|
Another reason why Obama's tax plans scare me.
Yeah, slam on the WSJ as being conservative, but numbers are numbers. Throw this on top of Barney Frank calling for a 25% cut in military spending, and I may just have to vote for McCain after all. |
Quote:
|
Ho ho ho, aren't you so clever, 3894! Wow...maybe someday I can be as clever as you! :rolleyes:
|
That was unfriendly.
|
Quote:
[man, I never thought I'd see myself saying THAT before this election.] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Shall we look at the accuracy of McCain's tax plan? |
Say, how about the people who supported Bush for 8 years get to pay more taxes? The rest of us get a tax cut as a reward for knowing better?
I mean, a true Bush supporter would help him clean up his mess, right? :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As soon as someone can explain to me how, when 35% of all people pay no federal income taxes, that 95% of all people can get a tax cut....that might be a good start to making me believe. Taking money from tax payers and giving it to those who do not pay taxes is called redistribution of wealth, not a tax cut. When it comes to his tax cut he is as much of a LIAR as Clinton. There will be no tax cuts for the middle class. |
This just in from a political bear friend of mine in Texas....
"My office mate went to vote yesterday in South Austin, where he encountered a man with a clipboard outside the polling place, asking each voter if they planned to vote for Obama. If they answered in the affirmative, he advised them to please make sure to vote a straight democratic ticket, and then, in addition, to vote specifically for Obama. On our voting machines, this cancels the ballot. When confronted by election officials, the man fled in an automobile plastered with McCain-Palin and other Republican stickers." |
First of all, if someone is going to do that - which I doubt, and these kind of things are so ridiculously easy to fabricate - I really, really doubt they're going to leave in a car described as such.
I got an email of a memo from ACORN which described how the voters they illegally registered were told to be sure to change their clothing and wait at least a half an hour between votes, particularly if they were voting in the same polling location. |
Quote:
|
How much money did you get from the Clinton tax cut? Oh wait....it didn't happen. Silly me NOT to believe it. How many times has Obama voted to lower taxes in his political career? That's only half rhetorical....I really don't know, but I'd bet he's voted to increase taxes a whole lot more than he's voted to lower them.
And are you going to answer my question about how one can cut taxes for 95% of the people when only 65% of the people pay federal income taxes? |
It must be hard to have such a crappy candidate. I'm good with Obama's plans, even though I know he will actually have very little control over whether or not they go forward. Every day I read the news, see the sleazy things the McCain side is doing and saying, and I am thankful that Obama is staying the course and rising above the merde. He's human, despite McCain's best attempts to present him as otherwise, and I'm sure he'll make mistakes- but at least he's trying to do the right thing.
I wish people could opt out of paying taxes for such things as Social Security, Medicare and such. By doing so, they would give up any claim or access to a system they so disdain. They could then shut up about it, and hope to hell the basket they put all their eggs in is going to be there when they need it. Meanwhile, more and more Repubs are splitting from the McCain camp:McCain adviser votes Obama ticket. |
I would love to opt out. However, since the social security and taxes go into the general funds (always had to laugh at the Al Gore "lock box" comments), there isn't much of a chance of me getting any out of what is supposedly mine that I paid into the system. Everyone knows it can't continue on its current course,,,,the population is living to older ages and there aren't enough payers in to the system to support those taking money out.
I have ZERO confidence that I will EVER see a dime of socail security money that I've paid in. Not many Americans under 40 do. And yeah, McCain is a crappy candidate. I completely agree. |
Quote:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you find both stories bogus. |
Quote:
This is yet another a personal attack. I did not attack you personally and do not deserve a slap from you. I said that Ronald Reagan was senile in office - a fact. I said that Christopher Hitchens claims that John McCain is in the early stages of senility. |
Quote:
But regardless, in response to the quoted sentence, many states, including California, do not require providing any type of ID when you vote. In fact, my local precinct went one step further when I lived in Oakland. Outside the polling place they posted the list of all the people who were registered at the location (public information anyway). I could easily have requested a ballot in the name of any person on that list. There would be the chance the person had already voted (one election they were crossing names out throughout the day to reflect who'd voted but that was just one) but if I'd been willing I could easily have voted several times a day. I have no problem with ID laws but there also is no evidence that voter fraud is particularly rampant so I don't care much either way. |
Quote:
As an aside, I have yet to receive my absentee ballot stuff. :( |
Gosh, here in Florida, we definitely have to have a valid ID. I know, because I was turned away a couple of days ago. My drivers license has a mistake on the address (which I had not heretofore noticed), and so I had to fill out some forms, have my registration updated and I was told it would be a couple of days before I could vote. I was also instructed to get my license corrected.
All this is a good thing, though. I'm glad it wouldn't have been easy to mis-vote. I'm surprised it isn't this way everywhere. Oh, and I'm going back tomorrow to vote. Any last minute pleas or persuasion must reach me before ten am Florida time Monday morning. |
Sedaris Shenanigans
Well, I didn't know which thread to post this in... but here it is.
Quote:
I love David Sedaris. EH, NM, GD, CP & I were just talking about him. :) |
Alaska's largest newspaper just endorsed Obama: Anchorage Daily
"Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain." |
Quote:
1. Name 2. Address 3. Whether that person has already voted Combined with no need to provide evidence of identification it just seemed lame. Still, there's no evidence of even a low level of widespread abuse, just seemed stupid. I can't remember if party registration was posted, though it must have been for primaries since California has closed primaries. |
Quote:
|
You do have to sign a register. I can't recall if they have a signature they check against.
|
Quote:
|
Yes, you do have to sign. I've never seen them pay the slightest attention to the form of the actual signature and I don't remember there being an exemplar with it. But it has been a couple years now since I last voted in person so maybe I am not remembering.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As far as a fact.....Have you seen his medical records or are you going off what you think and/or have read from wherever (would love to see what the sources are)? I hope you have some form of degree or expertise to go along with lots and lots of experience in diagnosing such things if you're going to offer that opinion. Otherwise, I'm not sure how valid it can be. |
This thread is as good as any (it is the only politics one that was in my New Posts search).
I don't generally think newspaper endorsements generally have much real world impact but this site is an interesting presentation of their geography. |
Quote:
|
The two trends I notice are that papers in blue states are more likely to make such endorsements one way or the other, and there are significantly more papers that "switched" from Bush to Obama than "switched" from Kerry to McCain.
|
Quote:
I know SS won't be there for me as well. I've always known it. I may not be very good at math, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Boomers are going to wipe it out. They're a huge demographic, and they didn't have enough kids to pay into the system. I'm either the last year of the Boomer generation, or the first year of Gen X, depending on your sources. I've never identified with the Boomers- I think you had to have been a teen sometime during the Sixties to really be a Boomer, and I was not. I have a certain degree of resentment toward that group- they've run the world for quite a while now, and have swung every which way in the political and socio-economic spectrum, and frankly I'm tired of them holding all the cards. I do believe it's time for a change, a generational change, and I think my candidate is truly the man for the job. I hope he gets it. |
So....am I reading the transcript of this quote correctly???? I can't wait to hear the spin on this one.
Quote:
Also, we've got this one ......in which he lamenting that the supreme court (specifically the Warren court) never addressed redistribution of wealth as an issue of economic justice. He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice". He wants redistribution of wealth. He says it clearly. He is simply talking about the best way to do it. McCain now gets my vote even though I do not support him. Obama is a socialist and I cannot be part of not voting for his opposition. |
As to the first part, he was obviously talking about the original constitution's hands-off attitude to slavery.
As to the second, it's a legitimate issue, but my take is that he said it in 2001 and he was using overly progressive rhetoric to talk about how to cure the lingering effects of slavery and racism. Plus, it's a question of degree. Taken to extreme, we wouldn't have a progressive tax system or antitrust laws, and most of the land in Hawaii would still be owned by a few families. But go ahead and vote for McCain. We all knew you would. I dare you to prove us wrong. |
Spout your favorite buzz phrase all you want, voting for McCain isn't going to change crap. He believes exactly the same thing despite his hypocritical cries of "socialism". The reality is our tax system is massively out of balance, the wealthy enjoy huge protections from the government (aww, you gambled and lost money? Here's a bailout!) and pay a small percentage of their income. Both Obama and McCain have called for fixing that balance.
John McCain: “We feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more… I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay — all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they — you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view… here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.” http://therecord.barackobama.com/?p=3143 |
Oh yeah, and news flash, the Constitution is not the creation of an omniscient being and is not a perfect creation without flaws! Ooooh, did I just commit treason?
|
Quote:
I'm so glad you can see into my head, Strangler, and knew I was going to vote for McCain all along. Yawn. You know nothing of me. There a difference between tax relief for those that pay taxes and giving money to those who don't. Again, I ask, how is it possible for 95% of the people to get federal tax cuts when only 65% of the people pay any federal income taxes? That isn't a tax cut. That is redistribution of wealth. Read the statitics. The top 1% of wage earners pay just shy of 40% of all federal income taxes. That has GONE UP under the Bush administration regardless of the rhetoric otherwise. Call Obama's plans whatever you want, but taking money from taxpayers and giving it to non taxpayers, even when bogusly calling it a tax cut, is still redistribution of wealth, and it is still socialism. McCain is NOT calling for (unless I just haven't read it) taking money from tax payers, giving it to non tax payers, and calling it a tax cut. HUGE difference. |
Scaeagles, the other day you said that you were going to be voting for McCain, despite your earlier statements, due to something that Obama said or did or might do. Had you changed your mind, and are now changing it again?;)
|
Yes, as for the first one surely you, scaeagles, acknowledge that the Consitution's handling of slavery was a moral lapse (if not, at the time, a political one) reflecting a blind spot of the founding fathers and issues of race that reverberate to this day?
As for the second one, did you actually listen to it? You say: Quote:
He also never says he wants redistribution of wealth in that presentation, despite what the helpful big text says. He does answer whether such efforts are best pursued in the legislative or judicial branches. He may very well want them (though nothing defines exactly what would be pursued in such economic solutions so I might very well agree with them) but the video does not present that case. If we assume you actually listened to the video, then the fact that he does not say what you say he did must simply be a lie on your part intending to deceive those who can't be bothered to actually listen to it. If we assume you didn't actually listen to the video, then it would appear you are just once again blindly passing along whatever is fed to you at the Drudge Report and supporting blogs. So, are you a liar or a dupe? Or do you have a third option I'm not seeing at the moment? |
I listened to it several times.
The first - of course it was a moral lapse. No doubt. However, it does not "still continue until this day". Secondly, he says that the Warren court did not break free from the essential constraints of the Constitution. The whole context is about what he terms "economic justice" and redistribution of wealth. I have listened to it 5 or 6 times to be absolutely clear. He then continues on to say that it was a tragedy in the civil rights movement not to focus more on "redistributive change". When the caller asks if it is too late to be repaired, he says he isn't optimistic such change can be brought through the courts. He clearly WANTS redistribution of wealth. I do not believe I am a liar or a dupe. He says exactly that he wants redistribution of wealth. |
Quote:
It still doesn't make a difference in AZ. But I want to go on record as against Obama. |
By the way, if anybody would care to (and I know such things are anathema in our spoonfed soundbite age) you can download the entire interview from WBEZ here.
I haven't listened to it yet but here is some less histrionic analysis of the video from right-leaning Constitutional Law Professor bloggers at The Volokh Conspiracy. |
Why is it that so many financial officers and publications are endorsing Obama, if he is just going to tax them and their clients out of existence? I am curious, however, to know just how anyone thinks we are going to pay for all our adventures of the past 8 years without some sort of tax increase, especially with so many people losing their homes and jobs right now. Besides, as we well know- anyone can say they won't ("Read my lips") raise taxes- at least Obama is being honest. That's kind of refreshing.
|
Quote:
|
Well, if you actually listened to it, then you and I don't interact with the English language in the same ways. So, I guess it was mystery third option.
He quite clearly, TWICE, says the flaw in this country (slavery, reverberations of slavery, and problems of race relations) continues to this day, not the flaw in the constitution. The flaw in the constitution was largely corrected at the conclusion of the Civil War. Yes, he did say the Warren Court did not break free of its constraints. That was his point. At no point did he say that it should have. I have no doubt that Obama supports redistributive policies. But so does everybody (I supoprt public schools which are a big transfer of moneys when we educate all them poor kids). We all just disagree on which ones are a good idea. However, that support is not particularly given in the video you posted, nor is it detailed. And I still contend that your paraphrasing of it is horribly deceptive. |
You believe Obama is telling the truth about taxes? Then what the hell is all this 95% of the people will pay less?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm sorry, I fail to see where I mentioned tax policy in the discussion of whether you are misleading people (whether intentionally or not).
But since I'm sure you'd like to change the subject from that discussion. No, I do not believe that 95% of people will pay lower taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan. And, even if they would, I do not believe that a proposed tax plan is likely to bear much resemblance to the actual tax plan, since after all the president can do nothing more than present Congress with a power point presentation and then wait and see like the rest of us. However, from my comparison of the two proposed tax plans, it does appear that MORE people would pay lower taxes under Obama's than under McCain's. So, having answered that question can we go back to the topic you were trying to change away from? |
Quote:
Where, for example, did he say the Warren Court should have broken free of its fundamental constraints? Now, please, don't tell me where you interpret him saying that, where the tone of something he said later reflects back on what he said previously (and remember this is a severely truncated presentation of a much longer interview) shedding a new sinister light. Since you say he SAID it, please point to that. |
Quote:
|
Here's what I said:
Quote:
I believe my conclusions above to be logical in the context of his statements. I think it obvious that he is indeed lamenting that the court did not address it. You may not, OK. Upon relistening again, I will agree and concede that he did not say the Warren court should have been able to to break free gfrom those constraints. However, he then goes on to discuss how he thinks the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was to focus on the courts instead of elsewhere where those economic aims could have been accomplished. My point still stands in that he WANTS those aims accomplished. He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts. That's a clever way to promote socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless. |
Quote:
|
Obama has said that he'll lower taxes for 95% of "working families". It would seem to me that would have to include a large majority of people who make below the threshhold of paying federal taxes.
|
My,my,my... We have been busy this morning.
Is it my imagination, or is the tone from the Right getting shriller and shriller as we get closer to the 4th? |
Why is it shrill to point out what Obama is saying and has said?
|
Here is an opinion piece (please note I say opinion because it is and I share the opinion and believe it is well stated here....yes, it is from Bill Whittle at National Review, certainly conservative, but he explains a lot of my concerns better than I ever could....just letting the source be know up front so no one shouts about how it's a conservative source and how it is opinion) that sums up my concerns well.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:eek: |
Quote:
And as I said, we all support redistributive policies, we just disagree on which ones. After all, I'm assuming you would not remove from the X% of people who pay no federal taxes all access to federal services. |
Here's what I think Obama meant in his discussion of the civil rights movement. Two points: First, separate but equal was not overturned overnight. Thurgood Marshall litigated a number of cases that overturned a number of segregationist schemes by showing that--surprise--they were not, in fact, equal. Second, Marshall & co. scrupulously avoided all entreaties by socialists, communists and the like who claimed that the worker's struggle was also the black man's struggle. Thus, I think that Obama was lamenting that the civil rights movement did not do--or could not have done--more to ensure that black schools, whether segregated de facto or de jure were, in fact equal. I assume that if the issue is phrased as "everyone should be able to go to good schools" rather than as "redistribution" that you do not object even though it amounts to the same thing.
|
Quote:
|
I suppose it does depend on how one defines redistribution of wealth. I am not one who regards access federal services as redistribution. Driving on an interstate, for example, I suppose could be regarded as some sort of strange redistribution of wealth considering those who pay no taxes still drive on them, but services are not what I am referring to, nor do I believe it is what Obama was referring to.
I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes. |
Is anyone besides me, feeling a bit encouraged at the massive rallies? I find it inspiring that 70,000-100,000 people turn out for one of these things. To sound trite, it does give me a sense of hope.
|
Quote:
Also, it is possible to cut taxes for a person who doesn't pay any. If you have a tax obligation of $750 dollars and qualify for $750 in tax deductions you don't pay any taxes. But it is entirely possible for new tax policies to reduce your obligation from $750 to $500. Your tax obligation was cut, your tax deductions still reduce what you owe to zero. Finally, you have used this formulation several times "Obama says that 95% of people will receive a tax cut but 40% of people don't pay any income tax, how can that then be true." (That isn't a direct quote but I think it accurately reflects and I don't want to go look for the direct quote; I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Two things. Obama almost always say "95% of working families" which is different from 95% of everybody and is essentially true (independent sources say 91-94%). However, I'm sure examples can be found of saying simply "95% of people" by Obama or campaign surrogates. When this is said, it is misleading. However, you do something rhetorically in your formulation of the question that is also misleading. You change the units of measure. From "taxes" to "income taxes." Income taxes do not include the entirety of a persons tax burden as you well know. Even people who end up paying no income taxes still (if they have any legitimate income at all) end up paying payroll taxes. And part of Obama's plan is a tax credit against payroll taxes. So, even if that doesn't bump it up to 95% of all people, this is another way you get people who pay no federal income tax still getting a tax cut. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, you may have a philosophical disagreement on whether this particular tax cut is a good idea (though I didn't know Republicans ever had such philosophical disagreements, though maybe this would be an exception since it favors the working poor over the wealthy who earn more than the payroll tax caps) but you can't really argue it is a tax cut. And it is the central component of the truth in the statement that "95% of working families" -- as opposed to 95% of all people some portion of which do not pay any taxes of any type because they have no reported income -- will receive a tax credit. Every single tax filer earning less than $200,000 will get this $500 or $1000 proposed credit. That is 97% of all filers. As you can see, we are again running into a wall where you are apparently not speaking the same English language I am. Apparently reducing taxes burdens is only a tax cut when Republicans do it and socialism when other people do it. And redistribution is only redistribution when the money transfer happens in cash. |
All I can say is you make some excellent points there.
I do regard social security as different because of the nature and purpose, but it is indeed a tax. I suppose I need to research a bit more into his proposed tax brackets (I assume since the Bush tax cuts were largely lowering bracketed rates that the expiration of those will result in increased rates in those brackets) to see if the proposed credit offsets the increase in the rates (assuming there are). One reason I post here is to learn from those with good knowledge. I am not against learning and having my opinions and facts challenged.....it's a lot more interesting that posting where everyone would agree with most of what I say. |
Quote:
(Posted before I saw that there was a whole other page of back-and-forth between Alex and Leo.) |
To fact check myself. Not everybody under $200,000 will get $500 or $1000 refundable credit. The proposal phases it out from $150,000 to $200,000 so some would get partials.
In reading to support myself I found this which explains the issue pretty well. I'm sure somebody will disagree but I generally find the fact checking at that site to be pretty non-partisan. If you want to find a list of statements where Obama really is wrong or distorting you'll find them listed there. Leo, as to your last post. I am fine with that. Really I am. What gets under my skin (more than it should) is often that you simply post something that is a reiteration of what you've read at one of the prominent right-leaning blogs (not that you're the only one I frequently see things and say "ah, that must have just hit the front page at Drudge or Instapundit or MyDD or Daily Kos or something) and then rely on us to fact check you. Sometimes this only takes a few seconds and it is really annoying that you couldn't have just done that yourself. It is much more interesting to debate fundamental philosophical decisions (is a $500 refundable payroll tax credit good policy) than issues of easily verifiable fact (what is the basis for Obama or McCain saying X). |
Quote:
|
No, not at all, JW. I don't know where you get that I defined it as "all tax cuts are a redistribution of wealth". I am for EVERYONE paying less taxes and having smaller government.
My definition of redistribution of wealth is taking money that is paid to the government in the form of federal income taxes by anyone and giving it to those who have paid no federal income taxes. |
Quote:
You have, however, made me stop to think about a couple of things that have bothered me about Obama. |
[In reply to scaegles reply to JWBear]
Like John McCain's $5000 health insurance tax credit (which everybody would get regardless of how much, including zero, they pay in income taxes)? Or his proposal (if I recall correctly) to double the EITC? That right there is about $10,000 per person (if they have 2 dependents) in wealth redistribution by McCain, which actually may be larger than that the proposed refundable tax credit increases by Obama. If Obama's level of wealth redistribution was cause to throw you back at McCain, is McCain's cause to through you back to abstain? |
This is indeed true. McCain is also proposing large redistribution of wealth tax credits.
DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMN ITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMN ITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT DAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDA MNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNITDAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! Just when I find some form of righteous indignation it is made apparent that McCain is indeed proposing the same. Now I'm back to only maybe voting for McCain. |
Quote:
|
The my work here is done.
Just keep in mind that with McCain so far behind at this point the only hope they have is massively inflamed righteous indignation and that it no longer matters much if there is a lot of reality behind it since if it successfully fans flames they won't cool until after the election. So, before giving in to the indignation pause to see if you're being played. This is not to say you lack good reason to oppose Obama. On purely philosophical grounds you are completely at odds. But opposition need not require outrage. |
What, besides the tax thing, do you dislike about Obama, Leo? I'm just wondering if that's the only roadblock to your voting for him. So many conservative (and namely Reaganites) have expressed support for him in spite of his party affiliation and I truly admire people who are able to find the courage to do so, especially in this rather vicious climate.
By the way, very cool to be receptive to our arguements. I really do try and do the same, because I've always believed truth lies in the middle of most extremes. Like I said, I've voted Republican before and no doubt will again. This polarized political situation is very unhealthy, for everyone. |
Yeah, like I said I don't post here because everyone agrees with me. Sometimes my arguments are solid, sometimes, while my arguments may be valid, there are counters to what I've got to say.
I'm not particularly interested in rehashing my dislike of Obama' policies, as we've been over them, but since you asked.....and again, I'm not trying to debate what has been debated, I'm only trying to answer WB. I think he is naive and dangerous when it comes to foreign policy, and I think Biden is no genious there either (for example, Obama opposed the surge and still denies it was a success, and Biden wanted to split the country into three parts). I do believe he is at heart a socialist. I believe he wants bigger government. I beleive he will gut the military budget. The thought of most important decisions being made by the triumverate of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama scares the crap out of me. That's just the quick stuff. |
Why would he gut the military budget when he's already stated he'd like to expand the military? Other than that, fair enough. I don't think Palin is exactly qualified for the criteria you set forth, but maybe McCain will live through his tenure. Most dissenting conservatives cite his selection of Palin as the last straw for them, but who knows? It could work out- look at Truman. Of course, he actually had loads of experience, but......never mind.:D
|
McCain's foreign policy and potential 8 more years of causing trouble in the Middle East (instead of figuring out how to get our troops home) and pissing off the few allies we have left scare me far more than Obama's lack of experience. I don't think the surge worked. I don't think the war did much other than to completely destabilize the ME and make us a lot more hated and vulnerable. We had the sympathy of almost the entire world after 9/11. We had backing and support to go into Afghanistan. And what's going on there now? Still haven't found bin Laden, still haven't found WMDs, the Taliban is still alive and well. And the majority of the world hates us. Bush fvcked up big time, and I don't think McCain would be willing to do anything to improve that situation. McCain's foreign policy 'experience' = at least 4 more years of Bush.
Leo really needs to talk to the prez of my company. They can panic about teh "socialism" Obama will bring to this country together. |
Oh - and other specific tax spolicies, WB, including the death tax and captial gains taxes are majorly problematic to me.
As far as the military.....Barney Frank said he wants to cut the military budget by 25%. Frank carries a lot of influence. That may not be Obama, per se, but I don't see Obama vetoing a budget that reduces military spending. BTD, there are so many things in your post (though not all) I disagree with, but we've hashed over them before....I just didn't want silence to be considered acquiesence. |
I don't think Obama has said that surge didn't work when "work" is defined as meeting goals within Iraq. What he's said (and said to Patraeus's face) is that the surge did not support the overall picture of preventing terrorism and protecting American interests. Obama's argument is not that we can't win in Iraq or that the strategies currently employed in Iraq (now that Bush is bothering to listen to his generals) aren't effective. His argument is that Iraq is not the be all and end all of military priority and that our resources are better spent elsewhere. And those currently running things seem to be agreeing with that assessment as they've moved their best man, Patraeus, into a position where he is focusing on Afghanistan more than Iraq.
From accounts of his meeting with Patraeus: Quote:
|
You have him on the capital gains tax, but his proposals on the "death tax" significantly reduce their impact on any estates smaller than some very large number (I'm thinking $8 million but I haven't looked it up again to confirm).
|
I wasn't aware we were electing Barney Frank.
I'm sorry, but many of the reasons you cite strike me as reaching. I can't help but think you simply don't like the man, and are striving for justification. If you don't like him, fine- I don't know that I could vote for someone I disliked intensely. So many of the things you are worried about are really decided by Congress and the Senate- Obama would have very little control over such things. |
I can gaurantee you McCain would not vote for a budget that reduced military spending by 25%.
It's not that I don't like Obama as a person - I've said before that he seems like a decent man. I admit a lot of it is distrust of the democrat party and what has typically been the agenda of the democrat party - such as reduction in military spending, lax control of the borders, whatever. |
Here's a decent comparison of McCain and Obama's Estate Tax proposals.
If you're opposed philosophically to an estate tax at all then you won't be happy with either because they both support continuing them. Obama at the current 45% rate with a $7 million exemption (currently it is $3.5 million). McCain at 15% with a $10 million exemption. Those sounds hugely different to me but per the articles figures I didn't see a big difference in impact on small businesses. Small businesses are the bugaboo of estate taxes since heirs potentially have to sell or close the business to afford or avoid the taxes, creating economic collateral damage. However, under either plan there would only be a couple hundred impacted business each year (and even under the current "horrible" situation it is less than 500 a year). So, neither candidate agrees with you on principal in opposing any estate tax at all (and the article makes a good point about why abolishment altogether isn't necessarily a great thing for heirs either) and the individual impacts are hugely different and the revenue impacts are significantly different (McCain maybe saves another 50-100 business over Obama but loses the government about $40B in current revenue due to his significantly lower rate). |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Well, there are reports that illegal immigration is down and some illegals have headed back to Mexico in search of jobs. Weird, eh? Since it's the horrid economy that is causing this change, I wonder if the Repubs will take credit?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Whee! I voted this afternoon.
Of no real significance, but as I was standing in line waiting to vote, two young ladies, about college age, latina, cute, (none of which matters, just painting a picture) were behind me talking about their pending vote. They were clearly in Obama's camp, but I was amused about their reasons why: - "He is SO good looking!" - "And I love the way he sounds when he talks! I can't wait to have a president who looks good and who I love listening to!" - "And he dresses nice. I am so excited!" Whatever it takes. I'm happy they voted. :) |
Quote:
We were studying this in my [horrible, awful] policy class. Until the reasons for illegal immigration are resolved (no jobs in their home countries, deplorable working and living conditions, corrupt government and military, etc...) illegal immigrants will find their way in. They will climb a larger wall, dig a deeper hole or swim longer distances. Employers will go further underground to employ (and exploit) illegal workers. It won't stop, neither president can stop it, though Obama has acknowledged the issue goes deeper than securing our boarders. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Web site (maintained by the Obama team) tells you what's true and what's not: Quote:
|
Huh, never heard of that Straight Ticket thing. That's pretty stupid.
|
Quote:
|
I can't believe people still punch paper tickets. Blah blah electronic balloting issues, but seriously, this long after the 2000 election, how can these exist anywhere?
|
We use mechanical voting booths here.
|
Quote:
I'm starting to fall in love with photo blogging. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There is little that can be said about bigger gov't because I haven't seen a "small government" candidate from either party in a very long time. The Patriot Act certainly wasn't a small-gov't move. |
Quote:
|
Back to Obama income tax policies.....Obama started with 250,000 as his threshhold. At least once after that, and I am willing to grant this could quite possibly be a misstatement, he said 200,000. I have never brought that up, but do now, because in an interview yesterday, Biden said 150,000.
Because I am already immensely suspicious of them and their tax policies, I wonder if they are slipping because they talk about other numbers - as in lowering the 250,000 that they've widely campaigned on. |
I don't know what Biden said today but Obama has always been pretty clear:
If you make less than $250,000 you won't see any increase in tax burden. If you make less than $200,000 you will see at least some decrease in tax burden. Meaning that if you make between $200,000 and $250,000 your total taxes will remain unchanged (individual taxes may see tweaks). For example, and again payroll tax adjustments in addition to income tax changes are a big part of his plan, if you make less than $150,000 you will receive a full $500 or $1000 (single vs. married) payroll tax credit. If you earn $150,000-$200,000 you will get some portion of that. If you earn more than $200,000 you will receive no payroll tax credit and income over $250,000 will be subject to new payroll taxes (note, this is ONLY the portion over $250,000, not the entire income if you make more than $250,000). So there are all kinds of platform amounts in the proposal. Tax policy, surprisingly enough, is complex. Sound bites don't work well as representation of proposals and opportunities for misunderstanding (whether unintentional or intentional) are plentiful. The Obama web site lays out his tax proposals in significant detail if you want to go look at them directly (as does McCain's). |
The Biden comment yesterday is on YouTube so I can't watch it from work to judge context for myself. (I don't know which Scranton TV station it was one to see if their web site has it.)
But per this article on McCain's comments in response, Biden did not give $150,000 as the threshold amount for receiving tax benefits but rather simply as an amount that would (and in comparison with someone making $1.4 million who would not). If that is not an accurate representation of what is in the video I can't currently watch, I'm sure someone will say so. |
He started with, "For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was put in by George Bush, people making an average of $1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic, they're going to get an $87 billion tax break."
Then he says, "[the tax breaks] should go, like it used it, it should go to middle class people, people making under $150,000 a year." So it was either a misphrasing, where he just was using the $150,000 as an example, just as the $1.4 million was an example not a threshold. Or he simply said the wrong number. |
Set those DVRs, Obama will be on the Daily Show tomorrow.
|
The weather kinda helped Obama out. His broadcast is going to be in front of one of the World Series games tomorrow. If Philly had won and it was all over, there would be less of an audience, I think.
|
But with Florida and Pennsylvania both in play, is it really a good idea for him to push the World Series back half an hour?
|
Yeah....I think most fans will be bit annoyed.
|
 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Sorry, but that quote makes me vomit. Just so as not to be accused of racism, it has nothing to do with Rosa or Martin. It's the last part.
|
Very cool quote.
|
I'm with scaeagles. Empty platitude that seems pretty meaningless and not very inspiring to me.
|
Quote:
Edit - SCA replied as I was. Regardless of politics, it is very cool that our country has progressed and a African American can run for POTUS. This event (along with Hillary making it as far as she did) is showing children that they truly can be anything they want to be. |
Who knew you'd be opposed to black astronauts?
(I know, you aren't, but that was the first thing I thought of when I read the quote since "sat", "walk" and "run" were all used somewhat literally.) However, if the Parks and King part don't make you vomit, I'm not sure why the last part does. Unless you see absolutely nothing sociologically significant in a black (or black identifying if you want to question that) president? That said, the quote is overly dramatic in a way that doesn't do much for me personally. But it doesn't turn me off. |
Certainly it is socially significant for a mixed race individual to be on the brink of the Presidency.
I am struggling a bit to put into words exactly why I had the reaction I did. Perhaps I will think more about why exactly and try to respond later. |
I hate it because it immediately put that fvcking, "I Believe I can Fly" song in my head. I hate that sh*t, hate the "flying" imagery, hate the implication that McCain is "bad for children". bleh. It's trite and devoid of substance.
|
It gives me the whole Obama as Messiah feeling that is out there amongst the Obama cultists (please note the word cultists, not general supporters). It portrays Obama as some form of superhero or imparter of all that is good and right and implies that is within the power of the Presidency.
Don't feel like I explained it very well.....even to myself. I'll leave it at it's just blech, and as a parent, i don't think Obama means anything good for my children. I know many parents do, though. This is just me. |
... I believe I can touch the sky...
damn you AND that stupid song. |
Glad that Dave did this but it looks like he just rolled out of bed.
Dave Matthews' Obama Ad lol! :D ETA: Then again, he always kinda looks and sounds like he just rolled out of bed. |
Well, first of all, Rosa didn't have to sit so Martin could walk. Second, the last part is overly optimistic. Third, whether it's politicians or Jesus, I don't like seeing pictures of them ringed with little children as if that adds to their legitimacy.
|
BY MENNEN
|
Obama is on the Daily Show tonight.
|
I have no successfully made it beyond 10:15 pm since getting back from Europe (which kind of sucks but I have been enjoying the extra morning hours from waking up at 4:30) so I'll miss it.
I kind of which he wouldn't do it. I know why he does but I'm not really a big fan of politicians doing comedy talk shows unless they're being very available to the regular press. And since the conventions, Obama hasn't been. |
They replay it the next night at 8 PM. I sometimes catch it then. Or on the internets.
|
Ever since the Al Smith dinner, I'm convinced Obama is better at comedy than at regular oratory.
The Daily Show should be a perfect fit. |
Oh, I have no doubt he'll do fine and be very good on the show. And, when in the mood Stewart and Letterman are well capable of using their comedy context to ask some pretty tough questions.
I just find it diminishing that he won't hold a regular press conference but will do four minutes on Comedy Central. |
Speaking of the Daily Show....
Noooooooo!!!! Has anyone stopped to think what an Obama win coupled with a democratic controlled congress will do to the Daily Show? Dead I say dead. |
Let me get this straight. You think a democratic super majority in congress would be devoid of opportunities for ridicule? What universe are you living in?
|
Quote:
|
Directv uses the east coast feed so the Daily Show comes on at 8:00 (and South Park at 7:00). A down side to watching the Daily Show that early is that my kids are subjected to those damn Girls Gone Wild ads that run after the kiddies go to bed on the east coast.
|
He may not be neutral, but neither is he shy about calling out people he agrees with when they're being stupid. And the Dems will surely have an increased opportunity for stupidity come next session of Congress.
|
So, does anyone know what time the Obama speech is tonight for us folk on the West Coast?
|
According to TiVo's listings it will air at 8PM our time.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are the networks going to break into the Infomercial to cover that? |
Quote:
|
:confused: is it a speech or a Daily Show appearance, or both? Is he blanketing the airwaves or something??
|
Quote:
Link. |
You've missed that Obama has bought the 8-8:30 pm timeslot on many major networks this evening for an infomercial?
|
Yes. He neglected to call me and tell.
Not even a text. I guess when he's president, he'll no longer have any time for me. Le sigh. |
Quote:
|
Wouldn't that be funny if his administration kept up the Twitters?
|
turnabout = fair play, i suppose. :(
|
Quote:
|
I don't think I need to spoilizer this....
I've seen better infomercials. Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the last year or so I can't imagine what was new. Obama stood alone in the live portion nary a Clinton in sight. (A good thing in my book) |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Come along with Snorks. Swim along with Snorks. So much to see waiting for you and me. Have some fun with the Snorks. Play along with the Snorks. Swim along with the Snorks. Happy we'll be living under the sea. Come along with the Snorks If you could breathe underwater where would you go. If you had friends underwater who would you know. Come along, Sing along, Swim along too. Come along with the Snorks. Swim along with the Snorks. So much to see waiting for you and me Swim along with the... Have some fun with the... Come along with the Snorks |
Quote:
|
A couple of notes on last night's Obama infomercial:
1. Kinda boring 2. In an attempt to sway the religious to vote for him, I saw shots deliberately highlighting religion, faith etc. ie. Couple reading the Bible at the table, hugging the lady and saying "I'll pray for you" quote from Obama and the "God bless" twice at the end of his speech. 3. Obama wearing the flag pin during his speech at the end. This ad was definitely aimed at appealing to conservatives. I'm not saying that I agree with it. But it was shrewd. In fact, he said "tree huggers" in his interview with John Stewart. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not, but I also thought that it was a small jab at the Liberal Left for the benefit of appealing to the Right. |
I question the wisdom of doing anything that even you and your supporters call an "infomercial." I thought his "Daily Show" thing tanked. There was nothing substantive, he looked beat, and he repeated the two-day old joke about his daughter's TV needs, drawing no laughs.
|
Quote:
Another point that mousepod brought up that I agree with is that if a person is undecided at this point, they shouldn't vote. If ya don't know by now, it reeks of dinglecheesism. :D |
I loved that he referred to the president as a public service position on Jon. I have a hard time envisioning McCain doing the same and pulling off any sort of sincerity.
|
It wasn't the lighting, he's got a lot of gray up there (in the Al Smith dinner comedy presentation he made a joke about Hillary being the one responsible for all the gray and I remember commenting on it to Lani during the first debate).
|
Just look at what Hillary did to Bill's hair.
|
Sure he's appealing to the right. The left is already voting for him. Shrewd, sure. But to be expected at this point.
And he's been developing a lot of gray hair in the last year, actually. He's beginning to look older. There's a reason that presidents tend to die younger than most; the job involves a lot of stress, pressure, exhaustion. Even for candidates. |
|
Quote:
So, looking at the this table, here is how presidents have met the life expectancy for someone of their age in the year they were elected. Obviously, had to use some extrapolation since not all years and ages are covered. Spoiler:
Conclusion of no particular value. While it may once have been true, there is nothing from the last 60 of presidents to suggest it is still true. I would suggest this is because while the presidency may be more stressful than ever, medical science is vastly superior to that of pre-WWII and presidents also get the best medical care of pretty much anybody in the world. |
Doesn't matter how long they live. They age at 1.73 x the rate of regular humans, and we all see it on TV as they go along.
Barack is just a candidate for pete's sake, and his hair is going prematurely gray as we watch and wonder. |
Quote:
|
That was meant to say "last 60 years of presidents."
47 is hardly prematurely gray. I'm 34 and I think I have more gray hair than him. |
Great new video, in time for Halloween.
|
Quote:
|
|
My roomie just called, Barack Obama's grandmother passed away. Bittersweet for him if he wins. I feel bad, I was really hoping the old gal would make it to the inaugural (or at the very least election day).
:( RIP Toot Sorry for Barack & his family. |
Sad.
:( |
Oh dear. At least he's at a moment now where he can take at least SOME time for himself in the next day to grieve, even if he'll have to put it on hold shortly thereafter. I do not envy what he's going to have to go through.
|
What sad news for his family.
|
Countdown to some wacko suggesting a conspiracy to ensure a few last minute sympathy votes for Obama starts.....now.
|
Too sad. I was watching a biography of Obama just yesterday, and it was cool to see how close he is to his grandparents- after the initial shock of his parent's marriage (both his mother and father's sides were upset at their union) they came to fall in love with their grandson so very, very much. They practically raised Obama, and they should be very proud of the man he has become.
Obama's Ohana |
And the countdown ends here.
(Actually, I have no idea how the serious the suggestion in that thread is -- 24th post or so -- I'm not going to explore the site to find out.) |
Can you say Barack Fairplay Obama?
|
Quote:
I couldn't stand that turd. |
Obama's grandmother got to vote for her grandson before she died. That makes me happy.
Quote:
|
But, will the vote still be counted? How does that work?
|
GC, thanks for posting that. It makes me very happy to read this.
:snap: |
Huh... does your vote count when you're deceased though? (Not like the authorities would actually be able to track down her ballot, heh)
|
Quote:
Sure they can. It has her name on it (well... the envelope, anyway.) |
Hawaii Revised Statute Section 15.13
Quote:
There is the issue of down ticket issues, though, which might be more sensitive to individual votes. |
At least he got one last visit with her. Sad.
|
Depends, I suppose, if the ballots have been removed from the envelopes or not.
|
This is from Obama's Web Site Rapid Response Team:
Guest book for leaving condolences for Obama's grandma: http://www.legacy.com/Obituaries.asp...onId=119723905 |
This blogger spoke to the Office of Elections in Hawaii, which says her vote will be counted, even though the envelope won't be opened until tomorrow. That, however, does seem to contradict what is in the statute so I don't know.
|
I'm sad about Barack's grandmother. :( Just another day or so....*sigh*.
|
I'm sad for their whole family. On the eve of such overwhelming joy that now must be bittersweet at best.
I haven't followed the story closely, so I can only hope that the Grandmother's death was long-anticipated and, in fact, is seen more as a release from a tragic illness than as a terrible cut-off from life. In that way, perhaps the family will be grieving slightly less when meeting the triumph that tomorrow likely brings. |
Quote:
Very sad. Very glad she was able to vote for him. |
Oh, I know she's been very ill for at least the last few weeks. But my own experience leads me to believe it takes an unrelenting illness of many, many months for family members to consider death a blessing and not a curse.
(Of course, the presidency itself is something likely under the category of "be careful what you wish for" ... I hope Obama doesn't find the office a curse either.) |
Well, I managed to decide before I hit the voting booth in about an hour. It's really quite insignificant whether I vote for Obama or cast my personal little protest vote.
But I'm going to vote for Barack Obama. And I'm going to do that .... for Jen. :) On a morning when it stings so much that two friends of mine are voting FOR Proposition H8, I find it appropriate to let the deciding factor for my undecided vote be ... to support a good friend. Jen's quest to see Obama elected president has been one of the most inspiring runs of political optimism I've witnessed. If it's a toss-up for me, I don't see any good reason why I shouldn't come down on HER side. Love ya, Jen. :iSm: (And in truth I feel Obama will make a darshgone good president of these here united states). |
:eek: I'm stunned. Wow.....thanks, Steve. Your post means a lot to me.
Love you, too! :snap: Well, I always said if I could influence just one person it would all be worth it. Oh wait, no, I never said that, I wanted to influence a lot of people. ;) And while I'm at it, thanks to everyone who put up with me these past months. I did hope I was helping somehow, even as I ranted like a born-again nutjob. At the very least, I know that I helped energize my circle of friends, who helped energize their circle, and on and on in a venn diagram that connects all of America together. Watching the campaign and the volunteers do all that it could has been very inspiring and to me is even more proof that a new America is on the rise. My thanks to all of you...and to all of the US of A, too. Guess I wasn't speechless after all. :) |
I'm wearing my Obama t-shirt again today. I'm getting mostly positive responses. mousepod and I passed a couple of carpenters walking down Crescent Heights yesterday and one of them said, "McCain!" We both shrugged them off.
:) |
I heart :iSm:
and CP for all her hard work, it's been inspiring to me. On the way to work, I saw nice fat lines at all the polling spots along my commute route. On the corner of California and Van Ness there were volunteers for No on 8, when I stopped to talk to them I learned they were a recently married pair of cute guys. They, of course, asked if I voted and voted no, I said yes and I got major hugs. It was sweet. |
Quote:
There's an idea I could put to use in WeHo. ;) :D |
|
Quote:
Yesterday, Snow thought the same thing. (Scroll back a few pages).;) |
Quote:
|
Did anyone see the 10-11pm crowd in Manassas, VA last night? I was watching on CSPAN, the speech was much the same as Obama has given over the last few days.
But, in an area very close to where I lived in Warrenton, I was proud and amazed to see a crowd of an estimated 100,000 in what I saw a very red part of the Northern VA on a school night. |
Andrew just shared this with me:
Quote:
|
12 election threads comes home to roost. First Obama's grandmother, now the early New Hampshire results. We are going to cover the same ground over and over because we have 12 different threads on essentially the same subject.
it's going to be a long and repetitive election day. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There was a Polish Republican "operative" outside of Starbucks who told me that if I got free coffee, I'd be deported.
Actually, he said that the plan is to monitor post-election giveaways on the theory that if the voting totals exceed the announced giveaways, then that proves voter fraud. |
Quote:
|
Just read, free cone at Ben and Jerry's tonight between 5&8PM. No sticker required I believe.
|
Quote:
|
But will the lines be longer for that than they were for voting?
(And yes, I've already posited that question in one of the other umpteen election day threads) |
Quote:
:) I couldn't find it in a quick search in any of the threads, I only decided to post it since I thought no one else had... So, believe it or not, we're posting like mad in all 5,734 threads! |
Quote:
|
No stickers required for any of them, if I'm understanding things correctly... Something about a law, yada-yada...
|
Quote:
So free coffee for everyone! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You used to be able to get a free slice at Blondie's Pizza in Berkeley. Don't know if that's still the case.
|
Quote:
|
Something tells me it's going to be a long and repetitive election day.
|
2 hours and 50 minutes until live non-results start streaming in!
|
I wonder how many people actually believe this. Amazing.
Quote:
|
Isn't it interesting how these always seem to come from one side and target the other, but not the other way 'round?
|
I heard rumors of Black Panthers with bats outside polling places and Republican poll observers being kicked out for being Republican. Given the source, without being able to cite sources I don't believe him. I think that would have been all over the news.
|
There are contradicting reports about that.
Fox News says that the black panthers were blocking the door. But one of them was actually an official election volunteer whose job was to guard the door. (The other, who WAS - rather ill-advisedly - holding a nightstick, was his friend; he did leave when asked.) Fox news says that they were intimidating people, and the rumor has expanded to "not letting Republicans in." That's a fallacy in and of itself because how would they know who the Republicans were? You're not allowed to wear paraphernalia or participate in electioneering within 100 feet of the polling place. Quote:
Basically, witnesses are saying that the gentleman who was interviewed by Fox News is full of bull****. Yes, I think it was pretty stupid to hold a nightstick. But the guy seems to be telling racist tall tales since others are repudiating. |
I saw the Faux News report on this, with their usual field reporter speaking in outraged tones style. Made me highly suspect of the facts.
|
Thanks for doing that research H!!
|
If the Republicans aren't paying those guys to dress as Black Panthers, they should.
|
Quote:
|
So at what point does the title of this thread get changed to "Yes we did"?
|
It doesn't. We just start a new tread with that title. iSm would want it that way... :D
|
Or, just "YAY!"
|
Obama wins with just CA, OR, and WA.
Queue the fat lady. This game is over. |
Yes, we did!!!
|
Even though I knew he'd win, I'm still in a state of happyshock. Too cool.:)
|
Bacon for breakfast tomorrow!
Yikes, I can't describe how I feel, except elated! |
Amazing!
|
When I saw President-elect Obama take the stage, the podium, my heart swelled with pride, we have a representative of grace, intelligence, eloquence and level headedness. I was never so proud to cast a vote for President, I've wept like mad tonight, with great joy.
|
I never thought I'd feel this great and this hopeful about a candidate- wait, scratch that- a President. This must be somewhat how Roosevelt and Kennedy supporters felt. It's a wonderful feeling.
|
I admit it, I'm a sucker for stuff like this.
Of course, we just downed a bottle of Chandon, maybe it won't be so inspiring when the champagne headache sets in tomorrow morning...it HAS been a very long day. |
It was so odd to vote for someone I believe in, rather than the lesser of two weasels. It was so amazing to watch him win.
I'm a bit worried about going in to work tomorrow. I wonder if he had a heart attack. |
Lol, BTD!!!!
Can you imagine the hateful vitriol in his e-mails now?? Could be entertaining. |
Quote:
"If you don't like this country, you're welcome to leave." :evil: Gods, I love dishing that back out. |
I actually felt a little bad for McCain during his concession speech. Had to deal with the rude rable he encouraged while he sold out his ideals and his precious honor in an ultimately unsuccessful quest.
And the stuff I've learned about what he was really like during the times I actually liked him can't be unlearned. He has been diminished in a way that wasn't necessary. I wonder if, since he lost anyway, he regrets not remaining the John McCain that the Republican base would have never supported. For all the good it did him to gain that support. I teared up at one point during Obama's speech. But I think it was the part that implied the rights likely denied me tonight in California would be regained someday. He's a powerful speaker when it counts. I will give him the chance to be the powerful president we all deserve and hope for. Good luck, President Obama. Do good by us and by you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Had McCain picked Ridge Had McCain a clue on the Economy Had McCain not went negative So many chances, so many mistakes. It's probably better a guy like that stays in the senate. |
I found McCain's concession speech mostly palatable, but his use of "associations" soured it for me. I know he was trying to speak to those people who were riled up against Obama over Ayers and Wright, telling them to let it go because we're all Americans, but all it did was remind me that HE was the sleazeball who riled them up in the first place.
But enough about that, Yes We Could! I have been foolishly imagining this moment for 4 years. At that convention I saw someone who was everything our leaders, and potential leaders, of the time were not. Experience or no, he seemed to have the head for the job and I'm thrilled the country came to agree. Now don't screw it up! |
Yeah, I found his concession speech to be pretty much on script for every undoubted concession speech ever given. And the audience booing with the loser graciously shushing them is part of that script. But he did it and didn't technically have to, so good for him and time to move on.
And just think, it'll be just two years until we're once again asking ourselves (as a nation) whether a two-year senator -- Palin -- has what it takes to run this country. |
Quote:
|
I can't stop thinking it. Yes, we did.
We - all of us - did this. I know many of you are on Obama's email list but I thought I'd share this, sent just before he went on stage last night. Emphasis mine. Quote:
This is why the "messiah" accusation falls flat in the end, because it's always been a group, a movement, a collaboration of people from all across America. Even in the states Barack lost, there were people trying. There were Dem offices in the most historically red places, places where the blue have feared to even open a storefront in the past 20 years. There's always been a "we" in the campaign. And that "we" isn't going anywhere. Yes, We Did, yesterday, and for months prior - but now there's the ongoing Yes We Can, Yes We Will - make this country better. :) |
from our friends at palinaspresident.us
barackaspresident.com
wonder what will happen next? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Going forward, I am guardedly optimistic. However, it is great that we elected a black man. The best part of the evening was watching and listening to people like Jesse Jackson and John Lewis who were genuinely emotional. I think there is a tendency on the right to assume that men like are about nothing more than cynically exploiting laid-to-rest racial issues for power and political gain.
|
Quote:
|
Sad that Obama had to be encased in a bulletproof aquarium for his speech. A safety precaution, of course. Sad that it unfortunately is necessary.
|
Good luck, Obama! (And, GC, yeah...sad, but necessary.)
And thanks, Heidi and Tom, for hosting a few of us at your homestead last night. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Rushmore, ha. He gets his own mountain. ;) Solid as Barack, hehe.
Seeing Jesse Jackson and Oprah cry like babies was awesome. I think they're jerks, but I realized this was incredible for them, and to see them humanized was amazing. |
Quote:
I'm not glad a black man is President. I'm glad we are a country that is willing to elect a black man. |
One person at the party we attended said he's going to DC for the inauguration. "I don't care if I have to sleep on the street for 2 days, I'm going to be there when it happens." While I can't make it to that, GD and I have talked about visiting DC in the next year. :)
|
Visiting DC made me feel all patriotic and happy. The Lincoln Memorial blew me away.
|
Quote:
|
Oooh outside, in DC, in January. Fun.
|
I'd love to go now too. Hmmm.... A mass LoT trip, perhaps?
|
Quote:
|
I'd love to visit D.C. again. I was so moved by so much of it.
I actually saw the President arrive on the South Lawn of the White House via helicopter. It was Dubya's daddy Bush, so not the best (nor now the worst) of presidents to see, but it was still really cool. I never did tour the White House though. I'd love to go back. While it would be really cool to be there for the inauguration, I would recommend NOT going when the city is going to be ultra crowded. There's so much wonderful Americana to experience ... it would be a shame to be deterred from any of that by impossible crowds at all the shrines, museums, monuments and important sites. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The best thing is going up the center of the stairs. You will see Lincoln staring at you. It's a powerful feeling. I love it. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And I'd never before read or heard the 2nd Inaugural Address ... reading it for the first time with each letter 2 feet high incised in Marble in the temple filled with Lincoln's presence moved me to tears. I'd love to go back to D.C. :snap: |
Yup, I'm still addicted.
Lovely photos. Just look at these ridiculous crowd shots. Wish I could have been to at least one rally. |
If things keep up they way they have been lately, I'll be in D.C. a few times next year.
|
Quote:
:) |
Will Bow Biden at least get a cabinet post or something?
Then we can all be in love with various members of the administration. |
A couple of things folks might enjoy:
First, a Flickr set of behind-the-scens photos from Grant Park on Election Night (http://flickr.com/photos/barackobama...7608716313371/) Second, a 10-minute YouTube video from the Jed Report that encapsulates the most exciting parts of Election Night, including all the major networks calling the win for Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qiRwCuQmZA). Enjoy! |
Quote:
Yay! :) |
Honestly, the Prop 8 stuff absolutely killed any enthusiasm I had for Obama. It isn't a bittersweet feeling at all.
Not that Obama or his campaign had anything to do with Prop 8. But hearing him talk about a new era for America, when we get our rights ripped away, is sickening. The black community is understandably ecstatic about Obama, but they should be horribly ashamed that the very laws and sentiment that led to our first non-(completely)white President they are more than willing to rip away from other communities. I simply cannot be excited about this, it's like a slap in the face. |
I know where you're coming from, Chern, I've had similar thoughts. It doesn't solve anything, but I found the historical perspective I brought up in this post somewhat comforting. It's a long painful struggle, and people are going to make the wrong decisions along the way. But the war can and will be won.
|
Obama's first press conference as President Elect.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001...97527#27597527 |
I would say that bigotry has won this round, but justice will prevail.
|
I'm still plowing through this but it's an amazing read.
Since 1984 Newsweek has been embedding reporters with the candidate's campaigns under the requirement that they not be able to report their findings until after the election is over. The candid reports they have are astonishingly honest and revealing. Chapter 1 of 7. You can't read it all at once but I'm working my way through it. Seeing all the candidates make mistakes and cuss and chafe at the requirements of a race is heartening. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Is that really a Palin quote, or was that made up? If not, OMFrellingG ... even for her.
|
Tom Daschle as Health Secretary... hey, I remember that guy...
|
Quote:
|
I would think so, too. But with Palin ... well, I can never be sure.
|
Obama: Support for the LGBT Community
Here's why despite Prop 8 being passed that I'm hopeful for the gay community in the US:
Quote:
|
<SWOON>
|
I'll believe it when I see it. I can't see any of this being near the top of his agenda, and to act on any of it soon would be the same boondoggle that affected Clinton's early term ... a playbook which Obama seems to be wisely avoiding quite carefully.
So ... yawn for now. Hope for the future. :iSm: |
Obama does not get a free pass from me because he's a Democrat. I plan to be watching this guy as much as Bush when it comes to everything but especially GLBT rights. I hope he keeps his word. But who knows? In the end, he's a politician.
|
Quote:
That said, I am still filled with hope. |
Well, I disagree with the first bullet.
And if the ultimate goal at the federal level is gay marriage and not "separate but equal" domestic partnerships I'm not sure that getting DPs is a good thing because then it will probably be harder to get that last bit. Except maybe insofar as it pushes the Supreme Court to say it is a difference without meaning and therefore needs to be removed. Otherwise, here's hoping. |
Quote:
|
Anybody that wants to give the Obama-Biden administration their input on Energy and the Environment can do so on change.gov right now.
|
Maybe his use of complete sentences will help reverse the dumbing down of the English language.
|
Quote:
|
If you're a Guitar Hero/Rock Band fan, this video is unfathomably astounding.
|
That is pretty amazing, I'm not sure Obama deserves credit though.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Obama is vacationing in Kailua, HI for Christmas. This is the same city I am in. I think he should come visit me, don't you? He needs to get rid of DOMA. I need to tell him that.
|
Invite him over for stew & poi.
(I just gave you the idea for your own business, btw) |
Since I applyed for a job with Obama transition team, I get emails periodically. Here is the latest for your enjoyment.
Quote:
|
|
:mad: WHAT?!?!?!
|
Yup.
|
My brain's frozen on this one. Angry frozen.
Like, let's start with, umm, you couldn't have found a pastor that, oh I don't know, hasn't been picketed?! Like, really? I don't care what the issue is and whether I agree with them or not, that just seems like basic political smarts to me, no? And that's the nicest thing I can say right now. |
I'm so deeply offended by this choice. It's not as if we wouldn't assume that pretty much any preacher involved wouldn't necessarily be pro-gay rights, but this one recorded a video pushing prop 8! Every third sentence, by the way, is an out and out lie.
At least Clinton was president for a while before I became disillusioned. |
Taking the team of rivals concept this far tells me we can expect to see Heath Campbell and little Adolf in the gallery of heroes at the State of the Union.
|
He should have chosen Jeremiah Wright do the invocation.
|
Some people are trying to say, "It's okay, he's chosen Joseph Lowery for the benediction, and he's pro same-sex marriage. So that balances it out."
Fvck that bullsh!t. "Hey, I invited this guy who advocates for the KKK, but I also invited a Rabbi so we're cool, right?" Fail. |
I'm primarily annoyed that at what is essentially a civic ceremony putting into office our leader prayer is even viewed as appropriate.
So having anybody up there irks me in a way, the specific choice just layers onto that. |
Quote:
Oh good grief. The Economy. The War in Iraq. The War in Afghanistan. Jobs. The global environment. Do any of those ring a bell? Is attending to some of these issue just a bit more important that one prayer by some silly preacher 95% of the country has never heard of and will never hear from again? |
I have just sent the following message to... well, whomever it goes to, through change.gov.
Quote:
|
public Tom mojo - that's pretty well how I feel about it - disappointed and really hoping this decision will be rethought.
|
Quote:
|
I heard the news on Stephanie Miller this morning. :mad:
|
I've added my own two cents at change.gov - apparently, they are being swamped with comments - hope someone is listening.
Looks like some pro-lifers are also cheesed about Warren's appearance. Interesting. |
Quote:
Are you giving up on the promise of the entire Obama administration based solely on his selection of Warren for the inauguration? Personally my view is that the the inauguration is just fluff and ceremony. I really don't care who he invites. I care what he does after he is sworn in. |
Well, I did my bit and followed Tom's lead. I do not know if anyone will see it, or if it will make a damn bit of difference. But, Prez-Elect Obama wants people to disagree, and I do and voiced it. There are bigger issues that he is facing, but this is a big issue to me and people I know and love and respect. So I have no problem letting him know, even if he never sees the emails. If enough people send a note, dollars to donuts, he will see it.
|
It may be ceremony, but it is constitutionally mandated ceremony, and the fluff that surrounds it can be a good predictor of how the president will govern. It was, as I recall, with the Reagans.
Here, I submit, he is throwing a bone just for the sake of bone throwing. It need not be thus, and it is not encouraging. |
I'm a little at odds with the "disillusioned" argument, although I understand and agree with the outrage, because I also strongly disagree with this Pastor's views.
First, I've never been under the illusion that Obama supports SSM because he has always made it quite clear that he does not (with the caveat that he also does not support a Constitutional amendment to ban SSM.) Then again, I do not think that is why Obama chose this pastor. I clearly remember Bush coming into office and stating that he was "a uniter, not a divider." It was a good line at the time but the problem was that, once he came into office, he proceeded to build an impenetrable wall of idealogical purity around him. If you disagreed with anything, you were forever on the outside of that wall. And I simply don't want to see that mistake repeated, even if I would happen to be on the inside of that wall. Obama has made it clear that he intends to show respect to all views, even those he disagrees with, and if he is able to do so, it will be the polar opposite of what we have faced for the last eight years. The thing is, you cannot just talk about it, you actually have to do it. You have to show the other side that, even when you disagree, it does not mean that the opposition must be silenced. The sad and harsh fact is that this pastor represents millions of people, who happen to agree with him on this issue. If Obama wants to show that he truly represents ALL Americans and not just those who agree with him, he isn't going to get that point across by only working with people who progressives happen to approve of. And in this instance, it isn't even a matter of working with this pastor, it's simply a gesture that shows that Obama stands by his word. I think a lot of people have the expectation that, by Obama winning, the liberals were going to now be able to tell the other side, "F*ck off, we're doing things our way now." But I'm of the opinion that this really isn't any different from what Bush did, and that isn't what I'm looking for in a leader. I voted for Obama because that is part of the change that I wanted to see. And it is only logical that, as a result, I'm not going to agree with everything that he does. That's the downside of compromise - whoever actually decides to do it is going to piss off a lot of supporters. The good thing is that, unlike some of Bush's actions, this particular gesture holds no weight as far as policy goes. I would rather that a pastor give an invocation that not only will not even mention SSM, but is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That's far better than Obama appointing someone to his cabinet, for example, whose lifelong mission is to overturn Roe V Wade or eliminate stem cell research. I'm more interested in those that actually have power, than someone who I'm opposed to being allowed to recite a short and, in my opinion, relatively meaningless prayer. Personally, I'm against the whole idea of a religious invocation in the first place, in regards to what amounts to a Government ceremony, but it is clear that prayer is going to remain a part of the process for a long time. I see this as a relatively empty gesture, but one that demonstrates to the other side, "You are not going to have your beliefs silenced." I think overall that it was a pretty smart move on Obama's part, because it doesn't compromise any of his positions, but still throws a bone to the religious right of this country, who still comprise a greater segment of the population than many would like to believe. Maybe, just maybe, it is a good first step towards showing that he does indeed walk the walk. And lastly, it should be noted that Obama also chose Joseph Lowery to deliver the closing benediction, a man who has stood for tolerance and civil rights his entire life. While he isn't exactly a gay activist, he is a far cry from what Rick Warren espouses. So no, I'm not disillusioned by this. And I do understand the outrage. I completely disagree with Pastor Warren's views regarding gay marraige, and I find his lies dispicable. But I also don't think that Obama chose him because of his stance on gay marriage, but rather because he is a powerful representitive of the other side of the political spectrum whose support Obama is going to need if he hopes to get anything substantial done. And now I'll don my asbestos undergarments. |
I'm not saying that it doesn't annoy me, but why is everyone surprised? Wasn't Warren the guy who held the "Faith Forum" and sat down on TV with both McCain and Obama? Obama capitulated to the religious right then, just as he is now.
|
I sent my two cents:
"Subject: Rick Warren You've got to be kidding. Preliminarily, I don't know why we need an invocation at a constitutionally mandated civil ceremony. I also realize it's hard to find an evangelical who's not anti-gay. Still, I think you could have picked one who was not in the forefront of a campaign to denigrate the lives of a good many of your supporters. This calls to mind the two occasions I wrote to President Clinton. The first time was when the pastor leading the invocation solemnized the proceedings in the name of Jesus Christ. The second was when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Both times "he" wrote back saying that he agreed with my positions and opposed discrmination and divisiveness, but that he had done what he had done. No principled defense whatsoever. Inviting Rick Warren to speak strikes me as similarly unprincipled and indefensible. It is bone throwing for the sake of bone throwing. It is easily seen through, and it is not encouraging." |
Quote:
There are hundreds of pastors that the religious right could have been perfectly happy with that have not gone out of their way to support something Obama has said he's supposedly against (amendment against same-sex marriage). There are options out there that have not said things controversial enough to draw angry protests. By choosing Warren, he's saying more than "I'm not going to ignore the beliefs of religious people," it gives the impression that he's saying that the protests don't mean anything and that Warren's lies are perfectly valid. |
Quote:
RW disgusts me on so many levels. I work right by his mega-churchpound. A large percentage of my co-workers go there and spout his drivel. For me, to hear that RW is going to be speaking to the entire country makes me want to claw my ears out. MBC has made an excellent point. It is really just a speech and I would be much more worried if he was appointed to a position that has power. That isn't to say that RW will not have influence over this administration. I know Obama personally isn't pro-SMM but it's enough that he's anti-banning amendment. Yet, to have someone who promoted such lies and hatred in their congregation in the name of god be given a prime-time pulpit in the name of the country just makes me so disgusted. I'll be sending a letter tonight. |
Quote:
Quote:
I was hoping for a bigotry-free white house. But I can surmise that we'll see a lot more of Warren for the next 8 years, and this makes me unhappy. I'd love to chat more, but I have to go to work. |
Obama Defends Invocation by Conservative Pastor
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm angry, I sent my 2 cents in, I even posted it on my my.barackobama site.
That said, I am resigned to the fact that Obama wants to talk to everyone, and wants to alienate no one. Remember how angry people got at his willingness to talk to enemy heads of state? This can be seen as a similar conundrum. Interesting perspective. Can't say I totally agree but there's some truth in there to Obama's MO. I'm not happy, though. |
I'm sorry, there's a difference between acknowledging and talking to everyone vs. affording someone a place of honor. You can do the former without doing the latter.
|
To me, it's like inviting a KKK leader to speak. Completely unacceptable.
|
I agree that this is an incredibly poor choice. I hope people make that loud and clear for Obama and his team of advisers- this is no more acceptable than it would have been were Rev. Wright chosen for the task. Very, very disappointed here.
|
Well since I've already offered an unpopular opinion, I'll go ahead and offer another.
The day will come when gay people have the right to marry, I'm sure of that. It will not come by way of anger though. It will not come by way of shouting at and insulting those that disagree. Nobody has ever changed their opinion after being yelled at. Rather, it gives them further justification for their opinion, misguided as it may be. It gives them the ability to band together even more fervently and grind everything to a halt. And until people realize this, change is going to be an excruciatingly slow process. I know plenty of religious people that found it in their heart to vote against Prop 8, because they understood that it was the right thing to do, even if their religion told them otherwise. And I heard many of these same people say, once the protests started, that they were no longer sure that they had voted correctly. For regardless of their vote, they were all demonized just for belonging to a church that, in many cases, they disagreed with on this issue. And I have to wonder, if the vote was held again today, would the votes for prop 8 decrease or actually increase, based on the subsequent anger that was shown towards anyone who dared to belong to one of these churches. I think that achieving gay rights is a vital cause. But, at the risk of offending people, I think the way people are going about it is too often misguided at best, harmful at worst. It's kind of like what I tell some of my religious friends - when you get in people's faces and tell them they are horrible, you alienate and turn off far more people than you convert. Often, I think we are guilty of the same thing. For left to their own devices, the church was doing a piss-poor job of keeping their bigotry alive. Each year, more and more people were supporting gay rights, because their heart told them something different than the church was telling them. In my opinion, change was moving more quickly than it is now. And then, when Prop 8 failed to be defeated, things got mighty ugly and through their anger and disappointment, many opponents of the Proposition began going way over the top in their insults towards religious people. I honestly think the nasty reaction to the aftermath of Prop 8 potentially set progress back by 5 years. And that really sucks. As far as Obama goes, rumor has it that he is considering appointing the first openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy. He also made a campaign promise to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military. And should he succeed, it is going to royally piss off plenty on the other side. On the flip side, Obama is giving a man with an opposing viewpoint the time to say a three minute prayer. Sounds like, overall, one side is going to eventually make out far better here as a result of Obama's presidency and it isn't the pastor's side I speak of. I will wait before I demonize Obama on this issue. I want to see what he has in store first. Finally, my intention honestly is not to demean everyone who was involved in these protests. I understand where their hearts were, I understand their disappointment and anger, of which I most certainly shared. And most importantly, I understand and dearly appreciate that the reason they stood there with those signs was to help me achieve the same rights as everyone else. But I don't think that the specific signs that ridiculed people with religious beliefs, or boycotts that had the potential of hurting good employers, or refusing to be a guest at a straight person's wedding are the answers. I think they are reactions based on anger and pain alone, rather than ideas that are ever going to be truly effective. I see some of this as a massive PR failure. Again, I agree with the cause; I don't agree with many of the tactics that I've seen, even if I sympathize with the reasons behind them. |
MBC, what a great post. I could almost take that word for word but change the subject matter to abortion to express my feelings toward that.
It's funny how everyone wants a big inclusive tent until there's something that's offensive to them, then it's no longer something that can be discussed in a raitonal manner. This goes for all extremes of the political spectrum. |
I agree with much of MBC's post and am especially grateful for the chance to have "In the Navy" playing through my head in what is otherwise a pokey mornning.
Today it is reported that, as with the death penalty, we are once again a light to the world as, alone among western nations, we have refused to sign a non-binding UN resolution recommending that laws criminalizing homosexuality be repealed. We supposedly cited "legal concerns." I'm not a big fan of nonbinding resolutions, but it would be nice to hear Obama say that he agrees with the substance of the resolution. |
People may not change their minds after being yelled but governments frequently do (and all I really care about is government). But I do agree that many aspects of the protests have been misguided from a PR angle.
If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way. As for the big tent it doesn't strike me as surprising that the symbolism of a purely symbolic invitation is being taken seriously. Quite clearly the calculus was that upsetting one smaller group that has nowhere else to go politically (it isn't like the gay lobby can run to the Republicans with their support) was acceptable to mildly appease a larger group that barely supports him. If his ultimate real actions are good and this loosens the ropes for him to accomplish those goals then it'll have been a properly placed bet. But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics. |
Quote:
1) He was not paying enough attention to the Prop 8 reaction to realize the impact of his selection of Rick Warren. or 2) He knew full well what the impact would be and decided, "Eh, those whiners aren't important enough." Either one says that he simply does not care about the movement for gay rights, and either one deserves a loud response that everyone will hear. Of course, there's always the conspiratorial 3rd option. 3) Conscious of the unsurprising drop in momentum after the initial surge of protests, Obama wanted something the movement could rally around and get energized again, so he selected Warren knowing it would piss people off and get them to the streets again. Quote:
|
Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
This whole thing is just more of the O'Reilly definition of "fair and balanced". It's the fallacy that to be "fair" and "accepting" one has to give equal weight to all viewpoints. There's a difference between allowing everyone the opportunity to state their views vs. having to take them all seriously. |
Quote:
|
On a slight tangent, I spent an ill advised amount of time in the trenches over at Change.gov in the comments section.
First off, it was a pleasant surprise to see that the level of discourse there was well above average for blog comment threads. Well above. Even at its nastiest, people remained relatively civil and well spoken, on both sides. What was particularly gratifying, though, was that the people defending the selection, and ultimately defending the ban on gay marriage, were doing a great job of proving my point for me, namely that opposition of same sex marriage is rooted in religious dogma and nothing else. Here is how every single one of the conversations I got into over there proceeded: Me (or some other like minded commenter): Angry at the choice of Warren Defender: You're not being inclusive. Besides, he's just defending his beliefs. [insert bad analogy that equates supporting same-sex marriage with preventing religious freedom] Me: Actually, no, Warren's free to believe whatever he wants still, he's just not free to legislate it Defender: ....Oh yeah? Well God said gays are icky! Me: That's nice. Good thing god didn't write the Constitution. Not a basis for law. Thanks for playing. Defender: ............ Over and over again in various forms, the most common alternate form being, "Marriage has always been that way!" leading to the simple miscegenation rebutal. Without fail, no matter how rational they were trying to be, they all eventually had to fall back on, "Oh yeah, well God said so!" And once I called them on that, they never responded. It was frustrating to see so many people willing to legislate religious doctrine. But it was comforting to see in practice what I had known in theory, that when pressed, religious doctrine is all they have to stand on. And that when you finally force them to face the fact that they're trying to get "God said so" into the constitution, they shut up. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But if we are EVER going to get away from the deep political divides that are fracturing this country, that can only come from giving BOTH sides a little respect. Bush said he would do that and failed miserably because he never really meant it. Obama apparently means it, and I'm hopeful that some good can come from it, even if it means that a guy that I disagree with is allowed to give a three-minute prayer on national TV, especially considering that I highly doubt this invocation will mention one word about gay marriage. |
For the record, I would have been nearly, if perhaps not equally, as disgusted if he had, instead of Rev. Lowrey, chosen Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
I voted for Obama because I hoped he would move away from propping up loud mouthed egos who have vested interests in continuing to polarize the country. Rick Warren is one, Jesse Jackson is one. It's not about respecting viewpoints with those personalities. It's about no longer telling the American people that these blowhards should be looked up to. |
I listen to my co-workers talk about RW and they think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's seriously scary how much influence this man has over his followers. Not his religion, him. He could easily form a cult, and in a way he has.
The more I think about it, it's not really a bad move. By inviting him to speak, Obama can get RWs followers across the country to think Obama won't be so bad, because after all, Obama invited RW to speak at his inauguration then they may be more likely to accept Obama and the decisions he is going to make setting him up for a more effective Presidency. It may help remove the "Democratic party = anti-god and anti-country" stigma that was so well perpetrated by the last Administration. We tend to forget that we live in, and are surrounded by a mostly politically liberal population. The rest of the country isn't so progressive. It's "that rest of the country" that needs to be eased into a more liberal administration after having 8 years of their god-law President. It would not be effective for Obama to go "ok, I personally think gay marriage is wrong but I want the Supreme Court to find a way to add gay marriage is to be allowed in all 50 states to the Constitution" right away. That would just piss off his opposes and those looking at him to fall on his face. It's sad that starting out of the gate he's made such a poor choice in the eyes of us, but much like selecting Hillary as the SoS, this may be a politically savvy move. |
Quote:
And I don't think that Obama is saying that you should look up to this man. He has made it clear that he disagrees with many of this pastor's viewpoints. I think he is simply saying "I'm going to give someone I disagree with the opportunity to be seen." And considering that millions of people already look up to this guy, I hardly think that this prayer is going to make much difference. And hey, there is always that small chance that this guy will decide to make a political statement while doing this and say something really stupid. That might actually change some minds as to whether he should be looked up to or not. I've always felt that the best thing one can do is let these people keep talking and talking and eventually, given enough rope, they will hang themselves by saying something that nobody agrees with. |
Quote:
|
To me, all it does is legitimize him. "See, even your precious Obama is willing to give his views serious consideration."
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I ask just to establish if you agree there is a line, in which case we're just arguing over where it is. Or whether are arguing about the existence of the line in the first place. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't believe that I ever said that not choosing Warren to give this invocation would be akin to silencing him. He is clearly not being silenced as can be seen by the millions of people that follow him, whether he appears at the invocation or not. But for many Americans, they are fearful that their voices will be silenced by an Obama administration and I think this gesture acts to diminish those fears. And again, my point is simply that allowing someone to voice their opinion is not the same thing as agreeing with that opinion. |
You're comparing CNN to Fox ratings not O'Reilly's against himself. For a while Olbermann was competing with O'Reilly in ratings but since the election it has gone back to what it was before: O'Reilly is the top rated political show on cable TV.
You say he is safely contained. That may be, but that is all he ever was. There is no evidence that he has lost any significant audience due to people who liked him suddenly realizing he is an oaf. Sure, there may be a more vocal larger group of people who think he is an oaf but they aren't converts to that position. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
On the other hand . . . maybe as a practical matter, it would be a good thing if we returned to the Billy Graham "pastor-to-the-president" model where it was enough for the evangelical community to feel that they had the president's ear. I'm not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle, though.
|
Quote:
I'm not sure if I believe there is a line or not, because I tend to think that there is no stance unworthy of consideration. There are many that upon examining, I would completely disagree with, but I'm certainly not going to pretend that they don't exist, especially in cases when half of the nation agrees with them. A guy like Fred Phelps, who has a handful of followers, I'm not much concerned with him because he has no power. Millions of people in lockstep do have power though, significant power. That doesn't make their view any more acceptable in my opinion, but it makes it far more worthy of acknowlegement. And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work. Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further. Warren showed a bit of respect to Obama by allowing him to speak at his church even though he disagreed with him on just about everything, and Obama is responding in kind - saying I do not agree with you but I will show you the same respect you showed me. Maybe that will have a positive effect and maybe it will not, but if nothing else, it shows that Obama is a man of his word. That's a lot more than I can say about the guy currently occupying the White House. |
It's hard not to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room. However, if you look at the history of civil rights in this country, I don't know how much progress was made via respectful dialogue with the man on the street. We had the Civil War. We had Truman deciding to integrate the armed forces. We had the litigation that culminated in Brown. We had Kennedy and Johnson who made it their business to cram the Civil Rights Act down the throat of half the country. We had schools that integrated with the aid of the National Guard. We had civil disobedience in the south, and riots in the north.
Eventually, much as Archie Bunker did when the Jeffersons moved next door, people learned that mixing with black people and treating them equally was okay. I heard a similar piece on NPR recently about a small town coping with the influx of immigrants. Hostility initially, then everybody's cheering for their kids' soccer teams. I agree that change is coming, but it will come from exposure as people know more gay people and see more positive images of gay families to balance out the images of Folsom Street that weird them out. But, now, just hearing people out on theoretical issues isn't going to do anything than give people the pleasure of hearing themselves talk and dig in their heels. |
Quote:
Quote:
I agree a political decision was made: it is better to please this group and piss off that group than to pick someone neither side would have remarked upon. In the long term it may prove to be good politics. For me, there is a line in the sand. You are free to hold whatever opinions you wish, but there is a point at which I, personally, will not do anything help prop you up so you can continue expounding on them. Now, for Obama this is probably easier since he does not support gay marriage so for Obama and Warren the question is merely how far they'll go in arguing against it. So, it is good politics? Quite possibly. Is it still a big **** you to a significant portion of the gay community? Yes. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
They became laughingstocks among those who already disagreed with them, I don't dispute that.
I would strongly contest that either became impotent within the power circle they had. And how they were viewed in larger circles did little to change that. So that is what I am contesting, that by granting visibility and an airing of views this will somehow lead those who already agree with Warren to potentially change their views. That is what I am asking for an example of. Are there people who laugh at Limbaugh? Absolutely, does that number go up the more mainstream exposure he has? Absolutely. Does that increase in a number represent a diminishment of him? Absolutely not. |
Hmm...
I'm caught up with this discussion. I know I'm in the complete minority here, but I APPLAUD Obama for doing what he did. He knows exactly what the hell he's doing. He's a shrewd politician. He spends two years campaigning on the importance of a UNITED States of America, and the first time he reaches out to a demon, you guys are all immediately all jumping all over him. I say you're all wrong. OK, I agree, it's OK to be upset. It's OK not to like Warren. It's OK to feel disgusted that he's going to give the invocation. But in my opinion, Obama did NOT make a mistake. Period. Quote:
Quote:
Listen, Prop 8 passed. Telling other liberal people to support gay marriage until you're blue in the face isn't going to help. You need to convince the people who voted YES to CHANGE THEIR FRICKEN MINDS. If you dig in your heels and refuse to even be a part of the ballgame, how can you expect to win?!? Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. I think Obama continues to impress me with this shrewdness. |
Quote:
|
While I can see some logic in the selection of Warren, it still disgusts me to think about him getting exposure. I know I'm not going to agree with everything Mr. Obama does, but this is icky.
|
Ugh, I feel awful about the whole thing. It's just like election day all over again. I couldn't enjoy that because Prop 8 passed, and now I won't enjoy the inauguration. :(
I understand and empathize with the arguments of both sides. I feel a knee-jerk reaction to defend Obama, because I feel he's a smart guy who wouldn't do this without knowing the implications, and must have meant well. Yet I feel so angry that someone who pushes hate was selected for this honor. He could have picked anyone else. Then I think, most ministers/pastors/whatever have the same point of view anyway. Then I get angry that there is a religious ceremony involved at all. SEPARATE! CHURCH AND STATE! I want to chant it out the window at the top of my lungs. And when people say it "legitimizes" Warren, I keep thinking about how people reacted regarding talking to enemy leaders. Warren is an enemy leader. But there's a difference between talking to him and inviting him to a place of honor. Right? Around and around. I just hope that O knows what he's doing. That this really will comfort "the enemy" to the point where we can all talk as Americans......and we can destroy their way of life :evil: No, seriously, I do want everyone at the table, but.....ugh. Just WHEN do I get to enjoy Obama's victory?? :( Maybe once he gets something real happening as President? I'm saving my confetti and noisemakers for then. |
I was disgusted at first, but only because I really dislike Warren and despise his brand of religion. But, I can see where Obama is going with this and I think I'm going to put some faith in him. If Warren's inclusion draws an audience that wouldn't otherwise be there to hear his message, then that's a good thing.
|
Quote:
I know plenty of people who have changed their mind over the years, and it was never as a result of force or ridicule. It was a result of realizing they were wrong because the issue was finally personalized for them, for lack of a better word. Sure, you can force people to comply through the force of law, and often that is necessary, but those people won't do so willingly and, in fact, it is unlikely to change their underlying prejudice. There are still plenty of racists out there who still detest people of color because that is what they have been taught at an early age. They might not be able to discriminate against them in the workplace, but that doesn't stop them from occassionally dragging them from the back of a pickup truck when nobody is watching. My opinion is that it is better in the long run to try and change minds through dialog, rather than force because only the former results in true change. Edited to add: And even using force to change things requires every vote we can muster. And the ones that already agree with the cause simply don't have the numbers yet. Changing people one at a time becomes even more vital when it comes to the bigger fight. There is simply no way to get this legislation passed unless a significant amount of people on the opposing side can be convinced to change their vote. Calling them names, yelling at them and boycotting their weddings simply isn't going to accomplish that. Anger rarely changes anyone's mind, which was my original point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Let me be clear.If Obama said, "I've invited Warren and other community leaders from a around the spectrum on the issue to begin a dialog," I'd have no problem with that. But selecting him for a position of honor in a public ceremony is beyond simply having a dialog.
|
Quote:
Upon further reflection, that round table discussion isn't even possible, as long as people are so entrenched in their positions that they are unwilling to even take a seat at that table. Perhaps this move gets them to consider taking that seat. |
People like Warren have no desire to compromise on gay rights. It's foolish to think you can ever change minds that are set in concrete.
|
Just going in circles of course, but I have no problem with "a dialog." This is not a dialog or even really an opportunity to start one.
There is a big difference between "hey, I'd like to talk to you about how we can go about getting you some reasonable religious opinions" and "since I hope someday you'll be a preacher that's a bit less of an ass I'd like you to officiate my wedding." Of course, I'm still peeved that religion is being brought into a civil governmental event to begin with (and yes, I know it hardly the only religion stuff that will be on display that day). |
Quote:
Besides, who cares, in the grand scheme of things, if his mind is changeable? Change enough people's minds in his congregation and it really doesn't matter. |
Yeah, but you don't see Obama inviting David Duke to speak
|
Quote:
Quote:
Really, what is the alternative here? That he choose a mainstream religious leader that supports gay marriage? Is there an abundance of those that I'm unaware of? But, assuming one exists that carries even a fraction of the same influence that Warren does, let's say that Obama chooses this person. Those who already support gay marriage might be pleased, but it further alienates Obama from the opposition that he is trying to reach. There is no advantage that I can see because the divide between the two sides only widens. Quote:
|
Quote:
And if both sides are upset, I tend to think Obama is on to something. |
I suppose you have an argument there. But Obama cannot be ignorant of the extremely raw feelings following the November election, so it does smack of a stab in the back.
|
Quote:
But anyway, let's move on since Obama's choice of poet for the event has been announced. The presence of poetry really offends me. |
Quote:
|
If the gay lobby will be mollified when Obama ends Don't Ask/Don't Tell, won't the anti-gay people pleased by Warren's praryer be similarly put aback?
In other words, doesn't this invocation by Warren really only have a chance of working at gradually changing minds if Obama chooses to NOT do anything of significance to advance gay issues in the near future? |
Quote:
|
Again, I'm not opposed to that (reaching across differences). I just don't think this is the correct forum for it. The inauguration is not a dialog it is a elevation of honors (to Obama and to the people he selects for it).
But despite our arguing I do think we agree in most other respects. |
Quote:
One of my biggest pet peeves about our government is that nobody ever really tries to do what is right anymore, they simply do everything they can to win the next election, and that usually means appeasing their base no matter what. And I don't like it, even if I happen to be on the side now that would benefit from the appeasing. And this "party before country, we're always right and you are always wrong" crap will continue until someone actually has the courage to put a stop to it. I'm hoping that day has come and I'm even willing to take a slap in the face for the cause. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Hatred is wrong. People who preach hatred shouldn't be appeased or honored, they should be opposed and marginalized.
|
Yeah, even though this time it's my turn to be appeased by my president, and I'm glad he's not doing it, does he really have to go that far over to the other side? I want to trust him... but ... ugh.
Do what's right... I know, I know. But why is "right" feeling so repugnant? Isn't doing right supposed to feel good? |
To me, what's "right" would be Obama telling Warren that homophobia has no place in his inauguration.
|
So much to say about Warren at the Obama block party inaugural bash but no time to do it. Will post later.
:) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's why I brought up Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Can you imagine the response from the right if he had selected either of them? It would make this reaction seem tame. And rightly so, those two are attention-grabbing blowhards. I do not subscribe to the belief that being tolerant means respect every person with an opinion willing to shout loud enough. |
Quote:
It sounds good to state that hatred is wrong (and clearly it is) but it is also clear that you don't understand that they don't see what they do as hatred, which is much different from the civil rights movement where people hated and were damn proud of it. And until these followers of people like Warren can be convinced that they are hurting people rather than helping people, nothing changes. Sure, you are unlikely to sway him away from his convictions but the same is obviously not true of ALL of his followers, otherwise people wouldn't have taken a different course of action in the voting booth - and I personally know people from his congregation that did not vote "yes" on Prop 8. That is where the focus needs to be. So marginalize them all as haters by proxy at your own peril. You just might get your wish and change their minds back before the next time a proposition comes around. Do you honestly think we can afford to lose votes from the "opposition" at this stage of the game? Because that is exactly what is going to happen by continuing to demonize him, refusing any sort of dialog, and thereby turning off those that were on your side to begin with. It is already happening. |
Quote:
A member of my family might be in the wrong about something, and you might be able to convince me of that fact through reasonable discourse, but if you start out by insulting them and demonizing them, then right or wrong, you are going to bring my defenses up because they are still my family. And the likelihood of you swaying me from that point on has just diminished greatly. Telling me that you are concerned about my father's drinking and telling me that my father is a no good stinking drunk are going to be met with very different reactions, even if the latter holds more actual truth than the former. |
Quote:
2) For the zillionth time, this isn't about completely ignoring Warren and never speaking to him and never including him in the conversation. It's about the choice to honor him. Alex nailed it perfectly with the wedding officiant analogy. I don't expect Obama will completely shun Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I know for sure he's still meeting with them, listening to them, and taking what they have to say into consideration. But boy am I glad he chose Lowrey instead of either of those two egotitstical blowhards. THAT'S the change I wanted from Obama. To stop using the extremists as symbols. To stop the lie that "If I show that I'm honoring loud mouths from both sides, then I'm being inclusive and fair." It's a charade and it doesn't help, it continues to validate the loud mouths. |
Quote:
If those in power treat hate and discrimination as something normal (and honor those who espouse it), then it is given validation. If those in power treat hate and discrimination with contempt, people become shamed into ending it. |
You're all right.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I heard someone yesterday say that Bush would have done the exact opposite - give someone completely innocuous the role of performing the invocation, then putting a raging homophobe in a position of power in his administration. And, in fact, he tried his best to do so with regard to the Surgeon General. I much prefer Obama's tactics - let the bigot have his 3 minutes of prayer time (perhaps to lessen the approaching sting?) and then put openly gay people in positions of power. Which way do you think has more damaging repercussions? Would a perfect world mean that Obama did those things and also didn't give Warren this role? Perhaps it would. But Obama doesn't strike me as someone who makes decisions lightly and without forethought, and I have to believe that there is a bigger picture here. |
Quote:
Quote:
And if this is such a grand and meaningful honor, can you tell me (without looking it up) who the last three pastors were to give inaugural invocations? In my opinion, this is nothing but a token gesture that, in and of itself, is relatively meaningless. And had Warren not been given all of this wonderful press exposure leading up to this day, I suspect it wouldn't have been very long before everyone forgot who gave this particular invocation either. Doesn't sound like much of a meaningful honor to me. |
I understand WHY he thinks it's a good idea. I do not agree with the reasoning. He's smart, he's not infallible.
|
To elaborate, the reasons that have been given in support of the decision are the same reasons that have been given for the last decade+ that have resulted in more and more polarization. They're the same reasons that allow the loudest, most radical representatives of a given position be the ones that are given the most credence. And they're the very things I voted for Obama to get away from.
He had the opportunity here to put on the national stage a religious leader who is against gay marriage but has been reasonable in their actions and their discourse. THAT would have been real change. THAT would have been progress towards resolution. He chose instead the status quo. Feeding the cycle by propping up the one of the key figures responsible for the divisiveness, based on the flawed logic that appeasing a vocal minority is the way to mend bridges. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
He did after all, nominate an Attorney General who was heavily involved or, more accurately, insufficiently involved, in the Clinton decision to pardon Marc Rich. We'll certainly hear more about that in the confirmation hearings. |
I'm certainly not trying to suggest infallibility. I'm just saying that he doesn't strike me as someone who made this decision without giving it some thought first. And based on what I've seen from him so far, I've been pretty impressed. So I'm willing to cut him some slack and see where this leads. Time will tell if the positive outweighs the negative.
|
Hey Christophobes! I've got your most recent installment of Pastor Rick's News and Views over at the Prop 8 thread.
Thanks, Americablog! |
FYI, Gene Robinson: Gay Bishop Giving Obama Inauguration Prayer.
|
Quote:
I'm debating weather to go down for this one or not.... (Yes, that was an intentional use of the word 'weather'. January means something in these parts...) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Hey, don't bash on my warm weather! The warmness is why I put up with the expense and the crowds!
|
I was going to make a joke (but not a good one) about Gay Bishop being a better choice than Joey Bishop. But he's dead and that would be disrespectful.
|
Quote:
:D |
Quote:
|
They posted the performers for the Lincoln Memorial event...
Anyone ever heard of this "Garth Brooks" fellow? |
Quote:
|
He's still alive? I thought he was dead...
|
Quote:
|
Obama's speech today at the Lincoln Memorial. Short, sweet and powerful.
He's amazing. :) |
The Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl.
Obama really does bring change. |
Four years ago when the economy was fine, there was expressed disgust at some 40 million being spent on the inauguration activities. This time around, with a horrid economy, why is 100 million considered OK?
|
Bread and Circuses - during bad times no one wants to be reminded they're in bad times
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I have no idea, I expressed no disgust last time.
But I suspect it is the same "my **** smells like roses but yours smells like ****" thing that's pretty standard. Were you bothered by the expense last time that it bothers you now or are you just expressing upsettedness on behalf of others? |
Really, it's more criticism of the media than anything else. It's not anyone here - I don't recall much about it if anything posted here. The NY Times, BBC, and AP all had stories ripping the expense of it in 2004, but I haven't read any distress about this now.
I don't really care - he won, let the party go on for those who want to celebrate. Edited to add: To be fair, I did just come across an AP article in which I found something amusing - Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Is it criticism you noticed on your own or criticism you're echoing from the link on the front page of the Drudge Report?
I ask because so far I've seen several articles criticising the cost of this inauguration, though in Op-Ed form (just as, if it was criticism, it must have been in the NY Times, BBC, and AP) from those ideologically opposed to the person spending the money. The complainers seem to have switched sides as so often happens. That said, the article linked from Drudge is from the AP, so presumably they should be off your list of potential hypocrites. Though it only names two people who criticized the 2005 inauguration (and a quick search to find articles from 2005 also only ever name the same two people as complaining about the cost) and doesn't seem to make any attempt to get their opinions this time around to see if they are being inconsistent. |
Loved the performance by U2!
|
Quote:
What I found was relatively consistent with what I'd heard, but figured I should give full disclosure and cite one I had seen in the search since I had been critical of the AP. |
As I told my mother, who gets all of her issues, good and bad, from conservative talk radio, this is one of those issues on which Obama would be dumped on no matter what he did. If he had put on a low frills bash, he'd have been criticized for demeaning the high office of the presidency and bringing down the morale of the country at a difficult time.
|
So is the criticism about money or about putting on a big party while at war? (I just noticed you added to your post while I was responding to it, but the segment you quoted is about extravagant displays during war.)
|
Please be clear I have no criticism of the events, as I think I stated. I have always (as is known here) seen the mainstream media as having a left wing bias, and i think the lavishness of the Obama inauguration - now thought to be almost 4 times as expensive as the 2005 - being given not nearly the same scrutiny as a President they all despised (well, most of them did). It's "we like Obama, so spending lot of money is OK".
I fear that no matter what happens during the Obama administration will be glossed over as acceptable becuase they like him. Another example is whomever his choice is for Secretary of the Treasury...the man did not make honest mistakes, IMO. He dodged paying taxes. However, I am not aware of calls for him to withdraw the nomination. Strangler, politics is such that of course that will happen, and it happened to Bush all the time. I've been withholding numerous ciriticsms of Obama and the dems at present....this is just fluff, and a jab at the media and particular elected members of Congress who were so vocal in their opposition to the money spent in 2005, not Obama. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thanks for the link, MBC. :snap:
|
Yes, thanks.
So current estimates are that the Obama inauguration will cost $3 more than Bush's. I guess we're just left with the hypocrisy of two congressional Democrats not complaining about it. |
Well, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Is he wasting money, or pouring money into the economy? Six of one these days...
|
Gene Robinson's invocation:
Quote:
|
Quote:
and a bit off topic here, but did anyone see the sunset tonight? Most beautiful one i have seen in 8 years ;) |
Quote:
|
You're moving the goalposts. If you said it so simply to start, I'd have no real issue. I still don't think you're quite accurately describing the objections over cost (they weren't simply financial). But it is the inclusion of fraudulent supporting facts that prompted argument.
Also, I have no issue with National Review nor Media Matters nor Fox News nor Instapundit. When they present sourced facts they present positions that can be rationally debated. When they don't, then they can't be. But simply being from one of those sources does not make facts any less. I'm sorry you filter yourself only to sources you perceive will slant the facts to your preference. |
Quote:
Pfft. Ha! The new conspiracies start. :cool: |
Quote:
|
I'm apparently feeling harsh today. The fact that I have twice posted and then felt I should come back and remove or soften what I've said is strong indicator that today shouldn't be an internet day for me.
So I'm pancaking this and will move on. |
Wolf Blitzer and Keith Olbermann are locked in a fierce battle to show who is the bigger idiot.
Right now my money is on Wolf for "And to all a good night" as Bush's helicopter was circling. |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
 |
Quote:
Happily, I do not do their work, but UGH, that's just awful and silly and more than a little creepy. |
I think I want to call it Chibama.
|
Ch-ch-ch-chia!
The effrontery! It doesn't even look like him. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.