|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not saying that Bush is a great leader (or that Obama won't be one one), just making a point. |
Makes sense in theory. However, have we had any great presidents who were not also known for their public speaking ability? Could Moses get elected president?
|
Quote:
|
And the Torah says a dishonorable son shall be put to death. The Talmud mitigates this by saying that such a thing is an impossibility. You might be able to get elected, but I don't think you can be deemed a great president without the ability to inspire people to see things your way.
|
I believe Abraham Lincoln was a great President but so many people didn't see things his way that there was a civil war.
|
Quote:
Lincoln's voice was often described as high-pitched, unpleasant and shrill. I guess it shows what good writing can do. |
Quote:
:D |
Quote:
|
And without being a cripple. Or do we have to specify "modern age" for that one, too?
|
Quote:
Are you honestly suggesting that only Republicans politicians play the game of uhhhh - politics? Paaaaallllleeeeaasssse. :rolleyes: |
Hey GC - I think dems might be guilty of some politicking, too, and also worthy of their own tactics being turned on them.
|
I've seen this point made a few times. This column goes into detail on it. The point being, Clinton touts her leadership experience, and yet she seems to be doing a pretty poor job of managing her campaign. She's gone from the clear favorite to barely hanging on. Whereas Obama, with his supposed lack of leadership experience, has run a very strong nation wide campaign.
|
And yet, as his campaign has gone on, chinks have appeared in the shining armor. He doesn't seem as able to articulate his policy goals with nearly the expertise that Clinton demonstrates. The Canada gaffe made him seem like every other forked tongue politician on what his policy goals really are. And, perversely, the more Clinton gets peevish and nasty, the more she is perceived as "real" ... while Obama is starting to look pretty glib and fake.
One thing that's played out over and over and is not likely to change is that they each have almost precisley half of the Democratic contingent, with Clinton raking in the working class, and women, and older Dems ... and Obama appealing to the younger Dems, the upper class and the people of color. Face it, folks ... it's a TIE. And that's not going to change. The obvious solution, which neither candidate will accept, is to draw straws for who's V.P. and then join as a single, absolutely unbeatable, mega-historic ticket that will clinch the White House and take two incredible strides in American History. Damn their pride. They should make a pact that, whoever goes first will not run for re-election in four years, but will switch places on the ticket with them. One gets to be president now, and the other waits only 4 years instead of 8, with the potential to serve as pres for 8. Simple. ;) |
Why does everyone think that Clinton has the women's vote? What, we vote down gender lines JUST because there's a woman on the ticket? Women are approximately 50% of the population, so unless you're suggesting that Obama's voters are all male, I don't think Clinton can be said to "have" the women's vote and still be at parity with Obama.
|
Pretty dangerous going with two hard core liberals on the same ticket. I don't see it as a slam dunk at all.
|
Obama has won the majority of women in certain states. If I have time later I'll post links.
|
I don't know what scaeagles is smoking, but it's an undeniable demographic fact that if Clinton's voters and Obama's voters unite, their sheer numbers will overwhelm the entirety of Republican voters.
This is based on turn-outs in the primaries. Democrats have outnumbered Replublicans 2 to 1. |
A) What "tie"? Obama has a clear lead in delegates that will be near impossible for Clinton to catch.
B) I find it humorous that the number two horse in the race is offering to split the ticket and take top spot. What hubris. C) I agree it's not a slam dunk. ANY ticket that includes Ms. Clinton will be a non-starter in my book and I think a lot of others feel that way also. I voted Obama (or would have had I the chance) but I would NOT vote an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. |
Quote:
|
ok, that Goonie out. Doesn't change the tide. Sorry.
Elected Delegates is not the whole story, Moonie. Superdelegates are going to swing the election. Obama is likely to head into the convention with his roughly 100 delegate lead, and Clinton is likely to win the overall popular vote by the end of primary season. If she wins Pennsylvania, which is also likely, she's got a good argument that she is more electible by virtue of carrying the states that, like it or not, determine the presidential election for all of us. A tiny swing of superdelegates is all it takes. That's why it's going to tie for all intents and purposes. If Clinton's big-states argument carries weight, she will be declaraed the nominee. The superdelegates don't want to go agains the will of the electorate, but they also want to win the White House. If Clinton wins the popular vote, that could be all the cover they need to award the nomination to the candidate a little behind in elected delegates. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think that if superdelegates are perceived as having selected the nominee then a lot of Democrats are going to be royally pissed at the party and vote for staying home on election day, essentially giving the election to McCain. I predict that party leaders will NOT let that happen at all costs. Also I think if Clinton drops out her supporters will go grudgingly over to Obama. A large number of Obama supporters will never vote for Clinton. In fact a good number of independents will cross over and vote McCain. |
Quote:
I have to say, I'm finding Hillary and Bill unpleasant and shrill, these days. |
Quote:
|
I agree with Moonliner, particularly that Clinton brings Obama down, Obama does not lift Clinton. There is a huge demogrphic of Obama voters that would never vote Hillary in any capacity, and McCain is centrist enough to pull in a large portion of those.
|
Not one of those, Scaeagles. He scares the hell out of me. I truly think he's whacked out.
|
Lol- this one's for Moonie:
“I am not running for vice president, I am running for president of the United States of America. I am running to be commander in chief,” Obama boomed to applause. “I don’t know how somebody in second place is offering vice president to the person in first place.” (Columbus Town Hall meeting) |
I honestly don't know if I would vote for Hillary if it came down to it. I wouldn't vote for McCain. I'd probably end up being a participant in the "Nader vote".
|
Quote:
I do, too - remember, I described him as reminding me of DeNiro as Capone with a baseball bat. |
Hmmm...interesting quote from Geraldine Ferraro, former VP candidate and a member of the Clinton team....she's basically saying that Obama is only doing well because he's a black man and everyone is afraid to criticize him. At least that's how I read it.
Link Quote:
|
He can't win for losing...or something like that.
Early arguments against Obama from many Democrats was that he couldn't win because he was black. Not that the person saying it cared that he was black but that too many other people would care so for that person to vote for him would be a waste. Now, he's succeeding only because he is black. There is certainly some excitement about seeing a black man go so far in the process, just as for many there is excitement at seeing a woman do the same. But it is silly to say it is only or primarily because he is black. Al Sharpton or Charles Rangel wouldn't have made it past Iowa. But certainly it is part of the package. But her being a woman is part of Clinton's package as well. |
Quote:
- Rush (The band not the blowhole) |
It has been suggested that the one positive aspect to having Hillary be Obama's VP is that it pretty much ensures that nobody would attempt a presidential assassination.
|
I think Hillary would attempt a Presidential assassination.
|
Quote:
|
Geraldine Ferraro?? Wow, they're all coming out of the woodwork now...
|
Wow, they're reeeeeeeeally reaching, aren't they? The news is so desperate for a "scandal"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23571095/ |
I've seen quite a few Che Obama posters (posted in illegal places) around Long Beach. I wonder if the guy who did these is a local.
|
 |
Just...just...scary!
:D |
My eyes, my eyes, for the love of Disney my eyes............oh, the horror:)
|
Howling......rotflmao
too, too funny, NA |
You got your chocolate on my peanut butter!
|
Wow. Not only did Barack deliver one hell of a speech in response to his pastor's hateful rhetoric, but apparently he wrote the whole damn thing himself. That just doesn't happen in politics anymore. At all. Not since Nixon in 1969, according to the Library of Congress. This was probably his most important speech in the campaign to date, and he didn't have someone write it, he didn't have someone help him write it, he didn't have a team of publicist scour it for damage control. He sat down and spent 2 days writing it himself.
There's something that would make me admire my President (and yes, I admire it in Nixon). |
If it's true, I do indeed admire it. But simply having the press report that he wrote the speech himself, does not make it true. Of course, until that's demonstrated otherwise, I believe he did write it ... and wrote a damn good one.
In fact, I think this pastor fracus may have turned out to be the best thing that's happened to the Obama campaign, as I think the speech was the most substantive thing Obama's ever said. |
|
Okay, I'm only about a third of the way through this speech, but I have to say if he wrote this himself, he's an eloquent fvcking genius.
|
Quote:
|
The man is amazing. :snap: He did not deny anything, did not cover up anything. He told the truth, and he did it so well, it's undeniable, unarguable.
|
Here's the speech on YouTube. 1.6 mil views. Wow!
|
Wow, this is a looong speech. He has proved that he can speak as long as past politicians did.
:D I think it is an amazing speech. I think this may have nailed the presidency for him. I hope he is elected president. |
Quote:
Actually, the speech made me sad. He talks about all the things that need to be done, all the change that has to be made. But I see nothing different that's going to initiate that change. Certainly his talking about it goes a little ways. But talk is cheap. Even good talk. It doesn't make any of that stuff happen. Still, I'm more impressed with Obama than I was a week ago. |
Here's a sign of change, and I think Jon Stewart nailed it yesterday:
"...and so today on March 18, 2008, a Tuesday, a politician talked to Americans about race as if they were adults." Who knows what actual talk rather than pretend outrage will accomplish. On the other hand, it has been interesting because I've been very busy and haven't seen the speech. Only everybody's reaction to it and some clips on radio news and it has been a Rorschach test kind of thing. Most people are just finding in it what they were already looking for. |
Quote:
Thus my whole "bleh" feeling on this particular election... or perhaps it's a culmination of all the elections I've seen? |
I just feel like we've spent the last 8 years with a glaring example of how important the ability to communicate is to the job of President. It's surely not the only important skill, but to me it's high on the list. And in Barack Obama, we would get not just someone who is better than the last guy at it (as if that's difficult), but someone who has the potential to be one of the greatest ever. And not just from an ability standpoint, but from a substantive standpoint. I agree with Alex/John Stewart that what was so unbelievably refreshing was not just that the speech was well written and well spoken, but the content was honest and straightforward, it wasn't tired platitudes or rhetoric.
I felt the same way a year ago when Obama was under fire for some comments about Iran. His response laid it all out there without skirting the issue. That was what initially drew me to him and this speech reafirms it. That alone is enough change for me to be excited about the prospect of President Obama. Having someone running this country who is willing to openly discuss things rather than talk around things, and to do so skillfully and without constant coaching would mark a pretty radical shift in American politics. |
Quote:
Sorry, not buying it any more. Hmmm, would I like to give Obama the chance to make good? Sure. And it looks as it he's going to get that chance. And I'm glad. Don't mistake me for unhappy that he will likely be the next president. But I'm not all gaga because he talks the good talk. That's simply not enough for me. But, yeah, it's good. |
Quote:
For the last eight years we've been talked to like we're little children. "Let Uncle Georgie hold your hand and tell you what we're going to do to the big, bad bullies. Don't worry your pretty little head about what's going on in that far away land. We'll take care of it our way. Have no concern about the skyrocketing gas prices, the housing market crash, the job loss or the economy. Uncle Georgie will take care of you. These civil liberties are over-rated. We're going to protect you by taking them away. And remember, it's rude to question the actions of your elders. So sit there quietly while we destroy this country." |
Quote:
|
Yes, it is refreshing to not go through this chain with controversy:
- Something is said or done. - There is a negative response. - Person claims that they didn't actually say or do it. - It is shown that they really - Person claims that even if they did say or do it obviously you misunderstood their intent or action. - It is shown that there really isn't any other reasonable reading. - Person claims well even if they did say or or do it, and even if it looks like that means something in particular, they didn't really mean it. - The press and public gets bored and lets it slide into oblivion. - Bill Schneider awards person the Political Power Play of the Week for having played politics so masterfully and having weathered the storm without actually admitting to anything. - Lather, rinse, repeat. Admittedly, I have no idea if this will result in anything good but it is a nice difference. |
Quote:
|
Oh, well, sorry but I don't find Obama's any more sincere. Forthright does not equal sincere in my book.
I think he was masterful at saving his skin. Where was this speech before he needed it politically??? |
Quote:
One can't be 100% candid, nor can one not take political expediency into account at all and still expect to be President. But at the minimum, it's nice to see someone who is candid while making political moves. |
Well, he wouldn't have been so accused by me. And for all I know, in all honesty, he may have said such things before now. I do not hear all of his speeches. In fact, this is perhaps the 2nd or 3rd I've heard all the way thru.
But it doesn't seem "sincere" to me what it's in reaction to the strongest (albeit bullsh!t) criticism he's had in the entire campaign. It was much more skillfull skin-saving than the rinse-repeat formula Alex detailed above, but it was skin-saving nonetheless. I don't see what can possibly be considered sincere in that. Oh, I'm not saying the talk itself was pablum. It was really good stuff. As Jon Stewart said, so pleasantly rare to have race problems addressed in an adult manner. He gets major talking props, yessiree. But I think it's easy to forget, after 8 years of the man, how inspiring and seemingly forthright, and hope-enthused Bill Clinton was in his first campaign for president. Like I said, I'll be happy to see Obama as pres. But I'm not falling over myself because he gives good talk. Fool me once, and all that. So maybe I'm not giving Obama a fair shake because of my experience with Clinton. So what? If he's more than just talk as president, I'll be first in line to suck his dick under the oval office desk, ok? |
Quote:
|
It's more of a frock really.
|
The thing that speech made me realize is why I'm attracted to him as a candidate. (Which I've wondered, given that I am not exactly the most liberal person on this board)
Part of the reason I was so for Giuliani was because I'd seen a speech he gave on C-Span (yes, people actually watch that channel... sometimes). It wasn't a historically significant speech, just one of many on the campaign trail for the then-running candidate. But in it, he'd addressed some issues head on, rather than sidestepping as so many candidates do. He'd been asked if his actions as mayor of NY (something related to offering health and education services to children of illegals) were inconsistent with his stance against illegal immigration. He basically took it head on and explained there was no inconsistency at all, that immigration is a federal issue, for the feds to handle, and his job as mayor of NYC was to see to the health, safety, and general welfare of the city's residents. That everyone was affected by sick people walking the streets (diseases are just as contagious to citizens), and that if there were children of illegals in the city anyway (the Feds failing to curtail the population), would it be better for those kids to be in school, learning how to be productive members of society, or to be left alone all day to hang out in the streets and committing crimes. Apparently I dig a candidate who takes this stuff head on. More importantly, I look to be impressed with the substance of their response. I had that in Rudy, and we seem to have that in Barack. |
Okay, I've seen it. For an adult discussion about race, I prefer Lisa Lampanelli: vulgar remarks about other groups that are all sort of grounded in truth.
But seriously: What struck me most about his speech was that his bow to the anger and frustrations of white Americans was straight Michael Moorer: your anger is understandable, but you're picking the wrong targets: You shouldn't be upset at the "lower classes," job loss, black crime, etc. You should be upset at the federal government and big corporations because there's no safety net. Mind you, I agree with Michael Moorer. I just doubt that anybody will call Obama a crank and a hothead over these observations. |
Quote:
Michael Moorer? Well, I wouldn't call him names either. |
Now i know why I spent part of yesterday afternoon thinking about boxing. Stop with the not-so-subliminal messages, SL.
|
I had a feeling this was going to happen: Bill Richardson endorses Obama
Oops- I just saw GD beat me to it in the other faux-Bama thread. |
I haven't been all that vocal about the election yet but I do have to say this and it's not all that cheery:
I worry that if Obama or Clinton win the general election that either of them might be offed. First African American, first woman, wanting change etc. I just worry. I feel it every time Obama invokes the name of Martin Luther King Jr. It kinda creeps me out. |
Which is one reason I wish they'd just join on one unbeatable, unassassinatabe ticket.
|
This makes the odds of an Obama/Richardson ticket much better. I'm a happy boy! :D
|
Quote:
A couple links for those who haven't seen the story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esk...a_b_92844.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo...under_fire.php How hard is it to just say (assuming it is the truth): "Whoops, apparently over time my memory of that day has become clouded. On the flight in we were warned of possible risks and it would seem that over the years the failures of memory caused the warning to overwrite the actual event." Instead we'll get - Dramatic story --Uh, isn't that a lie? - No, it really happened --Uh, no it didn't. - Yes, I'm pretty sure it happened mostly the way I described it. Here, my speechwriter will agree with me. --Well, if you have a second source we'll have to think this over. - --No, wait, yeah, it is still all wrong. -Hey! Look over there! Easter Eggs!! Yay!!!!! --Wow, you're right. We have to go do things with our kids. Can we get back to you on this sometime next week? -Sure, anytime you want, my doors always open. If I don't answer the first time you call, don't worry, I'll eventually get back to you. |
Do people really want a President that gets out-politically-maneuvered by Sinbad?
|
Quote:
 |
[quote=PanTheMan;200541]This is the direction I think the Dems are headed.
[quote] In which case, by this time next year & barring any unexpected occurances, we'll be talking about President Obama. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The prospect of John "Doesn't know the difference between Al Qaeda and Shiite Muslims" McCain get scarier by the day.
|
Hillary wants to flip pledged delegates?
Yup, she doesn't care if you voted for someone else, she wants those delegates to vote for her. |
Well, technically she's right. And so long as it is within the agreed rules I don't really have a problem with it beyond the appearance of poor sportsmanship.
While I don't think she'd really have any success in flipping a significant number of pledged delegates I can think of a reason to prod them towards showing at least a willingness to consider it. She needs to keep the superdelegates from committing en masse to Obama after the last primaries. There'll be a lot of pressure for them commit themselves ASAP so as to avoid going to the convention with things in the air and to allow Obama to begin running against McCain rather than Clinton. And if it seems inevitable that Clinton will lose at the convention no matter what I imagine that's exactly what the superdelegates will do. However, if she can convince the superdelegates to keep the outcome in limbo past the first ballot by showing that on subsequent ballots, once the delegates are freed from their commitments, she'll get a lot of transferred support then she might be able to convince a lot of superdelegates that really do prefer her to hold off. I still don't see it working. But this is all also part of what Clinton needs to be doing. She can't say "well, we're pretty much out of it but I like campaigning." She has to be putting out paths to the presidency, regardless of how unlikely they really are. |
Technically, electors of the electoral college are also free to vote for whomever they please, regardless of the vote tallies in their respective states.
But, um, that never happens. Pledged delegates to the Democratic Convention aren't likely to switch allegence away from the voters and towards Hillary either. But it's not playing dirty for her to allege that it's legal, because it is. It's just not gonna happen. |
As much as I dislike Hillary, I have to agree with Alex on this one.
|
Yeah, I don't blame her, it's the only gambit she's got left. I would however aim a stink eye or two at any pledged delegates that happened to agree to flip, within the rules or otherwise.
|
Gotta agree with Alex.
|
CP: good meaty stuff in one of the reader comments on that site you linked.
(edited for Alex's sake) Quote:
|
Regardless of accuracy, I tend to disregard anybody who tries to use "sodomy" as a scare word.
|
Fair enough ;) It's kind of pointless for him to have added that, as it adds little to his argument (after all, Hillary didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky... then again, neither did Bill ;))
Special for you, I have trimmed out the opening paragraphs wherein the author of that quote laid out his argument that Hillary had very little responsibility during the Clinton years. And that nasty little bit about sodomy ;) |
Richardson committed to Obama, even though his voters (by the slimmest of margins) went for Hillary. He indicated that he was turned off by the type of campaign Hillary is running, and her reaction to his decision probably made him feel like he made the right choice. (She wasn't a happy camper).
Her negative campaign is going to do her in- I just hope it doesn't cause the Dems to lose the Presidency. |
Richardson's a super delegate for whom it's much more common practice for them to vote against their constituents.
Unless Hillary has a huge win in Pennsylvania, I expect we'll start to see more super delegates crossing over to support Obama, likely due to pressure from party leaders. While Clinton's still got a mathematical chance to keep things close, they probably aren't going to do much, but the longer this battle goes on, the less chance the eventual candidate is going to have to mount a campaign against McCain. They're already being hurt by the fact that McCain's repeated "slip ups" regarding the difference between Al Qaeda vs. Shia is second page news behind the non-issue of Obama's pastor. That should have been an important campaign point for a democratic nominee to go after him on, seeing as foreign policy is supposedly McCain's strong point, but by the time this settles out it'll be questionable whether the average voter/media will consider it relevant anymore. |
Notice that in the list he listed the bills authored by Clinton that were passed into law but for Obama listed bills sponsored or co-sponsored. Apples are being compared to oranges. I did my own searching and the numbers are somewhat different but don't paint so divergent a picture.
Since 2000, Clinton has been primary sponsor of 159 bills and primary or co-sponsor of 705 total. 4 of those have made it to the president's desk: one on independence of US Attorneys, one on awarding a Congressional Gold Medal, one on breast cancer stamps, and one on subpoena power related the 9/11 Victims Fund. Since 2000 (obviously, he wasn't actually in office since 2000 I just didn't change the search term since it should have no impact), Obama has been primary sponsor of 120 bills and primary or co-sponsor of 527 total. 4 of those have made it to the president's desk: one on stem cell research, one on breast cancer stamps, one on naming a post office, one on the Freedom of Information Act. Further, of all those bills Obama and Clinton were both co-sponsors of 269 of them. I'd tie this in to the discussion in another thread about statistics and their use. Statistics were sorely misused there. And of course it is all meaningless without the context of knowing how many meaningful bills a senator can expect to push in a year, how many meaningful bills get passed every year, and the power structure involved in two junior senators trying to get their names prominently attached to meaningful bills. My concern wasn't with the use of the word "sodomized" but rather the suspicion that a person who was working so hard to give a hard bias to a blowjob probably wasn't working too hard to be even keeled in the other parts of the post. |
Yeah, Alex beat me to it. I demand that list be removed. I call shenanigans.
I'm gonna post the people I had the hots for vs. the people Cadaverous Pallor actually slept with. :p |
So Hillary, was it sniper fire or not?
If it was discussed elsewhere, I can't find it. But I have no issue with the post being moved. |
Post 576 above has some of it.
|
Quote:
Going back to my post earlier - yes, it is within the rules for her to sway previously pledged delegates. I still find it offensive. The message she is sending me, the voter, is "your vote doesn't matter." Even though I am not a Dem and couldn't vote for either, I am horrified by her disregard of the average citizen's opinion. |
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...obama_doctrine
I have to admit, I skimmed this. But it's preaching to my choir. If you still think Barack's people say "CHANGE" over and over and nothing else, you may want to read it. |
Quote:
I'm having visions of an episode of West Wing when they called the various senators asking, begging and trying to convince them to change their vote. |
Quote:
Dictators are not typically concerned with the well being - or "dignity" - of their people. Quote:
In talking about feeding people and relieving malaria and the likes, there are not many people that would suggest that Bush has not been the most pro-Africa President of all. He has been doing the very things discussed where it is possible to do it. That's not change, so you're right - it's the continuation of what Bush is doing in Africa right now - again, not everywhere, but where possible. Quote:
I have so much more to offer on why I consider this beyond naive, but not the time nor desire to continue doing so. |
One can't argue with dignity promotion. That was the best justification for the Civilian Conservation Corps. Still, it sounds like an uphill battle at best. People get a lot of easy dignity from an infallible religion, a machete or an M16. Plus, Scaeagles is probably right. Gandhi wouldn't have gotten very far if his opponent had been Stalin instead of the British.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Not sure if this is the best thread to put this in, but I got a kick out of the incident with Chelsea Clinton the other day.
She was at Butler College in Indiana on Tuesday and was asked whether her Mother's response to her Father's infidelity with Monica Lewinsky had damaged Mom's credibility. I love her response: Quote:
The Yahoo News story with the headline of "Flash: Chelsea Clinton is a Competent Adult" ______________________ And I have to say, she (Chelsea) is looking much better with age!  |
Quote:
I do wonder how much of this is an act. Is she indulging in so much juvenile, schoolyard, power-mad bad behavior because it makes her look like a Republican and she thinks it's what people are really used to, and, therefore, really want in a president? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
HAHAHA! Yeah, dems aren't power mad or juvenile, and hillary never, ever acted like this before the campaign. HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! |
There's a person being part of a panel on NPR right now making the argument that the call for Clinton to drop out of the race since her odds are long is misogynistic since such calls would never be made to a man. That for men the ideal is from sports where the game isn't over until the clock runs out.
Apparently she doesn't have a memory that runs back very far so doesn't recall the calls for Huckabee to drop out before McCain's victory was completely solidified. Or that Romney actually did drop out once his odds were long so that he could throw his support to the apparent victor. Or the millions of people openly ridiculing Ralph Nader for running when he has no chance of victory and can only cause trouble for the actual winners. |
Alex, I want to applaud your research on the bills topic. I'm far too lazy to look into it that far. (Which is why I grabbed ready-made comments when they presented themselves.)
I'm still not voting for Hillary if she wins. |
Apparently there are a lot of people on both the Clinton and Obama side who have said they will not vote for the other if their candidate loses. I'm sure that will temper a bit, but if I recall Rasmussen released a poll today that said a full 22% of each candidates supporters would vote for McCain instead of the other.
|
Quote:
|
That should counterbalance all of the Republicans who said, when that nominee was still up in the air, that they'd never ever in a million years -- better Clinton or Marx himself -- vote for McCain.
I don't view the current polls as any more meaningful in that regard than I did the McCain ones. |
True. I will vote for McCain (though holding my nose as I do it), and it will also be the case that Hillary and Obama supporters will vote for the other in the general.
|
If Hillary wins, it'll be a toss up between voting for McCain or the Libertarian candidate. I don't particularly hate McCain, but I feel like electing him will be mistaken as a vote of support for the repubs in congress to continue with the status quo. If we weren't just coming off a Bush presidency I might even have voted for the guy. I'll probably throw my vote away on my own (L) candidate and hunker down for 4-8 years of Hillary's nattering voice.
That is... IF she can get elected over McCain. Her electability is more and more in doubt every day. |
I find this amazing, really.
Obama's charitable donations Quote:
I don't begrudge them their wealth in the least. I'd love to make that much. But less than 1% on 1.2 million dollars in income? That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame. |
You're easily amazed, obviously.
From the Bloomberg article source cited on Huffpo... Quote:
Quote:
You've done your hit piece for the day. Have a good one. |
And the recent trends more closely reflect true giving since, with their income, their ability to deduct that would be severely if not completely phased out.
|
Quote:
At least they weren't giving lots of money to their church to promote the hate filled racist preaching of Reverend Wright. Anything can be justified. I suppose it's only a hit piece if you don't like what's being presented. The facts are the facts, and I find it lame that someone making over 1.2 million over the course of four years could only find 10,000 to give to charity, and I make no apologies for that. I find it lame that someone making 2.6 million in a span of two years could only find 5% to give to charity. Most Americans may only give 2.2 percent. Most Americans don't make 300K/year, or 1.3 million/year. With that comparison of giving, I propose anyone making over 1 million per year be allowed to pay the same percentage in taxes that the average income maker pays. Lame. |
That's fine. Do you think it's lame for the rest of Americans?Perhaps you do.
THEN SAY SO. Don't single out one person, however high profile, if you have the same opinion of the other millions who don't get their tax returns made public. Or do you think it's lame because they are so high profile? Or do you think it's lame only of the wealthy? ALL the wealthy? Or just your political opponents? |
How much did McCain give? How much did the Hillary give? And for kicks, how much did Bush give?
And let's be sure none of that money was to "questionable" people or organizations. |
I propose that Bush's salary is money being given to questionable people.
|
I thought I read that they gave $27K to Rev. Wright in 2005 to 2006. So what? I would hope that anyone I would ever vote for who goes to a traditional church disagrees with 90 per cent of what comes out of the pulpit. Nonetheless, you give because that's what you do when you belong to a church community. If the objection is that this is really political activism under the guise of the Old Testament tradition of raging prophets, then, fine, let's take away the tax exemptions of all the megachurches and even some of the smaller ones like my sister-in-law's church where the congregation had a hissy fit at the thought of the American flag being taken out of the sanctuary.
My wife and I have belonged to various churches where we like the priest, he spouts the party line, we know to what extent he actually believes it, and we know that the proof in the pudding is in the makeup of the congregation. With one of the priests in San Francisco, a Russian dissident, it went both ways. He would read the official word about gays, but his choir director and most of the parish council were gay men, which was fine with him. He would also read the official word against capital punishment, but, privately, as a kneel-em-down-and-shoot-them-in-the-back-of-the-head Russian, he couldn't believe that I could represent death row inmates in good conscience. Occasionally, my wife suggests that we find a church that's more officially in line with our political beliefs, like the breakaway pro-gay Episcopal group in Petaluma or the rich Episcopals in Sausalito who summarize Jesus's message as everyone should have a nice brunch. Frankly, I'm against it. Maybe I'm just an old Abraham who likes to argue with God. More likely, I'm an American who believes in my version of self-evident truths. If I belong to a church or synagogue that's perfectly in line with my liberal moral beliefs and use that relationship with God to buttress my beliefs I'm really no better than a right wing evangelical or madrassah student like Obama. |
Quote:
This is too small of a microcosm to make a judgment by. First, as stated in follow-up articles/posts, the $10K/$1.2M figure was at a time where they had other financial obligations. I put my family before others and I will not fault someone else for doing so. Second, donating money is not the only way to make charitable contributions. There are other actions that one can make that are more valuable to charities that are not monetary. For example, I provide services that are worth about $3K-$4K per year to the MS Society. However, other than mileage and a couple of other small amounts, it isn't tax deductible. If you were look at my returns, the percentage of charitable contributions would be about 1% as well. But most importantly, I am not in favor of telling people what to do with their money. But making public their charitable contributions and attempting to shame them for it, people are trying to tell the Obamas what they should do with their money. Whether someone contributes X% of their income to charity is not a measure of what kind of a person they are. (In fact: in a small sense, I like the idea that a potential president is not in favor of giving away money right now. However, I do not believe that Obamas charitable donations are indicative of how much of my [a taxpayer] money he will give away.) |
Quote:
I think anyone with an income that is measured in 7 figures that donates so little back in terms of percentage has issues. This goes for anyone, political opponent or not. I find it interesting that the giving has gone up as his political aspirations have also. Not that this is unique to politicians, but any politician who tells me that I'm not paying enough in taxes yet gives so little of their own away I have particular problems with. However, this is not the every Americans thread. This is a thread about Obama, is it not? Should every opinion offered here be then subject to how it relates to the rest of Americans who do not wish to be President? |
Quote:
|
I think this constant controversy over this minister is the Hillary camp getting desperate. I don't think her desperation will help gain her any momentum either.
SL said it best too. |
Quote:
|
Mock outrage? Perhaps.
Obama's pastor has said very controversial things. This much is true. Was the outrage over Trent Lott complimenting....whomever it was (drawing a blank, though I should certianly know who) also manufactured? I think so. If McCain went to a church that spoke of Arabs or African Americans in the same way the Wright has spoken about Jews and Italians, would that be acceptable of would it be an issue? And I see no problem with the right wing trying to influence the dems electoral process. I thought open primaries were a good thing? (I don't, really, but many who do find this whole thing to be outrageous.) |
Quote:
|
Re Trent Lott: I assume you mean his suggestion that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, the country could have avoided a lot of problems.
I don't know what Wright said about Jews and Italians. I think most of the discussion has focused on what he said about America. As far as John McCain's church goes, since he apparently now goes to a baptist church, I'm guessing they have a few things to say about gays. In general, my expectations about what is said in houses of worship is pretty low. Before switching affiliation to a baptist church, McCain belonged to Bill Clinton's church, the Church of Flagrant Infidelity. Interestingly, when I checked the Wikipedia page to see what church he went to, I could no longer find the discussion of all the cheating he did on his first wife. |
And if you're badmouthing America, you best be badmouthing the faggots, the heathens, the feminists, the liberals, and the hedonists. It's always best (safest) to confuse white male fundi fantasy with facts.
Under no conditions are you to imply that America's policies in any way caused the chickens to come home to roost. To do so would be insightful and therefore un-American. |
I think it's Hillary, trying to deflect from her Bosnia exaggerations.
The controversy over the minister died down until hers picked up. Her willingness to exaggerate so freely over something so major (sniper fire is pretty major) scares me. What else is she exaggerating about? The minister controversy concerns me a lot less - yes, the guy made racist and hate filled remarks. Yes, Obama goes to that church and donated money to it. He is also friends with the guy. The guy/church donated a bunch of money to the campaign. Which they donated and equal amount to charity. Personally, I don't care if he is friends with the guy or not. He has shown he can speak for himself, think for himself. |
Quote:
No... I don't think I have.:p |
The drugs and alcohol have obviously fried your memory, heathen.
|
Do I know you?
|
Hey, SL, I'm obviously no McCain fan. I just think Obama gets treated differently than either Hillary or McCain.
It's just like the SNL skit of the Obama press conference.... "Mr. Obama, earlier we asked you if there was anything you needed - some water, anything, and you said no. I wanted to ask you.....are you sure? I mean, I can run out and get you something right now....". |
Quote:
From this link - Quote:
|
Here's my view of the charitable giving. Could he have given more? Almost certainly. Should he have given more? Probably, especially since he knew he would be pursuing a political career.
But I don't view it as a really bad thing that he didn't. Until his first book was published and made a fair chunk of change they'd never had a lot of money. They both had extensive college debt, and when the money started coming in they had a 2-year-old and a child on the way. Plus, the source of money was not remotely guaranteed. The vast majority of their income in those years was from a book deal and royalties. There was no guarantee that they wouldn't return to the money they were making just a few years ago. Plus he's going to run for office which has a decent paycheck if he wins but a not so good one if he loses. What does this add up to, for me? Being pretty darn conservative with his money. Paying off debts. Establishing a better household. Putting a lot away for retirement and the future education of your children. Just generally acting as if the gravy train could come to an immediate stop at any moment. And as his income has become more secured he has increased the charitable giving. This can certainly be read simply as political expediency and I'm sure that is a not inconsiderable part of it. But also, it is the political future that also brought in the money so there is a certain amount of a chicken and egg thing going there. But then, if I ever run for high office I will be screwed. Because we never claim our charitable donations for tax purposes, figuring it is nobody else's business. |
Furthermore, what Trent Lott said and what someone's pastor said are very apples and oranges. I could give a hoot what some senator's pastor says. What they say themselves is a legitimate concern.
|
Quote:
I don't agree with this logic, but some do. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
One of the many things I like about Obama is that he comes off as human. Admits he smoked pot (and inhaled! :eek: :rolleyes: ). He seems to take care of his family needs (see Kevin's post). Doesn't agree with everything his church leader does, or his friends do. Awesome, we don't have a guy with a God complex running for office. YAY! |
Quote:
Probably the DNC website.:evil: |
I saw that same poll on the Today Show.
|
Quote:
Here's the problem I have with that....I do not have nearly enough tucked away for college for my kids. Same with retirement. I have some, of course, and something could happen, i suppose, that would stop my income. If I had the mentality of not giving (much) until I was completely established, and everyone else did as well, there wouldn't be a whole lot of giving going on. Shouldn't we be concerned about others who have real needs? I am not suggesting everyone become Mother Teresa here, but it seems to me there are more important things than putting away for a college education, though that is not a bad thing at all. |
Says you, and you're entitled to that belief. You're also entitled to look unkindly on anyone who doesn't share your belief.
But I say others can have differing priorities ... college education fund, world travel fund, prostitution fund, jewelry bling fund ... it's none of my freaking business. And I don't think any of it hits my personal radar on qualifications to be president. Rather it's all that pesky views on issues, policy plans, governing plans, international action plans ... ya know, that stupid president stuff. |
Doesn't this correspond to his policy of "dignity", which CP posted a link to regarding? He wants to give tax money charitably to foreign countries yet has not demonstrated that in his own life with his own money. So he wants to take my money and your money and give it charitably when he had far more money then than I do now. I see that as wrong.
Go ahead and say that I have a right to see it that way and other people have a right to see it otherwise, blah, blah, blah. Can say that about anyhing posted in any thread. |
And I will.
Like I said, someone's personal behavior may be relevant to many people. Fine with me. It's just got zero relevance to me. I don't care if it's b.j.'s under the ovaltine desk, or spanking their kids with a wire hanger. |
Quote:
It isn't like he went to work for a law firm where he was earning $250,000/year and to keep the money rolling all he had to do was not get fired. He wrote a book. For all he knew that money would stop coming in after a couple years and no other book he wrote would ever get notice. Plus, we don't know what else he was doing with his money that might be considered good charitable (though not tax deductible). Maybe nothing, maybe he was sending money to his grandmother in Kenya. I don't know. But not knowing isn't really grounds for jumping to the worst case conclusion. Unless that worst case conclusion fits in with the opinion you want to spin anyway. Just as jumping to the best case solution if you want to present him as Christ walking the earth again isn't warranted. Besides, you're missing the appropriate conservative critique of this news (though you almost got it in your last post). But I don't want to do your work for you. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I've only seen the loop of Reverand White's "greatest hits" - so maybe I've missed something.
What's so "extreme" about them? I won't argue they are strong, but I hardly think they are extreme. Decrying nuclear weapons attacks on Japanese civilians. How is that an extreme position? Sure, there may have been tactical and strategic reasons. Does that make the experience of the Japanese at our hands any less horrific? Or is it just a simple truth that it was a horrific thing? Noting it was the very people we supported then abandoned in Afghanistan who then attacked on 9/11. How is that extreme? It's simple fact. Perhaps it's not completely cool to rave "God Damn America" as an ironic twist on God Bless America, but if you're reasonably feeling the anger in contemplating the above two incidents, it is really that Oh-My-Christing extreme? I, for one, don't think so. |
Again, I am not siding with the argument: I believe for the most part that the Reverend Wright issue is, well, a NON issue. However, remarks made by Wright HAVE been inflammatory (the ones in bold are ones that I personally have a problem with):
Quote:
|
I can't really buy into the argument that it is both racist to be treated as an inferior segment of society and to act as if you're being treated as an inferior segment of society.
If the former is happening, and while it may not happen to the great extent of the past, it is certainly still happening then the latter just seems like common sense. |
Quote:
It is racist to assert that all white people hate/want to beat down/etc. all black people. Yes, there are (white) racist individuals in this world - I am not naive. But when a black man makes an assertion about all non-black people, how is that not racist? That is (IMO) what Rev. Wright is preaching. Granted, I have heard worse (Farrakhan), but this is what I see. |
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is, Kevin. Furthermore, nowhere in those quotes you provided does Rev. Wright assert that all white people desire to do anything to all black people.
|
Yeah, i didn't see that All White People stuff. Where?
Though it did clear up certain misunderstandings I had concerning his comments ... so thanks for posting them, Kevy. |
Quote:
Do you have a problem that I accuse a black man of being racist? I have never seen a definition that says that racism can only be applied towards any one racial group. By using a combination of 1) accusing the government of being all white, and 2) saying the government is against "people of color" is, well, racism. So to answer your question that has now come up of "but he never said that the government was all white people", I remind you of this statement by Wright: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you disagree that he implies the government is (predominantly) white, then the argument ends there and we disagree. But just because I use the term "racism" against a black man, don't say I have a "fundamental misunderstanding of what racism is." I know what it means and I chose to not limit its usage. I hate carrying on this debate in this thread as it is not about Barrack any more (sorry CP). |
Quote:
This is why we need big government and high taxes, becasue no one really wants to give to charity anyway |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let's try this another way: Check those three definitions of racism you provided against the Wright quotes you provided and see if you have a winner. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It is a glaring demonstration of how liberal Obama is. Despite clearly seeing the needs of people around him, he is so focused on the idea that government is the source of solutions that even as he advanced into a financially secure, and even extravagant by most standards, income bracket it never even occurred to him to dig into his own bank accounts to give directly to solutions.
Instead, he acts on the assumption that he need do nothing directly but instead rely on the government to take what is necessary and redistribute it, leaving the rest behind for his own use. The excess of money he has is to him not a sign of personal charitable failure but rather a governmental failure to take what is needed. To him, the solution is not for him to give more but for the government to take more. Learning that he gave so little is not a sign of hypocrisy but rather a demonstration of the core values he holds most dearly. And this is the very reason we should be wary of electing him to office. For he has been exposed as being just the radical tax-and-spend liberal that any decent conservative should fear seeing in the highest office in the land. How did I do at channeling Rush? |
Perhaps not....but I'd be a lot more understanding of someone making 30K giving less than 1% then I am of someone earning 300K doing the same.
|
A fine job indeed, Alex. And while you didn't mean it to be so, it's a convincing argument.
|
Yeah, I know it is from a certain point of view. That is the appropriate conservative argument I said you were missing. When/if you repeat it my royalty is $0.002 per use. Contact me by PM on where to send the check.
|
I find it heartwarming that Scaeagles is so worried about the poor.;)
|
I'm typically not a spewer forth of conservative thoughts that I hear from other sources.....I actually do think the way I write. So the probably of royalties to you of over a dime is highly, highly unlikely.
|
Quote:
How interesting that your post was #666 of this thread. |
Lol!!!
:evil: |
|
Quote:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032708.php3 |
Wow. I swear I hadn't read that.
Though we're hardly the first people to put in writing that idea. |
The correlation between givers and religion that Will cites is nothing more than the God-mandated tithe that puts the preacher in a Cadillac bought with tax-free dollars. He knows this but would never mention it.
Quote:
Dignity Promotion is a national defense theory. Barrack Obama wants to stop wasting tax dollars on bullets and tanks and wants to start wasting tax dollars on theories of peace through dignity and hope. He wants to take my money and your money and spend it on national defense without killing as many people as we do now. I see that as a righteous aspiration. What I don't see is what this has to do with charitable giving in his private life. |
Again, that theory is naive when taking into consideration that a large amount of the poverty and hunger and lack of dignity in the world is imposed on the populace by the rulers of the nations experiencing these things as a form of control. Also, most of the leaders of terrorist organizations are idealogues and zealots who are not interested in dignity and hope, they are interested in people living under the partiuclar interpretation of Islam or the extermination of Israel or whatever it may be.
|
Someone in Obama's position making his salary is not the same as me, in my position, making that salary. I don't have to maintain a certain image to project an air of success that attracts campaign donors. I don't have to dress a certain way, make sure my family is dressed a certain way, drive a certain car, have a driver take me to work so that I can work in the car, have a certain type of home suitable for persuasive entertaining, or fund that entertaining. I have the time to do my own cooking and cleaning (such as it is.) I don't have to maintain a home in one state and work in DC.
This applies to any of the candidates. And yes, there's a point where if someone's bringing in millions every year and hoarding it I might consider that a moral failing. But 300K a year? For me, in my life, that would be astounding wealth. I'd certainly have enough to spare a good amount for charity. But I also don't have my "employers" examining my personal life with a fine-toothed comb and speculating on my potential for success based on where I live, what brand of suit I wear, and what I served at my last party. |
My father sent me this article by Ben Stein that appeared in the March 2, 2008 New York Times. I kinda liked it.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The Ben Stein article is fine as far as it goes, but most people hurt by high gas prices are a long way from retired. I know a number of families that have cut off their balls--i.e., sold their Tahoes, Silverados, etc. and downsized to minivans or bought a smaller used car for errands--because they can't afford to fill up the tank.
The price of food has also gone up, both because of increases in the price of gas and the price of wheat. I suppose the answer would be that most of the processed foods that Americans are killing themselves with are ultimately owned by Phillip Morris and the like who might be part of their 401k. This assumes that most Americans are contributing sufficiently to 401k, which they are not. Rather, many are living paycheck to paycheck and running up credit cards. Of course, now that MasterCard and Visa have gone public, this is obviously a good thing. |
Quote:
And for those who think that $12 billion is 'too high', look at it from a percentage perspective (all info from the respective companies' Income Statements on finance.yahoo.com): Exxon-Mobile: 10% Disney: 12% Apple: 16% Sears: 17% Microsoft: 29% |
Anybody else finish that Ben Stein article and think "Bueller.........Beuller......."
Btw, I think he lives up here in Sandpoint, Idaho- or he used to, anyway. |
Quote:
"Anyone? Anyone?" (Yes, me.) |
I used to enjoy watching Win Ben Stein's Money. It's a shame that these days, he's a shill for the deluded 'Intelligent Design" folks at the Discovery Institute, starring in a new creationist friendly documentary. (It sounds as though the main thesis of the film is "Darwinism leads inevitably to Nazism.") But, that deserves a thread all its own.
|
Also, I believe the profit per gallon of gas sold is 8-9 cents. The government takes anywhere between 3 to 5 times that in taxes.
|
The whole "has to maintain a certain image" thing may be accurate, but if that's the case, then he's lied about why his charitable donations had been so small. But of course, he can't say "I had to keep my money so I'd look good"....that wouldn't go over very well, would it?
|
Quote:
I hadn't heard of that film. What a joke! So much for Stein's credibility. |
In general, why is it that disagreement in one area can lead to the complete discounting of everything else? Is Stein really without credibility now in everything?
I am guilty of doing the same on occasion, but I wonder why this is..... |
It makes up for the assumption that because someone is well informed in one area (let's say economics) that one is therefore an expert in another (let's say evolution).
|
Quote:
In principal, you are right, though. This isn't fair. Someone can be absolutely blinkered and deluded about one topic, and rational, lucid or even brilliant in another. Ben Stein has always been a staunch conservative, of course. (He was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon.) Some might, for that reason alone, want to find reason to dismiss him. To me, he's always come off as a smart, likable guy. But, since I accept that evolutionary theory really does explain a great deal of the natural world, (I'm one of those materialist atheistic types), Stein's alliance with the ID'ers does seem tantamount to his joining the Flat Earth Society. (And the fact that the ID movement is primarily driven by fundamentalist Christians, the very Jewish Stein makes a somewhat strange bedfellow. I presume he is a devout Jew who favors a more literal reading of the Torah?) But to get back on topic, this really shows Barack Obama for what he really is!!! :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
_________________ And it is a good thing that candidates aren't selected by bowling scores. Obama scored a 37 over the weekend. Spare us: Obama bowls a 37 in campaign stop |
Looks like he's wearing a watch on both wrists, but I assume the right hand is a bracelet of some sort. I'm amazed he actually bowled a full game (assuming he did).
He's a lefty so that's good. But the other day I saw video of him signing something and it looks like he's a wraparound lefty which is bad (self loathing TRAITOR!). Plus, he is wearing his watch on his left wrist, which to me is odd -- since I use the hand so much I find it generally irritating to wear my watch on that side, but I don't know how common that is. I use to have a bowling average around 200. I wonder if that means I would be a better president. |
His bowling score alone would make me vote for him. I bowled a 52 my first game!
(As a rightie, I can't stand wearing a watch on that wrist. Never thought about it until Alex mentioned it.) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nope....I was thinking about cheese balls myself:) http://youtube.com/watch?v=OratYKWszU8 :D |
Some people maybe don't have the necessities to be good bowlers.
As a longtime bowler myself, any celebrity's ability to knock 'em down with style immediately raises their status with me. On the other hand, since the PBA has unfortunately entered a hard-ass attitude era, my feelings about bowling and its cultural/political relevance are more equovical. |
For anybody interested in the underlying issues in the ministry of Black Liberation Theology (the form preached by Obama's Rev. Wright) there will be an interview with the founder on NPR's Fresh Air this afternoon.
I don't suspect that it will make many people look at Rev. Wright issue differently but should expand the contextual understanding of it. |
Bowling while wearing a tie..... dork.
He should at least have sent some aide out to get a custom bowling shirt made for him with Obama 08 on it or something. |
I used to wear my watch on my right wrist as a lefty, but got tired of people bugging me about it (for some reason, it was a big deal in elementary school) so I just learned to deal with the minor annoyances having it on my left causes. At this point I don't even notice, though I do take it off or switch it to my right wrist to bowl.
|
I used to wear my wristwatch on my left wrist.
Then they invented cell phones. :p |
Funny, because I'm a righty, and I wear my watch on my right wrist, which I know is the lefties' way to wear it.
|
I'm an obsessive time checker, far easier to look at my wrist than fish my phone out of my pocket.
|
Ah. I think wristwatches are stylish. But since I can always tell the time innately within 15 minutes, I really couldn't justify two timepieces on my person.
As soon as the Dick Tracy wristwatch/phone works out for reals, I'll go back to strapping the unit on my wrist. |
Hate wearing watches. Any guy that wears two will never have my vote!
|
37? My son went bowling for the first time in his life at age 3.....he bowled a 70(yes, he did have bumpers, but then again, he wasn't 46 he was 3)
You get 20 chances. That means, on average, he hit less than two pins per try. Still, this does have nothing to do with Presidential ability but I would like him to know one thing........in Oregon, the Democratic Governor used his bowling ability in most of his TV ads and some say this helped him win the election. Oregon still has not voted yet..........could this sway the election? ;) |
An audio clip of Bill Clinton talking over the weekend has him saying "Or-ee-gone." To me this is more annoying than nukular.
|
Which is especially annoying considering he was heading to Oregon! I hear he didn't get a very warm reception in Medford.
|
Well, right there is a good reason to never run for president. You might have to go to Medford.
|
I'm glad I wasn't drinking when I read your response Alex! My monitor would have been covered!
Sadly that's where Gary has been stuck most of this year. It's been a big culture shock compared to the Hard Rock, Las Vegas where he spent most of last year! |
Is he working at Seven Feathers?
I have to say that Oregon's Indian casinos are more boring than I'd have ever imagined it would be possible for a casino to be. |
No, he's at Fire Mountain Gems and doing some work for Harry & Davids.
Your right about the Oregon Indian casinos though, they are geared for the old folks. My Mom is thrilled when she comes to visit because she can play all the Bingo she wants there. |
Quote:
Quote:
Just the word Medford can do that to me sometimes. |
Even Newsweek has gotten into debunking that quote I posted. Check this out:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976 |
First George Will and now Newsweek. If the media-industrial machine is going to use me as their oracle, I'd like a little mention.
|
No one has brought up Obama's small town America is bitter so they turn to guns, religion, and xenophobia comments. Of course he and his supporters have their spin, but I don't buy it. I think every once in a while what he means slips out and he must find a way to spin it, as does every politician.
|
The point seemed pretty obvious to me. These are Us vs Them issues. They breed divisiveness. Instead of working on the things that we can build together, most people and politicians cling to divisive issues because they bring more heat with them.
Besides: Shock of shocks, Barack Obama isn't a fan of the xenophobic, gun-waving, my-church-is-better-than-yours lifestyle. Seriously, people, this is surprising. :rolleyes: Neither am I, btw. Can I be called elitist now? |
Well, he didn't say (I'm getting this all after the fact since I was pretty busy for a few days) small town Americans are bitter, he said that economically depressed people become bitter.
I didn't think there was anything controversial about that idea except for the political maladroitness of saying it out loud where he did. From what I've seen I will say that I'd prefer he stood by his...ahem...guns and didn't try to backtrack on it. "Yes, I meant what I said. When people suffer economic hardship and a curtailment of opportunities over a long period of time they look to build up their self esteem in other ways and these ways can be harmful to community and national cohesion. In poor inner cities you may develop a gang culture, which is in many ways just a particularly violent and narrowly cast form of xenophobia. In rural areas it isn't nearly so violent but they too begin to look for ways to redefine themselves in a search for something to stand for. In San Francisco, an area that has been on the good side of our nation's great economic changes over the last 30 years, it is baffling to them that people in places like parts Pennsylvania seem to so identify themselves through things like gun ownership or religious affiliation. And while these aren't inherently bad, I do think they are a sign of groups of people who have lost so much and for so long that they do become angry and bitter at any perceived attempt to take even more from them and cling, yes, I said cling, to what they still have with a tenacity that strikes others as curiously militant." I think that is mostly what he meant. And it was stupid, politically, to go anywhere near actually saying it. Particularly when he wasn't talking directly to the people he was talking about. Plus, it is essentially what he said about racial tensions and issues in this country and he was praised to high water for that. Somewhat unrelated, I liked Jon Stewart's comments last night on the media universally labeling it as "elitist" and how if a person running for president doesn't think he is better than us, why would we want him/her to be president? Condescending is bad in anybody, but I'm perfectly fine with elitist. |
Quote:
|
Yes, it would be stupid to say. I said it would be stupid to say.
Doesn't make what I said untrue. It is not equating all gun ownership and all religion with gang culture, just a form of them. And to say that different things share a common impetus is not, as you so deviously try to do, to say that all outcomes of a common source are equally good or bad. There is nothing inherently harmful in gun ownership and religion. But I do think that many people, when they aren't given a way to fulfill themselves begin to use external indicators such as group participations to build themselves up and exclude others. This is harmful to community and national cohesion. I know lots of people who are religious for what I think are bad reasons -- primarily it gives them a way to feel superior to those who aren't a member of the religion. They may have a lot of problems by at least they had the sense to find the right god. I know, it is a silly thought, that we would actually elect a person to an office that is capable of recognizing (and even worse, acknowledging) that bad things can sometimes do good things, or that good things can be used in bad ways. Better that good things be entirely good and bad things be entirely bad. That way we know who to hate, who to love, and who can just be ignored. |
Must.refrain.from.mojoing.Alex.
|
I have been looking for a way to properly explain or articulate Obabma's (very correct IMO) statements about bitterness.
I think Alex has hit it right on the head. :snap: Also, I find it obnoxiously offensive for either Hillary or McCain to use the word "elitist" against anyone else. The hyprocrisy of those 2 never ends. |
Quote:
And what Obama said is straight Bowling for Columbine. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There may be truth in what he said as you have explained it Alex, but someone who is as eloquent as he is needs to be more careful about soundind elitist. It may not bother you, but most of America is bothered by it, which is why he is and has been taking heat for it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I don't think he misspoke at all. He told the truth, and there are few things the American people hate more than being told truths they do not want to deal with.
|
If Hillary does that condescending head nod one more time.... GRRR
Talk to voters as grownups, not freakin' preschoolers. |
I love this quote I just read online
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I wonder, if he did get elected, would this country actually start to like politicians that tell the truth? Or would we have to endure supposed offense at everything he ever says?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Those not in power will take offense at every possible thing, generally not for their own offense but on behalf of other people. |
Geez...."supposed" offense is all over for every politician! Often times Obama supporters act as if because this is the great Obama no unkind word should come out of any mouth who dare to gaze upon him. He deserves the same treatment as every other politician, and perhaps even a larger helping of examination, because he is so relatively new to the political scene. I will continue to look at and question his motivations and beliefs the same as I, and every other person should, examine the motivations and beliefs of each politician.
You are referring to an aweful lot of people as having "supposed" offense. While I am not one to bow to offense nor really be concerned with it, I am concerned with what the man believes, and will continue to question it, the same as I have with Hillary and McCain - I've probably been more critical of each of them than I have of Obama. |
I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities for plenty of offense and some of it will be justified and other parts won't.
But it is hardly a statement without support that manufactured offense is a big part of the standard political playbook. |
Oh, I'll be one of the first to criticize Obama when I hear something I consider worth criticizing. So far, I haven’t.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think it's news when a serious presidential contender speaks critically and, arguably, offensively about a major player in the cultural melting pot. It was news when Bill Clinton dressed down Sister Souljah. It was news when Ross Perot said "You people." It was news when all the Republicans said they didn't believe in evolution, and it would have been news at the time if we'd been privy to Nixon talking about getting the Big Jews on board.
|
Quote:
So I don't see me speaking out against this one outside the norm either. Just speaking for myself though. |
Quote:
The Saturday Night Live Skit with the media falling all over themselves like groupies at an Obama press conference is right on the money. |
Quote:
However, ever since that SNL skit, they've been falling all over themselves to be more critical, IMO. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And Scaeagles... If you want to talk about the media being soft on someone, how about the way the so-called “liberal” press has looked the other way as the Bush administration steamrolled over our rights, trashed the economy, and lied its way into a war. Talk about “handled gently by the media, like a precious breakable package that we had best not even think about finding fault in”!
|
Quote:
..just saying;) |
Quote:
And I disagree with the premise of your question, anyway, as the three things you have listed, JW, I don't concede are the case at all. |
Quote:
:D |
What are you talking about? I don't see that sentence....:)
|
Quote:
|
The liberal media painted the Ivy League educated son of a former president as a good ol' boy who Joe Eighteen-Pack would love to share a beer with. Now that same liberal media is telling us that a man from a mixed-race broken home is an elitist. And the gun-and-bible crowd swallows it......again. And they always will.
The media has been plenty hard on Bush since his re-election (ha!) -- almost to the point that I feel sorry for him some days. Of course, a truly liberal media would have picked apart Bush's every word from, say, Sep 12, 2001 to March 20, 2003 instead of helping him sound the drumbeat for war. |
Now that his wife is proud to be an American Obama feels it's ok to wear the pin again;)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...lagpinlap.html I guess his words alone are not testimony to his patriotism after all:) |
Resolving the lapel pin issue should free up time for B-HO to work on being less
|
Yeah... 'Cause you're not really an American, and can't really love America unles you have a little peice of metal and enamel stuck to your clothing. That's the definition of being a proud American. :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not where you can SEE it. |
Quote:
|
McCain doesn't have to wear the pin. On any question of patriotism he has the trump card.
Kind of like when the Daily Show ranked the political power of each candidates response to the question where they were when they learned of MLK's assassination and McCain tromped the other two for being able to respond "well, I was living alone in a small cell..." [Not that wearing a pin in any indication of actual patriotism. For example, I've never even owned a flag and I'm thoroughly unpatriotic.] |
I think it's because he (Obama) genuinely looks pained to wear it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
and wonder of wonders now that these same words that were supposed to be proof of his patriotism are failing him(ie. the whole guns and religion speech) a little pin finds it's way onto his lapel. I don't care if he wears one or not and I certainly don't think he is any more or any less of a patriot one way or the other......but apparently he thinks it matters;) |
Before I try to decide if this is an indication of change, does anybody know his itinerary today?
Did it possibly include anything where outward symbols of patriotism are more de rigueur? Such as a a speech at an American Legion post, a military base, visiting wounded soldiers in hospitals, etc.? |
Quote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NmZhxltfSi8 |
I'm so tired of these meaningless "outrages". If you (generic you, not anyone specific here) think a candidate is unqualified for office because of whether or not they wear a flag pin, or when, or why; or because of something someone else said or did in the past; or because that candidate spoke and uncomfortable truth, then I feel very sorry you. Your priorities are way out of whack.
We need a President who can bring people together to fix the problems this nation has. What we don’t need is posturing and “I’m more patriotic than thou” penis waiving (and that goes for you too, Hilary). |
I can't watch YouTube at work, but I know he wasn't at such a place when the photo I saw was taken. But he probably does at least a dozen appearances a day and I doubt he's changing suits between each one.
|
I like what Dr. Thomas Sowell has to say about Obama regarding "bringing people together".
Quote:
|
And of course, you completely missed my point.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Seems right to me. I hate ties. I don't wear them if I don't have to. But if I'm in a place where there's an unspoken "wear a tie" dress code, I wear a tie. And you just don't speak in front of a veterans' group without some sort of "patriotic" regalia. Quote:
As for his voting record being liberal...duh. He's liberal. It's not about voting record. It's about attitude. It's about his ability to talk to everyone like they're adults and not condescend his opponents. |
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. What I am looking for in a political leader is not necessarily someone who will achieve unanimity.
I'll be happy to have one that is capable of pursuing their agenda without treating the opposition as a hated enemy. I currently support Obama for president and I fully expect that once elected I will disagree with the vast majority of his policy positions and proposals. And he may not have shown an ability to transcend party differences in the Senate but he certainly has in the presidential race. I know a lot of Republicans who are for him and not in a cynical "drag out the race to the advantage of McCain" way, but they actually think he'll be a better president. I've never understood the idea that bipartisanship is supposed to mean "even though you're on the other side of the aisle you'll support my point of view." I don't think transcending party requires that Obama ever endorse or support a single Republican issue, nor is the same required of McCain or whomever. Now, whether Obama will actually achieve this change in tone and atmosphere I strongly doubt. I just don't think the other two will even try. And if he is elected I will politely and respectfully oppose his agenda where I disagree with it. And I'll ultimately be on the losing side of some and the winning side of others and if that can happen without being expected to hate the other side then I'll be happy. |
I can't believe I just passed an argument about wearing a lapel pin. Is this really all we have to discuss?
I don't care what kind of spin someone tries to put on it from either side: it's a freakin' non-issue. |
Beautiful, wasn't it? I love a good absurd comedy.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...w_and_outlooks
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
We should reduce the capital gains tax down to 0% so that we can get the maximum revenue. In fact, if the government started paying people to take capital gains just imagine how much revenue would come in.
I'll have to look at Obama's complete tax plan but there may appear to be an inconsistency. Though, of course, "I will cut your taxes" does not necessarily mean "I won't raise any of the individual taxes." But if he's talking out both sides of his mouth, then by all means let's point it out. But this chart doesn't seem to quite show the correlation that is described. I don't see anything indicating that a rate reduction does anything to permanently increase revenues. Looks like if anything, all it does it create a couple year spike before it falls back to where it was. If the cut in 97 is solely responsible for the steep increase in 98 and 99 isn't it also responsible for the steep decline in 2000 and 2001? And do we have to ignore the fact that the increases were already going up in 1995 and 1996 before the rate was changed? It looks to me like the rate seems to get changed in the midst of already significant economic changes.  The capital gains tax increased hugely at the beginning of the chart without dramatically impacting gross revenues. So maybe all lowering does is increase uncertainty of revenue? |
I think 2001-2 could be explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and resultant hesitancy to participate in the stock market. Or by the losses that occurred (no gains, no tax). Otherwise, I see a pretty solid inverse relationship there.
|
Quote:
I've posted several stats and links before that show that there is zero evidence for any direct causal relationship between tax decrease and increased tax revenue. There are way too many factors, and way too much variation on the results to even remotely link the two. |
Yes, but there are similar economic events coincident with most of the big changes. How do you pick and choose. As is so often said, correlation is not causation.
And why did it only start working in 1987? All of the previous changes in the rate didn't do much to move the revenue unless you are going to say that a rate reduction in 1982 took 5 years before having a major impact while a relatively small rate reduction in 2002 caused an immediately tripling of it. And a big rate increase in 1972-3 did nothing really, but relatively smaller one in 1987 immediately tanked it. There are four spikes in the graph. The first happened when rates went up. The second happened when rates were unchanged. The third peaked two years after they went down but the peak starts before the change. The fourth happens simultaneously. Or it could be the there is no strong causal connection and that they are just inversely impacted by the same underlying things. I don't know if that is the case. But while the chart seems to indicate an inverse directional correlation it doesn't seem to be consistent in scale and none of that indicates cause. Perhaps when when the revenues go too high that creates political pressure to increase taxes on those who are getting rich in the stock market and so congress does this but since the stock market is somewhat cyclical they generally do this at just around the same time that things start to go south? I have no idea if that is true but it would be a causal link in the opposite direction (success brings to light money that government thinks it can take without outrage so it does). In 2002 you had the dotcom bust which is a not rate possibility for why revenues fell. But in 2000 you had the dotcom boom which would also be a non-rate indicator of why they rose. While the Wall Street Journal editors obviously accept the causal link you'll find plenty of other economists and market journalists who do not. And of course, it ignores the fact that even if a previous decrease caused an increase that this does not mean that further decreases would do so. Plus, what if it is just the downward movement that does it, and it isn't so important what the actual rate is? Then this would mean that every once in a while you need to dramatically increase it again, take the short term hit, so that you can go about lowering it in steps again. Just like eventually the Fed is going to have to raise rates back up to 4-5% again otherwise they won't have the stimulus tool of lowering them available (as Japan learned once they hit zero). |
Well, that's the hell of economics. There are always multiple unaccounted for factors. Like when the Fed though they'd figured out the relationship between inflation and unemployment back in the 70's. That worked out real well.
(Though again, true to this argument, there are other factors that contributed to runaway inflation in the 70's, like women entering the workforce in droves) |
My favorite economist, Dr. Walter Williams, on the capital gain tax rate...
Quote:
|
That is true. But if maximizing capital gains (not capital gains tax revenues) is the only goal then the obvious answer is to have zero taxes. And this would apply to pretty much every other form of taxation. Taxes have a suppressing effect.
I wouldn't contest that at all. However, that is not the same as saying that an increase or decrease in a tax always has the inverse impact on revenues from that tax. Obviously that is not true. Going from 1% to 0% tax will decrease the depressing effect of that tax but it will not increase the revenue of the tax. I'll happily come closer to your side on the question of whether capital gains should be taxes at all. |
Well obviously it would help if they sought the point of maximum benefit, because one expects the benefit to be a curve (or curves).
I can't believe I can't think of the name for that point on the graph, but you know what I'm getting at here. The point at which a movement in either direction would see a decreasing benefit in terms of total tax paid. |
Quote:
In other news, Howard Dean is stepping up pressure on Superdelegates to state who they're supporting, which in turn is indirect pressure for Clinton to drop out. |
Hmm... CP, GD, anyone, wanna do phone bank for Barack? They've even got a location called "The Lot".
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/nvp2region6/ I could do Saturday morning, perhaps. As long as they don't mind a registered Libertarian phone banking for them. |
I have considered doing the phone thing for Barack for months now, but I have to bow out. (The site is always asking for volunteers.) I simply do not like it when people call me to support their candidate. It makes me like the candidate less. I can't do it to other people in good conscience, even though it may help.
|
Here's something not being reported by the "liberal" (cough, cough) mainstream press.
I'm sure those who think the words of Rev Wright make Sen Obama disqualified to be President will now denounce Sen McCain. It's only fair, after all. |
How are McCain's pastor's views about America's destiny inconsistent with conservative denunciation of Reverend Wright?
|
Well, I would hope that McCain does renounce that. I do, however, fail to see a comparison between hailing someone as a spiritual leader and sitting under his teaching for 20 years. I'll just wait for McCain to come out with some lame justification like "I wasn't at church the day he said it".
Also, interestingly, the story about "Reverend" Wright had been out amongst conservative circles for a very, very long time before the "mainstream" media picked it up. edited for typos. |
Speaking of the audacity of hope, I audaciously hope for the demise of Sen. Clinton's candidacy tomorrow.
|
I have read polls today saying anything from a 5 point to an 11 point win in PA for Clinton. I think that keeps her in the race.
|
Quote:
|
Not to rain on your parade, but I've heard a high vote turnout probably increases her margin of victory in PA.
|
Why, Scaeagles- you sound almost excited at the prospect....don't tell me you've fallen for Hillary?;)
|
I admit it.....I've had a crush on her for quite some time.
|
You cons are such masochists.;)
|
Quote:
|
Go Hillary !!!!!
....just thought I'd pop back and say that. As an Australian, I'd love to see Hillary voted in. As an American, I'd have to read this whole thread. :p |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
That's funny....I think Obama is a woman. Her bowling skills gave it away.
A three way with Hillary and Ann? It would be like being in the cage during some barbaric mixed martial arts match. |
I ought to give Scaeagles IP address to the Women's Bowling League, Militant Division. There wouldn't be room for ham when they were through.;)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I've seen all the pundits cover all of the bases of potential outcomes. The networks are happy with this because like a fraudulent stock newsletter after the fact when one of the outcomes becomes reality they'll be able to say "see, we told you that's how it would go down."
|
After seeing the tapes of the three candidates on last night's Raw, I may skip this election.
|
There must be something in the Whitewater at the Clinton household that affects memory.
One day, literally one day, after Bill Clinton, during a radio interview, said that Obama "played the race card", he denied having said it. It's on tape, man! Yesterday! You're either really stupid, or a bald faced liar. |
Quote:
And I don't even really have a problem with professional wrestling. It doesn't appeal to me (though it did when I was a tween). I'd find it just as stupid and absurd if they all did stupid teasers for My Name is Earl or The Office |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
For the record, here's that WWE stuff. Alex made a big deal of it last night but... meh... snooze-fest. Might mean more to me if I got the references.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaxHjxOlo4 |
Quote:
Welcome to my world of the 90's;) |
As defined by the President of the US of A, I have been totally faithful to my wife!
|
Quote:
|
I'm surprised that they were even on WWE. Guess that race must be pretty tight.
|
I read one survey that said it's to Hillary's advantage to increase voter turnout among the non-degreed set.
|
So who else will be watching the returns tonight?
|
OH, I thought it was yesterday... no wonder there was no info on who won, heheh.
I don't think I'll be "watching" them, but I'm sure we can hardly avoid hearing the outcome at any rate. :) |
Bill Clinton lying? Imagine that!
|
lawls
|
Ugh, will it ever end?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/133325 |
I hope not. I want them to fight it out until they are both unrecoverably bloodied and the democrat party is fractured beyond all recognition.
|
You mean until they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
|
Why, yes, Morrigoon, that is precisely what I mean.
And I don't think Hillary is going away any time soon. If you look at the electoral college counts of the states Obama and Hillary have each won, Hillary has HUGE advantages. Without FL and MI, she's up 240-141. If you throw those two in, she's up 284-141. That's huge, and you know she knows that, and you know the super delegates know that. She's got big, big mo right now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hillary isn't going anywhere. Nor should she. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I did what?
|
Quote:
Sorry, but "I win in Me vs. Obama in big states" is such a tiny portion of the overall picture that it's pretty irrelevant. Quote:
|
Quote:
Great minds thinking alike and what's good for the goose etc;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Those stats come out pretty much a wash, and that's before taking into account the fact that the margins involved are almost universally tiny. Either less than, or barely over, the statistical margin of error for the polls. I just don't see the evidence of Cilnton's supposed big-state dominance in a general election. Wins over Obama just do not translate directly, as she'd like everyone to believe, to wins over McCain (or, rather, wins over McCain that Obama wouldn't get). |
IMO, any theoretical polls (Clinton v McCain or Obama v McCain) are completely worthless at this point.
But then, I think most polls are irrelevant anyways. |
Quote:
|
Well, in spite of squabbling, this is the type of information that I KNOW concerns dem party leadership.
Quote:
|
Quote:
On the Republican side, McCain can't even get the N.C. Republicans to stop running an ad. I'm enjoying that. |
I have no doubt that dems enjoy any problems on the republican side as much as republicans enjoy the distress on the dem side. And of course, you're assuming that McCain really wants the ad to stop running, which I doubt. It is standard operating procedure to have the party structure do the dirty work so that the candidate can appear above the fray, and I have little doubt that's what's happening there.
|
Quote:
Now let's talk about McCain's continued confusion between Suni and Shia. Is it calculated or genuine? Either way, he's not presidential material. |
I could easily argue the same thing about Hillary and Obama. Regardless of his constant calls of "hope" and "change", the man has virtually no experience in any area that the President would be responsible for. And Hillary....while I'm currently cheering for her, there is nothing Presidential about her.
So it's all perspective. I'm no McCain fan and you aren't going to hear me say that he is Presidential material, but he is more so than either of the other two. |
Quote:
McCain is too old. |
To quote my hero, Ronald Reagan, from his debate with Walter Mondale when asked about age, when he promised not to "exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience."
|
And look how well that worked out for him in the final couple years of his presidency.
It isn't fair to him, but he is too old. And that is why Hillary Clinton won't drop out until absolutely forced to, because by the time she can be sure she'll have another chance to run, she also will be too old (not as old as McCain but if she has to wait 8 more years to be president she'd be 69 when taking office). Yes, McCain may very well be hail and hearty into his 90s but is it a simple fact of life that it is reasonable to expect significant mental and physical declines in people in their 70s. And I don't think it is unreasonable to take those concerns into account. It isn't an issue that he can't overcome and if it is Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain I'll have to think long and hard whether her unfair disqualifying issue (returning a former president to the White House in any capacity) are more important than his (significant risk of mental decline during his presidency and being a member of a party that pretty miserably failed in its turn at complete power). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Well, if the shoe fits...
|
Talking points are talking points because they have some validity. Just because it is a talking point doesn't mean it is invalid. The 20% was one poll, one time.....an anomaly.
|
It truly amazes how all these Republicans are suddenly becoming Hillary Clinton fans.
|
I have clearly stated why I want her to stay in the race. I am no Hillary fan, nor am I an Obama fan. Hell, I'm no McCain fan, and I've been clear on that as well.
|
Sorry... I forgot the ;) in my last post.
|
Quote:
|
I see this thread and ALWAYS say "NO WE CAN'T!"
|
Quote:
|
And since the exit polls have been significantly off in many of the recent primaries (after all it was because of misleading exit polls that the networks waited a couple hours before officially calling PA for Clinton despite her fairly large margin) how reliable should that data be considered when trying to break it down into ever smaller cohorts?
|
I think this will all much ado about nothing. There'll be about three months between the last primary and the Democratic convention. Even if Hillary has not yet conceded, it will all be choreographed to put on a good show. There'll be lots of good, inspiring speeches that remind people that this election is not about Hillary vs. Obama or even voting against McCain. It's about voting against Bush (whom McCain is increasingly starting to resemble.) Then, the Republicans will have their convention a week later. They'll do their best with what they have, but it will all be capped by McCain, who, in addition to his other shortcomings, is the worst speaker ever. No one who said "I'd rather vote for McCain than the other Democrat" will stick by it.
|
Quote:
|
Every time soneone critiques Obama(wow, critiqing someone who is running for President, what's the world coming to) we hear the usual "why don't we talk about the issues and leave his character, bowling skills and business deals alone"
but when someone asks Obama about the issues all Obama wants to do is be left alone to eat waffles:D http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3H5IOGF-qU |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Still, this question was totally about the issues and unless its' slipped past my radar remains unanswered. |
Well, at least he plays a good game of basketball. He should challenge Hillary to a game. Loser has to eat waffles and fries.
Really, Jeff- I don't for a moment think that you care a bit about his opinion regarding Carter's trip. I also really don't think it matters squat as an issue, at least when compared to the many, many others that come to mind as I type this. It must be hell being a candidate sometimes- everyone wants the perfect soundbite response to questions that are either complex, poorly posed or just plain asinine. McCain would have just told the reporter to **** off, and maybe shoved him as he said it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
WB, why would we not care about what he thinks of Carter's trip? I believe it is an important issue. I do care what he thinks about it.
|
Here's a question I would like to ask Obama:
Quote:
|
This whole issue with Wright I think has revealed that Obama is no different than any other politician.
Without going into too much detail, I do not see it as possible that Obama only just discovered the views of the man he has called his spiritual mentor. While Obama is correct in that the man is offensive, he is simply being politically expedient in his current posturing. Indeed the looped soundbites didn't do Reverend Wright justice, as his bigotry and insanity were not fully represented in those. Do the views matter? What Wright says doesn't in terms of the campaign (though I think his views are indeed problematic in the community), and Obama was also correct in that Wright doesn't speak for him or his campaign. But only a couple of days ago Obama was standing by Wright, and one press club appearance suddenly shows him the light? I don't buy it at all. And I will say once again that it does concern me that Obama has referred to this man as a mentor. I think it is reasonable to look at those that a candidate has looked up to and respected and admired as those people shape who he is and what he believes himself. |
Quote:
|
His flip-flopping on the Wright issue makes me :rolleyes: , but to the extent he might have been mentored and influenced by Rev. Wright, I like him more and more.
|
Quote:
|
Other than the AIDS stupidity (and, frankly, we've had actual elected officials who believed stupider things and it isn't like there's absolutely no precedent for the government intentionally inflicting diseases on black populations) I still haven't heard much of anything from Wright that I find all that upsetting.
Other than Obama having heard the things Wright has said, has Obama ever actually done anything to make you believe the same thing? Do you think that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate unleashed upon America by the Black Liberation Theology Illuminati? So, I honestly still don't care. Just as I honestly don't care if the Republican candidates sit at the feel of the equally obnoxious Jerry Falwell types except insofar as I perceive the candidates will attempt to govern like the Jerry Falwell and/or Wright types. I'm more concerned that all three candidates took pretty stupid positions on the mercury-vaccination issue when they obviously haven't a clue what they're talking about than that any of them know people who say stupid stuff. |
I agree with Alex. What has disappointed me about Obama's recent responses is that in the recent clips I've seen he's saying typical politician things like "Anyone who examines my prior pronouncements will know that this is not what I am bout." This is the cousin to "I am confident that after a full investigation I will be exonerated."
|
Quote:
|
Far left compared to who?
I'm afraid you're not leaving much room on the left if you consider Obama to be at the far end. Pfft. |
Obama is consistently ranked as the most liberal member of the Senate.
I suppose you and I might have a vastly definition of center, therefore skewing our perspective of what is far left and far right. |
Quote:
And, really. If we're going to disqualify presidential candidates based on the cruelty, idiocy and hate perpetrated, espoused and ignored by their religious leaders or the larger bodies, then only atheists will get to be president. |
Re: Rev. Wright
Ever since this first appeared on the radar, I have thought the choice of this pastor has a lot more to do with Mrs. Obama than Mr. First, that's often the way things work. Second, remember what Michele Obama said after Barak's Iowa victory - for the first time in her adult life she was proud of this country. That's someone who would be sympathetic to Rev. Wright's rhetoric. |
Still waiting for evidence that Wright is racist or un-American. Sure he's a crackpot (and race-obsessed, I'll grant you that), but no more so than most nationally known religious leaders. Certainly his claims can be proven* a lot easier than your run-of-the-mill blame the faggots and hedonists rhetoric that comes from the religious right whenever tragedy occurs. I suspect most of the sound and fury over Wright might be due to the fact that he is a black man who preaches like a black man.
*Except for that AIDS sh*t. Quote:
|
Quote:
Mmmm. Where do I join? |
I just don't buy into this whole "pastor's-thoughts-are-Obama's-thoughts" crap.
I had a pastor I liked a lot when I lived in Texas, went to church weekly, etc. But you know what? He's against gay marriage. Doesn't mean I am. I think anyone who knows me can appreciate just how much I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Granted, I only heard it once the entire time I attended there, so it's not like he harped on it the way that Rev. Wright harps on the AIDS thing, but my point still stands. This may come as a surprise to the atheists, but churchgoers CAN think for themselves and decide to what degree they want to listen to their religious leaders. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
He has also honored and lauded Louis Farrakhan, who is indeed a racist himself. Now, I suppose ractist may not be the correct term, and I mean that sincerely. But he indeed propote racial hatred. |
Quote:
|
Obama must believe as Wright does as Wright must believe as Cone does.
You are stretching, scaeagles. Don't pull your sphincter muscles. |
I don't see why there would be hell to pay if a Republican said that. All Obama appears to be talking about is faith through salvation (or sitting on your butt in the Astrodome) vs. faith through good works.
Whether this is truly admirable, of course, all depends on what one defines as God's work. |
Not a stretch at all, there, really. Wright says he based his entire philosophy on Cone. Obama says (or has implied, certainly) that Wright is a mentor.
If A = B and B = C then A = C. As far as being in trouble, the whole topic of conversation would be whether or not the republican could keep his religious views out of his governing. He wants to do the Lord's work? What exactly does he think that means? Locking women up in the kitchen with no shoes????? Who's Lord is he referring to?!?!?! We all have our own religious or non religious views and he CAN'T IMPOSE HIS ON ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Quote:
So Obama needs Wright to keep from losing himself "in some of the hype and hoopla" of "national politics"... What will he do now to keep himself from being lost? |
That's true. But I would argue then when most Republicans say they are pursuing the Lord's work (as many of them have without seeming to suffer too much for it) that is often the only reason they can give for it.
So far, I haven't yet heard Obama say "I'm proposing Policy Z because it is what God would want." When he does that, I'll mock him just as much as I do any of the other hundreds of politicians that have pulled that stunt. I don't ask that religious people not be informed by their faith (though I would be happier if they weren't), just that their faith not be presented as justification. While we're using math: "mentor" != = & ∴ B != C ∴ A != C |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I would argue that at least the second part of the equation is true enough to most people has caused Obama to react as he has in order to stop the tremendous tide of negative public opinion. I don't think anyone here (perhaps I'm wrong) thinks Obama distancing himself from Wright is anything but political expedience.
Based on Wright saying that Cone and his philosophy are what he based the philosophy of his church on, I would think the first part is relative sound as well. |
Quote:
|
I don't get the controversy - I mean, so are we supposed to be worried that Obama will stop the infect African americans with aids program, or spoil the next 911 conspiracy?
|
James Cone, eh? I wonder if I'm related.
|
Quote:
|
Eh, I'm not the biggest Obama fan ... but if this is the worse that can be flung against him ... say hello to the next President of the United States.
I've rarely seen so much ado about nothing. |
Quote:
|
Bush indeed did, as did his predecessor, but we're talking about Obama.
If this is no big deal, however, why did Obama feel the need to suddenly "see the light" when only a day or two before he had said he could not abandon Wright? It was a political decision made to limit political damage. |
Because he's a tool. He's a maroon. I think it's the stupidest thing he's done in the whole campaign.
BUT, he's human. And this is typical. Now that he's getting so close to the nomination and the presidency he can taste it, he's starting to make mistakes. The closer to the presidency he gets, the more of an idiot he will become. |
Here's yet another thing that scares me about Obama. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This is unsound economics and is another example of a politician who does not know economics proposing economic ideas because they are politically advantageous.
What he wants to do: Quote:
The feel good politically expedient thing to say (and something I believe he'd do as well) only makes the problem worse. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I wonder what would be said about my friendships here if I were to run for office?
|
Quote:
|
I agree that there's a lot of bad behavior all around and that a tax-as such-on the oil companies is not the best way to target it. Some suggestions:
* If Obama truly feels that the oil companies' profits do not accurately reflect supply and demand, market conditions, etc., he should have the stones to launch a big old fashioned criminal price fixing investigation. * I have limited sympathy for most people affected by rising gas prices since many of them are driving fuel-inefficient, anti-social vehicles. Just as inner city police departments have had some success paying gangbangers $50 to turn in their guns, the government could help people help themselves by insisting that everyone turn in their SUVs and oversized pickups in for a new hybrid. (Or a new hybrid plus a gun, a Faces of Death video, etc. to keep testosterone levels up.) * Anyone who wanted to keep their SUV or pickup truck would have to get a special permit justifying the need. It would cost $1,000 just to have the permit considered. E.g., an SUV would not be justified by commuter safety concerns. An oversized pickup would not be justified by the need to haul stuff to work on your house twice a year. * There would be additional federal funding for school districts to run buses. * Etc. |
Quote:
|
Back to the Obama and the oil company issue. Clinton and McCain are calling for a gas tax suspension. Obama doesn't like the idea....
Quote:
|
Well he pretty much outted the pander of the gas tax suspension proposal this morning on national tv. Great interview on Meet the Press.
|
Yes, it was a very good interview though I think he muffed the Iran/Israel question a bit.
On the tax holiday question I think he needs to modify that answer a bit and give it great prominence. So far I had mostly seen him trying to explain the economics of why a tax holiday isn't really of any short term value and has short term negatives. Instead he should essentially say, "experience is an issue that keeps coming up and experience has taught me the answer to this question. Back when gasoline was a shocking $2 a gallon we had this same idea in Illinois. And the economists said it wouldn't work and we politicians gathered together and decided that it would and passed a holiday on the Illinois gas taxes. And you know what? The economists were right, the price of gas just rose to cover the tax holiday BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MARKETS DO and we simply transferred that money from the state highway coffers to the retail gas station owners. That is why I don't support a federal tax holiday. It is an idea born out of good intent but it won't work, it hasn't worked in the past, and the damages can be huge." (Though, obviously, it would have to be shorter.) |
I'll need to try to find a transcript of the program. Did he address the windfall profits tax? I personally agree that the economics of the gas tax suspension don't do much and could indeed be harmful, however I believe a windfall profits tax is far more harmful. Anyway, did that come up?
|
Nope. Wasn't raised by Russert.
|
In his answer Obama mentioned the windfall tax as something both he and Clinton wanted (in the context of the fact that Clinton has already committed the money from the windfall tax to energy independence measures and therefore by saying she'd use it to cover the revenues from a tax holiday she was double spending it). But yeah, there was no discussion of its merits.
I'd oppose one. I'd also support ending all tax incentives and direct subsidies they receive. |
Well, Obama took North Carolina :)
Indiana's going to be much harder. Looks like he's a little bit behind there. |
Very interesting.....reports are out this morning that Clinton has made a multi-million daloor loan to her campaign today. This would seem to suggest that she is certainly not dropping out yet.
What I think is bizarre about how the democrats have their primary system set up is the porportional distribution of delegates. Even with his 14 pt win in NC and 2 pt loss in IN, Obama only picked up something like 17 delegates in the margin. Clinton is going to be hitting the super delegates HARD today and over the next week. Remember the 900 FBI files the Clintons acquired? I wonder how many of those were on dem super delegates. I would not put anything past the Clintons, even blackmail. |
At this point she should just be embarrassed to continue, but then I remembered that the Clintons do not get embarrassed about anything. I remembered when I thought that President Clinton would leave office out of sheer embarrassment, but I totally underestimated his ability to put up with being a liar in front of the entire world.
I simply cannot wait until the kicking-and-screaming moment when she is silenced, just because at this point she's running on sheer chutzpah, not reality. Bottom line - She Is Hurting The Party. How unbelievably selfish of her, if she continues. |
I just can't helping thinking that from the Clinton's perspective, if she can't win the nomination this year then the next best thing for her is if McCain wins and she can run again in four years.
If Obama wins then she's pretty much cooked for good as far as the presidency goes. So knowing that the longer this drags out, the better it is for the Republicans...... |
Quote:
My husband thinks Sen. Clinton has gone off the deep end and that her advisers will earn their pay by pulling her back to reality. |
Quote:
I have heard theories on this and would not be at all surprised if this is her angle. Should that happen, and McCain defeats Obama, it will be very interesting to see the dynamics in the Senate for the next 4 years as those two will basically continue the campaign and struggle for power and influence far beyond the norm. Clinton, Inc. is all about the power and influence of the Clintons and the fact that they will do anything to acquire and maintain it. This has indeed always been the case. Obama is well polished in his rhetoric, but I don't buy the "our" and "we" stuff. It is "we" and "our" only for those that wish to accomplish the same agenda. I have no problem with that (beyond that he scares the hell out of me) - elections mean things and if he wins, he should try to push his agenda through. |
Time for Hillary to stop.
Obama can't fly if she's blocking the runway. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I could see someone in Hillary's position staying in the race if the leader was--from my perspective--a dangerous demagogue who had pulled the wool over the public's eyes. However, unless she's going to explode his candicacy and say he does not deserve to be president over McCain, I don't see any purpose to her continuing.
And while Bill has not been at his best for years, the only people who should have resigned in shame over the impeachment scandal were the Republican Congress and Kenneth Starr. |
Never mind. Been there, argued that.
|
Quote:
Also, while I don't approve of the "methods" Hillary might employ to win, the fact is tons of people are voting for her. Though she's behind in delegate counts, and even though it looks like she can't win, roughly half the voters still vote for her. Hmmmm, how does that make you want to quit? I don't agree with her strategy ... but it's a legitimate one. Demonstrate that you can win in the states that actually MATTER in the General Election, and hope that super-delegates are swayed by that. Remember, there's nothing nefarious about super-delegates. The system is DESIGNED to over-rule the voters if the party big-wigs believe it's necessary. I don't think it is, in this case. Nor do I think they will do that in this case. But the system is SUPPOSED to pick the candidate that the party big-wigs think can win in November, even if that's not what the pledged delegates were elected to do. I can't exactly find fault with a candidate who wants to use that function to their advantage. Fat chance for Hillary, says me. But far from "hurting the party," I think it's giving the Democrats the biggest shot in the arm ever. The longer this goes on, the longer John McCain stays out of the news. He'd have to light himself on fire to get some press before the Dem candidate is selected. |
Quote:
What we need is for McCain to be IN the news, not coasting along on the sidelines. |
The point is, the more they rip at eachother, the more damage done to the eventual nominee.
|
Oh, you don't think McCain is going to rip at the nominee?
And if lapel pins and the views of someone's pastor are going to guide the prevailing voters, nothing much maters anyway. Where' s the damage done to Obama because of LapelPinGate and PastorGate? He won decisively in North Carolina, and got nearly half the vote in Indiana. Oh, he's crushed. The damage is done, it's over. |
Of course McCain will rip at the nominee. But at least if he's doing it, he takes some heat onto himself for running a negative campaign. Right now, he's getting a free ride while they rip into each other and he gets to stand on the sidelines and not get his hands dirty.
|
Quote:
|
His stance on taxes. He has said he will raise taxes, both income and capital gains. He is for wind fall profits taxes.
I believe he is ignorant in terms of foreign policy. I honestly don't know what his foreign policy views are on many things, but most things I hear him say are bothersome to me (such as previously discussed viewpoints on Iran in particular). He was harping on Hillary for not cosponsoring a bill that would try to outlaw OPEC. Yikes. That is either ridiculous or scarily ignorant or both. His voting record is ranked as the most liberal in the Senate (which I realize is a plus for many who post here). Those would be the primary things, but that covers the most important things to me - tax policy, dealing with terrorists and rogue states, and how he has voted on issues before him. As a person, I believe he's a decent guy. I'm a policy guy. I will say that none of the candidates will get my enthusiastic support, and McCain is the least scary to me of the three. |
Sorry, but to me, McCain is the most scary of all three!
|
Understandable. The man scares me, too. Probably the only one I wouldn't be afraid to meet in a dark alley, though, would be Obama.
|
Well, McGovern seems to think she's hurting the Party. He is not a superdelegate, but he is very influential and switching his endorsement to Obama is just another sign that the Dem leadership is getting nervous about the potential for splitting the Party should this nastiness continue.
|
Quote:
Where's the smiley? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Dear Hillary supporters:
|
Quote:
First is that raising taxes will result in raised revenue, far from a certainty, and I would argue the opposite takes place. Secondly, the government should spend less money if money is tight. Borrowing money from China is only for the Clinton's campaign coffers. |
Quote:
|
A McCain Presidency scares me because it would be, at least, four more years of what we have now. I honestly don't think this country can survive that.
ETA that a Hillary Clinton presidency scares me because I fear that she will do anything she can to prove she has bigger cojones than anyone else. |
Scaeagles, does the government military spending fuss you at all? Just wondering. Also, if not- where the hell do you think they get the money to do so?
|
Really? You believe that it would literally mean the end of America?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:D |
Studying the American Revolution, especially the drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution when viewed through the eyes of the original participants, I must say I disagree with your logic. The original patriots would be appalled at our world stance right now- we are little better than England was in our arrogance and imperialistic pursuits, no matter what guise (Democracy) we throw on them. We fought a Revolution over less- what makes you think it can't happen again? Everything is lining up for social upheaval, and it's just getting worse. When it hits you in the pocketbook, I suspect you too will join the ranks of those who cannot afford to be Republican anymore.
|
I would suggest, from what I know of the Federalist Papers (which I've read, but certainly do not consider myself a scholar on), that they would be far more appalled at the level of spending on clearly not Constitutionally mandated functions. James Madison once said, when a bill appropriating $15,000 for some....gosh, I'm thinking refuges from somewhere, but can't be sure....that "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
You think I haven't been hit in the pocket book? Do you think I'm rich? I still believe in the principles I'm espousing regardless of their direct impact on my bottom line because I think they're right. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I must say, being that I am a strict constructionist and I must be true to my belief system, that they would indeed object as a violation of the 4th amendment. That being said, I personally do not have problems with the echelon system and software flagging personal conversations based on keywords for later analysis by a human. I'm not sure how they what they would think about that, because the flagging of keywords can perhaps mean that it is no longer unreasonable to listen in. |
I resent the hell out of our tax dollars going to the industrial war complex. By that, I mean the apolitical politicians- like Cheney- who stand for nothing more than profit at any cost, even if it means the destruction of our country and the deaths of thousands of our citizens. I never thought you were rich, Scaeagles- I really don't concern myself with such matters, but I do know that you cite money as a primary motivator in your political decisions. I like money as much as the next person, but not at the cost of my humanity.
|
Quote:
By the same token, ignoring the last clause of the sentence, I agree that raising taxes is not a certain path towards revenue increase (see above). But the reality is that our spending is growing and that's not going to change no matter who is in office. The only thing that is going to have an effect at this point is military spending and McCain will certainly continue the trend of blowing the budget out of the water on that. From the standpoint of economic stability, while my druthers would be to make large cuts in all areas where there is waste, that's simply not going to happen in the short term so the next best thing is to stop the bleeding via un-budgeted military spending and continue to ensure there is enough revenue to cover the current levels of approved waste. When we had a budget surplus, moves were being made to begin cutting intelligently because Congress could look at the budget rationally instead of in panic mode. It'd be nice to be there again. |
Quote:
|
Saying GW failed is understating the situation. He and his gang have lied and stolen from the American people, and the world as well. They are nothing more than criminals- not failed idealists. I look at the actions of people like Limbaugh, who openly encouraged crossover voting, and wonder why anyone would align themselves with a party that engages in such cynical and deceptive practices. I'll take a good sex scandal over this **** anyday.
|
Sorry, but crossover voting has been going on with dems for a long time. This is how we got McCain as the republican nominee. I guess open primaries are OK unless they aren't.
I don't agree on the "stolen from the American people" thing. GD, I knew you'd jump on that statement, but an argument can be made and has been by many an economist, though certainly not supported by what you cite. |
Quote:
|
Scaeagles, somehow I knew you'd come back with a 'but they do it too' argument. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and it needs to stop somewhere. THAT is my main reason for voting for Obama- I will not vote for a candidate who engages in destructive politics . It's one thing to point out inconsistencies and untruths, and quite another to manufacture and engage in deception. So long as Obama continues on the high road, I will gladly follow.
|
The Obama campaign is getting some major backing today: Delegates aligning with Obama.
" At least four new Democratic superdelegates shifted toward Obama on Wednesday, convinced by his double-digit victory in North Carolina and better-than-expected showing in Indiana that he will be the candidate who takes on McCain in November. Among the newly added supporters was Virginia’s Jennifer McClellan, who used to support Clinton, as well as North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council and California DNC member Inola Henry. Earlier in the day, 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern, who formerly backed Clinton, gave his blessing to Obama, saying he didn’t see how Clinton could win." I took the article from FauxNews so Scaeagles wouldn't feel it was unbalanced.:D |
Quote:
There are two Supreme Court Justices that are not likely to last for another four years. If they were to be replaced by the types of judges that McCain has pledged to support, we are royally screwed. I urge anyone who is contemplating following through on their professed threat to vote for McCain if they candidate doesn't win the nomination to carefully consider the ramifications of a judicial branch that is completely lopsided before making that decision. Hell, I even know of a few conservatives who shudder at that prospect and have cited it as the number one reason they will not vote for McCain. |
Quote:
|
Of course I'm throwing my support behind Obama if, er, when Clinton loses the nomination. D'uh.
Funny, because as scary as he is, I find MCain to be the least objectionable Republican candidate for president of my long lifetime. |
Quote:
If Obama wins, I'm going to find it amusing should his nominations be filibustered in the same way Bush's were, listening to the left side of the aisle screech about how unfair that is. Does it make it right? No, just like WB alluded to with the open primaries. I hate open primaries. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the turmoil. Maybe no both sides will finally agree that open primaries are a bad idea. BY the way....as far as counting all votes....if Florida and Michigan were counter, wouldn't Hillary have the popular vote lead? I thoought I heard that. What the dems choose to do is their own business. They wouldn't be in this mess if they hadn't set up their primaries as porportionally awarded so that super delegates could make the decision. They've gotten just what they have asked for. |
You can't use the Florida and Michigan #'s. No campaigns were run there. Rather, Obama didn't run campaigns there due the the party rules. Clinton, while she didn't visit, actively pandered to them. Plus, wasn't there at least one of those where Clinton's name was on the ballot but Obama's wasn't?
|
I'm not sure. I just think it is a card Hillary might play in her desperation.
|
Quote:
|
There's a shock.
|
I'm a Clinton supporter who will vote for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever that may be (I originally supported Richardson, btw). What irks me to no end are the Obama supporters who are doing the Republicans job for them, by bashing the hell out of HC. The argument that Hillary is somehow ruining the Democrats' chances in November by staying in the race is a convenient (and silly) argument that seems to be the club of choice here. Blah to you.
For the record, Obama ran a cable TV ad which showed in Florida and even appeared at a fundraiser there last September. Both of these were choices he made after he promised to not campaign in Florida. I'm not bashing, but c'mon people... the guy's a politician. Just like Clinton. Just like McCain. |
And speaking of McCain.....I'm almost back to thinking I can't vote for him. He takes more sides of an issue than Kerry.
He speaks about the need to secure the border to one audience, but when speaking to a racist Hispanic organization called "La Raza" he talks about the need for "comprehensive immigration reform" (which I take to mean his original amnesty plan), and then at other times he says all he needs is border governors to certify to him that their borders are secure. Yeah, right. That's just one example of many. The man has always made me ill and I'm trying to ignore it, but it's only going to get worse after the dem nomination is decided (officially) and he is getting press again. Back to thinking I may just sit this one out, but the thought of that just makes me feel as if I am failing in my civic duty. I've NEVER skipped even the most minor local election....not that I'd completely skip this one, as there are other casdidates and offices and propositions requiring votes. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Holy reappearing posters, Batman, it's Fab! Hiya!
|
Hiya! I'm arriving back in SoCal for good June 9. First thing: get a job. Second thing: build a firepit in the backyard. Yep, I have a real-for-real HOUSE now.
|
|
Quote:
|
What is the definition of a smear? Obama seems to think is he being smeared because of this -
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Call it truthful or not, it's dirty and pathetic to use the propoganda from terrorist organizations as an aid to your campaign. What Hamas says shouldn't be a factor in US elections. Lord knows what their motivation is. It's hardly far-fetched to think that they'd be saying that because they don't want Obama and know that such an endorsement, if believed by voters, would hurt him.
|
Isn't it a smear to associate Obama with the Hamas group's opinion? I mean, who cares who Hamas favors. That is irrelevant to our elections. Just because Hamas favors Obama it doesn't mean anything.
|
And "smear" != "dishonest". You can use perfectly "truthful" information to unfairly smear someone. Say, by presenting information in such a way that implies an association with something hateful when there is none.
|
Hillary Clinton's camp put out the pic of Barack in Kenyan traditional garb, which was a gift to him from the country of his ancestors. Did they do this to increase his popularity? Not hardly- doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what they were not-so-subtly trying to do. Same for McCain. You know, every time another candidate stoops to this level I feel even better about my choice. He's too clean to do anything but make up stuff about. McCain should be so lucky.
|
Yep, I keep thinking that - if this is the best they can throw at him - this guy's pretty damn Teflon.
|
Well, the media has been making up stuff about McCain. The day after the nomination was secure, the NY Times published a story about an alleged affair between McCain and a lobbyist. No evidence and eveyone denied it, and the entire story was based on "anonymous sources". It was an obvious hit piece.
I think McCain has plenty wrong with him to go after, so why make up stuff? I'm interested in knowing more about the relationship between Obama and Tony Rezko. |
Quote:
They were lovers for years. They met at Obama's mosque. Then Obama met William Ayers at a terrorist retreat and that, as they say, was that. |
Helen's right. In fact, that's the real reason the terrorists are so mad at us. It's totally Obama's fault, and I- as a Liberal Commie Red Diaper Doper Baby- will of course be supporting him. I can't resist a good love triangle.
|
Quote:
|
Safe for work YouTube Clip
Do people really think he's Muslim? This lady doesn't seem too bright. Why would GMA air something like that? Kinda weird. |
Ya, people do. There's been emails upon emails going around that he's Muslim, and that he's associated with Saddam OR Bin Laden (similar names). People will believe anything. It scares me that these same people will be voting.
|
I can't remember if I mentioned it before, but I had one client who thought he'd had an affair with Barbara Walters in the Seventies, and she was quite worked up about it. I pointed out that her affair was actually with an older African-American senator who also happened to be a Republican. ( I believe Obama was all of 12 when she was dating the senator.) This particular person is a rabid conservative and was in the middle of an anti-Dem rant based on their loose morals. Felt good to set her straight.:D
|
Oh, CP's Dad is convinced that the fact that his middle name is Hussein that he's clearly got sympathies for our enemies.
I'm not exaggerating. |
Quote:
|
We could turn the logic around and say any time you buy Bush's Baked Beans you're supporting the Bush administration.
|
There is a surprisingly large community of people that believe we faked the moon landings.
Believing that a single man is hiding his religion until achieving power doesn't require a particularly large leap compared to that. |
Well, you know, anyone who even TALKS to another Muslim is friends with Bin Laden AND Saddam. That is one close knit group, let me tell you!
In other news, when I was growing up Christian, Benny Hinn was over for dinner at least one night every week. The other 5 nights he spent with my parents' closest church friends and one night a week was dinner with GC Mom. |
Quote:
Humm. Maybe you know where Bin Laden is hiding toO! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Alleged giant leap.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.