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

[Meneldil]

I just read 10 pages of this topic, and wow. Just wow.

Are we talking about the US of America ? The country that more or less invented democracy ?

If so, you guys should be ashamed by this. What kind of presidential contest is that ? 90% of the thread is filled by personal attacks against candidate X or candidate Y's VP. Seriously, what the hell ?

You may dislike a candidate's opinion or attitude, but saying he shouldn't be in office because the uncle of the sister-in-law of a friend of him said something idiot is just plain silly.

Though I despise the american religious right, the attacks against Palin's daughter were totally uncalled for, just as how mentioning that Obama's kiddos are going to a private school is pointless and irrevelant to the debate.

Nice way to ridiculize your country, once again I'd say. Hopefully, the rest of the world is getting used to it by now.

What is even more sad is that the result of the election will probably have an effect over the rest of the world :-/

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, because prices have remained so stable under Bush:dizzy2:

We've noticed a rather recent gas price explosion, but I haven't seen much inflation until this year in the US. Nowhere near the inflation that I've seen in Ireland, the U.K. and France in terms of real prices of staple foods and luxuries.

Someone asks "where did Obama say that he would raise the taxes on business?" Obama has stated that he will let Bush's tax breaks expire (until he contradicted himself and said that it might be a bad move to let them expire) and he said in his acceptance speech that any tax reductions will be for small businesses.

[seireikhaan]

Yes, because I do think Obama meant that to refer to Palin. I've given my reasons.
No you haven't. Don't BS us CR. You stated NOWHERE why you thought that Obama was referring to Palin; only your apparent outrage at the comment. Post me a link where you gave a reason as to why he was undoubtedly referring to Mrs. Palin as a pig.

[ICantSpellDawg]

New article from the Architect. Say what you will about Rove, but his articles are always fair enough - in spite of his genius for partisanship. I challenge you to find falsehoods - his concepts are all about perception.

People hate turd blossom because he is smart.

Obama Can't Win
Against Palin

By KARL ROVE
September 11, 2008; Page A13

Of all the advantages Gov. Sarah Palin has brought to the GOP ticket, the most important may be that she has gotten into Barack Obama's head. How else to explain Sen. Obama's decision to go one-on-one against "Sarah Barracuda," captain of the Wasilla High state basketball champs?
It's a matchup he'll lose. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he needs to remember he's running against John McCain for president, not Mrs. Palin for vice president.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CH522_oj_rov_D_20080910210653.jpg (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=Commentary-US)AP Michael Dukakis spent the last months of the 1988 campaign calling his opponent's running mate, Dan Quayle, a risky choice and even ran a TV ad blasting Mr. Quayle. The Bush/Quayle ticket carried 40 states.
Adlai Stevenson spent the fall of 1952 bashing Dwight Eisenhower's running mate, Richard Nixon, calling him "the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, and then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation." The Republican ticket carried 39 of 48 states.
If Mr. Obama keeps attacking Mrs. Palin, he could suffer the fate of his Democratic predecessors. These assaults highlight his own tissue-thin résumé, waste precious time better spent reassuring voters he is up for the job, and diminish him -- not her.
Consider Mr. Obama's response to CNN's Anderson Cooper, who asked him about Republican claims that Mrs. Palin beats him on executive experience. Mr. Obama responded by comparing Wasilla's 50 city workers with his campaign's 2,500 employees and dismissed its budget of about $12 million a year by saying "we have a budget of about three times that just for the month." He claimed his campaign "made clear" his "ability to manage large systems and to execute."
Of course, this ignores the fact that Mrs. Palin is now governor. She manages an $11 billion operating budget, a $1.7 billion capital expenditure budget, and nearly 29,000 full- and part-time state employees. In two years as governor, she's vetoed over $499 million from Alaska's capital budget -- more money than Mr. Obama is likely to spend on his entire campaign.
And Mr. Obama is not running his campaign's day-to-day operation. His manager, David Plouffe, assisted by others, makes the decisions about the $335 million the campaign has spent. Even if Mr. Obama is his own campaign manager, does that qualify him for president?
A debate between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Palin over executive experience also isn't smart politics for Democrats. As Mr. Obama talks down Mrs. Palin's record, voters may start comparing backgrounds. He won't come off well.
Then there was Mr. Obama's blast Saturday about Mrs. Palin's record on earmarks. He went at her personally, saying, "you been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person."
It's true. Mrs. Palin did seek earmarks as Wasilla's mayor. But as governor, she ratcheted down the state's requests for federal dollars, telling the legislature last year Alaska "cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks." Her budget chief directed state agencies to reduce earmark requests to only "the most compelling needs" with "a strong national purpose," explaining to reporters "we really want to skinny it down."
Mr. Obama has again started a debate he can't win. As senator, he has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks, ratcheting up his requests each year he's been in the Senate. If voters dislike earmarks -- and they do -- they may conclude Mrs. Palin cut them, while Mr. Obama grabs for more each year.
Mr. Obama may also pay a price for his "lipstick on a pig" comment. The last time the word "lipstick" showed up in this campaign was during Mrs. Palin's memorable ad-lib in her acceptance speech. Mr. Obama says he didn't mean to aim the comment at Mrs. Palin, but he deserves all the negative flashback he gets from the snarky aside.
Sen. Joe Biden has now joined the attack on Mrs. Palin, saying this week that her views on issues show she's "obviously a backwards step for women." This is a mistake. Mr. Obama is already finding it difficult to win over independent women and Hillary Clinton voters. If it looks like he's going out of his way to attack Mrs. Palin, these voters may conclude it's because he has a problem with strong women.
In Denver two weeks ago, Mr. Obama said, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." That's what he's trying to do, only the object of his painting is Sarah Palin, not John McCain.
In Mrs. Palin, Mr. Obama faces a political phenomenon who has altered the election's dynamics. Americans have rarely seen someone who immediately connects with large numbers of voters at such a visceral level. Mrs. Palin may be the first vice presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson to change an election's outcome. If Mr. Obama keeps attacking her, the odds of Gov. Palin becoming Vice President Palin increase significantly.
Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush

[Crazed Rabbit]

No you haven't. Don't BS us CR. You stated NOWHERE why you thought that Obama was referring to Palin; only your apparent outrage at the comment. Post me a link where you gave a reason as to why he was undoubtedly referring to Mrs. Palin as a pig.

Obama, that great eloquent orator and master of theatrics, spoke those words when scant time had passed by after Palin made a joke referring to wearing lipstick. What else could he be referring to? You think his campaign wouldn't have noticed that if it was just a coincidence? That his huge campaign machine doesn't look at his speeches? I know from that clip of 'flipping off' Hilary that he would be willing to do such a thing.

And where did I say I was outraged?

CR

[Big_John]

What else could he be referring to?
what he was actually, directly, grammatically referring to, perhaps?



note: i'm not actually trying to have a real discussion with someone that believe that youtube clip shows obama flipping off clinton. just pointing out the brutally, painfully obvious.

[Tribesman]

note: i'm not actually trying to have a real discussion with someone that believe that youtube clip shows obama flipping off clinton. just pointing out the brutally, painfully obvious.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:spot on .
However it is only obvious if you engage the thought process at all .
So John when you write .....what he was actually, directly, grammatically referring to, perhaps?
...do you really expect people to believe that when he made a satement that he was really only making a statement and what he was talking about was the thing that he was talking about ?
But thats outrageous :2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Man, if this is the guy that Osama Bin Obama Messiah used his best judgement to pick for a VP, I'd hate to see what decisions Mr Umm, Uhh, Where de Telaprompta would make as president.

Moderator's Note: Referring to Senator Obama as any variant of "Osama bin" shall stop forthwith.

Equating a man who is a member of the US legislature and who is standing for your country's highest office with the murderer of thousands of its citizens may pass for funnies among some, but is regarded as highly insulting by many.

I'd be grateful if we would lay off the thinly veiled racism too.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[JR-]

Define a lot.

See that the bottom 60% are the ones that could use extra money, and they represent the majority of the consumers in this country, especially when you consider that with the next bracket it make 80% of tax payers, it is Obama's plan that will help simulate the economy.

Given that america's tax system is definately progressive, something i don't like very much, then McCains tax plans seem like a breath of fresh air.

[CountArach]

Democrat congressman: Obama is like Jesus, Palin is like Pontius Pilate (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/10/dem-compares-obama-to-jesus/) :laugh4:

"Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus."
"Pontius Pilate was a governor,"
:laugh4: That's a great line!

Are we talking about the US of America ? The country that more or less invented democracy ?
That would be the Ancient Greeks, but I digress :wink:

If so, you guys should be ashamed by this. What kind of presidential contest is that ? 90% of the thread is filled by personal attacks against candidate X or candidate Y's VP. Seriously, what the hell ?

You may dislike a candidate's opinion or attitude, but saying he shouldn't be in office because the uncle of the sister-in-law of a friend of him said something idiot is just plain silly.

Though I despise the american religious right, the attacks against Palin's daughter were totally uncalled for, just as how mentioning that Obama's kiddos are going to a private school is pointless and irrevelant to the debate.

Nice way to ridiculize your country, once again I'd say. Hopefully, the rest of the world is getting used to it by now.

What is even more sad is that the result of the election will probably have an effect over the rest of the world :-/
As I am quickly finding out - this is how Americans run their elections :tongue:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obama Can't Win Against Palin Rove is right.

This election will end in tears for the Democrats. They can't win and it never looked like they were going to win - even after eight years of one of the worst and most unpopular Republican administrations ever. I almost hope Palin will destroy Obama in a direct engagement. Serves the Democrats right. They have fallen for every trap out there yet, including this one.



There Is NO Republican or Government Ban On Stem Cell Research of ANY Kind. George Bush gave more funding to embryonic stem cell research than Clinton did.Both are technically correct. Let me rephrase my criticism to 'continuous Republican obstruction of stem-cell research'. Stem-cell controversy is not a central issue in this election and thread, so I'll just leave it at quoting wiki's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research) brief timeline:


1993 - As per the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, Congress and President Bill Clinton give the NIH direct authority to fund human embryo research for the first time.[45]

1995 - The U.S. Congress enacts into law an appropriations bill attached to which is the Dickey Amendment which prohibited federally appropriated funds to be used for research where human embryos would be either created or destroyed. This predates the creation of the first human embryonic stem cell lines.

1999 - After the creation of the first human embryonic stem cell lines in 1998 by James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services, releases a legal opinion that would set the course for Clinton Administration policy. Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction). However, she concludes that because human embryonic stem cells "are not a human embryo within the statutory definition," the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not apply to them. The NIH was therefore free to give federal funding to experiments involving the cells themselves. President Clinton strongly endorses the new guidelines, noting that human embryonic stem cell research promised "potentially staggering benefits." And with the guidelines in place, the NIH begins accepting grant proposals from scientists.[45]

02 November, 2004 - California voters approve Proposition 71, which provides $3 billion in state funds over ten years to human embryonic stem cell research.

2001-2006 - U.S. President George W. Bush signs an executive order which restricts federally-funded stem cell research on embryonic stem cells to the already derived cell lines. He supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on the already existing lines of approximately $100 million and $250 million for research on adult and animal stem cells.

5 May, 2006 - Senator Rick Santorum introduces bill number S. 2754, or the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, into the U.S. Senate.

18 July, 2006 - The U.S. Senate passes the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act H.R. 810 and votes down Senator Santorum's S. 2754.

19 July, 2006 - President George W. Bush vetoes H.R. 810 (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act), a bill that would have reversed the Gingrich-era appropriations amendment which made it illegal for federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.

07 November, 2006 - The people of the U.S. state of Missouri passed Amendment 2, which allows usage of any stem cell research and therapy allowed under federal law, but prohibits human reproductive cloning.[46]

16 February, 2007 – The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine became the biggest financial backer of human embryonic stem cell research in the United States when they awarded nearly $45 million in research grants.[47]

[Tribesman]

This election will end in tears for the Democrats. They can't win and it never looked like they were going to win - even after eight years of one of the worst and most unpopular Republican administrations ever.
Look on the bright side , we get another 4 years of ridiculing the most vocal supporters while they backtrack and say the person who they wanted isn't really the person they wanted and they don't really support the Republicans anyway except when it comes to elections as they are libertarians honestly .


Equating a man who is a member of the US legislature and who is standing for your country's highest office with the murderer of thousands of its citizens may pass for funnies among some, but is regarded as highly insulting by many.


But hold on there Banquo , Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist supporter , a crazy radical christian and an unpatriotic traitor , he isn't even really American at all besides being both black and not black at the same time .
Plus he called a dog a pig or was that an elephant a rotten fish in a new wrapping..... so its all fair comment , just get into the swing of American elections:2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Plus he called a dog a pig or was that an elephant a rotten fish in a new wrapping..... so its all fair comment , just get into the swing of American elections:2thumbsup:

Perhaps, but this is the Org Backroom, where we try to preserve some standards. Such characterisations offend some members deeply and more to the point, trivialise the actions of murderers (a side-effect that I'm sure the poster responsible would not intend).

I made the same distinction about the Zanu-Labour offensiveness, and I hope, drew a line earlier in this thread about similar attacks from the other side.

There are plenty of political fora where respect for one's opponents can be drowned in the fetid swamp of partisan hatreds, and democracy - which depends on a plurality of views and the ability to debate them intelligently - can be thrown to the bottom-dwelling corruption that tempts us all towards unthinking conflict.

But this is not one of them.

[CrossLOPER]

That kid asked Romney a question that he already answered and he answered it a few times. Boo to you my friend!

:playingball:

[KukriKhan]

Man, we sure got to 2,000 replies a lot faster than we did 1,000. Seamus, you can thank Palin for that. :yes:

Also Lemur, CountArach, TuffStuffMcGruff, Xiahou, and Crazed Rabbit who combined, account for 50% of the posts here. Kudos for participation. :bow:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yessssss. I hope that I'm contributing interesting stuff for everybody.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I love your contributions, Tuff. In this thread and others. :jumping:

Cheers to the others as well. I enjoy this election even more than this year's European football championship. Thanks for making it a living, breathing debate for me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hey thanks, Louis!

This thread is a monster.:dizzy2:

[Big_John]

Look on the bright side , we get another 4 years of ridiculing the most vocal supporters while they backtrack and say the person who they wanted isn't really the person they wanted and they don't really support the Republicans anyway except when it comes to elections as they are libertarians honestly .classic.
:2thumbsup:

[seireikhaan]

Barr offers (http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/10/bob-barr-shows-leadership-to-unify-liberty-movement/) libertarian VP spot to Ron Paul.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Barr offers (http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/10/bob-barr-shows-leadership-to-unify-liberty-movement/) libertarian VP spot to Ron Paul.

I love how Root just stepped aside. That would never happen with the Dems or GOP. Can you imagine Biden giving up his spot to Hillary?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Barr offers (http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/10/bob-barr-shows-leadership-to-unify-liberty-movement/) libertarian VP spot to Ron Paul.

I wish they were one of our two ruling parties.


Look on the bright side , we get another 4 years of ridiculing the most vocal supporters while they backtrack and say the person who they wanted isn't really the person they wanted and they don't really support the Republicans anyway except when it comes to elections as they are libertarians honestly .

Good to see you got in off that limb. And yes, they are a lot of partisans, but you'll have to point out where people are saying McCain's going to be the perfect president. It's just a matter of the lesser of two evils.

I'd still be a bit surprised if McCain won. A sea change benefiting Dems, the most charismatic politician in a long time (though maybe not as great of a politician as Bill Clinton), and they still are even/down in the polls.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Bob Barr is a creep. I would never vote for him even with Ron Paul on the ticket. I'd probably vote for Obama over him.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I still wish the libertarian party would replace, oh, the democrats. Or at least the GOP. One of them.

Anyway;
The Hammer Drops. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/NRA_hammers_Obama_in_new_mailer.html?showall)

Scoff if you will, but that group has had a big impact in past elections.

CR

[Lemur]

Also Lemur, CountArach, TuffStuffMcGruff, Xiahou, and Crazed Rabbit who combined, account for 50% of the posts here. Kudos for participation.
You may want to withdraw any kudos for me, at least going forward. The Frontroom is way more work than I thought it would be, so my availability for wrasslin' back here may be limited. I hereby appoint CountArch my spokesperson on all things statistical.

-edit-

Yeah, this thread is a beast. It's within a few hundred of being as long as News of the Weird, without being nearly as funny.

[Ser Clegane]

It's within a few hundred of being as long as News of the Weird, without being nearly as funny.

I've been following the news on the election a bit more closely this week as I am in the US for this week - I think "News of the Weird" would actually describe a lot of what I have seen pretty accurately...

BTW, I always read the comments here on how biased the media are, but never before really bothered to watch CNN or Fox News more closely with regard to how they report on elections.

Watched a bit more under this aspect during the last weeks and I have to say that I am slightly shocked how biased both actually are. The main difference seems to be that Fox News is biased in a more blunt and direct way ahile CNN is more subtle about it. I am still trying to decide which is worse... :no:

[drone]

I've been following the news on the election a bit more closely this week as I am in the US for this week - I think "News of the Weird" would actually describe a lot of what I have seen pretty accurately...

BTW, I always read the comments here on how biased the media are, but never before really bothered to watch CNN or Fox News more closely with regard to how they report on elections.

Watched a bit more under this aspect during the last weeks and I have to say that I am slightly shocked how biased both actually are. The main difference seems to be that Fox News is biased in a more blunt and direct way ahile CNN is more subtle about it. I am still trying to decide which is worse... :no:

Fox News isn't biased news, it's brainwashing. All that's lacking is eyelid clamps and Beethoven in the background. I can only take it in small doses, after 5 minutes my head starts to hurt. And I'm right of center. The best way to watch it is muted, since Fox News has all the babes. ~;)

I would imagine Ron Paul will decline, he has already said he wouldn't take the top spot on the ticket so I can't imagine him losing as a second fiddle.

The NRA can damage Obama severely. He's already annoyed lower and middle class whites with the "clinging to guns and religion" slip. If he expects to win southern or midwestern states he needs to address this.

[Lemur]

Wow, based on this essay (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/federal-drug-war-rethough_b_125458.html), I might have to vote Barr in November. First politician of any stature I've seen who has the nards to say it like it is.


It is obvious that, like Prohibition's effort to eradicate alcohol usage, drug prohibition has not succeeded. Despite enormous law enforcement efforts -- including the dedicated service of many thousands of professional men and women -- the government has not halted drug use. Indeed, the problem is worse today than in 1972, when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase "War on Drugs."

Whether we like it or not, tens of millions of Americans have used and will continue to use drugs. Yet in 2005 we spent more than $12 billion on federal drug enforcement efforts. Another $30 billion went to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders. [...]

But treating what is, at base, a moral, spiritual, and health problem as a matter of federal criminal law has solved nothing. The next president must put politics aside and take a long, hard look at the failure of the federal war on drugs. We must reestablish the primacy of individual choice and state's rights in deciding these issues. This always has been the greatest strength of America, and should be again.

[Devastatin Dave]

Moderator's Note: Referring to Senator Obama as any variant of "Osama bin" shall stop forthwith.

Equating a man who is a member of the US legislature and who is standing for your country's highest office with the murderer of thousands of its citizens may pass for funnies among some, but is regarded as highly insulting by many.

I'd be grateful if we would lay off the thinly veiled racism too.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

I wonder if you'll do the same when someone says that Bush is a murderer or Hitler, but regardless I'm sorry if I offended anyone by insulting their Messiah. And I send my sincerest apology to Barak Hussien Obama.

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm with ya Lemur, I might have to vote for him because he ate some of Borat's wife's cheese made of tit milk. I'm kinda in to that sort of thing...

[CountArach]

I wonder if you'll do the same when someone says that Bush is a murderer or Hitler, but regardless I'm sorry if I offended anyone by insulting their Messiah. And I send my sincerest apology to Barak Hussien Obama.
That isn't even remotely comparable with equating Obama with Osama IMO.

[CountArach]

FactCheck Checks McCain FactCheck Facts: McCain "Facts" Not Factual (http://www.newsweek.com/id/158265/output/print)

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "absolutely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."
EDIT: To avoid triple posting, I'll just add this here:

I'm in Poll smoking heaven! Five Tracking polls are running from now until Election day - who knows, someone else might start as well? I may well do an update of each one each day... if I have nothing else going on. In addition to that we have some (Read far too many) state polls released today. The tracking poll results as of today are:
Gallup - McCain 48, Obama 44 (2718 RV)
Rasmussen - McCain 48, Obama 48 (3000 LV)
Diageo - McCain 46, Obama 44 (918 RV)
DailyKos (Research 2000) - Obama 47, McCain 45 (1100 LV)
Insider Advantage - McCain 46, Obama 46 (807 RV)
If we put in a couple of points of bias in for DailyKos (Though they don't actually poll, it is possible that they are not rotating the names to ensure a real result... I can't be sure, but it is just my gut instinct), we get an overall result that is probably leading a point or two towards McCain, but nothing more.

The most interesting of the state polling from today is:
A couple of polls out of North Carolina showing McCain leading by 3-4 points, which is where the race has been sitting all election.
McCain up by 1 in Michigan (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mi_mccain_45_obama_44_insidera.php) - Though I would caution against this one because Obama wins an unrealistic 77% of African-Americans and McCain wins in the 18-29 group, while Obama wins elsewhere.
Obama up by 5 in Michigan (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/michigan/toplines_michigan_presidential_election_september_10_2008) - My guess it is somewhere between this one and the above one.
McCain up by 1 in Ohio (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/oh_mccain_48_obama_47_insidera.php) - Though again the African-Americans seem extremely unrealistic... McCain wins 23% and Obama is under 50%.
McCain up by 4 in Ohio (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/oh_mccain_48_obama_44_strategi.php) - Against the general trend, but not entirely unrealistic.
Obama up by 3 in Colorado (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/co_obama_49_mccain_46_insidera.php) - About the same as the rest of the race at this point.

[Lemur]

Anybody else watch the Charlie Gibson interview? Here's a clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU), if somebody knows how to link to the entire thing that would be much better.

[Big_John]

play nice.


(hitler would be 3rd party and therefor off of most ballots, btw...)

[KarlXII]

play nice.


(hitler would be 3rd party and therefor off of most ballots, btw...)

:laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Anybody else watch the Charlie Gibson interview? Here's a clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU), if somebody knows how to link to the entire thing that would be much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIIX6CFh8LE

Don't think it's the entire thing, but it's more.

Seriously, it should have been obvious, but between this interview and this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews

(where she links iraq and 9/11) even CR and tuffstuff will have to admit her foreign policy experience is sorely lacking. Now compare obama's appearance on O'reilly...although I guess he's a softballer compared to gibson.



btw, CountArach, the quinippiac poll shows obama+5 in ohio. The trick is to pick and choose the polls that say what you want them to say.

[Devastatin Dave]

Though I'm sure you'd have voted for Hitler if he were running.

Have a nice day :yes:

Actually..

NO:furious3:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gibson interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaMJ-xTcGxI

[Crazed Rabbit]

even CR and tuffstuff will have to admit her foreign policy experience is sorely lacking.

Yes. I'd say Biden and McCain are the best in that arena. I don't think I said otherwise about Palin, though.

CR

[CountArach]

btw, CountArach, the quinippiac poll shows obama+5 in ohio. The trick is to pick and choose the polls that say what you want them to say.

Hehe, I prefer to report all of them and then dismiss the ones I don't like :tongue:

[CountArach]

How in hell can you guys let your Government get away with crap like this (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080911/NEWS0108/309110032/):
About one-third of the absentee ballot applications received at the Hamilton
County Board of Elections have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it.
Advertisement

In a narrow interpretation of Ohio law, Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner says many of the McCain forms have not been completed properly. If the box stating the person is an eligible elector -- or qualified voter – is not checked, Brunner said, the application is no good.

Even though the box is unneeded, by not checking it voters are essentially admitting they’re not eligible, Brunner said.

“I have not seen a ruling that indirectly impacts voters to the enormity of this since I’ve been here,’’ Hamilton County Board of Elections Deputy Director John Williams said of his nearly five-year tenure at the board.

More than 750 absentee ballot requests in Hamilton County have been invalidated because of Brunner’s ruling, Williams said.

Absentee voting begins in 19 days, or on Sept. 30.

If a registered Ohio voter’s application is rejected, Brunner said, “We said you have to notify them within 48 hours and we also suggest that (Board of Elections) send them a new application.”

That means county Boards of Election must contact tens of thousands of voters and ask them to fill out a new, valid form in time to vote for the Nov. 4 election.
The McCain campaign says it mailed out about 1 million of the faulty forms.

"The form contains the necessary requirements and has been accepted in past elections, so this election should be no different,’’ Jon Seaton, McCain’s regional campaign manager,’ said today. "Qualified voters who request absentee ballots should receive them.’’

“If I were a voter, I wouldn’t be very happy,” Brunner said. “I’m stuck with the law. You shouldn’t have to check a box.”

Brunner insists she would have ruled the same way if the absentee ballot applications were printed by Sen. Barack Obama’s Democratic campaign for president.

Regardless, her ruling is likely to be challenged in court.

Williams said he has asked a county prosecutor how to proceed. He said state law does not require a separate box on a form, only a printed statement that the voter is a qualified elector.

“This has been a huge wrench in our operation,’’ Williams said.

“There’s an enormous time and cost involved,’’ Williams said. “If that box was not there, but a four-leaf clover was there, what do you do with that? What if it was a circle that was next to that? What if it was an asterisk? Effectively what she is saying is it doesn’t need to be there, but if it’s there you need to check it.”

Letters will be sent out to everyone whose absentee applications were rejected, with instructions on how to fill out the form properly. Williams wondered aloud what part of the faulty form should be returned to avoid new confusion, and not disenfranchise voters.

Brunner was elected in 2006 on a campaign encouraging fewer restrictions on voters and more improvements in the election process to make the system easier and more transparent following two presidential elections in which Ohio was riddled with problems involving punch-card ballots, touchscreen machines, long lines and registration snafus.

Brunner said state law does not require one standardized form to apply for an absentee ballot. While the Secretary of State prints its own application, the law says it need not be a particular form. A voter can merely send a letter with personal information that identifies him or her as a qualified elector to receive an absentee ballot, Brunner said.

Some county Boards of Election have asked Brunner why they should pay to fix the application error. “The law is clear. The problem is with McCain’s form,’’ she said.
But Brunner said she does not have the authority to order any campaign to reimburse counties for the new mailing costs to fix the problem.

[Lemur]

Whatever your position, you have to admit that the Bush administration is taking all of its foreign policy moves from Obama.

One take: (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/29322)


I was among many people who ridiculed the Obama proposal at the time, on the grounds that a) no nation violates the territorial integrity of an ally, even if that ally is problematic, and b) Obama’s bellicosity seemed entirely unbelievable, given that he spoke in the wake of his remarks about meeting with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes “without preconditions.” On the latter point, he was and remains wrong and foolish.

On the former point, though, he was, apparently, precognitive, and may be due an apology.

Another: (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128741.html)


Will McCain now condemn the Bush administration's decision to go into Pakistan? Or was this idea only naive ten months ago? Was it only naive because it came from Obama? The Obama campaign should be making a much bigger deal about this.

Then again, this has to do with issue, and not with lipstick or personalities, so I expect it will die unnoticed. Much the same way the change of strategy in Iraq ("time horizons," anyone?) went more or less under the radar.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

@CA: It looks to me like the the McCain campaign accidentaly sent out faulty applications. Or else brunner is just thinking it's payback time, which wouldn't be cool. We'll see I guess.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

For those who haven't watched the palin interview...

[Big_John]

For those who haven't watched the palin interview...

former beauty pageant contestant, you say?

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

New Noonan article.

[Tribesman]

Does anyone find it funny that Palin gave a speech to the troops about bringing victory in Iraq when the soldier who was running the presidents "lipstick on a pig" plan for Iraq said that there couldn't be a victory in Iraq .

[CountArach]

@CA: It looks to me like the the McCain campaign accidentaly sent out faulty applications. Or else brunner is just thinking it's payback time, which wouldn't be cool. We'll see I guess.
I doubt it was an accident... I also doubt Obama won't do something similar.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I doubt it was an accident... I also doubt Obama won't do something similar.

Well, if he sent it out to his own supporters I'm pretty sure it was an accident...

[Devastatin Dave]

Has anyone seen the new Messiah ad?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/still_ad/

There might be a reason why Senator McCain isn't as computer saavy as the Messiah believes he should be...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=

Maybe the Messiah should lay hands on him and heal him so he can do all the things that the Obama and Biden ticket think one needs to do to be president.

They really should do better research...:yes:

[KarlXII]

Hahahahah.

"Get tough" image my foot. I'm not surprised, though, Obama's been dealing with attacks since e announced his running, but hey, as long as it's not Palin or McCain, continue making fun of him, his race, skin color, supposed religion etc :laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

Hahahahah.

"Get tough" image my foot. I'm not surprised, though, Obama's been dealing with attacks since e announced his running, but hey, as long as it's not Palin or McCain, continue making fun of him, his race, skin color, supposed religion etc :laugh4:

I will. The difference is I'm just some dork on a computer game website, these guys are suppose to be running a "new campaign, removed from the politics as usual", right? Maybe when Obama goes to his nest campaign stop, he can challenge a parapelegic to a slam dunk contest. :2thumbsup:

[KarlXII]

I will. The difference is I'm just some dork on a computer game website, these guys are suppose to be running a "new campaign, removed from the politics as usual", right? Maybe when Obama goes to his nest campaign stop, he can challenge a parapelegic to a slam dunk contest. :2thumbsup:

Well Dave, you ought to get front row tickets. You may be able to see the balls Obama has! :2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

New poll is up. Which is more important to you, whether as a US voter, or interested non-US observer: foreign policy (relations among nations, war-decisions, tariff and trade decisions, etc.) or domestic policy (abortion, guns, adherence to the constitution, taxes, balanced budgets, etc.)?

Votes are anonymous this time.

[Lemur]

Poll does not appear to be open for business, Kukri.

So DevDave, SwedFish, I have a question for the both of you. Let's say the other guy wins. The one you don't like. What sort of consequences do you think we'll see? How exactly will he go about destroying America? And how will we know that America is being destroyed?

[KukriKhan]

Sorry, must have messed up at first. We have one vote - telling me it's working at the moment.

[KarlXII]

McCain's not going to destroy America. Obama's not going to destroy America.

If McCain were to win, I forsee a more militaristic involvement in the Middle East. Iran, possibly Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan. I see a increasingly low reputation, and a similarly high increase in Islamic extremism in the Arab nations.

If Obama were to win, I forsee a more isolationist America. One that will respond to threats when actually in true danger. I see a closer move to Socialism, not to the point of Communism, however. A higher reputation in the world due to Obama's international campaigning, but a more volatile Middle East, and a possible rise in Islamic extremism.

[seireikhaan]

It says I already voted on this poll.

[Devastatin Dave]

Poll does not appear to be open for business, Kukri.

So DevDave, SwedFish, I have a question for the both of you. Let's say the other guy wins. The one you don't like. What sort of consequences do you think we'll see? How exactly will he go about destroying America? And how will we know that America is being destroyed?

When President Messiah raises the taxes on the "wealthy" as an attempt to redistribute the wealth, the wealthy will do what people who are smart with money do; they'll keep their money. Not only that, they'll lay off workers. I never got a job from a poor man, as I say. When the Messiah goes after the evil oil companies and their "windfall profits" he'll destroy everyone's 401 k's, mutual funds, etc. What the unwshed out there don't realise is that a LOT of their retirement is dependent on the "evil oil companies". The next thing that will happen is you won't be able to criticize the Messiah unless you want to be branded a RACIST. You won't be able to call Obama a Chimp like you guys have done to Bush for the past 7 years you know, so you can throw out political satire as well. So anytime Obama enacts some new Marxist social program, who will be able to criticise it? Take a look at Europe in its nuetured state when it comes to its racial issues or the ability to point out the obvious. He will gut the military or use it for what it should not be used for, ala Bill Clinton. With a democrat legislative branch and executive branch, we'll be a balless as Europe by the end of his first term. So there you go, pick it all apart, I don't care. Would you like to know why?

Because he's not going to win. Simple as that. No matter how many around the world bow and worship at his alter, we are not going to elect him. This country's citizens, even the really dumb ones out there that want the government to "take care of them" will not vote for him when they are in the voting booth. Thats where the message of "change" will die. Because even the most ignorant of the citizens in this country know when they see con man. Right now, your hearing many Americans coming out saying they're going to vote for Obama, they're excited that he's running, and the media has put him on a pedistal. But in the privacy of that booth, everything changes.

So I'm going to sit back for a couple of hours and enjoy the sniping and picking apart of this post. Maybe I'll get some more of the "you're a Nazi" from some of you, but all I can do is keep my :daisy: eating grim beaming at the knowledge that Obama lost the day he said his first "Uhhh, ummmm, change"...

[Marshal Murat]

I would prefer a President whose actions indicate a 'smaller foreign policy'. I think that, were McCain to win, we would have a more reasonable move towards securing Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't believe that McCain would go out of his way to deliberately insult anyone, except Russia.

Obama, for all his high talk, would move to a smaller military, but a larger, more helpful, foreign policy.

[Lemur]

So there you go, pick it all apart, I don't care.
Is this the part where you take your marbles and go home?

[Devastatin Dave]

Is this the part where you take your marbles and go home?

No, you treat my marbles just fine.:laugh4:

Lemur, please critique my thoughts, because I know that you know exactly what I'm talking about when you're in the booth all by your lonesome and the vote is cast...

[Lemur]

Maybe tomorrow, lover, if I have time before or after my boy's birthday party. (I have to get in some good living before Obama destroys America.)

[woad&fangs]

McCain as president.

Foreign policy will be similar to the way things have been the last 8 years. Oil prices will continue to rise but whoever gets the presidency after him(Palin or Hillary) will get to take credit credit for a fall in oil prices once the oil from offshore drilling becomes available. Troops will be returned home from Iraq within 2 years. McCain will be considered a hero who brought "peace with honor" to the conflict. Some of the troops will be redeployed to Afghanistan which will become more stable by the end of his term. 1 of two things will happen with the economy. Either inflation and debt will rise astronomically because McCain lowers taxes while failing to slash pork or he will somehow manage to drastically reduce the amount of pork in the budget and America will be back to a solid economy.

Obama as president

Foreign relations will improve with almost all countries but Russia will become more powerful than if McCain was president. Oil prices will continue to climb but will be offset by the growth of alternative energy sources in Obama's second term(:grin:). Troops will be returned home from Iraq within 18 months. Obama will be called a surrender monkey and other similar terms by the right. Troops will be redeployed to Afghanistan just like under McCain. Obama will pay for lowering taxes by repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama will end tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Either the budget will be significantly more balanced(I don't think anyone can fix Bush's mess in one term) or Socialized Healthcare will be introduced. I don't think he can do both. Overall we'll look more like europe.

The biggest reason why I like Obama is that he is very good at surrounding himself with skilled people. He also listens to the opinions of people regardless of whether or not he agrees with them. I think this is what will help the country best in the long run.

McCain on the other hand pretty much has been winging it this entire election and I expect that will be his style if he wins the presidency. Of course, he is very good at winging it.

As for the VPs

Biden will be a mediocre liberal who will provide satirists with plenty of material.

Palin is 4 more years of Bush. I don't think anyone wants 4 more years of Bush.

[Devastatin Dave]

Maybe tomorrow, lover, if I have time before or after my boy's birthday party. (I have to get in some good living before Obama destroys America.)

Good point, because when the Messiah comes to town the only "Change" you're going to see is a few coins left in your pocket after he's raped you out of the money you EARNED to give to someone who hasn't EARNED YOUR money. But its "neighborly" as he says...:laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Has anyone seen the new Messiah ad?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/still_ad/

There might be a reason why Senator McCain isn't as computer saavy as the Messiah believes he should be...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=

Maybe the Messiah should lay hands on him and heal him so he can do all the things that the Obama and Biden ticket think one needs to do to be president.

They really should do better research...:yes:

It's a pretty dumb ad, but I don't think you'd be correct in saying that McCain can't type.


Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?

Mr. McCain: No

Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.

Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it.





Oil prices will continue to rise but whoever gets the presidency after him(Palin or Hillary) will get to take credit credit for a fall in oil prices once the oil from offshore drilling becomes available.

You mean whoever is president in 2030 (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4323718.shtml)

[Big_John]

It says I already voted on this poll.

same here

[Big_John]

more dangerously biased and destructive-to-the-american-way-of-life daily show goodness for any who missed it a couple weeks back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlJ3-KPDkFo

[Crazed Rabbit]

You mean whoever is president in 2030 (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4323718.shtml)

You mean the payout would be far in the future and we wouldn't get instant gratification? Well we'd better just completely forget about it, because everyone knows planning for the future is stupid and lame.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

It says I already voted on this poll.


Poll does not appear to be open for business, Kukri.


same here

Kukri, we are going to have to get that Diebold engineer back in.

Just in case he asks, you guys aren't Floridian Democrats, by any chance? :inquisitive:


~;p

[Tribesman]

I never got a job from a poor man, as I say.
Dave you worked for the government , you cannot get a poorer employer than one that is $9,685,027,356,398 in debt .

[KukriKhan]

Kukri, we are going to have to get that Diebold engineer back in.

Just in case he asks, you guys aren't Floridian Democrats, by any chance? :inquisitive:


~;p

I thought I could swap out polls (delete the old one, put up a new one) but I was wrong; the "ghost" of the old one remains, only allowing those who didn't vote in the previous one to vote. I'll see if our resident tech genius TosaInu can assist.


Dave you worked for the government , you cannot get a poorer employer than one that is $9,685,027,356,398 in debt

I have to admit: I never thought of it that way. LoL.:laugh4:

To Lemur, who asked for it, and DDave, SwedishFish and others who responded: THANK YOU. As a reader, I'm much more interested in what YOU think life will be like in January 2009 and onwards, after McCain or Obama is elected, than in what the "experts" think - I can get that on any cable news channel.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Dave you worked for the government , you cannot get a poorer employer than one that is $9,685,027,356,398 in debt .

Love that rapier sharp wit.:2thumbsup: As a gov'mint employee I really appreciate my employers' management skills and, more importantly, his huge line of credit.

Now, as to the future, I believe we give one man too much credit for the ebb & flow, good & bad of our lives. There are quite a few more people and events involved in this than just the President. My life has "fluctuated" between good and bad ever since I can remember. It will continue to do so despite who is elected the Grand Poobah.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/Government.jpg

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You mean the payout would be far in the future and we wouldn't get instant gratification? Well we'd better just completely forget about it, because everyone knows planning for the future is stupid and lame.

CR

Ahaha! Planning for the future he says. Fossil fuels, the way of the future!

[Crazed Rabbit]

:wall:

We'll still be suing fossil fuels in the future. We're still using coal now, and may well continue to use new, cleaner coal plants.

So heck ya, it is planning for the future. We need energy in the future, and fossil fuels are very good at that.

Oh, wait, since we can't rely nearly 100% on fossil fuels we shouldn't think about them at all! An economy with several balanced sources of energy?! Heresy!

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

I found this a thoughtful opinion piece (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0913/1221235781173.html), which helped me reflect on some of the inchoate anxieties I have been experiencing as an observer of the Democrat party's recent form in regard to Governor Palin. I'd be interested to know if it strikes a chord in any of our US patrons.

Warning: Those prone to hyper-reactive frothing need to understand this article contains ironic statements.


The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn respect.

It will be hard. They will have to develop regard for the values much of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one's own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.

[m52nickerson]

:wall:

We'll still be suing fossil fuels in the future. We're still using coal now, and may well continue to use new, cleaner coal plants.

So heck ya, it is planning for the future. We need energy in the future, and fossil fuels are very good at that.

Oh, wait, since we can't rely nearly 100% on fossil fuels we shouldn't think about them at all! An economy with several balanced sources of energy?! Heresy!

CR

Fossil fuels are non-renewable. It would be far better to put effort and resources into energy sources that will be their well into the future.

[KukriKhan]

Fossil fuels are non-renewable. It would be far better to put effort and resources into energy sources that will be their well into the future.

Point well-taken. But, can we not multi-task, given the vast resources and smart people we have? Can we not develop wind and solar and geo-thermal and hydrogen and bio-fuel and safe nuke, AND suck up some of our own oil and coal, instead of relying so heavily on imports? Why does it have to be either-or? Why can't it be either-and?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Point well-taken. But, can we not multi-task, given the vast resources and smart people we have? Can we not develop wind and solar and geo-thermal and hydrogen and bio-fuel and safe nuke, AND suck up some of our own oil and coal, instead of relying so heavily on imports? Why does it have to be either-or? Why can't it be either-and?

The oil companies already have leases. They can just use those.

[KarlXII]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4

[KukriKhan]

The oil companies already have leases. They can just use those.

Kuulness. So, what's the hold-up?

[m52nickerson]

Point well-taken. But, can we not multi-task, given the vast resources and smart people we have? Can we not develop wind and solar and geo-thermal and hydrogen and bio-fuel and safe nuke, AND suck up some of our own oil and coal, instead of relying so heavily on imports? Why does it have to be either-or? Why can't it be either-and?

Yes we can, but I think the vast majority of federal moneys have to go to advancement of renewable sources and nuclear.

As far as drilling, I think using our own natural gas as a bridge for other techs makes more sense.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Fossil fuels are non-renewable. It would be far better to put effort and resources into energy sources that will be their well into the future.

We don't have to put any of our resources towards that. Just let the oil companies do it.


The oil companies already have leases. They can just use those.

Mmm, no, they can't. They most certainly cannot not "just use those [leases]". Simply leasing the land in no way ensures they can even explore for oil in that land. Clearing that large hurdle in no way is an assurance that there will be significant oil in those lands. Finding significant oil is no guarantee they can get permission to develop the field.

Why? Because of the government. The government is the one at fault here, as is so often the case, because of the very onerous restrictions they put on oil companies.

Here's two examples of the government being forced to pay back lease payments to companies after the government broke the lease contract ( Over one billion dollars in total rewards.) :

Number one (http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/MS-AL/Water%20Log/mobil203.htm)


n 1981, Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. and Marathon Oil company paid $158 million in non-refundable "bonus" payments to the U.S. in exchange for 10-year renewable lease contracts. The U.S. promised the companies that they could explore for oil off the North Carolina coast and develop any oil that they found, provided they applied for and were granted permission according to various statutes and regulations. The contracts were conditioned on the companies receiving permission from the federal government and North Carolina subject to the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act1 (OSCLA) and the Coastal Zone Management Act2 (CZMA).


In order to apply for permission, the oil companies must complete a lengthy and complicated four step approval procedure. First, the company must submit a Plan of Exploration to the Department of the Interior. If the plan warrants approval, Interior must grant its approval within 30 days of the submission of the proposed plan. Second, the company must obtain an exploratory well drilling permit under the CZMA. To obtain this permit, the company's plan must be consistent with the North Carolina's coastal zone management program. If the state objects to the plan, certification fails unless the Secretary of Commerce overrides the state's objection. Third, if waste discharge is an issue, the company must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Environmental Protection Agency, which is also dependent on the approval of North Carolina. Fourth, if exploration is successful, the company must gain approval of the Department of Interior by way of a Development and Production Plan that describes the proposed drilling and the environmental safeguards the oil company proposes to implement.

The issues in this case involve the first two steps of this process: the Exploration Plan and the CZMA consistency requirement for North Carolina. In 1981, the companies entered into the contracts with the U.S. government and paid $158 million dollars for the privilege of exploring for oil. In September of 1989, the companies submitted an initial draft of their Exploration Plans to the Interior Department and North Carolina. Ten months later, after an intense review of the companies' plans, Interior made a report concluding that the proposed exploration would not "significantly affect" the marine or the human environment. In August of 1990, the companies submitted their final Exploration Plans and the CZMA consistency certification.

That's nine years after they paid for the lease that they were able to submit a final plan for exploration.

Number two (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/368005c4-7305-11dd-983b-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1)

The case points to the difficulties US oil and gas companies have developing oil and gas resources in the US.

Even when acreage is legally open to production, restrictive regulations about how properties can be developed have made it impossible for companies to follow through.


That's why companies don't develop it. All those thrice-cursed morons and cretins in power place amazingly onerous regulations on energy production and get away with it because of rubes who don't demand full accountability. We as a nation allow this massive stupidity to go on, as though it's somehow good to not use our resources, because we don't demand an end to it.

CR

[Tribesman]

Why? Because of the government. The government is the one at fault here, as is so often the case, because of the very onerous restrictions they put on oil companies.

Too right , the government should ease off on the oil companies and let them operate like they do in Nigeria (or Ireland).:2thumbsup:
I find it funny that you are praising the oil companies getting your tax money in a law suit against the federal government when the companies wouldn't have been able to use the leases anyway because they didn't meet the State in questions legislative requirements .
All this crazy regulation eh , always changing it so they are .
Why can't they just let the companies do what they want ? After all oil is important , all these silly regulations about impact assesment and enviromental considerations .....bunch of limp wristed liberal hippy moaning thats all that is .
I mean look at Louisiana , who cares if a few fishes and birds get a bit disrupted by the removal of the reed beds and dregding the mud flats . Its not like its really important to people is it , its people that are important and money of course and property not a pile of ooze and some scrawny vegetation , its not like that ooze serves any use for people does it .
Well unless you do something crazy like link what them shallows do when there is a sort of big storm and what amount of money and people it costs when them mud flats ain't there to do what they do anymore .

[CountArach]

The reason Obama can't lose (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_raises_66_million_in_August.html)

Senator Barack Obama raised $66 million in the month of August, making it his best month ever and the best in American political history, an aide said Sunday morning.

Obama is releasing that number after suggestions that his fundraising was failing to meet expectations. It puts him on pace to substantially outspend John McCain in the last two months of the race, in which McCain will be limited to spending the $84 million supplied by the Treasury under public financing rules.

The Republican National Committee's cash advantage on the Democratic National Committee, however, in combination with swelling outside spending, however, will likely allow McCain to level the playing field, though the fact that Obama has raised the money himself, in small chunks, gives him direct control over how its spend, and fewer concerns about technical limits on spending.

An Obama aide said the campaign added 500,000 new donors to its rolls in August. The new figure -- shattering his previous record of $55 million -- also demonstrates how the increasingly heated, nasty race has energized Obama's fundraising, and raises expectations that he will raise that much or more in the next two months.

[Ronin]

The last 2 weeks captured on comic...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/sinfest_palin_full.jpg

:2thumbsup:

[seireikhaan]

:laugh4:

[Lemur]

Once again, NRO (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWUwZDM1NTg5OTQ0NTRjNmI2ZDk5MTliNmVlMmQzOWY=) comes trough with a dose of reality.


McCain's campaign is chock-full of phony contradictions; how is he supposed to bring "safe change" since this year he has essentially promised to reverse all the anti-Bush policies that made him a "maverick" in the first place? He has just squandered the single best reason for voting for him by choosing an almost totally inexperienced "celebrity" as his running mate. Foreign policy excepted, can you tell me what McCain's governing philosophy is? He has changed positions on numerous occasions times during the past ten years, going from being one of the most centrist GOP senators to one of the most conservative ones. Or is it all merely a Romney-esque cynical ploy to fool conservatives to vote for him, since he will anyway have to work with Reid/Pelosi to get anything done...

Who is more trustworthy: the young unapologetic liberal who promises real change or the old guy who is running against reality?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nice to see you still know how to build a legion of strawmen, tribesy.

And Lemur, so one Finnish guy said that - so what? You could find a million different opinions from random people. Should I post one of some democratic guy who doesn't back Obama and act as though it's some great insight?

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I didn't vote for Domestic Policy - actually, I didn't even vote in this poll at all. What's going on? :inquisitive:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I didn't vote for Domestic Policy - actually, I didn't even vote in this poll at all. What's going on? :inquisitive:

When Kukri replaced the earlier poll, those who had voted on that one are seeing some glitches with the new version. We are trying to understand why and fix it.

:bow:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

When Kukri replaced the earlier poll, those who had voted on that one are seeing some glitches with the new version. We are trying to understand why and fix it.

:bow:

Oh, that's good news. I thought something had happened to my account.

[Tribesman]

Nice to see you still know how to build a legion of strawmen, tribesy.

rabbit , it just shows that you put absolutely no thought into your rant about the government and the oil industry .....but nothing unusual there eh .

[Crazed Rabbit]

I ranted against onerous restrictions. You said:

Why can't they just let the companies do what they want ?

In case you've forgotten what a strawman is:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

CR

[Tribesman]

I ranted against onerous restrictions.
What onerous restrictions ???????
There were none , they complained that they changed the federal law ,but it didn't matter as they still wouldn't have been allowed under the states law anyway unles they fully complied with them too . These a normal restrictions and they are in place for a very good reason .
Like I said , if you don't want these restrictions just take a look at Nigeria , is that the sort of set up you want with the oil companies ?

[woad&fangs]

I'm surprised nobody posted this yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnRUKIMegn8

SNL skit with Tina Fey portraying Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What onerous restrictions ???????
There were none , they complained that they changed the federal law ,but it didn't matter as they still wouldn't have been allowed under the states law anyway unles they fully complied with them too . These a normal restrictions and they are in place for a very good reason?

Tribes:

CR's point was not that any/all regulations should be scrapped, but that those regulations as practiced were functionally "onerous" and actively discouraged use of the leases. A reasonable review period and decent oversight is one thing, NINE YEARS is death by red tape.

[Tribesman]

Tribes:

CR's point was not that any/all regulations should be scrapped, but that those regulations as practiced were functionally "onerous" and actively discouraged use of the leases. A reasonable review period and decent oversight is one thing, NINE YEARS is death by red tape.


No it isn't , its normal business , the judgement said nothing at all about the 9 years , the only fault is with the 13 month delay due to the implimentation of the new legislation .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Accusation:Obama may have attempted to stall current troop withdrawals until after the elections were over. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm)

Retort:
Campaign strongly contests (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_campaign_contests_Taheri_column.html?showall)

Sounds like an archetypal political move to me. What a jerk.

[CountArach]

Obama may have attempted to stall current troop withdrawals until after the elections were over. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm)

Sounds like an archetypal political move to me. What a jerk.
It seems he is doing it out of realistic need. I agree he should be honest about his views, but I can see why he is doing this.

Meanwhile, in Palin news - Palin blockaded Abortion clinic (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/) (A quote from the guy whose book she tried to ban):

At one point during the hospital battle, passions ran so hot that local antiabortion activists organized a boisterous picket line outside Dr. Lemagie's office, in an unassuming professional building across from Palmer's Little League field. According to Bess and another community activist, among the protesters trying to disrupt the physician's practice that day was Sarah Palin.

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

[Lemur]

Speaking of archetypal political crap: try this on for size (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuA7nAOBXQ).

Nice to see some real conservatives waking up, too. Douthat (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_the_unready.php):


There's no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy - that it's just too much, too soon - and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage.

Dreher (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/latest-abc-palin-interview-not.html):


Just saw Palin talking about domestic issues on ABC World News Tonight. Depressing. Programmed, just like last night. Charlie Gibson asked her twice what she and McCain would do about the economy different from Bush. Answer: not much. [...] Your blog host is significantly more conflicted about his enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. I completely dig her, and wish she were my governor. But my vice president? Hmm.

[Tribesman]

Sounds like an archetypal political move to me. What a jerk.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So you have a new agreement that must be completely finalised by the end of this year . That is to be negotiated between a politician who has always been hostile to the US and is recently becoming far more vocal in his hostility and a politician who is leaving office at a time of crisis with a whole pile of crap to try and sort through in a couple of months .
Someone suggests that it would be wiser to just renew the existing agreement for another year and get a proper deal done during that time instead of doing a rush job on it ....and you think that is dumb :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Lemur]

The parasites and catamites who now surround McCain just keep getting classier (http://nobloodforhubris.blogspot.com/2008/09/roveian-push-poll-targets-fl-voter-to.html). I guess this is the sort of result you get when you hire the guy who slimed you in 2000 (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-hires-go.html):


Key West resident Joelna Marcus received a phone call today. She was asked if she is Jewish, and she replied in the affirmative.

She was asked if she was religious.

She was then asked if her opinion of Barack Obama would change if she knew that Obama had given lots and lots of money to the PLO.

Update: Another FL voter (from Gainesville) has revealed he too received a similar push-poll call.

[Kralizec]

Get your Sarah Palin action figure (http://www.herobuilders.com/08.htm) now!

Don't worry, there are figures of McCain and a shirtless Obama too :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

The parasites and catamites who now surround McCain just keep getting classier (http://nobloodforhubris.blogspot.com/2008/09/roveian-push-poll-targets-fl-voter-to.html). I guess this is the sort of result you get when you hire the guy who slimed you in 2000 (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-hires-go.html):


Key West resident Joelna Marcus received a phone call today. She was asked if she is Jewish, and she replied in the affirmative.

She was asked if she was religious.

She was then asked if her opinion of Barack Obama would change if she knew that Obama had given lots and lots of money to the PLO.

Update: Another FL voter (from Gainesville) has revealed he too received a similar push-poll call.

You post all sorts of stuff about Palin being just another politician (fair enough) as though the conservatives here are praising her to high heaven (which we are not).

You criticize us for hyperventilating attacks, sometimes rightly, and then you go on a huge attack against McCain's team because of one single blog post? Do you see the irony?

CR

[Xiahou]

(A quote from the guy whose book she tried to ban):That alone casts a lot of doubt on his claims. There was no list of books to be banned, and Palin never went beyond the hypothetical in mentioning censorship. (see factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html))

The rest of the claims and quotes in the article are unsubstantiated hearsay. I think one can safely dismiss them as well, since she never pushed creationism as governor either. It's funny to see people who bemoaned the more outlandish charges against Obama now helping push similarly nonsense charges against another without batting an eyelash. I guess it's ok when they're on the other side politically.

[seireikhaan]

The rest of the claims and quotes in the article are unsubstantiated hearsay. I think one can safely dismiss them as well, since she never pushed creationism as governor either. It's funny to see people who bemoaned the more outlandish charges against Obama now helping push similarly nonsense charges against another without batting an eyelash. I guess it's ok when they're on the other side politically.
Its equally funny when people make outlandish charges against a candidate, then decry others when they do the same to the side they prefer.:smash:

[Xiahou]

Its equally funny when people make outlandish charges against a candidate, then decry others when they do the same to the side they prefer.:smash:

Find ones I made.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No it isn't , its normal business , the judgement said nothing at all about the 9 years , the only fault is with the 13 month delay due to the implimentation of the new legislation .

I wasn't referring specifically to the judgement. I would aver that ANY regulatory process that takes 9 years for 1 party to face review by two others in order to start using a lease is excessive.

Unrestricted capitalism is prone to excesses, hence the need for regulation. Unrestricted regulation, however, stultifies efforts to use capital and can cause capital to dry up -- or get used in worse ways.

Moreover, here in the land of Uncle Sugar, numerous splinter groups (usually eco fringers or would-be anarchists) that oppose any and all development, cheerfully game the system to increase costs and slow down or halt any oil or energy projects that aren't solar power. Add in the NIMBYs and their efforts to monkey wrench things, and you often end up with a regulatory system that does not function as a watch-dog and fraud preventer, but as a preventer OF business and development.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

responding to 'khan's jibe
Find ones I made.

All-in-all, I believe we can declare this election cycle a success.


Standard for evaluation:
"Under democracy one party always devotes it's chief energies to prove the other party is unfit to rule - and both succeed." H.L. Mencken

[Tribesman]

I wasn't referring specifically to the judgement. I would aver that ANY regulatory process that takes 9 years for 1 party to face review by two others in order to start using a lease is excessive.

Not really , its the same with any big development project , when you add in that it involves the oil industry (which hasn't got a good record on compliance) and coastal development which is always delicate , 9 years is actually a short time .
Though whats funny is that we have someone complaining about government "interference" in business with regulations who is supporting a politician who made a name as somebody that stood up to the oil industry when they tried to get round government regulations .:yes:
Priceless isn't it :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[seireikhaan]

Find ones I made.
Where did I say you made any?

[Xiahou]

Where did I say you made any?Good point. I thought, after the fact, that you probably weren't directly referring to me in your post. :bow:


Standard for evaluation:
"Under democracy one party always devotes it's chief energies to prove the other party is unfit to rule - and both succeed." H.L. MenckenIt seems our election campaigns focus mainly on 2 things. One is energizing the base, and the other is convincing their opponents supporters/leaners to stay home. Makes for a nice clean fight. :beam:

[Crazed Rabbit]

What we already knew: McCain is more bipartisan than Obama. (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/?page=2)


Not really , its the same with any big development project , when you add in that it involves the oil industry (which hasn't got a good record on compliance) and coastal development which is always delicate , 9 years is actually a short time .

Ha! That doesn't disprove Seamus' point in any way. So what if its standard for the industry? That doesn't mean it's not excessive. It's fun watching you squirm when you launch silly attacks. You're a walking encyclopedia of logical fallacies.

CR

[Lemur]

What we already knew: McCain is more bipartisan than Obama.[/URL
That was Senator McCain, a completely separate entity from candidate McCain. I'm having a hard time figuring out what President McCain would look like at this point. Hopefully more like his old Senatorial persona ...


You post all sorts of stuff about Palin being just another politician
Oh, I think she's rather worse than that. She reminds me a whole hell of a lot of the Governor of Texas in 2000: the same lack of intellectual curiosity, the same disdain for dissent, the same absolute certainty whether warranted or no, the same secrecy, the same governing philosophy of "loyalty is the new competence." And she's got the same aw-shucks persona that makes authoritarians blush and heave a sigh of pure love.

I never bought the argument that McCain would be Bush II (or III, depending on how you count). But Palin really is another George W. Bush, and you guys are having the exact same love affair with her that you did with President 43. And if she comes in to the Oval Office, you're going to have a strikingly similar set of regrets.

She also commits frequent, checkable and unnecessary lies. Which is just strange. And not a good sign.

-edit-

Although in fairness to Palin, the dishonesty thing seems to be a deliberate tactic from the McCain camp right now. I don't pretend to understand it. Here's an article about it from that hotbed of Hippie Socialism, [URL="http://www.reason.com/news/show/128781.html"]Reason Magazine (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/?page=2):


Take Palin's claim to have opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Long after it was exposed as false, she kept making it. The assumption behind the McCain strategy is that truth is irrelevant. [...]

Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Obama: He's wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform.

But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.

[Strike For The South]

https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6686/aaeo6.th.jpg (https://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aaeo6.jpg)

I just think its funny

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, I think she's rather worse than that. She reminds me a whole hell of a lot of the Governor of Texas in 2000: the same lack of intellectual curiosity, the same disdain for dissent, the same absolute certainty whether warranted or no, the same secrecy, the same governing philosophy of "loyalty is the new competence." And she's got the same aw-shucks persona that makes authoritarians blush and heave a sigh of pure love.

I never bought the argument that McCain would be Bush II (or III, depending on how you count). But Palin really is another George W. Bush, and you guys are having the exact same love affair with her that you did with President 43. And if she comes in to the Oval Office, you're going to have a strikingly similar set of regrets.

She also commits frequent, checkable and unnecessary lies. Which is just strange. And not a good sign.

-edit-

Although in fairness to Palin, the dishonesty thing seems to be a deliberate tactic from the McCain camp right now. I don't pretend to understand it. Here's an article about it from that hotbed of Hippie Socialism, Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/128781.html):

Take Palin's claim to have opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Long after it was exposed as false, she kept making it. The assumption behind the McCain strategy is that truth is irrelevant. [...]

Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Obama: He's wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform.

But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.

You guys really think you can run a campaign against Palin, Huh? That went well for you with H.W. and Quale... By the time you figure out that Obama isn't running against Palin for VP (which would be a more realistic fight), Obama will have to fight McCain all over again. Don't you see that since you've started the "all-guns-blazing" approach McCain has shot up in the polls?

I urge you to keep it up.

[CountArach]

https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6686/aaeo6.th.jpg (https://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aaeo6.jpg)

I just think its funny
She's such a feminist.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Check this out, Ladies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkaKwJ9eOUU&feature=related

[CountArach]

Gingrich is fast on his feet, I'll give him that.

EDIT: I really didn't expect I would be typing anything like that when I woke up this morning...

[Big_John]

Check this out, Ladies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkaKwJ9eOUU&feature=related (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkaKwJ9eOUU&feature=related[/quote]looks) looks like he got the memo.

[Tribesman]

Ha! That doesn't disprove Seamus' point in any way. So what if its standard for the industry? So what if its standard for the industry? That doesn't mean it's not excessive.
If its standard for the industry its standard for the industry , if it is normal it is not excessive . And as for your claim of it being onerous :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:if it was onerous they wouldn't bother , yet as its standard and they do bother it shows that your whole rant was bollox .


It's fun watching you squirm when you launch silly attacks.
Is that a new definition of squirm you are using ? a new definition of silly attacks too ?
You posted a rant with absolutely no thought that doesn't even stand up to the briefest scrutiny .
Now I know you often express the view that any regulation whatsoever imposed by any government on any business is a complete travesty of freedom , justice and the fictional free market utopia you desire , but that is just because you live in an imaginary bubble which is completely detatched from reality .

[Crazed Rabbit]

If its standard for the industry its standard for the industry , if it is normal it is not excessive .

excessive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excessive)


Main Entry:
ex·ces·sive
Pronunciation:
\ik-ˈse-siv\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century

: exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal

Dum de dum. Or are you going to go on about how only the part of the definition you agree with is valid? That excessive can only mean one thing, nevermind the dictionary.



You posted a rant with absolutely no thought that doesn't even stand up to the briefest scrutiny .
Now I know you often express the view that any regulation whatsoever imposed by any government on any business is a complete travesty of freedom , justice and the fictional free market utopia you desire , but that is just because you live in an imaginary bubble which is completely detatched from reality .

The only one who's dared refute it is you with your legion of strawmen (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html). You're defeated on one point and hop to another shaky point. You only quote the bits that don't grind your position into dust. You think no one notices? You think your posts are really that clever? Who even cares? You think I read your posts and go "oh drat, I never thought of it that way?" Ha!

Even that last sentence is another strawman.

CR

[Tribesman]

Dum de dum. Or are you going to go on about how only the part of the definition you agree with is valid? That excessive can only mean one thing, nevermind the dictionary.

Its Fraggle rock:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Is it usual ? yes
Is it proper ? yes
Is it neccesary ? yes
Is it normal ? yes

Well done rabbit you manged to strike yourself out 4 times:balloon2:
Would you like to try a bigger dictionary to see if you can find a definition that doesn't fit :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


The only one who's dared refute it is you with your legion of strawmen. You're defeated on one point and hop to another shaky point. You only quote the bits that don't grind your position into dust. You think no one notices?
You havn't defeated a single point , bloody hell Rabbit you havn't even attempted to make a single point that supports your nonsense .
And then you top it all off with a dictionary reference that completely shows that you are unable to understand either the English language or the regulations in question .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is it proper ? yes
Is it neccesary ? yes

Um, says you. Most, I think, would disagree. I've seen and read firsthand the regulations the oil companies have to deal with on a day to day basis. Have you? And that's nothing compared to what I posted.



You havn't defeated a single point

No, you seem to develop highly specific blindness whenever I point out you've used another strawman.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Please cease and desist with the latest instalment of the Rabbit and Tribesy Show.

Your points have been made sufficiently. I think you'd be hard pressed to find another member who finds the endless continuation as amusing as you two evidently do.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Returning to the discussion, and taking into account that most of our Republican leaning friends couldn't care less about the opinions of the rest of the world, this piece in Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1021317.html) explains my fears about Governor Palin very well.

It's not the inexperience - I've addressed that before - but the certainty.



George Bush, who spoke incessantly about leadership before his election, has had more than seven years to prove himself a leader, and managed to prove conclusively only that he was not.

This is what is truly frightening about Sarah Palin. There is something in the smugness, the faith-based rigidity, the dismissiveness, that suggests that once again, we may have a national leader who knows better how to divide than to rule.

[KukriKhan]

So, the trouble with Palin is: she's not humble enough, or self-aware enough?

And the trouble with american politics is: we see it as a sports/entertainment event, instead of what it is: a matter of life and death?

The answer is in the beginning of the article. He heard a snippet of an interview on a taxi radio. What I'm saying is: he's buying the image - packaged and presented by media - not anything relating to substance.

I'm beginning to understand the observation of some: that the media are pissed off that they weren't invited to the deliberations on VP picks. On the Dem side, the only pressing question was: "Will it be Hillary or some other guy?" Well, it was some other guy. But speculation for weeks had the former Repub candidates jockeying for VP. Then Mac picks a 'dark horse', and scoops the scoopers. And, in a world where scoops can make or break a media career, that's not 'media-friendly'.

I can only speak for myself and the maybe 300 people I know; the coverage is certainly a sports/entertainment event (of long running) - the election is about life-and-death. And we know both those things.

[Tribesman]

Gentlemen,

Please cease and desist with the latest instalment of the Rabbit and Tribesy Show.

Hold on there Banquo , Rabbit has yet to give a single reason as to why this set of regulations is onerous , improper , unusual , abnormal or unneccesary . Since he raised it as a relevant topic in the election I am curious as to why he is unable to show a decent case and why he is supporting a candidate who made a name as someone that confronts industries that try to circumvent such legislation .

BTW Nice piece there , even if it is from the super wussy liberal self hating jews who are bent on destroying the pure zionist dream .....

Here is the answer that is truly frightening. It lets us know that the nation may be in danger of electing another leader bearing the most profound of George Bush's shortcomings: blindness to one's own shortcomings.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, the trouble with Palin is: she's not humble enough, or self-aware enough?

And the trouble with american politics is: we see it as a sports/entertainment event, instead of what it is: a matter of life and death?

The answer is in the beginning of the article. He heard a snippet of an interview on a taxi radio. What I'm saying is: he's buying the image - packaged and presented by media - not anything relating to substance.

The problem with Palin is that she's ignorant and has a low regard for ethics.

The problem with american politics is that the people have been bludgeoned by incessant attack ads into an apathetic "politicians are all crooks" stance where they either don't vote or vote off some arbitrary issue or personality trait. The psychological investment required to pay close attention to politics is too high.


I'm beginning to understand the observation of some: that the media are pissed off that they weren't invited to the deliberations on VP picks. On the Dem side, the only pressing question was: "Will it be Hillary or some other guy?" Well, it was some other guy. But speculation for weeks had the former Repub candidates jockeying for VP. Then Mac picks a 'dark horse', and scoops the scoopers. And, in a world where scoops can make or break a media career, that's not 'media-friendly'.

Palin has been a ratings success for the media. They don't have a problem with her on that front. However, she refuses to give interviews because they show how incompetent she is and they call her out on it because they want interviews.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=1&em


But careers were turned upside down. The mayor quickly fired the town’s museum director, John Cooper. Later, she sent an aide to the museum to talk to the three remaining employees. “He told us they only wanted two,” recalled Esther West, one of the three, “and we had to pick who was going to be laid off.” The three quit as one.

Ms. Palin cited budget difficulties for the museum cuts. Mr. Cooper thought differently, saying the museum had become a microcosm of class and cultural conflicts in town. “It represented that the town was becoming more progressive, and they didn’t want that,” he said.

I didn't read this article and worry about her not being humble

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Interesting article about McCain's health care plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?em


Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation’s health insurance system?

These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain’s far-reaching proposals, but they haven’t gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense — lipstick, celebrities and “Drill, baby, drill!”

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”

The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.

While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That’s because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit — $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family — to be used “to help pay for your health care.”

You may think this is a good move or a bad one — but it’s a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It’s the beginning of the end.

When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.

That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: “I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.”

Yet another radical element of McCain’s plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we’ve heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we’d be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we’re not even paying much attention.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Obama is bringing his teleprompter with him on the campaign trail. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/)

Woka woka

[Crazed Rabbit]

Returning to the discussion, and taking into account that most of our Republican leaning friends couldn't care less about the opinions of the rest of the world, this piece in Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1021317.html) explains my fears about Governor Palin very well.

It's not the inexperience - I've addressed that before - but the certainty.

The WHOLE article you linked is based on the fact that it was Charlie Gibson, the interviewer, who did not what he was talking about.

Here's an article about how the man who coined the term is saying Charlie Gibson got it wrong. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTU5YmYzNjU2MThhOTFiZWNmNjE4MTc5MzY3ZGRkMGY=)


It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
...
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

As for the rest - is she supposed to say she isn't ready? Good grief.

I am reminded of the interview where Obama is asked if he ever has doubts and he quickly answers "Never." But no media howling about that. And ratings boost or not, the media was offended and has been taking it out on Palin.

Lemur, too, seems to have formed his view based on the lies and distortions the media has been swirling around.

Anyway, remember that McCain Ad about Obama wanting to teach sex-ed to kindergartners?

Turns out McCain is right, and Obama is wrong. The bill is not, as Obama claimed, just about teaching inappropriate touching to kindergartners. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=&w=MA==)


8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session

The bill changed the earliest grade for teaching sex-ed from sixth to kindergarten.

CR

[Tribesman]

The bill changed the earliest grade for teaching sex-ed from sixth to kindergarten.

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

But left it entirely up to the people that set the curriculum to determine which sort of instuction is suitable and appropriate for each age group from K to 12 .
So that means the McCain ad was wrong as it was misleading , just as your selected quote from the legislation is misleading .
Unless of course you want to try and claim that the education authorities are going to determine that it is suitable and appropriate to teach the kinders the same lesson as the 12s .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The WHOLE article you linked is based on the fact that it was Charlie Gibson, the interviewer, who did not what he was talking about.

Here's an article about how the man who coined the term is saying Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

Krauthammer :dizzy2:

Doesn't matter who wrote it though. Banquo's article was based on the fact that palin didn't know what the bush doctrine was, and IN THE ARTICLE YOU JUST POSTED it says:


Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

:dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:

Now, the bush doctrine does have a standard definition (and it's not "spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world" regardless of what krauthammer says :laugh4: ). Palin should have known that. If you still aren't convinced he's a hack look at the next sentence: "at least she didn't pretend to know". She did pretend to know. Anyone who watched the interview could see that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

John McCain claims he invented the blackberry!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/mccain_didnt_create_blackberry.html

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Um, a silly staffer made the remarks and was promptly thrown under the bus.

CR

[Lemur]

Lemur, too, seems to have formed his view based on the lies and distortions the media has been swirling around.
Hey, I'm not the one out on the trail forcing her to create disprovable, unnecessary lies (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-and-the-t.html). That's entirely her problem.


At a fundraiser in Canton, Ohio, this evening, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had an interesting description of her speech to the Republican convention.

“There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me," Palin said. "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me. It was Ohio.” [...]

"The teleprompter did not break," wrote Politico's Jonathan Martin. "Sarah Palin delivered a powerful speech last night, but she did not 'wing it'..."

Says Martin, "Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech. But I was sitting in the press section next to the stage, within easy eyeshot of the teleprompter. I frequently looked up at the machine, and there was no serious malfunction. A top convention planner confirms this morning that there were no major problems."

Why lie about such a stupid thing, so easily checked and so easily revealed? Who knows?

-edit-

More independent reports (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/15/i-just-got-push-polled-on-obama-and-israel.aspx#comments) of push-polls. Sounds rather like Tucker Eskew's handiwork, no?


But soon enough I understood why they were asking about Carter. After going over some more issues and confirming the fact that I was likely to vote for Obama, the caller made a series of rather pointed inquiries. Would it affect my vote, he said, if I knew that

Obama has had a decade long relationship with pro-Palestinian leaders in Chicago
the leader of Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, expressed support for Obama and his hope for Obama's victory
the church Barack Obama has attended is known for its anti-Israel and anti-American remarks
Jimmy Carter's anti-Israel national security advisor is one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors
Barack Obama was the member of a board (sic) that funded a pro-Palestinian chartiable organization
Barack Obama called for holding a summit of Muslim nations exlcuding Israel if elected president

My notes are pretty close to verbatim. (I started typing as soon as I realized I was getting polled.) When the caller was finished, I got a supervisor on the phone and asked if he would tell me who was sponsoring the survey. He said he couldn't reveal that information.

Also being reported by Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Jewish_voters_complain_of_antiObama_poll.html?showall). What was it you were saying about how I got hysterical over one little blog post? Seems to be getting corroborated all over the place, doesn't it? Maybe because it's actually happening?

So far we have reports of this push-poll in Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Philly.

Oh, and now's the part where you stop insisting it didn't happen and start declaring how it doesn't matter and all's fair, etc., or better yet defending the push-poll as legitimate.

[Xiahou]

Hey, I'm not the one out on the trail forcing her to create disprovable, unnecessary lies (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-and-the-t.html). That's entirely her problem.


At a fundraiser in Canton, Ohio, this evening, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had an interesting description of her speech to the Republican convention.

“There Ohio was right out in front, right in front of me," Palin said. "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me. It was Ohio.” [...]

"The teleprompter did not break," wrote Politico's Jonathan Martin. "Sarah Palin delivered a powerful speech last night, but she did not 'wing it'..."

Says Martin, "Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech. But I was sitting in the press section next to the stage, within easy eyeshot of the teleprompter. I frequently looked up at the machine, and there was no serious malfunction. A top convention planner confirms this morning that there were no major problems."

Why lie about such a stupid thing, so easily checked and so easily revealed? Who knows?The two statements aren't necessarily in conflict. The teleprompter could be messed up but not broken. Palin's now famous lipstick line was said to have been thrown in by her, essentially to stall for time during the teleprompter problems. I've also heard stories about how, before the speech, campaign staffers were scrambling for a paper copy of the speech for Palin because they were aware of teleprompter issues. If it was ahead of, or behind her speech on several occasions, it could well be true that she "couldn't follow it".

Why is that a lie?

[Lemur]

Why is that a lie?
I can always count on you to speak power to truth.

Journos in the convention noted (with great favor) how closely she stuck to the script. How well she delivered it. Her statement at the fundraiser is: "The teleprompter got messed up, I couldn’t follow it, and I just decided I’d just talk to the people in front of me." She claims to be winging it, when in fact she stuck incredibly closely to the prepared script. According to the evil librul media (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-and-the-t.html):


Especially those of my colleagues on the convention floor at the time, reading along on the prompter with her, noticing her excellent and disciplined delivery, how she punched words that were underlined and paused where it said "pause," noting that "nuclear" was spelled out for her phonetically.

Do you understand? The journos were reading the speech along with her off her own teleprompter. But who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the Governor?

Here's another big fat fib. She claimed during the Charlie Gibson interview:


Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

Fail. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html)


It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means – as well as all the oil imported into the country.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.

And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

Palin didn't make clear whether she was talking about Alaska's share of all the energy produced in the U.S. or all the energy consumed here. Either way, she was wrong.

Wrong, easily checked and easily disproved. Sensing a pattern?

Another big fat whopper (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11pipeline.html?_r=1&sq=palin%20pipeline&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1221588181-NsnvSYA8K2KgbjM6SpfaKw&pagewanted=all):


When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska took center stage at the Republican convention last week, she sought to burnish her executive credentials by telling how she had engineered the deal that jump-started a long-delayed gas pipeline project. [...]

“And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence,” said Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. [...]

The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.

Contributing to the project’s uncertainty is Ms. Palin’s antagonistic relationship with the major oil companies that control Alaska’s untapped gas reserves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade.

Engineering projects don't start when the first equipment is installed, but long before that. That's not a lie; it could be said in a sense that the pipeline did start then, when the deal was made.

The partisanship of the NYT is evident when they bash her for not working closely enough with Big Oil.

Looks to me like another gray area. The Alaska energy 'fib' seems to have the most substance.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

CNN's Crowley: Obama team wanted "Horrific" economic headlines (http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnns-crowley-obama-team-wanted-horrific-wall-street-headlines.html)

Democrats, CEO failures and gas station gougers should start a crisis profiteering club. They could call it "Scumbags Anonymous"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So now we "know" that:

Palin spins her presentation of some subjects to make herself look good and tries to come off as being "spontaneous" when she's no more spontaneous than most. She seems confident even when some have their doubts about her readiness, which must mean she's prone to snap judgements and therefore not ready.

Biden has a long record in the Senate, a solidly democrat voting record without being slavishly party line on all things. He's been a key player on all of the big FoPo and Intelligence committees, so he must be ready for foreign affairs. He's also totally devoid of verbal truth and has -- since his failure to quote properly foible of many years past -- developed much skill in the area of saying nothing absolute while sounding as though he's saying what his audience wants to hear. So we should dismiss him as an "empty suit" better suited to running Foggy Bottom than to making the call himself.

McCain is too old for the modern world. Yes, he's got experience and his suffering/stance/senate work all suggest he'll be able to handle the FoPo responsibilities of the presidency pretty quickly. But, he's got a temper and hasn't come to the correct answer that diplomacy and not military power is where its at. He's also too old. Self-admittedly under-prepared on economics, he's not ready to lead a nation that feels very uncertain about the economic future. Nice SecDef, but only if he can have time for naps.

Obama, of course, isn't old. He's been actively preparing to run for President since his mid-20s and is easily the most glib. Much or his charm and part of his problem is the lack of substance. When he's platitudinalizing, he's easily the greatest of them all. When he talks specifics about what he'll do in office, he sounds like a generic democrat push-poll. Too much smoke and mirrors with this fellow.


Doesn't sound like a good description of "your" candidate? It shouldn't. This is how they'll look to most "uncommitted" (read: I ignore all such things until about Oct 15) folks around late October. The politically aware and interest will vote as they've decided to vote already (many such decisions made LONG ago). The other 40% of the country will hate all the choices but a majority will pull the lever for Obama because at least he's different and then no one can hint that they're being racist.

Now, which ignorant voters in which state will decide this for true. :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

Engineering projects don't start when the first equipment is installed, but long before that.
Correct , it is normal for projects to usually have years of proper planning and assesment before they actually start , it is considered neccesary especially on something involving a potential hazchem risk like oil and gas .
Perhaps Rabbit you had better tell Rabbit about that as I don't think he understands it at all .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


John McCain claims he invented the blackberry!

No he didn't he claimed he helped invent Wi-Fi .... and got a nice big cheque for it just before the company went belly up .

[CountArach]

Now the question is this:

Does McCain inventing the Blackberry trump Gore's inventing the Internet?

[drone]

Now the question is this:

Does McCain inventing the Blackberry trump Gore's inventing the Internet?

Can you get pr0n on a Blackberry? :inquisitive:

[KarlXII]

Can you get pr0n on a Blackberry? :inquisitive:

McCain '08: Pr0n for the Blackberry!

[CrossLOPER]

https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6686/aaeo6.th.jpg (https://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aaeo6.jpg)

I just think its funny
I posted that, then took it down. Oh well.

[Xiahou]

I can always count on you to speak power to truth.And I can always count on you to respond to arguments with personal attacks. ~:handball:


I too was sitting in the press section, (behind Palin and off to her right side). I had a clear view of the TelePrompTer, and read along with her.

At one point I noticed, and remarked to a colleague, that it would jog a line or two ahead of where she had paused. I noticed that she seemed to use the pause afforded by applause to glance down at the papers in front of her. Having found the missing line or two (it was not more than that), she would resume.

Certainly she managed the hiccups smoothly, but this is not an example of winging it in the same vein as a Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, or Clinton might have.link (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2008/09/04/the-sarah-palin-broken-teleprompter-myth.html)
You claim she is blatantly lying about the teleprompter. I have seen no statements of hers that show such. According to the above source, there were some problems with the teleprompter and she did have to refer to a paper copy- like I said. But go on calling me dishonest if it makes u happy. :shrug:


Engineering projects don't start when the first equipment is installed, but long before that. That's not a lie; it could be said in a sense that the pipeline did start then, when the deal was made.

The partisanship of the NYT is evident when they bash her for not working closely enough with Big Oil.I thought that part was pretty funny- the NYT suggesting a politician should acquiesce to the oil companies. :beam:

Really, I think there's little support for calling the pipeline claim a lie. Of course, there's still work to be done on it- but work on the pipeline has certainly begun. Saying otherwise would be like claiming that Intel doesn't actually start working on a new chip until they're actually producing the silicon wafers.


Looks to me like another gray area. The Alaska energy 'fib' seems to have the most substance.Unlike FactCheck, I think it's obvious that she was talking about "domestic" energy- she said as much in the quote. However, they go on to point out that, "domestic" aside, her statement was still factually wrong. Had she been talking specifically about domestic oil production, she would've still been exaggerating, but at least she would've been in the ball park. Did she misspeak? Did she not know the facts? Or was she shamelessly lying as Lemur believes? We don't know- but I think she should be further pressed on the issue.

[Strike For The South]

Accusation:Obama may have attempted to stall current troop withdrawals until after the elections were over. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm)

Retort:
Campaign strongly contests (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_campaign_contests_Taheri_column.html?showall)

Sounds like an archetypal political move to me. What a jerk.

And Palin charges for rape kits (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html)

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are obsessed with Sarah Palin. We can keep coming up with things about the presidential candidate that you support while you counter with things about someone other than our presidential candidate. It is a joke - figure out who you are up against, not who you should be up against. Obama belongs in the VP contest and you know it, then maybe your line of attack would be reasonable.

[Strike For The South]

You are obsessed with Sarah Palin. We can keep coming up with things about the presidential candidate that you support while you counter with things about someone other than our presidential candidate. It is a joke - figure out who you are up against, not who you should be up against. Obama belongs in the VP contest and you know it, then maybe your line of attack would be reasonable.

I've been obsessed with everyone at some-point.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've been obsessed with everyone at some-point.

I'm sorry - I thought CountArch posted that. What the?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You are obsessed with Sarah Palin. We can keep coming up with things about the presidential candidate that you support while you counter with things about someone other than our presidential candidate. It is a joke - figure out who you are up against, not who you should be up against. Obama belongs in the VP contest and you know it, then maybe your line of attack would be reasonable.

Be real TuffStuff, I posted an article on McCain's health care plan and it was ignored.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Be real TuffStuff, I posted an article on McCain's health care plan and it was ignored.

Good Sasaki. Keep it up.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For anyone wondering:
Palin hasn't pushed Creationism:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0


Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.

...

Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

CR

[KukriKhan]

So now we "know" that:

Palin spins her presentation of some subjects to make herself look good and tries to come off as being "spontaneous" when she's no more spontaneous than most. She seems confident even when some have their doubts about her readiness, which must mean she's prone to snap judgements and therefore not ready.

Biden has a long record in the Senate, a solidly democrat voting record without being slavishly party line on all things. He's been a key player on all of the big FoPo and Intelligence committees, so he must be ready for foreign affairs. He's also totally devoid of verbal truth and has -- since his failure to quote properly foible of many years past -- developed much skill in the area of saying nothing absolute while sounding as though he's saying what his audience wants to hear. So we should dismiss him as an "empty suit" better suited to running Foggy Bottom than to making the call himself.

McCain is too old for the modern world. Yes, he's got experience and his suffering/stance/senate work all suggest he'll be able to handle the FoPo responsibilities of the presidency pretty quickly. But, he's got a temper and hasn't come to the correct answer that diplomacy and not military power is where its at. He's also too old. Self-admittedly under-prepared on economics, he's not ready to lead a nation that feels very uncertain about the economic future. Nice SecDef, but only if he can have time for naps.

Obama, of course, isn't old. He's been actively preparing to run for President since his mid-20s and is easily the most glib. Much or his charm and part of his problem is the lack of substance. When he's platitudinalizing, he's easily the greatest of them all. When he talks specifics about what he'll do in office, he sounds like a generic democrat push-poll. Too much smoke and mirrors with this fellow.


Doesn't sound like a good description of "your" candidate? It shouldn't. This is how they'll look to most "uncommitted" (read: I ignore all such things until about Oct 15) folks around late October. The politically aware and interest will vote as they've decided to vote already (many such decisions made LONG ago). The other 40% of the country will hate all the choices but a majority will pull the lever for Obama because at least he's different and then no one can hint that they're being racist.

Now, which ignorant voters in which state will decide this for true. :inquisitive:

Excellent analysis. :bow:


The problem with Palin is that she's ignorant and has a low regard for ethics.

The problem with american politics is that the people have been bludgeoned by incessant attack ads into an apathetic "politicians are all crooks" stance where they either don't vote or vote off some arbitrary issue or personality trait. The psychological investment required to pay close attention to politics is too high.

My friend, I wasn't arguing with either you or Banquo's Ghost about Palin. I have no opinion on her as a CinC/POTUS - yet. Media and opposing campaign investigations will turn up whatever dirt there might be, and the debates will probably solidify my opinion (how does she handle bullying? what does she do with a 'curve ball'? Cry? Curl her lips and get down and dirty? Or think a moment, then paint the big picture, and show how america fits into it?).

I was arguing that Bradley Bursten's Ha'aretz op-ed misrepresents Gov Palin's intentions and motivations (he knows even less about her than I do, which isn't much), and also fundamentally misunderstands america's approach to leadership picking. And that that misrepresentation and misunderstanding is fed by, originates from, and is encouraged by radio, television and print media. And that that fundamental misunderstanding of america's group-think tendancies are, in fact, not a weakness, but a strength - a strength that has allowed the freedom of the press and speech that he enjoys in his beleagured country today.

I expected more from the free press of our 51st state.

If, god forbid, POTUS Mac has a heart attack January 27th, or POTUS Obama gets shot by a Klansman on the 28th, what Joe or Sara will do when Putin invades Ukraine on the 29th matters. I want insight into that. I don't give a flying fig what barnyard animal is graced with lipstick, or who's pastor convorted (thanks, DDave) with which radical 70's bomber, who's married to which corporate mogul, who's sister is a lesbian welfare queen crack-ho.

I want predictions of what the world is gonna look like March 1st, 2009, through November 2012, and what the aspiring leaders are gonna do. Why is that too much to ask? The sports/entertainment lean of the media not only makes us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world, it dis-serves us, we the electorate.

[CountArach]

You are obsessed with Sarah Palin. We can keep coming up with things about the presidential candidate that you support while you counter with things about someone other than our presidential candidate. It is a joke - figure out who you are up against, not who you should be up against.
What do you want a response to? Show me something substantial and I'll give you a substantial response. What you have to understand is this - I think Palin is :daisy: ing insane - and I find it hilarious that such an insane woman could possibly come this far in politics. I don't expect people to respond to stuff I post, I'm just getting the truth out about this woman.

Also I am not 100% behind Obama - he is way too conservative for me and as such I am not going to defend everything he does or says.

Obama belongs in the VP contest and you know it, then maybe your line of attack would be reasonable.
...wah?

I'm sorry - I thought CountArch posted that. What the?
Lolz...

[JR-]

a partisan article about british attitudes to the US election:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/17/do1705.xml

[CountArach]

Obama's new 2 minute ad on the economy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13529.html)

[TevashSzat]

Okay, some general thoughts:

IMO, this current economic crisis is actually making both candidates look very bad. Instead of coming out and talking about real, concrete policies (not idealized ones), they're just spouting rhetoric. McCain rants against the "greed of Wall Street" (which, by the way, makes it possible for the mortgages of most homes in the nation to occur) and Obama constantly attacks the republican administration that made this possible. Thats all nice, but we've heard this many times before so why don't think come out with a real attempt at a policy even rather than talk for the poll numbers?

[Crazed Rabbit]

This, sadly, is about par for American politics.

Oh, CNN informs us why Obama isn't leading by a lot:
We're all bigots and racists. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/cafferty-obama-race-a-factor/)

CR

[OverKnight]

While I don't think race is an overriding factor in this election, I do believe it's worth a few percentage points in the polls. In a close election, a few points might decide it.

While both candidates have spoken out against the poor business decisions that lead to the current "adjustment" in Wall Street and have spoken generally about fixing the system, what does that mean specifically?

McCain has supported deregulation in the past. Before 1999, insurers, investment houses and banks were kept seperated, in regulations that had developed from the financial crisis that led to the Depression. This was to ensure a future financial crisis in one area wouldn't carry over to another. However, this bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act) took down those walls.

The sponsor of the bill? Phil Gramm, who you might remember was Senator McCain's Economic Adviser
before being thrown under the bus when he said the US was in a "mental recession".

So which candidate should be trusted to clean up the mess? The one who helped make it, or the one who wasn't in the Senate at the time?

[CrossLOPER]

So which candidate should be trusted to clean up the mess? The one who helped make it, or the one who wasn't in the Senate at the time?
Clearly, the one who can't make the same mistake twice! :beam:

[Redleg]

Clearly, the one who can't make the same mistake twice! :beam:

Well its seems according to the pundits that McCain might of tried to stem the crisis off back in 2006 with legislation to bring more regulation to the investment banking and mortage industries.

And then they are also announcing that Obama was the number 2 receipant of money from the Fanny May right behind Senator Dodd.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

This is and outright dishonest Ad. It is safe to call the originator of this ad a liar. I wonder what Lemur thinks about it?

[KarlXII]

This is and outright dishonest Ad.

Wasn't there a McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting/creating a bill that taught sex ed to kindergartners, when really it was to tell the about "bad" spots and sexual predators? Any outrage over there, Tuff?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tuff's very right. The second Limbaugh quote is completely ripped from context and is an outright lie.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wasn't there a McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting/creating a bill that taught sex ed to kindergartners, when really it was to tell the about "bad" spots and sexual predators? Any outrage over there, Tuff?

Did the law that he supported allow for children who were kindergartners or older to be taught about sex and sexually transmitted diseases when the previous statute limited the grade to 6th?

A new kind of politics. Change we can believe in. Hope. Change. Bleep. Blorp.

The reality is that this is a lie and an abuse of truth worse than I have seen yet directly from one campaign or the other. The others were arguable and probably dirty, but this one takes the cake. I'm sure there will be more - but the deluge has begun. Better put on your :daisy: helmets; chinstrap and all.

[KarlXII]

Did the law that he supported allow for children who were kindergartners or older to be taught about sex and sexually transmitted diseases when the previous statute limited the grade to 6th?

I would have no idea, all I know is that the law was not the "STD CONDOMS" sex ed McCain made it out to be, but more of the "Strange man, bad spots" kind. Which, honestly, is something we could use in this time of creeps.


A new kind of politics. Change we can believe in. Hope. Change. Bleep. Blorp.

McCain's doing what exactly? Isn't he spreading the "CHANGE" message?


The others were arguable and probably dirty, but this one takes the cake. I'm sure there will be more - but the deluge has begun. Better put on your :daisy: helmets; chinstrap and all.

When your opponents compare you to a Muslim Commie, and your presidential opponent says you want to teach kindergarteners about genitalia, that's "arguable and probably dirty"? Hello?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Apparently Palin's yahoo email account was hacked?

[KarlXII]

Apparently Palin's yahoo email account was hacked?

Yes, poor Palin, I honestly do feel bad for her ever since she came into the election. Poor soul.....

[Crazed Rabbit]

I would have no idea, all I know is that the law was not the "STD CONDOMS" sex ed McCain made it out to be, but more of the "Strange man, bad spots" kind. Which, honestly, is something we could use in this time of creeps.


No, it wasn't. Obama lied. The bill changed the grades to be taught comprehensive sex-ed to k-12, from 6-12:

8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=&w=MA==

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Apparently Palin's yahoo email account was hacked?

Yep - that stinks. They should find and prosecute whoever broke in.

[KarlXII]

No, it wasn't. Obama lied. The bill changed the grades to be taught comprehensive sex-ed to k-12, from 6-12:


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=&w=MA==

CR

Thank you for the information.


No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil

Least there's some kind of upside.......

[Lemur]

This is and outright dishonest Ad. It is safe to call the originator of this ad a liar. I wonder what Lemur thinks about it?
It's nice to have so many people concerned with my feelings. I'd say it's a pretty awful ad, and it should be taken off the air. Then again, I'm shocked to see people still defending the McCain ad about how Evil Obama wants to teach Kindergarten students about oral sex. You people kill me.

Note that the sex ed bill left everything for the school districts to decide in terms of what was "age appropriate." Little detail, that.


Apparently Palin's yahoo email account was hacked?
Yup, and this is especially interesting since she and her staff were using "personal" accounts to avoid leaving any paper trail in the governorship. Yay obsessive secrecy!


Yep - that stinks. They should find and prosecute whoever broke in.
Not so clear on this one, especially if it's true that she and her staff were conducting state business behind the veil of "personal" accounts. Wikileaks is going to host something from the Yahoo account, not sure what.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's nice to have so many people concerned with my feelings. I'd say it's a pretty awful ad, and it should be taken off the air.



Good




Not so clear on this one, especially if it's true that she and her staff were conducting state business behind the veil of "personal" accounts. Wikileaks is going to host something from the Yahoo account, not sure what.

Was it against the law what was done to her account? Was it right? Does it depend on what was in the account? I don't remember hearing that she should be wiretapped or have her personal files taken over... But I guess that is what we do to people now. I thought it depended on the rulings of a court as to whether her personal accounts are relevant to a case or not. I forgot that she is guilty until proven innocent, so right and wrong regarding someone breaking into her account is "Not so clear on this one".

You really hate Palin, don't you?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, it wasn't. Obama lied. The bill changed the grades to be taught comprehensive sex-ed to k-12, from 6-12:


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=&w=MA==

CR



http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

~:handball:

[Lemur]

Was it against the law what was done to her account? Was it right? Does it depend on what was in the account?

You really hate Palin, don't you?
Of course it was against the law. Was it right? Possibly. If you are hiding illegal activity in your Gmail account, do you have a right to keep it hidden? If you're an elected official?

"Does it depend on what was in the account?" Hell yes. Ask lawyer about this one.

"You really hate Palin, don't you?" I loathe her exactly as much as I would loathe four more years of George W. Bush. I think she's cut from the same pattern on the same cloth. Do we really need another national leader who is certain all the time, whether it's warranted or not? Another incurious, anti-intellectual Decider? How stupid do we really want to be?

[KarlXII]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

~:handball:

Dammit! I honestly believed CR.

DAMN YOU XENU!!!!!!!!!!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course it was against the law. Was it right? Possibly. If you are hiding illegal activity in your Gmail account, do you have a right to keep it hidden? If you're an elected official?

"Does it depend on what was in the account?" Hell yes. Ask lawyer about this one.

"You really hate Palin, don't you?" I loathe her exactly as much as I would loathe four more years of George W. Bush. I think she's cut from the same pattern on the same cloth. Do we really need another national leader who is certain all the time, whether it's warranted or not? Another incurious, anti-intellectual Decider? How stupid do we really want to be?

DON'T BLINK Lemur, whatever you do...

What we really need is a candidate who invented the blackberry :laugh4:

[m52nickerson]

Dammit! I honestly believed CR.

DAMN YOU XENU!!!!!!!!!!

Fact Check = check mate............NEXT!

[KarlXII]

Fact Check = check mate............NEXT!

I DEMAND A RECOUNT


err

REMATCH

[Lemur]

A little more detail about Palin's use of personal email to avoid da law (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008180084_palinemail15.html):


Palin routinely uses a private Yahoo e-mail account to conduct state business. Others in the governor's office sometimes use personal e-mail accounts, too.

The practice raises questions about backdoor secrecy in an administration that vowed during the 2006 campaign to be "open and transparent."

Even before the McCain campaign plucked Palin from Alaska, a controversy was brewing over e-mails in the governor's office. Was the administration trying to get around the public-records law through broad exemptions or private e-mail accounts?

Activists, still fighting to obtain hundreds of e-mails that were withheld from public-records requests earlier this year, say that's what it looks like. [...]

State lawyers say that the governor's e-mails about public business should be treated like any other public record, even if she's sent them through a private account such as Yahoo.

Some of her aides also routinely use Yahoo, but even messages sent from one private account to another should be public, if they concern public business, said Dave Jones, an assistant attorney general.

"The difficulty is finding out they exist," Jones said.

Yay obsessive secrecy! The public wants to see the Governor's records? I piss on those peasants!

[ICantSpellDawg]

A little more detail about Palin's use of personal email to avoid da law (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008180084_palinemail15.html):

Palin routinely uses a private Yahoo e-mail account to conduct state business. Others in the governor's office sometimes use personal e-mail accounts, too.

The practice raises questions about backdoor secrecy in an administration that vowed during the 2006 campaign to be "open and transparent."

Even before the McCain campaign plucked Palin from Alaska, a controversy was brewing over e-mails in the governor's office. Was the administration trying to get around the public-records law through broad exemptions or private e-mail accounts?

Activists, still fighting to obtain hundreds of e-mails that were withheld from public-records requests earlier this year, say that's what it looks like. [...]

State lawyers say that the governor's e-mails about public business should be treated like any other public record, even if she's sent them through a private account such as Yahoo.

Some of her aides also routinely use Yahoo, but even messages sent from one private account to another should be public, if they concern public business, said Dave Jones, an assistant attorney general.

"The difficulty is finding out they exist," Jones said.Yay obsessive secrecy! The public wants to see the Governor's records? I piss on those peasants!

For a guy constantly ridiculing the government and its ability to do anything right, you sure seem to think that they know how to do evil things well. They are amazing illusionists and fraudsters, but they can't balance the budget or solve the economic crisis. Idiot savants of misdeeds, eh.

Do you use a personal e-mail account at work? Do wires occasionally cross? Who says that she is conducting "secret state business"? Shouldn't a court decide if she is guilty of defrauding the system or if her personal e-mails are open to the public, or is that the job of Swedish hackers.

I'm reminded of the Huckabee quote; "AP found out that Sarah Palin sometimes rips or cuts tags off of pillows and mattress in her own home in spite of the many warnings telling her she must not do this - more at 10"

You should really give the partisan hackery a try - you are getting so good at it!

[m52nickerson]

In attempt to talk about issues..........


Interesting article about McCain's health care plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?em


McCain's health care plan is about opening the market and cutting back on Gov regulations. That has worked so well with the current economy.

If McCain's plan go through I would pay more in tax because of my insurance through work then I would get in a tax break.

Now that is the way to help the American workers who, as McCain said, are the fundamentals of the economy. :inquisitive:

Between McCain's health care plan which is a huge step backwards, and his wanting a commision on the economy he will drive this country into the ground.

Obama at least has an economic plan. http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economyplan

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

~:handball:

I said Obama lied, when he claimed that it was just about teaching kids about sex predators. And he did lie. As can be seen, that doesn't mean the other guy didn't lie as well.

CR

[Lemur]

For a guy constantly ridiculing the government and its ability to do anything right [...]
I'm sorry, you must have me confused with a Republican talking point.


Shouldn't a court decide if she is guilty of defrauding the system or if her personal e-mails are open to the public, or is that the job of Swedish hackers.
It's beyond mattering at this point. If Anonymous and Wikileaks are interested in publishing, they will, and no court in the world is going to stop it. Hell, the Scientologists can't stop that combo.


You should really give the partisan hackery a try - you are getting so good at it!
Oh, I'm just another (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13541.html) bitter ex-McCain supporter. There are lots of us (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). I think maybe it's the lies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091602874.html) that make us mean.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I said Obama lied, when he claimed that it was just about teaching kids about sex predators. And he did lie. As can be seen, that doesn't mean the other guy didn't lie as well.

CR

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html


Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

~:handball:

[m52nickerson]

I said Obama lied, when he claimed that it was just about teaching kids about sex predators. And he did lie. As can be seen, that doesn't mean the other guy didn't lie as well.

CR

No were does it say that Obama lied. Plus the bill talks about "age-appropriate" and how to say know to sexual advances. How would that no help child against sexual predators?

CR your claim has been proven wrong, lets move on.

[Lemur]

Crazed Rabbit, is it so very painful to let go of a talking point? Just move on, man. There are other things you can attack Obama with. Maybe even true things!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/NEWS0502/80917076

Indiana Poll:
Obama: 47%
McCain: 44%

I didn't even think indiana was in play...

[ICantSpellDawg]

In attempt to talk about issues..........




McCain's health care plan is about opening the market and cutting back on Gov regulations. That has worked so well with the current economy.

If McCain's plan go through I would pay more in tax because of my insurance through work then I would get in a tax break.

Now that is the way to help the American workers who, as McCain said, are the fundamentals of the economy. :inquisitive:

Between McCain's health care plan which is a huge step backwards, and his wanting a commision on the economy he will drive this country into the ground.

Obama at least has an economic plan. http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economyplan

I don't see why McCain's plan would necessarily eliminate employee health care plans for individuals who had them. If he eliminates State or regional plan sale restriction, companies will have more Insurance competing in different risk areas around the U.S. - allowing companies to diversify risk rather than lumping it all into the same small area. Most companies might appreciate the discount and keep less expensive, more efficient plans. A healthy employee means less time off from work and is a draw outright.

It should give individuals the ability to seek insurance plans for themselves that carry over even when you switch jobs (which is a terrible pain in the butt - I have done it 5 times over the past 2 years and have numerous retarded illnesses). We would be receiving the tax credits ourselves which, if we opted out of the company plan should help them cut their cost for our employment (maybe increasing our wages while making industry more competitive).

It sounds like a pretty solid plan. I liked Romney's way better, but my horse lost.

The most important part is breaking down the walls between state plan availability. Obama's plan is decent, but I like the idea of Government serving as an organizer and regulator rather than owner and operator. We want to keep cost down for everybody.

Health Care is a pretty big issue for me, but I find McCain's plan acceptable and not at all scary - fine with the rest of his platform. Obama's victory would give me his health care platform as a consolation gift and I wouldn't complain even though I hate socialized medicine. I do like free medicine, especially with the ominous specter of disability hanging over my head.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No were does it say that Obama lied. Plus the bill talks about "age-appropriate" and how to say know to sexual advances. How would that no help child against sexual predators?

CR your claim has been proven wrong, lets move on.

It doesn't talk about Obama's reaction to the bill. I'm not saying it didn't include stuff about sex predators. But that's not the only thing it includes, which is why Obama was wrong when he said it was just about teaching kids about how to avoid sex predators.

CR

[Big_John]

They should find and prosecute whoever broke in.good luck.

EDIT: Removed hot linked picture of a uniform crowd. Please host it yourself. BG

[ICantSpellDawg]

good luck.

EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. BG

They'll find them. They should know - everyone who uses the internet leaves a (digital) paper trail. Hoist by one's own petard, if you will.

Maybe they already have some leads? (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/palin_email_investigation/)

[drone]

In attempt to talk about issues..........

User CP->Edit Ignore List->Add m52nickerson.

~D

[m52nickerson]

It doesn't talk about Obama's reaction to the bill. I'm not saying it didn't include stuff about sex predators. But that's not the only thing it includes, which is why Obama was wrong when he said it was just about teaching kids about how to avoid sex predators.

CR

Teaching young children what is acceptable touching would not help against sexual predators? Sweet Zeus man do they have to spell it out for you?

[KarlXII]

They'll find them. They should know - everyone who uses the internet leaves a (digital) paper trail. Hoist by one's own petard, if you will.

Maybe they already have some leads? (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/palin_email_investigation/)

Do you know nothing? :furious3:

[Big_John]

They'll find them. They should know - everyone who uses the internet leaves a (digital) paper trail. Hoist by one's own petard, if you will.

Maybe they already have some leads? (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/palin_email_investigation/)it's not hard to use a few international loopbacks and internet cafes and such and be untraceable, even for the feds. but it looks like the particular anonymous one(s) responsible for this hack might have been sloppy/amatuer. ctunnel is apparently garbage as far as anonymous proxies go (relatively speaking), for example.

[m52nickerson]

I don't see why McCain's plan would necessarily eliminate employee health care plans for individuals who had them. If he eliminates State or regional plan sale restriction, companies will have more Insurance competing in different risk areas around the U.S. - allowing companies to diversify risk rather than lumping it all into the same small area. Most companies might appreciate the discount and keep less expensive, more efficient plans. A healthy employee means less time off from work and is a draw outright.

It should give individuals the ability to seek insurance plans for themselves that carry over even when you switch jobs (which is a terrible pain in the butt - I have done it 5 times over the past 2 years and have numerous retarded illnesses). We would be receiving the tax credits ourselves which, if we opted out of the company plan should help them cut their cost for our employment (maybe increasing our wages while making industry more competitive).

It sounds like a pretty solid plan. I liked Romney's way better, but my horse lost.

The most important part is breaking down the walls between state plan availability. Obama's plan is decent, but I like the idea of Government serving as an organizer and regulator rather than owner and operator. We want to keep cost down for everybody.

Health Care is a pretty big issue for me, but I find McCain's plan acceptable and not at all scary - fine with the rest of his platform. Obama's victory would give me his health care platform as a consolation gift and I wouldn't complain even though I hate socialized medicine. I do like free medicine, especially with the ominous specter of disability hanging over my head.

Did you miss this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2016673#post2016673

I might not lose my plan, but who do you think will pay the taxes on that plan?

Just because you open the market does not mean it will drive down cost.

Not only that but the tax credit for opting out is a doubled edged sword. It gives companies not reason to look for better deals. The more people opt out the less money they spend.

As far as risk groups, the areas that have lower premiums now will see a rise in their rates to cover those in higher risk areas.

Again, less regulation is not always a good thing, look at the economy. Regulations ans safe guards were removed and now we are in quit a mess.

[ICantSpellDawg]

it's not hard to use a few international loopbacks and internet cafes and such and be untraceable, even for the feds. but it looks like the particular anonymous one(s) responsible for this hack might have been sloppy/amatuer. ctunnel is apparently garbage as far as anonymous proxies go (relatively speaking), for example.

How hard is it to hack a yahoo account?

[KarlXII]

How hard is it to hack a yahoo account?

They're /b/tards....

[Big_John]

How hard is it to hack a yahoo account?you can do it in your sleep.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Did you miss this https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2016673#post2016673

I might not lose my plan, but who do you think will pay the taxes on that plan?

Just because you open the market does not mean it will drive down cost.

Not only that but the tax credit for opting out is a doubled edged sword. It gives companies not reason to look for better deals. The more people opt out the less money they spend.

As far as risk groups, the areas that have lower premiums now will see a rise in their rates to cover those in higher risk areas.

Again, less regulation is not always a good thing, look at the economy. Regulations ans safe guards were removed and now we are in quit a mess.

What has them carrying the plans now? The same thing applies. Do you think that the tax credit makes companies buy plans? It isn't a great trade off as is - they do it for the employee to make people want to work and stay at the job. If their rates were to lower for a better plan - they would be paying less in the long run and the taxes would be passed on partially to the employee.

Tax breaks are never as good a deal as people make them seem. Companys don't do perks for their immediate financial gain - that is absurd - rather it is part of a strategic plan to make employees like them, work hard and stay competitive. To be frank - if individuals could afford their own plans (and knew what procedures cost) and business didn't have to worry about health care - we'd all be better off.

[m52nickerson]

What has them carrying the plans now? The same thing applies. Do you think that the tax credit makes companies buy plans? It isn't a great trade off as is - they do it for the employee to make people want to work and stay at the job. If their rates were to lower for a better plan - they would be paying less in the long run and the taxes would be passed on partially to the employee.

Tax breaks are never as good a deal as people make them seem. Companys don't do perks for their immediate financial gain - that is absurd - rather it is part of a strategic plan to make employees like them, work hard and stay competitive. To be frank - if individuals could afford their own plans (and knew what procedures cost) and business didn't have to worry about health care - we'd all be better off.

So the competition within states between health care plans is not enough to keep costs low, but across state lines will?

The only part the may reduce cost is the tax credit, which if enough people take that it will kill company based plans because their numbers will shrink. The less people on the plan the more expensive. Plus, unless the government keeps upping the tax credit to keep up with the rise in plan costs, I have yet to see them come down, people will slowly be priced out of their plans with nothing to fall back on.

Again see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

[Crazed Rabbit]

Teaching young children what is acceptable touching would not help against sexual predators?

I didn't say that. Care to cease the hyperventilating?

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

So the competition within states between health care plans is not enough to keep costs low, but across state lines will?

The only part the may reduce cost is the tax credit, which if enough people take that it will kill company based plans because their numbers will shrink. The less people on the plan the more expensive. Plus, unless the government keeps upping the tax credit to keep up with the rise in plan costs, I have yet to see them come down, people will slowly be priced out of their plans with nothing to fall back on.

Again see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

Why are you re-posting that article? I've read it and I disagree with the doom saying. Some insurance companies do the job better than others and in some states (like NY) private health care is failing big time while in other states (like Il) they are doing OK. It isn't a cure all - labels and receipts for the recipient of care would be a good thing too, but I fail to see why companies who currently have employer plans would ditch them because there is a tax, especially if the premiums go down. They literally use it as a package plan to pay less in real wages to employees by providing a service that can't be found elsewhere in the form of major medical at a subsidized price. I don't see why it would be any less intruiguing as an option.

Look at Texas after the Hurricane. Texan insurance companies might have been too exposed in that State and may be feeling the hurt now. If they diversified their risk and lowered the likelihood of a regional health problem by opening a market in other areas of the country, prices should go down in turn. Less risk, lower premium - higher risk, higher premium.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh, I'm just another (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13541.html) bitter ex-McCain supporter. There are lots of us (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). I think maybe it's the lies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091602874.html) that make us mean.

Thank you Lemur, for those article links. :bow:

[CountArach]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/NEWS0502/80917076

Indiana Poll:
Obama: 47%
McCain: 44%

I didn't even think indiana was in play...
It is probably close to in play. If Obama is winning Indiana he won't need its electoral votes because he would surely be winning in Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia. Indiana has been trending a few points closer than usual, but really it is still McCain's by 4-5 points.

Alright there are about 30 state-level polls released today (25 from American Research Group). But first, the daily tracking (2 of the three days used for each poll are since the Wall Street collapse):
DailyKos - Obama 48/McCain 44
Diageo/Hotline - Obama 45/McCain 42
Gallup - Obama 47/McCain 45
Rassmussen - McCain 48/Obama 47
I suspect that Gallup has shifted its partisan identification numbers back to something closer to normal.

So here are the state polling released today, shamelessly stolen from FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) (The value "weight" is a measure of how reliable they are):
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/2866494380_90754b1be6_o.png
Some of the most interesting results come from:
Colorado, McCain +2 - a shift of a couple of points in his direction.
Florida, Obama +4 - The first Florida poll he has led in for quite some time.
Illinois, Obama +6 - Much closer than it should be. Another couple of polls would be needed here to confirm it.
Indiana, McCain +5 - See my point to Sasaki above.
Louisiana, McCain +7 - I suspect that this may have tightened to this level after the recent Hurricanes, which may remind residents of the mismanagement and FEMA incompetence. I would expect it to revert back to a stronger McCain state as the election nears.
Montana, McCain +2 - A state to watch that has been seriously under polled.
North Carolina, McCain +1/+11 - The truth is probably closer to the +11, after a few polls in the last couple of weeks showed McCain +20ish.
Nevada, McCain +3 - This is my feeling of about where Nevada should be.
Ohio, McCain +4, Obama +2 - The +4 poll was taken before the Wall Street collapse, so that might have helped Obama's Blue Collar vote,w hich would explain the swing to him in the CNN poll. The truth is probably McCain by a point or 2.
Oregon, McCain +4 - Way closer than it should be.
Virginia, McCain +9, Obama +2 - Virginia is way too close to call this year. My gut feeling is a statistical tie that is currently a point to McCain but swinging back to Obama.
Wisconsin, Obama +4/+2 - I really didn't expect this. I would've thought that Wisconsin was out of play, and it still probably is, but it really has tightened a lot.
West Virginia, McCain +4 - The first poll here in a while and surprisingly close. However, Obama struggled a lot in Appalachia during the Primaries, perhaps due to race and I think this may continue to hurt him here.

So that's what I can tell you from my knowledge. Take it for whatever you think it is worth.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My feelings about McCain:

McCain isn't holding up very well. Now I am not a natural Republican. But I appreciated McCain when he was still his own man. Straight talking, principled. A man who sincerely wants to serve his country, and has paid a high price for it in his life. I do not have a natural antipathy to him, like I do with the likes of Bush or Palin.

I thought that in a mud-slinging contest, Obama would be the one with the most at stake, the one most likely to tarnish his reputation and lose his biggest selling point. I was so wrong. It is McCain who is. He's been selling out, losing his unique selling point in the process. This is no longer the real McCoyn.

Both candidates have by now made it abundantly clear that they are willing and capable of playing every Washingtonian dirty trick, and that they are willing to make policy and principle subordinate to political expediency. I don't blame them for it, I am just surprised at the result.
When stripped of his 'Washington outsider, bringing change' image, Obama still looks like what he is: an arrogant man with burning personal ambition, an aspiring, if gifted, politician, with a willingness to learn and adapt.
McCain, when stripped of his 'Washington outsider, bringing change' image, looks...well, like what really? McCain is not a natural born politician. He's about bringing his principles and sense of duty to Washington. What's left then, when he sells these out? He looks redundant.

Obama has lost his gimmick of clean hope and change in the mud. McCain has lost his soul, betraying his own legacy.


Then there is Palin. The Republicans may be gleeing over how the election has turned into an Obama v Palin contest. But how does this reflect on their main candidate? McCain isn't the energising one, the man with ideas, the focus of attention. What for a few weeks must be tremendous fun for emo-cons - our second in line running to the other party's main candidate! - must lead, upon sober reflection, to a bitter conclusion: apparently, their main candidate is lacking in magnetism and sparkling ideas.


In Biden, Obama has a VP that butresses him, who projects a sense of experience and reliability. McCain, and this is the painful bit, did not gamble and lose in picking Palin. McCain gambled, and won. And won more than he bargained for. Palin is not a liability to his campaign. It's much worse than that. Instead, McCain has manouvered himself into a position where he himself is now a side-show to her campaign. It makes him look old and redundant.


After a year of this election cycle, I think I've run full circle. My feelings about McCain are back where they started: I think McCain missed his moment with destiny. His moment was in 2000. His moment has passed.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Excellent post, Louis, and in concert with my own journey to confusion.

Were I an American citizen, I may well have voted for Senator McCain right up until he chose Governor Palin. I could see the myriad benefits of having a reasonable, honourable and often bipartisan Republican as president - with a Democrat Congress chastened enough by losing the White House from a certainty position to work with him.

Sadly, he has self-destructed with the manner of his campaign and the choice of a woman whose policy positions are much too close to President Bush. To remotely contemplate her as president is to know real fear. To witness his ambition and willingness to slander and lie - and continue the lie, much in the way of the current administration (I swear the real answer to "what is the Bush Doctrine?" may be that if one repeats lies often enough, enough people will believe them to stay in power) - is to despair that the United States cannot be healed.

Similarly Obama, whilst an excellent thinker and speaker, has not been able to employ that inspirational ability to enthuse his countrymen or to formulate more than platitudes. Worse, he cannot seem to handle detail and policy. I suspect this election would be over if Bill Clinton and his mantra, "It's the economy, stupid" were shaping it. He also wallows eagerly in the mud he pretends to eschew. Obama may be a fine strategist, and an excellent people manager, but he's going to have to communicate some real policy and very soon, to have my support (not that he cares about my support any more than McCain).

I suspect I was wrong, and should have agreed with you about Senator Clinton. A Clinton-Obama ticket would have been both inspirational and hard-headed. She would of course, brought utter division and hatred into every fibre of the United States soul, but on current evidence from this thread and other sources, that soul is beyond repair anyway. If the two most centrist, amenable and potentially co-operative candidates can do no more than this bitter, wicked and destructive campaign, there is no hope, audacious or not.

I wish the old method of choosing a vice-president were still extant - the loser of the election appointed to the post. That would limit the hostility of the campaign (since both candidates would have to serve together) and in this case, a McCain presidency with an Obama vice-presidency - minus the precursor beastliness - might just be the best outcome.

As it is, we the governed but unrepresented, can merely expectorate a plague on both their houses.

[KukriKhan]

As it is, we the governed but unrepresented, can merely expectorate a plague on both their houses.

:laugh4::laugh4:

On the other hand, if that feeling/thought is sincerely felt/held, I can see where watching this particular sausage being made must be frustrating.

Let me assure you, for all the whoopla we're currently up to our knees in, there will certainly be more to come. Yet America will muddle through, and the collective conciousness, expressed via the polls and electoral college, will pick the right guy for the top office.

And I agree: returning to the original plan (top vote-getter = POTUS, 2nd top vote-getter = VP) would be good for us/U.S. It would certainly put the ka-bosh on the 2-party mud-slinging thingee quickly.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On the other hand, if that feeling/thought is sincerely felt/held, I can see where watching this particular sausage being made must be frustrating.

I don't want anyone to get the impression that this sense of disappointment is only felt about the US - it's just that the mendacious pygmies you get to elect actually have far more effect on my life than the amoral muppets I get to vote for.


Let me assure you, for all the whoopla we're currently up to our knees in, there will certainly be more to come. Yet America will muddle through, and the collective conciousness, expressed via the polls and electoral college, will pick the right guy for the top office.

I admire your optimism. Unfortunately yon collective consciousness has massively failed its last two tests, hasn't it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't want anyone to get the impression that this sense of disappointment is only felt about the US - it's just that the mendacious pygmies you get to elect actually have far more effect on my life than the amoral muppets I get to vote for.


Our leaders have more of an effect over your life? Do you just mean economically?

Please explain how you have decided this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So that's what I can tell you from my knowledge. Take it for whatever you think it is worth.

My feeling is that Obama will win the kerry states + iowa and new mexico. Colorado and Virginia seem to be his best chance for a winning state.

Btw tuffstuff, palin's favorability rating has been tanking lately...down 10-15 points. I guess when people get to know her they don't like what they see.

[KukriKhan]

I admire your optimism. Unfortunately yon collective consciousness has massively failed its last two tests, hasn't it?

I'd grant a failure in 2000, though the opposition was no better - hoodwinked, is what we were, in my opinion. 2004 was a "don't change horses in the middle of a stream" thing, I think; the war(s) and all. That Bush & Co. misread that "He's a Doofus, but he's our Doofus" vote as a mandate to continue regrettable policies, well, we're about to fix that this year, one way (or candidate) or another.

My big take-away since 9-11 is: in an effort to "do something; anything!" in response to that dreadful day (since they'd failed to prevent it, or even imagine it), they became suddenly willing to squander every resource america could lay claim to: lives, money, alliances, reputation, individual freedoms, transportation, banking, US independence...

So, the next guy's task will be: getting that stuff back, and quickly. I'm currently persuaded that both the main candidates want to do that, or to at least cause no further harm. I'm not totally convinced which to bet on as being the fella who can actually DO it.

By Holloween, I'll have to decide.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Our leaders have more of an effect over your life? Do you just mean economically?

Please explain how you have decided this.

Well, economically is the main effect, and the most important to people everywhere. The United States sets the prevailing standards and influences disproportionately the World Trade talks and associated organs, as well as policy decisions that have led to events like this banking crisis.

Politically, the erosion of civil liberties and disregard for international law and human rights that the recent administration has embarked on has led to copycat legislation across the globe, which affects me in my personal area of interest. I also pay taxes to the United Kingdom government, so their adherence to administration policy means I have to pay for crazed adventures like Iraq. More positively, previous administrations' support for both Irish independence and eventually for the Northern Ireland Peace Process made an enormous difference to my island's future.

Adversely, unthinking support for IRA fund-raising enabled quite a few hairy eejits to shoot at me a lot in my youth. :wink:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The Pain in Spain falls mainly on McCain (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.html?cnn=yes)


During an interview in Miami earlier this week with Spanish-language station Union Radio, a reporter asked McCain whether, if elected, he would receive Zapatero in the White House. McCain answered, "Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations, and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States."

Ouch. The question about Zapatero, clearly framed by the reporter as a question about Spain, came after inquiries on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. As a result, much of the Spanish press has decided that the Republican candidate, who hails himself as the experienced foreign policy choice in this election, confused Spain — a NATO member and key ally in the fight against terrorism — with one of those troublesome Latin American states.


I wonder what the RNC's "Joe Biden Gaffe Counter" is up to? Was almost 2 weeks the last time I checked...

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Pain in Spain falls mainly on McCain (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842156,00.html?cnn=yes)




I wonder what the RNC's "Joe Biden Gaffe Counter" is up to? Was almost 2 weeks the last time I checked...

I don't see how his answer led the author to believe that he thought Zapaterro was a South American leader. He gave a generic answer, stating that if Zapaterro is a friend he is invited, if he is not, he is not.

Spain under Zapaterro has been questionable. He is a die-hard anti-american socialist. His first order of business was to rip Spanish troops out of Iraq.

They also snub their noses at our requests to block arms deals to Venezuela.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4609696.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4395873.stm

I would think twice about any invites. Maybe throw a few more troops into Afghanistan as a war rather than a "peacekeeping operation"?

[Xiahou]

I wonder what the RNC's "Joe Biden Gaffe Counter" is up to? Was almost 2 weeks the last time I checked...
Yeah, they're doing a pretty poor job of it. They don't even have his wheelchair gaffe in the list. :no:

[Lemur]

The former publisher of the National Review just came out for Obama. From his essay, A Conservative For Obama (http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E):


Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

[Crazed Rabbit]

a NATO member and key ally in the fight against terrorism

Spain? Didn't they pull their troops out of Iraq after the socialists got elected? Do they have troops in Afghanistan?

From Spiegel Online: (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,544189,00.html)
Spain has 742 troops in Afghanistan and
"Like Germany, Spain has consistently refused to send soldiers to more dangerous southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban is strongest and fighting at its most intense."

I guess I don't see that as a big mistake on McCain's part. Meh.

Lemur - I'm going to have to disagree with that guy's assessment of Obama. I think he's just fed up with the current GOP and looking for someone, anyone, new to support.

And is the word typos spelled "typeos"[sic]?

Sorry, but it's a bit ironic.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Comrade Biden (http://beltwayblips.com/story/the_associated_press_biden_calls_paying_higher_taxes_a/)

Communist!

[ICantSpellDawg]

The former publisher of the National Review just came out for Obama. From his essay, A Conservative For Obama (http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E):

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

Lodowick Brodie Cobb Allison just wants Obama so that his own name won't sound so weird in the scheme of things.

[Tribesman]

Spain under Zapaterro has been questionable. He is a die-hard anti-american socialist. His first order of business was to rip Spanish troops out of Iraq.

Was that when the Spanish troops had been sent to Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate ?
Thats democracy Tuff , why do you hate freedom ?


They also snub their noses at our requests to block arms deals to Venezuela.


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


I would think twice about any invites. Maybe throw a few more troops into Afghanistan as a war rather than a "peacekeeping operation"?
Errrr...Spain has the 4th highest casualty figures from the deployments in Afghanistan , what more do you want from a country that you tell who they can and cannot do business with ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Was that when the Spanish troops had been sent to Iraq against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate ?
Thats democracy Tuff , why do you hate freedom ?


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


Errrr...Spain has the 4th highest casualty figures from the deployments in Afghanistan , what more do you want from a country that you tell who they can and cannot do business with ?

24. And thanks for those, but that was back in 2005. You aren't a real friend until your people are dying in DROVES!

Ireland hates freedom.

[Lemur]

Lodowick Brodie Cobb Allison just wants Obama so that his own name won't sound so weird in the scheme of things.


You aren't a real friend until your people are dying in DROVES!

Ireland hates freedom.
You, sir, are on a roll!

Meanwhile, it looks as though Obama's most fanatical followers aren't the only ones looking for a Messiah in strange places (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/18/palin_email/index.html).


Sarah is that standard God has raised up to stop the flood. She has the anointing. You can tell by how the dogs are already viciously attacking her. But they will not be successful. She knows the One she serves and will not be intimidated.

Back in the 1980s, I sensed that Israel's little-known Benjamin Netanyahu was chosen by God for an important end-time role. I still believe that. I now have that same sense about Sarah Palin...

[Tribesman]

24. And thanks for those, but that was back in 2005. You aren't a real friend until your people are dying in DROVES!

Its 85 Tuff , can't you count ?


Ireland hates freedom.
Yep , Irish defence forces casualties on deployment to Afghanistan = 0 , because they aint dumb and can do their job in Afghanistan suffering nothing more severe than a hangover or a bout of the squits from a dodgy kebab .:2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Its 85 Tuff , can't you count ?


Yep , Irish defence forces casualties on deployment to Afghanistan = 0 , because they aint dumb and can do their job in Afghanistan suffering nothing more severe than a hangover or a bout of the squits from a dodgy kebab .:2thumbsup:

I guess I was talking about deaths. How many Irishmen are in Afghanistan (not including those fighting in a real mans army like the British military)?

The only thing that stands out in modern Irish action to me is that some of your guys sexually abused African women under a UN mandate. Thanks for helping to defend the free world!

Ireland is still a western European disgrace, even after all of its recent economic successes.:yes: They make the French look like BFF's. But... I guess it doesn't matter what Americans think of you guys, only what you think of us.

"God invented leftism to keep the Irish from taking over the world."

[Big_John]

get a room.

[KukriKhan]

Return to topic, Gentlemen. Country-bashing will cease.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Figured he has never had a taste of his own medicine, because nobody cares about that place unless they are doing riverdance on St. Paddy's day. Ridicule of American policy is a 24/7 affair.

[Tribesman]

I guess I was talking about deaths.
Yes , and you can't count can you .:dizzy2: Or is it that you didn't read what I wrote ?


Return to topic, Gentlemen. Country-bashing will cease.

What ? not even to mention child rape in Okinawa Korea Iraq and the Philipines in response to this lame attempt....
The only thing that stands out in modern Irish action to me is that some of your guys sexually abused African women under a UN mandate. Thanks for helping to defend the free world!
:inquisitive:After all there is a saying about throwing stones in glass houses , and Tuff just happens to be in crystal palace with a lorrryload of gravel .


Ridicule of American policy is a 24/7 affair.
Only because there is so much to ridicule , you really should cut back on some of them policies to give us a break .:yes:

[Lemur]

A vague attempt to drag this back to election '08:

Palin tells (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/18/palins-transparency-proposal-already-exists-in-dc/) adoring crowd that she will “put the government checkbook online” if made VP, in the same manner that she did in Alaska. The only problem? It's already been done. Republican Senator Tom Coburn teamed up with Senator Obama and they put it into law last year.


In June of this year, Obama and Coburn introduced new Senate legislation to expand the information available online to include details on earmarks, competitive bidding, criminal activities, audit disputes and other government information.

Palin might also have noted that her running mate, John McCain, was an original co-sponsor of the 2006 transparency bill that became law.

Dude, she is so ready to be President!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm actually finding it a little humourous that whenever a candidate makes a gaffe, the other side jumps on that candidate, and the candidate's side rush to defend the candidate. The funny thing is that it works both ways, sometimes on the same page.

:2thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

A vague attempt to drag this back to election '08:

Palin tells (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/18/palins-transparency-proposal-already-exists-in-dc/) adoring crowd that she will “put the government checkbook online” if made VP, in the same manner that she did in Alaska. The only problem? It's already been done. Republican Senator Tom Coburn teamed up with Senator Obama and they put it into law last year.


In June of this year, Obama and Coburn introduced new Senate legislation to expand the information available online to include details on earmarks, competitive bidding, criminal activities, audit disputes and other government information.

Palin might also have noted that her running mate, John McCain, was an original co-sponsor of the 2006 transparency bill that became law.

Dude, she is so ready to be President!

Here's the full excerpt:
“We’re going to do a few new things also,” she said at a rally in Cedar Rapids. “For instance, as Alaska’s governor, I put the government’s checkbook online so that people can see where their money’s going. We’ll bring that kind of transparency, that responsibility, and accountability back. We’re going to bring that back to D.C.”Rather than try to point out the obvious, I'll just let people make up their own minds about what they think she meant. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here's the full excerpt:Rather than try to point out the obvious, I'll just let people make up their own minds about what they think she meant. :shrug:

Clear as day.

[CountArach]

Well, economically is the main effect, and the most important to people everywhere. The United States sets the prevailing standards and influences disproportionately the World Trade talks and associated organs, as well as policy decisions that have led to events like this banking crisis.

Politically, the erosion of civil liberties and disregard for international law and human rights that the recent administration has embarked on has led to copycat legislation across the globe, which affects me in my personal area of interest. I also pay taxes to the United Kingdom government, so their adherence to administration policy means I have to pay for crazed adventures like Iraq. More positively, previous administrations' support for both Irish independence and eventually for the Northern Ireland Peace Process made an enormous difference to my island's future.

Adversely, unthinking support for IRA fund-raising enabled quite a few hairy eejits to shoot at me a lot in my youth. :wink:
I'm in the exact same situation as Banquo, perhaps more so because my country's foreign policy is pretty much dictated by our American alliance - our only very tight friend in the Pacific.

Obama now leads in all the national tracking polls and there are a lot of new state polls out today. For the first time in about 10 days FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a greater than 50% chance of winning the election.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Yeah, they're doing a pretty poor job of it. They don't even have his wheelchair gaffe in the list. :no:

I actually have an explanation for this. One of my friends on my floor interns at the RNC and sits right next to the guy that decides what goes on the gaffe counter. He says that the "higher taxes = patriotism" comment and the wheelchair gaffe don't go on because that's what Biden actually believes.

Still, that's not really the point though.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't see how his answer led the author to believe that he thought Zapaterro was a South American leader. He gave a generic answer, stating that if Zapaterro is a friend he is invited, if he is not, he is not.



You're right, the McCain campaign is saying that he was referring to zapaterro. Don't see why they're snubbing him though...


Here's the full excerpt:Rather than try to point out the obvious, I'll just let people make up their own minds about what they think she meant. :shrug:

If you were going to talk about how you were going to bring transparency to washington would you use an example of a bill your opponent passed?

[KukriKhan]

I'm in the exact same situation as Banquo, perhaps more so because my country's foreign policy is pretty much dictated by our American alliance - our only very tight friend in the Pacific.

Obama now leads in all the national tracking polls and there are a lot of new state polls out today. For the first time in about 10 days FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a greater than 50% chance of winning the election.

So, we have Ireland and Australia. Oh, and here's Canada (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/columnists-labeling-palin-backers-white-trash-spurs-review-at-canadian-tv/)'s 2 cents.

Class act.

-edit-
The original column (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html)

[Strike For The South]

So, we have Ireland and Australia. Oh, and here's Canada (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/columnists-labeling-palin-backers-white-trash-spurs-review-at-canadian-tv/)'s 2 cents.

Class act.

-edit-
The original column (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html)

Anything for a few more hits. I never thought I'd see the day where an actual journalist writes more tripe than we do:laugh4:

[Big_John]

So, we have Ireland and Australia. Oh, and here's Canada (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/columnists-labeling-palin-backers-white-trash-spurs-review-at-canadian-tv/)'s 2 cents.

Class act.

-edit-
The original column (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html)don't forget the american take! (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html)

[CountArach]

A very emotional ad released by a Democratic 527 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU). According to MediaCurves' focus groups this has moved some opinion towards Obama (Or away from Palin rather). Any opinions on it?

And while I am at it - probably Obama's worst ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR0k_-IFqJk).

[Strike For The South]

A very emotional ad released by a Democratic 527 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU). According to MediaCurves' focus groups this has moved some opinion towards Obama (Or away from Palin rather). Any opinions on it?

And while I am at it - probably Obama's worst ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR0k_-IFqJk).


eh the killing of wolves has to do with tourism and hunting. I would compare it to Texas Coyotes but with all the ranches and farmland down here its a different situation. I dont really care that an excess wolf population is being killed I find it disturbing that she would want to introduce a bill for a severed foreleg thats weird.

Thats not really Obama...You know this right?

[CountArach]

Thats not really Obama...You know this right?
Actually no I didn't... I was told it was an Obama campaign ad. I guess I should have checked.

I suppose that is the mark of great satire...

[Gregoshi]

Anything for a few more hits. I never thought I'd see the day where an actual journalist writes more tripe than we do:laugh4:
Yeah, indeed Strike. :laugh4: there'd be warning points a plenty being handed out by the mods if they posted that stuff here directly. Those women columnist are pretty nasty. If a man had written that Cintra Wilson column Big_John posted, he'd be flayed alive. Nasty, nasty stuff. Don't hold back Cintra, tell us how you really feel. :laugh4:

I'm just about to the point where I'm going to start paying attention to the candidates, but they make it soooo difficult. Their TV/radio ads are complete turnoffs and listening to their speeches for more than 2-3 minutes triggers my gag reflex. I go into this with the enthusiasm of one who is about to begin searching for the keys to the White House in a mountain of manure. :wall:

[Big_John]

Actually no I didn't...

I suppose that is the mark of great satire...it's the mark of something.... :grin2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

For a little light amusement, and recognising that this may well not be original anywhere but my local pub, a friend of mine was telling me how he has now narrowed the contest to two characterisations:

McCain is the American, and Obama the Hollywood...Wax.

The former is a lightly trimmed Bush, the latter is no Bush at all.

:beam: