Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think you're making a bit much of what was only a parenthetical reference to Google. :shrug:
The op-ed piece is full of stupidity and laziness, but the Google reference was the cherry on top. Certainly it was a level of stupidity that deserved a hearty stomping. Contrast and compare it with the op-ed Crazed Rabbit linked to. Now that is a competent piece of writing.
If we're going to link to mean-spirited attack pieces, can we at least agree to link to well-written ones?
07-11-2008, 04:03
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
What a maroon.
I have always loved this particular Bugs Bunnyism -- Bugs was and remains the champ.
07-11-2008, 05:23
PanzerJaeger
Re: Re : Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
I've seen a LOT of footage on the infamous "I want to cut his NUTS out!" statement. I have to be honest, with the photograph they used of Jesse on Drudge Report (holding the "Change We Can Believe in" sign with a really torqued off look) and hearing the statement in my mind with Jesse's peculiar speech mechanisms, every time I roll that clip in my mind, I giggle again and again. :laugh4:
I even went so far as to use it in a staff meeting yesterday. My guys were rolling on the floor. Our division's controller said due to budgetary constraints, he was going to put all capital expenditures on hold, even ones already approved. And I gritted my teeth and in my best Jesse accent, muted the speakerphone and declared "I want to cut his NUTS out". :laugh4: Had them in stitches. :laugh4:
But I don't think this is authentic. I think Jesse was a plant and it was well coordinated with the Obama camp. Why? Can you imagine Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. going on national television to insult and belittle his own father? For something that's more silly then actually threatening? If it was real, Jesse Sr. comes off more like a clown than a thug. And an impotent one at that.
I think the whole thing was orchestrated by the Obama camp to show Obama in the light of standing up to the Black Civil Rights establishment, a criticism Obama has taken to the chin regularly. This gives him credence when he says he's beholden to no special interest groups.
But do any of you really doubt that the Rainbow/PUSH coalition and the National Action Network aren't going to see HUGE windfalls on Jan 22nd, 2009, assuming Obama wins? :idea2:
07-11-2008, 15:39
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Don, I can see the logic of your point, but I also sense that the frustration and anger that the older generation of grievance-mongers feel is real. Obama obliterates the ground under the feet of guys like Sharpton and Jackson. How can they not be angry?
And since this has basically become the all-Obama thread, here's a roundup of what Obama is, according to the chattering classes:
(Bill) Clinton:
Paul Krugman, 6/30/08.
Abe Greenwald, 1/15/08.
Ron Fournier, 12/18/07.
Dole:
Mark Halperin, 2/28/08.
George H. W. Bush:
David Brooks, 5/19/08.
New York Sun Editorial Board, 4/18/08
YouTube, 4/6/08:
Dukakis:
Susan Estrich, 5/12/08.
Nate Silver, 7/10/08.
Mondale
Ronald Kessler, 2/27/08.
Dan McLaughlin, 5/30/07.
Reagan:
Andrew Sullivan, 7/24/07.
Darrell M. West, 7/8/08.
Diane Winston, 6/27/08.
David Paul Kuhn, 7/24/07.
E.J. Dionne, 2/29/08
George F. Will, 5/8/08.
Barack Obama, 1/16/08.
Carter:
John McCain, 6/21/08.
Dinesh D'Souza, 6/18/08.
Matthew Continetti, 5/5/08.
Kurt Anderson, 6/16/08.
Ford:
Dennis Byrne, 1/4/07.
Nixon:
Karl Rove, 7/10/08.
James Kirchick, 7/2/07.
John Pitney, 3/4/08.
McGovern:
John Judis, 4/23/08.
Jeralyn, 2/16/08.
New York Sun editorial board, 5/9/08.
Humphrey:
Dr. Violet Socks, 6/5/08.
Johnson:
Rush Limbaugh, 6/10/08.
Jeffrey Lord, 6/10/08.
Michael Crowley, 6/5/08.
Eisenhower:
Susan Eisenhower, 2/2/08.
Alan W. Dowd, 6/3/08.
Stevenson:
George F. Will, 4/15/08.
Steve Clemons, 11/4/07.
David Greenberg, 11/16/07.
E.J. Dionne, 4/22/08.
Truman:
New York Sun editorial board, 7/2/08.
Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/07.
Dewey:
East Hartford Gazette, 6/25/08
Voters of New Hampshire, 1/8/08.
07-11-2008, 15:45
Don Corleone
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Don, I can see the logic of your point, but I also sense that the frustration and anger that the older generation of grievance-mongers feel is real. Obama obliterates the ground under the feet of guys like Sharpton and Jackson. How can they not be angry?
Oh, I think that Jesse didn't have to reach very deep to find the motivation for his character, so to speak. I'm certain there is a lot of very real anger, jealousy and rage.
But again, Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Illinois is going to make the media rounds anywhere he can to dress down his father? For something as moronic as this? Do you really believe that?
07-11-2008, 15:50
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
I don't find Jesse Jackson Jr.'s behavior to be proof of much of anything. Fathers and sons can disagree violently, and "great" men's sons are more often resentful than not. (By "great" in this context, I mean a man who believes he is great and devotes his life to a cause, most often to the detriment of his family. I am not saying JJ is "great" in any absolute or measurable sense.)
Also, Junior functions, lives and breathes in Chicago politics, where Senior has been a spent force for decades, at least as far as Cook County is concerned. (See the excellent article Crazed Rabbit posted last page, it gives good Chicago context.) Junior has hitched his wagon to Obama pretty darn firmly. Note that he is co-chair of the Barack Obama Presidential Campaign. If daddy threatens his golden goose, who will kill the fatted calf? Or maybe I mean his sacred cow. Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that Jesse Jackson's chickens ... are coming home to roost ....
07-12-2008, 23:04
Marshal Murat
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
No one cares. Half of America likes McCain because they genuinely like him or dislike Obama. The reverse for Obama. America is bored with the two of them, and won't worry about them until the nomination convention, and then in September we will start caring again.
It's like soccer (football for you Euros). In the beginning, everyones pumped and ready. The two teams come out, and begin to play. They play around for 80 minutes, and then everyone cares about the last 10 minutes.
07-14-2008, 06:58
CountArach
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
I read a lot of stuff about the Newsweek polling. In the first poll they over-sampled Democrats and in this one they under-sampled them. Further African-Americans made up a very small portion of this poll and I do not believe Obama won them by the convincing margin EVERY other poll has been showing.
Quote:
Hmm. A result of Obama's centrist maneuvering?
CR
If you think the Democrats didn't do polling on whether his so-called centrist movements would hurt or help him then you have to be kidding yourself.
07-14-2008, 14:54
KukriKhan
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
No one cares. Half of America likes McCain because they genuinely like him or dislike Obama. The reverse for Obama. America is bored with the two of them, and won't worry about them until the nomination convention, and then in September we will start caring again.
It's like soccer (football for you Euros). In the beginning, everyones pumped and ready. The two teams come out, and begin to play. They play around for 80 minutes, and then everyone cares about the last 10 minutes.
Tough times for the campaigns, trying to maintain enthusiasm.
On another front, we now have a Greens Party Candidate Cynthia McKinney, best known for having asked: "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?"
07-14-2008, 18:00
Sasaki Kojiro
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
On another front, we now have a Greens Party Candidate Cynthia McKinney, best known for having asked: "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?"
This is the kind of thing that makes me laugh whenever someone complains about our two party system.
07-15-2008, 01:51
Marshal Murat
Political Correctness continues it's rampage!
I'm now getting tired of Barack Obama. (Links are from Drudge Report)
Longtime Washington talk-show host John McLaughlin is facing fire Monday for referring to Barack Obama as an "Oreo" during a segment on his Sunday political program, "The McLaughlin Group.
I love the McLaughlin group, because they actually have multiple viewpoints. Four politically different panelists discuss political issues. If he uses this sorta term, it's not his fault. He's using a term in common usage. Don't blame the microphone for what the speaker says.
Barack offended over New Yorker Cover
This is something everyone's probably heard about, so I won't beat this dead horse, but the response by the New Yorker editor? Remnick Reply
Can Barack Obama take any language? It's satire, like depicting McCain in a casket 'cause he's so old!
07-15-2008, 10:42
Tribesman
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Barack offended over New Yorker Cover
So according to that article people who work for McCain and people who work for Obama didn't like the joke .
Big deal .
07-15-2008, 12:38
KukriKhan
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So according to that article people who work for McCain and people who work for Obama didn't like the joke .
Big deal .
Pretty much another example of Don Corleone's theory: "Outrage, not religion, is the new opiate of the masses."
07-15-2008, 13:23
Tribesman
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
"Outrage, not religion, is the new opiate of the masses."
How dare you say that :furious3:
07-15-2008, 15:20
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding." jmeek@nydailynews.com
Barack's superior foresight continues to shine. :yes:
The Democrats may be in a good political position, but what a price to pay. Banking on America to fail is a disgusting mentality shared by our enemies.
07-16-2008, 01:45
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
The Democrats may be in a good political position, but what a price to pay. Banking on America to fail is a disgusting mentality shared by our enemies.
No, our enemies don't bank on us failing -- even if they're rooting for/working towards it.
Our Friends from around the globe, many of whom think we may fail or have failed, shake their heads in surprise/pity/wonder, but they don't bank on our failure.
It's pretty much only the "left" of the Dems who're banking on that failure. However, you need to be fair to them -- they only want that failure so we'll be forced to get past nationalism and capitalism and join the world as a partner rather than a leader. From their viewpoint, that's a win for us.
Nincompoops.
07-16-2008, 12:28
KukriKhan
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Excerpt of an interview I watched last night. Obama talking with a PBS reporter about waffling, flip-flopping, or "shifting" as they call it.
"Uninspiring" is the first word that sprung to my mind.
07-16-2008, 19:13
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
A quick round-up of things that may be interesting/amusing:
For those who are outraged by Obama's blatant flip-flop clarification of his Iraq policy, here are the alterations in his web page laid bare.
Finally, John McCain's 61 flip-flops have been compiled here. Outrageous!
07-16-2008, 20:49
PanzerJaeger
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
After parting the Nile, Obama's planning on eliminating ALL nuclear weopons! Free health care, free college, no more war, economic renaissance, and now no more nukes... I can't wait! Is it too early to declare Jesus 2.0?
Quote:
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.
Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.
"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.
He added, "The danger ... is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century."
Among those joining him for the panel discussion were two potential running mates, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. Bayh has demurred when asked about running on a ticket with Obama, but he was effusive in his praise of the likely Democratic nominee.
Recalling a trip they made to Iraq together, Bayh said: "He was pragmatic, he was focused, although he was wise enough to oppose that conflict from the beginning because he understood it was a strategic diversion. He's now tough enough to get us out and to do it in the right way, refocus on Afghanistan and Iran and the other real threats that are evolving."
Nunn, a defense expert, is viewed as a senior statesman who could offset the relative youth of Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois. He said he supported Obama's nonproliferation pledge and outlined the challenges Obama would face in the Oval Office as if he were already elected.
During his remarks, Obama paid tribute to Sen. Richard Lugar, a popular Indiana Republican who has focused on nuclear nonproliferation issues for much of his career, working closely with Nunn.
Indiana is a Republican-leaning state that Obama hopes to put it in play in the general election, capitalizing in part on his status as a senator from neighboring Illinois.
In addition to his focus on nuclear matter, Obama called for investing in methods to prevent, detect and contain biological attacks. He highlighted a proposal to spend $5 billion over three years to develop an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to stymie terrorist networks.
"Making these changes will do more than help us tackle bioterror; it will also create new jobs, it will support a healthier population and improve America's capability to respond to any major disaster," he said.
Coping with cyber security for an increasingly online world will protect the country's economic and national security assets, Obama said, and he pledged to appoint a cyber adviser who will coordinate government efforts and report directly to the president.
"All of this will demand the greatest resource that America has, and that's our people," said Obama. "In the Cold War, we didn't defeat the Soviets just because of the strength of our arms. We also did it because at the dawn of the atomic age and at the onset of the space race, the smartest scientists and most innovative work force was here in America."
Obama jabbed at President Bush and his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. "Instead of adjusting to the stateless threats of the 21st century, we invaded and occupied a state that had no collaborative relationship with al-Qaida. Instead of taking aggressive steps to secure the world's most dangerous weapons and technology, we spent almost a trillion dollars to occupy a country in the heart of the Middle East that no longer had any weapons of mass destruction."
The event continued the buildup for Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Europe. The campaign also released on national cable TV its latest ad, which promotes the national security and foreign policy agenda.
(We can only hope that Obama is continuing to be a complete hypocrite and that this is pure pandering in the truest sense of the "Old Politics" he loves to rail against. Or is he trully planning on leaving America the only nation at the nuclear party that followed the dress code?)
07-16-2008, 22:52
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Egads! Gadzooks! Here's what Sen. Obama said that provoked PJ's swoon of disbelief:
" 'As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy,' Obama said."
So ... as long as nuclear weapons exist -- which is forever -- we'll retain a deterrent. So really Obama is saying nothing, but spinning it in a vaguely anti-nuclear-war kind of way. In other words, he's saying nothing and making it sound pretty. Or in other words, he's being a politician.
Quick, fetch the smelling salts and loosen Panzer's corset. This ball is entirely too stuffy and there's far too much dancing going on for respectable young ladies.
07-16-2008, 22:55
PanzerJaeger
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Egads! Gadzooks! Here's what Sen. Obama said that provoked PJ's swoon of disbelief:
" 'As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy,' Obama said."
So ... as long as nuclear weapons exist -- which is forever -- we'll retain a deterrent. So really Obama is saying nothing, but spinning it in a vaguely anti-nuclear-war kind of way. In other words, he's saying nothing and making it sound pretty. Or in other words, he's being a politician.
Quick, fetch the smelling salts and loosen Panzer's corset. This ball is entirely too stuffy and there's far too much dancing going on for respectable young ladies.
So in other - other - other words, he's lying.
07-16-2008, 23:00
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Now now, young Panzer, don't stir yourself. You need a good rest after a fit of the vapors. I'll fetch you some lemon water and we'll watch the ball from the balcony.
07-16-2008, 23:09
PanzerJaeger
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Lawd, this pansy is wiltin' faster than General Lee himself in the war of Northern Aggression... :drama1:
07-17-2008, 00:04
CrossLOPER
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
You two make a cute couple.
07-17-2008, 00:48
discovery1
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Man you just can't make this stuff up! I love your elections! :laugh4:
07-17-2008, 19:06
Banquo's Ghost
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
On a serious matter, I would be interested in our US members' views on this article which has a rather concerning assessment of Senator McCain's economic competence.
Has McCain really claimed economic indifference/lack of knowledge?
Did he really rely on such a man as Gramm, and is this fellow as painted?
Since the economic situation is surely growing as a major issue, is the press covering this and how is the senator faring?
Warning: Naughty word in the original.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Johann Hari: We have everything to fear from McCain
Thursday, 17 July 2008
When the almost six billion of us outside the US watch the contest for The Most Powerful Man in the World, we tend to focus on the candidates' foreign policies. If I was Iranian, say, I'd be anxious that John McCain keeps joking in public about killing me. As a bravo-bow after singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys melody Barbra Ann, he responded to being told exports of cigarettes to Iran are high by guffawing: "That's a way of killing them!"
But there's a way in which the next US president will affect you even more directly than foreign policy. By his economic decisions, the next president will help swing the price of the food you eat and the wages you earn – wherever you live on earth.
So it's a little worrying that John McCain – who still has a reasonable chance of winning – says: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should... To be honest, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
This is a man who can't tell his Sunni from his Shia, and who opposed the Northern Ireland peace process as a capitulation to terrorism. And he admits he knows even less about the economy than that. On one occasion, he let his irritation with the subject slip by referring to it as "the credit :daisy:".
When he is forced to talk about the economy, McCain has always given the same answer: "I rely on the circle I have developed over many years – people like Phil Gramm." He has Herbert Hoovered-up his slivers of economic theory from this man – but who is Gramm? Until he briefly sputtered into the headlines a few days ago, nobody had cared to look.
Phil Gramm is an ornery old ex-Texas senator who seems to have swooped out of the most scathing H L Mencken sketch. He became McCain's "best friend in politics" – and started speaking to him every day – when they linked arms to stop Hillary Clinton's 1993 push to extend healthcare to poor Americans.
He calls for "ruthlessly" slashing government spending – but only focuses on spending on the poor. When he was told paying for healthcare plunged many 80-year-olds into poverty, he said: "Most of us don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them."
Later, one of those very 80-year-olds approached him because she was terrified she wouldn't be able to pay her medical bills. Gramm laughed and told her to find herself a rich husband. He chuckled: "People say I don't have a heart. I do. I keep it in a quart jar on my desk."
But most relevant to those of us outside the US is that Gramm – more than any other figure in American politics – made the two great financial scandals of our time possible, and nearly brought the global economy down with him.
How? Gramm says government regulation of the economy is "akin to communism", and must be destroyed. His first great step towards this goal came in the 1990s, when he championed and pushed through the law that exempted Enron from both government regulation and public disclosure, on the grounds these were "unacceptable fetters on the free market". Enron was his biggest campaign contributor, and employing his wife to the tune of a million bucks.
So thanks to Gramm, nobody was watching over Enron any more. As a result, they embarked on a massive programme of fraud and pillage. After taking over the electricity market in California, they deliberately engineered blackouts in entire cities to drive up the price for power. In a surreal move, Gramm blamed "environmental extremists" – the nearest bogeyman to hand – even after it was proven Enron execs had paid the power plants to "get creative" in turning out the lights.
Gramm learned from the Enron scandal – to go further and push harder. He turned his attention (and his fund-raising) to the mortgage companies. Since the 1930s, there had been an unwritten deal in US politics: the government would rescue the banks if they grew sick, but in return the banks had to take the sensible medicine of regulation. Gramm thought this was "crazy": why would banks ever need to be rescued in a free market?
So in 2000, while everybody was riveted by the Gore vs Bush stand-off in Florida, Gramm slipped into a vast 3,000-page bill 268 pages radically deregulating the banking system. A legal textbook later called this "a stunning departure from normal legislative practice"; few lawmakers noticed it was there when they voted. Suddenly, the roles that had been reserved in the US for regulated banks were handed over to a vast network of unregulated financial institutions called the "shadow banking system." They began to offer wildly unsustainable mortgages to the poor at supersonic interest rates. Through accountancy-acrobatics, they then bundled these risky loans into exotic packages of derivative commodities.
All this was only legal because of Gramm's legislative footwork. He swiftly moved on from the Senate to a megabucks job at UBS, one of the banks raking in billions from his changes.
Within a few years, the entire system began to collapse without the support beams of state regulation. Sub-prime mortgages predictably fell apart, with 2 million Americans – mostly black and Hispanic – facing repossession. The state has had to step in with a much heavier hand than before – and even that will not prevent a recession now.
The billionaire Warren Buffet pointed out that Phil Gramm has twice tossed "financial weapons of mass destruction" into the US economy. Yet instead of shunning him, McCain made Gramm the co-chair of his presidential campaign, and hinted he might make him Treasury Secretary. McCain – the supposed scourge of buying influence – was even happy for Gramm to be simultaneously a paid lobbyist for the mortgage industry and helping to write his speeches about the mortgage crisis. The Gramm-grip on McCain's policies shows: incredibly, the wannabe-president responded to the credit crunch caused by deregulation by calling for even more deregulation.
The biggest question in US politics should be: would you buy a mortgage from this man? But it's a sign of how shallow the media coverage is that Gramm's ideological fanaticism passed almost without comment; he only became an issue when he made a silly verbal gaffe, claiming America is only in a "mental recession". (In CEO-Land, this is true: they are walking away with $100m bonuses from their failures.) Only then did McCain distance himself.
So it seems for this putative president, causing two major economic crises is fine – but speaking about them crudely is a step too far. Yessir: if you liked the credit crunch, you'll love McCainomics.
07-17-2008, 19:32
Marshal Murat
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
So, Banquo, are you saying that we need to kill Phil?
07-17-2008, 21:09
CrossLOPER
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
My dog for Treasurer.
07-18-2008, 04:02
Crazed Rabbit
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Banquo -
Quote:
when they linked arms to stop Hillary Clinton's 1993 push to extend healthcare to poor Americans.
That basically tells you the man is not near objective.
Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.
What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).
Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.
What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.
That sort of tax increase on small business would be terrible.
CR
07-18-2008, 04:09
Marshal Murat
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.
Which Obama will blame on failed Republican tax policies under Bush.
07-18-2008, 04:28
Sasaki Kojiro
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.
Funny stuff.
A Republican in Congress has suggested going back to the gold standard and eliminating the FDA...if you elect McCain THIS WILL HAPPEN!!!!
07-18-2008, 05:27
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist, who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.
07-18-2008, 07:20
PanzerJaeger
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist, who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.
Don't refute the points or anything.
07-18-2008, 07:21
Banquo's Ghost
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
That basically tells you the man is not near objective.
I don't disagree, but its not the objectivity of an opinion piece that I was asking about but the allegations contained therein.
If there is some substance to them, McCain may be a serious liability for a world entering a complex and challenging few years. Perhaps the economy is not a relevant topic for presidential elections anymore but I am interested in the impact a candiate's record may have on how he handles the next few years.
Because I know Mr Hari is not objective - but does often do his research - I was asking for American colleagues' opinions to balance out what was written - or to confirm it. This stuff is of real interest to those of us who don't get to vote, but whose lives will get affected substantially by your choice in November.
(You might remember the sense of unease that grew in a previous era of lives impacted by decisions not balanced through representation :wink:).
07-18-2008, 07:37
Crazed Rabbit
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
I don't find the article to be truthful; Hari distorts the reasons behind the banking crisis, which began with the rising home market and sub standard mortgages being given out by the banks. Now, as a result of that bad decision, the banks are suffering.
In short, McCain's advisor does seem to be solidly on the right economically, but not to the radical extent Hari alleges, and he has sensationalized his record.
Quote:
Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist, who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.
And let's be clear that you're being disingenuous. :yes:
Quote:
Norquist stated that "the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage."
Quote:
Don't refute the points or anything.
Really. Any way you cut it, such a rate increase on small business owners, who do employ most Americans, would be very bad.
Sasaki - the GOP is in the minority in congress. Also, as a party they are not fond of pushing the gold standard, like the democrats like to push tax increases (especially on those nasty rich).
CR
07-18-2008, 19:45
Sasaki Kojiro
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Sasaki - the GOP is in the minority in congress. Also, as a party they are not fond of pushing the gold standard, like the democrats like to push tax increases (especially on those nasty rich).
The point is you can't attribute the statements of congressman to a presidential candidate just because they are in the same party. Which is exactly what your article did.
You see, it's not a "timetable". It's a time horizon.
07-18-2008, 20:33
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Yeah, Bush appears to be following Obama's positions every chance he gets. It's likely that the difference between the McCain and Obama plans for Iraq/Afghanistan will be too narrow for daylight come November.
As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.
Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.
Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.
07-19-2008, 00:17
PanzerJaeger
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.
Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.
Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.
:coffeenews:
Some more lame character attacks, this time based on an even more innocuous quote and associations with Karl Rove. Ironically, in the mind of a Lemur, Barack escapes the "EXTREMIST!~!" label despite his 20 year association to a certain close spiritual mentor - among others. :inquisitive:
However, I was fascinated by the broad brush attack/rant/gibberish against the evil right wingers intent on making the government "bad" to prove its "bad" and other passive aggressive tendencies. A tin foil hat would have made the experience all the more enjoyable, though. :shrug:
07-19-2008, 01:26
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Mustn't ... feed ... troll ...
07-19-2008, 01:34
Marshal Murat
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Yeah, Bush appears to be following Obama's positions every chance he gets. It's likely that the difference between the McCain and Obama plans for Iraq/Afghanistan will be too narrow for daylight come November.
As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.
Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.
Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.
Play the ball, not the man Lemur.
CR
07-19-2008, 03:21
m52nickerson
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Banquo -
That basically tells you the man is not near objective.
That sort of tax increase on small business would be terrible.
CR
Funny it seems that only 2% of small business would be affected by Obama's plan. Link
Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates. Tax Policy Center, 4/27/07
I wonder were Norquist gets his data?
07-19-2008, 08:18
PanzerJaeger
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Mustn't ... feed ... troll ...
Weakness and personal attacks... business as usual. :2thumbsup:
Really though Lemur, how hard is it to hold one's own in a discussion forum? You swooped in like the Caped Liberal Crusader to discredit the author of a piece without even mentioning one point he made, and all it took was the mere mentioning of that fact to turn you into the proverbial fat girl on the play ground chanting "Sticks and Stones"...~:mecry:
07-19-2008, 08:36
Banquo's Ghost
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Gentlemen, please.
:beadyeyes2:
07-19-2008, 10:08
CountArach
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Which Obama will blame on failed Republican tax policies under Bush.
Because they are at fault :nod:
As for CR's article, I just want to point out that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income.
...
What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.
is simply untrue. First off the economy is already in a recession...
Secondly I looked into the idea that economists wouldn't support Obama and I found this list of economists who support Obama (Including two Nobel laureates). So it is far from one-sided.
I then looked into the bolded quote some more and came up with this article which quite simply states:
Quote:
Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush’s tax cuts, the true cost of McCain’s policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.
So McCain would just leave the budget in an even more disgraceful state than Obama's tax plan.
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?
[Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." [...]
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Not that it matters, since McCain will move toward Obama's position as quickly as he decently can. Hell, even President Bush is copying Senator Obama's playbook these days ...
07-19-2008, 15:55
m52nickerson
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?
[Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." [...]
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
Not that it matters, since McCain will move toward Obama's position as quickly as he decently can. Hell, even President Bush is copying Senator Obama's playbook these days ...
Now if that is not foresight, what is?
07-19-2008, 18:06
Crazed Rabbit
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Funny it seems that only 2% of small business would be affected by Obama's plan. Link
Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates. Tax Policy Center, 4/27/07
I wonder were Norquist gets his data?
No, 2% of people who report some income from small businesses. Not the same thing. 21% of people have some income from small business. That's not the same as people who own small businesses.
Quote:
Secondly I looked into the idea that economists wouldn't support Obama and I found this list of economists who support Obama (Including two Nobel laureates). So it is far from one-sided.
And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. ~;p So it is pretty lopsided.
Quote:
So McCain would just leave the budget in an even more disgraceful state than Obama's tax plan.
Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:
Quote:
Now if that is not foresight, what is?
The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.
Quote:
And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?
What ... ? You expect me to stop attacking Obama's stupid economics? What do you think it was about? The octosquid conspiracy?
CR
07-19-2008, 18:34
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:
Yeah, 'cause Republicans have such a great track record on cutting the budget. Why, after the last seven years, there's hardly any budget left to hate! It's not as though a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress passed the biggest increase in entitlement spending since the New Deal. And if we'll just keep giving the Republicans the keys to the kingdom, we can expect more of the same!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.
Obama argued that the claim of success for the troop "surge" made by McCain and Bush "misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face." [...] And yet, Obama argued, "Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the 'surge.'"
(Which ignores the fact that it's impossible to make political progress without a reduction in violence, but still, you should slam the guy accurately.)
I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What ... ? You expect me to stop attacking Obama's stupid economics? What do you think it was about? The octosquid conspiracy?
I think there's more tribalism at work here than anyone would like to admit. Go team!
07-19-2008, 20:04
m52nickerson
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
No, 2% of people who report some income from small businesses. Not the same thing. 21% of people have some income from small business. That's not the same as people who own small businesses.
I'm sorry, how do you make money from a small business and not own a small business?
Plus your statement has little to do with the fact that only 2% of all small businesses would be affected.
07-19-2008, 21:37
Crazed Rabbit
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
I think there's more tribalism at work here than anyone would like to admit. Go team!
Well now we know where you're coming from.
Quote:
Yeah, 'cause Republicans have such a great track record on cutting the budget. Why, after the last seven years, there's hardly any budget left to hate! It's not as though a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress passed the biggest increase in entitlement spending since the New Deal. And if we'll just keep giving the Republicans the keys to the kingdom, we can expect more of the same!
Where's the 'gridlock is good' Lemur? Voting McCain in with the current dem congress would be giving noone the keys to the kingdom.
Quote:
Uh, no, he said it wouldn't address political reconciliation, not that it would not stop the violence.
Obama argued that the claim of success for the troop "surge" made by McCain and Bush "misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face." [...] And yet, Obama argued, "Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the 'surge.'"
(Which ignores the fact that it's impossible to make political progress without a reduction in violence, but still, you should slam the guy accurately.)
I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.
Well, that's funny, considering here's a video containing him saying the surge will not solve the violence "but will do the reverse".
Quote:
I'm sorry, how do you make money from a small business and not own a small business?
Plus your statement has little to do with the fact that only 2% of all small businesses would be affected.
Guess what; Obama's using spin. According to his data, 21.5% of US taxpayers get income from a small business. His site took this to mean 21.5% of taxpayers own a small business, which I don't think is true.
Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.:dizzy2:
CR
07-19-2008, 21:53
m52nickerson
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well, that's funny, considering here's a video containing him saying the surge will not solve the violence "but will do the reverse".
This is true, but try to stay on point. Obama has been stating that it is time to get out of Iraq, and now so is Bush and soon McCain will also. Your point has only shows he was wrong about the surge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Guess what; Obama's using spin. According to his data, 21.5% of US taxpayers get income from a small business. His site took this to mean 21.5% of taxpayers own a small business, which I don't think is true.
You did not answer my question, how does one get income from a small business and not own one.
Plus it does not matter if 50% or 10% of people in this country own a small business. Only 2% of those who do own a small business would be affected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.:dizzy2:
Your mean this part of the transcript "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world."
So someone typed "bomb" instead of "bombs" and this is your big come back. Weak, very weak.
07-19-2008, 22:01
Marshal Murat
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Your point has only shows he (Obama) was wrong about the surge
If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)
I will agree with CR concerning the spending. Spending has always decreased when one party owns Congress, the other the White House. Republicans + Clinton = Decreased spending, budget surplus. Republicans + Bush = Dramatic spending increase.
When Obama refers to the 'bomb', he clearly doesn't understand that the first attack on Pearl Harbor was actually a submarine assault! Duh! :book:
07-19-2008, 22:18
Sasaki Kojiro
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)
That's silly. Obama said the surge would be counterproductive, and we needed a timetable for withdrawal. McCain said the surge would solve our problems and that timetables would be surrendering. Hindsight tells us that the surge provided temporary relief and that we still need timetables (you know a funny thing about calling it "time horizon" is that you never actually reach the horizon) for withdrawal. I don't see why you'd be more pleased with McCain's approach and backpedaling.
Not to MENTION supporting the war in the first place.
07-19-2008, 22:19
m52nickerson
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)
I will agree with CR concerning the spending. Spending has always decreased when one party owns Congress, the other the White House. Republicans + Clinton = Decreased spending, budget surplus. Republicans + Bush = Dramatic spending increase.
When Obama refers to the 'bomb', he clearly doesn't understand that the first attack on Pearl Harbor was actually a submarine assault! Duh! :book:
1. Well I guess others have perfect records on make decisions.
2. Didn't Clinton have a majority of Democrat's in congress when he was first in office? Plus that fact Bush has had a Republican controlled congress for most of his 8 years.
3. I hope you for got your [sarcasm] tags.
07-19-2008, 23:50
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. ~;p So it is pretty lopsided.
:cheesy: Like it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:
No, I don't think McCain would. McCain is for both a strong military and leaving entitlement/social programs more or less where they are. This means no significant budget cutting (though hammering ear-marks would be nice!). Obama likely would finish his first term with a budget that was not in deficit, or at least close to that level. Remember, Bill Clinton had little trouble doing that once he got serious about the budget as his "legacy," and Obama would be working against less Congressional opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.
I agree, but that won't stop Obama from reaping the better political windfall. Especially after his trip to the region, from which he will return with "new insight" and any justification he needs to tailor his policy where it will do him the most good. My bet is that McCain gains little credit for Bush's "success" while Obama actually picks up a half-notch on foreign policy for "connecting" so well with the Arab world.
07-20-2008, 01:23
CountArach
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. ~;p So it is pretty lopsided.
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well know we know where you're coming from.
Last I checked I was in favor of both candidates. But the fact that I defend Obama from what I feel is a never-ending stream of attacks makes me ... captain librul dem lackey! Woo-hoo! If you're not with us 100% you're the enemy! As I was saying about tribalism ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Where's the 'gridlock is good' Lemur? Voting McCain in with the current dem congress would be giving noone the keys to the kingdom.
As you love to say, way to completely dodge what I was saying ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.:dizzy2:
That is weak, dude. So the transcript has "bomb" instead of "bombs." Is that the best line of attack you can mount? Seriously? This is the **** you want to win the White House with?
Here's an item of interest -- a reporter put together the Top Ten McCain Articles freely available on the web. Looks like some cool stuff.
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Last I checked I was in favor of both candidates. But the fact that I defend Obama from what I feel is a never-ending stream of attacks makes me ... captain librul dem lackey! Woo-hoo! If you're not with us 100% you're the enemy! As I was saying about tribalism ...
Don't pretend that you are going to vote for McCain, Lemur. You have a special place in your heart for Barry and you can't cover it up with quick claims!
07-20-2008, 03:16
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
I get the impression that the right-wingers on the board would be much, much more comfortable if I would just line up behind Obama. Must be part of that authoritarian instinct -- fries or chips, soldier? There's a war on, pick a side! Tastes great or less filling? Don't try to waffle -- we all know you're a "tastes great" partisan.
McCain always was far and away my favorite of the Repub choices. Obama was my favorite Dem candidate. I'm still thrilled it's the two of them. There are ramifications that I'm not going to go into, since it would be taken as flaming by the right-wing die-hards. I am a happy, happy lemur.
I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...
07-20-2008, 03:52
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
...I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...
....in support of a candidate that most conservatives are luke-warm for at best.
07-20-2008, 04:46
Sasaki Kojiro
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...
Well, it's a natural urge to to shoot a man down when you see him giving speeches to ridiculously over excited crowds all the time. That's why a lot of the criticism of Obama centers on "he's just a politician". Why would anyone bother to say that about McCain?
07-20-2008, 05:03
Crazed Rabbit
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
That's true. We all take for granted McCain's a pol, ie. a liar, scoundrel and general knave. You just hope you get one who doesn't lie to much and is only a little knavish.
But Obama is seen by those enthralled (no, I'm not talking about you Lemur, be calm ~;p ) as a great virtuous demi-god who has risen above petty politics, you know - the next JFK, who'll be our savior. So it's a fight just to show him as a politician.
But I don't see, Lemur, how saying Obama's going to be bad for the economy is a 'hyperventilating' attack. The only thing that's hyperventilating, I dare say, is your description of the attacks.
CR
07-20-2008, 05:14
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But Obama is seen by those enthralled [...] as a great virtuous demi-god who has risen above petty politics, you know - the next JFK, who'll be our savior. So it's a fight just to show him as a politician.
You'll get no argument from me on that one. He is a politician, after all, and a shockingly talented one. It's a shame to see his supporters run from this basic truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But I don't see, Lemur, how saying Obama's going to be bad for the economy is a 'hyperventilating' attack.
It isn't -- you had the misfortune to get mixed in with the kitchen-sink-plus that's been going on in this thread. You also rested your entire economic argument on a well-established extremist's op-ed piece, which isn't exactly the bedrock to build a tower of unassailable logic upon. I would certainly have taken less umbrage if you'd found someone who isn't such a complete one-issue demagogue from whom to borrow your argument.
-edit-
Although you have to admit, Rabbit, that if the Pearl Harbor attack you quoted isn't hyperventilating, it's breathing very hard. I mean, face it: that talking point is borderline gibberish. Are we to believe that this over-educated guy, an editor of the Harvard Law Review and a constitutional law professor at Chicago University does not have even a Michael Bay-level understanding of Pearl Harbor? All based on a CNN transcript? And all based on "bomb" versus "bombs"? Which seems more likely: (1) Transcript error, (2) Simple misstatement, or (3) Total, absolute stupidity about recent American history? I'm guessing you went for 3 without much consideration, yes?
The fact that you're even willing to regurgitate weak **** like that smacks of ... well, I gotta say it ... tribalism. In other words, you don't ultimately care how you attack the other side, just that you do so. Somebody said he's a closet transvestite who must kill puppies to achieve orgasm? Run with it! Spread it far and wide! I always knew he was a puppy-killing trannie!
07-20-2008, 06:14
Crazed Rabbit
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Although you have to admit, Rabbit, that if the Pearl Harbor attack you quoted isn't hyperventilating, it's breathing very hard.
Fair enough, but he has made other historical gaffes.
Quote:
Somebody said he's a closet transvestite who must kill puppies to achieve orgasm?
Man, you made me LoL.
Quote:
I would certainly have taken less umbrage if you'd found someone who isn't such a complete one-issue demagogue from whom to borrow your argument.
That's why I tried to highlight the facts in regards to Obama's plan to raise taxes.
CR
07-20-2008, 08:06
CountArach
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Fair enough, but he has made other historical gaffes.
“I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia. Apparently that is in reaction to the Czech’s agreement with us concerning missile defense, and again some of the Russian now announcement they are now retargeting new targets, something they abandoned at the end of the Cold War, is also a concern. So we see the tensions between Russia and their neighbors, as well as Russia and the United States are somewhat increasing.”
Then why did he purge his website of fun phrases like "The surge is not working"? Go ahead and answer with some more quotes from Obama after the fact. :laugh4::laugh4:
Quote:
I will freely admit, however, that I fall for the ceaseless, repetitive attacks on Senator Obama. If there were anything, anything of the like happening with Senator McCain, I'd feel compelled to defend him as well, but there isn't. All of the hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse seems to be coming from one direction ...
Its about intellectual honesty Lemur, or a lack there of. Most of us - right and left - have staked out our positions. My feelings on Obama are transparent, and despite your "independence", so are yours.
You are right though. The attacks on Obama have been far more numerous than those on McCain. Come to think of it, the last hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse on McCain was a vicious article in the oh-so-credible Daily Mail full of rumor and speculation about his first marriage posted by... guess who. ~;)
07-20-2008, 13:43
m52nickerson
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Its about intellectual honesty Lemur, or a lack there of. Most of us - right and left - have staked out our positions. My feelings on Obama are transparent, and despite your "independence", so are yours.
You are right though. The attacks on Obama have been far more numerous than those on McCain. Come to think of it, the last hysterical, hyperventilating j'accuse on McCain was a vicious article in the oh-so-credible Daily Mail full of rumor and speculation about his first marriage posted by... guess who. ~;)
.....and in Lemur's post he says
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?
More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?
So he posted the article and then was asking if he should take it into account. I think this is a little different then posting something and then saying "look McCain is a scumbag and left his sick wife, he will not make a good president."
07-20-2008, 20:31
Xiahou
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I get the impression that the right-wingers on the board would be much, much more comfortable if I would just line up behind Obama. Must be part of that authoritarian instinct -- fries or chips, soldier? There's a war on, pick a side! Tastes great or less filling? Don't try to waffle -- we all know you're a "tastes great" partisan.
I seem to remember a lot of sniping from you over my refusal to support either candidate. Care to outline some stereotypes to explain that? :shrug:
07-20-2008, 20:53
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I seem to remember a lot of sniping from you over my refusal to support either candidate.
What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight. At least, once Fred Thompson had banked his 1% nation of True Conservatives and retired from the field for a mint julep. So you could throw bombs more or less endlessly, while supporting no one and nothing.
Just looking back over that paragraph, I think I may have achieved the Holy Grail of mixed metaphors. Sniping ... dogs ... banking ... mint juleps ... bomb-throwing ... nihilists. Wow. I deserve some kind of prize for bad writing.
07-21-2008, 03:50
Kralizec
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
I'd hesitate to call that a gaffe. Some of my older relatives have made the same slip, being alive since before the split. Add to that the fact that neither country is particulary important...
07-21-2008, 04:30
ICantSpellDawg
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
What irritated me in the primaries was the fact that you only sniped at Obama (shocking, I know) but by your account had no dog in the fight. At least, once Fred Thompson had banked his 1% nation of True Conservatives and retired from the field for a mint julep. So you could throw bombs more or less endlessly, while supporting no one and nothing.
Just looking back over that paragraph, I think I may have achieved the Holy Grail of mixed metaphors. Sniping ... dogs ... banking ... mint juleps ... bomb-throwing ... nihilists. Wow. I deserve some kind of prize for bad writing.
On these forums it may seem to you that more people attack Obama than attack McCain.I believe you are right. I don't like cheap quips about things that don't matter either.
I also notice that this forum is different from the media angle that is strongly in favor of Obama in general (except Fox). We are predominantly attackers here (while I would bet the majority on the forum supports Obama) because there is so much support everywhere else. Obama has more money and more employees than any candidate before him and McCain has a huge handicap in this race. If we stop taking cheap shots about him, can you find it in your heart to understand our frustration? McCain is simply not the most frustrating candidate in this election.
If you want to defend against stupid points about Obama and still want to be viewed as un-biased in this election - don't retort by attacking McCain, but only the foolishness of the comments about Obama. It usually goes like this:
Devastatin' Crazed Xiahou says: "something about the way in which Obama smells funny and is therefore ineligible for the presidency"
Lemure say in response: "Oh Yea?!!!? Obama is great and this and that. McCain is fat and has wierd arms"
Devastatin' Crazed Xiahou says: "You love Obama"
07-21-2008, 04:45
Lemur
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
If we stop taking cheap shots about him, can you find it in your heart to understand our frustration? McCain is simply not the most frustrating candidate in this election.
I do understand that this will be a very tough election cycle for all Republicans, not just McCain. And I get that McCain is not viewed with great warmth by the conservative true believers. I'm not clear on how frustration plays into all of this, but I'm willing to learn ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
If you want to defend against stupid points about Obama and still want to be viewed as un-biased in this election - don't retort by attacking McCain, but only the foolishness of the comments about Obama.
I don't believe I have been attacking McCain, unless you consider those instances when I bring up an area in which one of our Republicans is attacking Obama in a way that would be equally damaging to either candidate. Then, sometimes, I feel compelled to point out that some attacks are bad for all.
I don't give much of a damn about whether I'm viewed as unbiased or not — and I seriously doubt that I am. (What does "unbiased" mean, anyway? I'll take "thoughtful" or "considered" instead, or better yet "funny," assuming I'm allowed to choose.) But it irritates me when others insist that I must think the way they imagine I do, and if I don't I'm being sneaky and deceptive. How dare I not conform to somebody else's notion of my thought process.
As another poster so thoughtfully highlighted, I raised exactly one attack article on Johnny Mac, and it was to sound out the Orgah's opinion on the matter, not to score some ephemeral internet debate point. If this is the basis for my rabid Obama partisanship, what can I say? The True Way must be narrow and difficult indeed.
-edit-
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I also notice that this forum is different from the media angle that is strongly in favor of Obama in general (except Fox).
The thing that I notice about general media coverage is that there's just way more coverage of Obama, period. A lot of it's fluff and some of it's stupid, and lord knows every possible slander has been dragged through the spotlight, but if you weren't paying close attention, you might not notice that Johnny Mac was in the race.
I'd say much the same about this thread.
07-21-2008, 06:13
Spino
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I do understand that this will be a very tough election cycle for all Republicans, not just McCain. And I get that McCain is not viewed with great warmth by the conservative true believers. I'm not clear on how frustration plays into all of this, but I'm willing to learn ...
I don't believe I have been attacking McCain, unless you consider those instances when I bring up an area in which one of our Republicans is attacking Obama in a way that would be equally damaging to either candidate. Then, sometimes, I feel compelled to point out that some attacks are bad for all.
I don't give much of a damn about whether I'm viewed as unbiased or not — and I seriously doubt that I am. (What does "unbiased" mean, anyway? I'll take "thoughtful" or "considered" instead, or better yet "funny," assuming I'm allowed to choose.) But it irritates me when others insist that I must think the way they imagine I do, and if I don't I'm being sneaky and deceptive. How dare I not conform to somebody else's notion of my thought process.
As another poster so thoughtfully highlighted, I raised exactly one attack article on Johnny Mac, and it was to sound out the Orgah's opinion on the matter, not to score some ephemeral internet debate point. If this is the basis for my rabid Obama partisanship, what can I say? The True Way must be narrow and difficult indeed.
-edit-
The thing that I notice about general media coverage is that there's just way more coverage of Obama, period. A lot of it's fluff and some of it's stupid, and lord knows every possible slander has been dragged through the spotlight, but if you weren't paying close attention, you might not notice that Johnny Mac was in the race.
I'd say much the same about this thread.
I honestly don't know if this election cycle is going to be that tough for all Republicans. Since gaining the majority in 2006 the Democrats are doing a bang up job of pissing the average American off. Despite the 'assurance' of having Democrats in control of the Legislature the public still thinks they're doing a piss poor job and so we have Congress' approval less than twice that of our infamous President's and getting alarmingly close to single digits!
Nancy Pelosi had a sit-down interview with Wolf Blitzer last week and when asked about Congress' ridiculously low approval rating all she could do was... blame George Bush and the Republicans! That and she mentioned needing a 60% majority in order to do anything meaningful. The Democrat's $300 billion farm bill went over like a lead balloon with the public and despite the fact that 70-75% of Americans want us to drill for oil off the coast to alleviate the gas crunch and wean us off foreign oil the Democrats are adamantly against it, opting instead to tap into the strategic reserve and push for everything else (so long as it doesn't include drilling for oil and nuclear... ~:rolleyes: ). Obamamania aside I get the feeling the Democrats are deluding themselves into thinking they're going to have another cakewalk this Fall. I mean seriously, blaming a lame duck president for everything from the current state of things to global warming to tooth decay grows old after awhile.
07-21-2008, 11:37
CountArach
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
I honestly don't know if this election cycle is going to be that tough for all Republicans. Since gaining the majority in 2006 the Democrats are doing a bang up job of pissing the average American off. Despite the 'assurance' of having Democrats in control of the Legislature the public still thinks they're doing a piss poor job and so we have Congress' approval less than twice that of our infamous President's and getting alarmingly close to single digits!
According to this Gallup poll a "generic ballot" of a Democrat vs Republican House member the Democrats win 52-42 amongst likely voters. This site puts the Democrats at likely to hold 55 Senate seats, with 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats to 43 GOP seats. McCain has not led in a national poll for a long time and both of the national tracking polls (Gallup and Rasmussen) have him behind. Further, the Democrats have a huge advantage in terms of fund raising (I will dig up the numbers if you want them).
This is going to be a very tough year for Republicans.
