Yes, we can. [Archive] - Page 6 - Lounge of Tomorrow

Gemini Cricket

06-26-2008, 09:24 AM

By the way, you may not like Dobson, and that's cool, but his book about raising boys is freakin' right on the money.
Hold on a moment. I have more to say about this comment.
Dobson believes in Conversion Therapy, that through counseling or prayer someone can switch from being gay to straight. The man was a psychologist, yet a majority in the mental health field disagree with his thinking.
In "Bringing Up Boys" he says:
"Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive."I'm sorry, but I would not want my son being misinformed by Dobson.

The Dobson run Focus on the Family website has a store where you can buy books on Conversion Therapy called "Leaving the Lifestyle". I was forced to go through a Conversion Therapy process as a teen. Since this is what my parents wanted, I decided to willingly give it a shot. It doesn't work.

JWBear

06-26-2008, 10:24 AM

Hold on a moment. I have more to say about this comment.
Dobson believes in Conversion Therapy, that through counseling or prayer someone can switch from being gay to straight. The man was a psychologist, yet a majority in the mental health field disagree with his thinking.
In "Bringing Up Boys" he says:
I'm sorry, but I would not want my son being misinformed by Dobson.

The Dobson run Focus on the Family website has a store where you can buy books on Conversion Therapy called "Leaving the Lifestyle". I was forced to go through a Conversion Therapy process as a teen. Since this is what my parents wanted, I decided to willingly give it a shot. It doesn't work.

Was it anything like But, I'm a Cheerleader?

scaeagles

06-26-2008, 10:26 AM

Committing felonies certainly does affect our Constitutional rights - like voting - and I have no problem with screening for things like that when it comes to gun ownership.

I am not for an amendment altering basic gun rights.

BarTopDancer

06-26-2008, 10:34 AM

But what do you have to say about Dobson and GCs comments about Conversion Therapy?

Do you think being gay can be fixed by therapy? I'm truly curious.

innerSpaceman

06-26-2008, 11:22 AM

And, yeah, I'm wondering if that's what you thought was freakin' right on the money about raising boys ... i.e., if they look to be sissy girly boys, just get them magically converted into boyish boys in two weeks and $78,000.

Motorboat Cruiser

06-26-2008, 11:32 AM

This pretty much says it all:

Dobson further contends that homosexuality, especially in such an early stage, can be "cured." His ministry runs a program called Love Won Out that seeks to convert "ex-gays" to heterosexuality. (Alas, the program's director, a self-proclaimed "ex-gay" himself, was spotted at a gay bar in 2000, an episode Dobson downplayed as "a momentary setback.")

scaeagles

06-26-2008, 11:34 AM

I was speaking specifically about discipline and methodologies for it with boys.

I have never been one who has believed in conversion therapy.

Gemini Cricket

06-26-2008, 12:25 PM

I have never been one who has believed in conversion therapy.
Then you will go with me to the prom, Leo?
:blush:

:D

scaeagles

06-26-2008, 12:32 PM

Sorry, GC...I'm not gay.

However, for a toaster.....

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 11:38 AM

Dear Friends,  
Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.   
As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of fully inclusive laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.   
For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.
Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.     
Sincerely, 
Barack Obama  
Source (http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid56867.asp)

BarTopDancer

06-30-2008, 11:44 AM

Awesome.

And in other news, McCain met with Billy Graham.

Alex

06-30-2008, 11:49 AM

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 11:52 AM

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 11:52 AM

But is it still his personal view that marriage should be between one man and one woman (he has always said he wouldn't oppose state efforts but that he personally does not support gay marriage)? Or is he officially changing his stance on gay marriage?
Not sure.
But his statement is something that would never come from McCain. Lesser of two evils...

innerSpaceman

06-30-2008, 11:52 AM

If that letter is authentic, I appreciate the Olive Branch. I also appreciate that he believes he can't strategically simply support Gay Marriage Rights ... but I hate his hypocricy of asserting that separate is equal when it comes to extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 11:53 AM

Not sure.
But his statement is something that would never come from McCain. Lesser of two evils...

See my above post.

Kevy Baby

06-30-2008, 11:54 AM

Lesser of two evils...

Two boll weevils grew up in South Carolina. One went to Hollywood and became a famous actor. The other stayed behind in the cotton fields and never amounted to much

The second one, naturally, became known as the lesser of two weevils.

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 11:57 AM

If that letter is authentic...

Uh, why would it not be authentic. The Advocate isn't some tabloid...
Two boll weevils grew up in South Carolina. One went to Hollywood and became a famous actor. The other stayed behind in the cotton fields and never amounted to much

The second one, naturally, became known as the lesser of two weevils.
No one lol. He'll just keep going with the bad jokes.
:D

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 11:59 AM

Alex

06-30-2008, 12:00 PM

He wants both sides of the issue. Or so it would seem. Knowing that the LGBT will never vote for a Republican (en masse), he'll give it lip service to the group but I'm doubting he'll make it a campaign issue.

Well, for me anyway, if that is his personal belief then that is the kind of "having it both ways" I wish we saw more of in politicians.

Saying "I personally don't agree with this policy but will not stand in the way because it is simply my personal view and that is not sufficient reason for imposing it on others" is a very powerful form in integrity.

I wish I could remember where it was so I might find the video of it, but I did once see him at a debate or town hall type thing answer the question of whether he supported gay marriage very bluntly in the no. And then he went on and explained himself and what that meant in such a way that I was left thinking "well...short of simply saying yes that was the best answer to the question I've ever heard."

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 12:01 PM

This one, Alex?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

Alex

06-30-2008, 12:03 PM

Can't watch YouTube at work. Will confirm tonight.

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 12:06 PM

Can't watch YouTube at work. Will confirm tonight.
It could be that one or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlY9HFRNUHs

BarTopDancer

06-30-2008, 12:06 PM

But is it still his personal view that marriage should be between one man and one woman (he has always said he wouldn't oppose state efforts but that he personally does not support gay marriage)? Or is he officially changing his stance on gay marriage?

I think it's the former. I have to see where I read that.

Which is fine. He can think a marriage should be between one man and one woman all he wants. He doesn't have to marry multiple people or marry a man.

But he's not going to try to tell the rest of the country they have to think the same way he does.

Or at least that is how I read it.

wendybeth

06-30-2008, 12:11 PM

Why should same-sex marriage be an 'issue' in the campaign anyway? We have so many serious concerns to address, and this habit of developing issues (like choice, etc) to throw people off the trail of what really should be on the table is annoying. Same-sex marriage rights are being affirmed by more and more courts, and like any other civil rights issue they will prevail, because it is just and right and when it comes down to it we have a pretty good track record of (eventually) doing the right thing in this country.

innerSpaceman

06-30-2008, 12:13 PM

But he's not going to try to tell the rest of the country they have to think the same way he does.
In which case, I want him to marry me ... that's how in love with him I am.

I think that's the best example for leadership this country needs right now ... along the lines of my personal views do not need to be imposed on everyone else.

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 12:14 PM

innerSpaceman

06-30-2008, 12:16 PM

Including mine. Don't think that doesn't piss me off when my finances are so tight.

The fundies owe me a living. :)

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 12:18 PM

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 12:21 PM

If it is a non issue then why fight about it on either side? Seriously. Couldn't it be said as well that it's a divise tool used by the LGBT? I'm not sure why saying you are against something is more devisive than saying you are for something.
It is a non-issue if it weren't embraced by religious wingnuts as a divisive tool. But since it is, then we should fight back. How is marriage equality being used as a divisive issue by the LGBT community?

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 12:25 PM

I'm not saying it is. I'm just wondering why it isn't seen as a divisive tool on both sides.

Understanding I am not speaking of this in terms of right and wrong (I am libertarian on theis issue and think government should stay out of the marriage issue all together), if the majority of Americans are not for gay marriage (which I believe the numbers say), then why is it divisive to be on that side of the issue? It would seem like those being divisive are the minority who begins to demand something that hasn't been there before and most people oppose.

JWBear

06-30-2008, 12:31 PM

Moonliner

06-30-2008, 12:33 PM

Interesting Article in the Washtington Post...

"An Attack That Came Out Of the Ether" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html?nav=most_emailed&sid=ST2008062703939&pos=)

The e-mail landed in Danielle Allen's queue one winter morning as she was studying in her office at the Institute for Advanced Study, the renowned haven for some of the nation's most brilliant minds. The missive began: "THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO."

Laid out before Allen, a razor-sharp, 36-year-old political theorist, was what purported to be a biographical sketch of Barack Obama that has become one of the most effective -- and baseless -- Internet attacks of the 2008 presidential season.

Allen had been obsessing about the origins of her e-mail at the institute

The use of the Internet made it possible to launch anonymous attacks that could reach millions of voters in weeks or even days.

it made her angry. And curious.....

It's an intesting read, althought I did laugh at one part:

She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.

Followed by:

She had another thought: What if she took some of the unusual phrases from the text of the e-mail and Googled them?

Yup! She used Google to find something on the Internet. Bloody brilliant!

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 12:35 PM

No, no, no, no, no......I didn't say diviseness is wrong. Not at all. Sometimes it is necessary to achieve what is right.

All I'm saying is it isn't just one side of the same sex marriage issue being divisive. That's all.

JWBear

06-30-2008, 12:36 PM

I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides.

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 12:38 PM

Well, GC said the fundies use it as a divisive tool. I'm saying that both sides use it as a divisive tool.

innerSpaceman

06-30-2008, 12:42 PM

The entire concept of the rights of a minority being decided by the majority is worthy of Thru the Looking Glass, and anathema to the principals of the U.S. Constitution.

But homosexuals did not put that issue on the ballot in California (and other states) to be decided by a tyranical majority. Don't pretend that gays made this a political issue by pleading for justice in courts of law, or that blacks made a political issue by demanding equal rights under the law, or that women made it an issue by struggling for the right to vote.

In all cases, it was their oppressors who made it a political issue ... and it's a shame that such things had to be fought for, tooth and nail, and that such things still need to be fought for ... when they have been enshrined in the introduction of our American Constitution since our nation was formed.

It's disgusting.

But in no sense are gays using their quest to be equal with everyone else as a divisive tool. Nor did blacks yearning to be equal seek to divide. Nor did woman fighting for equality want to divide. In each case, the oppressed have sought to unite all Americans, all humanity, in the enjoyment of inalienable rights.

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 12:47 PM

Why am I being disgusting?

All I said was that making something divisive by challanging the status quo is how change is made. I said being divisive isn't always a bad thing. I didn't say blacks were wrong, but it was damn divisive when Rosa Parks took the seat on the bus. That doesn't mean it was wrong. Wrong is often times moving dutifully to the back of the bus.

That isn't disgusting. It's fact. To say that being divisive itself is wrong is disgusting.

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 12:54 PM

I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides.
True.

scaeagles ~ The couples that sued CA are saying, "Hey, our relationships are just as valid and as important as straight ones. We deserve marriage equality." At that point, it's between those couples and the court. The Supreme Court of CA agreed. Now, the anti-gay marriage groups are up in arms saying that the state's constitution should be amended. The misinformed anti-marriage backers are forcing a choice on the issue, taking it to the masses and saying make a choice. Pro-gay marriage organizations (like Love Honor Cherish for example) are surfacing as a defensive move because of the misinformation anti-marriage orgs are spreading. When decisions were being made about interracial couples in the courts, they stood and that was that.
I see the wingnuts using it as a divisive issue because they are disagreeing with the courts and brought the issue forward. It was not the gay community that brought it to the people first and said 'You gotta listen to us and agree with us and choose sides'.

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 12:59 PM

Ok - I can see that point, GC.

But I do stand by what I said that being divisive in and of itself is not wrong.

innerSpaceman

06-30-2008, 01:05 PM

To clarify, i was not saying you are disgusting, scaeagles (though I'll have to think about that ;) ), just that having to fight for the rights we and others were promised over two centuries ago, and which are ours regardless of the constitution in any event, is disgusting.

To which I will add we are not using the same English language. It is NOT divisive to try and JOIN with everyone else. It IS devisive to try and prevent that joining. Look it up.

Gemini Cricket

06-30-2008, 01:12 PM

Ok - I can see that point, GC.

But I do stand by what I said that being divisive in and of itself is not wrong.
Maybe, but what's the point on being divisive about issues that there is an impas on? Just so the issue can be played out nationally and on TV? Also, I don't understand what the Mormon church has to gain by stepping into this ruckus. Increased membership? More donations to their organization under the guise of "protecting traditional marriage"?

But getting back to the topic... I applaud Obama for saying what he said. It ain't perfect, but it's closer than McCain will ever get.

innerSpaceman

06-30-2008, 01:15 PM

Oh yeah, Obama.

Hmmm, maybe he'll accept my thanks in trade. Then I can find out if it's twue.

wendybeth

06-30-2008, 01:51 PM

By that logic, blacks shouldn't have gotten "uppity" in the 60's, and demanded equal rights.
That was my first thought- things were just hunky dory in America until those darned blacks started stirring the **** with 'Brown VS the Board of Education'. I'm very grateful for that decision on a personal level, as it opened the door for kids like mine (hearing disability) to attend the same schools as their peers. An unintended consequence, but certainly a positive one. Who knows what peripheral positives might occur when we stop denying a very large segment of our citizenry the same rights afforded to the majority?

flippyshark

06-30-2008, 02:06 PM

Oh yeah, Obama.

Hmmm, maybe he'll accept my thanks in trade. Then I can find out if it's twue.

public mojo - OH how that one made me laugh!

Strangler Lewis

06-30-2008, 02:51 PM

As I see it, when we speak of divisiveness, distractions, etc., we are talking about appealing to people's prejudices to trick them into voting against their true self-interest and/or for the common good. We saw a bit of that in the Democratic primary when race and gender appeals were too common.

But . . . unless you want to say that there are no right and wrong positions on particular issues, you can't say that gays, like blacks of the fifties and sixties, use civil rights issues as divisive issues.

It certainly makes no sense to say that blacks were tricked into voting for pro-civil rights politicians when they should have voted the other way (assuming they could vote at at all).

With gays, conceivably an argument could be made that the "rich gays" with all the disposible income should be voting for lower taxing Republicans, not being distracted by gay marriage. This would only make sense if the overwhelming majority of gays didn't care about gay marriage and hadn't thought about it until a few anti-Republican gay activists with a larger agenda started pulling strings. I just don't think that's the case. This is a deeply felt civil rights issue. Thus, being against it is divisive. Being for it is not.

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 06:08 PM

I'm curious, an as long as we're on the subject, I'm wondering why it is (I really have no opinion on it myself) that a large portion of the black does not equate their civil rights issues with gay marriage?

innerSpaceman

06-30-2008, 06:22 PM

First of all, and ya know, not speaking from the black perspective ... because, oh yeah, there's NONE of that on the LoT btw ... two things:

1) Some blacks are very pissed off that the gays "equate" their civil rights struggle with that of the famed black variety in the 60's ... not realizing we're not equating the dollar value or other "best"ness ... but rather just the type of struggle. Sheesh.

2) A great many blacks are virulently, violently, backwardly homophobic. Those who were oppressed are, without enough ironic sense, imo, hardly immune to feeling prejudice and bigotry and hatred. Pfft, witness Israel.

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 06:26 PM

wendybeth

06-30-2008, 07:10 PM

I'm not black, but I can only imagine what kind of crap they have to deal with on a daily basis. Just because I don't experience what they do doesn't make what happens any less valid- and anyone who thinks gay people don't face discrimination, hostility and the like are living in a bubble. I don't see many churches looking to hire gay persons, and in quite a few communities across this land they are routinely denied employment, admittance to social groups, etc. It's not easy for an openly gay person to win public office, and do I even need to to mention the military?

Alex

06-30-2008, 07:16 PM

I would posit three contributing factors (among many I'm sure):

1. I'm sure plenty feel like their still fighting their own fight and would prefer society focus on them until it is done. A form of "hey, I'm walking here, wait your turn."

2. The center of "black civil culture" and the power structure within it is heavily dominated by somewhat fundamentalist evangelical Christian religions. And just as with the predominantly white versions of these churches aren't sympathetic to the homosexuality as an acceptable state of being, the black churches aren't really any friendlier. They may recognize that the struggle is similar in form but that doesn't mean you have to think it is similar in justification.

3. You aren't being exposed to a wide enough cross section of black intellectuals, leaders, and communities to be aware of the communities that do support gay rights.

JWBear

06-30-2008, 08:00 PM

Coretta Scott King was a strong supporter of gay rights.

Ghoulish Delight

06-30-2008, 08:06 PM

You see, I often wonder if it is the same type of struggle.....and not being gay....... because, oh yeah, there's NONE of that on the LoT btw ......(hahahaha), economically, educationally, jobwise....I don't see the same type of discrimination. However, I am perfectly willing to admit since I'm not gay I just may not know.I don't really think it makes much sense to try to rank quality of oppression. Oppression is oppression, just because it manifests in different ways doesn't mean they aren't born of the same thing.

Strangler Lewis

06-30-2008, 08:55 PM

Speaking as a lesbian of color, it's my view that one's own oppression does not necessarily give one perspective or empathy.

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 09:00 PM

I don't really think it makes much sense to try to rank quality of oppression. Oppression is oppression, just because it manifests in different ways doesn't mean they aren't born of the same thing.

I disagree. I think there are certainly levels of oppression which certainly rank worse than others. I do think slavery is worse and more offensive than denying someone a state sanctioned marriage and am not ashamed to say so. I can think of 100s of forms of oppression that would fall in the same category of being worse than that.

Ghoulish Delight

06-30-2008, 09:19 PM

I disagree. I think there are certainly levels of oppression which certainly rank worse than others. I do think slavery is worse and more offensive than denying someone a state sanctioned marriage and am not ashamed to say so. I can think of 100s of forms of oppression that would fall in the same category of being worse than that.
However, the ideals that lead to the end of any form of oppression remain the same. And the methods necessary to get our from under it remain the same. And the passion that engenders from those within it is the same. If you truly believe that you are unfairly being denied equal status as a human being, you're not going to take it well when someone says, "Get over it, my plight was way worse." The relative degree of oppression does not make it any less valid, nor does it negate the "worse" case from being a fair analogy.

scaeagles

06-30-2008, 09:23 PM

I think it does to the masses, though. To equate slaery or the holocaust with denial of state sanctioned marriages doesn't play well to Joe on the corner.

Ghoulish Delight

06-30-2008, 09:31 PM

I think it does to the masses, though. To equate slaery or the holocaust with denial of state sanctioned marriages doesn't play well to Joe on the corner.Oh, I don't deny that, I fully understand WHY the perception is what it is. I just think it's wrong.

innerSpaceman

07-01-2008, 12:23 AM

And perhaps that's why we DID have to wait (and I'm not complaining) until women were given the vote, and stopped being so blatently discriminated against in employment (though they still don't make dollar for dollar with men), and had to wait until blacks were freed from slavery, freed from Jim Crow, given fair housing, employment and voting rights under the law.

That's just under the law, of course. Hearts and minds will take centuries, perhaps, to catch up to that. Because people of color are still taking dehumanizing sh!t every day of their lives.

But, ok, so now let the law catch up to gays, and let the clock on centuries of waiting for hearts and minds and TRUE equality start ticking.

And ya know what, our oppression may be a little less than that of blacks ... but it sucks hard being the last remaining minority it's ok to openly hate. Like we are the lowest of the low, the dregs of every society. You can't come out against any other racial or ethnic group ... but in too many parts of our society, it's still alright to hate faggots.

And yeah, marriage rights might seem trifling. We wouldn't bother if we hadn't already tackled housing and employment rights ... in the law, if not in practice. Enough. Time for the full and totally equality guaranteed us by the Constitution and ours as inalienable by virture of our humanity.

Moreso, it's not about where we live this time, or how we work ... but about who we love, the essence of our gayness. We WILL have that legitimized by society ... because it IS LEGITIMATE TO BE GAY.

wendybeth

07-01-2008, 12:45 AM

Visible iSm mojo.:snap:

I can't imagine how horrible it would be to love someone absolutely and be denied the same rights that other couples are afforded- you have to remember, this goes above and beyond simply pledging oneself to another. Heterosexual spouses have rights under the law that supersede parental; in other words, the family of one spouse can't deny you the right to see your loved one in the hospital, or take away material possessions should they pass, or .........the list goes on and on. Then there is the basic human dignity aspect which iSm addresses- it's absolute bull**** in this day and age that gay people have to hide their orientation or face serious persecution. I think this is just a sliver of the pile of merde they have to deal with in life, and I think it's flat out wrong. Not just from my own ethical standpoint, but legally as well. I really do believe this is the last frontier of civil rights and one who's time has finally come.

Strangler Lewis

07-01-2008, 04:13 AM

I think it does to the masses, though. To equate slaery or the holocaust with denial of state sanctioned marriages doesn't play well to Joe on the corner.

Average Joe on the corner may be right, and, like many, he may profess not to give a sh*t one way or the other.

One would think, however, that Lunatic Joe, who feels that [I]his[I] precious marital rights are being trampled upon by the prospect of gay marriage might be able to pause for a moment and think about how the other side feels.

scaeagles

07-01-2008, 04:39 AM

I didn't say Joe was anti gay marriage. I said Joe has a hard time equating slavery et al to marriage issues.

Strangler Lewis

07-01-2008, 05:17 AM

And I agreed that average Joe may not care one way or the other, but that plenty of lunatic Joes approach the "assault on traditional marriage" with the passion appropriate to a civil rights issue.

Though I may disagree with the goals, that kind of passion seems appropriate to the anti abortion movement. The anti-gay marriage folks just look like a bunch of unreconstructed racists.

scaeagles

07-01-2008, 06:03 AM

I misread your earlier post and was equating your Average Joe with your Lunatic Joe. What can I say? It was 4:30 in the morning.:)

innerSpaceman

07-01-2008, 07:28 AM

I hate to go all George Bush ... but I'm beginning to feel you're either with us or you're against us, and I've got no patience for Average Joe if his don't give a sh!t attitude leads to Status-Quo Is OK By Me at the voting booth in November.*

I'm afraid I'll have to trust that Average Cal is a little more enlightened than Average Joe, but I'm nervous about that.

* Actually, the current status-quo is Gay Marriage Is Legal ... but I don't think that's the status-quo that Average Joe is used to yet.

BarTopDancer

07-01-2008, 02:26 PM

Obama opposes the marriage ban amendment! (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/BA8J11I4S1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea)

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

07-01-2008, 02:49 PM

I think every person in the USA should list 10 issues they have with the universe from Women's rights to Gay Marriage to trash on Thursdays to the exicution of the cast of THat's So Raven - anything. Compile the list and the top 10 is what we go with. Then everyone should shut the hell up and move on...

Gemini Cricket

07-01-2008, 11:09 PM

Obama opposes the marriage ban amendment! (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/BA8J11I4S1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea)
And conversely, McCain Endorses the marriage ban amendment. (http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid56917.asp)

Kevy Baby

07-02-2008, 06:19 AM

I hate to go all George Bush ... but I'm beginning to feel you're either with us or you're against us, and I've got no patience for Average Joe if his don't give a sh!t attitude leads to Status-Quo Is OK By Me at the voting booth in November.Not to say this is my decision (because I have not made one yet), but what if I agree with you on this one issue (that Gay Marriage should not be illegal) yet chose a candidate that opposed it? This is a possibility when weighing ALL the issues and deciding which candidate agrees with more of my concerns (making the assumption that I will not agree with all positions of any one candidate).

Am I "with you" or "against you?" *

* And I am not picking a personal fight, just using the verbiage.

scaeagles

07-02-2008, 06:48 AM

This is a common issue in the anti abortion crowd. If there is a candidate that is with then on every issue but not in agreement with them in every aspect of abortion, that candidate becomes someone they cannot vote for.

Everyone has their thing, and as someone in the anti abortion crowd who does not make it the overriding issue in who I vote for, i can tell you on that front there are certainly people who would say I am against them.

Not trying to speak for ISM, but I think in general there are those who make issue A the most important thing and if you don't agree with them on this you are indeed against them.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-02-2008, 07:38 AM

Everyone has their thing, and as someone in the anti abortion crowd who does not make it the overriding issue in who I vote for, i can tell you on that front there are certainly people who would say I am against them.For anti-abortionists, it's about killing babies, so it's not surprising this would be a make-or-break. Same goes for certain civil rights issues for some people.

I keep asking myself what Obama would have to come out as pro/con in order to actually stop me from voting for him. It would take a lot...

innerSpaceman

07-02-2008, 09:34 AM

Not to say this is my decision (because I have not made one yet), but what if I agree with you on this one issue (that Gay Marriage should not be illegal) yet chose a candidate that opposed it?
Am I "with you" or "against you?" *

It's not a matter of which candidate you choose, Kevy. No candidate is deciding this issue. YOU are. Every Californian is. That's why you must make a choice to be with me* or against me, because you will be casting your vote on this question. You, and not your elected representative.

* "me" meaning every gay man, woman, and child and every human and American standing for truth, freedom, justice, life, liberty and happiness. Are you with "me," or against me?? :p

Kevy Baby

07-02-2008, 01:10 PM

It's not a matter of which candidate you choose, Kevy. No candidate is deciding this issue. YOU are. Every Californian is. That's why you must make a choice to be with me* or against me, because you will be casting your vote on this question. You, and not your elected representative.Since the conversation was drifting in the direction of individual candidates views on particular issues, I was extending the conversation in that direction.

scaeagles touched on the gist of my query: single issue voters. I have seen people vote for a given candidate simply because of a single issue (besides abortion) despite the fact that they don't like the candidate's views on many other issues.

innerSpaceman

07-02-2008, 01:19 PM

Well, since the president presents Supreme Court judges for appointment, his or her views on abortion might be tangentially important. His or her views on equal marriage rights even less so, but that, too, will eventually come to the Supreme Court.

But as for this question, here and now, and the presidential candidates' positions ... it amounts to less than a hill of beans. Would many of Obama's supporters vote to revoke equal marriage rights? Would many of McCain's supporters hesitate to do so?

Ghoulish Delight

07-09-2008, 09:29 PM

Am I the only one thinking, "Oh good, Jesse Jackson's gone and shown that he and Obama aren't on the same page."

innerSpaceman

07-09-2008, 11:06 PM

Um, yes, you are.

(Only 'cause I don't know what that is all about)

wendybeth

07-10-2008, 12:16 AM

That's because Jesse is pandering to his perceived constituency, and were I a member I would be insulted by his comments. He's just jealous because Obama might actually win the spot he coveted, and he's doing so by reaching out to all people, not just a particular demographic. I'll bet Obama has a cleaner personal record as well.

Gemini Cricket

07-10-2008, 12:25 AM

"See, Barack's been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off." ~ Rev. Jesse JacksonMy, my! What horrible fantasies this reverend has!
:D

scaeagles

07-10-2008, 06:33 AM

I find this fascinating on so many fronts.

My first thought is that it was staged. The unbreakable and first rule of wearing a mic is that it is ALWAYS on and Jackson knows this. I am almost going conspiratorial on this and thinking it was staged. Obama is in the midst of a HUGE attempt to appear as if he is in the center (which has moved him to flip flop even more than McCain is at present - a hard thing to do indeed), so why not set it up to have people like Jackson talk badly about him?

Then I think that I'm wrong. It could simply be petty jealousy. Or even legit disagreement that Jackson vented in an unfortunate way (for him - no matter the reason, this is beneficial to Obama).

Then I think if this was a white person he would be crucified. Jackson is getting off easy.

Very interesting indeed.

flippyshark

07-10-2008, 07:18 AM

I kind of doubt that Jackson would go along with a conspiracy that required him to purposefully make himself the bad guy. On the other hand, he has frequently volunteered to be a phobic dumbass all on his own.

I just love that his apology for this contains a mention of "I wasn't speaking on record," as if that diminishes the offensiveness of the remark. (It's like when you get this from some so-called friend - "Gosh, I'm sorry you overheard me calling you an asshole. I didn't mean for you to hear it. Honestly. So, we're cool, right?") He gave the exact same lame non-justification when he referred to NYC's Jewish constituency as "hymietown." He apologized and immediately indicated that it was a private remark. Hell, that makes it even worse, doesn't it?

Okay, I've rolled my eyes enough for today.

BarTopDancer

07-10-2008, 08:57 AM

Rolling Stone has a great article on Obama, how he put his campaign crew together and some of their inner workings.

BarTopDancer

07-10-2008, 08:59 AM

So Jackson thinks Obama is talking down to "black people" because he speaks like the educated man he is and he doesn't speak to them like they are stupid?

I'm confused.

innerSpaceman

07-10-2008, 10:19 AM

Well, I agree with Jackson's sentiment. Obama's recent rant about black dads abandoning their kids was, although identifying a true problem, way off the mark and very insulting in insisting it was the root of all problems for blacks in America.

Not to excuse either Jackson's stupidity with a microphone or assholery with personal sentiment.

mousepod

07-10-2008, 10:37 AM

Clinton votes "no" on FISA - McCain sits it out - Obama votes "yes".

I'm not loving Obama today.

Morrigoon

07-10-2008, 10:38 AM

FISA?

Ghoulish Delight

07-10-2008, 10:43 AM

Sh*t, really? F*cker.

scaeagles

07-10-2008, 10:46 AM

Obama is doing everything he can to move to the center. This is just one of many things recently that he has changed his position on to do so.

Ghoulish Delight

07-10-2008, 10:58 AM

Obama is doing everything he can to move to the center. This is just one of many things recently that he has changed his position on to do so.
He and 94 Democrats.

Of course, I'll reiterate that my support for Obama has always had little to do with the specifics of his stances and whether they've been consistent and has had almost everything to do with the fact that he has demonstrated a level of decorum which has allowed him to disagree with people without resorting to vitriol towards those he disagrees with. That has not changed and that alone continues to distinguish him from a great many of his colleagues.

He'll probably hear from me about this, not that I expect that will make much of an impact.

Though, truth be told, I'm not entirely sure I'm against the bill. On the one hand I'm not comfortable with the access the government has to the data. On the other hand, this bill doesn't do as much to change that access as people would like you to believe. Remember, the whole wire tapping flap stemmed not from the government wire tapping in ways that were not legal. They just didn't go through the correct channels to get authorization to use methods that, once authorized, would be legal. So I'm not totally convinced that altering the authorization method is quite the end-of-the-world move that it might seem on the surface.

That said, the lack of the kind of authorization method that Bush wants is NOT the massive hindrance he'd like us to believe either and voting against this bill would have been a powerful message that should have been sent. And definitely should not have been compromised for dumb pork barrel reasons.

innerSpaceman

07-10-2008, 10:59 AM

Clinton votes "no" on FISA - McCain sits it out - Obama votes "yes".

I'm not loving Obama today.

I already ranted (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=224109&postcount=7) about it in C.P.'s FISA thread.

Alex

07-10-2008, 11:00 AM

Not a fan of FISA (but that fight was lost 30+ years ago), but I don't really have a problem with the telecom exemption in it.

And I've yet to see Obama say that the role of fathers is the root of all black problems. In fact, if you watch more than the 8 second clips on the news he's very clear that they're not.

Gemini Cricket

07-10-2008, 05:19 PM

Alex

07-10-2008, 05:30 PM

I don't think I'd have even noticed it without the point out, but I think a key difference between Obama there and Bush's quirk is that Obama was actually amused by something. Bush's little chuckle is generally in the vein "oh my god, this is so obvious, I can't believe you're actually making me say it out loud."

Gemini Cricket

07-10-2008, 05:34 PM

sleepyjeff

07-10-2008, 05:41 PM

The America already has a Dr. Phil clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XlsZznzb5E).

Okay, I'm an Obama fan. I think he has a point in this sound byte. And I'm glad he gave a good response to Gramm's comment. But he does something in it that bugs me. And it bugs me because Bushy does it so much. It's that little laugh thing while they're trying to make a point. It bugs. It makes him appear snide. But then again, it's a small gripe...

Oh, and he said "Ho". Hope that doesn't piss anyone off.
:D

That's funny because given the choice between Bush's, Obama's and McCain's post point demeanor I'd take Obama's.....I don't mind Bush's all that much either but Mcain......I hate the way he carries himself right after he's made a good point(to me, it kinda almost cancels out the point). Still going to vote for him, but if he loses the election I will take small comfort in the fact that I won't have to suffer his cheshire grin for 4+ years.

Gemini Cricket

07-13-2008, 03:50 PM

Hmmm.

This picture is going to appear on the 7/21/08 issue of The New Yorker:
(It's safe for work, but I'll spoilerize it because it's big.)
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/newyorker.jpg
I don't know what the corresponding story has to say about the Obamas, but this picture is going to cause a stir... It made me stop in my tracks...

Moonliner

07-13-2008, 05:12 PM

scaeagles

07-13-2008, 06:08 PM

Wow.

Being that I am somewhat conspiratorial, my first impulse what that this is a set up so once again Obama can play the victim and talk about how ridiculous and racist it is. Gain some sympathy.

Alex

07-13-2008, 06:57 PM

Haven't read it yet, but here is the article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?printable=true) that goes with the cover.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-13-2008, 10:12 PM

Artist on piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html)

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

flippyshark

07-14-2008, 06:27 AM

Artist on piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html)

If the artist has to explain it, it's not a very good joke.

Looking at the comments section below this piece, it's pretty clear that this fails as satire for a lot of people. It's provocative without delivering a clear intent. (One comment summed it up well. If this image had appeared on The National Review, there would be outrage. On the New Yorker, it's perplexing.)

On the other hand, I thought the Ahmedinejab cover was funny.

Alex

07-14-2008, 08:56 AM

Knowing the New Yorker I immediately knew it was intended as satirical. I wouldn't have been bothered. Being on The National Review I would know the intent was not satirical (or that if such was claimed it was more likely to be a sham).

Intent matters. The problem is that when it is sitting on the shelf at Barnes & Noble, the majority of people walking by who see it won't have any idea of that context.

So it was probably more appropriate as an accompaniment inside the magazine than as the cover. Or the cover needed something to make it more explicit (though New Yorker covers don't really use headlines so can't really explain the artwork).

Gemini Cricket

07-14-2008, 09:05 AM

But I guess the cover is doing its job. People are talking about it and most likely are buying the mag now...

Kevy Baby

07-14-2008, 12:57 PM

But I guess the cover is doing its job. People are talking about it and most likely are buying the mag now...I am aggressively not buying it in protest.

Ghoulish Delight

07-15-2008, 10:35 PM

Dragging this back up since I was out of touch while this news broke.

As Alex says, knowing where the New Yorker stands, I know it's obviously satire. But I think it's still a questionable decision as for the majority of people, all they see is the image and do not grasp the context, and as an image with no context it just reinforces the ridiculous notion that does exist in many voters' minds that Obama is indeed a closet terrorist. Poor judgment on the part of the New Yorker editorial folks, imo.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-16-2008, 07:47 AM

I realized I didn't say this - I think the piece was poorly done and doesn't make the point he was trying to make.

innerSpaceman

07-16-2008, 08:02 AM

Maybe it wouldn't have happened if Obama's right turn doesn't look now like it's his Swift Boat moment and turning point.

Yes, every democratic nominee does it. But Obama seeming like every other democratic nominee kinda takes the wind out of the sails that blew him to the nomination.

I think the cover art is a symptom of a failing campaign. Obama's looking like just another pol ... which, to those who've bothered to study his campaign history, is exactly what he is.

But he better start wearing the Hope Candidate disguise again, or he can expect much worse treatment from the press, from his base and from voters in the Fall.

scaeagles

07-17-2008, 06:14 AM

I just do not know how Jesse Jackson has had any credibility for the last, oh, couple decades or so, and now that it was revealed he dropped the "N" bomb in his didn't-know-the-mic-was-on moment (in case you haven't heard, he accused Obama of talking down to "N"s).

I'm tempted to go into a racial discussion of acceptable racism vs. unacceptable racism, but this isn't the place for it, I suppose.

innerSpaceman

07-17-2008, 06:25 AM

Why isn't this the place for it?

Personally, while I have a problem with any one claiming they didn't know they could be heard while they're wearing a microphone in any state of presumed operational status ... I have no problem with any person of color using the N word casually.

In case you didn't notice, they get a pass on that. And i think that's a great development in the use of language.

scaeagles

07-17-2008, 06:55 AM

Well, I do suppose that there have been enough derails in this thread.....

They certainly do get a pass. I suppose I get that, but I think it goes beyond that. Do you think Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice would get a pass from anyone for using the "N" word? Yet Robert Byrd seemed to. Jackson demanded the firing of Don Imus for his comments. Jackson is still treated as the go to guy on racial equality even though he is a racist himself, or at least by what I would figure to be "racially insensitive" by his own standards, using terms like "hymie town". Trent Lott got destroyed for praise of Strom Thurmond at the guy's birthday party (I think it was his birthday party).

Isn't racism racism regardless of who spews it forth?

innerSpaceman

07-17-2008, 07:19 AM

Yes, it is. And while i think public figures would be foolish to express any kind of racism, the stuff directed at your own race or group is considered self-depricating, and thus allowed.

That doesn't include the use of nigher, which is not used as a racial epithet when bandied about among blacks.

But yeah, depending upon each individual statment, racism is racism is racism.

flippyshark

07-17-2008, 07:22 AM

All well and good, except that Jackson didn't say THAT "N word." What he said was:

"Barack been talkin' down to black people. I wanna tear his nuts off."

Edited to add: Oh, now I read the news. Okay, so he used THAT N word. I still think the castration comment trumps that down to the ground.

Sorry for posting without knowing what the f I was talking about - DP

Scrooge McSam

07-17-2008, 07:52 AM

Yet Robert Byrd seemed to.

What are you talking about?

scaeagles

07-17-2008, 07:56 AM

Robert Byrd was interviewed a few years ago and referred to knowing many "N"s. It was washed over and aides said "oh, he was just tired".

Cadaverous Pallor

07-17-2008, 08:04 AM

Jackson is a racist and an anti-semite. I have zero respect for the man and hate that he has any clout at all.

Strangler Lewis

07-17-2008, 08:21 AM

Jackson is a racist and an anti-semite. I have zero respect for the man and hate that he has any clout at all.

Well, in Jesse's defense, the middle aged, middle class Jews in my New York neighborhood in the late 60s/early 70s seemed to have little affinity for black causes or for the black children who were bused to my school, none of whom found their way into the gifted classes that were full of Jewish kids.

scaeagles

07-17-2008, 08:35 AM

innerSpaceman

07-17-2008, 09:09 AM

Wow, i'm agreeing with scaeagles. Someone fetch me my blood pressure medicine.

Strangler Lewis

07-17-2008, 09:21 AM

I don't think anyone denies that there is racism from any one race to another. Would the same defense be considered with some white kid growing up in a primarily minority neighborhood who was abused by that minority? Would it be acceptable to defensible if later in life that kid was a racist or uttered racial hatred because of his experiences?

Sure. Does anyone have problems with people who were abused by clergy suggesting that priests are perverts and that priestly celibacy is not a good idea. Raising the question of exactly what racism/sexism/antisemitism/fill-in-the-blank-ism is. In many areas of life, I don't think it's racism to make a personal judgment based on information, experience and apparent probabilities. Political judgments require greater sensitivity to root causes.

Alex

07-17-2008, 09:49 AM

Yes, racism is racism. I would just argue with the suggestion that all uses of that word, regardless of speaker and context, is actually racism.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-17-2008, 03:15 PM

Jews were a very large proportion of the non-blacks who marched for civil rights causes in the 60s. There are going to be instances back and forth for all sides.

Racism is racism. Jackson is nothing but a detriment to the whole process.

scaeagles

07-18-2008, 07:12 AM

Is it just me or is the media having an Obasm about Obama going to Afghanistan and Iraq? McCain went in March and I don't recall all three network anchors going along. Perhaps I'm not recalling correctly.

Alex

07-18-2008, 08:50 AM

Yes they are.

Tom

07-18-2008, 01:22 PM

According to this (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/17/about-that-obama-trip.aspx), McCain chose not to take reporters with him on his trip in March.

scaeagles

07-18-2008, 04:20 PM

It isn't simply the reporters - of course Obama will have reporters with him wherever he goes, but the three anchors don't even go with the President when he goes somewhere. They are like starry eyed groupies.

Alex

07-18-2008, 04:34 PM

They certainly would if he gave each of them a one-on-one sit down while he was over there.

If Bush said "I'm going to be in place X, Katie Couric, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Tuesday?" her answer would be "yes sir, I would."

Then if Bush said "I"m going to be in place Y, Brian Williams, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Wednesday?" his answer would be "Absolutely I would, what color M&Ms would you like in the green room?"

Then if Bush said "I'm going to be in placy Z, Charlie Gibson, would you like a 20 minute sitdown with me exclusive for next Thursay?" his answer would be "Sloppy thirds are good enough for me, Mr. President!"

And that is exactly what Obama has done. To get them to come along he is giving each of them their own daily exclusive and that is all the currency you need to get a network anchor to do a lapdance for you (I'm guessing Gibson gives the best ones).

Plus, McCain suffered from bad timing on his trip, coming as it did after he had locked up the nomination but the Democrat primary campaign was still going strong.

Yes, the press is drooling over Obama but a fair portion of that has to be credited to him having a much better press strategy than McCain has evidenced so far. Back in his two campaigns that is exactly what Reagan succeeded in doing and you could hardly say that the press was starry-eyed with optimism for his victory.

scaeagles

07-25-2008, 06:50 AM

This is becoming comical.

The NY Times publishes an Op Ed from Obama, yet rejects one from McCain.

Investors Business Daily has published information (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569)about the donations from media to political candidates -

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Including Paul and Guiliani, the ratio is actually only 14 or 15 to 1. Journalists can and should be allowed to contribute, so I have no problem with that. I just don't think most can keep their bias out of their reporting, as is partially evidenced by this -

Chris Matthews seems to think how he feels is actually news rather than opinion. I don't care if he wants to tell how he feels, but don't call it journalism. On Leno, when defending the "Obama makes a tingle go up my leg" comment, he said

You know, some journalists only report what a guy says and what they hear and what they see, I report all senses... And I have to tell you..., I was there watching one of Barack's speeches on TV.. and there's something he said about black and white in America...... I just think it's inspiring! I admit it!

That scares me actually, as it is a redefinition of what journalism is. How the journalist feels is not part of the story, it is opinion.

I will credit the three anchors. They have actually asked Obama some tough questions.

All that said, though, this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece) made me laugh.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-25-2008, 08:39 AM

"Media" are companies. Companies can donate to whomever they want. They like Obama. SURPRISE! (er, I mean, duh.)

Journalists have reported "feelings" before. It's just that the feelings this man inspires are 10x more powerful than any politician has inspired in the last 40 years. I feel the same way. I can't explain it, and yeah, it has little to do with specific policy. I totally admit that. However, as I've said a few billion times, I hated politicians, and politics, and the government, and I felt completely disenfranchised and hopeless. I have not voted for a true candidate in 10 years. But this guy....this guy is something else, something I can't explain.

All that said, though, this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece) made me laugh.There's some great stuff in there :D
At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

scaeagles

07-25-2008, 08:42 AM

"Media" are companies. Companies can donate to whomever they want. They like Obama. SURPRISE! (er, I mean, duh.)

Oh - of course. I even said that the donations in and of itself that isn't a problem. The issue is that I think it clearly comes out in their reporting and the bias is evident. This is fine for pundits and those who offer opinions for a living. For those who try to pass themselves off as journalists, though, like in the Matthews example, this is problematic.

innerSpaceman

07-25-2008, 09:27 AM

But McCain made a big fat gaffe when he whined about it so publically that Obama's getting all the press. Awww, poor Johnny. Big Bad War Hero Cwies that TV Doesn's Wike Him.

Not as big as his gaffe that started the whole thing, though. What did he think Obama was going to do when he said the senator hadn't been to Iraq lately. Um, d'uh, set up a trip to Iraq and other hot spots pronto, and have the press slathering for it the whole way. Thanks for the tip, Johnny! Now please keep losing the election by yourself, so's I have less work to do!

scaeagles

07-25-2008, 10:11 AM

Yes, indeed, McCain isn't playing it well at all in terms of handling the media bas.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-25-2008, 10:20 AM

I heard that McCain admitted he has no idea about modern technology, how the Internet works, etc. I can't say this is a huge deal for me because I really don't expect someone of his generation to be into all that, but I wonder, is this a big deal for some of you guys? My only problem with it is that there are going to be some big decisions made regarding net neutrality in the next 4-8 years (not that I'd trust a Republican in general with such decisions [/broad brush])

Scrooge McSam

07-25-2008, 11:05 AM

That scares me actually, as it is a redefinition of what journalism is. How the journalist feels is not part of the story, it is opinion.

Welcome to 8 years ago. May your journey through the dark years be easier than mine, and bring much less loss of life.

All that said, though, this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece) made me laugh.

That is hilarious!

Kevy Baby

07-28-2008, 09:22 AM

I was going to post this in the WTF story thread, but chose here instead. It does not affect my political views at all, I was just amused by the error.

Oops! Wrong Larry shown on campaign gear
Republican Sen. Larry Craig shown on button alongside Obama
LEWISTON, Idaho - Some Democratic campaign buttons made for distribution in Idaho show an unlikely pair: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican Sen. Larry Craig.

But don't expect the staunch Republican to throw his support behind Obama or for the presidential candidate to ask Craig to change his mind and run for Senate again. Apparently the button manufacturer picked a picture of the wrong Idaho Larry.The whole story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25882188/).

The picture:

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/080728/n_obama_craig_button_080728.300w.jpg

JWBear

07-28-2008, 09:28 AM

That is funny!

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

07-29-2008, 03:07 PM

Radley Balko: A Few Questions for Barack Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392283,00.html)

Previously, he had some questions for John McCain (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381841,00.html).

Tenigma

07-29-2008, 03:16 PM

I heard that McCain admitted he has no idea about modern technology, how the Internet works, etc.

That's OK, he's admitted he has no clue about the domestic economy, either.

But gosh darnit, he knows about them commies!

PS: But yeah... one of the politiblogs I read mentioned the fact that he doesn't even read email.

Motorboat Cruiser

07-29-2008, 05:17 PM

That's OK, he's admitted he has no clue about the domestic economy, either.

Or where the border of Pakistan is, for that matter. At least he understands the importance of the sanctity of marriage though, between one man and one woman - or at least no more than a couple of women.

innerSpaceman

07-29-2008, 05:27 PM

He doesn't seem to have been informed that Czechoslovkia is no longer a country. Poor man. Oh, I hope he wins. What fun that would be.

It's the White House or the Nursing House for him.

scaeagles

07-29-2008, 06:45 PM

Obama visited 57 states.

innerSpaceman

07-29-2008, 06:48 PM

Hahahaha, did he SAY that? OMG, where?

I think I'm only a slightly bigger Dem Obama fan than scaeagles is a Pub McCain fan.

scaeagles

07-29-2008, 06:54 PM

He did say it....He was at a campaign stop in Oregon.

Holy Cow...Google Obama and "57 states" and you'll find video links, quotes, even campaign buttons saying Obama wants to be President of all 57 states.

And you're right, ISM.....McCain is going to be very, very hard for me to vote for.

€uroMeinke

07-29-2008, 07:28 PM

He did say it....He was at a campaign stop in Oregon.

Holy Cow...Google Obama and "57 states" and you'll find video links, quotes, even campaign buttons saying Obama wants to be President of all 57 states.

He has big plans for this country. What do you suppose the new states will be Iraq? Iran? Maybe something local like Canada?

We need new stars on our flag - we've had this one for decades

Alex

07-29-2008, 07:28 PM

With McCain the Iraq-Pakistan border thing doesn't really bother me. Nor does the 57 states thing. I don't really think that McCain believed there is such a border or that he wasn't aware of the splitting of Czechoslovakia than I think Obama isn't aware of how many states we have.

When you speak in public for several hours a day all kinds of stupid things are going to fall out of your mouth.

I'm a little more put out by McCain's misstatement of timelines around the surge simply because he was using the correctness of the misstatement (if that is what it was) as a building block of a case.

wendybeth

07-29-2008, 08:31 PM

Visible mojo for Alex. I made nearly the very same statement to my sis today; as Alex said, it's got to be hard to be under that sort of microscope for that long without screwing up along the way. I couldn't do it- that's for sure.

Motorboat Cruiser

07-29-2008, 08:56 PM

When you speak in public for several hours a day all kinds of stupid things are going to fall out of your mouth.

Point well taken. Although it does raise a question in my mind as to whether McCain's frequent slips are a result of the normal stress of the campaign trail, or if age is also a factor. I'm not trying to accuse him of anything but it seems a valid concern.

I'm a little more put out by McCain's misstatement of timelines around the surge simply because he was using the correctness of the misstatement (if that is what it was) as a building block of a case.

I'm also finding it interesting that on three occasions this week, McCain's staff has had to jump in and make a statement saying that something McCain just said somewhere doesn't reflect his actual views. I often wonder if he has any idea what his actual positions are, for he often seems very confused. When asked about contraception, for example, he literally had no idea where he stood.

Tenigma

07-30-2008, 11:18 AM

Holy Cow...Google Obama and "57 states" and you'll find video links, quotes, even campaign buttons saying Obama wants to be President of all 57 states.
Oh, I hadn't heard about this.

Good thing there's an entry at Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp) about it!

Gn2Dlnd

07-30-2008, 11:39 AM

Thanks, Tenigma, for the Snopes link.

innerSpaceman

07-30-2008, 11:40 AM

Hahaha, love the Modified-for-Obama flag lapel pin.

Tenigma

07-30-2008, 12:01 PM

Hahaha, love the Modified-for-Obama flag lapel pin.

Wooo YES WE CAN IN ALL 57 STATES!!

http://logobama.com/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=/img/obama/7301158819.jpg&w=200&h=200&q=90&f=jpeg&sia=logobama-facebook.jpg (http://logobama.com/logo.php?id=7301158819)

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 05:39 AM

Why is Obama making race an issue? From this article (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080731/D928PB3O0.html)-

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Neither the republicans nor McCain are making race an issue. You are, Senator Obama.

Alex

07-31-2008, 06:03 AM

But the real controversy is that he apparently thinks there is more than one president on the dollar bill!

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 06:37 AM

I credit that to the normal gaffes of candidacy that were discussed earlier. I really don't think that he believes there are 57 states, either.

Strangler Lewis

07-31-2008, 06:45 AM

I read it the same way Snopes did: that he was trying to talk about travels to the lower 48 and got tangled up because one normally talks about the 50 states.

Moonliner

07-31-2008, 06:48 AM

Why is Obama making race an issue? From this article (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080731/D928PB3O0.html)-

Neither the republicans nor McCain are making race an issue. You are, Senator Obama.

I like the way he links McCain and Bush together in his opening sentence.

Strangler Lewis

07-31-2008, 07:08 AM

It's just a sly response to his having been compared to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. McCain is also a slang term for pubic hair, though a more obscure one than Bush.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 07:20 AM

Except that there are other examples of him doing the same thing prior to that ad you mentioned coming out. It isn't a response, it's a strategy.

innerSpaceman

07-31-2008, 07:22 AM

And a good one.

Yeah, he's gonna be the first black president. He should ignore that? The ultra progressive freedom equality angle? Not to mention tackle head-on the racism that's the other side of that coin, whether McCain brings it up or not?

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 08:05 AM

And it may be an effective strategy. The problem is that he's saying that McCain is doing it, which is blatantly false. McCain is not doing it. He says McCain and Bush do not have real answers, so THEY are going to do this.

That is not factual. They have done no such thing. I get why he's doing it.

Is there racism? Indeed. Is McCain doing anything that has brought up Obama's race as an issue? Not even one.

Cadaverous Pallor

07-31-2008, 08:15 AM

Keep trying to tell the world that McCain is not a racist. Perhaps he hasn't gone on the record saying "Obama is a n!gger" but he did use the word "gook" in 2000. Seriously, in the year 2000. Yes, he was talking about his captors, but come on, the word gook doesn't disqualify him for the presidency the way the word "n!gger" would?

I'm going to read this book soon. (http://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217517007&sr=8-1)

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 08:18 AM

All I know is only one person in this campaign is making race an issue.

innerSpaceman

07-31-2008, 09:26 AM

As well he should. I'm not condoning misprepresenting McCain. This misreprehensible!

But the first black candidate for president should make race an issue. It's regretable if he's lying about his opponent while doing it. Maybe that's his way of demonstrating he's just like every white candiate for president. ;)

Gemini Cricket

07-31-2008, 09:45 AM

Getting back to the article Leo quoted, Obama has a point. The Republicans, Bush have been using scare tactics to achieve their goals. And it will continue until Election Day.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 09:50 AM

As do the dems. Drill for oil, create nevironmental devastation. Our policies in the middle east and regarding terrorism make us less safe. Blah, blah, blah. Both sides do it.

Gemini Cricket

07-31-2008, 09:56 AM

As do the dems. Drill for oil, create nevironmental devastation. Our policies in the middle east and regarding terrorism make us less safe. Blah, blah, blah. Both sides do it.
The Democrats are not innocent. But you can't tell me that the Republicans haven't been exploiting fear since 2001 and have had basically no other way to get the citizens of this country to support their party. Obama called Bush, Rove and the Republicans on their usage of fear tactics in the past, now. I'm glad he did.

innerSpaceman

07-31-2008, 10:12 AM

BTW, Rand Corporation report out today says the military-might strategy of defeating al-Queda is a complete failure and has done nothing to diminish their terrorist capabilities (i.e., we are not safer). It recommends switching to intelligence-gathering and criminial pursuit tactics, and concludes that, d'uh, there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.

Would it be considered scare tactics to refer to that report?

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 10:13 AM

Perhaps there are those who actually want to keep taxes lowered that support the republicans as well. Just a thought. Or pro-lifers, who are quite possibly the biggest single issue voting block out there. Or any other number of groups. It may be a tactic - again, used by both parties - but it is certainly not all they have to offer. That is how the dems portray the republicans and you buy into it.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 10:17 AM

Would it be considered scare tactics to refer to that report?

Not in the least.

Nor would any other number of pointing out reports by organization A or organization B supporting whichever side of whatever issue.

Gemini Cricket

07-31-2008, 10:21 AM

That is how the dems portray the republicans and you buy into it.
Tell me, then, what is another reason (besides the whole Republicans keep the country safer thing, which is bunk) to support another Republican for the White House at this moment? The GOP has been in charge for the last several years. I can't see how two f'ed up wars, the huge deficit, the crummy economy and high gas prices are grounds for anyone to vote for a Republican at this point. The only people who will are those who are lockstep voters who will vote red no matter what.
Obama's not perfect, but I am willing to give him a shot. McCain would bring us more of the same. I can't see how that would help our country any.

Tenigma

07-31-2008, 10:25 AM

McCain is also a slang term for pubic hair, though a more obscure one than Bush.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I thought it was some fried food item from the Golden Arches.

Gemini Cricket

07-31-2008, 10:27 AM

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I thought it was some fried food item from the Golden Arches.
No, no. You're thinking of McCane. Deep fried sugar cane sticks. I think they have them at the McD's in Hale'iwa.
:D

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 10:28 AM

Well, in the same light, what would be the reason to keep the current congress?

I disagree with the premise of your statement. Two f-ed up wars is a matter of opinion. The economy, while not moving along at any sort of rapid pace, is not in recession and just had 1.9% growth. It hasn't had one quarter of negative growth. Huge deficit? With you. But all spending originates in the house. I have oft been a critic of Bush on how much he spends. High gas prices? I would argue that the republicans have better plans than the dems to bring them down and am not sure what policies of the current administration have led to them.

You call me lockstep? Nope. Not me. I think about my choice. We just come to different conclusions.

Tenigma

07-31-2008, 10:45 AM

Perhaps there are those who actually want to keep taxes lowered that support the republicans as well. Just a thought.
You probably remember that I have some pretty non-Democratic Party views--on things like illegal immigration, gun ownership, school choice--I am squarely between the Republican and Libertarian parties on a lot of issues.

However after 7 years of a Bush White House (and I will confess here I voted for W in 2000), I am completely and thoroughly disgusted with what his administration has done. It is almost mind-boggling how his administration was able to mess up so much... I think a lot of it has to do with their coming in with a dogmatic ideology and contempt for government, and with Bush's general philosophy that political favoritism should win out over all other qualifications.

That's how you wind up tossing highly qualified people out in favor of a bunch of mindless Dilbert bosses simply because they are pets of the Republican Party and the Bush administration.

I've had enough.

I want to see every single one of those bureaucratic goons out of office and back to their low-level civil service jobs where all they do is annoy people trying to renew their driver's licenses; not in power in DC where they have effectively ground everything to a halt.

For me, I see Obama as a way to flush all of that garbage down the toilet. Out! I say.

That said, I do NOT agree with all of Obama's stances on issues. In fact, there's a running joke at home. Alex periodically reminds me, "What are you going to when Obama becomes president? You don't agree with a lot of his views."

Well, I've come to accept that several months ago (I forgot when I had my conversion but it must have been last fall sometime). I looked at my two possible options, and I went with the one that I feel will be more effective in flushing the current effluent out of the White House.

I voted for W for 2000 because I was tired of supporting a candidate that I felt was part of that hated Clinton administration... but I disliked the Clintons because of their personal choices, not necessarily because of their politics. 9/11 changed Bush in a way nobody expected. And not in a good way. His ideology got in the way and we stopped being ambassadors to the world in any sense.

McCain might have been good for us in a post-9/11 world... in 2004. But not now. And not when his opponent is someone who brings hope and dreams to the entire world.

And before anyone says we need more than hopes and dreams, take a look at Disneyland, and how much wonderful goodness hoping and dreaming can bring to the world.

Gemini Cricket

07-31-2008, 10:58 AM

I would argue that the republicans have better plans than the dems to bring them down and am not sure what policies of the current administration have led to them.

Is that your answer to my question?

Let me paint a picture on how I'm feeling about the people bashing Obama right now:

A fire has started in a large building where everyone lives. The people in the building see two firemen coming to their aid. Fireman A is new, Fireman B is a veteran fireman whose friend is the arsonist. Fireman A acknowledges and assess the fire. Fireman B thinks the fire is in everyone's head, a make believe fire. The people can only pick one fireman to help them. Who should one pick?

Scrooge McSam

07-31-2008, 11:03 AM

Well, in the same light, what would be the reason to keep the current congress?

Very few, that I can think of, Waxman being one. I'd love to see Pelosi and Hoyer tossed out.

I've seen some suggest that Pelosi is a genius for staying out of the way and letting W continue to step on his dick, but I'm not one that agrees.

Two f-ed up wars is a matter of opinion.

... only as to the degree of f-ed-upedness ;) Anyone who still insists our course of action in Iraq was proper is not someone I can take seriously.

The economy, while not moving along at any sort of rapid pace, is not in recession and just had 1.9% growth. It hasn't had one quarter of negative growth.

Wait till the bank failures start hitting. It's gonna get ugly.

High gas prices? I would argue that the republicans have better plans than the dems to bring them down and am not sure what policies of the current administration have led to them.

We'll never agree here. One side wants to kick the ball further down the road, the other wants to change the game we're playing.

You call me lockstep? Nope. Not me. I think about my choice. We just come to different conclusions.

I'm curious. Have you ever voted for a democrat. CP says she never has. I've seen another say the same, but the name escapes me at present. How 'bout you? I'll admit I'd be surprised to see you say you ever have.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 11:10 AM

A fire has started in a large building where everyone lives. The people in the building see two firemen coming to their aid. Fireman A is new, Fireman B is a veteran fireman whose friend is the arsonist. Fireman A acknowledges and assess the fire. Fireman B thinks the fire is in everyone's head, a make believe fire. The people can only pick one fireman to help them. Who should one pick?

?????

Gemini Cricket

07-31-2008, 11:11 AM

Let me paint a picture on how I'm feeling about the people bashing Obama right now:

A fire has started in a large building where everyone lives. The people in the building see two firemen coming to their aid. Fireman A is new, Fireman B is a veteran fireman whose friend is the arsonist. Fireman A acknowledges and assess the fire. Fireman B thinks the fire is in everyone's head, a make believe fire. The people can only pick one fireman to help them. Who should one pick?
The fire still rages, but the supporters of Fireman B have noticed that Fireman A has a different haircut than Fireman B. They laugh and mock Fireman A for his hair and come to the conclusion that he is a terrible fireman and try to convince everyone else that he's awful as well. The people need to decide, but while everyone is focusing on the controversy of something innocuous, irrelevant as what kind of haircut B has, the condition of the building is getting worse and worse.
Oh, and did I mention that Fireman B is really, really old?

:D

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 11:14 AM

I'm curious. Have you ever voted for a democrat. CP says she never has. I've seen another say the same, but the name escapes me at present. How 'bout you? I'll admit I'd be surprised to see you say you ever have.

I have indeed. I will admit never in a national election, but in locals here in AZ I have a few times.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 11:16 AM

We'll never agree here. One side wants to kick the ball further down the road, the other wants to change the game we're playing.

I see it as one team ignores the current game and just wants to play a new one, and the other is willing to continue to play the current game while setting up to play in the new one.

Scrooge McSam

07-31-2008, 11:24 AM

I have indeed. I will admit never in a national election, but in locals here in AZ I have a few times.

Yeah, I should have put the qualifier on that. Thank you for the complete answer.

Shame you never got to vote for Reagan, huh?

I did

neener neener

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 11:56 AM

Yeah, I should have put the qualifier on that. Thank you for the complete answer.

Shame you never got to vote for Reagan, huh?

I did

neener neener

You have my gratitude for that.

And just so you know, I have flirted with voting for Obama because it is going to be very difficult to vote McCain. The flirtation only lasted about 4 seconds, but it was a flirtation nonetheless.

BarTopDancer

07-31-2008, 12:05 PM

You have my gratitude for that.

And just so you know, I have flirted with voting for Obama because it is going to be very difficult to vote McCain. The flirtation only lasted about 4 seconds, but it was a flirtation nonetheless.

Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it.

Scrooge McSam

07-31-2008, 12:08 PM

You could still vote for Reagan, ya know... In fact, I encourage you to do just that ;)

innerSpaceman

07-31-2008, 12:17 PM

Hehehe, I flirted with voting for McCain. But boy has he changed since the days I would have voted for him.

JWBear

07-31-2008, 12:38 PM

Speaking as someone who has voted for both parties in national elections over the years; the last 8 years have caused me to lose all faith and trust I ever had in the Republican Party and its candidates. Unless the party drastically changes its ways, I will likely never vote for a Republican again. I have never seen such organized corruption, immorality, greed, and just plain nastiness in a political party before.

Alex

07-31-2008, 01:19 PM

I've seen equally organized corruption, immorality, greed, and nastiness. I'm just not sure I've seen such institutional secrecy and incompetence.

BarTopDancer

07-31-2008, 01:33 PM

Hehehe, I flirted with voting for McCain. But boy has he changed since the days I would have voted for him.

Same here.

Tenigma

07-31-2008, 01:55 PM

innerSpaceman

07-31-2008, 02:52 PM

Not necessary for me. They were the winners in greed, corruption, mismanagement and, yes, pure and simple EVIL long before Bush or his daddy came along.

I happen to remember a fellow by the name of Richard Nixon being president. Oh, and the happy smiley old coot in scaeagles' avatar didn't have me fooled, either.

The Dems are a pretty corrupt bunch, too. But they are cowardly and craven. Not great attributes ... until you compare them to the Republicans'.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 03:00 PM

There was the guy named LBJ who I'd say was evil incarnate.

Alex

07-31-2008, 03:02 PM

Out of curiosity, for what? Because the only thing I can think of that wouldn't just be policy disagreement is lying about the Vietnam War and similar actions more recently don't seem to earn the "evil" label from you.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 03:26 PM

ok....admittedly, "evil" is too strong a word. I believe, however, he was completely corrupt, and the conspiatorial side of me does believe he was involved in the assassination of his boss.

For those that think the Iraq war has been run ineptly, i would say that Vietnam was 100 fold more so.

innerSpaceman

07-31-2008, 03:51 PM

OMG, I agree with scaeagles again! That's twice in a month! Dogs and Cats Living Together!!

JWBear

07-31-2008, 04:35 PM

I wouldn't want to paint the whole of the Republican Party with a coat of Bush.

They stood by and let him get away with... and in many cases, actively abetted him. I hold them just as responsible.

scaeagles

07-31-2008, 06:50 PM

OMG, I agree with scaeagles again! That's twice in a month! Dogs and Cats Living Together!!

I feel......dirty.

JWBear

07-31-2008, 09:31 PM

I feel......dirty.

You should. ;)

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 08:15 AM

Oh good lord....Obama is proposing another economic stimulus package......but funded by windfall profits taxes on oil companies.

innerSpaceman

08-01-2008, 08:22 AM

Good. I never got my first stimulus package. I could use some stimulation.

Although, I did get jerked off at the gas pump last night. This could all work out somehow.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 08:35 AM

Stimilus package....debatable. All it is is redistribution of wealth under a different name, but anything that puts more money back in the hands of the people instead of the hands of the government is usually a good thing.

The scary thing is the windfall profits tax. Windfall profits taxes are not a good thing economically.

Betty

08-01-2008, 08:46 AM

Windfall profits taxes are not a good thing economically.

Since I'm not very smart on these sorts of things (perhaps that's not the right wording - haven't read up on it may be better) - why would this be a "scary" thing?

Cadaverous Pallor

08-01-2008, 09:06 AM

I'm not a fan of stimulus checks.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 09:27 AM

Short version, Betty, is that windfall profits taxes basically punish success. The thought is that if a company or industry is doing so well that they should pay extra. What this does is discourage competition within the industry and has the effect of harming consumers.

An example.

Let's say a flood hits an area and there's no food available. Someone risks life and limb and trucks in bread and sells it for $20/loaf, making a "windfall" profit of $18/loaf. Others hear someone is making $18/loaf and therefore decide they should truck bread in and do the same. This does two things - increases the supply of bread and lowers the price due to that increase.

If the government decides it isn't right and takes $17.50 of the $18 in profit, there is no incentive for others to bring in bread, and therefore there is less supply and the loaf still costs $20.

Moonliner

08-01-2008, 09:31 AM

Alex

08-01-2008, 09:41 AM

Generally I oppose the stimulus checks and I oppose windfall taxes.

However, I also oppose the billions in subsidies and tax considerations that the oil industry gets in a time when they are hugely popular.

My idea is that you create stimulus packages (industry) that have the caveat that in future more successful times you will pay back, with a sliding scale based on time taken between sucking at the government teat and showing profit. So you can choose to take help to get over a rough hump but if you eventually soar you give back the help. This also doesn't prevent new competition since they would enter the marketplace without that debt and would encourage industry to think carefully before taking any and all government money available.

In other words, I don't think that the oil companies should be punished for their success now, but they should repay the fact that many of them only still exist because of government assistance in the '80s.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 09:58 AM

Would it change your mind at all if the individual "risking life and limb" to bring in the bread, was also the one that blew up the levy and caused the flood in the first place?

Ummm...that wouldn't be the place for a windfall profits tax, it would be the place for criminal charges. I believe I see where you are going with this, but I don't believe the oil companies have blown up any levies.

innerSpaceman

08-01-2008, 10:05 AM

Ok, so howzabout Alex's more detailed and accurate assessment?

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 10:09 AM

I believe that government intereference in business is usullay not a good idea - and that is whether we're talking about windfall profits taxes or subsidies.

What Alex is suggesting is basically a government funded loan program with performance benchmarks to determine what, if anything, must be paid back. Not a bad idea in general, but I fear the bureaucracy that would accompany such a thing.

Ghoulish Delight

08-01-2008, 10:14 AM

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 10:26 AM

Are the subsidies that were given a loan? That sounds like an ignorant question and it may be. If it was indeed set up as a loan, then by all means they should be paying it back.

Ghoulish Delight

08-01-2008, 10:44 AM

Are the subsidies that were given a loan? That sounds like an ignorant question and it may be. If it was indeed set up as a loan, then by all means they should be paying it back.Was it specifically set up as a loan? No. But that's why these things are voted on regularly by our representative government and not set in stone. It was a vote from Congress that sent them tax money to bail them out. And while it was not specifically categorized as a loan, if that same representative Congress feels that it's time for that flow of money to change direction to benefit the people, then it makes sense.

I'm with Alex in that I probably wouldn't support either the subsidies or the windfall taxes on their own. But given that the subsidies already happened, windfally taxes would be to the benefit of the body that provided those subsidies.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 10:52 AM

The profits do benefit the people....it's a publically traded corporation.

What you saying may be the just thing, but the effect of a windfall profits tax is the effect of a windfall profits tax. These subsidies should be set up as a loan so they show on the books as debt for the companies. Without that, all trading that has taken place for stock in that company is based on a faulty bottom line. If they take it on as a loan, which I have no problem with, then it is something that is expected to be paid back. A subsidy really isn't expect to be paid back.

JWBear

08-01-2008, 11:13 AM

innerSpaceman

08-01-2008, 11:31 AM

Why is a subsidy not "expected" to be paid back? Who expected the subsidy in the first place? No one. Our representative government decided to give them a hand-out. That same representative government can, at any time, just as well decide to tax them.

I agree it all should be left alone, no subsidies, no corporate tax loopholes, etc. But he who giveth is also he who can taketh away. Anyone who expects one is an ass not to expect the other.

Ghoulish Delight

08-01-2008, 11:33 AM

The profits do benefit the people....it's a publically traded corporation.
And tax revenue benfits the people. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

As I've said before, I do not consider oil profits evil or wrong. But neither do I consider revenue for the government evil or wrong. Both are amoral and can be put to good use or destructive use. Blanket statements like "better in the hands of the people than the government" read as kinda nonsensical to me as the government IS the hands of the people. Doesn't mean all money should go there, but pooling a portion of our money together is one way to get more economic bang for the buck. There's a reason that any group of people trying to accomplish something very quickly ends up with a treasurer, some things can just get done more effectively when acting as a body with a pool of money vs. acting as individuals. We can debate for eons on exactly where that benefit begins and ends, but it's absolutely not a black and white "less taxing means better economy". Don't make me pull the graphs out again.

But all of that is beside the point. I think it's absurd to accept subsidies in desperate times and not expect to have to pay for that benefit if it works. It's not a loan because the government is willing to eat the loss if the subsidy fails. But if it works and they're in a position where they're not only succeeding, but succeeding to an overwhelming degree, then I see nothing wrong with insisting that they turn around and support the very body (i.e. our government that represents us) that got them to that point in the first place.

Alex

08-01-2008, 11:39 AM

To clarify, I am not suggesting I would support a windfall tax now on the basis that it was seeking recoupment of past subsidies. That would not be fair as the decision to use such subsidies would have been made on deceptive terms and it would not take into account actual use of subsidies by individual companies.

I also would not be advocating anything like a traditional loan. Because not only would that show incorrectly in corporate valuation it would also falsely "boost" the government's accounting.

I'd have to think through the accounting a lot (and I'm doing that way too much in real life for me to do it for my political fantasy baseball team) but essentially it would an agreement to submit to a higher tax rate in the future in return for current assistance.

Cadaverous Pallor

08-01-2008, 11:59 AM

Getting back to Leo’s flood/bread analogy. I would hope, if some jerk tried charging starving disaster victims $20 for a loaf of bread, the authorities would confiscate said bread and throw is profiteering ass in jail!Total agreement. I know Leo threw in "risking life and limb" but in the end, what is he risking it for? An $18 profit. Boo.

The idea that the gas companies are somehow being unselfish is beyond laughable. We all know that Exxon made more money last year than any company has ever made in any year, ever (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0704/gallery.F500_profitable.fortune/index.html), right? That is, while we are paying prices for gas that are bankrupting delivery businesses and making some people decide between paying their mortgage and driving to work.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 12:07 PM

And tax revenue benfits the people. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

I suppose I disagree with that to an extent. The government is fat and bloated and wasteful and providing the government with more money leads to more of the same.

I would not even be against a higher tax rate in return when the company becaomes profitable after a subsidy - as long as that was a stipulation. Otherwise investors do not know what they are getting into. What happens to the price of a stock should the government just decide that industry A gets taxed at a higher rate because of their profitability?

But still, we can agree that it (meaning business) would be better without either subsidies or windfall profits taxes.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 12:09 PM

Total agreement. I know Leo threw in "risking life and limb" but in the end, what is he risking it for? An $18 profit. Boo.

So are the people better off with no food? Or paying $20/loaf?

All items have value. If I were the flood victim, I owuldn't be happy to be paying $20/loaf. But I'd sure be glad that I had something to feed my kid.

BarTopDancer

08-01-2008, 12:11 PM

Total agreement. I know Leo threw in "risking life and limb" but in the end, what is he risking it for? An $18 profit. Boo.

The idea that the gas companies are somehow being unselfish is beyond laughable. We all know that Exxon made more money last year than any company has ever made in any year, ever (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0704/gallery.F500_profitable.fortune/index.html), right? That is, while we are paying prices for gas that are bankrupting delivery businesses and making some people decide between paying their mortgage and driving to work.

Bolding mine. Since an argument could be made that people shouldn't have bought more house then they could afford (and divulge into a predatory lending discussion) I'd change it to buying groceries or paying utiltiies and driving to work.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 12:14 PM

Let's say that oil companies decided to completely cut out their profit on gas. Completely. That's about 9 cents/gallon. I recall that the possible elimination of the gas taxes for the summer was laughed at because it would make no real impact, but that would have been something like 24 cents/gallon, if I recall the numbers correctly.

If 24 cents/gallon would make no real impact, then what impact does 9 cents/gallon make? No real impact at all.

The oil companies are nothing but a scapegoat.

Alex

08-01-2008, 12:18 PM

The idea that the gas companies are somehow being unselfish is beyond laughable. We all know that Exxon made more money last year than any company has ever made in any year, ever (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0704/gallery.F500_profitable.fortune/index.html), right? That is, while we are paying prices for gas that are bankrupting delivery businesses and making some people decide between paying their mortgage and driving to work.

Yes, I know that. I just don't see how it is particularly relevant. And overt government attempts to cap gasoline prices will not work. A windfall tax in an environment of unchanged demand -- and the US market is an increasingly smaller portion of global demand -- will just raise gasoline prices. A cap on profits will just cause companies to stop selling gas once they've maxed out for the year.

I have no problem with oil companies raping us from both ends. I just want to stop subsidizing them for the privilege.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 12:23 PM

Your economics are right on, Alex, but I don't think we're being raped at all. 9 cents/gallon isn't a huge profit margin.

JWBear

08-01-2008, 12:31 PM

So are the people better off with no food? Or paying $20/loaf?

All items have value. If I were the flood victim, I owuldn't be happy to be paying $20/loaf. But I'd sure be glad that I had something to feed my kid.

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not sell the bread at a reasonable rate? Say 20% above the pre flood price. Or better yet… donate the bread and get free publicity and tons of good will. Assuming a normal price of $4 a loaf $20 would be a 400% mark-up! That’s not making a decent profit, that’s obscene greed!

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 12:35 PM

Agreed, JW. It is greed. But which is better? The people without food or paying $20?

mousepod

08-01-2008, 12:40 PM

See, the problem I have with your metaphor, scaeagles, is that it doesn't take into account the subsidies that the bread supplier already got the year before, and the press that would undoubtedly raise the public cry against the supplier who would be pummeled on TV - 24 hours a day (until a sexier story comes up).

JWBear

08-01-2008, 12:42 PM

Agreed, JW. It is greed. But which is better? The people without food or paying $20?

Again I ask, why does it have to be either/or?

ETA:

I think this shows the basic difference between two types of people in this world – those who see disaster, and instinctively think of helping other people; and those who see disaster, and instinctively think of helping only themselves. It would never cross my mind to reap horrendous profit from the misery of others. If I had owned that bread company, I would unhesitatingly donate my bread to help others in trouble. I guess that puts me in the former category.

I also think that I wouldn’t want much to do with those who fall in the later category.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 12:47 PM

It doesn't. But sometimes it is. So which is better?

And the analogy, of course, is completely ridiculous. Because the oil companies make nothing near that rate of profit. I'd have to check, but I think well over 100 companies on the fortune 500 have higher profit margins that Exxon.

JWBear

08-01-2008, 12:53 PM

...Because the oil companies make nothing near that rate of profit...

Public perception is that they are. And public perception can be a fickle bitch.

Betty

08-01-2008, 12:56 PM

I'm confused - if the oil companies make 9 cents a gallon no matter what the price of gas is - and we aren't driving 400% more then we did before - how are they making record breaking profits?

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 01:00 PM

Public perception is that they are. And public perception can be a fickle bitch.

Exactly. And the dems are trying to play this to political advantage by portray it as if the record profit is equal to recrod profit margin.

scaeagles

08-01-2008, 01:01 PM

I'm confused - if the oil companies make 9 cents a gallon no matter what the price of gas is - and we aren't driving 400% more then we did before - how are they making record breaking profits?

Volume of business, and they make profits from areas other than sale of gasoline. It's just the most visible one.

Alex

08-01-2008, 01:06 PM

The oil companies don't just make money from selling
gasoline down at your corner station.

sleepyjeff

08-02-2008, 11:05 AM

Stimilus package....debatable. All it is is redistribution of wealth under a different name, but anything that puts more money back in the hands of the people instead of the hands of the government is usually a good thing.

Was it Walter Williams who said stimilus packages are nothing more than trying to make the shallow end of a swimming pool deeper by taking a bucket of water from the deep end?

flippyshark

08-02-2008, 11:29 AM

I just like saying "stimulus package."

Sub la Goon

08-02-2008, 11:56 AM

The oil companies don't just make money from selling
gasoline down at your corner station.

Their bake sales have been going incredibly well.

Cadaverous Pallor

08-02-2008, 12:58 PM

And we pay for the gas/oil used to run tractors, transport food, build homes, pave streets, and oh yeah, run everything, period. In the end, you still have the oil companies making record profits while the price of everything goes up and people make hard choices. Are they still a scapegoat?

Regarding the $20 loaf of bread, your either/or situation makes no sense. Either someone risks their life to earn a markup, or no one gets food. Um, how about all the people who actually assist in crisis situations without wanting rewards? Don't tell me they don't exist. We've had enough crises in the past few years that I've heard plenty of stories otherwise.

scaeagles

08-02-2008, 01:27 PM

It was hypothetical example to explain "windfall' profits and why they perhaps aren't always a bad thing, in that they bring others into the market creating competition and lowering prices.

Sheesh. Of course there are people who help for free. It wasn't meant to be a comparison to the oil companies and it wouldn't be a good one anyway.....the simple matter of fact is that the oil companies are NOT gouging ANYONE!

In 2007, Exxon earned a 7.6% profit margin. The average of most major manufacturers was 5.8%. Throw out the auto industry and that average goes to 9.2%. I can't find data for this year yet.

Over the last 5 years, Microsoft has averaged 27.9%. In March, Apple perfromed lower than expectations with only 32.9%, down from 35.1% a year ago. Doesn't pretty much everyone need a computer to get by? How dare Microsoft and Apple make so much!

Walmart, another retailer everyone loves to hate, only made 3.5% average in the last 5 years (by the way, I don't shop there, but not because I hate them).

7.6% is not a big profit margin. I really fail to see how eliminating all of their profits on the sale of gasoline would do much anyway. It's about 9 cents a gallon. Yes, everyone uses it and it certainly affects the price of everything else. But the oil companies are not the bad guys for making 9 cents a gallon.

And yes, CP, we do use it to run everything, period. Perhaps this is why we might want to think about drilling for and using our own natural resources because it is going to be a really, really long time before everything doesn't run on it. Meanwhile, everyone will continue to whine and Congress will threaten to sue OPEC and Pelosi and company will shut down debate on the issue becase they are on the unpopular side.

BarTopDancer

08-02-2008, 02:51 PM

Over the last 5 years, Microsoft has averaged 27.9%. In March, Apple perfromed lower than expectations with only 32.9%, down from 35.1% a year ago. Doesn't pretty much everyone need a computer to get by? How dare Microsoft and Apple make so much!

Believe it or not, computers are still a luxury item. Yes, you have a better chance of increasing your earning potential if you have computer skills but a computer in your home is still a luxury.

Paying the utility bills, buying food is not.

Strangler Lewis

08-02-2008, 03:19 PM

It was hypothetical example to explain "windfall' profits and why they perhaps aren't always a bad thing, in that they bring others into the market creating competition and lowering prices.

If I tell you that I am an oil man . . .

Seriously, are there Jet Blue equivalents entering the oil production business with any regularly?

sleepyjeff

08-02-2008, 03:44 PM

In 2007, Exxon earned a 7.6% profit margin. ....
7.6% is not a big profit margin. I really fail to see how eliminating all of their profits on the sale of gasoline would do much anyway. It's about 9 cents a gallon. Yes, everyone uses it and it certainly affects the price of everything else. But the oil companies are not the bad guys for making 9 cents a gallon.

..... Meanwhile, everyone will continue to whine and Congress will threaten to sue OPEC and Pelosi and company will shut down debate on the issue becase they are on the unpopular side.

:snap: :snap: :snap:

scaeagles

08-02-2008, 04:23 PM

Believe it or not, computers are still a luxury item. Yes, you have a better chance of increasing your earning potential if you have computer skills but a computer in your home is still a luxury.

Paying the utility bills, buying food is not.

I agree. I just got a notice of a rate increase request from my electric company. I'm pissed off about it, but I'm pissed off about it because we haven't built a new nuclear power plant 30 years, not at the utility companies. I could find the other 123 companies on the fortune 500 that make a higher margin (or whatever it is....I think that was the ranking of Exxon in terms of profit margin last year) and discuss each one and the impact on those affected by them, but the point stands that 7.6% is not a high profit margin.

scaeagles

08-02-2008, 04:26 PM

If I tell you that I am an oil man . . .

Seriously, are there Jet Blue equivalents entering the oil production business with any regularly?

But the free market example still stands. Why are oil prices so high? Because of speculation that supplies aer going to be cut off, primarily. So if that pressure is taken off the market because of US drilling, then that is a step in the right direction. I would also figure that if domestic supplies of oil were opened for easy access there would be several venture capitalists wanting to get in on it and perhaps starting up that Jet Blue you are talking about it. Maybe csome guy figures out a cost effective way of extracting oil from oil shale. Who knows?

BarTopDancer

08-02-2008, 04:39 PM

but the point stands that 7.6% is not a high profit margin.

I must have missed where you showed the source for the 7.6% profit margin. Regardless of the profit margin, they are making record breaking profits.

I'd like to see something adjusted for inflation. Much like movie sales records being broken, prices change.

Cadaverous Pallor

08-02-2008, 04:47 PM

7.6% is not a big profit margin. There must be something here I'm missing. They make more money than any company ever in the history of man. The price for the product has double in a very short period. Is their profit margin the same as it was? If so, why are they making so much right now? The amount of gas/oil purchased does go up each year even in the face of alternative technology, but I'm assuming it didn't skyrocket. Shouldn't their earnings be steady, not shooting up? (They are quite larger than 5 years ago, correct?)

I would do research but I'm on a quickie break and don't have time now.

scaeagles

08-02-2008, 07:41 PM

Here (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/index.htm) is somethign that could explain it a bit.

Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.

Note the volume of business. It's immense. Honestly, I don't know where all their income comes from.

Exxon actually buys more crude than it sells.

Profits from its refining business totaled $1.6 billion in the quarter, less than half of what they were last year.

So they are making much less on refining the product than they were because of higher oil prices. Yes, they produce oil, but they buy more to refine than they actually produce themselves.

While oil prices in the quarter were nearly twice as high as the same time last year, gasoline prices only rose about 30%.

Seems like there could be justification for gas to be even more expensive.

Recent efforts by countries such as Russia, Venezuela and Kazakhstan to gain greater control of their own domestic oil resources have also hampered the ability of international oil companies to increase production.

These countries are just a few who are expanding control of their resources for domestic use. This pushes up the price of oil on the international market.

Defenders of oil company profits also point out that their profit margin, at around 8%, is slightly below average for S&P 500 companies

So CP, the oil companies are not gouging anyone.

Sub la Goon

08-02-2008, 08:56 PM

What I don't get is that the same people who defend the oil companies while they rape us are the same people who defend the current administration for their needless wars, runaway expenditures, and criminal proclivities.

Is it really a free market when huge oil companies get tax breaks and hide behind offshore shelters? When car makers and buyers get government incentives for making/buying trucks and SUV's while electric vehicles are taken off the roads?

I don't trust the accounting we are being fed any more than I trust Jeffrey Skilling to do my taxes.

And the answer we are given is to drill more. Drill locally. So the oil companies get more oil - that they can sell to us. Places like Venezuela have nationalized their oil, so they pay less for it. Any oil we produce would go into the international pool and probably not amount to a huge difference.

If we get an administration that is not made up of oil flunkies and focuses on energy independence, maybe we could get somewhere. Going on a path that eventually leads to being oil-free would probably drop the speculative price immediately too.

scaeagles

08-03-2008, 02:32 AM

How long do you honestly believe it will be until we are "oil-free"?

You would like us to immitate Chavez and his nationalization of the oil inductry in Venezuela? That's amazing.

Apparently we have differing definitions of rape, because I don't see 7.6% as rape. But if you don't believe the numbers, you don't believe the numbers, in which case no logic can sway you.

If you read the link provided, you'll see that on the 138 billion in revenue....

Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes."

That's 32 billion on 138 million, or almost three times their profit. 30% is a decent tax rate, but there is no such thing as a corporate tax. Corporate taxes are just additional costs passed along to the consumer.