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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

[Kralizec]

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

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

[Lemur]

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

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

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

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

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

-edit-

And as long as we're on Antichrist watch, there's a group that's quite offended by the "One" ad, and I hadn't thought of them -- Christians who do not necessarily support McCain.

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

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

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

[CountArach]

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

[m52nickerson]

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

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

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

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

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

-edit-

And as long as we're on Antichrist watch, there's a group that's quite offended by the "One" ad, and I hadn't thought of them -- Christians who do not necessarily support McCain.

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

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

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

Now what did you say it before?
well here, you stated you wanted to know how he was going to implement and pay for it. This then launched the discussion how things are implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

irrevelant and mote is exactly what your point is.

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

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

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

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

Unless the country is under serious attack or serious threat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is in the bill it self.

PART V--PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

SEC. 15361. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

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

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

He does talk about both,

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

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

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

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

[m52nickerson]

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

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

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

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

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

Again, no answer because you don't have one.

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

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

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

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

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

Laws and regulations as I stated before.

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

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

irrevelant and mote is exactly what your point is.

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

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

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

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

Well have fun with the Mouse then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He does talk about both,

Just not at the same time.

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

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

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

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laws and regulations as stated above.

Again forgetting executive orders - I find you arguement faulty.

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

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

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

its mote.

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

was refering to a spefic comment

Well have fun with the Mouse then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just not at the same time.

So having difficultly then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4134558.story

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

"Everything goes horribly wrong"?

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

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

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

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

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

[Tribesman]

Free trade is perhaps the greatest economic catalyst there is.

So you want McCain to abolish all taxes and all immigration restrictions then ?

[CountArach]

Were the EU, USA, and other countries to cut tariffs in exchange for third world countries cutting tariffs, the poor in those third world countries would be among the biggest beneficiaries.

Yes, I agree. Sweat-shop labourers have a great life now What about Dumping? That benefits no one except the corporations in the richest countries.

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

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

Because that will go down sooooo well in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
EDIT: Not to mention Michigan...

[Tribesman]

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

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

[m52nickerson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again forgetting executive orders - I find you arguement faulty.

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

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

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

its mote.

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

Moot - open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful

Once again you are incorrect.

was refering to a spefic comment

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, you cannot backup your statement.

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

Well you know what they say about opinions.

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

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

So having difficultly then?

At finding a story that may not exist, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4134558.story

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

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

What philosophical concept isn't?

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You did notice I said pre-screen questions - LOL

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

Moot - open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful

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

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

Not at all.

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

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

In other words, you cannot backup your statement.

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

Well you know what they say about opinions.

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

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

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

At finding a story that may not exist, yes.

It exists.

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

As before its common knowledge in the state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your very amusing -

[Kralizec]

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

[Kralizec]

Exactly.

[Redleg]

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

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

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

[Lemur]

It seems that on the McCain blog, the Obama blog, and the Org thread, it's all Obama all the time. You'll pardon me if I find this perplexing.

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

[m52nickerson]

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

It may seem pointless but, I am technically correct.

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

The only things I have been learning is things about you.

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

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

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr...ease_0072.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf

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

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

You did notice I said pre-screen questions - LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It exists.

Then prove me wrong.

As before its common knowledge in the state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your very amusing -

I'm glad you think so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

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

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

[CountArach]

Obama is an orator who lacks substance or experience in making executive decisions. McCain needs to hit him where he is vulnerable. We can afford to make this race about Obama since it is about him anyway. Maybe we can make people sick and wary of him instead of enamored.

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

[m52nickerson]

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

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

So far the race is about Obama, and so far it seems he is Teflon coated. McCain needs to get out and show how his policies will work better for this country then Obama's. Remember it has been said, no publicity is bad publicity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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