. They would not deny it either. At least three sources close to the plant's operations reported the Obama-Bayh material was being produced...

Damn printers, giving the plot away.

Marshal Murat
08-23-2008, 00:10
I would like to point out mine was first, in an indirect manner, by linking Drudge and announcing bumper-sticker.

seireikhaan
08-23-2008, 00:22
Finally, Illinois and Indiana united in an axis of corn. Let the potato states tremble in fear!
:whip:

Fall in behind the Corn King, Iowa.:angry:

Devastatin Dave
08-23-2008, 00:36
I'm not seeing it anywhere. Is this another fake text message or is there an actual link?

-edit- Waitaminute, I see the bumper sticker on Drudge. There we go then.

Nice bumber sticker, but I think a red star or a nice hammer and cycle would have been more appropriate.

Devastatin Dave
08-23-2008, 00:37
I would like to point out mine was first, in an indirect manner, by linking Drudge and announcing bumper-sticker.

Very correct, good job. But I was the first to make the bisexual innuendo, thank you very much!!!:laugh4:

woad&fangs
08-23-2008, 00:39
According to Wiki, Bayh supported both the Iraq war and the Patriot act...Lovely...

Devastatin Dave
08-23-2008, 00:43
According to Wiki, Bayh supported both the Iraq war and the Patriot act...Lovely...

You see, Obama has to sprint WAYYYYY to the right considering his marxist ways in order to even appear moderate to the people who actually understand what he's saying when he talks about "change" and "fairness". He has no choice to pick an almost polar opposite to get him even close to moderate status. I was halfway expecting him to name Carl Rove!!!

Crazed Rabbit
08-23-2008, 00:47
According to Wiki, Bayh supported both the Iraq war and the Patriot act...Lovely...

Ah, change we can believe in indeed. Does Bayh still support the Iraq war? Because most politicians did before we actually invaded, same with the patriot act.

And if this turns out to be legit, Drudge just stole a lot of Obama's thunder.

CR

woad&fangs
08-23-2008, 00:58
Again according to Wiki, he has changed his stance on the Iraq war but he still supported the patriot act in 2006.

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 03:13
If Obama is a Marxist pinko black Muslim can I start labeling McCain a white Nazi Klanmember?

Dev, I do not believe you've given any substance to your "argument" other than Obama's apparently Communist policies (You know, state abolishing, taking everything from everyone and giving it to Sudan or wherever he's from) and his brother's financial status (Because this is very important. Right?). As I've stated before, the obvious trolls are obvious, but it doesn't mean they're funny.


(And though trying to avoid the abortion thing, but, in a way, abortion in a way could be acceptable. What do you think that teenage mom will do with that baby? She more than likely won't even care for it, and neither will the father.)

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 03:14
Ah, change we can believe in indeed. Does Bayh still support the Iraq war? Because most politicians did before we actually invaded, same with the patriot act.

And if this turns out to be legit, Drudge just stole a lot of Obama's thunder.

CR

I hate the argument "WELL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR TEH WARZ!!! LOL!!!" mainly because the only war the Democrats had a near unanimous agreement for was Afghanistan due to the 9/11 attacks.

CountArach
08-23-2008, 04:14
Or...err... not:
http://www.kmbc.com/politics/17267009/detail.html

The Obama campaign said it would make the announcement by text message on Saturday. On Friday night, The Associated Press reported that Bayh was not the candidate.
It isn't Bayh or Kaine:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26336195/

ICantSpellDawg
08-23-2008, 04:41
It's Biden (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/us-secret-servi.html)

Biden is a solid choice. Of all of the possible VP's for Obama, Biden is by far my favorite. He receives a 36% from NARAL and a 0% from National Right to life, so he shows a legitimate middle ground on Abortion - such as voting to uphold the ban on partial birth and a vote against federal funding for abortions. I could vote for Biden with a clear conscience. Plus he's an Irish Catholic.

He has the experience necessary to be a solid running mate. This pick also makes Romney the likely choice for McCain - those VP debates will be a must watch for me. I think both Romney and Biden are policy powerhouses.

All in all - with an Obama/Biden vs McCain/Romney race I will be able to live with the results even if it isn't for my guys. Man we dodged that Hillary bullet.

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 06:00
It's Biden (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/us-secret-servi.html)

Biden is a solid choice. Of all of the possible VP's for Obama, Biden is by far my favorite. He receives a 36% from NARAL and a 0% from National Right to life, so he shows a legitimate middle ground on Abortion - such as voting to uphold the ban on partial birth and a vote against federal funding for abortions. I could vote for Biden with a clear conscience. Plus he's an Irish Catholic.

He has the experience necessary to be a solid running mate. This pick also makes Romney the likely choice for McCain - those VP debates will be a must watch for me. I think both Romney and Biden are policy powerhouses.

All in all - with an Obama/Biden vs McCain/Romney race I will be able to live with the results even if it isn't for my guys. Man we dodged that Hillary bullet.

I have to agree. No matter who the canidate, I'll be happy :yes:

Crazed Rabbit
08-23-2008, 06:10
Biden, eh? Seems alright, though he plagiarized that one speech and made some racial comment gaffes.

A solid choice, and probably a good one from Obama.

Though I'm not fond of career politicians who get elected to the Senate and then just sit there for decades.

CR

Tachikaze
08-23-2008, 06:12
President Biden.

Sorry to say, I see a strong chance Obama will be assassinated (although who knows if it will be successful) if he wins in November. Hopefully I'm wrong.

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 06:15
President Biden.

Sorry to say, I see a strong chance Obama will be assassinated (although who knows if it will be successful) if he wins in November. Hopefully I'm wrong.

You're more than likely wrong. He has as good of a chance of being assasinated as McCain does. Even then, I think we'd all agree even an attempted/succesfull assassination would be worthy of condemnation and the execution of those who tried or suceeded.

Xiahou
08-23-2008, 07:05
Biden, eh? Seems alright, though he plagiarized that one speech and made some racial comment gaffes.

A solid choice, and probably a good one from Obama.

Though I'm not fond of career politicians who get elected to the Senate and then just sit there for decades.

CRBiden has been known to come down with severe cases of foot-in-mouth disease, mainly because he doesn't know how to shut up- the guy just loves to hear himself talk. He's also about as much of a Washington insider as you can get, so that kind of lets some of the air out of Obama's "change" rhetoric and attacks on McCain as an insider.

So yeah, great choice. :2thumbsup:

CountArach
08-23-2008, 07:05
Sorry to say it TuffStuff, but look what I found on wikipedia:

Biden's record on abortion is generally favorable towards the practice receiving a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in four of the last five years, although he received a 36% as recently as 2003.

CountArach
08-23-2008, 07:09
On the other hand Xiahou, it cancels out most of the "no foreign policy experience" attacks. Few people have as much experience as Biden.

EDIT: I just found this clip of Joe Biden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1op8vwF5UA&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/23/2554/95488/263/573327) debating Iraq. I really like this guy.

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 07:35
They'll be getting my vote.

Devastatin Dave
08-23-2008, 07:41
This is definitly the most arrogant ticket that could have possibly have ever been assembled. Man, I thought the Kerry/Edwards ticket was the most snobbish in history, this tops that!!! Thanks Osama for all the Hillary voters BTW. I guess BO is a clean enough black guy for old Biden to hang with for the next few months!!!:laugh4:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

Good to see you comrade Tachi!!!

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 08:21
I hate McCain supporters as much as I hate Obama supporters. On McCains side, they support him because he's a war hero, on Obama's side, they support him because he promises change.

Now, let me take a little view from the Swede's perspective. Or a rant. Whatever.

Many McCain supporters are like many Obama supporters. They do not view their canidates political views, yet ally themselves with what they say or have been in. For Obama, this is change. For McCain, this is his time in Hanoi. Now, often McCain is praised for his "Foreign experience", however, I have yet to see what that experience was. His 2 years on the POW/MIA comittee? His Armed Services Comittee work I will give him credit for. Yet, McCain supporters tend to look at his POW experience. I have to say, spending the war in a cell in Hanoi does not qualify a man to become president. Hell, Kerry was a "war hero" himself, and I have yet to see that people voted for him based off that. McCain voted against the creation of an MLK Day, and was part of the Keating Five, yet noone has said anything about this in the elections. But hey, as long as Obama (Excuse me, Osama bin Barack Ladin Saddam Hussein) is a politician, he's wrong in every way. Nope, no way will I vote for a black man, or a Muslim. Nope, he gonna die from sickel cell or someone's going to shoot him (THANK GOD).

Rant over. I'm done.

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 08:30
I wish to announce the unseen text for the Obama/Biden ticket commercial:

"Don't even deny your next Vice President. Middle-class guy from a middle-class family gets his law degree, works on the city council, then runs for U.S. Senate. Pure Americana. Makes you cry red white and blue.

Joe Biden eats America for breakfast and craps out union jobs. How can you not vote for him? Hell, he's served in the Senate longer than McCain! The guy could probably bench-press that pockmarked old codger. You want Russia dealt with? Ol' Joe will strap on the boots and plow some rectum.

Just look at this picture, he's out there making points and using his sagely oldness to inform the youngins. Look at his pose, it says "Man, sure I'll be your Vice President, I'm the Michael Phelps of foreign policy. I've got nothing to do, except be uber-American. I will do you the HONOR of fixing this country."

God, Joe Biden, I'm stiff as a bloody plank of all-American timber Biden used to build his log cabin."

Again, he has my vote :2thumbsup:

Banquo's Ghost
08-23-2008, 09:17
Let me be very clear.

This thread will return forthwith to civility and respect for other members or my warning button will get ratcheted up a full notch.

Politics is a dirty business. This is one place where we will not wallow in the mud.

Thank you kindly.

:beadyeyes2:

Xiahou
08-23-2008, 09:24
On the other hand Xiahou, it cancels out most of the "no foreign policy experience" attacks. Few people have as much experience as Biden.

EDIT: I just found this clip of Joe Biden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1op8vwF5UA&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/23/2554/95488/263/573327) debating Iraq. I really like this guy.


"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."That essentially torpedoed his latest quest for the nomination- not that people had much interest in him to begin with.

Here's (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGRhNzJlMWY5NjdiNzhjMTRkYjMzNjYwOGJmYzNjMTY=) a list of Biden quotes- many of which I think we'll soon be hearing in McCain ads....

*Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

*Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

*December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

And for fun, here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5kVRTU-iyk) an ad from Biden's 1988 failed bid where he talks about how the White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with crisis- you know, you need experience.

Waiting for Biden to put his foot in his mouth and waiting to see what sort of uprising Hillary supporters have planned are the main reasons I'll be able to maintain any interest in the Dem Convention. :beam:

woad&fangs
08-23-2008, 15:11
Wow, a prospective candidate was taking potshots at one of his opponents, big deal. That happens every primary and in the end they all kiss and makeup. Lets not forget all the mudslinging between McCain and Romney in their primary. Then there's W who started rumors that McCain had a black baby, yet W is still endorsing McCain. Also, if you want to talk about foot in the mouth when it comes to race lets not forget Romney's "who let the dogs out moment" in Florida.

FactionHeir
08-23-2008, 16:26
Nevertheless, I don't think Biden fits in with Obama's change message. Biden's been in the Senate since he was 29 and is unquestionably a "Washington Insider" (besides being old), the type, that Obama said he would loathe and fight against. What Biden does do, is provide FE and NS experience, but he's the vice president, not the president, so really an advisory role.

Oh, and didn't he vote for the war?

{edit]
Just read that Biden was found plagiarizing someone else's speech during his first run for president. At least he and Obama have something in common :grin:

Lemur
08-23-2008, 17:01
I think Biden/Romney VP debates should be worth watching.

-edit-

I wonder how Drudge got fooled so badly. Doesn't happen often. Deliberate?

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 17:47
Yes, the VP debates will be a must see, personally. On one hand, you have Obama, who's got the fresh, hip, look, and appeals to many of the liberal and younger crowd, Biden's going to help. Then you have McCain, who appeals to the conservative military crowd, and his VP will be important due to his age.

Devastatin Dave
08-23-2008, 18:48
Atleast Biden brings the Hair Club for Men vote...

KarlXII
08-23-2008, 18:51
Atleast Biden brings the Hair Club for Men vote...

The deciding factor? :book:

woad&fangs
08-23-2008, 23:36
This may have already been posted but apparently "Barack" is Swahili for "the chosen blessed one". Those anti-christ vibes are getting stronger...

Dutch_guy
08-23-2008, 23:47
The deciding factor? :book:

Probably

:balloon2:

Tribesman
08-24-2008, 08:41
This may have already been posted but apparently "Barack" is Swahili for "the chosen blessed one". Those anti-christ vibes are getting stronger...
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It is swahili for blessing , it is also swahili for benevolent , fortune , luck , gift , prosperity , progress , abundance or benediction .
So I wonder which sort of baradhuli , bozi , hayawani , juha , jura , punguani , zugzuge or zuzu , came up with that little useless nugget ? Not of course suggesting that you are a mjinga for posting it woad .
Though apparently in Americanese John can mean toilet or prostitutes client so what does that say about McCain ?

Banquo's Ghost
08-24-2008, 09:38
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It is swahili for blessing , it is also swahili for benevolent , fortune , luck , gift , prosperity , progress , abundance or benediction .
So I wonder which sort of baradhuli , bozi , hayawani , juha , jura , punguani , zugzuge or zuzu , came up with that little useless nugget ? Not of course suggesting that you are a mjinga for posting it woad .
Though apparently in Americanese John can mean toilet or prostitutes client so what does that say about McCain ?

Goodness, doesn't Swahili have a lot of words for idiot? :beam:

Clever way of showing the insinuations to be mapumbo. :bow:

Lemur
08-24-2008, 16:07
Too weird for News of the Weird: National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmNmNzg2M2QzMzkzZjQ2OTY2ZWI4ZjMyNTJjNWJhZWI=&w=Mg==) communes with the dead, finds out that Martin Luther King Jr. would not have voted for Obama. Who knew?


By all measures, Martin Luther King Jr. was a true leader. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is just another politician — one who has demonstrated far more regard for the interests of teacher unions than for the children they are paid to serve, far more regard for the pro-abortion lobby than for the future of the black community, and far less good sense than the average person has when it comes to picking a spiritual mentor.

The positions and values of Senator Obama stand mightily against those espoused, and what’s more, practiced, by Martin Luther King Jr. Based on all these considerations, I think it is quite probable that King, were he alive today, would not vote for Barack Obama.

This might be more convincing if National Review hadn't published an article condemning Dr. King (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/10/15/national-review-attacked-martin-luther-king-over-nobel-peace-prize/) in 1964.


For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the “cake of custom” that holds us together. With their doctrine of “civil disobedience,” they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes — particularly the adolescents and the children — that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted “school strikes,” sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed — and, no doubt, with the best of intentions — and they have found apt pupils everywhere, with intentions not of the best. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.

Why invoke the undead spirit of a black leader you hated in the first place? Who knows? At this point, I cannot imagine an attack on Obama that would be considered too weird or unhinged for the rightwing talking heads. Seriously, I just can't imagine anything they wouldn't say if they thought it might stick. A Ukrainian emigre claims he saw Obama eating roasted babies? Quick, print it! Then let's run an article about how he tried to rape Mother Teresa.

Louis VI the Fat
08-24-2008, 18:54
Some thoughts without much elaboration:

I know little more about Biden then what I just read in one CNN and Wiki article, but he seems a good choice. He works for me.

I don't mind Biden's pro-war vote. Iraq is not that simple. I am still struggling with it after all this time myself. There are good arguments for having gone in there.

Voters who crave 'change' will already have decided on Obama. Voters with doubts about Obama's (real or perceived) lack of experience and foreign policy skillz might be reassured by a 65 year old Washingtonian insider. He's a also Northeastern Catholic and can reach out to the, let's call 'em, Clinton - democrats. Biden seems a good strategical choice.

I think I might share a fascination for American politics for the same reasons as CA: where but in US politics can you indulge yourself with a map, a spreadsheet and a calculator to understand political choices? 'What will Biden mean for Pennsylvania? And for the disenfranchised male white blue collar vote in Ohio?'
Brilliant stuff, excellent entertainment! :2thumbsup:

Obama and abortion: I'l try to avoid the discussing the merits of pro- and con abortion. I just want to say that Obama's stance makes perfect sense to me. Speaking of which, what I do like about Obama, is that he often won't settle on the easy answer. He's not afraid to choose policies that don't fit on a bumper sticker.

And speaking of bumper stickers: they needed to be in the shops as soon as possible after the announcement. My guess is that manufacturers simply printed a triple supply of Obama / [Bayh/Biden/Kaine] merchandise. Just to have it ready in time. Drudge was informed of a supply of Obama/Bayh stickers being printed and jumped to conclusions. Hah!

Lemur
08-24-2008, 19:09
An excellent and relatively even-handed summation (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4596985.ece) of the two candidates:


Obama is politically liberal and temperamentally conservative; McCain is temperamentally liberal and politically unpredictable. Obama is cerebral; McCain is emotional. Obama is reserved, sometimes aloof; McCain is a social gadfly and seemingly terrified of being left alone and silent. Obama wins press adoration but is not close to journalists; McCain is personal friends with hacks of all sorts. Obama makes plans and executes them with sometimes chilling discipline; McCain veers from one passion to another, winging it -- and somehow pulling it off.

Obama hates to lose but is happy to hang back in a fight, allowing his opponent to overreach himself; McCain is just as competitive, but if he has ever pulled a rhetorical or political punch, it’s news to me.

Obama is a master of the rhetorical set-piece; McCain is happiest yakking it up at informal town hall meetings, telling corny jokes. Obama has a traditional family life, a solid marriage, two seemingly poised young daughters and, until recently, regularly attended church (something that seems to elude Republican presidents, for all their public religiosity). McCain dumped his first wife after she was disfigured in a car accident and married a pretty heiress. He has children from both marriages and an adopted child from a Bangladeshi orphanage.

Yes, Obama dabbled in drugs as a young man; but McCain was marinated in booze. McCain, in other words, has a good deal of George W Bush’s adolescence in him, without the born-again experience. Obama, for all his affect of cool, is actually quite nerdy. It is possible, of course, to admire both men, to like them in their very different ways and yet remain torn about which one would be best to lead America, and the world, for the next four or eight years.

Kralizec
08-24-2008, 20:30
McCain's celebrity ad and the one about "The One" were spot on. There are plenty of people who have put thought into it and then decided that Obama is the best choice, but the 30-40% of his following who are literally enthralled by slogans and speeches alone irritate the crap out of me.

Being new in Washington doesn't mean you're an outsider, having managed to avoid the stink of corruption in the four years that you've been there doesn't mean you're incorruptable and wanting to change things doesn't make you unique. I think Obama believes less in his own slogans and catchphrases than I do, and I don't believe them at all. There's a word for people who cultivate gullibility on such a large scale. Demagogues.

As for policies, Obama is a closet protectionist, wich I don't like. As far as I know I largely agree with him on civil rights and non-economic stuff, though I recall that he doesn't support gay marriage while I do.
I have a soft spot for McCain, partly because he routinely angers his own party by being his own man and partly because I like to be contrarian (I'd say that about 80% of the Dutch prefer Obama, or any democrat over a republican). I think that he's less likely to screw up Iraq though and I'd trust him sooner with economic issues. Sadly my guess is that he'll pick a VP candidate that will please the religious right.

If I were American I think I'd probably vote for Obama, but not eagerly.

CountArach
08-24-2008, 22:44
he doesn't support gay marriage
He supports Civil Unions instead.

As for policies, Obama is a closet protectionist, wich I don't like.
Not really, he was during the primaries but he really isn't now.

Tribesman
08-24-2008, 23:43
There's a word for people who cultivate gullibility on such a large scale. Demagogues.

Damn , I thought with all this messiah antichrist muslim terrorist rubbish the word for cultivating gullibility was republican .

Devastatin Dave
08-25-2008, 03:18
An excellent and relatively even-handed summation (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4596985.ece) of the two candidates:


Obama is politically liberal and temperamentally conservative; McCain is temperamentally liberal and politically unpredictable. Obama is cerebral; McCain is emotional. Obama is reserved, sometimes aloof; McCain is a social gadfly and seemingly terrified of being left alone and silent. Obama wins press adoration but is not close to journalists; McCain is personal friends with hacks of all sorts. Obama makes plans and executes them with sometimes chilling discipline; McCain veers from one passion to another, winging it -- and somehow pulling it off.

Obama hates to lose but is happy to hang back in a fight, allowing his opponent to overreach himself; McCain is just as competitive, but if he has ever pulled a rhetorical or political punch, it’s news to me.

Obama is a master of the rhetorical set-piece; McCain is happiest yakking it up at informal town hall meetings, telling corny jokes. Obama has a traditional family life, a solid marriage, two seemingly poised young daughters and, until recently, regularly attended church (something that seems to elude Republican presidents, for all their public religiosity). McCain dumped his first wife after she was disfigured in a car accident and married a pretty heiress. He has children from both marriages and an adopted child from a Bangladeshi orphanage.

Yes, Obama dabbled in drugs as a young man; but McCain was marinated in booze. McCain, in other words, has a good deal of George W Bush’s adolescence in him, without the born-again experience. Obama, for all his affect of cool, is actually quite nerdy. It is possible, of course, to admire both men, to like them in their very different ways and yet remain torn about which one would be best to lead America, and the world, for the next four or eight years.

Even-handed? :laugh4:
They forgot, ""Obama is similar to Jesus and everything that is good and wonderful in the world while McCain is the possible anti-Christ and is on the same level as cow dung and genital warts.!!!":laugh4:
Lemur, your so adorable when you try to play Mr Independent. :laugh4:

Lemur
08-25-2008, 03:23
Even-handed? :laugh4:
Darling, if you're not going to pick anything specific to object to, how can I respond? I'm sorry that describing Obama as "aloof," "nerdy" and "chilling" comes off as such fawning praise to you. I guess any editorial that doesn't describe him as a crypto-Muslim who rubs his naked body on the writings of Stalin isn't fair and balanced by your standards.

Why do I even bother to bring McCain up in this crowd?

woad&fangs
08-25-2008, 03:30
Sorry Lemur, but I'm with Dave on this one. It even looked like it was saying McCain having an adopted kid from Banladesh is somehow bad.

Lemur
08-25-2008, 03:39
Aren't we all, at the end of the day, "with" Dave? I mean this in a purely sensual way, mind you.

Look, if you all find the quote objectionable, fine. I don't see any reason to defend it to the death; it's just an op-ed piece.

It certainly mirrors the way I see the men. I don't think either candidate is perfect; neither do I think either man is a monster. As for the Bangladeshi adoption, I took that to mean that McCain's family structure is actually more unorthodox than Obama's, which is an entirely fair point when the Rovettes are trying their damnedest to paint Obama as an alien/celebrity/freak/un-American person. (And Fenrig thinks the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ads were "spot on"? That's just weird, man.)

Devastatin Dave
08-25-2008, 05:00
Aren't we all, at the end of the day, "with" Dave?

Are you calling me the Backroom Bar Fly?:belly:

Sasaki Kojiro
08-25-2008, 05:00
I certainly wouldn't describe McCain as "politically unpredictable".

Kralizec
08-25-2008, 09:03
(And Fenrig thinks the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ads were "spot on"? That's just weird, man.)


~;)

http://blog.drjays.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/vibe_covers_21.jpg

It's a satirical ad, a caricature. The accusations of subliminal racism that followed cracked me up :laugh4:

EDIT: oh yeah, and this one (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=12&pictureid=43) ~;p

CountArach
08-25-2008, 09:42
I certainly wouldn't describe McCain as "politically unpredictable".
Yeah, that was the only thing I disagreed with in that. Perhaps the McCain of 2000, but not the McCain of 2008.

Tribesman
08-25-2008, 12:52
(And Fenrig thinks the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ads were "spot on"? That's just weird, man.)
But they were spot on , Obama is one of them celebrity people , it is clearly shown by his doing "celebrity" things like adopting orphans from out foriegn .:yes:

FactionHeir
08-25-2008, 15:35
Some sound analysis from both sides of the spectrum on Biden.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/24/biden.analysis/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

I found the last analyst's comments particularly interesting.

Crazed Rabbit
08-25-2008, 20:14
Here's a report of the DNC convention from a Pulitzer prize winning journalist:
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/dave-barry/story/655722.html

Dave Barry: The DNC's on, let the drama begin
Posted on Sun, Aug. 24, 2008
reprint print email
Facebook Digg del.icio.us AIM
By DAVE BARRY

The Democratic party has gathered in Denver for what will be without question one of the most exciting political conventions in decades.

Granted, this is like saying that Moe was without question one of the smartest Stooges. The political conventions have been pointless and boring for years, culminating in 2004, when MSNBC, during its prime-time coverage of the Republican convention, broadcast 38 straight minutes of Chris Matthews snoring and drooling into his lap. (This got by far the highest ratings.)

But this year will be different. This year there is high drama in the Mile High City as the Democrats gather under their official 2008 convention slogan: ``A Unified Party, United in Unity Together As One, Undivided.''

Already there has been sporadic gunfire between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton delegates. Political observers see this as indication that there is still some underlying tension between the two sides. Yes, Clinton has been making speeches urging her supporters to work for Obama; but at the same time she has also been using what one Obama adviser described as ``a lot of air quotes.''

It's hard to blame Sen. Clinton for being bitter. Here she is, the smartest human ever, PLUS she spent all those years standing loyally behind Bill Clinton wearing uncomfortable pantyhose (I mean Hillary was, not Bill) (although there are rumors), PLUS she went to the trouble and expense of acquiring a legal residence in New York State so she could be a senator from there, PLUS she assembled a team of nuclear-physicist-grade genius political advisors, PLUS she spent years going around to every dirtbag community in America explaining in detail her 23-point policy solutions for every single problem facing the nation including soybean blight. And after all that, she loses the nomination to a guy who has roughly the same amount of executive governmental experience as Hannah Montana. Hillary is like: ``Are you KIDDING me?''

Sen. Clinton is scheduled to address the convention Tuesday night, when she will either call on her supporters to unite behind Obama, or attempt to snatch the nomination and escape with it by helicopter to a secret mountain fortress. ''We are fully confident that Sen. Clinton will do the right thing,'' stated a Democratic party official, adding, ``but we have a net.''

The Obama-Clinton tension is only one of the dramatic storylines developing in Denver. Another one is Obama's choice of running mate. Following days of feverish media speculation over a list of names that at one point included the late Hubert Humphrey and a probably fictional congressperson named ''Chet Edwards,'' Obama, in a bold move, went with the one name guaranteed to send an electric shock of electricity through the spinal cord of American politics: Joe Biden.

This choice not only virtually locks up Delaware's electoral vote (which it shares with Wyoming) but it also buttresses the Obama team with one of the Senate's most vocal voices. Sen. Biden is scheduled to address the convention Wednesday night from 8:48 p.m. until dawn.

But in the end, the focus of this convention will be on Barack Obama, who on Thursday night will receive the nomination in long-overdue recognition of a distinguished career of seeking the nomination. His goal, in his acceptance speech, will be to win over the undecided voters -- the people who are unsure of what he really stands for, or who have received emailed rumors that he is a Muslim, or a socialist, or a vampire, or a lesbian. His goal will be to show, with no disrespect to the Muslim socialist vampire lesbian community, that he is a regular person just like you, except he has Vision and Leadership. After that, he will lay out his specific policies for building a brighter future. Then he will turn into a bat.

No, he won't, although that would make this the most fun convention EVER. But it still promises to be interesting. I'll be on hand to report all the convention-news developments to you from Denver as I think them up. Then next week I'll head to Minnesota or possibly Wisconsin and do the same from the Republican convention. Back-to-back party conventions! It's an exciting time to be a political ``junkie.''

Please, shoot me.

CR

Lemur
08-25-2008, 21:05
EDIT: oh yeah, and this one (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=12&pictureid=43) ~;p
You do know that's a fake from The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/barack_obama_tiger_beat), right? Or are you creating layers upon layers of irony by using a fake magazine cover to justify a celebrity accusation of ... oh, I'm getting dizzy.


[Obama] will lay out his specific policies for building a brighter future. Then he will turn into a bat.
Right on, baby!

Kralizec
08-25-2008, 21:35
Why would America's finest news source post a fake magazine cover? You're making less and less sense Lemur.

okay, I yield. Obama does have more substance than Paris Hilton or Tom Cruise ~;)

ICantSpellDawg
08-26-2008, 03:08
Most people don't know that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=16500). In fact, I just found this out. You always see him pictured with Ted Kennedy, so I just assumed that he supported other Democrats.

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice
Posted 08/16/2006 ET


It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

Ms. Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and may be contacted at www.NBRA.info.

and a rebuttal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754_pf.html)

Controversial Ad Links MLK, GOP

By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 19, 2006; A04

When a black conservative group ran a radio ad proclaiming that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, reaction was swift. "We've gotten some e-mails and telephone calls filled with vitriol," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "They've called me Aunt Jemima, a sellout, a traitor to my race."

In the battle for the black electorate, liberals, who make up the overwhelming majority of black voters, have long disagreed with conservatives over ideology, public policy and economic strategies to better the lives of African Americans. But when conservatives placed the civil rights movement in a Republican context, black liberals said, they crossed a line.

"To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which the slain civil rights leader helped establish.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s, called the ads an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for."

The spot, which ran for a time in the District, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania, will soon run again in those areas, as well as in Miami, Orlando and Tampa, Rice said.

The debate surrounding the ad is the latest skirmish in the ongoing battle over the King legacy. Foes of affirmative action, for example, often cite a line from King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963 in which he prayed that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the "content of their character," an adoption that makes black liberals fume. But in the latest fight, civil rights veterans may be surprised to find that some black conservatives agree with them.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who is running for the U.S. Senate, denounced the King ad, and Donald E. Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment and a former member of the association, said it was a terrible idea.

Black Republicans railed against the radio ads, with the sharpest criticism coming from former members of the black Republican association.

"The vast majority of black Republicans I know would not have approved of the ad," Scoggins said.

In the ad, a black woman says, "Dr. King was a real man," and a second one responds, "You know he was a Republican."

"Dr. King, a Republican?"

The women go on to say that Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan, lumping together those in the South with others in the North who reached out to African Americans with New Deal programs and by desegregating the armed forces.

The backlash was so fierce that Rice stopped answering telephone calls. "We anticipated some controversy, but my goodness, we struck a nerve," she said in an interview from Sarasota, Fla.

"I absolutely do not regret the ads," said Rice, 62, a native of Atlanta, King's hometown. He "absolutely was a Republican," she insisted. "We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."

It is true that Southern Democrats, many of whom called themselves "Dixiecrats," blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades. Among them was Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a former local leader in the Ku Klux Klan. Byrd has said he regrets his affiliation.

In 1960, King was arrested for trespassing during a sit-in and held in Georgia's Reidsville prison. Fearing for his son's life, Martin Luther King Sr. appealed to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to secure his release.

When King was freed, his father vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals.

The younger King voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.

Today, the vast majority of black voters are Democrats, including former ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young and former presidential hopeful Jesse L. Jackson, two former King aides.

That is why the ad was "a joke," said Christopher Arps, a former spokesman for Rice and the association. "Anyone with any sense knows that most black people were Republican at one time. But it's a far stretch to think that in the '60s Martin Luther King was a Republican."

Arps and Scoggins resigned from the association board last year when they disagreed with Rice on a separate issue. She wanted to support President Bush when he came under fire for his administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

"In terms of what we're trying to do, encourage more blacks to look at the Republican Party, I didn't think we could do that in an in-your-face-type way," Scoggins said. "There were bodies floating in the street."

In addition to Scoggins and Arps, at least four other members resigned. Rice questioned their fortitude. The group was founded so that black conservatives could assert themselves, she said, and "when it came time to do something, some stepped back."

"It was a 'my way or the highway' sort of thing," Scoggins said. "I was crushed when this thing happened because it turned out to be completely the opposite of what I thought it would be."

CountArach
08-26-2008, 07:21
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
I'm reminded of Jon Stewart talking to Obama: "Are you going to enslave the white race?" :laugh4:

Lemur
08-26-2008, 14:26
Monster article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all) about Obama's likely economic policies. Surprisingly readable, too.


As anyone who has spent time with Obama knows, he likes experts, and his choice of advisers stems in part from his interest in empirical research. (James Heckman, a Nobel laureate who critiqued the campaign’s education plan at Goolsbee’s request, said, “I’ve never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.”) By surrounding himself with economists, however, Obama was also making a decision with ideological consequences. Far more than many other policy advisers, economists believe in the power of markets. What tends to distinguish Democratic economists is that they set out to uncover imperfections of the market and then come up with incremental, market-based solutions to these imperfections. This helps explain the Obama campaign’s interest in behavioral economics, a relatively new field that has pointed out many ways in which people make irrational, short-term decisions.

drone
08-26-2008, 15:59
News of the Weird, Democratic convention style:

Sprinkler system in the Pepsi Center Arena malfunctions, floods the Fox booth. (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=98286&catid=188)
DENVER - A sprinkler system partially flooded part of the Pepsi Center Monday morning.

The Denver Fire Department, which has a crew stationed at the center all week, was able to respond quickly before 5 a.m. when the sprinkler went off.

The sprinkler was located on the club level in a skybox which had recently been renovated to host a news crew. It appears the skybox belongs to Fox.

After going off, the sprinkler released 50 to 100 gallons of water per minute and 9NEWS crews estimate it was on for around 5 minutes.

The cause of the sprinkler is under investigation but early reports indicate it was likely bumped or the heat sensor may have been affected by equipment in the room.

Water leaked down to the first level concourse and crews are mopping up that area. A significant amount of water filled the club level and DFD used shop vacuums to remove the excess water.

All of the equipment in the skybox had to be removed quickly due to the possible electrical issues. No one was injured.
Fair and balanced and soaked. ~D

Crazed Rabbit
08-26-2008, 16:07
Pelosi tells Hillary supporters to not go with most democrat's immediate reaction to obstacles; victim politics. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5650893&page=1)


Pelosi cautioned against victimizing Clinton, who fought a tough battle, indicating that the message women can glean from Clinton's loss is the importance of moving forward, and refusing to wallow in defeat.

"I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim. This is about you go out there and you fight," she said. "I think that what Hillary Clinton did was tremendous for the country. She has kicked open many doors, which now we have to bring many more women through, millions more women through. My being speaker of the House was breaking the marble ceiling in Congress, which is hard. Sen. Clinton [had] a bigger challenge to run for president of the United States. What we have to do now is say, we have to translate that not just for individuals, but for all women."

CR

Xiahou
08-26-2008, 17:03
I thought I heard this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_wife) last night during the convention, but I didn't see any news stories confirming it until today- Obama got what town he was in wrong, yet again, but his daughter was prompted to correct him this time.
He mistakenly said he had watched the speech at the home of a St. Louis family — despite the cue card affixed to the camera as a reminder that he was actually 230 miles away in Kansas City, Mo., where had scheduled a campaign appearance Tuesday.

Sensing the flub, 7-year-old Sasha apparently was prompted to ask: "Daddy, what city are you in?"

"I'm in Kansas City, sweetie.":beam:

Sasaki Kojiro
08-26-2008, 17:11
I thought I heard this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_wife) last night during the convention, but I didn't see any news stories confirming it until today- Obama got what town he was in wrong, yet again, but his daughter was prompted to correct him this time.:beam:

What's the angle on this? ~D

Xiahou
08-26-2008, 17:27
What's the angle on this? ~DHumor. :yes:

Ronin
08-26-2008, 18:33
I thought I heard this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_wife) last night during the convention, but I didn't see any news stories confirming it until today- Obama got what town he was in wrong, yet again, but his daughter was prompted to correct him this time.:beam:


so a guy that is bouncing all over the country these days forgot where he was exactly geographically......

when he starts forgetting how many cars or houses he owns I might be impressed.

Lemur
08-26-2008, 19:56
Give it up, Ronin. Xiahou is incapable of seeing anything humorous about Republicans; only Dems are absurd and deserving of ridicule.

And even given that rule, this seems like a pretty weak joke. The fake Presidential seal was much, much funnier.

Ice
08-26-2008, 20:02
I'm reminded of Jon Stewart talking to Obama: "Are you going to enslave the white race?" :laugh4:

That face at the end is the what I'm doing after I read the majority of articles Tuff has posted.

I mean, for ***** sake


the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

:dizzy2:

Xiahou
08-26-2008, 20:11
Give it up, Ronin. Xiahou is incapable of seeing anything humorous about Republicans; only Dems are absurd and deserving of ridicule.

And even given that rule, this seems like a pretty weak joke. The fake Presidential seal was much, much funnier.
Cool, I have an official spokesperson. :2thumbsup:

The McCain "houses" incident was more of a gaffe than humorous, although it could be both. He really stepped in it big time with his answer. "Ill get back to you."?? WHAT? I can't imagine an answer that would've fed more into the Democrat class warfare attacks than that. If he didn't know, he should've at least answered "several". That even would've played better than "Ill get back to you." :dizzy2:

Devastatin Dave
08-26-2008, 21:35
Pelosi tells Hillary supporters to not go with most democrat's immediate reaction to obstacles; victim politics. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5650893&page=1)



CR

I could have sworn that was the entire platform of the Democrat Party.

CountArach
08-26-2008, 23:43
News of the Weird, Democratic convention style:

Sprinkler system in the Pepsi Center Arena malfunctions, floods the Fox booth. (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=98286&catid=188)
DENVER - A sprinkler system partially flooded part of the Pepsi Center Monday morning.

The Denver Fire Department, which has a crew stationed at the center all week, was able to respond quickly before 5 a.m. when the sprinkler went off.

The sprinkler was located on the club level in a skybox which had recently been renovated to host a news crew. It appears the skybox belongs to Fox.

After going off, the sprinkler released 50 to 100 gallons of water per minute and 9NEWS crews estimate it was on for around 5 minutes.

The cause of the sprinkler is under investigation but early reports indicate it was likely bumped or the heat sensor may have been affected by equipment in the room.

Water leaked down to the first level concourse and crews are mopping up that area. A significant amount of water filled the club level and DFD used shop vacuums to remove the excess water.

All of the equipment in the skybox had to be removed quickly due to the possible electrical issues. No one was injured.
Fair and balanced and soaked. ~D
OMG! I'm cracking up at that one! :laugh4:

That face at the end is the what I'm doing after I read the majority of articles Tuff has posted.
I'm glad we could find something we could agree on :yes:

Crazed Rabbit
08-27-2008, 01:37
Give it up, Ronin. Xiahou is incapable of seeing anything humorous about Republicans; only Dems are absurd and deserving of ridicule.

And even given that rule, this seems like a pretty weak joke. The fake Presidential seal was much, much funnier.

I'm just waiting for Mr. Barry to cover the GOP convention.

Oh, and Bill Clinton; now the democrats now why Bob Dole hates him. (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/bill-clinton-in-denver-again-undercuts-obama-2008-08-26.html)

Heehee, so much for unity!

CR

Sasaki Kojiro
08-27-2008, 15:40
I think we have more pressing questions to answer:

https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7116/66lnjahu0pr7.jpg

Ronin
08-27-2008, 15:58
I think we have more pressing questions to answer:

https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7116/66lnjahu0pr7.jpg

fair, balanced...moronic

:wall:

Crazed Rabbit
08-27-2008, 22:52
*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/kucinichs-democratic-conv_n_121622.html)

CR

KukriKhan
08-27-2008, 22:58
*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/kucinichs-democratic-conv_n_121622.html)

CR

Hehe. Ya gotta hand it to him, Rep Kucinich is probaly the last remaining true, unabashed liberal in the Dem party. Must be lonely for him.

CountArach
08-27-2008, 23:01
*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/kucinichs-democratic-conv_n_121622.html)

CR
Ahhh Kucinich... such a great man.

seireikhaan
08-27-2008, 23:31
*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/kucinichs-democratic-conv_n_121622.html)

CR
Haha... the happy elf got a bit excited.:laugh4:

Ronin
08-27-2008, 23:48
just passed throught the democratic convention coverage.....

I just noticed that instead of just saying who they vote for each state spends like 5 minutes talking up the silliest little details about their states..

is this just a democrat affectation? or do the republicans do the same thing?....I mean how much stroking does one ego need?

this all looks very silly.....this is a political convention???....I´m wondering when the cirque du Solei jugglers are gonna come out.

LittleGrizzly
08-27-2008, 23:49
*facepalm* at the FNC thing.

And have you ever wondered what a "meth-addled smurf" looks like?

Seek no farther, friends, than Kucinich at the DNC. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/kucinichs-democratic-conv_n_121622.html)

CR


Wow!

What a great speech, more thinking of the content than style, though that wasn't too bad...

Edit, just been reading up on the guy and i swear half of the stuff he believes (or his platform for 2008) practically reads like a list of my political views, what a great guy..

KukriKhan
08-27-2008, 23:51
just passed throught the democratic convention coverage.....

I just noticed that instead of just saying who they vote for each state spends like 5 minutes talking up the silliest little details about their states..

is this just a democrat affectation? or do the republicans do the same thing?....I mean how much stroking does one ego need?

You'll see the same thing next week at the Repub convention. It's been going on as long as I can remember (and I'm old experience-heavy). :)

Crazed Rabbit
08-28-2008, 01:26
Ahhh Kucinich... such a great man.

In terms of wackiness, yes. Height, not so much.
~;p
CR

KukriKhan
08-28-2008, 03:00
Just watched Bill "(finger-wagging) Obama can do it" Clinton endorse Senator O. This from a fella who looked directly into camera and said "(finger-wagging) I never had sex with that woman...".

And never explained why or how Barry is the superior pick on Nov 5th. Basically, just: "Trust me".

Underwhelmed, am I.

Sasaki Kojiro
08-28-2008, 03:54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOZKeOauNI

Crazed Rabbit
08-28-2008, 04:07
The old, Sasaki.

And not exactly trashing the work ethic of Americans.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro
08-28-2008, 04:09
I was going to post it and that clip of mcain talking about how he's agreed with bush about everything and speculate about when or if the obama campaign was going to use them in an ad...post got cut off somehow.

It certainly does trash the work ethic of americans...

Crazed Rabbit
08-28-2008, 04:15
No, he's saying without lots of immigrants we wouldn't have such cheap food. He's got a point; middle class kids are spoiled when it comes to getting jobs; a lot don't want to work at McDonalds or what have you, and that's much easier than doing the migrant labor the immigrants do.

When I first heard that I said, heck, I'll pick whatever for $50/hr. But I hadn't heard anything about a whole season, and I don't like really hot climes.

CR

Devastatin Dave
08-28-2008, 04:18
Wow!

What a great speech, more thinking of the content than style, though that wasn't too bad...

Edit, just been reading up on the guy and i swear half of the stuff he believes (or his platform for 2008) practically reads like a list of my political views, what a great guy..

And thank Xenu that neither of you will ever be the POTUS!!!:laugh4:

Sasaki Kojiro
08-28-2008, 05:04
No, he's saying without lots of immigrants we wouldn't have such cheap food. He's got a point; middle class kids are spoiled when it comes to getting jobs; a lot don't want to work at McDonalds or what have you, and that's much easier than doing the migrant labor the immigrants do.

When I first heard that I said, heck, I'll pick whatever for $50/hr. But I hadn't heard anything about a whole season, and I don't like really hot climes.

CR

I know people who've done worse work for less pay. Saying "middle class kids are spoiled" isn't a point, and he wasn't talking to middle class kids. He clearly dislikes the working class. Just look at his tax plan:


https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5257/gr2008061200193ay8.gif

Also, his health care plan makes health benefits part of taxable income. Now why the hell is he cutting taxes on the rich and adding a new tax on the working class? Why does he support free trade with countries who pay their workers zip, pollute like hell, and murder the workers who try and form unions? What's his response when the US loses jobs to that kind of competition?


John McCain understands that globalization will not automatically benefit every American. We must prepare the next generation of workers by making American education worthy of the promise we make to our children and ourselves.

In other words, you will lose your job but your children will have one if they somehow manage to get a good education with his terrible plan that he won't fund properly (he's voted against funding after school programs, head start, school repairs and construction, special education programs, against providing more pell grants, against lowering interest rates on stafford loans, against grants for people who were going to become teachers, and against measures to reduce class size).

But the economy doesn't really matter that much, according to McCain:


“Even if the economy is the, quote, No. 1 issue, the real issue will remain America’s security,” McCain said. “And if they choose to say, ‘Look, I do not need this guy because he’s not as good on home loan mortgages or whatever it is, I understand about that, I will accept that verdict. I am running because of the transcendental challenge of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism.” (The New York Times, 1/28/08)


Now, don't bother replying to any of this, just say "but he was a POW" and have done with it ~:pimp:

Strike For The South
08-28-2008, 05:47
I was going to post it and that clip of mcain talking about how he's agreed with bush about everything and speculate about when or if the obama campaign was going to use them in an ad...post got cut off somehow.

It certainly does trash the work ethic of americans...

Ya it does and the majority of America has gotten soft. We are lucky that we have these immigrants who dream big and are willing to go through hell to get there.

Crazed Rabbit
08-28-2008, 06:51
I know people who've done worse work for less pay. Saying "middle class kids are spoiled" isn't a point, and he wasn't talking to middle class kids. He clearly dislikes the working class. Just look at his tax plan:


Oh please. You, the richest x% of taxpayers pay more of the total income taxes now than they did when the top tax rate was much higher (Carter era)? Obama's class warfare policies are only good to those who want to hurt the rich out of spite - they're bad for the country.


Also, his health care plan makes health benefits part of taxable income. Now why the hell is he cutting taxes on the rich and adding a new tax on the working class?

A new tax on everyone. And health benefits are definitely part of people's income from their jobs.


Why does he support free trade with countries who pay their workers zip, pollute like hell, and murder the workers who try and form unions? What's his response when the US loses jobs to that kind of competition?

Because protectionism to protect steel workers in Ohio is stupid. Economically, it'd be cheaper for the country to just pay the workers who would be fired than institute protective measures, because of the far reaching ripple effects protective tariffs on steel have on the economy. Every single thing is more expensive, just so some workers don't have to worry about adapting to a changing world.

Why should I have to subsidize workers and industries (including rich CEOs) who can't cut it in the global market? Why should everyone in America have to buy more expensive goods to benefit a very few?

Trade always has a net benefit, and the stupid protectionist screed the democratic party is adapting towards free trade from any country can only hurt us.


In other words, you will lose your job but your children will have one if they somehow manage to get a good education with his terrible plan that he won't fund properly (he's voted against funding after school programs, head start, school repairs and construction, special education programs, against providing more pell grants, against lowering interest rates on stafford loans, against grants for people who were going to become teachers, and against measures to reduce class size).

Obama had an ad saying workers could find new jobs in new industries - or are the workers the democrats are protecting to the ruin of the rest of us so unskilled that they can only do the job they have now?

You know a big reason college is so expensive right now? - because Congress keeps letting colleges jack up prices by continuing to increase scholarships. And so the American people wind up paying for a bunch of unneeded college programs, buildings, etc. My University just finished renovating a building for $86 million dollars - a huge amount of money. It wasn't necessary, but they wanted it to make the school more attractive. And colleges don't suffer for the huge amounts they spend because of congress.

CR

CountArach
08-28-2008, 10:04
You should know by now Sasaki - Statistics and Charts can be used to prove anything. They cannot be trusted.

Lemur
08-28-2008, 13:23
A new tax on everyone. And health benefits are definitely part of people's income from their jobs.
Wait a minute, am I hearing Crazed Rabbit defend a new tax? Who are you and what have you done with Rabbit?


Trade always has a net benefit, and the stupid protectionist screed the democratic party is adapting towards free trade from any country can only hurt us.
So the drug trade has a net benefit? If I'm shipping cocaine to your city, at the end of the day that's a good thing? What about shipping arms to civil wars and dictatorships? If I sell nuclear materials to North Korea, that has a net benefit?

Don't be such an idealist. I thought "conservatives" were supposed to be realistic.

-edit-


You should know by now Sasaki - Statistics and Charts can be used to prove anything. They cannot be trusted.
Reality has a well-established liberal bias.

Sasaki Kojiro
08-28-2008, 14:51
Oh please. You, the richest x% of taxpayers pay more of the total income taxes now than they did when the top tax rate was much higher (Carter era)? Obama's class warfare policies are only good to those who want to hurt the rich out of spite - they're bad for the country.

It isn't class warfare. Take a businessman who owns a chain of stores. To run his business he needs to be able to ship products to these stores. He sends them out on trucks over the interstate (paid for by taxes) which is policed by state troopers (paid for by taxes). When someone robs his store the police (paid for by taxes) try and catch them. If the store were to catch fire the fire department (paid for by taxes) would come and put it out. The sheer amount of government infastructure that allows his businesses to be run is staggering. If he had to pay for his own roads, his own police force, and his own fire department he wouldn't be in business. He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.




A new tax on everyone. And health benefits are definitely part of people's income from their jobs.

You really think we should raise on people who don't have much money as it is? You really think we should have tax cuts on millionaires?




Because protectionism to protect steel workers in Ohio is stupid. Economically, it'd be cheaper for the country to just pay the workers who would be fired than institute protective measures, because of the far reaching ripple effects protective tariffs on steel have on the economy. Every single thing is more expensive, just so some workers don't have to worry about adapting to a changing world.

Why should I have to subsidize workers and industries (including rich CEOs) who can't cut it in the global market? Why should everyone in America have to buy more expensive goods to benefit a very few?

Trade always has a net benefit, and the stupid protectionist screed the democratic party is adapting towards free trade from any country can only hurt us.

You understand what "cutting it in the global market" requires given our competition? How about we be selective about who we trade with in order to improve the standards of the global market? Obama isn't against free trade, and you can take measures to keep jobs here without tariffs. Too many straw men in your argument here. What we need is someone who doesn't think that all those people working manufacturing jobs are clueless buffoons who should just go back to college and get a real job anyway.

Lemur made the point earlier--there are certainly many protectionist measures you would endorse. I don't imagine you think we should freely trade plutonium with Iran. So why not trade less with countries that cut corners by polluting and treating workers poorly? Would you go to a more expensive diner if the cheaper one dumped their garbage into the river and paid their staff $.50 an hour?

[/quote]Obama had an ad saying workers could find new jobs in new industries - or are the workers the democrats are protecting to the ruin of the rest of us so unskilled that they can only do the job they have now?

You know a big reason college is so expensive right now? - because Congress keeps letting colleges jack up prices by continuing to increase scholarships. And so the American people wind up paying for a bunch of unneeded college programs, buildings, etc. My University just finished renovating a building for $86 million dollars - a huge amount of money. It wasn't necessary, but they wanted it to make the school more attractive. And colleges don't suffer for the huge amounts they spend because of congress.

CR[/QUOTE]

Who do you mean by "the rest of us"?

State college tuition has doubled in ohio in the past 10 years.

CountArach
08-28-2008, 14:54
The easiest way to fix the problem of Americans not having Health Insurance?

Don't call them uninsured... (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Uninsured_27bus.ART.State.Edition2.4dce428.html)

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

Sasaki Kojiro
08-28-2008, 14:55
Also:

https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5257/gr2008061200193ay8.gif



Above $2.87 million (top 0.1%)--------MINUS $269,364. :smash:

Sasaki Kojiro
08-28-2008, 14:58
The easiest way to fix the problem of Americans not having Health Insurance?

Don't call them uninsured... (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Uninsured_27bus.ART.State.Edition2.4dce428.html)

:laugh4:

That's a good one...

JR-
08-28-2008, 15:59
how is america's income system arranged?

being america i would imagine that it is nearly neutral, but i don't know so i'm asking. :)

[edit] having read this link it would seem that the US is plenty progressive for my tastes:

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

Progressive nature

In general, the U.S. income tax is progressive, at least with respect to individuals that earn wage income.

"Progressivity" as it pertains to tax is usually defined as meaning that the higher a person's level of income, the higher a tax rate that person pays. In the mid-twentieth century, tax rates in the United States and United Kingdom exceeded 90%. As recently as the late 1970s, the top tax rate in the U.S. was 70%. Despite the dramatic fall in the marginal tax-rate of the top-income brackets from the 1960s to the 2000s, taxes on wages, interest, and dividends have become more progressive over the past fifty years.[21]

Progressivity in income tax is accomplished mainly by establishing tax "brackets" - tranches of income that are taxed at progressively higher rates. For example, for tax year 2006 an unmarried person with no dependents will pay 10% tax on the first $7,550 of taxable income. The next $23,100 (i.e. taxable income over $7,550, up to $30,650) is taxed at 15%. The next $43,550 of income is taxed at 25%. Additional brackets of 28%, 33%, and 35% apply to higher levels of income. So, if a person has $50,000 of taxable income, his next dollar of income earned will be taxed at 25% - this is referred to as "being in the 25% tax bracket," or more formally as having a marginal rate of 25%. However, the tax on $50,000 of taxable income figures to $9,058. This being 18% of $50,000, the taxpayer is referred to as having an effective tax rate of 18%.

In recent years, a reduction in the tax rates applicable to capital gains and received dividends payments, has significantly reduced the tax burden on income generated from savings and investing. An argument is often made that these types of income are not generally received by low-income taxpayers, and so this sort of "tax break" is anti-progressive. Further clouding the issue of progressivity is that far more deductions and tax credits are available to higher-income taxpayers. A taxpayer with $40,000 of wage income may only have the "standard" deductions available to him, whereas a taxpayer with $200,000 of wage income might easily have $50,000 or more of "itemized" deductions. Allowable itemized deductions include payments to doctors, premiums for medical insurance, prescription drugs and insulin expenses, state taxes paid, property taxes, and charitable contributions. In those two scenarios, assuming no other income, the tax calculations would be as follows for a single taxpayer with no dependents in 2006:
Wage income $40,000 $200,000
Allowable deductions 8,450 51,430
Taxable income 31,550 148,570
Income tax 4,445 46,725
Effective rate 14% 31%

This would appear to be highly progressive - the person with the higher taxable income pays tax at twice the rate. However, if you divide the tax by the amount of gross income (i.e. before deductions), the effective rates are 11% and 23%: the higher income person's rate is still twice as high, but his deductions drive down the effective rate to a much greater degree. In addition, most discussions of income tax progressivity do not take into account the social security tax, which has a "ceiling". This is because social security insurance benefits are directly determined by individual social security tax contributions over that individual's lifetime. Thus, since social security taxes serve as direct individual premiums for direct individual benefits, most do not include these taxes in the calculation of the progressive nature of federal taxes much as they do not include private automobile, homeowners, and life insurance policy premiums. If one were to to expand the above example to include social security insurance taxes:
Social security tax $3,060 $8,740
Total tax 7,505 55,465
Rate paid on gross income 19% 28%

Progressivity, then is a complex topic which does not lend itself to simple analyses. Given the "flattening" of tax burden that occurred in the early 1980s, many commentators note that the general structure of the U.S. tax system has begun to resemble a partial consumption tax regime.[22]

In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 34.4% of federal income taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 20.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 12.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 14.8%, completing the highest quintile, which paid 82.5% of federal income taxes. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 14.3%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 5.2%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 0.3%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and received a net 2.3% from the federal government in income 'credits'. When including social security insurance taxes: In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 22.7% of all federal taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 15.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 11.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 15.3%, completing the highest quintile. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 18.5%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 10%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 4.9%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and paid 1% of all federal taxes.[23] Whether this breakdown is "fair" is a matter of some debate.

Sasaki Kojiro
08-28-2008, 16:18
https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/1066/orignal688489650mbjbmikln9.jpg

:laugh4:

Lemur
08-28-2008, 17:47
Xiahou, Crazed Rabbit, tickets are still available (http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/08/28/ddn082808tickets.html). C'mon, do the right thing and snap some up. They don't even cost anything! The least you can do is show up for the speeches.

Like you're doing something more important tomorrow?


Tickets are still available for Sen. John McCain's Friday, Aug. 29, rally at Wright State University's Nutter Center in Fairborn.

McCain and his wife Cindy will appear at the event, dubbed the "Road to the Convention Rally." Doors open at 9 a.m. and the event begins at 11 a.m.

Crazed Rabbit
08-28-2008, 19:02
He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.

And he already pays a lot more than poor people - what's your point?


You really think we should raise on people who don't have much money as it is? You really think we should have tax cuts on millionaires?

It'd force a more honest evaluation of worker income. And more of the class warfare stuff. Tax cuts help the economy, and we have a lot of stuff in the government we could cut, and an improved economy helps everyone.

Furthermore, one prominent economic expert has said Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts would be 'disastrous'. One reason is because it removes certainty about what people are going to have to pay, it represents a constant shifting of the rules.

Not to mention Obama's windfall tax plan on Big Oil is moronic and doomed to fail, just like it did the last time it was implemented.


You understand what "cutting it in the global market" requires given our competition? How about we be selective about who we trade with in order to improve the standards of the global market? Obama isn't against free trade, and you can take measures to keep jobs here without tariffs. Too many straw men in your argument here. What we need is someone who doesn't think that all those people working manufacturing jobs are clueless buffoons who should just go back to college and get a real job anyway.

Lemur made the point earlier--there are certainly many protectionist measures you would endorse. I don't imagine you think we should freely trade plutonium with Iran. So why not trade less with countries that cut corners by polluting and treating workers poorly? Would you go to a more expensive diner if the cheaper one dumped their garbage into the river and paid their staff $.50 an hour?

Fair trade is bull****. It's a soundbite from anti-trade unions who don't want to face competition.

I have to laugh at the democratic party that concerns itself with the plight of the poor and then want to take away the one economic advantage the poor in third world countries have. So I'm supposed to tell a poor person making clothing I"m not going to buy what they make for their own good, until their costs to make it are so high there's no reason to buy it from them anymore?

And I don't think trade workers are stupid or need to go to college; I think they could get new jobs based on their skills, instead of democrats who seem to think they'll never find work again.

Take a look at China; for decades they made the junk of the world. But now they're moving up in the quality of the goods they manufacture, because they were able to leverage their economic advantages. If people had listened to 'fair trade' advocates they would be much worse off, because trade is a net good everywhere.

Finally, I don't see you talking about how Obama wants to dramatically increase the capital gains tax and seriously hurt the economy. That would be increasing the tax on every American who owns stocks, and take a good deal of reward for risky investment away.
Oh, not to mention, Bush's rate cut for the capital gains tax drastically increased revenue collected from that tax.
A bigger look at how harmful it would be:
http://www.nysun.com/business/obama-capital-gains-tax-hike-would-hit-new-york/81902/

In short, Obama is absolutely terrible for the economy.


Xiahou, Crazed Rabbit, tickets are still available. C'mon, do the right thing and snap some up. They don't even cost anything! The least you can do is show up for the speeches.

I recently sent an email to McCain's website saying I wasn't really a supporter and please take me off the mailing list - which I never signed up for in the first place.


having read this link it would seem that the US is plenty progressive for my tastes:

But not, apparently, enough for the spite-the-rich folks.

CR

PBI
08-28-2008, 19:26
I am running because of the transcendental challenge of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism.

I admit I almost choked on my fair trade Mung bean stew when I read this. I thought McCain was supposed to be a moderate? Surely he's not been fooled into thinking a small bunch of crackpots represents a vast existential threat?

Great, another American president with absolutely no sense of perspective.

Banquo's Ghost
08-28-2008, 20:20
Tickets are still available for Sen. John McCain's Friday, Aug. 29, rally at Wright State University's Nutter Center in Fairborn.

Tut. Nowadays, we call them centres for Bewildered Gentlefolk.

Xiahou
08-28-2008, 21:22
It isn't class warfare. Take a businessman who owns a chain of stores. To run his business he needs to be able to ship products to these stores. He sends them out on trucks over the interstate (paid for by taxes) which is policed by state troopers (paid for by taxes). When someone robs his store the police (paid for by taxes) try and catch them. If the store were to catch fire the fire department (paid for by taxes) would come and put it out. The sheer amount of government infastructure that allows his businesses to be run is staggering. If he had to pay for his own roads, his own police force, and his own fire department he wouldn't be in business. He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.Now that is class warfare. Honestly, you sound like you're channeling Lenin. I don't even know where to start with the nonsense that the above contains. :dizzy2:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOZKeOauNI
Just one of the reasons why I don't like McCain. :yes:


Xiahou, Crazed Rabbit, tickets are still available. C'mon, do the right thing and snap some up. They don't even cost anything! The least you can do is show up for the speeches.I'm sorry, but all such requests must go through my public relations liaison- Lemur. Hey wait a minute.... :inquisitive:

Crazed Rabbit
08-28-2008, 21:51
I admit I almost choked on my fair trade Mung bean stew when I read this. I thought McCain was supposed to be a moderate? Surely he's not been fooled into thinking a small bunch of crackpots represents a vast existential threat?

Great, another American president with absolutely no sense of perspective.

A small bunch of crackpots brought down the WTC.

CR

CountArach
08-28-2008, 22:44
Now that is class warfare. Honestly, you sound like you're channeling Lenin. I don't even know where to start with the nonsense that the above contains. :dizzy2:
That isn't class warfare at all... As one who believes in Class Warfare, I didn't detect anything there. Once you start talking about the working class in conflict with those who own the means of production THEN it is class warfare. What Sasaki is talking about is the importance of Interventionism.

Xiahou
08-28-2008, 23:09
That isn't class warfare at all... As one who believes in Class Warfare, I didn't detect anything there. Once you start talking about the working class in conflict with those who own the means of production THEN it is class warfare. What Sasaki is talking about is the importance of Interventionism.He's painting business owners as the sole benefactor or commerce and implying that they are exploiting everyone else by having our tax dollars allow them to do business.

You can label it however you want, I'm not interested in quibbling over that- what's important is that it's total garbage on almost any level that you choose to look at it. He implies that that business is the only beneficiary- they aren't. Shop keepers want to do business and customers want to patronize their businesses. Both benefit from the infrastructure and we all pay taxes to maintain it (and then some). Tolls, gas taxes, licensing fees, vehicle registration, ect. are all paid by everyone who uses the roads whether it be your family going to the beach, or a delivery truck bringing supplies to a store. This theme continues down the entire list of services that he mentions. Businesses are taxed more and at a higher rate than individuals and they pay a bigger share. If any of us had to pay for our own roads, police force, ect, we couldn't do it. So what?

CountArach
08-28-2008, 23:15
In class warfare terms exploitation is only of those who own the means of production vs their workers. Anyway, whatever, its irrelevant and I'm sick of debating taxation in this thread, so I'll sit this one out.

woad&fangs
08-29-2008, 00:11
McCain chooses his veep on Friday.

FactionHeir
08-29-2008, 00:25
Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?

Under those conditions, the elite would leave the country and pay their tax elsewhere, causing a collapse in the system.

Redleg
08-29-2008, 00:42
It isn't class warfare. Take a businessman who owns a chain of stores. To run his business he needs to be able to ship products to these stores. He sends them out on trucks over the interstate (paid for by taxes) which is policed by state troopers (paid for by taxes). When someone robs his store the police (paid for by taxes) try and catch them. If the store were to catch fire the fire department (paid for by taxes) would come and put it out. The sheer amount of government infastructure that allows his businesses to be run is staggering. If he had to pay for his own roads, his own police force, and his own fire department he wouldn't be in business. He owes the government money--lot's of it, because he uses their infrastructure much more than poor people have.

You do realize that this arguement is a duel edge sword. It also applies to the average worker. Who uses the highway to go to work, or the city street. Etc Etc. If this arguement applies to businessman who makes money - it also applies to the average individual who earns money working for that businessman. In other words Sasaki everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burdern.

People can argue that the wealthly should pay a greater amount - no problem with that at all, but attempting to put one group out of the equation based upon this arguement you used is hypocrisy. We are all American Taxpayers - no one should be exempt from that burdern if we are to have an income tax.

CountArach
08-29-2008, 00:43
Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?
Yes that sounds 100% fair to me.

woad&fangs
08-29-2008, 00:47
As I understand it, tax rates on the top 1% are at 35% of income. Before the Bush tax cuts the rate was at 40% of income. Obama will raise the rate to 46% of income. I don't find that too bad. Honestly I thought that Obama was going to raise the tax on everyone so I'm pleasantly surprised.

to compare
the top income tax rate in France is 49%
the top income tax rate in Deutchland is 45%
the top income tax rate in Poland is 40%
the top income tax rate in Espana is 45%

KukriKhan
08-29-2008, 00:47
V. Putin weighs in (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/28/Putin_US_incited_conflict_in_Georgia/UPI-40231219949921/) on the election.


"If my guesses are confirmed, I could suspect that someone in the U.S. triggered this conflict on purpose in order to escalate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the U.S. presidential candidates," he said.

CountArach
08-29-2008, 01:41
Would people really start a war for political gain?

Oh wait... nevermind...

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 02:51
Yes that sounds 100% fair to me.

How is that fair? :dizzy2:

Xiahou
08-29-2008, 02:59
Obama's catch phrase odds (http://www.paddypower.com/bet). Place your bets. :2thumbsup:

Edit: link didnt work, youll have to find it on the main page.

Here's (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34660) an article that lists what some of the odds were....

Lemur
08-29-2008, 03:25
I just found out there's a live, free feed, without any cable channel chattering heads. Better late than never. Here it is. (http://gallery1.demconvention.com/#)

Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-29-2008, 03:36
I just found out there's a live, free feed, without any cable channel chattering heads. Better late than never. Here it is. (http://gallery1.demconvention.com/#)

Incompatible with my browser? Incompatible with my browser? INCOMPATIBLE WITH MY BROWSER?

https://img300.imageshack.us/img300/8634/thisisoperayl7.jpg

Lemur
08-29-2008, 04:01
Well, there's no practical reason why you can't swing both ways. (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/) Obama's done talking, though. I spent the speech simultaneously reading NRO's bitchy, catty sniping. Now they're blasting bad country music while Obama does some sort of waving thing. Whatever.

Is anybody's opinion changed by this sort of political theater?

-edit-

I sincerely hope the RNC does the same thing. It's really nice to be able to listen to the event without having (a) commercials and (b) self-important talking heads bloviating about God-knows-what.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 04:05
No. I liked what he said. I always like his prepared speeches; but that is all they are.

If he is elected we will have the most disappointed electorate in recent history.

I'll vote McCain and I hope he puts smart democrats and independents into his cabinet.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-29-2008, 04:09
Well, there's no practical reason why you can't swing both ways. (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/)

I actually have Firefox installed too, I just like to post that. :laugh4:

CountArach
08-29-2008, 04:15
I just found out there's a live, free feed, without any cable channel chattering heads. Better late than never. Here it is. (http://gallery1.demconvention.com/#)
It was on C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/) as well.

Great speech! He stuck the boot into McCain as he has been hesitant to do so far!

Lemur
08-29-2008, 04:19
Wow, C-SPAN's player does not play nice at all with my browser. Too bad.

Sasaki Kojiro
08-29-2008, 04:26
You do realize that this arguement is a duel edge sword. It also applies to the average worker. Who uses the highway to go to work, or the city street. Etc Etc. If this arguement applies to businessman who makes money - it also applies to the average individual who earns money working for that businessman. In other words Sasaki everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burdern.


That's exactly right. Everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burden. Now, I'm able to make the money I do because I drive to work on the roads that are payed for with my taxes. Someone who makes way more than me and drives on the roads (or uses other government infrastructure more than I do) should pay more tax. People don't just make money on their own merits, they are benefiting from a stable society. The point of this is that rich people aren't taxed higher out of spite.



Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?

Under those conditions, the elite would leave the country and pay their tax elsewhere, causing a collapse in the system.

Why would they leave and where would they go? Will they miss that 700k more than 700 of the people in one of the lower brackets will miss their 1k? Besides that, they made the money they did because of tax funded infrastructure.


Businesses are taxed more and at a higher rate than individuals and they pay a bigger share. If any of us had to pay for our own roads, police force, ect, we couldn't do it. So what?

The point is that progressive tax rates aren't unfair.



And he already pays a lot more than poor people - what's your point?

If you don't disagree with taxing the rich more then why do you think it should remain at the current level?


It'd force a more honest evaluation of worker income. And more of the class warfare stuff. Tax cuts help the economy, and we have a lot of stuff in the government we could cut, and an improved economy helps everyone.

It's not necessarily true that improving the economy helps everyone.


Furthermore, one prominent economic expert has said Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts would be 'disastrous'. One reason is because it removes certainty about what people are going to have to pay, it represents a constant shifting of the rules.

What kind of argument is this? You don't think there's "one prominent economic expert" who thinks Obama's plan is good and McCain's is bad?

Redleg
08-29-2008, 04:55
That's exactly right. Everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burden. Now, I'm able to make the money I do because I drive to work on the roads that are payed for with my taxes. Someone who makes way more than me and drives on the roads (or uses other government infrastructure more than I do) should pay more tax. People don't just make money on their own merits, they are benefiting from a stable society. The point of this is that rich people aren't taxed higher out of spite.

Again your arguement here is flawed. If you drive everyday to work in your car, and the businessman drives to work everyday in his car - your usage is exactly the same. Both benefit from a stable society. However your arguement seems to desire to punish the individual who is more successful with higher taxes? Now you say your agruement is that rich people are not taxed at a higher rate out of spite, however your arguement is that they must pay more because they make more money. That is a spiteful arguement in itself.

Now if your arguement was that those who make over a certain amount have a greater social responsiblity to help their fellow citizens I would agree with that arguement - but saying they have a greater inherient benefit to the national infrastructure goes against the fundmentals of the constitution. Every in the nation benefits from the national infrastructure, the state infrastructure and even the local community infrastructure. This further demonstrates the weakness of your arguement because the businessman is alreadly paying more taxes because of the infrastructure because of the ownership of property, last time I check just about every business with property pays some sort of property tax to support primarily the state and local community infrastructure. (now some get major tax breaks by negotating with the local community - but the tax is still there.) Your arguement focusing on that use of infrastructure gets defeated with the simple fact that businessmen with property alreadly pay that tax. Now homeowners also pay property tax - but that tax rate for residual property is often lower then that of commerical property.

So how is this tax being put into the equation of total tax rate.






Why would they leave and where would they go? Will they miss that 700k more than 700 of the people in one of the lower brackets will miss their 1k? Besides that, they made the money they did because of tax funded infrastructure.


another weak arguement when everyone benefits from the same infrastructure. This type of arguement I find very weak because it simply fails the basic logic of economics. If a man is successful because of his own efforts why should he be punished with a higher tax bracket, when everyone has the same advantage? Now here is the real question - how much of that 700K of income tax was slated by that individual for paying their property tax?

This is part of the equation that is missing when just discussing income tax. And yes property tax is taken out of the income when filing your income tax to reduce the amount of total income.



The point is that progressive tax rates aren't unfair.


Actually it is, because of the loopholes and abuses within the current tax structure of this nation. If it was a true progressive tax rate, I might agree with you, however it is not. The current progressive tax rate hurts the middle class more then any other class. Not much fairness in that now is there?




If you don't disagree with taxing the rich more then why do you think it should remain at the current level?

a simple answer is because it does not address the issue of a wasteful government.




It's not necessarily true that improving the economy helps everyone.


Emotional appeal is the result here, quantify how improving the economy does not help out the nation as a whole and everybody in general. Now will some get left behind - sure, but how much is that from their own neglect in improving themselves/

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 07:00
My money is on Pawlenty. Eh - we'll see tomorrow.

Crith
08-29-2008, 07:21
Looking at your chart, those that make 2.87 million are already taxed at I think what, 35 or 40%? So they already pay about 1.2 million in taxes.
Now Obama wants to raise that tax on them by another 700k. So that's about 1.9 million in taxes.
So at the end of the day, a guy earning 2.87 million has like 900k left a year. Does that sound fair?

Under those conditions, the elite would leave the country and pay their tax elsewhere, causing a collapse in the system.
Don't be lazy, do the math. 700k is the average increase in the 2.87 million plus range, thus the average of all the people making 2.87 mil to the Bill Gateses. 46% of 2.87 million is 1,320,000 in tax with 1,549,000 left. That's more than enough. Carry on.

CountArach
08-29-2008, 11:13
My money is on Pawlenty. Eh - we'll see tomorrow.
This (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/romney_to_appear_in_dayton_tom.php) hints strongly at Romney:

So -- two senior McCain campaign officials confirm that John McCain will appear with his vice presidential pick in Dayton, Ohio tomorrow at noon ET.

And Gov. Mitt Romney expects to be in Dayton, Ohio tomorrow, having been asked there by the McCain campaign, a reliable source close to Romney says. (Another source says Romney will be in Boston.)

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is currently at the governors' mansion in Minneapolis. There is no guidance about his schedule.

We don't know if all the VP hopefuls have been summoned to Dayton; we don't know if some have. (MIke Huckabee won;'t be going.)
Also this (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/source-its-not-pawlenty.html) says:

Just repeating what I reported in the Twitter thread, but I have a trustworthy source telling me that the GOP VP nominee will be someone other than Tim Pawlenty.

That's all I can report to you because that's all that I know. My source believes he knows the identity of the actual VP nominee but will not tell me who it is. None of this is 100%. It's possible that I'm being played, and it's possible that my source is. But I don't think so, and I believe it's more likely that the McCain campaign was playing the media.
I have been thinking Romney for the last week or so. The Plurocrat ads will most probably kill McCain's chances (For the record I believe the attacks are petty, because I know I would be pissed if the same attacks were levelled at Obama - as they were at Edwards).

EDIT: Welcome to the Backroom Crith!

Lemur
08-29-2008, 13:37
Welcome to the monkey house, Crith.

Drudge has a cryptic "No Romney" up at the top of his site. Then again, Drudge is often wrong, so who knows?

KukriKhan
08-29-2008, 14:07
Welcome to the monkey house, Crith.

Drudge has a cryptic "No Romney" up at the top of his site. Then again, Drudge is often wrong, so who knows?

Drudge's Dad (who runs the refdesk.com (http://www.refdesk.com/) site) ledes with a "No Pawlenty" article. Always cracks me up that Pappa Drudge lists his son's site under "commentary", three-forths of the way down his link-heavy front page.

Kudos to Johnnie Mac, IMO, for not trying to steal his opponent's thunder by announcing his VP pick on the same day as O's big shin-dig. And did you guys see the "Job well done" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mccain_ad) ad Mac ran yesterday? Brilliant stuff.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 14:20
If it is Pahlin i'm gonna be psyched! Pawlenty is a bleh candidate. He had a mullet fer craps sake.

Romney and Pahlin were my picks, but Romney has that snake-oil scumbag Huckabee permanently gunning for him and is reviled as a flip-flopper. He would also look so bizarre standing next to McCain. Pahlin would be perfect.

CountArach
08-29-2008, 14:25
It isn't Palin (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/mccain-vp-conte.html)

lol, from wiki:
https://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l379/jhlinko/donknotts_2.jpg

CountArach
08-29-2008, 14:30
Apparently Leiberman is in Dayton as well :tongue:

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 14:41
I hope its Pahlin. She's a definite :daisy:, and I'll be masterbating during the vice presidential debate!!!

CountArach
08-29-2008, 14:48
I hope its Pahlin. She's a definite :daisy:, and I'll be masterbating during the vice presidential debate!!!
But you were going to be doing that anyway, right?

Lemur
08-29-2008, 14:50
I think, on balance, that you should let us know when you're not spanking the monkey during the Republican Convention, DevDave. That would be more instructive.

CountArach
08-29-2008, 14:54
CNBC reporting Palin (http://www.cnbc.com/id/26454655)

Buuuuuttttt..... not confirmed yet.

Crazed Rabbit
08-29-2008, 15:02
Well, I guess McCain would have Alaska locked up...

One thing that makes me sad is how a libertarian state like Montana could even be slightly competitive considering how socialist Obama is. Darn 'people' from California moving out of that state because all the stupid policies they voted for ruined it, and then continuing to support those stupid policies in the state they move too.

CR
Edit: More protesters courtesy of Mr. Barry:
Middle class white kids protesting that their parents wouldn't buy them real drums. Or something.
http://blogs.herald.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/29/drums2.jpg

CountArach
08-29-2008, 15:06
One thing that makes me sad is how a libertarian state like Montana could even be slightly competitive considering how socialist Obama is. Darn 'people' from California moving out of that state because all the stupid policies they voted for ruined it, and then continuing to support those stupid policies in the state they move too.
What if people voted on Social Issues? Surely you must agree that Obama's social policies are more libertarian, even if you don't agree with them.

Ronin
08-29-2008, 15:11
CNBC reporting Palin (http://www.cnbc.com/id/26454655)

Buuuuuttttt..... not confirmed yet.


uhmm....trying to pick up the feminist vote since Obama didn´t pick Clinton as a vp?

Sasaki Kojiro
08-29-2008, 15:23
Again your arguement here is flawed. If you drive everyday to work in your car, and the businessman drives to work everyday in his car - your usage is exactly the same. Both benefit from a stable society. However your arguement seems to desire to punish the individual who is more successful with higher taxes? Now you say your agruement is that rich people are not taxed at a higher rate out of spite, however your arguement is that they must pay more because they make more money. That is a spiteful arguement in itself.

Now if your arguement was that those who make over a certain amount have a greater social responsiblity to help their fellow citizens I would agree with that arguement - but saying they have a greater inherient benefit to the national infrastructure goes against the fundmentals of the constitution. Every in the nation benefits from the national infrastructure, the state infrastructure and even the local community infrastructure. This further demonstrates the weakness of your arguement because the businessman is alreadly paying more taxes because of the infrastructure because of the ownership of property, last time I check just about every business with property pays some sort of property tax to support primarily the state and local community infrastructure. (now some get major tax breaks by negotating with the local community - but the tax is still there.) Your arguement focusing on that use of infrastructure gets defeated with the simple fact that businessmen with property alreadly pay that tax. Now homeowners also pay property tax - but that tax rate for residual property is often lower then that of commerical property.

So if I were to say to you that the property tax is unfair and only in place because liberals hate rich people and want them to pay more taxes on their mansions what would you say? Your argument defeats itself when you argue in favor of property tax.

The simple fact is that a rich businessman benefits more financially from infrastructure than a poor person does and so taxing them to a higher degree is not unfair.


If you drive everyday to work in your car, and the businessman drives to work everyday in his car - your usage is exactly the same. Both benefit from a stable society.

I drive to work and make money at work, which I pay taxes on. The businessmen drives to work and tells 5,000 truckers where to deliver their goods that day all over the country, and pays higher taxes. Usage is clearly not the same :dizzy2:

If society became unstable my income would drop by thousands and the businessman's income would drop by millions.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 15:27
She is a solid choice. I thought she was ruled out absurdly months ago. A woman should be a viable candidate - women make up more than half of the electorate. She well get experience in the White House as VP and will be a solid choice for the presidential nomination in 4 to 8 years.

This is a huge deal. A pro-life feminist woman on a Republican ticket. Forcing America to make history - I love it! She is perfect.

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 15:34
I think, on balance, that you should let us know when you're not spanking the monkey during the Republican Convention, DevDave. That would be more instructive.

Hah, check your reading my friend. I said nothing about the convention, I said the VP debates...
So there might be a chance I won't be spanking for the Republican VP, hair plugs turn me on!!!:yes:

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 15:40
So if I were to say to you that the property tax is unfair and only in place because liberals hate rich people and want them to pay more taxes on their mansions what would you say? Your argument defeats itself when you argue in favor of property tax.

The simple fact is that a rich businessman benefits more financially from infrastructure than a poor person does and so taxing them to a higher degree is not unfair.



I drive to work and make money at work, which I pay taxes on. The businessmen drives to work and tells 5,000 truckers where to deliver their goods that day all over the country, and pays higher taxes. Usage is clearly not the same :dizzy2:

If society became unstable my income would drop by thousands and the businessman's income would drop by millions.

LOL...
I never got a job from a poor man. I'm amazed about the complete ignorance from the left. Yes, lets punish the successful, reward the lazy. Do you think a small business owner that EMPLOYS 5 people should be punished with higher taxes? Who do you think will suffer if a small business owner can no longer afford 5 employees? Duh...

Fairness? Again, how is it fair to punish those who work their ass off to get to where they are? Flat tax is true fairness but the left won't be able to control the lazy, ignorant masses at the voting booths with this.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 16:03
Washington is on notice! McCain/Palin are coming to rock your boat and reform the crap out of you!

drone
08-29-2008, 16:05
I had no idea Sasaki was such a commie. :tongue2:

Palin would be an interesting choice. She lacks experience, but she could grab votes from the rabid feminists pissed at Obama for not selecting Hil. She's conservative socially which would help with the GOP base, and she hunts and does the other cool Alaska outdoors stuff so she couldn't get labelled "weak". The whole ethics and whistleblowing episode look very nice to voters in today's political climate. Plus she's a hottie, that never hurts. :yes:

Xiahou
08-29-2008, 16:17
Fairness? Again, how is it fair to punish those who work their ass off to get to where they are? Flat tax is true fairness but the left won't be able to control the lazy, ignorant masses at the voting booths with this.What our friend seems not to grasp is that even under a constant tax bracket, a wealthier and more productive person already pays far more taxes without being taxed at a higher rate. These "need" arguments are pretty hilarious as well. A billionaire really only needs 100k(or less) to live on right? So let's take everything above that away from them. That'll really convince them to continue to work hard, earn more, and grow the economy. That smacks a bit too much of "to each according to his needs" for me. :dizzy2:


On the VP pick:
Palin seems ok based on a few minutes of reading. She definitely earns points for standing up to Don Young and Ted Stevens- those two are a blight on the party. Obviously, the McCain campaign thinks they can make a play for disenchanted Hillary supporters and I think he might be right. People seem to underestimate how fed up many rank and file Democrats are with her perceived- being able to vote for the first woman VP might give them all the excuse they need to vote McCain.

Tribesman
08-29-2008, 16:24
Palin is a bad choice , while there have been some rumours that she lacks experience and is actually female and as such not really credible in a white male dominated political world there are stronger rumours that she may have been and indeed still may be a Muslim . Given the intellectual abilities of your average voter I think the combination of those rumours should be enough to ensure that she remains unelectable .

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 16:56
Palin is a bad choice , while there have been some rumours that she lacks experience and is actually female and as such not really credible in a white male dominated political world there are stronger rumours that she may have been and indeed still may be a Muslim . Given the intellectual abilities of your average voter I think the combination of those rumours should be enough to ensure that she remains unelectable .

I agree. She is clearly a lesbian terrorist who has killed more than her fair share of innocent people. Look at the facts: Sarah Palin will burn in hell for her treachery.

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 17:36
Palin is a bad choice , while there have been some rumours that she lacks experience and is actually female and as such not really credible in a white male dominated political world there are stronger rumours that she may have been and indeed still may be a Muslim . Given the intellectual abilities of your average voter I think the combination of those rumours should be enough to ensure that she remains unelectable .

We'll see...

rory_20_uk
08-29-2008, 17:37
What our friend seems not to grasp is that even under a constant tax bracket, a wealthier and more productive person already pays far more taxes without being taxed at a higher rate. These "need" arguments are pretty hilarious as well. A billionaire really only needs 100k(or less) to live on right? So let's take everything above that away from them. That'll really convince them to continue to work hard, earn more, and grow the economy. That smacks a bit too much of "to each according to his needs" for me. :dizzy2:

My feeling exactly. It is not a matter of taxing these people 30, 40, 50% or whatever as though they are going to passively sit there. If taxes are raised they'll... leave. And not purchase high value, high taxed goods, employ the services of many others as they'll be doing this elsewhere. The econmy will be a lot worse off without them, even if the theoretical taxes are greter. Look at the UK: 3 companies have left in a week.

I think that the rate of income tax should be fixed as a percentage of income, and then tax is increased on luxury goods.

~:smoking:

GeneralHankerchief
08-29-2008, 17:56
Anyone else think Palin looks a bit like Elaine from Seinfeld?

Seriously though, I think she's a good choice. She soothes the conservative beast, placates the fiscal wing of the party, and might even drag in a few Hillary supporters while she's at it. The only thing that is really missing is the fact that she's from a state that's already firmly in the McCain camp.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 17:57
Anyone else think Palin looks a bit like Elaine from Seinfeld?

Seriously though, I think she's a good choice. She soothes the conservative beast, placates the fiscal wing of the party, and might even drag in a few Hillary supporters while she's at it. The only thing that is really missing is the fact that she's from a state that's already firmly in the McCain camp.

I agree. She is an interesting and great pick. Her speech was great - I especially liked the ship-in-harbor analogy.

KukriKhan
08-29-2008, 18:05
For the non-US membership:

Meet Miss Wasilla, 1984, aka: Sarah Palin, Gov. of Alaska, and now Repub VP nominee:

https://jimcee.homestead.com/Miss_Wasilla_1984.jpg

woad&fangs
08-29-2008, 18:12
After reading her wikipedia article I agree that she was a good pick.

Strike For The South
08-29-2008, 18:13
ugh. McCain is old, I know I shouldn't bring this up but he is. God forbid something happens to the man and then we have a former governor of Alaska as POTUS. I don't trust Alaska to run a 7-11 much less a country. He complains about Obama and exp. but this is a dumb choice

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 18:23
ugh. McCain is old, I know I shouldn't bring this up but he is. God forbid something happens to the man and then we have a former governor of Alaska as POTUS. I don't trust Alaska to run a 7-11 much less a country. He complains about Obama and exp. but this is a dumb choice

Texas Sucks, thanks for George Bush, the best you guys could do!!!:laugh4:

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 18:24
My feeling exactly. It is not a matter of taxing these people 30, 40, 50% or whatever as though they are going to passively sit there. If taxes are raised they'll... leave. And not purchase high value, high taxed goods, employ the services of many others as they'll be doing this elsewhere. The econmy will be a lot worse off without them, even if the theoretical taxes are greter. Look at the UK: 3 companies have left in a week.

I think that the rate of income tax should be fixed as a percentage of income, and then tax is increased on luxury goods.

~:smoking:

Rory, are you feeling ok?

Ice
08-29-2008, 18:37
I had no idea Sasaki was such a commie. :tongue2:

Palin would be an interesting choice. She lacks experience, but she could grab votes from the rabid feminists pissed at Obama for not selecting Hil. She's conservative socially which would help with the GOP base, and she hunts and does the other cool Alaska outdoors stuff so she couldn't get labelled "weak". The whole ethics and whistleblowing episode look very nice to voters in today's political climate. Plus she's a hottie, that never hurts. :yes:

Agreed minus the bolded the part. I believe she admitted to smoking marijuana when it was legal in Alaska. That doesn't seem too socially conservative to me. Not that it's a bad thing. I've wanted Palin from the getgo. I think she was a fantastic choice and I'm definitely voting for that ticket.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 18:56
Rory, are you feeling ok?

Rory is rather conservative from a British perspective. I'm not suprised at his opinion here.

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 19:24
I think the best part about this pick is that she's an accomplished woman. She's not like Hillary who basically got to where she was at by taking a protien injection from a sex addict, squeezing out a kid instead of implementing "choice" to trap said addict, and stuck around in a pretend marriage simply to get to where she could and couldn't even achieve what her goal originally was. I love hearing the main stream media right now harping that she "doesn't have enough experience". Damn, the dems want us to vote for a man that was a community organizer who hand out with domestic terrorists, mentored by radical leftists that want to "Change" the country to their political affiliation, stayed in a racist church for 20 years, and foreign political experience consists of yaking it up with a bunch of Germans that hung out after a rock concert. Sorry even as the opening act of a ticket, she's better than the demos main attraction!!!:laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit
08-29-2008, 19:31
Hmm. Palin seems like a good choice - definitely a more radical choice than Obama's VP.

I gotta laugh at the Obama campaign critique that "She's a former mayor of a 9000 person town" or whatever a "heartbeat away from the presidency". Um, she's governor of America's biggest state and is fighting the big oil companies up there. What, exactly, has Obama done? Oh yeah, he's given nice speeches. What foreign policy experience does he have?

Plus, she's got a reformer reputation.

This is a real good combination when you're a republican trying to get elected after two terms of George Dubya.

CR

PanzerJaeger
08-29-2008, 19:32
Palin was an excellent choice, and the story has completely knocked the King's coronation out of the news cycle. A strong reformer who isn't afraid to tackle corruption in her own party.. who does that remind you of?

It says a lot that a one term Governor of Alaska has far more executive experience than the democratic ticket combined. Also, the Obama response questioning her experience was of the highest irony! :laugh4:

When her son ships off to Iraq shortly, both Republicans will have children serving in the conflict. It will be great to see Osama and that old plagiarist question their commitment to resolving the conflict as quickly as possible.

Oh and..


Reality has a well-established liberal bias.

Finally some self reflection. Acceptance is the first step...

drone
08-29-2008, 19:36
Of the four, is she the only one with executive experience? :inquisitive: Mayor and governor. Not sure the other 3 have done anything apart from participating in the most prestigious debate society in the land.

Gah! Beaten by PanzerJaeger.

KukriKhan
08-29-2008, 19:42
The picks of Obama and Palin have the effect of lowering the bar of what the 2 main parties will accept as "experienced" in a presidential contender.

The Clintons should hurry and get Chelsea elected Mayor to some small city now, so she'll be ready for the 2016 Palin v. Clinton contest.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 19:44
Obama is putting weight on experience now that he sees an opening. That might be a shortsighted can to open. He has said that Palin doesn't have enough experience to be second on a ticket? He is first on his ticket and the case can be made that she has more experience than he does! What hubris. I look forward to that debate.

I think the top guy needs experience. The VP can be less experienced, but still needs to have an idea of what is going on in case of a crisis. Alaska is the perfect state to come from with executive experience because it borders Canada, is inextricably linked to Russia and is physically disconnected from the U.S., requiring some measure of independent operation. It is absolutely like its own small country. Put Palin in the second spot and you have an experienced, independent world leader in training. I believe that this is what the VP should be, not the President.

Xiahou
08-29-2008, 19:52
The picks of Obama and Palin have the effect of lowering the bar of what the 2 main parties will accept as "experienced" in a presidential contender.

The Clintons should hurry and get Chelsea elected Mayor to some small city now, so she'll be ready for the 2016 Palin v. Clinton contest.Palin isn't running for president. Although, 4yrs of being vice president could make for some very good experience if Palin can maintain her squeaky-clean reformer image.

These comparisons between Palin's experience, (which isn't great but I would argue more salient than Obama's) who is the VP choice with Obama's experience, who is on at the top of the ticket, only serve to further highlight Obama's inexperience. I hope the Obama campaign continues this line of attack. :yes:

KukriKhan
08-29-2008, 20:00
Palin has a couple years experience as Commander of the Alaska National Guard, as well as CinC of the Alaska State Defense Force, a cadre-staffed militia called to serve when the Nat'l Guard guys get deployed.

Xiahou, I take your point about Pres/VP; I'm simply pointing out the seeming acceptability of such 'inexperience' on a national executive ticket. The electorate (and the parties) don't seem to be batting an eye, whereas 20 years ago, I think they would have.

Divinus Arma
08-29-2008, 20:08
When I saw this, I had to come over to the Org to hear the howls. I know that the 08 US elections have their own thread, but some issues in the election deserve a side thread. It is a broad category, after all.

Sarah Palin? This is a frickin disaster. A 20 month governor with only experience as a mayor before that. Unbelieveable. This is Dan Quayle potatoe-retarded. McCain is older than the coffin he rises from in the evening, and he picks a 20 month governor? Gender means nothing to me. This person is a nobody who only has had to worry about sled dogs and snow for 20 months.

I was going to vote for McCain just to preserve the integrity of originalism in SCOTUS, but now... jeezus. This person actually puts us in danger.

McCain. You're retarded. I hate you.

Devastatin Dave
08-29-2008, 20:10
Palin has a couple years experience as Commander of the Alaska National Guard, as well as CinC of the Alaska State Defense Force, a cadre-staffed militia called to serve when the Nat'l Guard guys get deployed.

Xiahou, I take your point about Pres/VP; I'm simply pointing out the seeming acceptability of such 'inexperience' on a national executive ticket. The electorate (and the parties) don't seem to be batting an eye, whereas 20 years ago, I think they would have.

This is the new politic... American Idol. Unfortunately this is the best we can do, but we must all admit, conservative, liberal, moderate, we've been so dumbed down as a people, our leadership reflects it. But I do like the Republican ticket and expecially after this news.

rvg
08-29-2008, 20:13
Yes. Mac has seriously disappointed me. With people like Rudy or Romney readily available for a veep choice, he brings in some neocon :daisy: with ties to big oil. Mac deserves to lose now. All hail the Obamination. Gah.

KukriKhan
08-29-2008, 20:17
I know that the 08 US elections have their own thread, but some issues in the election deserve a side thread.

I disagree. We'll keep it to one thread until at least after the Repub convention.

But thanks for the thought. :bow:

Xiahou
08-29-2008, 20:23
When I saw this, I had to come over to the Org to hear the howls. I know that the 08 US elections have their own thread, but some issues in the election deserve a side thread. It is a broad category, after all.I think she's a pretty smart choice, and I like her based on what I know of her.


Sarah Palin? This is a frickin disaster. A 20 month governor with only experience as a mayor before that. Unbelieveable. This is Dan Quayle potatoe-retarded. McCain is older than the coffin he rises from in the evening, and he picks a 20 month governor? Gender means nothing to me. This person is a nobody who only has had to worry about sled dogs and snow for 20 months.She's wildly popular in Alaska with an 80% approval rating and has a track record of shining light on government corruption- including that in her own party.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin) would be a good place to start learning something about her. I'll have to hear more before I'm sold, but I like what I've seen so far. :yes:
Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council from 1992 to 1996. In 1996, she challenged and defeated the incumbent mayor, criticizing wasteful spending and high taxes.[3] The ex-mayor and sheriff tried to organize a recall campaign, but failed.[3] Palin kept her campaign promises by reducing her own salary, as well as reducing property taxes by 60%.[3] She ran for reelection against the former mayor in 1999, winning by an even larger margin.[3][7] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[8]

In 2002, Palin made an unsuccessful bid for Lieutenant Governor, coming in second to Loren Leman in a four-way race. After Frank Murkowski resigned from his long-held U.S. Senate seat in mid-term to become governor, Palin interviewed to be his possible successor. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter, then-Alaska State Representative Lisa Murkowski.[3]

Governor Murkowski appointed Palin Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,[9] where she served from 2003 to 2004 until resigning in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who ignored her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.[10][3] After she resigned, she exposed the state Republican Party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, one of her fellow Oil & Gas commissioners, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time, and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.[11] Palin filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who both resigned; Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine.[3]

rvg
08-29-2008, 20:31
Her husband works for BP. That can't be good.

Divinus Arma
08-29-2008, 20:34
Palin has a couple years experience as Commander of the Alaska National Guard, as well as CinC of the Alaska State Defense Force, a cadre-staffed militia called to serve when the Nat'l Guard guys get deployed.



Dude. You must have no idea what a SDF is. I looked into it in California, which happens to be the most professional and advanced of every SDF in the union. I talked to a recruiter and was considering taking a commission until I began to learn what it currently consists of.

The SDF, unfortunatly, is like those elderly police volunteers that do traffic control and ride around in yellow-lightbar police vehicle as a deterrent.

The age limits are drastically higher and many of the "troops" are retirees. Yes, the mandatory retirement age is only 64, but there is no real boot camp, just a couple of weekends unless you have prior military experience. Also, SDF are UNPAID VOLUNTEERS, who are paid when activated. They rank amongst themselves unless called to State Active Duty (and, BTW, they can QUIT at anytime), in which case they rank amongst the state activated Nat. Guard. Only the MP component carries weapons, and that consists of a 9mm handgun when activated for Nat. Guard base security augmentation.

SDFs are currently a joke. I think the idea has great potential and could be a great way to acquire manpower in emergencies, but they are currently a retarded boy scout group for retirees.

Case in point: http://www.militaryconnection.com/events/nco-awards.html The guy on the left is an "E-6" and the guy on the right is an "E-4". The "E-6" is a vietnam-era veteran. That makes him like, what, 60 something? The guy on the right is older than McCain's prostate implant.

Sorry, but Commander and Chief of the Old Guy Boy Scouts is not good enough to command the most powerful military in the history of human existence.

Divinus Arma
08-29-2008, 20:38
I think she's a pretty smart choice, and I like her based on what I know of her.

She's wildly popular in Alaska with an 80% approval rating and has a track record of shining light on government corruption- including that in her own party.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin) would be a good place to start learning something about her. I'll have to hear more before I'm sold, but I like what I've seen so far. :yes:

She was a frickin mayor of a po-dunk town during 9-11. I've got more damn experience than her. Jesus Christ. I was thinking of running for City Council in my town here soon. It has a revolving mayorship. Maybe I'll run for governor and then be tapped as second-in-line for the highest office of the land. Oh wait, I don't have a vagina. If SHE were a HE, then HE would have never been picked.


What is wrong with you people?!?!?!?!?!?!?

JR-
08-29-2008, 20:39
Seriously though, I think she's a good choice. She soothes the conservative beast, placates the fiscal wing of the party, and might even drag in a few Hillary supporters while she's at it. The only thing that is really missing is the fact that she's from a state that's already firmly in the McCain camp.

i'm liking McCain's chances, seems like a solid choice.

woad&fangs
08-29-2008, 20:40
Her husband works for BP. That can't be good.

Yeah but didn't she take a big contract away from BP and give it to someone else?


In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope. [25] This nixed a deal by the previous governor to grant the contract to a coalition including BP (her husband's seasonal employer). Only one legislator, Representative Ralph Samuels, voted against the measure

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 20:55
I love how democrats have started calling her unethical because she is associated with oil and corruption. The only problem is that she is on the other side of big oil and corruption. That is like calling Elliot Ness a mobster because he carried a gun and was associated with mob activity in the early 20th century.

Debbie Wasserman, the clueless congresswoman from Florida called her unethical and a slave to big oil on fox news - just because Palin is a Republican she is the devil. I want to hear more from Wassermann.

Divinus - unless you think that McCain will die within days of taking office - by the time Sarah Palin would be president she would have;
-Years of experience as Vice president
-2 years of experience as the governor of the largest State in the Union - bordered by 2 massive foreign nations while being pregnant (with an approval rating of between 80%-90%)
-2 years as the Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (where she would be the whistleblower of breaches in ethics among her own party)
-Many years as the Mayor of Wassila (where she served as the president of the state council of mayors)
-Many years on the town council of Wassila

She also has normal experiences with private sector work (sports journalism and commercial fishing). Aren't you the kind of guy that complains about rich/corrupt people running the country? Who would you have supported for the vice-presidency? Mitt Romney had 4 years experience as governor of Massachusets with years of private sector experience. That was enough for serious consideration for the presidency and I support him. Do you mean to tell me that because Sarah Palin has had 2 less years in her governorship but an even longer career in government that she is ineligable for the number 2 spot? C'mon.

Give her the old once over and you'll like what you find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Crazed Rabbit
08-29-2008, 20:56
Her husband works for BP. That can't be good.

And she's caused a bunch of problems for BP in regards to them trying to build a new pipeline.


This person actually puts us in danger.

And Obama doesn't by your standards?

CR

KukriKhan
08-29-2008, 21:00
Dude. You must have no idea what a SDF is

Dude. I wouldn't count on it. But I'll not argue my qualification to discuss SDFs.

I will point out that being a commander of any type, on top of having executive experience of any length, even if measured in months/years instead of decades, totally trumps the total amount of time as either Commander or Executive of both Dem nominees combined.

Ronin
08-29-2008, 21:09
Palin isn't running for president.

She isn´t?.....

when you´re running for vice president of a 72 year old president...then you´re running for president my friend...

Strike For The South
08-29-2008, 21:10
Texas Sucks, thanks for George Bush, the best you guys could do!!!:laugh4:

I dislike this statement.

On topic I completely agree with Div she was governor for 20 months of ALASKA. That really cant be that hard.

rvg
08-29-2008, 21:16
She isn´t?.....

when you´re running for vice president of a 72 year old president...then you´re running for president my friend...

Indeed. We all walk under God and Mac is far closer to meeting him than most of us are. His veep choice should have been rock solid.

drone
08-29-2008, 21:22
On topic I completely agree with Div she was governor for 20 months of ALASKA. That really cant be that hard.

Alaska is the biggest state in the Union. It's even bigger than Texas!
~;)


From a succession standpoint, she is not really the best choice, but McCain probably doesn't think too hard about dying anyway. From a purely political standpoint, the pick is solid gold. And when was the last time he got this much press?

Strike For The South
08-29-2008, 21:23
the more I read on this lady the less I like her. Beauty queen? degree in journalism? She is pro choice and pro gun well THANK GOD. Thats going to come in handy when Russia and Iran come a knocking. She can put on her makeup and write and editorial. This is the most transparent move for a voting bloc I've ever seen. She brings nothing to the table besides being governor of ALASKA. Im going to call up my congressmen and yell at him

Drone I will accept that talk from Dev Dave as midgets are known for their short tempers but as a native you should know better :laugh:

rvg
08-29-2008, 21:24
From a succession standpoint, she is not really the best choice, but McCain probably doesn't think too hard about dying anyway. From a purely political standpoint, the pick is solid gold. And when was the last time he got this much press?

Exactly. She is good for everything except the #1 reason why we have veeps in the first place.

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 21:26
Alaska is the biggest state in the Union. It's even bigger than Texas!
~;)


From a succession standpoint, she is not really the best choice, but McCain probably doesn't think too hard about dying anyway. From a purely political standpoint, the pick is solid gold. And when was the last time he got this much press?

I like the idea that change is inevitable regardless of which side you pick in this election. There is no option of going back or staying the course. History will be made that is positive whether the first black president is elected or if the glass ceiling for women is shattered.

Nobody likes to be on the wrong side of history from a philosophical standpoint - now republicans don't have to be. Equality is non-negotiable in this election and the system will be better for it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-29-2008, 21:27
John McCain is 72 - the average life expectancy in America is 75 for men. He will be 76 or 77 by the time he finishes his first term. It's a little bit of a lottery, but really, it's not that bad. Who cares if somebody is old as long as they're good?

ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 21:28
the more I read on this lady the less I like her. Beauty queen? degree in journalism? She is pro choice and pro gun well THANK GOD. Thats going to come in handy when Russia and Iran come a knocking. She can put on her makeup and write and editorial. This is the most transparent move for a voting bloc I've ever seen. She brings nothing to the table besides being governor of ALASKA. Im going to call up my congressmen and yell at him

Drone I will accept that talk from Dev Dave as midgets are known for their short tempers but as a native you should know better :laugh:

She is pro-life. How do you vilify a beautiful and nice soccer mom?


John McCain is 72 - the average life expectancy in America is 75 for men. He will be 76 or 77 by the time he finishes his first term. It's a little bit of a lottery, but really, it's not that bad. Who cares if somebody is old as long as they're good?

What is the average life expectancy of multi-millionaire politicians? It has to be different from the general average.

People are living longer and staying in the workforce longer. If they can still do the job they have alot to bring to the table.

Strike For The South
08-29-2008, 21:31
She is pro-life. How do you vilify a beautiful and nice soccer mom?


I meant pro life Im sorry that was a typo. Im sure she is a nice lady. She had her nice little state and did all sorts of nice little things with it but the Russians Iranians and Chinese dont care for nice and the EU doesn't hunt moose. She is makeup and nothing else. A social conservative who got elected because of her looks could now be talking with ruthless leaders. Im so sad right now

Ronin
08-29-2008, 21:36
I like the idea that change is inevitable regardless of which side you pick in this election. There is no option of going back or staying the course. History will be made that is positive whether the first black president is elected or if the glass ceiling for women is shattered.

Nobody likes to be on the wrong side of history from a philosophical standpoint - now republicans don't have to be. Equality is non-negotiable in this election and the system will be better for it.

yes that is true...

Either will make history...either Obama is the first President with black descent or a woman crashes through the ceiling and becomes vp.

but on the other hand..if McCain kicks the bucket in the next 4 years this could be a poisoned gift for her.....she´ll be seen as having been picked just to get the feminist vote and not really deserving of the Presidency.....will she be taken seriously if that happens?

Big_John
08-29-2008, 21:42
Im so sad right now
the utter comedy of it cheers you not at all?