Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Another reason why Obama's tax plans scare me.

Yeah, slam on the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html) as being conservative, but numbers are numbers.

Throw this on top of Barney Frank calling for a 25% cut in military spending, and I may just have to vote for McCain after all.

[3894]

I may just have to vote for McCain after all.

According to what Christopher Hitchens said on "Hardball" yesterday, McCain is showing signs of senilty. If what Hitchens says is true and McCain wins, that would make two senile Republican presidents in the past 25 years.

[scaeagles]

Ho ho ho, aren't you so clever, 3894! Wow...maybe someday I can be as clever as you! :rolleyes:

[tracilicious]

That was unfriendly.

[Tenigma]

Another reason why Obama's tax plans scare me.
At this point I don't mind paying more taxes. It's my contribution for helping to try to fix our country.

[man, I never thought I'd see myself saying THAT before this election.]

[scaeagles]

That was unfriendly.

Agreed. And the comment that it was after unnecessary and rather mean spirited. I'll leave it at that.

[scaeagles]

At this point I don't mind paying more taxes. It's my contribution for helping to try to fix our country.

[man, I never thought I'd see myself saying THAT before this election.]

OK. I can respect that - sincerely. However, please then, let Obama have something close to honesty in terms of his plan rather than the blatant lie of 95% of people getting a tax cut. It's a lie. A big, big fat ugly one.

[JWBear]

OK. I can respect that - sincerely. However, please then, let Obama have something close to honesty in terms of his plan rather than the blatant lie of 95% of people getting a tax cut. It's a lie. A big, big fat ugly one.

He says 95% - Independant sources says 81.3% (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1968&DocTypeID=2).... Yeah, that's some big fat ugly lie. :rolleyes:

Shall we look at the accuracy of McCain's tax plan?

[Gemini Cricket]

Say, how about the people who supported Bush for 8 years get to pay more taxes? The rest of us get a tax cut as a reward for knowing better?

I mean, a true Bush supporter would help him clean up his mess, right?

:D

[CoasterMatt]

I mean, a true Bush supporter would help him clean up his mess, right?

:D
Otherwise, they're just supporting terrorists.

[scaeagles]

He says 95% - Independant sources says 81.3% (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1968&DocTypeID=2).... Yeah, that's some big fat ugly lie. :rolleyes:

Shall we look at the accuracy of McCain's tax plan?


As soon as someone can explain to me how, when 35% of all people pay no federal income taxes, that 95% of all people can get a tax cut....that might be a good start to making me believe. Taking money from tax payers and giving it to those who do not pay taxes is called redistribution of wealth, not a tax cut.

When it comes to his tax cut he is as much of a LIAR as Clinton. There will be no tax cuts for the middle class.

[lashbear]

This just in from a political bear friend of mine in Texas....

"My office mate went to vote yesterday in South Austin, where he encountered a man with a clipboard outside the polling place, asking each voter if they planned to vote for Obama. If they answered in the affirmative, he advised them to please make sure to vote a straight democratic ticket, and then, in addition, to vote specifically for Obama.
On our voting machines, this cancels the ballot.

When confronted by election officials, the man fled in an automobile plastered with McCain-Palin and other Republican stickers."

[scaeagles]

First of all, if someone is going to do that - which I doubt, and these kind of things are so ridiculously easy to fabricate - I really, really doubt they're going to leave in a car described as such.

I got an email of a memo from ACORN which described how the voters they illegally registered were told to be sure to change their clothing and wait at least a half an hour between votes, particularly if they were voting in the same polling location.

[JWBear]

As soon as someone can explain to me how, when 35% of all people pay no federal income taxes, that 95% of all people can get a tax cut....that might be a good start to making me believe. Taking money from tax payers and giving it to those who do not pay taxes is called redistribution of wealth, not a tax cut.

When it comes to his tax cut he is as much of a LIAR as Clinton. There will be no tax cuts for the middle class.

You just keep believing that, Leo. And when he wins, and his tax plan goes into effect, make sure you turn over the money you save. After all... It'll be a dirty lie, and can't really be yours to keep. :rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

How much money did you get from the Clinton tax cut? Oh wait....it didn't happen. Silly me NOT to believe it. How many times has Obama voted to lower taxes in his political career? That's only half rhetorical....I really don't know, but I'd bet he's voted to increase taxes a whole lot more than he's voted to lower them.

And are you going to answer my question about how one can cut taxes for 95% of the people when only 65% of the people pay federal income taxes?

[wendybeth]

It must be hard to have such a crappy candidate. I'm good with Obama's plans, even though I know he will actually have very little control over whether or not they go forward. Every day I read the news, see the sleazy things the McCain side is doing and saying, and I am thankful that Obama is staying the course and rising above the merde. He's human, despite McCain's best attempts to present him as otherwise, and I'm sure he'll make mistakes- but at least he's trying to do the right thing.

I wish people could opt out of paying taxes for such things as Social Security, Medicare and such. By doing so, they would give up any claim or access to a system they so disdain. They could then shut up about it, and hope to hell the basket they put all their eggs in is going to be there when they need it.

Meanwhile, more and more Repubs are splitting from the McCain camp:McCain adviser votes Obama ticket (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/mccain-adviser-endorses-o_n_137590.html).

[scaeagles]

I would love to opt out. However, since the social security and taxes go into the general funds (always had to laugh at the Al Gore "lock box" comments), there isn't much of a chance of me getting any out of what is supposedly mine that I paid into the system. Everyone knows it can't continue on its current course,,,,the population is living to older ages and there aren't enough payers in to the system to support those taking money out.

I have ZERO confidence that I will EVER see a dime of socail security money that I've paid in. Not many Americans under 40 do.

And yeah, McCain is a crappy candidate. I completely agree.

[flippyshark]

First of all, if someone is going to do that - which I doubt, and these kind of things are so ridiculously easy to fabricate - I really, really doubt they're going to leave in a car described as such.

I got an email of a memo from ACORN which described how the voters they illegally registered were told to be sure to change their clothing and wait at least a half an hour between votes, particularly if they were voting in the same polling location.

May I assume you did not believe this email? (I certainly don't, at least not from your description of it. Nor does the story from lashbear's post sound at all likely.) Do you honestly believe that this is anything but lazy workers filling out bad registrations in order to collect a paycheck without actually working? If you are persuaded by the ACORN conspiracy accusations, could you guide us to some evidence? Is ACORN providing everyone with fake IDs? Exactly how is Mickey Mouse going to vote, and whose costume will he change into for his second and third trips to the same polling location?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you find both stories bogus.

[3894]

Ho ho ho, aren't you so clever, 3894! Wow...maybe someday I can be as clever as you! :rolleyes:


This is yet another a personal attack. I did not attack you personally and do not deserve a slap from you. I said that Ronald Reagan was senile in office - a fact. I said that Christopher Hitchens claims that John McCain is in the early stages of senility.

[Alex]

If you are persuaded by the ACORN conspiracy accusations, could you guide us to some evidence? Is ACORN providing everyone with fake IDs?

I believe that scaeagles was pointing out how easy it is to make up stories (in response to the likely fictitious story lashbear posted -- I'm not clear why voting a straight Democratic ticket would cancel a ballot).

But regardless, in response to the quoted sentence, many states, including California, do not require providing any type of ID when you vote.

In fact, my local precinct went one step further when I lived in Oakland. Outside the polling place they posted the list of all the people who were registered at the location (public information anyway). I could easily have requested a ballot in the name of any person on that list. There would be the chance the person had already voted (one election they were crossing names out throughout the day to reflect who'd voted but that was just one) but if I'd been willing I could easily have voted several times a day.

I have no problem with ID laws but there also is no evidence that voter fraud is particularly rampant so I don't care much either way.

[blueerica]

I believe that scaeagles was pointing out how easy it is to make up stories (in response to the likely fictitious story lashbear posted -- I'm not clear why voting a straight Democratic ticket would cancel a ballot).

But regardless, in response to the quoted sentence, many states, including California, do not require providing any type of ID when you vote.

In fact, my local precinct went one step further when I lived in Oakland. Outside the polling place they posted the list of all the people who were registered at the location (public information anyway). I could easily have requested a ballot in the name of any person on that list. There would be the chance the person had already voted (one election they were crossing names out throughout the day to reflect who'd voted but that was just one) but if I'd been willing I could easily have voted several times a day.

I have no problem with ID laws but there also is no evidence that voter fraud is particularly rampant so I don't care much either way.

Actually the list is supposed to be publicly posted outside the polling place and updated X number of times a day. It's been a while since I've worked at a polling place, but it is the case last I knew. I believe it is so that a party can see whether "Oh, wow, this whole block hasn't come out to vote yet.." and decide to walk down that block, knock on their door, and remind them to vote. I can't remember whether political affiliation was posted. I'm thinking it's not posted.

As an aside, I have yet to receive my absentee ballot stuff. :(

[flippyshark]

Gosh, here in Florida, we definitely have to have a valid ID. I know, because I was turned away a couple of days ago. My drivers license has a mistake on the address (which I had not heretofore noticed), and so I had to fill out some forms, have my registration updated and I was told it would be a couple of days before I could vote. I was also instructed to get my license corrected.

All this is a good thing, though. I'm glad it wouldn't have been easy to mis-vote. I'm surprised it isn't this way everywhere.

Oh, and I'm going back tomorrow to vote. Any last minute pleas or persuasion must reach me before ten am Florida time Monday morning.

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, I didn't know which thread to post this in... but here it is.

I don’t know that it was always this way, but, for as long as I can remember, just as we move into the final weeks of the Presidential campaign the focus shifts to the undecided voters. “Who are they?” the news anchors ask. “And how might they determine the outcome of this election?”
Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.
I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?
Source (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris?currentPage=all)

I love David Sedaris. EH, NM, GD, CP & I were just talking about him.
:)

[wendybeth]

Alaska's largest newspaper just endorsed Obama: Anchorage Daily (http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/567867.html)

"Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain."

[Alex]

Actually the list is supposed to be publicly posted outside the polling place and updated X number of times a day. It's been a while since I've worked at a polling place, but it is the case last I knew. I believe it is so that a party can see whether "Oh, wow, this whole block hasn't come out to vote yet.." and decide to walk down that block, knock on their door, and remind them to vote. I can't remember whether political affiliation was posted. I'm thinking it's not posted.

As an aside, I have yet to receive my absentee ballot stuff. :(

Well, only once did I see the list being updated to show who had voted but maybe I just didn't notice. Still struck me as wildly reckless to post the exact information needed to commit real voting fraud:

1. Name
2. Address
3. Whether that person has already voted

Combined with no need to provide evidence of identification it just seemed lame. Still, there's no evidence of even a low level of widespread abuse, just seemed stupid.

I can't remember if party registration was posted, though it must have been for primaries since California has closed primaries.

[Stan4dSteph]

Well, only once did I see the list being updated to show who had voted but maybe I just didn't notice. Still struck me as wildly reckless to post the exact information needed to commit real voting fraud:

1. Name
2. Address
3. Whether that person has already voted

Combined with no need to provide evidence of identification it just seemed lame. Still, there's no evidence of even a low level of widespread abuse, just seemed stupid.

I can't remember if party registration was posted, though it must have been for primaries since California has closed primaries.In NY I have to sign a register, and they have a copy of my signature on file that the poll worker compares it against. Is there something like that in CA? I don't remember, but I thought I had to sign something there. Not sure if it was next to my existing signature though.

[Ghoulish Delight]

You do have to sign a register. I can't recall if they have a signature they check against.

[Snowflake]

You do have to sign a register. I can't recall if they have a signature they check against.

Last time I voted at the polling station, I had to provide my CDL. This was a long time back, however and they did check me off the roll.

[Alex]

Yes, you do have to sign. I've never seen them pay the slightest attention to the form of the actual signature and I don't remember there being an exemplar with it. But it has been a couple years now since I last voted in person so maybe I am not remembering.

[scaeagles]

I believe that scaeagles was pointing out how easy it is to make up stories (in response to the likely fictitious story lashbear posted -- I'm not clear why voting a straight Democratic ticket would cancel a ballot).

That's exactly what I was doing.

[scaeagles]

This is yet another a personal attack. I did not attack you personally and do not deserve a slap from you. I said that Ronald Reagan was senile in office - a fact.

Yeah, I stepped over the line. I apologize. I took the bait that was obviously placed for me.

As far as a fact.....Have you seen his medical records or are you going off what you think and/or have read from wherever (would love to see what the sources are)? I hope you have some form of degree or expertise to go along with lots and lots of experience in diagnosing such things if you're going to offer that opinion. Otherwise, I'm not sure how valid it can be.

[Alex]

This thread is as good as any (it is the only politics one that was in my New Posts search).

I don't generally think newspaper endorsements generally have much real world impact but this site (http://infochimps.org/static/gallery/politics/endorsements_map/endorsements_map.html) is an interesting presentation of their geography.

[Stan4dSteph]

This thread is as good as any (it is the only politics one that was in my New Posts search).

I don't generally think newspaper endorsements generally have much real world impact but this site (http://infochimps.org/static/gallery/politics/endorsements_map/endorsements_map.html) is an interesting presentation of their geography.I can't make out anything on that map. Is there a trend you see that's interesting?

[Ghoulish Delight]

The two trends I notice are that papers in blue states are more likely to make such endorsements one way or the other, and there are significantly more papers that "switched" from Bush to Obama than "switched" from Kerry to McCain.

[wendybeth]

I would love to opt out. However, since the social security and taxes go into the general funds (always had to laugh at the Al Gore "lock box" comments), there isn't much of a chance of me getting any out of what is supposedly mine that I paid into the system. Everyone knows it can't continue on its current course,,,,the population is living to older ages and there aren't enough payers in to the system to support those taking money out.

I have ZERO confidence that I will EVER see a dime of socail security money that I've paid in. Not many Americans under 40 do.

And yeah, McCain is a crappy candidate. I completely agree.

I feel for you- I really do. I was not a Kerry fan- and his many missteps caused me great pain during the past election.

I know SS won't be there for me as well. I've always known it. I may not be very good at math, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Boomers are going to wipe it out. They're a huge demographic, and they didn't have enough kids to pay into the system. I'm either the last year of the Boomer generation, or the first year of Gen X, depending on your sources. I've never identified with the Boomers- I think you had to have been a teen sometime during the Sixties to really be a Boomer, and I was not. I have a certain degree of resentment toward that group- they've run the world for quite a while now, and have swung every which way in the political and socio-economic spectrum, and frankly I'm tired of them holding all the cards. I do believe it's time for a change, a generational change, and I think my candidate is truly the man for the job. I hope he gets it.

[scaeagles]

So....am I reading the transcript of this quote correctly???? I can't wait to hear the spin on this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4).

"I think we can say that... uh ..uh... the Constitution reflected a(sic) enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.. and... and ahh.. and that the framers had that same blind spot... I.. I don't think that the two views are contradictory to say that, it was a remarkable political document.. ah.. that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it ..ah.. it also, ah...rep..reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues until this day."


The Constitutional reflects the fundamental flaw of this country? What the hell is that fundamental flaw and how does the Constitution reflect it? If sworn in, he takes an oath that says he will protect and defend the Constitution. He has NO power to change it. What was the blind spot? That scares the HELL out of me.

Also, we've got this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)......in which he lamenting that the supreme court (specifically the Warren court) never addressed redistribution of wealth as an issue of economic justice.

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".

He wants redistribution of wealth. He says it clearly. He is simply talking about the best way to do it.

McCain now gets my vote even though I do not support him. Obama is a socialist and I cannot be part of not voting for his opposition.

[Strangler Lewis]

As to the first part, he was obviously talking about the original constitution's hands-off attitude to slavery.

As to the second, it's a legitimate issue, but my take is that he said it in 2001 and he was using overly progressive rhetoric to talk about how to cure the lingering effects of slavery and racism. Plus, it's a question of degree. Taken to extreme, we wouldn't have a progressive tax system or antitrust laws, and most of the land in Hawaii would still be owned by a few families.

But go ahead and vote for McCain. We all knew you would. I dare you to prove us wrong.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Spout your favorite buzz phrase all you want, voting for McCain isn't going to change crap. He believes exactly the same thing despite his hypocritical cries of "socialism". The reality is our tax system is massively out of balance, the wealthy enjoy huge protections from the government (aww, you gambled and lost money? Here's a bailout!) and pay a small percentage of their income. Both Obama and McCain have called for fixing that balance.


John McCain: “We feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more… I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay — all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they — you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view… here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

http://therecord.barackobama.com/?p=3143

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh yeah, and news flash, the Constitution is not the creation of an omniscient being and is not a perfect creation without flaws! Ooooh, did I just commit treason?

[scaeagles]

As to the first part, he was obviously talking about the original constitution's hands-off attitude to slavery.

Read the part that says it is still contuniing to this day. Last I checked, there wasn't slavery any longer.

I'm so glad you can see into my head, Strangler, and knew I was going to vote for McCain all along. Yawn. You know nothing of me.

There a difference between tax relief for those that pay taxes and giving money to those who don't. Again, I ask, how is it possible for 95% of the people to get federal tax cuts when only 65% of the people pay any federal income taxes? That isn't a tax cut. That is redistribution of wealth.

Read the statitics. The top 1% of wage earners pay just shy of 40% of all federal income taxes. That has GONE UP under the Bush administration regardless of the rhetoric otherwise.

Call Obama's plans whatever you want, but taking money from taxpayers and giving it to non taxpayers, even when bogusly calling it a tax cut, is still redistribution of wealth, and it is still socialism. McCain is NOT calling for (unless I just haven't read it) taking money from tax payers, giving it to non tax payers, and calling it a tax cut. HUGE difference.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, the other day you said that you were going to be voting for McCain, despite your earlier statements, due to something that Obama said or did or might do. Had you changed your mind, and are now changing it again?;)

[Alex]

Yes, as for the first one surely you, scaeagles, acknowledge that the Consitution's handling of slavery was a moral lapse (if not, at the time, a political one) reflecting a blind spot of the founding fathers and issues of race that reverberate to this day?

As for the second one, did you actually listen to it? You say:

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".He never expressed that thought in the video. He said quite clearly why the courts didn't do it, and why they aren't designed to do it. And therefore, as radical as the Warren Court has come to be viewed, it really wasn't so radical that it moved outside the framework within which the court has historically functioned.

He also never says he wants redistribution of wealth in that presentation, despite what the helpful big text says. He does answer whether such efforts are best pursued in the legislative or judicial branches. He may very well want them (though nothing defines exactly what would be pursued in such economic solutions so I might very well agree with them) but the video does not present that case.

If we assume you actually listened to the video, then the fact that he does not say what you say he did must simply be a lie on your part intending to deceive those who can't be bothered to actually listen to it.

If we assume you didn't actually listen to the video, then it would appear you are just once again blindly passing along whatever is fed to you at the Drudge Report and supporting blogs.

So, are you a liar or a dupe? Or do you have a third option I'm not seeing at the moment?

[scaeagles]

I listened to it several times.

The first - of course it was a moral lapse. No doubt. However, it does not "still continue until this day".

Secondly, he says that the Warren court did not break free from the essential constraints of the Constitution. The whole context is about what he terms "economic justice" and redistribution of wealth. I have listened to it 5 or 6 times to be absolutely clear.

He then continues on to say that it was a tragedy in the civil rights movement not to focus more on "redistributive change".

When the caller asks if it is too late to be repaired, he says he isn't optimistic such change can be brought through the courts. He clearly WANTS redistribution of wealth.

I do not believe I am a liar or a dupe. He says exactly that he wants redistribution of wealth.

[scaeagles]

Scaeagles, the other day you said that you were going to be voting for McCain, despite your earlier statements, due to something that Obama said or did or might do. Had you changed your mind, and are now changing it again?;)

I think I said earlier that McCain might get my vote. I had not yet decided. I now have.

It still doesn't make a difference in AZ. But I want to go on record as against Obama.

[Alex]

By the way, if anybody would care to (and I know such things are anathema in our spoonfed soundbite age) you can download the entire interview from WBEZ here (http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram).

I haven't listened to it yet but here is some less histrionic analysis (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/The%20necessaries%20of%20life%20occasion%20the%20g reat%20expense%20of%20the%20poor.%20They%20find%20 it%20difficult%20to%20get%20food,%20and%20the%20gr eater%20part%20of%20their%20little%20revenue%20is% 20spent%20in%20getting%20it.%20The%20luxuries%20an d%20vanities%20of%20life%20occasion%20the%20princi pal%20expense%20of%20the%20rich,%20and%20a%20magni ficent%20house%20embellishes%20and%20sets%20off%20 to%20the%20best%20advantage%20all%20the%20other%20 luxuries%20and%20vanities%20which%20they%20possess .%20A%20tax%20upon%20house-rents,%20therefore,%20would%20in%20general%20fall% 20heaviest%20upon%20the%20rich;%20and%20in%20this% 20sort%20of%20inequality%20there%20would%20not,%20 perhaps,%20be%20anything%20very%20unreasonable.%20 It%20is%20not%20very%20unreasonable%20that%20the%2 0rich%20should%20contribute%20to%20the%20public%20 expense,%20not%20only%20in%20proportion%20to%20the ir%20revenue,%20but%20something%20more%20than%20in %20that%20proportion.) of the video from right-leaning Constitutional Law Professor bloggers at The Volokh Conspiracy.

[wendybeth]

Why is it that so many financial officers and publications are endorsing Obama, if he is just going to tax them and their clients out of existence? I am curious, however, to know just how anyone thinks we are going to pay for all our adventures of the past 8 years without some sort of tax increase, especially with so many people losing their homes and jobs right now. Besides, as we well know- anyone can say they won't ("Read my lips") raise taxes- at least Obama is being honest. That's kind of refreshing.

[wendybeth]

I think I said earlier that McCain might get my vote. I had not yet decided. I now have.

It still doesn't make a difference in AZ. But I want to go on record as against Obama.

I'm surprised. (Not really).

[Alex]

Well, if you actually listened to it, then you and I don't interact with the English language in the same ways. So, I guess it was mystery third option.

He quite clearly, TWICE, says the flaw in this country (slavery, reverberations of slavery, and problems of race relations) continues to this day, not the flaw in the constitution. The flaw in the constitution was largely corrected at the conclusion of the Civil War.

Yes, he did say the Warren Court did not break free of its constraints. That was his point. At no point did he say that it should have.

I have no doubt that Obama supports redistributive policies. But so does everybody (I supoprt public schools which are a big transfer of moneys when we educate all them poor kids). We all just disagree on which ones are a good idea.

However, that support is not particularly given in the video you posted, nor is it detailed. And I still contend that your paraphrasing of it is horribly deceptive.

[scaeagles]

You believe Obama is telling the truth about taxes? Then what the hell is all this 95% of the people will pay less?

[scaeagles]

However, that support is not particularly given in the video you posted, nor is it detailed. And I still contend that your paraphrasing of it is horribly deceptive.

He is clearly lamenting that it did not take place. I do not think that I am being deceptive in the least.

[Stan4dSteph]

You believe Obama is telling the truth about taxes? Then what the hell is all this 95% of the people will pay less?Maybe it means 95% of people who pay taxes.

[Alex]

I'm sorry, I fail to see where I mentioned tax policy in the discussion of whether you are misleading people (whether intentionally or not).

But since I'm sure you'd like to change the subject from that discussion.

No, I do not believe that 95% of people will pay lower taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan. And, even if they would, I do not believe that a proposed tax plan is likely to bear much resemblance to the actual tax plan, since after all the president can do nothing more than present Congress with a power point presentation and then wait and see like the rest of us.

However, from my comparison of the two proposed tax plans, it does appear that MORE people would pay lower taxes under Obama's than under McCain's.

So, having answered that question can we go back to the topic you were trying to change away from?

[Alex]

He is clearly lamenting that it did not take place. I do not think that I am being deceptive in the least.

So, let's grant you that one (though I don't really, but for sake of argument). You have found one spot where you told the truth and accurately presented the video. How about the other spots where you just made stuff up? You directly quoted Obama's words into a context entirely different than what he said.

Where, for example, did he say the Warren Court should have broken free of its fundamental constraints? Now, please, don't tell me where you interpret him saying that, where the tone of something he said later reflects back on what he said previously (and remember this is a severely truncated presentation of a much longer interview) shedding a new sinister light. Since you say he SAID it, please point to that.

[scaeagles]

I'm sorry, I fail to see where I mentioned tax policy in the discussion of whether you are misleading people (whether intentionally or not).


That was in response to WB, which I was typing while you posted your most recent, so it appeared as if I was responding to you. Should have quoted her post.

[scaeagles]

Here's what I said:

in which he lamenting that the supreme court (specifically the Warren court) never addressed redistribution of wealth as an issue of economic justice.

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".

He wants redistribution of wealth. He says it clearly. He is simply talking about the best way to do it.

I think we agree that he wants redistribution of wealth.

I believe my conclusions above to be logical in the context of his statements. I think it obvious that he is indeed lamenting that the court did not address it. You may not, OK.

Upon relistening again, I will agree and concede that he did not say the Warren court should have been able to to break free gfrom those constraints. However, he then goes on to discuss how he thinks the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was to focus on the courts instead of elsewhere where those economic aims could have been accomplished.

My point still stands in that he WANTS those aims accomplished. He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts. That's a clever way to promote socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless.

[wendybeth]

Maybe it means 95% of people who pay taxes.

I've always thought that, which is why I've refrained from commenting when the 95% of ALL people came up before. There are a great many people who don't pay taxes at all. Going to be more in this economic climate, I'm afraid.

[scaeagles]

Obama has said that he'll lower taxes for 95% of "working families". It would seem to me that would have to include a large majority of people who make below the threshhold of paying federal taxes.

[JWBear]

My,my,my... We have been busy this morning.

Is it my imagination, or is the tone from the Right getting shriller and shriller as we get closer to the 4th?

[scaeagles]

Why is it shrill to point out what Obama is saying and has said?

[scaeagles]

Here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=) is an opinion piece (please note I say opinion because it is and I share the opinion and believe it is well stated here....yes, it is from Bill Whittle at National Review, certainly conservative, but he explains a lot of my concerns better than I ever could....just letting the source be know up front so no one shouts about how it's a conservative source and how it is opinion) that sums up my concerns well.

[Betty]

My,my,my... We have been busy this morning.

Is it my imagination, or is the tone from the Right getting shriller and shriller as we get closer to the 4th?

Yeah - I think everyone's getting a little uppity. Maybe we should all just cocktail it for the next week. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[Gemini Cricket]

Is it my imagination, or is the tone from the Right getting shriller and shriller as we get closer to the 4th?
I'd say Elizabeth Hasselbeck introducing Gov. Palin is about as shrill as it gets.
:eek:

[Alex]

He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts.

When it comes to redistributive solutions, what you just said is not necessarily what is being talked about.

And as I said, we all support redistributive policies, we just disagree on which ones. After all, I'm assuming you would not remove from the X% of people who pay no federal taxes all access to federal services.

[Strangler Lewis]

Here's what I think Obama meant in his discussion of the civil rights movement. Two points: First, separate but equal was not overturned overnight. Thurgood Marshall litigated a number of cases that overturned a number of segregationist schemes by showing that--surprise--they were not, in fact, equal. Second, Marshall & co. scrupulously avoided all entreaties by socialists, communists and the like who claimed that the worker's struggle was also the black man's struggle. Thus, I think that Obama was lamenting that the civil rights movement did not do--or could not have done--more to ensure that black schools, whether segregated de facto or de jure were, in fact equal. I assume that if the issue is phrased as "everyone should be able to go to good schools" rather than as "redistribution" that you do not object even though it amounts to the same thing.

[Snowflake]

I'd say Elizabeth Hasselbeck introducing Gov. Palin is about as shrill as it gets.
:eek:

A yapping poodle introducing another yapping poodle?;)

[scaeagles]

I suppose it does depend on how one defines redistribution of wealth. I am not one who regards access federal services as redistribution. Driving on an interstate, for example, I suppose could be regarded as some sort of strange redistribution of wealth considering those who pay no taxes still drive on them, but services are not what I am referring to, nor do I believe it is what Obama was referring to.

I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes.

[Snowflake]

Is anyone besides me, feeling a bit encouraged at the massive rallies? I find it inspiring that 70,000-100,000 people turn out for one of these things. To sound trite, it does give me a sense of hope.

[Alex]

I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes.

You can say that now, but they have always been called tax cuts in the past so it is disingenuous to now say that they aren't. Yes, some tax credits result in cash payouts when the tax liability is reduced to lower than zero. You can disagree with this philosophically but such increasing these credits has always been rhetorically placed under the umbrella of tax cuts to whomever supports them (just as with John McCain's proposed $5000 tax credit for medical insurance which will be paid even if the user owes no taxes).

Also, it is possible to cut taxes for a person who doesn't pay any. If you have a tax obligation of $750 dollars and qualify for $750 in tax deductions you don't pay any taxes. But it is entirely possible for new tax policies to reduce your obligation from $750 to $500. Your tax obligation was cut, your tax deductions still reduce what you owe to zero.

Finally, you have used this formulation several times "Obama says that 95% of people will receive a tax cut but 40% of people don't pay any income tax, how can that then be true." (That isn't a direct quote but I think it accurately reflects and I don't want to go look for the direct quote; I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong).

Two things. Obama almost always say "95% of working families" which is different from 95% of everybody and is essentially true (independent sources say 91-94%). However, I'm sure examples can be found of saying simply "95% of people" by Obama or campaign surrogates. When this is said, it is misleading.

However, you do something rhetorically in your formulation of the question that is also misleading. You change the units of measure. From "taxes" to "income taxes." Income taxes do not include the entirety of a persons tax burden as you well know. Even people who end up paying no income taxes still (if they have any legitimate income at all) end up paying payroll taxes. And part of Obama's plan is a tax credit against payroll taxes. So, even if that doesn't bump it up to 95% of all people, this is another way you get people who pay no federal income tax still getting a tax cut.

[scaeagles]

Finally, you have used this formulation several times "Obama says that 95% of people will receive a tax cut but 40% of people don't pay any income tax, how can that then be true." (That isn't a direct quote but I think it accurately reflects and I don't want to go look for the direct quote; I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong).

Two things. Obama almost always say "95% of working families" which is different from 95% of everybody and is essentially true (independent sources say 91-94%). However, I'm sure examples can be found of saying simply "95% of people" by Obama or campaign surrogates. When this is said, it is misleading.

You are accurate in your assessment of what I'm saying, but I don't follow your logic on this point. How is it true when he says "95% of working families" vs. "95% of all people"?


However, you do something rhetorically in your formulation of the question that is also misleading. You change the units of measure. From "taxes" to "income taxes." Income taxes do not include the entirety of a persons tax burden as you well know. Even people who end up paying no income taxes still (if they have any legitimate income at all) end up paying payroll taxes. And part of Obama's plan is a tax credit against payroll taxes. So, even if that doesn't bump it up to 95% of all people, this is another way you get people who pay no federal income tax still getting a tax cut.

What are payroll taxes for? The vast majority is for social security. I don't regard these in the same category because it is (theoretically) a retirement account to which one should be required to pay in if they are going to get something out.

[Gemini Cricket]

A collection of cool Obama posters. (http://www.evasion.cc/blog/comments/designer-obama-poster/)

[Alex]

You are accurate in your assessment of what I'm saying, but I don't follow your logic on this point. How is it true when he says "95% of working families" vs. "95% of all people"?

95% of working families is a subset of 95% of all people and that subset will receive almost all of the benefit. Therefore, the 80% that is true when done for "all people" is actually close to 95% when done for "working families." I'm not sure what you find confusing.

What are payroll taxes for? The vast majority is for social security. I don't regard these in the same category because it is (theoretically) a retirement account to which one should be required to pay in if they are going to get something out.Fine and irrelevant. Regardless of what the money is used for, sure you agree it is a tax? And that reducing the amount a person pays on said tax a "tax cut"?

Again, you may have a philosophical disagreement on whether this particular tax cut is a good idea (though I didn't know Republicans ever had such philosophical disagreements, though maybe this would be an exception since it favors the working poor over the wealthy who earn more than the payroll tax caps) but you can't really argue it is a tax cut. And it is the central component of the truth in the statement that "95% of working families" -- as opposed to 95% of all people some portion of which do not pay any taxes of any type because they have no reported income -- will receive a tax credit. Every single tax filer earning less than $200,000 will get this $500 or $1000 proposed credit. That is 97% of all filers.



As you can see, we are again running into a wall where you are apparently not speaking the same English language I am. Apparently reducing taxes burdens is only a tax cut when Republicans do it and socialism when other people do it. And redistribution is only redistribution when the money transfer happens in cash.

[scaeagles]

All I can say is you make some excellent points there.

I do regard social security as different because of the nature and purpose, but it is indeed a tax.

I suppose I need to research a bit more into his proposed tax brackets (I assume since the Bush tax cuts were largely lowering bracketed rates that the expiration of those will result in increased rates in those brackets) to see if the proposed credit offsets the increase in the rates (assuming there are).

One reason I post here is to learn from those with good knowledge. I am not against learning and having my opinions and facts challenged.....it's a lot more interesting that posting where everyone would agree with most of what I say.

[JWBear]

I suppose it does depend on how one defines redistribution of wealth. I am not one who regards access federal services as redistribution. Driving on an interstate, for example, I suppose could be regarded as some sort of strange redistribution of wealth considering those who pay no taxes still drive on them, but services are not what I am referring to, nor do I believe it is what Obama was referring to.

I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes.

By your definition, ALL tax cuts are a "redistribution of wealth". So I guess you're only for tax cuts when they favor the wealthy?

(Posted before I saw that there was a whole other page of back-and-forth between Alex and Leo.)

[Alex]

To fact check myself. Not everybody under $200,000 will get $500 or $1000 refundable credit. The proposal phases it out from $150,000 to $200,000 so some would get partials.

In reading to support myself I found this which explains the issue (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/813/) pretty well. I'm sure somebody will disagree but I generally find the fact checking at that site to be pretty non-partisan. If you want to find a list of statements where Obama really is wrong or distorting you'll find them listed there.


Leo, as to your last post. I am fine with that. Really I am. What gets under my skin (more than it should) is often that you simply post something that is a reiteration of what you've read at one of the prominent right-leaning blogs (not that you're the only one I frequently see things and say "ah, that must have just hit the front page at Drudge or Instapundit or MyDD or Daily Kos or something) and then rely on us to fact check you. Sometimes this only takes a few seconds and it is really annoying that you couldn't have just done that yourself.

It is much more interesting to debate fundamental philosophical decisions (is a $500 refundable payroll tax credit good policy) than issues of easily verifiable fact (what is the basis for Obama or McCain saying X).

[JWBear]

A collection of cool Obama posters. (http://www.evasion.cc/blog/comments/designer-obama-poster/)

All I get is "Page Not Found". :(

[scaeagles]

No, not at all, JW. I don't know where you get that I defined it as "all tax cuts are a redistribution of wealth". I am for EVERYONE paying less taxes and having smaller government.

My definition of redistribution of wealth is taking money that is paid to the government in the form of federal income taxes by anyone and giving it to those who have paid no federal income taxes.

[scaeagles]

What gets under my skin (more than it should) is often that you simply post something that is a reiteration of what you've read at one of the prominent right-leaning blogs (not that you're the only one I frequently see things and say "ah, that must have just hit the front page at Drudge or Instapundit or MyDD or Daily Kos or something) and then rely on us to fact check you. Sometimes this only takes a few seconds and it is really annoying that you couldn't have just done that yourself.


I confess to that at times. However, I don't think that I did that in this case. What started all of this was my interpretation of what Obama said. I stand by my interpretation though I know you disagree.

You have, however, made me stop to think about a couple of things that have bothered me about Obama.

[Alex]

[In reply to scaegles reply to JWBear]

Like John McCain's $5000 health insurance tax credit (which everybody would get regardless of how much, including zero, they pay in income taxes)? Or his proposal (if I recall correctly) to double the EITC? That right there is about $10,000 per person (if they have 2 dependents) in wealth redistribution by McCain, which actually may be larger than that the proposed refundable tax credit increases by Obama.

If Obama's level of wealth redistribution was cause to throw you back at McCain, is McCain's cause to through you back to abstain?

[scaeagles]

This is indeed true. McCain is also proposing large redistribution of wealth tax credits.

DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMN ITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMN ITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

Just when I find some form of righteous indignation it is made apparent that McCain is indeed proposing the same.

Now I'm back to only maybe voting for McCain.

[JWBear]

Now I'm back to only maybe voting for McCain.

Yes Leo... I encourage you to take a stand and not vote! And while you're at it, convince all your friends not to vote for McCain either! :evil:

[Alex]

The my work here is done.

Just keep in mind that with McCain so far behind at this point the only hope they have is massively inflamed righteous indignation and that it no longer matters much if there is a lot of reality behind it since if it successfully fans flames they won't cool until after the election.

So, before giving in to the indignation pause to see if you're being played.

This is not to say you lack good reason to oppose Obama. On purely philosophical grounds you are completely at odds. But opposition need not require outrage.

[wendybeth]

What, besides the tax thing, do you dislike about Obama, Leo? I'm just wondering if that's the only roadblock to your voting for him. So many conservative (and namely Reaganites) have expressed support for him in spite of his party affiliation and I truly admire people who are able to find the courage to do so, especially in this rather vicious climate.

By the way, very cool to be receptive to our arguements. I really do try and do the same, because I've always believed truth lies in the middle of most extremes. Like I said, I've voted Republican before and no doubt will again. This polarized political situation is very unhealthy, for everyone.

[scaeagles]

Yeah, like I said I don't post here because everyone agrees with me. Sometimes my arguments are solid, sometimes, while my arguments may be valid, there are counters to what I've got to say.

I'm not particularly interested in rehashing my dislike of Obama' policies, as we've been over them, but since you asked.....and again, I'm not trying to debate what has been debated, I'm only trying to answer WB.

I think he is naive and dangerous when it comes to foreign policy, and I think Biden is no genious there either (for example, Obama opposed the surge and still denies it was a success, and Biden wanted to split the country into three parts). I do believe he is at heart a socialist. I believe he wants bigger government. I beleive he will gut the military budget. The thought of most important decisions being made by the triumverate of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama scares the crap out of me.

That's just the quick stuff.

[wendybeth]

Why would he gut the military budget when he's already stated he'd like to expand the military? Other than that, fair enough. I don't think Palin is exactly qualified for the criteria you set forth, but maybe McCain will live through his tenure. Most dissenting conservatives cite his selection of Palin as the last straw for them, but who knows? It could work out- look at Truman. Of course, he actually had loads of experience, but......never mind.:D

[BarTopDancer]

McCain's foreign policy and potential 8 more years of causing trouble in the Middle East (instead of figuring out how to get our troops home) and pissing off the few allies we have left scare me far more than Obama's lack of experience. I don't think the surge worked. I don't think the war did much other than to completely destabilize the ME and make us a lot more hated and vulnerable. We had the sympathy of almost the entire world after 9/11. We had backing and support to go into Afghanistan. And what's going on there now? Still haven't found bin Laden, still haven't found WMDs, the Taliban is still alive and well. And the majority of the world hates us. Bush fvcked up big time, and I don't think McCain would be willing to do anything to improve that situation. McCain's foreign policy 'experience' = at least 4 more years of Bush.

Leo really needs to talk to the prez of my company. They can panic about teh "socialism" Obama will bring to this country together.

[scaeagles]

Oh - and other specific tax spolicies, WB, including the death tax and captial gains taxes are majorly problematic to me.

As far as the military.....Barney Frank said he wants to cut the military budget by 25%. Frank carries a lot of influence. That may not be Obama, per se, but I don't see Obama vetoing a budget that reduces military spending.

BTD, there are so many things in your post (though not all) I disagree with, but we've hashed over them before....I just didn't want silence to be considered acquiesence.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think Obama has said that surge didn't work when "work" is defined as meeting goals within Iraq. What he's said (and said to Patraeus's face) is that the surge did not support the overall picture of preventing terrorism and protecting American interests. Obama's argument is not that we can't win in Iraq or that the strategies currently employed in Iraq (now that Bush is bothering to listen to his generals) aren't effective. His argument is that Iraq is not the be all and end all of military priority and that our resources are better spent elsewhere. And those currently running things seem to be agreeing with that assessment as they've moved their best man, Patraeus, into a position where he is focusing on Afghanistan more than Iraq.

From accounts of his meeting with Patraeus:

"You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.source (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html?iid=digg_share)

[Alex]

You have him on the capital gains tax, but his proposals on the "death tax" significantly reduce their impact on any estates smaller than some very large number (I'm thinking $8 million but I haven't looked it up again to confirm).

[wendybeth]

I wasn't aware we were electing Barney Frank.


I'm sorry, but many of the reasons you cite strike me as reaching. I can't help but think you simply don't like the man, and are striving for justification. If you don't like him, fine- I don't know that I could vote for someone I disliked intensely. So many of the things you are worried about are really decided by Congress and the Senate- Obama would have very little control over such things.

[scaeagles]

I can gaurantee you McCain would not vote for a budget that reduced military spending by 25%.

It's not that I don't like Obama as a person - I've said before that he seems like a decent man. I admit a lot of it is distrust of the democrat party and what has typically been the agenda of the democrat party - such as reduction in military spending, lax control of the borders, whatever.

[Alex]

Here's a decent comparison (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/smallbusiness/estate_tax.fsb/) of McCain and Obama's Estate Tax proposals.

If you're opposed philosophically to an estate tax at all then you won't be happy with either because they both support continuing them.

Obama at the current 45% rate with a $7 million exemption (currently it is $3.5 million).

McCain at 15% with a $10 million exemption.

Those sounds hugely different to me but per the articles figures I didn't see a big difference in impact on small businesses. Small businesses are the bugaboo of estate taxes since heirs potentially have to sell or close the business to afford or avoid the taxes, creating economic collateral damage.

However, under either plan there would only be a couple hundred impacted business each year (and even under the current "horrible" situation it is less than 500 a year).

So, neither candidate agrees with you on principal in opposing any estate tax at all (and the article makes a good point about why abolishment altogether isn't necessarily a great thing for heirs either) and the individual impacts are hugely different and the revenue impacts are significantly different (McCain maybe saves another 50-100 business over Obama but loses the government about $40B in current revenue due to his significantly lower rate).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Changing topics for a moment:

Skinheads: Disproving white supremacy two idiots at a time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27405681/)

[Betty]

Changing topics for a moment:

Skinheads: Disproving white supremacy two idiots at a time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27405681/)

What a bunch of dumb asses.

[JWBear]

I can gaurantee you McCain would not vote for a budget that reduced military spending by 25%.

Why would that automaticly be a bad thing? For example: If we could eliminate wastefull spending, and still keep up our readiness, why would it be bad to do so?

...what has typically been the agenda of the democrat party - such as reduction in military spending, lax control of the borders, whatever.

And the Republican White House has done such a superb job with that these last eight years... :rolleyes:

[wendybeth]

Well, there are reports that illegal immigration is down and some illegals have headed back to Mexico in search of jobs. Weird, eh? Since it's the horrid economy that is causing this change, I wonder if the Repubs will take credit?

[BDBopper]

Changing topics for a moment:

Skinheads: Disproving white supremacy two idiots at a time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27405681/)

it makes me want to puke to know that someone even had the thought to pull such a plot. I thought we had progressed far enough. Ugh! :mad:

[Ghoulish Delight]

it makes me want to puke to know that someone even had the thought to pull such a plot. I thought we had progressed far enough. Ugh! :mad: What about a country full of people who, in supposedly legitimate media positions, lend credence to ridiculous rumors that Obama is a secret terrorist simply because of his middle name has lead you to believe that this country has progressed beyond racism?

[BDBopper]

What about a country full of people who, in supposedly legitimate media positions, lend credence to ridiculous rumors that Obama is a secret terrorist simply because of his middle name has lead you to believe that this country has progressed beyond racism?

That disgusts me too.

[scaeagles]

And the Republican White House has done such a superb job with that these last eight years... :rolleyes:

I completely agree.

[flippyshark]

Whee! I voted this afternoon.

Of no real significance, but as I was standing in line waiting to vote, two young ladies, about college age, latina, cute, (none of which matters, just painting a picture) were behind me talking about their pending vote. They were clearly in Obama's camp, but I was amused about their reasons why:

- "He is SO good looking!"
- "And I love the way he sounds when he talks! I can't wait to have a president who looks good and who I love listening to!"
- "And he dresses nice. I am so excited!"

Whatever it takes. I'm happy they voted. :)

[BarTopDancer]

Well, there are reports that illegal immigration is down and some illegals have headed back to Mexico in search of jobs. Weird, eh? Since it's the horrid economy that is causing this change, I wonder if the Repubs will take credit?

And as soon as the economey gets better they will get back.

We were studying this in my [horrible, awful] policy class. Until the reasons for illegal immigration are resolved (no jobs in their home countries, deplorable working and living conditions, corrupt government and military, etc...) illegal immigrants will find their way in. They will climb a larger wall, dig a deeper hole or swim longer distances. Employers will go further underground to employ (and exploit) illegal workers. It won't stop, neither president can stop it, though Obama has acknowledged the issue goes deeper than securing our boarders.

[sleepyjeff]

Why is it that so many financial officers and publications are endorsing Obama, if he is just going to tax them and their clients out of existence?

The answer lies within your question;)

[Tenigma]

"My office mate went to vote yesterday in South Austin, where he encountered a man with a clipboard outside the polling place, asking each voter if they planned to vote for Obama. If they answered in the affirmative, he advised them to please make sure to vote a straight democratic ticket, and then, in addition, to vote specifically for Obama.
On our voting machines, this cancels the ballot.

You need to go to http://truth.voteforchange.com/articles/straightticket and read what they say.

The Web site (maintained by the Obama team) tells you what's true and what's not:

The Truth About Straight-Ticket Voting

Not all states have straight-ticket voting. See list below to see if your state does.

Straight-ticket voting allows voters to choose a party’s entire slate of candidates. With straight-ticket voting, a voter can make one punch or mark on the ballot to vote for every candidate of that party on the ballot.

Your state may not have a “Straight Democratic” option – not every state does. If you don’t see one, don’t be concerned. Nothing is wrong with your ballot.

If you are in a “straight-ticket” state, you may have seen advice encouraging you to make two marks on the ballot: once for the Democratic “straight-ticket” AND once for Barack Obama. In North Carolina, this is correct. If you vote the Democratic “straight-ticket,” you must ALSO check an additional box to vote for Barack Obama for President.

In other states, the advice is incorrect. If you mark “Straight Democratic Ticket”, a vote for Barack Obama WILL be counted. In fact, in states other than North Carolina, to avoid problems, it’s better to ONLY push “Straight Democratic Ticket”.

(Note: You aren’t required to vote using the straight-ticket method. You can vote for Barack Obama and other candidates on an individual basis.)

So:
North Carolina – vote BOTH straight-ticket and Obama, OR vote for individual candidates like Obama.

Other states – vote straight-ticket by itself, OR vote for individual candidates like Obama.

Meanwhile, look for cards or mailed literature from the campaign in the days before Election Day, and at the polls. Campaign for Change will be handing out easy instructions to help make sure that you can vote, that you understand how to vote in your county, and that your vote counts.

You can learn more about voting in your state at www.VoteForChange.com, our Voter Information Center, or your state’s Secretary of State’s website.

If you have any further questions, please call your local Campaign for Change office — there’s a list at http://my.barackobama.com/statepages.

States that DO use straight ticket voting include:
Alabama
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Michigan
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wisconsin

[Alex]

Huh, never heard of that Straight Ticket thing. That's pretty stupid.

[wendybeth]

The answer lies within your question;)
That they want a healthy economy so they can keep their jobs? Bastards!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I can't believe people still punch paper tickets. Blah blah electronic balloting issues, but seriously, this long after the 2000 election, how can these exist anywhere?

[Stan4dSteph]

We use mechanical voting booths here.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

We use mechanical voting booths here.Hmm, this would actually be a cool thing - we should all take a photo of our polling places.

I'm starting to fall in love with photo blogging.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, this would actually be a cool thing - we should all take a photo of our polling places.I don't think we can all make it to New York on election day.

[Morrigoon]

I think he is naive and dangerous when it comes to foreign policy, and I think Biden is no genious there either (for example, Obama opposed the surge and still denies it was a success, and Biden wanted to split the country into three parts). I do believe he is at heart a socialist. I believe he wants bigger government. I beleive he will gut the military budget. The thought of most important decisions being made by the triumverate of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama scares the crap out of me.

That's just the quick stuff.

Speaking strictly to the part about dividing Iraq into 3 parts... if he means along ethnic lines, there are some very solid historical arguments behind doing so. Many of the civil wars of the last century resulted from redrawing national borders along politically-expedient, rather than culturally-rational lines. I'm okay with that.

There is little that can be said about bigger gov't because I haven't seen a "small government" candidate from either party in a very long time. The Patriot Act certainly wasn't a small-gov't move.

[Morrigoon]

Here's a decent comparison (http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/smallbusiness/estate_tax.fsb/) of McCain and Obama's Estate Tax proposals.

If you're opposed philosophically to an estate tax at all then you won't be happy with either because they both support continuing them.

Obama at the current 45% rate with a $7 million exemption (currently it is $3.5 million).

McCain at 15% with a $10 million exemption.

Those sounds hugely different to me but per the articles figures I didn't see a big difference in impact on small businesses. Small businesses are the bugaboo of estate taxes since heirs potentially have to sell or close the business to afford or avoid the taxes, creating economic collateral damage.

Isn't this what living trusts are for?

[scaeagles]

Back to Obama income tax policies.....Obama started with 250,000 as his threshhold. At least once after that, and I am willing to grant this could quite possibly be a misstatement, he said 200,000. I have never brought that up, but do now, because in an interview yesterday, Biden said 150,000.

Because I am already immensely suspicious of them and their tax policies, I wonder if they are slipping because they talk about other numbers - as in lowering the 250,000 that they've widely campaigned on.

[Alex]

I don't know what Biden said today but Obama has always been pretty clear:

If you make less than $250,000 you won't see any increase in tax burden. If you make less than $200,000 you will see at least some decrease in tax burden. Meaning that if you make between $200,000 and $250,000 your total taxes will remain unchanged (individual taxes may see tweaks).

For example, and again payroll tax adjustments in addition to income tax changes are a big part of his plan, if you make less than $150,000 you will receive a full $500 or $1000 (single vs. married) payroll tax credit. If you earn $150,000-$200,000 you will get some portion of that. If you earn more than $200,000 you will receive no payroll tax credit and income over $250,000 will be subject to new payroll taxes (note, this is ONLY the portion over $250,000, not the entire income if you make more than $250,000).

So there are all kinds of platform amounts in the proposal. Tax policy, surprisingly enough, is complex. Sound bites don't work well as representation of proposals and opportunities for misunderstanding (whether unintentional or intentional) are plentiful.

The Obama web site lays out his tax proposals in significant detail if you want to go look at them directly (as does McCain's).

[Alex]

The Biden comment yesterday is on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAEE1_IUycs) so I can't watch it from work to judge context for myself. (I don't know which Scranton TV station it was one to see if their web site has it.)

But per this article (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx) on McCain's comments in response, Biden did not give $150,000 as the threshold amount for receiving tax benefits but rather simply as an amount that would (and in comparison with someone making $1.4 million who would not).

If that is not an accurate representation of what is in the video I can't currently watch, I'm sure someone will say so.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He started with, "For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was put in by George Bush, people making an average of $1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic, they're going to get an $87 billion tax break."

Then he says, "[the tax breaks] should go, like it used it, it should go to middle class people, people making under $150,000 a year."

So it was either a misphrasing, where he just was using the $150,000 as an example, just as the $1.4 million was an example not a threshold. Or he simply said the wrong number.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Set those DVRs, Obama will be on the Daily Show tomorrow.

[Gemini Cricket]

The weather kinda helped Obama out. His broadcast is going to be in front of one of the World Series games tomorrow. If Philly had won and it was all over, there would be less of an audience, I think.

[Strangler Lewis]

But with Florida and Pennsylvania both in play, is it really a good idea for him to push the World Series back half an hour?

[scaeagles]

Yeah....I think most fans will be bit annoyed.

[Gn2Dlnd]

http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008/obamaremix.jpg (http://www.tanosokolow.com/YesWeCan.mp3)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008/obamaremix.jpg (http://www.tanosokolow.com/YesWeCan.mp3)It's been a while since I've heard him say "Yes. We. Can." Love it! :)

[Gemini Cricket]

Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked, so Obama could run. Obama is running so our children can fly.Cool quote. I'm trying to figure out its origin. So far, all I keep hearing is that it's a quote from "someone on NPR".

[scaeagles]

Sorry, but that quote makes me vomit. Just so as not to be accused of racism, it has nothing to do with Rosa or Martin. It's the last part.

[BarTopDancer]

Very cool quote.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm with scaeagles. Empty platitude that seems pretty meaningless and not very inspiring to me.

[BarTopDancer]

Sorry, but that quote makes me vomit. Just so as not to be accused of racism, it has nothing to do with Rosa or Martin. It's the last part.

Why? Because people have made strides to bring equality to this country?

Edit - SCA replied as I was. Regardless of politics, it is very cool that our country has progressed and a African American can run for POTUS. This event (along with Hillary making it as far as she did) is showing children that they truly can be anything they want to be.

[Alex]

Who knew you'd be opposed to black astronauts?

(I know, you aren't, but that was the first thing I thought of when I read the quote since "sat", "walk" and "run" were all used somewhat literally.)

However, if the Parks and King part don't make you vomit, I'm not sure why the last part does. Unless you see absolutely nothing sociologically significant in a black (or black identifying if you want to question that) president? That said, the quote is overly dramatic in a way that doesn't do much for me personally. But it doesn't turn me off.

[scaeagles]

Certainly it is socially significant for a mixed race individual to be on the brink of the Presidency.

I am struggling a bit to put into words exactly why I had the reaction I did. Perhaps I will think more about why exactly and try to respond later.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I hate it because it immediately put that fvcking, "I Believe I can Fly" song in my head. I hate that sh*t, hate the "flying" imagery, hate the implication that McCain is "bad for children". bleh. It's trite and devoid of substance.

[scaeagles]

It gives me the whole Obama as Messiah feeling that is out there amongst the Obama cultists (please note the word cultists, not general supporters). It portrays Obama as some form of superhero or imparter of all that is good and right and implies that is within the power of the Presidency.

Don't feel like I explained it very well.....even to myself.

I'll leave it at it's just blech, and as a parent, i don't think Obama means anything good for my children. I know many parents do, though. This is just me.

[Betty]

... I believe I can touch the sky...

damn you AND that stupid song.

[Gemini Cricket]

Glad that Dave did this but it looks like he just rolled out of bed.
Dave Matthews' Obama Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEhOpdkHo_g)
lol!
:D


ETA: Then again, he always kinda looks and sounds like he just rolled out of bed.

[Strangler Lewis]

Well, first of all, Rosa didn't have to sit so Martin could walk. Second, the last part is overly optimistic. Third, whether it's politicians or Jesus, I don't like seeing pictures of them ringed with little children as if that adds to their legitimacy.

[BarTopDancer]

BY MENNEN

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama is on the Daily Show tonight.

[Alex]

I have no successfully made it beyond 10:15 pm since getting back from Europe (which kind of sucks but I have been enjoying the extra morning hours from waking up at 4:30) so I'll miss it.

I kind of which he wouldn't do it. I know why he does but I'm not really a big fan of politicians doing comedy talk shows unless they're being very available to the regular press. And since the conventions, Obama hasn't been.

[Stan4dSteph]

They replay it the next night at 8 PM. I sometimes catch it then. Or on the internets.

[innerSpaceman]

Ever since the Al Smith dinner, I'm convinced Obama is better at comedy than at regular oratory.

The Daily Show should be a perfect fit.

[Alex]

Oh, I have no doubt he'll do fine and be very good on the show. And, when in the mood Stewart and Letterman are well capable of using their comedy context to ask some pretty tough questions.

I just find it diminishing that he won't hold a regular press conference but will do four minutes on Comedy Central.

[Moonliner]

Speaking of the Daily Show....

Noooooooo!!!!

Has anyone stopped to think what an Obama win coupled with a democratic controlled congress will do to the Daily Show? Dead I say dead.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Let me get this straight. You think a democratic super majority in congress would be devoid of opportunities for ridicule? What universe are you living in?

[Moonliner]

Let me get this straight. You think a democratic super majority in congress would be devoid of opportunities for ridicule? What universe are you living in?

You may not have seen the show, but John Stewart is not entirely non-partisan in his monologues.

[SacTown Chronic]

Directv uses the east coast feed so the Daily Show comes on at 8:00 (and South Park at 7:00). A down side to watching the Daily Show that early is that my kids are subjected to those damn Girls Gone Wild ads that run after the kiddies go to bed on the east coast.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He may not be neutral, but neither is he shy about calling out people he agrees with when they're being stupid. And the Dems will surely have an increased opportunity for stupidity come next session of Congress.

[Gemini Cricket]

So, does anyone know what time the Obama speech is tonight for us folk on the West Coast?

[Ghoulish Delight]

According to TiVo's listings it will air at 8PM our time.

[Moonliner]

He may not be neutral, but neither is he shy about calling out people he agrees with when they're being stupid. And the Dems will surely have an increased opportunity for stupidity come next session of Congress.

True, but I just don't think his heart will be in it the same way. At the very least I hope to hell his job will be more difficult. Bush and crew were an endless fountain of material.... Unless you think we can count on Obama to start a war of aggression, trash the constitution and flub up pretty much ever time he opens his mouth...

[Moonliner]

So, does anyone know what time the Obama speech is tonight for us folk on the West Coast?

Speech?

Are the networks going to break into the Infomercial to cover that?

[tracilicious]

I just find it diminishing that he won't hold a regular press conference but will do four minutes on Comedy Central.

Via satellite.

[innerSpaceman]

:confused: is it a speech or a Daily Show appearance, or both? Is he blanketing the airwaves or something??

[Moonliner]

:confused: is it a speech or a Daily Show appearance, or both? Is he blanketing the airwaves or something??

Speech then appearance on Daily Show.

Link. (http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-ad-may-ha.html)

[Alex]

You've missed that Obama has bought the 8-8:30 pm timeslot on many major networks this evening for an infomercial?

[innerSpaceman]

Yes. He neglected to call me and tell.



Not even a text.


I guess when he's president, he'll no longer have any time for me. Le sigh.

[JWBear]

Yes. He neglected to call me and tell.



Not even a text.


I guess when he's president, he'll no longer have any time for me. Le sigh.

Isn't being snubbed a bitch? :evil:

[Morrigoon]

Wouldn't that be funny if his administration kept up the Twitters?

[innerSpaceman]

turnabout = fair play, i suppose. :(

[Snowflake]

Isn't being snubbed a bitch? :evil:

Bwahahahahahahaha, visible JWBear mojo. Snork, splutter, guffaw!:D

[Moonliner]

I don't think I need to spoilizer this....

I've seen better infomercials. Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the last year or so I can't imagine what was new. Obama stood alone in the live portion nary a Clinton in sight. (A good thing in my book)

[CoasterMatt]

Bwahahahahahahaha, visible JWBear mojo. Snork, splutter, guffaw!:D
This got me thinking...

Come along with Snorks.
Swim along with Snorks.
So much to see waiting for you and me.
Have some fun with the Snorks.
Play along with the Snorks.
Swim along with the Snorks.
Happy we'll be living under the sea.
Come along with the Snorks

If you could breathe underwater where would you go.
If you had friends underwater who would you know.
Come along, Sing along, Swim along too.

Come along with the Snorks.
Swim along with the Snorks.
So much to see waiting for you and me
Swim along with the...
Have some fun with the...
Come along with the Snorks

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Wouldn't that be funny if his administration kept up the Twitters?I wouldn't be surprised in the least. He's said many times he'd use technology to keep us up on what's going on in Washington.

[Gemini Cricket]

A couple of notes on last night's Obama infomercial:

1. Kinda boring
2. In an attempt to sway the religious to vote for him, I saw shots deliberately highlighting religion, faith etc. ie. Couple reading the Bible at the table, hugging the lady and saying "I'll pray for you" quote from Obama and the "God bless" twice at the end of his speech.
3. Obama wearing the flag pin during his speech at the end.

This ad was definitely aimed at appealing to conservatives.
I'm not saying that I agree with it. But it was shrewd.

In fact, he said "tree huggers" in his interview with John Stewart. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not, but I also thought that it was a small jab at the Liberal Left for the benefit of appealing to the Right.

[Strangler Lewis]

I question the wisdom of doing anything that even you and your supporters call an "infomercial." I thought his "Daily Show" thing tanked. There was nothing substantive, he looked beat, and he repeated the two-day old joke about his daughter's TV needs, drawing no laughs.

[Gemini Cricket]

I question the wisdom of doing anything that even you and your supporters call an "infomercial." I thought his "Daily Show" thing tanked. There was nothing substantive, he looked beat, and he repeated the two-day old joke about his daughter's TV needs, drawing no laughs.
It may have been the lighting but Obama looked like he was sporting a few grey hairs already. Politicians age fast.

Another point that mousepod brought up that I agree with is that if a person is undecided at this point, they shouldn't vote. If ya don't know by now, it reeks of dinglecheesism.

:D

[tracilicious]

I loved that he referred to the president as a public service position on Jon. I have a hard time envisioning McCain doing the same and pulling off any sort of sincerity.

[Alex]

It wasn't the lighting, he's got a lot of gray up there (in the Al Smith dinner comedy presentation he made a joke about Hillary being the one responsible for all the gray and I remember commenting on it to Lani during the first debate).

[SacTown Chronic]

Just look at what Hillary did to Bill's hair.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Sure he's appealing to the right. The left is already voting for him. Shrewd, sure. But to be expected at this point.

And he's been developing a lot of gray hair in the last year, actually. He's beginning to look older. There's a reason that presidents tend to die younger than most; the job involves a lot of stress, pressure, exhaustion. Even for candidates.

[Gemini Cricket]

26 mil watched the Obammercial! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/30/obama-ad-a-ratings-success/)

[Alex]

There's a reason that presidents tend to die younger than most; the job involves a lot of stress, pressure, exhaustion. Even for candidates.

Just sent me off on a silly research tangent. This is something I've heard many times and I've wondered it is true. Especially since we see to have produced a fair number of pretty old ex-presidents:

So, looking at the this table (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html), here is how presidents have met the life expectancy for someone of their age in the year they were elected. Obviously, had to use some extrapolation since not all years and ages are covered.


Green if exceeding expected lifespan at assumption of presidency
Red if fell short of expected lifespan at assumption of presidency

George W. Bush - 54 in 2000 - 78 expected lifespan - currently 62
Bill Clinton - 46 in 1992 - 78 expected lifespan - currently 62
George H.W. Bush - 64 in 1988 - 79 expected lifespan - currently 84
Ronald Reagan - 69 in 1980 - 80 expected lifespan - Died at 93
Jimmy Carter - 52 in 1976 - 76 expected lifespan - currently 84
Gerald Ford - 61 in 1974 - 78 expected lifespan - Died at 93
Richard Nixon - 53 in 1968 - 74 expected lifespan - Died at 81
Lyndon Johnson - 55 in 1963 - 75 expected lifespan - Died at 65
John Kennedy - DID NOT LIVE TO NATURAL DEATH
Dwight Eisenhower - 62 in 1962 - 77 expected lifespan - Died at 79
Harry Truman - 61 in 1945 - 76 expected lifespan - Died at 88
Franklin Roosevelt - 50 in 1932 - 72 expected lifespan - Died at 63
Herbert Hoover - 54 in 1928 - 72 expected lifespan - Died at 90
Calvin Coolidge - 51 in 1923 - 72 expected lifespan - Died at 61
Warren Harding - 55 in 1920 - 74 expected lifespan - Died at 57
Woodrow Wilson - 56 in 1912 - 73 expected lifespan - Died at 67
Howard Taft - 51 in 1908 - 71 expected lifespan - Died at 72
Theodore Roosevelt - 43 in 1901 - 68 expected lifespan - Died at 61
William McKinley - DID NOT LIVE TO NATURAL DEATH
Benjamin Harrison - 55 in 1888 - 73 expected lifespan - Died at 68
Grover Cleveland - 47 in 1884 (first term) - 68 expected lifespan - Died at 71
Chester Arthur - 52 in 1881 - 71 expected lifespan - Died at 57
James Garfield - DID NOT LIVE TO NATURAL DEATH

And this is where I got bored.


Conclusion of no particular value. While it may once have been true, there is nothing from the last 60 of presidents to suggest it is still true. I would suggest this is because while the presidency may be more stressful than ever, medical science is vastly superior to that of pre-WWII and presidents also get the best medical care of pretty much anybody in the world.

[innerSpaceman]

Doesn't matter how long they live. They age at 1.73 x the rate of regular humans, and we all see it on TV as they go along.


Barack is just a candidate for pete's sake, and his hair is going prematurely gray as we watch and wonder.

[JWBear]

...last 60 of presidents...

Um... Last I heard, there have only been 42 Presidents.

[Alex]

That was meant to say "last 60 years of presidents."

47 is hardly prematurely gray. I'm 34 and I think I have more gray hair than him.

[Snowflake]

Great new video, in time for Halloween (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/the-ultimate-robocall-rev_n_139455.html).

[Tenigma]

Just look at what Hillary did to Bill's hair.

Is *THAT* what the kids are calling it these days.

[wendybeth]

For Leo:

Former Reagan chief of staff endorses Obama (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/31/former-reagan-adviser-endorses-obama/).

[Snowflake]

My roomie just called, Barack Obama's grandmother passed away. Bittersweet for him if he wins. I feel bad, I was really hoping the old gal would make it to the inaugural (or at the very least election day).

:( RIP Toot

Sorry for Barack & his family.

[Gemini Cricket]

Sad.
:(

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh dear. At least he's at a moment now where he can take at least SOME time for himself in the next day to grieve, even if he'll have to put it on hold shortly thereafter. I do not envy what he's going to have to go through.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

What sad news for his family.

[Alex]

Countdown to some wacko suggesting a conspiracy to ensure a few last minute sympathy votes for Obama starts.....now.

[wendybeth]

Too sad. I was watching a biography of Obama just yesterday, and it was cool to see how close he is to his grandparents- after the initial shock of his parent's marriage (both his mother and father's sides were upset at their union) they came to fall in love with their grandson so very, very much. They practically raised Obama, and they should be very proud of the man he has become.

Obama's Ohana (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/why-we-love-grandmas_n_136913.html)

[Alex]

And the countdown ends here (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message655400/pg1).

(Actually, I have no idea how the serious the suggestion in that thread is -- 24th post or so -- I'm not going to explore the site to find out.)

[Strangler Lewis]

Can you say Barack Fairplay Obama?

[JWBear]

Can you say Barack Fairplay Obama?

It depresses me that I got that reference...

I couldn't stand that turd.

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama's grandmother got to vote for her grandson before she died. That makes me happy.
Dunham — whom Obama called "Toot," after the Hawaiian word tutu, or grandparent — turned 86 on Oct. 26. Her birthday occurred just after Obama abruptly changed his campaign plans to make a 22-hour trip to visit Dunham in Honolulu.
Before his visit, Dunham had already voted for her grandson in early absentee voting.

Source (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081103/BREAKING01/81103073)

[JWBear]

But, will the vote still be counted? How does that work?

[Snowflake]

GC, thanks for posting that. It makes me very happy to read this.
:snap:

[Morrigoon]

Huh... does your vote count when you're deceased though? (Not like the authorities would actually be able to track down her ballot, heh)

[JWBear]

Huh... does your vote count when you're deceased though? (Not like the authorities would actually be able to track down her ballot, heh)


Sure they can. It has her name on it (well... the envelope, anyway.)

[Alex]

Hawaii Revised Statute Section 15.13

§15-13 Death of voter prior to opening of polls. Whenever sufficient proof is shown to the clerk that an absentee voter who has returned the voter's return envelope has died prior to the opening of the polls on the date of election, the voter's ballot shall be deemed invalid and disposed of pursuant to section 11-154. The casting of any such ballot shall not invalidate the election.

So, technically, the clerk, since it will be well known that she has passed away prior to the election, is supposed to find her envelope and remove it. Technically, her vote will not count. That said, I don't know if they'll bother. It isn't like there is any doubt how Hawaii will go. And I'd hate to be the jackass protesting.

There is the issue of down ticket issues, though, which might be more sensitive to individual votes.

[alphabassettgrrl]

At least he got one last visit with her. Sad.

[Morrigoon]

Depends, I suppose, if the ballots have been removed from the envelopes or not.

[Tenigma]

This is from Obama's Web Site Rapid Response Team:

Guest book for leaving condolences for Obama's grandma:

http://www.legacy.com/Obituaries.asp?page=LifeStory&personId=119723905

[Alex]

This blogger (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/will_marilyn_dunhams_vote_count) spoke to the Office of Elections in Hawaii, which says her vote will be counted, even though the envelope won't be opened until tomorrow. That, however, does seem to contradict what is in the statute so I don't know.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm sad about Barack's grandmother. :( Just another day or so....*sigh*.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm sad for their whole family. On the eve of such overwhelming joy that now must be bittersweet at best.


I haven't followed the story closely, so I can only hope that the Grandmother's death was long-anticipated and, in fact, is seen more as a release from a tragic illness than as a terrible cut-off from life. In that way, perhaps the family will be grieving slightly less when meeting the triumph that tomorrow likely brings.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm sad for their whole family. On the eve of such overwhelming joy that now must be bittersweet at best.


I haven't followed the story closely, so I can only hope that the Grandmother's death was long-anticipated and, in fact, is seen more as a release from a tragic illness than as a terrible cut-off from life. In that way, perhaps the family will be grieving slightly less when meeting the triumph that tomorrow likely brings.

He went back to HI because she was in grave condition. He stated somewhere that the doctors did not think she would make it to election day.

Very sad. Very glad she was able to vote for him.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I know she's been very ill for at least the last few weeks. But my own experience leads me to believe it takes an unrelenting illness of many, many months for family members to consider death a blessing and not a curse.




(Of course, the presidency itself is something likely under the category of "be careful what you wish for" ... I hope Obama doesn't find the office a curse either.)

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I managed to decide before I hit the voting booth in about an hour. It's really quite insignificant whether I vote for Obama or cast my personal little protest vote.


But I'm going to vote for Barack Obama.


And I'm going to do that .... for Jen. :)






On a morning when it stings so much that two friends of mine are voting FOR Proposition H8, I find it appropriate to let the deciding factor for my undecided vote be ... to support a good friend.


Jen's quest to see Obama elected president has been one of the most inspiring runs of political optimism I've witnessed. If it's a toss-up for me, I don't see any good reason why I shouldn't come down on HER side.


Love ya, Jen. :iSm:


(And in truth I feel Obama will make a darshgone good president of these here united states).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

:eek: I'm stunned. Wow.....thanks, Steve. Your post means a lot to me.

Love you, too! :snap:


Well, I always said if I could influence just one person it would all be worth it. Oh wait, no, I never said that, I wanted to influence a lot of people. ;)




And while I'm at it, thanks to everyone who put up with me these past months. I did hope I was helping somehow, even as I ranted like a born-again nutjob. At the very least, I know that I helped energize my circle of friends, who helped energize their circle, and on and on in a venn diagram that connects all of America together. Watching the campaign and the volunteers do all that it could has been very inspiring and to me is even more proof that a new America is on the rise.

My thanks to all of you...and to all of the US of A, too.



Guess I wasn't speechless after all. :)

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm wearing my Obama t-shirt again today. I'm getting mostly positive responses. mousepod and I passed a couple of carpenters walking down Crescent Heights yesterday and one of them said, "McCain!" We both shrugged them off.
:)

[Snowflake]

I heart :iSm:

and CP for all her hard work, it's been inspiring to me.

On the way to work, I saw nice fat lines at all the polling spots along my commute route. On the corner of California and Van Ness there were volunteers for No on 8, when I stopped to talk to them I learned they were a recently married pair of cute guys. They, of course, asked if I voted and voted no, I said yes and I got major hugs. It was sweet.

[Gemini Cricket]

when I stopped to talk to them I learned they were a recently married pair of cute guys. They, of course, asked if I voted and voted no, I said yes and I got major hugs. It was sweet.
Hmm.
There's an idea I could put to use in WeHo.
;)
:D

[blueerica]

Sad.. :( (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575547493495003.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)

(couldn't figure another place to put it...)

[wendybeth]

Sad.. :( (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575547493495003.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)

(couldn't figure another place to put it...)


Yesterday, Snow thought the same thing. (Scroll back a few pages).;)

[Gemini Cricket]

Sad.. :( (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575547493495003.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_mostpop)

(couldn't figure another place to put it...)
I found the clip of his speech and it ended up ticking me off. Not because of him but because of some rude people there. One lady behind him was on her cell phone.

[Snowflake]

Did anyone see the 10-11pm crowd in Manassas, VA last night? I was watching on CSPAN, the speech was much the same as Obama has given over the last few days.

But, in an area very close to where I lived in Warrenton, I was proud and amazed to see a crowd of an estimated 100,000 in what I saw a very red part of the Northern VA on a school night.

[BarTopDancer]

Andrew just shared this with me:

The First Election Results Are in Already The polls have already closed in Dixville Notch, NH [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixville_Notch%5d because all 21 eligible voters have cast their ballots. This village of 75 people traditionally opens the polls at midnight on election day and closes them a few minutes later after the last voter has performed his or her civic duty. Barack Obama got 71% [http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/dixville.notch/index.html%5d of the vote here today. Dixville Notch is not a good bellwether, however; it has voted solidly Republican for decades. The last Democrat to carry the Notch was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. It is probably not a good start for McCain to have early election day news dominated by a story about a solidly Republican rural village voting overwhelmingly for Obama.

[innerSpaceman]

12 election threads comes home to roost. First Obama's grandmother, now the early New Hampshire results. We are going to cover the same ground over and over because we have 12 different threads on essentially the same subject.


it's going to be a long and repetitive election day. :)

[Moonliner]

12 election threads comes home to roost. First Obama's grandmother, now the early New Hampshire results. We are going to cover the same ground over and over because we have 12 different threads on essentially the same subject.


it's going to be a long and repetitive election day. :)

But at least we can all get free coffee at Starbucks!

[Gemini Cricket]

it's going to be a long and repetitive election day. :)
But at least we can all get free coffee at Starbucks!
But at least we can all get free coffee at Starbucks!

[katiesue]

But at least we can all get free coffee at Starbucks!

But at least we can all get free coffee at Starbucks!

[Moonliner]

But at least we can all get free coffee at Starbucks!

I think someone needs a good cup of coffee this morning.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

12 election threads comes home to roost. First Obama's grandmother, now the early New Hampshire results. We are going to cover the same ground over and over because we have 12 different threads on essentially the same subject.


it's going to be a long and repetitive election day. :)Much like the coverage, wocka wocka!

[Snowflake]

12 election threads comes home to roost. First Obama's grandmother, now the early New Hampshire results. We are going to cover the same ground over and over because we have 12 different threads on essentially the same subject.


it's going to be a long and repetitive election day. :)

Sorta like the Camp Swank threads ;) ?

[Strangler Lewis]

There was a Polish Republican "operative" outside of Starbucks who told me that if I got free coffee, I'd be deported.

Actually, he said that the plan is to monitor post-election giveaways on the theory that if the voting totals exceed the announced giveaways, then that proves voter fraud.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think someone needs a good cup of coffee this morning.
Too bad we can only get free coffee at Starbucks.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Just read, free cone at Ben and Jerry's tonight between 5&8PM. No sticker required I believe.

[Kevy Baby]

Just read, free cone at Ben and Jerry's tonight between 5&8PM. No sticker required I believe.Copycat (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=250774#post250774)

[innerSpaceman]

But will the lines be longer for that than they were for voting?




(And yes, I've already posited that question in one of the other umpteen election day threads)

[blueerica]

12 election threads comes home to roost. First Obama's grandmother, now the early New Hampshire results. We are going to cover the same ground over and over because we have 12 different threads on essentially the same subject.


it's going to be a long and repetitive election day. :)

Yes... way too many for the casual reader, such as myself!

:)

I couldn't find it in a quick search in any of the threads, I only decided to post it since I thought no one else had... So, believe it or not, we're posting like mad in all 5,734 threads!

[Moonliner]

Just read, free cone at Ben and Jerry's tonight between 5&8PM. No sticker required I believe.

No sticker eh? Hot damn! That makes up for the donut.

[blueerica]

No stickers required for any of them, if I'm understanding things correctly... Something about a law, yada-yada...

[BarTopDancer]

No stickers required for any of them, if I'm understanding things correctly... Something about a law, yada-yada...

It is illegal to offer incentives for voting.

So free coffee for everyone!

[Kevy Baby]

(And yes, I've already posited that question in one of the other umpteen election day threads)Hmm... maybe we need to start another thread, just on the topic of freebies available today.

[Moonliner]

It is illegal to offer incentives for voting.

So free coffee for everyone!

Free coffee? Yip! Where?

[Strangler Lewis]

You used to be able to get a free slice at Blondie's Pizza in Berkeley. Don't know if that's still the case.

[Kevy Baby]

You used to be able to get a free slice at Blondie's Pizza in Berkeley. Don't know if that's still the case.Do you have to be wearing Birkenstocks to get the free slice?

[JWBear]

Something tells me it's going to be a long and repetitive election day.

[Ghoulish Delight]

2 hours and 50 minutes until live non-results start streaming in!

[Gemini Cricket]

I wonder how many people actually believe this. Amazing.
Voters in several states have receiving bogus text messages or e-mail urging supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to put off voting until Wednesday because of long lines, spurring threats of prosecution in at least two states. The messages — a perennial election stunt — popped up Tuesday on mobile phones and computers in the battleground states of Florida, Virginia and Missouri, as well as in several other states. One falsely claimed to be a "CNN breaking news" alert.
"All Obama voters, due to long delays, are asked to wait and vote tomorrow 11/05," that message stated.
Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/obama-supporters-targeted-in-bogus-messages/)

[Andrew]

Isn't it interesting how these always seem to come from one side and target the other, but not the other way 'round?

[BarTopDancer]

I heard rumors of Black Panthers with bats outside polling places and Republican poll observers being kicked out for being Republican. Given the source, without being able to cite sources I don't believe him. I think that would have been all over the news.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

There are contradicting reports about that.

Fox News says that the black panthers were blocking the door. But one of them was actually an official election volunteer whose job was to guard the door. (The other, who WAS - rather ill-advisedly - holding a nightstick, was his friend; he did leave when asked.)

Fox news says that they were intimidating people, and the rumor has expanded to "not letting Republicans in." That's a fallacy in and of itself because how would they know who the Republicans were? You're not allowed to wear paraphernalia or participate in electioneering within 100 feet of the polling place.


Dischell (note: an Obama volunteer) says that earlier this morning a few men who identified themselves as being from the McCain campaign came and started taking pictures of the two panthers on their cell phones. She suggested that they seemed to be baiting the panthers, and that the designated watcher may have given one of them the finger in response to the picture taking.

The police came roughly an hour and a half later. She says she talked to the cops and told them there had been no incident. The police drove away without getting out of the car, she adds.

Some time later, a second, larger group of men whose affiliation couldn't be determined came with real cameras and started taking more pictures. Maybe 15 minutes later the cops returned. This time, they spoke to people on both sides, and told the panther not designated to watch the polls to leave, which he did without an argument.

"There was no fight, nothing," she says.

Fox News arrived on the scene at around that time and started interviewing people near the entrance. The building manager asked the Fox reporter to leave, she says, and he moved further from the entrance.

That's where things now stand. "There has been no fighting, no voter intimidation at all," she said.
Philadelphia DA office says they received no complaints. (http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7788840&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)

Basically, witnesses are saying that the gentleman who was interviewed by Fox News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeD1RcJjAg) is full of bull****.

Yes, I think it was pretty stupid to hold a nightstick. But the guy seems to be telling racist tall tales since others are repudiating.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I saw the Faux News report on this, with their usual field reporter speaking in outraged tones style. Made me highly suspect of the facts.

[BarTopDancer]

Thanks for doing that research H!!

[Strangler Lewis]

If the Republicans aren't paying those guys to dress as Black Panthers, they should.

[Kevy Baby]

Isn't it interesting how these always seem to come from one side and target the other, but not the other way 'round?Absolutely: it is ALWAYS [the opposing party] trying to trick the [my party]

[Moonliner]

So at what point does the title of this thread get changed to "Yes we did"?

[JWBear]

It doesn't. We just start a new tread with that title. iSm would want it that way... :D

[Not Afraid]

Or, just "YAY!"

[Moonliner]

Obama wins with just CA, OR, and WA.

Queue the fat lady. This game is over.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yes, we did!!!

[wendybeth]

Even though I knew he'd win, I'm still in a state of happyshock. Too cool.:)

[Snowflake]

Bacon for breakfast tomorrow!

Yikes, I can't describe how I feel, except elated!

[SacTown Chronic]

Amazing!

[Snowflake]

When I saw President-elect Obama take the stage, the podium, my heart swelled with pride, we have a representative of grace, intelligence, eloquence and level headedness. I was never so proud to cast a vote for President, I've wept like mad tonight, with great joy.

[wendybeth]

I never thought I'd feel this great and this hopeful about a candidate- wait, scratch that- a President. This must be somewhat how Roosevelt and Kennedy supporters felt. It's a wonderful feeling.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

I admit it, I'm a sucker for stuff like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iD2JclX14I)
Of course, we just downed a bottle of Chandon, maybe it won't be so inspiring when the champagne headache sets in tomorrow morning...it HAS been a very long day.

[BarTopDancer]

It was so odd to vote for someone I believe in, rather than the lesser of two weasels. It was so amazing to watch him win.

I'm a bit worried about going in to work tomorrow. I wonder if he had a heart attack.