Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Lyle O Ross
Sep 03 2008, 12:05 PM
Concession?



Nice. :)


Considering he a "maverick", maybe McCain would just run without one.

And does a real maverick vote with his party 90% of the time? The only maverick I've seen in this election is Ron Paul. (And no Bryan, I'm not converting. :) But I respect a politician who is capable of doing his own thing and is still able to maintain his seat.)



Agreed, There's an article in the Chronicle about the speech, A10.

CRUISER
Sep 03 2008, 02:30 PM
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4406/1903451448635a36aed2ogb5.jpg

the_kid
Sep 03 2008, 02:33 PM
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4406/1903451448635a36aed2ogb5.jpg




Dude she is SOOO hoTT !!!

pnkgtr
Sep 03 2008, 03:13 PM
This sums it up pretty well for me.

Palin: average isn't good enough
She's not qualified to be president, and in picking her, McCain shows that he has little respect for the presidency.
By Sam Harris
September 3, 2008

So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?

The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper's scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain's medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history.


As many people have noted, placing Palin on the ticket has made these final months of the already overlong 2008 campaign much more interesting. Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that's precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television: Don't look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!

Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" poll question in 2004, and won reelection.

This is the part I really like.

This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages -- and loses -- both necessary and unnecessary wars.


McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.

And it might. Palin's nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.

Tune in next week and watch cousin Sarah fuss with our nuclear arsenal ... .



Sam Harris is a founder of the Reason Project and the author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."

Pizza God
Sep 03 2008, 03:25 PM
I know a little more about Obama than Palin, however I would say that Palin is more ready than Obama is for the highest office.

Shoot, Palin has done more in her 2 years in office of Governor, than Obama has done in his 4 years as a US Senator.


What I think is funny is that Obama picked the Old White Guy who co-authored the resolution that gave BUSH the authority to invade Iraq. yea, that is change I can believe in :o

Lyle O Ross
Sep 03 2008, 03:46 PM
I know a little more about Obama than Palin, however I would say that Palin is more ready than Obama is for the highest office.

Shoot, Palin has done more in her 2 years in office of Governor, than Obama has done in his 4 years as a US Senator.


What I think is funny is that Obama picked the Old White Guy who co-authored the resolution that gave BUSH the authority to invade Iraq. yea, that is change I can believe in :o



If you're simply playing a numbers game, neither is qualified. If you are looking at the actions they've taken and how they lead, there's no question. Palin is an embarrassment to the GOP, Obama is clearly a thinking and powerful leader.

As for Biden, he at least has proven himself in many ways. No, I don't love the man, but I don't think you can compare him to Palin.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 03 2008, 03:48 PM
So what you're telling us Matt is that Cindy wasn't good enough for John?

mugilcephalus
Sep 03 2008, 03:52 PM
How can she have ANY foreign policy credentials when she only got her passport a little over a year ago?

CRUISER
Sep 03 2008, 04:08 PM
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/158/sarahpalinsept2008jg7.jpg

tbender
Sep 03 2008, 04:09 PM
She once deployed the AKNG to fight wildfires, so she knows how to deploy troops -- which again, seems to be the Republican definition of "foreign policy."

tbender
Sep 03 2008, 04:10 PM
So what you're telling us Matt is that Cindy wasn't good enough for John?



Not that McCain has ever left a spouse for someone else...

james_mccaine
Sep 03 2008, 04:26 PM
I know a little more about Obama than Palin, however I would say that Palin is more ready than Obama is for the highest office.

Shoot, Palin has done more in her 2 years in office of Governor, than Obama has done in his 4 years as a US Senator.




This current talking point is sheer desperation, or a sign that your intelligence meters have gone awry, or probably in a world of truths, the right devalues intelligence, and feels more comfortable with plain ole simple folk than with people of exceptional talent and intellect. This woman's intelligence pales in comparison to Obamas, as would her ability to make good decisions or lead people in any healthy direction. She appears to be a lightweight through and through. There is a good reason she has not been allowed to be independently quizzed by the press.

Pizza God
Sep 03 2008, 04:53 PM
As of right now, I would take Palin over Obama, Biden, McCain and just about anyone else that ran for President.

I think it was a good pick and increased my chances of voting for McCain over Bob Bar in November.

I know a lot of other that feel the same way.

As far as foreign policy credentials. None of the candidates truly have any of that. Most people running for office don't have any.

I am waiting for the Vice Presidential Debate (the one they will leave Root out of) to decide on Palin.

But from what I have read, I agree with nearly everything I have seen so far from killing the "Road to Nowhere" to selling the private jet the state purchased the year before. She also forced the Oil Companies to pay more for drilling in Alaska. This helped the state raise so much money she refunded the tax payers of her state $1250.

she is also right on the money with the 2nd amendment. (BTW, that pick of her in the swimsuit is photo shopped. In the original, the girl is butt ugly)

james_mccaine
Sep 03 2008, 05:17 PM
Bryan, maybe you should read more about the road to nowhere. From what I read, she didn't oppose it , but supported it. Apparently, after she knew it wasn't going to happen, meaning the Senator was in big trouble, she opposed it. Reformer? (http://www.andrewhalcro.com/the_bridge_to_somewhere)

She has no record of reform. Since when did bullying state executives for personal favors become reform. She is a complete lightweight, destined to be an embarassing folly in the McCain downfall from bold maverick to conservative hack to fool.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 03 2008, 06:32 PM
Bryan, maybe you should read more about the road to nowhere. From what I read, she didn't oppose it , but supported it. Apparently, after she knew it wasn't going to happen, meaning the Senator was in big trouble, she opposed it. Reformer? (http://www.andrewhalcro.com/the_bridge_to_somewhere)

She has no record of reform. Since when did bullying state executives for personal favors become reform. She is a complete lightweight, destined to be an embarassing folly in the McCain downfall from bold maverick to conservative hack to fool.



This is what I've read also.

zzgolfer
Sep 03 2008, 06:40 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2825451797_9e8bcc771d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/13585073@N02/2825451797/)

What's the big fuss, i think palin will do just fine. :D

Pizza God
Sep 03 2008, 08:00 PM
I have not seen anything new sense this weekend other than finding out her daughter is pregnant.

I knew she wanted the federal funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere" but as governor she killed the project along with several others.

I also knew about the "Trooper gate" allegations, which is the only negative thing so far, even though it is only an investigation of who said what when.

She also fired several people as Mayor.

ninafofitre
Sep 03 2008, 11:35 PM
Rudy Juliani is an IDIOT!

He confirmed to me that if the Republicans can somehow fix the election and end up winning.....I'M MOVING TO CANADA!!!

McCain is an IDIOT and he was using the wrong head when he picked his VP ...yeah she is hot but I could find about 6 or 1000 more deserving, more qualified VP's. Just because he gave her the nod he isn't going to get any under the table treatment or maybe that's how she got the gig.

After watching the Republicans it is safe to say that this could be an EPIC BLOWOUT for the DEMs.

krazyeye
Sep 04 2008, 12:16 AM
'Juliani'(Giuliani)is an idiot? Move to Canada. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Pizza God
Sep 04 2008, 12:21 AM
I am not so sure Kev, the talk I am hearing is that the pick of Palin is going to help with the conservative voters who didn't vote for Bush in '04. And yes, there were a lot of them that did not vote. It is only the liberal media that is so scared that McCain got it right (as oppose to choosing Lieberman, Ridge or Romney)

Even Newt would have been a good choice, but Palin is a better choice.

if I vote for McCain in November, it will be because of that pick.

Not that I would have voted for socialism anyways, but Biden as a VP may have been the nail in the coffin for Obama.

I predict a close race this year with McCain edging out Obama.

it has always been true that there are more Democrats than Republicans. It is also true that Republicans do a better job of getting there voters out to the polls.

Pizza God
Sep 04 2008, 12:23 AM
I only wish that more Republicans would listen to the grassroots. It was amazing how much different the Texas Republican platform is from the McCain platform. (Texas has what is considered the most conservative platform in the country)

ninafofitre
Sep 04 2008, 01:13 AM
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4406/1903451448635a36aed2ogb5.jpg



The Conservatives will not all be voting for that H O O K E R ! ! !

playtowin
Sep 04 2008, 01:53 AM
The main reason why the media and dems attack Palin is because she is a serious threat.

Obama on "The Factor" Thursday. He will ask some "real" questions, but what will be most interesting is to see is <font color="red"> IF </font> Oreilly let's Obama "spin" his answers.

btw, when packing for Canada, don't forget your tuque!

kkrasinski
Sep 04 2008, 09:13 AM
I am not so sure Kev, the talk I am hearing is that the pick of Palin is going to help with the conservative voters who didn't vote for Bush in '04. And yes, there were a lot of them that did not vote. It is only the liberal media that is so scared that McCain got it right (as oppose to choosing Lieberman, Ridge or Romney)



Like the folks in this clip? (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Noonan_Murphy_trash_Palin_on_hot_mic_Its_over.html ?showall)

"So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It's not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one." -- Former Bush speachwriter David Frum

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" -- Republican Lyda Green, President of Alaska State Senate

"She's old enough, she's a U.S. citizen." -- Republican John Harris, Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives on Palin's qualifications for V.P.

"Early this morning I saw Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and as we chatted about the McCain campaign (she thoughtfully and supportively) I looked into her eyes and thought, Why not her? Had she been vetted for the vice presidency, and how did it come about that it was the less experienced Mrs. Palin who was chosen? I didn't ask these questions or mention them, I just thought them. Later in the morning, still pondering this, I thought of something that had happened exactly 20 years before. It was just after the 1988 Republican convention ended. I was on the plane, as a speechwriter, that took Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush, and the new vice presidential nominee, Dan Quayle, from New Orleans, the site of the convention, to Indiana. Sitting next to Mr. Quayle was the other senator from that state, Richard Lugar. As we chatted, I thought, 'Why him and not him?'" -- conservative columnist Peggy Noonan

kkrasinski
Sep 04 2008, 09:15 AM
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." -- Sarah Palin

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." -- Sarah Palin

tbender
Sep 04 2008, 10:15 AM
The main reason why the media and dems attack Palin is because she is a serious threat.




A serious threat to our country. Is she going to be as sarcastic and terse to world leaders or Congress when she's in office? She can't fire those that disagree with her anymore. Of course, partly to blame is the McCain camp and the speech they gave her -- none of the speeches last night were very good, unless you like hatchet-job politics. So much for the classy McCain of last Thursday.

Overall, the Republicans showed their true colors last night. Attack the media, attack the other side, spread fear about the other side, and don't discuss your own plans. Karl Rove should be proud.

tbender
Sep 04 2008, 10:27 AM
The Republicans should tell the heads of Boys' &amp; Girls' Clubs that they have no actual responsibilities. They should tell Meals-on-Wheels leaders that they have no actual responsibilities. They should tell the folks who organize voter registration drives and local political forums that they have no actual responsibilities. They should tell folks who organize groups to go help at disaster sites (OKC, NOLA, NYC) that they have no actual responsibilities.


Oh wait, last night, they did. If I were a "community organizer" right now, I'd be organizing my community to vote against McCain/Palin.

ninafofitre
Sep 04 2008, 10:57 AM
The main reason why the media and dems attack Palin is because she is a serious threat.




A serious threat to our country. Is she going to be as sarcastic and terse to world leaders or Congress when she's in office? She can't fire those that disagree with her anymore. Of course, partly to blame is the McCain camp and the speech they gave her -- none of the speeches last night were very good, unless you like hatchet-job politics. So much for the classy McCain of last Thursday.

Overall, the Republicans showed their true colors last night. Attack the media, attack the other side, spread fear about the other side, and don't discuss your own plans. Karl Rove should be proud.



We may not agree on baseball but your absolutely right on here!

Of course the Texicans on this thread that are GOP honks probably think their native son Bush Jr has done a fantastic job in office. Well listen here y'all gun toting, bible thumping, sister kissin, rednecks, McCain is nothing but 4 more years of the crap we have been having to deal with for 8 long miserable years.

I'm tired of the rich getting richer while the poor gets poorer.
I'm tired of warmonger meat heads
I'm tired of our jobs getting outsourced to other countries

so it's time to see what the DONKEY's can do! and the last time a DONKEY was in the white house, I had money, a good job, and things were good. Sure he was getting hummers under his desk but I felt like he was real.

Get the 30 Trillion dollar elephant's out of here

james_mccaine
Sep 04 2008, 11:02 AM
So Bryan, you knew that she was for pork barrel spending when she thought she was going to get it. When she knew she wasn't going to get it, she BECAME OPPOSED to it, "killing the project" as you spin it. Didn't she also hire the corrupt governor's son to lobby for more earmarks coming to Alaska. Besides not caring for fiscal reform, she also abused her power as governor to help out her sister in a custody battle.

None of this seems to bother you, and you still consider her a reformer. Using your standard, almost every politician is a reformer.

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 11:19 AM
I'm tired of our jobs getting outsourced to other countries



Vote for Obama and see what happens to those few remaining domestic jobs.

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 11:21 AM
Overall, the Republicans showed their true colors last night. Attack the media, attack the other side, spread fear about the other side, and don't discuss your own plans. Karl Rove should be proud.



I have yet to hear any concrete plans for change from Obama, just a bunch of rhetoric...

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 11:27 AM
Taxes explained for the Demonrats that just don't understand...

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 11:32 AM
Like a lot of folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their [censored], doing drugs, while I work. Can you imagine how much money the country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

jefferson
Sep 04 2008, 11:35 AM
Overall, the Republicans showed their true colors last night. Attack the media, attack the other side, spread fear about the other side, and don't discuss your own plans. Karl Rove should be proud.



I have yet to hear any concrete plans for change from Obama, just a bunch of rhetoric...



TTru... but his is still beTTer than a homilist's


"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." -- Sarah Palin

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." -- Sarah Palin

MTL21676
Sep 04 2008, 11:38 AM
Sarah Palin might be nuts.

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 11:40 AM
You're comparing a potential president to a potential VP...Anyway, I'd rather listen to a sermon than a pep rally.

ninafofitre
Sep 04 2008, 11:54 AM
Dave did you forget you live in Cali?

You are starting to sound like you are from western Kansas

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 12:00 PM
I realize that I am surrounded by idiots, no need to remind me...

tbender
Sep 04 2008, 12:15 PM
Overall, the Republicans showed their true colors last night. Attack the media, attack the other side, spread fear about the other side, and don't discuss your own plans. Karl Rove should be proud.



I have yet to hear any concrete plans for change from Obama, just a bunch of rhetoric...




That's your counter (and reason) for the Republican's gleeful desire to name-call and character assassinate? Seriously?

Obama's plans may not be "concrete" but at least he's willing to talk about them instead of fire cheap shots at his opposition.

tbender
Sep 04 2008, 12:16 PM
Palin's speech vs Reality (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/04/ap-demolishes-gop-convention-lies/)

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 12:20 PM
Overall, the Republicans showed their true colors last night. Attack the media, attack the other side, spread fear about the other side, and don't discuss your own plans. Karl Rove should be proud.



I have yet to hear any concrete plans for change from Obama, just a bunch of rhetoric...




That's your counter (and reason) for the Republican's gleeful desire to name-call and character assassinate? Seriously?

Obama's plans may not be "concrete" but at least he's willing to talk about them instead of fire cheap shots at his opposition.



Your boy fires just as many cheap shots...

james_mccaine
Sep 04 2008, 12:23 PM
I have yet to hear any concrete plans for change from Obama, just a bunch of rhetoric...



Yes you have, and you know it.

Obama has clearlty stated that he intends to transfer more of the tax burden to the very wealthiest americans. Whether you agree with this or not, he is honest about it and it is a clear change from the last eight years.

A national health care plan than anyone can opt in to. It is laid out ad naseum. Another clear concrete plan for change.

Energy policy. I agree that this is kind of vague, but I suspect that you agree his attitude will be different. At a minimum, he believes that global warming is more than fiction.

Most of the rest....sure, the details are kind of sketchy, and your criticism holds, but your criticism can also be levied at McCain. McCain spends a lot of time knocking down Obama, but what concrete things has he laid out that he will do?

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 12:32 PM
McCain spends a lot of time knocking down Obama, but what concrete things has he laid out that he will do?



Taxes

Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker. John McCain's opponent wants to increase the marginal income tax rate which applies to the nation's 23 million small business owners who pay their taxes under the individual tax rate system.

Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.





HEALTH CARE

John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.





GLOBAL WARMING

John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options. A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

accidentalROLLER
Sep 04 2008, 12:35 PM
CENT for president.

james_mccaine
Sep 04 2008, 12:54 PM
I am no advocate of big taxes, but what McCain and other republicans need to do is start living in the real world. It is fine to cut taxes, but with that cut spending to balance it out. Republicans always talk big on taxes, and often act big, yet they only talk about cutting spending. Apparently, actually acting on cutting spending is not politically expedient. Six years they had complete power and never made the bold cuts they incessently yap about.

I want honesty and sensibility. If the politicians can't eliminate spending, then they have a moral responsibility to future generations to pay for it. McCain, like the republicans from 2000-2006 are afraid to be responsible: a responsible person pays off their debts, and will step up and say "OK, if we are going to spend, we must pay for it." Apparently, McCain puts cutting taxes ahead of paying the bills.

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 12:58 PM
Nice moves, when was the last time you played dodge ball?

Lyle O Ross
Sep 04 2008, 01:07 PM
I have yet to hear any concrete plans for change from Obama, just a bunch of rhetoric...



Yes you have, and you know it.

Obama has clearlty stated that he intends to transfer more of the tax burden to the very wealthiest americans. Whether you agree with this or not, he is honest about it and it is a clear change from the last eight years.

A national health care plan than anyone can opt in to. It is laid out ad naseum. Another clear concrete plan for change.

Energy policy. I agree that this is kind of vague, but I suspect that you agree his attitude will be different. At a minimum, he believes that global warming is more than fiction.

Most of the rest....sure, the details are kind of sketchy, and your criticism holds, but your criticism can also be levied at McCain. McCain spends a lot of time knocking down Obama, but what concrete things has he laid out that he will do?



Actually, they don't know it. People are so ensnared by the media in this country that they can't even think anymore. Obama has been very clear about his plans and his policies and he's been anything but sketchy. He's been labeled by the media so clearly as being with out a plan that the public buys it.

As James pointed out, you might not like his plans, but you can't argue they aren't clear!

tbender
Sep 04 2008, 01:10 PM
Overall, the Republicans showed their true colors last night. Attack the media, attack the other side, spread fear about the other side, and don't discuss your own plans. Karl Rove should be proud.



I have yet to hear any concrete plans for change from Obama, just a bunch of rhetoric...




That's your counter (and reason) for the Republican's gleeful desire to name-call and character assassinate? Seriously?

Obama's plans may not be "concrete" but at least he's willing to talk about them instead of fire cheap shots at his opposition.



Your boy fires just as many cheap shots...



Really? I missed the hatchet-job in his speech. He attacked McCain's policies, his "maverick" claims, and the Republican tactics of divisions and fear. Never heard any snarky comments about the people or their past.

(And yes, there are plenty to make about McCain.)

stevemaerz
Sep 04 2008, 01:31 PM
Taxes explained for the Demonrats that just don't understand...

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



Excellent illustration!

So very true I which more americans truly understood our tax structure instead of falling for the rhetoric put out in the media and talking heads which utilizes class envy to try to demonize the achievers who provide the jobs and pay for most of the tax burden.

ANHYZER
Sep 04 2008, 01:34 PM
So very true I which more americans truly understood our tax structure instead of falling for the rhetoric put out in the media and talking heads which utilizes class envy to try to demonize the achievers who provide the jobs and pay for most of the tax burden.



I try my best to educate the monkeys and alligators...

Pizza God
Sep 04 2008, 06:59 PM
Like a lot of folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their [censored], doing drugs, while I work. Can you imagine how much money the country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?



I favor community service for those that get unemployment or welfare checks.

BTW, I had an employee one time that would refuse to work more than 19 hours. It seemed that at that point, he would not get his check from the government so as to have less money unless he works 40 hours per week.

So in other words, he wanted to keep his government check for not working full time.

the United States has a history of being one of the most charitable countries on earth. We were also one of the most prosperous. Just look what happened when the Tsunami hit, or even when the twin towers were taken down. The Americans donated till it hurt. We do not need our government for "FORCE" us into donating. we will donate to those causes that we feel just. And as has been proven many times (specially by FEMA and Katrina) Private organizations like Red Cross (who was refused entry into areas effected by Katrina) can take care of people much better and CHEAPER than the federal government.


the worst Hurricane to ever make landfall in recorded history was believed to be in Galveston in 1900. They rebuild the island by raising the island several feet and building the seawall.

they did it without Federal Government help. For more information on what Galveston did after the 1900 Hurrican (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20050908-galveston-hurricane-gulf-mexico-1900-engineering.shtml)

Lyle O Ross
Sep 04 2008, 07:04 PM
For those who've not heard this it is too funny. Listen to this accidental recording of Mike Murphy, John's former campaign chair and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan... To funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

playtowin
Sep 05 2008, 01:15 AM
...and I am tired of 2 million babies being killed a year in the name of convenience and being forced to participate in the funding of it.

I am tired of judges who legislate from the bench. It's unconstitutional.

I am tired of my Mariners sucking.

pnkgtr
Sep 05 2008, 03:00 AM
If I could write the tax code, I would have a checklist on each 1040A. It would allow the taxpayer to tell the government how you'd want the money spent. Fifty percent of your taxes would be non-discretionary, the government could spend it any way they see fit. The rest would be determined by the payer. If you're a hawk and wanted all of your remaining taxes to go to the military, fine, that's where it goes. If you think welfare is terrific, send it that way. This way government programs would get exactly what they deserve. No more no less.

Pizza God
Sep 05 2008, 03:46 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkqHG-U_ZTs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkqHG-U_ZTs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

mr smOOOth
Sep 05 2008, 03:49 AM
...and I am tired of 2 million babies being killed a year in the name of convenience and being forced to participate in the funding of it.




Would you rather pay to support them for the next eighteen years of their lives?

Didn't think so.

tbender
Sep 05 2008, 10:15 AM
...and I am tired of 2 million babies being killed a year in the name of convenience and being forced to participate in the funding of it.




Would you rather pay to support them for the next eighteen years of their lives?

Didn't think so.



And in some cases, support them for another 15-20 years (less for good behavior).

tbender
Sep 05 2008, 10:47 AM
A great speech by McCain last night.

Again, a little too much McCain history, but at least this time it came from the man himself. And finally we got some issue related material. Of course, as I was flipping channels, several people mentioned that McCain's changes were Bush's changes from 2000. If that's the case -- and considering multiple people (on both sides) picked up on it, it seems there's some truth to it -- then he's going to have to work harder to deliver his change/reform message.

By the way, did anyone else notice the "You Can't Win an Occupation" banner? Quite a well put statement regarding the current Iraq war.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 05 2008, 11:48 AM
...and I am tired of 2 million babies being killed a year in the name of convenience and being forced to participate in the funding of it.

I am tired of judges who legislate from the bench. It's unconstitutional.

I am tired of my Mariners sucking.



I can't believe I have anything in common with Player... So how long have you been a fan? I watched them in the King Dome. Attendance was so bad that you could buy an outfield ticket and walk around behind home plate... :o remember the trident hats?

Lyle O Ross
Sep 05 2008, 12:03 PM
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/158/sarahpalinsept2008jg7.jpg



I heard an interview this morning that said this one is real? I find this hard to believe does anyone else know? Basically, this is what she did when she was in Iraq, carried out a photo shoot?

Lyle O Ross
Sep 05 2008, 12:06 PM
Nope found the original... Phewwww...

Lyle O Ross
Sep 05 2008, 12:35 PM
A great speech by McCain last night.

Again, a little too much McCain history, but at least this time it came from the man himself. And finally we got some issue related material. Of course, as I was flipping channels, several people mentioned that McCain's changes were Bush's changes from 2000. If that's the case -- and considering multiple people (on both sides) picked up on it, it seems there's some truth to it -- then he's going to have to work harder to deliver his change/reform message.

By the way, did anyone else notice the "You Can't Win an Occupation" banner? Quite a well put statement regarding the current Iraq war.



Here's some McCain history, and present. McCain first became famous for the Keating 5 scandal where he pressured investigators to spare his friend Michael Keating. Ultimately McCain was excused of the charges and got away because it was determined that he simply showed poor judgement... (funny enough of the five Senators who tried to protect Keating from being investigated, the two who got off were ex-officers and "American Heroes John Glenn and McCain. What's even funnier is this was the same excuse that was given when Bush was caught insider trading."

McCain continues to do such favors -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/pol...f65&amp;ei=5070 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22diamond.html?em&amp;ex=1209096000&amp;en=f4d3b2a9a8c68f6 5&amp;ei=5070)

Not only does he protect Big Business but he does so at the expense of small businesses (you know, those entrepreneurial companies that are the mainstay of American growth).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200808/ai_n27975754



McCain really gained his title as Maverick when he put together the McCain-Feingold Bill to limit the influence of lobbyist money on politics. Funny how since he's against big business influencing politics that his campaign is being led by lobbyists. So much for being a Maverick who is going to serve us well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/23/huffpost-exclusive-more-_n_53456.html

sschumacher
Sep 05 2008, 02:18 PM
I think the ultimate way to tax Americans should be based on their weight. Tax the beer gut and maybe we would all skinny up and health care cost would go down. ;)

Lyle O Ross
Sep 05 2008, 02:22 PM
So you're saying if fat = money, we would all be rich? :)

Lyle O Ross
Sep 05 2008, 02:23 PM
On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn�t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: �I�m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I�ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you�re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.�
See Also

* John McCain's idealistic dilemma
* Palin wows GOP, puts Dems on notice
* Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist
* Politico's guide to the conventions

But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways:

First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.

Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).

Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: �Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. � Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.�

Why go there? What trees does that plant?

Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.

Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a �cloud of rhetoric.�

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention�s third day was �prosperity,� but the unofficial theme was �the media are really, really awful.�

Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying �I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,� discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.

�I�d like to thank the elite media for doing something,� Huckabee said, �that, quite frankly, I didn�t think could be done: unify the Republican Party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.�

And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party?

No, that is simply the cynical, media view.

Though as Lily Tomlin says, �No matter how cynical I get, it�s just never enough to keep up.�

I couldn�t resist that. For which I am sorry.

sschumacher
Sep 05 2008, 02:44 PM
Keep it up Lyle. I'm a registered Republican but I'm thinking about jumping the fence and coming over to the Donkey side.

I really don't like either side but when he picked Palin my first thought was more of how can I become one of her interns rather than if she can actually run a nation should the old guy croak. :confused:

I have other questions too.

I wonder if her pregnant daughter's so called future husband had really planned on getting married before all this happened. It's Alaska so couldn't they just "shack up" for a while? That's what we do in Oklahoma. :cool:

I also wonder if he really wanted to go or if he was offered money to fly down to show face at the convention. It would surely help with any future child support payments he might have to make should he decide to score his puck in some other hockey goal. :D

tbender
Sep 05 2008, 03:42 PM
I think Johnston was given a Shotgun-class ticket to St. Paul to appease the party base.

tbender
Sep 05 2008, 03:48 PM
Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying �I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,� discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.

�I�d like to thank the elite media for doing something,� Huckabee said, �that, quite frankly, I didn�t think could be done: unify the Republican Party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.�



In reaction to Palin's speech (and probably that whole night), Obama's campaign received $10 million over the next ~24 hours.

Can't wait until her next speech. I wonder how much he'll make then.

tbender
Sep 05 2008, 05:57 PM
No questions, please... (http://blogs.chron.com/beltwayconfidential/2008/09/the_governor_is_not_taking_que.html)

Nah, she's not base-appeasing eye candy...

playtowin
Sep 06 2008, 02:51 AM
...and I am tired of 2 million babies being killed a year in the name of convenience and being forced to participate in the funding of it.




Would you rather pay to support them for the next eighteen years of their lives?

Didn't think so.

<font color="red">

NONE of the obove!

Without assuming a never ending, corrupt welfare system, this is nothing more than a negative non sequitur. Wefare reform that makes sense is obviously needed.

Did you think about what you just implied? I am asking, are you saying you are ok with the killing of babies if it keeps you from being burdened financially for "the next eighteen years of their lives?" I don't know you, and I am not about to accuse you of something you didn't say but your post is inherently implying somthing here. What else could it mean other than the only way to avoid the "support [of] them for the next eighteen years" would be to kill them? If it doesn't imply that, I'd really like to know how. </font>

And in some cases, support them for another 15-20 years (less for good behavior).<font color="red"> So you agree with the obvious implication above? You just want to add that in "some cases," our financial burden could be longer (depending on "good behavior") than "the next eighteen years" due to the fact that some of them would end up in jail someday?

</font>

playtowin
Sep 06 2008, 03:29 AM
[/QUOTE]

So how long have you been a fan?

[/QUOTE]

<font color="red"> Ever since the days of Bruce Bochte, Bobby Valentine, and my favorite growing up, Rupert Jones. There is a legend/story that he actually hit one out of the dome by smacking one down the isle and somehow it bounced off of something and went over the concrete rail! I don't know if it's true, but it didn't keep me from telling the story to my buddies in grade school growing up! lol

I saw a Randy Johnson 100 + mph fastball get hit by McGuire (A's then) and bounce off the left field back wall of the dome once. That's 500 + ft!!! Dave Niehaus was the best!

Did you live there? If so, I got a hilarious KISW "Leave it to beaver" clip you gotta hear!

Thread drift....Obama sucks! LOL :D</font>

mr smOOOth
Sep 06 2008, 07:06 PM
I am ok with a woman having the choice to make a decision that is right for her.

I too am forced to fund things that I'm unhappy with.

I am forced to participate in the funding of health care for the children of illegal immigrants.
I am forced to participate in the funding of prisons that have death row inmates sitting around for years with appeal after appeal.
I am forced to participate in the funding of aid for every country that sticks it's hand out while we have kids going to bed hungry and homeless right here.

So if you want to brand me a baby killer, go right ahead.

playtowin
Sep 06 2008, 09:45 PM
I am ok with a woman having the choice to make a decision that is right for her. <font color="red"> I am not ok with a woman having the choice to have her baby killed just because she feels thats right for her. </font>

I too am forced to fund things that I'm unhappy with. <font color="red"> So these three wrongs make killing babies right? Not very logical IMO. In fact, I think it is one of the worse arguments one can make for the taking of human life. </font>

I am forced to participate in the funding of health care for the children of illegal immigrants.
I am forced to participate in the funding of prisons that have death row inmates sitting around for years with appeal after appeal.
I am forced to participate in the funding of aid for every country that sticks it's hand out while we have kids going to bed hungry and homeless right here.

So if you want to brand me a baby killer, go right ahead.

<font color="red"> Read the post you are responding to again. At no point did I call you ANYTHING. Branding yourself a "baby killer"is your description of yourself, not mine. You implied that it's ok to kill babies so long as it doesn't impact your wallet. I simply asked you if you understood your own implication. That's not calling you anything sir. IMO you are someone who doesn't articulate the support of "pro choice" very well at all. </font>

mr smOOOth
Sep 06 2008, 11:05 PM
I think that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes. It's her body. End of story.
Now if I were playing for the 'other' side I would make some disturbing sign, stake out a clinic and scream in the face of an already scared teenager. Ohhh, maybe for an added effect, I would take my children along to carry signs as well. Never to young to be a zealot.

the_kid
Sep 06 2008, 11:21 PM
I say you get one free pass and that is after intense pressure to put the child up for adoption because there are plenty of nice young couples who want children.

Anyway after that 1st pass you would be forced to have the child.

JHBlader86
Sep 06 2008, 11:35 PM
The issue is too complicated to choose one side over the other. I used to be VERY pro-life. But after thinking about it there really is no such thing as pro-life. It's all pro-choice because you're still choosing to have the child.

Now while I find it really messed up that as a guy I dont have the right to say whether my baby should be born, and even if I dont want the baby I still have to help take care of it or I go to jail for being a deadbeat dad, but I dont have a uterus and I'm not the one carrying the child for 9 months and having to sacrifice my life and body, That is why as a guy, there really is no way to choose one side over the other.

Pizza God
Sep 07 2008, 12:59 AM
Abortion is a very tough argument where no matter how much you make your points, you will never make any headway.

As for me, it no longer became a choice when I had kids. Just that thought that my wife could have aborted either one of them brings tears to my eyes.

To me, this should be a states right issue, it was until Wade vs Roe. That legislation from the bench is now being fought by the very same person that sued to have the Abortion (and no, she never had that abortion, how do you think that person feels now knowing her mom wanted her dead before she was even born)

Abortion is not an easy choice. Every girl/woman I know that has had one regrets it. (usually much later in life) Some more than others. I recommend those that do not believe in Abortion work on giving these poor women a choice by helping them find adoption alternatives. I bet thousands of lives could be saved, including that of the mothers.

mugilcephalus
Sep 07 2008, 01:18 AM
There are nearly half a million children up for adoption today. Why wait, get started.

Pizza God
Sep 07 2008, 04:40 PM
http://i35.tinypic.com/34oob3m.gif

Pizza God
Sep 08 2008, 02:30 PM
it's a pretty good gaffe of your Interviewer (George Snufalufagus) has to correct you.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XKGdkqfBICw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XKGdkqfBICw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lyle O Ross
Sep 08 2008, 04:34 PM
The issue is too complicated to choose one side over the other. I used to be VERY pro-life. But after thinking about it there really is no such thing as pro-life. It's all pro-choice because you're still choosing to have the child.

Now while I find it really messed up that as a guy I dont have the right to say whether my baby should be born, and even if I dont want the baby I still have to help take care of it or I go to jail for being a deadbeat dad, but I dont have a uterus and I'm not the one carrying the child for 9 months and having to sacrifice my life and body, That is why as a guy, there really is no way to choose one side over the other.



This is closer to how I am coming to view this. I have always been Pro Choice but once you've had a child your views tend to get jerked around.

First watch this. One of the Daily show people tries to get interviewees at the GOP convention to say Choice. It's reasonably entertaining:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&amp;title=Bristol-Palin%27s-Choice

Second, in this issue I'm beginning to think like a Nazi, there should be no choice, you should have to take a test. I say this because of what I see. Even in the well to do daycare we attend, I'm appalled at what I see parents do and how little effort I see on their part to understand their children and what they are going through. It feels as if their decision to have kids was... accidental, or not thought out, perhaps due to family pressure, I don't know, but they don't seem focused on the job at all. It's not universal and it's not education(The high school educated secretary in the company I work for is a phenomenal mother. She knows her kids, is very responsible and it shows clearly).

The poor parenting seems to be about desire to do a good job and a lack thereof. I listen to the horror stories that teachers relay to us about the children they teach and what their parents do to them and I don't even know what to say except it's clear that they are completely uninvolved. The rich ones use nannies to do their jobs and the poor use teachers.

Because of this lack of involvement I tend to support pro-choice, I'd rather that those children never be born than die of heat stroke in their parent's car because their parent was too busy and forgot about their two year old (so far 8 children have died of this forgetfulness in Houston this summer). At the very least I think potential parents should be required to take extensive course work and a test.

Anyway, it is clear to me that too many people who don't really want the job, or don't really appreciate how hard the job is, are having children and frankly, if they want out, they should be allowed out or the child pays.

Pizza God
Sep 08 2008, 05:49 PM
so far 8 children have died of this forgetfulness in Houston this summer



Very late term Abortion. :o





Ok, I realize that is a very sick joke and no laughing matter.

sschumacher
Sep 08 2008, 06:09 PM
Sometimes I wonder if women having litters of 6 to 8 kids at a time were the norm in humans, would this arguement even exist.

tbender
Sep 08 2008, 06:57 PM
Lyle, that's a very interesting way to look at it.


The parents of those 8 should be forced to spend a week inside their car in the same conditions. If any survive, consider it time served.


And Bryan, attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin if half of that story is true...

Pizza God
Sep 08 2008, 11:33 PM
Lyle, that's a very interesting way to look at it.


The parents of those 8 should be forced to spend a week inside their car in the same conditions. If any survive, consider it time served.


And Bryan, attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin if half of that story is true...



A very good article about Trig (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/trig-paxson-van-palin-sar_n_122474.html)

playtowin
Sep 09 2008, 01:32 AM
attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin



<font color="red"> Yeah, I guess you could describe it that way, but you'd be wrong! She didn't have the child to kill it later. She had the child because he is a human being and a gift. You have quite way of looking at the love, courage and dedication that was the antithesis of the parents in that story of 8 children.

I agree, the parents of the 8 kids should "spend a week inside their car in the same conditions" or worse. But to say Palin's choice to love, support and give her (special needs) child life could be called "very late term abortion" is nuts man! It takes alot of courage and strength to raise a special needs child. You should work for MSNBC Bender, just don't apply for anchor, they've finally decided to distinguish between anchor newsmen and comentators. Another liberal experiment gone sour. You'd have an audience about as big as this message board! </font>

kkrasinski
Sep 09 2008, 09:17 AM
attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin



<font color="red"> Yeah, I guess you could describe it that way, but you'd be wrong! She didn't have the child to kill it later.</font>



That's not what he meant. He's talking about the circumstances of the birth.

tbender
Sep 09 2008, 10:00 AM
attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin



<font color="red"> Yeah, I guess you could describe it that way, but you'd be wrong! She didn't have the child to kill it later.</font>



That's not what he meant. He's talking about the circumstances of the birth.



Exactly. David missed the point. It's not about Trig and his Downs syndrome, but about the way Palin blatantly disregarded his life by speaking in Dallas and then flying to Anchorage after her water broke. At best, that's putting your career ahead of your family. At worst, that's attempting to kill the child (abortion by neglect?).

tbender
Sep 09 2008, 11:21 AM
Five Thirty Eight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com)

A neat site for tracking all the polls and the EV, as well as tracking the Senate races. (Can the Dems actually pick up 5 seats?)

The authors work for Baseball Prospectus, which is a great stat-driven baseball site. And yes, they lean Obama, but they do a solid job of analysis and commentary.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 09 2008, 12:32 PM
Lyle, that's a very interesting way to look at it.


The parents of those 8 should be forced to spend a week inside their car in the same conditions. If any survive, consider it time served.


And Bryan, attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin if half of that story is true...



this is one of the many reasons I like Tony, he's way to polite to say boy was that dumb... :D

I am a good liberal, but as a parent sometimes what I see just makes me sick.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 09 2008, 12:50 PM
I don't know, I find Palin Clairvoyant. For example, Sunday morning, prior to the Fed taking over Freddie Mae and Fannie Mack (pun intended), she was bragging about McCain's desires to clean up the wastes of tax payers monies in such things as... Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae. How did she know? Is she a seer, a mind reader or just a clueless git who looks good? BTW - her ratings are way higher with men than with women. See Matt, you're not alone!

BTW - heard a great piece on her husband's expenses charged to the state this morning. Something like 40 grand last year. His expenses are about the wages of a middle income worker! Nice.

Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that Palin was hoping for an act of God while she was winging her way home from Dallas to Alaska?

playtowin
Sep 09 2008, 01:40 PM
No Bender, I didn't "miss the point." I understand the risks she was taking during her 5th pregnancy and guess what? She did too! Your bleeding heart concern for the health of Trig can't disquise your blatant attempt to smear her. Her life is full of evidence of love for her kids. Her chosing to speak and fly that close to giving birth were not an "attempted abortion" as evidenced by a lifetime of life affirming choices.

Quote:

attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin

Unquote

At best, this is an example of just how desperate the left has become. At worst, it's just sick.

DEVO
Sep 09 2008, 02:17 PM
Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that Palin was hoping for an act of God while she was winging her way home from Dallas to Alaska?



Yes, there are quite a few of us that don't think that way! If a loved one of yours was seriously injured and required constant care, would you be hoping for an "Act of God" to end their life?

Lyle O Ross
Sep 09 2008, 03:06 PM
Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that Palin was hoping for an act of God while she was winging her way home from Dallas to Alaska?



Yes, there are quite a few of us that don't think that way! If a loved one of yours was seriously injured and required constant care, would you be hoping for an "Act of God" to end their life?



No I wouldn't, after the age of 36 any competent doctor recommends that you test the genetics of your child to see if it will be a Downs child. This is probably the reason Mrs. Palin knew her child had Downs Syndrome. They test as soon as possible so the parents can decide if they want to take on the burden of having a downs baby or want to end the pregnancy. Ask yourself the question, if Mrs. Palin didn't care, then why did she test? If the child is God's gift, then what you get is what God meant you to get.

I've known multiple families with Downs children - the burden is huge. It often isn't just the parents who pay, but most often the other children in the family who pay the greatest price. My choice would be to abort the child when it was still a fetus. So, in answer to your return question, no I'd never be in the situation that Mrs. Palin found herself.

Now, let me ask you this question. What responsible parent breaks their water, doesn't tell the flight attendants or anyone else they've broken their water, gets on a several hour flight and thinks that's O.K.? Go read the article and Mrs. Palin's comments. She is positively cavalier about risking her child's life.

So, even if she wasn't looking for an act of God, she acted hugely irresponsibly, period. IMO, criminally so. You may think Mrs. Palin is hunky dory, I find her actions to be poor at best and I'm betting if she were a Democrat, the GOP would be calling for her head.

ANHYZER
Sep 09 2008, 05:01 PM
You may think Mrs. Palin is hunky dory, I find her actions to be poor at best and I'm betting if she were a Democrat, the GOP would be calling for her head.



And you would be defending her, so please go back to the swamp...

Lyle O Ross
Sep 09 2008, 07:32 PM
You may think Mrs. Palin is hunky dory, I find her actions to be poor at best and I'm betting if she were a Democrat, the GOP would be calling for her head.



And you would be defending her, so please go back to the swamp...



Actually that's not true David. Go back and read my comments on Obama. I don't support him 100% either. I do recognize what he is and his strengths. If any person pulled the stunt Mrs. Palin pulled I'd think she was an irresponsible git. What I find amusing is that conservatives in this country don't mind it at all when it is one of their own.

BTW - Let's get straight to it. Step up, who thinks this flight on the part of Mrs. Palin was the act of a responsible parent? Skip politics and cut right to the issue.

The reality is that to me it feels like a, "I know this is O.K." kind of thing. That bugs me because we just got done with 8 years of "my gut instincts are all that matter." We had a President who ignored the CIA, who ignored the Pentagon, who ignored the Justice Department (O.K. he just booted anyone who told him things he didn't want to believe in, and fired anyone who refused to do his dirty work.

Sort of like Mrs. Palin, fired all the town staff who she thought might disagree with her, fired the administrator who wouldn't fire her ex-brother-in-law, trusted her judgment on flying instead of asking a doctor or telling anyone, etc. etc. You would have thought 8 years of gut judgment would have been enough. I'd kind of like some leadership who listens to the Doctors and experts for a change. Maybe we could fix our economy, not to mention this war we're in.

Pizza God
Sep 09 2008, 09:04 PM
attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin



<font color="red"> Yeah, I guess you could describe it that way, but you'd be wrong! She didn't have the child to kill it later.</font>



That's not what he meant. He's talking about the circumstances of the birth.



Exactly. David missed the point. It's not about Trig and his Downs syndrome, but about the way Palin blatantly disregarded his life by speaking in Dallas and then flying to Anchorage after her water broke. At best, that's putting your career ahead of your family. At worst, that's attempting to kill the child (abortion by neglect?).



From what I have read, she was not sure if her water broke. Mild contractions are normal in the 8th month. Remember, Trig was born a month early.

Pizza God
Sep 09 2008, 09:32 PM
An Op-Ed piece on Palin in the Anchorage newspaper (http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/518451.html)

Pizza God
Sep 09 2008, 11:24 PM
One of Them and One of Us (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28443#continueA)

mikeP
Sep 10 2008, 09:30 AM
The issue is too complicated to choose one side over the other. I used to be VERY pro-life. But after thinking about it there really is no such thing as pro-life. It's all pro-choice because you're still choosing to have the child.

Now while I find it really messed up that as a guy I dont have the right to say whether my baby should be born, and even if I dont want the baby I still have to help take care of it or I go to jail for being a deadbeat dad, but I dont have a uterus and I'm not the one carrying the child for 9 months and having to sacrifice my life and body, That is why as a guy, there really is no way to choose one side over the other.



This is closer to how I am coming to view this. I have always been Pro Choice but once you've had a child your views tend to get jerked around.

First watch this. One of the Daily show people tries to get interviewees at the GOP convention to say Choice. It's reasonably entertaining:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&amp;title=Bristol-Palin%27s-Choice

Second, in this issue I'm beginning to think like a Nazi, there should be no choice, you should have to take a test. I say this because of what I see. Even in the well to do daycare we attend, I'm appalled at what I see parents do and how little effort I see on their part to understand their children and what they are going through. It feels as if their decision to have kids was... accidental, or not thought out, perhaps due to family pressure, I don't know, but they don't seem focused on the job at all. It's not universal and it's not education(The high school educated secretary in the company I work for is a phenomenal mother. She knows her kids, is very responsible and it shows clearly).

The poor parenting seems to be about desire to do a good job and a lack thereof. I listen to the horror stories that teachers relay to us about the children they teach and what their parents do to them and I don't even know what to say except it's clear that they are completely uninvolved. The rich ones use nannies to do their jobs and the poor use teachers.

Because of this lack of involvement I tend to support pro-choice, I'd rather that those children never be born than die of heat stroke in their parent's car because their parent was too busy and forgot about their two year old (so far 8 children have died of this forgetfulness in Houston this summer). At the very least I think potential parents should be required to take extensive course work and a test.

Anyway, it is clear to me that too many people who don't really want the job, or don't really appreciate how hard the job is, are having children and frankly, if they want out, they should be allowed out or the child pays.



I teach a dropout prevention science class at a middle school and I completely agree with you. I struggle with this issue all of the time. So many of my kids are just happenstance in the lives of their parents. I wish that people had to apply to have kids and sign legally binding contracts. I think tax breaks should be given to those who go through family planning or choose to delay or give up breeding altogether. As a society we spend SO MUCH money paying for the kids whose life environment is focused somewhere other than on them. Also, as a society our social programs are completely reactionary rather than preventative. If you don't take care of your kids they end up in special classes where they have access to twice as much teacher time, materials, etc. as "normal" kids. Don't take care of your kids and society throws money at you. Have kids as a single mom that you have no means of supporting and society foots the bill and puts food in your mouth as well. Sadly enough, I've actually had low SES teenage female students tell me that they plan on having children more or less for a career.

I wish our social policies were more preventative. Financial incentives should be provided for those who make the right decisions, not the wrong ones. Pay structures for welfare should also nudge people in a positive, self-reliant direction rather than fostering dependence. Right now our social policies are driven by guilt and imo actually hurt the poor by fostering dependence and perpetuating a cycle.

tbender
Sep 10 2008, 12:24 PM
BTW - Let's get straight to it. Step up, who thinks this flight on the part of Mrs. Palin was the act of a responsible parent? Skip politics and cut right to the issue.



I'll answer this. No, it wasn't. And I'm talking about the flight to Dallas, not just the one back.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 12:41 PM
attempted "very late term abortion" could also be used to describe the birth of Trig Palin



<font color="red"> Yeah, I guess you could describe it that way, but you'd be wrong! She didn't have the child to kill it later.</font>



That's not what he meant. He's talking about the circumstances of the birth.



Exactly. David missed the point. It's not about Trig and his Downs syndrome, but about the way Palin blatantly disregarded his life by speaking in Dallas and then flying to Anchorage after her water broke. At best, that's putting your career ahead of your family. At worst, that's attempting to kill the child (abortion by neglect?).



From what I have read, she was not sure if her water broke. Mild contractions are normal in the 8th month. Remember, Trig was born a month early.



If I recall correctly, I would have sworn she said something like, "if I told the flight attendants I'm not sure they would have let me fly." That indicates she knew well enough to know not to tell them.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 12:43 PM
BTW - Let's get straight to it. Step up, who thinks this flight on the part of Mrs. Palin was the act of a responsible parent? Skip politics and cut right to the issue.



I'll answer this. No, it wasn't. And I'm talking about the flight to Dallas, not just the one back.



I had the same thought. What about this meeting was so important that the Vice Governor or some such couldn't have gone?

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 12:50 PM
The issue is too complicated to choose one side over the other. I used to be VERY pro-life. But after thinking about it there really is no such thing as pro-life. It's all pro-choice because you're still choosing to have the child.

Now while I find it really messed up that as a guy I dont have the right to say whether my baby should be born, and even if I dont want the baby I still have to help take care of it or I go to jail for being a deadbeat dad, but I dont have a uterus and I'm not the one carrying the child for 9 months and having to sacrifice my life and body, That is why as a guy, there really is no way to choose one side over the other.



This is closer to how I am coming to view this. I have always been Pro Choice but once you've had a child your views tend to get jerked around.

First watch this. One of the Daily show people tries to get interviewees at the GOP convention to say Choice. It's reasonably entertaining:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&amp;title=Bristol-Palin%27s-Choice

Second, in this issue I'm beginning to think like a Nazi, there should be no choice, you should have to take a test. I say this because of what I see. Even in the well to do daycare we attend, I'm appalled at what I see parents do and how little effort I see on their part to understand their children and what they are going through. It feels as if their decision to have kids was... accidental, or not thought out, perhaps due to family pressure, I don't know, but they don't seem focused on the job at all. It's not universal and it's not education(The high school educated secretary in the company I work for is a phenomenal mother. She knows her kids, is very responsible and it shows clearly).

The poor parenting seems to be about desire to do a good job and a lack thereof. I listen to the horror stories that teachers relay to us about the children they teach and what their parents do to them and I don't even know what to say except it's clear that they are completely uninvolved. The rich ones use nannies to do their jobs and the poor use teachers.

Because of this lack of involvement I tend to support pro-choice, I'd rather that those children never be born than die of heat stroke in their parent's car because their parent was too busy and forgot about their two year old (so far 8 children have died of this forgetfulness in Houston this summer). At the very least I think potential parents should be required to take extensive course work and a test.

Anyway, it is clear to me that too many people who don't really want the job, or don't really appreciate how hard the job is, are having children and frankly, if they want out, they should be allowed out or the child pays.



I teach a dropout prevention science class at a middle school and I completely agree with you. I struggle with this issue all of the time. So many of my kids are just happenstance in the lives of their parents. I wish that people had to apply to have kids and sign legally binding contracts. I think tax breaks should be given to those who go through family planning or choose to delay or give up breeding altogether. As a society we spend SO MUCH money paying for the kids whose life environment is focused somewhere other than on them. Also, as a society our social programs are completely reactionary rather than preventative. If you don't take care of your kids they end up in special classes where they have access to twice as much teacher time, materials, etc. as "normal" kids. Don't take care of your kids and society throws money at you. Have kids as a single mom that you have no means of supporting and society foots the bill and puts food in your mouth as well. Sadly enough, I've actually had low SES teenage female students tell me that they plan on having children more or less for a career.

I wish our social policies were more preventative. Financial incentives should be provided for those who make the right decisions, not the wrong ones. Pay structures for welfare should also nudge people in a positive, self-reliant direction rather than fostering dependence. Right now our social policies are driven by guilt and imo actually hurt the poor by fostering dependence and perpetuating a cycle.



Interestingly enough, much of my feelings about this issue come from my friend who teaches problem kids in Arizona. Your post is a pretty good reiteration of what he has told me a number of times. I especially agree with the reactive comment vs. proactive. I think one of the things that bothers me the most is when I see dedicated teachers make a huge effort to have an impact on a kid's life and then watch as their parents tear that apart, not in a directed fashion, but simply through negligence. BTW - let me be clear, this isn't a conservative vs. liberal or poor vs. rich thing, I see it across the spectrum and IMO I see it more in my well to do neighborhood than in poorer ones... :o The cops in our neighborhood are classic in their contempt for parents and their involvement. One statement that particularly comes to mind is "They don't even teach their kids enough common sense to think about how they carry out their vandalism."

The top crime in our neighborhood is teenage vandalism...

the_kid
Sep 10 2008, 01:45 PM
So what about social security?


Repulicams want it privatized and the Democrats want it to go under government control right? Now I don't have all the points which is why I am asking but who really trusts their money with the government VS a private bank?

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 01:52 PM
So what about social security?


Repulicams want it privatized and the Democrats want it to go under government control right? Now I don't have all the points which is why I am asking but who really trusts their money with the government VS a private bank?



LOL,

Have you been paying attention to the private banking sector these days? I wouldn't give them a dime. Of course neither will international investors which is why the.... government is bailing out the FMs and Lehman. :o

Pizza God
Sep 10 2008, 02:19 PM
So what about social security?


Repulicams want it privatized and the Democrats want it to go under government control right? Now I don't have all the points which is why I am asking but who really trusts their money with the government VS a private bank?



The government has no business bailing out all these banks and Freddie Mae and Mac.

As far as SS, yea, we can trust the government to take all the surplus they have had over the years.

You need to watch

I.O.U.S.A

tbender
Sep 10 2008, 02:29 PM
Matt -- other options:

C - put Congress on SS
D - none of the above

tbender
Sep 10 2008, 02:33 PM
BTW - let me be clear, this isn't a conservative vs. liberal or poor vs. rich thing, I see it across the spectrum and IMO I see it more in my well to do neighborhood than in poorer ones... :o The cops in our neighborhood are classic in their contempt for parents and their involvement. One statement that particularly comes to mind is "They don't even teach their kids enough common sense to think about how they carry out their vandalism."

The top crime in our neighborhood is teenage vandalism...



I didn't know you lived in Friendswood.... :)

the_kid
Sep 10 2008, 02:36 PM
So what about social security?


Repulicams want it privatized and the Democrats want it to go under government control right? Now I don't have all the points which is why I am asking but who really trusts their money with the government VS a private bank?



LOL,

Have you been paying attention to the private banking sector these days? I wouldn't give them a dime. Of course neither will international investors which is why the.... government is bailing out the FMs and Lehman. :o



So Clinton signing a bill to give banks full power over loans in 98 didn't have anything to do with it? The reason they didn't have full power was to prevent another depression and look what happens when you give it back to them.

I would rather take money out of my paycheck and send it to a bank than have the government do it for me.

I don't think Lehman will get bailed out either.

james_mccaine
Sep 10 2008, 02:56 PM
Now I don't have all the points which is why I am asking but who really trusts their money with the government VS a private bank?



People who lived through the depression. Also, investors in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and people who lost their donkey with Enron might worry about the pitfalls of giving investors free reign.

Matt, you might want to contemplate how lack of government regulation and oversight has cost this country. Letting the market solve everything might at first seem deep and persuasive in the abstract, but in reality, this philosophy (taken to the extent conservatives rejoice in) has contributed to many economic crises. The private lending institutions, the quasi-private lending institutions, Enron, the savings and loan stuff when you were a child. Probably many more.

It's not a black or white thing, understanding that regulation of the markets is needed doesn't make you a socialist or evil, it might just reflect an acceptance that the philosophy has failed too many times. All I'm saying is that relying on individuals to invest wisely, or to not cry for a bailout after they lose their shirt in the market might be pretty naive. It's basically what we've done with other things, and have ended up having to bail them out in the end, at a tremendous cost to taxpayers.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 04:00 PM
So what about social security?


Repulicams want it privatized and the Democrats want it to go under government control right? Now I don't have all the points which is why I am asking but who really trusts their money with the government VS a private bank?



LOL,

Have you been paying attention to the private banking sector these days? I wouldn't give them a dime. Of course neither will international investors which is why the.... government is bailing out the FMs and Lehman. :o



So Clinton signing a bill to give banks full power over loans in 98 didn't have anything to do with it? The reason they didn't have full power was to prevent another depression and look what happens when you give it back to them.

I would rather take money out of my paycheck and send it to a bank than have the government do it for me.

I don't think Lehman will get bailed out either.



Come on Matt, no stream of conscious posting. Where you get the notion that I somehow think Clinton or anything he did was O.K. bemuses me. Even more so, how you tie that in to your original post leaves me at a loss.

But, you are correct. Clinton did more to help Big Business and deregulation that any other President. That is why I often refer to him as a closet Republican. More so, it points out nicely the influence that big money has on government and should show clearly who our politicians work for, Democrat or Republican. One might pose the question, if government worked for us instead of the rich, would government operate better per chance?

Back on point, you asserted that big banks could do a better job with SS (to which I think you meant the open market aka the stock market). I don't think either is a good idea. Big Banks, whether they are messing up because Clinton allowed them to or simply because they're incompetent matters not a whit. As for the stock market, any person fully relying on the stock market in today's climate would be scared to death (that is, people on the margin with a small amount of investment). Better put them in a vehicle that isn't quite so dynamic.

The stock market works for people with money and time. If you have those two things the fluctuations in the market are easily ridden out. If you have neither (like a low income retiree) your hosed. The only player winning in that game is those vested in the stock market per say.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 04:06 PM
Now I don't have all the points which is why I am asking but who really trusts their money with the government VS a private bank?



People who lived through the depression. Also, investors in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and people who lost their donkey with Enron might worry about the pitfalls of giving investors free reign.

Matt, you might want to contemplate how lack of government regulation and oversight has cost this country. Letting the market solve everything might at first seem deep and persuasive in the abstract, but in reality, this philosophy (taken to the extent conservatives rejoice in) has contributed to many economic crises. The private lending institutions, the quasi-private lending institutions, Enron, the savings and loan stuff when you were a child. Probably many more.

It's not a black or white thing, understanding that regulation of the markets is needed doesn't make you a socialist or evil, it might just reflect an acceptance that the philosophy has failed too many times. All I'm saying is that relying on individuals to invest wisely, or to not cry for a bailout after they lose their shirt in the market might be pretty naive. It's basically what we've done with other things, and have ended up having to bail them out in the end, at a tremendous cost to taxpayers.



I should have read what James posted before I replied. Hey Matt, what James said!

BTW - you should for kicks read the Bible thread where there was a discussion of Ayn Rand. Ayn made a come back in recent years, she is being pushed by business schools and big business. She exemplifies the open market solves all philosophy. It was dumb when she wrote it and has been proven inviable numerous times. In such situations, the rich get rich and the poor get poor. Without knowing, I suspect that the rich get less rich than they would in a more equitable carefully controlled environment but that model has only been tested in the field. Take China. A carefully controlled environment where trade, money, just about everything is controlled. How many of the richest people are in that country right now? How has their control of their currency helped? Don't get me wrong, if you take the Chinese model and say control works you're making a mistake IMO, but it does pose some interesting questions about growth in a controlled market.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 05:27 PM
For your lite reading pleasure:



Did Sarah Palin wrongfully push to have her ex-brother-in law fired? Was she really against the "Bridge to Nowhere?" Did she really sell Alaska's plane on eBay, or just list it on eBay? Did she actually have any substantial duties commanding the Alaska National Guard?

The correct answer to all these questions is: who cares? Which isn't to say these aren't valid questions, or that Palin and the McCain camp aren't playing it fast, loose, and coy with each of them. The point is that Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are simply a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing.

Every second of this campaign not spent talking about the Republican Party's record, and John McCain's role in that record, is a victory for John McCain.

Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.

Just look at the problem John McCain faced. George Bush has a disastrous record, and the country knows it. John McCain -- the current one, not the one who vanished eight years ago -- has no major disagreements with George Bush (and I'm sorry, wanting to fire Donald Rumsfeld a bit sooner doesn't qualify) and wants to continue his incredibly unpopular policies for another four years. The solution? Enter Sarah Palin, a Trojan Moose carrying four more years of disaster.

And the plan has worked beautifully. Just look at what's being discussed just 57 days before the election. Is it the highest unemployment rate in five years? The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The suicide bombing yesterday in Iraq that killed six people and wounded 54 -- in the same market where last month a bomb killed 28 people and wounded 72? That the political reconciliation that was supposedly the point of "the surge" is nowhere near happening? That Iraq's Shiite government is now rounding up the American-backed Sunni leaders of the Awakening? That the reason 8,000 soldiers may be leaving Iraq soon is so more can be deployed to Afghanistan where the Taliban is steadily retaking the country?

No. We're talking about whether Sarah Palin was or was not a good mayor, whether she was or was not a good mother, whether her skirts are too short and her zingers too sarcastic.

Contrary to what we're hearing 24/7 in the media, the next few weeks are not a test of Sarah Palin. The next few weeks are a test of Barack Obama.

He needs to dramatically redirect this election back to a discussion over the issues that really matter -- the issues that will impact the future of this country. A presidential campaign is a battle and this is the time for Obama to show some commander-in-chief skills. I'm not talking about calling Palin out for lying about his record and demeaning community organizing. I'm talking about grabbing the political debate by the throat. The country is already angry about what's happened over the last seven-plus years -- he shouldn't be afraid to give voice to that anger. Obama has spent years adopting a non-threatening persona; but he can't let his fear that appearing like an "angry Black man" (a stereotype not-too-subtly fueled by Fox News) will turn off swing voters keep him from channeling the disgust and outrage felt by so many voters --swing and otherwise.

McCain's team, in an effort to distract, is going to keep doing what they're doing -- diverting voters and the media with a tantalizing combination of personal trivia and small lies. It doesn't matter if they're caught in them -- in fact, all the better. Because they know there is no way in hell they can win if this election is about the big truth of the Bush years.

McCain's real running mate is George Bush and the failed policies of the Republican Party. Even if they are dressed up in a skirt, lipstick, and Tina Fey glasses.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 10 2008, 05:54 PM
This speech written in 1933 has as much merit today as it did then. Some things remain great.

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States--a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others-- the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stem performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.

Pizza God
Sep 10 2008, 05:54 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/suVBzevI_eE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/suVBzevI_eE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

kkrasinski
Sep 10 2008, 06:02 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BR8IhMMhe8w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BR8IhMMhe8w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

playtowin
Sep 11 2008, 01:47 AM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners

mugilcephalus
Sep 11 2008, 02:05 AM
Maybe if you start teaching them that early they'll know how not to get pregnant.

playtowin
Sep 11 2008, 02:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI

Phone call
(3:00 a.m.)

Barry: Yo Hillary? You up? Here's how it's goin' down. Biden is gonna get sick, I dunno, he ate some bad pork or somethin'. Bottom line is I need ya forshizzle! Don't worry 'bout this "do nothin' congress," we're gonna get your universal health care passed! Please forgive me "sweetie?"

Hillary: That three a.m. crap was just to get the nomination you idiot! click!!

playtowin
Sep 11 2008, 02:18 AM
Maybe if you start teaching them that early they'll know how not to get pregnant.



Yeah, learning to read from a condom pack is a great plan!

Did you know that 40% of abortions are perfomed on women who USED protection?

mugilcephalus
Sep 11 2008, 02:28 AM
Oh please do engage and be prepared to provide published peer-reviewed data.

playtowin
Sep 11 2008, 03:59 AM
I can't find the original source I first learned this from. This one say's 54%. Check out Australia's % btw. Wow! But no matter what it is, 54% or 40%, it doesn't change the fact that handing out condoms and pills does not decrease sexual activity among children. It encourages it.

And before anyone continues the Palin bashing because of her daughters choice, just ask yourself one simple question: did you do everything your parents taught you at 17 years old? Did your choice to disobey them change the validity of their instruction in any way? Since your so into numbers, here's one you can't deny: 100% of the time that abstinence is used, it works!

<font color="blue"> "Of women obtaining abortions, 54% were using a birth control method during the time they became pregnant." </font>

http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionfailure/a/aboutabortion.htm

BTW, if you really care to be educated on this subject, learn what is really going on with that "fetus" that so many call "not human yet." It is truly amazing that nearly 50 million babies have been killed since 1973 in America and nearly 40 million a year worldwide. Believe in God or not, it won't change the fact that these are still human beings!

switzerdan
Sep 11 2008, 06:38 AM
Here's some interesting reading for all you uptight Americans that think abstinence is the answer.

Educate your children! (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm)

tbender
Sep 11 2008, 07:39 AM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners




You do realize that everyone knows that this commercial is a lie, right?

It was a pedophilia awareness bill. I assume you are against pedophilia, yes?

Lyle O Ross
Sep 11 2008, 11:30 AM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners



I'm sorry but this is just another GOP swift boat that hasn't an ounce of truth to it. How pathetic!

Lyle O Ross
Sep 11 2008, 11:32 AM
I can't find the original source I first learned this from. This one say's 54%. Check out Australia's % btw. Wow! But no matter what it is, 54% or 40%, it doesn't change the fact that handing out condoms and pills does not decrease sexual activity among children. It encourages it.

And before anyone continues the Palin bashing because of her daughters choice, just ask yourself one simple question: did you do everything your parents taught you at 17 years old? Did your choice to disobey them change the validity of their instruction in any way? Since your so into numbers, here's one you can't deny: 100% of the time that abstinence is used, it works!

<font color="blue"> "Of women obtaining abortions, 54% were using a birth control method during the time they became pregnant." </font>

http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionfailure/a/aboutabortion.htm

BTW, if you really care to be educated on this subject, learn what is really going on with that "fetus" that so many call "not human yet." It is truly amazing that nearly 50 million babies have been killed since 1973 in America and nearly 40 million a year worldwide. Believe in God or not, it won't change the fact that these are still human beings!



Baloney sandwich anyone?

Go read Switzerdan's thread. It isn't like this information is new, we've known for a long time that education works and works well. It's the reason why all those schools incorporated sex ed into their curriculum. If I recall correctly, it was working well here too, until we discovered abstinence... LOL.

Lyle O Ross
Sep 11 2008, 03:46 PM
Small town values

The GOP mantra: watch these interviews from the GOP convention, they say it all.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index....all-Town-Values (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184114&amp;title=The-Best-F#&amp;king-News-Team-Ever---Small-Town-Values)

kkrasinski
Sep 11 2008, 06:41 PM
While it's true that according to the Guttmacher Institute (Family Planning Perspectives Volume 28, Number 4, July/August 1996) (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2814096.html) 58% of respondents in their '94-'95 abortion survey said they used a contraceptive the month they got pregnant, it's also true that the same institute shows a remarkable decrease (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/index.html) in unwanted pregnancy when the contraceptive device is used as intended. This illustrates the need and effectiveness of education.

playtowin
Sep 11 2008, 11:24 PM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners




You do realize that everyone knows that this commercial is a lie, right?

It was a pedophilia awareness bill. I assume you are against pedophilia, yes?



<font color="red">Yes, I am obviously "against pedophila." Please tell me where "pedophilia" is found in this portion of the bill? Please tell me how teaching a 4 year old how to use a condom is keeping him/her from pedophiliacs? You call "this commercial a lie." Please tell me what part of this commercial is a lie?

I've looked at the full bill. I got tired-eye trying to find the part about pedophilia. If it is in there, then great, but it doesn't change what else is in it. Which was my ENTIRE POINT!

If "everyone knows it's a lie" then it shouldn't be hard to show me. If you can't show me, then apparently just ask anyone! </font>

playtowin
Sep 12 2008, 03:09 AM
Here's some interesting reading for all you uptight Americans that think abstinence is the answer.

Educate your children! (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm)



<font color="red"> Abstinence is 100% effective when properly taught and used. Contraception is less than 100% effective, even when taught and properly used (no matter what country). Right?

So if <font color="black"> "the answer" </font> has anything to do with effectiveness, then it isn't hard to see that abstinence is the best choice. I agree that abstinence is not the answer in a world-view of moral relativism. The problem is that we (humanity, anywhere) tend to reject the most effective answer for OUR OWN answers.

It's really that simple. You can choose to make it complicated if you like, but why would you? Because it's "too impractical?" Not "realistic?" Well how practical or realistic is it to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic? Get in the lifeboat! It's "effective" when it is "used." If you don't know how to "use it" then get help. It's kinda urgent!

My faith is not in a president. But my vote is for the ticket that best reflects moral clarity in it's voting record and policies. The legitimacy of Obama's profession of faith, saying "Jesus is my Lord," is not mine to question. His profession of faith in light of his policies and voting record is mine to question when he's expecting my vote.

</font>

switzerdan
Sep 12 2008, 04:54 AM
There is no question that abstinence is 100% effective in preventing teen pregnancy. However, it's also unrealistic. Sex is a natural part of being a human and we're going to explore and experiment with it - usually at a younger age than most parents would like.

Therefore, it makes sense to educate our children so that they can deal with it with as much knowledge as possible.

Teen pregnancy rate is USA where abstinence is the preferred 'education': 43 per 1000.

Teen pregnancy rate in Switzerland where sexual issues are discussed openly, birth control is widely available and children are educated: 5.5 per 1000.

I'd say the system here works better than the one there.

Why do so many Americans hold on to these dogmatic beliefs about sex when all the evidence shows that they have by far the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world? For once, just open your eyes and look at the problem objectively instead of relying on that same 2000 year old philosophy. Try reality for a change instead of mysticism.

tbender
Sep 12 2008, 07:22 AM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners




You do realize that everyone knows that this commercial is a lie, right?

It was a pedophilia awareness bill. I assume you are against pedophilia, yes?



<font color="red">Yes, I am obviously "against pedophila." Please tell me where "pedophilia" is found in this portion of the bill? Please tell me how teaching a 4 year old how to use a condom is keeping him/her from pedophiliacs? You call "this commercial a lie." Please tell me what part of this commercial is a lie?

I've looked at the full bill. I got tired-eye trying to find the part about pedophilia. If it is in there, then great, but it doesn't change what else is in it. Which was my ENTIRE POINT!

If "everyone knows it's a lie" then it shouldn't be hard to show me. If you can't show me, then apparently just ask anyone! </font>



The commercial is a lie. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html)

mikeP
Sep 12 2008, 10:03 AM
Here's some interesting reading for all you uptight Americans that think abstinence is the answer.

Educate your children! (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm)



<font color="red"> Abstinence is 100% effective when properly taught and used. Contraception is less than 100% effective, even when taught and properly used (no matter what country). Right?

So if <font color="black"> "the answer" </font> has anything to do with effectiveness, then it isn't hard to see that abstinence is the best choice. I agree that abstinence is not the answer in a world-view of moral relativism. The problem is that we (humanity, anywhere) tend to reject the most effective answer for OUR OWN answers.

It's really that simple. You can choose to make it complicated if you like, but why would you? Because it's "too impractical?" Not "realistic?" Well how practical or realistic is it to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic? Get in the lifeboat! It's "effective" when it is "used." If you don't know how to "use it" then get help. It's kinda urgent!

My faith is not in a president. But my vote is for the ticket that best reflects moral clarity in it's voting record and policies. The legitimacy of Obama's profession of faith, saying "Jesus is my Lord," is not mine to question. His profession of faith in light of his policies and voting record is mine to question when he's expecting my vote.

</font>



I'm sure Palin taught her daughter abstinence 100% of the time. :confused: :confused:

The fact of the matter is, we can't trust young people to "abstain". The part of your brain that controls decision making and the ability to weigh the consequences of your actions against immediate gratification is not fully developed until your mid to late 20's. No matter how much guilt they have thrust upon them, teenagers are going to engage in sex. Teaching hard line abstinence causes more secretive sexual behavior (you can't stop nature). The most frightening consequence to teens having sex in this case is not pregnency or STDs (brain not developed), but rather getting caught. So what are contraceptives to these poor teens (ms. palin included)? Simply an easier way to get caught. Condoms leave evidence--not only evidence to get caught, but also a guilty reminder of the act (guilty b/c they have been taugh to be ashamed). So it becomes easier for the teens to just let go without thinking of any consequences, and to simply not talk to anyone about it, especially adults. The absolute consequence is more teen pregnency.

I was raised in the church and taught abstinence. My parents were realistic and allowed me to recieve sexual education in high school (it was still VERY conservative). I now work with lower SES teenagers in a dropout prevention setting in a middle school. I don't trust my kids to not have sex--especially when many of their mothers were pregnant as teens. It is completely unrealistic. These kids are taught so few things by their parents and do not recieve enough attention. They are looking for sex and I cannot fill the holes in their emotional lives to convince them to look for comfort elsewhere. My kids SHOULD NOT BE HAVING KIDS!!!! They need to be taught openly about contraception from an adult that they trust enough to ask questions. I'm not sure how much time you spend with the lower SES youth of America, but I suspect very little b/c your views on this issue are completely unrealistic.

jefferson
Sep 12 2008, 10:21 AM
And before anyone continues the Palin bashing because of her daughters choice


yes choice, good to see she had one

MTL21676
Sep 12 2008, 10:56 AM
Sarah Palin MIGHT be the devil

http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/about-sarah-palin-a-letter-from-anne-kilkenny/741/

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 11:25 AM
I like Palin even more now...The author has been jealous of her since Palin stole her boyfriend in high school.

playtowin
Sep 12 2008, 11:30 AM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-voted-for-sex-ed-for-kindergartners




The commercial is a lie. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html)

[/QUOTE]

It's not worded in a way you like, but admittedly, other than a sensationlized description of his accomplishments, (during a presidential campaign!) there is nothing unfactual in that add.

BTW, anyone can see that his list of accomplishments are very thin. Hence, his claim that campaigning (longer than he's actually been doing his job as a senator) is more valuable than Palin's experience as a governor

He did vote for a bill that includes sex ed for kinders. Dress it up any way you like if that makes you feel better, it's a fact, not a lie. Then he bragged about it to the deathmerchants at planned parenthood. That's a fact, not a lie.

But if you are drinking the Obama kool-aid, I can see why it is hard for you to focus on those facts and how quickly you'd want to defend his actions. That's fine, but it doesn't change these facts. That's the nature of political adds. They are designed to prevoke and it works on both sides. It's a matter of the "anointed ones" actions being criticized in a way that gets his supporters panties in a wad. Poke, poke! ;) But it's not a "lie."

This ( http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-debunks-barack-obama-s-new-r656195.htm ) is an example of a campaign add that is factually incorrect, or as you would put it, a "lie."

MTL21676
Sep 12 2008, 11:33 AM
I like Palin even more now...The author has been jealous of her since Palin stole her boyfriend in high school.



Blatant hypocrit.

She talks about the constitution and upholding it but then wants to take books out of the library.

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 11:34 AM
She's hot though...

MTL21676
Sep 12 2008, 11:37 AM
She's hot though...



I'll give ya that.

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 11:38 AM
You couldn't get a job at McDonald's and become district manager after 143 days of experience. You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon. You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience. You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience. You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience. You couldn't get a job as Director of Nursing after 143 days experience as an RN.

BUT......

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World...143 days.

We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start. AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this, clearly ignorant people...

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 11:46 AM
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4d424aaf60.jpg

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/54859524fc.jpg

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5942c81a3b.jpg

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d9c9d58d8c.gif

mugilcephalus
Sep 12 2008, 11:55 AM
She clearly did not know what the Bush Doctrine was in her interview with Gibson. She's running for VP and she was unaware of the Bush Doctrine? Do they not get cable news in Alaska?

james_mccaine
Sep 12 2008, 12:04 PM
143 days of experience????

This is the most bogus argument. Who actually values experience over ability? When I first came across Obama, heard him speak, heard him interviewed, heard him in debates, I always focused on whether his mind was sharp, whether he was honest, did his ideas make sense, how does he manage things, etc. Never once in my internal evaluation did I say "Just how much experience does he have," and then dissect what experience is credited, and what is not. I did the same with my internal evaluation of Palin.

The whole experience debate is driven by partisans trying to fashion some argument. Obviously, McCain himself doesn't believe experience is very meaningful when deciding who is capable and who is not. I think everyone who is honest about things feels the same way.

playtowin
Sep 12 2008, 12:20 PM
And before anyone continues the Palin bashing because of her daughters choice


yes choice, good to see she had one



<font color="red"> And her poor choice produced consequences. Now she's presented with another choice. But I doubt she'll compound one bad choice by making another one.

Fortunately for her, the unconditional love that surrounds that poor choice produces a healthy outlook for dealing with the consequences of her actions. Not fear, isolation, guilt, shame and unhealthy remorse that plauges the minds of women who've made the poor choice of abortion.

In no way is that a judgment of those women. It is a very common result of those actions. </font>

playtowin
Sep 12 2008, 05:25 PM
143 days of experience????

This is the most bogus argument.



Not according to Obama:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/02/obama-i-have-more-executive-experience-than-palin/

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 05:40 PM
The best thing about the election so far is that the media, the demonrats, and Obama all keep drawing comparisons to Palin. She is a potential VP, Obama is a potential president; he is clearly not ready for primetime...

sschumacher
Sep 12 2008, 05:57 PM
That is because we are waiting for a Palin sex tape to come out. :)

Big E
Sep 12 2008, 06:02 PM
Does anyone else notice how much he stutters during interviews? That to me is someone that is constantly trying to fabricate a response and not speaking from the heart! I think the VP is a train wreck he just said at a speech the other day Hillary was qualified to be president let alone vice president and probably would have been a better choice than himself :confused: Way to undermine the presidential candidate that picked you and is depending on you! Maybe Hillary has a plan to use Biden to undermine Obama from within :eek:

tbender
Sep 12 2008, 06:05 PM
But it's not a "lie."



From the dictionary:
lie
�noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying.

tbender
Sep 12 2008, 06:25 PM
Someone finally asks McCain to respond to his ad strategy... (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/12/mccain_gets_an_earful_on_the_v.html)


...of course it had to be there since he hasn't held an open press conference in 3-4 weeks.

playtowin
Sep 12 2008, 06:31 PM
You're right Bender. Obama is clearly the man to represent America.

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/09/12-1412425205T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=12-141242L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=09&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=5205&amp;srv=img3)

tbender
Sep 12 2008, 06:47 PM
Really? That's the comeback? He's not patriotic enough? Didn't we already cover that bogus argument in this thread?

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 06:48 PM
http://workingsocially.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/obama1.GIF

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 06:50 PM
http://frederickfoxtrott.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/obama-005.jpg

ANHYZER
Sep 12 2008, 06:54 PM
http://africanpress.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/obama-004.jpg

JHBlader86
Sep 12 2008, 11:11 PM
Man I never knew how defensive and dicky Democrats could be until yesterday. In one of my classes, we were watching a brief news clip on the election, and this one girl asked me who I was voting for. I said I was voting 3rd party because I didnt support either candidate. She said "you should vote Obama" and I replied I dont support either candidate. Again, she said I needed to vote Obama, and I said I'm voting 3rd party. And she was like "why would you waste your vote?" and I told her no vote is ever wasted. They are my views that need to be respected, and I'm doing this as a protest vote to show I dont support either candidate and to show we need more centrists and libertarians and independents in office. Her reply, "It's a douchebag vote." I was like arent liberals such as yourself supposed to be tolerant and accepting of others beliefs? She gave me the most [censored] off look and turned around. Didnt speak to me the entire class after that.

Just another example of why I'm an independent and why we need more independents in this country instead of partisan divides.

There's an actual study based on real facts that liberals are moving in the urban areas and the conservatives are moving into more suburban and boonies type areas. Self segregation at its finest. How are we supposed to be Americans if we cant stand each other to the point where we segregate ourselves. So sad and pitiful.

mikeP
Sep 13 2008, 04:26 PM
Man I never knew how defensive and dicky Democrats could be until yesterday. In one of my classes, we were watching a brief news clip on the election, and this one girl asked me who I was voting for. I said I was voting 3rd party because I didnt support either candidate. She said "you should vote Obama" and I replied I dont support either candidate. Again, she said I needed to vote Obama, and I said I'm voting 3rd party. And she was like "why would you waste your vote?" and I told her no vote is ever wasted. They are my views that need to be respected, and I'm doing this as a protest vote to show I dont support either candidate and to show we need more centrists and libertarians and independents in office. Her reply, "It's a douchebag vote." I was like arent liberals such as yourself supposed to be tolerant and accepting of others beliefs? She gave me the most [censored] off look and turned around. Didnt speak to me the entire class after that.

Just another example of why I'm an independent and why we need more independents in this country instead of partisan divides.

There's an actual study based on real facts that liberals are moving in the urban areas and the conservatives are moving into more suburban and boonies type areas. Self segregation at its finest. How are we supposed to be Americans if we cant stand each other to the point where we segregate ourselves. So sad and pitiful.




That's a bisotch, not a democrat. Bisotches are no fun regardless of their political affiliation. Evidently she was offended that you didn't find her so fetching that you would give up your ideals and your vote for her.

BTW, liberals and conservatives aren't polarizing themselves based on a dislike for each other, rather their place of residence is defining whether they are liberal or conservative. Cities have more overt poverty. The poor who do vote vote democrat b/c they support funding for social programs that service the poor. People in rural/suburban settings do not see homeless people, dope addicts, and their children lingering around on a daily basis, so its not so obvious that they need to support social programs that service these individuals. Out of sight out of mind.

playtowin
Sep 14 2008, 07:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

<font color="green">Primary Obama: </font> "I will slow our development of future combat systems.�

Is that going to protect America or his nomination for the Dem ticket?
<font color="green">
General election Obama: </font> "We need to increase the size of our military,�

Why? So they can protect us using outdated combat systems? They change constantly! Oh, I see, this was said AFTER he got the nomination!

playtowin
Sep 14 2008, 09:29 PM
The Obama camp loves to say "McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time." They also like to couple that with the Bush approval rating of 30%. In a vain attempt to fool the public into thinking 4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.

Well... First of all, as president, Bush doesn't "vote," he signs. As a senator, McCain votes. So actually, McCain doesn't vote along with Bush, Bush signs along with, or against what McCains votes.

Also, the "do nothing congress" has an approval rating of a record NINE percent! How often has Obama voted along with his dems in the congress? 96%! That is, when he is actually voting. 45.7% He's missed. He's been busy voting "present" and gaining valuable presidential "experience" by running a campaign to fool Amercia.

So to sum this up:

Bush who has a 30% approval rating, signed 90% of what McCain voted on.

Obama voted 96% of the time in lock step with a dem congress which has a 9% approval rating!

Pizza God
Sep 14 2008, 11:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

<font color="green">Primary Obama: </font> "I will slow our development of future combat systems.�

Is that going to protect America or his nomination for the Dem ticket?
<font color="green">
General election Obama: </font> "We need to increase the size of our military,�

Why? So they can protect us using outdated combat systems? They change constantly! Oh, I see, this was said AFTER he got the nomination!



I think that is a good video, except by how it was emailed to me last week.


-----Original Message-----
From: partyadmin@dentongop.org
To: bjames1033@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 3:24 pm
Subject: Important video

Fellow Americans --
Watch this until the speaker walks away; he earned the right to speak!
With Thanks to the volunteer servicemen and women who are keeping us safe.
Dianne Edmondson � Chairman, Denton County Republican Party

This commercial was done by a kid in Pueblo, Colorado. You have to watch the whole thing. When he finishes talking and walks away, you get a sense of how this could be the commercial of the campaign season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8





-----Original Message-----
From: bjames1033@aol.com
To: partyadmin@dentongop.org
Sent: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 7:09 pm
Subject: Re: Important video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOaz7WhkFuo

This guy (Adam Kokesh) earned his right along with all the other Iraq War Vets against the war. He was escorted out of the RNC because he was telling the truth.

So my question, do you only get a right to state your opinion o f the war if you favor it????

It is hard to be a Republican right now (as it has been for the last 5 years) if you are against the war. There are so few Conservative candidates that go out on a limb and don't support preemptive wars.

D. Bryan James
Pct Chair 218

PS. It looks like I will be missing this months Executive meeting again. I do have a new Asst. Manager, but she is still in training and not ready to handle a busy night without me being there. At least I am catching up on the bills. I am getting tired of the 100 hr work weeks.

PPS. here is a speech from Adam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_gcwVcqCcc




Sense then, the Party Administrator (Roy) and I have exchanged emails back and forth. I am not the only Republican in Denton Co that feels this way (about preemptive war)

No, I will not quit the Republican party because of this, I, along with 1/3rd of the active precinct chairs in Denton Co, are working to change this back to the correct Conservative path. (there are a lot of non Ron Paul supporters against the war too, I just don't like how the upper Republican Leadership keep saying we have to support the war or we are not conservative

I am with the Robert Taft, Eisenhower, Goldwater, CONSTITUTIONAL wing of the CONSERVATIVE movement of the Republican party.. We are laying the ground word just like Goldwater did in the 60's to take our Republican Party back from the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. (the wing controlled by the Military Industrial complex)

Pizza God
Sep 15 2008, 12:27 AM
I took offense to this line


he earned the right to speak!



I think every solder earned the write to speak, no matter what they say. Even if they don't support the war.

Adam Kokesh may not have lost his leg, but he still did his time in Iraq.

Adam is NO left wing anti War Protester, he is a conservative who felt that he was used in an unjust, illegal war.

He is not supporting Obama or McCain because they are really the same. Both will take there walking orders from the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

playtowin
Sep 15 2008, 12:56 AM
All he said in that e mail is that the soldier in the video "has earned the right to speak." Is it just your interpretation that he meant "that others don't?" Is that something you gathered from other e mails, because I don't see it in his e mail you posted. Only in your response to his...

Personally, I think being an American gives you the right to speak because we have laws that (are suppose to) protect that right. Now being heard is another story! ;)

kkrasinski
Sep 15 2008, 09:56 AM
"Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state."
-- Sarah Palin to Charlie Gibson

Nice description of her running mate.

mugilcephalus
Sep 15 2008, 11:10 AM
I can't wait to see how they handle the problems on Wall Steet. Lehman's finally done. Someone held a gun to BoA's head to purchase Merill Lynch. Wachovia, WaMu and AIG are on thin ice.

james_mccaine
Sep 15 2008, 12:47 PM
Yes, I see that both candidates responded to the Lehman brothers crisis.

Obama's response


�This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street.

�The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.

�The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren�t minding the store. Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.

� I certainly don�t fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It�s a philosophy we�ve had for the last eight years � one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It�s a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise, and one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises .

�Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up � from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.

�This country can�t afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have consistently called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market � rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I�ve called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together. That is the change I am calling for in this campaign, and that is the change I will bring as President,� said Senator Barack Obama.




McCain's response


"The crisis in our financial markets has taken an enormous toll on our economy and the American people -- first the decline of our housing markets followed by the collapse of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and now Lehman Brothers. I am glad to see that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have said no to using taxpayer money to bailout Lehman Brothers, a position I have spoken about throughout this campaign. We are carefully monitoring the financial markets, including the duress at Lehman Brothers that is the latest reminder of ineffective regulation and management. Efforts must also be focused on ensuring that the deposits of hardworking Americans are protected.

"It is essential for us to make sure that the U.S. remains the pre-eminent financial market of the world. This will be a highest priority of my Administration. In order to do this, major reform must be made in Washington and on Wall Street. We cannot tolerate a system that handicaps our markets and our banks and places at risk the savings of hard-working Americans and investors. The McCain-Palin Administration will replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street. We will rebuild confidence in our markets and restore our leadership in the financial world. "



Neither candidate says what they specifically do. however, if you cannot recognize the true cause, you are unlikely to find a workable solution. Obama at least recognizes the true cause: unfettered freedom from regulations, the cornerstone of republican philosophy. Lack of regulation may benefit the institutions, but benefiting the institutions does not mean that it benefits Americans as a whole.

McCain on the other hand sees it as an issue of "transparency" and "accountability." What does this actually mean? Transparency??? This wasn't Enron, they weren't cooking the books. Accountability??? What does this even mean? They are bankrupt, how can they now account for their mistakes.

In sum, just like most of McCain's domestic talk, it is all generalities and platitudes, lacking in the necessary details needed to solve problems. I'm not sure if this is because he realizes the details would not play well politically, or because he has no solutions. "I'll reform this and that" but he never gives examples of what he would do, other than to slay the earmark boogeyman. "I'll balance the budget by restructuring social security" but never states what that restructuring will be. "I'll prevent future financial crises" but never states just what he would do. McCain is the prototypical whiner who doesn't have any ideas to end what he whines about.

playtowin
Sep 15 2008, 05:40 PM
<font color="red">To say it's "all generalities" is a joke, on both sides. Each of these men have plans and have spoken on them. Haven't you heard how Obama will give tax breaks to 95% of us? LOL Haven't you heard about McCains "personal accounts" concerning soc. sec? There are several SPECIFIC plans out there on BOTH sides!

Disagree with the (easily found) plans on both sides all you want, I don't care, but when you say "it's all generalities and platitiudes," YOU sound like the whiner! And a very uninformed one at that.
</font>
John McCain: "And Under My Reforms, All Aspects Of A CEO's Pay, Including Any Severance Arrangements, Must Be Approved By Shareholders." <font color="red"> Wait a minute, that sounds like "accountability!" </font> "In times of hardship and distress, we should be more vigilant than ever in holding corporate abuses to account, as in the case of the housing market. Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO's -- in some cases, the very same CEO's who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while the offenders themselves are packed off with another forty - or fifty million for the road. If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. <font color="red"> Whoa! Wouldn't that call for "transparency?" </font> And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any sever ance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders." <font color="red"> That doesn't sound like "generalities and platitudes" to me. That sounds very specific IMO. </font> (John McCain, Remarks, Washington, D.C., 6/10/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Reform Our Mortgage And Financial Markets. "Fixing Fannie and Freddie, and reforming our mortgage and financial markets, is critical to getting the housing market and the entire economy moving again. A great deal of the savings and wealth of American families is wrapped up in the value of their homes. A house has traditionally been the wealth-building course to retirement. The housing industry employs millions of Americans. One of us, John McCain, said over two years ago, 'If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose.'" (John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, Op-Ed, "We'll Protect Taxpayers From More Bailouts," The Wall Street Journal, 9/9/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Address The Role Speculation Is Playing In Energy Prices. "Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments." (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Lexington Project: A Comprehensive Plan To Break Our Dependence On Foreign Oil," Press Release, 6/25/08)

� John McCain Fought For Financial Transparency In Stock Option Expensing. "U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today offered an amendment to the Accounting Reform Bill that would require companies to record the stock options that they grant to their employees as an expense on their financial statements. His floor statement follows: 'Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that requires companies to record the stock options that they grant to their employees as an expense on their financial statements. If companies want to claim these expenses as a deduction for tax purposes, they ought to be noted as expenses on a company's income statement. We must end the double standard for stock options.'" (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, "We Must End Double Standard For Stock Option," Press Release, 7/11/02)

� John McCain Has Long Fought For "Transparency Of Our Financial Markets." "As the incoming Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I plan to conduct rigorous oversight over those aspects of corporate governance that fall under the panel's purview. I also plan to pursue further reforms that are desperately needed such as expensing stock options. We have an obvious, pressing obligation to investors to ensure the transparency of our financial markets. Reform is a process. It is not a one-time fight." (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, "McCain Declares Reform Crusade Continues," Press Release, 11/14/01)

ANNCR: Lower taxes to create new jobs.

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Keep Tax Rates Low. Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security -- a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will phase out and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) -- a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under John McCain's plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 -- a real tax cut for working families. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Double The Personal Exemption For Dependents. John McCain believes the tax code should be less of a burden on those, whether they are mothers and fathers or single parents, who are trying to raise a family. He proposes to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Establish Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&amp;D. This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&amp;D investment decisions. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Allow First-Year Deduction, Or "Expensing", Of Equipment And Technology Investments. American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Reduce The Federal Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent From 35 Percent. A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Ban Internet Taxes. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Ban New Cell Phone Taxes. John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message -- and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes. (McCain-Palin 2008, "John McCain's Jobs For America Economic Plain," Press Release, 7/7/08)

ANNCR: Offshore drilling to reduce gas prices. McCain - Palin. Leadership, experience, for the change we need. JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

� John McCain And Governor Palin Will Expand Offshore Drilling To Reduce Gas Prices. McCain: "But I also believe that lifting the moratoria from offshore drilling or oil and natural gas exploration is something that we should place as a very high priority. And again, I don't want to dictate to the states what they should do, but I think that the states can be provided with additional incentives such as a greater share of the revenues than is presently the case." (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Press Availability, Arlington, VA, 6/16/08)

james_mccaine
Sep 15 2008, 07:11 PM
Oh, so "accountable" means that shareholders will approve the CEO's job contract. Are you joking? This will prevent the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers? It was merely a contractual problem?

Then, what you call "transparency," god knows why, amounts to nothing more than "I will prosecute CEOs for violating laws." The obvious followup would be: Well, what laws? What laws would you institute that would prevent what happended. I mean, I'm glad to know that you will prosecute law-breakers, but how would you prevent what happened. btw, I have nothing against stockholders approving CEO severances, but I don't pretend that had anything to do with the meltdowns we saw. It just made them more distateful.

The rest of what you posted is merely his tax breaks and more of his bluster and generalities, or Palin's bluster.


Fixing Fannie and Freddie, and reforming our mortgage and financial markets, is critical to getting the housing market and the entire economy moving again. A great deal of the savings and wealth of American families is wrapped up in the value of their homes. A house has traditionally been the wealth-building course to retirement. The housing industry employs millions of Americans. One of us, John McCain, said over two years ago, 'If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose.



This paragraph says nothing, it's a great example of what I'm talking about. It implies that McCain saw it all coming two years, but just what did he propose? If it was so crucial to him, why didn't he even campaign about with these voodoo "solutions" until recently?

Personal acounts. I don't know what these are and how they will reduce the financial burden of Social Security? Maybe he actually has a real idea on this one, but I bet it is just more populist ranting and raving, with no meat attached. Besides sophmoric lies that pollute this thread and the campaign, that is all he offers these days.

playtowin
Sep 15 2008, 07:46 PM
..speaking of sophmoric lies. Obam stepped in "it" again:

The Washington Post - Don Luskin

"Obama is flat-out wrong when he frets... that 'the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.' The latest rate is 2.6 % HIGHER than 1.9% rate that prevailed in the last quarter of Bill Clinton's presidency."

<font color="red"> Obama's claim cannot even be investigated because the records don't go back that far!</font>

He goes on to say: Comparing current rates to the Great Depression is "akin to equating a sore throat with stomach cancer... 2.75% are in forclosure (now). During the Great Depression... more than 50% of home loans were in default."

<font color="red"> But the "chosen one" said it, so it must be true! </font>

tbender
Sep 15 2008, 07:57 PM
He's been busy voting "present" and gaining valuable presidential "experience" by running a campaign to fool Amercia.




Present vote stats of the current Senate. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/)

45.7% puts Obama at #3.

At #2 is Johnson (D-SD) 48.5%, but that is due to a brain hemorrhage early in this Congress period.

And at #1 is McCain at 64.0% !!!!!

Pot, meet kettle.

playtowin
Sep 15 2008, 08:41 PM
Nice try, but as usual, you missed the point. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you. Guess I'll consider the source...

Obama has stressed that his experience in the senate qualifies him to be president. Well, what has been his experience in the senate? The point I was drawing out is that he's missed 45.7% of the votes in his "experience" as senator. That not only shows his lack of experience, but in his case, considering how little time compared to McCain in the senate, it also shows a lack of descision making ability.

They've both missed massive amounts of votes while campaigning. That's understandable. What isn't understandable is how Obama's 143 days in the senate is somehow seen as comparable to McCains 27 years!!!

Kettle, stay away from pot!

playtowin
Sep 15 2008, 08:47 PM
BTW, the ONLY way your attempt to smear would make sense would be if I said "Obama voted 'present' more times than McCain." But (other than in your head) I didn't say anything like that.

playtowin
Sep 15 2008, 09:21 PM
You gotta...


http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/09/15-1644101833T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=15-164410L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=09&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=1833&amp;srv=img3)


...love a man...


http://img4.glowfoto.com/images/2008/09/15-1713106564T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=15-171310L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=09&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=6564&amp;srv=img4)


...in uniform!


http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/09/15-1639588118T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=15-163958L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=09&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=8118&amp;srv=img3)

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 10:15 AM
During the Great Depression... more than 50% of home loans were in default."




What makes you think we're anywhere near the end of the housing crisis? The Fed has been jumping through hoops trying to keep the economy alive. They're failing, badly. If they can't keep things together until November many of those crying for tax cuts may be crying for food stamps.

AIG may go down this week.

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 12:42 PM
During the Great Depression... more than 50% of home loans were in default."




What makes you think we're anywhere near the end of the housing crisis? The Fed has been jumping through hoops trying to keep the economy alive. They're failing, badly. If they can't keep things together until November many of those crying for tax cuts may be crying for food stamps.

AIG may go down this week.



<font color="red"> What makes you think George Bush is the greatest president of all time? </font>

JHBlader86
Sep 16 2008, 12:47 PM
As Colbert always asks, "George W. Bush; Great president, or the greatest president?"

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 12:51 PM
During the Great Depression... more than 50% of home loans were in default."




What makes you think we're anywhere near the end of the housing crisis? The Fed has been jumping through hoops trying to keep the economy alive. They're failing, badly. If they can't keep things together until November many of those crying for tax cuts may be crying for food stamps.

AIG may go down this week.



<font color="red"> What makes you think George Bush is the greatest president of all time? </font>



Absolutely nothing.

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 01:59 PM
I was illustrating the absurd by being absurd. Obviously it was lost on you (and those who look for every opportunity to bash Bush). You asked "what makes you think we're anywhere near the end of the housing crisis?" I said "absolutely nothing" about that! What makes you think I did?

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 02:26 PM
I did directly quote you as a segue. It was more about you twisting Obama's point that the housing crisis is the worst it has been since the Great Depression. I'll be less subtle next time.

tbender
Sep 16 2008, 02:27 PM
I was merely pointing out that Obama's 45.7% is paltry compared to McCain's 64%. You threw it out there. I showed that there is a worse offender.

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 02:53 PM
I did directly quote you as a segue. It was more about you twisting Obama's point that the housing crisis is the worst it has been since the Great Depression. I'll be less subtle next time.



<font color="red">And the way you illustrate me "twisting his words is by asking: </font>

Quote
"What makes you think we're anywhere near the end of the housing crisis?"

<font color="red"> Something I never said?! :confused: That's a very strange way to illustrate me "twisting Obama's words!" Especially when I quoted him word for word! </font>

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 02:58 PM
Show me the Obama quote.

Teemac
Sep 16 2008, 02:58 PM
......when girls were girls and men were men............

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 03:25 PM
I was merely pointing out that Obama's 45.7% is paltry compared to McCain's 64%. You threw it out there. I showed that there is a worse offender.



<font color="red"> I ain't buying it! That isn't what you were doing and you know it, Mr. "kettle!"</font>

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 03:36 PM
Show me the Obama quote.



<font color="red">From the Obama campaign website:

"the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression." </font>

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 03:41 PM
Something you WON'T find on Obama's website!

Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume
July 9th, 2005

[by Dan Armstrong]

Don�t get me wrong - I�m a big fan of Barack Obama, the Illinois freshman senator and hot young Democratic Party star. But after reading his autobiography, I have to say that Barack engages in some serious exaggeration when he describes a job that he held in the mid-1980s. I know because I sat down the hall from him, in the same department, and worked closely with his boss. I can�t say I was particularly close to Barack - he was reserved and distant towards all of his co-workers - but I was probably as close to him as anyone. I certainly know what he did there, and it bears only a loose resemblance to what he wrote in his book.

Here�s Barack�s account:

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company�s secretarial pool.

First, it wasn�t a consulting house; it was a small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. I�m sure we all wished that we were high-priced consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low salaries and heavy workload.

Barack worked on one of the company�s reference publications. Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country, punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barack�s job was to get copy from the country correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some research involved as well, since correspondents usually don�t send exactly what you ask for, and you can�t always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting.

It�s also not true that Barack was the only black man in the company. He was the only black professional man. Fred was an African-American who worked in the mailroom with his son. My boss and I used to join them on Friday afternoons to drink beer behind the stacks of office supplies. That�s not the kind of thing that Barack would do. Like I said, he was somewhat aloof.

� as the months passed, I felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary; money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors�see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand�and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.

If Barack was promoted, his new job responsibilities were more of the same - rewriting other people�s copy. As far as I know, he always had a small office, and the idea that he had a secretary is laughable. Only the company president had a secretary. Barack never left the office, never wore a tie, and had neither reason nor opportunity to interview Japanese financiers or German bond traders.

Then one day, as I sat down at my computer to write an article on interest-rate swaps, something unexpected happened�. I had never met this half sister; we had written only intermittently. �[several pages on his suffering half-sister] �a few months after Auma called, I turned in my resignation at the consulting firm and began looking in earnest for an organizing job.

What Barack means here is that he got copy from a correspondent who didn�t understand interest rate swaps, and he was trying to make sense out of it.

All of Barack�s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ�s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks. Luckily, an angel calls, awakens his conscience, and helps him choose instead to fight for the people.

Like I said, I�m a fan. His famous keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention moved me to tears. The Democrats - not to mention America - need a mixed-race spokesperson who can connect to both urban blacks and rural whites, who has the credibility to challenge the status quo on issues ranging from misogynistic rap to unfair school funding.

And yet I�m disappointed. Barack�s story may be true, but many of the facts are not. His larger narrative purpose requires him to embellish his role. I don�t buy it. Just as I can�t be inspired by Steve Jobs now that I know how dishonest he is, I can�t listen uncritically to Barack Obama now that I know he�s willing to bend the facts to his purpose.

Once, when I applied for a marketing job at a big accounting firm, my then-supervisor called HR to say that I had exaggerated something on my resume. I didn�t agree, but I also didn�t get the job. But when Barack Obama invents facts in a book ranked No. 8 on the NY Times nonfiction list, it not only fails to be noticed but it helps elevate him into the national political pantheon.

As Mr. Armstrong suggests, if Obama would exaggerate about such things as this, what else has he exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth?

skaZZirf
Sep 16 2008, 03:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERtDaAtkvhQ&amp;feature=bz302

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 03:49 PM
Show me the Obama quote.



<font color="red">From the Obama campaign website:

"the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression." </font>



Data from the Commerce Department seems to back him up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 04:36 PM
"The latest rate, (NOW) for the second quarter of 2008, is 2.6 percent -- higher than the 1.9 percent rate that prevailed in the last quarter of Bill Clinton's presidency."

This was already quoted to you and you completely ignored it in order to support faulty Obama talking points which are not current! Now you're posting information that was "updated in 2006 and applying it to today! You're buying into the lies man!

Obama isn't talking about 2005, or 2006, he's got it on his website NOW! Right now, the personal savings rate is NOT "the lowest it's been since the Great Depression." That would be a lie. Even worse, a lie intended to create more fear in order to gain votes!

Slowhand
Sep 16 2008, 04:42 PM
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT

ANHYZER
Sep 16 2008, 04:56 PM
First tire gauges, now toasters!

james_mccaine
Sep 16 2008, 05:11 PM
Winning a small battle, but losing a war. It appears that IF Obama actually has a statement saying that right now, the personal savings rate is at its lowest since the great depression, that is false. However, the larger point is clearly illustrated in the graph: if personal saving rate is a measure of economic health, then things have gotton way worse over during the Bush administration. That is a point Obama wants to convey, that spending power has dropped. People have trouble saving, if they are barely able to make ends meet.

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 05:34 PM
Exactly, too bad it isn't presented as a 200 day moving average. It's also worth noting that the jump in savings this past summer coincided with the free government money everyone else got.

tbender
Sep 16 2008, 05:57 PM
...McCain's running false ads. (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/16/mccain_spokesman_blasted_on_cable_news_networks.ht ml)

When the Republican newspiece is in agreement with the others, then perhaps your strategy should change.


EDIT:direct Gawker link (http://gawker.com/5050339/mccain-spokesman-told-off-on-all-networks)

kkrasinski
Sep 16 2008, 08:02 PM
playtowin, since you are obviously concerned with honesty in the presidential campaign, I'm sure you will be outraged by McCain/Palin:

McCain -- "[Palin] knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America,"

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

McCain -- "[Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply."

The facts:
- Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.
- Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to Energy Information Administration (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm), Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production, and only 2.4 percent of the energy the country actually consumes.
- Alaskan oil production has dropped 22 percent in the last 5 years.

[b]McCain -- "[Palin] knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America,"

Pretty scandalous stuff, eh, playtowin? You really must be fuming at McCain/Palin now. I know you don't support either major party candidate, so I just can't wait to see you expose many other McCain/Palin lies on subjects like Obama's tax plan, Palin's role in the "bridge to nowhere", "lipstickgate", Senate Bill 99, the 2005 energy bill, McCain's "700 billion" oil import lie, McCain's lie about Obama's healthcare plan forcing small businesses to cut jobs, contradictions on green energy, etc., etc., etc.

taken from www.factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org)

kkrasinski
Sep 16 2008, 08:10 PM
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/4DrNgX2Ho0E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="549" height="396" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 08:18 PM
"Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and politcal contributions to keep regulators off their backs. The group called 'Center For Responsive Politics' keeps track of which politicians get Freddie and Fannie political contributions." The number two recipient is "the chosen one," Obama. "He's only been in the Senate 4 years (two of them campaigning) but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry (decades in the senate) and (behind) Chris Dodd, who is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congretional Democratics in the Clinton White House designed to make mortgages available to more people and as it turned out, to some people who couldn't afford them.

Freddie and Fannie have also been places where big Washinton Democrats have gone to work in the 'semi-private' sector and pocket millions.

Franklin Raines - Clinton administrations White House Budget Director ran Freddie and collected 50 million dollars.

Jamie Gorelick - Clinton Justice Dept. Official worked for Fannie and took home 26 million.

Jim Johnson - Recent research committee employee for Obama took home millions from his Fannie CEO job.

Obama - $126,000 (in less than 4 years)

McCain - $21,000 (since 1989)

"Remember, Obama's adds and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably NOT Republican policy. And worse it appears the man attacking Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama was at the head of line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie troff for campaign bucks." - Jon Gibson

You may want to think of this the next time you hear adds from Obama attacking McCain on the financial situation of Freddie and Fannie. And don't be naive, Lehman Bros. collapse is linked back to Freddie and Fannie.

kkrasinski
Sep 16 2008, 08:30 PM
Obama - $126,000 (in less than 4 years)



Conveniently leaving out the fact that the Fannie and Freddie PAC's actually only donated 5% of this figure while the remainder came from private, individual employees of the firms.

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 08:49 PM
Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congretional Democratics in the Clinton White House designed to make mortgages available to more people and as it turned out, to some people who couldn't afford them.




You real sure they were created under Clinton?

james_mccaine
Sep 16 2008, 09:11 PM
You real sure they were created under Clinton?



Rush probably told him so, so yes, he is real sure.

It's just another lie posing as truth to the McCainiacs.

jrgregg
Sep 16 2008, 09:28 PM
The Federal National Mortgage Association , commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a publicly owned government sponsored enterprise (GSE). It is a stockholder-owned corporation authorized to make loans and loan guarantees. Fannie Mae is the leading participant in the U.S. secondary mortgage market, which serves to provide liquidity to the primary mortgage market to ensure that mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies have enough funds to lend to home buyers.Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.In 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget, it was converted into a private corporation. Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).From 1938 to 1968, the secondary mortgage market in the United States was monopolized by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which was a government agency during that period. In 1968, to help balance the federal budget, part of Fannie Mae was converted to a private corporation. To provide competition in the secondary mortgage market, and to end Fannie Mae's monopoly, Congress chartered Freddie Mac as a private corporation.

The Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 created Freddie Mac. The goal was to create a secondary market for conventional mortgages, as indicated in the Fannie Mae charter. [3]
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act ("FIRREA") of 1989 revised and standardized the regulatory mechanisms for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prior to that, Freddie Mac was owned by the Federal Home Loan Bank System and its member thrifts and governed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board which was later reorganized into the Office of Thrift Supervision. FIRREA severed Freddie Mac's ties to the Federal Home Loan Bank System, created an 18-member board of directors to run Freddie Mac, and subjected it to HUD oversight.On April 18, 2006 home loan giant Freddie Mac was fined $3.8 million, by far the largest amount ever assessed by the Federal Election Commission, as a result of illegal campaign contributions. Much of the illegal fund raising benefited members of the House Financial Services Committee, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac. Notably, Freddie Mac held more than 40 fundraisers for House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio

Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny &amp; Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.

For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 09:32 PM
"I don't support either major candidate?" If you say so! My horse isn't in this race, but I am certainly supporting McCain/Palin!

I don't have the foggiest why she would say 20% if in fact it's really 14% and neither do you! I highly doubt it was a malicious lie to get people vote out of fear though. This 20% business is completely new to me as of 10 minutes ago.

I never once said that I agree with everything McCain/Palin represent. I also never said I completely disagree with "the chosen one." But by 'n large, it's no contest.

As far as your abreviated buck shot descriptions of McCains "lies" that you can't wait to hear from me on...

Obama's tax plan - What lie?
Bridge to nowhere - You mean the one Biden and Obama voted for? And even when they were given another chance, a chance that would divert funding to Katrina relief, they still voted for it? That one? The one Palin voted against once she learned more about it?
Lipstickgate - What about it? You really think he would have said that if it weren't for her RNC joke?
Senate Bill 99 - You mean the one Obama voted for!
McCains "700 billion lie" - As best I can see, it was more like 530ish billion. I don't know why he said 700. You wanna call it a lie, that's your right. Personally, I think it was either a misunderstanding or simply a factual mistake, not a purposeful lie. A life spent defending our country allows one that kind of consideration, no matter how much I disagree with McCain on some issues. Especially when the other choice is a man like Obama. A life riddled with lies (read his book!), anti american sentiment and a record of extreme liberal choices.
McCains "lie" about Obama's healthcare - In general, I am with McCain on that one.
Green energy contradictions - I'm sure you'll give me a better explanation. I am sure you "can't wait."

pnkgtr
Sep 16 2008, 09:43 PM
I'm wondering, Playtowin, how bad do things need to get in this country before you'd vote for someone other than a Republican? A full out depression. Death sqauds. Martial law. Runaway inflation. What would it take?

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 09:56 PM
Those funny little check marks that look like this " ", actually mean somthing! Ask Gibson, the one I quoted and cited! I would guess he meant it more of a description of how we've come to know Freddie and Fannie or what it has been "created" or "evolved" into since the Clinton years seeing how those listed were involved and what's become of those institutions since.

If I don't quote someone I get accused of making it up. If I quote someone, I get accused of the same!

Personally, I believe the Dems had more to do with the financial failings of Freddie and Fannie by a long shot. That doesn't excuse the Reps that were heavily involved though. They all knew what they were doing and they knew what would come of it for many years now. No risk, no accountability.

playtowin
Sep 16 2008, 10:46 PM
I'm wondering, Playtowin, how bad do things need to get in this country before you'd vote for someone other than a Republican? A full out depression. Death sqauds. Martial law. Runaway inflation. What would it take?



<font color="red">Good question. It would take about two months. Just put me in front of the tv and leave it on CNBC. Before ya know it, I would believe the lie that America sucks, it's not growing, there's no such thing as economic trends and Bush is to blame for everything wrong in the world!

Haven't you heard? We already are in a "full out depression!" America is the worlds biggest killers because they love war! There's no such thing as radical Islam, it was an inside job! And the clasic, America has the worst health care in the world! Just ask Cuba!

In short, it would take alot more than Obama's description of America. The only reason why he dumped Jerimiah Wright is because it wasn't politically viable. He stayed with him even after it was common knowledge what he taught. He dumped him only when Obama said "shhhhhh," and he kept saying it. Have you read Michelles thesis yet? Do you believe Obama when he said he'd never heard Wrights message of hate while he attended his church for over twenty years?

You really believe he won't raise taxes? Do you think taking from some to give to others is an American philosophy or socialism? Do you honestly feel he is better equiped to lead this nation into war?

Have you considered the fact that we are still growing despite all of the financial turmoil going on? Have you ever recognized the dems role in our financial situation? Have you ever thought about what this presidency has had to endure from day one to protect you? Have you enjoyed the last seven years of protection or have we all fallen asleep like we were pre-9/11? Bush was far from perfect, but I'll take growth and protection over Obama any day!

BTW, it's not a question of Republican or Democrat with me. It's a question of right or wrong. Obama is absolutely wrong for this country. McCain would do a much better job IMO. </font>

mugilcephalus
Sep 16 2008, 10:53 PM
AIG belongs to us! Joy!

kkrasinski
Sep 16 2008, 11:15 PM
I don't have the foggiest why she would say 20% if in fact it's really 14%



Reading comprehension issues? The correct number (3.5%) according to the EIA (3.5%) can be easily found in my post (3.5%). Here's a little exercise for you (3.5%), go back and see if you can find it (3.5%). There is a clue somewhere in this paragraph (3.5%).

So, why would she say 20% when the real number is 3.5% you ask? Well, I guess that would be because she is not the expert McCain makes her out to be.


Personally, I think it was either a misunderstanding or simply a factual mistake, not a purposeful lie.



:eek: Such a thing can happen? I wouldn't think it possible based on your many other posts!

kkrasinski
Sep 16 2008, 11:17 PM
Do you honestly feel he is better equiped to lead this nation into war?



Frankly, I'd prefer to be led into peace.

kkrasinski
Sep 16 2008, 11:33 PM
nm

ANHYZER
Sep 16 2008, 11:35 PM
Where can I pick up my tire gauge and toaster?

playtowin
Sep 17 2008, 12:37 AM
Do you honestly feel he is better equiped to lead this nation into war?



Frankly, I'd prefer to be led into peace.



Frankly, that would probably sell more bumper stickers, but the reality we live in today is that sometimes America has to fight for peace.

http://img4.glowfoto.com/images/2008/09/16-2055407659T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=16-205540L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=09&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=7659&amp;srv=img4)

playtowin
Sep 17 2008, 01:17 AM
Question for anyone who cares. Even if half of this is true: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709, how does MORE government regulation fix it?

playtowin
Sep 17 2008, 01:23 AM
Also, does this ( http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/did-obama-just-confirm-taheri/ ) not show Obama to be even remotely presumptuous and sticking his agenda into places it isn't his role (yet)?

kkrasinski
Sep 17 2008, 09:06 AM
Question for anyone who cares. Even if half of this is true: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709, how does MORE government regulation fix it?



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x7EbK1RREU4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x7EbK1RREU4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

kkrasinski
Sep 17 2008, 09:09 AM
Also, does this ( http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/did-obama-just-confirm-taheri/ ) not show Obama to be even remotely presumptuous and sticking his agenda into places it isn't his role (yet)?



Noted Bamboozler Behind Latest Obama Smear (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php)

"It's worth looking at that distinction more closely to get a sense of what the Obama camp means here and where Taheri may have erred. In terms of a Status of Forces agreement, Obama has consistently made clear that he believes any such agreement should be delayed until after the election -- so that a President Obama or McCain would not be bound by an agreement negotiated by a weakened Bush administration. The McCain camp did not object when, in June, Obama told reporters at a press conference that he had made exactly this argument to Zebari in a phone call." (emphasis added)

kkrasinski
Sep 17 2008, 09:20 AM
.. how does MORE government regulation fix it?



Funny how the repeal of regulation (repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) contributed to the current sub-prime mortgage crisis, isn't it?

james_mccaine
Sep 17 2008, 10:45 AM
Someday, you might want to step back from the "extreme edge." It appears that in your world, there is no gray, everything is black and white.

If one criticizes the war, or possible future war, they don't understand that security comes at a cost. Only you understand that.

If one recognizes that regulations might have prevented some of our problems, then they obviously want to over-regulate and centrally control everything. You can't see a middle ground, so it doesn't surprise me that a moderate path of regulation is inconcievable to you.

If someone feels that the tax burden should be shifted more to the wealthy, they are obviously socialists. In this intellectually bankrupt reasoning, every president in my lifetime must have been a socialist, since every tax system has had wealthy individuals pay more than poor individuals, thereby "redistributing income."

If one opposes your stance on abortion, they obviously relish killing babies.

Open your eyes to the vast middle ground, or just continue to post pictures of Obama in sheets. It's your choice.

tbender
Sep 17 2008, 11:31 AM
McCaine for president. :)

Teemac
Sep 17 2008, 12:51 PM
Geez RiKo! I can't believe you took the bait. Can't you see when someone is playing devil's advocate just for the sake of it? C'mon, nobody could drink that much Bush/Cheney/O'reilly/Limbaugh Kool-aid and still believe it. It's got to be a put-on. Relax.... ;)

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 03:24 AM
Also, does this ( http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/did-obama-just-confirm-taheri/ ) not show Obama to be even remotely presumptuous and sticking his agenda into places it isn't his role (yet)?



Noted Bamboozler Behind Latest Obama Smear (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/noted_bamboozler_behind_latest.php)

"It's worth looking at that distinction more closely to get a sense of what the Obama camp means here and where Taheri may have erred. In terms of a Status of Forces agreement, Obama has consistently made clear that he believes any such agreement should be delayed until after the election -- so that a President Obama or McCain would not be bound by an agreement negotiated by a weakened Bush administration. The McCain camp did not object when, in June, Obama told reporters at a press conference that he had made exactly this argument to Zebari in a phone call." (emphasis added)



Again, does this not show Obama to be even remotely presumptuous and sticking his agenda into places it isn't his role (yet)?

What's the difference?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm?&amp;page=0

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 04:14 AM
.. how does MORE government regulation fix it?



Funny how the repeal of regulation (repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) contributed to the current sub-prime mortgage crisis, isn't it?



<font color="red"> Way to keep it related to the actual link and what I said in relation to it. I was specifically referring to the "regulations" found in the article I posted along with the little snipit you qouted. You conveiniently made it into something that was never intended or said. The "regulations" I was referring to, if you read the article, had to do regulations that forced lenders to lower standards and IMO lead to alot of the mess we have now.

Do you seriously believe that Clinton didn't "go overboard with his social experiment?" Do you really think that the dems weren't out front in the "tougher and tougher" regulations that lead to the sub-prime mess?

For once, could you please just answer a couple simple questions? Can you please just try to do it without putting words in my mouth or restructuring and redefining what I say into some simplistic pile of one-sided "word droppings?"(James!) If you don't know what I meant by the questions concerning the "social experiment" and the "dems role in it," just ask.
I swear, it's like talking to Arianna Huffington with you sometimes.

Ps. here is the article you so conveiniently ignored to make your smart alec and unrelated remark: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709</font>

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 04:24 AM
Someday, you might want to step back from the "extreme edge." It appears that in your world, there is no gray, everything is black and white.

If one criticizes the war, or possible future war, they don't understand that security comes at a cost. Only you understand that.

If one recognizes that regulations might have prevented some of our problems, then they obviously want to over-regulate and centrally control everything. You can't see a middle ground, so it doesn't surprise me that a moderate path of regulation is inconcievable to you.

If someone feels that the tax burden should be shifted more to the wealthy, they are obviously socialists. In this intellectually bankrupt reasoning, every president in my lifetime must have been a socialist, since every tax system has had wealthy individuals pay more than poor individuals, thereby "redistributing income."

If one opposes your stance on abortion, they obviously relish killing babies. <font color="red"> That is just lame dude. </font>

Open your eyes to the vast middle ground, or just continue to post pictures of Obama in sheets. It's your choice.



<font color="red"> You should write headlines for the National Inquirer man. wow </font>

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 04:42 AM
Where was Barack Hussein Obama when McCain called for reform of Freddie and Fannie in 2005?

http://bartonbulletin.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/mccain-co-sponsored-fanniefreddie-reform-in-2005/

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 04:47 AM
"Barney's Rubble"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122161010874845645.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

kkrasinski
Sep 18 2008, 12:07 PM
The "regulations" I was referring to, if you read the article, had to do regulations that forced lenders to lower standards and IMO lead to alot of the mess we have now.

Ps. here is the article you so conveiniently ignored to make your smart alec and unrelated remark: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709



Originally you said, in preface, "Even if half of this is true:" Let's take a look.

First, evaluate the tone of the article. Does is sound objective? If not, do you think the author might be telling something less than the full story? These questions I ask are middle school english questions, so I think you can handle them.

Still, even a biased reporter can report the truth. Let's look a little closer at what he calls the Community Redevelopment Act (actually the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA). Here are some pertinent questions you can ask:
1.) Does the CRA apply to independent mortgage companies, payday lenders, check cashers, etc.? Answer - NO
2.) To what companies does the CRA apply? Answer - ONLY BANKS AND THRIFTS THAT ARE FEDERALLY INSURED
3.) Have any studies been done on the efficacy of CRA loans? Answer -- YES, BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND HARVARD'S JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES
4.) What did those studies show? Answer -- THAT CRA INCREASED LENDING IN POOR COMMUNITIES WITHOUT HURTING THE LENDER'S PROFITABILITY
5.) When was the CRA last modified? Answer -- 2005, INSTIGATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, SMALL AND MID-SIZE INSTITUTIONS WERE EXEMPTED
6.) Under the new (2005) rules did sub-prime lending decrease? Answer -- NO, IT INTENSIFIED
7.) What percentage of sub-prime loans were actually made by institutions subject to CRA? Answer -- ABOUT 25%
8.) So about 75% of sub-prime loans were made under no mandate whatsoever? Answer -- YES
9.) What motivated lenders who were not subject to CRA to make such risky loans? Answer -- PROFITS

As for the rest of your post -- grow up.

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 04:44 PM
Too many people think that "regulation/Government" is the answer to all our problems. Forget the "tone!" The crystal ball you guys look into to tell you what people are actually saying when they choose their own words is getting a little old.

http://mises.org/story/2963

1 - 4 Are you're saying that CRA did not affect non-tax payer backed institutions at all? Nevermind direct regulations that specifically "apply" to them because as you showed, they don't. You're saying it doesn't even affect them? I'm not saying you said that, I am asking.

Are you saying that a CRA study done at "the fed and Harvard" showed that people got rich off of sub-prime loans in poor neighborhoods and that is somehow suppose to make me think it was a wise regulatory path to take? Or that it didn't affect the entire system (the bigger picture) in a very bad way? I am not assuming you said this, I am clearly asking.

5 - 9 Example that any "middle school" kid can understand: I am gonna spit in your drinking glass. But I am only going to spit in 25% of it, do you still want to drink it? Why niot?

"What motivated them?" Are you serious? Survival motivated them! Not to say that greed wasn't a part of them too, but what would have happen to them if they didn't lower the standards that the tax payer backed institutions were mandated, regulated, and forced to opporate under? I am suppose to believe that MORE government is the answer? No thanks, the government is too big already.

tbender
Sep 18 2008, 05:06 PM
Report from Cedar Rapids appearance (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2008/09/mccainpalin-ral.html)

Notable quote:

McCain starts speaking 18 minutes into the rally (my note: Palin spoke first). He begins by reminiscing about the State Fair. "I'm very grateful to be here. We intend to campaign hard across the state of Iowa again...I think we're going to be up late on Election Night, my friends, and we're going to need your help."

I look up, about five minutes into McCain's address and see a steady stream of people walking out of the rally. They just came to see Palin apparently.



Wow. Just wow.

JerryChesterson
Sep 18 2008, 05:08 PM
Trust me, as a Cedar Rapidian, they don't like McCain. There was some issue with him not wanting to tour a flood ravaged area. Either that or the smell from city of 5 smells was too overwhelming for the masses.

Teemac
Sep 18 2008, 05:33 PM
Can't get enough of Palin
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184481&amp;title=Sarah-Palin-Won%27t-Blink

tbender
Sep 18 2008, 06:03 PM
Trust me, as a Cedar Rapidian, they don't like McCain. There was some issue with him not wanting to tour a flood ravaged area. Either that or the smell from city of 5 smells was too overwhelming for the masses.



Yeah but this was a Republican rally! You'd think they'd stay out of party loyalty.

But I do get the frustration about him not touring the city. At least act like you care.

Pizza God
Sep 18 2008, 07:23 PM
If McCain wins, it will be because of Palin.

















or that Obama sucks that bad

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 10:26 PM
"or that Obama sucks that bad."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021545.php

Rush was describing actual MEXICAN LAWS!

http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/...ng%20Update.mp4 (http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/mp4/Rush%20Limbaugh%20-%20Apr%2006%202006%20-%20Morning%20Update.mp4)

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 10:51 PM
This is gonna be funny. Too bad O'reilly's in it though...

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3308060697/

playtowin
Sep 18 2008, 10:59 PM
Open your eyes to the vast middle ground, or just continue to post pictures of Obama in sheets. It's your choice.



http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/09/18-1842452667T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=18-184245L&amp;y=2008&amp;m=09&amp;t=jpg&amp;rand=2667&amp;srv=img3)

tbender
Sep 19 2008, 10:17 AM
Bryan, it will be because of Obama's campaign making a couple huge mistakes in these last 47 days. His lead is back to where it was pre-conventions and he's threatening more red states than McCain is blue states.

Palin's boost to the Republicans is gone now that people have gotten to see her and hear her speak on the issues. All that really happened is that both bases got energized and the middle "went to bed at 2 with a 10 and woke up at 10 with a 2," to quote a C&amp;W song.

Pizza God
Sep 19 2008, 12:11 PM
The problem is that Palin talked like McCain in her interviews. She took the Neo-Con line, she lost my possible vote.

it is still a choice of Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin for me. Bob Barr has a horrible voting record and past, however he is talking about the issues and taking the correct side of issues now. Chuck Baldwin is a write in candidate in Texas and has zero political experience but is also talking the right sides of the issues.

Ralph Nader has some good points, but I disagree with him on two many issues. (a write in in Texas)
Cynthia McKinney is even more wrong. (another write-in in Texas)

yes, I have checked out all these candidates and listen to speeches by every one of them.

There are a few other candidates I have not researched yet.

tbender
Sep 19 2008, 12:26 PM
The problem is that Palin talked like McCain in her interviews. She took the Neo-Con line, she lost my possible vote.



That's because she is a Neo-Con.

Their campaign seems to be trying to make both of them sound the same. Robotic, repetitive, standoffish. They won't even let the two of them campaign alone.

JHBlader86
Sep 19 2008, 12:50 PM
Had McCain stuck to his principles as a moderate instead of courting the neo-cons in this country I do believe he'd have had a strong lead over Obama. He definitely would have had my vote, but I cant support someone now who is willing to sacrifice his principles and beliefs.

Pizza God
Sep 19 2008, 01:24 PM
My wife and I were discussing this just the other day. One reason NOT to leave your home is because the government will not let you go back to YOUR property.

If I lived in an area that this could happen, trust me, I would have my gun, water, and food to live for weeks without electricity or water.


Barr: Government should let Ike evacuees go hom

By W. Gardner Selby | Thursday, September 18, 2008, 08:54 AM

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, lately has let supporters know he disagrees with government moves in Texas to deter Hurricane Ike evacuees from going home right away.

Barr is slated to talk to Austin reporters today about his legal action intended to knock Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama off the November ballot in Texas. In a press release posted on his campaign site, Barr says: �Government has no right to keep people from their property. Let the people go home.�

�There is something inherently wrong with the government forcibly keeping people away from their homes and property,� Barr said, responding to what his campaign calls the government�s �continuing and heavy-handed attempt to bar Hurricane Ike evacuees from returning to their homes.�

�There is, of course, an obvious risk to returning to a disaster area,� Barr said. �However, government should not forcibly prevent evacuees from returning to their own houses and property. It is their choice, for better or for worse, to return to their homes.�

�It is absurd to keep people from their property when they willingly return or have remained,� Barr said. �Instead, the government makes them refugees, reliant on the inefficient and expensive �charity� of government.�

�During Hurricane Katrina, the government said, �Trust us,� and look what happened. Now, the government is saying the same thing again. Yet, many of these people would be better off on their own instead of in the hands of FEMA or some other government agency.�

tbender
Sep 19 2008, 01:28 PM
Doubt it would be a strong lead, but I'd say he'd be up within the MOE.

He's definitely shown that his "maverickness" is conditional.

Pizza God
Sep 19 2008, 01:31 PM
uh oh, I just agreed with McCain on something


McCain says Fed should stop government bailouts


September 19, 2008

FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

GREEN BAY, Wisc. -- John McCain said Friday the Federal Reserve needs to stop bailing out failed financial institutions.

Addressing a business group in Wisconsin, the Republican presidential hopeful said the Fed should get back to what he called ''its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation.''

The Fed engineered an $85 billion takeover of insurance giant AIG this week, one of a series of failures of major financial companies that have rocked Wall Street. The government seized control of housing giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae earlier this month.

The Arizona senator reiterated his call to fire SEC chairman Chris Cox, saying there needed to be greater accountability in Washington.

He also hit Democratic rival Barack Obama for ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

McCain noted Fannie Mae's former CEO, Jim Johnson, once headed Obama's vice presidential search committee and that the Illinois senator had received large campaign contributions from both agencies.

''Maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems,'' McCain said of Obama.

tbender
Sep 19 2008, 01:47 PM
My wife and I were discussing this just the other day. One reason NOT to leave your home is because the government will not let you go back to YOUR property.



Get out of the libertarian vacuum. If people were let back in, while the debris is still so widespread, while basic services are still out-of-order, then too much effort would be spent on the returnees rather than cleanup and restoring services. Sometimes the common good is more important than the individual.

tbender
Sep 19 2008, 01:52 PM
McCain says Fed should stop government bailouts


(deletia)

He also hit Democratic rival Barack Obama for ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

McCain noted Fannie Mae's former CEO, Jim Johnson, once headed Obama's vice presidential search committee and that the Illinois senator had received large campaign contributions from both agencies.

''Maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems,'' McCain said of Obama.



Pot, meet kettle. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9663_mccain_fannie_freddie.html)

CNN Fact Check (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/)

(Just using the story to post this bit of info. McCain is tied to the FM twins too.)

Pizza God
Sep 19 2008, 03:04 PM
Pot, meet kettle. (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9663_mccain_fannie_freddie.html)

CNN Fact Check (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/)

(Just using the story to post this bit of info. McCain is tied to the FM twins too.)



Blogs are not very credible in my opinion. They are no better than me posting my views. The CNN Fact Check was pretty good. It told me something I already knew.

One of my problems with McCain is the fact that he has a bunch of Lobbiests working for him.

Shoot, even Obama has lobbyist working for him.

It is hard not to do. What do a lot of former politicians due when out of office. What are campaign managers suppose to due between campaigns. A lot of them work for Lobbyists.

shoot, anyone remember Fred Thompson, his law firm did lobbying after he left office.

this does not make it right, it just a fact I don't like.

playtowin
Sep 19 2008, 04:15 PM
They all "due it! " lol ;) At the very least, I personally don't know of one (seriously contending) party nominee or president who hasn't "worked" with lobbyists on some level. If anyone can help me find one, seriously, please let me know because I haven't been able to find one?

But, all of them don't come in 2nd on the list of recipients from both Lehman Bros and Fannie and Freddie contributors. And they don't all "due" that in the span of just a few years.

Now, back to the group meeting of those afflicted with "Palin derangement syndrome." :D

playtowin
Sep 19 2008, 04:40 PM
Very revealing:

Obama wouldn't go (despite his need for the Jewish vote) to the protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hillary wouldn't go after learning Palin would be there.

So Palin was then "disinvited!"

Looks pretty clear who is really interested in bipartisanship when it comes to dealing with foreign threats in the world. This had everything to do with working together for peace. It had nothing directly to do with campaigning!

"Change we can believe in?"

Pizza God
Sep 20 2008, 06:29 PM
This is a list of who will be on the ballot in Texas and the official write in candidates. (if you vote for someone not on the list, your vote will not be counted)

John McCain/ Sarah Palin - N
Republican Party - http://www.gop.org/
http://www.johnmccain.com/

Barack Obama/ Joe Biden - N
Democratic Party - http://www.dnc.org/
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Bob Barr/ Wayne A. Root - N
Libertarian Party - http://www.lp.org/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/


Write in Candidate information for Texas. these are listed in the order Texas has them.

Brian Moore/ Stewart A. Alexander - N
Socialist Party USA - http://www.sp-usa.org/
http://www.votebrianmoore.com/


Alan Keyes/ Marvin Sprouse, Jr. - N
America�s Independent Party - http://www.selfgovernment.us/
http://www.alankeyes.com/

Ralph Nader/ Matt Gonzalez - N
Independent
http://www.votenader.org/

Cynthia McKinney/ Rosa Clemente - N
Green Party - http://www.gp.org/
http://votetruth08.com/

Jonathan Allen/ Jeffrey D. Stath - N
Independent
https://www.heartquake08.com/

Chuck Baldwin/ Darrell L. Castle - N
Constitutional Party - http://www.constitutionparty.com/
http://www.baldwin08.com/

Thaddaus Hill/ Gordon F. Bailey - N
Madisonian-Federalist party
http://www.madisonian.org/index.php

Personally, I will probably vote for Bob Barr, but if I write anyone in, it will be between Jonathan Allen/Chuck Baldwin/Thaddaus Hill.

Alan Keyes is fun to listen to and has lots of good ideas, but it is all about him. Ralph Nader talks pretty good on some subjects, but when it comes to how he would treat business, I am out. Brian Moore, Cynthia McKinney, Barak Obama area all too socialist for me (especially Brian Moore) John McCain looses me on the War, Immigration, Foreign policy, and several other smaller issues. He just does not have enough positive notes for me to vote for him. I also value my son's life and don't want more wars. (my son will turn 18 in the next presidency).

The main thing is VOTE. VOTE for who you think would be the best for the job, or vote for who is in line with most of your thinking.

But by all means VOTE.

Bryan James

DEVO
Sep 20 2008, 08:36 PM
I commend you, Pizza, for doing research and paying attention. More people should pay attention and maybe fewer self-serving lazy ***** career politicians would be in Washington getting paid for doing nothing!

Pizza God
Sep 21 2008, 02:08 AM
I put that together for some of the email lists I am on. Several people keep saying they are going to write in Ron Paul. In Texas, his vote will not even be counted and there is a chance that whole ballot will be thrown out.

My wife and I went though all those today. She left before I got to the bottom one, but she thinks she may vote for the very drab and boring Jonathan Allan. (you have to watch his two video's to get what I mean) She liked what he had on his web site. (she is not as much Libertarian leaning as I am)