OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Beer and Queso => Topic started by: Lurch on August 29, 2008, 01:39:00 pm
-
I don't get it.
-
It's a Hail Mary play for disaffected Hillary supporters, and it won't work.
-
She likes to hunt, fish, and screw. They could have done a lot worse.
-
It's a Hail Mary play for disaffected Hillary supporters, and it won't work.
It's the 3rd quarter in a 3 point game. Absurd.
-
Why do they assume Hillary supporters only liked her for being a female? That bugs the crap out of me. People assuming I vote for someone based on their gender.
-
Why do they assume Hillary supporters only liked her for being a female? That bugs the crap out of me. People assuming I vote for someone based on their gender.
As opposed to, say, skin color.
-
Why do they assume Hillary supporters only liked her for being a female? That bugs the crap out of me. People assuming I vote for someone based on their gender.
While I certainly wouldnt believe all (or even most) supported her based on gender, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to believe that a healthy number did, and I wouldnt fault such voters for it. I think it's a good idea to have a female on the ticket, it just seems there were several other great options that could have had more impact.
-
Why do they assume Hillary supporters only liked her for being a female? That bugs the crap out of me. People assuming I vote for someone based on their gender.
You overestimate the appeal of Hillary for many of her supporters.
-
While I certainly wouldnt believe all (or even most) supported her based on gender, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to believe that a healthy number did, and I wouldnt fault such voters for it. I think it's a good idea to have a female on the ticket, it just seems there were several other great options that could have had more impact.
and I fault them for that.
-
You overestimate the appeal of Hillary for many of her supporters.
Bill was her appeal? We'd get to see more of Bill?
-
As opposed to, say, skin color.
Pissing me off as much as those that voted for Hillary because she is a she.
-
Bill was her appeal? We'd get to see more of Bill?
No. I was getting at the point that Lurch made far more elegantly.
To the same point, I have had several of my African-American co-workers tell me that the only reason they were voting for Obama was the color of his skin. Including some that swear up and down they are conservative.
When I've questioned that line of thinking, the most honest response was, "He's Doug Williams. When there were no black quarterbacks, you wanted Doug Williams to win that superbowl. Once he had done it, you could go back to picking the best quarterback for your team."
Can't say I agree, but I understand, kind of.
-
You overestimate the appeal of Hillary for many of her supporters.
18 million people didn't vote for her just because she has a vagina.
-
18 million people didn't vote for her just because she has a vagina.
Didn't say most, didn't say all. Said many. And it's diningenuious to think that there weren't many who voted solely because they believe her to have had a vagina at some point in her life.
-
What's disingenuous is presuming to climb into the minds of "many" of Clinton's supporters and claim that they voted for her solely because she's a woman.
-
No. I was getting at the point that Lurch made far more elegantly.
To the same point, I have had several of my African-American co-workers tell me that the only reason they were voting for Obama was the color of his skin. Including some that swear up and down they are conservative.
When I've questioned that line of thinking, the most honest response was, "He's Doug Williams. When there were no black quarterbacks, you wanted Doug Williams to win that superbowl. Once he had done it, you could go back to picking the best quarterback for your team."
Can't say I agree, but I understand, kind of.
I knew what you were getting at.
And I never wanted Doug Williams to win a Superbowl.
-
What's disingenuous is presuming to climb into the minds of "many" of Clinton's supporters and claim that they voted for her solely because she's a woman.
We get it, you voted for Hillary. You do realize, hopefully, your experience also doesn't necessarily speak for every one who did either.
-
What's disingenuous is presuming to climb into the minds of "many" of Clinton's supporters and claim that they voted for her solely because she's a woman.
Why the fuck are you sensitive about this? The general citizendry, on either side of the aisle or up the fucking middle, are sheep who vote for brand names or failing that, the most familiar. I'd wager the vast majority would tell you the economy (especially the cost of gas) is their primary concern and they're basing their vote on who they think can fix it, when in reality NONE of the candidates for President can do a damn thing about the cost of gasoline, or the economy in general other than propose a budget.
Clinton got 18 million votes because many believed in her policies and promises. Many thought that reelecting her would be a return to the roaring late 90's when everyone was .com rich. And many thought it would be fantastic if a woman was the President, damn the particulars.
-
She likes to hunt, fish, and screw. They could have done a lot worse.
If only he was marrying her.
-
I don't get it.
I do. I don't know if I agree with it. But I get it.
-
I think the Republicans think that some people will vote for the McCain ticket because they have a woman running as the VP. I also think that some people will vote for the Republicans just because they're running a woman, no matter her politics. I also think that most people are so stupid it's a wonder they remember to breath.
-
She will pull votes from Hillary supporters only if said votes were cast based on the purported existence of a vagina.
-
Why the fuck are you sensitive about this? The general citizendry, on either side of the aisle or up the fucking middle, are sheep who vote for brand names or failing that, the most familiar. I'd wager the vast majority would tell you the economy (especially the cost of gas) is their primary concern and they're basing their vote on who they think can fix it, when in reality NONE of the candidates for President can do a damn thing about the cost of gasoline, or the economy in general other than propose a budget.
Clinton got 18 million votes because many believed in her policies and promises. Many thought that reelecting her would be a return to the roaring late 90's when everyone was .com rich. And many thought it would be fantastic if a woman was the President, damn the particulars.
i voted for her because i think she can govern and do not think Obama can. her gender and Obama's skin color make no difference to me.
-
I think the Republicans think that some people will vote for the McCain ticket because they have a woman running as the VP. I also think that some people will vote for the Republicans just because they're running a woman, no matter her politics.
Agree. I wonder what they found in vetting Kay Bailey that led to them skipping over her. Would have needed to be worse than: a BS in Journalism. 44 years old. Only in her second year as Governor. Husband is in the oil industry. Biggest advocate of drilling in ANWR.
-
i voted for her because i think she can govern and do not think Obama can. her gender and Obama's skin color make no difference to me.
Same here, I like what she said about healthcare. It just ticks me off when people assume I voted for her because she's female.
-
Agree. I wonder what they found in vetting Kay Bailey that led to them skipping over her.
Pro-choice.
-
Agree. I wonder what they found in vetting Kay Bailey that led to them skipping over her. Would have needed to be worse than: a BS in Journalism. 44 years old. Only in her second year as Governor. Husband is in the oil industry. Biggest advocate of drilling in ANWR.
Palin because: female, pro-life, pro-oil drilling, ethics freak.
-
KBH is apparently not a very nice person and it's rumored that she and McCain don't get along very well. She's been in the senate for awhile and hasn't really done anything. This all said, I'm glad he didn't pick her because she needs to come back to Texas and run for governor. A governor who is content to do nothing is fine with me and a much better option than Toll Road Perry imo.
-
Palin because: female, pro-life, pro-oil drilling, ethics freak.
Don't forget the "compelling" life story. Her last child is a Downs Syndrome child whom she refused to abort.
-
Palin because: female, pro-life, pro-oil drilling, ethics freak.
also pro-ID
-
also pro-ID
I don't know what this means...
Now I do.. (thanks kevwun). I think this particular policy doesn't matter at the federal level and is rightly left to the states.
-
That's the biggest problem I have with her. She thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. It's part of the reason I don't think she's going to pull in many angry Hillary supporters. Their politics have absolutely nothing in common.
-
Don't forget the "compelling" life story. Her last child is a Downs Syndrome child whom she refused to abort.
Yeah, that's part of the pro-life. I was being overly brief.
First articles out make her seem like an interesting person. I have no idea if she'd be a good VP.
-
I don't know what this means...
Now I do.. (thanks kevwun). I think this particular policy doesn't matter at the federal level and is rightly left to the states.
governing, no, voting constituency, yes.
-
Yeah, that's part of the pro-life. I was being overly brief.
First articles out make her seem like an interesting person. I have no idea if she'd be a good VP.
Amazingly enough, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) has a fairly decent article. I agree, she seems to be an interesting person, almost an Anti-McCain if you will.
-
governing, no, voting constituency, yes.
Good point.
-
governing, no, voting constituency, yes.
This pick will get the talk-radio hosts and their blind sheep (not a small group) behind McCain.
-
I would have thought the target would be the center, and she seems to be more ideal for the far right. Maybe the strategy is simply to focus on exciting the typical Republicans more and ensure they get out and vote rather than trying to convert those from the left. I would have put money on Lieberman being the pick because now seems the right time for the latter strategy.
-
This pick will get the talk-radio hosts and their blind sheep (not a small group) behind McCain.
As one commentator I respect said today:
Sarah Palin is smart, articulate, attractive, pro-life, and pro-gun, and was even a Buchananite in 1996. Her political career has been based on fighting Republican corruption. Her ratings as Alaska governor are very high. She has a compelling life story, as they say. Her husband is one-quarter Yupik Eskimo. They have five children, including one with Down's syndrome, whom they refused to abort. Palin will bring the whole Republican base home, and some Independent and Democratic women. Palin even blunts Hillary for 2012.
Obama: the weeping, worshipping masses last night were the highpoint of your life. Get a DVD to remind you. Meanwhile, the rest of us are stuck with the crazed Liebermanite who is also a very smart pol.
-
No. I was getting at the point that Lurch made far more elegantly.
To the same point, I have had several of my African-American co-workers tell me that the only reason they were voting for Obama was the color of his skin. Including some that swear up and down they are conservative.
When I've questioned that line of thinking, the most honest response was, "He's Doug Williams. When there were no black quarterbacks, you wanted Doug Williams to win that superbowl. Once he had done it, you could go back to picking the best quarterback for your team."
Can't say I agree, but I understand, kind of.
Did you ask your co-workers why they weren't supporting Alan Keyes? Of if they'd supported Sharpton in 2004? Clearly, they're not voting for Obama just because he's a black man. Of course it's a factor, just as gender is a factor with Hillary Clinton and her supporters, but there's more to both Clinton and Obama than their gender or skin color.
-
I have heard a few on-air opinions that she has more "executive experience" than even Obama, since she was a state governor and he was only a U.S. Senator.
Other than distributing Permanent Fund monies, what exactly is involved with governing Alaska for, what? Two years? A couple-thousand people living in log cabins and igloos, and a lot of snow. . .
-
and a bridge to nowhere (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/)?
-
My favorite political correspondent, Dan Carlyle (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/today_now_how_to_pretend_you_give)
-
Did you ask your co-workers why they weren't supporting Alan Keyes? Of if they'd supported Sharpton in 2004? Clearly, they're not voting for Obama just because he's a black man. Of course it's a factor, just as gender is a factor with Hillary Clinton and her supporters, but there's more to both Clinton and Obama than their gender or skin color.
I'm sorry, when were Keyes and Sharpton nominated by their parties?
No is asserting that there isn't more to Clinton or Obama than their demographics. I'm asserting many are making their choices based on Clinton and Obama's demographics.
-
Did you ask your co-workers why they weren't supporting Alan Keyes? Of if they'd supported Sharpton in 2004? Clearly, they're not voting for Obama just because he's a black man. Of course it's a factor, just as gender is a factor with Hillary Clinton and her supporters, but there's more to both Clinton and Obama than their gender or skin color.
Sooo....Clearly because someone who wasn't there says that the people who actually spoke the words, are lying about their own motivations?
-
18 million people didn't vote for her just because she has a vagina.
Some of them voted for her because of her husband.
-
this is a silly argument, imo. in every election some voters uses all sorts of factors to justify voting for one or another candidate.
-
this is a silly argument, imo. in every election some voters uses all sorts of factors to justify voting for one or another candidate.
And John Q. Public's real rationale for voting for a candidate probably doesn't line up with what they admit to a pollster anyway.
Honesty or not, it's rather disheartening to hear grown people say "I voted for Obama because he's black," or "I voted for Hilary because she's a woman." I'd like to believe people have better criteria than that.
-
Or people voting for McCain because he's not black.
-
And John Q. Public's real rationale for voting for a candidate probably doesn't line up with what they admit to a pollster anyway.
Honesty or not, it's rather disheartening to hear grown people say "I voted for Obama because he's black," or "I voted for Hilary because she's a woman." I'd like to believe people have better criteria than that.
I got a co-worker who keeps reminding me there's never been a half-white presidential candidate before.
-
And John Q. Public's real rationale for voting for a candidate probably doesn't line up with what they admit to a pollster anyway.
Honesty or not, it's rather disheartening to hear grown people say "I voted for Obama because he's black," or "I voted for Hilary because she's a woman." I'd like to believe people have better criteria than that.
I disagree. I think race, gender and religion are legitimate and valuable criteria. It's a representative democracy after all. What's wrong with believing that someone in your class might be uniquely equipped to represent you? Sure, considering many criteria is ideal, but I would bet few get past more than a few. And if race or gender is on the top of that list, that is completely reasonable.
-
It's a Hail Mary play for disaffected Hillary supporters, and it won't work.
It also means that the Republicans now have a massive problem when accusing Obama of being "not ready to be Commander in Chief", as they are proposing a yokel with 4 years experience in local BFE politics to be one beat of a 72-year old heart away from the football.
-
Agree. I wonder what they found in vetting Kay Bailey that led to them skipping over her. Would have needed to be worse than: a BS in Journalism. 44 years old. Only in her second year as Governor. Husband is in the oil industry. Biggest advocate of drilling in ANWR.
Age.
-
I got a co-worker who keeps reminding me there's never been a half-white presidential candidate before.
If anybody qualifies for the label "African-American", I think it's got to be Obama.
-
one beat
Today's drinking game. Did that phrase go out on a liberal talking point sheet or something?
-
No more so than electing some one short on experience to actually be the president, no death required.
-
I have heard a few on-air opinions that she has more "executive experience" than even Obama, since she was a state governor and he was only a U.S. Senator.
Other than distributing Permanent Fund monies, what exactly is involved with governing Alaska for, what? Two years? A couple-thousand people living in log cabins and igloos, and a lot of snow. . .
W was a two-term governor. How did that work out? Eh? Oh.
-
It also means that the Republicans now have a massive problem when accusing Obama of being "not ready to be Commander in Chief", as they are proposing a yokel with 4 years experience in local BFE politics to be one beat of a 72-year old heart away from the football.
Republicans will point out that the difference is Obama would have the football not be the death of the President away from having the football.
-
It also means that the Republicans now have a massive problem when accusing Obama of being "not ready to be Commander in Chief", as they are proposing a yokel with 4 years experience in local BFE politics to be one beat of a 72-year old heart away from the football.
The Republicans don't have that problem. Biden did the accusing for them.
-
Today's drinking game. Did that phrase go out on a liberal talking point sheet or something?
It's taking a Republican staple and lobbing it back. Standard political fodder for either side.
-
Age.
Gravitas.
-
No more so than electing some one short on experience to actually be the president, no death required.
But, Obama has Biden at his side who matches McCain year-for-year on foreign policy experience. Biden is involved either way. If McCain goes...
I'm not saying that it means anything in reality. I'm just saying that in the nether world of political hypothetical bun fights, the Republicans just lost some of their creamy filling.
-
is this crap going to go on until November?
-
The Republicans don't have that problem. Biden did the accusing for them.
As did Hillary. But as I pointed out above, now that Biden is on the ticket, his experience will be at Obama's beck and call. McCain is on his own as far as his ticket is concerned. (Obviously there's more than 2 people running the govt at any one time).
-
I disagree. I think race, gender and religion are legitimate and valuable criteria. It's a representative democracy after all. What's wrong with believing that someone in your class might be uniquely equipped to represent you? Sure, considering many criteria is ideal, but I would bet few get past more than a few. And if race or gender is on the top of that list, that is completely reasonable.
Race, gender, and religion to find out if someone is uniquely equipped to represent you? How about finding out their policies and experience? Plus-even if I went with the ignorant approach-I'm a white male, 99% of the time race and gender isn't going to help me narrow it down anyway.
-
As did Hillary. But as I pointed out above, now that Biden is on the ticket, his experience will be at Obama's beck and call. McCain is on his own as far as his ticket is concerned.
So its better to have someone else's experience, but not your own, rather than actuall ybe the one with experience?
-
So its better to have someone else's experience, but not your own, rather than actuall ybe the one with experience?
Who's experience did the current President use? It is a stupid argument.
And Jim, yes, I think it will go on way past November.
-
also pro-ID
I need a beer thread now.
-
Would you like some babeage (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/1903451448_635a36aed2_o.jpg) with your beer?
-
W was a two-term governor. How did that work out? Eh? Oh.
I know this isn't where you were going but...
I can definitely see the Reps accusing the Dems of what the Dems say is going on the White House now, namely that Chaney is really the guy running things. They will make the arguement that Obama is the face but old-guard Biden will be the real power and decision maker.
-
Who's experience did the current President use? It is a stupid argument.
And Jim, yes, I think it will go on way past November.
That's fine and I understand that. What I don't understand is how if in one case it is rationalized that advisers can temper inexperience in the position of authority, yet it is some sort of critical flaw that the single most useless job in the US Executive branch, is...inexperienced?
-
Who's experience did the current President use? It is a stupid argument.
And Jim, yes, I think it will go on way past November.
Most political arguments are stupid...and full of holes. I hate election years.
-
I keep going back and forth between FOX New and MSNBC. They should drop the pretense and just call FOX the Republican Network and MSNBC the Democrat Network.
-
is this crap going to go on until November?
Beer and queso means the crap will go on indefinitely.
-
But, Obama has Biden at his side who matches McCain year-for-year on foreign policy experience. Biden is involved either way. If McCain goes...
Of course Biden could go as well....
-
Would you like some babeage (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/1903451448_635a36aed2_o.jpg) with your beer?
How is it that Palin in a swimsuit isn't everywhere by now?!
-
How is it that Palin in a swimsuit isn't everywhere by now?!
She won Miss Congeniality.
-
She won Miss Congeniality.
Golf clap.
-
But, Obama has Biden at his side who matches McCain year-for-year on foreign policy experience. Biden is involved either way. If McCain goes...
I'm not saying that it means anything in reality. I'm just saying that in the nether world of political hypothetical bun fights, the Republicans just lost some of their creamy filling.
How many presidents have died in office without being murdered?
-
I keep going back and forth between FOX New and MSNBC. They should drop the pretense and just call FOX the Republican Network and MSNBC the Democrat Network.
and call Olberman a mother fucking asshole
-
Pro-ID? You mean that Tom Cruise wacky shit that the head of the Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, is also into?
Intelligent Design. What a misnomer that is.
-
How many presidents have died in office without being murdered?
Harrison and FDR are the only ones I can think of offhand. Anyone else?
-
and call Olberman a mother fucking asshole
An insane delusional mother fucking asshole, to be more specific. And then there's Bill O'Reilly on the other side.
-
Harrison and FDR are the only ones I can think of offhand. Anyone else?
Harding, although his death was suspicious. just like Limey's will be.
-
Harrison and FDR are the only ones I can think of offhand. Anyone else?
It's not exactly a common occurrance.
-
Harding, although his death was suspicious. just like Limey's will be.
Limey's going to die while beta testing the Iphone's new program/attachment... The I-BJ.
ZZZZZZZT!
-
Limey's going to die while beta testing the Iphone's new program/attachment... The I-BJ.
You BJ?
Harding, although his death was suspicious. just like Limey's will be.
Also Taylor.
It's not exactly a common occurrance.
9.3% of the time, it happens every time.
-
Also Taylor.
9.3% of the time, it happens every time.
And like Harding's, Taylor's death was suspicious.
-
Doesnt this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh-lW2opLyQ) count as international experience?
-
Doesnt this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh-lW2opLyQ) count as international experience?
'She said succulent'
Nice find, that was a hilarious clip!
-
Doesnt this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh-lW2opLyQ) count as international experience?
That was one sexy bitch. The governor didn't look too bad either.
-
And like Harding's, Taylor's death was suspicious.
It wasn't so much that the death was suspicious, but everyone looked suspicious. For one thing, everyone was wearing hats. Hats.
-
'She said succulent'
Nice find, that was a hilarious clip!
Is she governor or Pope?
-
Isn't she under investigation in Alaska for corruption charges?
-
Isn't she under investigation in Alaska for corruption charges?
Apparently for possibly maybe not being involved with the firing of a state tooper (http://www.adn.com/politics/story/468174.html) that taserd his 11 year old son. Who happens to be her sisters ex-husband.
For the most part, trooper investigators found that the accusations were unsubstantiated, but in at least two cases -- Wooten's illegally killing of a moose in 2003 and his Tasering of his 11-year-old stepson -- were confirmed. The troopers later disciplined him for them.
I dont think anyone is going to care much.
-
Apparently for possibly maybe not being involved with the firing of a state tooper (http://www.adn.com/politics/story/468174.html) that taserd his 11 year old son. Who happens to be her sisters ex-husband.
I dont think anyone is going to care much.
It's a sideshow. Many, many other issues to address here.
-
Apparently for possibly maybe not being involved with the firing of a state tooper (http://www.adn.com/politics/story/468174.html) that taserd his 11 year old son. Who happens to be her sisters ex-husband.
Ok so its not involved with the other state representative.
-
Ok so its not involved with the other state representative.
Ted Stevens? No. In fact she was directly involved in cutting one of his pet projects, the previously mentioned "Bridge to Nowhere".
-
Ted Stevens? No. In fact she was directly involved in cutting one of his pet projects, the previously mentioned "Bridge to Nowhere".
She is spectacularly unqualified. Alaska has the population of Fort Worth.
-
She is spectacularly unqualified. Alaska has the population of Fort Worth.
I generally hate political discusions in here, but what makes a her unqualified?
Just because she is Republican?
Fort Worth people are worth nothing?
No, I don't know at this point if she is worth a point in the voting selection, but she seems as qualified as most of the people being proposed in the general election process.
-
I generally hate political discusions in here, but what makes a her unqualified?
Just because she is Republican?
Fort Worth people are worth nothing?
No, I don't know at this point if she is worth a point in the voting selection, but she seems as qualified as most of the people being proposed in the general election process.
Then Republicans should shut up about Obama if thats the case.
-
Then Republicans should shut up about Obama if thats the case.
What? The presidential candidate should have less experience running...anything than the VP? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Maybe she should be able to give a better prepared speech? Be a couple of years older? What?
-
Would you like some babeage (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/1903451448_635a36aed2_o.jpg) with your beer?
holy crap! is that really her?
-
She is spectacularly unqualified. Alaska has the population of Fort Worth.
I can't think of anyone more spectacularly unqualified for the job they are seeking than Obama.
-
What? The presidential candidate should have less experience running...anything than the VP? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Maybe she should be able to give a better prepared speech? Be a couple of years older? What?
??? huh? Theres a good chance she could end up being president but i guess her experience outside of washington in a town of 5k and the distant state of Alaska is far more impressive than that of Obama's. Obama the guy who has a greater grasp of law terminology because I dunno, he kinda graduated from Harvard Law at the top of his class and went into using his knowledge to help the community of south Chicago. I dunno, Obama, the same guy that (in a demorcratic minority) has helped in passing legislation with the likes of John McCain on many subjects from weapons control (not abolish...but control) to climate change and nuclear terrorism. The same Obama who is a junior member of the foreign relations committee in Washington. Heck, I garantee no one would have given a damn about what Palin thought about Iraq years ago too but people listened to Obama. Now all the sudden Palin is sooo sooo much more experienced. If you actually sit down and read about what Obama has done within the Chicago community and state legislative as a whole, you'd realize he has more experience than people give him credit for.
-
I can't think of anyone more spectacularly unqualified for the job they are seeking than Obama.
Which was a great 'selling point' against 'Black Jesus' until McCain decided to pick a running mate that made Obama look more qualified for President that Henry friggin' Kissinger...
-
Which was a great 'selling point' against 'Black Jesus' until McCain decided to pick a running mate that made Obama look more qualified for President that Henry friggin' Kissinger...
lol, but you know, one thing i absolutely hate about this current election is the fact that both candidates we have feel like giant risk. I was ok with McCain at first because McCain had a history of working between both parties. Now it just seems like hes changed to get the votes from the republican base down and hes not really that same appealing figure he was in the 2000 election. Obama is an enigma, even if he did have McCain type years in Washington. That's mainly because he comes from a younger generation of politician, our next generation.
The debates should be good for us all and should really tell us more about Obama than McCain. If Obama doesn't show the same confidence in a debate that he has in his speeches, then there should be some concern.
Anyways, good night guys I finished my paper ;D.
-
She is spectacularly unqualified. Alaska has the population of Fort Worth.
For what? Does anyone not realize SHE IS NOT GOING TO BE THE FUCKING PRESIDENT?
her job will consist of, as all VP's, waking up in the morning calling the Oval Office and saying "Not dead yet? Ok cool, talk to you tomorrrow." And then going back to fucking sleep.
The vice president is about as useful as Vanna White on Wheel of fucking Fortune.
-
The vice president is about as useful as Vanna White on Wheel of fucking Fortune.
Where were you over the last seven and a half years?
-
Where were you over the last seven and a half years?
Cheney is the exception to the rule on that one.
-
I generally hate political discusions in here, but what makes a her unqualified?
Just because she is Republican?
Fort Worth people are worth nothing?
No, I don't know at this point if she is worth a point in the voting selection, but she seems as qualified as most of the people being proposed in the general election process.
You're taking a dim view of the election process and if that is as far as you go, then there is no explaining this to you. I suppose by "most of the people" you mean Barrack Obama. You can of course dismiss education, community organizing and being a United States Senator, none of that qualifies a person to be President, or even Vice President. I'm not sure what does qualify someone, but I think thinking about the issues and planning some solutions is the minimum criteria. Obama has thought about the issues facing the country and he has shared and tested his ideas with the country. So far most voters, voters you may not care about, think he has some good ideas.
Palin has not thought about any issues that face the country except for how to get more oil. She knows nothing about foreign policy and has admitted to being uninformed about Iraq. She does know where Russia is, but she doesn't need to locate it on the map, she can just say, "over there". She has no plan for health care. She hasn't thought about tax policy, bankruptcy laws, housing, regulation of the commodities markets. She doesn't have any opinions on education policy, other than it's OK to teach myths in science class. She hasn't been campaigning, which is more than standing in front of people and talking, for 18 months. You may think that Alaska is a suitable sample of the opinions of the United States, I don't. Alaska has as many people as Fort Worth.
On her side she's shooed out the obviously corrupt politicans in Alaska. She's forced the energy companies to pay their taxes. Her energy policy is to drill. Her qualifications for the selection, in the Republicans view, consists primarily of her opinions on social issues and a kick ass high school nickname.
If you think the Vice Presidency is a do nothing job, then again, who cares who the VP is, qualified or not. However the last two VPs have been very involved in creating and implementing policy. The world is too complicated to waste the office. Palin has admitted to not even knowing what it is a VP does.
If you're looking to sock it to the Harper Valley PTA, then Sarah Palin is probably the right person for the job. But we have serious problems in this country and we need serious people to solve them. Not just people who look like (or even look better than) you and me and our neighbors. We need people who are way smarter than you and me.
-
Cheney is the exception to the rule on that one.
Gore, GHW Bush, Mondale, Lyndon Johnson played a pretty big role as VP.
-
You're taking a dim view of the election process and if that is as far as you go, then there is no explaining this to you. I suppose by "most of the people" you mean Barrack Obama. You can of course dismiss education, community organizing and being a United States Senator, none of that qualifies a person to be President, or even Vice President. I'm not sure what does qualify someone, but I think thinking about the issues and planning some solutions is the minimum criteria. Obama has thought about the issues facing the country and he has shared and tested his ideas with the country. So far most voters, voters you may not care about, think he has some good ideas.
Palin has not thought about any issues that face the country except for how to get more oil. She knows nothing about foreign policy and has admitted to being uninformed about Iraq. She does know where Russia is, but she doesn't need to locate it on the map, she can just say, "over there". She has no plan for health care. She hasn't thought about tax policy, bankruptcy laws, housing, regulation of the commodities markets. She doesn't have any opinions on education policy, other than it's OK to teach myths in science class. She hasn't been campaigning, which is more than standing in front of people and talking, for 18 months. You may think that Alaska is a suitable sample of the opinions of the United States, I don't. Alaska has as many people as Fort Worth.
On her side she's shooed out the obviously corrupt politicans in Alaska. She's forced the energy companies to pay their taxes. Her energy policy is to drill. Her qualifications for the selection, in the Republicans view, consists primarily of her opinions on social issues and a kick ass high school nickname.
If you think the Vice Presidency is a do nothing job, then again, who cares who the VP is, qualified or not. However the last two VPs have been very involved in creating and implementing policy. The world is too complicated to waste the office. Palin has admitted to not even knowing what it is a VP does.
If you're looking to sock it to the Harper Valley PTA, then Sarah Palin is probably the right person for the job. But we have serious problems in this country and we need serious people to solve them. Not just people who look like (or even look better than) you and me and our neighbors. We need people who are way smarter than you and me.
Very well written and thoughtful. Thank you for a good response, pravata. There is a reason I try to RMPL. I do not agree with everything, but it is always better to read thoughful comments than just partisan blather. That is what is frustrating.
I will get back to lurking.
-
holy crap! is that really her?
It's really her face, photoshopped on to some other person's body.
-
Very well written and thoughtful. Thank you for a good response, pravata. There is a reason I try to RMPL. I do not agree with everything, but it is always better to read thoughful comments than just partisan blather. That is what is frustrating.
I will get back to lurking.
You're welcome.
-
Which was a great 'selling point' against 'Black Jesus' until McCain decided to pick a running mate that made Obama look more qualified for President that Henry friggin' Kissinger...
I don't get the "Black Jesus" comment, if anything he's "Opposite Half-White Kennedy" at least for those who are hung up on the combination of the race thing and comparing to past historical people thing. All of which is subterfuge for the minions and really has not basis in rational thought. I keep waiting for him to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask, what can your country do for you."
-
Very well written and thoughtful. Thank you for a good response, pravata. There is a reason I try to RMPL. I do not agree with everything, but it is always better to read thoughful comments than just partisan blather. That is what is frustrating.
I will get back to lurking.
I'm sorry, I did seem like that angry bantering democrat. I just get annoyed by the assertion that Obama has no experience but pravata made a good point of course.
*hugs*
-
Obama is gonna go after Osama, but if McCain knew where he was hiding, he wouldn't do anything
-
Obama is gonna go after Osama, but if McCain knew where he was hiding, he wouldn't do anything
Is this sarcasm?
-
I don't get it.
1) Palin helps McCain with the conservative base, unlike Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman. Reviled though these voters may be in many quarters, their turnout is imperative to McCain having any shot at winning in November. If they stay home, he loses, no matter how much appeal his ticket has to independents or wavering Democrats.
2) Palin isn't, like Mitt Romney, another rich white guy with a family name in politics. She's from a middle-class background and a mother of five. While this may not really be relevant to being elected vice president, it's not necessarily bad electoral politics.
3) While Palin won't appeal to many or even most of the millions of women and men who voted for Hillary Clinton, if she peels off even a few of them in key states, that could be significant. More importantly, there are also millions of women, such as suburban married women, who might find Palin appealing. Women voters are not confined to the urban upscale professional women and working-class women who comprised among the most ardent constituencies among Hillary's supporters.
4) In her brief political career, Palin has a record of challenging entrenched interests in her own party over corruption issues. This is significant since the GOP presently has a poor record on ethics, which is a turn off to independents and rank-and-file Republican voters who might otherwise turn out for McCain. Palin beat Murkowski for governor and has pushed Stevens to come clean. Compare this to Obama's rise in the Chicago Democratic political machine.
5) Of the four politicians on the two major tickets, Palin is the only one who is genuinely an outsider. Although this plays into her weakness of a limited resume, it may have appeal for some voters. Her resistance to the corrupt party machine in her home state adds to this. Heck, not being in the United States Senate might be a good enough credential for some people.
6) Her biggest weakness is of course her absolute dearth of national or international experience. It appears that the McCain camp has decided that conceding this issue that they could have used against Obama is worth whatever positives they think Palin brings to the campaign.
7) Ideologically, her most controversial position is likely her support for teaching creationism alongside evolution in the public schools. Out of the mainstream though this may be, I doubt that too many people who find this a basis to oppose her were likely to vote for her anyway. For everyone else, it's a minor issue or a non-issue. Your local school board member has more input on this than the vice president or president.
8) McCain's only chance of winning is taking a gamble, since this year sucks for Republicans thanks to the GOP's poor showing in the White House and in Congress recently. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but he had to try something, and apparently Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty weren't it. Lieberman would've been bold, but then McCain loses the base, which, as noted above, means he loses almost automatically.
9) I think what the McCain campaign specifically hopes to achieve is to target suburban married women, which would be the key to winning the white vote and the married vote, since he's going to carry white men and married men anyway, as the GOP always does. If McCain can win the white vote and the married vote by large enough numbers, then it doesn't matter how much he appeals to anybody else, because those constituencies are large enough and tend to have high enough voter turnout to help him carry the dozen or so key states necessary to achieve a majority in the electoral college.
-
Is this sarcasm?
It is to everyone except Obama, who apparently really believes that John McCain wouldn't go after Osama if he knew what cave Osama's hiding in. Obama also seems to believe that John McCain really thinks people making $4 $5 million per year are middle class.
"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
"Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?"
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08242/907981-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml
-
We need people who are way smarter than you and me.
I wholly disagree with this statement. We need someone stupid enough to do nothing for a while and let the rest of us get to fixing what's wrong. The whole problem is that "we the people" have been expecting some dufus on high to guide things when in fact they can only screw things up. Besides that, someone smarter than me could not get elected.
-
It is to everyone except Obama, who apparently really believes that John McCain wouldn't go after Osama if he knew what cave Osama's hiding in. Obama also seems to believe that John McCain really thinks people making $4 million per year are middle class.
Obama doesn't believe that either. It's called sophistry. For the minions.
-
Those that believe people don't vote based on demographic are nuts. There are many that either don't take the time to understand a candidate's economic/foreign/health care/etc. plans or don't have the capacity to do so. Therefore, there are many that vote based on simple concepts such as what a candidate looks like, or how charismatic he/she is or what that candidates social beliefs are and how all of those things relate to the voter themselves.
-
I generally hate political discusions in here, but what makes a her unqualified?
Just because she is Republican?
Fort Worth people are worth nothing?
No, I don't know at this point if she is worth a point in the voting selection, but she seems as qualified as most of the people being proposed in the general election process.
exactly.
-
Is this sarcasm?
Yes, kinda - paraphrased from Obama's speech (http://www.demconvention.com/barack-obama/).
John McCain likes to say that he'll follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go the cave where he lives
In context, I think it's referring to McCain's statement that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and would not openly say he'd do it without their permission.
From Larry King (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/28/lkl.01.html)
KING: If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?
MCCAIN: Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation. I think the Pakistanis would want bin Laden out of their hair and out of their country and it's causing great difficulties in Pakistan itself.
But I want to assure you I will get Osama bin Laden as president of the United States and I will bring him to justice no matter what it takes.
-
You're taking a dim view of the election process and if that is as far as you go, then there is no explaining this to you. I suppose by "most of the people" you mean Barrack Obama. You can of course dismiss education, community organizing and being a United States Senator, none of that qualifies a person to be President, or even Vice President. I'm not sure what does qualify someone, but I think thinking about the issues and planning some solutions is the minimum criteria. Obama has thought about the issues facing the country and he has shared and tested his ideas with the country. So far most voters, voters you may not care about, think he has some good ideas.
So what qualifications for the top post include sitting around and thinking about stuff, but not actually doing anything. Obama had been a Senator when he began his presidential campaign about as long as Palin has been a Govenor. Why does one count but not the other.
But qualifications for the post with no responsibility, require significantly more than that.
Gotcha.
-
For me, it all boils down to how much do you believe each candidate. If someone tells me we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil in ten years and wants to invest $150 billion in renewable energy, great. I tend to want to see a detailed plan on how that is actually going to work, but Obama has had no problem convincing a whole lot of people that it will.
I'm one of those independent voters that might swing the election. And I'm not sure I believe either of these guys. It's hard to get an unbiased opinion from any news source. People have talked to me about Obama and McCain and I find myself asking: would you have voted for a Republican/Democrat if the candidates were different? I have a hard time listening to someone talk about Obama who wouldn't vote for any Democrat. Same goes for McCain. These people convince me about as much as bumper stickers do.
-
1) Palin helps McCain with the conservative base, unlike Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman. Reviled though these voters may be in many quarters, their turnout is imperative to McCain having any shot at winning in November. If they stay home, he loses, no matter how much appeal his ticket has to independents or wavering Democrats.
2) Palin isn't, like Mitt Romney, another rich white guy with a family name in politics. She's from a middle-class background and a mother of five. While this may not really be relevant to being elected vice president, it's not necessarily bad electoral politics.
3) While Palin won't appeal to many or even most of the millions of women and men who voted for Hillary Clinton, if she peels off even a few of them in key states, that could be significant. More importantly, there are also millions of women, such as suburban married women, who might find Palin appealing. Women voters are not confined to the urban upscale professional women and working-class women who comprised among the most ardent constituencies among Hillary's supporters.
4) In her brief political career, Palin has a record of challenging entrenched interests in her own party over corruption issues. This is significant since the GOP presently has a poor record on ethics, which is a turn off to independents and rank-and-file Republican voters who might otherwise turn out for McCain. Palin beat Murkowski for governor and has pushed Stevens to come clean. Compare this to Obama's rise in the Chicago Democratic political machine.
5) Of the four politicians on the two major tickets, Palin is the only one who is genuinely an outsider. Although this plays into her weakness of a limited resume, it may have appeal for some voters. Her resistance to the corrupt party machine in her home state adds to this. Heck, not being in the United States Senate might be a good enough credential for some people.
6) Her biggest weakness is of course her absolute dearth of national or international experience. It appears that the McCain camp has decided that conceding this issue that they could have used against Obama is worth whatever positives they think Palin brings to the campaign.
7) Ideologically, her most controversial position is likely her support for teaching creationism alongside evolution in the public schools. Out of the mainstream though this may be, I doubt that too many people who find this a basis to oppose her were likely to vote for her anyway. For everyone else, it's a minor issue or a non-issue. Your local school board member has more input on this than the vice president or president.
8) McCain's only chance of winning is taking a gamble, since this year sucks for Republicans thanks to the GOP's poor showing in the White House and in Congress recently. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but he had to try something, and apparently Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty weren't it. Lieberman would've been bold, but then McCain loses the base, which, as noted above, means he loses almost automatically.
9) I think what the McCain campaign specifically hopes to achieve is to target suburban married women, which would be the key to winning the white vote and the married vote, since he's going to carry white men and married men anyway, as the GOP always does. If McCain can win the white vote and the married vote by large enough numbers, then it doesn't matter how much he appeals to anybody else, because those constituencies are large enough and tend to have high enough voter turnout to help him carry the dozen or so key states necessary to achieve a majority in the electoral college.
God, I hate politics
-
I wholly disagree with this statement. We need someone stupid enough to do nothing for a while and let the rest of us get to fixing what's wrong. The whole problem is that "we the people" have been expecting some dufus on high to guide things when in fact they can only screw things up. Besides that, someone smarter than me could not get elected.
Wrong. Everyone one of us is focused on what's right for us individually. We need someone focused on what's right for us collectively. "...among these rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men." What am I quoting?
-
God, I hate politics
Then please, don't vote. I'm not being mean, this shit matters. Either pay attention or get out of the way.
-
So what qualifications for the top post include sitting around and thinking about stuff, but not actually doing anything. Obama had been a Senator when he began his presidential campaign about as long as Palin has been a Govenor. Why does one count but not the other.
But qualifications for the post with no responsibility, require significantly more than that.
Gotcha.
Name me one president who did what he said what he was going to do before he did it? Obama is far more qualified for the simple reason that he has formulated ideas and tested them by talking to the people who these policies will affect. The demographic of Alaska is severely limited.
-
Wrong. Everyone one of us is focused on what's right for us individually. We need someone focused on what's right for us collectively. "...among these rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men." What am I quoting?
The Declaration of Independence of course. I'm not wrong. That document that you quoted was for sovereign and independent states, not a monolithic collective. We do NOT need someone worrying about the collective. We need someone who actually believes the Declaration and the Constitution and gets the federal government the hell out of the way.
-
Then please, don't vote. I'm not being mean, this shit matters. Either pay attention or get out of the way.
oh please. there's the operation of the government, facilitation of our constitution, building of highways, etc. and there's politics. i care about how my government is operated, but i don't care about politics, which seems to be almost entirely about turning the operation of the government into some kind of stupid middle school game. oh let's talk again about how this alaska governor fits into the 9 strategies designed to make some ambiguous marketing platitude about how one guy's a better leader or if one guy dies or wants to get an abortion or wears flip flops. that seems to me a good way to make this shit not matter-- to turn our government into an episode of america's top model
-
The Declaration of Independence of course. I'm not wrong. That document that you quoted was for sovereign and independent states, not a monolithic collective. We do NOT need someone worrying about the collective. We need someone who actually believes the Declaration and the Constitution and gets the federal government the hell out of the way.
STFU or move to the mountains. i fucking cannot believe someone talks this way in 2008. you embarrass yourself.
-
STFU or move to the mountains. i fucking cannot believe someone talks this way in 2008. you embarrass yourself.
He's already in Iowa - how far to you want him to go?
-
STFU or move to the mountains. i fucking cannot believe someone talks this way in 2008. you embarrass yourself.
Who are the Whigs running this year?
-
STFU or move to the mountains. i fucking cannot believe someone talks this way in 2008. you embarrass yourself.
And one wonders why this country is in so much trouble. You're the one whose embarassing yourself.
-
And one wonders why this country is in so much trouble. You're the one whose embarassing yourself.
I am going to use my first amendment right and say, no he's not.
-
And one wonders why this country is in so much trouble. You're the one whose embarassing yourself.
IIRC, you're a Liberatarian, yes? And Jim considers himself a Democrat.
You are not likely to ever agree on anything regarding politics.
-
I am going to use my first amendment right and say, no he's not.
You don't have any First Amendment rights on this board, sister. This ain't no democracy, it's a totalitarian facist "ism" of some sort.
-
Then please, don't vote. I'm not being mean, this shit matters. Either pay attention or get out of the way.
You don't need to pay attention. You just need to know which of the candidate's you'd rather have a beer with.
-
You don't need to pay attention. You just need to know which of the candidate's you'd rather have a beer with.
Hmmmm...I enjoy having a beer with Limey. I'm pretty sure he'd be the LAST guy I'd vote for President.
-
IIRC, you're a Liberatarian, yes? And Jim considers himself a Democrat.
You are not likely to ever agree on anything regarding politics.
I'm an anarchist, I just wish all would be more tolerant of other views.
-
Hmmmm...I enjoy having a beer with Limey. I'm pretty sure he'd be the LAST guy I'd vote for President.
'Cause he's English... right?
-
'Cause he's English... right?
Limey's English?
-
IIRC, you're a Liberatarian, yes? And Jim considers himself a Democrat.
You are not likely to ever agree on anything regarding politics.
Quite true. So it should be he that moves to the mountains yes? (where's the smiley when you need it?)
-
You don't have any First Amendment rights on this board, sister. This ain't no democracy, it's a totalitarian facist "ism" of some sort.
Thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
-
You don't have any First Amendment rights on this board, sister. This ain't no democracy, it's a totalitarian facist "ism" of some sort.
The technical term is "Spackritocracy."
-
Where's our damn waiter? We need more chips for this queso.
-
And one wonders why this country is in so much trouble. You're the one whose embarassing yourself.
Jefferson Davis? is that you? your bullshit lost in 1865. take your states' rights shit to Haiti or somewhere. just STFU. you and Ron Paul can have a circle jerk and lament how the country is going to hell.
fucking idiot.
-
I'm an anarchist, I just wish all would be more tolerant of other views.
you can fucking leave too. Nate needs an assistant.
-
Name me one president who did what he said what he was going to do before he did it? Obama is far more qualified for the simple reason that he has formulated ideas and tested them by talking to the people who these policies will affect. The demographic of Alaska is severely limited.
Obama is lighter than popcorn, but he will win.
-
Jefferson Davis? is that you? your bullshit lost in 1865. take your states' rights shit to Haiti or somewhere. just STFU. you and Ron Paul can have a circle jerk and lament how the country is going to hell.
fucking idiot.
Ah, the old 'might makes right' credo. Rule of law? Means nothing except for a way for you to screw over anyone who crosses you. Fuck off.
-
Obama is lighter than popcorn, but he will win.
I think you're wrong about that. Not the winning part, he's practically had this handed to him. I also think he's on a mission regarding health care.
-
I think you're wrong about that. Not the winning part, he's practically had this handed to him. I also think he's on a mission regarding health care.
Not being an ass with this question...But what exactly is his health care plan? Hillary's was pretty well defined. Obama's is a bit more nebulous, although I'm probably not looking in the right place.
-
Not being an ass with this question...But what exactly is his health care plan? Hillary's was pretty well defined. Obama's is a bit more nebulous, although I'm probably not looking in the right place.
National health insurance for all, cheaper premiums than you have now, improved quality... funding unclear. Policy position states funding will come from cost savings through conversion to paper records, competition between drug providers and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. I'm inept at posting links but he has a little FAQ on his website. I think the characterization that it is not fleshed out enough as an opening policy fight for such a bruising and complex issue is fair. If he tackles it, I think there's no way he can do so successfully in his first year. But my past life as a political consultant for the existing health care establishment biases me to thinking it's borderline political suicide for anyone other than a late term popular president to tackle (think Bubba at the end) or maybe Hillary would have had a shot given she already experienced the beatdown once.
-
you can fucking leave too. Nate needs an assistant.
WFW
-
Not being an ass with this question...But what exactly is his health care plan? Hillary's was pretty well defined. Obama's is a bit more nebulous, although I'm probably not looking in the right place.
All companies either provide health care or pay into a national pool. Federal help for companies, esp. small companies that experience high cost incidents. Expanded Medicare and SCHIP, create a health care exchange which will include a federal program, where people can purchase health coverage http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/03/a-detailed-anal.html
-
holy crap! is that really her?
Popular bumper sticker in Alaska: Coldest State. Hottest Governor!
I keep searching this thread for the resume of Obama's experience <crickets chirping>. Oh wait. He's talked with people that know things. Wonderful. Smart money is on him pulling it off, but strap yourself in for Carter years Part 2. Americans have such a bad memory. Let's bang the oil industry so we can idle our cars in gas lines again. Oh wait, how about really sticking it to the rich? That way, they won't make any investments in the economy. Terrific. Now I'm not saying McCain is in Reagans leauge but he's at least in the parking lot close to the field. Obama is nowhere close to the gold standard. "Trickle down" economics really works. Just ask W.J. Clinton, who reaped the benefits of those who repaired the mess left by Carter.
G.W Bush? Eh. What can I say? I've tried to defend the guy over the years but he's made it tough at times. At least we've not had planes crashing into buildings a second time. Props for really getting the shit together on this Gustav mess that's about to happen. Best wishes to those here affected or that have family being evacuated.
-
I report. You decide: http://townhall.com/blog/g/9b3375c7-6a27-4b5e-9204-b267282a1ce1
This one is interesting from a rubbernecking standpoint. Check out the DKos pics and arguments. If true, then Palin is toast.
-
Name me one president who did what he said what he was going to do before he did it? Obama is far more qualified for the simple reason that he has formulated ideas and tested them by talking to the people who these policies will affect. The demographic of Alaska is severely limited.
Name me what part is Palin running for president? Why are you comparing the bottom part of the GOP ticket to the top part of the Dem ticket? Shouldnt that already tell you about the qualifications about the person who will be making the decisions and implementing policy, is that the best that can be done is to compare him against the person who will not be in charge?
Much less to the fact, that even though she, as you say has governed a state with as few people as Fort Worth, thats still an infinite more times amount of people than Obama has ever governed. Period. And he's the one thats going to be in charge. Being a freshman senator for a year and half, and sitting around thinking about stuff does not actually include any kind of policy implementation or executive experience. So whatever amount, in small quantity, that Palin may have, she STILL has MORE than Obama. And she's just the VP.
There are reasons why Govenors get elected President, and Senators, as a rule, do not.
Obama will do well to not bring this issue up, he will get trounced on it every which way and three times on sunday.
-
Not being an ass with this question...But what exactly is his health care plan? Hillary's was pretty well defined. Obama's is a bit more nebulous, although I'm probably not looking in the right place.
1. Get people who are not covered at all into ObamaCare.
2. Get more and more people who are inadequately covered into ObamaCare.
3. Get everyone else into ObamaCare.
4. Become Canada and wait months for a CAT scan, put doctors in jail for practicing outside ObamaCare and fly people across state lines to find beds to have babies delivered.
-
There are reasons why Govenors get elected President, and Senators, as a rule, do not.
Obama will do well to not bring this issue up, he will get trounced on it every which way and three times on sunday.
Well, he could mention that a governorship is a job sometimes filled by pro-wrestlers and bad actors--and just leave it at that.
-
Well, he could mention that a governorship is a job sometimes filled by pro-wrestlers and bad actors--and just leave it at that.
I don't know how many Harvard law graduates you've dealt with, but I'm not sure pro wrestlers or bad actors are necessarily any less qualified to hold elected office.
-
I report. You decide: http://townhall.com/blog/g/9b3375c7-6a27-4b5e-9204-b267282a1ce1
This one is interesting from a rubbernecking standpoint. Check out the DKos pics and arguments. If true, then Palin is toast.
Considering Palin's 17 year old daughter is currently 5 months pregnant, I'd say this rumor has no legs.
-
Considering Palin's 17 year old daughter is currently 5 months pregnant, I'd say this rumor has no legs.
Yeah, I just caught that a few minutes ago. Supposedly McCain knew in advance. Innerestin' to see how this one plays out. Should be a family matter, but who knows? Shit happens, but Palin is gonna catch some grief over it. I'll be watching to see how they do or don't handle it.
-
Considering Palin's 17 year old daughter is currently 5 months pregnant, I'd say this rumor has no legs.
Oh great, now Obama can spin that McCain is for teen pregnancies. I'm kidding... I hope.
Actually, I feel for that young girl. What pressure. I'd hate to be a out-of-wedlock pregnant teenage daughter dealing with the media scrutiny of a mom running for VP of the USA (on a conservative ticket). Bad enough if her mom was just some mayor of a town with just a few thousand people, or just a governor of a state with the population of Ft. Worth.
-
Yeah, I just caught that a few minutes ago. Supposedly McCain knew in advance. Innerestin' to see how this one plays out. Should be a family matter, but who knows? Shit happens, but Palin is gonna catch some grief over it. I'll be watching to see how they do or don't handle it.
It should be a family matter, but it won't be, just like Clinton's blowjob wasn't. It was a vital national security interest. Plus, she's being touted as the cure for the moral scandals that currently haunt the GOP. Talking heads are already asking if her daughter would have been less likely to get knocked up had her mother been around more often. This is the party that rails on the lack of proper parently skills as being the reason their children screw up. She's being painted as a huge hypocrite. Already, after a few hours. We'll see how she handles it, but "It's a private matter, please don't bring it up again" just isn't going to fly with the public.
-
Oh great, now Obama can spin that McCain is for teen pregnancies. I'm kidding... I hope.
Actually, I feel for that young girl. What pressure. I'd hate to be a out-of-wedlock pregnant teenage daughter dealing with the media scrutiny of a mom running for VP of the USA (on a conservative ticket). Bad enough if her mom was just some mayor of a town with just a few thousand people, or just a governor of a state with the population of Ft. Worth.
When the daughter got pregnant, no one outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin. Now the pregnant teenager is the lead story on the national news.
-
When the daughter got pregnant, no one outside of Alaska had ever heard of Sarah Palin. Now the pregnant teenager is the lead story on the national news.
Wow. I feel bad for the daughter. I can only imagine how hard being 17 and pregnant is, but now the whole world is judging her. I'm still not voting for her mom though.
-
It should be a family matter, but it won't be, just like Clinton's blowjob wasn't. It was a vital national security interest. Plus, she's being touted as the cure for the moral scandals that currently haunt the GOP. Talking heads are already asking if her daughter would have been less likely to get knocked up had her mother been around more often. This is the party that rails on the lack of proper parently skills as being the reason their children screw up. She's being painted as a huge hypocrite. Already, after a few hours. We'll see how she handles it, but "It's a private matter, please don't bring it up again" just isn't going to fly with the public.
I couldn't agree more. I having a VERY hard time believing that McCain knew about this in advance. It just seems like a pile of shit that no sane candidate would willingly step into (either party). I also feel very badly for the daughter that will be headline news. Brutal for a child that age (under 18 imho is a child). Teenage girls get pregnant sometimes and it's difficult enough without that kind of pressure.
-
1. Get people who are not covered at all into ObamaCare.
2. Get more and more people who are inadequately covered into ObamaCare.
3. Get everyone else into ObamaCare.
4. Become Canada and wait months for a CAT scan, put doctors in jail for practicing outside ObamaCare and fly people across state lines to find beds to have babies delivered.
SF more or less has universal health care, and it recently came through for me big time. I worked the last six months as a private teacher for a child with autism, employed by the child's mother, and so I had no insurance through my job. Also supporting a newborn baby, I couldn't afford insurance for myself over the last couple of months. Two weeks ago I had to get a chest x-ray and see a doctor when my TB test (for my current job with the school district) came up positive. I went to the city-provided doctor and the whole thing ended up costing me only $15, and I only had to wait about an hour total.
Furthermore, there's an herbal medicine place in my neighborhood that has cured countless of my family's colds and infections, all for about a tenth of what a comparable pharmaceutical would cost, and in quicker time and with no side effects.
I'm sure everybody here has some nightmare stories in dealing with the health care industry, many positive stories too I'm sure, and certainly not every public health care experience will be as positive as mine, but to just knock the concept of universally available healthcare based on hypothetical horror stories that already happen in the private system seems to me to be missing the point.
ETA: and by the way, I don't have TB
-
Wow. I feel bad for the daughter. I can only imagine how hard being 17 and pregnant is, but now the whole world is judging her. I'm still not voting for her mom though.
Obama campaign just released a statement on the news saying this topic will be off the table and violators will be fired. Very impressive by Obama and the right thing to do. This won't stop the 24 hour news cycle or the late night comedians. I don't envy that young girl right now and can't imagine that type of pressure at that age.
-
Well, he could mention that a governorship is a job sometimes filled by pro-wrestlers and bad actors--and just leave it at that.
Or that McCain has never been anything other than a senator himself. Are we supposed to ignore that? Or, if he was looking for "executive experience" he could have gone with Pawlenty, Ridge, Romney, Jindal, Guliani, I think the list goes on, Thompson, etc, etc, etc.
-
Obama campaign just released a statement on the news saying this topic will be off the table and violators will be fired. Very impressive by Obama and the right thing to do. This won't stop the 24 hour news cycle or the late night comedians. I don't envy that young girl right now and can't imagine that type of pressure at that age.
Both parties are flying researchers up to Alaska to do real real research, which means looking through the local papers, the actual paper and the microfiche to find out about the Governor. You mean not everything is on the Internet? They'll find something in a day or 2 to knock this off the lead.
-
It should be a family matter, but it won't be, just like Clinton's blowjob wasn't.
Sorry there HH, actions of the daughter of VP nominee ≠ actions of the President of the United States in the Oval Office.
-
Sorry there HH, actions of the daughter of VP nominee ≠ actions of the President of the United States in the Oval Office.
I didn't say they were equal. I said neither were germaine to anything other than their own families.
-
I know someone who is Obama's head of new media for new mexico. How the fuck could they not have people who could comb through all this shit in advance of picking someone.
-
I know someone who is Obama's head of new media for new mexico. How the fuck could they not have people who could comb through all this shit in advance of picking someone.
Either they're lazy, stupid, or they dont know any better. I dont think it's the first 2.
-
What you're saying is that they need a campaign librarian.
-
Either they're lazy, stupid, or they dont know any better. I dont think it's the first 2.
The cynic in me thinks was probably a calculated risk. About half of people vote with their heart and not with their brain. Emotion rather than reason.
-
What you're saying is that they need a campaign librarian.
They need someone who understands how to research. That's not limited to librarians, but a lot of people have deluded themselves into thinking that research is just googling. This mistake is about to bite some very important people in the ass.
-
The cynic in me thinks was probably a calculated risk. About half of people vote with their heart and not with their brain. Emotion rather than reason.
I was refering to the people who are trying to get someone elected, not the voters.
-
Sorry there HH, actions of the daughter of VP nominee ≠ actions of the President of the United States in the Oval Office.
However, this news, which McCain apparently knew about, and conservative radio in Alaska had been talking about, cuts off what I thought was going to be her campaign strategy, talking about her background. I imagined get acquainted speech after get acquainted speech about how she got where she is and all the "family values" stuff. Now that is a very risky conversation. What's left is the reformer angle, several stories are cranking up to challenge that, and her ideas about an energy policy, which is "drill here (literally) and drill now". I think McCain is still resisting pushing ANWR so that could be tricky.
-
Drudge Report is all over the story of the daughter now. Below is a really impressive piece that I still can't believe is associated with CNN, as CNN seldom shows this much class.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837862,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
ETA: Just read the Obama release and picked up the tidbit that was new to me, that his mother was 18 when he was born. McCain could have made the calculated decision, that this fact alone makes the whole issue mute. Still, I'm thunderstruck that both McCain and Palin would knowingly subject Palin's daughter to this. At a minimum, Palin knew that this WOULD come out eventually. Now that I think on it, it kinda irritates me. You get offered the job of a lifetime, but your kid is going to suffer for it. What do you do? You take the job?!? Did the daughter have any input into moms decision? The truth to that would be the question I'd like the honest answer to. If Palin is so naive as to think that would not be a major source of presumably unwanted attention/pressure on her daughter, then she is delusional.
-
What's her stance on sex-ed?
-
What's her stance on sex-ed?
I'm pretty sure she's on the record as being pro sex-ed and pro-contraception. She's also admitted to being a "normal" teenager/college student and doing what normal teenagers/college students in 70's/80's did, which includes smoking marijuana. I'm not sure how much pre-marital sex she admits to, but it's probably out there somewhere.
-
Actually a bit refreshing to see a story like this come out that doesn't involve the politician being a total hypocrite.
-
Actually a bit refreshing to see a story like this come out that doesn't involve the politician being a total hypocrite.
I don't agree that there isn't an element of hypocrisy in the story. Total hypocrite? Maybe not.
-
I don't agree that there isn't an element of hypocrisy in the story. Total hypocrite? Maybe not.
It smells of mom placing her political ambitions ahead of her daughters welfare. The daughter is close to being an adult and will have to mature quickly, but she is still a kid. Who wants their child as the butt of late night jokes, splashed all over the 24 hour news cycle and ripped to shreds on the blogoshpere with something so personal? How could Palin NOT know this would be heavily scrutinized? Completely naive. That reflects negatively on her judgment. The only way I'm cool with it is if Bristol said: "Really mom, don't worry about me, you go for it". That would show maturity, but Bristol is still a child and sometimes adults need to step in to be the adult. If the republicans/mom planned this as an angle to their advantage by appealing to their base (which seems to be occurring), then shame on them.
-
It smells of mom placing her political ambitions ahead of her daughters welfare. The daughter is close to being an adult and will have to mature quickly, but she is still a kid. Who wants their child as the butt of late night jokes, splashed all over the 24 hour news cycle and ripped to shreds on the blogoshpere with something so personal? How could Palin NOT know this would be heavily scrutinized? Completely naive. That reflects negatively on her judgment. The only way I'm cool with it is if Bristol said: "Really mom, don't worry about me, you go for it". That would show maturity, but Bristol is still a child and sometimes adults need to step in to be the adult. If the republicans/mom planned this as an angle to their advantage by appealing to their base (which seems to be occurring), then shame on them.
Wow. From that perspective, any parent that goes into politics is making a decision that makes their kids vulnerable to media scrutiny and so all politicians with kids show bad judgment? And that's not even factoring in the enormous drain that a political career has on a parent's time and availability. Do you not remember how the press speculated endlessly on poor, awkward teenage Chelsea Clinton or the sad tale of McGovern's late daughter who he admits suffered tremendously due to his political career? But when you have thought about those people as leaders, have you ever taken that into account in your appraisal of their "judgment".
I personally would need to know a lot more about a public figure than I'm probably entitled to know to make a judgment on their parenting skills. What the fuck do you know about the dynamics of their family, what level of extended familal support system they may have, etc. that qualifies you to make a judgment on this woman as a mother?
And the idea that they "planned" this whole unwed teenage mother thing as a helpful political angle is just ridiculous. It's no coincidence that the release was put out on a holiday with a major hurricane as the news focus - they're getting it out there and hoping it moves off the front page as quickly as possible.
The feminist in me needs to point out the ridiculous double standard that she's a "bad mom" for pursuing her career here while just a week ago Biden was being lauded for what a great dad he was for taking the train home for a 4 hour commute every day while he pursued his career rather than making choices that made him more available for his quite young and recently motherless kids. Gee, I wonder why there's a glass ceiling.
-
The most ironic part of the story is that Palin was an advocate for abstinence-only sex education.
-
I feel so lied to, HH.
-
It smells of mom placing her political ambitions ahead of her daughters welfare. The daughter is close to being an adult and will have to mature quickly, but she is still a kid. Who wants their child as the butt of late night jokes, splashed all over the 24 hour news cycle and ripped to shreds on the blogoshpere with something so personal? How could Palin NOT know this would be heavily scrutinized? Completely naive. That reflects negatively on her judgment. The only way I'm cool with it is if Bristol said: "Really mom, don't worry about me, you go for it". That would show maturity, but Bristol is still a child and sometimes adults need to step in to be the adult. If the republicans/mom planned this as an angle to their advantage by appealing to their base (which seems to be occurring), then shame on them.
If I understand what you're saying, it seems your premise--that there's something wrong happening--is based on your perception of the facts extrapolated in a sequence to meet a desired conclusion.
-
Wow. From that perspective, any parent that goes into politics is making a decision that makes their kids vulnerable to media scrutiny and so all politicians with kids show bad judgment? And that's not even factoring in the enormous drain that a political career has on a parent's time and availability. Do you not remember how the press speculated endlessly on poor, awkward teenage Chelsea Clinton or the sad tale of McGovern's late daughter who he admits suffered tremendously due to his political career? But when you have thought about those people as leaders, have you ever taken that into account in your appraisal of their "judgment".
I personally would need to know a lot more about a public figure than I'm probably entitled to know to make a judgment on their parenting skills. What the fuck do you know about the dynamics of their family, what level of extended familal support system they may have, etc. that qualifies you to make a judgment on this woman as a mother?
And the idea that they "planned" this whole unwed teenage mother thing as a helpful political angle is just ridiculous. It's no coincidence that the release was put out on a holiday with a major hurricane as the news focus - they're getting it out there and hoping it moves off the front page as quickly as possible.
The feminist in me needs to point out the ridiculous double standard that she's a "bad mom" for pursuing her career here while just a week ago Biden was being lauded for what a great dad he was for taking the train home for a 4 hour commute every day while he pursued his career rather than making choices that made him more available for his quite young and recently motherless kids. Gee, I wonder why there's a glass ceiling.
Sorry, no comparison here with Chelsea or Amy Carter, both of whom were quite awkward as children. Or the Bush girls that did what teens do AFTER dad got elected. Like it or not, unwed teen pregnancy is a stigma in our society. To expose a minor to that cesspool when you know of the situation in advance borders on victimization imho. When she is either 18 or married, then she is a legal adult. Until then she is a child. If this situation were to occur with an adult daughter, then it is a complete non issue.
So her and Levi are "planning" to get married? She's five months along and the parents approve, why has that not occurred yet? I wouldn't bet against the chance that she doesn't marry the guy. That's the daughters business, but since it's now a campaign pledge, it's a different story. I have no idea what type of mother Palin is. She might bake the best chocolate chip cookies ever, but we do know that she places politics ahead of her daughter. Maybe being a heart attack away from the football is too tempting for any mortal.
We all see life through the lenses of our own experiences. My experience dictates that there are situations where adults should place their own self interests second to their children.
I was blown away by Palin's introduction speech. Then again, I'm a Republican faithful that's never voted Democrat at the presidential level. I was riding high on the McCain ticket after Palin's introduction until this broke. I'm reconsidering my vote. Maybe I come back around given new information.
Am I beginning to agree with Pravata on politics? That's scary. Credit where credit is due, there were other choices McCain could have made that would have been more appropriate given what we now know and what McCain/Palin already knew. This Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is putting on one hell of an impressive show as a leader. He's got my vote when he's on the ticket.
-
I have no idea what type of mother Palin is. She might bake the best chocolate chip cookies ever, but we do know that she places politics ahead of her daughter. Maybe being a heart attack away from the football is too tempting for any mortal.
"We?"
Do you or have you ever had a teenage daughter? You can't watch them every second, you have to trust them at some point.
-
If I understand what you're saying, it seems your premise--that there's something wrong happening--is based on your perception of the facts extrapolated in a sequence to meet a desired conclusion.
Yeah, something like that. Watch and read the news coverage. The base if FIRED up. Mom had a child with Downs Syndrome after she knew about the condition. She should be congratulated. They are even MORE fired up now that this young heroine is not aborting her child. She too should be congratulated on making the decision that she wants to make. However, I don't put it past politicos to calculate that sequence of events as a positive to their campaign. To me, it's victimization of a minor by the parent. So what that she's 17? The law draws the line at 18 or marriage. What if the father was a neighbor that was 45 years old? Do you think there would NOT be discussion of victimization of a minor regardless of "age of consent" law in Alaska?
To be clear on my premise: Don't expose your minor children to unnecessary embarrassment, ridicule or pressure when you know in advance that your actions will make the minor exposed. Maybe the daughter wanted to be pregnant, married, etc., maybe not. That's irrelevant and a private family issue.
Had the Bush girls pulled their stunts before or during dads campaign, it would have been an issue because they were not of legal age to drink. Pile on that dad used to be a drunk. Again, a family matter, but it would have brought unnecessary attention to those girls and dad likely would not have been elected.
-
but we do know that she places politics ahead of her daughter.
Would you say this about a male politician in the same situation? Probably not.
-
I was blown away by Palin's introduction speech. Then again, I'm a Republican faithful that's never voted Democrat at the presidential level. I was riding high on the McCain ticket after Palin's introduction until this broke. I'm reconsidering my vote. Maybe I come back around given new information.
That this would be the deciding factor for you is laughable, period.
-
"We?"
Do you or have you ever had a teenage daughter? You can't watch them every second, you have to trust them at some point.
No, I have a 6 year old son and a 21 year old step daughter (my wife had just turned 18 when she was born). Likely will be the only children we have as my new wife and I plan on no more children.
I'm not piling on the girl. Kids make mistakes. I'm piling on the mother. Mom could have said "no thank you" and remained the Governor of Alaska. Her daughter's pregnancy would have rightly been a personal family issue. Mom accepted the invitation with the knowledge that her daughter would be exposed to the cesspool.
-
Mom had a child with Downs Syndrome after she knew about the condition. She should be congratulated.
Based on what should she be congratulated? Doing the right thing? Lots of people do the right thing and no one is congratulating them.
-
Would you say this about a male politician in the same situation? Probably not.
Yes I would. See: Bush daughters.
-
Based on what should she be congratulated? Doing the right thing? Lots of people do the right thing and no one is congratulating them.
Based on the fact that many parents would assume that the child's quality of life wouldn't be worth shit since it had Downs Syndrome. I would HATE to have to make that decision. The only way I can relate to it was the nervousness of when my own child was born. My ex elected not to have the test done. Her pregnancy was high risk and the outcome uncertain. Luckily he's just fine.
Doing the right thing when nobody is looking is called integrity. Plenty of people have it. Sure there are numerous acts of decency that go unnoticed, but that does not necessarily mean that they should.
-
Mom could have said "no thank you" and remained the Governor of Alaska. Her daughter's pregnancy would have rightly been a personal family issue.
Good point. Governor of Alaska would be a good low profile job void of any further embarrassment for the girl. Those dumb Alaskans still teletype Jim to ask for tech advice. Their press could never hook on to this story.
-
That this would be the deciding factor for you is laughable, period.
I've never considered the abuse of minors laughable. You disagree with my premise, that's your gig.
Would you expose your child (assuming you have children) to that level of scrutiny and pressure?
Add to the equation that political calculation could have taken place and it's very unfortunate for the girl.
-
...Am I beginning to agree with Pravata on politics? That's scary. ...
Don't get crazy. If McCain was already president would he pick Gov. Palin as vp? I'm more than anxious to see this campaign played out on the issues. And the RNC needs to get on with their convention, including speeches by Bush and Cheney. South Louisiana has shaken off bigger storms than this without their attention.
-
Don't get crazy. If McCain was already president would he pick Gov. Palin as vp? I'm more than anxious to see this campaign played out on the issues. And the RNC needs to get on with their convention, including speeches by Bush and Cheney. South Louisiana has shaken off bigger storms than this without their attention.
Sorry man, I'm insane tonight.
Caught an interview with Dick Morris and his advice was classic: "If McCain wants to get elected, he needs to make every possible distinction on how he is different from Bush/Cheney." Dick Morris is a pretty astute guy when it comes to politics and I think he's correct on that.
Storm/aftermath is still not known. We'll see tomorrow. They are already talking about breaches of levies and unknown damage in the rural areas. Bush rightly paid attention this go around. Regardless of your politics, you have to be impressed at the evacuation of 2 million people and zero looting. Very sharp work and coordination amongst agencies regardless of party affiliations.
The one that needs to be in Minneapolis instead of wherever, pretending that he's assisting with relief efforts is McCain. Seriously. He was on T.V. filling boxes with toys for kids and whatnot. Get the fuck to your convention and tell us what you plan to do because none of us believe you filled more than three boxes of whatnot.
ETA: If McCain were President right now and the V.P. died and he got another choice..... Bobby Jindal all the way! What is the procedure for when a V.P. dies in office? Bueller? Bueller?
-
Sorry man, I'm insane tonight.
Caught an interview with Dick Morris and his advice was classic: "If McCain wants to get elected, he needs to make every possible distinction on how he is different from Bush/Cheney." Dick Morris is a pretty astute guy when it comes to politics and I think he's correct on that.
Storm/aftermath is still not known. We'll see tomorrow. They are already talking about breaches of levies and unknown damage in the rural areas. Bush rightly paid attention this go around. Regardless of your politics, you have to be impressed at the evacuation of 2 million people and zero looting. Very sharp work and coordination amongst agencies regardless of party affiliations.
The one that needs to be in Minneapolis instead of wherever, pretending that he's assisting with relief efforts is McCain. Seriously. He was on T.V. filling boxes with toys for kids and whatnot. Get the fuck to your convention and tell us what you plan to do because none of us believe you filled more than three boxes of whatnot.
ETA: If McCain were President right now and the V.P. died and he got another choice..... Bobby Jindal all the way! What is the procedure for when a V.P. dies in office? Buhler? Buhler?
West Wing told me that the Pres nominates a replacement who is confirmed by the House. And if that is blocked, John Goodman is next in line if anything happens to the President.
-
West Wing told me that the Pres nominates a replacement who is confirmed by the House. And if that is blocked, John Goodman is next in line if anything happens to the President.
But he has to resign first, which is a caveat I had never considered.
-
West Wing told me that the Pres nominates a replacement who is confirmed by the House. And if that is blocked, John Goodman is next in line if anything happens to the President.
Excellent work. Don't always agree with you, but you ARE good at that kind of stuff. Must be the librarian thing.
I can now sleep well knowing John Goodman is ready to step up. What made you pull that name out of the sky? Interesting choice now that you mention it. Fat guy. Personable. Drinks beer. But can he stand up to Putin and that Akmadenijad (or however you spell it) fellow in Iran?
-
Goodman portrayed the Speaker/President in the WW episodes in question.
-
Excellent work. Don't always agree with you, but you ARE good at that kind of stuff. Must be the librarian thing.
I can now sleep well knowing John Goodman is ready to step up. What made you pull that name out of the sky? Interesting choice now that you mention it. Fat guy. Personable. Drinks beer. But can he stand up to Putin and that Akmadenijad (or however you spell it) fellow in Iran?
Goodman was in West Wing, he played the Speaker of the House who is 3rd in line. VP resigned in a sex scandal, President wasnt able to get a new VP before his daughter was kidnapped and he thought he was going looney (dont ask) so he temporarily gives the office over to Goodman. Goodman, as Pres., wanted to bomb everybody.
-
Goodman was in West Wing, he played the Speaker of the House who is 3rd in line. VP resigned in a sex scandal, President wasnt able to get a new VP before his daughter was kidnapped and he thought he was going looney (dont ask) so he temporarily gives the office over to Goodman. Goodman, as Pres., wanted to bomb everybody.
That's awesome. So what you are saying is that he IS up to the task?
Never watched a single episode of WW so I missed the joke on the first go around.
-
UpTooLate. I noticed that you've drawn a distinction between what an 18 year old can do versus a 17 year old, who you term to be "not an adult". Does it matter that the age of consent in Alaska is 16? In the eyes of her state, she is considered an adult.
-
Not being an ass with this question...But what exactly is his health care plan? Hillary's was pretty well defined. Obama's is a bit more nebulous, although I'm probably not looking in the right place.
I would be gobsmacked if Obama's healthcare plan didn't end up looking exactly the same as Clinton's. You don't get that big a roll over in such a short space of time without making lots and lots of promises.
-
UpTooLate. I noticed that you've drawn a distinction between what an 18 year old can do versus a 17 year old, who you term to be "not an adult". Does it matter that the age of consent in Alaska is 16? In the eyes of her state, she is considered an adult.
Fair question, I'll do my best.
17 = kiddie porn
18 = legal porn
Regardless of your feelings about porn, it's an important distinction. Not to mention voting or dying for your country. 18 is the federally accepted age of consent and adulthood in the USA.
If the father of the baby was 45, the conversation would be about how an immature man seduced or coerced a young girl.
You might disagree, but that's where I draw my personal distinctions.
-
Fair question, I'll do my best.
17 = kiddie porn
18 = legal porn
Regardless of your feelings about porn, it's an important distinction. Not to mention voting or dying for your country. 18 is the federally accepted age of consent and adulthood in the USA.
There's a vast difference between two love struck teenagers yielding to temptation and an adult recording a sex act with a minor. Distinctions that are polar opposites on my moral compass.
-
In most states, 16 is the age at which a person can consent to sex but there is usually an age qualifier that the other person is within a certain range (2 to 4 years if my memory serves) and there is no indication of a "power" relationship (i.e. teacher, youth minister etc.).
Age of consent is different than age of majority.
-
There's a vast difference between two love struck teenagers yielding to temptation and an adult recording a sex act with a minor. Distinctions that are polar opposites on my moral compass.
Let's be fair here. Zipp asked me a "nuance" question. I gave an extreme example. My point is that at some point you draw a line or in this case an age, and stick with it. In my head that age is 18. I've left open that people can and will disagree. Sure there are people under the age of 18 with the maturity to be treated as adults and there are people over that age that act like children. My problem with "age of consent" laws is that if you can have sex with the person, but you can't legally look at a nude picture of them, then you need a good therapist and a good lawyer. Why? Because they are not adults. 17 year old's hooking up with other 17 year old's is what kids do and sometimes they get pregnant. That's not the issue with me.
-
But we have serious problems in this country and we need serious people to solve them.
So you noticed the Sorkin influence on the acceptance speech, too?
-
So you noticed the Sorkin influence on the acceptance speech, too?
That's from American President. And that is a great speech "...He is interested in two things and two things only ... making you afraid of it and telling you whose to blame for it ... "
-
I love everything about that movie.
And I'm not joking... I think Obama's seen it, and internalized it. The move of staring into the front camera and saying "I welcome that debate", as well as several other touches... eerily similar.
-
I love everything about that movie.
And I'm not joking... I think Obama's seen it, and internalized it. The move of staring into the front camera and saying "I welcome that debate", as well as several other touches... eerily similar.
Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.
-
Based on what should she be congratulated? Doing the right thing? Lots of people do the right thing and no one is congratulating them.
I really think that a significant portion of the pro-life population believe that somebody who is pro-choice ("choice") will always abort as a matter of simple convenience, and could care less about the profound personal effect of such a choice on the person making it, regardless of what decision is made.
-
I love everything about that movie.
And I'm not joking... I think Obama's seen it, and internalized it. The move of staring into the front camera and saying "I welcome that debate", as well as several other touches... eerily similar.
Including the part about sitting down with the federal budget and just doing a page turn to mark out wasteful programs. Maybe Kevin Kline can advise on how best to do this.
-
I really think that a significant portion of the pro-life population believe that somebody who is pro-choice ("choice") will always abort as a matter of simple convenience, and could care less about the profound personal effect of such a choice on the person making it, regardless of what decision is made.
What's your basis for thinking this?
-
Just wondering about topics like this ... Does the offensiveness of the thoughts expressed make up for the defensive attitude of the poster?
-
Including the part about sitting down with the federal budget and just doing a page turn to mark out wasteful programs. Maybe Kevin Kline can advise on how best to do this.
Wrong movie. That's "Dave".
-
This pick keeps getting better and better. Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party until 1996. Their goal is a statewide vote on secession . She recorded a video message that was shown at their convention this year.
-
Just wondering about topics like this ... Does the offensiveness of the thoughts expressed make up for the defensive attitude of the poster?
I guess that you are talking about me. Not sure what your point is.
I threw out an opinion. Got challenged. Responded. Got challenged further. Kept responding. I've tried to refrain from defensiveness, but if that's your take on it, so be it. On topics like this, we seldom change the other persons mind, but do have fun in the process. In regards to offensive thoughts, I'll agree they are unpleasant.
We've seen this cycle played out time and again on this forum.
-
Wrong movie. That's "Dave".
I forgot. American President is the one with Michael Douglas and Anette Benning, right?
But he could still do the page-turn through the budget to mark out wasteful spending, right?
-
Just wondering about topics like this ... Does the offensiveness of the thoughts expressed make up for the defensive attitude of the poster?
This thread is tame compared to others. I hold Limey responsible for keeping this so civil.
-
This pick keeps getting better and better. Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party until 1996. Their goal is a statewide vote on secession . She recorded a video message that was shown at their convention this year.
So is she a secessionist?
-
What's your basis for thinking this?
Discussions with family members and other people who routinely throw out the line that those who support the right to choose view abortion as routine birth control to be considered as casually as wearing a condom. I doubt those people have ever known anyone who has had to go through that agonizing decision.
-
I love everything about that movie.
And I'm not joking... I think Obama's seen it, and internalized it. The move of staring into the front camera and saying "I welcome that debate", as well as several other touches... eerily similar.
So does that mean he's a good actor running for President as opposed to a bad one?
-
Discussions with family members and other people who routinely throw out the line that those who support the right to choose view abortion as routine birth control to be considered as casually as wearing a condom. I doubt those people have ever known anyone who has had to go through that agonizing decision.
Not to disparage your personal experience, but it seems like a stretch to go from your "family members and other people" to a "significant portion." I'm not saying you might not be right, but I think your generalization is without sound basis.
-
So does that mean he's a good actor running for President as opposed to a bad one?
Has he ever co-starred with a chimp?
-
I really think that a significant portion of the pro-life population believe that somebody who is pro-choice ("choice") will always abort as a matter of simple convenience, and could care less about the profound personal effect of such a choice on the person making it, regardless of what decision is made.
Just a wild guess here, but if you label yourself as either pro-life or pro-choice, you represent less than 50% of the population. Most average Americans probably fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on that topic. You'll always have the hard core believers on both sides that take their belief system to the extreme.
-
So does that mean he's a good actor running for President as opposed to a bad one?
He's for damn sure a good speaker running for President.
-
He's for damn sure a good speaker running for President.
That's right. It's hard to say whether Obama or Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) is the better speaker.
-
That's right. It's hard to say whether Obama or Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) is the better speaker.
How many really good speach makers have been President in the last 50 years? Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton?
-
That's right. It's hard to say whether Obama or Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) is the better speaker.
I'd have to lean towards Clinton in his prime. He seemed much better at going off topic and having fun, IMO. Obama is great at speeches, but seems less able to adjust his message and go off script.
-
This pick keeps getting better and better. Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party until 1996. Their goal is a statewide vote on secession . She recorded a video message that was shown at their convention this year.
Hold off for a second there. You got me interested so I looked some of this stuff up. Now, the rebuttal comes for the McCain-Palin camp, but there does to be some dipute to the report: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html
A day after ABC News requested a response from Palin as to whether she was ever a member of the AIP, McCain campain spox Brian Rogers told ABC News that Clark's "allegations are false."
"Governor Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982," Rogers says, providing some voter registration documentation showing her to be a Republican. "As you know, if she changed her registration, there would have been some record of it. There isn’t."
Rogers says the McCain campaign provided ABC News with all the voter registration information that exists. Rogers says that Palin didn’t attend the AIP convention in 1994, "but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor."
He would not comment as to why AIP officials are so convinced Palin was a member of their party. When asked if Palin ever identified herself as a member of the AIP, Rogers said, "No, she's a lifelong Republican."
The McCain website has published the voter registration info in pdf format. I will prvide a link if anyone really wants it:
http://www.johnmccain.com/images/mccainreport/Document.pdf
Link intentionally left unmasked so that no one would accidently click on a site they didn't want to visit.
Now, I am not trying to get back in the "debate", but I am trying to follow up on any interesting information prvided by people here. I like how pravata tries to present rumors as rumors and facts as facts. I hope I have done that here.
-
It's a limited body, but the footage that I have seen of Kennedy speaking off the cuff is impressive.
The current campaign reminds me a little of "The Candidate."
-
That's right. It's hard to say whether Obama or Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) is the better speaker.
That black Southern Baptist preacher style is amazingly effective. I'm pretty sure you can say "let's go kill puppies" with that intonation and the crowd will cheer. I find little to agree with him on, but nonetheless watching him speak is riveting. Should he win, I'd at least be happy with his figurehead representation of us internationally.
-
That's right. It's hard to say whether Obama or Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) is the better speaker.
I'm for this old codger (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party?utm_source=onion_rss_daily)
-
I think my new favorite fact is that when elected mayor Palin demanded that all top city officials resign as a test of loyalty.
http://idly.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin_loyalty_test.png
Pretty neat, huh? The best part is that the head of libraries was included as a key city official. They must do a lot of reading up in Wasilla over the long, dark winter months.
-
The current campaign reminds me a little of "The Candidate."
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine liked that movie so much he adopted the "Better Way" slogan for his campaign. That movie included one of Peter Boyle's finer efforts.
-
I think my new favorite fact is that when elected mayor Palin demanded that all top city officials resign as a test of loyalty.
http://idly.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin_loyalty_test.png
Pretty neat, huh? The best part is that the head of libraries was included as a key city official. They must do a lot of reading up in Wasilla over the long, dark winter months.
Big fucking deal. I've worked for politicians who did that. It was normally a way to easily get rid of one person or shut down one office and make a lot of other hard-working honest people real nervous.
-
I think my new favorite fact is that when elected mayor Palin demanded that all top city officials resign as a test of loyalty.
http://idly.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/palin_loyalty_test.png
Pretty neat, huh? The best part is that the head of libraries was included as a key city official. They must do a lot of reading up in Wasilla over the long, dark winter months.
Allegedly, she asked the librarians how to get certain books banned from the library. When questioned Mayor Palin replied that the question was merely "rhetorical". Yeah, thas't rhetorical like.
-
She's going to sink his campaign. I don't think there's a good way to remove her from the ticket.
-
I'm for this old codger (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party?utm_source=onion_rss_daily)
Well, that just absorbed 30 minutes out my day. This one is great:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/portrayal_of_obama_as_elitist?utm_source=videomrss_85271
-
She's going to sink his campaign. I don't think there's a good way to remove her from the ticket.
Were you planning on voting for him before and are now not going to?
-
Allegedly, she asked the librarians how to get certain books banned from the library.
Condoms for Dummies?
-
She's going to sink his campaign. I don't think there's a good way to remove her from the ticket.
If the national polls are to be believed that hasn't happened yet.
-
I wasn't voting for McCain, but I'm also not a democrat. This woman's world view is out of whack with the majority of Americans.
-
This woman's Most politicians' world views are out of whack with the majority of Americans.
FIFY
-
Condoms for Dummies?
Probably the usual, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Mice and Men.
-
Probably the usual, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Mice and Men.
Don't forget Huck Finn.
-
Probably the usual, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Mice and Men.
Also, "The Bill James Abstract." And, some shit about the Cubs.
-
Also, "The Bill James Abstract." And, some shit about the Cubs.
Pass.
-
Probably the usual, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Mice and Men.
She might need to make sure that she has an up-to-date version of the constitution, because the one she has defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Also, libraries often have internet access, which would allow visitors to go onto Wikipedia and see who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, when, and what changes have been made over time. 2006 Alaskan Gubernatorial Candidate Questionaire (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html).
-
Also, "The Bill James Abstract." And, some shit about the Cubs.
I am unaware of anything about the cubs that isn't shit.
-
I am unaware of anything about the cubs that isn't shit.
Them losing. Them losing isn't shit.
-
Them losing. Them losing isn't shit.
Oh, no. They're involved, so it's shit. Too they trot out the lovable loser bullshit when they lose. EVERYTHING they touch is shit. Even cub shit is shittier than non-cub shit. When you look up shit in the dictionary you don't see cub shit because it's worse than standard shit.
-
She might need to make sure that she has an up-to-date version of the constitution, because the one she has defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Also, libraries often have internet access, which would allow visitors to go onto Wikipedia and see who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, when, and what changes have been made over time. 2006 Alaskan Gubernatorial Candidate Questionaire (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html).
That's just scary.
-
Oh, no. They're involved, so it's shit. Too they trot out the lovable loser bullshit when they lose. EVERYTHING they touch is shit. Even cub shit is shittier than non-cub shit. When you look up shit in the dictionary you don't see cub shit because it's worse than standard shit.
Lovable? (http://www.cubssuckclub.com/gallery/Cubs_Suckcessories/Cubs_Fans.jpg)
-
That's just scary.
If she believes it, it's scary. If not, she was pandering. She doesn't strike me as an ignorant person...
-
She might need to make sure that she has an up-to-date version of the constitution, because the one she has defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Also, libraries often have internet access, which would allow visitors to go onto Wikipedia and see who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, when, and what changes have been made over time. 2006 Alaskan Gubernatorial Candidate Questionaire (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html).
I think she's referring to the Alaskan constitution.
-
She might need to make sure that she has an up-to-date version of the constitution, because the one she has defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Also, libraries often have internet access, which would allow visitors to go onto Wikipedia and see who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, when, and what changes have been made over time. 2006 Alaskan Gubernatorial Candidate Questionaire (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html).
Sonofabitch. Did someone get a card to go with the gift-wrapped present?
-
Sonofabitch. Did someone get a card to go with the gift-wrapped present?
How is it a present? Palin was picked to energize the right-wing base. That questionnaire is the base's bread and butter.
-
How is it a present? Palin was picked to energize the right-wing base. That questionnaire is the base's bread and butter.
If her daughter's pregnancy can be spun that it makes her more like one of us (and one of us is who we want in the White House) then anything is possible.
-
She's going to sink his campaign. I don't think there's a good way to remove her from the ticket.
I wouldn't rush to any conclusions. So far, the accusations and attacks on her, besides her "credentials" for VP, have been relatively baseless. To the contrary, I would caution anyone firmly behind Obama that this attack by the media, bloggers, et al could cast a negative view on his campaign by the swing voters.
From what I've read and noticed, the group of swing voters can most commonly be grouped under key tendencies: taking issue with overly negative campaign tactics and taking exception when the media is perceived to be showing a clear bias.
I can't say whether that's happened yet but I would be very concerned about the tone and frequency of the comments directed towards Palin. So far it has been issues of little relevance and little has proved to be accurate. If it continues to be unfounded people will eventually assume a biased media agenda. I give credit to Obama for distancing himself from these articles. However, the association is likely perceived and will have little to do with fact (i.e. it won't matter if Obama had anything to do with it).
I realize most people look at Swiftboat Vets as a negative attack campaign, and by non-partisan guidelines I agree. But it directly attacked a claim Kerry made about his service and therefor stuck. The teenage pregnancy, the young son with Downs Syndrome, pro-life, etc.. none of that speaks towared a hypocrisy or contradicts her stated values. To the contrary, dealing with those life events can be used to further illustrate her resilient character and strength of convictions. Granted, it's spin-doctoring but the gamble is which spin is going to strike a chord with those critical swing voters.
I'm looking to see how she navigates these attacks and see how she does in any potential VP debates. She could be the Obama/Biden tickets worst nightmare: A competent republican female, who can relate to suburban professional women and housewives alike.
Just my thoughts... I'm spectating at this point. I'm leaning toward McCain, for full disclosure, but Palin was a huge surprise. I knew/know nothing about her other than what's been published. I hope for at least two VP debates.
To change gears, I'd really like to understand how providing universal healthcare is going to dramatically reverse the sky-rocketing cost of healthcare. I have top-notch coverage and pay out the nose in both premiums and co-insurance payments. I'm speculating that most think giving gov't subsidized insurance to those who cannot afford their own, or don't have access thru their employer, will eventually lower costs for the rest of us. I don't believe that will be the case, personally.
I have a slightly different perspective as I am very familiar with the Community Health Care Clinic system in place, which provides healthcare at low cost, if not free, to those who do not have insurance. Their greatest challenge is to convince members of the community to take advantage of their services, preferrably in a preventative manner. I'd also like to emphasize preventative care because it is proven to reduce healthcare costs. The sad fact is, those who don't have insurance really don't take advantage of the medical care, free or otherwise, that is available until it's an emergency.
-
I wasn't voting for McCain, but I'm also not a democrat. This woman's world view is out of whack with the majority of Americans.
I didn't ask whether you're a Democrat. I asked whether you were going to vote for McCain before, and whether you will now. If you weren't going to anyway, why do you care? It just made your decision even easier, right?
-
Sonofabitch. Did someone get a card to go with the gift-wrapped present?
Andrea Mitchell apparently has reported on MSNBC (salt-pinched, but Andrea is pretty neutral) that the McCain campaign commenced an emergency, deep-vetting process on Palin...yesterday. I don't expect that they'll find anything that hasn't shown up already, but, for me, the issue isn't Palin as running mate, it's the picking of Palin as running mate. It's smacks heavily of pandering, desperation, lack of adherence to principles and hypocrisy...on the part of the McCain campaign.
FWIW, Sarah Palin seems to be a decent person (for a politician) who practices what she preaches and therefore likely believes in the positions she takes (albeit with some amusing misstatements about marriage definitions and pledges). What McCain has done is to make a decision based solely on political imperatives, which is an accusation he has thrown at Obama repeatedly. By pandering to the base of his party, he has undercut much of his own message.
-
I wouldn't rush to any conclusions. So far, the accusations and attacks on her, besides her "credentials" for VP, have been relatively baseless. To the contrary, I would caution anyone firmly behind Obama that this attack by the media, bloggers, et al could cast a negative view on his campaign by the swing voters.
From what I've read and noticed, the group of swing voters can most commonly be grouped under key tendencies: taking issue with overly negative campaign tactics and taking exception when the media is perceived to be showing a clear bias.
I can't say whether that's happened yet but I would be very concerned about the tone and frequency of the comments directed towards Palin. So far it has been issues of little relevance and little has proved to be accurate. If it continues to be unfounded people will eventually assume a biased media agenda. I give credit to Obama for distancing himself from these articles. However, the association is likely perceived and will have little to do with fact (i.e. it won't matter if Obama had anything to do with it).
I realize most people look at Swiftboat Vets as a negative attack campaign, and by non-partisan guidelines I agree. But it directly attacked a claim Kerry made about his service and therefor stuck. The teenage pregnancy, the young son with Downs Syndrome, pro-life, etc.. none of that speaks towared a hypocrisy or contradicts her stated values. To the contrary, dealing with those life events can be used to further illustrate her resilient character and strength of convictions. Granted, it's spin-doctoring but the gamble is which spin is going to strike a chord with those critical swing voters.
I'm looking to see how she navigates these attacks and see how she does in any potential VP debates. She could be the Obama/Biden tickets worst nightmare: A competent republican female, who can relate to suburban professional women and housewives alike.
Just my thoughts... I'm spectating at this point. I'm leaning toward McCain, for full disclosure, but Palin was a huge surprise. I knew/know nothing about her other than what's been published. I hope for at least two VP debates.
To change gears, I'd really like to understand how providing universal healthcare is going to dramatically reverse the sky-rocketing cost of healthcare. I have top-notch coverage and pay out the nose in both premiums and co-insurance payments. I'm speculating that most think giving gov't subsidized insurance to those who cannot afford their own, or don't have access thru their employer, will eventually lower costs for the rest of us. I don't believe that will be the case, personally.
I have a slightly different perspective as I am very familiar with the Community Health Care Clinic system in place, which provides healthcare at low cost, if not free, to those who do not have insurance. Their greatest challenge is to convince members of the community to take advantage of their services, preferrably in a preventative manner. I'd also like to emphasize preventative care because it is proven to reduce healthcare costs. The sad fact is, those who don't have insurance really don't take advantage of the medical care, free or otherwise, that is available until it's an emergency.
Waste of words. He wasn't going to vote for McCain anyway, so he's just bitching about something that he didn't care about in any event.
-
If her daughter's pregnancy can be spun that it makes her more like one of us (and one of us is who we want in the White House) then anything is possible.
To summarize, this is what I was trying to state, only less succinctly. In other words, sort of a "Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington"...
-
By pandering to the base of his party, he has undercut much of his own message.
See that sentence - that sentence right there? Exactly why McCain has no chance of getting my vote.
-
See that sentence - that sentence right there? Exactly why McCain has no chance of getting my vote.
I believe it was during one of the campaign's media conference calls when a spokesman for the McCain campaign asserted that John McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign. See make up, stuff you can't (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103112_pf.html).
-
That's just scary.
And, gone.
-
How is it a present? Palin was picked to energize the right-wing base. That questionnaire is the base's bread and butter.
I agree and fully appreciate the strategy. The problem as I see it is that association with Bush's perceived incompetence has become difficult for some Republicans to continue to brush off. Appeal to the right-wing base; they've carried their share of the party for years and deserve their say. But turning off those that support the party for reasons other than its social agenda with a string of indefensible policies will ultimately tank the general election. Taking the good with the bad has its limits.
-
To summarize, this is what I was trying to state, only less succinctly. In other words, sort of a "Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington"...
Yes, a book banning, loyalty oath administering, brother in law firing, historically challenged, $22 million debt leaving, earmark grubbing, Mr Jefferson Smith. Exactly like that.
-
See that sentence - that sentence right there? Exactly why McCain has no chance of getting my vote.
Pandering? In politics?
-
And, gone.
Perfect.
-
Perfect.
Wow.
-
Andrea Mitchell apparently has reported on MSNBC (salt-pinched, but Andrea is pretty neutral) that the McCain campaign commenced an emergency, deep-vetting process on Palin...yesterday. I don't expect that they'll find anything that hasn't shown up already, but, for me, the issue isn't Palin as running mate, it's the picking of Palin as running mate. It's smacks heavily of pandering, desperation, lack of adherence to principles and hypocrisy...on the part of the McCain campaign.
FWIW, Sarah Palin seems to be a decent person (for a politician) who practices what she preaches and therefore likely believes in the positions she takes (albeit with some amusing misstatements about marriage definitions and pledges). What McCain has done is to make a decision based solely on political imperatives, which is an accusation he has thrown at Obama repeatedly. By pandering to the base of his party, he has undercut much of his own message.
The McCain campaign is faced with an extremely difficult situation for a Republican candidate due to all kinds of factors, self-inflicted or not. They gambled with a risky running mate selection that may appeal to constituencies that McCain needs to win the election. Do you think they would be doing better right now had McCain put Mitt Romney on the ticket? I doubt it.
In any event, choosing a running mate always involves political calculations. This is why Obama, running on a platform of "change," selected as his running mate a consummate Washington insider and traditional big-government liberal who's been in the Senate since the Nixon administration. This was a political calculation to shore up Obama's thin resume, despite his campaign's insistence that giving a couple of speeches in the Senate and overseas constitutes foreign policy "experience." In other words, they made a move designed to address weakness, just like McCain did.
-
I agree and fully appreciate the strategy. The problem as I see it is that association with Bush's perceived incompetence has become difficult for some Republicans to continue to brush off. Appeal to the right-wing base; they've carried their share of the party for years and deserve their say. But turning off those that support the party for reasons other than its social agenda with a string of indefensible policies will ultimately tank the general election. Taking the good with the bad has its limits.
Meanwhile, Obama has been shuffling one foot ever so carefully towards the centre. Until last Thursday when he planted it there with authority. It's a calculated move that will piss off some of his party (hard to call Democrats a "base" as their agendae all over the place), but is intended to solidify his appeal with moderates, some independents and disaffected conservatives just the other side of the middle.
-
Wow.
They can't shut down the way-back machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20070430110729/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html
-
And, gone.
You decide on the coincidence - looks like someone scrubbed her Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&offset=20080829133543&limit=500&action=history) shortly before her nomination was announced.
-
Andrea Mitchell apparently has reported on MSNBC (salt-pinched, but Andrea is pretty neutral)
[unimportant nit]She's actually quite liberal.[/unimportant nit]
-
You decide on the coincidence - looks like someone scrubbed her Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&offset=20080829133543&limit=500&action=history) shortly before her nomination was announced.
Hmm. JackAstro has an awful lot of nicknames.
-
I believe it was during one of the campaign's media conference calls when a spokesman for the McCain campaign asserted that John McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign. See make up, stuff you can't (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103112_pf.html).
Not exactly what he said. That's what the unbiased reporter from the Washington Post said.
-
[unimportant nit]She's actually quite liberal.[/unimportant nit]
In fairness, appearing with Olbermann throws off the scale for everybody.
-
[unimportant nit]She's actually quite liberal.[/unimportant nit]
MSNBC? Surely, you jest.
-
MSNBC? Surely, you jest.
And to close the Limey loop, she appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show and claimed the major networks, herself, and Chris Matthews are not liberal.
-
The McCain campaign is faced with an extremely difficult situation for a Republican candidate due to all kinds of factors, self-inflicted or not. They gambled with a risky running mate selection that may appeal to constituencies that McCain needs to win the election. Do you think they would be doing better right now had McCain put Mitt Romney on the ticket? I doubt it.
In any event, choosing a running mate always involves political calculations. This is why Obama, running on a platform of "change," selected as his running mate a consummate Washington insider and traditional big-government liberal who's been in the Senate since the Nixon administration. This was a political calculation to shore up Obama's thin resume, despite his campaign's insistence that giving a couple of speeches in the Senate and overseas constitutes foreign policy "experience." In other words, they made a move designed to address weakness, just like McCain did.
Ignoring the talking points in there, Obama's pick was smart for the reasons you cite, with the added benefit of not changing his policy positions. To paraphrase Kerry's refrain from his convention speech last week, McCain the candidate is now totally unrecognisable from McCain the "Maverick" Senator. If Obama does his homework, he can shred McCain in the debates by using nothing more than his own words against him.
-
See that sentence - that sentence right there? Exactly why McCain has no chance of getting my vote.
Ditto. And yet ... perversely and considering the options ... I hope he wins.
-
Ignoring the talking points in there, Obama's pick was smart for the reasons you cite, with the added benefit of not changing his policy positions. To paraphrase Kerry's refrain from his convention speech last week, McCain the candidate is now totally unrecognisable from McCain the "Maverick" Senator. If Obama does his homework, he can shred McCain in the debates by using nothing more than his own words against him.
Perhaps the reason that Obama and Biden are on the same page policy-wise has to do with the fact that Obama's not really about change at all. He's about bringing back the '60s and '70s. So I suppose to the extent that Obama's entire theme of change for his campaign is a sham, yes, you're right, Biden fits in quite nicely.
As for McCain and Palin, the biggest meaningful policy difference between them is whether to drill in ANWR. We'll see if McCain's position shifts on that now that he's added Palin to the ticket. If he does, so much the better, because I think he's been wrong to oppose ANWR drilling. Come to think of it, even Obama and the rest of the Democrats are beginning to grasp that they're on the wrong side of expanded drilling too.
The only time the Democrats and their media cheerleaders ever actually gave a damn about McCain being a "maverick" is when he thumbed his nose at Republicans and supported the Democratic line on certain issues, such as campaign-finance reform, ending judicial filibusters in the Senate and opposing the Bush tax cuts. In other words, when he acts like Democrat, he's a brave independent. When he doesn't, he catches hell.
Contrast this to how the Democrats have treated Joe Lieberman when he broke with them on a matter of principle. He was practically run out of the party.
By the way, I'm not sure what talking points you're referring to. I write my own material.
-
Place a wager (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/02/technology/kimes_intrade.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008090215) on Palin being withdrawn. Current odds are 12%
-
If Obama does his homework...
That might be the problem. From what I have seen, Biden and Palin seem to be relatively quick in debates, but Biden will probably come out ahead in the end. McCain will have to give up if he can never get into the debates with Obama. Obama is correctly delaying that as long as possible. As long as Obama can just keep it to speeches, he will stay ahead.
-
Place a wager (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/02/technology/kimes_intrade.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008090215) on Palin being withdrawn. Current odds are 12%
Those odds seem way high. Unless it comes out that she's an axe-murderer, the McCain campaign would look simply awful for dropping her from the ticket. They don't get a do-over like Bush did with Harriet Meyers.
Of course, if the media were as anxious to dig around Chicago the last 18 months as they have been around Alaska the last 96 hours, we'd probably be finding out a lot more unseemly stuff about the candidate at the top of the ticket in the other party. Funny how that works, ain't it?
-
Of course, if the media were as anxious to dig around Chicago the last 18 months as they have been around Alaska the last 96 hours, we'd probably be finding out a lot more unseemly stuff about the candidate at the top of the ticket in the other party. Funny how that works, ain't it?
You honestly believe that, don't you?
-
Those odds seem way high. Unless it comes out that she's an axe-murderer, the McCain campaign would look simply awful for dropping her from the ticket. They don't get a do-over like Bush did with Harriet Meyers.
Of course, if the media were as anxious to dig around Chicago the last 18 months as they have been around Alaska the last 96 hours, we'd probably be finding out a lot more unseemly stuff about the candidate at the top of the ticket in the other party. Funny how that works, ain't it?
Right. No one has ever looked into who this "Barack Obama" character is.
-
The only time the Democrats and their media cheerleaders ever actually gave a damn about McCain being a "maverick" is when he thumbed his nose at Republicans and supported the Democratic line on certain issues, such as campaign-finance reform, ending judicial filibusters in the Senate and opposing the Bush tax cuts. In other words, when he acts like Democrat, he's a brave independent. When he doesn't, he catches hell.
OK, so what about when he does both?
Opposing the Bush tax cuts as irresponsible, or promising to extend them?
Or opposing the moratorium on offshore drilling before supporting it?
Or supporting making adoption as straightforward as possible, but saying that an orphanage is preferable to adoption by a gay couple?
Or stating that he would not seek to overturn Roe, then stating that he would?
McCain 2000 was an admirable, centrist politician. McCain 2008... not so much.
-
The only time the Democrats and their media cheerleaders ever actually gave a damn about McCain being a "maverick" is when he thumbed his nose at Republicans and supported the Democratic line on certain issues, such as campaign-finance reform, ending judicial filibusters in the Senate and opposing the Bush tax cuts. In other words, when he acts like Democrat, he's a brave independent. When he doesn't, he catches hell.
MCain has reversed on almost all those positions. His fame and cache as a politician was based in a large part on the fact that he did break ranks with the party when he felt he needed to. Now he needs the party's support, and he's abandoned his principled positions for the party line. That makes him vulnerable to attacks from an opponent who you clearly have no time for, but one who cannot be accused of the same.
-
That might be the problem. From what I have seen, Biden and Palin seem to be relatively quick in debates, but Biden will probably come out ahead in the end. McCain will have to give up if he can never get into the debates with Obama. Obama is correctly delaying that as long as possible. As long as Obama can just keep it to speeches, he will stay ahead.
Aren't the debates (2 presidential, 1 VP) scheduled already?
My mistake: 2 presidential debates, plus a town hall.
http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/08/21/official-2008-obama-mccain-presidential-debate-schedule/
-
Of course, if the media were as anxious to dig around Chicago the last 18 months as they have been around Alaska the last 96 hours, we'd probably be finding out a lot more unseemly stuff about the candidate at the top of the ticket in the other party. Funny how that works, ain't it?
Do you think the Clintons were just sitting on their hands for the first 12 months of that time?
-
Those odds seem way high. Unless it comes out that she's an axe-murderer, the McCain campaign would look simply awful for dropping her from the ticket. They don't get a do-over like Bush did with Harriet Meyers.
Of course, if the media were as anxious to dig around Chicago the last 18 months as they have been around Alaska the last 96 hours, we'd probably be finding out a lot more unseemly stuff about the candidate at the top of the ticket in the other party. Funny how that works, ain't it?
It's easier just to call him a muslim terrorist.
I've never understood how the whole "media as great liberal cheerleading mouthpiece" viewpoint gained such traction in this country but it is one of the greatest wool-pulling jobs in a long time. Right up there with making gay marriage an "issue."
-
That might be the problem. From what I have seen, Biden and Palin seem to be relatively quick in debates, but Biden will probably come out ahead in the end. McCain will have to give up if he can never get into the debates with Obama. Obama is correctly delaying that as long as possible. As long as Obama can just keep it to speeches, he will stay ahead.
Biden doesn't have to go after Palin in the VP debate*. Debating is considered Obama's weakness, hence the need for him to do his homework. McCain claims to prefer open forum, town hall-type settings, but has had a run of trouble with them this year as he's been very gaffe-prone when talking off the cuff.
ETA: * He can go after McCain and leave Palin alone.
-
Aren't the debates (2 presidential, 1 VP) scheduled already?
I think he's referring to McCain's proposed weekly joint town hall meetings across the country.
-
Debating is considered Obama's weakness, hence the need for him to do his homework. McCain claims to prefer open forum, town hall-type settings, but has had a run of trouble with them this year as he's been very gaffe-prone when talking off the cuff.
I think that's backwards.
-
It's easier just to call him a muslim terrorist.
I've never understood how the whole "media as great liberal cheerleading mouthpiece" viewpoint gained such traction in this country but it is one of the greatest wool-pulling jobs in a long time. Right up there with making gay marriage an "issue."
If it's said often enough and in as many venues as possible, it just becomes reality because it's reinforcing something people have heard before.
-
You honestly believe that, don't you?
I believe there are a great many unanswered questions. My impression is that he's a fundamentally decent guy. My concern is that Democratic candidates rising through the machine in Illinois are hard-pressed to make it big without facing certain compromises. It'd be great to know he's as squeaky clean as your question implies that you think he is.
-
I think that's backwards.
No, McCain seems more comfortable talking to people. Obama comes off as a lecturer. Both Obama and Biden have the unfortunate problem that they try to explain stuff. Palin is apparently good with a quip and deflecting followup questions.
-
I think that's backwards.
Let me introduce you to this thing called YouTube...
-
Right. No one has ever looked into who this "Barack Obama" character is.
Precisely. That's exactly what I wrote.
-
Did you recently awake from a coma?
-
I believe there are a great many unanswered questions. My impression is that he's a fundamentally decent guy. My concern is that Democratic candidates rising through the machine in Illinois are hard-pressed to make it big without facing certain compromises. It'd be great to know he's as squeaky clean as your question implies that you think he is.
Skepticism is healthy when it's applied equally. Yours seems to be focused in one direction.
-
Let me introduce you to this thing called YouTube...
I was referring only to the last part of your statement. In that regard I only recall an article I read that Obama had difficulty in that town hall meeting with the fundamentalist preacher. The article implied McCain did very well. Too following that meeting the poll numbers between Obama and McCain closed to even. If that is wrong reporting or if true an anomoly, fine.
-
Precisely. That's exactly what I wrote.
Just with a broken sarc-meter.
-
OK, so what about when he does both?
Opposing the Bush tax cuts as irresponsible, or promising to extend them?
Or opposing the moratorium on offshore drilling before supporting it?
Or supporting making adoption as straightforward as possible, but saying that an orphanage is preferable to adoption by a gay couple?
Or stating that he would not seek to overturn Roe, then stating that he would?
McCain 2000 was an admirable, centrist politician. McCain 2008... not so much.
Which is why he wasn't exactly a consensus candidates for Republicans. But he's the candidate now, and running against Obama, he's certainly the preferable choice for millions of voters.
-
Skepticism is healthy when it's applied equally. Yours seems to be focused in one direction.
In fairness, McCain's personal failings are a pretty well-known quantity.
-
Which is why he wasn't exactly a consensus candidates for Republicans. But he's the candidate now, and running against Obama, he's certainly the preferable choice for millions of voters.
And that's fine. My point is that they are all reasons why he's not a preferable choice for me.
-
McCain 2000 was an admirable, centrist politician. McCain 2008... not so much.
He wasn't electable nationally with those positions. A politician is responsible for representing the people that elect him and getting elected is included in those responsibilities. The people of Arizona have different priorites than those of the US in general. If he wants the top job, he has to conform to the people's will, or else the only politicians that will be eligible for the Presidency are those coming from states that happen to have a similar cross section as the country at that time.
-
I believe there are a great many unanswered questions. My impression is that he's a fundamentally decent guy. My concern is that Democratic candidates rising through the machine in Illinois are hard-pressed to make it big without facing certain compromises. It'd be great to know he's as squeaky clean as your question implies that you think he is.
I was referring more to your inference of a liberally-biased media. You really think that the media as a whole hasn't dug into every aspect of Obama's past?
-
MCain has reversed on almost all those positions. His fame and cache as a politician was based in a large part on the fact that he did break ranks with the party when he felt he needed to. Now he needs the party's support, and he's abandoned his principled positions for the party line. That makes him vulnerable to attacks from an opponent who you clearly have no time for, but one who cannot be accused of the same.
No, his fame and cache was based on taking certain liberal positions and poking his own party in the eye. Which is why he's now got to do some reassuring to motivate the voters that he needs to win to turn out for him. I've got no problem with Obama attacking McCain for flip-flopping. That's totally fair game, and he'll have to live with it. But I doubt he'd have any chance, as opposed to a slim chance, if he continued to tell a large portion of his base to piss up a rope.
Obama hasn't made as many changes as McCain, but even he's going to find it hard to stick to all his prior positions, from withdrawing (oops, excuse me, redeploying) the troops from Iraq expeditiously to standing against drilling no way, now how. This is what politicians do, unfortunately or not.
-
I was referring more to your inference of a liberally-biased media. You really think that the media as a whole hasn't dug into every aspect of Obama's past?
God, isn't this painfully obvious to everyone by now? The media is biased. It is not conservative or liberal biased. It is dollar biased, plain and simple. If someone can dig up a relatively credible story about McCain or Obama or Biden or Palin that would get them viewers, it would be on the air in a heartbeat. I promise, promise, PROMISE you that there are people digging around Chicago right now and they've been doing so since probably 2004.
-
And that's fine. My point is that they are all reasons why he's not a preferable choice for me.
Fair enough. The other ticket certainly provides a viable alternative to those positions.
-
God, isn't this painfully obvious to everyone by now? The media is biased. It is not conservative or liberal biased. It is dollar biased, plain and simple. If someone can dig up a relatively credible story about McCain or Obama or Biden or Palin that would get them viewers, it would be on the air in a heartbeat. I promise, promise, PROMISE you that there are people digging around Chicago right now and they've been doing so since probably 2004.
My point.
-
I was referring more to your inference of a liberally-biased media. You really think that the media as a whole hasn't dug into every aspect of Obama's past?
There are lots of things we still don't know about Obama's background in Chicago. Just like the John Edwards story seemed to sit on the backburner for a very long time. On the latter point, don't take my word for it, ask the Clinton campaign what they think about the fact that it didn't get reported on very quickly.
-
I was referring only to the last part of your statement. In that regard I only recall an article I read that Obama had difficulty in that town hall meeting with the fundamentalist preacher. The article implied McCain did very well. Too following that meeting the poll numbers between Obama and McCain closed to even. If that is wrong reporting or if true an anomoly, fine.
That was more of a one-on-one Q&A than a town hall meeting, but McCain did do better by most reports. He also went second and had the opportunity to get advance warning of the questions. He claimed he didn't, but he also claimed in the Q&A that he'd been in the pre-arranged communication lock-down room (or whatever they called it) during Obama's session, when he hadn't.
Regardless, these are both politicians who should be pretty good at debating by now. Obama is considered "weak" in this area, probably in the same way that the Great Britain 4x100m Freestyle relay team was considered weak (they came 8th out of 8 in the final). Lately, McCain has been making mistakes when talking off the cuff, while the knock on Obama (I believe) is that he doesn't do well at getting his point across in short soundbites. The proof of this pudding will come in a few weeks when the debates start.
-
That's from American President. And that is a great speech "...He is interested in two things and two things only ... making you afraid of it and telling you whose to blame for it ... "
Went back and found the YouTube of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWRVbWMvi7c)
If it's not my favorite movie speech, it's certainly on the short list.
-
I promise, promise, PROMISE you that there are people digging around Chicago right now and they've been doing so since probably 2004.
My memory of Chicago politics when I lived there was that no one outside the political circle will ever really know what's going on inside Chicago politics, extreme (read lawbreaking) examples not withstanding, unless they want you to.
-
Perhaps the reason that Obama and Biden are on the same page policy-wise has to do with the fact that Obama's not really about change at all. He's about bringing back the '60s and '70s. So I suppose to the extent that Obama's entire theme of change for his campaign is a sham, yes, you're right, Biden fits in quite nicely. etc etc
Were you planning to vote for Obama?
-
My point.
My response was meant more at the general attitude that the MSM is somehow liberally biased at the peril of their wallets, not your post.
-
Were you planning to vote for Obama?
Absolutely.
-
No, his fame and cache was based on taking certain liberal positions and poking his own party in the eye. Which is why he's now got to do some reassuring to motivate the voters that he needs to win to turn out for him. I've got no problem with Obama attacking McCain for flip-flopping. That's totally fair game, and he'll have to live with it. But I doubt he'd have any chance, as opposed to a slim chance, if he continued to tell a large portion of his base to piss up a rope.
Obama hasn't made as many changes as McCain, but even he's going to find it hard to stick to all his prior positions, from withdrawing (oops, excuse me, redeploying) the troops from Iraq expeditiously to standing against drilling no way, now how. This is what politicians do, unfortunately or not.
You do realise that the Bush Adminstration is weeks away from agreeing a timtable for withdrawal from Iraq (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18d0f348-7306-11dd-983b-0000779fd18c.html), right?
-
My response was meant more at the general attitude that the MSM is somehow liberally biased at the peril of their wallets, not your post.
Do you think Dan Rather's downfall was somehow predicated on the notion that CBS would profit from it, or do you think Rather and his team got reckless because of their political fews and screwed up?
-
There are lots of things we still don't know about Obama's background in Chicago. Just like the John Edwards story seemed to sit on the backburner for a very long time. On the latter point, don't take my word for it, ask the Clinton campaign what they think about the fact that it didn't get reported on very quickly.
Do you think that Edwards' extra-marital affair is fair game in politics?
-
You do realise that the Bush Adminstration is weeks away from agreeing a timtable for withdrawal from Iraq (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18d0f348-7306-11dd-983b-0000779fd18c.html), right?
Yes. And the FT comparing that to an unconditional immediate withdrawal of the kind Obama proposed to appeal to the anti-war crowd is his party is mendacious. Obama wanted the troops out of there before the surge began.
-
Do you think Dan Rather's downfall was somehow predicated on the notion that CBS would profit from it, or do you think Rather and his team got reckless because of their political fews and screwed up?
I think Rather got excited about a blockbuster story and rushed it to air before it'd been fully vetted in order to scoop the opposition, garner ratings and make his bosses money.
-
Do you think that Edwards' extra-marital affair is fair game in politics?
Nope, and I don't think that any of his opponents would have been well served attacking him on it. The voters can draw their own conclusions on that kind of thing.
-
Do you think Dan Rather's downfall was somehow predicated on the notion that CBS would profit from it, or do you think Rather and his team got reckless because of their political fews and screwed up?
Rather was fired because CBS didn't want to feed the myth that they were liberally biased. It was in their financial interest to do so.
Do you think CBS ran that piece to help out Kerry and the Dems, or do you think they ran that piece because it made them money?
-
No, McCain seems more comfortable talking to people. Obama comes off as a lecturer. Both Obama and Biden have the unfortunate problem that they try to explain stuff. Palin is apparently good with a quip and deflecting followup questions.
That is a good way to put it. Biden seems to get carried away, sometimes drifting away from the point he is trying to make. Obama seems to want to limit what exactly he has to answer, sometimes seeming to only want to discuss things he is prepared for. Palin comes off as more down-to-earth, Bill-Clinton-esque in her answers/diversions. McCain is likely to say whatever is on his mind and seem sincere.
I am not saying any of that is a positive or negative way, believe it or not. I think that is the way they have come across.
I am much like Biden in the way I talk, causing my wife to cut me short all the time. I think I am explaining, but she sees I am giving too much information.
Obama may want to only talk about what he has studied for. I like to say "I don't know, but I will try and find out" quite often, but that may seem to be elusive in the wrong situations.
I am not big on talkers like Palin that can divert the question at a whim. It makes for nice soundbites, but you(I) come away still wanting an answer.
McCain does have a way of presenting a position in any situation fairly smoothly, but as sincere as it seems at the time, he is not afraid of rubbing people the wrong way and/or losing his temper.
In other words, all of them have their weaknesses, places where they may get caught off gaurd. The more they have to get out there and debate their positions, the better I will feel about trying to make a decision in the end. I can look up and weigh the background stuff on my own. What will they say when push comes to shove?
-
Do you think that Edwards' extra-marital affair is fair game in politics?
But a teenage pregnancy is fair game in politics?
If not, then why was one reported and the other not?
-
Yes. And the FT comparing that to an unconditional immediate withdrawal of the kind Obama proposed to appeal to the anti-war crowd is his party is mendacious. Obama wanted the troops out of there before the surge began.
Maybe I just missed the memo, but could someone provide a link where Obama actually said this? (Not where someone accused him of saying it.)
-
Nope, and I don't think that any of his opponents would have been well served attacking him on it. The voters can draw their own conclusions on that kind of thing.
Indeed. I have concluded that he's human garbage.
-
But a teenage pregnancy is fair game in politics?
If not, then why was one reported and the other not?
Weren't they both reported?
-
Yes. And the FT comparing that to an unconditional immediate withdrawal of the kind Obama proposed to appeal to the anti-war crowd is his party is mendacious. Obama wanted the troops out of there before the surge began.
You weren't talking about Obama's position, you were talking about McCain's position, as if it was gospel. I pointed out that the "facts on the ground" have changed. If McCain chooses to support the Bush Administration in this effort, I would applaud them all.
-
Rather was fired because CBS didn't want to feed the myth that they were liberally biased. It was in their financial interest to do so.
Do you think CBS ran that piece to help out Kerry and the Dems, or do you think they ran that piece because it made them money?
I think Dan Rather doggedly pursued that piece because it would've been a great story and because it was politically damaging to Bush. I think CBS saw its credibility and hence its bottom line threatened, so they put an end to Rather's antics.
-
I was referring more to your inference of a liberally-biased media. You really think that the media as a whole hasn't dug into every aspect of Obama's past?
Fox's Fair and Balanced News is pretty conservative, but at least most of their hosts admit that. My problem is MSNBC and the others masquerading themselves and their election coverage as impartial. If you can't see the difference between how a story about Obama is treated compared to one about McCain, you're either not paying attention or a liberal.
-
Weren't they both reported?
And the timing on both being reported?
-
Nope, and I don't think that any of his opponents would have been well served attacking him on it. The voters can draw their own conclusions on that kind of thing.
Niiiiiiiice.
-
Weren't they both reported?
No. That's why we only know about one and not the other.
-
No. That's why we only know about one and not the other.
So you knew about the affair while he was embrolied in the primaries?
What, no? It wasnt reported then. Odd.
-
But a teenage pregnancy is fair game in politics?
If not, then why was one reported and the other not?
Kid is due in Dec. If Gov Palin keeps parading her family around somebody is going to notice. The McCain campaign had to say something. I don't think the girl can hold something in front of her stomach every time she's in public.
-
I think Dan Rather doggedly pursued that piece because it would've been a great story and because it was politically damaging to Bush.
Rather's job is pursue a great story, no? Should he have not pursued it b/c it was damaging to Bush?
I think CBS saw its credibility and hence its bottom line threatened, so they put an end to Rather's antics.
Ex-fucking-actly. They did what they did because of dollars. They don't give a shit if what they report is biased or not unless it affect their bottom line.
-
So you knew about the affair while he was embrolied in the primaries?
What, no? It wasnt reported then. Odd.
You see, things have to actually be known about for them to be reported. Funny how that works.
-
Fox's Fair and Balanced News is pretty conservative, but at least most of their hosts admit that. My problem is MSNBC and the others masquerading themselves and their election coverage as impartial. If you can't see the difference between how a story about Obama is treated compared to one about McCain, you're either not paying attention or a liberal.
Actually a study was done, about 65% of the stories re Obama were considered negative, McCain about half and half.
(ETA) I got the numbers wrong, 72% neg for Obama 57% neg for McCain, negative sells http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm
-
You see, things have to actually be known about for them to be reported. Funny how that works.
The media was speculating all along that the affair had taken place, Edwards just flatly denied it.
-
But a teenage pregnancy is fair game in politics?
If not, then why was one reported and the other not?
The Edwards affair was reported, just by a broadly discredited source, but later confirmed by Edwards. The Palin daughter's pregancy was broken in the blogospere and later confirmed by Palin. My question to Arky was because he seemed to imply that it would've been ok for Edwards' camapign to have been torpedoed by the news of his affair.
-
Rather's job is pursue a great story, no? Should he have not pursued it b/c it was damaging to Bush?
He absolutely should've pursued it until he could verify the sources. But he let himself get so wrapped up in it that he relied on documents that were almost certainly false, and even after that became fairly apparent, he stonewalled.
Ex-fucking-actly. They did what they did because of dollars. They don't give a shit if what they report is biased or not unless it affect their bottom line.
Precisely. The guys looking at the bottom line are fine with letting the journalists run the chicken coop as liberally as they want as long as they don't think it's affecting the bottom line. But that doesn't mean it's not biased.
-
The Edwards affair was reported, just by a broadly discredited source, but later confirmed by Edwards. The Palin daughter's pregancy was broken in the blogospere and later confirmed by Palin. My question to Arky was because he seemed to imply that it would've been ok for Edwards' camapign to have been torpedoed by the news of his affair.
That wasn't my implication. My implication -- or let me be more blunt -- my accusation is that the story was left on the backburner because it was Edwards and not Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, in which case it would've been all over the headlines for six weeks.
-
He absolutely should've pursued it until he could verify the sources. But he let himself get so wrapped up in it that he relied on documents that were almost certainly false, and even after that became fairly apparent, he stonewalled.
Precisely. The guys looking at the bottom line are fine with letting the journalists run the chicken coop as liberally as they want as long as they don't think it's affecting the bottom line. But that doesn't mean it's not biased.
As Limey mentioned above, other networks were going to run the story so it was rushed and not fully vetted. They took a risk and it bit them big time.
Keep in mind the the chicken coop will also be run as conservatively as some journalists want as long as the brass don't think it's affecting the bottom line. Not to mention, it will be encouraged if they think it helps said bottom line. (Same goes for liberally.)
-
The Edwards affair was reported, just by a broadly discredited source, but later confirmed by Edwards. The Palin daughter's pregancy was broken in the blogospere and later confirmed by Palin. My question to Arky was because he seemed to imply that it would've been ok for Edwards' camapign to have been torpedoed by the news of his affair.
John Edwards deserves a good smacking.
-
And the timing on both being reported?
The Edwards story was reported in October 2007 (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271).
-
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1835629,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner
The writer behind the John Kerry Swift Boat controversy has a Barack Obama hit piece as well.
-
Niiiiiiiice.
Politicians live in huge glass houses. Taking on one of your opponents on those grounds is just begging to have a boulder rolled into your living room.
-
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1835629,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner
The writer behind the John Kerry Swift Boat controversy has a Barack Obama hit piece as well.
With double the amount of falsehoods!
-
With double the amount of falsehoods!
New! And Improved!!
-
Maybe I just missed the memo, but could someone provide a link where Obama actually said this? (Not where someone accused him of saying it.)
This is probably what you're looking for. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html)
-
John Edwards deserves a good smacking.
He ran for office - using contributions from his supporters - knowing full well that there was a campaign-nuking story that was already out there. He promised all his supporters that it wasn't true. He lied to them and he lied to his wife and family. The latter is the Edwards' private business, the former is what makes him unfit for office.
-
As Limey mentioned above, other networks were going to run the story so it was rushed and not fully vetted. They took a risk and it bit them big time.
Keep in mind the the chicken coop will also be run as conservatively as some journalists want as long as the brass don't think it's affecting the bottom line. Not to mention, it will be encouraged if they think it helps said bottom line. (Same goes for liberally.)
And this is ultimately why conservatives should make their peace with it -- if the market bears it, then that's what the networks are going to do. Which is why Fox has been successful tapping disaffected viewers who think CNN and the three broadcast networks are run by Marxists. What I think is silly is people who think Fox is the only network that has a slant or an angle. The media, from the producers and publishers down to the correspondents and reporters, have their own agendas.
-
As Limey mentioned above, other networks were going to run the story so it was rushed and not fully vetted. They took a risk and it bit them big time.
Keep in mind the the chicken coop will also be run as conservatively as some journalists want as long as the brass don't think it's affecting the bottom line. Not to mention, it will be encouraged if they think it helps said bottom line. (Same goes for liberally.)
Rather has hated the Bush family for decades. He had an on-air run-in with Bush 1 that nearly got him fired 20 years ago.
-
He ran for office - using contributions from his supporters - knowing full well that there was a campaign-nuking story that was already out there. He promised all his supporters that it wasn't true. He lied to them and he lied to his wife and family. The latter is the Edwards' private business, the former is what makes him unfit for office.
He may even have used some of that campaign money to hide what was going on, although that's obviouly not been proven.
-
That wasn't my implication. My implication -- or let me be more blunt -- my accusation is that the story was left on the backburner because it was Edwards and not Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee, in which case it would've been all over the headlines for six weeks.
See my response to tophar. The story was out last year.
-
This is probably what you're looking for. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html)
The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would begin a troop withdrawal no later than May 1, 2007, but it includes several caveats that could forestall a clean break:
It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces. And the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts. Obama's proposal also would reverse Bush's troop-increase plan.
No serious politician, Obama included, has said "get everyone out on this date no matter what." Some want it faster than others, and Obama may want it faster than some like, but he's not blindly promising to take everyone out regardless of what's going on.
-
Actually a study was done, about 65% of the stories re Obama were considered negative, McCain about half and half.
(ETA) I got the numbers wrong, 72% neg for Obama 57% neg for McCain, negative sells http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm
Very interesting, thanks. I did see that the poll was for stories on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report. I'm basing my opinion on what I see usually flipping around the channels after the Astros. The coverage (again, for what I'm watching) still seems more favorable to Obama.
-
He may even have used some of that campaign money to hide what was going on, although that's obviouly not been proven.
Sarah Palin may have shot a man in Juneau, just to watch him die. But that also, obviously, has not been proven.
-
Sarah Palin may have shot a man in Juneau, just to watch him die. But that also, obviously, has not been proven.
Obama shot a drifter to get an erection.
-
No serious politician, Obama included, has said "get everyone out on this date no matter what." Some want it faster than others, and Obama may want it faster than some like, but he's not blindly promising to take everyone out regardless of what's going on.
the bill http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s433is.txt.pdf
-
See my response to tophar. The story was out last year.
LAT Gags Blogs: In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers, including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. Even bloggers who want to mention the story in order to make a skeptical we-don't-trust-the-Enquirer point are forbidden from doing so. Kausfiles has obtained a copy of the email Times bloggers received from editor Tony Pierce. [I've excised the recipient list and omitted Pierce's email address]:
Yes it was out, and specifically asked to not be spoken of forbidden to speak of it.
-
Very interesting, thanks. I did see that the poll was for stories on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report. I'm basing my opinion on what I see usually flipping around the channels after the Astros. The coverage (again, for what I'm watching) still seems more favorable to Obama.
Certain contributors to MSNBC have a clear liberal bias. Olbermann used to have some value when he used history and videotape to skewer those in politics (with a clear focus on the Bush administration). Now he's become a fawning idiot - and was pulled from MSNBC's coverage of the RNC convention as a result. Next week they debut Rachel Maddow after Olbermann, and there's no smoke nor mirrors about her politics. MSNBC is the opposite of Fox News.
I've never considered CNN as biased, merely a bastion of inept and inane mediahounds.
-
Sarah Palin may have shot a man in Juneau, just to watch him die. But that also, obviously, has not been proven.
Really? Is there anything more than making that up to suggest that?
-
Certain contributors to MSNBC have a clear liberal bias. Olbermann used to have some value when he used history and videotape to skewer those in politics (with a clear focus on the Bush administration). Now he's become a fawning idiot - and was pulled from MSNBC's coverage of the RNC convention as a result. I.e. the counter-balance to Fox News.
When was Olbermann pulled?
I mean, I thought he had committed career hara-kari at the DNC, but this fast?
-
Certain contributors to MSNBC have a clear liberal bias. Olbermann used to have some value when he used history and videotape to skewer those in politics (with a clear focus on the Bush administration). Now he's become a fawning idiot - and was pulled from MSNBC's coverage of the RNC convention as a result. I.e. the counter-balance to Fox News.
I've never considered CNN as biased, merely a bastion of inept and inane mediahounds.
CNN is the USA Today of television.
-
LAT Gags Blogs: In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers, including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. Even bloggers who want to mention the story in order to make a skeptical we-don't-trust-the-Enquirer point are forbidden from doing so. Kausfiles has obtained a copy of the email Times bloggers received from editor Tony Pierce. [I've excised the recipient list and omitted Pierce's email address]:
Yes it was out, and specifically asked to not be spoken of forbidden to speak of it.
I would associate that more with going after a former trial lawyer.
-
Doesn't the far left believe the media is run by conservatives?
-
Really? Is there anything more than making that up to suggest that?
Johnny Fucking Cash told me.
-
Really? Is there anything more than making that up to suggest that?
And to continue, if Dan Rather's "antics" bother you so much, why do you have no problem throwing out something that "obviously hasn't been proven."
-
When was Olbermann pulled?
I mean, I thought he had committed career hara-kari at the DNC, but this fast?
He was replaced as Matthews spittle rag co-host over the weekend. He was given the job of anchoring the Gustav story in NY, while everyone else went off to St. Paul.
-
Certain contributors to MSNBC have a clear liberal bias. Olbermann used to have some value when he used history and videotape to skewer those in politics (with a clear focus on the Bush administration). Now he's become a fawning idiot - and was pulled from MSNBC's coverage of the RNC convention as a result. Next week they debut Rachel Maddow after Olbermann, and there's no smoke nor mirrors about her politics. MSNBC is the opposite of Fox News.
I've never considered CNN as biased, merely a bastion of inept and inane mediahounds.
I don't have a problem with Olbermann doing what he does, crazy though he may be, because it's his job to be a attack dog, just like it's Hannity or Colmes. Is there a YouTube link to Olbermann and Mathews getting into it?
-
Doesn't the far left believe the media is run by conservatives?
Isn't the media run by a bunch of penny-pinching money-grubbing morally corrupt capitalist pigs?
-
And this is ultimately why conservatives should make their peace with it -- if the market bears it, then that's what the networks are going to do. Which is why Fox has been successful tapping disaffected viewers who think CNN and the three broadcast networks are run by Marxists. What I think is silly is people who think Fox is the only network that has a slant or an angle. The media, from the producers and publishers down to the correspondents and reporters, have their own agendas.
Their collective agenda is making money. Which is why Rupert Murdoch can run Fox's unabashedly pro-Republican (I won't glorify it by calling it 'conservative') network here in the US, and attempt to schmooze his way into China with a pro-Communist satellite network (http://ipezone.blogspot.com/2007/06/rupert-murdochs-china-offensive.html).
-
Is there a YouTube link to Olbermann and Mathews getting into it?
Which time?
-
Doesn't the far left believe the media is run by conservatives?
I don't pay any attention to the mainstream media, or conspiracy theorists.
-
He was replaced as Matthews spittle rag co-host over the weekend. He was given the job of anchoring the Gustav story in NY, while everyone else went off to St. Paul.
Cause all them cajuns in Plaquemines and Terrebone need these clowns tromping around fouling up their crab lines. Cher we flood before, where ya'll was then?
-
And to continue, if Dan Rather's "antics" bother you so much, why do you have no problem throwing out something that "obviously hasn't been proven."
Did I assert that it was true? No. I specifically disclaimed that it hadn't been proven.
-
...Plaquemines and Terrebone...
I heard some butcherin' of these the last few days.
-
Their collective agenda is making money. Which is why Rupert Murdoch can run Fox's unabashedly pro-Republican (I won't glorify it by calling it 'conservative') network here in the US, and attempt to schmooze his way into China with a pro-Communist satellite network (http://ipezone.blogspot.com/2007/06/rupert-murdochs-china-offensive.html).
Well, of course Rupert Murdoch is a known tool.
-
I couldn't understand why folks with no teeth were mining for plaque...
-
Their collective agenda is making money. Which is why Rupert Murdoch can run Fox's unabashedly pro-Republican (I won't glorify it by calling it 'conservative') network here in the US, and attempt to schmooze his way into China with a pro-Communist satellite network (http://ipezone.blogspot.com/2007/06/rupert-murdochs-china-offensive.html).
I thought James Bond killed that guy.
-
I don't have a problem with Olbermann doing what he does, crazy though he may be, because it's his job to be a attack dog, just like it's Hannity or Colmes. Is there a YouTube link to Olbermann and Mathews getting into it?
Getting into it, as in fawning? If there are YouTube clips made of the Clinton or Obama speeches that were recorded from MSNBC, and they left the tape running for a bit...
And, yes, Olbermann and Hannity and O'Reilly can do what they want and/or what gets them ratings. The problem comes when any of them are considered a source of news instead of a source of opinion.
-
Doesn't the far left believe the media is run by conservatives?
Yes, and the boardrooms of GE, Westinghouse, etc. would fit most people's definition of 'conservative.'
Here's a funny, and sadly accurate, picture of media ownership. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8310078625033531091)
-
Doesn't the far left believe the media is run by conservatives?
Yes. Mostly because the media is owned by "big corporations".
However, as I have said before, corporations don't have politics (or souls or moral compasses). They exist to make money and will lean in the direction of, and steal the underpants of, anyone or anything that will help their bottom line.
-
I heard some butcherin' of these the last few days.
Watching the Weather Channel one of their poor slicker jockeys got past Thibodaux but Cocodrie put him in the weeds.
-
Getting into it, as in fawning? If there are YouTube clips made of the Clinton or Obama speeches that were recorded from MSNBC, and they left the tape running for a bit...
Matthews and Olbermann have a spat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWU4ZHerNhU)
-
Did I assert that it was true? No. I specifically disclaimed that it hadn't been proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
Oh, no, guilty as charged. Too bad I couldn't find the push-polling feature on the forum here.
-
Oh, no, guilty as charged. Too bad I couldn't find the push-polling feature on the forum here.
Do you really not see the link between push polling and throwing something out with "obviously not proven"? Really? Where are Seth and Amy when you need them?
-
Oh, no, guilty as charged. Too bad I couldn't find the push-polling feature on the forum here.
Found it. (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=106806.0)
-
Full circle, WTF?
Bristol Palin's boyfriend plans to join the family of the Republican vice presidential candidate at the GOP convention.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIMJWupyWNmvU3UX2aGhICmZrQ_wD92UQKS81
Gimme one of them baby seals, I'm going to knock myself in the head till I pass out.
-
Full circle, WTF?
Bristol Palin's boyfriend plans to join the family of the Republican vice presidential candidate at the GOP convention.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIMJWupyWNmvU3UX2aGhICmZrQ_wD92UQKS81
Gimme one of them baby seals, I'm going to knock myself in the head till I pass out.
Levi Johnston's mother said her 18-year-old son left Alaska on Tuesday morning to join the Palin family in St. Paul, Minn.
Levi Johnston's mother was right!
-
Full circle, WTF?
Bristol Palin's boyfriend plans to join the family of the Republican vice presidential candidate at the GOP convention.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIMJWupyWNmvU3UX2aGhICmZrQ_wD92UQKS81
Gimme one of them baby seals, I'm going to knock myself in the head till I pass out.
"Here's the fine boy who knocked my daughter up."
-
"Here's the fine boy who knocked my daughter up a fine example of why abstinence-only sex education doesn't work."
FIFH.
-
I play hockey and I fornicate, 'cause those are the two most fun things to do in cold weather.
-
"Here's the fine boy who knocked my daughter up."
"my girl's baby daddy"?
-
This pick keeps getting better and better. Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party until 1996. Their goal is a statewide vote on secession . She recorded a video message that was shown at their convention this year.
It was her husband.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_politics
And, it's all Obama's fault.
-
Do you really not see the link between push polling and throwing something out with "obviously not proven"? Really? Where are Seth and Amy when you need them?
No, I don't see the link.
What's your point here? Do you think I'm an agent for Edward's opponents trying to subliminally plant some idea in people's minds on an Internet discussion board about Astros baseball?
You need to step away from the keyboard if going after me for that post has got you so enflamed.
-
Found it. (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=106806.0)
Thanks for the help. Now I can set my nefarious John Edwards SNS defamation plan in motion!
-
It was her husband.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_politics
And, it's all Obama's fault.
"Questions about a third-party link to John McCain's new running mate emerged Tuesday as the latest issue facing the McCain campaign in the midst of the Republican National Convention.
"Questions had swirled about Sarah Palin's affiliation with the Independence Party and with former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. Voter registration records and past news reports, however, show Palin never registered as a member of the Independence Party, and backed Steve Forbes' presidential campaign in 2000, not Buchanan."
"questions had swirled" or "latest issue facing" = media masturbating all over itself about something irrelevant
-
"my girl's baby daddy"?
Did anyone see that movie? Not with Palin's daughter -- but the one with Tina Fey?
-
FIFH.
Because kids taught from third grade on to use condoms never face unplanned pregnancies.
-
Because kids taught from third grade on to use condoms never face unplanned pregnancies.
So if the solution doesn't work 100% of the time, we should just pretend that the problem doesn't exist?
-
So if the solution doesn't work 100% of the time, we should just pretend that the problem doesn't exist?
Not at all. But I'd be surprised to learn that Bristol and Levi didn't know how to use birth control because of abstinence-only education and that's why Bristol's now pregnant.
-
Because kids taught from third grade on to use condoms never face unplanned pregnancies.
Sorry, we reviewed that one up in the booth, and Limey scored on the play. You're going to want to save some of those red flags for later in the game.
-
Not at all. But I'd be surprised to learn that Bristol and Levi didn't know how to use birth control because of abstinence-only education and that's why Bristol's now pregnant.
Well, I *wouldn't* be surprised to learn that Bristol and Levi a) did not have ready access to birth control and/or b) feared attempting to obtain birth control on their own and that's why Bristol is now pregnant.
-
b) feared attempting to obtain birth control on their own and that's why Bristol is now pregnant.
I'm not buying this one as it relates to the boy.
-
I'm not buying this one as it relates to the boy.
So when you're dating the Governor's 16-year old daughter, there's no hesitation in walking into the Wasilla Drug Store and purchasing a box of french ticklers?
-
So when you're dating the Governor's 16-year old daughter, there's no hesitation in walking into the Wasilla Drug Store and purchasing a box of french ticklers?
You cannot convince me he couldn't get one of his friends or teammates to supply him either from their own stash or buying them for him.
-
You cannot convince me he couldn't get one of his friends or teammates to supply him either from their own stash or buying them for him.
I'm not saying he couldn't. I'm suggesting the fear/stigma of having to obtain birth control may have contributed to them not using it. I find that much more likely than "well we probably shouldn't have sex, but if we do, at least let's make sure we don't use a condom..."
-
I'm not saying he couldn't. I'm suggesting the fear/stigma of having to obtain birth control may have contributed to them not using it. I find that much more likely than "well we probably shouldn't have sex, but if we do, at least let's make sure we don't use a condom..."
Fear and stigma on her part. Him, I doubt it. There are a number of reasonable possiblities of what they were thinking or not thinking at the time of conception.
-
Fear and stigma on her part. Him, I doubt it.
I don't. Hell, I was uncomfortable buying condoms in Houston as an adult. I can't imagine what it's like buying them in a small town while in high school and schtupping the Governor's underage daughter.
-
I don't. Hell, I was uncomfortable buying condoms in Houston as an adult. I can't imagine what it's like buying them in a small town while in high school and schtupping the Governor's underage daughter.
That's why you have your friends do it. In another town than your own.
All I'm saying is that, IMO, it is unreasonable to think he didn't have easy access to condoms.
Hell, for all we know, they were using them, but the condom failed.
-
No, I don't see the link.
What's your point here? Do you think I'm an agent for Edward's opponents trying to subliminally plant some idea in people's minds on an Internet discussion board about Astros baseball?
You need to step away from the keyboard if going after me for that post has got you so enflamed.
I'm not enflamed, nor do I think you're an agent for Edwards or anyone else.
I do find it disingenuous for you to rail on the "liberally biased media", in general, and Dan Rather, in particular, for being sloppy and trying to sway the masses to their line of thought, but then turn around and post claims that haven't been proven. I think it's extremely similar, if not the same, as what you accuse them of. It's also extremely similar to push polling, a practice which most, our current president notwithstanding, deride.
-
Hell, for all we know, they were using them, but the condom failed.
Her mother would be SO disappointed to hear that.
-
That's why you have your friends do it. In another town than your own.
All I'm saying is that, IMO, it is unreasonable to think he didn't have easy access to condoms.
Hell, for all we know, they were using them, but the condom failed.
What we do know is that Palin is pro-abstinence only education. From that we can extrapolate that she wasn't in favour of her daughter having pre-marital sex, as that is the entire...erm...thrust of abstinence only education. Yet Bristol had sex anyway, which suggests that abstinence only doesn't work because if anyone was going to abstain, it would've been Palin's daughter.
-
No, I don't see the link.
What's your point here? Do you think I'm an agent for Edward's opponents trying to subliminally plant some idea in people's minds on an Internet discussion board about Astros baseball?
You need to step away from the keyboard if going after me for that post has got you so enflamed.
What Trey is getting at, is that the mention that Edwards isn't proven to have misused campaign funds was a completely pointless swipe at the man. It's the repetition of unproven and inflammatory crap such as this which is the staple of push-polling. We can't understand this for you, and if you don't see it then I question your ability to sort reality from hyperbole.
-
What Trey is getting at, is that the mention that Edwards isn't proven to have misused campaign funds was a completely pointless swipe at the man. It's the repetition of unproven and inflammatory crap such as this which are the staple of push-polling. We can't understand this for you, and if you don't see it then I question your ability to sort reality from hyperbole.
Hyperbole? The reality is there is an unproved allegation that campaign funds were paid to the woman to keep her quiet. I stress again, unproved, but unproved doesn't mean unmentionable. This has been reported in reputable news sources, not just the National Enquirer. Reportedly Edwards didn't know anything about any payments, but then several months ago, reportedly Edwards didn't have an affair with the woman. I don't know that Edwards knowingly paid anyone to keep quiet, but then I don't know what to think given the credibility issue here.
To turn this around and vilify the person mentioning it (and clearly disclaiming that it's unproved) as if it's some sort of subliminal libel is chickenshit. And I don't need you or anyone else to understand something for me. Particularly given the last several years that you've spent on these boards peddling all kinds of crackpot theories about the evil innerworkings of the Bush administration, I find your sudden indignation about that Edwards post to be a bit hollow.
-
I'm not enflamed, nor do I think you're an agent for Edwards or anyone else.
I do find it disingenuous for you to rail on the "liberally biased media", in general, and Dan Rather, in particular, for being sloppy and trying to sway the masses to their line of thought, but then turn around and post claims that haven't been proven. I think it's extremely similar, if not the same, as what you accuse them of. It's also extremely similar to push polling, a practice which most, our current president notwithstanding, deride.
This in itself is sloppy and deceiving: "post claims that haven't been proven." When they're clearly labeled as unproved, that makes something of a difference, doesn't it? Indeed, it takes out the whole notion that it's a "claim." And last time I checked, Rather was insisting on running with his story as true even when the documents unpinning it had almost certainly debunked as false.
As for pushpolling, I don't even know what that has to do with anything. I'm not running any kind of poll here, and I assume the other readers can decide for themselves what to think of the allegations against Edwards.
-
I don't. Hell, I was uncomfortable buying condoms in Houston as an adult. I can't imagine what it's like buying them in a small town while in high school and schtupping the Governor's underage daughter.
I think there should be points for working "schtupping" into the conversation.
Point of order, though: I don't think she was underage under Alaskan age-of-consent law.
-
I think there should be points for working "schtupping" into the conversation.
Point of order, though: I don't think she was underage under Alaskan age-of-consent law.
Depends on when they commenced schtupping, I suppose. She was underaged for anything *except* having sex, how about that?
-
As for pushpolling, I don't even know what that has to do with anything. I'm not running any kind of poll here, and I assume the other readers can decide for themselves what to think of the allegations against Edwards.
Which is what every single candidate who has ever engaged in push polling has ever said.
-
Depends on when they commenced schtupping, I suppose. She was underaged for anything *except* having sex, how about that?
She's 17 now, so the "home run" schtupping must've occurred after her 16 birthday, which is the age of consent in Alaska. Unless menstruation is like the sun in Alaska: only comes twice a year.
-
Unless menstruation is like the sun in Alaska: only comes twice a year.
If that were the case then half the females on earth would move there, then. Closely followed by all the single men.
-
If that were the case then half the females on earth would move there, then. Closely followed by all the single men.
Begs the re-posting of this (http://www.hulu.com/watch/10234/saturday-night-live-annuale).
-
Which is what every single candidate who has ever engaged in push polling has ever said.
As a candidate running for office against John Edwards, now I see the light. Of course this is what I was up to.
Nice dodge on everything else I wrote, by the way.
-
Nice dodge on everything else I wrote, by the way.
Right back atchya!
-
What we do know is that Palin is pro-abstinence only education.
How do we know this?
-
How do we know this?
It's one of the answers on her questionnaire (http://web.archive.org/web/20070430110729/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) linked to earlier today:
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
-
In watching Fred Thompson...
... how in the blue hell did anyone ever believe this was a serious presidential candidate?
-
It's one of the answers on her questionnaire (http://web.archive.org/web/20070430110729/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) linked to earlier today:
It's also part of her solid social conservative credentials that have been touted ever since she was picked.
-
It's one of the answers on her questionnaire (http://web.archive.org/web/20070430110729/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) linked to earlier today:
You missed his point. The parents can teach abstinence and the child may not listen... no differently than the paretns may teach anything else and the child may not listen.
-
You missed his point. The parents can teach abstinence and the child may not listen... no differently than the paretns may teach anything else and the child may not listen.
Believe me, I understand that children may choose not to listen to the advice being given to them. I just thought that ETA was looking for some relatively concrete citation for her position.
-
In watching Fred Thompson...
... how in the blue hell did anyone ever believe this was a serious presidential candidate?
That was out of the desire to try to match Clinton's charisma, I believe.
The description of torture was entirely inappropriate.
-
That was out of the desire to try to match Clinton's charisma, I believe.
The description of torture was entirely inappropriate.
You mean the description of their enchanced interrogation techniques, right?
-
It's one of the answers on her questionnaire (http://web.archive.org/web/20070430110729/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) linked to earlier today:
Thank you.
ETA: The link was dead earlier when I had a chance to look and I haven't made it back that far, yet....
-
Right back atchya!
Since you missed it, I ask again: what's so devious with noting an allegation that has been raised in the mainstream media while noting that it's unproved?
-
Isn't there anything between an explicit sex-based program and an abstinence-only program? Does it have to be all or nothing?
-
Isn't there anything between an explicit sex-based program and an abstinence-only program? Does it have to be all or nothing?
you are either having sex or you aren't.
-
you are either having sex or you aren't.
Right. And there's a difference between teaching that abstinence is ideal but use a condom if you do have sex and teaching that premarital sex is fine as long as you use a condom.
It's baffling that people who think teaching abstinence is preachy cannot see that teaching do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you're-protected isn't so great either.
-
I think there should be points for working "schtupping" into the conversation.
Point of order, though: I don't think she was underage under Alaskan age-of-consent law.
I don't care what the legal age of consent is in Alaska, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of parents, and especially Mr. and Mrs. Palin, would think that their 17 year old daughter is too young to be schtupping. Especially irresponsibly schtupping, though Mr. and Mrs. Palin might not be with the mainstream on that.
-
I don't care what the legal age of consent is in Alaska, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of parents, and especially Mr. and Mrs. Palin, would think that their 17 year old daughter is too young to be schtupping. Especially irresponsibly schtupping, though Mr. and Mrs. Palin might not be with the mainstream on that.
No kidding? I thought they would be pleased about it.
-
Right. And there's a difference between teaching that abstinence is ideal but use condom if you do have sex and teaching that premarital sex is fine as long as you use a condom.
There is no "explicit sex-based" sex ed program that doesn't mention the merits of abstinence. Saying I'm "anti explicit sex-based" programs is more code for "I'm for abstinence-only" programs than "teach the debate" is code for "evolution shouldn't be taught in science classes."
-
No kidding? I thought they would be pleased about it.
That doesn't surprise me. You're the one who thought underage was an inappropriate term.
-
That doesn't surprise me. You're the one who thought underage was an inappropriate term.
No. I just noted that she wasn't underage by law. Somebody else already debated this earlier. Whether she was underage or not doesn't really matter as far I'm concerned. But if you want to get hung up on it because it confirms some kind of suspicion you have about me, be my guest.
-
There is no "explicit sex-based" sex ed program that doesn't mention the merits of abstinence. Saying I'm "anti explicit sex-based" programs is more code for "I'm for abstinence-only" programs than "teach the debate" is code for "evolution shouldn't be taught in science classes."
How did you break the code?
-
No. I just noted that she wasn't underage by law. Somebody else already debated this earlier. Whether she was underage or not doesn't really matter as far I'm concerned. But if you want to get hung up on it because it confirms some kind of suspicion you have about me, be my guest.
The only thing that is confirmed, or more accurately reconfirmed, is that you were arguing a hyper-technical point for absolutely no reason. When Hudson said "underage" I doubt he was talking about a specific statute rather than a general societal viewpoint. As you rightly point out, the statutory age of consent has been discussed already in this post, and no doubt Hudson saw it then.
-
The only thing that is confirmed, or more accurately reconfirmed, is that you were arguing a hyper-technical point for absolutely no reason. When Hudson said "underage" I doubt he was talking about a specific statute rather than a general societal viewpoint. As you rightly point out, the statutory age of consent has been discussed already in this post, and no doubt Hudson saw it then.
Re-read the post. It was a tongue-in-cheek response about schtupping anyway.
I agree with you that most parents would not consider the age-of-consent law to make them any happier about the situation.
-
Yet Bristol had sex anyway, which suggests that abstinence only doesn't work because if anyone was going to abstain, it would've been Palin's daughter.
Pfft....have you met any pastors kids?
-
It's baffling that people who think teaching abstinence is preachy cannot see that teaching do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you're-protected isn't so great either.
It's not the teaching of abstinence to which I object, it's the teaching of abstinence only. And sex education isn't about telling kids to get right on it as long as they wear a condom. Do you eat talking points for breakfast every day?
-
Right. And there's a difference between teaching that abstinence is ideal but use a condom if you do have sex and teaching that premarital sex is fine as long as you use a condom.
It's baffling that people who think teaching abstinence is preachy cannot see that teaching do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you're-protected isn't so great either.
I've never heard of one single person who's ever preached that.
-
Pfft....have you met any pastors kids?
**Golf Clap**
-
I don't care what the legal age of consent is in Alaska, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of parents, and especially Mr. and Mrs. Palin, would think that their 17 year old daughter is too young to be schtupping. Especially irresponsibly schtupping, though Mr. and Mrs. Palin might not be with the mainstream on that.
Actuall, I believe she was 16 when she got knocked up, so she was schtupping at least by 16, if not earlier. Levi's "shibby" may have been her first time, I don't know.
-
Actuall, I believe she was 16 when she got knocked up, so she was schtupping at least by 16, if not earlier. Levi's "shibby" may have been her first time, I don't know.
I find that highly unlikely, especially if the part about them having plans to get married anyway is true. Also, what the hell else are you going to do during an Alaskan winter?
-
It's not the teaching of abstinence to which I object, it's the teaching of abstinence only. And sex education isn't about telling kids to get right on it as long as they wear a condom.
Bingo! The hypocrisy of the matter is that most parents were "schtupping" their arses off at 17, for which they may or may not have paid heavy consequences. The idea of your own teen offspring doing the horizontal is about as unappealing as the mental image of your grandparents doing the same. IMHO this is where the "don't even think about doing it" rigidness comes into play.
The problem is that sex ed is decided at the state and school district level and of course that will vary. I'm sure you have states/districts that are far too extreme on both sides of the spectrum. I do believe it highly possible for a sex ed course to be taught in a manner that encourages the act or at a minimum makes it appear as not such a big deal. There should be a happy medium in there somewhere.
-
Do you eat talking points for breakfast every day?
http://www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/
-
In watching Fred Thompson...
... how in the blue hell did anyone ever believe this was a serious presidential candidate?
because he was awesome in The Hunt for Red October.
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.
-
Maybe it's me but this thread highlights the problem. Both sides are painting the other as being extreme when it's simply not the case. Both sides are, in essence, saying the same thing. No one wants to push a high-minded ideal on kids who probably lack the discipline and maturity to fully understand the depth of the decision but also don't want to condone a teenage sex free for all.
I'm not sure why reasonable minds can't agree that abstinence is, morally, the proper message to kids. Yet acknowledge that imposing ignorance on the available precautions is setting a course for failure. What I don't agree with is the notion that kids need a class to explain what a condom does (birth control, protection from some forms of VD etc...). What I think is truly at issue is the stigma associated with teenage sex and how that results in those that engage is sex at an early age usually do so without the protection a reasonable adult would use in a non-committed relationship.
My kids are too young for me to have to deal with this (toddler & kindergardener) so I can't claim to have a proven track record. However, I plan to take a candid approach and explain the expectations my wife and I have of them, i.e. no sex/children until they can be emotionally and financially responsible but, should they choose to disregard our expectations, they best know how to protect themselves and their partner.
And if he/she can't get past the "embarrassment" of buying contraceptives, they should consider that when deciding whether they are mature enough engage in sex. And you bet your ass if my kid comes to me telling me he's ready to have sex that I'll be dragging his ass down to the local shelter for pregnant teenagers so he can see first hand the potential consequences. That may come across as a scare tactic, which it is to a degree, but it's also about grasping the gravity of the act, itself.
-
Also, what the hell else are you going to do during an Alaskan winter?
Play hockey?
-
And if he/she can't get past the "embarrassment" of buying contraceptives, they should consider that when deciding whether they are mature enough engage in sex.
Do you really think that hormonal 16 year olds are thinking that rationally, sitting in the backseat of a '74 Nova with Journey playing in the background?
-
Do you really think that hormonal 16 year olds are thinking that rationally, sitting in the backseat of a '74 Nova with Journey playing in the background?
HH you are seriously out of line here. Tell me what father/mother let's their teenager have that magnificent vehicle and I'll personally kick their ass. My brother in law has a souped up Nova in vintage condition. It's an honor to just sit in it. He still won't let me drive it. Fucker.
That aside, I do agree that graphic description of how to properly use birth control devices whatever they may be is a necessity with teens. So is the biology of pregnancy/conception. When I was in high school, my buddies were telling me that "withdrawl" and "she can't get pregnant the first time", were very effective b/c methods. Maybe times have changed, but I doubt it based on teen pregnancy rates.
-
Do you eat talking points for breakfast every day?
Was it the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post that told you to say that?
-
The problem is that sex ed is decided at the state and school district level and of course that will vary. I'm sure you have states/districts that are far too extreme on both sides of the spectrum. I do believe it highly possible for a sex ed course to be taught in a manner that encourages the act or at a minimum makes it appear as not such a big deal. There should be a happy medium in there somewhere.
This is precisely what I'm getting at. I don't have any particular fondness for abstinence-only education, but I don't see more explicit sex ed, including distributing condoms, as being a panacea either. But then that's what O'Reilly told me to say.
-
Bingo! The hypocrisy of the matter is that most parents were "schtupping" their arses off at 17, for which they may or may not have paid heavy consequences. The idea of your own teen offspring doing the horizontal is about as unappealing as the mental image of your grandparents doing the same. IMHO this is where the "don't even think about doing it" rigidness comes into play.
The problem is that sex ed is decided at the state and school district level and of course that will vary. I'm sure you have states/districts that are far too extreme on both sides of the spectrum. I do believe it highly possible for a sex ed course to be taught in a manner that encourages the act or at a minimum makes it appear as not such a big deal. There should be a happy medium in there somewhere.
I hope that they explain the dangers, both medically, physically and emotionally. And how to avoid same...method #1 being "Just say no".
-
I hope that they explain the dangers, both medically, physically and emotionally. And how to avoid same...method #1 being "Just say no".
Changing the subject, what's this Sept. 9 Apple thing about?
-
Changing the subject, what's this Sept. 9 Apple thing about?
The iIUD.
-
Was it the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post that told you to say that?
Nope. Just the voices coming to me through my tin foil hat.
-
Changing the subject, what's this Sept. 9 Apple thing about?
A bunch of nice upgrades to existing product lines that will have the fan-boi's crying all over the 'net that the latest MacBookPro isn't yet capable of nuclear fusion. Usual stuff.
-
HH you are seriously out of line here. Tell me what father/mother let's their teenager have that magnificent vehicle and I'll personally kick their ass. My brother in law has a souped up Nova in vintage condition. It's an honor to just sit in it. He still won't let me drive it. Fucker.
That aside, I do agree that graphic description of how to properly use birth control devices whatever they may be is a necessity with teens. So is the biology of pregnancy/conception. When I was in high school, my buddies were telling me that "withdrawl" and "she can't get pregnant the first time", were very effective b/c methods. Maybe times have changed, but I doubt it based on teen pregnancy rates.
On said fine automobile: Agreed... music choice, not so much.
As for your friends advice, buddy, I got nothing for you. Maybe it's being the youngest in a relatively large family. Maybe it's the access to cable. I can't say for certain. But I guess those ideas were laughable to me and my friends. I suppose there were some, among my peers who didn't know better as there were pregnancies in my class/school. But even my devoutly catholic parents took the time to explain the basics, or at least made sure I knew the facts. They then proceeded to threaten my life if I opted to not heed their advice (ABSTINENCE!!!) but that's a different matter. My folks never condoned ignorance.
-
Do you really think that hormonal 16 year olds are thinking that rationally, sitting in the backseat of a '74 Nova with Journey playing in the background?
16 year olds today do not listen to Journey
-
16 year olds today do not listen to Journey
The Sopranos got them hooked again.
-
16 year olds today do not listen to Journey
They do when I pick them up in my '74 Nova. I can buy them cigarettes, you know...
I mean, uh...abstinence is best! I gave my word to stop at third!
-
The Sopranos got them hooked again.
That's too bad
-
16 year olds today do not listen to Journey
bullshit.
then again, maybe those girls I saw at the Journey concert were 18, since they were smoking cigarettes.
-
On said fine automobile: Agreed... music choice, not so much.
As for your friends advice, buddy, I got nothing for you. Maybe it's being the youngest in a relatively large family. Maybe it's the access to cable. I can't say for certain. But I guess those ideas were laughable to me and my friends. I suppose there were some, among my peers who didn't know better as there were pregnancies in my class/school. But even my devoutly catholic parents took the time to explain the basics, or at least made sure I knew the facts. They then proceeded to threaten my life if I opted to not heed their advice (ABSTINENCE!!!) but that's a different matter. My folks never condoned ignorance.
I think there have been some terrifying surveys released about what kids know and don't know about sex and pregnancy. Also, "virginity pledges" which increasingly occur at organised, mass social events, are suspected of causing a spike in the frequency of teenage girls engaging in oral and anal sex (i.e. anywhere but the hoo-hoo).
However, I do think that parents often abdicate responsibility for sex education (it's easy for me to throw this around with abandon as I have no kids so don't have "the talk" hanging over my head). Personally, my parents never said word one to me about sex...ever.
-
On said fine automobile: Agreed... music choice, not so much.
As for your friends advice, buddy, I got nothing for you. Maybe it's being the youngest in a relatively large family. Maybe it's the access to cable. I can't say for certain. But I guess those ideas were laughable to me and my friends. I suppose there were some, among my peers who didn't know better as there were pregnancies in my class/school. But even my devoutly catholic parents took the time to explain the basics, or at least made sure I knew the facts. They then proceeded to threaten my life if I opted to not heed their advice (ABSTINENCE!!!) but that's a different matter. My folks never condoned ignorance.
The only thing my mom told me about sex was if I got pregnant I was out on my own. Talk about great birth control. Plus, she didn't allow boys in our bedroom.
Please note, I don't think she would have really kicked us out, but I don't think we were willing to take that chance.
I do remember taking health in summer school and the teacher was willing to answer any question submitted without sharing the name of the person asking the question. That was great. I don't remember any of the questions anymore, but I remember no one being embarrased because they asked a question.
I did have a cousin tell me that blue balls go away and a girl doesn't have to worry about the boy. Great advice.
-
I think there have been some terrifying surveys released about what kids know and don't know about sex and pregnancy. Also, "virginity pledges" which increasingly occur at organised, mass social events, are suspected of causing a spike in the frequency of teenage girls engaging in oral and anal sex (i.e. anywhere but the hoo-hoo).
However, I do think that parents often abdicate responsibility for sex education (it's easy for me to throw this around with abandon as I have no kids so don't have "the talk" hanging over my head). Personally, my parents never said word one to me about sex...ever.
My first year of college was at a small Christian school in Northern California. A lot of these kids came from very conservative backgrounds and I'd say most were virgins. Since most did not believe in having sex before marriage, kids were getting married left and right, so they could do it. The divorce rate was ridiculously high.
-
16 year olds today do not listen to Journey
Huh? When did THIS happen?
-
Huh? When did THIS happen?
20 years ago.
-
20 years ago.
You mean about the time I stopped banging teenage girls in my '74 Nova?
-
You mean about the time I stopped banging teenage girls in my '74 Nova?
I would hope that stopped 30 years ago.
-
You mean about the time I stopped banging teenage girls in my '74 Nova?
A '74 Nova would've been way smoother than my '78 Caprice Classic, powder blue except for a banana-yellow right front fender.
-
You guys had shit for cars. My '69 Chevy Malibu was the rage. My best friend in high school did have a Nova though. My car had more room.
-
You mean about the time I stopped banging teenage girls in my '74 Nova?
You keep telling yourself that this used to happen, and maybe one day you'll think it's true.
i.e. Don't stop...believin'
-
You mean about the time I stopped banging teenage girls in my '74 Nova?
At least you guys had a car. I was stuck driving my dad's '92 Saturn (when I could wrest it away from him).
-
how old are you?
-
You guys had shit for cars. My '69 Chevy Malibu was the rage. My best friend in high school did have a Nova though. My car had more room.
You want abstinence training? Convertible Volkswagen, baby.
-
At least you guys had a car. I was stuck driving my dad's '92 Saturn (when I could wrest it away from him).
1892?
-
You guys had shit for cars. My '69 Chevy Malibu was the rage. My best friend in high school did have a Nova though. My car had more room.
So your Mum banning boys from your bedroom worked out well then.
Also, I used to drive my Mum's one of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Austin_Allegro_Brown_1.JPG), until I started work at which point I bought myself a beaten up one of these (http://www.freewebs.com/eggy-plop/Brochures%20Triumph/Triumph-92.JPG). For very different reasons, getting laid in these cars was problematic.
-
Also, I used to drive my Mum's one of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Austin_Allegro_Brown_1.JPG), until I started work at which point I bought myself a beaten up one of these (http://www.freewebs.com/eggy-plop/Brochures%20Triumph/Triumph-92.JPG). For very different reasons, getting laid in these cars was problematic.
Oh, close. After the Volkswagen we had an Austin Marina for a few years. It was not the most reliable vehicle I've ever dealt with.
-
That's depressing. I had a 79 Camaro Berlinetta (with a 350 instead of a 305). I haven't been in the back seat of that (or any other car) with a teenage girl in 18 years.
-
So your Mum banning boys from your bedroom worked out well then.
Also, I used to drive my Mum's one of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Austin_Allegro_Brown_1.JPG), until I started work at which point I bought myself a beaten up one of these (http://www.freewebs.com/eggy-plop/Brochures%20Triumph/Triumph-92.JPG). For very different reasons, getting laid in these cars was problematic.
Did that blonde in the pictures in the latter link come with the car?
-
At least you guys had a car. I was stuck driving my dad's '92 Saturn (when I could wrest it away from him).
... speaking of underage.
-
For very different reasons, getting laid in these cars was problematic.
Problematic becasue of the car or because you could not find a gal for the right price?
-
There is no "explicit sex-based" sex ed program that doesn't mention the merits of abstinence. Saying I'm "anti explicit sex-based" programs is more code for "I'm for abstinence-only" programs than "teach the debate" is code for "evolution shouldn't be taught in science classes."
The major program from the HHS to address teen pregnancy is called Abstinence Until Marriage. It's true that it doesn't only rely on abstinence, it covers
"a broad range of issues, from building self-esteem, to understanding and aspiring to healthy marriages and parenthood, to teaching skills that will help youth make and follow through on good decisions,
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020423.html
Abstinence AND self esteem training. Done.
-
16 year olds today do not listen to Journey
Yes they do. During middle school announcement last year, the kids were allowed to play music behind the announcements. #1 played band. Journey.(as told by my son) No kidding.
ETA: I think band #2 was Bon Jovi. What's up with kids these days?
-
I would hope that stopped 30 years ago.
Jeez, I'm not THAT old dude. I was still masturbating to National Geographic 30 years ago.
-
The major program from the HHS to address teen pregnancy is called Abstinence Until Marriage. It's true that it doesn't only rely on abstinence, it covers
"a broad range of issues, from building self-esteem, to understanding and aspiring to healthy marriages and parenthood, to teaching skills that will help youth make and follow through on good decisions,
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020423.html
Abstinence AND self esteem training. Done.
On behalf of my son, I am against self-esteem training for pre-teen and teenage girls.
On behalf of my daughter, I favor chastity belts and nunneries.
-
You want abstinence training? Convertible Volkswagen, baby.
My wife and I once had sex in the front seat of her Jeep Wrangler.
-
Yes they do. During middle school announcement last year, the kids were allowed to play music behind the announcements. #1 played band. Journey.(as told by my son) No kidding.
Journey garners a fair amount of downloads on iTunes. A good chunk of downloading on iTunes is done by teenagers.
-
Journey garners a fair amount of downloads on iTunes. A good chunk of downloading on iTunes is done by teenagers.
This has the makings of a really bad syllogism.
-
Jeez, I'm not THAT old dude. I was still masturbating to National Geographic 30 years ago.
30 years or minutes?
-
This has the makings of a really bad syllogism.
It's why I stopped where I did.
-
30 years or minutes?
30 picoseconds.
-
My wife and I once had sex in the front seat of her Jeep Wrangler.
Don't Jeep Wranglers overturn easily?
-
Did that blonde in the pictures in the latter link come with in the car?
Yep, if you play your cards right. Also, you have to be prepared to sacrifice elements of the car's interior, most notably the rear view mirror.
-
30 picoseconds.
A time measurement based on South of the Border chip accessories?
-
Problematic becasue of the car or because you could not find a gal for the right price?
Car #1 too shit. Car #2 too small.
-
Getting a little bit back the "Sarah Palin" topic...without straying too far from the "masturbation" topic: (probably NSFW (http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1469)
-
Getting a little bit back the "Sarah Palin" topic...without straying too far from the "masturbation" topic: (probably NSFW (http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1469)
I think the ethics investigation is going to really, really hurt. The report is due out on Oct. 31, and the State Senator running the investigation is claiming that the McCain campaign wants it delayed until after the election (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5702697). Doesn't appear that he's going to oblige.
ETA: Looks like there's a tape (http://www.adn.com/monegan/v-printer/story/492964.html) of one of her aides pressuring the Public Safety Commissioner, who she fired and which action is the subject of the investigation, to fire her douchebag brother-in-law. She said no one in her adminstration had done this, but has now admitted to the tape and another two dozen contacts between her office and the PSC over the subject of her brother-in-law.
-
Don't Jeep Wranglers overturn easily?
It was not recently.
-
At least you guys had a car. I was stuck driving my dad's '92 Saturn (when I could wrest it away from him).
Luxury!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSQeMBzHR0o&feature=related
-
At least you guys had a car. I was stuck driving my dad's '92 Saturn (when I could wrest it away from him).
I guess there's little doubt where you stand on teenage abstinence?
-
I think the ethics investigation is going to really, really hurt.
I don't think it will.
The report is due out on Oct. 31, and the State Senator running the investigation is claiming that the McCain campaign wants it delayed until after the election (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5702697). Doesn't appear that he's going to oblige.
Funny that the entire article is grounded on quotes from the Senator leading the investigation who just so happens to be a Democrat. No way he'd be doing or saying anything he can to embarrass her right now.
ETA: Looks like there's a tape (http://www.adn.com/monegan/v-printer/story/492964.html) of one of her aides pressuring the Public Safety Commissioner, who she fired and which action is the subject of the investigation, to fire her douchebag brother-in-law. She said no one in her adminstration had done this, but has now admitted to the tape and another two dozen contacts between her office and the PSC over the subject of her brother-in-law.
Reads like she's insulated to me. Overzealous administrators did the deeds. Unless they come out and say she told them to do it (in that article they certainly don't) she comes out looking like someone who inspires passion in others.
If Glenn and McCain can survive the Keating 5 scandal and 20 years later look like beacons of responsibility, then she can survive this easily.
-
Having two teenage daughters currently and once myself having been a teenage boy, this whole thread makes me a little nauseous.
I will say that the '65 Ford Galaxy 500 had an inconvenient design flaw in that the interior door handles were flat and lifted up, so an inadvertant upward heel kick would open the door with a resulting ignition of the dome light. A guy told me this.
-
I don't think it will.
Funny that the entire article is grounded on quotes from the Senator leading the investigation who just so happens to be a Democrat. No way he'd be doing or saying anything he can to embarrass her right now.
Reads like she's insulated to me. Overzealous administrators did the deeds. Unless they come out and say she told them to do it (in that article they certainly don't) she comes out looking like someone who inspires passion in others.
If Glenn and McCain can survive the Keating 5 scandal and 20 years later look like beacons of responsibility, then she can survive this easily.
Besides, pushing her churlish brother in law off a bridge will just make her seem more "like one of us". Oh who hasn't used their political connections to harass ex in-laws
-
I don't think it will.
Funny that the entire article is grounded on quotes from the Senator leading the investigation who just so happens to be a Democrat. No way he'd be doing or saying anything he can to embarrass her right now.
Reads like she's insulated to me. Overzealous administrators did the deeds. Unless they come out and say she told them to do it (in that article they certainly don't) she comes out looking like someone who inspires passion in others.
If Glenn and McCain can survive the Keating 5 scandal and 20 years later look like beacons of responsibility, then she can survive this easily.
The guy heading the committee is a Democrat, but he was picked to head the committee by bi-partisan agreement. This isn't a Democratic witch hunt on the RNC's VP pick, this started long before any of that was even an inkling. She asked her own AG to look into it, and he reckons that she's got a problem.
And, as of right now, we know that her surrogates have put inappropriate pressure on the guy she eventually fired. If those dots are connected between now and the due date for the report - 4 days before the election (again, something determined before she became a VP candidate) - there will be no time to recover from the bad press.
And as I've said before, this isn't so much about Palin, it's about McCain's managerial skills that he would run headlong into this potential bear trap. Does he apply the same sparse scrutiny to his appointment of the Secretary of State, Treasury, Justice etc. etc. And up to 3 Supreme Court Justices?
-
Oh who hasn't used their political connections to harass ex in-laws
Has this been "proven" yet or are we even bothering to wait for that part?
-
Has this been "proven" yet or are we even bothering to wait for that part?
Not proven.
-
Has this been "proven" yet or are we even bothering to wait for that part?
"Proven"? You mean is there a recorded phone call, a memo, a bloody axe? No, I'll just wait for the butter to melt in her mouth.
-
The guy heading the committee is a Democrat, but he was picked to head the committee by bi-partisan agreement. This isn't a Democratic witch hunt on the RNC's VP pick, this started long before any of that was even an inkling. She asked her own AG to look into it, and he reckons that she's got a problem.
And, as of right now, we know that her surrogates have put inappropriate pressure on the guy she eventually fired. If those dots are connected between now and the due date for the report - 4 days before the election (again, something determined before she became a VP candidate) - there will be no time to recover from the bad press.
And as I've said before, this isn't so much about Palin, it's about McCain's managerial skills that he would run headlong into this potential bear trap. Does he apply the same sparse scrutiny to his appointment of the Secretary of State, Treasury, Justice etc. etc. And up to 3 Supreme Court Justices?
As for her part, I would be surprised if it wasn't more smoke than fire.
As for McCain, I would not be surprised if he thought VP was less important than all the others you mentioned. Even if not IMO he had a hard-on for her ethical stance against the nitwits in her own party and that's what got her selected.
-
Not proven.
So is this an example of push-polling?
-
I think the ethics investigation is going to really, really hurt. The report is due out on Oct. 31, and the State Senator running the investigation is claiming that the McCain campaign wants it delayed until after the election (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5702697). Doesn't appear that he's going to oblige.
ETA: Looks like there's a tape (http://www.adn.com/monegan/v-printer/story/492964.html) of one of her aides pressuring the Public Safety Commissioner, who she fired and which action is the subject of the investigation, to fire her douchebag brother-in-law. She said no one in her adminstration had done this, but has now admitted to the tape and another two dozen contacts between her office and the PSC over the subject of her brother-in-law.
It will be far worse than Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers, if for no other reason that Rezko and Ayers have been largely swept under the rug. But then to mention that is just push-polling.
-
So is this an example of push-polling?
Nope. I was talking about an official investigation and statements made by those involved in an official investigation including statements made by the subject herself. The issue with push polling, as was clearly explained in the Wikipedia article, is that it involves flinging unsubstantiated and inflammatory muck for no reason other than to make people dislike the target. That is the polar opposite of what I have done.
-
It will be far worse than Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers, if for no other reason that Rezko and Ayers have been largely swept under the rug. But then to mention that is just push-polling.
It's push-polling if the mention of them is simply to tarnish the reputation of Obama.
Here's what the Chicago Sun-Times calls "8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko (http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article#)". What's not here is any suggestion that Rezko actually sought and/or received any special consideration from Obama.
As for Ayers, it appears that Obama's involvement with him (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17truth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print) is coincidental at best.
I welcome anything you may have to add as to why these two associations are an indictment of Obama.
-
Warning: VERY Republican leaning link, but (I hope this is only funny and not insulting, but I don't know anything about BSG) this seems kinda funny:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/272323.php
-
Ohhh. She's good.
-
Ohhh. She's good.
Turned over to her just after the game ended. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Do you really think that hormonal 16 year olds are thinking that rationally, sitting in the backseat of a '74 Nova with Journey playing in the background?
I don't know about a 74 Nova, but I can tell you stories about a '74 Malibu ;)
-
Ohhh. She's good.
Very impressive!
-
Ohhh. She's good.
Very well delivered speech. The VP debate just became Must See TV.
-
Very well delivered speech. The VP debate just became Must See TV.
She's saucy!
-
Very well delivered speech. The VP debate just became Must See TV.
And Joe Biden no longer has to worry about "offending" the "little lady". Joe, take off the gloves.
-
And Joe Biden no longer has to worry about "offending" the "little lady". Joe, take off the gloves.
I'd put on a codpiece, as well.
-
I'd put on a codpiece, as well.
Exactly, but she better not start batting her eyes when she gets punched in the nose. That little game is over. They're going to have to hide her away and run her out to make speeches very quickly.
-
And Joe Biden no longer has to worry about "offending" the "little lady". Joe, take off the gloves.
She did have some great put-down lines. The one about the plastic pillars was especially good; after all, only an idiot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTHdhft42Ic) would make an acceptance speech in front of a set of fake pillars.
-
Exactly, but she better not start batting her eyes when she gets punched in the nose. That little game is over. They're going to have to hide her away and run her out to make speeches very quickly.
Women are equal, she should be treated as such.
-
Exactly, but she better not start batting her eyes when she gets punched in the nose. That little game is over. They're going to have to hide her away and run her out to make speeches very quickly.
She is on record (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA15XU23kEc) that complaining about "excess criticism" of "women in politics or women in general" is "whining".
-
Women are equal, she should be treated as such.
Equal pay for equal work? She doesnt think so. Equal control over their bodies? No. Equal opportunity to decide what you can read or think? Nope.
-
Equal pay for equal work? She doesnt think so. Equal control over their bodies? No. Equal opportunity to decide what you can read or think? Nope.
Do you REALLY want to get into a debate about abortion here Pravata. If so, this Dallas County adoptee born 6 years before Roe v. Wade will be more than happy to go at it with you.
-
Do you REALLY want to get into a debate about abortion here Pravata. If so, this Dallas County adoptee born 6 years before Roe v. Wade will be more than happy to go at it with you.
Yes.
-
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!
Actually, let's not have to waken Spack. It's after midnight. As entertaining as this may be to read, maybe going to PM is a better solution?
-
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!
Actually, let's not have to waken Spack. It's after midnight. As entertaining as this may be to read, maybe going to PM is a better solution?
Trust me. It is not entertaining.
-
Yes.
This 'Astros fan site' is not the place for discussions on abortion, which was entirely my point. I would think given the 'rules' here, that a SnS Contributor (and 'Ferret Emeritus') would have the good sense to SHUT THE FUCK UP about this topic in its entirety. However, since you appear not to, I'll show good sense and 'walk away.'
-
Republicans don't like community service/work? That's what stuck out to me. The swipe she took at Michelle and Barack at the fact that they helped establish some of the better community work services in Chicago to help people. In City year and Public Allies.
Hers speech was a good VP speech, yes. Better than Bidens? I'll say yeah since he seemed restrained.
Hopefully McCain will take the Obama route and talk about what his policies are. Palin didn't really do much of that. She was family, my stances, hockey mom, family, haha obama, family, haha democrats, oil, haha, the media...boooo, haha, my family.
-
This 'Astros fan site' is not the place for discussions on abortion, which was entirely my point. I would think given the 'rules' here, that a SnS Contributor (and 'Ferret Emeritus') would have the good sense to SHUT THE FUCK UP about this topic in its entirety. However, since you appear not to, I'll show good sense and 'walk away.'
Why not? Everything else seems to be fair game. Woman's rights seems to be a major issue, given she is one and she's against them.
-
Why not? Everything else seems to be fair game. Woman's rights seems to be a major issue, given she is one and she's against them.
It's a can of worms.
As I've been told by several Pro-Choice women friends of mine, this one particular woman's right, becomes so when a woman capable of child bearing, gets pregnant by male sperm. Also only women capable of child bearing have to deal with the choice. I was told by one such capable woman that unless one is able to become pregnant, then one has no voice in the matter. This includes the sperm donor, regardless of his degree of involvement. Also father, brother, preacher, doctor... By her determination, that would also include any woman incapable of having children--even those who might have had children or abortions but have since had a hysterectomy or other medical/physical rendering them barren. To which I disagree in terms of having a voice to influence the decision.
Ultimately it's is a decision that has to be made by one. Reluctantly, I'm pro-choice, I don't a woman to be labled a criminal for having an abortion. As a brother to an adopted sibling I realize I have a bias when I say that IMO choosing to terminate a pregnancy as a form of retroactive birth control is about the worst choice a human can make.
-
Why not? Everything else seems to be fair game. Woman's rights seems to be a major issue, given she is one and she's against them.
i think it is one of those topics you are either pro-choice or pro-life and nothing will make you change your opinion. And those opinions can get rather forceful when told they are wrong.
I also understand SD's friend's opinion but I don't agree with all of it.
-
I used to think things were black and white until I have worked with females who have gone through the agonizing decision and the aftermath of the decision.
BTW a great film is out on the struggle of a single female with the decision is out on video called Bella (http://www.bellamoviesite.com/site/). It won several awards at film festivals. Check it out - you might even get brownie points with the misses because it would fall into somewhat of a chick flick category.
-
Equal pay for equal work? She doesnt think so.
Ive heard this about McCain a few times. What are we talking about here? Is this about the lady that sued after 20+ years on the job because she found out her male peers were getting paid more all along?
-
And Joe Biden no longer has to worry about "offending" the "little lady". Joe, take off the gloves.
I don't recall Biden ever having gloves on. Biden's problem is that although he's extremely knowledgable and a very able politician he too often acts the fuckwit and doesn't know when to shut up.
-
Ultimately it's is a decision that has to be made by one. Reluctantly, I'm pro-choice, I don't a woman to be labled a criminal for having an abortion. As a brother to an adopted sibling I realize I have a bias when I say that IMO choosing to terminate a pregnancy as a form of retroactive birth control is about the worst choice a human can make.
Well said. As an adoptee also born before R v. W I'm probably also biased, but I have tremendous difficulty reconciling how a woman must be forced to give birth under special traumatic circumstances. It really is a can of worms. I agree with B.G. that your friends opinion is mostly valid, but a bit too ridged.
Palin's speech was fantastic. I've spent the past couple of days beating her up, but I love her message as it lines up with my own political leanings. Karl Rove made an excellent point that Palin painted the Dems into a corner on criticizing small towns and their mayors, as a large percentage of America lives in small/medium size towns. Did not escape my attention that she is very pleasant on the eyes. Probably a sexist statement, but I'll own it.
On the topic of her criticizing Obama on community organizations: She wasn't putting down community organizations or people that support them. She was contrasting the difference in executive experience that a mayor/governor would have versus the leader of a community organization.
In regards to her not desiring equal pay for equal work, etc., what documentation supports this? I've little doubt that Pravata/Limey will step up and locate dozens of links. Please restrict them to "real news" sources as opposed to blogs, unless the blogs direct to a credible news source.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune/muphy_payact.fortune/index.htm
At least he can say he's co-sponsoring a bill.
-
Karl Rove made an excellent point
only a republican would say this.
-
I don't recall Biden ever having gloves on. Biden's problem is that although he's extremely knowledgable and a very able politician he too often acts the fuckwit and doesn't know when to shut up.
BS. Plugs is the dumbest man in the Senate.
-
only a republican would say this.
Maybe, maybe not. It's not an absolute world. Certainly an asshole like Rove is capable of making a valid point. I think one has to be careful about the "group think" thing. It undermines the individual and free will.
-
only a republican would say this.
Like him or not, Rove was a very successful political operative.
-
Hopefully McCain will take the Obama route and talk about what his policies are.
What policies did Obama talk about?
Ending our dependence on oil from the Middle East in 10 years? How? More drilling? Nuclear plants? Wind farms? Solar panels?
Cutting taxes for 95 per cent of all working families? What's the cut-off? Whose taxes are going up to pay for it? How will their taxes change?
Eliminating capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups? How's that going to work? Who culls the favored companies from the unfavored companies? What's that going to do to the flow of capital in the stock market?
Tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression? What's he going to do that hasn't been tried? Iran's been refusing to deal with anyone for years on this. Is he going to talk the Russians out of Georgia?
Sounds more like a wish list than actual policies, at least in most cases.
-
Oh, I forgot this doozie:
"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy."
Good luck with that.
Next he'll tell us we can pay for universal healthcare by going paperless.
-
Like him or not, Rove was a very successful political operative.
Rove was very successful at getting his guys elected. Many (including myself) would argue that those he got elected didn't do a very good job with the power they were given.
-
Oh, I forgot this doozie:
"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy."
Good luck with that.
Next he'll tell us we can pay for universal healthcare by going paperless.
and keeping programs that don't work is a good idea?
there is no such thing as a paperless society.
-
BS. Plugs is the dumbest man in the Senate.
Some guys aren't comfortable with baldness, just because Biden has ridiculous hair plugs, it doesn't mean he's not capable of making good decisions or that he's the dumbest man in the Senate.
-
Like him or not, Rove was a very successful political operative.
i didn't dispute that. he's great at what he is paid to do.
-
Some guys aren't comfortable with baldness, just because Biden has ridiculous hair plugs, it doesn't mean he's not capable of making good decisions or that he's the dumbest man in the Senate.
Some guys use junior high school insults and hyperbole to make their point.
-
and keeping programs that don't work is a good idea?
there is no such thing as a paperless society.
I'm pretty sure that I'd like to see as many programs as Obama wants cut and then some. It's not the cutting of programs that I find problematic -- although this emphasizes how little time he's actually spent in Congress if he thinks it's going to be that easy. It's the notion that cutting those programs is going to pay for all the things he's looking to spend money on. Bush presided over a GOP Congress that was a mob of drunken sailors at the spending tap. I can't imagine Obama with large Democratic majorities in Congress is going to be a significant improvement.
-
I'm pretty sure that I'd like to see as many programs as Obama wants cut and then some. It's not the cutting of programs that I find problematic -- although this emphasizes how little time he's actually spent in Congress if he thinks it's going to be that easy. It's the notion that cutting those programs is going to pay for all the things he's looking to spend money on. Bush presided over a GOP Congress that was a mob of drunken sailors at the spending tap. I can't imagine Obama with large Democratic majorities in Congress is going to be a significant improvement.
But an improvement it could be.
And McCain is going to mention some of his policy changes tonight, but I doubt he will get into the details. That is what debates and research is supposed to do. The DNC and RNC are cheerleader camps, imo, to get everyone ready for putting the American people into their partisan camps for the next four years.
-
Some guys aren't comfortable with baldness, just because Biden has ridiculous hair plugs, it doesn't mean he's not capable of making good decisions or that he's the dumbest man in the Senate.
When I lived in DC and had plenty of friends who worked and lived on the Hill, it was real well known that Joe Biden wasn't very bright. Baldness, or one's dislike of it (as a bald guy, I can't profess to be in love with it), has nothing to do with it.
-
Some guys use junior high school insults and hyperbole to make their point.
We look for a behavior, no matter how obtuse, to support our conclusion.
-
When I lived in DC and had plenty of friends who worked and lived on the Hill, it was real well known that Joe Biden wasn't very bright. Baldness, or one's dislike of it (as a bald guy, I can't profess to be in love with it), has nothing to do with it.
some bald guys are hot and i'll stop right there.
-
Some guys use junior high school insults and hyperbole to make their point.
Poppycock. Joe Biden even knows that he's not real smart, and that's why one of first comments after being selected was that his IQ was higher. I look forward to the Veep debates. They'll protect both of them as well as they can, but I bet that they're more worried about Biden making a gaffe.
-
Why not? Everything else seems to be fair game. Woman's rights seems to be a major issue, given she is one and she's against them.
It's not just women's rights. That baby with her family up there last night had just a 1 in 5 chance of being born because he's got a disability. We've got a stack of laws 10 feet high pervading every aspect of life in this country to protect and accommodate disabled people. But if you simply choose to terminate a baby before he's born because he's got a disability, as happens with 4 of 5 babies with Down syndrome, that's OK.
-
some bald guys are hot and i'll stop right there.
Brad Ausmus wears a rug?
-
But an improvement it could be.
The last time we had a Democratic President and Democratically controlled House and Senate, it took just 2 years for voters to remove the Democratic party from power in both houses of Congress.
-
When I lived in DC and had plenty of friends who worked and lived on the Hill, it was real well known that Joe Biden wasn't very bright. Baldness, or one's dislike of it (as a bald guy, I can't profess to be in love with it), has nothing to do with it.
As a fellow bald guy I have no problem with it. And neither does my wife.
-
The last time we had a Democratic President and Democratically controlled House and Senate, it took just 2 years for voters to remove the Democratic party from power in both houses of Congress.
I expect we'll see precisely the same thing two years from now.
-
I expect we'll see precisely the same thing two years from now.
It might be a little tougher in 2010 than it was in 1994 since the GOP shit the bed so badly the last time around.
-
I expect we'll see precisely the same thing two years from now.
I don't think that's the kind of change Obama's seeking.
-
As a fellow bald guy I have no problem with it. And neither does my wife.
I can't say that I have a problem with it either, after over 20 years. But the process of going bald sucked for me. I wish that I could have gone hairless overnight. The torture of watching your hairline recede was just that.
-
Eliminating capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups? How's that going to work? Who culls the favored companies from the unfavored companies? What's that going to do to the flow of capital in the stock market?
How many small companies actually pay capital gains taxes?
-
I thought the baldness was as a result of treatment and surgery he had to remove a brain tumor. I think I'd investigate hair plugs too if I'd had that sort of problem.
-
How many small companies actually pay capital gains taxes?
It's not the businesses paying the taxes, it's the owners upon sale. Raising the capital gains taxes reduces the incentive for entrepreneurship.
-
It might be a little tougher in 2010 than it was in 1994 since the GOP shit the bed so badly the last time around.
A VERY liberal Political Science professor friend of mine told me back in 04 that the voters tend, rather strongly, to prefer the Executive branch and Legislative branch to be controlled by different parties.
Congress's approval ratings are worse than Bush's. If they fuckup their work, the voters will send them packing.
-
In regards to her not desiring equal pay for equal work, etc., what documentation supports this? I've little doubt that Pravata/Limey will step up and locate dozens of links. Please restrict them to "real news" sources as opposed to blogs, unless the blogs direct to a credible news source.
What I have heard is that this isn't an accusation against Palin, it's against McCain. Apparently he voted against a bill that would require equal pay for equal work by women. What, when, where or how hasn't been elaborated upon.
-
i didn't dispute that. he's great at what he is paid to do.
So maybe when he speaks of a campaigning issue, it might be worth listening to. but then what does he know about what it takes to get someone elected?
-
It's not the businesses paying the taxes, it's the owners upon sale. Raising the capital gains taxes reduces the incentive for entrepreneurship.
Sale of what? Stocks, bonds, real estate? How many small businesses will this actually affect? I must be missing the point, because it seems to me the majority of small businesses produce services that don't fall under these catagories.
-
I stared slowly losing my hair when I hit 20, it's been a slow gradual recession across the top of my head. I'm down to a hundred or less on top, I don't know really, 'cause I've been rockin' a #1 crew cut for the past 16 years or so. Larry David is Bald (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnZft1YTcA0). Warning may be offensive.
-
Reluctantly, I'm pro-choice, I don't a woman to be labled a criminal for having an abortion.
It's not so much the women who are labelled criminals as it is the women who die or are seriously injured when they are forced into the back alleys.
-
Maybe, maybe not. It's not an absolute world. Certainly an asshole like Rove is capable of making a valid point. I think one has to be careful about the "group think" thing. It undermines the individual and free will.
Rove says what's expedient to his purpose, which means that everything he says is suspect. Last night The Daily Show played a clip of him praising Palin's service as a small town mayor and then small (population) State governor, followed by a clip from a a few weeks ago when he panned Democratic VP possible Tim Kaine for having only been a mayor of a small town and governor small State.
-
What policies did Obama talk about?
Cutting taxes for 95 per cent of all working families? What's the cut-off? Whose taxes are going up to pay for it? How will their taxes change?
The cut-off, as he has stated many,many times for anyone willing to listen, is $250,000 taxable income. For those above that mark, marginal rates will return to pre-2001 levels (i.e., 39.6% instead of 35%).
Eliminating capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups? How's that going to work? Who culls the favored companies from the unfavored companies? What's that going to do to the flow of capital in the stock market?
Favored vs. unfavored? You write in either a company life (i.e., first 5 years) or income test. It's not hard. And given that capital flowed freely in the 90's, when the LTCG rate stood at first 28%, then 20% - which, by the way, he has proposed as the cap to which he would consider raising the LTCG rate - I don't think you're likely to see a market meltdown.
The specifics are there, but as I said, you have to be willing to listen.
-
Sounds more like a wish list than actual policies, at least in most cases.
Sounds like an awful lot of Palin's speech.
-
i didn't dispute that. he's great at what he is paid to do.
Except in '06 when he coughed up the House and the Senate.
-
Except in '06 when he coughed up the House and the Senate.
I think it was almost a victory for the GOP that they didn't give up the supermajority in the Senate, as badly as they'd shit the bed, to borrow an earlier phrase.
-
What I have heard is that this isn't an accusation against Palin, it's against McCain. Apparently he voted against a bill that would require equal pay for equal work by women. What, when, where or how hasn't been elaborated upon.
In my mind those questions are critical because most bills contain unrelated issues that elected officials object to and often vote against because of.
-
The last time we had a Democratic President and Democratically controlled House and Senate, it took just 2 years for voters to remove the Democratic party from power in both houses of Congress.
When the situation was reversed, it took 6. One party control is usually a bad thing.
-
By the way - if Palin's "experience" as a mayor counts because it is executive work, but the Senate does not because it is legislative, then how exactly is McCain more experienced than Obama?
-
Karl Rove made an excellent point that Palin painted the Dems into a corner on criticizing small towns and their mayors, as a large percentage of America lives in small/medium size towns.
Watch at least the first minute and 11 seconds of this. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card)
-
Sale of what? Stocks, bonds, real estate? How many small businesses will this actually affect? I must be missing the point, because it seems to me the majority of small businesses produce services that don't fall under these catagories.
Sorry - sell the business itself. That's the typical path for most small entrepreneurs (build a business and sell it).
-
Sorry - sell the business itself. That's the typical path for most small entrepreneurs (build a business and sell it).
So you really think that many people are going to say, "I was going to start this business, but the taxes I may pay in 5 years just went up 5%, so fuck it"?
-
It's not the businesses paying the taxes, it's the owners upon sale. Raising the capital gains taxes reduces the incentive for entrepreneurship.
Right. They'd rather give up and make nothing, instead of getting 65% of something.
I think you have a very low opinion of entrepreneurs.
-
When the situation was reversed, it took 6. One party control is usually a bad thing.
Right. See my comment closer to the top of page 31.
-
So you really think that many people are going to say, "I was going to start this business, but the taxes I may pay in 5 years just went up 5%, so fuck it"?
I just explained how capital gains taxes affect small businesses and entrepreneurship. I honestly don't know anything about the details of Obama's tax plan, but I do believe there's some tax rate at which it becomes less attractive to take the risk to start a small business.
There's also a larger issue about how it will affect which capital markets investments flow into (for example, do I invest in stocks or bonds and why) that potentially has serious implications. I am the furthest thing from a macroeconomist so I have no informed opinion on what the optimal capital gains rate (or appropriate discount from ordinary income if any).
-
I think it was almost a victory for the GOP that they didn't give up the supermajority in the Senate, as badly as they'd shit the bed, to borrow an earlier phrase.
Actually, given the make-up of the 1/3rd of Senate seats up for grabs in '06, it was a major swing for control to shift across the aisle. In '08, 2/3rds of the 1/3rd of Senate seats up for grabs are Republican.
-
Just to clarify - I don't really like either candidate, so don't take anything I say as intended to support one over the other.
-
It might be a little tougher in 2010 than it was in 1994 since the GOP shit the bed so badly the last time around.
I can't see that being a factor at all. I do not for a minute think that Democrats are any less stupid than Republicans are. A little less snake-handling, a little less jingo, sure. But give those fuckers two years with a Democratic President and god knows what kind of idiocy those slapdicks will deliver upon us all. Obama will spend two years mending fences globally while at home congress will be dreaming up incredible ways to spend money that does not exist. That bridge to nowhere will look quaint by 2010.
My only consolation is that maybe the new administration will act like science is, you know, scientific, and that when the next SC Justice kicks off perhaps they can find someone who'll abstain from the Scalia circle jerks.
-
In my mind those questions are critical because most bills contain unrelated issues that elected officials object to and often vote against because of.
Right. HHence my equivocation. I have no idea what other elements were in that bill that may have caused McCain's "no" vote. I would ask that the same consideration be given to all candidates when accused of voting against something.
-
Actually, given the make-up of the 1/3rd of Senate seats up for grabs in '06, it was a major swing for control to shift across the aisle. In '08, 2/3rds of the 1/3rd of Senate seats up for grabs are Republican.
I think you'd have to look at each of those states specifically to see how much room for change there is.
-
So you really think that many people are going to say, "I was going to start this business, but the taxes I may pay in 5 years just went up 5%, so fuck it"?
The issue is not so much the entrepreneurs themselves as the VC's and other sources of external funding that are almost always required (typically in multiple rounds of fund raising) to fuel corporate development and growth. These guys make large, high-risk bets and consider a lot of options for how to earn the best after tax return on their gobs of cash. And yes, they will factor the tax rate ionto their investment decisions which will affect both the amount of capital available in this regard as well as the cost ot the small businesses who need that capital.
-
I honestly don't know anything about the details of Obama's tax plan
Shoot first, ask questions later.
-
Brad Ausmus wears a rug?
no, but he'd be hot if he did.
-
My only consolation is that maybe the new administration will act like science is, you know, scientific, and that when the next SC Justice kicks off perhaps they can find someone who'll abstain from the Scalia circle jerks.
So ... does a SC Justice have the freedom to vote "present" on a ruling?
-
Shoot first, ask questions later.
I didn't say anything pro or con Obama in my post.
-
I think you'd have to look at each of those states specifically to see how much room for change there is.
Many Republican Senators have opted not to run for re-election this time around. There are a lot of Republican seats "in play".
-
Obama will spend two years mending fences globally while at home congress will be dreaming up incredible ways to spend money that does not exist.
As opposed to spending six years pissing off everyone else in the world while dreaming up wars to spend money that does not exist.
-
I don't think that's the kind of change Obama's seeking.
I don't think that is the kind of change any President would be seeking.
-
I didn't say anything pro or con Obama in my post.
I didn't accuse of same in my post. I accused you of commenting on something that you admitted to knowing nothing about
-
Many Republican Senators have opted not to run for re-election this time around. There are a lot of Republican seats "in play".
I meant you'd have to look at who's running and whether in any state one party had significant control of that state.
-
So ... does a SC Justice have the freedom to vote "present" on a ruling?
You have to actually be there to vote "present". (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/)
-
I didn't accuse of same in my post. I accused you of commenting on something that you admitted to knowing nothing about
I explained how capital gains taxes affected small business. That is completely unrelated to anything to do with Obama's policy (which is what I admitted knowing nothing about).
-
So maybe when he speaks of a campaigning issue, it might be worth listening to. but then what does he know about what it takes to get someone elected?
i did listen to it. i just don't like who he got elected.
-
As opposed to spending six years pissing off everyone else in the world while dreaming up wars to spend money that does not exist.
Oh, and running up record budget deficits and record national debt, even if you don't count the cost of the war.
Palin accused Obama of promising to increase government and increase taxes, i.e. tax and spend liberal. In actuality, the Bush administration has grown government to its largest size ever, while cutting taxes. He simply borrowed the difference with no plan to pay it back. I'll take "tax and spend" over "borrow and spend" any day.
-
Watch at least the first minute and 11 seconds of this. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card)
Best to watch the whole thing.
-
I love the 1988 sports report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp5DgPvWAFk&feature=related
-
You have to actually be there to vote "present". (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/)
True enough. And from that link, it looks like Tim Johnson would also be a candidate if not for the unfortunate and quite valid excuse he has. So let's disqualify him from the competition, and you have McCain, Obama, Clinton & Biden leading the way. If you add Obama's 130 votes of "present", he edges out McCain (420-409) in the all-important delinquency department. But of course, we do not hvae data on other candidate's 'present' votes.
I say, a pox on both their houses. Vote third party.
-
I love the 1988 sports report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp5DgPvWAFk&feature=related
Awesome hair man....
-
The issue is not so much the entrepreneurs themselves as the VC's and other sources of external funding that are almost always required (typically in multiple rounds of fund raising) to fuel corporate development and growth. These guys make large, high-risk bets and consider a lot of options for how to earn the best after tax return on their gobs of cash. And yes, they will factor the tax rate ionto their investment decisions which will affect both the amount of capital available in this regard as well as the cost ot the small businesses who need that capital.
I see now. Apparently what I consider a "small business" isn't the accepted definition of the term.
-
Oh, and running up record budget deficits and record national debt, even if you don't count the cost of the war.
Palin accused Obama of promising to increase government and increase taxes, i.e. tax and spend liberal. In actuality, the Bush administration has grown government to its largest size ever, while cutting taxes. He simply borrowed the difference with no plan to pay it back. I'll take "tax and spend" over "borrow and spend" any day.
Actually, she accused *Washington* on that point, not merely Obama. her message was that Obama would bring "more of the same" kind of fiscal irresponsibility that has characterized Washington for most or all of the past 20 years. Bush I and Clinton were still reaping what had been sown earlier, so it was less obvious than with Bush II.
And on a separate note, I'd consider moving to Alaska if the AIC ever successfully exercised its secession rights and then elected Palin pope or king or whathaveyou.
-
True enough. And from that link, it looks like Tim Johnson would also be a candidate if not for the unfortunate and quite valid excuse he has. So let's disqualify him from the competition, and you have McCain, Obama, Clinton & Biden leading the way. If you add Obama's 130 votes of "present", he edges out McCain (420-409) in the all-important delinquency department. But of course, we do not hvae data on other candidate's 'present' votes.
I say, a pox on both their houses. Vote third party.
The "present" votes were in the Illinois state senate, not the US Senate.
-
The "present" votes were in the Illinois state senate, not the US Senate.
Ready, fire, aim.
mea maxima culpa.
-
Ready, fire, aim.
mea maxima culpa.
More on present votes:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/707/present-votes-illinois
There may be something better and more in depth, but this is what the google turned up for me.
-
More on present votes:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/707/present-votes-illinois
There may be something better and more in depth, but this is what the google turned up for me.
"Voters don't trust details. They trust headlines."
-
You have to actually be there to vote "present". (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/)
Wow. Looking at the voted with party totals, is it that Senate Republicans are mostly centrists or Senate Democrats have no intention of working with Republicans or both?
-
Wow. Looking at the voted with party totals, is it that Senate Republicans are mostly centrists or Senate Democrats have no intention of working with Republicans or both?
The minority party is more likely to release its members to "vote their conscience" when they see they cannot defeat a bill.
-
Sale of what? Stocks, bonds, real estate? How many small businesses will this actually affect? I must be missing the point, because it seems to me the majority of small businesses produce services that don't fall under these catagories.
I read it to mean that investors will pay no taxes on capital gains from the sale of securities in favored businesses, i.e., "the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."
-
RoveObama says what's expedient to his purpose, which means that everything he says is suspect.
FIFY.
-
Actually, she accused *Washington* on that point, not merely Obama. her message was that Obama would bring "more of the same" kind of fiscal irresponsibility that has characterized Washington for most or all of the past 20 years. Bush I and Clinton were still reaping what had been sown earlier, so it was less obvious than with Bush II.
She also glossed over the fact that the fiscal responsibility had, for the 12 years up to the 2006 turnaround, been at the hands of a Republican Congress, which included her running mate (and Obama's) for that entire time. It's very dangerous ground for anyone to tread.
-
The minority party is more likely to release its members to "vote their conscience" when they see they cannot defeat a bill.
To that end, if you look at the 109th Congress, you'll see the Republicans and Dems about even and in the 108th the Republicans higher (91.8%)
-
FIFY.
That's just sad.
-
RoveObama Pretty much everyone involved in politics today says what's expedient to his purpose, which means that everything he says is suspect should be questioned.
Let's try that one again.
-
FIFY.
I'll gladly welcome a flip-flopping comparison between these two candidates.
-
The cut-off, as he has stated many, many times for anyone willing to listen, is $250,000 taxable income. For those above that mark, marginal rates will return to pre-2001 levels (i.e., 39.6% instead of 35%).
He didn't say that in the speech. And my understanding is that raising the marginal federal income tax rate on filers with more than $250,000 in taxable income is not the only tax change he's proposing.
Favored vs. unfavored? You write in either a company life (i.e., first 5 years) or income test. It's not hard. And given that capital flowed freely in the 90's, when the LTCG rate stood at first 28%, then 20% - which, by the way, he has proposed as the cap to which he would consider raising the LTCG rate - I don't think you're likely to see a market meltdown.
I'm not talking about a capital meltdown. I'm talking about the allocation of capital between one investment or another. If you're setting different capital gains rates between them, you're directing capital flows. Who picks the winners and losers?
The specifics are there, but as I said, you have to be willing to listen.
I listened to the whole speech. I didn't hear any of that.
-
I'll gladly welcome a flip-flopping comparison between these two candidates.
There's plenty of ammunition on both sides, to be sure. Karl Rove (who isn't actually running for office) isn't the only one whose words vary day to day.
-
Sounds like an awful lot of Palin's speech.
The purpose of the vice presidential candidate's speech is a bit different from the purpose of the presidential candidate's speech, isn't it?
McCain's speech may be lacking on details when he talks tonight, which if so will be disappointing. But that's the one you need to compare Obama's speech to.
-
I think it was almost a victory for the GOP that they didn't give up the supermajority in the Senate, as badly as they'd shit the bed, to borrow an earlier phrase.
Concur. They're going to be lucky if that doesn't happen to them this time around.
-
He didn't say that in the speech. And my understanding is that raising the marginal federal income tax rate on filers with more than $250,000 in taxable income is not the only tax change he's proposing.
No, he's also proposed reinstating the 6.2% payroll tax for earnings above $250K, treating carried interests as ordinary income rather than capital gains (which I disagree with), closing corporate tax loopholes (which is absolutely appropriate as long as it's accompanied by a cut in corporate rate), etc.
And if you think an acceptance speech is going to be the forum for such details... well, let's just say I don't think there will be a great dissection of tax policy tonight.
I'm not talking about a capital meltdown. I'm talking about the allocation of capital between one investment or another. If you're setting different capital gains rates between them, you're directing capital flows. Who picks the winners and losers?
Congress and the IRS, just as it has been since 1913.
I listened to the whole speech. I didn't hear any of that.
It takes about 0.25 seconds on Google.
-
He didn't say that in the speech. And my understanding is that raising the marginal federal income tax rate on filers with more than $250,000 in taxable income is not the only tax change he's proposing.
CNN has a crack at decoding the rhetoric (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/).
-
You are reply 666. Ergo, Limey is the devil.
-
CNN has a crack at decoding the rhetoric (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/).
lol, i always laugh at post 666.
-
So you really think that many people are going to say, "I was going to start this business, but the taxes I may pay in 5 years just went up 5%, so fuck it"?
No. But you know (or should know) that people will structure their investments in accordance with the new rules, which will have effects (and unintended consequences) on how the capital flows.
-
No. But you know (or should no) that people will structure their investments in accordance with the new rules, which will have effects (and unintended consequences) on how the capital flows.
Always. But if the intended consequence is to flow greater capital to new businesses (as would be the case if they are to receive a more favorable LTCG rate), then I'm fine with that.
-
Right. HHence my equivocation. I have no idea what other elements were in that bill that may have caused McCain's "no" vote. I would ask that the same consideration be given to all candidates when accused of voting against something.
For example, voting against something that says this?
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
-
I think you'd have to look at each of those states specifically to see how much room for change there is.
If the GOP is more exposed in seats up for reelection in 2008, and the Democrats pick up even more seats, that means that the Democrats will be similarly exposed in 2010 or 2012.
-
For example, voting against something that says this?
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
I hope that bill had plenty of defined term because that is wonderfully ambiguous sentence.
-
As opposed to spending six years pissing off everyone else in the world while dreaming up wars to spend money that does not exist.
Last time I checked, members of both parties in Congress voted in favor of those dreamt-up wars.
-
Back to Palin's speech: the AP does a fact check (http://news.yahoo.com/story/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check/print;_ylt=AgAk0mM2Fh8oFRjiKpgzFwNh24cA).
-
For example, voting against something that says this?
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Exactly. Without context, this is meaningless.
-
Wow. Looking at the voted with party totals, is it that Senate Republicans are mostly centrists or Senate Democrats have no intention of working with Republicans or both?
Hasn't McCain sponsored and passed more bipartisan legislation than Obama has?
-
Back to Palin's speech: the AP does a fact check (http://news.yahoo.com/story/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check/print;_ylt=AgAk0mM2Fh8oFRjiKpgzFwNh24cA).
By the way... her assertion that Obama would "raise the death tax" is a complete falsehood, no matter how you view it. His proposal is to lock in the 2009 law, which - wait for it - is a lower tax rate than 2008 law, and lower still than the rates for 2011 and going forward.
-
She also glossed over the fact that the fiscal responsibility had, for the 12 years up to the 2006 turnaround, been at the hands of a Republican Congress, which included her running mate (and Obama's) for that entire time. It's very dangerous ground for anyone to tread.
I think her actions have indicated that she's not that scared of her own party.
-
Hasn't McCain sponsored and passed more bipartisan legislation than Obama has?
He's also sponsored and passed more total legislation, which you would expect given their respective tenures. But as Gov. Palin told us last night that the other 3 candidates have no executive experience, I'm going to ignore that.
-
Exactly. Without context, this is meaningless.
Really? What's the context? What sophisticated Harvard Law School analysis are we missing?
-
I think her actions have indicated that she's not that scared of her own party.
That's fine, but many of them are also up for re-election. If she hammers the "Washington establishment" she gives ammunition to Democratic congressional hopefuls everywhere. It's a very narrow tightrope to walk.
-
Really? What's the context? What sophisticated Harvard Law School analysis are we missing?
Oh dear.
-
I hope that bill had plenty of defined term because that is wonderfully ambiguous sentence.
I think this is the text, but I'm not sure if this is the version introduced in the year that Mr. Nuance voted against it.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session
-
Let's try that one again.
I'll buy that.
-
Really? What's the context? What sophisticated Harvard Law School analysis are we missing?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
But then again, I'm a guy that believes that life begins at conception, and disagree with Obama completely on this anyway.
-
Always. But if the intended consequence is to flow greater capital to new businesses (as would be the case if they are to receive a more favorable LTCG rate), then I'm fine with that.
Let's say you'd had this kind of capital flow manipulation (and I am not denying that there are not already existing carrots and sticks out there) in the mid-'90s, where capital flows to small businesses and high-tech businesses are favored. Wouldn't that have possibly flowed even more money into precisely the investments that inflated the tech bubble that catastrophically burst? Wouldn't that have put more money into even riskier investments and resulted in even harsher losses in 2000 and 2001?
The same people who brought you Sarbanes-Oxley, who rail against misleading investors, are the same ones who want to set up a scheme that will favor more money flowing into investments that are almost certainly higher-risk. Unless you're talking about only letting hedge funds, private equity and venture capital into it, in which case you're just giving tax breaks to the rich.
-
But then again, I'm a guy that believes that life begins at conception, and disagree with Obama completely on this anyway.
The Bible says that life begins when God breathes air into your lungs. I think it happens somewhere between where you say it does and where God says it does, but that's just like, my opinion, man.
Also, if life begins at conception, then the practice of in vitro fertilisation is infanticide on an industrial scale. Most of the fertilised eggs created during the process are disguarded.
-
He's also sponsored and passed more total legislation, which you would expect given their respective tenures. But as Gov. Palin told us last night that the other 3 candidates have no executive experience, I'm going to ignore that.
I'm not getting at experience, I'm getting at the "uniter, not a divider" theme. Hammering McCain for voting with Bush 90% of the time but then presenting yourself as a national healer is not exactly convincing coming from someone who votes along party lines almost all the time himself.
-
I'm not getting at experience, I'm getting at the "uniter, not a divider" theme. Hammering McCain for voting with Bush 90% of the time but then presenting yourself as a national healer is not exactly convincing coming from someone who votes along party lines almost all the time himself.
It's not about accusing McCain of being partisan, it's about wrapping McCain around Bush (http://backinasecond.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/1-mccain_bush_hug1.jpg), and about Obama being not-Bush.
-
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
But then again, I'm a guy that believes that life begins at conception, and disagree with Obama completely on this anyway.
In the Illinois Senate, he voted against a bill virtually identical to that passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate, including the Roe protection. Even NARAL did not oppose it at the federal level. All the nuance is hyper-sophisticated elite law school gobbledygook.
We're not talking about right-wing Bible-thumping no-abortions-now-or-ever restrictions. We're talking about living, breathing babies expelled from the womb during an abortion that are left to die on tables in the hospital. Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't see any nuance that justifices his opposition on this issue.
-
That's fine, but many of them are also up for re-election. If she hammers the "Washington establishment" she gives ammunition to Democratic congressional hopefuls everywhere. It's a very narrow tightrope to walk.
True. But I'm willing to live with her on that, because I think the congressional GOP's performance has largely been abomibable. You need not even ask what I think the congressional Democrats.
-
True. But I'm willing to live with her on that, because I think the congressional GOP's performance has largely been abomibable. You need not even ask what I think the congressional Democrats.
I'll tell you what I think of Congressional Democrats: in all but a very few cases, they've blown donkey dicks.
-
I'll tell you what I think of Congressional Democrats: in all but a very few cases, they've blown donkey dicks.
Many Republicans feel the same way about their congressmen.
-
It's not about accusing McCain of being partisan, it's about wrapping McCain around Bush (http://backinasecond.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/1-mccain_bush_hug1.jpg), and about Obama being not-Bush.
Wow. That picture inspires so many inappropriate caption ideas.
-
In the Illinois Senate, he voted against a bill virtually identical to that passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate, including the Roe protection. Even NARAL did not oppose it at the federal level. All the nuance is hyper-sophisticated elite law school gobbledygook.
We're not talking about right-wing Bible-thumping no-abortions-now-or-ever restrictions. We're talking about living, breathing babies expelled from the womb during an abortion that are left to die on tables in the hospital. Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't see any nuance that justifices his opposition on this issue.
So, either the Harvard-educated Obama saw a difference in how the Illinois bill would be applied to State law as to how the Federal bill would be applied to Federal law, or he just wants to kill babies.
-
Back to Palin's speech: the AP does a fact check (http://news.yahoo.com/story/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check/print;_ylt=AgAk0mM2Fh8oFRjiKpgzFwNh24cA).
Which is pretty piss poor in its own fact checking. The very first item is damn near wholly incorrect and makes several erroneous implications. She had nothing to do with the Bridge to Nowhere, that was purely Senator Ted Stevens. As is almost all of the earmarked spending for Alaska. To implicate her for the wrongdoings and actions of someone else is considered "Fact Checking"?
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
Dear god, it gets even worse;
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation
So basically what they said was "So what she said was true, but here's some irrelevant bullshit so we can somehow implicate that this statement is incorrect"
Yes. Fact Checking.
-
Which is pretty piss poor in its own fact checking. The very first item is damn near wholly incorrect and makes several erroneous implications. She had nothing to do with the Bridge to Nowhere, that was purely Senator Ted Stevens. As is almost all of the earmarked spending for Alaska. To implicate her for the wrongdoings and actions of someone else is considered "Fact Checking"?
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
Where is the fact check wrong? I'm not challenging, I'm interested. She says she told the Feds to take their bridge and shove it, and the fact check says she did this only after the bridge became the poster child for pork. Those two statements are not in conflict, one simply expands on the other.
-
Where is the fact check wrong? I'm not challenging, I'm interested. She says she told the Feds to take their bridge and shove it, and the fact check says she did this only after the bridge became the poster child for pork. Those two statements are not in conflict, one simply expands on the other.
that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
is a direct implication that she was responsible for said bridge until it was "ridiculed". There is no mention of Ted Stevens in regards to that monstrosity, or his penchant for earmarks and pork barrel for his state. how is that not factually incorrect?
-
Dear god, it gets even worse;
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation
So basically what they said was "So what she said was true, but here's some irrelevant bullshit so we can somehow implicate that this statement is incorrect"
Yes. Fact Checking.
It does look silly, if you snip off the bit where the fact check goes on to explain its position.
-
It does look silly, if you snip off the bit where the fact check goes on to explain its position.
No it looks silly period.
"expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles"
Wow. Way to stretch out on a limb of major policy reform there. No one would want to help intercept shipments of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons.
And they haven't been reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles here in the US for over 20+ years now either.
That takes a visionary.
And, it's the SINGULAR example they could come up with.
There's nothing remotely close to "fact checking" about that article.
-
is a direct implication that she was responsible for said bridge until it was "ridiculed". There is no mention of Ted Stevens in regards to that monstrosity, or his penchant for earmarks and pork barrel for his state. how is that not factually incorrect?
It's not factually incorrect. It's a nuanced response to her statement that implied she's anti-pork, whereas she isn't anti-pork at all, she just happened to have panned Stevens' bridge after it became a political stink bomb. If you want the fact check to explain it's position in excrutiating detail, then it's more important that you ask the same of the candidate.
-
There's nothing remotely close to "fact checking" about that article.
Take from it what you will.
-
It's not factually incorrect. It's a nuanced response to her statement...
So you're telling me accusing her of Ted Stevens actions is "factually correct", just "nuanced"? Is that your position?
-
It's not factually incorrect. It's a nuanced response to her statement that implied she's anti-pork, whereas she isn't anti-pork at all, she just happened to have panned Stevens' bridge after it became a political stink bomb.
Wrong, Limey. It's worse than that.
You see, Palin is flatly lying her ass off about that bridge, and it has nothing to do with an apparent flip-flop. Here's what she said last night:
"We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere."
How was she able to tell Congress "thanks but no thanks" and that "if our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves" when Congress itself killed the earmark over a year before she became governor?
-
Wrong, Limey. It's worse than that.
You see, Palin is flatly lying her ass off about that bridge, and it has nothing to do with an apparent flip-flop. Here's what she said last night:
How was she able to tell Congress "thanks but no thanks" and that "if our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves" when Congress itself killed the earmark over a year before she became governor?
Not only that, when she said "thanks but not thanks", what she really meant was "thanks, I'll take the money anyway".
-
How was she able to tell Congress "thanks but no thanks" and that "if our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves" when Congress itself killed the earmark over a year before she became governor?
Because they never deallocated the money that had been budgeted TO Alaska even after the specific earmark had been removed. They money was still there for transportation use until a year after she had been elected when she canceled the project.
-
This 'Astros fan site' is not the place for discussions on abortion, which was entirely my point. I would think given the 'rules' here, that a SnS Contributor (and 'Ferret Emeritus') would have the good sense to SHUT THE FUCK UP about this topic in its entirety. However, since you appear not to, I'll show good sense and 'walk away.'
You brought up. You can look this up, challenging someone is not smart. I brought up the point because the main reason Palin was nominated is her views on choice. You made it personal. So yes, it was up to you to walk away.
-
Where is the fact check wrong? I'm not challenging, I'm interested. She says she told the Feds to take their bridge and shove it, and the fact check says she did this only after the bridge became the poster child for pork. Those two statements are not in conflict, one simply expands on the other.
I realize that I'm repeating myself, but this is an important point. The statements are in conflict. She is lying about a very basic fact and getting away with it because no one's bothered to notice or raise hell about it.
-
Because they never deallocated the money that had been budgeted TO Alaska even after the specific earmark had been removed. They money was still there for transportation use until a year after she had been elected when she canceled the project.
...and returned the money?
-
Here's what Gov. Palin said at the time she nixed the project:
Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.
Does this really sound like a maverick reformer who told Congress to take its money and shove it? Please.
-
Because they never deallocated the money that had been budgeted TO Alaska even after the specific earmark had been removed. They money was still there for transportation use until a year after she had been elected when she canceled the project.
I think you're missing the point. Palin had absolutely nothing to do with that earmark, yet she went on national TV and said the exact opposite, and the conservative base ate it up. What a reformer she is!
No, she's a liar.
-
Not only that, when she said "thanks but not thanks", what she really meant was "thanks, I'll take the money anyway".
Eggzzactly.
-
...and returned the money?
It was put into its general federal transportation fund just as any other state receives to use of roadwork improvements. You can look up there how it was used, I have no idea where or for how.
The point of it is, Ted Stevens fought for that money to be used in a specific and singular project, refused to have those funds transferred to the Gulf Coast in 2005 as a result of Katrina. And when those funds had their earmark for that bridge removed, and transferred to where it should have been, into the general transportation fund, it stayed there, and the bridge was canceled, because they couldn't make up the $329 million shortfall of funding, because she wouldn't put federal funds into it as Ted Stevens had fought for.
To say she is lying, or is responsible for Ted Stevens actions ignores the actual "facts" of the situation.
-
...and returned the money?
Is any state going to return transportation funds?
-
I think you're missing the point. Palin had absolutely nothing to do with that earmark, yet she went on national TV and said the exact opposite, and the conservative base ate it up. What a reformer she is!
No, she's a liar.
No your missing the point, She was accused of having everything to do with that earmark, when in fact it was not her.
-
No your missing the point, She was accused of having everything to do with that earmark, when in fact it was not here.
She was not a member of Congress, she could not have had stevens' level of involvement, but that doesn't meet that shde didn't lobby for it, which she did.
-
It was put into its general federal transportation fund just as any other state receives to use of roadwork improvements. You can look up there how it was used, I have no idea where or for how.
So, she took the money earmarked for the bridge, and spent it however the fuck she liked. And that's somehow better?
The point of it is, Ted Stevens fought for that money to be used in a specific and singular project, refused to have those funds transferred to the Gulf Coast in 2005 as a result of Katrina. And when those funds had their earmark for that bridge removed, and transferred to where it should have been, into the general transportation fund, it stayed there, and the bridge was canceled, because they couldn't make up the $329 million shortfall of funding, because she wouldn't put federal funds into it as Ted Stevens had fought for.
To say she is lying, or is responsible for Ted Stevens actions ignores the actual "facts" of the situation.
To say that she's being totally honest about the situation is being willfully ignorant.
-
Is any state going to return transportation funds?
I don't know, but I haven't heard representatives of other states take credit for refusing Federal funding, while accepting that exact same Federal funding.
-
No your missing the point, She was accused of having everything to do with that earmark, when in fact it was not here.
Wrong. She lobbied for the money. She was completely and totally in favor of the project, so it's a lie to paint this picture of herself as a maverick reformer. She never told Congress anything.
-
No your missing the point, She was accused of having everything to do with that earmark, when in fact it was not her.
That's not what was said at all.
-
She was not a member of Congress, she could not have had stevens' level of involvement, but that doesn't meet that shde didn't lobby for it, which she did.
There seems to be a whole lot of implication without much proof. Show where she says "I fought for this money", or else all this hoopla about "proven/unproven", "push-polling" garbage obviously only applies to one side of this argument.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html
In February, Palin's office sent Sen. Stevens a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for Alaska.
-
That's not what was said at all.
No that's what implied by not mentioning Ted Stevens at all in regards to this Bridge to Nowhere. But that's just "nuanced" and not a lie.
-
There seems to be a whole lot of implication without much proof. Show where she says "I fought for this money", or else all this hoopla about "proven/unproven", "push-polling" garbage obviously only applies to one side of this argument.
same Washington Post article linked above:
In addition, Palin has reversed course on at least one major earmark: After initially supporting the $223 million bridge, which was to connect the town of Ketchikan with a remote island, she reversed course last year and canceled the project because of cost overruns. Critics have dubbed the project the "Bridge to Nowhere."
-
There seems to be a whole lot of implication without much proof. Show where she says "I fought for this money", or else all this hoopla about "proven/unproven", "push-polling" garbage obviously only applies to one side of this argument.
more detail:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116208&srvc=home&position=emailed
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html
And amazingly enough, it mentions nothing about said bridge except that she canceled it. And no shit, a Governor outlining requests for federal funds, and nothing specific about what she was requesting.
-
So, either the Harvard-educated Obama saw a difference in how the Illinois bill would be applied to State law as to how the Federal bill would be applied to Federal law, or he just wants to kill babies.
Or he's so extreme in his support of Roe that he didn't want to cast a vote that would in any way be construed as weakening it.
-
And amazingly enough, it mentions nothing about said bridge except that she canceled it. And no shit, a Governor outlining requests for federal funds, and nothing specific about what she was requesting.
That article was refuting this idea that she's some maverick telling the federal government to take their money and shove it, when she's actually doing the exact opposite. The Boston Herald article has details, including quotes, on her support for the bridge.
-
No that's what implied by not mentioning Ted Stevens at all in regards to this Bridge to Nowhere. But that's just "nuanced" and not a lie.
Of course, everything else in the world is black and white, like her plain and simple assertion that she rejected the bridge in question.
-
more detail:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116208&srvc=home&position=emailed
And neither in that article does it say she lobbied for that money for that bridge. Other than she made a campaign promise to push forward with it, and the turned to more cost effective measures.
So to still imply that she has lobbied directly for this money, is still wrong.
-
Or he's so extreme in his support of Roe that he didn't want to cast a vote that would anyway be construed as weakening it.
And yet he took that exact position, on advice from Planned Parenthood no less, in voting "present" on several other bills - which we have already established that he has been criticized for that to a great extent. I have to believe that there was at least a perceived difference in this bill that led him to vote "no".
Unfortunately, there is a marked dearth of candidates who who match my own views on social issues across the board, so you do the best with what you've got.
-
It was put into its general federal transportation fund just as any other state receives to use of roadwork improvements. You can look up there how it was used, I have no idea where or for how.
It was put into the general transportation fund because Congress canceled the earmark. Sarah Palin had nothing to do with that. Zilch. Nada. She wanted the money and was in favor of the project then, but now that she's been picked to be McCain's running mate she's some sort of hero who stood up to Congress and said "we don't need your stinkin money!" Riiight.
The point of it is, Ted Stevens fought for that money to be used in a specific and singular project, refused to have those funds transferred to the Gulf Coast in 2005 as a result of Katrina. And when those funds had their earmark for that bridge removed, and transferred to where it should have been, into the general transportation fund, it stayed there, and the bridge was canceled, because they couldn't make up the $329 million shortfall of funding, because she wouldn't put federal funds into it as Ted Stevens had fought for.
To say she is lying, or is responsible for Ted Stevens actions ignores the actual "facts" of the situation.
I don't think anyone is saying she's responsible for what Ted Stevens did. That is not the issue. The issue is her lying about the role she never actually played in the termination of that earmark.
-
Or he's so extreme in his support of Roe that he didn't want to cast a vote that would anyway be construed as weakening it.
Yes. He's an extremist for supporting a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
-
more detail:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116208&srvc=home&position=emailed
The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere."
She even twisted that one. "Nowhere" was at the other end of the bridge.
-
Yes. He's an extremist for supporting a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
They've been known to make poor decisions before. That one was a whopper.
-
Yes. He's an extremist for supporting a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Roe means that infants born alive during an abortion should be left on a table to die? Where did you get that from?
-
I don't think anyone is saying she's responsible for what Ted Stevens did. That is not the issue. The issue is her lying about the role she never actually played in the termination of that earmark.
No, that's exactly what Limey's "fact checking" article is exactly saying. Without saying. In Nuance, as it were.
In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
She had nothing to do with it, until it was canceled. It was already being built when she ran for Governor. There were no funds. So she canceled it. To imply that opposition only came later because of ridicule, and not exploding costs (original estimates went from 223 mil, to 400 mil) and a shortfall of funding, implies that she had something to do with it at the beginning. Which she didnt.
What was this called earlier? Push-polling I believe was the pejorative thrown around here for a while.
-
They've been known to make poor decisions before. That one was a whopper.
I can think of a bad one in 2000.
-
They've been known to make poor decisions before. That one was a whopper.
And it has nothing to do with the legislation at hand. I find it hard to believe that even the justices who decided Roe would find that legislation unconstitutional. What Obama and others feared was that the legislation would lead to a slippery slope of other laws that would purport to overturn Roe. But then the disclaimer was added and Obama voted against it anway.
-
I can think of a bad one in 2000.
Take your feelings about that, multiply x1000, and you'll start to understand the feelings of about 30% of the electorate.
-
Roe means that infants born alive during an abortion should be left on a table to die? Where did you get that from?
When did I say that?
-
And amazingly enough, it mentions nothing about said bridge except that she canceled it. And no shit, a Governor outlining requests for federal funds, and nothing specific about what she was requesting.
If she's such a fiscal do-gooder, if she was so against the bridge and the federal funding required to build it, explain the following quote:
"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."
She. wanted. the. money.
-
No, that's exactly what Limey's "fact checking" article is exactly saying. Without saying. In Nuance, as it were.
She had nothing to do with it, until it was canceled. It was already being built when she ran for Governor. There were no funds. So she canceled it. To imply that opposition only came later because of ridicule, and not exploding costs (original estimates went from 223 mil, to 400 mil) and a shortfall of funding, implies that she had something to do with it at the beginning. Which she didnt.
What was this called earlier? Push-polling I believe was the pejorative thrown around here for a while.
Somebody needs to go revise the Wikipedia article to reflect that the applicability of push-polling is highly dependent on who the target is.
-
And it has nothing to do with the legislation at hand. I find it hard to believe that even the justices who decided Roe would find that legislation unconstitutional. What Obama and others feared was that the legislation would lead to a slippery slope of other laws that would purport to overturn Roe. But then the disclaimer was added and Obama voted against it anway.
The world would be a much better place if you would let other people share your access to the minds of every person in it, living or dead.
-
No, that's exactly what Limey's "fact checking" article is exactly saying. Without saying. In Nuance, as it were.
She had nothing to do with it, until it was canceled. It was already being built when she ran for Governor. There were no funds. So she canceled it. To imply that opposition only came later because of ridicule, and not exploding costs (original estimates went from 223 mil, to 400 mil) and a shortfall of funding, implies that she had something to do with it at the beginning. Which she didnt.
What was this called earlier? Push-polling I believe was the pejorative thrown around here for a while.
This is what the AP article says:
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
As has been pointed out in multiple place and in multiple quotes, she was all about building this bridge. All. Over. It. Then when its budget continued to grow and pretty much everyone outside of her and Ted Stevens said "you know, this is a bad idea" and decided not to spend more money on it, she cancelled it and spent the money elsewhere.
This is hardly saying "thanks, but no thanks"
-
Somebody needs to go revise the Wikipedia article to reflect that the applicability of push-polling everything is highly dependent on who the target is.
FIFY
-
When did I say that?
I suggested that he opposed the legislation because he's so extreme in his support of Roe.
You sarcastically replied, yes, he's an extremist for supporting Roe.
Doesn't that mean that you agree with his opposition to the legislation because he claims it would undermine Roe?
And for that to be the case, doesn't that mean that you agree that the legislation would, in fact, undermine Roe?
-
She. wanted. the. money.
The quote means exactly what it says. The congressional delegation (Stevens) tried hard to keep it specifically for the bridge. Congress didnt care about the bridge. She had the money in the general transportation funds, decided that the bridge was a waste of it, and used it elsewhere. She had made a campaign promise about the bridge, she couched the phrase in a way to not piss off the town more than they already probably were going to be.
If she had wanted to allocate that money to that bridge she could have. But she didn't.
The article still is a lie.
-
The quote means exactly what it says. The congressional delegation (Stevens) tried hard to keep it specifically for the bridge. Congress didnt care about the bridge. She had made a campaign promise about the bridge. She had the money in the general transportation funds, decided that the bridge was a waste of it, and used it elsewhere.
If she had wanted to allocate that money to that bridge she could have. But she didn't.
The article still is a lie.
Please point out the part of the article, relating to the bridge, that is a lie.
-
Please point out the part of the article, relating to the bridge, that is a lie.
Nuance.
The cake, it is a lie.
-
She had nothing to do with it, until it was canceled. It was already being built when she ran for Governor. There were no funds. So she canceled it.
It's pretty obvious that the only reason she nixed the bridge project was not because she didn't want federal funding to pay for it (as the Republicans are trying to convince the public) but because Congress wouldn't actually give her the money she wanted. Duh.
She wasn't telling Congress shit about that bridge. On the contrary, Congress told her.
-
Nuance.
The cake, it is a lie.
WTF is that supposed to mean? You said the article is a lie. Please point out that section that is a lie.
-
If she's such a fiscal do-gooder, if she was so against the bridge and the federal funding required to build it, explain the following quote:
"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."
Seriously, it looks like she tried to keep blame off of herself, show that she cares about those people in that area, and explain the fact that no one really wants to pay for this thing. Now, she could have pissed them off by saying, "Look, you idiots, no one wants to keep spending money on this silly project for you backwoods rubes," but it the way she said it could be taken either way.
Or, as a dad, I could say, "Yes, son, despite my best efforts, we are about $3k short of that big screen TV entertainment center you want in your room, and it is clear that my company has little interest in spending any more money on your special hidey-hole-from-the-troubles-of-the-world."
-
It's pretty obvious that the only reason she nixed the bridge project was not because she didn't want federal funding to pay for it (as the Republicans are trying to convince the public) but because Congress wouldn't actually give her the money she wanted. Duh.
SHE STILL HAD THE MONEY.
The money never left.
It simply could now be used elsewhere and not specifically on the bridge. If she had wanted to, she could have applied it to the bridge.
-
Seriously, it looks like she tried to keep blame off of herself, show that she cares about those people in that area, and explain the fact that no one really wants to pay for this thing. Now, she could have pissed them off by saying, "Look, you idiots, no one wants to keep spending money on this silly project for you backwoods rubes," but it the way she said it could be taken either way.
Or, as a dad, I could say, "Yes, son, despite my best efforts, we are about $3k short of that big screen TV entertainment center you want in your room, and it is clear that my company has little interest in spending any more money on your special hidey-hole-from-the-troubles-of-the-world."
And that would be fine, unless of course, you spent what money you did get on a new DVD player went on national TV and said "I wouldn't buy that TV even though they gave me the money. I told them no thanks."
-
The world would be a much better place if you would let other people share your access to the minds of every person in it, living or dead.
You have the same access as I do or anyone else does to read what they wrote. Based on what they wrote in those opinions and in subsequent opinions, there is little if anything to indicate that they would have found the legislation in question, the legislation that Obama opposed, to be a constitutional violation.
-
WTF is that supposed to mean? You said the article is a lie. Please point out that section that is a lie.
I'm responding to the fact that while it was pointed out that the "fact checking" article is wrong, it is not really wrong, because it was described as "nuanced" in it's responses.
It implied things that aren't necessarily true, and in fact led people to post that she in fact lobbied for money for this bridge, when it still hasnt been shown that his has happened.
Once again, i'll bring up the pejorative, push polling.
-
WTF is that supposed to mean? You said the article is a lie. Please point out that section that is a lie.
Obviously the whole fucking cake and the carton of ice cream next to it.
-
I suggested that he opposed the legislation because he's so extreme in his support of Roe.
You sarcastically replied, yes, he's an extremist for supporting Roe.
Doesn't that mean that you agree with his opposition to the legislation because he claims it would undermine Roe?
And for that to be the case, doesn't that mean that you agree that the legislation would, in fact, undermine Roe?
So, I guess your in the "Barack just wants to kill babies" camp. Clearly, there is no other explanation for his opposition to the Illinois bill which was later modified, in a manner which Obama said he would've supported, and passed 52-0.
-
I'm responding to the fact that while it was pointed out that the "fact checking" article is wrong, it is not really wrong, because it was described as "nuanced" in it's responses.
It implied things that aren't necessarily true, and in fact led people to post that she in fact lobbied for money for this bridge, when it still hasnt been shown that his has happened.
Once again, i'll bring up the pejorative, push polling.
The article said she did not oppose the bridge until it was unpopular. What "not necessarily true" things did it imply?
-
If she had wanted to allocate that money to that bridge she could have. But she didn't.
She still built the bridge access road on the "nowhere" side, even after the bridge had been cancelled, because not to do so would've meant giving back the money.
-
The article said she did not oppose the bridge until it was unpopular. What "not necessarily true" things did it imply?
The fact that she had something to do with lobbying for the funding for it? The fact that she didn't it wasnt a matter of popularity, but a matter of exploding costs and unavailable funds for it? These things are the truth. This implication that it was because people elsewhere were making fun of it was the reason and the cause, the direct line they drew from that to where the funding came from without mentioning Ted Stevens at all, is the Lie.
-
So, I guess your in the "Barack just wants to kill babies" camp. Clearly, there is no other explanation for his opposition to the Illinois bill which was later modified, in a manner which Obama said he would've supported, and passed 52-0.
I repeat again, I think he feared voting for the legislation, notwithstanding the disclaimer, would be preceived as possibily weakening Roe. A guy gearing up to run for senator and later president as a Democrat doesn't need that perception. The vote against the legislation speaks for itself as to whether he was particularly concerned about whether the infants were dying. But as with all things Roe-related, the symbolism is more important than the substance.
-
She still built the bridge access road on the "nowhere" side, even after the bridge had been cancelled, because not to do so would've meant giving back the money.
Show where that this is the case. Considering that the funds were never de-allocated, just un earmarked would say otherwise.
More than likely it was an appeasement to the campaign promise she had just broken.
-
This is what the AP article says:
As has been pointed out in multiple place and in multiple quotes, she was all about building this bridge. All. Over. It. Then when its budget continued to grow and pretty much everyone outside of her and Ted Stevens said "you know, this is a bad idea" and decided not to spend more money on it, she cancelled it and spent the money elsewhere.
This is hardly saying "thanks, but no thanks"
It could be one of those, "you know, now that we are getting into the nuts and bolts of this thing, it really does like a pretty poor way to spend this money. I've changed my mind." No politician has ever changed their mind before, have they?
I really want to get me a new truck. I have set out about picking just what I want. When I started looking at options, and even though I have money saved for it, when the price I was looking at changed from ~$25-28k and jumped up about $10-12k, I decided I would rather use that money in other ways and find another way to haul things/get back and forth to work.
In other words, this seems to be a pretty big distraction from talking about how, even with as little as McCain-Palin offer, Obama-Biden seem to have little of substance. I actually have enjoyed Obama's speeches on occasion, and Biden is experienced in the snate and entertaining to watch sometimes, but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to cover them the way they do Palin's pregnant daughter.
-
You have the same access as I do or anyone else does to read what they wrote. Based on what they wrote in those opinions and in subsequent opinions, there is little if anything to indicate that they would have found the legislation in question, the legislation that Obama opposed, to be a constitutional violation.
Ignoring the fact that you're still claiming to have the inside track on the opinion of dead Supreme Court Justices, the mere fact that Illinois changed the language of their law as it relates to the preservation of rights as per Roe (even though Obama was gone to Washington by that time) is proof enough for me - unequipped as I am with a your insight and legal scholarship - that there was people other than Obama that felt the bill needed to be tweaked.
-
But as with all things Roe-related, the symbolism is more important than the substance.
To whom? What a bizarre fucking statement.
-
I actually have enjoyed Obama's speeches on occasion, and Biden is experienced in the snate and entertaining to watch sometimes, but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to cover them the way they do Palin's pregnant daughter.
There's a Rev. Wright on line 1 for you, sir.
-
I repeat again, I think he feared voting for the legislation, notwithstanding the disclaimer, would be preceived as possibily weakening Roe. A guy gearing up to run for senator and later president as a Democrat doesn't need that perception. The vote against the legislation speaks for itself as to whether he was particularly concerned about whether the infants were dying. But as with all things Roe-related, the symbolism is more important than the substance.
So, you're back in Obama's head now. You do get around.
-
Show where that this is the case. Considering that the funds were never de-allocated, just un earmarked would say otherwise.
More than likely it was an appeasement to the campaign promise she had just broken.
It's in the Boston Herald article that Trey linked.
-
And that would be fine, unless of course, you spent what money you did get on a new DVD player went on national TV and said "I wouldn't buy that TV even though they gave me the money. I told them no thanks."
What if I needed the new DVD player for the family room and said what I said becaus eI had to address the conflicting sentiments of my son and the people giving me the money?
It is hard, when you are in a spotlight, to say some things in a way that will appease conflicting parties. This could definitely be read as trying to keep the support of the people in Alaska and the people in the nation at the same time. You can't tell me she will be able to ignore this issue, so why not try and put the best spin on it as possible and let idiots argue about it on the internet (yes, I meant to say I am an idiot for discussing this).
-
from coverage of a debate in 2006, Anchorage Daily News
she also said projects like a bridge over Knik Arm linking Anchorage and Mat-Su may be "now or never" propositions while the state's current influential congressional lineup is still in Washington, D.C.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/217683.html
from the Governor’s office
Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-28635.html
-
I really want to get me a new truck. I have set out about picking just what I want. When I started looking at options, and even though I have money saved for it, when the price I was looking at changed from ~$25-28k and jumped up about $10-12k, I decided I would rather use that money in other ways and find another way to haul things/get back and forth to work.
I hear you. But the difference is, you didn't ask for money from the bank, wind up with a loan for half of what you needed, decide not to buy a truck at all, then claim that you had told the fat cats at the bank to fuck themselves. If you had, then it wouldn't be unfair for people to pick at the accuracy of your claim. That's all.
-
It's in the Boston Herald article that Trey linked.
Money for that road and the bridge were not linked. Regardless of what happened with that road, the money for that bridge was staying in their transportation fund.
-
SHE STILL HAD THE MONEY.
The money never left.
It simply could now be used elsewhere and not specifically on the bridge. If she had wanted to, she could have applied it to the bridge.
Palin last night: "We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere."
She had absolutely nothing to do with the earmark. She was never in any position to tell Congress "thanks but no thanks." Congress did it for her, well before she was governor.
Palin last night: "If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves."
So why did she lobby for the project? Why did she cite the efforts of Alaska's congressional delegation in obtaining federal funds to build it? Why did she put such emphasis on Congress's disinterest in the project?
-
Money for that road and the bridge were not linked. Regardless of what happened with that road, the money for that bridge was staying in their transportation fund.
True. But it goes to show the duplicity of her statement. She claims to have kyboshed the bridge to nowhere, while keeping the money thankyouverymuch, yet she went ahead with a related - and now rendered pointless - project for which the money would otherwise have been returned. If she's so anti-pork, why not just not build the road and give the money back?
-
There's a Rev. Wright on line 1 for you, sir.
You are right. Palin should throw her daughter out and let everyone know she now disapproves of her because people asked questions about her.
-
You are right. Palin should throw her daughter out and let everyone know she now disapproves of her because people asked questions about her.
I think the point was that Obama's been around for a bit and had his share of coal-dragging. Palin's just showed up, so she gets the limelight - good and bad.
-
I think the point was that Obama's been around for a bit and had his share of coal-dragging. Palin's just showed up, so she gets the limelight - good and bad.
Right, but Huckabee nailed it last night when he "thanked" the "liberal media" for "uniting the party". It's a manufactured outrage to amplify the original intest of the Palin pick, which was to fire up their base in ways that McCain can't.
-
Right, but Huckabee nailed it last night when he "thanked" the "liberal media" for "uniting the party". It's a manufactured outrage to amplify the original intest of the Palin pick, which was to fire up their base in ways that McCain can't.
And in a stroke of irony, I think Palin has also chopped the legs out from under the PUMAs.
-
I hear you. But the difference is, you didn't ask for money from the bank, wind up with a loan for half of what you needed, decide not to buy a truck at all, then claim that you had told the fat cats at the bank to fuck themselves. If you had, then it wouldn't be unfair for people to pick at the accuracy of your claim. That's all.
By me a few drinks at the local pub and I might say that at some point. (The smiley that should possibly go here will never come from my bleeding fingers!)
The situation might have changed (cost vs. need). Sure, pick at the statement then, but she has to have some way to blunt the attack against her "nowhere" constituents and still support the cancelation of the project. They gave her the money and it was used in ways that might actually make more fiscal sense (I really don't know).
In other words, "you convinced me I am wrong, but gave me the money anyways. I can prove that we can be responsible and not go against your wishes."
-
True. But it goes to show the duplicity of her statement. She claims to have kyboshed the bridge to nowhere, while keeping the money thankyouverymuch, yet she went ahead with a related - and now rendered pointless - project for which the money would otherwise have been returned. If she's so anti-pork, why not just not build the road and give the money back?
Maybe it will lead to the new ferry project instead?
-
Ignoring the fact that you're still claiming to have the inside track on the opinion of dead Supreme Court Justices ...
To repeat, you can read what they wrote and infer from it the same as I or anyone else can.
... the mere fact that Illinois changed the language of their law as it relates to the preservation of rights as per Roe (even though Obama was gone to Washington by that time) is proof enough for me - unequipped as I am with a your insight and legal scholarship - that there was people other than Obama that felt the bill needed to be tweaked.
The disclaimer meant to protect Roe -- "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section" -- was in there even when Obama was voting on it.
Go back to MM's link to the fact check. As it clearly states, "But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act" -- including the disclaimer.
-
This moving the money around excuse is bullshit. She wanted and actively lobbied for federal money for Alaskan projects, from the links I provided above
"...projects ...may be "now or never" propositions while the state's current influential congressional lineup is still in Washington, D.C...."
Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation,..."
She wanted the money, she did everything she could to get the money.
-
I think the point was that Obama's been around for a bit and had his share of coal-dragging. Palin's just showed up, so she gets the limelight - good and bad.
Yes, and it is dragging the limelight away from Obama and McCain. I will stand up with my family for as long as I can. They are my family. I wonder that they think that it is a weekness when Palin's family is scandalized when many might see that as a strength and something they can relate to. Not all of us have had the perfect family lives and might like someone who we relate to.
Now, when I choose to be around more extreme people, I really believe that says more negative about my character than standing with my family.
-
She wanted the money, she did everything she could to get the money.
Which conveniently ignores the timetable of when the funding for this bridge was earmarked. She had nothing to do with it. And also, she still had it. She didnt need to ask for it, it was already there, just not specifically apportioned to a project she then deemed not worth it.
So yes, it doesn't fit what you want it to say, so it indeed is "bullshit".
-
This moving the money around excuse is bullshit. She wanted and actively lobbied for federal money for Alaskan projects, from the links I provided above
"...projects ...may be "now or never" propositions while the state's current influential congressional lineup is still in Washington, D.C...."
Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation,..."
She wanted the money, she did everything she could to get the money.
I accept that, but I do wonder if her priorities changed once the increasing costs and criticism showed the project to be less feasible. Can she not change her opinions and priorities? As with my truck, it just doesn't make sense at this point, and I can present it in a way that won't piss off my wife or my employer by saying it in a carefully worded way while they are both listening to me.
-
Which conveniently ignores the timetable of when the funding for this bridge was earmarked. She had nothing to do with it. And also, she still had it. She didnt need to ask for it, it was already there, just not specifically apportioned to a project she then deemed not worth it.
So yes, it doesn't fit what you want it to say, so it indeed is "bullshit".
In 2006? She wasnt the Governor but campaigning she sounds like she wants federal money. And lots of it. The quote from when she is Governor sounds like she thinks it's a shame they can't build the bridge. But the bridge, ultimately, is a red herring. She sent lobbyists to get as much federal money as she could drag back to Alaska.
-
To repeat, you can read what they wrote and infer from it the same as I or anyone else can.
OR, I can infer differently from what they wrote, and here we'll be, stuck arguing who has a better understanding of what dead people would've thought about something that they never saw, let alone wrote about.
The disclaimer meant to protect Roe -- "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section" -- was in there even when Obama was voting on it.
Go back to MM's link to the fact check. As it clearly states, "But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act" -- including the disclaimer.
From MM's link:
Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion.
That article also provides this link (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php) to a full statement by the Obama campaign which explains, in excrutiating detail, exactly what was in play at the time. It also details the other State Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, who similarly voted against the bills. And, back to MM's article, where it states "And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation"
See that? Not once have I tried to extrapolate what anyone else was thinking. I just used what was said and by whom. Now, feel free to go ahead and tell me that this isn't really what they meant, and that you knew all along about Obama's little baby-killing circus going on down there in Librillinois.
-
I accept that, but I do wonder if her priorities changed once the increasing costs and criticism showed the project to be less feasible. Can she not change her opinions and priorities? As with my truck, it just doesn't make sense at this point, and I can present it in a way that won't piss off my wife or my employer by saying it in a carefully worded way while they are both listening to me.
Her priority was to obtain as much federal money as she could get her hands on. No matter what it was going to be used for.
-
Maybe it will lead to the new ferry project instead?
Isn't a ferry what they use already?
-
In 2006? She wasnt the Governor but campaigning she sounds like she wants federal money. And lots of it. The quote from when she is Governor sounds like she thinks it's a shame they can't build the bridge. But the bridge, ultimately, is a red herring. She sent lobbyists to get as much federal money as she could drag back to Alaska.
Sadly, most of our representatives seem to be trying to get as much money as they can for their represented. I'm not sure why they would do that.
-
Sadly, most of our representatives seem to be trying to get as much money as they can for their represented. I'm not sure why they would do that.
Cause we want them to. Why pretend they dont.
-
Isn't a ferry what they use already?
Yes, but they have talked about upgrading/expanding it. I will try to figure out where I read about that (it has been a while), but I believe it was another option considered along with the bridge many years ago. It became a more attractive option since then.
-
Yes, and it is dragging the limelight away from Obama and McCain. I will stand up with my family for as long as I can. They are my family. I wonder that they think that it is a weekness when Palin's family is scandalized when many might see that as a strength and something they can relate to. Not all of us have had the perfect family lives and might like someone who we relate to.
Now, when I choose to be around more extreme people, I really believe that says more negative about my character than standing with my family.
I am not defending the media's fascination with Palin's daughter, it's ridiculous. I was just supporting the point that Obama's personal life was also invaded, when they tried to tarnish him with the opinions of his pastor. Of course, the attention on Bristol Palin may have helped rally the RNC, and the attention on Rev. Wright helped dispel the myth that Obama's muslim, so in a way there's a silver lining.
-
Cause we want them to. Why pretend they dont.
Then I guess I don't understand why her lobbying for money is thought of as so criminal.
-
I am not defending the media's fascination with Palin's daughter, it's ridiculous. I was just supporting the point that Obama's personal life was also invaded, when they tried to tarnish him with the opinions of his pastor. Of course, the attention on Bristol Palin may have helped rally the RNC, and the attention on Rev. Wright helped dispel the myth that Obama's muslim, so in a way there's a silver lining.
Good points.
-
Then I guess I don't understand why her lobbying for money is thought of as so criminal.
It's not. As always (see: Clinton, Bill), it's the lying about it that will get you in trouble.
-
Yes, but they have talked about upgrading/expanding it. I will try to figure out where I read about that (it has been a while), but I believe it was another option considered along with the bridge many years ago. It became a more attractive option since then.
I'm more than happy to be told that the road will now serve as access for a planned ferry service expansion - it means my tax dollars haven't been wasted. The article said that the road dead-ended at the beach where the bridge was supposed to come in, but didn't expand on possible future uses.
-
Then I guess I don't understand why her lobbying for money is thought of as so criminal.
It's not. And it's not criminal to lie about it and say that you didn't. It's just dishonest.
-
I accept that, but I do wonder if her priorities changed once the increasing costs and criticism showed the project to be less feasible. Can she not change her opinions and priorities? As with my truck, it just doesn't make sense at this point, and I can present it in a way that won't piss off my wife or my employer by saying it in a carefully worded way while they are both listening to me.
Of course she can change her priorities. And we can question why she changes those priorities. And we can certainly question why she acts like she told the feds to fuck themselves when what she really said was, "Sweet! Thanks!"
-
It's not. As always (see: Clinton, Bill), it's the lying about it that will get you in trouble.
But then again, I think there is a little wiggle room to say she initially lobbied for what she thought was a good project and almost had everything approved, but under additional scrutiny and rising costs, though Alaska received the money, she found the most diplomatic way possible to use the funds and help stop the project at the same time AND turning it into a political (possible) possitive. I DO agree that I am probably going into quite a bit of mind-reading here, though. I just think it is plausible.
-
Then I guess I don't understand why her lobbying for money is thought of as so criminal.
Because now she says she's campaigning against this. Made quite a speech about it. Just like the Republicans at the convention seem to be campaigning against the Republicans in DC.
-
But then again, I think there is a little wiggle room to say she initially lobbied for what she thought was a good project and almost had everything approved, but under additional scrutiny and rising costs, though Alaska received the money, she found the most diplomatic way possible to use the funds and help stop the project at the same time AND turning it into a political (possible) possitive. I DO agree that I am probably going into quite a bit of mind-reading here, though. I just think it is plausible.
So you interpret "I said 'thanks, but no thanks!'" as that? Really?
-
But then again, I think there is a little wiggle room to say she initially lobbied for what she thought was a good project and almost had everything approved, but under additional scrutiny and rising costs, though Alaska received the money, she found the most diplomatic way possible to use the funds and help stop the project at the same time AND turning it into a political (possible) possitive. I DO agree that I am probably going into quite a bit of mind-reading here, though. I just think it is plausible.
i don't think anyone is questioning the motives behind her actions surrounding the earmark. They are questioning her pep rally tale of how it went down in last night's speech.
-
I'm more than happy to be told that the road will now serve as access for a planned ferry service expansion - it means my tax dollars haven't been wasted. The article said that the road dead-ended at the beach where the bridge was supposed to come in, but didn't expand on possible future uses.
Businessess and homes are supposed to spring up around the gravel road. Apparently, there's not much suitable land for development in Alaska.
-
Businessess and homes are supposed to spring up around the gravel road. Apparently, there's not much suitable land for development in Alaska.
Here's an interesting photo (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Palin_nowhere.jpg).
-
Alaska Daily News
In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.
and
The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines.
"I think that's when the campaign for national office began," said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday.
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html
-
OR, I can infer differently from what they wrote, and here we'll be, stuck arguing who has a better understanding of what dead people would've thought about something that they never saw, let alone wrote about.
Can you cite any writings by them, or for that matter any other Supreme Court justice, that leaving an infant born alive to die is protected by the Constitution and Roe? I think not, since I am aware of no such writings in existence. We can judge what they thought based on what they wrote. This happens not infrequently when these matters come before the court.
From MM's link:
Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion.
That article also provides this link (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php) to a full statement by the Obama campaign which explains, in excrutiating detail, exactly what was in play at the time. It also details the other State Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, who similarly voted against the bills. And, back to MM's article, where it states "And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation"
See that? Not once have I tried to extrapolate what anyone else was thinking. I just used what was said and by whom. Now, feel free to go ahead and tell me that this isn't really what they meant, and that you knew all along about Obama's little baby-killing circus going on down there in Librillinois.
This is erroneous for at least two reasons. First, the Obama campaign itself keeps changing the reasons why he voted against the legislation. It's morphed from (a) the assertion that the legislation didn't have the Roe disclaimer to (b) the assertion that the legislation would have a different effect at the state level than at the federal level to (c) the assertion that existing law already protects infants in these circumstances. The moving target strongly suggests that they're struggling to come up with a viable excuse to justify votes way out of the mainstream on this issue.
Second, and more substantively, each of these defenses of Obama's votes is problematic: (a) turned out simply to be false; (b) is a weak excuse because it implies that he would vote for federal law because it wouldn't have any actual effect, but he wouldn't vote for a state law because it would have actual effect, which is another way of saying that he doesn't want to vote for the law if it actually does what it's intended to do; and (c) begs the question of why he should oppose the law at all, if he is content that there are already other laws that do the same thing (critics assert that these other laws have loopholes).
In the end, whatever the shifting reasons trotted out by the Obama campaign, you get back to the same place: Obama didn't want to vote for a law that would be effective in granting rights to infants born alive during an abortion because he was concerned that this would lead to a slippery slope. To repeat, I think Obama's so extreme in his support of Roe that he didn't want to cast a vote that would in any way be construed as weakening it. The fact check sustains this conclusion:
"Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing 'born-alive' bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden."
The campaign should just come clean: Obama is so committed to upholding Roe that he opposes any legislation that could be used or perceived to undermine Roe.
-
i don't think anyone is questioning the motives behind her actions surrounding the earmark. They are questioning her pep rally tale of how it went down in last night's speech.
B-I-N-G-O
-
Pretty amazing how much talk about Palin is going on when this merited hardly a comment here.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html
-
The campaign should just come clean: Obama is so committed to upholding Roe that he even opposes any legislation that could be used or perceived to undermine Roe.
It seems to me that he took a law that he perceived as flawed, and opposed it, and it fixed, and it got passed, so now the rights of born alive babies and women are protected. You seem to think that's a bad thing. I don't.
ETA: Sorry, Limey, I pushed modify rather than quote. Please repost if you want.
-
Pretty amazing how much talk about Palin is going on when this merited hardly a comment here.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html
I have no interest whatsoever in defending any of those items listed.
-
It seems to me that he took a law that he perceived as flawed, and opposed it, and it fixed, and it got passed, so now the rights of born alive babies and women are protected. You seem to think that's a bad thing. I don't.
He opposed the law when it already said virtually the same thing as a bill that passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. His grounds for that opposition have shifted all over the place, to the point of calling people liars when they called him on it. I think that's a bad thing, because it makes abundantly clear that upholding Roe at all costs is a higher priority for him than voting for legislation that just about everybody else in both parties thought was reasonable to protect infants born alive during an abortion. Protecting a woman's "right to choose" is more important to him politically than voting in favor of a law to curtail infanticide. I don't just think that's a bad thing. I think it's reprehensible.
-
Pretty amazing how much talk about Palin is going on when this merited hardly a comment here.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html
I don't think it's surprising when you're looking at a thread called "Palin. WTF?"
-
I don't think it's surprising when you're looking at a thread called "Palin. WTF?"
Just thinking while we're trying to get all the facts straight and everything ...
By the way, it looks like our tax discussion above was off the mark, according to this.
-
Alaska Daily News
In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.
and
The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines.
"I think that's when the campaign for national office began," said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday.
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html
I think you guys covered the bridge, but re: earmarks in general..
Here's what she says:
In the nationally televised speech, she stood by McCain and said, "I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."
And here's her record:
Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.
This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column.
This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.
"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,2482434.story
When you get past the fluff of ebay-auctioned jets and fired personal chefs, there's not much substance to her fiscal hawk facade.
-
He opposed the law when it already said virtually the same thing as a bill that passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. His grounds for that opposition have shifted all over the place, to the point of calling people liars when they called him on it. I think that's a bad thing, because it makes abundantly clear that upholding Roe at all costs is a higher priority for him than voting for legislation that just about everybody else in both parties thought was reasonable to protect infants born alive during an abortion. Protecting a woman's "right to choose" is more important to him politically than voting in favor of a law to curtail infanticide. I don't just think that's a bad thing. I think it's reprehensible.
Outraged troll is outraged.
-
Like him or not, Rove was a very successful political operative crook.
Fixed.
-
Sorry, I meant Pelin, WTF. Pelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elin_Pelin). Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
-
OMG
-
"I think that's when the campaign for national office began," said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday.
Quite the auspicious start, huh? A rally in Ketchikan in front of seventeen Innuit and nine frozen stoners and several misspelled placards in order to demand funding for a project that she cunningly did not want all along.
Oh, you mean I'm supposed to play the anti-Washington, anti-earmark PTA mom? Shit, let me smear this lipstick off, change out of the fishnets and find a skirt that gets closer to the knees.
Fuck me, these nutjobs will do anything to get someone who hates reproductive rights on the ticket. Hate science, too? Sweet!
-
Quite the auspicious start, huh? A rally in Ketchikan in front of seventeen Innuit and nine frozen stoners and several misspelled placards in order to demand funding for a project that she cunningly did not want all along.
Oh, you mean I'm supposed to play the anti-Washington, anti-earmark PTA mom? Shit, let me smear this lipstick off, change out of the fishnets and find a skirt that gets closer to the knees.
Fuck me, these nutjobs will do anything to get someone who hates reproductive rights on the ticket. Hate science, too? Sweet!
Chuck, don't you think it's a little early in the morning to be talking about your cross dressing thing?
-
Chuck, don't you think it's a little early in the morning to be talking about your cross dressing thing?
He may still be in Australia. They're into that there.
-
He may still be in Australia. They're into that there.
The only place on earth where wearing a speedo, while not in competition, is acceptable.
-
The only place on earth where wearing a speedo, while not in competition, is acceptable.
You're leaving out Remulac, errr, France.
-
Meanwhile, don't expect to see (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_questions_please_were.html) much of VPILF Palin over the coming weeks:
According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. According to Wallace -- in an appearance I did with her this morning on Joe Scarborough's show -- the American people will learn all they need to know (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads.
-
He may still be in Australia. They're into that there.
Well, Tokyo now, but I was in Thailand for a good while there and let me tell you...
-
Well, Tokyo now, but I was in Thailand for a good while there and let me tell you...
LBFMs?
-
LBFMs?
FM?
-
Experience was important, now it's really not.
Hope and change were mocked at every chance, now they're good.
They're all over the place. Palin has already helped raise 10 million dollars, for Obama
-
Quite the auspicious start, huh? A rally in Ketchikan in front of seventeen Innuit and nine frozen stoners and several misspelled placards in order to demand funding for a project that she cunningly did not want all along.
Oh, you mean I'm supposed to play the anti-Washington, anti-earmark PTA mom? Shit, let me smear this lipstick off, change out of the fishnets and find a skirt that gets closer to the knees.
Fuck me, these nutjobs will do anything to get someone who hates reproductive rights on the ticket. Hate science, too? Sweet!
C'mon, Chuck, let all that anguish out. Why, you might even refer to her as "articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking" while you're at it.
What, by the way, is a "reproductive right?" A right that reproduces itself?
-
Experience was important, now it's really not.
Hope and change was mocked at every chance, now they're good.
They're all over the place. Palin has already helped raise 10 million dollars, for Obama
Who mocked hope and change? Perhaps people just don't consider a return to the '60s and '70s to be change and Carternomics redux to be hope.
And you must really be worried to have to constantly defend the experience of the presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket against the experience of the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket.
-
Experience was important, now it's really not.
Hope and change was mocked at every chance, now they're good.
They're all over the place. Palin has already helped raise 10 million dollars, for Obama
She also enunciated an energy plan that sounded exactly like Obama's (except that he's not quite so enthusiastic about drilling). She even instigated a windfall profits tax on oil companies, which is one of the reasons why Alaska has a budget surplus (it was worth about $1.5bn).
-
She also enunciated an energy plan that sounded exactly like Obama's (except that he's not quite so enthusiastic about drilling).
Drilling is a pretty critical difference, isn't it?
Also, is she trying to fool people into believing that we're going to be "weaned off foreign oil" in 10 years? If so, she's as big a liar as he is on this issue.
-
And you must really be worried to have to constantly defend the experience of the presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket against the experience of the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket.
This, IMO, highlights a problem for the Obama camp. If this thread is a window into what's going on in America then Obama needs to force a change of focus. He cannot have undecided voters and his own camp arguing him v. Palin. This election is Obama v. McCain. For as long as they spend time going after Palin, McCain gets a ride on easy street.
-
Who mocked hope and change? Perhaps people just don't consider a return to the '60s and '70s to be change and Carternomics redux to be hope.
McCain mocked Obama for talking about hope; he accused Obama of giving people "false hope". Obama responded by saying "there's nothing false about hope".
-
McCain mocked Obama for talking about hope; he accused Obama of giving people "false hope". Obama responded by saying "there's nothing false about hope".
Which is a nifty rhetorical trick but doesn't address the thrust of McCain's point which is that Obama's message of hope is mostly an empty promise.
Promising to raise taxes, expand government, socialize healthcare and appease dictators is not hope in my book.
-
Experience was important, now it's really not.
Hope and change were mocked at every chance, now they're good.
They're all over the place. Palin has already helped raise 10 million dollars, for Obama
I found that to be an interesting occurance.
-
She also enunciated an energy plan that sounded exactly like Obama's (except that he's not quite so enthusiastic about drilling). She even instigated a windfall profits tax on oil companies, which is one of the reasons why Alaska has a budget surplus (it was worth about $1.5bn).
And she's wrong on the windfall profits tax, by the way. The effect of that tax on discouraging exploration and production in Alaska should be a lesson against trying the same thing nationally.
-
This, IMO, highlights a problem for the Obama camp. If this thread is a window into what's going on in America then Obama needs to force a change of focus. He cannot have undecided voters and his own camp arguing him v. Palin. This election is Obama v. McCain. For as long as they spend time going after Palin, McCain gets a ride on easy street.
Agreed. While I don't buy Obama's message, he's got better points to recommend his candidacy than to argue that running his campaign staff and his budget is better executive experience than running a small town in Alaska. But perhaps that's part of what Palin brings to the ticket -- it's taken the Obama campaign's eye off the ball.
And the people responding rabidly like Chuck did above just show their asses when they devolve into the fishnets stuff.
-
This, IMO, highlights a problem for the Obama camp. If this thread is a window into what's going on in America then Obama needs to force a change of focus. He cannot have undecided voters and his own camp arguing him v. Palin. This election is Obama v. McCain. For as long as they spend time going after Palin, McCain gets a ride on easy street.
Not as long as people who were voting for McCain (disaffected Hilary supporters, for example) are scared away from voting for McCain because of Palin. Riddle me this, what voters will Sarah Palin bring in? The hard right? They were already stuck with McCain or a third party. This might win a few of them back, but I'd say it's a net loss because there is no way Hilary's supporters will vote on the ticket with Palin.
-
I found that to be an interesting occurance.
They didn't have any reason to be worried before. Now they do, so they're opening their pocketbooks.
-
Not as long as people who were voting for McCain (disaffected Hilary supporters, for example) are scared away from voting for McCain because of Palin. Riddle me this, what voters will Sarah Palin bring in? The hard right? They were already stuck with McCain or a third party. This might win a few of them back, but I'd say it's a net loss because there is no way Hilary's supporters will vote on the ticket with Palin.
Hillary's supporters are not a monolith. While I suspect the vast majority of them, as Democrats, will still vote for Obama, that doesn't mean some of them won't find Palin an interesting possibility.
And Hillary's supporters also don't comprise the entirety of women voters in this country. McCain needs suburban women to win the election. If Palin helps him carry that group by a large enough majority, then he doesn't have to worry as much about Hillary's key constituencies of urban professional women and working class women.
-
Drilling is a pretty critical difference, isn't it?
On the Republican side, they claim that we have to throw open ever available piece of acreage to get oil flowing. I'm all for that, but considering that about 80% of the existing leases awarded remain undrilled means that opening up new leases will not increase the drilling activity. They are drilling as fast and as furiously as they can, but rigs have been running at 100% utilization for years now. They don't have enough rigs to drill what they already have, so giving them more leases will just mean more undrilled leases on the books.
I'm a proponent of drilling and I'm not too worried about the "environmentally safe" objections. But pushing for new leases now is a red herring. Giving oil companies subsidies to help them drill is a red herring. There simply aren't enough rigs - nor experienced crews to run them - to drill any more than is currently being done.
Do you really think, with oil over $100/barrel, that there are serviceable rigs just lying around with nothing to do? I have a client who put in an order for over 100 new land rigs (from China) over the next 7 years. They are coming off the line as fast as the Chinese can make them, and each one - included those as yet unfinished - has a long term contract waiting for it that will more than pay for its cost of manufacture...and then some! You see, there's not enough manufacturing capabiility to build new rigs - especially offshore rigs - to keep up with demand.
So there you have it. Not enough rigs and not enough capacity to build new ones. Can you now see why lease acreage is not the problem?
-
Which is a nifty rhetorical trick but doesn't address the thrust of McCain's point which is that Obama's message of hope is mostly an empty promise.
Promising to raise taxes, expand government, socialize healthcare and appease dictators is not hope in my book.
Here we are folks! The American Dream in action!
-
Not as long as people who were voting for McCain (disaffected Hilary supporters, for example) are scared away from voting for McCain because of Palin. Riddle me this, what voters will Sarah Palin bring in? The hard right? They were already stuck with McCain or a third party. This might win a few of them back, but I'd say it's a net loss because there is no way Hilary's supporters will vote on the ticket with Palin.
And riddle me this: how is Palin any more aligned with the hard right than Obama and Biden are aligned with the hard left? Their voting records are among the most liberal in the Senate. Obama couldn't bring himself to vote against a near-unanimously supported law banning outright infanticide. They opposed the surge in favor of arguing for withdrawal and surrender. Obama's pushing the dim-bulb enery policies of the '70s as if the solar and wind revolutions are just around the corner. These guys are McGovernites in moderate's clothing, at best.
-
Here we are folks! The American Dream in action!
Maybe not the American dream, but certainly Obama's dream. No wonder Michelle Obama has never been proud of her country until now.
-
And she's wrong on the windfall profits tax, by the way. The effect of that tax on discouraging exploration and production in Alaska should be a lesson against trying the same thing nationally.
But she still did it. Social conservative, fiscally liberal.
And the tax may have discouraged E&P in Alaska, but not elsewhere. See my other answer about the capacity cruncn in the rig market. There aren't rigs lying idle in Alaska because of the tax situation, they're hard at work somewhere else. Probably Canada, which supplies over 50% of the US' foreign oil.
-
And riddle me this: how is Palin any more aligned with the hard right than Obama and Biden are aligned with the hard left? Their voting records are among the most liberal in the Senate. Obama couldn't bring himself to vote against a near-unanimously supported law banning outright infanticide. They opposed the surge in favor of arguing for withdrawal and surrender. Obama's pushing the dim-bulb enery policies of the '70s as if the solar and wind revolutions are just around the corner. These guys are McGovernites in moderate's clothing, at best.
I love the smell of Hannity in the morning...it smells like...
-
On the Republican side, they claim that we have to throw open ever available piece of acreage to get oil flowing. I'm all for that, but considering that about 80% of the existing leases awarded remain undrilled means that opening up new leases will not increase the drilling activity. They are drilling as fast and as furiously as they can, but rigs have been running at 100% utilization for years now. They don't have enough rigs to drill what they already have, so giving them more leases will just mean more undrilled leases on the books.
I'm a proponent of drilling and I'm not too worried about the "environmentally safe" objections. But pushing for new leases now is a red herring. Giving oil companies subsidies to help them drill is a red herring. There simply aren't enough rigs - nor experienced crews to run them - to drill any more than is currently being done.
Do you really think, with oil over $100/barrel, that there are serviceable rigs just lying around with nothing to do? I have a client who put in an order for over 100 new land rigs (from China) over the next 7 years. They are coming off the line as fast as the Chinese can make them, and each one - included those as yet unfinished - has a long term contract waiting for it that will more than pay for its cost of manufacture...and then some! You see, there's not enough manufacturing capabiility to build new rigs - especially offshore rigs - to keep up with demand.
So there you have it. Not enough rigs and not enough capacity to build new ones. Can you now see why lease acreage is not the problem?
This assumes that all lease acreage is equally attractive, that if some acreage is currently not under development, that means no more acreage is needed. Of course, not all acreage is equally attractive. Some acreage is more likely to contain hydrocarbons and may be more efficiently developed than other acreage.
-
And the people responding rabidly like Chuck did above just show their asses when they devolve into the fishnets stuff.
Fuck you, Arky. I'm simply stating what anyone who's not sucking on the Republican teat (or whatever your favorite appendage may be) can plainly see. Palin's a whore. And given the fact that most politicians on the national stage are whores it would not be a noteworthy issue if she weren't masquerading as some sort of anti-establishment crusader. She's not fooling anyone.
[Sorry for the edit - my browser flipped out for a second.]
-
I love the smell of Hannity in the morning...it smells like...
Oh, is the Daily Kos directive today to paint everybody as Shawn Hannity? Which day does Rush Limbaugh get? Is Monday Bill O'Reilly day?
-
Fuck you, Arky. I'm simply stating what anyone who's not sucking on the Republican teat (or whatever your favorite appendage may be) can plainly see. Palin's a whore. And given the fact that most politicians on the national stage are whores it would not be a noteworthy issue if she weren't masquerading as some sort of anti-establishment crusader. She's not fooling anyone.
[Sorry for the edit - my browser flipped out for a second.]
Stay classy there, Chuck. "Fuck you," "fishnets" and "whoring?" Is that all you got? This conversation was relatively civil until you chimed in. I'll try not to file this post as representative of everyone who opposes Palin, since most everybody else has managed to do it without showing his ass.
-
Not as long as people who were voting for McCain (disaffected Hilary supporters, for example) are scared away from voting for McCain because of Palin. Riddle me this, what voters will Sarah Palin bring in? The hard right? They were already stuck with McCain or a third party. This might win a few of them back, but I'd say it's a net loss because there is no way Hilary's supporters will vote on the ticket with Palin.
Those who were going to vote for McCain aren't going to go away because of Palin. They know who he is. Palin helped him solidfy the right, no question. There were a large enough number of righties that were going to stay home rather than vote if he had chosen a moderate that there was no way he could have won. Palin got him that block. Hillary supporters are mostly voting Democratic and those that aren't may or may not vote for McCain but that number won't win or lose him the election.
IMO, the voters that are undecided are mostly made up of people who aren't sure if McCain is change enough from Bush and if Obama really is ready to lead. As long as Obama's people are nipping at Palin they aren't showing the voters that Obama is ready.
-
Fuck you, Arky. I'm simply stating what anyone who's not sucking on the Republican teat (or whatever your favorite appendage may be) can plainly see. Palin's a whore. And given the fact that most politicians on the national stage are whores it would not be a noteworthy issue if she weren't masquerading as some sort of anti-establishment crusader. She's not fooling anyone.
[Sorry for the edit - my browser flipped out for a second.]
There's no call for fuck bombs directed at specific people. Keep some decorum, I don't care who you're for.
-
This assumes that all lease acreage is equally attractive, that if some acreage is currently not under development, that means no more acreage is needed. Of course, not all acreage is equally attractive. Some acreage is more likely to contain hydrocarbons and may be more efficiently developed than other acreage.
I'm not "assuming" anything. I'm telling you what I know from 25 years of working in the oil service sector. You are "assuming" that between the government and the oil industry, they've overlooked a shitload of black gold somewhere.
The Federal government sells leases to the oil industry. They've sold them the best ones already. There is likely to be oil in the areas not yet opened up for drilling, but there isn't an ocean of oil under Florida or California just waiting for Jed Clampett to come along.
-
I will fight to the death to support chuck's right to wear fishnets anytime he damn well pleases.
-
Oh, is the Daily Kos directive today to paint everybody as Shawn Hannity? Which day does Rush Limbaugh get? Is Monday Bill O'Reilly day?
He ya go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).
-
And riddle me this: how is Palin any more aligned with the hard right than Obama and Biden are aligned with the hard left? Their voting records are among the most liberal in the Senate. Obama couldn't bring himself to vote against a near-unanimously supported law banning outright infanticide. They opposed the surge in favor of arguing for withdrawal and surrender. Obama's pushing the dim-bulb enery policies of the '70s as if the solar and wind revolutions are just around the corner. These guys are McGovernites in moderate's clothing, at best.
You can read about Palin's ascent to power if you really want to. She ran for mayor as a Republican in a town where candidates did not previously have party affiliations. She beat the partisan drums of abortion and gun rights, two issues largely irrelevant to stewardship of the town, and won a crushing victory. And it's no different now-she's a cheerleader for these hard-right issues. "Energizing the base," as it's called.
And please, drop the faux-outrage about Obama and the "infanticide" law. If you've never heard of a poison pill, then you probably shouldn't be discussing politics.
-
I will fight to the death to support chuck's right to wear fishnets anytime he damn well pleases.
I'll buy a ticket.
-
Fuck you, Arky. I'm simply stating what anyone who's not sucking on the Republican teat (or whatever your favorite appendage may be) can plainly see. Palin's a whore. And given the fact that most politicians on the national stage are whores it would not be a noteworthy issue if she weren't masquerading as some sort of anti-establishment crusader. She's not fooling anyone.
[Sorry for the edit - my browser flipped out for a second.]
So this was the edited version? You might want to reconsider your approach.
-
You can read about Palin's ascent to power if you really want to. She ran for mayor as a Republican in a town where candidates did not previously have party affiliations. She beat the partisan drums of abortion and gun rights, two issues largely irrelevant to stewardship of the town, and won a crushing victory. And it's no different now-she's a cheerleader for these hard-right issues. "Energizing the base," as it's called.
She also left the mayor's office with the town $20mm in debt. That's quite a lot for a burg of only 9,000 people.
-
He ya go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).
It vould appear you are projecting masculinity onto Arky as eef your own masculinity is unvanted or undesirable.
Zat vill be $150.00.
-
She also left the mayor's office with the town $20mm in debt. That's quite a lot for a burg of only 9,000 people.
I am also assuming these numbers are wrong. Arky is welcome to correct them. Did she spend $12 million to get elected? And only received 1100 votes?
-
I'll buy a ticket.
Fuck you both. No, I mean thank you both. THANK you both! Yes. Yes, fishnets. They're quite fetching, what?
-
I'm not "assuming" anything. I'm telling you what I know from 25 years of working in the oil service sector. You are "assuming" that between the government and the oil industry, they've overlooked a shitload of black gold somewhere.
The Federal government sells leases to the oil industry. They've sold them the best ones already. There is likely to be oil in the areas not yet opened up for drilling, but there isn't an ocean of oil under Florida or California just waiting for Jed Clampett to come along.
Right. But that doesn't mean there aren't leases currently off-limits that are better prospects than leases currently available.
-
Right. But that doesn't mean there aren't leases currently off-limits that are better prospects than leases currently available.
Yes, of course, you know better than the professionals who've been doing this for over a century.
-
Those who were going to vote for McCain aren't going to go away because of Palin. They know who he is. Palin helped him solidfy the right, no question. There were a large enough number of righties that were going to stay home rather than vote if he had chosen a moderate that there was no way he could have won. Palin got him that block. Hillary supporters are mostly voting Democratic and those that aren't may or may not vote for McCain but that number won't win or lose him the election.
IMO, the voters that are undecided are mostly made up of people who aren't sure if McCain is change enough from Bush and if Obama really is ready to lead. As long as Obama's people are nipping at Palin they aren't showing the voters that Obama is ready.
McCain used to have a lot of support from Democrats and swing voters, and he would have gotten a lot of their support in 2000. When he started moving to the right in the last couple of years in order to make himself seem more right-wing he lost much of that support. Still, I think there were plenty of disaffected Hillary supporters that would have voted for him based on his past record, and the experience issue. Now that Palin is on the ticket, I think he's lost their support.
You seem to think Palin on the ticket is a net win for McCain, we differ on that. I think that particularly in battleground states, he has lost just about all of the Hillary supporters. He may have gotten a few more hard-right voters to come out, but all in all it seems like a big mistake to me.
-
I'm not "assuming" anything. I'm telling you what I know from 25 years of working in the oil service sector. You are "assuming" that between the government and the oil industry, they've overlooked a shitload of black gold somewhere.
The Federal government sells leases to the oil industry. They've sold them the best ones already. There is likely to be oil in the areas not yet opened up for drilling, but there isn't an ocean of oil under Florida or California just waiting for Jed Clampett to come along.
Over 53,000 wells were drilled, on and offshore in 2007. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/e_ertw0_xwc0_nus_cA.htm Drill here, drill now? We're gonna John, but you're standing on our spot.
-
Right. But that doesn't mean there aren't leases currently off-limits that are better prospects than leases currently available.
You mean we should let them look for oil somewhere that there might actually be oil? What a novel approach. Sort of like looking for your car keys down the dark alley where you lost them, rather than under the lamp post where it is easier to see.
-
He ya go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).
Can we introduce a new term, wikicrutch, to describe a lame reference to Wikipedia as a substitute for an actual argument?
-
Fuck you both. No, I mean thank you both. THANK you both! Yes. Yes, fishnets. They're quite fetching, what?
I just wanted to see your legs. Will you also wear heels?
-
You can read about Palin's ascent to power if you really want to. She ran for mayor as a Republican in a town where candidates did not previously have party affiliations. She beat the partisan drums of abortion and gun rights, two issues largely irrelevant to stewardship of the town, and won a crushing victory. And it's no different now-she's a cheerleader for these hard-right issues. "Energizing the base," as it's called.
And please, drop the faux-outrage about Obama and the "infanticide" law. If you've never heard of a poison pill, then you probably shouldn't be discussing politics.
Yes, she's right-wing. Big surprise. Whoopty-doo. Some people won't vote for her because of it. Some will. Same as Obama and Biden appeal to the left.
Obama's vote speaks for itself. There's not a better example of a more extreme vote on the abortion issue. If that doesn't bother you, that's your prerogative.
-
They're keeping Palin away from the media for a reason. She starts airing her views during interviews and she's no longer the cute reformer from Alaska. She'll turn in to Mike Huckabee without a penis.
-
It vould appear you are projecting masculinity onto Arky as eef your own masculinity is unvanted or undesirable.
Zat vill be $150.00.
Perhaps Limey and I should have a contest to see who looks more masculine wearing fishnets.
-
Yes, of course, you know better than the professionals who've been doing this for over a century.
If they're that old, they're probably pretty senile at this point. Do they drink my milkshake?
You're not the only one here who works in the energy industry, you know?
-
You mean we should let them look for oil somewhere that there might actually be oil? What a novel approach. Sort of like looking for your car keys down the dark alley where you lost them, rather than under the lamp post where it is easier to see.
Brilliant!! I'm amazed the folks at ExxonMobil and Chevron never thought of this.
You people are assuming that you are smarter than those who run the oil industry, while offering nothing of substance to support your claims.
They run seismic all over the fucking place, before they bid on a drilling lease. This isn't done in the dark with a bottle of tequila, some darts and a map of the United States. It's done using science and technology and it's done by people who know what the fuck they are doing.
-
I just wanted to see your legs. Will you also wear heels?
Well, shit, now it's getting sort of personal. If Arky's fit me, OK.
Would you think less of Arky if you knew he liked to drive home from work wearing a pair of clear-soled high heels?
-
McCain used to have a lot of support from Democrats and swing voters, and he would have gotten a lot of their support in 2000. When he started moving to the right in the last couple of years in order to make himself seem more right-wing he lost much of that support. Still, I think there were plenty of disaffected Hillary supporters that would have voted for him based on his past record, and the experience issue. Now that Palin is on the ticket, I think he's lost their support.
You seem to think Palin on the ticket is a net win for McCain, we differ on that. I think that particularly in battleground states, he has lost just about all of the Hillary supporters. He may have gotten a few more hard-right voters to come out, but all in all it seems like a big mistake to me.
It's certainly a gamble. But then I think McCain had to gamble to even have a chance to win. I don't think Mitt Romney would help him get it done.
-
They're keeping Palin away from the media for a reason. She starts airing her views during interviews and she's no longer the cute reformer from Alaska. She'll turn in to Mike Huckabee without a penis.
She's probably more conservative and less populist than Huckabee.
Since Obama and McGovern both have penises, how else do you tell the difference?
-
Careful. Dangerously close to getting back on topic.
-
You people are assuming that you are smarter than those who run the oil industry, while offering nothing of substance to support your claims.
No. Not at all. I am quite confident that those who run the industry focus on the best available spots for exploration. However, the politicians as a group, in whose intelligence, understanding, wisdom & integrity I have zero confidence, are the ones who determine availabilty.
And to the thrust of your argument, if the oil companies do not want to drill where they are currently prohibited from drilling, what possible reason would there be to continue the prohibition? They certainly are not going to spend all that money to make a political point!
-
Well, shit, now it's getting sort of personal. If Arky's fit me, OK.
Would you think less of Arky if you knew he liked to drive home from work wearing a pair of clear-soled high heels?
I only wear that type of footwear at work, Chuck.
-
I only wear that type of footwear at work, Chuck.
I forgot, you're a lawyer.
-
She's probably more conservative and less populist than Huckabee.
Which is why she's not doing interviews.
-
Yes, she's right-wing. Big surprise. Whoopty-doo. Some people won't vote for her because of it. Some will. Same as Obama and Biden appeal to the left.
What I'm saying is she gets elected by repeating right-wing talking points. She is a political opportunist that does not seem to grasp the concept of stewardship.
Obama's vote speaks for itself. There's not a better example of a more extreme vote on the abortion issue. If that doesn't bother you, that's your prerogative.
Again, either you're being disingenuous about the true motives of the bill (which were not to prevent infanticide), or you don't understand what a poison pill is. Either way, I don't care to debate with someone who's either dishonest or ignorant of one of the oldest dirty tricks in the book.
-
McCain used to have a lot of support from Democrats and swing voters, and he would have gotten a lot of their support in 2000. When he started moving to the right in the last couple of years in order to make himself seem more right-wing he lost much of that support. Still, I think there were plenty of disaffected Hillary supporters that would have voted for him based on his past record, and the experience issue. Now that Palin is on the ticket, I think he's lost their support.
You seem to think Palin on the ticket is a net win for McCain, we differ on that. I think that particularly in battleground states, he has lost just about all of the Hillary supporters. He may have gotten a few more hard-right voters to come out, but all in all it seems like a big mistake to me.
You underestimate the number of conservatives who were willing to stay home.
Hillary supporters' votes have always been more important to Obama's chances than McCain's. Obama has plenty after the DNC last week. There just aren't that many disaffected Hillary supporters that are open to McCain to make a difference for him.
The polls seem to say Palin is not hurting him. Obama needs to make this Obama v. McCain/Bush and minimize the attention paid to Palin. McCain has to show he's a better leader than Bush and that Obama is all hat no cattle.
-
No. Not at all. I am quite confident that those who run the industry focus on the best available spots for exploration. However, the politicians as a group, in whose intelligence, understanding, wisdom & integrity I have zero confidence, are the ones who determine availabilty.
And to the thrust of your argument, if the oil companies do not want to drill where they are currently prohibited from drilling, what possible reason would there be to continue the prohibition? They certainly are not going to spend all that money to make a political point!
Oh dear. So you think the government, run by oil industry types as it has been for the last 8 years, has been sitting on acreage that the industry knows has money-spinning plays under it. Do you not imagine that the oil industry might use some of its many lobbyists to ask for a crack at a solid bit of real estate?
The bottom line is that all the easy oil has been found. What's left is hard, and they're looking as hard as they can to find as much as possible because it helps fuel those record profits. There isn't a magical, never ending reservoir kept hidden by a secret cabal of manatees working in cahoots with Greenpeace and Nancy Pelosi.
-
You underestimate the number of conservatives who were willing to stay home.
Hillary supporters' votes have always been more important to Obama's chances than McCain's. Obama has plenty after the DNC last week. There just aren't that many disaffected Hillary supporters that are open to McCain to make a difference for him.
The polls seem to say Palin is not hurting him. Obama needs to make this Obama v. McCain/Bush and minimize the attention paid to Palin. McCain has to show he's a better leader than Bush and that Obama is all hat no cattle.
I just don't see 'conservatives' staying home, no matter who was on the ticket. They would rather see Obama elected than get at least part of what they're hoping for?
-
I just don't see 'conservatives' staying home, no matter who was on the ticket. They would rather see Obama elected than get at least part of what they're hoping for?
They'll get them revved up over abortion and gay marriage. They'll show, they always do.
-
Which is why she's not doing interviews.
and might just be headed back to Alaska to get her affairs in order, spend time with her son (and pull all nighters with tutors)
-
I just don't see 'conservatives' staying home, no matter who was on the ticket. They would rather see Obama elected than get at least part of what they're hoping for?
Yes. Then in 4 years get the Presidential candidate they want. I firmly believe that a great number of conservatives believe that a President Obama will fall flat on his face and lose the confidence of the vast majority of voters within 4 years. That President Clinton couldn't win a majority of votes in 1996 despite an energized economy and no dominant foreign policy problems fuels the conservative's belief. Combine that with the belief that Obama is all fluff, and they see a reversion in 2012 to Republicanism in the White House.
-
They'll get them revved up over abortion and gay marriage. They'll show, they always do.
They didn't in '92 for Bush 1 and '96 for Dole.
-
Brilliant!! I'm amazed the folks at ExxonMobil and Chevron never thought of this.
You people are assuming that you are smarter than those who run the oil industry, while offering nothing of substance to support your claims.
They run seismic all over the fucking place, before they bid on a drilling lease. This isn't done in the dark with a bottle of tequila, some darts and a map of the United States. It's done using science and technology and it's done by people who know what the fuck they are doing.
Your apparent assumption that you are the only person who works with or knows anyone in the oil and gas industry is curious given that you live in Houston, Texas.
And your contention that the oil and gas industry doesn't see a need for additional leases is flat-out wrong. The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the oil and gas industry, has the following to say:
http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/expanded-access.cfm
-
I forgot, you're a lawyer.
I expect more than $1s in my g-string.
-
I just don't see 'conservatives' staying home, no matter who was on the ticket. They would rather see Obama elected than get at least part of what they're hoping for?
I agree with you, but a lot of them don't. There are a lot of perfect-as-the-enemy-of-the-good voters out there.
-
I agree with you, but a lot of them don't. There are a lot of perfect-as-the-enemy-of-the-good voters out there.
What does "perfect-as-the-enemy-of-the-good" mean?
-
Careful. Dangerously close to getting back on topic.
Yeah, stop that. Go back to the fishnets and heels. Preferably stilettos. And can we add a stripper pole?
-
What I'm saying is she gets elected by repeating right-wing talking points. She is a political opportunist that does not seem to grasp the concept of stewardship.
How is expressing your beliefs to get elected opportunistic? It beats hiding them like Obama has done on occasion.
Again, either you're being disingenuous about the true motives of the bill (which were not to prevent infanticide), or you don't understand what a poison pill is. Either way, I don't care to debate with someone who's either dishonest or ignorant of one of the oldest dirty tricks in the book.
I'm being neither dishonest nor ignorant. The law passed by vast majorities. That's a pretty extreme position to vote against it, don't you think? Why is it a dirty trick to point that out?
-
What does "perfect-as-the-enemy-of-the-good" mean?
If they can't get perfection, they won't settle for good enough. If they can't get ideological purity, they won't vote for the guy. I think there's a sliding scale. McCain wasn't my first choice in the primaries, but I prefer him to Obama, so I'm willing to vote for him. Some people can't bring themselves to do that.
-
They'll get them revved up over abortion and gay marriage. They'll show, they always do.
Not necessarily.
-
What does "perfect-as-the-enemy-of-the-good" mean?
It means that if you vote for Nader instead of Gore, Bush gets elected president. (or something like that).
-
If they can't get perfection, they won't settle for good enough. If they can't get ideological purity, they won't vote for the guy. I think there's a sliding scale. McCain wasn't my first choice in the primaries, but I prefer him to Obama, so I'm willing to vote for him. Some people can't bring themselves to do that.
Who was your preference, out of curiosity.
-
Oh dear. So you think the government, run by oil industry types as it has been for the last 8 years, has been sitting on acreage that the industry knows has money-spinning plays under it. Do you not imagine that the oil industry might use some of its many lobbyists to ask for a crack at a solid bit of real estate?
The bottom line is that all the easy oil has been found. What's left is hard, and they're looking as hard as they can to find as much as possible because it helps fuel those record profits. There isn't a magical, never ending reservoir kept hidden by a secret cabal of manatees working in cahoots with Greenpeace and Nancy Pelosi.
Why is the oil and gas industry assocation pushing to open up more leases?
-
I feel like we're really accomplishing something here. As usual, 50% of the argument in this thread is from two people. One will not be voting, because he can't. The other will be voting McCain no matter what anyone argues (which is absolutely fine), and will be doing so in a state in which the outcome of the electoral college votes is already a foregone conclusion. But if we all keep typing forever, someone is definitely going to win this thing, I can feel it.
-
Who was your preference, out of curiosity.
I was undecided between Romney and Giuliani. Romney was too polished, too fake. I like Giuliani on national security and effective administration, but not on some other issues. Thompson appealed to me ideologically but is too comatose to be a viable candidate. I would probably put McCain behind them and by far over Huckabee, whom I think is too populist.
-
I feel like we're really accomplishing something here. As usual, 50% of the argument in this thread is from two people. One will not be voting, because he can't. The other will be voting McCain no matter what anyone argues (which is absolutely fine), and will be doing so in a state in which the outcome of the electoral college votes is already a foregone conclusion. But if we all keep typing forever, someone is definitely going to win this thing, I can feel it.
So, are you saying that Limey and I should simply get a room?
-
Is Limey still a subject of the Crown? I did not know that!
I think we should let British people vote in our elections anyway, they're close enough. They deserve at least as many electoral votes as Puerto Rico.
I feel like we're really accomplishing something here. As usual, 50% of the argument in this thread is from two people. One will not be voting, because he can't. The other will be voting McCain no matter what anyone argues (which is absolutely fine), and will be doing so in a state in which the outcome of the electoral college votes is already a foregone conclusion. But if we all keep typing forever, someone is definitely going to win this thing, I can feel it.
-
Is Limey still a subject of the Crown? I did not know that!
I think we should let British people vote in our elections anyway, they're close enough. They deserve at least as many electoral votes as Puerto Rico.
Are you aware Puerto Rico has no electoral votes?
-
So, are you saying that Limey and I should simply get a room?
No, this room's fine, it's got nice big windows. I have my popcorn and a 6-pack, and I've settled in. Let's see if can hit page 60 before quittin' time today.
-
Are you aware Puerto Rico has no electoral votes?
Yes, and I'm also aware that it's Progress Island! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkUGodtoUxo)
-
Brilliant!! I'm amazed the folks at ExxonMobil and Chevron never thought of this.
You people are assuming that you are smarter than those who run the oil industry, while offering nothing of substance to support your claims.
They run seismic all over the fucking place, before they bid on a drilling lease. This isn't done in the dark with a bottle of tequila, some darts and a map of the United States. It's done using science and technology and it's done by people who know what the fuck they are doing.
As a matter of fact, at one time I ran some of that seismic and can attest, a good 50% don't know what the fuck they are doing. There is alot of data processing, filtering, re-processing, re-filtering etc... before anyone even looks at the data, let alone any type of imagining from merged fold (sorry for the seismo-terminology). That was the extent of my involvement but learned, during my time in this field there are several different standards for seismic data and a number of varying theories on interpretation of said data that, from the people I spoke to, it's a giant SWAG approach more often than not. That's why it's so critical that when they do strike, they manage that well with absolute care.
Not to mention, just because you can extract oil and obtain a certain yield doesn't mean that yield is constant and just because you strike a large reserve doesn't mean you'll pump most of it out. It's a tricky business, harvesting oil...
-
As a matter of fact, at one time I ran some of that seismic and can attest, a good 50% don't know what the fuck they are doing. There is alot of data processing, filtering, re-processing, re-filtering etc... before anyone even looks at the data, let alone any type of imagining from merged fold (sorry for the seismo-terminology). That was the extent of my involvement but learned, during my time in this field there are several different standards for seismic data and a number of varying theories on interpretation of said data that, from the people I spoke to, it's a giant SWAG approach more often than not. That's why it's so critical that when they do strike, they manage that well with absolute care.
Not to mention, just because you can extract oil and obtain a certain yield doesn't mean that yield is constant and just because you strike a large reserve doesn't mean you'll pump most of it out. It's a tricky business, harvesting oil...
3D Seismic?
-
3D Seismic?
Yessir.... And as an IT guy having to manually build filters using monotonous amounts of sample data etc... to see a full 3D plot of months of work was pretty damn cool.
-
Yessir.... And as an IT guy having to manually build filters using monotonous amounts of sample data etc... to see a full 3D plot of months of work was pretty damn cool.
It is cool. Beats giving a good thump and putting your ear to the ground.
-
This isn't done in the dark with a bottle of tequila, some darts and a map of the United States.
Unless your name is Pickens, T. Boone.
-
They didn't in '92 for Bush 1 and '96 for Dole.
They came out in '92, just not for Bush or Clinton.
-
It is cool. Beats giving a good thump and putting your ear to the ground.
I worked in the gulf, not on land. However, since you mentioned "energy source" (the thump), we had two tandem arrays of pneumatic pistons, consisting of about 16 guns each that could push anywhere from 1200psi to 2000psi (if I recall correctly, it's been about 10 yrs) to generate a syncrhonized burst of sound . The "ear" part gets a little more complicated as we were always in motion.
oh, and to turn the subject back to topic: Rasmussen has stats...(take it for what it's worth)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080905/pl_rasmussen/palinpower20080905
-
They came out in '92, just not for Bush or Clinton.
Right. But the original assertion was that they would show up for the Republican ticket. They didn't do that.
-
It is cool. Beats giving a good thump and putting your ear to the ground.
It's not so cool when they set off numerous charges 500 yards from your home, causing a violent shock that muddied our water wells and cracked my fuckin' ceramic tile floor. Bastards.
-
Color me surprised:
McCain draws higher ratings than Obama. (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0552167420080905)
I didn't think he'd come close.
-
I just don't see 'conservatives' staying home, no matter who was on the ticket. They would rather see Obama elected than get at least part of what they're hoping for?
Yes, but the selection of Palin and her subsequent splash onto the scene allow for more plausible options to be added to the Republican's campaign strategy than merely putting a dark hat on the opponent--a dark hat four sizes too big, it would appear from the speeches in St. Paul.
I mean, going into Sept/Oct trying to preach John McCain and (fill in the blank) as "a ticket conservatives could believe in" would have been a very daunting task, with or without the fear-mongering. Most of the VP options bantered about seemed to do little to stir interest, at least in terms of trying to round up undecided votes or grow critical ground support...or making the opposition sound concerned. It would have been the '96 Bob Dole Farewell Tour all over again with just about any of the choices that McCain was alleged to be considering, including Kay B. Hutchison.
Well, along comes the odd selection of the obscure Palin, and everything goes nuts for a weekend. She and her family are forced to endure an onslaught of inquiries, allegations and WTF's (tip of cap to thread starter). People in both parties start to wonder if McCain has lost his mind.....again.
When the rhetoric got damn near out of control by Sunday night, a few pundits began to speculate that the affront risked making a sympathetic character out of someone who wasn't necessarily sympathetic, a Wall Street Journal Editorial report, I'll admit, but I don't believe it was limited to them. Dd her splash of a speech prove some of those folks "Nostradamic" or what?
Now, the Republicans have a new star to help expand the appeal of their ticket to more conservative interests, while the Democrats have a second lightening rod to go with the "McCain=Bush" one they were already planning to hit 'til election day to comfort their constituencies. With all these dynamics, it will be interesting to see how these two tickets go after the undecideds now.
I can't help but wonder if Hilary has already worked up her WANTS AND NEEDS list for the moment Obama decides to beg her back into this process more aggressively?
-
Yes, but the selection of Palin and her subsequent splash onto the scene allow for more plausible options to be added to the Republican's campaign strategy than merely putting a dark hat on the opponent--a dark hat four sizes too big, it would appear from the speeches in St. Paul.
I mean, going into Sept/Oct trying to preach John McCain and (fill in the blank) as "a ticket conservatives could believe in" would have been a very daunting task, with or without the fear-mongering. Most of the VP options bantered about seemed to do little to stir interest, at least in terms of trying to round up undecided votes or grow critical ground support...or making the opposition sound concerned. It would have been the '96 Bob Dole Farewell Tour all over again with just about any of the choices that McCain was alleged to be considering, including Kay B. Hutchison.
Well, along comes the odd selection of the obscure Palin, and everything goes nuts for a weekend. She and her family are forced to endure an onslaught of inquiries, allegations and WTF's (tip of cap to thread starter). People in both parties start to wonder if McCain has lost his mind.....again.
When the rhetoric got damn near out of control by Sunday night, a few pundits began to speculate that the affront risked making a sympathetic character out of someone who wasn't necessarily sympathetic, a Wall Street Journal Editorial report, I'll admit, but I don't believe it was limited to them. Dd her splash of a speech prove some of those folks "Nostradamic" or what?
Now, the Republicans have a new star to help expand the appeal of their ticket to more conservative interests, while the Democrats have a second lightening rod to go with the "McCain=Bush" one they were already planning to hit 'til election day to comfort their constituencies. With all these dynamics, it will be interesting to see how these two tickets go after the undecideds now.
I can't help but wonder if Hilary has already worked up her WANTS AND NEEDS list for the moment Obama decides to beg her back into this process more aggressively?
That was astonishly coherent, with only one ellipses and CAPS spasm. Well done.
-
I can't help but wonder if Hilary has already worked up her WANTS AND NEEDS list for the moment Obama decides to beg her back into this process more aggressively?
It must not have been that long: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/05/obama-camp-to-deploy-high-profile-female-surrogates/
-
Color me surprised:
McCain draws higher ratings than Obama. (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0552167420080905)
I didn't think he'd come close.
Having the NFL season opener as your lead-in doesn't hurt at all.
-
Color me surprised:
McCain draws higher ratings than Obama. (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0552167420080905)
I didn't think he'd come close.
More the better I say. I particularly like that the TV picture showed him against the green background again. It was because he was in front of a big green lawn on the projection screen. It was a picture of Walter Reed High School. Looked like a big mansion behind him. It was supposed to be Walter Reed Hospital.
-
Having the NFL season opener as your lead-in doesn't hurt at all.
I don't buy that. Season opener was only on 1 network and the remote is just a spasm away. Besides you don't think viewers didn't spend at least a few minutes during that dull second half cueing up the next program?
-
More the better I say. I particularly like that the TV picture showed him against the green background again. It was because he was in front of a big green lawn on the projection screen. It was a picture of Walter Reed High School. Looked like a big mansion behind him. It was supposed to be Walter Reed Hospital.
The High School is a lot nicer looking.
-
The High School is a lot nicer looking.
My mistake, that's a middle school, in North Hollywood.
-
My mistake, that's a middle school, in North Hollywood.
In any case, WRAMC needs to borrow their landscaper.
-
I mean, going into Sept/Oct trying to preach John McCain and (fill in the blank) as "a ticket conservatives could believe in" would have been a very daunting task, with or without the fear-mongering. Most of the VP options bantered about seemed to do little to stir interest, at least in terms of trying to round up undecided votes or grow critical ground support...or making the opposition sound concerned. It would have been the '96 Bob Dole Farewell Tour all over again with just about any of the choices that McCain was alleged to be considering, including Kay B. Hutchison.
I'll just say this. Had he picked Mitt Fucking Romney, next day I'd have been purchasing an assault rifle, and a bus ticket to the Twin Cities.
-
That was astonishly coherent, with only one ellipses and CAPS spasm. Well done.
Seek the chair's permi...errrrrrr...the Bench's permission to revise but not extend my remarks to edit the "capspasm" and the two ellipses?
Regardless, I accept the backhanded compliment, given the tendency to date to receive less than glowing reviews here.
-
Why is the oil and gas industry assocation pushing to open up more leases?
Because more leases = greater estimated reserves = greater stock price.
Still doesn't change the fact that they've not got the rigs to drill the leases and, even if they did, it's 10 years before any oil hits the international market, not the US market, the international market. Where it is a drop in the ocean and does fuck-all to change the price of a barrel.
-
I was undecided between Romney and Giuliani. Romney was too polished, too fake. I like Giuliani on national security and effective administration, but not on some other issues. Thompson appealed to me ideologically but is too comatose to be a viable candidate. I would probably put McCain behind them and by far over Huckabee, whom I think is too populist.
You're the only person I've heard who claims to have had a clue as to what Fred Thompson's ideology is/was.
-
Is Limey still a subject of the Crown? I did not know that!
I think we should let British people vote in our elections anyway, they're close enough. They deserve at least as many electoral votes as Puerto Rico.
I pay full taxes, but I can't vote because I haven't got my citizenship together because there's a question about overseas travel that I cannot answer because I travel a fuck of a lot and I don't know where I went or when I left for a couple of trips back in 1997.
-
As a matter of fact, at one time I ran some of that seismic and can attest, a good 50% don't know what the fuck they are doing. There is alot of data processing, filtering, re-processing, re-filtering etc... before anyone even looks at the data, let alone any type of imagining from merged fold (sorry for the seismo-terminology). That was the extent of my involvement but learned, during my time in this field there are several different standards for seismic data and a number of varying theories on interpretation of said data that, from the people I spoke to, it's a giant SWAG approach more often than not. That's why it's so critical that when they do strike, they manage that well with absolute care.
Not to mention, just because you can extract oil and obtain a certain yield doesn't mean that yield is constant and just because you strike a large reserve doesn't mean you'll pump most of it out. It's a tricky business, harvesting oil...
I don't see how pointing out how difficult the oil game is, supports your argument that it's run by dumfucks.
-
3D Seismic?
3D seismic means that they pretty much always hit something. It may not be commercial (at current prices) but it's something. This is important to the insurance game, because, for example, the rating for well control insurance was based on a reasonable percentage of dusters, which for well control insurers is free money, but these days dusters very rarely occur. If there's hydrocarbons under pressure, there's a risk of a blowout. Also, they can park a rig in 10,000' of water, and drill into a cigarette packet buried 20,000' down, 5 miles to the side.
I have a client who owns the most powerful land rig in the world, and they use it to drill into an offshore reservoir...from a beach. They drill down 5,000' and then make a 90 degree turn and go 30,000' horizontally. You can look it up (http://www.sakhalin1.com/en/news/press/20080207.asp), they're very proud of themselves. I handle insurance for Parker Drilling, the owner/operator of the rig, and for Exxon Neftegas, the operator of the field.
This isn't Daniel Day Lewis and a stack of wood, folks. It's real science and real engineering done by really smart people (which is why I'm only in the service sector).
-
3D seismic means that they pretty much always hit something. It may not be commercial (at current prices) but it's something. This is important to the insurance game, because, for example, the rating for well control insurance was based on a reasonable percentage of dusters, which for well control insurers is free money, but these days dusters very rarely occur. If there's hydrocarbons under pressure, there's a risk of a blowout. Also, they can park a rig in 10,000' of water, and drill into a cigarette packet buried 20,000' down, 5 miles to the side.
I have a client who owns the most powerful land rig in the world, and they use it to drill into an offshore reservoir...from a beach. They drill down 5,000' and then make a 90 degree turn and go 30,000' horizontally. You can look it up (http://www.sakhalin1.com/en/news/press/20080207.asp), they're very proud of themselves. I handle insurance for Parker Drilling, the owner/operator of the rig, and for Exxon Neftegas, the operator of the field.
This isn't Daniel Day Lewis and a stack of wood, folks. It's real science and real engineering done by really smart people (which is why I'm only in the service sector).
I don't understand. We should vote for Obama?
-
I don't understand. We should vote for Obama?
Vote for who you like, but don't base your decision on whether or not they support drilling in ANWR, Florida, California or anywhere else.
Actually, this whole topic is kinda moot since Palin laid out an energy plan that involves supporting all the same alternative or renewable energies as Obama.
-
Also, they can park a rig in 10,000' of water, and drill into a cigarette packet buried 20,000' down, 5 miles to the side.
Who the fuck is going around burying cigarette packages 20,000 feet down?!?!?!? Probably an ex-smoker.
-
It's not so much the women who are labelled criminals as it is the women who die or are seriously injured when they are forced into the back alleys.
Forced into back alleys? Should drugs be made legal since essentially we are forcing drug abusers into crack houses?
-
Forced into back alleys? Should drugs be made legal since essentially we are forcing drug abusers into crack houses?
They are completely different issues and it's disingenious to create that comparison, but a lot of folks would answer your question in the affirmative.
-
You're the only person I've heard who claims to have had a clue as to what Fred Thompson's ideology is/was.
Limey, I would offer that it's along the lines of, "Man's Search for an Open Bar." As a transplanted Tennesseean, I can assure you some form of that phrase to be the default ideology, the fallback position when all others are unknown. I say "some form of", because depending upon the region (West, Central or East Tennessee), open bar could be replaced by "keg", "tailgate party" or "still."
-
Forced into back alleys? Should drugs be made legal since essentially we are forcing drug abusers into crack houses?
Yes.
-
Because more leases = greater estimated reserves = greater stock price.
Still doesn't change the fact that they've not got the rigs to drill the leases and, even if they did, it's 10 years before any oil hits the international market, not the US market, the international market. Where it is a drop in the ocean and does fuck-all to change the price of a barrel.
So are you arguing that none of the new leases would ever be explored or that they just wouldn't be explored in time to get oil to the market in less than 10 years? I guess their shareholders would be too stupid to realize that, right?
-
Vote for who you like, but don't base your decision on whether or not they support drilling in ANWR, Florida, California or anywhere else.
Actually, this whole topic is kinda moot since Palin laid out an energy plan that involves supporting all the same alternative or renewable energies as Obama.
To be done in 10 years, right?
-
They are completely different issues and it's disingenious to create that comparison, but a lot of folks would answer your question in the affirmative.
Why is it disingenuous, counselor? In both cases the argument is that the act shouldn't be made illegal because people will continue to commit the act and may harm themselves in doing so.
-
They are completely different issues and it's disingenious to create that comparison, but a lot of folks would answer your question in the affirmative.
Don't forget the aids babies born addicted to crack 'cause the mothers spent their abortion fund money on more crack instead of dry cleaning and they didn't have any spare coat hangers.
-
I pay full taxes, but I can't vote because I haven't got my citizenship together because there's a question about overseas travel that I cannot answer because I travel a fuck of a lot and I don't know where I went or when I left for a couple of trips back in 1997.
Isn't '97 when you went to Afghanistan?
-
I pay full taxes, but I can't vote because I haven't got my citizenship together because there's a question about overseas travel that I cannot answer because I travel a fuck of a lot and I don't know where I went or when I left for a couple of trips back in 1997.
You try to get access to your old credit card statements? I had to do that a few years ago. Citi was able to give me data from several years earlier
-
I'll just say this. Had he picked Mitt Fucking Romney, next day I'd have been purchasing an assault rifle, and a bus ticket to the Twin Cities.
And McCain and Romney would defend your right to do so!
-
And McCain and Romney would defend your right to do so!
I'm sure.
McCain, I don't care either way. Romney, however, is Satan.
-
I'm sure.
McCain, I don't care either way. Romney, however, is Satan.
Got something against the LDS?
-
Don't forget the aids babies born addicted to crack 'cause the mothers spent their abortion fund money on more crack instead of dry cleaning and they didn't have any spare coat hangers.
Wow.
-
Got something against the LDS?
I tried it a couple of times in college, purple micro-dots I think, but it wasn't for me.
-
Latter Day Satanists, huh?
-
Latter Day Satanists, huh?
Watch Romney in an interview sometime, when he is giving one of his evasive, condescendng, mealy-mouthed, duplicitious replies to whatever direct question he has been asked. Not only can you see his eyes skimming around behind the nictitating membranes of his eyelids, but if he turns his head fast enough, a little too fast for the facade too follow, you can catch a glimpse of the lizard face behind his fake human one.
-
Watch Romney in an interview sometime, when he is giving one of his evasive, condescendng, mealy-mouthed, duplicitious replies to whatever direct question he has been asked. Not only can you see his eyes skimming around behind the nictitating membranes of his eyelids, but if he turns his head fast enough, a little too fast for the facade too follow, you can catch a glimpse of the lizard face behind his fake human one.
Sounds like Hillary needs to get that same plastic surgery.
-
Sounds like Hillary needs to get that same plastic surgery.
Hillary, WTF? You are now apparently entirely humorless. Too bad.
-
Why is it disingenuous, counselor? In both cases the argument is that the act shouldn't be made illegal because people will continue to commit the act and may harm themselves in doing so.
That's not the argument, but I suppose phrasing it that way makes you feel better about yourself.
-
That's not the argument, but I suppose phrasing it that way makes you feel better about yourself.
Then please explain it to me.
-
Then please explain it to me.
Basically, the criminal justice system might not be the best arena to address healthcare issues.
-
Isn't '97 when you went to Afghanistan?
That was '96. '97 was Libya.
-
Basically, the criminal justice system might not be the best arena to address healthcare issues.
I'm not pro-life, but can't you see that to Arky it's not a healthcare issue?
-
Basically, the criminal justice system might not be the best arena to address healthcare issues.
But whether you think the criminal justice system might not be the best arena to address healthcare issues has nothing to do with the validity of pointing out that our society criminalizes activities besides abortion that result in people doing harm to themselves trying to evade that criminalization.
Also, assuming it is a healthcare issue is begging the question, even if phrasing it that way makes you feel better about yourself.
-
Color me surprised:
McCain draws higher ratings than Obama. (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0552167420080905)
I didn't think he'd come close.
I think it's pretty clear when you're looking at the right demographics (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/latest_poll_reveals_430_new).
McCain is leading the Brothers Who Own a Woodworking Business demographic, while Obama is still favored by Divorced Zookeeper Assistants, Corduroy Wearing Homosexuals, and Karoake Fishermen.
-
Even the Wall St Journal is calling shenanigans,
At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html
At best, according to her partisans in regards the infamous bridge,"She did her part." Generally though, even the WSJ is telling us that she grabbed all the pork she could get her hands on. There's an old saying, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".
-
Even the Wall St Journal is calling shenanigans,
At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html
At best, according to her partisans in regards the infamous bridge,"She did her part." Generally though, even the WSJ is telling us that she grabbed all the pork she could get her hands on. There's an old saying, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".
Their editorial page is definitely conservative, but the WSJ news/reporting is not. Just a few cents there.
-
Their editorial page is definitely conservative, but the WSJ news/reporting is not. Just a few cents there.
They aint librul neither. More "fact based" but since Rupert took over that has shifted a little too.
-
Even the Wall St Journal is calling shenanigans,
At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html
At best, according to her partisans in regards the infamous bridge,"She did her part." Generally though, even the WSJ is telling us that she grabbed all the pork she could get her hands on. There's an old saying, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".
Apparently now there's more detailed debunking of the "thanks, but no thanks" claim which includes a YouTube clip of her, from June of this year, asking a church congregation to pray for the deliverance of the earmark money including the bridge project. Also, the jet was put on ebay but not sold on ebay. Twice. She eventually offloaded it through a broker, which still means that it was sold but it doesn't carry the same punch as the half-truth about ebay. Further, she didn't fire her chef, she transferred her to cook for the State Legislature.
Considering that she's already dissembling about her personal record, which is the only thing she's talked about so far, she may be the perfect replacement for Cheney in the VP's office.
-
The backlash will come. Followed by the backlash to the backlash - it's the circle of life, it's the wheel of fortune.
But it's to McCain's benefit that the comparison is no longer between him and Bush.
-
Even the Wall St Journal is calling shenanigans,
At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html
At best, according to her partisans in regards the infamous bridge,"She did her part." Generally though, even the WSJ is telling us that she grabbed all the pork she could get her hands on. There's an old saying, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".
I think, not know, that I heard or read a news report that had additional details this article lacks. IIRC, and I might not, that the bridge cost estimate nearly doubled after she won election. Also, I heard a report that McCain's camp was referring to Obama's work in the Illinois legislature as well when talking about the nearly $1 bil. I could have been listening to a Republican partisan at the time though.
-
The backlash will come. Followed by the backlash to the backlash - it's the circle of life, it's the wheel of fortune.
But it's to McCain's benefit that the comparison is no longer between him and Bush.
They've just come out of the RNC convention, with everyone talking about Palin the same way that everyone was talking about Obama after the DNC convention. The debates will be the next battleground, but both Obama and Biden were on the boob tube in recent days trying to reignite the McSame argument.
-
I have foregone eating in order to dry-heave, rather than vomiting, through "The O'Reilly Factor"'s interviews of Obama.
O'Reilly stating that Obama is "not a wimp" is as close as I think he'll ever come to praising a liberal.
-
They've just come out of the RNC convention, with everyone talking about Palin the same way that everyone was talking about Obama after the DNC convention. The debates will be the next battleground, but both Obama and Biden were on the boob tube in recent days trying to reignite the McSame argument.
Still, as long as Obama supporters continue to spend time firing at the VP nom and not the P nom, the better for McCain. Adding to the distraction, Obama's campaign is apparently now not pulling in the money it expects and needs. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html)
-
Still, as long as Obama supporters continue to spend time firing at the VP nom and not the P nom, the better for McCain. Adding to the distraction, Obama's campaign is apparently now not pulling in the money it expects and needs. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html)
Ron Paul lies in bed at night, and dreams.
-
Apparently now there's more detailed debunking of the "thanks, but no thanks" claim which includes a YouTube clip of her, from June of this year, asking a church congregation to pray for the deliverance of the earmark money including the bridge project. Also, the jet was put on ebay but not sold on ebay. Twice. She eventually offloaded it through a broker, which still means that it was sold but it doesn't carry the same punch as the half-truth about ebay. Further, she didn't fire her chef, she transferred her to cook for the State Legislature.
Considering that she's already dissembling about her personal record, which is the only thing she's talked about so far, she may be the perfect replacement for Cheney in the VP's office.
Did she ever say she sold the plane on eBay or that she fired the chef?
From the speech:
"That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay."
"And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her."
It's dissembling to say she's dissembling in these two cases. The state sold off the plane, and she doesn't use the chef anymore.
-
Did she ever say she sold the plane on eBay or that she fired the chef?
From the speech:
"That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay."
"And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her."
It's dissembling to say she's dissembling in these two cases. The state sold off the plane, and she doesn't use the chef anymore.
As I said, these were half-truths. Stating that she put the plane on ebay is true, and it infers a take-charge, can-do attitude towards governance. But the whole truth, is that she put it on ebay and it failed to sell, which suggests that she tried to sell a luxury jet without actually having the first clue about how to sell a luxury jet. Then she did the same thing again, expecting a different result, and it didn't sell the second time either. That suggests a cavalier, shoot first ask questions later, stubborn attitude towards governance, which might not go down so well with the public who are familiar with the attitude towards governance demonstrated by the current administration.
As for the chef, she moved the chef to another branch of government, while inferring that she saved money by getting rid of the chef. She didn't save money at all, but she did strip away an excess of the Governor's office (a good thing). But she chose not to say that she moved the chef to another branch of government, just the same as she chose not to say that she ended up paying a professional broker to sell the jet, because neither of those facts will get her a standing ovation at the convention.
-
As I said, these were half-truths. Stating that she put the plane on ebay is true, and it infers a take-charge, can-do attitude towards governance. But the whole truth, is that she put it on ebay and it failed to sell, which suggests that she tried to sell a luxury jet without actually having the first clue about how to sell a luxury jet. Then she did the same thing again, expecting a different result, and it didn't sell the second time either. That suggests a cavalier, shoot first ask questions later, stubborn attitude towards governance, which might not go down so well with the public who are familiar with the attitude towards governance demonstrated by the current administration.
Oh dear lord, because no one has ever had to put an item up for auction more than once before in the history of Ebay. Ever. Much less large expensive items for which there would be a limited number of buyers.
I'm sure every item that goes through Sotheby's Auctions has either sold the very first time, or was never put up for auction a second time. Because that would be crazy.
It's more of this same "well we can't really find where she's lying so we'll make shit up to make it into a lie".
-
Oh dear lord, because no one has ever had to put an item up for auction more than once before in the history of Ebay. Ever. Much less large expensive items for which there would be a limited number of buyers.
I'm sure every item that goes through Sotheby's Auctions has either sold the very first time, or was never put up for auction a second time. Because that would be crazy.
It's more of this same "well we can't really find where she's lying so we'll make shit up to make it into a lie".
Nice job of completely missing the point.
-
Nice job of completely missing the point.
No it's entirely the point, putting an item up for auction twice suggest incompetence? That stupid as all hell.
-
Oh dear lord, because no one has ever had to put an item up for auction more than once before in the history of Ebay. Ever. Much less large expensive items for which there would be a limited number of buyers.
I'm sure every item that goes through Sotheby's Auctions has either sold the very first time, or was never put up for auction a second time. Because that would be crazy.
It's more of this same "well we can't really find where she's lying so we'll make shit up to make it into a lie".
Completely ignores the context. She is supposed to be this do it all "hockey mom" whatever the fuck that means, and just like the mom next door. And what mom hasn't put a jet on EBay? Her smirky little "I put it on EBay!" got a cheer, but the followup, the strategy did not work, and they had to sell the thing at a loss through a broker is ignored, possibly even celebrated by her informationally and educationally challenged supporters.
-
As for the chef, she moved the chef to another branch of government, while inferring that she saved money by getting rid of the chef. She didn't save money at all, but she did strip away an excess of the Governor's office (a good thing). But she chose not to say that she moved the chef to another branch of government, just the same as she chose not to say that she ended up paying a professional broker to sell the jet, because neither of those facts will get her a standing ovation at the convention.
And as for this, you agree that it removed wasteful spending from her office. Do you know how the budget may have been cut, re worked or modified to where the chef was moved? I don't, and neither do you. So maybe there were other wastes cut to afford to keep the employee on staff elsewhere, saving someones job and still removing wasteful spending as a whole?
Without knowing these factors you cannot claim to be expressing the "whole truth" any more than anyone else. You are just making shit up to excuse the fact that it actually isnt a lie, in order to make it one.
-
Completely ignores the context. She is supposed to be this do it all "hockey mom" whatever the fuck that means, and just like the mom next door. And what mom hasn't put a jet on EBay? Her smirky little "I put it on EBay!" got a cheer, but the followup, the strategy did not work, and they had to sell the thing at a loss through a broker is ignored, possibly even celebrated by her informationally and educationally challenged supporters.
yes the only people that could possibly disagree with you are uneducated and uninformed. because google isnt available to everyone on the intertubes.
-
Did she ever say she sold the plane on eBay or that she fired the chef?
From the speech:
"That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay."
"And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her."
It's dissembling to say she's dissembling in these two cases. The state sold off the plane, and she doesn't use the chef anymore.
Someone should let McCain know the whole story:
Go to 1:00 mark for his comments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm5jQEh7exg
Also, it sold for a loss, not a profit.
-
yes the only people that could possibly disagree with you are uneducated and uninformed. because google isnt available to everyone on the intertubes.
Apparently not. And yes, her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated. Unfortunate but true.
-
I am itching to shut this fucker down.
Just so you know.
-
Apparently not. And yes, her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated. Unfortunate but true.
It might do to lighten up a little.
-
It might do to lighten up a little.
sorry but those are the facts.
-
sorry but those are the facts.
Wow.
-
sorry but those are the facts.
You have a odd definition of fact.
-
You have a odd definition of fact.
You shouldn't confuse a "fact" with a "FACT!"
-
sorry but those are the facts.
Link please? Just kidding, I wouldn't read it anyway
-
I am itching to shut this fucker down.
Just so you know.
Please don't. I've been here all along, through all of the nearly 1000 messages and, as far as I know, Limey has not yet posted a revealing photo of Scarlett Johansson.
-
Does her speech, at her own partys convention, have to be absolutely 100% FACT? It was an opinion piece IMO, and I for one thought the jet comment and the chef comment were simply jokes, indicating she has a sense of humor.
Lighten up people, jeez.
-
Please don't. I've been here all along, through all of the nearly 1000 messages and, as far as I know, Limey has not yet posted a revealing photo of Scarlett Johansson.
If that's all ot would take, post away! Then maybe Spack will lock it up.
-
sorry but those are the facts.
So, her detractors, for the most part are condescending scolds?
-
To change the subject slightly, even though I am enjoyig the Palin stuff, this seems interesting:
While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_ratings/supreme_court_update
I know I am uneducated, but isn't the job of the SC to rule based on the Constitution?
-
So, her detractors, for the most part are condescending scolds?
Who also happen to commit the unimaginable sin of not limiting themselves to iceberg lettuce.
-
So, her detractors, for the most part are condescending scolds?
McCain leads by 11 points among whites who've not completed college
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.html?mi=D92S4UQO0&apc=9008
I admit, in fact I revel in being an arrogant elitist when it comes to obtaining, processing and understanding information. I try to do this myself and admire others who have these skills. College is not a prerequisite for these skills. However there is a dangerous anti-intellectualism in this country. I am disgusted that so many people are willing to trust and vote for a person they'd never heard of 2 weeks ago.
-
Who also happen to commit the unimaginable sin of not limiting themselves to iceberg lettuce.
Arugulites.
-
I am disgusted that so many people are willing to trust and vote for a person they'd never heard of 2 weeks ago.
I am disgusted that people would vote for a man with such a liberal voting record and zero experience.
-
McCain leads by 11 points among whites who've not completed college
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.html?mi=D92S4UQO0&apc=9008
I admit, in fact I revel in being an arrogant elitist when it comes to obtaining, processing and understanding information. I try to do this myself and admire others who have these skills. College is not a prerequisite for these skills. However there is a dangerous anti-intellectualism in this country. I am disgusted that so many people are willing to trust and vote for a person they'd never heard of 2 weeks ago.
McCain leads by 11 points among whites who've not completed college, a group Obama lost badly in the Democratic primaries to Hillary Rodham Clinton
I needed the whole quote. For some reason, uneducated people just hate Obama....doesn't seem to matter who he is running against. Even Democrats seem to fall into this group.
Obama also has large leads among Hispanics and people under age 30, in both cases outdoing Kerry's 2004 performances.
Those are generally highly educated groups with lots of maturity and life experiences...
Obama and McCain are about even among white women and the Democrat leads among suburban women – both improvements over 2004.
Again, some of the highest educated people are suburban women....or not....I really have no idea.
The survey was taken before McCain selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
What? I thought this was about Palin?
Apparently not. And yes, her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated. Unfortunate but true.
?
-
McCain leads by 11 points among whites who've not completed college
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.html?mi=D92S4UQO0&apc=9008
College is not a prerequisite for these skills.
So you present a statistic for a demographic that you admit is not a pre-requisite for intelligence as proof that those that support him are unintelligent.
Do you see how your syllogism in flawed on your own, or do you need to google it to find the answer?
-
McCain leads by 11 points among whites who've not completed college
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.html?mi=D92S4UQO0&apc=9008
That does not support your assertion that "her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated."
I admit, in fact I revel in being an arrogant elitist when it comes to obtaining, processing and understanding information. I try to do this myself and admire others who have these skills. College is not a prerequisite for these skills. However there is a dangerous anti-intellectualism in this country. I am disgusted that so many people are willing to trust and vote for a person they'd never heard of 2 weeks ago.
I work with a large number of the most accomplished obtainers, processors, and understanders of information anywhere. I wouldn't trust most of them with my 7 year old. Most consider those not as accomplished as them to be truly inferior. Intellectualism and responsibility do not go hand in hand. They are orthoginal. I agree that we should strive to reach our intellectual capacity. Unfortunately, too often, political discussions devolve to the lowest depths of anti-intellectualism.
-
So you present a statistic for a demographic that you admit is not a pre-requisite for intelligence as proof that those that support him are unintelligent.
Do you see how your syllogism in flawed on your own, or do you need to google it to find the answer?
No I'm pretty sure of what I'm seeing. I hedged because nothing is 100%. But, and I don't think this can be argued, most people made up their minds about the Republican VP nomination using very little information. And are ignoring any further information regarding her record. That's just not very smart.
-
No I'm pretty sure of what I'm seeing. I hedged because nothing is 100%. But, and I don't think this can be argued, most people made up their minds about the Republican VP nomination using very little information. And are ignoring any further information regarding her record. That's just not very smart.
Most people have made up there mind about the next PRESIDENT. I do agree that the more attention givin to Palin, the easier it will be for McCain to be elected. All within the plan.
-
That does not support your assertion that "her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated."
I work with a large number of the most accomplished obtainers, processors, and understanders of information anywhere. I wouldn't trust most of them with my 7 year old. Most consider those not as accomplished as them to be truly inferior. Intellectualism and responsibility do not go hand in hand. They are orthoginal. I agree that we should strive to reach our intellectual capacity. Unfortunately, too often, political discussions devolve to the lowest depths of anti-intellectualism.
Ok, there are other methods of becoming educated. One could read a lot of books, one could conduct experiments in their free time, travel, talk to a lot of people who are specialists in their field. Who does this? Unfortunately attending college is the best indicator of an educated person. Responsibility is admittedly not restricted to the educated. The developers of the atomic bomb were extremely educated. However, the process of become responsible is not automatic. And responsible decisions about complicated topics are not made using superficial information.
-
And responsible decisions about complicated topics are not made using superficial information.
And I could use this very same statement in talking about Obama.
-
Ok, there are other methods of becoming educated. One could read a lot of books, one could conduct experiments in their free time, travel, talk to a lot of people who are specialists in their field. Who does this? Unfortunately attending college is the best indicator of an educated person. Responsibility is admittedly not restricted to the educated. The developers of the atomic bomb were extremely educated. However, the process of become responsible is not automatic. And responsible decisions about complicated topics are not made using superficial information.
So people's level of education is irrelevent. What's relevent is how much they educate themselves about the candidates.
I know a lot of people who are educated, truly, about Obama and his work in the US Senate and the Illinois legislature that are convinced he would be an unmitigated disaster as President. Of course I know many with the same level of education about McCain that believe he hasn't a clue what he'd with specific economic matters beyond handing them off to his Cabinet.
-
And I could use this very same statement in talking about Obama.
Not really. He has tested his ideas with people and with legislative initiatives. And although his ideas have not been implemented yet, and we can't know that they will succeed until he tries them, (a trick lots of his critics seem to think possible) many people think that they are good ideas.
-
He has tested his ideas with people and with legislative initiatives.
And although his ideas have not been implemented yet, and we can't know that they will succeed until he tries them
One of those things don't quite follow the other.
-
So people's level of education is irrelevent. What's relevent is how much they educate themselves about the candidates.
I know a lot of people who are educated, truly, about Obama and his work in the US Senate and the Illinois legislature that are convinced he would be an unmitigated disaster as President. Of course I know many with the same level of education about McCain that believe he hasn't a clue what he'd with specific economic matters beyond handing them off to his Cabinet.
And a lot of people think the opposite. It's why we have elections. Unfortunately most people decide their votes using very little information.
-
McCain leads by 11 points among whites who've not completed college
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.html?mi=D92S4UQO0&apc=9008
And yes, her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated.
Because McCain/Palin is leading in that particular demographic, it means the rest of their supporters are also uneducated?
-
One of those things don't quite follow the other.
You're one of those who wants his programs to succeed before he actually implements them aren't you.
-
Because McCain/Palin is leading in that particular demographic, it means the rest of their supporters are also uneducated?
Yes of course, all Republicans are uneducated. Exactly. That's exactly what I mean.
-
Also, it sold for a loss, not a profit.
Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088_2.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2008090900325&s_pos=
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088_2.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2008090900325&s_pos=
One of the expense items on that jet was to fly Alaskan prisoners to a jail in Arizona that they had contracted with to house their inmates. I'm unsure how those inmates were transported after the jet was sold.
-
You're one of those who wants his programs to succeed before he actually implements them aren't you.
Notice the word follow, part of that whole logic thing.
You cannot claim something has been tested if it has never been implemented.
Asking some random people on the street if they think something is a good idea, doesn't exactly qualify.
-
Yes of course, all Republicans are uneducated. Exactly. That's exactly what I mean.
[pravata]
Apparently not. And yes, her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated. Unfortunate but true.
[/pravata]
-
Yes of course, all Republicans are uneducated. Exactly. That's exactly what I mean.
Wow, sarcasm. Maybe you should be clearer, then. Who are you talking about when you say "her supporters?"
-
One of the expense items on that jet was to fly Alaskan prisoners to a jail in Arizona that they had contracted with to house their inmates. I'm unsure how those inmates were transported after the jet was sold.
Because that has anything to do with personal travel budget? Or the amount of money saved/spent on waste? That the transfer or prisoner's comes out of her personal money and not some other part of the state budget? Or that there is no other way conceivable to transfer prisoners besides on a Governor's personal jet?
This is tiresome.
-
Because that has anything to do with personal travel budget? Or the amount of money saved/spent on waste? That the transfer or prisoner's comes out of her personal money and not some other part of the state budget? Or that there is no other way conceivable to transfer prisoners besides on a Governor's personal jet?
This is tiresome.
Yes it is. The travel budget savings cited does not compare like items.
-
Wow, sarcasm. Maybe you should be clearer, then. Who are you talking about when you say "her supporters?"
Typing slowly, the people who say they are going to vote for the Republicans now that she is the Vice Presidential nomination.
-
This is tiresome.
52 pages of...
-
And a lot of people think the opposite. It's why we have elections. Unfortunately most people decide their votes using very little information.
And some people have too much information. I am forced to vote for one or the other if I want my vote counted. I don't really like either choice. Where does that put me?
-
[pravata]
Apparently not. And yes, her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated. Unfortunate but true.
[/pravata]
because "for the most part" means all?
-
And some people have too much information. I am forced to vote for one or the other if I want my vote counted. I don't really like either choice. Where does that put me?
The usual. The best people wont run for office precisely because of this crap.
-
And a lot of people think the opposite. It's why we have elections. Unfortunately most people decide their votes using very little information.
And that goes sadly, in my experience, equally for both parties.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088_2.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2008090900325&s_pos=
I'm not arguing that. She didn't say "I spent less on travel." McCain didn't say that either. McCain said she sold the plane on ebay for a profit. That was absolutely not true. Palin parsed words in her speech that it wouldn't be false. Either no one told McCain, or he chose to ignore that and heard what she was "not saying".
-
Yes it is. The travel budget savings cited does not compare like items.
So you have no idea, and yet can imply that she somehow is claiming savings on something that may or may not have been in the budget.
Push-Poller.
-
One of the expense items on that jet was to fly Alaskan prisoners to a jail in Arizona that they had contracted with to house their inmates. I'm unsure how those inmates were transported after the jet was sold.
Oh! OH! I know this one! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/MaDDoG1221/695VHS200612101839con_air.jpg)
-
Typing slowly, the people who say they are going to vote for the Republicans now that she is the Vice Presidential nomination.
The poll you were citing was before she was selected...right?
-
I'm not arguing that. She didn't say "I spent less on travel." McCain didn't say that either. McCain said she sold the plane on ebay for a profit. That was absolutely not true. Palin parsed words in her speech that it wouldn't be false. Either no one told McCain, or he chose to ignore that and heard what she was "not saying".
Then McCain screwed up. I am curious as to whether the expense of keeping it and using it is more than the loss the state took selling it.
-
Typing slowly, the people who say they are going to vote for the Republicans now that she is the Vice Presidential nomination.
Those I've talked to who are in that camp say they do they care much about her record and do not expect her to ever be president but will vote for McCain because he will have in his administration a voice for the hard right in his decision-making process. They know he may not listen to her, but they want the voice there.
-
Typing slowly, the people who say they are going to vote for the Republicans now that she is the Vice Presidential nomination.
Hmmm. I wonder what makes up the majority of the "people who say they are going to vote for the Republicans." And I wonder how you know that the "people who say they are going to vote for the Republicans" are, "for the most part (are) not that well educated."
-
Then McCain screwed up. I am curious as to whether the expense of keeping it and using it is more than the loss the state took selling it.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone in his camp or Palin's camp to him it sold for a profit. Both McCain's and Obama's camps have staffers who are quite cavalier with information.
-
Oh! OH! I know this one! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/MaDDoG1221/695VHS200612101839con_air.jpg)
"This is a situation that needs to get unfucked, right now!"
-
I am disgusted that people would vote for a man with such a liberal voting record and zero experience.
I am disgusted that people would vote for a man who suffered untold amounts of torture, and yet embraces a President who approves of the use of torture.
See? It works both ways.
-
I am disgusted that people would vote for a man who suffered untold amounts of torture, and yet embraces a President who approves of the use of torture.
See? It works both ways.
Does McCain approve of torture? Because that seems a whole lot more relevant to me than what Bush approves of.
-
Caesar's set the odds on this thing making sixty pages at 9-1. Any takers?
-
Caesar's set the odds on this thing making sixty pages at 9-1. Any takers?
Oh hell yeah, put me down for $5. And I'll take my free drink ticket, thanks.
-
Does McCain approve of torture? Because that seems a whole lot more relevant to me than what Bush approves of.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/09/MNBHVGLVO.DTL
-
Caesar's set the odds on this thing making sixty pages at 9-1. Any takers?
I took 80 pages at 100-1 30 pages ago.
-
I took 80 pages at 100-1 30 pages ago.
Arky and Limey have been relatively quiet recently. Did Darren Pollard come in and take them out? It's doable, but not nearly as much of a lock as it was before then.
-
I love this thread. Lots of information from both sides being shared. As long as it does deteriorate like a rotten tomato leave it alone.
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/09/MNBHVGLVO.DTL
Far more nuanced than simply torture or not.
-
Far more nuanced than simply torture or not.
nuanced = when it serves one's needs
-
Ok, there are other methods of becoming educated. One could read a lot of books, one could conduct experiments in their free time...
I am very close to fulfulling a lifelong dream of digging a big hole in the ground, and re-creating the big bang. I see no reason why things shouldn't go well...
-
Does McCain approve of torture? Because that seems a whole lot more relevant to me than what Bush approves of.
McCain, the "original maverick", voted to eject a bill that would have imposed the Army field manual, i.e., no torture. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1220987019-gjpkyzeXRUpkWcXZfDvmqA)
-
Far more nuanced than simply torture or not.
I'm not going to argue that there isn't some nuance to this, but there's a manual that says what you can and can't do. This law basically said, if you don't won't to follow it, you don't have to. Like I said, there is some nuance, but I think it's hard to argue that your anti-torture when you come out in support of a president vetoing this, once it had been passed (albeit closely) by Congress. It would seem like if you're anti-torture, you could certainly vote against this and sit on the sidelines. McCain actively encouraged Bush to veto it.
-
Far more nuanced than simply torture or not.
Then it would be nice if McCain would fully explain the nuances of his position, because I have a difficult time understanding it.
-
Then it would be nice if McCain would fully explain the nuances of his position, because I have a difficult time understanding it.
I would also like for him to explain what useful information is gained from "enhanced interrogation". If his experience is an indicator, then we're getting the Arabic equivalent of the Green Bay offensive line.
-
PS: McCain knew that the veto would be upheld. He had all the political cover he needed. And he voted against the bill anyway.
-
I am very close to fulfulling a lifelong dream of digging a big hole in the ground, and re-creating the big bang. I see no reason why things shouldn't go well...
Let's be real honest, if by some chance those guys create a black hole that goes sucking everything in a la "The Nothing" in The Neverending Story, that is going to be fucking bad ass. For like the 11 minutes that we're all alive to witness it. I just hope that when we come out the other side it's one of those futuristic Tron looking worlds. That would be sweet.
-
Then it would be nice if McCain would fully explain the nuances of his position, because I have a difficult time understanding it.
I know nothing of this, but from the first link I gathered:
The vetoed bill said the CIA must follow the Army manual that listed acceptable techniques. McCain does not believe there should be a published list of acceptable techniques, but rather a list of unacceptable techniques. The law he convinced the President to sign forbade the military from using those techniques. Presumably, he would support a similar law for the CIA. I do not know why the first did not include the CIA, or why the second changed tactics and focused on the acceptable technique list rather than the previously successful tactic.
-
Then it would be nice if McCain would fully explain the nuances of his position, because I have a difficult time understanding it.
One of the nuances that struck me was that for the Army, sleep deprivation is illegal. I wouldn't put that in the same category as waterboarding.
-
I know nothing of this, but from the first link I gathered:
The vetoed bill said the CIA must follow the Army manual that listed acceptable techniques. McCain does not believe there should be a published list of acceptable techniques, but rather a list of unacceptable techniques. The law he convinced the President to sign forbade the military from using those techniques. Presumably, he would support a similar law for the CIA. I do not know why the first did not include the CIA, or why the second changed tactics and focused on the acceptable technique list rather than the previously successful tactic.
So, basically, if you can think up something new that hasn't been banned, then it's good. Or, better yet, if you get a lawyer to find a loophole in the wording, that's good, too.
-
Let's be real honest, if by some chance those guys create a black hole that goes sucking everything in a la "The Nothing" in The Neverending Story, that is going to be fucking bad ass.
You son of a bitch! (http://www.dodeca-t.com/picpile/divided_by_zero.jpg)
-
Then it would be nice if McCain would fully explain the nuances of his position, because I have a difficult time understanding it.
This, more than any other issue about McCain makes me very worried about him as President. Because he knows, better than anyone in Washington, that coersive interrogation does not get you good information, it gets you what you want to hear (otherwise why do you stop?). He knows this because he famously gave the North Vietnamese the names of the Green Bay Packers starting offensive line, when they wanted the names of his fellow pilots.
The thing with torture is that the only way to get it to stop is to tell the interrogators something that will make them stop. So, if they want to know the names of people in your terrorist cell but you unfortunately don't know any terrorists because you're not one yourself, you will give up a bunch of names, and maybe make up some terror plots, because this is the only way to get them to stop. It doesn't matter that this may be complete bullshit - they won't figure that out for a while and in the meantime you get to keep your head above water.
And then what happens is that the FBI, CIA and DHS go off on a wild goose chase, wasting time and resources, while being convinced that they're on the right track because they're chasing down some "good intel". Anyone picked up in this swoop will then continue the cycle as they throw out more bogus information to "make it stop". Meanwhile, real terrorists may slip by unnoticed because the intelligence agencies are busy barking up wrong trees.
This is how torture makes us less safe.
-
I would also like for him to explain what useful information is gained from "enhanced interrogation". If his experience is an indicator, then we're getting the Arabic equivalent of the Green Bay offensive line.
Dammit! RMPL.
-
Then it would be nice if McCain would fully explain the nuances of his position, because I have a difficult time understanding it.
McCain's response (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/BABHVGO3L.DTL)
-
So, basically, if you can think up something new that hasn't been banned, then it's good. Or, better yet, if you get a lawyer to find a loophole in the wording, that's good, too.
That doesn't make much sense to me. I know, stunning. But if something is new it can't have been defined, by whoever does the defining, as torture. Does the law require that anything new be submitted to some authority for approval before being used?
-
So, basically, if you can think up something new that hasn't been banned, then it's good. Or, better yet, if you get a lawyer to find a loophole in the wording, that's good, too.
Presumably that's a little more difficult than you would like to make it sound, but granted that is a real risk. On the flip side, limiting ourselves to documented techniques might prove less effective on a ever-changing battlefield. I don't know the right answer here, but it appears to be a much deeper conversation than just McCain supports torture which many have implied by the vetoing of this legislation.
-
McCain's response (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/BABHVGO3L.DTL)
This stuff is a bit of a red herring, because the Bush Administration also had a habit of outsourcing torture to other countries (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/americas/29arar.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin), and whatever Federal regulations get enacted are unlikely to apply in, say, Syria.
The bottom line is that it is important for the candidates to come out against the U.S. using torture - as it is defined in the international sphere and/or the Geneva Conventions (which are neither quaint nor wishy-washy) - as the case used to be before Cheney set about muddying the waters. I believe Obama has made statements along these lines but I have not seen McCain do so, but I would be very happy for someone to post something here.
-
One of the nuances that struck me was that for the Army, sleep deprivation is illegal. I wouldn't put that in the same category as waterboarding.
I wonder what McCain thought then? (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080615/McCain.pdf) (see p.13:)
One of the standard methods to wear down a prisoner's resistence to their demands was the use of what could be described as "self-induced" punishment. That is to say, prisoners being ordered to sit, kneel, or stand for long periods of time deprived of rest or sleep. This form of torture, without laying a hand on a prisoner, was sometimes very successful in breaking his will.
John McCain of 1974 would never have voted against that bill. John McCain of 2000 would never have voted against that bill. Those versions of John McCain aren't running for President.
-
McCain's response (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/08/BABHVGO3L.DTL)
Thanks, this helps somewhat. I would very much like some elaboration on what techniques McCain believes that the CIA should be able to employ that are not permitted by the Army Field Manual. That, to me, is the most relevant piece in understanding McCain's support of the veto. If I've overlooked it, someone please point it out to me.
-
Thanks, this helps somewhat. I would very much like some elaboration on what techniques McCain believes that the CIA should be able to employ that are not permitted by the Army Field Manual. That, to me, is the most relevant piece in understanding McCain's support of the veto. If I've overlooked it, someone please point it out to me.
Seconded.
ED: I find it disturbing that I'm questioning McCain on this while at the same time I'm sitting here assuming that someone else would have to tell Obama what torture is and not wondering why I was having no problem with that. And that it did not occur to me to question Obama's wisdom in cases of interrogation until just now. It appears I've been giving him something of a free ride. I wonder if that has anything to do with his lack of experience in comparison to McCain?
-
This stuff is a bit of a red herring, because the Bush Administration also had a habit of outsourcing torture to other countries (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/americas/29arar.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin), and whatever Federal regulations get enacted are unlikely to apply in, say, Syria.
The bottom line is that it is important for the candidates to come out against the U.S. using torture - as it is defined in the international sphere and/or the Geneva Conventions (which are neither quaint nor wishy-washy) - as the case used to be before Cheney set about muddying the waters. I believe Obama has made statements along these lines but I have not seen McCain do so, but I would be very happy for someone to post something here.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/15/bush/)
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, is among several powerful Republicans who have denounced Bush's proposal, which the president said is vital to winning the war on terrorism. (Watch as Bush urges clarity on Conventions -- 3:05)
McCain said after Bush's speech that he respected the president's position. But, he said, "The protection our personnel require is not limited to freedom from lawsuits and unjust criminal prosecutions. They also need -- and deserve -- the undiluted protections offered since 1949 by the Geneva Conventions.
"For this reason, I oppose unilaterally reinterpreting in law Geneva Common Article 3," McCain said.
McCain echoed Powell's sentiment after Bush's speech, saying that weakening the Geneva protections would set a poor example for "other countries with less respect for basic human rights."
-
Thanks, this helps somewhat. I would very much like some elaboration on what techniques McCain believes that the CIA should be able to employ that are not permitted by the Army Field Manual. That, to me, is the most relevant piece in understanding McCain's support of the veto. If I've overlooked it, someone please point it out to me.
Unfortunately, his position (to me) seems to be that elaborating on those techniques is exactly what should NOT happen.
-
Unfortunately, his position (to me) seems to be that elaborating on those techniques is exactly what should NOT happen.
My lack of knowledge concerning interrogation, torture, and the line separating them is getting in my way.
-
My lack of knowledge concerning interrogation, torture, and the line separating them is getting in my way.
Which is why I'm trying to stick to McCain's knowledge. He has out-and-out standed that these methods are torture, he has stated that the US should never torture, but has failed to support these measures that would ensure that the US never does torture.
-
Unfortunately, his position (to me) seems to be that elaborating on those techniques is exactly what should NOT happen.
That's the best I've been able to figure, too. What I saw was a vocalized opposition to torture based on internationally accepted standards, but an aversion to specifically legislating that for the CIA. I see that he opposes using a public military guide for a secretive non-military entity, stating that they should have additional interrogation methods available to them, but not saying what those methods might be. I assume we're not talking about telling the prisoners boring stories or withholding dessert if they don't cooperate.
-
I love this thread. Lots of information from both sides being shared. As long as it does deteriorate like a rotten tomato leave it alone.
How about fuck you?
-
Which is why I'm trying to stick to McCain's knowledge. He has out-and-out standed that these methods are torture, he has stated that the US should never torture, but has failed to support these measures that would ensure that the US never does torture.
I ask these questions too. But as I navigate my vote (knowing full well that my vote will only count if I cast for either McCain or Obama) I have to ask about Obama's knowledge. What does he know and how much will he have to rely on others to make decisions? And, if so, who are these others? And what do they think? I have less than 2 months to get it sorted out.
-
That's the best I've been able to figure, too. What I saw was a vocalized opposition to torture based on internationally accepted standards, but an aversion to specifically legislating that for the CIA. I see that he opposes using a public military guide for a secretive non-military entity, stating that they should have additional interrogation methods available to them, but not saying what those methods might be. I assume we're not talking about telling the prisoners boring stories or withholding dessert if they don't cooperate.
Anyone got a copy of the Detainee Act he referenced? I wonder if in the discussions relating to the act that McCain points out specifically left out the CIA Congress didn't discuss privately much of what we're wondering?
-
Time article about McCain and torture (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729891,00.html)
"The field manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers," McCain explained in February, reiterating his position from 2005. He added that the CIA should be allowed to use "alternative interrogation techniques," that are not otherwise outlawed as unduly coercive, cruel, inhumane or degrading. McCain has not publicly described the techniques that he believes fall into that category.
-
Obama took a lot of heat for saying that we should hit the terrorists in Pakistan if the Pakistani government was unwilling to do so. Well, we've started doing that just now so I guess it's not a bad idea anymore.
-
Arky and Limey have been relatively quiet recently. Did Darren Pollard come in and take them out? It's doable, but not nearly as much of a lock as it was before then.
I just got back from a long lunch (not with Limey). What did I miss?!?!?!?
-
Anyone got a copy of the Detainee Act he referenced? I wonder if in the discussions relating to the act that McCain points out specifically left out the CIA Congress didn't discuss privately much of what we're wondering?
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9865/
-
That does not support your assertion that "her supporters, for the most part are not that well educated."
I work with a large number of the most accomplished obtainers, processors, and understanders of information anywhere. I wouldn't trust most of them with my 7 year old. Most consider those not as accomplished as them to be truly inferior. Intellectualism and responsibility do not go hand in hand. They are orthoginal. I agree that we should strive to reach our intellectual capacity. Unfortunately, too often, political discussions devolve to the lowest depths of anti-intellectualism.
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
- William F. Buckley
Palin's supporters would likely replace "Boston" with another city.
-
Obama took a lot of heat for saying that we should hit the terrorists in Pakistan if the Pakistani government was unwilling to do so. Well, we've started doing that just now so I guess it's not a bad idea anymore.
To what are you referring to specifically?
Certain military operations had been ongoing to Pakistan but there were many things that Musharaf forbade that the US wanted to do. He's no longer in power.
-
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
- William F. Buckley
Did a Harvard alum kill one of your relatives or something?
-
As I said, these were half-truths. Stating that she put the plane on ebay is true, and it infers a take-charge, can-do attitude towards governance. But the whole truth, is that she put it on ebay and it failed to sell, which suggests that she tried to sell a luxury jet without actually having the first clue about how to sell a luxury jet. Then she did the same thing again, expecting a different result, and it didn't sell the second time either. That suggests a cavalier, shoot first ask questions later, stubborn attitude towards governance, which might not go down so well with the public who are familiar with the attitude towards governance demonstrated by the current administration.
As for the chef, she moved the chef to another branch of government, while inferring that she saved money by getting rid of the chef. She didn't save money at all, but she did strip away an excess of the Governor's office (a good thing). But she chose not to say that she moved the chef to another branch of government, just the same as she chose not to say that she ended up paying a professional broker to sell the jet, because neither of those facts will get her a standing ovation at the convention.
No dice. A half-truth would be if she put it on eBay, it didn't sell, then she kept it. I, and I assume most of Palin's supporters, are less interested in her eBay aviation-hawking skills than in the fact that she decided to get rid of it and eventually did. But I'm pleased to see that you've been reduced to arguing about whether Palin has deficient judgment on the best way to quickly unload aircraft.
-
Palin's supporters would likely replace "Boston" with another city.
Are you sure that Wasilla has 400 telephones?
-
Did a Harvard alum kill one of your relatives or something?
Arky missed all the anti-intellectual stuff that was discussed while he was out to lunch.
-
Are you sure that Wasilla has 400 telephones?
Sexist push-polling hippie.
-
No dice. A half-truth would be if she put it on eBay, it didn't sell, then she kept it. I, and I assume most of Palin's supporters, are less interested in her eBay aviation-hawking skills than in the fact that she decided to get rid of it and eventually did. But I'm pleased to see that you've been reduced to arguing about whether Palin has deficient judgment on the best way to quickly unload aircraft.
You need to keep reading beyond the above post.
-
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9865/
Ok, so no specifics on torture/interrogation beyond referring the reader to other documents.
I wonder then if there weren't extensive discussions amongst our legislators concerning specific actions and whether the Act should include the CIA.
I was quite taken with the fact that non-military people were reference in other parts of the bill but that only the military was subject to the limits on interrogation.
-
Until recently, raids in to the tribal areas of Pakistan were very rare and required cabinet level approval. In July Central Command was given the authority to ok the raids. In late August after Petraeus took over Central Command, the US started sending almost daily raids.
-
Did a Harvard alum kill one of your relatives or something?
Not to my knowledge. All of them I know are really smart people. Some of them don't have the judgment of a turnip, however.
-
You need to keep reading beyond the above post.
I read all of it. Nothing in there changes that using this as a "half-truth" against Palin is silly. If you want to nail McCain for uttering bullshit about it, I don't have a problem with that. It wouldn't be the first time.
-
Not to my knowledge. All of them I know are really smart people. Some of them don't have the judgment of a turnip, however.
You mean, pretty similar to every single other college or university in the country?
-
Not to my knowledge. All of them I know are really smart people. Some of them don't have the judgment of a turnip, however.
Most of the Harvard lawyers I know are insufferable nitpicks obsessed with exploiting every little technicality to keep anything from moving forward.
-
Most of the Harvard lawyers I know are insufferable nitpicks obsessed with exploiting every little technicality to keep anything from moving forward.
{broken record}
you mean like every other lawyer in the country?
{/broken record}
-
Most of the Harvard lawyers I know are insufferable nitpicks obsessed with exploiting every little technicality to keep anything from moving forward.
So they are at the top of their profession?
-
I read all of it. Nothing in there changes that using this as a "half-truth" against Palin is silly. If you want to nail McCain for uttering bullshit about it, I don't have a problem with that. It wouldn't be the first time.
You're missing the point I was making. This same misinterpretation has been made previously in this thread. I responded to that prior misinterpretation explicitly.
-
McCain pulls ahead in the polls. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/presidential.polls/index.html)
It's quite possible McCain could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
-
You mean, pretty similar to every single other college or university in the country?
Basically.
-
McCain pulls ahead in the polls. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/presidential.polls/index.html)
It's quite possible McCain could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
In summer of 2000, I used to say that it was ridiculous to think this could happen in a modern election, until ...
-
Let's be real honest, if by some chance those guys create a black hole that goes sucking everything in a la "The Nothing" in The Neverending Story, that is going to be fucking bad ass. For like the 11 minutes that we're all alive to witness it. I just hope that when we come out the other side it's one of those futuristic Tron looking worlds. That would be sweet.
If physicists knew how to make an entrance to an awesome Tron world, do you think we would tell you about it?
-
In summer of 2000, I used to say that it was ridiculous to think this could happen in a modern election, until ...
Until the Supreme Court intervened...
-
It's quite possible McCain could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
Imagine the outrage...
-
Until the Supreme Court intervened...
Systematically disproven, but whatever, dude.
-
In summer of 2000, I used to say that it was ridiculous to think this could happen in a modern election, until ...
The funny thing is, right up to (and including election day), I was convinced Bush would win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
-
Until the Supreme Court intervened...
IIRC, wasn't a Florida state court, the Florida Supreme court, and the US Supreme court all involved at some point?
-
Imagine the outrage...
Exactly. And the sprints out to the driveway to pull the bumper-sticker off the Prius
-
Basically.
Why, it's almost as if we could simply substitute the United States Naval Academy for Harvard when making pithy remarks.
-
One of those things don't quite follow the other.
The bigger problem is people willfully ignoring the infeasibility of policies like an immediate drawdown in Iraq (that appears to have been abandoned), energy independence in 10 years, catching Osama bin Laden simply by trying harder, paying for his new spending with tax cuts and cutting wasteful programs, talking some sense into Iran when the Europeans have been trying to do this for years, etc.
We know a great deal about what Obama says he will do policy-wise. We know very little about he actually intends to do, or what he actually thinks he can do. In this way, he may be more of a cipher than Palin.
-
McCain pulls ahead in the polls. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/presidential.polls/index.html)
It's quite possible McCain could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
Relatedly, IMO, this article (http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/nebraska_split_vote) implies a state of concern I had not thought the Obama campaign would ever reach.
-
IIRC, wasn't a Florida state court, the Florida Supreme court, and the US Supreme court all involved at some point?
All operated in secret by clones of Karl Rove.
-
Why, it's almost as if we could simply substitute the United States Naval Academy for Harvard when making pithy remarks.
Exactly, why would you be interested in having someone whose peers, at the most presitgious law school in the fucking world, basically said, "he's the smartest guy here"?
-
Why, it's almost as if we could simply substitute the United States Naval Academy for Harvard when making pithy remarks.
I suppose, although I doubt it would have the same resonance. Does cracking on Harvard hit close to home or something?
-
Relatedly, IMO, this article (http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/nebraska_split_vote) implies a state of concern I had not thought the Obama campaign would ever reach.
Really? This level of detail has been a hallmark of the Obama campaign since the first caucuses.
-
The bigger problem is people willfully ignoring the infeasibility of policies like an immediate drawdown in Iraq (that appears to have been abandoned), energy independence in 10 years, catching Osama bin Laden simply by trying harder, paying for his new spending with tax cuts and cutting wasteful programs, talking some sense into Iran when the Europeans have been trying to do this for years, etc.
We know a great deal about what Obama says he will to do policy-wise. We know very little about he actually intends to do, or what he actually thinks he can do. In this way, he may be more of a cipher than Palin.
like McCain being able to reach across the aisle after having his VP belittle the Dems for an hour, cutting out all earmarks, etc
-
Systematically disproven, but whatever, dude.
What?
-
Why, it's almost as if we could simply substitute the United States Naval Academy for Harvard when making pithy remarks.
Except that McCain wasn't one of those elite intellectuals to come out of the Academy. He finished 894th out of 899.
-
Exactly, why would you be interested in having someone whose peers, at the most presitgious law school in the fucking world, basically said, "he's the smartest guy here"?
I don't think anyone doubts that he's very smart, just like Yale-educated Bill Clinton is very smart. It helps for someone to be very smart to be president. But there are plenty of people who are very smart who aren't necessarily prepared to be president, and there are plenty of people who aren't as smart who could do the job.
-
Except that McCain wasn't one of those elite intellectuals to come out of the Academy. He finished 894th out of 899.
Gee, and look where he ended up.
-
The funny thing is, right up to (and including election day), I was convinced Bush would win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
I thought that was more likely too. The polls indicated it. Which tells you about how much you can rely on polls.
-
The bigger problem is people willfully ignoring the infeasibility of policies like an immediate drawdown in Iraq (that appears to have been abandoned), energy independence in 10 years, catching Osama bin Laden simply by trying harder, paying for his new spending with tax cuts and cutting wasteful programs, talking some sense into Iran when the Europeans have been trying to do this for years, etc.
We know a great deal about what Obama says he will to do policy-wise. We know very little about he actually intends to do, or what he actually thinks he can do. In this way, he may be more of a cipher than Palin.
So, better to press ahead with what McCain calls change, but is, in respect of all the major issues such as the war, the economy and healthcare, the same as what we've had for the last eight years. Isn't there some axiom about repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result?
-
Really? This level of detail has been a hallmark of the Obama campaign since the first caucuses.
I was referring to the concern that there could actually be a tie in the electoral college not the emphasis on electoral votes. I have always been under the impression that the Obama camp are convinced that come election day they will win by more than 2 electoral votes.
-
Exactly. And the sprints out to the driveway to pull the bumper-sticker off the Prius
Which go together:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/07/60-toyota-prius/
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/21/100-bumper-stickers/
-
I thought that was more likely too. The polls indicated it. Which tells you about how much you can rely on polls.
Yes, but his brother gauranteed Florida for him, and had GWB's Florida campaign manager certify the votes. Nothing to see here people, move along...
ETA: Stalin said that it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes...
-
I thought that was more likely too. The polls indicated it. Which tells you about how much you can rely on polls.
Not that it's ever likely to happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing an outright ban on polls for the last few weeks of the campaign. I think they wind up distorting the voting, particularly on down-ballot elections.
-
Systematically disproven, but whatever, dude.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
-
Except that McCain wasn't one of those elite intellectuals to come out of the Academy. He finished 894th out of 899.
Your making a case for McCain from where I sit.
-
Your making a case for McCain from where I sit.
How so?
-
Yes, but his brother gauranteed Florida for him, and had GWB's Florida campaign manager certify the votes. Nothing to see here people, move along...
ETA: Stalin said that it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes...
Stalin also circulated lies as noxiously baseless as the horseshit you wrote above to undermine the legitimacy of his political opponents. I think MM is referring to the multiple informal post-election recounts that indicated that the only way Gore would have won is by recounting the votes using a standard even looser than Gore's lawyers were litigating for.
-
Not that it's ever likely to happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing an outright ban on polls for the last few weeks of the campaign. I think they wind up distorting the voting, particularly on down-ballot elections.
IIRC (it's been a while), this is what they do in the UK. No opinion polls in the run up to the election (last week, I think).
Also, I find it amazing that the news outlets are allowed to make calls and predictions prior to all the polls closing. Including those in Hawaii. The need for news ratings and the impatience of the general public are not good reasons to interfere with a clean election.
-
I suppose, although I doubt it would have the same resonance. Does cracking on Harvard hit close to home or something?
No, not at all - I've never even met a Harvard Law grad. I just thought it was odd that you've swiped at Harvard a few times in this thread, and it occurred to me that an alum may have done you some particularly grievous wrong.
-
IIRC (it's been a while), this is what they do in the UK. No opinion polls in the run up to the election (last week, I think).
Also, I find it amazing that the news outlets are allowed to make calls and predictions prior to all the polls closing. Including those in Hawaii. The need for news ratings and the impatience of the general public are not good reasons to interfere with a clean election.
One problem with this that Britain doesn't have to worry about. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)
-
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
So the belief that Bush won is more to do with the fact that the report came out just after 9/11, when the entire nation and pretty much the entire world was rallied around the U.S. and its President (what did he do with all that goodwill?), than the fact that he didn't, in fact, win.
-
I just got back from a long lunch (not with Limey). What did I miss?!?!?!?
Apparently Spack doesn't like me.
-
Apparently Spack doesn't like me.
You still have your spleen. Be happy.
-
No, not at all - I've never even met a Harvard Law grad. I just thought it was odd that you've swiped at Harvard a few times in this thread, and it occurred to me that an alum may have done you some particularly grievous wrong.
Nope. It's a model example of academic rigor and excellence.
-
How so?
Get Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) on it.
McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899) despite a strong intelligence. He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics.
His father and Grandfather were both 4-star Admirals. Interesting.
-
Apparently Spack doesn't like me.
He doesn't like anyone.
-
Except that McCain wasn't one of those elite intellectuals to come out of the Academy. He finished 894th out of 899.
You're not going for the Senator Blutarskey reset, are you? Either way, does this make Cindy McCain a Mandy Pepperidge?
-
How so?
I work with hundreds, literally, of the smartest man in the room, and wouldn't trust them to mind my 7 year old for 2 hours much less run the country. They know the stuff they were trained to know. But, outside of their professional world their judgement erodes radically. And, yes, that group includes lawyers.
But, my statement was more sarcasm than actual representation of my thoughts.
-
Get Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) on it.
His father and Grandfather were both 4-star Admirals. Interesting.
I understand that he also had a bit of a demerit problem.
-
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
-
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
Awesome, are we going to get links to 9/11truth now too?
-
How so?
Some people prefer a President with whom they'd like to share a beer, instead of a President who's smart.
-
So the belief that Bush won is more to do with the fact that the report came out just after 9/11, when the entire nation and pretty much the entire world was rallied around the U.S. and its President (what did he do with all that goodwill?), than the fact that he didn't, in fact, win.
Delirious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Ultimately, the Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to examine 175,010 ballots that were discounted; these ballots contained under-votes (votes with no choice made for president) and over-votes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was not to deduce who actually won the election but to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process.
In the aftermath of the election, the first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. Counting only "undervotes" (when the vote is not detected by machine), and not considering "overvotes" (when a ballot ends up with more than one indication of a vote, for example both a punch-out and hand-written name, even if both indicating the same candidate) Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios. If overvotes where the intent of the voter was clear were counted, using any consistent standard for 'clear intent of the voter', Gore would have won. This was not requested by either side at the time; the independent recount therefore led to a greater awareness of the issue of 'overvotes'.
Under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
http://www2.norc.org/fl/articles.asp
-
You're not going for the Senator Blutarskey reset, are you? Either way, does this make Cindy McCain a Mandy Pepperidge?
She picked up a married man in a bar...
-
Some people prefer a President with whom they'd like to share a beer, instead of a President who's smart.
I'll take that as a shot at me. Smart is not smartest man in the room.
-
I'll take that as a shot at me. Smart is not smartest man in the room.
smart <> judgment
-
Delirious.
You clearly didn't read the whole article. It mentions the limited recount methods under which Bush maintained his lead, but points out that both those methods were thrown out by the various courts brought into the fray. Thus, citing victory under those recount methods is a total red herring as neither was legal.
-
smart <> judgment
While smart does not imply judgement, nor does it exclude it. The frustration for me (at least) seems to be that we're ruling out everyone who is smart, because there's some idiotic notion that people can't be smart and make good judgements. You may not think that's Obama, and that's fine. But there's no need to assume that just because he's smart he doesn't have good judgement.
ETA: added "n't" because I screwed up. I am obviously not smart.
-
I'll take that as a shot at me. Smart is not smartest man in the room.
Not at you. One of the reasons cited for Bush's (past) popularity is that he's the sort of guy you'd like to have a beer with. As opposed to Gore or Kerry who would bore the living shit out of you. I wouldn't use this criteria to pick, for example, a surgeon, so I don't understand why it's apparently a popular way of choosing a President.
-
You clearly didn't read the whole article. It mentions the limited recount methods under which Bush maintained his lead, but points out that both those methods were thrown out by the various courts brought into the fray. Thus, citing victory under those recount methods is a total red herring as neither was legal.
I did read the whole article. It essentially rests on the premise that almost everybody was biased against Gore. I don't find it persuasive that PBS, The Washington Post, USA Today, etc. were all part of some grand right-wing conspiracy due to 9/11.
-
Not at you. One of the reasons cited for Bush's (past) popularity is that he's the sort of guy you'd like to have a beer with. As opposed to Gore or Kerry who would bore the living shit out of you. I wouldn't use this criteria to pick, for example, a surgeon, so I don't understand why it's apparently a popular way of choosing a President.
For the record, I wouldn't want Obama or McCain to operate on me.
-
While smart does not imply judgement, nor does it exclude it. The frustration for me (at least) seems to be that we're ruling out everyone who is smart, because there's some idiotic notion that people can't be smart and make good judgements. You may not think that's Obama, and that's fine. But there's no need to assume that just because he's smart he doesn't have good judgement.
ETA: added "n't" because I screwed up. I am obviously not smart.
Not at all. But I think being smart isn't a prima facie qualification to be president. Richard Nixon was highly intelligent. Look where that got him.
-
While smart does not imply judgement, nor does it exclude it. The frustration for me (at least) seems to be that we're ruling out everyone who is smart, because there's some idiotic notion that people can't be smart and make good judgements. You may not think that's Obama, and that's fine. But there's no need to assume that just because he's smart he doesn't have good judgement.
ETA: added "n't" because I screwed up. I am obviously not smart.
If you're referring to my assertions you need to read them again. Smart is not smartest man in the room. Too often, in my experience, the smartest man in the room is the last person you want doing something he wasn't trained to do. Too we discussed the difference between being educated and having good judgement.
-
The bigger problem is people willfully ignoring the infeasibility of policies like an immediate drawdown in Iraq (that appears to have been abandoned), energy independence in 10 years, catching Osama bin Laden simply by trying harder, paying for his new spending with tax cuts and cutting wasteful programs, talking some sense into Iran when the Europeans have been trying to do this for years, etc.
We know a great deal about what Obama says he will do policy-wise. We know very little about he actually intends to do, or what he actually thinks he can do. In this way, he may be more of a cipher than Palin.
It actually appears that you don't. A quick, cursory run through his campaign's proposed policies - and independent comparisons with McCain's - indicates that you're blatantly misrepresenting him. So maybe people aren't willfully ignoring the feasibility of these policies, maybe they're just considering his actual proposed policies instead.
-
I did read the whole article. It essentially rests on the premise that almost everybody was biased against Gore. I don't find it persuasive that PBS, The Washington Post, USA Today, etc. were all part of some grand right-wing conspiracy due to 9/11.
Especially considering that the date on the pbs show was April of 2001, and the 9/11 didnt happen...until well...9.
But FACT!'s generally don't get in the way of a few well meaning conspiracy theorists.
-
Not at you. One of the reasons cited for Bush's (past) popularity is that he's the sort of guy you'd like to have a beer with. As opposed to Gore or Kerry who would bore the living shit out of you. I wouldn't use this criteria to pick, for example, a surgeon, so I don't understand why it's apparently a popular way of choosing a President.
Ok. His question was directed at me so I thought you were looking at me as well.
-
But there's no need to assume that just because he's smart he doesn't have good judgement.
Almost as silly as assuming that if you are not a college graduate you are stupid and uninformed.
-
Not at all. But I think being smart isn't a prima facie qualification to be president. Richard Nixon was highly intelligent. Look where that got him.
Then why all the shots at Harvard? Why this constant hammering that "I know smart people and I wouldn't trust them with my kids." (Not all necessarily you, Arky.) I know smart people I wouldn't trust with my kid. I know a lot of really stupid people, and I sure as hell wouldn't trust them with my kid. I don't care if you've got the greatest judgement alive, you need a certain level of intelligence to do this job well.
-
It actually appears that you don't. A quick, cursory run through his campaign's proposed policies - and independent comparisons with McCain's - indicates that you're blatantly misrepresenting him. So maybe people aren't willfully ignoring the feasibility of these policies, maybe they're just considering his actual proposed policies instead.
See also: O'Reilly's bald-faced lies within his interview with Obama (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html).
-
If you're referring to my assertions you need to read them again. Smart is not smartest man in the room. Too often, in my experience, the smartest man in the room is the last person you want doing something he wasn't trained to do. Too we discussed the difference between being educated and having good judgement.
How many times has the smartest man in the room you've been in been Obama? Why lump him in with the "too often"?
-
See also: O'Reilly's bald-faced lies within his interview with Obama (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html).
did you mean to post a link about the recount there?
-
Dammit.
The right link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssl7laJ395E)
-
did you mean to post a link about the recount there?
Doesn't really matter. Even I wouldn't click a link to O'reilly....
-
I did read the whole article. It essentially rests on the premise that almost everybody was biased against Gore. I don't find it persuasive that PBS, The Washington Post, USA Today, etc. were all part of some grand right-wing conspiracy due to 9/11.
No one said "Boo" to Bush for years after 9/11. It took the horrors of Katrina before the press started to unshrink their nads and criticise the administration. Neither I nor the article called it a conspiracy theory; we called it a reaction to 9/11. If people react the same way for the same reasons, it doesn't mean that they're in cahoots. In this case, the loony, left-wing, Bush-hating media decided it was better for the country to give him a pass on this and many other things. I agree with them on that choice, as unity was more important at that time than stirring up the moot point of the election.
BUT, that does not mean that history should stay forever edited.
-
But would you click here (http://www.herobuilders.com/08.htm)?
-
Almost as silly as assuming that if you are not a college graduate you are stupid and uninformed.
Or as ridiculous as making a judgement that a person is qualified for president after knowing about them for two days. Processing information is a learned skill.
-
How many times has the smartest man in the room you've been in been Obama? Why lump him in with the "too often"?
I didn't. I know a few smartest men in the room who can manage the hell out of an organization. But they're in the minority. Also, if you read, I was being sarcastic about the making a case for McCain. Too, was Obama the smartest man in the room at Harvard? I don't recall saying he was.
-
Not at all. But I think being smart isn't a prima facie qualification to be president. Richard Nixon was highly intelligent. Look where that got him.
Yes. Because of Richard Nixon, all smart people are now suspect.
-
Or as ridiculous as making a judgement that a person is qualified for president after knowing about them for two days. Processing information is a learned skill.
That one learns from google, which still apparently doesnt know that Palin isn't being elected President. But we won't let that FACT! get in the way.
-
Then why all the shots at Harvard? Why this constant hammering that "I know smart people and I wouldn't trust them with my kids." (Not all necessarily you, Arky.) I know smart people I wouldn't trust with my kid. I know a lot of really stupid people, and I sure as hell wouldn't trust them with my kid. I don't care if you've got the greatest judgement alive, you need a certain level of intelligence to do this job well.
Did you notice that the last post about Harvard was a quote from somebody else? The quote would apply equally if you inserted any elite school. Harvard happens to be a good example of an elite school.
And I never said a certain level of intelligence is required to do the job well. I said that intelligence alone is not a sufficient qualification.
-
Some people prefer a President with whom they'd like to share a beer, instead of a President who's smart.
I tend to vote for the candidate whom I feel is more trustworthy. Yes, I've been disappointed many, many times. I also believe that whomever the President selects for his staff is also very, very important, and that gets back to the trust issue, and judgment. I'm not aware of either candidate announcing his choices for key staff positions before the election. Why not?
Had I known about Rumsfeld... who made my blood boil from day one.
-
That one learns from google, which still apparently doesnt know that Palin isn't being elected President. But we won't let that FACT! get in the way.
If McCain wins, Palin is a heartbeat away from being President (and about 15 years away from being a great grandmother).
-
Yes. Because of Richard Nixon, all smart people are now suspect.
Did you miss something in translation from American English?
The point isn't that all smart people are suspect. The point is that not all smart people have sound judgment. Do I need to spell it out with a ven diagram for you to get it?
-
If McCain wins, Palin is a heartbeat away from being President (and about 15 years away from being a great grandmother).
Sweet!
-
Sweet!
I can't wait to see the bidding war on ebay for Air Force One.
-
Had I known about Rumsfeld... who made my blood boil from day one.
And whom nearly everyone in the nation was telling him not to choose.
-
Sweet!
Limey has never made a mistake in his life...ever.
-
I can't wait to see the bidding war on ebay for Air Force One.
I'll chip in some cash if it means I don't have to fly United.
-
If McCain wins, Palin is a heartbeat away from being President (and about 15 years away from being a great grandmother).
If, and maybe's are not the same thing as voting for the person at the top of the ticket. Once again, if all Obama can do is claim to be is barely better than the VP nominee, then guess what?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/presidential.polls/index.html
will continue.
There was much harping about how big of a boost Palin was to the Democratic funding on the day of her speech. Yet Obama is already worried about funds for the rest of the campaign. This continued insistence that Palin is the presidiential candidate will sink his campaign.
-
That one learns from google, which still apparently doesnt know that Palin isn't being elected President. But we won't let that FACT! get in the way.
The people elect the president, most of the time. The candidate for president picks who they think would be qualified to be president.
-
Or as ridiculous as making a judgement that a person is qualified for president after knowing about them for two days. Processing information is a learned skill.
Is it ridiculous to make a judgement that person is unqualified after knowing about them for two days?
She is spectacularly unqualified. Alaska has the population of Fort Worth.
-
The people elect the president, most of the time. The candidate for president picks who they think would be qualified to be president.
Who has no responsibilites, and as a rule, never actually ends up being president.
But let's worry about them, and not the actual presidential candidate.
-
This continued insistence that Palin is the presidiential candidate will sink his campaign.
I would agree with this. The Obama campaign took its eyes way, way off the ball for a while.
-
Is it ridiculous to make a judgement that person is unqualified after knowing about them for two days?
Yes it is. Which is why I keep up with the new information. None of it promising.
-
Who has no responsibilites, and as a rule, never actually ends up being president.
But let's worry about them, and not the actual presidential candidate.
No responsibilities? Cheney, Gore, Bush, Johnson?
-
It actually appears that you don't. A quick, cursory run through his campaign's proposed policies - and independent comparisons with McCain's - indicates that you're blatantly misrepresenting him. So maybe people aren't willfully ignoring the feasibility of these policies, maybe they're just considering his actual proposed policies instead.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/28/225345/447
"But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression."
"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
-
Is it ridiculous to make a judgement that person is unqualified after knowing about them for two days?
No, it's not, as long as you have good information.
-
No responsibilities? Cheney, Gore, Bush, Johnson?
They have what the President chooses to give them. If the President chooses to give them nothing then they have nothing.
They only implement policy that they are told to implement, they do not formulate.
There is no inherent responsibilities defined into the role except to sit around and wait for the President to die.
-
Who has no responsibilites, and as a rule, never actually ends up being president.
But let's worry about them, and not the actual presidential candidate.
9 of 46 VP's have ascended upon death/resignation of the President. Would you say that 20% is, "as a rule", "never"?
-
9 of 46 VP's have ascended upon death/resignation of the President. Would you say that 20% is, "as a rule", "never"?
Over the course of 200 years it has happened 9 times, at an 80% not happening rate. You could come to the conclusion that its rather not likely.
-
Over the course of 200 years it has happened 9 times, at an 80% not happening rate. You could come to the conclusion that its rather not likely.
20% is "rather not likely"? Seriously??
-
This continued insistence that Palin is the presidiential candidate will sink his campaign.
I agree. However, I believe that the most focus on Palin is in this thread. In this weekend's teevee appearances by Obama and Biden, they spent virtually the whole time (whenever possible to steer the conversation in the direction they wanted to go) going after McCain.
-
More trouble for Palin. Now the union for the Trooper of TrooperGate has made a complaint that Palin illegally got hold of the trooper's workers comp records (http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/printStory.pl?news_id=13870). The woodwork is creaking in Alaska.
-
I agree. However, I believe that the most focus on Palin is in this thread.
On the politics page of CNN there are 4 articles that highlight Palin specifically out of 12, so 1/3. Plus 2 more that mention McCain and Palin both in the headline. And the two highlighted commentary articles are Palin-centric.
So no, I don't think it's just here.
-
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/28/225345/447
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
Drill baby drill!
-
No responsibilities? Cheney, Gore, Bush, Johnson?
...and Ford (who wasn't necessarily bad but did become President without the hassles of a general election).
-
They have what the President chooses to give them. If the President chooses to give them nothing then they have nothing.
They only implement policy that they are told to implement, they do not formulate.
There is no inherent responsibilities defined into the role except to sit around and wait for the President to die.
Given the rise in the polls of the Republican ticket it seems a good number of people in the US don't think they'll be voting for a person who will do nothing. Or maybe they do and they're jus votin for sumun who has a knocked up daughter, jus lak dem.
-
...and Ford (who wasn't necessarily bad but did become President without the hassles of a general election).
Every vp since Johnson has played a significant role in governing.
-
61 pages. Congrats on your $45 JackAstro. Don't spend it all
in one place on hookers that look like Sarah Palin.
-
Every vp since Johnson has played a significant role in governing.
At the direction of the President.
Who is being elected.
Not the VP.
But keep insisting that Palin is up for election.
What was that about repeating the same actions expecting a different outcome? Can we keep saying the same things and expecting the truth to change?
-
On the politics page of CNN there are 4 articles that highlight Palin specifically out of 12, so 1/3. Plus 2 more that mention McCain and Palin both in the headline. And the two highlighted commentary articles are Palin-centric.
So no, I don't think it's just here.
Okey doke. But Obama and Biden have realised that they got distracted - as I suspect that they were intened to do - and have got back on message. I believe the press will soon focus on Palin's lack of availability, which will tick off those egomaniacs in the media no end.
-
Can we keep saying the same things and expecting the truth to change?
It works at Fox News.
-
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/28/225345/447
"But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression."
"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
You stated that that he had a policy of tax cuts. His tax policy is actually to return approximately $700 billion to the budget. You stated his goal of energy independence within 10 years. His policy includes a goal of reducing oil consumption by more than the combined imports of the Middle East and Venezuela. Those imports make up only 1/3 of our total crude oil imports, and do not even roughly equate to "energy independence". You dismissed diplomacy with Iran because the Europeans have tried it, which has no bearing on whether it's a feasible policy for the US. You characterize his desire to end the war in Iraq as immediately pulling out, when he has stated that he would begin drawing down immediately, but complete the drawdown over a reasonable and informed time period.
So yes, you're misrepresenting his proposed policies. I'm all for critical analysis, but get the starting point correct, or there's no substance to what you write.
-
Taras, I want my $45, and (cough) I believe there's still the matter of the drink ticket?
-
At the direction of the President.
Who is being elected.
Not the VP.
But keep insisting that Palin is up for election.
What was that about repeating the same actions expecting a different outcome? Can we keep saying the same things and expecting the truth to change?
Fine, that is technically true but not practically and seems a real waste and an odd argument that she is qualified because she'll be doing nothing, but the people who are supporting the rise in the polls, the people who woke up when McCain picked Palin, do they think Palin is going to do nothing?
-
Taras, I want my $45, and (cough) I believe there's still the matter of the drink ticket?
Which is pretty impressive given the thread has had two Spack sightings. And everyone still has a spleen, so far.
-
Which is pretty impressive given the thread has had two Spack sightings. And everyone still has a spleen, so far.
"I woke up in my bathtub, filled with ice, to find a note signed 'Spack' that said 'Call 911'..."
-
Which is pretty impressive given the thread has had two Spack sightings. And everyone still has a spleen, so far.
Shhh. I think he fell asleep by the Victrola. Don't wake him.
-
Taras, I want my $45, and (cough) I believe there's still the matter of the drink ticket?
Taras don't work for no Caesar's.
-
Okey doke. But Obama and Biden have realised that they got distracted - as I suspect that they were intened to do - and have got back on message. I believe the press will soon focus on Palin's lack of availability, which will tick off those egomaniacs in the media no end.
Especially since she's bugging out to Alaska soon with a bunch of hangers on from the Bush administration as tutors. When next we see her, everything she says about anything not directly related to Alaska will be a recitation of her tutorials. She has admitted to having no opinion about a range of issues, including, but not limited to Iraq, education policy, financial policy (go ahead ask her how Fannie Mae works) foreign policy in general, the list goes on.
-
Given the rise in the polls of the Republican ticket it seems a good number of people in the US don't think they'll be voting for a person who will do nothing. Or maybe they do and they're jus votin for sumun who has a knocked up daughter, jus lak dem.
Please, pravata. This is beneath you.
-
It works at Fox News.
But not at MSNBC, NBC, CNN, NY Times, etc.
-
But not at MSNBC, NBC, CNN, NY Times, etc.
Can you point me to instances where the White House has directly provided speaking points to one of those outlets?
-
Please, pravata. This is beneath you.
I don't think it is. I am floored by this line of thought, we're voting for her because we can sympathize with her? This is the U fucking Nited States of America and we're picking our leaders based on this crap? It is embarrassing.
-
Taras don't work for no Caesar's.
Woah, woah, woah. You were at the book, and you didn't place my bet for me? What the fuck? Where's my drink ticket, man??
-
Can you point me to instances where the White House has directly provided speaking points to one of those outlets?
Sorry, MM, but the guys in your party have a long and proud history of furnishing talking points to the press. It did not start, and it hasn't ended with the bogey men at Fox.
-
Fine, that is technically true but not practically and seems a real waste and an odd argument that she is qualified because she'll be doing nothing, but the people who are supporting the rise in the polls, the people who woke up when McCain picked Palin, do they think Palin is going to do nothing?
I have no idea what the rest of them are thinking, I, unlike some around here cannot speak for millions of other people as to why they are doing what they are doing.
What the others have done is irrelevant to the point that those duties are undefined except by whatever McCain decides them to be. So he can tell her to do whatever it is that he feels that she is best fit for, and implement whatever policy that he feels she will handle the best, easiest, learn from the most.
To say that there is some grand office of the VP that contains a massive amount of responsibility is simply not true. It is as expansive, or as small as the President decides it to be.
And therefore, the issues of the hour, should be whether or not you think McCain should be president instead of Obama. If Obama keeps harping on Palin, it will look, and it will be pointed out by many, many people, that he is avoiding McCain, and focusing on Palin because he doesn't believe he can match McCain. And if they want to win, they better get rid of that perception fast, because right now, it is there, and it is growing.
-
I have no idea what the rest of them are thinking, I, unlike some around here cannot speak for millions of other people as to why they are doing what they are doing.
What the others have done is irrelevant to the point that those duties are undefined except by whatever McCain decides them to be. So he can tell her to do whatever it is that he feels that she is best fit for, and implement whatever policy that he feels she will handle the best, easiest, learn from the most.
To say that there is some grand office of the VP that contains a massive amount of responsibility is simply not true. It is as expansive, or as small as the President decides it to be.
And therefore, the issues of the hour, should be whether or not you think McCain should be president instead of Obama. If Obama keeps harping on Palin, it will look, and it will be pointed out by many, many people, that he is avoiding McCain, and focusing on Palin because he doesn't believe he can match McCain. And if they want to win, they better get rid of that perception fast, because right now, it is there, and it is growing.
The issue of this thread is Palin WTF. The only indication I have of what people are thinking is what they say and what they do.
-
I don't think it is. I am floored by this line of thought, we're voting for her because we can sympathize with her? This is the U fucking Nited States of America and we're picking our leaders based on this crap? It is embarrassing.
I think you're painting with a broad stroke, making some assumptions regarding the motivations of all of those bumpkins out there who you may not think have the good sense and breeding to understand who they should vote for. Yes, people who push buttons for both candidates will do so for some very silly reasons. But, probably a lot fewer than you're giving credit for.
-
If Obama keeps harping on Palin, it will look, and it will be pointed out by many, many people, that he is avoiding McCain, and focusing on Palin because he doesn't believe he can match McCain. And if they want to win, they better get rid of that perception fast, because right now, it is there, and it is growing.
This is true, but it is not Obama that is harping on Palin and avoiding McCain. As Limey mentioned, Obama is back on point there, but the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy Hive Brain Media Blogosphere apparently hasn't gotten the memo about not talking all Palin, all the time.
-
Woah, woah, woah. You were at the book, and you didn't place my bet for me? What the fuck? Where's my drink ticket, man??
You would only squander it on some kind of free trade coffee or organic mead. Or, maybe an anarchist prostitute.
-
IMO, McCain is the one avoiding Obama and the issues. Palin has been the perfect ink cloud to boost him through the convention without addressing anything of substance and he's played it through well.
-
No one said "Boo" to Bush for years after 9/11. It took the horrors of Katrina before the press started to unshrink their nads and criticise the administration. Neither I nor the article called it a conspiracy theory; we called it a reaction to 9/11. If people react the same way for the same reasons, it doesn't mean that they're in cahoots. In this case, the loony, left-wing, Bush-hating media decided it was better for the country to give him a pass on this and many other things. I agree with them on that choice, as unity was more important at that time than stirring up the moot point of the election.
BUT, that does not mean that history should stay forever edited.
These are conspiracy theories:
"Yet, possibly for reasons of 'patriotism' in this time of crisis, the news organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate winner, with headlines such as 'Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush.'"
"In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: 'Bush won, get over it.' Only 'Gore partisans' – as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies – would insist on looking at the fine print.
They allege a conspiracy among the funders of the study to underplay the results: The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Associated Press, The Tribune Publishing Company, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Orlando Sentinel, Cox News Service, The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times.
And for all Consortium New's (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html) handwringing about the headlines not matching the results of the study, The New York Times conceded (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63), "Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush" and "the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots."
But it also observed that "a close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court" and "even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff - filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties - Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations."
It continued, "In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical - a statewide recount - could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent."
The article goes on to note irregularities all over the place - ballot design, absentee ballots, overvotes, etc. What it does not find is that the recount that the Supreme Court halted was going to reveal Gore as the winner or that the strategies that Gore's lawyers were pursuing would have resulted in a Gore victory. The notion that Gore was robbed is a falsehood, and the suggestion that the media covered anything up is a conspiracy theory.
-
I think you're painting with a broad stroke, making some assumptions regarding the motivations of all of those bumpkins out there who you may not think have the good sense and breeding to understand who they should vote for. Yes, people who push buttons for both candidates will do so for some very silly reasons. But, probably a lot fewer than you're giving credit for.
It's a democracy, not a noocracy. People can vote for whatever reasons they want, or for no reasons at all. The alternatives are to take away their right to vote, or to force them to educate themselves. I doubt too many people here are in favor of these two options.
-
I think you're painting with a broad stroke, making some assumptions regarding the motivations of all of those bumpkins out there who you may not think have the good sense and breeding to understand who they should vote for. Yes, people who push buttons for both candidates will do so for some very silly reasons. But, probably a lot fewer than you're giving credit for.
I think the Palin bump (I'm talking about the McCain-Palin poll numbers, not Bristol) came from her giving a rip-snorter of a speech at a convention that, like the DNC one before it, was watched by almost 40 million people. Much of this thread has been devoted to debating whether her best lines were true, half true or not true, and how this debate pans out nationally will determine whether the bump becomes a full blown surge.
What is clear, however, is that the public is watching. How they process what they see is going to be all up to them individually.
-
It's a democracy, not a noocracy. People can vote for whatever reasons they want, or for no reasons at all. The alternatives are to take away their right to vote, or to force them to educate themselves. I doubt too many people here are in favor of these two options.
I'm in favour of option 2, but then I'm a communist.
-
I'm in favour of option 2, but then I'm a communist.
I thought you were for a brewocracy or some other adult-beverage-related form of government.
If only they could settle this by a contest of home-brewed beers.
-
I think the Palin bump (I'm talking about the McCain-Palin poll numbers, not Bristol) came from her giving a rip-snorter of a speech at a convention that, like the DNC one before it, was watched by almost 40 million people. Much of this thread has been devoted to debating whether her best lines were true, half true or not true, and how this debate pans out nationally will determine whether the bump becomes a full blown surge.
What is clear, however, is that the public is watching. How they process what they see is going to be all up to them individually.
Agreed. I suspect the polls are going to tighten up again very quickly over the next few days.
-
Agreed. I suspect the polls are going to tighten up again very quickly over the next few days.
Yep. And Fuck the Cubs.
-
Yep. And Fuck the Cubs.
This thread finally gets interesting. Fuck the Cubs. A campaign slogan we can all agree with.
-
This thread finally gets interesting. Fuck the Cubs. A campaign slogan we can all agree with.
That nails it. I will vote for whichever candidate officially says "Fuck the Cubs"
-
That nails it. I will vote for whichever candidate officially says "Fuck the Cubs"
Obama earns that one (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/1125194,obama082508.article), but at the same time, McCain refused to support a bill that would implicitly prohibit the CIA from forcing prisoners to watch cubsuckdom.
-
You would only squander it on some kind of free trade coffee or organic mead. Or, maybe an anarchist prostitute.
You say it like caffeine, alcohol, and prostitutes without rules or boundaries are bad things.
-
Sorry, MM, but the guys in your party have a long and proud history of furnishing talking points to the press. It did not start, and it hasn't ended with the bogey men at Fox.
Sorry, Taras, but you've mistaken me for a Democrat. I'm an Obamican - his was the first vote for a Democrat on a national or state level I've cast.
-
IMO, McCain is the one avoiding Obama and the issues. Palin has been the perfect ink cloud to boost him through the convention without addressing anything of substance and he's played it through well.
Why, just b/c his own campaign manager has said that this election will be about character, not issues?
-
That nails it. I will vote for whichever candidate officially says "Fuck the Cubs"
Aye.
Need I remind everyone that Obama is from Chicago, although more likely a White Sox than a Cubs fan.
-
Oh, MOTHERFUCK Keith Olbermann.
"Tomorrow night - on the eve of 9/11 - a dramatic Special Comment: Are some still politicizing America's greatest national tragedy?"
No, cocksucker, they're just exploiting it for RATINGS.
-
Oh, MOTHERFUCK Keith Olbermann.
"Tomorrow night - on the eve of 9/11 - a dramatic Special Comment: Are some still politicizing America's greatest national tragedy?"
No, cocksucker, they're just exploiting it for RATINGS.
I used to watch FOX, CNN, MSNBC etc... and all it did was get me hacked off at how poorly they covered all the details of news events. Then I stopped watching all the channels parading as "news outlets". Sure enough, I've been a much happier person since.
I still read alot (reuters, AP, and the occassional national news on network TV, and even some PBS) but those jokes for TV news are no longer on my "watch" list. Life's too short.
eta: had to correct myself, they don't cover all the info, only what gets them ratings
-
This thread ain't worth a bucket of warm shit. Or, spit.
Still dead in Uvalde,
JNG
-
Or maybe they do and they're jus votin for sumun who has a knocked up daughter, jus lak dem.
So it's now acceptable to bust out the ol' Steppin Fetchit routine to characterize a sizable Dem voting block? Cool. Or not.
-
Oh, MOTHERFUCK Keith Olbermann.
"Tomorrow night - on the eve of 9/11 - a dramatic Special Comment: Are some still politicizing America's greatest national tragedy?"
No, cocksucker, they're just exploiting it for RATINGS.
Olbermann has jumped the shark.
-
Aye.
Need I remind everyone that Obama is from Chicago, although more likely a White Sox than a Cubs fan.
I'm well aware that he is from Chicago and I knew what he has said previously about the Cubs. But it still stands: If either Obama or McCain will come out and say (verbatim) "Fuck the Cubs" they have my vote. That is all.
-
Olbermann has jumped the shark.
olbermann's palin comparison to o'reilly
-
Why is it that the media actually pays attention to crap like the "Palin Truth Squad"'s manufactured outrage over "lipstick on a pig"?
-
Why is it that the media actually pays attention to crap like the "Palin Truth Squad"'s manufactured outrage over "lipstick on a pig"?
Ignoring the deliberate misunderstanding of Obama's use of a colloquialism, she's already described herself as a pit bull with lipstick so where's the pork beef?
-
Ignoring the deliberate misunderstanding of Obama's use of a colloquialism, she's already described herself as a pit bull with lipstick so where's the pork beef?
Also ignoring McCain's multiple uses of the colloquialism to describe Hillary's health care plan.
-
Republican strategist hits the nail on the head: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26632984/)
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.
"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."
-
Why is it that the media actually pays attention to crap like the "Palin Truth Squad"'s manufactured outrage over "lipstick on a pig"?
Ratings?
-
So it's now acceptable to bust out the ol' Steppin Fetchit routine to characterize a sizable Dem voting block? Cool. Or not.
That is an attempt to capture the speech of the ignorant hillbillies I grew up around.
-
Ratings?
Unfortunately, yes. The majority of American voters don't want details, they want drama. They want an election-as-reality-show.
-
Republican strategist hits the nail on the head: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26632984/)
Biden says bring it on,
“I’m not into the small bore stuff. I don’t care whether or not she built a bridge to nowhere. I don’t care if she sold a plane. What I care about is what in God’s name she [is] going to do – along with John McCain – about the thousands of people who don’t have health care.”
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/10/in-chicago-biden-previews-palin-debate.aspx
-
Unfortunately, yes. The majority of American voters don't want details, they want drama. They want an election-as-reality-show.
To borrow on a theme, they're all going to be wallowing in the mud before it's over. I still think the Obama campaign hasn't quite got their eye back on the ball yet, though.
-
To borrow on a theme, they're all going to be wallowing in the mud before it's over.
Which greatly favors McCain. And is greatly disappointing to me, because I honestly believed that these two would debate issues. McCain's campaign manager clearly had other plans.
-
Biden says bring it on,
“I’m not into the small bore stuff. I don’t care whether or not she built a bridge to nowhere. I don’t care if she sold a plane. What I care about is what in God’s name she [is] going to do – along with John McCain – about the thousands millions of people who don’t have health care.”
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/10/in-chicago-biden-previews-palin-debate.aspx
FIFJB
-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_knocks_press_on_madeup_controversy.html
WFW. If he gets elected, is he going to whine like this about Ahmejinedad or Putin when they do something he doesn't like?
-
Which greatly favors McCain. And is greatly disappointing to me, because I honestly believed that these two would debate issues. McCain's campaign manager clearly had other plans.
Obama doesn't seem so new and shiny when he gets pulled into this kind of thing.
-
You know, Arky, it would be easier to just say that there is nothing the man could say or do that would make you happy.
-
Which greatly favors McCain. And is greatly disappointing to me, because I honestly believed that these two would debate issues. McCain's campaign manager clearly had other plans.
Which would be Rove. Thankfully the Obama campaign has not resorted to the tactics he used in 2000 to eliminate McCain from the Republican nomination.
-
Obama doesn't seem so new and shiny when he gets pulled into this kind of thing.
Right. If the issues aren't on your side, if the facts aren't on your side... change the subject.
-
Which greatly favors McCain. And is greatly disappointing to me, because I honestly believed that these two would debate issues. McCain's campaign manager clearly had other plans.
You mean the lobbyist (for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, amongst others) Rick Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_(politics))? The lobbyist who McCain denegrates every chance he gets? That campaign manager?
I find it incredible that McCain is allowed to claim that he's going to keep lobbyists out of Washington, when he won't even keep them out of his campaign team.
-
Right. If the issues aren't on your side, if the facts aren't on your side... change the subject.
Like the "celebrity" ads. Then, when you get called on it, just reply "lighten up, it was a joke".
-
Right. If the issues aren't on your side, if the facts aren't on your side... change the subject.
That's not my point. I was echoing your sentiment that a messier campaign disfavors Obama. Obama sells a very positive message using very positive rhetoric. In a positive campaign, this gives him a clear advantage. Perhaps you consider it a backhanded compliment if I say that I think he makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
-
You mean the lobbyist (for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, amongst others) Rick Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_(politics))? The lobbyist who McCain denegrates every chance he gets? That campaign manager?
I find it incredible that McCain is allowed to claim that he's going to keep lobbyists out of Washington, when he won't even keep them out of his campaign team.
What do you expect? McCain favored "reform" that gagged political speech in gross contempt for the First Amendment.
-
You mean the lobbyist (for Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, amongst others) Rick Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_(politics))? The lobbyist who McCain denegrates every chance he gets? That campaign manager?
I find it incredible that McCain is allowed to claim that he's going to keep lobbyists out of Washington, when he won't even keep them out of his campaign team.
Speaking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5047811)
-
What do you expect? McCain favored "reform" that gagged political speech in gross contempt for the First Amendment.
I hav never understood the argument that $=speech.
-
I hav never understood the argument that $=speech.
It's kind of like nude dancing.
-
Speaking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5047811)
Which is the perfect contrast to Rick Davis, who lobbied for those two companies and continues unabashedly to work on McCain's campaign.
-
I hav never understood the argument that $=speech.
Running a political advertisement is speech, isn't it?
-
Which is the perfect contrast to Rick Davis, who lobbied for those two companies and continues unabashedly to work on McCain's campaign.
So Obama was for it before he was against it?
-
So Obama was for it before he was against it?
While McCain was for it and remains for it.
-
Running a political advertisement is speech, isn't it?
The creation of a political advetisement is speech. The purchasing of airtime is a business transaction.
-
The creation of a political advetisement is speech. The purchasing of airtime is a business transaction.
So restricting the purchase of the airtime to run the ad would simply be an economic regulation? That kind of cuts the legs out from under the First Amendment, doesn't it?
-
So restricting the purchase of the airtime to run the ad would simply be an economic regulation? That kind of cuts the legs out from under the First Amendment, doesn't it?
I don't see how. If I lack the funds to buy airtime to announce my movement to outlaw the DH, have my First Amendment rights been violated by my inability to use that particular platform for my views?
-
I don't see how. If I lack the funds to buy airtime to announce my movement to outlaw the DH, have my First Amendment rights been violated by my inability to use that particular platform for my views?
No, but if you have the funds to express your views (or engage in speech) and the government won't let you announce your movement to outlaw the DH, then your First Amendment rights have been impinged upon. Same as if you were given the airtime for free. Just as if you walked out onto the sidewalk outside MMPUS with a cardboard sign expressing the same.
-
I don't see how. If I lack the funds to buy airtime to announce my movement to outlaw the DH, have my First Amendment rights been violated by my inability to use that particular platform for my views?
No. Your First Amendment rights aren't violated when you can't afford to publicize your speech. They're violated when the government forbids you to publicize your speech. It's not a guarantee of financial wherewithal, it's a restriction on government action.
-
Why is it that the media actually pays attention to crap like the "Palin Truth Squad"'s manufactured outrage over "lipstick on a pig"?
That the McCain camp went after that comment is beyond stupid. Obama has an actual gaff or even lie, and they ignore it in favor of the old pig joke.
-
That the McCain camp went after that comment is beyond stupid. Obama has an actual gaff or even lie, and they ignore it in favor of the old pig joke.
I'm all for the McCain campaign letting Obama and Biden go off on this tangent as long as they want to.
-
That the McCain camp went after that comment is beyond stupid. Obama has an actual gaff or even lie, and they ignore it in favor of the old pig joke.
What was the gaff/lie?
-
Just so.
And as I understand it, McCain-Feingold's only restriction on the content of paid political advertising was the disclosure of who was running the ad.
All other restrictions are on contributions, which are a purely economic transaction.
-
That the McCain camp went after that comment is beyond stupid.
Why? It's very effective for them. It's not the slightest bit honest or honorable, but it's effective.
-
Just so.
And as I understand it, McCain-Feingold's only restriction on the content of paid political advertising was the disclosure of who was running the ad.
All other restrictions are on contributions, which are a purely economic transaction.
Certain ads are outright prohibited during certain periods, such as ads mentioning a candidate by name within a certain period of time before an election.
-
I'm all for the McCain campaign letting baiting Obama and Biden to go off on this tangent as long as they want to.
FIFY
-
Just so.
And as I understand it, McCain-Feingold's only restriction on the content of paid political advertising was the disclosure of who was running the ad.
All other restrictions are on contributions, which are a purely economic transaction.
Fundamentally, it's a limitation on an individual's ability to engage in political speech in particular media. And it is a "content" based limitation in that it limits political speech, which lies at the heart of the first amendment.
-
Then I could understand a position that the restrictions on ads appearing in a certain timefrime might have First Amendment issues.
But the resitrictions on contributions? Puh-lease.
-
Fundamentally, it's a limitation on an individual's ability to engage in political speech in particular media. And it is a "content" based limitation in that it limits political speech, which lies at the heart of the first amendment.
You ever hear the old saying "freedom of the press only applies to those who have a press"?
Or "the laws apply equally to everyone in France. Whether you're a beggar or a noble, you're not allowed to sleep under a bridge."
The framers of the Constitution did not live in a world with mass communication. "One message, one dollar" is dangerously close to "one vote, one dollar."
-
What was the gaff/lie?
In a discussion about military service (that oddly sounded a bit uncomfortable to me) Obama in an interview with Stephanwhatever said he signed up for the selective service right after high school. Gaff or lie is that there was no selective service sign up in 1979. He had finished his first year at Columbia when that law took effect. He would have had to do so then. I don't know if his memory is faulty or what but what he said was wrong. It's probably a gaff, but I remember signing up at the post office immediately after my 18th birthday in 1985 very clearly so I expect (perhaps wrongly) that other men do.
-
In a discussion about military service (that oddly sounded a bit uncomfortable to me) Obama in an interview with Stephanwhatever said he signed up for the selective service right after high school. Gaff or lie is that there was no selective service sign up in 1979. He had finished his first year at Columbia when that law took effect. He would have had to do so then. I don't know if his memory is faulty or what but what he said was wrong. It's probably a gaff, but I remember signing up at the post office immediately after my 18th birthday in 1985 very clearly so I expect (perhaps wrongly) that other men do.
I thought everybody had to sign up for selective service in order to be eligible for federal student loans, among other things.
-
Why? It's very effective for them. It's not the slightest bit honest or honorable, but it's effective.
A response from an Obama spokesman accused McCain of not understanding the meaning of the word honor (sic.).
-
A response from an Obama spokesman accused McCain of not understanding the meaning of the word honor (sic.).
Contrary to the whining on both sides, sadly, all's fair in politics.
-
Contrary to the whining on both sides, sadly, all's fair in politics.
Exactly right. The whining is simply another tactic with which to bash an opponent.
-
Exactly right. The whining is simply another tactic with which to bash an opponent.
Am I the only one who thinks this election, considering how close it is now, hinges entirely on the Presidental debates, and that all the mudslinging and the Vice Presidential debates will in the end have no effect? I can't see Obama or McCain having a "Dukakis in the tank" moment to help derail their campaigns.
-
Am I the only one who thinks this election, considering how close it is now, hinges entirely on the Presidental debates, and that all the mudslinging and the Vice Presidential debates will in the end have no effect? I can't see Obama or McCain having a "Dukakis in the tank" moment to help derail their campaigns.
I agree. I think the debates will get massive ratings, and will be the last/best opportunity for the candidates to wrest control of the undecideds from each other. NBC's Chuck Todd reckons that, with the expectations of an extraordinarily high level of early voting, the election will very likely go the way things stand on October 15, which I think is after two of the three Presidential debates.
-
I believe the press will soon focus on Palin's lack of availability, which will tick off those egomaniacs in the media no end.
Apparently not. Palin will be interviewed by Charlie Gibson Thursday and Friday. (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/08/sarah-palin-unplugged-charlie-gibson-grabs-first-interview/)
-
Biden says bring it on,
“I’m not into the small bore stuff. I don’t care whether or not she built a bridge to nowhere. I don’t care if she sold a plane. What I care about is what in God’s name she [is] going to do – along with John McCain – about the thousands of people who don’t have health care.”
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/10/in-chicago-biden-previews-palin-debate.aspx
I ask this because I figure you have an answer, pravata, and I respect your research: with a democrat majority in congress, what has been passed and what has been rejected as far as health care goes? Open question with no ideas as to what the answer is. I know in the early 90's, the Clintons tried to get some things done. I know that the 00's seemed to bring out some increased/complicated Medicare/medicade expansions. I know there was a lot of argument about SCHIP, etc., in the last few years. There was the increased(?) drug benefit stuff going on for a while.
Who reallly has been doing what?
-
I ask this because I figure you have an answer, pravata, and I respect your research: with a democrat majority in congress, what has been passed and what has been rejected as far as health care goes? Open question with no ideas as to what the answer is. I know in the early 90's, the Clintons tried to get some things done. I know that the 00's seemed to bring out some increased/complicated Medicare/medicade expansions. I know there was a lot of argument about SCHIP, etc., in the last few years. There was the increased(?) drug benefit stuff going on for a while.
Who reallly has been doing what?
Picking carefully and quickly through a mass of partisan information, I've come up with this list. Anybody chime in if I've missed a major initiative.
Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mmaupdate/
the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.
http://www.healthassistancepartnership.org/ship-funding/2008.html
Congressional Democrats Will Not Vote on SCHIP Expansion Legislation This Session Amid Veto Threats, Increased Cost Estimates [Sep 08, 2008]
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=3&DR_ID=54325
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/532889
Most of the initiatives are at the state level, Massachusetts and California for instance, here's one article, there's many more,
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/01/11/califs_healthcare_plan_looks_familiar/
news generally (somewhat partisan)
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=1632
-
Gaff or lie is that there was no selective service sign up in 1979.
I graduated HS in '79. A few months before graduation, I had to sign up for selective service when I turned 18. So I know for a fact there was indeed a sign up in 1979.
-
I graduated HS in '79. A few months before graduation, I had to sign up for selective service when I turned 18. So I know for a fact there was indeed a sign up in 1979.
Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
"On March 29, 1975, Pres. Gerald Ford signed Proclamation 4360, Terminating Registration Procedures Under Military Selective Service Act, eliminating the registration requirement for all 18-25 year old male citizens. Then on July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18-26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. Only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from Selective Service registration.[2] The first registrations after Proclamation 4771 took place on Monday, July 21, 1980, for those men born in January, February and March 1960 at U.S. Post Offices. Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays were reserved for men born in the later quarters of the year, and registration for men born in 1961 began the following week."
http://www.sss.gov/backgr.htm
"The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
-
I graduated HS in '79. A few months before graduation, I had to sign up for selective service when I turned 18. So I know for a fact there was indeed a sign up in 1979.
I had to sign up in '74. I still remember reading the draft lottery numbers in that year and preceding years, although I think the draft itself was suspended with the class before mine.
-
I registered in '80 when I turned 18.
-
What is this Selective Service stuff? Was I supposed to sign a form?
-
Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
"On March 29, 1975, Pres. Gerald Ford signed Proclamation 4360, Terminating Registration Procedures Under Military Selective Service Act, eliminating the registration requirement for all 18-25 year old male citizens. Then on July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18-26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. Only men born between March 29, 1957, and December 31, 1959, were completely exempt from Selective Service registration.[2] The first registrations after Proclamation 4771 took place on Monday, July 21, 1980, for those men born in January, February and March 1960 at U.S. Post Offices. Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays were reserved for men born in the later quarters of the year, and registration for men born in 1961 began the following week."
http://www.sss.gov/backgr.htm
"The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
I think the key here is requirement. As mentioned, to obtain grants, etc. (I was on SSI) I had to register. It wasn't required for everyone at the time, but you could still register.
-
What is this Selective Service stuff? Was I supposed to sign a form?
Yes, and you were supposed to maintain that registration until you turned 26. You must hate America.
-
Yes, and you were supposed to maintain that registration until you turned 26. You must hate America.
Kidding.
-
I think the key here is requirement. As mentioned, to obtain grants, etc. (I was on SSI) I had to register. It wasn't required for everyone at the time, but you could still register.
Excellent.
And if anyone questions there's a very easy registration verification including the date your registration was processed.
-
Kidding.
Ummm...so was I.
-
Ummm...so was I.
Yes, but we have people like loe on this board, so I wouldn't want them to think you were serious.
-
Yes, and you were supposed to maintain that registration until you turned 26. You must hate America.
By the way, the DPS will not accept your draft card as proof of your Social Security number when you go to get your driver's license. You are hereby warned.
-
By the way, the DPS will not accept your draft card as proof of your Social Security number when you go to get your driver's license. You are hereby warned.
to continue with said tangential topic, if you ever happen to lose both drivers license and SS card...
The Social Security Office won't accept a Birth Certificate as proof of ID, but will accept a Drivers License. To obtain the Drivers you can use a...Birth.....Certificate.
So it's not good enough for the Social Security office, but it is good enough for the DPS office to issue ID, which is then good enough for the.....Social Security Office.
-
I graduated HS in '79. A few months before graduation, I had to sign up for selective service when I turned 18. So I know for a fact there was indeed a sign up in 1979.
As I'm reading the law no male can sign up before his 18th birthday. Is that correct?
-
to continue with said tangential topic, if you ever happen to lose both drivers license and SS card...
The Social Security Office won't accept a Birth Certificate as proof of ID, but will accept a Drivers License. To obtain the Drivers you can use a...Birth.....Certificate.
So it's not good enough for the Social Security office, but it is good enough for the DPS office to issue ID, which is then good enough for the.....Social Security Office.
Put another way, there's a more stringent requirement for getting a job legally than there is for registering to vote.
-
to continue with said tangential topic, if you ever happen to lose both drivers license and SS card...
The Social Security Office won't accept a Birth Certificate as proof of ID, but will accept a Drivers License. To obtain the Drivers you can use a...Birth.....Certificate.
So it's not good enough for the Social Security office, but it is good enough for the DPS office to issue ID, which is then good enough for the.....Social Security Office.
hmmm, I had that happen, I had no problem getting a new drivers license. I still need to go to the SS Office though.
-
Put another way, there's a more stringent requirement for getting a job legally than there is for registering to vote.
Well said. Arguments against voter ID laws are fairly specious to me.
-
hmmm, I had that happen, I had no problem getting a new drivers license. I still need to go to the SS Office though.
It shouldn't be a problem once you've gotten the new Driver's License. I just didnt understand why there's the extra step.
It was just kind of annoying, replacing ID with no forms of ID is kind of a pain in the ass.
Put another way, there's a more stringent requirement for getting a job legally than there is for registering to vote.
Well said. Arguments against voter ID laws are fairly specious to me.
Kinda, but if you have a fake Birth Certificate and get a False Drivers License, getting the fake Social Security Card doesn't seem like it should be that big of an obstacle.
-
As I'm reading the law no male can sign up before his 18th birthday. Is that correct?
I believe so. I signed up the day I turned 18.
-
to continue with said tangential topic, if you ever happen to lose both drivers license and SS card...
The Social Security Office won't accept a Birth Certificate as proof of ID, but will accept a Drivers License. To obtain the Drivers you can use a...Birth.....Certificate.
So it's not good enough for the Social Security office, but it is good enough for the DPS office to issue ID, which is then good enough for the.....Social Security Office.
Catch 22 squared, man.
-
Catch 22 squared, man.
Catch 484?
-
As I'm reading the law no male can sign up before his 18th birthday. Is that correct?
Current law says you have a 60 day window, 30 days before to 30 days after your 18th birthday, at least according to the sss.gov website. (https://www.sss.gov/when.htm)
-
Why the hell do you need a social security number to get a driver's license?
-
Why the hell do you need a social security number to get a driver's license?
I guess it's supposed to prove that you're legal.
-
Why the hell do you need a social security number to get a driver's license?
You dont need a social security number to get a drivers license.
But the identification that is acceptable for a drivers license, is unacceptable for a social security card.
but the identification you get with the unacceptable form of identification, is acceptable to get a social security card.
but then, the identification you get with the acceptable form of identification, that was obtained with unacceptable forms of identification, is acceptable to get the drivers license. which can be obtained with a birth certificate, which is unacceptable.
It seems to be that you have not actually closed the security hole of the unacceptable form of identification, and just cause more headaches to people trying to get these documents replaced.
-
I haven't seen my Social Security card in years, I think it was in my wallet next to O.J.'s autograph. I never saw a need to have it replaced. More recently I lost my driver's license and had to use my passport to get it replaced. Does one really need a Social Security card? The number is permanently engraved in my mind.
-
I haven't seen my Social Security card in years, I think it was in my wallet next to O.J.'s autograph. I never saw a need to have it replaced. More recently I lost my driver's license and had to use my passport to get it replaced. Does one really need a Social Security card? The number is permanently engraved in my mind.
You need it if you don't have a passport.
-
I haven't seen my Social Security card in years, I think it was in my wallet next to O.J.'s autograph. I never saw a need to have it replaced. More recently I lost my driver's license and had to use my passport to get it replaced. Does one really need a Social Security card? The number is permanently engraved in my mind.
Just kind of depends really, mostly to satisfy the I-9 employment eligibility form. But i think the passport would also suffice in that case. Most people probably use a combination of Drivers License/SSC for it though, I would guess.
Which is what makes the bizarre rules for getting them replaced all the more mystifying to me.
-
I haven't seen my Social Security card in years, I think it was in my wallet next to O.J.'s autograph. I never saw a need to have it replaced. More recently I lost my driver's license and had to use my passport to get it replaced. Does one really need a Social Security card? The number is permanently engraved in my mind.
I think mine was in my wallet when it got stolen in Amsterdam in 1999. I have never had a use for it since.
-
What is this Selective Service stuff? Was I supposed to sign a form?
I sign up for selective work...every damn day.
-
It seems to be that you have not actually closed the security hole of the unacceptable form of identification, and just cause more headaches to people trying to get these documents replaced.
See Shoes, removal of at airport.
-
I think mine was in my wallet when it got stolen in Amsterdam in 1999. I have never had a use for it since.
Or was it when you replaced your vinyl copy of Rastaman Vibration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastaman_Vibration#Trivia) with a CD?
-
I think mine was in my wallet when it got stolen in Amsterdam in 1999. I have never had a use for it since.
Stolen? Or left behind at Club Vandersexxx?
-
This one's for you, prav. We're doomed.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/0910shenkman_edit.html
-
You have to know where to go to get genuinely unbiased news (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/obama_suddenly_panicked?utm_source=onion_rss_daily)
-
I haven't seen my Social Security card in years, I think it was in my wallet next to O.J.'s autograph. I never saw a need to have it replaced. More recently I lost my driver's license and had to use my passport to get it replaced. Does one really need a Social Security card? The number is permanently engraved in my mind.
I probably have to show mine 6 times a year to get access to different plants. Rumor has it they're not supposed to use it as a form of ID, but damn near everybody does.
-
This one's for you, prav. We're doomed.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/0910shenkman_edit.html
Friend of mine teaches government at a local college. In his experience, young people, people who have the option to vote, are idiots. He finds that most of his students have no idea about even the rudiments of representative democracy. People who didnt get past civics in high school are beyond the pale, no matter if you'd trust them to babysit. For proof you can reference the genii cavorting on the Galveston sea wall, most of whom have the right to cast a ballot. God. Help. Us.
-
Friend of mine teaches government at a local college. In his experience, young people, people who have the option to vote, are idiots. He finds that most of his students have no idea about even the rudiments of representative democracy. People who didnt get past civics in high school are beyond the pale, no matter if you'd trust them to babysit. For proof you can reference the genii cavorting on the Galveston sea wall, most of whom have the right to cast a ballot. God. Help. Us.
You know that three geniuses decided to spend the night on the 91st Street pier, yeah? Surprisingly the pier didn't hold up too well and these idiots had to be helicoptered off of the remaining stumps this morning. I certainly hope fuckwits like that are billed and forced to pay for the cost of the rescue.
I feel pretty secure in the thought that these three would be unable to locate their local polling station.
-
You know that three geniuses decided to spend the night on the 91st Street pier, yeah? Surprisingly the pier didn't hold up too well and these idiots had to be helicoptered off of the remaining stumps this morning. I certainly hope fuckwits like that are billed and forced to pay for the cost of the rescue.
I feel pretty secure in the thought that these three would be unable to locate their local polling station.
Nothing like having to use resources to pluck these guys out of the water when there are lots of other people who acted responsibly and are in need.
-
Nothing like having to use resources to pluck these guys out of the water when there are lots of other people who acted responsibly and are in need.
So ... you're talking about the banking system bailout, right?
-
So ... you're talking about the banking system bailout, right?
I'm conflicted about the restrictions on short-selling. I can see the need to ease the pressure for a while to let everybody catch their breath, but on the other hand, the shorters were the canaries in the coal mine telling anybody who would listen (which was nobody else, apparently) that these companies were way over-leveraged.
-
I'm curious to see if during W's address earlier if anyone else harkened back ever so slightly to Nixon's wage and price control decisions of the early 70's. It seems a modest parallel here, though in each cases the government is trying to combat a different situational crisis: inflation 37 years ago and further financial market deterioration today.
It seems that trying to protect the market value of something risks a more serious market response later. Is this move buying time or is it a more permanent intrusion?
-
I'm curious to see if during W's address earlier if anyone else harkened back ever so slightly to Nixon's wage and price control decisions of the early 70's. It seems a modest parallel here, though in each cases the government is trying to combat a different situational crisis: inflation 37 years ago and further financial market deterioration today.
It seems that trying to protect the market value of something risks a more serious market response later. Is this move buying time or is it a more permanent intrusion?
And that worked *so* *well* in the 70's, too.
Who is it that has the tag line "This isn't Russia, is it?" ... Whoever you are, you might want to consider changing that.
-
That was my underlying point, if it wasn't obvious. I'm not necessarily certain that my stated parallel is accurate or not; it's just that the rationale offered today sounded somewhat similar.
-
What does it take to kill this thread? It has survived topic changes, political discussion wasn't hostile enough for Spack to spleen it, a significant hurricane that knocked out power all over SE Texas was enough for it to go stale, and even the board being down for a few days.
Oh, well might as well try to get it back on topic: Palin Baby Name Generator (http://politsk.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah_13.html)
Inserted my full name and got: if you were born to Sarah Palin, your name would be:
Mustache Warthog Palin
Inserted my screen name and got: Duman, if you were born to Sarah Palin, your name would be:
Buster Taint Palin
I kind of like Mustache Warthog
-
Inserted my screen name and got: Duman, if you were born to Sarah Palin, your name would be:
Buster Taint Palin
mihoba = Skunk Grunt Palin
-
mihoba = Skunk Grunt Palin
Jacksonian = Moose Roadster Palin
-
My Real Name= Bang Walmart Palin. No freakin' kidding.
-
What does it take to kill this thread? It has survived topic changes, political discussion wasn't hostile enough for Spack to spleen it, a significant hurricane that knocked out power all over SE Texas was enough for it to go stale, and even the board being down for a few days.
Oh, well might as well try to get it back on topic: Palin Baby Name Generator (http://politsk.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah_13.html)
That version is blocked here at work. Here's (http://personal-space.com/script/script.php) another link if others are in the same boat as me.
Sincerely, Pistol Tank Palin
-
austro = Shaver Razorback Palin
-
You can now refer to me as Geese Whalebone Palin.
-
You can now refer to me as Geese Whalebone Palin.
EasTexAstro = Sport Grunt Palin...
I think I win...
-
You can now refer to me as Geese Whalebone Palin.
If only that were "Geezer Whalebone"...
-
EasTexAstro = Sport Grunt Palin...
I think I win...
BatGirl = Gravel Blood Palin
RealName = Charcoal Sniper Palin
Daughter'sName = Missle Blunt Palin (my favorite so far)
-
Fog Piles Palin, here. Sorta rolls off the tongue.
-
Muzzle Mammoth Palin.
-
Muzzle Mammoth Palin.
SHOOT IT!
-
Churn Scorpion Palin
-
Taupe Armageddon Palin? Guess the sensor's flux capacitor sensed my infatuation with the movie "Dr. Strangelove." As for the "taupe" inclusion, I suppose it could have been worse; it could have been puce or mauve.
-
Hose Hotrod Palin.
Hosed by a hot rod. Those are the facts.
-
Hose Hotrod
That's a fine porn name.
Regards,
Copper Catfish Palin
-
Why am I just completely unamused by any of this?
-
Why am I just completely unamused by any of this?
Random-anything generators are always amusing. That's why SnS is so popular.
-
Random-anything generators are always amusing. That's why SnS is so popular.
Speaking of which, whatever happened to old Nolan Tiberius Nacho?
-
Why am I just completely unamused by any of this?
Because your heart is black and cold. Go kick some puppies or something.
-
Because your heart is black and cold. Go kick some puppies or something.
chuck is a blood relative to Bob Stoops?
-
BudGirl=Rankle Hiway Palin
-
Speaking of which, whatever happened to old Nolan Tiberius Nacho?
He changed his name to Loin Falcon Palin.
-
Finally had to join in the fun...
Slow Poke Rodriguez => Ripper Shook Palin
actual name => Rust Mustang Palin
-
Why not.
Real name: Commando Coalfire Palin
Ebby Calvin: Charcoal Sniper Palin
-
chuck is a blood relative to Bob Stoops?
Discovery of this would elevate simmering malaise into dangerous self-loathing.
I fucking hate people that wear visors.
-
Why am I just completely unamused by any of this?
"It ain’t deus ex machina
It’s not some soul subpoena
It’s just when things mean nothing it makes you meaner
You got a dark dark dark heart
It’s the heart of darkness"
-
These clips made me think of the title of this thread.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476649n
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461
-
These clips made me think of the title of this thread.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476649n
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461
She's Chancey Gardener, without the accidental intelligence.
-
She's Chancey Gardener, without the accidental intelligence.
Yeah, you'd almost think she was the vice presidential candidate who thought FDR was president during the stock market crash and got on TV to talk about it (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/biden-slips-suggests-fdr-was-president-when-market-crashed/).
-
Yeah, you'd almost think she was the vice presidential candidate who thought FDR was president during the stock market crash and got on TV to talk about it (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/biden-slips-suggests-fdr-was-president-when-market-crashed/).
Classic Republican response to criticism. Instead of addressing it, the 5-year old's response of "oh yeah, well so-in-so did this..."
-
Classic Republican response to criticism. Instead of addressing it, the 5-year old's response of "oh yeah, well so-in-so did this..."
Really, how's that different than comparing a vice-presidential candidate to a more intelligent fictional simpleton? One begets the other. I like Biden and don't like Palin but if either one says something stupid, I don't think it's "Democrat" or "Republican" to respond with saying the other one says stupid things as well.
-
Really, how's that different than comparing a vice-presidential candidate to a more intelligent fictional simpleton? One begets the other. I like Biden and don't like Palin but if either one says something stupid, I don't think it's "Democrat" or "Republican" to respond with saying the other one says stupid things as well.
Republicans cannot abide criticsm, legitimate or not. That's one of the things that makes them Republicans. Their response to criticism is not to try to explain or defend, but to deflect and re-direct. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I heard "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..." as a response to criticism of GWB, as if Clinton was somehow relevant.
-
Republicans cannot abide criticsm, legitimate or not. That's one of the things that makes them Republicans. Their response to criticism is not to try to explain or defend, but to deflect and re-direct. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I heard "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..." as a response to criticism of GWB, as if Clinton was somehow relevant.
I think everyone is guilty of that. What would be the most likely democratic response right now if someone challenged Barack's experience (my guess is that Palin and "one heartbeat away") is the likely answer.
What is amazing about every presidential election cycle is how personally invested otherwise seemingly rational people get in whatever lowest common denominators have bubbled up.
-
Republicans cannot abide criticsm, legitimate or not. That's one of the things that makes them Republicans.
All Asian people are smart, all black people are good dancers and all white men can't jump.
Come on, man. If only things were that simple. Hell, maybe they are and I'm the one who is idealistic and not so cynical after all.
-
All Asian people are smart, all black people are good dancers and all white men can't jump.
I think the NBA attests to the fact that the last one is actually true.
-
Republicans cannot abide criticsm, legitimate or not. That's one of the things that makes them Republicans. Their response to criticism is not to try to explain or defend, but to deflect and re-direct. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I heard "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..." as a response to criticism of GWB, as if Clinton was somehow relevant.
Isn't that what you are doing with this very legitimate criticsm of Biden? Deflect and Re-direct? Or does accusing "republicans" (I assume this applies to anyone who does not share your "democrat" views) of being unable to abide criticism not qualify as a 5 yr old response?
-
All Asian people are smart, all black people are good dancers and all white men can't jump.
The difference, of course, being that people cannot choose to be Asian, black, or white. So your analogy isn't in the ballpark.
-
Isn't that what you are doing with this very legitimate criticsm of Biden?
When did I ever respond either way to criticism of Biden?
-
The difference, of course, being that people cannot choose to be Asian, black, or white. So your analogy isn't in the ballpark.
It wasn't a serious anology. And I wasn't clear. The point wasn't about being able to choose one's culture, the point was, each individual of a large political grouping does not behave the exact same as every other individual of that political grouping.
-
This is a really long thread.
-
It wasn't a serious anology. And I wasn't clear. The point wasn't about being able to choose one's culture, the point was, each individual of a large political grouping does not behave the exact same as every other individual of that political grouping.
Black, white, and Asian aren't political groupings, they're racial/geographical. I'm not sure of the point you're attempting to make, other than you're saying I used too wide of a brush.
-
I'm not sure of the point you're attempting to make, other than you're saying I used too wide of a brush.
That's it. Specifically, when you said, "Republicans cannot abide criticsm, legitimate or not. That's one of the things that makes them Republicans."
-
Republicans cannot abide criticsm, legitimate or not. That's one of the things that makes them Republicans. Their response to criticism is not to try to explain or defend, but to deflect and re-direct. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I heard "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..." as a response to criticism of GWB, as if Clinton was somehow relevant.
On the other hand, I can't count the number of times a Democrat has tried to argue that a certain Republican idea is bad because the president can't pronounce 'nuclear' or he looks like a chimpanzee. Though this seems to have stopped happening to me so much since I left academia . . .
-
Yeah, you'd almost think she was the vice presidential candidate who thought FDR was president during the stock market crash and got on TV to talk about it (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/biden-slips-suggests-fdr-was-president-when-market-crashed/).
Thanks for the link to the article that's got the phrase "Biden slips" in its URL. If such a slip is to come anywhere near some of the nonsense that McPalin is saying, this has to be repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseam, despite constantly having it debunked.
BTW, I might not be participating in the site as much as I have in the past. You see, I can see Reliant Stadium from my office window, so I fully expect Bob McNair to install me as the Texans' offensive coordinator any day now.
-
Thanks for the link to the article that's got the phrase "Biden slips" in its URL. If such a slip is to come anywhere near some of the nonsense that McPalin is saying, this has to be repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseam, despite constantly having it debunked.
BTW, I might not be participating in the site as much as I have in the past. You see, I can see Reliant Stadium from my office window, so I fully expect Bob McNair to install me as the Texans' offensive coordinator any day now.
Do you know anything about Defense?
-
Do you know anything about Defense?
As I said, I can see Reliant Stadium from my office window.
-
As I said, I can see Reliant Stadium from my office window.
Well then, you are as qualified as Richard Smith.
-
I think everyone is guilty of that. What would be the most likely democratic response right now if someone challenged Barack's experience (my guess is that Palin and "one heartbeat away") is the likely answer.
What is amazing about every presidential election cycle is how personally invested otherwise seemingly rational people get in whatever lowest common denominators have bubbled up.
Yeah! Teach the debate!
-
Do you know anything about Defense?
Of course. He's British, not French.
-
Of course. He's British, not French.
The French know plenty about defense! Running away is a form of defense, right?
-
The French know plenty about defense! Running away is a form of defense, right?
The French don't run. They surrender.
-
On the other hand, I can't count the number of times a Democrat has tried to argue that a certain Republican idea is bad because the president can't pronounce 'nuclear' or he looks like a chimpanzee. Though this seems to have stopped happening to me so much since I left academia . . .
Hmmmm...that's curious, as he's still not learned to pronounce "nuclear" and he still looks like a chimpanzee.
-
Classic Republican response to criticism. Instead of addressing it, the 5-year old's response of "oh yeah, well so-in-so did this..."
Nope. I addressed the criticism that she's stupid by noting that her opponent sometimes sounds like an idiot when he speaks as well. I can't change or defend what she said, but there's nothing childish about pointing out that both candidates have weaknesses in this regard.
-
Republicans cannot abide criticsm, legitimate or not. That's one of the things that makes them Republicans. Their response to criticism is not to try to explain or defend, but to deflect and re-direct. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I heard "oh yeah, well Bill Clinton..." as a response to criticism of GWB, as if Clinton was somehow relevant.
Nope again. I can't speak for others, but I've got plenty of criticism for Republicans. McCain's populist pose regarding the financial crisis sounds ridiculous. I'm not sure he grasps the issues much better than his opponent does.
Bush has a long list of screw-ups: allowing the dollar to plummet in value, failing to vigorously defend his decision to go to war, punting on Iran and North Korea, misjudging Putin and Russia, abandoning his principles on campaign-finance reform, nominating Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, encouraging and signing into law the open-ended prescription drug benefit, abandoning school choice in the education bill, rolling over for big steel on trade and big agriculture on subsidies, refusing to rein in the career staffers at the State Department, the CIA and the EPA.
There are people of all political stripes who can't abide criticism, and you might better make reference to the thin-skinned Obama campaign, or even the Clinton administration, on this count. It tends to make Obama very irritable, and it tended to make the Clinton administration very defensive. It reduced the Bush administration to a bunker mentality, which undermined his presidency and left him in the predicament he and his party are in now.
-
As I said, I can see Reliant Stadium from my office window.
Six months ago, Obama was arguing in the Democratic primaries that he has foreign policy experience because he had made speeches about the subject. Then he went to Europe and made more speeches.
So, you see, you need not even have a view of Reliant Stadium. If you were merely talking about defense to a group of coworkers around the water cooler, you would be qualified based on the Obama standard. If you did this on foreign soil, so much the better.
It's ironic that virtually every criticism you've trotted out in this epic thread about Palin is so strongly represented by the two candidates on the opposing ticket. It's even more ironic that you can't grasp the hypocrisy in this.
-
Thanks for the link to the article that's got the phrase "Biden slips" in its URL. If such a slip is to come anywhere near some of the nonsense that McPalin is saying, this has to be repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseam, despite constantly having it debunked.
BTW, I might not be participating in the site as much as I have in the past. You see, I can see Reliant Stadium from my office window, so I fully expect Bob McNair to install me as the Texans' offensive coordinator any day now.
He slipped? He was peddling a line of nonsense. And it's not a rare thing for him, either.
-
Six months ago, Obama was arguing in the Democratic primaries that he has foreign policy experience because he had made speeches about the subject. Then he went to Europe and made more speeches.
Yes. He just spoke, in public, about the subject. Presumably you think he was just winging it, having never bothered to research the topic of the speech before giving it.
It's ironic that virtually every criticism you've trotted out in this epic thread about Palin is so strongly represented by the two candidates on the opposing ticket. It's even more ironic that you can't grasp the hypocrisy in this.
You make the mistake of assuming that the flaws of one candidate automatically equal the flaws of another. Which is just silly. Biden hasn't been getting as much criticism as Palin in this thread, not because of hypocrisy, but because, despite the occasional misstep, he's demonstrated time and time again that he has a grip on the subject. You are trying to argue that the Rockies are the same as the Texas Hill Country, because both involve elevation changes.
BTW, did you see the SNL skit about Palin? Large tranches of that "parody" were simply lifted verbatim from the Couric interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26949597#26949597).
-
He slipped? He was peddling a line of nonsense. And it's not a rare thing for him, either.
He's a politician.
-
this is not, not funny:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/
-
He's a politician.
Riiiiggghhhtttt.
I expect politicians to lie to me about raising my taxes, flip-flopping on their past positions, etc.
But characterizing an idiotic statement by a man whose career has been a serial case of foot-in-mouth disease as merely being a case of a politician being a politician is ludicrous.
-
Riiiiggghhhtttt.
I expect politicians to lie to me about raising my taxes, flip-flopping on their past positions, etc.
But characterizing an idiotic statement by a man whose career has been a serial case of foot-in-mouth disease as merely being a case of a politician being a politician is ludicrous.
are you talking about Bush or Biden?
-
Yes. He just spoke, in public, about the subject. Presumably you think he was just winging it, having never bothered to research the topic of the speech before giving it.
Oh, so now he's researched foreign policy as well as given speeches about it? Well, that makes it all different. Let's put him in charge immediately!
You make the mistake of assuming that the flaws of one candidate automatically equal the flaws of another. Which is just silly. Biden hasn't been getting as much criticism as Palin in this thread, not because of hypocrisy, but because, despite the occasional misstep, he's demonstrated time and time again that he has a grip on the subject. You are trying to argue that the Rockies are the same as the Texas Hill Country, because both involve elevation changes.
BTW, did you see the SNL skit about Palin? Large tranches of that "parody" were simply lifted verbatim from the Couric interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26949597#26949597).
This would be a nifty argument except that the candidates in question on the Democratic ticket represent the zenith of their respective weaknesses.
Joe Biden is notorious for being one of the biggest gaffe-makers in the Senate. That may be one reason that he's been in Congress since the Nixon administration and has been running for president since the Reagan administration but has never been in the leadership, much less garnered any support for his campaigns for the White House. And Obama is without parallel for inexperience in a presidential candidate in modern times. As far as thinness of resume and track record, he is Mount Everest next to any other nominee by either major party.
-
Riiiiggghhhtttt.
I expect politicians to lie to me about raising my taxes, flip-flopping on their past positions, etc.
But characterizing an idiotic statement by a man whose career has been a serial case of foot-in-mouth disease as merely being a case of a politician being a politician is ludicrous.
Rockies - Hill Country.
-
are you talking about Bush or Biden?
I don't think many people, even among Bush's supporters, have tried to defend him against the charge of being a tongue-tied mangler of sentences. Pretending that Biden's gaffes are par-for-the-course among politicians is really, really rich.
-
Rockies - Hill Country.
Read the response above. Your argument is as full of it as anything ever posted on this site, and that's saying something. Minimizing Biden's serial gaffe-making and Obama's unprecedented lack of experience for the Oval Office is the political equivalent of Bagwell to third. How somebody who can't even vote can get so invested to the point of blindness is stunning.
-
This would be a nifty argument except that the candidates in question on the Democratic ticket represent the zenith of their respective weaknesses.
While Sarah Palin is merely a State Governor. Eh? Oh.
-
Read the response above. Your argument is as full of it as anything ever posted on this site, and that's saying something. How somebody who can't even vote can get so invested to the point of blindness is stunning.
WFW
-
While Sarah Palin is merely a State Governor. Eh? Oh.
Obama is the least experienced major-party candidate in modern history. Trying to ignore that while castigating the junior member of the other ticket is a sad joke.
-
WFW
You're desperate now, aren't you?
-
Obama is the least experienced major-party candidate in modern history. Trying to ignore that while castigating the junior member of the other ticket is a sad joke.
I have never tried to ignore Obama's relative inexperience as the candidate at the top of the ticket. You brought it up in defense of Palin's inexperience and obvious ignorance regarding national and international affairs. You argued that the two things are the same. They are not.
Then you decided that my opinion is irrelevant as I am not (yet) eligible to vote. And I'm desperate?
-
Obama is the least experienced major-party candidate in modern history. Trying to ignore that while castigating the junior member of the other ticket is a sad joke.
Just wondering, how much experience do you think someone needs, whether Republican or Democrat?
Bush was Governor for only 5 years, was that enough?
-
Just wondering, how much experience do you think someone needs, whether Republican or Democrat?
Bush was Governor for only 5 years, was that enough?
In hindsight, probably not.
What concerns me most about both are the choices they've made about the people they surround themselves with.
-
Oh, so now he's researched foreign policy as well as given speeches about it? Well, that makes it all different. Let's put him in charge immediately!
Let me preface this by saying that I think Reagan is easily a top-10 president. But his foreign policy credentials were equivalent to Obama's when he took office, and he was dealing with issues that were, frankly, rather equivalent to what we see today.
-
Let me preface this by saying that I think Reagan is easily a top-10 president. But his foreign policy credentials were equivalent to Obama's when he took office, and he was dealing with issues that were, frankly, rather equivalent to what we see today.
Reagan's track record on precisely what he thought and what he intended to do in terms of domestic and foreign policy was far, far more established than virtually any position Obama has taken. Reagan had been making his views abundantly clear on all the issues of the day for about two decades. When people elected Reagan, they knew exactly what they were getting, for better or worse.
The questions about Obama are not just about his lack of hard experience, they are also about him being a cypher in so many ways. I readily admit that Palin is even more a cypher, which is why the McCain campaign conceded the experience issue and should have stopped talking about it when they selected Palin. But if Obama supporters are going to raise that issue with Palin, then they deserve to be reminded about how green their own presidential candidate is.
-
Reagan's track record on precisely what he thought and what he intended to do in terms of domestic and foreign policy was far, far more established than virtually any position Obama has taken. Reagan had been making his views abundantly clear on all the issues of the day for about two decades. When people elected Reagan, they knew exactly what they were getting, for better or worse.
How did he let people know what he thought and what he intended to do in terms of domestic and foreign policy?
-
Just wondering, how much experience do you think someone needs, whether Republican or Democrat?
Bush was Governor for only 5 years, was that enough?
I don't think there's a strict measure, but voters knew more about Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter when they elected them, and they knew more about George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan as well.
The most "qualified" person, in terms of government service, policy-making and offices held, elected president in the past few elections was George H. W. Bush. While his foreign policy skills were fairly on display, his domestic policy was a muddle, and he was turned out of office accordingly.
As an aside, one reason running for president out of the Senate is difficult and historically not successful is that the Senate is compromise-driven, whereas a president needs to be above all decisive even if compromise is sometimes required. Both McCain and Obama have reflected this in their reactions to various issues that have arisen during the campaign. John Kerry was plagued by a similar malady in 2004.
-
I don't think there's a strict measure, but voters knew more about Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter when they elected them, and they knew more about George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan as well.
Correction: Voters *thought* they knew more about George W. Bush - unfortunately, everything he campaigned on turned out to be a lie. And I'm one of those that fell for it.
But I think you are severely underestimating the degree to which Obama has put forth his positions.
-
Correction: Voters *thought* they knew more about George W. Bush - unfortunately, everything he campaigned on turned out to be a lie. And I'm one of those that fell for it.
But I think you are severely underestimating the degree to which Obama has put forth his positions.
Arky believes that only Republicans are allowed to establish their bona fides by giving speeches. When Democrats do it, they are fodder for ridicule.
-
I have never tried to ignore Obama's relative inexperience as the candidate at the top of the ticket. You brought it up in defense of Palin's inexperience and obvious ignorance regarding national and international affairs. You argued that the two things are the same. They are not.
Then you decided that my opinion is irrelevant as I am not (yet) eligible to vote. And I'm desperate?
I don't think there's a sound defense for Palin's inexperience on international affairs, because it's not an area where she has experience, expertise or a public record. The McCain campaign conceded this issue when it selected her, and it needs to move on rather than using silly examples to pretend she does have deep experience.
That being said, for supporters of Obama and his thin foreign policy resume to assail Palin on this count is hypocritical. Obama is smarter and has talked about it for longer, since he's been running for president virtually since his election to the Senate, but he has no significant record in the Senate on these issues, especially compared to Joe Biden or John McCain. That's precisely why he picked Biden.
So granted there is a degree of difference between Palin and Obama on foreign policy experience, but there are several degrees of difference on this topic between Obama and McCain. So however you slice it, it's a piss-poor argument to point to Palin's lack of foreign policy experience while simultaneously supporting Obama.
-
Arky believes that only Republicans are allowed to establish their bona fides by giving speeches. When Democrats do it, they are fodder for ridicule.
B.S. Reagan had been active in politics for 20 years, serving as governor of California, working in campaigns, challenging and coming close to beating Ford for the nomination in 1976. He had been speaking, writing and commentating professionally on these issues for even longer. Derided though his acting career may have been, his experience with labor issues in the unions shaped his understanding. Like him or not, he had made his views abundantly clear for a long time. If you think what Obama has done is equivalent to that, then you've got no clue what you're talking about.
-
Correction: Voters *thought* they knew more about George W. Bush - unfortunately, everything he campaigned on turned out to be a lie. And I'm one of those that fell for it.
But I think you are severely underestimating the degree to which Obama has put forth his positions.
What's he going to do about Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Russia?
-
I'm not looking at Palin's inexperience on the subject. I'm looking at her inability to put together a coherent thought on the subject.
And according to several sources, it's not just foreign policy; it an as-yet unaired portion of the Couric interview, Palin is unable to name a single significant Supreme Court case since Roe. No uncomfortable stammering, this time - just silence.
-
I don't think there's a sound defense for Palin's inexperience on international affairs, because it's not an area where she has experience, expertise or a public record. The McCain campaign conceded this issue when it selected her, and it needs to move on rather than using silly examples to pretend she does have deep experience.
That being said, for supporters of Obama and his thin foreign policy resume to assail Palin on this count is hypocritical. Obama is smarter and has talked about it for longer, since he's been running for president virtually since his election to the Senate, but he has no significant record in the Senate on these issues, especially compared to Joe Biden or John McCain. That's precisely why he picked Biden.
So granted there is a degree of difference between Palin and Obama on foreign policy experience, but there are several degrees of difference on this topic between Obama and McCain. So however you slice it, it's a piss-poor argument to point to Palin's lack of foreign policy experience while simultaneously supporting Obama.
The big difference, for me, is that Obama's weakness, whether perceived or real, is foreign policy, so he picked the most experienced Democrat in that field as his running mate. McCain is strong on foreign affairs but has a weakness, whether perceived or real, on economics, so he picks...Sarah Palin?
-
The big difference, for me, is that Obama's weakness, whether perceived or real, is foreign policy, so he picked the most experienced Democrat in that field as his running mate. McCain is strong on foreign affairs but has a weakness, whether perceived or real, on economics, so he picks...Sarah Palin?
Why isn't the economy a weakness for Obama?
-
What's he going to do about Iran? North Korea?
Offer incentives like WTO members ship, economic investment, and normalized diplomatic relations in exhange for abandonment of their nuclear programs. Providing economic incentives, especially to North Korea, makes a whole lot of sense when you realize that regime collapse in N. Korea would likely bring down S. Korea as well.
Pakistan? Russia?
Given that your candidate has been mocking Obama's responses on these issues, I would think you'd be more familiar with them. To sum, he favors direct action on targets in Pakistan when they are unwilling/able to take such action, and tying our military aid to their efforts agains Al Qaeda/Taliban.
I was not happy with his wishy-washy response on Russia, so you've got that one.
-
Why isn't the economy a weakness for Obama?
When people like Warren Buffet say he's a better hoice to fix the economy, I listen.
-
B.S. Reagan had been active in politics for 20 years, serving as governor of California, working in campaigns, challenging and coming close to beating Ford for the nomination in 1976. He had been speaking, writing and commentating professionally on these issues for even longer. Derided though his acting career may have been, his experience with labor issues in the unions shaped his understanding. Like him or not, he had made his views abundantly clear for a long time. If you think what Obama has done is equivalent to that, then you've got no clue what you're talking about.
And for his entire life, prior to entering the 2008 Presidential race, Barack Obama has been cleaning toilets?
-
When people like Warren Buffet say he's a better hoice to fix the economy, I listen.
Just meant that there is nothing in the resume or history of either candidate that gives me any confidence that they know anything about the economy. Their individual plans could be better or worse (doubtful they either of them came up with them on their own).
-
Why isn't the economy a weakness for Obama?
If you think Obama is weak on the economy, then that's your prerogative. Obama has never said that he believes he is weak on economics. McCain has. More than once.
-
McCain is strong on foreign affairs but has a weakness, whether perceived or real, on economics, so he picks...Sarah Palin?
I think McCain is terrible on foreign affairs. He never met a war he didn't like and he quick-tempered about America's honor which is the last thing we need now. I'd rather take Obama who has a much more cautious disposition about all things. Muddy is good, clarity is bad in this area.
-
Just meant that there is nothing in the resume or history of either candidate that gives me any confidence that they know anything about the economy. Their individual plans could be better or worse (doubtful they either of them came up with them on their own).
Bush has an MBA, and look where that got us. McCain fully admits (or at least used to) that the economy is not his strong suit, but his economic advisers are headed by Phil Gramm, the deregulation champion of all time.
-
Just meant that there is nothing in the resume or history of either candidate that gives me any confidence that they know anything about the economy. Their individual plans could be better or worse (doubtful they either of them came up with them on their own).
McCain's economic plan was written by Sen. Phil Gramm.
-
Bush has an MBA, and look where that got us. McCain fully admits (or at least used to) that the economy is not his strong suit, but his economic advisers are headed by Phil Gramm, the deregulation champion of all time.
A President McCain is widely expected to make Gramm his Treasury Secretary.
-
When people like Warren Buffet say he's a better hoice to fix the economy, I listen.
Buffet is a dyed in the wool leftist democrat. Of course he's for Obama.
-
And for his entire life, prior to entering the 2008 Presidential race, Barack Obama has been cleaning toilets?
Metaphorically you've hit on the kind of work that goes on in the back rooms of Chicago politics.
-
When people like Warren Buffet say he's a better hoice to fix the economy, I listen.
And you believe Warren Buffet has your best interest (mine), anybody's but his own?) at heart?
-
Buffet is a dyed in the wool leftist democrat. Of course he's for Obama.
Is that why he was one of Schwarzenegger's advisors?
-
And you believe Warren Buffet has your best interest (mine), anybody's but his own?) at heart?
I don't think having an eonomy in the toilet is in his best interests, or mine. Are we seriously at the point where we're going to debate whether Warren Buffet is qualified to opine on economic issues?
-
Is that why he was one of Schwarzenegger's advisors?
Arnold is about as left as a registered Republican gets.
Buffet supports the candidates he likes best and thinks will be most effective. By and large those have been on the left.
-
So he's "dyed in the wool leftist Democrat", except for when he isn't.
-
So he's "dyed in the wool leftist Democrat", except for when he isn't.
Like Ahnuld.
-
So he's "dyed in the wool leftist Democrat", except for when he isn't.
No. But he isn't stupid. He's not going to support a left candidate that he thinks can't get the job done.
-
I don't think having an eonomy in the toilet is in his best interests, or mine. Are we seriously at the point where we're going to debate whether Warren Buffet is qualified to opine on economic issues?
Not at all. I recognize his brilliance. But I also suspect he sees opportunity while others are panicking. That's my opinion at least.
Has he ever stated, in exact terms, why he thinks Obama would be better for the economy?
-
I don't think having an eonomy in the toilet is in his best interests, or mine. Are we seriously at the point where we're going to debate whether Warren Buffet is qualified to opine on economic issues?
It's not about knowledge; it's about philosophy. If it were just about knowledge then Gramm's support for McCain should be just as positive to you as Buffet's is for Obama.
-
It's not about knowledge; it's about philosophy. If it were just about knowledge then Gramm's support for McCain should be just as positive to you as Buffet's is for Obama.
Fair enough. The idea of "Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm" terrifies me even beyond "Attorney General John Ashcroft".
-
Fair enough. The idea of "Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm" terrifies me even beyond "Attorney General John Ashcroft".
I'm not an expert specifically on Phil Gramm, but power market deregulation was the best thing to come out of Enron. A shame that all the other nonsense put the process back.
-
B.S. Reagan had been active in politics for 20 years, serving as governor of California, working in campaigns, challenging and coming close to beating Ford for the nomination in 1976. He had been speaking, writing and commentating professionally on these issues for even longer. Derided though his acting career may have been, his experience with labor issues in the unions shaped his understanding. Like him or not, he had made his views abundantly clear for a long time. If you think what Obama has done is equivalent to that, then you've got no clue what you're talking about.
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
-
Getting back on the original topic, I think we can all agree that this portrait of Sarah Palin (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/chi-talk-naked-sarahsep30,0,2236635.story) is pretty sick. Just what the heck is going on in the North Side of Chicago?
-
Getting back on the original topic, I think we can all agree that this portrait of Sarah Palin (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/chi-talk-naked-sarahsep30,0,2236635.story) is pretty sick. Just what the heck is going on in the North Side of Chicago?
Dunno, is it weird to paint a nude portrait of someone else with your daughter as the model?
-
Dunno, is it weird to paint a nude portrait of someone else with your daughter as the model?
There is no circumstance in which it is not weird to paint a nude portrait of your daughter.
-
Must See TV Thursdays is back!!!
And I do look forward to Thursday night and debating Sen. Joe Biden. We’re gonna talk about those new ideas, new energy for America. I’m looking forward to meeting him too. I’ve never met him before, but I’ve been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in like second grade.
-
Must See TV Thursdays is back!!!
I won't be watching. I don't believe either brings much if anything to their respective tickets.
-
I won't be watching. I don't believe either brings much if anything to their respective tickets.
But both have the ability to lop the legs off their respective running mates at the knees.
-
But both have the ability to lop the legs off their respective running mates at the knees.
Possibly. I think though at this point Palin no longer helps McCain and is starting to hurt him on her own without the debate. To now, no one has paid attention to Biden. He is a trainwreck waiting to happen. If he's on the mic long enough he could actually hurt Obama.
-
Must See TV Thursdays is back!!!
And I do look forward to Thursday night and debating Sen. Joe Biden. We’re gonna talk about those new ideas, new energy for America. I’m looking forward to meeting him too. I’ve never met him before, but I’ve been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in like second grade.
Really?
-
Really?
Yep. Ridiculing her opponent for being old. This after she proferred on Monday the same tactic (strategy, whatever) for dealing with Pakistan as was proferred by Obama, and ridiculed by McCain, on Friday.
Agent Palin.
-
Possibly. I think though at this point Palin no longer helps McCain and is starting to hurt him on her own without the debate. To now, no one has paid attention to Biden. He is a trainwreck waiting to happen. If he's on the mic long enough he could actually hurt Obama.
Pulling the original question back into play. If the game was to pull in the far right, it was at least a short term success and possibly is not impacted by her poor showings. I would venture many of those would not ever sway to the Dems, and are unlikely to not vote (as was the original concern) now, especially as they see the attacks on tv as an attack on them. Any in the middle that she pulled in, though, are going to be hard to keep at this pace. I've personally seen one intelligent/invested voter jump ship already, that I previously thought was a lock for McCain. Republican strategy now may have to be to go deep into the conservative base with an all out "outrage at the liberal left" campaign with the hope that you can pull more out there than you will lose in the center. Desperate times...
-
Back to original topic:
You really can't make this stuff up. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/couric-asks-palin-how-she_n_130642.html)
-
Back to original topic:
You really can't make this stuff up. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/couric-asks-palin-how-she_n_130642.html)
Gov. Palin: Oh no, it's nothing negative at all. He's got a lot of experience and just stating the fact there, that we've been hearing his speeches for all these years. So he's got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I'm the new energy, the new face, the new ideas and he's got the experience based on many many years in the Senate and voters are gonna have a choice there of what it is that they want in these next four years.
Mrs. Palin, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
-
Back to original topic:
You really can't make this stuff up. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/couric-asks-palin-how-she_n_130642.html)
Holy shit, I was embarrassed watching that.
-
It's getting to the point where I can't even laugh any more. You can say what you will about Hillary - and believe me, I've said a lot - but her "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" was spot on, and Palin is now attempting to patch every damn one of them.
-
Both sides are playing the same dumb game.
You want Experience? We've got it in McCain! And that Obama guy is just a rookie! You want new, young insight to break through old Washington politics? We've got in Palin! And Biden sure is old!
You want new, young insight to break through old Washington politics? We've got it in Obama! And McCain sure is old! You want Experience? We've got it in Biden! And that Palin chick is just a rookie!
-
There are people of all political stripes who can't abide criticism, and you might better make reference to the thin-skinned Obama campaign, or even the Clinton administration, on this count. It tends to make Obama very irritable, and it tended to make the Clinton administration very defensive. It reduced the Bush administration to a bunker mentality, which undermined his presidency and left him in the predicament he and his party are in now.
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
-
Miss Teen South Carolina could have answered that better.
-
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
A statement that specifically criticizes the Bush administration is proof that Republican's can't abide criticism?
Reductio ad absurdum.
-
Another day, more gibberish (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/palin-a-journalism-major_n_130707.html).
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
COURIC: Like what ones specifically?
PALIN: Umm… all of them. Any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news… Alaska isn’t a foreign country where it’s kind of suggested it seems like, wow how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing, when you live up there in Alaska. Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
So that would be "No, I can't name one. Not a one. Nada. Nyet."
This, from someone with a degree in journalism.
-
Another day, more gibberish (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/palin-a-journalism-major_n_130707.html).
So that would be "No, I can't name one. Not a one. Nada. Nyet."
This, from someone with a degree in journalism.
The thing is that 90% naw 99.9% of Americans can't either, so they think big deal.
Sorry my bad, thought this was about supreme court cases.
-
Anyone who graduated from college could name 5 Court cases without breaking a sweat.
-
Anyone who graduated from college could name 5 Court cases without breaking a sweat.
Well, there's the Disciplinary Council of the Faber IFC versus Delta Tau Chi...
-
Expectations are now so low for the beauty queen that pretty much all she has to do is stand there and smile and she'll be declared the winner by the fair and ballanced channel.
-
Anyone who graduated from college could name 5 Court cases without breaking a sweat.
If you're in politics, Bush v. Gore shouldn't be too hard to remember.
-
If you're in politics, Bush v. Gore shouldn't be too hard to remember.
Or if you're from Alaska, maybe even the governor, then I would think the Exxon Valdez settlement case might ring a bell. After all, the Supreme Court just ruled on it four months ago.
-
And now for something completely different: McCain wants the treasury department to go ahead with bailout without congressional approval.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/30/%E2%80%9Ci%E2%80%99m-not-going-to-parse-every-answer%E2%80%9D/
-
And now for something completely different: McCain wants the treasury department to go ahead with bailout without congressional approval.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/30/%E2%80%9Ci%E2%80%99m-not-going-to-parse-every-answer%E2%80%9D/
So...because he and Bush can't even get their own party to vote for the bailout package Bush himself drew up, he wants to control the treasury by fiat? Mr. McCain might want to brush up on a little document called the Magna Carta.
-
Anyone who graduated from college could name 5 Court cases without breaking a sweat.
Really. Don't think I could. I might have been able to at one time, but the drugs and alcohol and all.
-
So...because he and Bush can't even get their own party to vote for the bailout package Bush himself drew up, he wants to control the treasury by fiat? Mr. McCain might want to brush up on a little document called the Magna Carta.
It's appalling. There's no way to sugar coat it.
-
Mr. McCain might want to brush up on a little document called the Magna Carta.
Chef: Haven't you ever heard of the Emacipation Proclamation?
General: I don't listen to hip-hop
-
Really. Don't think I could. I might have been able to at one time, but the drugs and alcohol and all.
That is surprising to me.
-
That is surprising to me.
Why? I am not a lawyer, I am a database analyst. It has been a long time since I studied business law or POLY SCI or anything other than SQL, SSRS, SSIS, VB, etc.
-
That is surprising to me.
Ill take it one farther. I bet most people can't name 4 of the 9 justices.
-
That is surprising to me.
If someone stuck a camera in my face and asked I could get off "Brown v. Board of Education" and "Plessy v. Ferguson" and then I would start sweating. There are cases I have vague recollections of (Miranda? Heller? Dred Scott?), but I'm not sure that counts. On the other hand I'm not a lawyer or running for office.
-
On the other hand I'm not a lawyer or running for office.
There's the problem. She is, and she's been put in a position to fail.
-
There's the problem. She is, and she's been put in a position to fail.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
EXXON SHIPPING CO. et al. v. BAKER et al.
Decided June 25, 2008
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-219.ZS.html
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday slashing the damages Exxon Mobil (XOM) must pay as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill could have unexpectedly wide-ranging consequences. An award to Alaskan fishermen and other residents was reduced from $2.5 billion to about $500 million.
http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/06/25/supreme-court-slashes-25b-exxon-valdez-award/
-
That is surprising to me.
not to me.
the only court cases i even try to remember are ones i work with.
-
i remembered some from a constitutional history class i had taken. but i think i only remembered plessey, dred and brown because i rearranged the bookcase they were on a couple of weeks ago.
-
Ill take it one farther. I bet most people can't name 4 of the 9 justices.
just for those that can not name them.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
-
So...because he and Bush can't even get their own party to vote for the bailout package Bush himself drew up, he wants to control the treasury by fiat? Mr. McCain might want to brush up on a little document called the Magna Carta.
They already eliminated Habeas Corpus with the Military Commissions Act. Why stop there?
-
There's the problem. She is, and she's been put in a position to fail.
She should have said something about Brown and Exxon..After that I am not sure it is a pre-requisite for a politician to know Supreme Court decisions. For Gods sakes she is/was a hockey mom, whatever the hell that means. She is a pretty face put there to entice the common guys/Hillary girls to vote for McCain. Let’s see if the strategy works.
Bush is not a very good a public speaking genius and he got elected (allegedly) twice. Do you think he could name 5 cases?
-
She should have said something about Brown and Exxon..After that I am not sure it is a pre-requisite for a politician to know Supreme Court decisions. For Gods sakes she is/was a hockey mom, whatever the hell that means. She is a pretty face put there to entice the common guys/Hillary girls to vote for McCain. Let’s see if the strategy works.
Bush is not a very good a public speaking genius and he got elected (allegedly) twice. Do you think he could name 5 cases?
I bet he can name five regarding church and state.
-
not to me.
the only court cases i even try to remember are ones i work with.
So Plessy is the first to come to mind for you?
-
They already eliminated Habeas Corpus with the Military Commissions Act. Why stop there?
This Bush guy is kinda okay.
Best regards,
Abraham Lincoln
Upstairs
-
This Bush guy is kinda okay.
Best regards,
Abraham Lincoln
Upstairs
Some say Lincoln is gay. He's not fit for office.
Best regards,
Great-granddaddy O'Reilly
Location unknown
-
This Bush guy is kinda okay.
Best regards,
Abraham Lincoln
Upstairs
He suspended it, was told he wasn't allowed to, unsuspended it and had Congress resuspended it.
The MCA eliminates it for non-citizens. Gone. No lawyers, no courts, no appeals, no phone call, no nothing. Now, say you're a citizen and get picked up by mistake, and they say you're not a citizen because they think you're someone else who isn't, how do you prove them wrong?
-
Why? I am not a lawyer, I am a database analyst. It has been a long time since I studied business law or POLY SCI or anything other than SQL, SSRS, SSIS, VB, etc.
It's an important part of our government. Would most people not be able to name The New Deal, or the Monroe Doctrine, or other equivalent executive/legislative initiatives?
-
The inside scoop and mock-debate footage from Biden's debate preparation (http://www.236.com/news/2008/10/01/debate_training_biden_learns_w_1_9211.php).
-
"You look like a jack-o-lantern taking a difficult crap."
-
It's an important part of our government. Would most people not be able to name The New Deal, or the Monroe Doctrine, or other equivalent executive/legislative initiatives?
No, most people would not.
-
"You look like a jack-o-lantern taking a difficult crap."
I enjoyed that one too.
-
He suspended it, was told he wasn't allowed to, unsuspended it and had Congress resuspended it.
The MCA eliminates it for non-citizens. Gone. No lawyers, no courts, no appeals, no phone call, no nothing. Now, say you're a citizen and get picked up by mistake, and they say you're not a citizen because they think you're someone else who isn't, how do you prove them wrong?
Really? You think they ignore ID verification? Law enforcement in this country 99 times out of 100 can prove you're a citizen or not very quickly.
-
Really? You think they ignore ID verification? Law enforcement in this country 99 times out of 100 can prove you're a citizen or not very quickly.
What if you're the 1 in 100? Or 1 in 1,000? Or 1 in 10,000? How many citizens need to get erroneously locked up without any process for it to be a problem? Of course, numbers will be hard to come by, because we'll never know.
Oh, and let's not lose sight of the fact that there is no question that a non-citizen can get locked up, and the key thrown away. Habeas Corpus is a right of freedom that pre-dates the United States by about 500 years, but is something that apparently is not workable in Bush's America.
-
What if you're the 1 in 100? Or 1 in 1,000? Or 1 in 10,000? How many citizens need to get erroneously locked up without any process for it to be a problem? Of course, numbers will be hard to come by, because we'll never know.
Oh, and let's not lose sight of the fact that there is no question that a non-citizen can get locked up, and the key thrown away. Habeas Corpus is a right of freedom that pre-dates the United States by about 500 years, but is something that apparently is not workable in Bush's America.
2 different issues. Law enforcement will prove you are a citizen. The 1 in 100 might have some quirk in their background that makes proof more difficult. But they will prove it. Law enforcement will prove non-citizens in this country legally are who they say they are in almost every circumstance. Sometimes it takes longer when they are from 3rd world countries but they will put forth an honest effort. Of course all that presumes integrity of the law enforcement personnel in charge.
In any event I don't agree with waiving certain rights, especially human rights, for the sake of national security or anything else.
-
2 different issues. Law enforcement will prove you are a citizen. The 1 in 100 might have some quirk in their background that makes proof more difficult. But they will prove it. Law enforcement will prove non-citizens in this country legally are who they say they are in almost every circumstance. Sometimes it takes longer when they are from 3rd world countries but they will put forth an honest effort. Of course all that presumes integrity of the law enforcement personnel in charge.
In any event I don't agree with waiving certain rights, especially human rights, for the sake of national security or anything else.
Olbermann explains the MCA (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/15214437#15214437).
-
They already eliminated Habeas Corpus with the Military Commissions Act. Why stop there?
At the time the Military Commissions Act was passed and signed into law, nobody had ever heard of habeas corpus applying to enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields being held on foreign soil. This concept was absent from Magna Carta and the Constitution when they were signed and was invented out of whole cloth by a Supreme Court majority earlier this year.
-
Olbermann explains the MCA (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/15214437#15214437).
I now feel dumber for having watched that.
I try very hard to ignore Olberman, the O'Reilly of MSNBC, as much as I do O'Reilly. I failed today and am ashamed.
-
In any event I don't agree with waiving certain rights, especially human rights, for the sake of national security or anything else.
How about inventing new rights that never before existed?
If a Supreme Court majority wouldn't let German prisonsers captured in China and held in the U.S. occupation zone in Germany after World War II seek habeas, how do they now let Islamist prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan held at a U.S. military base in Cuba do so other than through inventing a right that did not previously exist?
-
How about inventing new rights that never before existed?
If a Supreme Court majority wouldn't let German prisonsers captured in China and held in the U.S. occupation zone in Germany after World War II seek habeas, how do they now let Islamist prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan held at a U.S. military base in Cuba do so other than through inventing a right that did not previously exist?
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are perfect wells from which to draw out rights that have never previously existed, although I doubt that's what the founders intended. Anyway, I prefer that they invent rights rather than take them away.
-
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are perfect wells from which to draw out rights that have never previously existed, although I doubt that's what the founders intended.
The whole point of the Tenth Amendment is just that.
-
How about inventing new rights that never before existed?
If a Supreme Court majority wouldn't let German prisonsers captured in China and held in the U.S. occupation zone in Germany after World War II seek habeas, how do they now let Islamist prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan held at a U.S. military base in Cuba do so other than through inventing a right that did not previously exist?
So, are they POWs or not?
-
At the time the Military Commissions Act was passed and signed into law, nobody had ever heard of habeas corpus applying to enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields being held on foreign soil. This concept was absent from Magna Carta and the Constitution when they were signed and was invented out of whole cloth by a Supreme Court majority earlier this year.
"Enemy Combatants" was invented from whole cloth by the Bush Administration so that it could keep a straight face when asked about the Geneva Conventions. The MCA was written and forced through because the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the Bush Administrations's attempts to skirt the Constitution when it comes to certain persons in U.S. custody.
Of course, the first person tried under the rules established in the MCA was Osama bin Laden's driver. He was convicted of providing support to a terrorist organisation, i.e. driving bin Laden around, acquitted of all more serious charges and sentenced to little more than time served. So that worked well.
-
I now feel dumber for having watched that.
I try very hard to ignore Olberman, the O'Reilly of MSNBC, as much as I do O'Reilly. I failed today and am ashamed.
I did put his name in the link on purpose, to warn those who cannot bear to look as his melonious head.
-
How about inventing new rights that never before existed?
If a Supreme Court majority wouldn't let German prisonsers captured in China and held in the U.S. occupation zone in Germany after World War II seek habeas, how do they now let Islamist prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan held at a U.S. military base in Cuba do so other than through inventing a right that did not previously exist?
The Geneva Conventions apply to enemy soldiers. The U.S. Constitution applies to all other persons in the custody of the United States. The Bush Administration wanted to avoid both, so invented the term "enemy combatant". So far, the Supreme Court has knocked back the administration every time this has been challenged, which prompted the MCA as it's a law that takes the Supreme Court out of the legal process.
-
Of course, the first person tried under the rules established in the MCA was Osama bin Laden's driver. He was convicted of providing support to a terrorist organisation, i.e. driving bin Laden around, acquitted of all more serious charges and sentenced to little more than time served. So that worked well.
Here's the details:
Salim Ahmed Hamdan (born c. 1970) is a Yemeni, captured during the invasion of Afghanistan, and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. He admits to being Osama bin Laden's personal driver and bodyguard, claiming he needed the $200 monthly salary that came with the job.
He was charged with "conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism" but a judge declared the judicial system in place at the time unconstitutional and those charges were dropped on June 5, 2007. He was then held, without being charged, as an enemy combatant. He was brought up on new charges on July 21, 2008, and found guilty of "providing material support" to al Qaeda, but was cleared of terrorism conspiracy charges. He was sentenced to five-and-a-half years of imprisonment by a military jury, being counted as having already served five years of the sentence at the time. A Pentagon spokesman noted that Hamdan may still be considered an "enemy combatant" upon completing his sentence and detained indefinitely.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Hamdan)
-
The Geneva Conventions apply to enemy soldiers. The U.S. Constitution applies to all other persons in the custody of the United States. The Bush Administration wanted to avoid both, so invented the term "enemy combatant". So far, the Supreme Court has knocked back the administration every time this has been challenged, which prompted the MCA as it's a law that takes the Supreme Court out of the legal process.
We'll see about that.
-
So, are they POWs or not?
Nope. Read the definition from the Geneva Convention:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
-
You tell me based on the definition from the Geneva Convention:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
So are b, c, and d why they're called terrorists and not subject to the conventions.
-
So are b, c, and d why they're called terrorists and not subject to the conventions.
Are we talking about the Germans in China?
-
Are we talking about the Germans in China?
Cubs fans.
-
Cubs fans.
In that case, throw away the goddam key.
-
"Enemy Combatants" was invented from whole cloth by the Bush Administration so that it could keep a straight face when asked about the Geneva Conventions.
Lie #1.
First, the Geneva Convention does not come into play because the detainees do not meet the Geneva Convention definition of prisoners of war. Read the definition in Article 4 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm).
Second, the Bush administration did not invent the term "enemy combatant." See, for example, the 1942 Supreme Court case Ex parte Quirin, which refers to "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
The MCA was written and forced through because the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the Bush Administrations's attempts to skirt the Constitution when it comes to certain persons in U.S. custody.
Lie #2.
The MCA was passed and signed into law in direct response to Justice Breyer's invitation in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld stating, "The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check.' Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."
Far from being an end-run around the Constitution, the MCA addressed the Supreme Court's contention that the creation of military commissions required congressional approval, which the president sought and obtained. Then the Supreme Court changed its mind and turned a bait-and-switch.
-
So are b, c, and d why they're called terrorists and not subject to the conventions.
They're subject to military tribunals.
-
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are perfect wells from which to draw out rights that have never previously existed, although I doubt that's what the founders intended. Anyway, I prefer that they invent rights rather than take them away.
You want the courts to make up rights? That's a dictatorship.
-
The U.S. Constitution applies to all other persons in the custody of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution's habeas corpus rights were held by the Supreme Court not to apply to German detainees in the custody of U.S. forces captured in China and held in the U.S. occupation zone in Germany. So where do you get this?
-
which prompted the MCA as it's a law that takes the Supreme Court out of the legal process.
You have a very poor understanding of the purpose of the Supreme Court then.
-
The U.S. Constitution's habeas corpus rights were held by the Supreme Court not to apply to German detainees in the custody of U.S. forces captured in China and held in the U.S. occupation zone in Germany. So where do you get this?
What case is this?
-
What case is this?
What? It's not one of the five cases you could name off the top of your head? You're fired.
-
What case is this?
Eisentrager.
-
You want the courts to make up rights? That's a dictatorship.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It is impossible for the courts to create rights, as the contitution specifies that these rights exist naturally.
-
Lie #1.
First, the Geneva Convention does not come into play because the detainees do not meet the Geneva Convention definition of prisoners of war. Read the definition in Article 4 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm).
Second, the Bush administration did not invent the term "enemy combatant." See, for example, the 1942 Supreme Court case Ex parte Quirin, which refers to "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Lie #2.
The MCA was passed and signed into law in direct response to Justice Breyer's invitation in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld stating, "The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check.' Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."
Far from being an end-run around the Constitution, the MCA addressed the Supreme Court's contention that the creation of military commissions required congressional approval, which the president sought and obtained. Then the Supreme Court changed its mind and turned a bait-and-switch.
Yep. I'm a liar, the Supreme Court Justices (7 of 9 of whom were Republican nominees) are activist judges and George W. Bush is the only voice with any validity in this debate. I think Nurse Ratched is calling your name because it's medication time.
-
They're subject to military tribunals.
Only because of the MCA. Prior to that act, they were subject to due process under the Constitution of the United States.
-
The U.S. Constitution's habeas corpus rights were held by the Supreme Court not to apply to German detainees in the custody of U.S. forces captured in China and held in the U.S. occupation zone in Germany. So where do you get this?
I wasn't taking about POWs as understood by international law.
-
You have a very poor understanding of the purpose of the Supreme Court then.
Kool aid's at the back, big boy.
-
Kool aid's at the back, big boy.
Seriously what the fuck are you talking about? There is no law passable by Congress, that can be signed by the President that "takes the Supreme Court out of the legal process" of anything.
Judicial Review. Look it up.
-
Seriously what the fuck are you talking about? There is no law passable by Congress, that can be signed by the President that "takes the Supreme Court out of the legal process" of anything.
Judicial Review. Look it up.
The MCA denies the right to legal process to those detained under it. The only way a judicial review occurs is if someone with standing, i.e. someone detained under the MCA, challenges it in court. But as they have no right to legal process, no one detained under the MCA is even allowed to see a lawyer, let alone take a case to court. Thus, the Supreme Court never gets to do its judicial review. Thus they are taken out of the loop and you can take your attitude and stick it up your arse.
-
A statement that specifically criticizes the Bush administration is proof that Republican's can't abide criticism?
No, a statement that references Bill Clinton in response to criticism of Sarah Palin demonstrates my point that reference to Bill Clinton is a common diversionary tactic in response to criticism of a Republican.
-
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It is impossible for the courts to create rights, as the contitution specifies that these rights exist naturally.
Exaclty. Rights are not created..they exist naturally in humanity. The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them. The rights exist whether they are specifically outlined in the Constitution or not.
-
It's an important part of our government. Would most people not be able to name The New Deal, or the Monroe Doctrine, or other equivalent executive/legislative initiatives?
not everyone is as smart as you. the stairs down from that high horse are to your left.
-
(7 of 9 of whom were Republican nominees)
That worked out well.
-
I have no idea what this thread is about (other than it is the leader by far in the history of thread length for the OWA/SnS... who said size matters?), but it needs a thread killer badly.
I'm here, so who wants to talk wiener dogs?
-
I have no idea what this thread is about (other than it is the leader by far in the history of thread length for the OWA/SnS... who said size matters?), but it needs a thread killer badly.
I'm here, so who wants to talk wiener dogs?
Nope, that won't work as a thread killer. Dachshunds are supporting Obama. (http://www.zazzle.com/dachshund_4_obama_button-145601413874981175)
-
you really think weiner dog discussions are going to work on the day of the VP debates???
-
you really think weiner dog discussions are going to work on the day of the VP debates???
Maybe Palin and Biden can debate the relative merits of wiener dogs.
-
"I'm a weiner dog owner. I grew up with weiner dogs. My weiner dog is a good friend of mine. And you, Governor, are no weiner dog."
-
No, a statement that references Bill Clinton in response to criticism of Sarah Palin demonstrates my point that reference to Bill Clinton is a common diversionary tactic in response to criticism of a Republican.
Even when it contains criticism of a Republican? How clever you are at demonstrating that Republicans can't abide criticism!
-
Wieners? Sexists.
-
Wieners? Sexists.
If you can find a Vagina Dog, I'll talk about that.
-
If you can find a Vagina Dog, I'll talk about that.
nope, there are only pussy-cats.
-
The MCA denies the right to legal process to those detained under it. The only way a judicial review occurs is if someone with standing, i.e. someone detained under the MCA, challenges it in court. But as they have no right to legal process, no one detained under the MCA is even allowed to see a lawyer, let alone take a case to court. Thus, the Supreme Court never gets to do its judicial review. Thus they are taken out of the loop and you can take your attitude and stick it up your arse.
Except for the fact that they did in fact hear the case. Disagreed with the claims of jurisdiction, and struck down the law?
You mean like that taking the Supreme Court out of the "legal process"?
ETA Links:
wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act#Court_challenge)
Full text of Majority Opinion (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html)
-
If you can find a Vagina Dog, I'll talk about that.
Michael Barrett has a dog?
-
so who wants to talk wiener dogs?
a more worthy topic by far
-
Even when it contains criticism of a Republican?
Yes. Criticizing a Republican does not absolve you of your diversionary tactics.
-
Yep. I'm a liar, the Supreme Court Justices (7 of 9 of whom were Republican nominees) are activist judges and George W. Bush is the only voice with any validity in this debate. I think Nurse Ratched is calling your name because it's medication time.
Read the Geneva Convention Article 4 definition of "prisoners of war" and explain how that covers the detainees.
Read the Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Ex parte Quirin referring to "enemy combatants" and explain how the Bush administration invented that term out of whole cloth.
Read the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Hamdan inviting Congress to pass the MCA and explain how it was forced through by the Bush administration.
If you want to agree disagree on matters of opinion, that's one thing, but instead accusing other people of needing medication or drinking the Kool-Aid, you should stop spreading lies around as facts.
-
Yes. Criticizing a Republican does not absolve you of your diversionary tactics.
I see. In that case, having been caught with my pants down, I concede that she's obviously an idiot. Am I now cleared of using diversionary tactics?
-
I see. In that case, having been caught with my pants down, I concede that she's obviously an idiot. Am I now cleared of using diversionary tactics?
And it only took 78 pages to get here!
-
And it only took 78 pages to get here!
Yes, I'm slow.
-
Come on, guys. Who would you rather look at for the next 4 years: Palin or Biden? It is as simple as that.
-
Come on, guys. Who would you rather look at for the next 4 years: Palin or Biden? It is as simple as that.
Ausmus, but that isn't one of my choices. Plus, I don't really give a crap what my VP looks like.
-
Ausmus, but that isn't one of my choices. Plus, I don't really give a crap what my VP looks like.
I said guys...
(I might vote for Ausmus, too, given the other choices....except he doesn't read well from cue cards...;)
(yes...I used a smiley....deal with it...)
-
A sneak peak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he984QPaEeo) at tonight's VP debate?
-
A sneak peak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he984QPaEeo) at tonight's VP debate?
Youtube blocked. Something like this (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/11/16-22/train_wreck-782867.jpg)?
-
Politics and Religion bring out the LOUD NOIZEZ!?! Makes for an interesting 79+ page thread.
McCain has already pulled out of Michigan, basically conceding it to Obama and most swing states are trending pretty heavy towards Barack. There's no way that Palin can be as bad as she was in those interviews, that's borderline impossible. As I heard a talking head say, all Biden has to do is show up and be boring for 90 minutes, and the trendline should remain similiar to what it is before the debate. Even if he's at his worst, Palin would have to be completely different to start to change people's concerns about her. Just my two cent thoughts.
-
Politics and Religion bring out the LOUD NOIZEZ!?! Makes for an interesting 79+ page thread.
McCain has already pulled out of Michigan, basically conceding it to Obama and most swing states are trending pretty heavy towards Barack. There's no way that Palin can be as bad as she was in those interviews, that's borderline impossible. As I heard a talking head say, all Biden has to do is show up and be boring for 90 minutes, and the trendline should remain similiar to what it is before the debate. Even if he's at his worst, Palin would have to be completely different to start to change people's concerns about her. Just my two cent thoughts.
Oh, I think it's safe to say that the economy is taking center stage. As far as that's concerned, Republicans are evil (pronounced EEEEEEEEviiillllllllllll), while Dems "feel our burden".
I truly loathe election cycles. It beats not having elections and I will vote. But, does anyone believe politicians in general, let alone when they are on the campaign trail?
-
Oh, I think it's safe to say that the economy is taking center stage. As far as that's concerned, Republicans are evil (pronounced EEEEEEEEviiillllllllllll), while Dems "feel our burden".
I truly loathe election cycles. It beats not having elections and I will vote. But, does anyone believe politicians in general, let alone when they are on the campaign trail?
I look at both parties with cynicsm, sorta like two mafia gangs, red and blue.
-
Politics and Religion bring out the LOUD NOIZEZ!?! Makes for an interesting 79+ page thread.
McCain has already pulled out of Michigan, basically conceding it to Obama and most swing states are trending pretty heavy towards Barack. There's no way that Palin can be as bad as she was in those interviews, that's borderline impossible. As I heard a talking head say, all Biden has to do is show up and be boring for 90 minutes, and the trendline should remain similiar to what it is before the debate. Even if he's at his worst, Palin would have to be completely different to start to change people's concerns about her. Just my two cent thoughts.
New strategy, Palin is going to go on the offensive, throw Biden's quotes, about Obama, the war, etc. back at him. She is very good at this kind of thing. About 20 minutes in Biden's going to raise up and go what the fuck?! It's going to be just like watching cars going round the track, waiting for the fiery collision.
-
Politics and Religion bring out the LOUD NOIZEZ!?! Makes for an interesting 79+ page thread.
McCain has already pulled out of Michigan, basically conceding it to Obama and most swing states are trending pretty heavy towards Barack. There's no way that Palin can be as bad as she was in those interviews, that's borderline impossible. As I heard a talking head say, all Biden has to do is show up and be boring for 90 minutes, and the trendline should remain similiar to what it is before the debate. Even if he's at his worst, Palin would have to be completely different to start to change people's concerns about her. Just my two cent thoughts.
If there's a Race for the Lid 2008 Election Edition, I take Obama/Biden 53%-47%, 311-227.
-
Agree or disagree with him, Biden has a lot of smarts and has been involved in pretty much every issue, domestic and foreign, impacting the U.S. He's prone to gaffs but is generally quite eloquent. If he relies on his experience and avoids coming off as a preening ass, he'll do real well. IMHO.
-
New strategy, Palin is going to go on the offensive, throw Biden's quotes, about Obama, the war, etc. back at him. She is very good at this kind of thing. About 20 minutes in Biden's going to raise up and go what the fuck?! It's going to be just like watching cars going round the track, waiting for the fiery collision.
I expect her, at least once, to go after the moderator (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/gwen.ifill/index.html). She'll be looking for any hint of pro-Obama/anti-McCain verbal and non-verbal communication.
-
Yeah, I think that is a tiny conflict of interest there. And it reinforces the whole "liberal media" crap. Why can't they pick someone else?
-
If there's a Race for the Lid 2008 Election Edition, I take Obama/Biden 53%-47%, 311-227.
Excellent! Do the math here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/)
Obama 300-238
-
Yeah, I think that is a tiny conflict of interest there. And it reinforces the whole "liberal media" crap. Why can't they pick someone else?
That's a red herring. All you have to do is a simple google to find all of these articles, check the dates,
http://blackpoliticsontheweb.com/2008/07/21/talk-show-host-tavis-smiley-tackles-obama-and-race/
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1834321,00.html
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2008/aug/11/inquisitor-smiley-says-blogger-blasts-wont-turn-hi/entertainment/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303319.html
This all of a sudden wide eyed surprise is a sign either of incompetence or nefarious machinations.
-
I expect her, at least once, to go after the moderator (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/gwen.ifill/index.html). She'll be looking for any hint of pro-Obama/anti-McCain verbal and non-verbal communication.
As the Spleen once said "Bigk MISHTAKE!"
-
As the Spleen once said "Bigk MISHTAKE!"
Probably. Ifill is also, probably, too experienced to let it happen anyway. But, though I'm not going to search for it, Palin did go after a mod in a gov debate in Alaska.
-
Yeah, I think that is a tiny conflict of interest there. And it reinforces the whole "liberal media" crap. Why can't they pick someone else?
Obama could have scored easy points with one statement:
"We have every confidence that Gwen Ifill would be an outstanding moderator, but we do not want to place her in any unomfortable position. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are welcome to choose the moderator for Thursday's debate."
-
Obama could have scored easy points with one statement:
"We have every confidence that Gwen Ifill would be an outstanding moderator, but we do not want to place her in any unomfortable position. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are welcome to choose the moderator for Thursday's debate."
But McCain is already on record as being ok with Ifill. Not surprisingly his statement came out very shortly after the Ifill "outing" the other day.
-
McCain's just fine with it because it gives his supporters something to point to, no matter what.
-
The very idea that my wiener dog can vote (or wants to) has me speechless. Now I know for sure that those prone to licking their own posteriors really do vote (and should not)!
-
The very idea that my wiener dog can vote (or wants to) has me speechless. Now I know for sure that those prone to licking their own posteriors really do vote (and should not)!
Don't knock it until you've tried it. The voting part, I mean.
-
I see. In that case, having been caught with my pants down, I concede that she's obviously an idiot. Am I now cleared of using diversionary tactics?
Hardly. Sarcasm is next on my list.
-
Hardly. Sarcasm is next on my list.
I would note that I'm hardly the only person here being sarcastic, but then I would be charged with evasiveness again.
-
Biden looks stunned by Palin's performance.
-
The debate is underwhelming. Biden is demonstrating experience, knowledge and coolness. Palin is clearly nervous, has not made any major mistakes but is not wowing anyone. The discussions about greed and corruption on Wall Street and oil company profits and tax breaks were a competition to see who could express more populist outrage. This hardly favors the Republicans who, when they try to out-Democrat the Democrats, will inevitably lose. McCain and Palin look done for, and I suspect it is now just a matter of seeing whether it will be a slightly comfortable victory for Obama and Biden or a landslide.
-
Include me in that group. Whoever prepared her did a damn good job. That said, Biden is on top of his game. I dont think there's going to be much of a swing one way or the other as a result of this debate.
For the record, I haven't heard a single new thing from either of them.
-
Include me in that group. Whoever prepared her did a damn good job. That said, Biden is on top of his game. I dont think there's going to be much of a swinig one way or the other as a result of this debate.
For the record, I haven't heard a single new thing from either of them.
The trouble for McCain and Palin is that Biden just needs to go out and give his team six solid innings of decent ball, while Palin needs to pitch a complete-game shutout.
For some reason, I found the Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry and Cheney/Edwards debates more interesting than these, which are like watching paint dry.
-
Biden looks stunned by Palin's performance.
Stunned that she stammered and hemmed and hawed without answering the questions? He shouldn't be. She threw out the right buzzwords at the right time, winked at the horny middle aged men in the crowd, and didn't start sobbing. She did what was asked of her. She did no harm. She didn't help though.
-
She's Yosemite Sam with dimples.
-
Stunned that she stammered and hemmed and hawed without answering the questions? He shouldn't be. She threw out the right buzzwords at the right time, winked at the horny middle aged men in the crowd, and didn't start sobbing. She did what was asked of her. She did no harm. She didn't help though.
That's not stunned, that's What the FUCK is this? He recovered though. But, the moment that will stick will be after the debate, Gov. Palin holding the baby. My personal moment is her retreating to the "First Dude" after getting a private lecture from "Joe".
-
Include me in that group. Whoever prepared her did a damn good job. That said, Biden is on top of his game. I dont think there's going to be much of a swing one way or the other as a result of this debate.
For the record, I haven't heard a single new thing from either of them.
Palin and her handlers learned the painful lesson of the Couric interview: trying to answer the actual question. She simply said what she'd been coached to do, regardless of what question was asked. She was strong in this approach early on, because she was going through her routine for the first time. As the debate went on, and she went back to the same trite phrases for a second or third time, she lost punch.
Biden looked to be stunned (and boring) out of the gate because he was trying to launch his campaign's talking points onto the relevant questions.
-
That's not stunned, that's What the FUCK is this? He recovered though. But, the moment that will stick will be after the debate, Gov. Palin holding the baby. My personal moment is her retreating to the "First Dude" after getting a private lecture from "Joe".
My favourite moment was when she called the Obama-Biden ticket's policy on Iraq, and therefore the 70% of Americans who agree with them about withdrawal, running up the white flag.
Also*, suggesting that the Constitution allows for the role of the Vice President to be expanded, was pretty terrifying. Especially when she was asked (in the Couric interview) what mistakes Cheney has made, and she referenced only his duck (sic.) hunting accident.
* The word "also" has just been put on the endangered words list.
-
Palin and her handlers learned the painful lesson of the Couric interview: trying to answer the actual question. She simply said what she'd been coached to do, regardless of what question was asked. She was strong in this approach early on, because she went through her routine for the first time. As the debate went on, and she went back to the same trite phrases for a second or third time, she lost punch.
Biden looked to be stunned (and boring) out of the gate because he was trying to launch his campaign's talking points onto the relevant questions.
The absolute worst moment was after Palin talked about family, possibly in response to a question about Darfur, I got confused, Biden spoke of his family. He choked up and Palin, responding not 5 seconds later, didn't even pause, responded real chirpy about how mavericky she was. She wasnt listening to anyone.
-
My favourite moment was when she called the Obama-Biden ticket's policy on Iraq, and therefore the 70% of Americans who agree with them about withdrawal, running up the white flag.
Also*, suggesting that the Constitution allows for the role of the Vice President to be expanded, was pretty terrifying. Especially when she was asked what mistakes Cheney has made, and she referenced only his duck (sic.) hunting accident.
* The word "also" has just been put on the endangered words list.
Presides over the Senate? None of those 5 colleges had a government class?
-
The absolute worst moment was after Palin talked about family, possibly in response to a question about Darfur, I got confused, Biden spoke of his family. He choked up and Palin, responding not 5 seconds later, didn't even pause, responded real chirpy about how mavericky she was. She wasnt listening to anyone.
That was the only time I recall when Biden followed Palin down one of her rabbit holes. It was a mistake.
-
That was the only time I recall that Biden followed Palin down one of her rabbit holes. It was a mistake.
He said as much the last time he tried it. He also said he'd never try to do it again.
-
I am impressed with the stamina of those who watched the entirety of the debate. While you guys were watching a chirpy PTA mom desperately try to appeal to the Olive Garden crowd with an odd mixture of populism and jingoism I was watching the Dodgers kick the shit out of the Cubs. Again. Was I having more fun? You betcha!
-
I am impressed with the stamina of those who watched the entirety of the debate. While you guys were watching a chirpy PTA mom desperately try to appeal to the Olive Garden crowd with an odd mixture of populism and jingoism I was watching the Dodgers kick the shit out of the Cubs. Again. Was I having more fun? You betcha!
Fuck PTA moms, Fuck Olive Garden, Fuck Populism, Fuck Jingoism, and Fuck the Cubs
-
She's Yosemite Sam with dimples.
That's gold, Jerry. Gold.
-
I am impressed with the stamina of those who watched the entirety of the debate. While you guys were watching a chirpy PTA mom desperately try to appeal to the Olive Garden crowd with an odd mixture of populism and jingoism I was watching the Dodgers kick the shit out of the Cubs. Again. Was I having more fun? You betcha!
I've been trying to find it, but it's not on ESPN or WGN.
-
I've been trying to find it, but it's not on ESPN or WGN.
TBS
-
TBS
I think Limey is making an ever-so-subtle point. You know, like he always does. Subtle.
-
TBS
Merci boucoup.
-
I think Limey is making an ever-so-subtle point. You know, like he always does. Subtle.
Nope. Just that my dial wasn't going all the way to the top.
-
That was the only time I recall when Biden followed Palin down one of her rabbit holes. It was a mistake.
I disagree. I think he clinched his performance with that. It was genuine, it followed his immediately preceding point about his passion... it will be the most memorable moment of this debate.
-
That's gold, Jerry. Gold.
Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age.
-
My favourite moment was when she called the Obama-Biden ticket's policy on Iraq, and therefore the 70% of Americans who agree with them about withdrawal, running up the white flag.
I would be curious to see this poll. Link?
-
I would be curious to see this poll. Link?
Closest thing I could find is this: (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/15/1199411.aspx)
"A new Washington Post/ABC poll on the issue of Iraq has good news and bad news for both candidates. The poll "finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama's 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain's position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home… On Iraq policy in general, Americans continue to side with Obama and McCain, his Republican rival, in roughly equal numbers, with 47 percent of those polled saying they trust McCain more to handle the war, and 45 percent having more faith in Obama."
-
After not watching the debate and reading the yammering about it in here I am now leaning toward voting either for myself or withholding my vote. McCain is the wrong guy for the job. Obama is the wrong guy for the job. Biden is the wrong guy for the job. Palin is the wrong gal for the job.
-
After not watching the debate and reading the yammering about it in here I am now leaning toward voting either for myself or withholding my vote. McCain is the wrong guy for the job. Obama is the wrong guy for the job. Biden is the wrong guy for the job. Palin is the wrong gal for the job.
I have attained the age of 35 years, am a natural born citizen, and have resided in the United States for 14 years. I'm just saying...
-
I have attained the age of 35 years, am a natural born citizen, and have resided in the United States for 14 years. I'm just saying...
Hudson for VP?
-
I would be curious to see this poll. Link?
Here's a clip from ABC (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/) where they ask Cheney what he thinks about the fact that 2/3rds of the American people think the Iraq war is not worth fighting. I don't think the polls have reversed much since March.
-
Here's a clip from ABC (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/) where they ask Cheney what he thinks about the fact that 2/3rds of the American people think the Iraq war is not worth fighting. I don't think the polls have reversed much since March.
Good for Dick Cheney, but that's not what I asked about. I asked about your contention that 70% of Americans agree with Obama and Biden on withdrawal. Where do you get that from?
-
And, by the way, is it your view that we should run wars according to polls?
-
"If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. -- to plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq but NOT set a timetable or target date when most U.S. troops would be out (or) to plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops with a projected timetable or target date when most U.S. troops would be out?" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx)
2008 Jul 25-27
Plan for withdrawal with no timetable 50%
Plan for withdrawal with timetable 47%
No opinion 3%
-
I disagree. I think he clinched his performance with that. It was genuine, it followed his immediately preceding point about his passion... it will be the most memorable moment of this debate.
It was a unique moment. A second or two later and it's back to Palin's shit-eating grin slash Fargo accent. That shit-eating-fucking-grin of hers, holy shit.
I would've paid to see an un-edited-not-to-be-released-to-the-media-anything-goes-including-maybe-even-a-flash-from-Palin-during-a-dig-politico-cage-match-style-where-they-said whatever-the-hell-they-really-wanted-to...debate.
But, when it's all said and done, and it's at the end of the day...the moral of the story, and what really matters, when you think about it, is that the fucking Cubs lost again, and that's all that really matters in the grand scheme of the universe at this point.
-
And, by the way, is it your view that we should run wars according to polls?
That's no at all anything about what I said. That's what Dick Cheney said in response to a similar point.
-
Good for Dick Cheney, but that's not what I asked about. I asked about your contention that 70% of Americans agree with Obama and Biden on withdrawal. Where do you get that from?
I got the number from my memory, which was informed by polls like this one (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.poll/index.html), that put the public at 57% wanting a timetable. I concede, however, that 57% isn't 70%. If I find one that says 70% "I'll bring it to ya!"
-
I am impressed with the stamina of those who watched the entirety of the debate. While you guys were watching a chirpy PTA mom desperately try to appeal to the Olive Garden crowd with an odd mixture of populism and jingoism I was watching the Dodgers kick the shit out of the Cubs. Again. Was I having more fun? You betcha!
"Olive Garden crowd?" Is that what they call flyover country these days?
-
I got the number from my memory, which was informed by polls like this one (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.poll/index.html), that put the public at 57% wanting a timetable. I concede, however, that 57% isn't 70%. If I find one that says 70% "I'll bring it to ya!"
I think the July Gallup poll I posted, which is split roughly evenly, gets to the difference between setting a timetable or not. It is my understanding that McCain doesn't want a timetable, Obama does. So it's more like 50%-50% than 57% or 70%.
-
That's no at all anything about what I said. That's what Dick Cheney said in response to a similar point.
I was just asking since you posted the Cheney quote what your position was.
-
I think the July Gallup poll I posted, which is split roughly evenly, gets to the difference between setting a timetable or not. It is my understanding that McCain doesn't want a timetable, Obama does. So it's more like 50%-50% than 57% or 70%.
Fine. I'll go with that. So she called only 50% of the country surrender monkeys instead of 70%. If she doesn't get elected at least she'll have a starring role in the sequel to the latest Simon Pegg movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNH68CIcCg).
-
I was just asking since you posted the Cheney quote what your position was.
You don't govern by opinion polls. Neither do you take a squeeker of an election win and call it a "mandate". If a fraction short of 50% of the voters went for the other option, you have to temper your policies to recognise those voters. They are the administration, they are there to run the country in the manner that the people see fit. They are not king for 4 years to do as they will.
-
That was the only time I recall when Biden followed Palin down one of her rabbit holes. It was a mistake.
I totally disagree with you about that. Made him incredibly human. I didn't know that previously.
-
Nope. Just that my dial wasn't going all the way to the top.
Isn't that what your dates usually say.
-
I totally disagree with you about that. Made him incredibly human. I didn't know that previously.
I thought it was a distraction, but I am happy to be wrong.
-
You don't govern by opinion polls. Neither do you take a squeeker of an election win and call it a "mandate".
All Presidents do whether they win by a squeaker, landslide, or even less than 50% of the vote.
-
After not watching the debate and reading the yammering about it in here I am now leaning toward voting either for myself or withholding my vote. McCain is the wrong guy for the job. Obama is the wrong guy for the job. Biden is the wrong guy for the job. Palin is the wrong gal for the job.
Not disagreeing with your conclusion but, for what it's worth, I don't think Palin did poorly at all. Sorry, those of you ripping her are, I think, being a tad bit biased. I understand if you don't like her "folksy" style (I can't say I'm a fan) but she showed a grasp of the topics and held her own. From the criticizing her not directly answering a debate question, you'd think she were the only candidate, VP or otherwise, to pull that tactic.
I'm no fan of Biden, from the years of watching him make the Sunday pundit circuit, but I'd say he did a fair job as well. For me, he avoided touting too much of the "party line" and stuck to the "Obama Agenda", which I think resonates with most people. Too often he played the party attack dog on the Sunday news shows, not to the extent Howard Dean does, and that doesn't sit well with me, personally.
Who ever concluded that at this point, it's safe to say we're looking at an Obama/Biden win, I agree. I don't necessarily support his platform but the majority (well the plurality at least) rules.
-
You don't govern by opinion polls. Neither do you take a squeeker of an election win and call it a "mandate". If a fraction short of 50% of the voters went for the other option, you have to temper your policies to recognise those voters. They are the administration, they are there to run the country in the manner that the people see fit. They are not king for 4 years to do as they will.
Right. Let's see that in action when your guy is in charge.
-
Right. Let's see that in action when your guy is in charge.
What scared me the most last night was the realisation that Palin is the worst parts of Bush and Cheney combined. She has Bush's certainty of ignorance, and she has Cheney's deafness and thirst for power. Obama may or may not govern by concensus (he may have strong supporting majorities in Congress, which typically leads to political largesse) but he's not a hot headed, kneejerk reactionary like McCain.
-
Not disagreeing with your conclusion but, for what it's worth, I don't think Palin did poorly at all. Sorry, those of you ripping her are, I think, being a tad bit biased. I understand if you don't like her "folksy" style (I can't say I'm a fan) but she showed a grasp of the topics and held her own. From the criticizing her not directly answering a debate question, you'd think she were the only candidate, VP or otherwise, to pull that tactic.
I'm no fan of Biden, from the years of watching him make the Sunday pundit circuit, but I'd say he did a fair job as well. For me, he avoided touting too much of the "party line" and stuck to the "Obama Agenda", which I think resonates with most people. Too often he played the party attack dog on the Sunday news shows, not to the extent Howard Dean does, and that doesn't sit well with me, personally.
Who ever concluded that at this point, it's safe to say we're looking at an Obama/Biden win, I agree. I don't necessarily support his platform but the majority (well the plurality at least) rules.
I thought the debate was meaningless and didn't watch. I think she's wrong for the job because she doesn't know enough (yet?) to be VP. Biden's a poor choice because, despite how well he apparently did in the debate, he's got a poor temperment to be in that level position of authority. I hate the idea he is considered the best advisor Obama would have on policy. McCain is bad because among other things his record is about as straight as the vericose veins in my 90 year old grandfather's legs. Obama is bad because among other things he's woefully inexperienced and any product of the Chicago political machine is about as a dirty as a coal miner pulling a double shift. Quite frankly they all freighten me.
-
What scared me the most last night was the realisation that Palin is the worst parts of Bush and Cheney combined. She has Bush's certainty of ignorance, and she has Cheney's deafness and thirst for power. Obama may or may not govern by concensus (he may have strong supporting majorities in Congress, which typically leads to political largesse) but he's not a hot headed, kneejerk reactionary like McCain.
What? The leader of the free world is supposed to actually think about what he's going to do? No way.
-
Obama may or may not govern by concensus (he may have strong supporting majorities in Congress, which typically leads to political largesse)
What I find most amusing about this season is that Congress has gotten a complete pass in spite of having an approval rating worse than Bush's. If Obama is elected and the economy doesn't do a very quick aboutface I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans took back control of both Houses in 2010.
-
What I find most amusing about this season is that Congress has gotten a complete pass in spite of having an approval rating worse than Bush's. If Obama is elected and the economy doesn't do a very quick aboutface I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans took back control of both Houses in 2010.
The be fair to the Dems, they have a majority in the Senate of 1 vote, which is hardly veto-proof and cannot break a filibuster*. It is comprised of 2 independents, one of whom is McCain's preferred running mate Joe Lieberman. Much of what they haven't done is because they cannot push anything through. No excuses for Reid and Pelosi, however, They've been awful.
* The Republican minority in the Senate has filibustered more often than any other minority party in history. These are the same people who bleated about not being allowed "up and down" votes any time the Democrats threatened a filibuster when they were in the minority.
-
"Olive Garden crowd?" Is that what they call flyover country these days?
That's what they call the petite bourgeoisie these days - a class of people that they can feel superior to and look down their noses at. Because after all they are superior, don't you know.
-
The be fair to the Dems, they have a majority in the Senate of 1 vote, which is hardly veto-proof and cannot break a filibuster*. It is comprised of 2 independents, one of whom is McCain's preferred running mate Joe Lieberman. Much of what they haven't done is because they cannot push anything through. No excuses for Reid and Pelosi, however, They've been awful.
* The Republican minority in the Senate has filibustered more often than any other minority party in history. These are the same people who bleated about not being allowed "up and down" votes any time the Democrats threatened a filibuster when they were in the minority.
Especially Pelosi. She's been a disaster of a leader.
-
The be fair to the Dems, they have a majority in the Senate of 1 vote, which is hardly veto-proof and cannot break a filibuster*. It is comprised of 2 independents, one of whom is McCain's preferred running mate Joe Lieberman. Much of what they haven't done is because they cannot push anything through. No excuses for Reid and Pelosi, however, They've been awful.
* The Republican minority in the Senate has filibustered more often than any other minority party in history. These are the same people who bleated about not being allowed "up and down" votes any time the Democrats threatened a filibuster when they were in the minority.
All of which will be irrelevent in 2010 if things don't improve. Voters will see Dem control of Congress and call complaints of the kind you mention as whining.
Of course if things do improve they might get close to 60-40 in the Senate and near 100 more in the House.
What does the 2010 Senate seats up for grabs look like anyway?
-
Especially Pelosi. She's been a disaster of a leader.
She was put there because of her gender not her ability.
I cannot remember the last Speaker who had a firm handle on the job. Tip O'Neal?
-
That's not stunned, that's What the FUCK is this? He recovered though. But, the moment that will stick will be after the debate, Gov. Palin holding the baby. My personal moment is her retreating to the "First Dude" after getting a private lecture from "Joe".
Is that really how you characterized two families on stage after the debate?
So did Biden "retreat" to his wife then as well since his family was also on stage? And what pray tell, exactly was the subject of this "lecture" that she had to go running from?
-
What scared me the most last night was the realisation that Palin is the worst parts of Bush and Cheney combined. She has Bush's certainty of ignorance, and she has Cheney's deafness and thirst for power. Obama may or may not govern by concensus (he may have strong supporting majorities in Congress, which typically leads to political largesse) but he's not a hot headed, kneejerk reactionary like McCain.
Thirst for power? Wow.
-
I thought the debate was meaningless and didn't watch.
It mostly was. Both candidates basically gave the same answer all night long.
Moderator: Question...
Biden: They're George Bush.
Palin: No we're not.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
-
Is that really how you characterized two families on stage after the debate?
So did Biden "retreat" to his wife then as well since his family was also on stage? And what pray tell, exactly was the subject of this "lecture" that she had to go running from?
Nope, and I dont know. I wasnt characterizing the entire scene. But I did watch it. Palin looked very serious and nodded her head several times at what "Joe" was telling her. She didnt say anything. Biden also looked serious. He stopped talking and she scooted right back to Todd Palin's side. Biden was next seen talking to Palin's dad. Cameras on PBS were on them the whole time. Then they got her holding the baby as soon as possible.
-
You don't govern by opinion polls. Neither do you take a squeeker of an election win and call it a "mandate". If a fraction short of 50% of the voters went for the other option, you have to temper your policies to recognise those voters. They are the administration, they are there to run the country in the manner that the people see fit. They are not king for 4 years to do as they will.
The president is elected for four years to execute his powers as he chooses regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. He's the president whether he wins by one vote or 10 million votes. If he overreaches and public opinion turns against him, then he suffers for it at re-election, in off-year elections and in terms of political capital. But there's not some rule that says he's got to do what anyone else says in carrying out his authority.
-
Nope, and I dont know. I wasnt characterizing the entire scene. But I did watch it. Palin looked very serious and nodded her head several times at what "Joe" was telling her. She didnt say anything. Biden also looked serious. He stopped talking and she scooted right back to Todd Palin's side. Biden was next seen talking to Palin's dad. Cameras on PBS were on them the whole time. Then they got her holding the baby as soon as possible.
How long after she took the baby did she get off stage?
-
How long after she took the baby did she get off stage?
It was awhile. They stood up there for about 10 minutes.
-
It was awhile. They stood up there for about 10 minutes.
She gets a free pass on that from me. I can imagine she was anxious to "relieve" herself ASAP.
-
The be fair to the Dems, they have a majority in the Senate of 1 vote, which is hardly veto-proof and cannot break a filibuster*. It is comprised of 2 independents, one of whom is McCain's preferred running mate Joe Lieberman. Much of what they haven't done is because they cannot push anything through. No excuses for Reid and Pelosi, however, They've been awful.
* The Republican minority in the Senate has filibustered more often than any other minority party in history. These are the same people who bleated about not being allowed "up and down" votes any time the Democrats threatened a filibuster when they were in the minority.
Didn't the GOP call for an "up or down" vote chiefly related to judicial nominees and not to legislation generally?
-
Nope, and I dont know. I wasnt characterizing the entire scene. But I did watch it. Palin looked very serious and nodded her head several times at what "Joe" was telling her. She didnt say anything. Biden also looked serious. He stopped talking and she scooted right back to Todd Palin's side. Biden was next seen talking to Palin's dad. Cameras on PBS were on them the whole time. Then they got her holding the baby as soon as possible.
So you have no knowledge as to the nature of the comments, except that Biden looked "serious". And he never looks serious when he's speaking, and that she went and got her bab[y] afterwards.
So obviously, she got "lectured" and was so terrified she had to go cower and use her baby as a human shield. Because she nodded. And not even once, but several times.
-
Palin looked very serious and nodded her head several times at what "Joe" was telling her. She didnt say anything. Biden also looked serious. He stopped talking
I think you're overreaching in calling it a lecture. Until one or the other or both tell what Biden said I can imagine a large range of topics he might have covered that would not be characterized as lectures.
-
Wow, if you use the Google and follow the first link (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000687.htm), which is some left-wing blog eerily similar to Limey's talking points above, you see that the GOP push on an "up or down vote" related specifically to judicial nominees. I can find no track record of widespread GOP complaints about the use of the filibuster by Democrats to stall ordinary legislation and certainly not "any time the Democrats threatened a filibuster when they were in the minority."
-
All of which will be irrelevent in 2010 if things don't improve. Voters will see Dem control of Congress and call complaints of the kind you mention as whining.
Of course if things do improve they might get close to 60-40 in the Senate and near 100 more in the House.
What does the 2010 Senate seats up for grabs look like anyway?
Don't know about that, but I do know that 20+ of the Senate seats up for grabs this time around are Republican. Not sure how many are in danger, but if there is a notable swing to the Democrats, then they can expect to pick up a few, and if it's a lanslide for Obama they could pick up enough to have 60 seats and tell Lieberman to go fuck himself.
Regardless, I think we'll still have Reid and Pelosi "leading" the houses, albeit driven by Obama and Biden instead of following their own rudderless track.
-
Thirst for power? Wow.
She talked about expanding the Consitutional role of the Vice President's office.
-
Don't know about that, but I do know that 20+ of the Senate seats up for grabs this time around are Republican. Not sure how many are in danger, but if there is a notable swing to the Democrats, then they can expect to pick up a few, and if it's a lanslide for Obama they could pick up enough to have 60 seats and tell Lieberman to go fuck himself.
Nice. Lieberman votes with the Democrats so that they can organize as the majority, but he can go fuck himself once they no longer need him, because he's one of the few of them who voted for the war that didn't turn into a big pussy and run away from it when the going got tough.
-
I think you're overreaching in calling it a lecture. Until one or the other or both tell what Biden said I can imagine a large range of topics he might have covered that would not be characterized as lectures.
One person talking for several minutes one person listening and not saying anything, lecture.
-
So you have no knowledge as to the nature of the comments, except that Biden looked "serious". And he never looks serious when he's speaking, and that she went and got her bab[y] afterwards.
So obviously, she got "lectured" and was so terrified she had to go cower and use her baby as a human shield. Because she nodded. And not even once, but several times.
Did I pretend to have any knowledge of what was said? No. Did I say she was terrified? No. Did they get her holding baby as soon as possible. Yes.
-
It mostly was. Both candidates basically gave the same answer all night long.
Moderator: Question...
Biden: They're George Bush.
Palin: No we're not.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I don't agree with that characterization. I think Biden had a lot of substance to what he said. He hammered on details far more often than Palin did. I think she held up well considering her earlier interviews, but she avoided saying anything too specific.
-
I don't agree with that characterization. I think Biden had a lot of substance to what he said. He hammered on details far more often than Palin did. I think she held up well considering her earlier interviews, but she avoided saying anything too specific.
"too"? Her earlier interviews asked for specific examples and had follow up questions. The questioners, at least 2 out of 3, didnt phrase the question in the form of her answer and didnt talk again until she answered the question.
-
She talked about expanding the Consitutional role of the Vice President's office.
If it's a constitutional role, who cares? What specifically do you think represents a thirst for power?
-
Party in Power (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm) recent history
(Just FYI, not in response to anything in particular)
-
If anything, it's Biden's reading of the vice president's constitutional role that's incorrect. Biden said the following:
"The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."
In fact, what Article I says is, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."
So he not only votes in case of a tie, he's the presiding officer of the Senate. Biden may not like this, but that doesn't change the fact that he's dead wrong on the vice president's authority in Congress.
-
Don't know about that, but I do know that 20+ of the Senate seats up for grabs this time around are Republican. Not sure how many are in danger, but if there is a notable swing to the Democrats, then they can expect to pick up a few, and if it's a lanslide for Obama they could pick up enough to have 60 seats and tell Lieberman to go fuck himself.
Regardless, I think we'll still have Reid and Pelosi "leading" the houses, albeit driven by Obama and Biden instead of following their own rudderless track.
According to this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/22/senate.2008/index.html) 2 week old CNN article 3 GOP Senators are retiring and 4 running for reelection are competitive. IIRC though several of those 7 are now tending toward Republican.
-
Did I pretend to have any knowledge of what was said? No. Did I say she was terrified? No. Did they get her holding baby as soon as possible. Yes.
"retreating to the "First Dude" after getting a private lecture from 'Joe'"
So exactly what did you mean by retreating except that she was running from something? As you say, words mean things. And the choice of your words were specific to carry a very specific connotation, about something that you have no real idea as to what happened.
What exactly was "Retreated" and "lecture" supposed to mean except that she was chastised by Biden and then she felt the need to run to protect herself from it? Just because what you say sounds silly when repeated back to you, doesn't mean that you said anything different.
Two people talked, one picked up a baby. From that you saw what you wanted to see and characterized it as thus with no real evidence as to that being the reality of the situation.
-
If anything, it's Biden's reading of the vice president's constitutional role that's incorrect. Biden said the following:
"The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."
In fact, what Article I says is, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."
So he not only votes in case of a tie, he's the presiding officer of the Senate. Biden may not like this, but that doesn't change the fact that he's dead wrong on the vice president's authority in Congress.
Unless you can show that presiding over the Senate carries any tangible authority beyond the tie-breaking scenario Biden referenced, I don't see how Biden's answer was incorrect.
-
Unless you can show that presiding over the Senate carries any tangible authority beyond the tie-breaking scenario Biden referenced, I don't see how Biden's answer was incorrect.
In that sense, what power does "presiding" bring? Are there voting issues the VP can control? I presume that if he's in the chamber he would be the one to recognize, or not, anyone wishing to speak.
-
That's precisely what I'd like to know. I suspect the Vice President has some role in parliamentary procedure, but those duties are usually carried out by the President pro tempore. Clearly the VP's most consequential role in the Senate involves casting that tie-breaking vote. Biden's answer may not have been complete, but it was correct.
-
That's precisely what I'd like to know. I suspect the Vice President has some role in parliamentary procedure, but those duties are usually carried out by the President pro tempore. Clearly the VP's most consequential role in the Senate involves casting that tie-breaking vote. Biden's answer may not have been complete, but it was correct.
No, it wasn't correct. This part if flat-out wrong: "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress."
He also has the authority to preside over the Senate.
-
Which means what?
ETA: He's the President of the Senate, yet he has less power than the Majority and Minority Leaders.
-
Which means what?
ETA: He's the President of the Senate, yet he has less power than the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Which means that Arky is at NitPick 1, which means that you will take years off your life going around and around and around with him.
-
Which means what?
ETA: He's the President of the Senate, yet he has less power than the Majority and Minority Leaders.
He ensures the rules of parliamentary procedure are followed. It's a lame responsibility, which is why the VP rarely does it and instead they let the most junior Senator have "the honor".
-
One person talking for several minutes one person listening and not saying anything, lecture.
Can anyone think of any situation in which Biden has been known to talk, alot, without letting anyone else get in a word? Maybe even talking too much without asking questions?
-
No, it wasn't correct. This part if flat-out wrong: "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress."
He also has the authority to preside over the Senate.
You've got to be kidding.
-
She gets a free pass on that from me. I can imagine she was anxious to "relieve" herself ASAP.
I can't for the life of me come up with a reason that doesn't seem like the kid is a prop. I think that baby should be with a babysitter in his crib.
-
I think I finally placed her voice....
Aunt Fanny from Robots?
-
I can't for the life of me come up with a reason that doesn't seem like the kid is a prop. I think that baby should be with a babysitter in his crib.
She's breastfeeding.
-
I think I finally placed her voice....
Aunt Fanny from Robots?
Ya! (http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes3/fargo166.jpeg)
-
I can't for the life of me come up with a reason that doesn't seem like the kid is a prop. I think that baby should be with a babysitter in his crib.
Oh, please. The baby is no more/less a prop than any other politician's family pulled up on stage after an event.
-
Oh, please. The baby is no more/less a prop than any other politician's family pulled up on stage after an event.
I think the baby doesn't need to be there. I don't care about her other 10 kids. I worry about the baby. I don't care that Biden's family was there. If he had a baby there, I'd be saying the same thing.
-
She's breastfeeding.
breast pump?
-
breast pump?
If she's anything like my wife. Hated it so much for the first one that she refused to use it for the second, even though the convenience is obvious.
-
breast pump?
Why don't you write her and give her some parenting advice?
-
You've got to be kidding.
No, I'm not kidding. Biden was flat-out wrong. But it plays to his base to villify Cheney.
-
Why don't you write her and give her some parenting advice?
That wasn't necessary.
-
Why don't you write her and give her some parenting advice?
what's her address?
-
That wasn't necessary.
Arky doesn't like it when someone disagrees with Palin's actions.
-
Which means that Arky is at NitPick 1, which means that you will take years off your life going around and around and around with him.
Or you can just ignore the facts and keep telling lies.
-
Arky doesn't like it when someone disagrees with Palin's actions.
I just don't think it's a big deal that she brought her baby to the event, and I think she probably knows best how to handle it herself.
-
what's her address?
Governor's Mansion
Juneau, Alaska
U.S.A.
-
I just don't think it's a big deal that she brought her baby to the event, and I think she probably knows best how to handle it herself.
Of course, she does nothing wrong. You've been proving that for pages and pages. And, I will write her just because I live in a free country that allows me to do so.
-
I just don't think it's a big deal that she brought her baby to the event, and I think she probably knows best how to handle it herself.
I think pols, and possibly her, use their kids as props all the time. But I give a free pass to the breastfeeding mom until proven otherwise.
-
Or you can just ignore the facts and keep telling lies.
What in the world are you talking about? What lies?
Do you believe the Vice President is a member of the legislative branch and not the executive? If he's part of the legislative, please state in explicit terms what authority he has over the Senate and how that authority renders Biden's answer incorrect.
And once you've done that, please explain why the Founding Fathers removed the VP's presiding authority over the Senate during trials of impeachment of the President.
-
Of course, she does nothing wrong. You've been proving that for pages and pages. And, I will write her just because I live in a free country that allows me to do so.
I think you've been reading a different thread. The near-consensus here seems to be that she does nothing right. She's an idiot, a liar and if she becomes vice president, she's going to dangerously expand her powers.
I think she's been pretty awful in the interviews. She should at least be able to name the news sources she reads, if any. Her answers about greed on Wall Street were weak in response to questions about the credit crisis. Her enthusiastic support for a windfall profits tax is troubling. The resort to chippy cliches is wearisome. I can't tell whether she's as incurious as Bush is, but she certainly has a lot to learn about a great many things she should know to be vice president. So the assertion that I think she does no wrong is in itself wrong.
But I think bringing her baby to the debate isn't harmful to the baby and isn't anybody else's business but her own. I'd think the same thing if Biden brought one of his grandchildren to the debate. Who cares?
-
I think pols, and possibly her, use their kids as props all the time. But I give a free pass to the breastfeeding mom until proven otherwise.
I kindof agree with both you and BudGirl, but I do wonder if all the hammering she is getting over neglecting her children is weighing into her decision. Had she left the child with a babysitter/Mom and Dad/oldest daughter/nanny, would anyone suggest she is a bad mom for leaving the child?
In the end, I think I do lean towards thinking it is no big deal for the baby to be there. In a completely non-political way, I know many people who wish to have their babies close by in different public settings....graduations, weddings, funerals, etc. I don't always think it is best, but I can't judge for someone else on something like this unless it seems to ba an illegal/immoral type of situation.
I know I draw strength from my whole family, as many of you know. In many cases, I won't do it (whatever it is) if I can't involve my family, unless it is in their best interest to not invlove them but still be a participant. I'd really hate for someone else to be making that judgement call for me. I know others would have different views and I can live with that.
-
But I think bringing her baby to the debate isn't harmful to the baby and isn't anybody else's business but her own. I'd think the same thing if Biden brought one of his grandchildren to the debate. Who cares?
I agree with you on this point.
-
Nope, and I dont know. I wasnt characterizing the entire scene. But I did watch it. Palin looked very serious and nodded her head several times at what "Joe" was telling her. She didnt say anything. Biden also looked serious. He stopped talking and she scooted right back to Todd Palin's side. Biden was next seen talking to Palin's dad. Cameras on PBS were on them the whole time. Then they got her holding the baby as soon as possible.
FWIW, the commentators on NBC pointed out that that was the first real conversation the two ever had. I certainly didn't see it as a lecture.
-
She should at least be able to name the news sources she reads, if any.
I pretty much think you laid out most of her weaknesses, but I think she is avoiding naming news sources on purpose, nt out of ignorance. Saying she reads Time might open her up to questions about how she has been portrayed there vs. the Obama family (in which, I think, the moderator from last night wrote the flattering artical on the Obamas).
If she says The Wall Street Journal, is she asked about a conservative op/ed section?
Any news source she lists could have opened up some sort of trap she was not prepared to answer for in a get-to-know-you interview.
-
FWIW, the commentators on NBC pointed out that that was the first real conversation the two ever had. I certainly didn't see it as a lecture.
I didn't either.
-
I pretty much think you laid out most of her weaknesses, but I think she is avoiding naming news sources on purpose, nt out of ignorance. Saying she reads Time might open her up to questions about how she has been portrayed there vs. the Obama family (in which, I think, the moderator from last night wrote the flattering artical on the Obamas).
If she says The Wall Street Journal, is she asked about a conservative op/ed section?
Any news source she lists could have opened up some sort of trap she was not prepared to answer for in a get-to-know-you interview.
She pretended not to know them so she wouldn't have to answer questions about them? Interesting.
-
No, I'm not kidding. Biden was flat-out wrong. But it plays to his base to villify Cheney.
Cheney villifies himself quite well, thank you.
-
I think she's been pretty awful in the interviews. She should at least be able to name the news sources she reads, if any.
Her interview performance has been jaw-dropping bad, but I am absolutely certain she can name the news sources she's read. She filibustered the question because she didn't know how to give an answer that wouldn't upset the Republican base that clings to the myth of a liberal media bias.
-
What in the world are you talking about? What lies?
I was referring to Limey's complaint about nit-picking. I assume, perhaps erroneously, that he thinks I was nitpicking in a number of posts, including disputing his false contentions that the Bush administration invented the term "enemy combatants" out of whole cloth and that 70% of Americans agree with Obama and Biden on withdrawal from Iraq.
Do you believe the Vice President is a member of the legislative branch and not the executive? If he's part of the legislative, please state in explicit terms what authority he has over the Senate and how that authority renders Biden's answer incorrect.
He is mentioned in the Constitution in relation to both the executive branch and the legislative branch. But in fact, the vice president has no inherent constitutional authority in the executive branch. The president can obviously rely on him as an advisor and delegate tasks to him as the president chooses, but the president need not do so. It is only in the legislative branch that the vice president has inherent constitutional authority, both to cast deciding votes in case of ties and to serve as president of the Senate, which is chiefly a procedural function.
And once you've done that, please explain why the Founding Fathers removed the VP's presiding authority over the Senate during trials of impeachment.
Obviously the vice president would be self-interested in an impeachment trial because if the president were removed, the vice president would then assume the office.
Interestingly, if you read the Federalist Papers, it was suggested during the ratification debates that there need not be a separate vice president elected with the president. Instead, the Senate would simply choose one of its own to preside over the Senate and thus to succeed the president if necessary. Hamilton argued that this was undesirable for two reasons. First, if the president of the Senate only votes in the event of ties, then whichever senator presided over the Senate would lose the vote on matters that did not involve ties. Second, Hamilton maintained that the vice president, since he could become president, should be elected in the same manner as the president.
Hamilton also pointed out that the federal form was already (and still is) familiar in many states, where the lieutenant governor, in addition to succeeding the governor if necessary, presides over the state senate as well. Obviously the federal structure is not set up so that the vice president, as president of the Senate, has the same power as, say, the lieutenant governor of Texas does, but that does not mean that the vice president has no role in the Senate other than to cast a tie vote, which is what Biden expressly asserted. He also presdies over the Senate, which a separate a distinct power. Whatever limitations are placed on the vice president presiding over the Senate are in the nature of the Senate's authority to make its own rules.
-
She pretended not to know them so she wouldn't have to answer questions about them? Interesting.
Possibly, yes. Pure guessing on my part.
-
What in the world are you talking about? What lies?
Do you believe the Vice President is a member of the legislative branch and not the executive? If he's part of the legislative, please state in explicit terms what authority he has over the Senate and how that authority renders Biden's answer incorrect.
And once you've done that, please explain why the Founding Fathers removed the VP's presiding authority over the Senate during trials of impeachment of the President.
Alright, so this is way out of my league, but I thought this summed it up:
(warning, probably more conservative link than most of you might want to look at)
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_28-2008_10_04.shtml#1223052456
-
He is mentioned in the Constitution in relation to both the executive branch and the legislative branch. But in fact, the vice president has no inherent constitutional authority in the executive branch. The president can obviously rely on him as an advisor and delegate tasks to him as the president chooses, but the president need not do so. It is only in the legislative branch that the vice president has inherent constitutional authority, both to cast deciding votes in case of ties and to serve as president of the Senate, which is chiefly a procedural function.
So 'procedural function' to you is 'authority' and thus makes Biden "dead wrong"?
-
Her interview performance has been jaw-dropping bad, but I am absolutely certain she can name the news sources she's read. She filibustered the question because she didn't know how to give an answer that wouldn't upset the Republican base that clings to the myth of a liberal media bias.
I was being less charitable. I think there is at least a distinct possibility that she doesn't read the kinds of news sources that would be expected to be read by someone seeking high office.
-
So 'procedural function' to you is 'authority' and thus makes Biden "dead wrong"?
Anytime he wants to Dick Cheney can stroll into the Senate, bang the gavel, and start running the place in accordance with what the Senate rules say the presiding officer does. I don't know the Senate rules, but I'd assume they don't give the presiding officer the right to throw his weight around much. But to say that his only authority is to cast a tie vote is wrong as a matter of constitutional law.
Indeed, Biden also said, "And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote."
Compare that with what Section 3 of Article I actually says:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."
It does not say that he only presides when there's a tie vote. He can preside any time he wants to, but he can only vote when there's a tie. Perhaps Biden misspoke here, but what he said is flat-out wrong.
-
Also, what precisely is it that Cheney has done in the Senate that is so constitutionally noxious? Biden didn't go into specifics. It's enough to say "Cheney" to get the Democratic base giggling until they piss themselves, so, as usually, Biden didn't need to actually explain what he meant.
Biden himself said he "would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration." This is what Cheney does. It's what LBJ did to a great extent to help JFK. He's down at the Capitol, he's got offices there, he can sit in the Senate anytime, he can vote in case of ties. Is this a problem?
-
Her interview performance has been jaw-dropping bad, but I am absolutely certain she can name the news sources she's read. She filibustered the question because she didn't know how to give an answer that wouldn't upset the Republican base that clings to the myth of a liberal media bias.
"Myth" of liberal media bias? Please.
-
It's enough to say "Cheney" to get the Democratic base giggling until they piss themselves, so, as usually, Biden didn't need to actually explain what he meant.
What fucking ever. I'll try harder not to piss myself, Your Condescendingness.
-
Alright, so this is way out of my league, but I thought this summed it up:
(warning, probably more conservative link than most of you might want to look at)
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_28-2008_10_04.shtml#1223052456
Volokh is dead on here.
-
What fucking ever. I'll try harder not to piss myself, Your Condescendingness.
Put on your Depends.
(http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepics2/DaddyDickCheney.jpg)
-
Alright, now you've gone from annoying right-wing mouthpiece to troll. *PLONK*
-
What fucking ever. I'll try harder not to piss myself, Your Condescendingness.
I think Arky's right on and thought it was something to take pride in.
"Cheney" is to the left, what "Cubs" is to SnS.
-
Alright, now you've gone from annoying right-wing mouthpiece to troll. *PLONK*
You don't think Biden plays to his base when he villifies Cheney? You don't think the mere mention of Cheney energizes his base?
-
I think Arky's right on and thought it was something to take pride in.
"Cheney" is to the left, what "Cubs" is to SnS.
Fuck the Cubs.
-
Fuck the Cubs.
Then I think everyone agrees. All in favor? Aye?
AYE??!!!????!
-
Then I think everyone agrees. All in favor? Aye?
AYE??!!!????!
Nay. I wouldn't fuck the Cubs with Ann Coulter's dick.
-
I think Arky's right on and thought it was something to take pride in.
"Cheney" is to the left, what "Cubs" is to SnS.
No, I believe he meant it exactly the way it came out - that Democrats have no need for specifics or informed debate, because they are easily distracted simpletons. This is not true of Democrats, nor is true of Republicans. It's true of some people, certainly, in both parties.
-
No, I believe he meant it exactly the way it came out - that Democrats have no need for specifics or informed debate, because they are easily distracted simpletons. This is not true of Democrats, nor is true of Republicans. It's true of some people, certainly, in both parties.
I meant what I wrote: the mere mention of Cheney energizes the Democratic base regardless of the specifics of what is being discussed. I can't help if you read something else into it.
-
Nay. I wouldn't fuck the Cubs with Ann Coulter's dick.
There was a time, long ago, I thought she was hot. Then, I heard her speak.
-
I meant what I wrote: the mere mention of Cheney energizes the Democratic base regardless of the specifics of what is being discussed. I can't help if you read something else into it.
You still bring up Clinton nearly 8 years after he left office. I think it's relevant to reference the current President and VP during an election campaign. Or are you with Palin in that knowing the cause doesn't matter when trying to solve a problem and that the "past" (i.e. recent history up to and including now) doesn't matter because we should look only forwards?
-
There was a time, long ago, I thought she was hot. Then, I heard her speak.
The adam's apple didn't turn you off first?
-
There was a time, long ago, I thought she was hot. Then, I heard her speak.
Purely based on what she says, she is the ugliest person I have ever seen.
-
I meant what I wrote: the mere mention of Cheney energizes the Democratic base regardless of the specifics of what is being discussed. I can't help if you read something else into it.
No, you wrote exactly what I quoted, which was condescending, bullshit ankle-biting. You definitely can help that.
-
The adam's apple didn't turn you off first?
Never noticed before she spoke, and didn't get that far after hearing her speak.
-
You still bring up Clinton nearly 8 years after he left office. I think it's relevant to reference the current President and VP during an election campaign. Or are you with Palin in that knowing the cause doesn't matter when trying to solve a problem and that the "past" (i.e. recent history up to and including now) doesn't matter because we should look only forwards?
I don't think there's anything wrong with Obama and Biden using the tactic of nailing McCain to Bush and mentioning Cheney whenever they can to stoke up their base. If McCain and Palin can't defend themselves against it, that's their problem, not Obama's or Biden's.
I was just pointing out that this is what Biden was doing with the vice-presidential issue. I don't think Biden is probably as alarmed about expansion of vice-presidential powers as he let on, but I think he deftly used the question to work in a mention of Cheney, even if he got his constitutional law wrong.
-
No, you wrote exactly what I quoted, which was condescending, bullshit ankle-biting. You definitely can help that.
Mentioning Cheney stokes the base, regardless of the details of what is being said. You're the one reading more into it than that.
-
Mentioning Cheney stokes the base, regardless of the details of what is being said. You're the one reading more into it than that.
I'm sorry that your choice of phrasing lead me to believe that you were coming across as a condescending prick, rather than making such a salient point. Clearly I was mistaken.
-
Mentioning Cheney stokes the base, regardless of the details of what is being said. You're the one reading more into it than that.
Biden mentioned Cheney because Ifill asked him about it.
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008b.html
-
I kindof agree with both you and BudGirl, but I do wonder if all the hammering she is getting over neglecting her children is weighing into her decision. Had she left the child with a babysitter/Mom and Dad/oldest daughter/nanny, would anyone suggest she is a bad mom for leaving the child?
Who's hammering her? I think having a baby sitter for a baby isn't a bad thing. I just tend to think he might have had a better evening at home. But whatever.
-
Nope, and I dont know. I wasnt characterizing the entire scene. But I did watch it. Palin looked very serious and nodded her head several times at what "Joe" was telling her. She didnt say anything. Biden also looked serious. He stopped talking and she scooted right back to Todd Palin's side. Biden was next seen talking to Palin's dad. Cameras on PBS were on them the whole time. Then they got her holding the baby as soon as possible.
Wow. You need to watch it again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89FbCPzAsRA) (it's the entire debate and a slow load. Everything is in the last minute) You were completely wrong. It was far less than what you said. Biden complimented her several times. He didn't lecture. You can hear her saying "thank you." They then shake hands with Ifill. Then they both greet their respective families. Biden does make the move toward Palin's family, but man your bias showed here. Todd Palin went to her side, just as Biden's wife went to his. In fact, at the end, you can see one of her kids bringing the baby on stage. Palin did not take the baby right away. Then the video stops.
-
Who's hammering her? I think having a baby sitter for a baby isn't a bad thing. I just tend to think he might have had a better evening at home. But whatever.
I didn't mean to suggest you were, BudGirl, in any way. I have heard talking heads and person-on-the-street sound bites, before, that they were questioning her family dedication in taking the vice presidency on with a young child. I tend to both sympathize with and reject that point of view. I am, foolishly, trying to interpret what it means that the child was there last night, and why I might be willing to do the same thing with one of my children if they were still that young.
-
I didn't mean to suggest you were, BudGirl, in any way. I have heard talking heads and person-on-the-street sound bites, before, that they were questioning her family dedication in taking the vice presidency on with a young child. I tend to both sympathize with and reject that point of view. I am, foolishly, trying to interpret what it means that the child was there last night, and why I might be willing to do the same thing with one of my children if they were still that young.
I haven't heard any of that. Probably because I don't listen to talk radio.
-
I haven't heard any of that. Probably because I don't listen to talk radio.
A mother of a child at my son's elementary school told my wife that she believed women could have it all......just not at the same time.
-
Wow. You need to watch it again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89FbCPzAsRA) (it's the entire debate and a slow load. Everything is in the last minute) You were completely wrong. It was far less than what you said. Biden complimented her several times. He didn't lecture. You can hear her saying "thank you." They then shake hands with Ifill. Then they both greet their respective families. Biden does make the move toward Palin's family, but man your bias showed here. Todd Palin went to her side, just as Biden's wife went to his. In fact, at the end, you can see one of her kids bringing the baby on stage. Palin did not take the baby right away. Then the video stops.
Yep, I watched it live last night and when I read pravata's take, it seemed very different from what I remember. The video is a clear reminder that things did, in fact, transpire very differently from pravata's recount.
Like most of what you write here, your take on this was complete bullshit, pravata.
-
Good thing we're keeping this civil.
-
Good thing we're keeping this civil.
Screw that man. Toss the napalm!
You aren't involved if you aren't intense. And you are not intense unless you're passionate beyond question about your views. It's no wonder everyone thinks those that don't share their views are morons. People want to blame the politicians but we're the one's electing the jackasses.
-
Screw that man. Toss the napalm!
You aren't involved if you aren't intense. And you are not intense unless you're passionate beyond question about your views. It's no wonder everyone thinks those that don't share their views are morons. People want to blame the politicians but we're the one's electing the jackasses.
Not me, most people I vote for lose.
-
I haven't heard any of that. Probably because I don't listen to talk radio.
I have.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5710888
I am very sensitive to children's issues. Others here, I am sure, have more experience and knowledge than I do, but it I perk up when I hear any mention of parenting and children. I am not trying to make a judgement one way or the other. I should probably appoligize for trying to make any comment on it.
As for my radio preferences, as boring as they may seem, I listen to 740 am in the morning for traffic/sports/weather/news in that order. The rest of the day, when I can, and some of the weekend, is spent listening to NPR, mostly for the relaxing music while I am working. I am not sure why you think I am some talk radio fan, and I am not certain if you are trying to dismiss me and any comments I make because of that. It would probably be much easier to dismiss me as someone who is more ignorant than biased, and I will accept that gladly.
-
I have.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5710888
I am very sensitive to children's issues. Others here, I am sure, have more experience and knowledge than I do, but it I perk up when I hear any mention of parenting and children. I am not trying to make a judgement one way or the other. I should probably appoligize for trying to make any comment on it.
As for my radio preferences, as boring as they may seem, I listen to 740 am in the morning for traffic/sports/weather/news in that order. The rest of the day, when I can, and some of the weekend, is spent listening to NPR, mostly for the relaxing music while I am working. I am not sure why you think I am some talk radio fan, and I am not certain if you are trying to dismiss me and any comments I make because of that. It would probably be much easier to dismiss me as someone who is more ignorant than biased, and I will accept that gladly.
No need to apologize. We all can have opinions. I was just stating that I don't listen to talk radio, in regard to any topic so I have not heard it. I also take most news with a salt shaker, everything is slanted. It was my own personal opinion about one child.
You are not ignorant!! Stop staying that.
-
Yep, I watched it live last night and when I read pravata's take, it seemed very different from what I remember. The video is a clear reminder that things did, in fact, transpire very differently from pravata's recount.
Like most of what you write here, your take on this was complete bullshit, pravata.
He is FOS that's for sure.
-
breast pump?
Horrible things, breast pumps. Just freakin' horrible.
I would never tell anyone to use one.
-
It's enough to say "Cheney" to get the Democratic base giggling until they piss themselves, so, as usually, Biden didn't need to actually explain what he meant.
Giggling? What the fuck is funny about Dick Cheney? That reprobate is about as funny as brain cancer.
-
This is an amazing thread.
Yosemity Sam with dimples. Excellent.
IMHO what seems to be missing in this post debate commentary is not how well Joe stuck to the Obama platform, but rather talked about Obama as if he'd been in the Senate the past 20 years. "Obama voted this way and that way....". Obama has been in the Senate for 2 years and missed a shitload of votes while campaigning. He is now going to be President. Even I believe this to be true. Obama didn't vote for shit concerning the early days of the war. He did have a couple of votes about continued support, and I believe he voted no.
Palin is hated for many of the same reasons Reagan was hated. She is a true conservative. She connects very well with the American people. She is a governor with real executive experience. She differs from Reagan because of her gender (adams apple comment aside) and that makes her an enormous threat to the left. For all of the circle jerking between womens rights groups and the Dems, it's possible that the first presidential level female is a Repub, let alone a hardcore conservative. The base loves her because she reminds them of Reagan.
I thought the debate was interesting. Both did well. Palin didn't allow the moderator to control her message and Bidens bit about his family was touching. Biden didn't make any screwups and that's all he needed to do. Palin did what was required of her which was to reach out to Americans and speak to them directly without screwing the pooch. She did that. Very Reagan-esque.
For those interested in viewing anti-Obama material, there is going to be a Sean Hannity show Sunday 8pm on Fox highlighting Obama's many overlooked business/political associations. Since the mainstream media is totally in the tank for Obama, it might be your only chance to see such information. Seriously, NBC anchors were talking about getting "choked up" at the Obama acceptance speech. If only Obama was subjected to half the scrutiny that an apparently more qualified Palin has been subjected to.
I still think Obama is gonna win. My suggestion is to start updating your resume's as this economy is going to tank badly. No great thanks to the 850 BILLION Wall Street welfare act that just got passed. Now California wants some $$$. Hell, why don't they just send all of us huge checks, pay our mortgages, and wipe our asses while they are at it. Before you start scorching, consider that the market closed lower after the bill was passed. I thought it was supposed to be all sighs of relief and high fives? This thing will bite us in the ass for years to come. Congress deserves it's low ratings. Both parties.
-
This is an amazing thread.
Yosemity Sam with dimples. Excellent.
IMHO what seems to be missing in this post debate commentary is not how well Joe stuck to the Obama platform, but rather talked about Obama as if he'd been in the Senate the past 20 years. "Obama voted this way and that way....". Obama has been in the Senate for 2 years and missed a shitload of votes while campaigning. He is now going to be President. Even I believe this to be true. Obama didn't vote for shit concerning the early days of the war. He did have a couple of votes about continued support, and I believe he voted no.
Palin is hated for many of the same reasons Reagan was hated. She is a true conservative. She connects very well with the American people. She is a governor with real executive experience. She differs from Reagan because of her gender (adams apple comment aside) and that makes her an enormous threat to the left. For all of the circle jerking between womens rights groups and the Dems, it's possible that the first presidential level female is a Repub, let alone a hardcore conservative. The base loves her because she reminds them of Reagan.
I thought the debate was interesting. Both did well. Palin didn't allow the moderator to control her message and Bidens bit about his family was touching. Biden didn't make any screwups and that's all he needed to do. Palin did what was required of her which was to reach out to Americans and speak to them directly without screwing the pooch. She did that. Very Reagan-esque.
For those interested in viewing anti-Obama material, there is going to be a Sean Hannity show Sunday 8pm on Fox highlighting Obama's many overlooked business/political associations. Since the mainstream media is totally in the tank for Obama, it might be your only chance to see such information. Seriously, NBC anchors were talking about getting "choked up" at the Obama acceptance speech. If only Obama was subjected to half the scrutiny that an apparently more qualified Palin has been subjected to.
I still think Obama is gonna win. My suggestion is to start updating your resume's as this economy is going to tank badly. No great thanks to the 850 BILLION Wall Street welfare act that just got passed. Now California wants some $$$. Hell, why don't they just send all of us huge checks, pay our mortgages, and wipe our asses while they are at it. Before you start scorching, consider that the market closed lower after the bill was passed. I thought it was supposed to be all sighs of relief and high fives? This thing will bite us in the ass for years to come. Congress deserves it's low ratings. Both parties.
Palin is no Reagan. Maybe someday she'll be more like him, but no way, not now. Reagan had real life working experience in labor and labor laws. He had a solid understanding of economics. He majored in economics. He spent a decade governing California, a state with far more complex issues than Alaska. She has a long way to go to pick up that mantle.
-
Palin is no Reagan. Maybe someday she'll be more like him, but no way, not now. Reagan had real life working experience in labor and labor laws. He had a solid understanding of economics. He majored in economics. He spent a decade governing California, a state with far more complex issues than Alaska. She has a long way to go to pick up that mantle.
What??? Are we talking about the same Reagan? I thought he was just some dopey, B-movie has been, that didn't have any foreign policy experience. Hmmmm. The things we learn on this board. <sarcasm meter running high>
I agree that Palin needs some seasoning, but she is the damn closest reincarnation of the past century's greatest President that I've seen. I still think she should have bowed out of the nomination due to her daughter, but now that she's in, that's one hell of an impressive woman. I make the comparison to Reagan because she has an incredible charisma that transcends the medias ability to cut her off at the knees. Reagan had that in spades.
The media was looking to Dan Quayle Palins ass after that debate. Make no mistake about that. She then proceeds to win the debate (slight edge, not a landslide) AND THEN tells the media to go fuck themselves. Paraphrasing: "I appreciate a forum such as this that allows me to bypass the mainstream media and speak directly with the American people.". Go Sarah!
Regardless of this years election results, Palin is on the political map and will be seen again. While on topic, has anybody else noticed the nob slobbing by team Clinton for the McCain/Palin ticket? I thought they were in it ALL THE WAY for Obama? It's so transparent it's funny. Team Clinton damn sure does not want Obidon in 08. If Obidon wins, then team Clinton will do everything possible to screw them so as to set the stage for Hillary 2012.
-
...No great thanks to the 850 BILLION Wall Street welfare act that just got passed. ... Before you start scorching, consider that the market closed lower after the bill was passed. ...
$750 and the Dow ticker's direction is irrelivant
-
What??? Are we talking about the same Reagan? I thought he was just some dopey, B-movie has been, that didn't have any foreign policy experience. Hmmmm. The things we learn on this board. <sarcasm meter running high>
I agree that Palin needs some seasoning, but she is the damn closest reincarnation of the past century's greatest President that I've seen. I still think she should have bowed out of the nomination due to her daughter, but now that she's in, that's one hell of an impressive woman. I make the comparison to Reagan because she has an incredible charisma that transcends the medias ability to cut her off at the knees. Reagan had that in spades.
The media was looking to Dan Quayle Palins ass after that debate. Make no mistake about that. She then proceeds to win the debate (slight edge, not a landslide) AND THEN tells the media to go fuck themselves. Paraphrasing: "I appreciate a forum such as this that allows me to bypass the mainstream media and speak directly with the American people.". Go Sarah!
Regardless of this years election results, Palin is on the political map and will be seen again. While on topic, has anybody else noticed the nob slobbing by team Clinton for the McCain/Palin ticket? I thought they were in it ALL THE WAY for Obama? It's so transparent it's funny. Team Clinton damn sure does not want Obidon in 08. If Obidon wins, then team Clinton will do everything possible to screw them so as to set the stage for Hillary 2012.
This is the most off-the-wall comparison I've ever heard. You're fucking crazy. Palin is no Reagan. Her B.S. in Journalism from a C quality school has really paid dividends for her. Gwen Ifill gave her predictable questions and in no way did she slam dunk any of them. She was stiff, nervous, and, other than Afghanistan, her answers were completely scripted. Reagan? Please...
-
Palin commands no respect is hated for none many of the same reasons Reagan was one of the most popular presidents ever hated. She is a true neophyte with little potential conservative. She connects very well with the American hicks people. She is a governor with hardly any real executive experience. She differs from Reagan because she's nothing like him of her gender (adams apple comment aside) and that makes her an enormous threat to the left.
-
$750 and the Dow ticker's direction is irrelivant
It was 750 until the Senate porked it up to 850 BILLION. BILLION. Regardless of the number, how the market reacts to it is relevant. For multi billions, the market outta be going bonkers. But it's not.
During the debate when the moderator asked: "What would you do different as President than your running mate?". I was disappointed to see Palin stay silent on this horrible legislation that McCain supported. I suppose that's her duty and all, but it almost felt like she wanted to say it.
-
PalinObama is hated loved for many of the same reasons Reagan Carter was hated loved by the left (at least until the misery index was so high even they knew he had to go). She He is a true conservative liberal. She Obama connects very well with the American people far left and victim coalitions. She He is a governor Senator with real executive TWO WHOLE YEARS experience. She Obama differs from Reagan because of her gender (adams apple comment aside) he is the definition of liberal and that makes her him an enormous threat darling to the left and mainstream media. For all of the circle jerking between womens rights groups and the Dems, it's possible that the first presidential level female is a Repub, let alone a hardcore conservative. Her gender and conservative principles make her a tremendous threat to those who believe it to be their birthright to have the first female President. The democrat base loves her Obama because she he reminds them of JFK. Too bad for all of us that they are going to get Carter Second Term instead.
-
This is the most off-the-wall comparison I've ever heard. You're fucking crazy. Palin is no Reagan. Her B.S. in Journalism from a C quality school has really paid dividends for her. Gwen Ifill gave her predictable questions and in no way did she slam dunk any of them. She was stiff, nervous, and, other than Afghanistan, her answers were completely scripted. Reagan? Please...
Stiff? Nervous? Were we even watching the same debate?
I've already conceded that she needs more seasoning, but is already MORE qualified to lead the country than Obama. If you see the right wing go bat shit crazy over anybody, its because that person reminds them of Reagan. Reagan was also touted as the village idiot. A bumbling B-movie know nothing that managed to get elected Governor of California. He had no foreign policy experience they wailed. When he died, even his staunchest enemies conceded that the man had some serious mojo (all alzheimers jokes aside). Comparisons of Palin to Reagan while not perfect are not far from target. Most people liked Reagan and most people like Palin. She is the only reason this race is even close, let alone interesting. Still don't think they'll win, but she has got that intangible likeablity. She is also intellegent, capable, and has great communication abilities.
-
Now a comparison of Obama to Carter and Reagan? Brilliant. Your train of thought is almost as coherent as Palin's.
-
but is already MORE qualified to lead the country than Obama.
Let's see what the people have to say. Weren't many Republicans only days ago asking for Palin to step down? I don't get your hard on for her. Fortunately, you're in the minority.
-
Let's see what the people have to say. Weren't many Republicans only days ago asking for Palin to step down? I don't get your hard on for her. Fortunately, you're in the minority.
True that. I am in the minority.
Yes, the people will have their say and probably elect Obidon. On the bright side, it took four years of Carter for the conservative movement to truly gain it's footing. It may take the same misery for the lost tribe (House and Senate Republicans) to learn the error of their drunken sailor days while in power. I just hate for the improvement of the republican party to come at the expense of the damage Obama will do to this country. Welfare for everybody (Public health care. And you think bailing out Wall Street was expensive?), stickin' it to the man (anybody that makes a living or does job creating investments) and cozy dinners with foreign dictators that fucking HATE us (Why is it so important that everybody LIKE us??? People die everyday trying to get here. We must be doing something right. No? Why the obsessive need for the worlds approval?). Very sad, but Obidon may be necessary to finally learn the lesson that higher taxes and playing prison bitch to every foreign dictator isn't such a great thing for the United States.
I'll go on record and say that I've not noticed the adams apple and the hard on is real. I could leave the beer goggles at home and tap that. Based on the size of her family, diaper duty ain't the only thing Todd is getting at home. Vulgarity aside, I happen to like her politics.
-
This is an amazing thread.
Yosemity Sam with dimples. Excellent.
IMHO what seems to be missing in this post debate commentary is not how well Joe stuck to the Obama platform, but rather talked about Obama as if he'd been in the Senate the past 20 years. "Obama voted this way and that way....". Obama has been in the Senate for 2 years and missed a shitload of votes while campaigning. He is now going to be President. Even I believe this to be true. Obama didn't vote for shit concerning the early days of the war. He did have a couple of votes about continued support, and I believe he voted no.
Palin is hated for many of the same reasons Reagan was hated. She is a true conservative. She connects very well with the American people. She is a governor with real executive experience. She differs from Reagan because of her gender (adams apple comment aside) and that makes her an enormous threat to the left. For all of the circle jerking between womens rights groups and the Dems, it's possible that the first presidential level female is a Repub, let alone a hardcore conservative. The base loves her because she reminds them of Reagan.
I thought the debate was interesting. Both did well. Palin didn't allow the moderator to control her message and Bidens bit about his family was touching. Biden didn't make any screwups and that's all he needed to do. Palin did what was required of her which was to reach out to Americans and speak to them directly without screwing the pooch. She did that. Very Reagan-esque.
For those interested in viewing anti-Obama material, there is going to be a Sean Hannity show Sunday 8pm on Fox highlighting Obama's many overlooked business/political associations. Since the mainstream media is totally in the tank for Obama, it might be your only chance to see such information. Seriously, NBC anchors were talking about getting "choked up" at the Obama acceptance speech. If only Obama was subjected to half the scrutiny that an apparently more qualified Palin has been subjected to.
I still think Obama is gonna win. My suggestion is to start updating your resume's as this economy is going to tank badly. No great thanks to the 850 BILLION Wall Street welfare act that just got passed. Now California wants some $$$. Hell, why don't they just send all of us huge checks, pay our mortgages, and wipe our asses while they are at it. Before you start scorching, consider that the market closed lower after the bill was passed. I thought it was supposed to be all sighs of relief and high fives? This thing will bite us in the ass for years to come. Congress deserves it's low ratings. Both parties.
I really do enjoy reading other people's points of view, this was a good, thoughtful post.
That said, the Palin to Reagan comparison is nonsense. I consider myself a moderate democrat and the only reason that I dislike Palin is that she seems both unqualified in so many ways and arrogant. She may share some of Reagan's dopey qualities, but that's about it.
-
Wow. You need to watch it again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89FbCPzAsRA) (it's the entire debate and a slow load. Everything is in the last minute) You were completely wrong. It was far less than what you said. Biden complimented her several times. He didn't lecture. You can hear her saying "thank you." They then shake hands with Ifill. Then they both greet their respective families. Biden does make the move toward Palin's family, but man your bias showed here. Todd Palin went to her side, just as Biden's wife went to his. In fact, at the end, you can see one of her kids bringing the baby on stage. Palin did not take the baby right away. Then the video stops.
This is the CSPAN feed, I watched the PBS feed. Check your facts.
-
Welfare for everybody (Public health care. And you think bailing out Wall Street was expensive?),
Healthcare is welfare? Investing in education and science a handout as well?
stickin' it to the man (anybody that makes a living or does job creating investments)
Most small business owners will benefit financially from "Obidon".
and cozy dinners with foreign dictators that fucking HATE us (Why is it so important that everybody LIKE us??? People die everyday trying to get here. We must be doing something right. No? Why the obsessive need for the worlds approval?)
Right....let's alienate ourselves more from the world and cut down the number of true allies we have. That's the prudent move. Honestly, if the Republican party wasn't so hell bent on spreading freedom across the world, they'd probably have this election in the bag. Let's run away from the Monroe Doctrine as much as possible and dictate how the entire world should be run.
Very sad, but Obidon may be necessary to finally learn the lesson that higher taxes and playing prison bitch to every foreign dictator isn't such a great thing for the United States.
Congrats on making more thank $250k a year.
I'll go on record and say that I've not noticed the adams apple and the hard on is real. I could leave the beer goggles at home and tap that. Based on the size of her family, diaper duty ain't the only thing Todd is getting at home. Vulgarity aside, I happen to like her politics.
Mkay....
-
Still don't think they'll win, but she has got that intangible likeablity. She is also intellegent, capable, and has great communication abilities.
Are you talking about the same Sarah Palin that McCain chose as his running mate? Maybe you have to wear special goggles to see this 'intangible likeability' (sic) because I sure as hell ain't seeing it.
-
I really do enjoy reading other people's points of view, this was a good, thoughtful post.
That said, the Palin to Reagan comparison is nonsense. I consider myself a moderate democrat and the only reason that I dislike Palin is that she seems both unqualified in so many ways and arrogant. She may share some of Reagan's dopey qualities, but that's about it.
There is a trend in this country that negates and denigrates expertise. Education and competence in any field (take for instance the managment of a baseball team) is discounted. Competence, good judgment in government is especially in disregard by half the voting population. They want to shrink government and drown it in a bathtub. Government as an answer to collective problems, in spite of specific language in the Declaration, (Oh JUST FUCKING LOOK IT UP YOURSELVES) isn't even considered. A significant percentage of the population wants government officials to look like themselve, ie, morons. That's why we get the responses we have to 9/11, Katrina, and the current meltdown in the financial markets. Loyalty to a creed, not expertise nor competence is the benchmark for public office. Gov. Palin was chosen for her adherence to core conservative values and revels in being uninformed and, in point of fact, stupid, about how the national government works. But she winks and flirts, so by all means, vote for the idiot.
-
True that. I am in the minority.
Yes, the people will have their say and probably elect Obidon. On the bright side, it took four years of Carter for the conservative movement to truly gain it's footing. It may take the same misery for the lost tribe (House and Senate Republicans) to learn the error of their drunken sailor days while in power. I just hate for the improvement of the republican party to come at the expense of the damage Obama will do to this country. Welfare for everybody (Public health care. And you think bailing out Wall Street was expensive?), stickin' it to the man (anybody that makes a living or does job creating investments) and cozy dinners with foreign dictators that fucking HATE us (Why is it so important that everybody LIKE us??? People die everyday trying to get here. We must be doing something right. No? Why the obsessive need for the worlds approval?). Very sad, but Obidon may be necessary to finally learn the lesson that higher taxes and playing prison bitch to every foreign dictator isn't such a great thing for the United States.
I'll go on record and say that I've not noticed the adams apple and the hard on is real. I could leave the beer goggles at home and tap that. Based on the size of her family, diaper duty ain't the only thing Todd is getting at home. Vulgarity aside, I happen to like her politics.
5! Five FUCKING CHILDREN! Are you insane? Have you stuck your head out of the window? Overpopulation is one of the major issues in the world. And, sport, you have no chance with the girl so voting on her fuckability is just retarded. Also, never fuck anyone crazier than you. It's just good hygiene.
-
There is a trend in this country that negates and denigrates expertise. Education and competence in any field (take for instance the managment of a baseball team) is discounted. Competence, good judgment in government is especially in disregard by half the voting population. They want to shrink government and drown it in a bathtub. Government as an answer to collective problems, in spite of specific language in the Declaration, (Oh JUST FUCKING LOOK IT UP YOURSELVES) isn't even considered. A significant percentage of the population wants government officials to look like themselve, ie, morons. That's why we get the responses we have to 9/11, Katrina, and the current meltdown in the financial markets. Loyalty to a creed, not expertise nor competence is the benchmark for public office. Gov. Palin was chosen for her adherence to core conservative values and revels in being uninformed and, in point of fact, stupid, about how the national government works. But she winks and flirts, so by all means, vote for the idiot.
There's definitely some truth in the movie Idiocracy.
-
This is the CSPAN feed, I watched the PBS feed. Check your facts.
I know what you wrote. Still, you reported the PBS cameras were on the candidates the entire time as were the CSPAN cameras. Is it fair to say PBS used different camera angles? Too, did PBS have no floor audio post-debate?
-
I know what you wrote. Still, you reported the PBS cameras were on the candidates the entire time as were the CSPAN cameras. Is it fair to say PBS used different camera angles? Too, did PBS have no floor audio post-debate?
NO. I have never pretended to know what Biden said to Palin. But, if you watched the PBS feed, there's a good 10 minutes more of video. Not different angles, they didnt cut to commentary.
-
Ah hell, where to start???
Healthcare is welfare? Investing in education and science a handout as well?
It is when the government takes it over and begins telling you if, when and where, you'll get health care. District of Columbia spends $13,000 per student and ain't getting much bang for the buck. Now they want to to pay students to go to school. Unbelievable. Creation of Department of Eduction and the decline thereof occurred almost simultaneously.
Most small business owners will benefit financially from "Obidon".
Really, how? I own a small business and damn near have to go Tony Soprano on my banker to get a loan. Will increasing my taxes because my gross (as opposed to net) revenues make me "rich" really do me any favors.
Right....let's alienate ourselves more from the world and cut down the number of true allies we have. That's the prudent move. Honestly, if the Republican party wasn't so hell bent on spreading freedom across the world, they'd probably have this election in the bag. Let's run away from the Monroe Doctrine as much as possible and dictate how the entire world should be run.
Who's talking about alienating allies? I'm talking about sharing cigars and cognac with the Castro brothers, breaking bread with Akmadinijad, HAMAS, and every other RADICAL islamic freak. Spreading freedom to Iraq was a well intentioned, but poorly executed plan. Thank goodness the surge is giving us a chance at any real solution.
Congrats on making more thank $250k a year.
Not this year, but maybe next. Or pending Obidon, maybe a few more. I'll cross my fingers, keep doing what I do and hope for the best.
Mkay....
Since we're going South Park: "Oh my God! They just killed the economy! You bastards!".
-
Man, I drop off the grid for a few days and everything goes to shit. At least a few things in this universe are constant: gravity, the weak elecromagnetic force, and Cubs' suckitude. "Oh, please don't hit a ground ball to me, please! Oh, shit!"
-
5! Five FUCKING CHILDREN! Are you insane? Have you stuck your head out of the window? Overpopulation is one of the major issues in the world. And, sport, you have no chance with the girl so voting on her fuckability is just retarded. Also, never fuck anyone crazier than you. It's just good hygiene.
Give me 30 undisturbed minutes with Angelina Jolie and we'll be chain smoking by minute 20. I do believe she's squeezed out a litter also, but I won't split hairs. Oh wait, some of those are adopted, thus contributing to the solution so that one is a freebee. Since when does having "a snowballs chance in hell" stopped men from pondering the prospect?
I've had more ass than a toilet seat in my single days, and damn good percentage of those women were bat shit crazy. They were also some of the most fun! Titty dancers come to mind. Have much hard liquor available, listen empathetically to the dirty uncle stories, and damn sure wrap the equipment in latex. You hit the jackpot when you find just the right blend of crazy, fun, intelligent, and able to introduce to mom. See: Current marriage (fwiw, not a titty dancer).
On the other hand some crazy women are about as much fun as having your finger nails ripped out with with pliers and your equipment scorched with a blow torch. See: Previous marriage.
-
This is the CSPAN feed, I watched the PBS feed. Check your facts.
Unless they magically were watching clones in a different dimension, how in the hell does the feed change what happened on stage?
Especially considering the PBS page is streaming THAT EXACT VIDEO (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video/blog/2008/10/palin_and_biden_square_off_in.html) from youtube. The "CSPAN" feed as opposed to the "PBS" feed. If they were using a different feed, why would they choose to show someone elses taping of the broadcast online?
Maybe because they weren't different, and this supposed encounter is still made up in your mind?
-
If only Obama was subjected to half the scrutiny that an apparently more qualified Palin has been subjected to.
That comment simply astounds me.
-
Give me 30 undisturbed minutes with Angelina Jolie and we'll be chain smoking by minute 2.
FIFY
-
That comment simply astounds me.
It shouldn't. What are Obama's accomplishments? <crickets chirping>
He's been a Senator for two years and spent at least one of those years mostly as a candidate for President. His voting record in those two years is sparse. Community leader in Chicago? Did he delegate who was to bring the charcoal/lighter fluid and who was to bring the drinks/ice? Yawn. A stint in the Illinois Senate? Whoopdeedoo. I'm repeating myself, but it killed me in the debate to hear Bidon speaking of Obama's Senate voting record as if Obama has been there longer than the degree schedule of a junior college.
It's a given that Obama is charismatic. The man can give a speech. Yipee Yie Yay! That he brings tears to Oprah's eyes means shit to me. It obviously means more to others. Can Obama negotiate with foreign leaders, put together a sensible budget, delegate authority? Nobody knows the answer to this because he's never had to do it. The last two items are lacking for McCain as well, so that would yet to be seen also. I've grown tired of hearing about McCain's time as a POW, but it does demonstrate that he's one hell of a patriot as well as possessing a pair made out of solid brass. Palin however, has done the budget/delegation stuff (well) and the foreign diplomacy skills are the unknown for her. If this election is "all about the economy", then advantage Palin when stacked against Obama. Yes, the number two on the McCain ticket is MORE qualified than the number one on the Obama ticket. Conversely, Bidon is far more qualified than his running mate based on experience.
-
FIFY
Tell ya what. You set it up for me and I'll bet a Benjamin that I make it 5. Okay...maybe 4. She is pretty damn hot....make it 3. If I concentrate on cricket and soccer, I can definitely make it 3.
Wife ain't gonna like it, but I'll deal with the backlash later to make good on that bet. Maybe the wife would want to.... ah hell, now I'm back to 2.
-
This thread has taken a bizarre turn for the worse.
-
UpTooLate is certainly one of our most bizarre characters. I am eager to subscribe to his newsletter.
-
It shouldn't. What are Obama's accomplishments? <crickets chirping>
He's been a Senator for two years and spent at least one of those years mostly as a candidate for President. His voting record in those two years is sparse. Community leader in Chicago? Did he delegate who was to bring the charcoal/lighter fluid and who was to bring the drinks/ice? Yawn. A stint in the Illinois Senate? Whoopdeedoo. I'm repeating myself, but it killed me in the debate to hear Bidon speaking of Obama's Senate voting record as if Obama has been there longer than the degree schedule of a junior college.
It's a given that Obama is charismatic. The man can give a speech. Yipee Yie Yay! That he brings tears to Oprah's eyes means shit to me. It obviously means more to others. Can Obama negotiate with foreign leaders, put together a sensible budget, delegate authority? Nobody knows the answer to this because he's never had to do it. The last two items are lacking for McCain as well, so that would yet to be seen also. I've grown tired of hearing about McCain's time as a POW, but it does demonstrate that he's one hell of a patriot as well as possessing a pair made out of solid brass. Palin however, has done the budget/delegation stuff (well) and the foreign diplomacy skills are the unknown for her. If this election is "all about the economy", then advantage Palin when stacked against Obama. Yes, the number two on the McCain ticket is MORE qualified than the number one on the Obama ticket. Conversely, Bidon is far more qualified than his running mate based on experience.
Do not forget that Obama gives Chris Mathews chills up and down his leg when he speaks.
Personally I am disappointed that we have a choice between two US Senators for the most important job in the world. I think executive experience is very important and Palin is the only one of these gasbags that has any. Like her or not she is very popular in Alaska even if the brie and chardonnay crowd consider Alaskans a bunch of hicks. I'm sure if she was the VP candidate on the Dem side they would be singing out of a different side of their mouth. BTW, Biden matched her for inaccuracies in the debate.
-
UpTooLate is certainly one of our most bizarre characters. I am eager to subscribe to his newsletter.
Thanks. I think. Time would be my limitation. However, Republican politics and topless bar etiquette (Why drain your wallet with $25 dollar lap dances when you can get the whole enchilada for much less?) do make for an interesting dichotomy. With an initial readership of about 3 it would be an uphill battle. I ought to print a manual on the last topic and sell it. Cash of course, as I don't want Obidon taking all my earnings.
-
It shouldn't. What are Obama's accomplishments? <crickets chirping>
He's been a Senator for two years and spent at least one of those years mostly as a candidate for President. His voting record in those two years is sparse. Community leader in Chicago? Did he delegate who was to bring the charcoal/lighter fluid and who was to bring the drinks/ice? Yawn. A stint in the Illinois Senate? Whoopdeedoo. I'm repeating myself, but it killed me in the debate to hear Bidon speaking of Obama's Senate voting record as if Obama has been there longer than the degree schedule of a junior college.
It's a given that Obama is charismatic. The man can give a speech. Yipee Yie Yay! That he brings tears to Oprah's eyes means shit to me. It obviously means more to others. Can Obama negotiate with foreign leaders, put together a sensible budget, delegate authority? Nobody knows the answer to this because he's never had to do it. The last two items are lacking for McCain as well, so that would yet to be seen also. I've grown tired of hearing about McCain's time as a POW, but it does demonstrate that he's one hell of a patriot as well as possessing a pair made out of solid brass. Palin however, has done the budget/delegation stuff (well) and the foreign diplomacy skills are the unknown for her. If this election is "all about the economy", then advantage Palin when stacked against Obama. Yes, the number two on the McCain ticket is MORE qualified than the number one on the Obama ticket. Conversely, Bidon is far more qualified than his running mate based on experience.
Well, one thing's for sure. Your avatar now looks a whole lot more appropriate next to the shit you post.
By the way, Obama's been a US Senator for four years.
-
Well, one thing's for sure. Your avatar now looks a whole lot more appropriate next to the shit you post.
By the way, Obama's been a US Senator for four years.
I stand corrected on the length of Obama's term. Thanks.
That avatar IS a picture of me. Handsome. No?
-
I don't want Obidon taking all my earnings.
Here's a comparison from the Washinton Post between the two candidate's tax plans (http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif).
-
Well, one thing's for sure. Your avatar now looks a whole lot more appropriate next to the shit you post.
By the way, Obama's been a US Senator for four years.
Actually, three years and nine months, but who's counting?
-
"In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122325448093406451.html)
-
Here's a comparison from the Washinton Post between the two candidate's tax plans (http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif).
The Obama plan should do wonders for the economy with all those dollars from the top earners being used to pay for refundable tax credits from the government rather than for capital investment and jobs creation in the private sector.
-
The Obama plan should do wonders for the economy with all those dollars from the top earners being used to pay for refundable tax credits from the government rather than for capital investment and jobs creation in the private sector.
Because the Bush tax cuts that McCain once opposed but now vows to make permanent are doing so much for job creation right now. Eh? Oh.
9 straight months of job losses. September being the worst single month in 5 years. Over 700,000 jobs gone this year alone.
-
Because the Bush tax cuts that McCain once opposed but now vows to make permanent are doing so much for job creation right now. Eh? Oh.
9 straight months of job losses. September being the worst single month in 5 years. Over 700,000 jobs gone this year alone.
In case you missed it, those tax cuts were implemented five years ago and resulted in economic growth, job creation and increased tax receipts for the government. The economy has slowed in the last year or so because of skyrocketing food and energy prices, a weak dollar, the credit crunch and, not least, because those tax cuts, not having been made permanent, will expire and result in a tax increase in the near future. Even Keynesians do not recommend a tax hike in the face of a recession like Obama is suggesting.
-
In case you missed it, those tax cuts were implemented five years ago and resulted in economic growth, job creation and increased tax receipts for the government. The economy has slowed in the last year or so because of skyrocketing food and energy prices, a weak dollar, the credit crunch and, not least, because those tax cuts, not having been made permanent, will expire and result in a tax increase in the near future. Even Keynesians do not recommend a tax hike in the face of a recession like Obama is suggesting.
So the 1% who are actually facing a tax hike are the ones being affeted by syrocketing food and energy prices?
-
So the 1% who are actually facing a tax hike are the ones being affeted by syrocketing food and energy prices?
I was about to note that I know a handful of people who would be hit by the proposed tax changes, and they're nobly scraping by, somehow.
-
Just to be clear, because those people aren't noticably impacted by skyrocketting food prices, etc., they should pay more because those not in that tax bracket decided they can afford to? This is that "fairness" thing Biden was refering to, right?
-
So the 1% who are actually facing a tax hike are the ones being affeted by syrocketing food and energy prices?
How is the messiah going to pay for all of his give-away programs by only raising taxes on 1%? I think there is a disconnect here.
-
How is the messiah going to pay for all of his give-away programs by only raising taxes on 1%? I think there is a disconnect here.
The Evil 1% represent a substantial percentage of tax revenue, so going after them has a proportionally higher impact. Of course, they use the roads, hospitals, schools and public services more so that's only fair. And, besides, they probably just waste their extra income by saving anyway. Bastards.
-
How is the messiah going to pay for all of his give-away programs by only raising taxes on 1%? I think there is a disconnect here.
a. Raising taxes on the top 1% provides a whole lot more effect than cutting the bottom 95%.
b. He's proposed cutting other programs, but has been very nebulous about this.
c. The "messiah" crap is really childish.
-
So the 1% who are actually facing a tax hike are the ones being affeted by syrocketing food and energy prices?
What are you talking about?
-
I was about to note that I know a handful of people who would be hit by the proposed tax changes, and they're nobly scraping by, somehow.
Who wrote that?
-
What are you talking about?
Arky wrote:
Even Keynesians do not recommend a tax hike in the face of a recession like Obama is suggesting.
Obama's plan raises taxes only on the top 1% of income earners.
-
Saying that rising food and energy prices have contributed to the economic slowdown is not implying that the highest-income taxpayers are especially affected or just scraping by.
The economy grew after the 2003 tax cuts. It starting slowing in 2007 because, among other things, food and energy prices rose.
Raising taxes on the highest-income taxpayers in the face of recession is not problematic because they can't put food on the table and gas in their cars.
It's because raising their taxes creates a disincentive to invest in the economy, which is a key ingredient to curtailing the recession.
-
Who wrote that?
I wrote that. What are you talking about?
-
Arky wrote:
Obama's plan raises taxes only on the top 1% of income earners.
Right. And those are among the people with the resources to invest in the economy and curtail the recession. I never linked the top 1% to food and energy prices. You did. Of course they can afford to put food on their tables and gas in their cars easier than others can. That doesn't change the fact that raising their taxes reduces their incentives to invest.
-
I wrote that. What are you talking about?
Never mind.
-
Never mind.
Victory!
-
Victory!
Yes, Victory Pilsner available at a Spec's near you. Not bad stuff.
-
Yes, Victory Pilsner available at a Spec's near you. Not bad stuff.
No, he means Victory! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083284/)
-
That doesn't change the fact that raising their taxes reduces their incentives to invest.
I think the message is getting lost with this statement. It's not that their incentive to invest is reduced (as critics will argue, "what, they suddenly don't want to make new profitable products? Preposterous!), but rather when they look at their current businesses profit each month and decide how much to pull out as personal income for themselves vs leave in the business, they will now have to pull out more in order to take home the same amount they were before. Ie, instead of pulling out 20k and taking home $13k after tax, they'll now have to pull out $26k for the same take home. That $6k difference is what is important here. That's money not spent on investments (another employee's salary, for instance).
-
Yes, Victory Pilsner available at a Spec's near you. Not bad stuff.
I tried that last month, actually. That is one dry beer.
-
Obama's plan raises taxes only on the top 1% of income earners.
I don't understand economics on this level well enough to answer a question put to me. Maybe one of you can:
Obama plans to raise taxes on those who earn over ~$250,000. Many of those are small business owners. Small business owners are having trouble making payroll because they can't get loans because of the credit problems. Wouldn't raises their taxes essentially take money out of their business in a similar manner as the lack of credit is doing right now?
My response was that it was personal tax not business. The reply was that the owner would simply take more from the business to keep the income while removing jobs or other essentials from the business. And, yes, even if it means more work on the owner's part.
-
Obama plans to raise taxes on those who earn over ~$250,000. Many of those are small business owners.
As explained here (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html). Obama is proposing a tax increase of 4.5 to 12 points on two thirds of small business owners.
-
As explained here (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html). Obama is proposing a tax increase of 4.5 to 12 points on two thirds of small business owners.
Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of "Leave Us Alone — Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives."
-
Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of "Leave Us Alone — Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives."
Good point, any reference to Obama's numbers should therefor be cut in half, and please dont bother looking them up in Google.
-
As explained here (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html). Obama is proposing a tax increase of 4.5 to 12 points on two thirds of small business owners.
Well, I was hoping for something a bit more impartial.
-
I think the message is getting lost with this statement. It's not that their incentive to invest is reduced (as critics will argue, "what, they suddenly don't want to make new profitable products? Preposterous!), but rather when they look at their current businesses profit each month and decide how much to pull out as personal income for themselves vs leave in the business, they will now have to pull out more in order to take home the same amount they were before. Ie, instead of pulling out 20k and taking home $13k after tax, they'll now have to pull out $26k for the same take home. That $6k difference is what is important here. That's money not spent on investments (another employee's salary, for instance).
That's not all there is to it. The increases leave them with less money to invest, since more of their money is going to the government. It also leaves them with less incentive to invest in ventures where they will be subject to the tax, since the actual return on investment is dictated in part by the level of taxes they will have to pay.
-
a. Raising taxes on the top 1% provides a whole lot more effect than cutting the bottom 95%.
b. He's proposed cutting other programs, but has been very nebulous about this.
c. The "messiah" crap is really childish.
What is childish is the constant cramming down our throats of how wonderful this POLITICIAN is. He makes Oprah cry, he gives Chris Matthews chills down his leg. He is running for office, he changes his story constantly and lies like they ALL DO. In January he had plants in the front row "fainting" while he spoke. That is childish.
-
Victory!
Congratulations!
-
That's not all there is to it. The increases leave them with less money to invest, since more of their money is going to the government. It also leaves them with less incentive to invest in ventures where they will be subject to the tax, since the actual return on investment is dictated in part by the level of taxes they will have to pay.
The rich are smart. They will find unproductive tax schemes to put their money and move alot of it overseas where it will not do anything for America's economy.
-
Just to be clear, because those people aren't noticably impacted by skyrocketting food prices, etc., they should pay more because those not in that tax bracket decided they can afford to? This is that "fairness" thing Biden was refering to, right?
They (and this includes me, btw, so I am voting with my wallet to pay more taxes) pay a lesser proportion of their income in taxes than those earning less. Most people have neither capital gains nor stock dividends, which is where much of the Bush tax cuts were made. Most people don't hit the FICA cap.
-
They (and this includes me, btw, so I am voting with my wallet to pay more taxes) pay a lesser proportion of their income in taxes than those earning less. Most people have neither capital gains nor stock dividends, which is where much of the Bush tax cuts were made. Most people don't hit the FICA cap.
But anybody with money invested in the stock market, and that includes tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers with retirement accounts, suffers when the stock market suffers. The stock market is not some faraway roulette table for fatcats.
-
There is a very interesting, thorough and reasonably non-partisan overview of the presidential election in this week's Economist:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12321683
-
That's not all there is to it. The increases leave them with less money to invest, since more of their money is going to the government. It also leaves them with less incentive to invest in ventures where they will be subject to the tax, since the actual return on investment is dictated in part by the level of taxes they will have to pay.
Smart money fled the market for t-bills weeks ago, where it's doing nothing but earning interest from the government. Only through government spending - like Obama's proposing - does that money get back into circulation.
Meanwhile, if you give a lower paid family more money, they don't sit on it. They spend it, which is a good thing, or pay theor mortgage with it, which is an even better thing, or pay down credit cards, or pay medical bills, or put kids through college with it. Not one penny stays in their own pockets. It goes back into the economy as demand, stimulating growth and keeping the money-go-round turning.
Trickle down has been tried, and has failed massively. It's time to put money back in the hands of people who spend it (because they have to) instead of those who hoard it (because they can).
-
But anybody with money invested in the stock market, and that includes tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers with retirement accounts, suffers when the stock market suffers. The stock market is not some faraway roulette table for fatcats.
Really? Roulette is exactly what it's been.
And don't forget, those who invest in the stock market via 401(k)s and IRAs cannot take a tax deduction for their losses. Those who invest over and above the tax deferred allowances can deduct every penny of value lost on every share they sell at a loss.
-
Trickle down has been tried, and has failed massively. It's time to put money back in the hands of people who spend it (because they have to) instead of those who hoard it (because they can).
Cutting marginal tax rates to spur investment and growth worked when JFK cut taxes, worked when Reagan cut taxes and worked when Bush cut taxes. Of course, if you proceed from the false assumption that people who have money hoard it, as opposed to put it to productive use in the economy through investment, then I understand that you might erroneously conclude that cutting marginal tax rates is a failed policy.
-
Cutting marginal tax rates to spur investment and growth worked when JFK cut taxes, worked when Reagan cut taxes and worked when Bush cut taxes. Of course, if you proceed from the false assumption that people who have money hoard it, as opposed to put it to productive use in the economy through investment, then I understand that you might erroneously conclude that cutting marginal tax rates is a failed policy.
Reagan signed into law what was, at the time, the largest tax increase in American history.
What was the tax rate in the 50's when the middle class exploded in America?
Also, you proceed from the false assumption that people of wealth put all their money to use in the economy. They simply don't.
-
Really? Roulette is exactly what it's been.
So you're saying that investing in the stock market is no different than ponying up at the roulette table?
And don't forget, those who invest in the stock market via 401(k)s and IRAs cannot take a tax deduction for their losses. Those who invest over and above the tax deferred allowances can deduct every penny of value lost on every share they sell at a loss.
This is because in a tax-deferred account, your gains and losses don't have a tax effect except to the extent they determine how much you have to withdraw at retirement when you pay taxes.
And, again, it's not the tax treatment on securities held through tax-deferred accounts that is the main issue here. It's that if tax treatment causes the market as a whole to suffer, then everyone's accounts suffer, tax-deferred or not.
-
So you're saying that investing in the stock market is no different than ponying up at the roulette table?
No, I can actually break even at the roulette table.
BA DUM CHING
-
Here are the things that Limey is an expert in:
Insurance underwriting
Youtube clip finding
Energy Trading
Constitutional Law
Macroeconomics (with a special focus in capital allocation)
I don't want to sell you short Limey - what else am I missing?
ETA:
Oh, I forgot:
Individual stock analysis (with a focus on AAPL)
And of course, consumer electronics advice
-
Also, you proceed from the false assumption that people of wealth put all their money to use in the economy. They simply don't.
Where do you think it goes? Mattresses?
-
Here are the things that Limey is an expert in:
Insurance underwriting
Youtube clip finding
Energy Trading
Constitutional Law
Macroeconomics (with a special focus in capital allocation)
I don't want to sell you short Limey - what else am I missing?
ETA:
Oh, I forgot:
Individual stock analysis (with a focus on AAPL)
And of course, consumer electronics advice
Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Connelly also.
-
Where do you think it goes? Mattresses?
They blow it all on yachts, cigars, cognac, champagne, caviar, tuxedos, monacles, top hats, canes, cigarette holders, furs, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, trophy wives and other nonsense.
-
Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Connelly also.
Young starlets in general - great add.
-
Reagan signed into law what was, at the time, the largest tax increase in American history.
Reagan and Congress cut taxes in 1981.
What was the tax rate in the 50's when the middle class exploded in America?
Top rate in the 90s, bottom rate in the 20s, generally speaking.
Also, you proceed from the false assumption that people of wealth put all their money to use in the economy. They simply don't.
They not infrequently put whatever they're not using for consumption into investments. They don't tend to leave it all sitting around.
-
Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Connelly also.
I'll certainly give him Scarlet, but since he managed to post the only picture of Jennifer Connelly on the entire internets that actually includes a shirt, I refuse to award him credit for expertise on the subject. Sorry. Tough but fair.
-
I'll certainly give him Scarlet, but since he managed to post the only picture of Jennifer Connelly on the entire internets that actually includes a shirt, I refuse to award him credit for expertise on the subject. Sorry. Tough but fair.
He's been posting about her "loss" for what seems like forever. Plus, isn't she a Brit?
-
He's been posting about her "loss" for what seems like forever. Plus, isn't she a Brit?
No those are she is all American.
-
He's been posting about her "loss" for what seems like forever. Plus, isn't she a Brit?
I think most around here regard that as our loss, not hers.
-
Well, I am obviously not an expert on her.
I should have known better, she has all her teeth.
-
Some perspective on the election (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_60_million_people_youd?utm_source=EMTF_Onion)
-
Some perspective on the election (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_60_million_people_youd?utm_source=EMTF_Onion)
Remarkably, the one thing you do have in common with these 60 million other people is that you both know several assholes who are actually planning to vote for a third-party candidate, if you can believe that shit.
-
Some perspective on the election (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_60_million_people_youd?utm_source=EMTF_Onion)
This is the best post in the entire thread.
-
This is the best post in the entire thread.
...and to think, this all started before the void hit. It could get better/worse....
-
...and to think, this all started before the void hit. It could get better/worse....
I'm holding out hope that the forum software developers did not contemplate 100 pages. Our own little Y2K, if you will.
-
I can't for the life of me come up with a reason that doesn't seem like the kid is a prop. I think that baby should be with a babysitter in his crib.
Lots of folks do. Clearly, this is a personal choice. I'd bring my daughter with me, if that were me, given her temperament (she can blissfully sleep through the pre-sermon [loud] worship music or just enjoy looking around at the lights and stuff at Lakewood on a weekly basis, and has since she first went at 2 weeks old). It's a sharing experience for the whole family, and unless your kid's the type that doesn't like loud or sudden noises, I don't see the problem.
As for being a prop, IF that's the sole reasoning, then shame on her. However, I have a difficult time believing that a parent would only view their child as a prop. In this setting, at least.
-
Lots of folks do. Clearly, this is a personal choice. I'd bring my daughter with me, if that were me, given her temperament (she can blissfully sleep through the pre-sermon [loud] worship music or just enjoy looking around at the lights and stuff at Lakewood on a weekly basis, and has since she first went at 2 weeks old). It's a sharing experience for the whole family, and unless your kid's the type that doesn't like loud or sudden noises, I don't see the problem.
As for being a prop, IF that's the sole reasoning, then shame on her. However, I have a difficult time believing that a parent would only view their child as a prop. In this setting, at least.
I'm not a mom (yet, fingers crossed) so I'll let someone else opine. Warning: Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-shuster/say-it-aint-so-trig-palin_b_131499.html)
-
Here are the things that Limey is an expert in:
Insurance underwriting
Youtube clip finding
Energy Trading
Constitutional Law
Macroeconomics (with a special focus in capital allocation)
I don't want to sell you short Limey - what else am I missing?
ETA:
Oh, I forgot:
Individual stock analysis (with a focus on AAPL)
And of course, consumer electronics advice
Nobody's allowed to say anything unless they are a bona fide expert? Well, there goes site traffic down to nil.
-
They blow it all on yachts, cigars, cognac, champagne, caviar, tuxedos, monacles, top hats, canes, cigarette holders, furs, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, trophy wives and other nonsense.
Or invest it overseas, like some of my portfolio which is in a European fund. Or park it in real estate, which is money that is dead until they sell it. Or put it in t-bills.
And if any of those "yachts, cigars, cognac, champagne, caviar, tuxedos, monacles, top hats, canes, cigarette holders, furs, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, trophy wives and other nonsense" happen to be made by foreign manufacturers, little value of such expenditure is derived in the US economy.
-
And if any of those "yachts, cigars, cognac, champagne, caviar, tuxedos, monacles, top hats, canes, cigarette holders, furs, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, trophy wives and other nonsense" happen to be made by foreign manufacturers, little value of such expenditure is derived in the US economy.
Except the sales tax. Of course, I can't imagine a tax-hating Republican ever wanting to raise sales taxes.
-
I'm not a mom (yet, fingers crossed) so I'll let someone else opine. Warning: Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-shuster/say-it-aint-so-trig-palin_b_131499.html)
Ivy's just a little older than the author of that article (she's almost 11 weeks), and I start getting her ready for bed around 9 (feeding, rocking, etc.) She's asleep 75% of the time by 10pm. Sometimes it goes as late as 11pm. However, she's up every morning around 5:30 for "breakfast" (which means that *I* am up, as well). So, she's been getting about 7.5 - 8 hours sleep per night. That's about what an adult gets/needs... granted, she's on this schedule earlier than most (the sleeping through the night thing), but as for WHEN she falls asleep... I start the process out of a matter of convenience for myself. She'd get her same 8 hours if I put her to bed at 7pm, but I have diminished enthusiasm for a baby wide awake and ready to start the day at 3am.
5-month olds probably have similar night-time sleep "needs", so I don't see being awake late as a big deal. WHEN they go to sleep is up to the parents. HOW MUCH they sleep is dictated by the child's needs (well, and also by whether someone wakes them up early). So, calling someone on the carpet because their infant is up late is kind of weak, IMO. The "prop" angle is speculation. None of us know... just some might THINK they know.
-
Reagan and Congress cut taxes in 1981.
They cut income taxes, and introduced/increased payroll taxes. The latter fall disporportionately on middle and lower income earners because (a) it's paid up to a certain income amount, after which all further income is tax free; and (b) it's not charged against stock dividends or realised capital gains, which form a much higher proportion of income of the wealthy over everyone else.
I reiterate: Reagan's move on payroll taxes was, at the time, the single largest tax increase in American history.
-
Or invest it overseas, like some of my portfolio which is in a European fund. Or park it in real estate, which is money that is dead until they sell it. Or put it in t-bills.
And if any of those "yachts, cigars, cognac, champagne, caviar, tuxedos, monacles, top hats, canes, cigarette holders, furs, Rolls Royces, Bentleys, trophy wives and other nonsense" happen to be made by foreign manufacturers, little value of such expenditure is derived in the US economy.
My trophy wife was manufactured in the U.S., but includes parts from Mexico and Germany. Following the money is nearly impossible in this global economy.
-
My trophy wife was manufactured in the U.S., but includes parts from Mexico and Germany. Following the money is nearly impossible in this global economy.
I have an idea as to which parts would be best coming from which country, but decorum prohibits me listing them here.
-
I'm not a mom (yet, fingers crossed) so I'll let someone else opine. Warning: Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-shuster/say-it-aint-so-trig-palin_b_131499.html)
Children/families being trotted out at the end of debates and speeches is old hat and common place. Not a big fan of Palin but I feel she is taking heat on this matter because she is a mom and not the dad. If the baby was brought on stage after the dad debated, it wouldn't even hit the radar.
As for the schedule issue. I am a big fan of schedules but if you are running for VP, you can' t keep the rigid schedule most of us would prefer for a child. I am quite sure the child is getting all basic needs met backstage, on the bus/plane as he is with his mom on the campaign trail.
On the other hand, am I the only one who finds it cruel that she has named a developmentally delayed child Trig?
-
My trophy wife was manufactured in the U.S., but includes parts from Mexico and Germany. Following the money is nearly impossible in this global economy.
Please understand if we're skeptical of any photo you might post.
-
If the baby was brought on stage after the dad debated, it wouldn't even hit the radar.
On the other hand, am I the only one who finds it cruel that she has named a developmentally delayed child Trig?
Correct on both counts.
-
If the baby was brought on stage after the dad debated, it wouldn't even hit the radar.
I beg to differ. I'd shoot at that like a moose stuck in the ice.
-
I beg to differ. I'd shoot at that like a moose stuck in the ice.
I take it you're not a hunter.
-
I take it you're not a hunter.
Eh, no.
-
Not a big fan of Palin but I feel she is taking heat on this matter because she is a mom and not the dad. If the baby was brought on stage after the dad debated, it wouldn't even hit the radar.
I tend to agree, here, and I'm saying that without any kind of "feminist" agenda. We can't all be SAHMs, and so unless there's a SAHD, someone else will be tending the child most of the day. I doubt Palin has anything but the best care (whether it's herself, her husband or a paid caretaker) for her son (and the rest of her kids, for that matter).
On the other hand, am I the only one who finds it cruel that she has named a developmentally delayed child Trig?
Probably some regulars here couldn't be named "Add" :) "Track" is a really odd name, as well. Not a big fan of those kinds of odd names, myself, but, at least it's memorable.
-
Please understand if we're skeptical of any photo you might post.
(closes Photoshop)
-
Eh, no.
Many hunters use feeders to attract deer and sit in trees (sometimes unsuccessfully) waiting for the deer to come and eat. If one does...BLAMMO!
What my father-in-law does (in PA) is track deer over the Appalachians, in minus temperatures and in sometimes deep snow, in danger of being shot by other hunters who may be Dick Cheney not as sober as him, and if/when he bags his deer he has to drag the fucker back over the mountains to wherever he left his truck. That's hunting. Doing that with a bow is Rambo hunting.
-
Eh, no.
Your post made me laugh because you don't shoot an animal stuck in the ice. You'd fall through before getting it out.
-
I tend to agree, here, and I'm saying that without any kind of "feminist" agenda. We can't all be SAHMs, and so unless there's a SAHD, someone else will be tending the child most of the day. I doubt Palin has anything but the best care (whether it's herself, her husband or a paid caretaker) for her son (and the rest of her kids, for that matter).
Probably some regulars here couldn't be named "Add" :) "Track" is a really odd name, as well. Not a big fan of those kinds of odd names, myself, but, at least it's memorable.
I think all four candidates are atrocious, so I'm not biased by any particular political affiliation. Palin's children's names are individually among the most ridiculous I have ever seen and collectively are just mind-blowing. Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow, Piper. Forget anything about how experienced she is vs. Obama or Biden - this is a terrifying display of judgment.
-
Probably some regulars here couldn't be named "Add" :) "Track" is a really odd name, as well. Not a big fan of those kinds of odd names, myself, but, at least it's memorable.
If you know cockney rhyming slang, her knocked-up daughter being called "Bristol" is fucking hilarious.
-
Many hunters use feeders to attract deer and sit in trees (sometimes unsuccessfully) waiting for the deer to come and eat. If one does...BLAMMO!
What my father-in-law does (in PA) is track deer over the Appalachians, in minus temperatures and in sometimes deep snow, in danger of being shot by other hunters who may be Dick Cheney not as sober as him, and if/when he bags his deer he has to drag the fucker back over the mountains to wherever he left his truck. That's hunting. Doing that with a bow is Rambo hunting.
My father-in-law used to do something similar in the Colorado mountains. Of course he also used to duck hunt in the marsh....barefoot.
-
Your post made me laugh because you don't shoot an animal stuck in the ice. You'd fall through before getting it out.
I was thinking more along the lines of putting it out of it's misery.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of putting it out of it's misery.
Real hunters never shoot wild game they don't intend to eat. You let nature take its course, even if it seems cruel. Seems an apt metaphor for going after a male pol who uses his baby as a prop.
-
If you know cockney rhyming slang, her knocked-up daughter being called "Bristol" is fucking hilarious.
Cockney rhyming slang absolutely baffles me.
-
I think all four candidates are atrocious, so I'm not biased by any particular political affiliation. Palin's children's names are individually among the most ridiculous I have ever seen and collectively are just mind-blowing. Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow, Piper. Forget anything about how experienced she is vs. Obama or Biden - this is a terrifying display of judgment.
One of my favorite blogs (http://bestparentever.com/2008/03/13/2-dumb-baby-names-2/) (check out the one about placentas (http://bestparentever.com/2008/06/16/41-the-all-purpose-placenta/))
-
I was thinking more along the lines of putting it out of it's misery.
That made me think of this:
My sister has a horse and last week it broke it's leg. She called me and begged me to come over and shoot it for her. It was hard to do...but she is my sister so I did it. Now the poor thing has a broken leg and a gun shot wound. I guess it's supposed to help the healing process or something?? Seems kind of cruel if you ask me.
-
That made me think of this:
I thought that joke was much older than Larry the Cable Guy?
-
If you know cockney rhyming slang, her knocked-up daughter being called "Bristol" is fucking hilarious.
Trying to figure out CRS in real time makes my head hurt, but you're right. That's pretty fricking funny.
-
Real hunters never shoot wild game they don't intend to eat. You let nature take its course, even if it seems cruel. Seems an apt metaphor for going after a male pol who uses his baby as a prop.
So I fucked that up but I learned something. That seems an apt metaphor for something, eh?
-
I thought that joke was much older than Larry the Cable Guy?
I'm sure it is. I just love his delivery.
-
I'm sure it is. I just love his delivery.
I always knew there was something wrong with you.
-
I'm sure it is. I just love his delivery.
Him and that Dane Cook guy are hilarious. Golden age of comedy.
-
I always knew there was something wrong with you.
There is, lots.
Him and that Dane Cook guy are hilarious. Golden age of comedy.
I appreciate Larry the Cable Guy because of the whole hick routine. There is no excuse for Dane Cook.
-
Nobody's allowed to say anything unless they are a bona fide expert? Well, there goes site traffic down to nil.
We could have Jim talking about Baseball, you talking about tits, Dobro talking about steroids, and could add a whole board on legal talk.
On second thought, let's just carry on as-is.
-
T-minus 130 posts.
-
Many hunters use feeders to attract deer and sit in trees (sometimes unsuccessfully) waiting for the deer to come and eat. If one does...BLAMMO!
What my father-in-law does (in PA) is track deer over the Appalachians, in minus temperatures and in sometimes deep snow, in danger of being shot by other hunters who may be Dick Cheney not as sober as him, and if/when he bags his deer he has to drag the fucker back over the mountains to wherever he left his truck. That's hunting. Doing that with a bow is Rambo hunting.
I always liked putting the deer feed in my front yard, drawing them in close, and then chasing off the hunters that were tracking them. Much more sporting to me.
-
I think all four candidates are atrocious, so I'm not biased by any particular political affiliation. Palin's children's names are individually among the most ridiculous I have ever seen and collectively are just mind-blowing. Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow, Piper. Forget anything about how experienced she is vs. Obama or Biden - this is a terrifying display of judgment.
My brother has three kids: Piper, Seven, and Finn. A fourth is on the way with no idea of the name. I'm not sure the children's names should be made fun of by anyone above their grade level.
-
Cockney rhyming slang absolutely baffles me.
You take a pair of words in common usage, one of which rhymes with the word you mean, but you use the non-rhyming word in its place. So, there's a soccer team in the west country called Bristol City. "City" rhymes with "Tittie", so instead of saying "Look at them titties!", you say "Check out them Bristols".
Sometimes the word association goes a few layers deep, which is why it can be impenetrable to the uninitiated. For example: Jacobs = testicles. Here it is in a sentence:
Stop me again when I'm walking, and I'll cut your fucking Jacobs off!
Here's how that comes about: Jacobs is a company that manufactures a delicious product called "Cream Crackers"*. "Crackers" rhymes with "knackers", which is simple slang (not rhyming slang) for testicles. It makes little sense but sort of follows the rules. The whole point behind rhyming slang is for it to be gibberish to those outside the "know" - it was invented on the London docks so that the dockers could slag off their bosses without them knowing it.
* Take the Cream Cracker Challenge! Eat two in two minutes without drinking anything.
More rhyming slang (remember, only the non-rhyming word is used):
Butcher's Hook = look..."Let's 'ave a butcher's!"
Lady Godiva = fiver..."Here's the lady I owe ya!"
Apples and Pears = stairs..."It's Friday night, love. Get up them apples!"
China plate = mate..."How ya doin' me old china!"
Barnet Fair = hair..."Fuck me! What 'ave you done to your barnet?"
Pork pies - lies..."You telling me porkies?"
Trouble and strife = wife..."Quiet lads! I've got me trouble on the phone."
Tomfoolery = jewelery..."I bought me bird some tom for her birthday."
Boat race - face..."'Allo darlin'. You wanna come on my boat?"
Rasberry tart = fart..."Who blew a rasberry?" (And you wondered where that came from)
Plates of meat = feet..."Get yer plates off my nice furniture!"
Skyrocket = pocket..."How much dosh you got in your sky?"
and many, many more.
-
My brother has three kids: Piper, Seven, and Finn. A fourth is on the way with no idea of the name. I'm not sure the children's names should be made fun of by anyone above their grade level.
I wouldn't make fun of the kid - they have nothing to do with the names. The parent is a different story.
-
I thought that joke was much older than Larry the Cable Guy?
Someone should shoot Larry the Cable Guy to put him out of my misery.
-
We could have Jim talking about Baseball, you talking about tits, Dobro talking about steroids, and could add a whole board on legal talk.
On second thought, let's just carry on as-is.
I wouldn't mind reading more of StrosRays....
-
I wouldn't mind reading more of StrosRays....
100% agreed, although not sure how I would define his area of expertise.
-
I wouldn't make fun of the kid - they have nothing to do with the names. The parent is a different story.
I'll let him know.
-
I wouldn't make fun of the kid - they have nothing to do with the names. The parent is a different story.
Any parent who gives their kid a regular name with an irregular spelling, is simply dooming the poor child to a lifetime of repeating their name, spelling it and correcting people over the spelling. Life's too short to spend any time saying "No, that's Lymie with a 'y'...no, not at the end, after the 'L'...and 'ie' on the end...no, not 'Lymeyie'..." Have you ever noticed that your IT technician, despite his heavy Bangalorean accent, is called "Mike"?
-
In a day of dealing with Dell customer support, I got the entire cast of Friends as my "contacts".
-
You take a pair of words in common usage, one of which rhymes with the word you mean, but you use the non-rhyming word in its place. So, there's a soccer team in the west country called Bristol City. "City" rhymes with "Tittie", so instead of saying "Look at them titties!", you say "Check out them Bristols".
Sometimes the word association goes a few layers deep, which is why it can be impenetrable to the uninitiated. For example: Jacobs = testicles. Here it is in a sentence:
Here's how that comes about: Jacobs is a company that manufactures a delicious product called "Cream Crackers"*. "Crackers" rhymes with "knackers", which is simple slang (not rhyming slang) for testicles. It makes little sense but sort of follows the rules. The whole point behind rhyming slang is for it to be gibberish to those outside the "know" - it was invented on the London docks so that the dockers could slag off their bosses without them knowing it.
* Take the Cream Cracker Challenge! Eat two in two minutes without drinking anything.
More rhyming slang (remember, only the non-rhyming word is used):
Butcher's Hook = look..."Let's 'ave a butcher's!"
Lady Godiva = fiver..."Here's the lady I owe ya!"
Apples and Pears = stairs..."It's Friday night, love. Get up them apples!"
China plate = mate..."How ya doin' me old china!"
Barnet Fair = hair..."Fuck me! What 'ave you done to your barnet?"
Pork pies - lies..."You telling me porkies?"
Trouble and strife = wife..."Quiet lads! I've got me trouble on the phone."
Tomfoolery = jewelery..."I bought me bird some tom for her birthday."
Boat race - face..."'Allo darlin'. You wanna come on my boat?"
Rasberry tart = fart..."Who blew a rasberry?" (And you wondered where that came from)
Plates of meat = feet..."Get yer plates off my nice furniture!"
Skyrocket = pocket..."How much dosh you got in your sky?"
and many, many more.
I should've saved you a lot of typing by clarifying that I know what it is, I just don't get it.
"I need another word for face, for some reason. What rhymes with face?"
"Leather case? Car chase? Boat race?"
"Boat race. Boat. Yeah. That makes no sense at all. That's good. Use it in a sentence?"
"I will administer approximately two closed hand strikes to your boat."
"Oh, that's gold. Let's tell everyone."
-
I'll let him know.
Thank you - I will let you know as my feelings on the subject develop in case he needs to be alerted to any changes.
-
Any parent who gives their kid a regular name with an irregular spelling, is simply dooming the poor child to a lifetime of repeating their name, spelling it and correcting people over the spelling. Life's too short to spend any time saying "No, that's Lymie with a 'y'...no, not at the end, after the 'L'...and 'ie' on the end...no, not 'Lymeyie'..." Have you ever noticed that your IT technician, despite his heavy Bangalorean accent, is called "Mike"?
Correct. Also, if you give your kid a long name, don't get all worked up when people shorten it for ease of use.
-
I should've saved you a lot of typing by clarifying that I know what it is, I just don't get it.
"I need another word for face, for some reason. What rhymes with face?"
"Leather case? Car chase? Boat race?"
"Boat race. Boat. Yeah. That makes no sense at all. That's good. Use it in a sentence?"
"I will administer approximately two closed hand strikes to your boat."
"Oh, that's gold. Let's tell everyone."
Is POTW still going on? Nominated, regardless.
-
Correct. Also, if you give your kid a long name, don't get all worked up when people shorten it for ease of use.
My philosophy was to give the kid an out with the middle name, if I found I was just compelled to go with something long or um... "interesting" as a first name. Moot point, though, as I think with "Ivy" we picked a name that's very difficult to mess up or mispronounce. Minimal brush/keystrokes, as well.
-
Correct. Also, if you give your kid a long name, don't get all worked up when people shorten it for ease of use.
MY Dad's name is "Ian", but most of his friends call him "E".
-
My brother has three kids: Piper, Seven, and Finn. A fourth is on the way with no idea of the name. I'm not sure the children's names should be made fun of by anyone above their grade level.
That was an episode of Seinfeld.
"Seven."
"Seven Costanza... You're serious?"
"Yeah. It's a beautiful name for a boy or a girl. Especially a girl... Or a boy."
"I don't think so."
"What, you don't like the name?"
"It's not a name. It's a number."
"I know. It's Mickey Mantle's number. So not only is it an all-around beautiful name, it is also a living tribute."
- George and Susan, in "The Seven"
"Seven? Yeah, I guess I could see it. Seven. Seven periods of school, seven beatings a day. Roughly seven stitches a beating, and eventually seven years to life. Yeah, you're doing that child quite a service."
- Jerry, in "The Seven"
-
Any parent who gives their kid a regular name with an irregular spelling, is simply dooming the poor child to a lifetime of repeating their name, spelling it and correcting people over the spelling. Life's too short to spend any time saying "No, that's Lymie with a 'y'...no, not at the end, after the 'L'...and 'ie' on the end...no, not 'Lymeyie'..." Have you ever noticed that your IT technician, despite his heavy Bangalorean accent, is called "Mike"?
As someone with a regular name with an added letter (it's really Jjon), it ain't so bad. I could care less that most people mispell my name. I also notice when a new acquaintance takes the time to spell it right, which can tell you a lot about someone. I would much prefer a weird spelling to being named Apple or Willow or Madmartigan.
-
Also, consider that a lot of names are often associated with young ladies who affix themselves to poles in hopes of acquiring cash. As in, "Put your hands together for the lovely Brandee on stage one."
-
Also, consider that a lot of names are often associated with young ladies who affix themselves to poles in hopes of acquiring cash. As in, "Put your hands together for the lovely Brandee on stage one."
OK, gotta go tell Mrs. MM that I've changed my mind on naming the next girl Sapphire.
-
OK, gotta go tell Mrs. MM that I've changed my mind on naming the next girl Sapphire.
Also stay away from Tiffany.
-
As someone with a regular name with an added letter (it's really Jjon), it ain't so bad. I could care less that most people mispell my name. I also notice when a new acquaintance takes the time to spell it right, which can tell you a lot about someone. I would much prefer a weird spelling to being named Apple or Willow or Madmartigan.
You had me right until the very end.
-
Desireé
-
Any parent who gives their kid a regular name with an irregular spelling, is simply dooming the poor child to a lifetime of repeating their name, spelling it and correcting people over the spelling. Life's too short to spend any time saying "No, that's Lymie with a 'y'...no, not at the end, after the 'L'...and 'ie' on the end...no, not 'Lymeyie'..." Have you ever noticed that your IT technician, despite his heavy Bangalorean accent, is called "Mike"?
I much prefer when the IT guys overseas go with a celebrity name. I called Dell a year or two ago and talked to Clark Gable and James Stewart in the same call.
-
Boat race - face..."'Allo darlin'. You wanna come on my boat?"
So "I'm prone to seasickness" is not the correct answer? Fuck.
-
As someone with a regular name with an added letter (it's really Jjon), it ain't so bad. I could care less that most people mispell my name. I also notice when a new acquaintance takes the time to spell it right, which can tell you a lot about someone. I would much prefer a weird spelling to being named Apple or Willow or Madmartigan.
My given name is Joey. Not so uncommon, I know. I can't tell you how many poeple are confused that I am not Joseph. My mom didn't like nicknames. It is always good to refuse a court summons because they assumed my name was Joseph, though.
-
My given name is Joey. Not so uncommon, I know. I can't tell you how many poeple are confused that I am not Joseph. My mom didn't like nicknames. It is always good to refuse a court summons because they assumed my name was Joseph, though.
I'm the same way. Parents didn't like nicknames. I won't tell you my real name, but it's definitely not Gregory. It's nice to be able to instantly identify telemarketers.
-
I don't understand economics on this level well enough to answer a question put to me. Maybe one of you can:
Obama plans to raise taxes on those who earn over ~$250,000. Many of those are small business owners. Small business owners are having trouble making payroll because they can't get loans because of the credit problems. Wouldn't raises their taxes essentially take money out of their business in a similar manner as the lack of credit is doing right now?
My response was that it was personal tax not business. The reply was that the owner would simply take more from the business to keep the income while removing jobs or other essentials from the business. And, yes, even if it means more work on the owner's part.
Absolutely!
I think what most people don't understand is how freaking expensive it is to hire somebody. What with all the payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, insurance benefits (yeah right), let alone the wage/salary. When you increase the tax on the small business owner, you've taken away incentive to hire people. Thus creating a job, supporting that persons family, expanding the economy etc.
The best thing government can do for small business is to reduce their taxes. I would surmise that the majority of small business owners would not use the "savings" towards luxury purchases. They would take that money, hire somebody and expand their business. When your small business becomes a MEDIUM to BIG business, then the luxury purchases become items you think about.
I can speak only for myself, because it's the position I'm currently in. I am growing my business, but government intervention ("send us more money or else..."}at county, state and federal level does not help. I'd be happy to hire more people if the wage/salary was the only consideration. Those cannot be used as sole excuses, but they are part of the problem. Then there is always the problem of once having hired somebody, that they claim workmans comp or sue you for any reason under the sun.
For all his imperfections, one good piece of advice my self employed old man gave me was: "If it was easy, everybody would do it." Second would be: "Employees are a fucking pain in the ass". True that.
If the government is going to look at my gross revenues and say "Hey, you make make X dollars a year and that is big bucks, so pay up!", then they are out of their mind. When you deduct vendor costs, payroll, overhead, and taxes, then there is not as much bacon going to the personal bank account as many people assume. I'm not alone on this. I talk with other business owners. It's the life we've chosen and it does have benefits to offset many of the drawbacks. Still, less government is good government when it comes to small business.
-
Absolutely!
I think what most people don't understand is how freaking expensive it is to hire somebody. What with all the payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, insurance benefits (yeah right), let alone the wage/salary. When you increase the tax on the small business owner, you've taken away incentive to hire people. Thus creating a job, supporting that persons family, expanding the economy etc.
The best thing government can do for small business is to reduce their taxes. I would surmise that the majority of small business owners would not use the "savings" towards luxury purchases. They would take that money, hire somebody and expand their business. When your small business becomes a MEDIUM to BIG business, then the luxury purchases become items you think about.
I can speak only for myself, because it's the position I'm currently in. I am growing my business, but government intervention ("send us more money or else..."}at county, state and federal level does not help. I'd be happy to hire more people if the wage/salary was the only consideration. Those cannot be used as sole excuses, but they are part of the problem. Then there is always the problem of once having hired somebody, that they claim workmans comp or sue you for any reason under the sun.
For all his imperfections, one good piece of advice my self employed old man gave me was: "If it was easy, everybody would do it." Second would be: "Employees are a fucking pain in the ass". True that.
If the government is going to look at my gross revenues and say "Hey, you make make X dollars a year and that is big bucks, so pay up!", then they are out of their mind. When you deduct vendor costs, payroll, overhead, and taxes, then there is not as much bacon going to the personal bank account as many people assume. I'm not alone on this. I talk with other business owners. It's the life we've chosen and it does have benefits to offset many of the drawbacks. Still, less government is good government when it comes to small business.
Ok. That's 2 responses from the right. I'm still waiting for my left side friends and someone more impartial.
-
Ok. That's 2 responses from the right. I'm still waiting for my left side friends and someone more impartial.
i haven't gotten the cliffs' notes for the thread yet
so admittedly, i am a little behind on some of the talk
can i ask you, do you pay healthcare costs for any employees?
-
Ok. That's 2 responses from the right. I'm still waiting for my left side friends and someone more impartial.
According to his website, Obama will eliminate capital gains tax for investments in small businesses / start-ups, and give a 50% healthcare tax credit for small businesses.
Also, Obama's universal healthcare plan will give any small businesses the option of not providing healthcare benefits because these would be affordably obtainable under the government scheme. Conversely, McCain pays for his $5,000 healthcare tax credit by taxing, as income, healthcare benefits. Under Obama, everyone has access to a healthcare plan; under McCain, healthcare plans dry up with no alternative on offer.
And those opposed to universal healthcare because they don't want to be told which doctor to go to are not paying attention. Universal healthcare is simply a government underwritten insurance plan that you can take or not. If you have insurance and are happy, you stay as you are.
I have a friend - a self-employed small business owner - who is a property appraiser which means he is out and about all the time. He has been walking around on a busted ACL for nearly two years now because he can't afford healthcare insurance for himself or his family (wife and two kids). Even if he got $5,000 from the McCain plan, it's unlikely that he would be able to afford insurance even then, and even if he did, any coverage he could get would exclude the busted knee.
My father-in-law - retired, but his wife runs her own hair salon business - has just been diagnosed with bone marrow cancer. He is lucky in that he lives in PA, where they have a State healthcare scheme to which he subscribes. Without it, they would have no health insurance as both are in their 60s and have multiple pre-existing conditions. Any commercial insurance policy would be massively expensive and would not have covered their $100s/month of prescriptions. Now that the cancer has come, he has a good chance of extending his life because they can just about afford the co-pays. Otherwise, he'd probably be broke and/or dead by Christmas.
Healthcare is not a privilege, it's a moral duty for any civilised society.
-
i haven't gotten the cliffs' notes for the thread yet
so admittedly, i am a little behind on some of the talk
can i ask you, do you pay healthcare costs for any employees?
I don't have employees. The question was originally put to me, and I came up short on the answer. I was just looking for a better answer. I gotten 2 from the right, which is fine. But I'd also like to see a left filtered answer as well as an impartial one.
-
According to his website, Obama will eliminate capital gains tax for investments in small businesses / start-ups, and give a 50% healthcare tax credit for small businesses.
Also, Obama's universal healthcare plan will give any small businesses the option of not providing healthcare benefits because these would be affordably obtainable under the government scheme. Conversely, McCain pays for his $5,000 healthcare tax credit by taxing, as income, healthcare benefits. Under Obama, everyone has access to a healthcare plan; under McCain, healthcare plans dry up with no alternative on offer.
And those opposed to universal healthcare because they don't want to be told which doctor to go to are not paying attention. Universal healthcare is simply a government underwritten insurance plan that you can take or not. If you have insurance and are happy, you stay as you are.
I have a friend - a self-employed small business owner - who is a property appraiser which means he is out and about all the time. He has been walking around on a busted ACL for nearly two years now because he can't afford healthcare insurance for himself or his family (wife and two kids). Even if he got $5,000 from the McCain plan, it's unlikely that he would be able to afford insurance even then, and even if he did, any coverage he could get would exclude the busted knee.
My father-in-law - retired, but his wife runs her own hair salon business - has just been diagnosed with bone marrow cancer. He is lucky in that he lives in PA, where they have a State healthcare scheme to which he subscribes. Without it, they would have no health insurance as both are in their 60s and have multiple pre-existing conditions. Any commercial insurance policy would be massively expensive and would not have covered their $100s/month of prescriptions. Now that the cancer has come, he has a good chance of extending his life because they can just about afford the co-pays. Otherwise, he'd probably be broke and/or dead by Christmas.
Healthcare is not a privilege, it's a moral duty for any civilised society.
I like how you can take a question start to answer it and then pivot nearly seemlessly onto a tangent that allows you to rant.
-
According to his website, Obama will eliminate capital gains tax for investments in small businesses / start-ups, and give a 50% healthcare tax credit for small businesses.
Also, Obama's universal healthcare plan will give any small businesses the option of not providing healthcare benefits because these would be affordably obtainable under the government scheme. Conversely, McCain pays for his $5,000 healthcare tax credit by taxing, as income, healthcare benefits. Under Obama, everyone has access to a healthcare plan; under McCain, healthcare plans dry up with no alternative on offer.
And those opposed to universal healthcare because they don't want to be told which doctor to go to are not paying attention. Universal healthcare is simply a government underwritten insurance plan that you can take or not. If you have insurance and are happy, you stay as you are.
I have a friend - a self-employed small business owner - who is a property appraiser which means he is out and about all the time. He has been walking around on a busted ACL for nearly two years now because he can't afford healthcare insurance for himself or his family (wife and two kids). Even if he got $5,000 from the McCain plan, it's unlikely that he would be able to afford insurance even then, and even if he did, any coverage he could get would exclude the busted knee.
My father-in-law - retired, but his wife runs her own hair salon business - has just been diagnosed with bone marrow cancer. He is lucky in that he lives in PA, where they have a State healthcare scheme to which he subscribes. Without it, they would have no health insurance as both are in their 60s and have multiple pre-existing conditions. Any commercial insurance policy would be massively expensive and would not have covered their $100s/month of prescriptions. Now that the cancer has come, he has a good chance of extending his life because they can just about afford the co-pays. Otherwise, he'd probably be broke and/or dead by Christmas.
Healthcare is not a privilege, it's a moral duty for any civilised society.
Why should employers receive a tax deduction for providing healthcare to their employers when employees cannot take a tax deduction for providing their own healthcare? Doesn't this have the distorting effect of pricing individuals out of the market for healthcare insurance?
-
I like how you can take a question start to answer it and then pivot nearly seemlessly onto a tangent that allows you to rant.
I learned it from Gov. Palin. But, to be fair to me, I thought the question was about taxes on small businesses, and I pointed out where Obama plans to give relief to same. I should also point out that, while taxes start going up for people earning over $250,000 a year, the increase is marginal until you start pushing $750,000. Thus, the relief provided to small businesses by way of capital gains and healthcare credits could easily offset the income tax increases for those smaller small businesses.
The pivot to healthcare was somewhat relevant because if you can lower healthcare costs for people, you take pressure off their wages, putting money in their pocket instead of in an HMO's. Small businesses will find it easier and cheaper to hire people if those employees have access to affordable healthcare outside of an employer-funded program.
Also, UTL talked about getting taxed on his gross revenue. If he is getting taxed on his gross revenue, he ought to fire his tax accountant or, if he doesn't have one, hire one.
-
Why should employers receive a tax deduction for providing healthcare to their employers when employees cannot take a tax deduction for providing their own healthcare? Doesn't this have the distorting effect of pricing individuals out of the market for healthcare insurance?
Healthcare premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are tax-deductible, no?
-
Healthcare premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are tax-deductible, no?
Only to the extent they exceed 7.5% of your gross income, and even then, only if you are itemizing deductions. In other words, if you're getting a deduction for your health care costs under the current system, you're probably screwed overall.
-
Only to the extent they exceed 7.5% of your gross income, and even then, only if you are itemizing deductions. In other words, if you're getting a deduction for your health care costs under the current system, you're probably screwed overall.
What I know: I can buy into a flexible spending account (I think they're called cafeteria plans) which takes pre-tax income that can be used for medical expenses (doctor visits, prescriptions, advil, etc.) The percentage of income is irrelevant.
What I *think*: I think anyone can effectively do this when they do their taxes, they just have to itemize deductions. I don't think the 7.5% of your gross income factors into that.
-
Only to the extent they exceed 7.5% of your gross income, and even then, only if you are itemizing deductions. In other words, if you're getting a deduction for your health care costs under the current system, you're probably screwed overall.
But they are still deductible subject to certain restrictions. And 7.5% sounds a lot, but if you're pulling in $50,000 a year, that's only $3,750. I have a very good/cheap healthcare plan, and it costs me $2,400/year just for myself (no dependents). It's at least double that for a family. Lastly, if you're not itemising, it's because all of your deductible expenses do not exceed the personal allowance so, in a way, you are getting a tax deduction for your healthcare costs because it's in the personal allowance bundle.
ETA: Most employers offer the ability to pay healthcare premiums with pre-tax dollars.
-
But they are still deductible subject to certain restrictions. And 7.5% sounds a lot, but if you're pulling in $50,000 a year, that's only $3,750. I have a very good/cheap healthcare plan, and it costs me $2,400/year just for myself (no dependents). It's at least double that for a family. Lastly, if you're not itemising, it's because all of your deductible expenses do not exceed the personal allowance so, in a way, you are getting a tax deduction for your healthcare costs because it's in the personal allowance bundle.
As someone who has run up against the 7.5% rule, your last sentence is utter crap.
-
What I know: I can buy into a flexible spending account (I think they're called cafeteria plans) which takes pre-tax income that can be used for medical expenses (doctor visits, prescriptions, advil, etc.) The percentage of income is irrelevant.
What I *think*: I think anyone can effectively do this when they do their taxes, they just have to itemize deductions. I don't think the 7.5% of your gross income factors into that.
Getting a cafeteria/pre-tax plan from your employer is vastly more efficient. It lowers your overall AGI, and in addition, the money you put into the flex account is not subject to Social Security or Medicare.
-
But they are still deductible subject to certain restrictions. And 7.5% sounds a lot, but if you're pulling in $50,000 a year, that's only $3,750. I have a very good/cheap healthcare plan, and it costs me $2,400/year just for myself (no dependents). It's at least double that for a family. Lastly, if you're not itemising, it's because all of your deductible expenses do not exceed the personal allowance so, in a way, you are getting a tax deduction for your healthcare costs because it's in the personal allowance bundle.
ETA: Most employers offer the ability to pay healthcare premiums with pre-tax dollars.
Sorry, Limey, but the standard deduction is available whether you have those expenses or not, so you receive NO benefit from those expenses if you claim the standard.
-
As someone who has run up against the 7.5% rule, your last sentence is utter crap.
That last sentence may not apply to you if you itemise and don't reach the 7.5% threshold, but it's not crap. You should take Trey's advice as a way to pay your healthcare expenses with pre-tax dollars.
-
Sorry, Limey, but the standard deduction is available whether you have those expenses or not, so you receive NO benefit from those expenses if you claim the standard.
If you take the standard deduction, it's because it's better for you than itemising. See my response to Jacksonian about how to avoid getting caught in the 7.5% "trap".
-
What I know: I can buy into a flexible spending account (I think they're called cafeteria plans) which takes pre-tax income that can be used for medical expenses (doctor visits, prescriptions, advil, etc.) The percentage of income is irrelevant.
There's a cap on the flex account (or at least there is on mine). My company offers three different healthcare plans with different provider network/deductible/co-pay combinations, and after playing with some models I decided that it would be to my benefit to switch to one of the lower-cost/lower-coverage healthcare combinations while upping my flex account withholding. Unfortunately, that's when I learned that I couldn't increase my flex account withholding to my target, so I had to go with plan B.
-
That last sentence may not apply to you if you itemise and don't reach the 7.5% threshold, but it's not crap. You should take Trey's advice as a way to pay your healthcare expenses with pre-tax dollars.
No. I do have a pre-tax premium payment plan. But that doesn't cover co-pays and deductibles. I have sufficiently paid down my mortgage to the point that even with the sales tax line and chartible contributions I come up just short of being able to itemize. Without the 7.5% threshold in the past I would have been able to itemize and further reduce my tax burden while also lessening the dent of increased health costs. Fortunately my employer now has the flex spending plan so everything I pay is pretax.
-
But they are still deductible subject to certain restrictions. And 7.5% sounds a lot, but if you're pulling in $50,000 a year, that's only $3,750. I have a very good/cheap healthcare plan, and it costs me $2,400/year just for myself (no dependents). It's at least double that for a family. Lastly, if you're not itemising, it's because all of your deductible expenses do not exceed the personal allowance so, in a way, you are getting a tax deduction for your healthcare costs because it's in the personal allowance bundle.
ETA: Most employers offer the ability to pay healthcare premiums with pre-tax dollars.
Right. But my employer gets to deduct the cost he pays for my health insurance at dollar one. I don't get to deduct any of my healthcare costs (other than if my employer offers a health savings account or flexible spending account) until I break 7.5%.
Point being, a major distortion built into the way we pay for health insurance is that it's employer-driven. This means that if you don't have a job, or are self-employed, or are part-time employed or employed by a business that can't or won't pay for health insurance, you've got to buy it yourself, after taxes, in a health insurance market that's chiefly geared toward businesses buying plans for large groups of people.
My understanding is that this a relic of World War II, when employers got around wage controls by offering non-wage benefits such as health insurance to their employees. It was a system created as an exigency of wartime that became permanent.
-
If you take the standard deduction, it's because it's better for you than itemising. See my response to Jacksonian about how to avoid getting caught in the 7.5% "trap".
I'm well aware of how the standard deduction works. But if You're making $40K a year as a plumber and renting an apartment, why should you have to pay more in medical expenses to receive a beenfit than someone making $80K but who has a mortgage, property taxes, and gifts to charity?
Of course flex accounts are the way to go, but not everyone has access to them.
-
Getting a cafeteria/pre-tax plan from your employer is vastly more efficient. It lowers your overall AGI, and in addition, the money you put into the flex account is not subject to Social Security or Medicare.
My employer offered health savings accounts (not a flexible spending account, but a full-scale health savings account) this year for the first time. I contribute pre-tax dollars and make withdrawals to cover healthcare expenses as needed. If I have funds left over at the end of the year, I don't lose them, like with a flexible spending account. They roll over to next year. And if there are funds left when I retire, then those get treated like an IRA, with tax on the withdrawals.
But the fact that this kind of thing is the exception, and not the norm, is a big part of the problem with providing health insurance in this country.
-
No. I do have a pre-tax premium payment plan. But that doesn't cover co-pays and deductibles. I have sufficiently paid down my mortgage to the point that even with the sales tax line and chartible contributions I come up just short of being able to itemize. Without the 7.5% threshold in the past I would have been able to itemize and further reduce my tax burden while also lessening the dent of increased health costs. Fortunately my employer now has the flex spending plan so everything I pay is pretax.
Good for you. And thus we have debunked Arky's claim that individual healthcare costs are not tax deductible, while the employer's cost is.
-
If you take the standard deduction, it's because it's better for you than itemising. See my response to Jacksonian about how to avoid getting caught in the 7.5% "trap".
Right. But two people might each take the standard deduction because it's better for them, and one spent 0% on healthcare, and the other spent 10% on healthcare, so who's better off?
-
There's a cap on the flex account (or at least there is on mine). My company offers three different healthcare plans with different provider network/deductible/co-pay combinations, and after playing with some models I decided that it would be to my benefit to switch to one of the lower-cost/lower-coverage healthcare combinations while upping my flex account withholding. Unfortunately, that's when I learned that I couldn't increase my flex account withholding to my target, so I had to go with plan B.
The cap on the contribution to HSA is your annual deductible, subject to an upper bound which increases according to current tax law. Withdrawals from HSAs for "qualifying medical expenses" are not taxable. What is and is not qualified is not entirely straightforward, either. E.g., if you purchase cotton balls, that doesn't qualify. On the other hand, if you purchase cotton balls, rubbing alcohol, and an insulin injection kit, that entire purchase qualifies.
-
Right. But my employer gets to deduct the cost he pays for my health insurance at dollar one. I don't get to deduct any of my healthcare costs (other than if my employer offers a health savings account or flexible spending account) until I break 7.5%.
Point being, a major distortion built into the way we pay for health insurance is that it's employer-driven. This means that if you don't have a job, or are self-employed, or are part-time employed or employed by a business that can't or won't pay for health insurance, you've got to buy it yourself, after taxes, in a health insurance market that's chiefly geared toward businesses buying plans for large groups of people.
My understanding is that this a relic of World War II, when employers got around wage controls by offering non-wage benefits such as health insurance to their employees. It was a system created as an exigency of wartime that became permanent.
As has been established in this thread, and by you in the above post, healthcare costs are deductible subject to certain restrictions.
I agree that it is unfair that employees of larger companies get better treatment in this regard than do the self-enmployed or employees of small businesses. I take it that you are for Obama's healthcare plan, therefore, as "correcting" the imbalance by increasing the tax burden on employers and/or their employees is very un-Republican.
-
Good for you. And thus we have debunked Arky's claim that individual healthcare costs are not tax deductible, while the employer's cost is.
This is somewhat like referring to shackles as an effective means of locomotion. Why not just let someone deduct the cost of his health insurance at dollar one, without having to subscribe for a special account or other scheme, just like an employer can?
-
I'm well aware of how the standard deduction works. But if You're making $40K a year as a plumber and renting an apartment, why should you have to pay more in medical expenses to receive a beenfit than someone making $80K but who has a mortgage, property taxes, and gifts to charity?
Of course flex accounts are the way to go, but not everyone has access to them.
I agree entirely. The code needs fixing.
However, all I was doing was trying to show that it's not a black-and-white, employers can deduct - employees cannot situation, as suggested by Arky.
-
Right. But two people might each take the standard deduction because it's better for them, and one spent 0% on healthcare, and the other spent 10% on healthcare, so who's better off?
Now you're arguing degrees of deductibility, which I agree is unfair, as opposed to your original point that employers can deduct healthcare costs while individuals cannot, which is all I questioned.
-
As has been established in this thread, and by you in the above post, healthcare costs are deductible subject to certain restrictions.
I agree that it is unfair that employees of larger companies get better treatment in this regard than do the self-enmployed or employees of small businesses. I take it that you are for Obama's healthcare plan, therefore, as "correcting" the imbalance by increasing the tax burden on employers and/or their employees is very un-Republican.
"Subject to certain restrictions." A detainee in Guatanamo has freedom of movement, subject to certain restrictions. A pig can fly, subject to certain restrictions.
I want to see a proposal to move healthcare from being a job benefit to being something that individuals buy for themselves and their families in the marketplace with the same flexibility, freedom and tax advantages as businesses currently enjoy in paying for health insurance for their employees. That is not currently the case, it's a huge market distortion and it's a significant part of why a large number of people don't have health insurance.
-
Good for you. And thus we have debunked Arky's claim that individual healthcare costs are not tax deductible, while the employer's cost is.
Well, not exactly. The individuals costs aren't deductible when they don't meet a threshold. Now, all of mine are.
To the best of my knowledge no plan calls for all healthcare costs be available as completely tax deductible (as mine are now), at least up to some extreme limit. I am all for a level playing field.
-
This is somewhat like referring to shackles as an effective means of locomotion. Why not just let someone deduct the cost of his health insurance at dollar one, without having to subscribe for a special account or other scheme, just like an employer can?
I agree entirely. But this wasn't your original argument.
-
Now you're arguing degrees of deductibility, which I agree is unfair, as opposed to your original point that employers can deduct healthcare costs while individuals cannot, which is all I questioned.
They cannot deduct it at dollar one in the same way employers can.
-
Well, not exactly. The individuals costs aren't deductible when they don't meet a threshold. Now, all of mine are.
To the best of my knowledge no plan calls for all healthcare costs be available as completely tax deductible (as mine are now), at least up to some extreme limit. I am all for a level playing field.
At the risk of massive repitition, I agree that it is inequitable that there is a threshold for an individual and not for an employer. All I was arguing above was Arky's stance that individuals could not deduct healthcare costs at all, which is not true.
-
I agree entirely. But this wasn't your original argument.
Level the playing field between businesses and individuals.
-
They cannot deduct it at dollar one in the same way employers can.
Which is a nuance that was entirely missing from your original point.
-
At the risk of massive repitition, I agree that it is inequitable that there is a threshold for an individual and not for an employer. All I was arguing above was Arky's stance that individuals could not deduct healthcare costs at all, which is not true.
If you're an individual and your healthcare costs don't exceed 7.5%, you can't deduct them. I don't think pointing to a means of deduction that the vast majority of taxpayers can't avail themselves of is particularly germane here.
-
At the risk of massive repitition, I agree that it is inequitable that there is a threshold for an individual and not for an employer. All I was arguing above was Arky's stance that individuals could not deduct healthcare costs at all, which is not true.
Ah, you're argueing with Arky. I'll step back.
-
I agree entirely. The code needs fixing.
Hell yes.
But I will laugh immediately at anyone believing that a flat tax can work, either.
-
Which is a nuance that was entirely missing from your original point.
You and I have had a lot of stupid arguments, much to the detriment of everyone who reads them, but this one may be the most ridiculous.
The vast majority of individuals have no way to deduct their healthcare expenses because the system requires that the exceed a very high threshold or enroll in a program not offered by many employers. This is in contrast to businesses, who by and large deduct the cost of providing health insurance to their employees on a widespread basis.
So, yes, some individuals, under infrequent (and generally unpleasant) circumstances, rack up enough health care costs to obtain a deduction. And some individuals, through the beneficence of their employers, may enroll in programs that allow them to spend pre-tax dollars on healthcare. I stand corrected before you.
-
Hell yes.
But I will laugh immediately at anyone believing that a flat tax can work, either.
The code will outlive us all.
-
Level the playing field between businesses and individuals.
I'm glad we agree on principle.
It is not clear from Obama's plan if he will make all costs tax deductible from dollar one. What his site says is that his plan will "ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.", which is nebulous at best. I'd very much like to know what his definition is of "everyone who needs it".
It is clear, however, that McCain's plan involves applying taxes to employer-funded healthcare benefits, which levels the playing field but does it by taking away a benefit enjoyed by some instead of expanding it to all. Just like Reagan, who cut income taxes but hammered middle and low income earners with payroll taxes, McCain would cut income taxes and then hit employees with a stealth tax on their healthcare benefits.
-
If you're an individual and your healthcare costs don't exceed 7.5%, you can't deduct them. I don't think pointing to a means of deduction that the vast majority of taxpayers can't avail themselves of is particularly germane here.
It is when you didn't recognise it at all in your original contention.
-
Hell yes.
But I will laugh immediately at anyone believing that a flat tax can work, either.
The first question to ask a flat-taxer is "what's deductible?"
-
You and I have had a lot of stupid arguments, much to the detriment of everyone who reads them, but this one may be the most ridiculous.
The vast majority of individuals have no way to deduct their healthcare expenses because the system requires that the exceed a very high threshold or enroll in a program not offered by many employers. This is in contrast to businesses, who by and large deduct the cost of providing health insurance to their employees on a widespread basis.
So, yes, some individuals, under infrequent (and generally unpleasant) circumstances, rack up enough health care costs to obtain a deduction. And some individuals, through the beneficence of their employers, may enroll in programs that allow them to spend pre-tax dollars on healthcare. I stand corrected before you.
If you had included all of this in your original comment, instead of making a flat generalisation, there would be a shit-load less posts in this thread.
-
If you had included all of this in your original comment, instead of making a flat generalisation, there would be a shit-load less posts in this thread.
Thanks. I look forward to seeing your attention to detail vigilantly expressed in the future.
-
The first question to ask a flat-taxer is "what's deductible?"
Wrong. "What's taxable?" or "what's income?"
-
I don't understand economics on this level well enough to answer a question put to me. Maybe one of you can:
Obama plans to raise taxes on those who earn over ~$250,000. Many of those are small business owners. Small business owners are having trouble making payroll because they can't get loans because of the credit problems. Wouldn't raises their taxes essentially take money out of their business in a similar manner as the lack of credit is doing right now?
My response was that it was personal tax not business. The reply was that the owner would simply take more from the business to keep the income while removing jobs or other essentials from the business. And, yes, even if it means more work on the owner's part.
How many people in that tax bracket actually control their salary like that? Do partners in a law firm get that kind of control? Aren't there boards and contracts to consider? Don't owners make most of their money through ownership? Wouldn't the loss of productive employees reduce the profits of the company reducing the employers net worth? Wouldn't the firing of unproductive employees (present company excluded) be good for the company? I don't understand flippity-doo about economics, but it seems like it wouldn't be as straight forward as that in a lot of cases.
-
Wrong. "What's taxable?" or "what's income?"
Wrong. "Can you translate that from Lithuanian?"
-
Just like Reagan, who cut income taxes but hammered middle and low income earners with payroll taxes, McCain would cut income taxes and then hit employees with a stealth tax on their healthcare benefits.
I thought that sounded off, and it is. OASDI/HI taxes went from 6.13% in 1980 to 6.65% in 1981, ratcheting up over the next 8 years to 7.51%. That's an increase of 23% over 8 years, to be sure, but certainly isn't as bad as the increase of 47% from 1961 to 1969.
ETA source. http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a3.pdf
-
I learned it from Gov. Palin. But, to be fair to me, I thought the question was about taxes on small businesses, and I pointed out where Obama plans to give relief to same. I should also point out that, while taxes start going up for people earning over $250,000 a year, the increase is marginal until you start pushing $750,000. Thus, the relief provided to small businesses by way of capital gains and healthcare credits could easily offset the income tax increases for those smaller small businesses.
This isn't correct. After reading more of this thread I went to his site. Lots of benefits, little how. But he is clear. Most of the increased costs of what he wants to do including having more govt backed health insurance programs will come from raising the taxes on those over $250,000. So, there's no way he's giving back to the small business owner anywhere near in capital gains tax reduction and health insurance cost breaks what he'll take in increased income taxes. Of course this is for those small business owners earning over 250.
-
This isn't correct. After reading more of this thread I went to his site. Lots of benefits, little how. But he is clear. Most of the increased costs of what he wants to do including having more govt backed health insurance programs will come from raising the taxes on those over $250,000. So, there's no way he's giving back to the small business owner anywhere near in capital gains tax reduction and health insurance cost breaks what he'll take in increased income taxes. Of course this is for those small business owners earning over 250.
I said it could offset the income tax increases for the smaller small businesses. I.e., if you make $250,001, your tax hike isn't going to be the same as if you make $1mm. So if you get breaks elsewhere, like 0% capital gains on investments in your business, you should be better off the closer to $250,000 that you are. Obviously, at some point, these lines will cross.
-
I said it could offset the income tax increases for the smaller small businesses. I.e., if you make $250,001, your tax hike isn't going to be the same as if you make $1mm. So if you get breaks elsewhere, like 0% capital gains on investments in your business, you should be better off the closer to $250,000 that you are. Obviously, at some point, these lines will cross.
As it's very likely he'll win, I really want to hear more details. His site is WAY too vague in nearly every way on the "hows". And I've not heard anything from him detailing the hows in any other format.
-
As it's very likely he'll win, I really want to hear more details. His site is WAY too vague in nearly every way on the "hows". And I've not heard anything from him detailing the hows in any other format.
The McCain campaign seems content to acuse him of being the Senate's most liberal terrorist, so there's little likelihood that details will be illicited there. The MSM seems happy to gloss over the detail because policy wonks isn't an attractive demographic for advertisers.
-
I said it could offset the income tax increases for the smaller small businesses. I.e., if you make $250,001, your tax hike isn't going to be the same as if you make $1mm. So if you get breaks elsewhere, like 0% capital gains on investments in your business, you should be better off the closer to $250,000 that you are. Obviously, at some point, these lines will cross.
So basically, if you chisel the plan down to a small enough subgroup, you'll find someone who isn't socked by it?
-
So basically, if you chisel the plan down to a small enough subgroup, you'll find someone who isn't socked by it?
I'd like to be in the subgroup getting socked, I think.
-
So basically, if you chisel the plan down to a small enough subgroup, you'll find someone who isn't socked by it?
Well, the 95% of the country that falls below the point at which the "socking" starts is a pretty big sub-group.
-
Well, the 95% of the country that falls below the point at which the "socking" starts is a pretty big sub-group.
Do 95% of small business owners fall into that category?
-
I'd like to be in the subgroup getting socked, I think.
You probably are and just don't know it yet.
-
As it's very likely he'll win, I really want to hear more details.
Good luck with that.
-
You probably are and just don't know it yet.
So why bother arguing the points of the candidates' plans if you believe they're just lying about them?
-
The McCain campaign seems content to acuse him of being the Senate's most liberal terrorist, so there's little likelihood that details will be illicited there. The MSM seems happy to gloss over the detail because policy wonks isn't an attractive demographic for advertisers.
His website is the ideal place for it. Yet, nada.
-
I'd like to be in the subgroup getting socked, I think.
Right, because if things in the economy turn toward early 30's depression, as I heard one pudnit say, you'll be lucky to have socks at all.
-
You probably are and just don't know it yet.
Specifically, I'd like to be in the "over $250,000 and getting socked" subgroup, if at all possible.
Also, what does socked mean? Like "I socked that guy right in the boat", or something else?
-
Also, what does socked mean? Like "I socked that guy right in the boat", or something else?
"I will administer approximately two closed hand strikes to your facial area"
-
"I will administer approximately two closed hand strikes to your facial area"
Now try it in Cockney rhyming slang - it's great.
-
Now try it in Cockney rhyming slang - it's great.
The phrase "a punch up the bracket" springs to mind, but I don't think it's either cockney or rhyming.
-
Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html):
"my friend(s)" - 23
"fundamental" - 15
"health care" - 28
"economy" - 23
"Iraq" - 15
"Iran" - 17
"tax / taxes / taxpayer(s)" - 55
"Wall Street ... Main Street" - 1
"middle-income / middle-class" - 9
"energy / oil / coal / nuclear / solar / wind / gas /alternative / fuel" - 92
"last eight years" - 9
"thank you" - 29
"Petraeus" - 4
"cool hand at the tiller" - 1
"cockslap" - 0
-
Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html):
"my friend(s)" - 23
"fundamental" - 15
"health care" - 28
"economy" - 23
"Iraq" - 15
"Iran" - 17
"tax / taxes / taxpayer(s)" - 55
"Wall Street ... Main Street" - 1
"middle-income / middle-class" - 9
"energy / oil / coal / nuclear / solar / wind / gas /alternative / fuel" - 92
"last eight years" - 9
"thank you" - 29
"Petraeus" - 4
"cool hand at the tiller" - 1
"cockslap" - 0
"Palin" - 0 and "Biden" - 0. So much for the import of the VP pick.
Mentions of Bill Ayers and/or domestic terrorist by McCain in the debate - 0
Mentions of Bill Ayers and/or domestic terrorist by McCain's campaign this weekend - a guhzillion
-
Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html):
"my friend(s)" - 23
"fundamental" - 15
"health care" - 28
"economy" - 23
"Iraq" - 15
"Iran" - 17
"tax / taxes / taxpayer(s)" - 55
"Wall Street ... Main Street" - 1
"middle-income / middle-class" - 9
"energy / oil / coal / nuclear / solar / wind / gas /alternative / fuel" - 92
"last eight years" - 9
"thank you" - 29
"Petraeus" - 4
"cool hand at the tiller" - 1
"cockslap" - 0
How many "pahk-EE-stahns"?
-
Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/index.html):
"my friend(s)" - 23
"fundamental" - 15
"health care" - 28
"economy" - 23
"Iraq" - 15
"Iran" - 17
"tax / taxes / taxpayer(s)" - 55
"Wall Street ... Main Street" - 1
"middle-income / middle-class" - 9
"energy / oil / coal / nuclear / solar / wind / gas /alternative / fuel" - 92
"last eight years" - 9
"thank you" - 29
"Petraeus" - 4
"cool hand at the tiller" - 1
"cockslap" - 0
And one "not you, Tom" which was pretty damn funny.
-
And one "not you, Tom" which was pretty damn funny.
Actually steady 'cool' hand at tiller - 2
Where I think McCain keeps missing an opportunity: They begin to speak about genocide, right after how 'bad' the Iraq war is/was. I can't figure out for the life of me why S. Hussein is not mentioned as one whom committed massive genocide against his people, thus a pretty good reason for invasion (Though not the reason given by the CIA/Bush).
-
Actually steady 'cool' hand at tiller - 2
I'm only crediting mixed expressions, sorry.
I can't figure out for the life of me why S. Hussein is not mentioned as one whom committed massive genocide against his people, thus a pretty good reason for invasion (Though not the reason given by the CIA/Bush).
I think you answered it. It's not the reason we went to war, and the many detractors of the war are not in the market for more revised justifications at this point. It wouldn't gain McCain anything in swaying someone new to his side, but it could certainly push them away.
-
I'm only crediting mixed expressions, sorry.
Cool. Just heard Hand at the Tiller twice.
I think you answered it. It's not the reason we went to war, and the many detractors of the war are not in the market for more revised justifications at this point. It wouldn't gain McCain anything in swaying someone new to his side, but it could certainly push them away.
For the record, I don't like either one of the choices.
Oh and it appears that The Chosen One wants to take troops out of Iraq (end the war) and put them where? They are not coming home.
-
For the record, I don't like either one of the choices.
Oh and it appears that The Chosen One wants to take troops out of Iraq (end the war) and put them where? They are not coming home.
incoming Central Command commander said Tuesday ..Army Gen. David Petraeus told reporters following a speech at the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington. ...
“There’s no question but that Afghanistan needs additional forces,” Petraeus said. “Everyone agrees on that. ... Precisely how many, what configuration and so forth ... will be sorted out over the course of the months ahead. Clearly, as forces become available, as they’re re-deployed or not deployed to Iraq, there’s a potential of using them in Afghanistan.”
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_ausa_petraeus_100808/
...United States has already agreed to withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and from the rest of Iraq by the end of 2011, assuming that conditions in the country remain stable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?ref=world
-
For the record, I don't like either one of the choices.
Oh and it appears that The Chosen One wants to take troops out of Iraq (end the war) and put them where? They are not coming home.
Not sure if this is rhetorical, or if you're asking me something.
On the tiller line, I just now remembered the Google archive thread, with the search from 2001. Back then, a search for "cool hand at the tiller" yielded 0 results. The day after the debate, it's 5,280 and climbing. I'd love to be able to create a phrase with that kind of overnight traction.
-
incoming Central Command commander said Tuesday ..Army Gen. David Petraeus told reporters following a speech at the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington. ...
“There’s no question but that Afghanistan needs additional forces,” Petraeus said. “Everyone agrees on that. ... Precisely how many, what configuration and so forth ... will be sorted out over the course of the months ahead. Clearly, as forces become available, as they’re re-deployed or not deployed to Iraq, there’s a potential of using them in Afghanistan.”
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_ausa_petraeus_100808/
...United States has already agreed to withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and from the rest of Iraq by the end of 2011, assuming that conditions in the country remain stable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?ref=world
Yep, Iraq is winding down not matter who the president elect is. I am just worried about the other trouble areas in the world (the ..stans, Iran, Russia, etc.) and what that means for our troops/country and who is the right person to make those decisions.
Me thinks
Congress = Economy
President = Foreign Affairs
I intend to vote out the incumbents’ and/or anyone who voted for the bail out package. Since the president is not an incumbent (thank the Lord) I am open, though leaning other/libertarian.
Not that any one gives a rats ass what I think.
-
Not sure if this is rhetorical, or if you're asking me something.
On the tiller line, I just now remembered the Google archive thread, with the search from 2001. Back then, a search for "cool hand at the tiller" yielded 0 results. The day after the debate, it's 5,280 and climbing. I'd love to be able to create a phrase with that kind of overnight traction.
Nah, I am not asking you anything, just babbling.
-
Nah, I am not asking you anything, just babbling.
I understand, I do that quite a bit.
-
I understand, I do that quite a bit.
How many for "that one" are there?
-
How many for "that one" are there?
Just that one. Two, actually.
-
How many for "that one" are there?
You can already buy the button. (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/10/08/the_new_obama_button.html)
And this post gets us to 100 pages.
-
(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/palin-wtf-100.jpg)
-
Oh sure, but what will you do when 19 more posts bring us to 2000?
-
(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/palin-wtf-100.jpg)
Outstanding!
-
"Holy shit" indeed.
-
Oh sure, but what will you do when 19 more posts bring us to 2000?
(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/palin-wtf-almost-2000.jpg)
-
Me thinks we need to see more skin. How about take one article of clothing off (or undo one button) for each post until the magical number.
-
And one "not you, Tom" which was pretty damn funny.
And one "That one!", but no "Get off my lawn!"s.
-
I think we need to re-open the nominations for POTY. The "WTF" button, just to complete the visualisation of the thread title, is an amazing touch.
-
http://www.zazzle.com/donuts_and_bacon_taste_we_can_believe_in_shirt-235372991307560445
-
Me thinks we need to see more skin. How about take one article of clothing off (or undo one button) for each post until the magical number.
I support any idea that has its roots in the plot of Major League.
-
I think we need to re-open the nominations for POTY. The "WTF" button, just to complete the visualisation of the thread title, is an amazing touch.
Thank you for your support, SnS citizen. (smiles, waves, looks for baby to kiss)
-
'Perfect storm' could give Dems 'magic 60' in Senate (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/senate.election/index.html)
Winning a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senate seats, commonly called the "magic 60," would virtually prevent Republicans from blocking legislation on the Senate floor.
The last time either party had this ability was in the 95th Congress of 1977-1979, when Democrats held 61 seats during President Jimmy Carter's administration. Carter faced concerns similar to those today -- economic instability, inflation and a 7.5 percent unemployment rate.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said Democrats have a good shot at reaching a 60-seat majority in November, a possibility he all but ruled out earlier this year.
"The fundamentals of this election year could not be more Democratic," Sabato said. "You've got a terrible economy, a deeply unpopular president and an unpopular war. You put those elements together and it's going to produce a Democratic victory. ... The only question is, what size?"
Any chance there is a political version of the BBGs?
-
I think you answered it. It's not the reason we went to war, and the many detractors of the war are not in the market for more revised justifications at this point. It wouldn't gain McCain anything in swaying someone new to his side, but it could certainly push them away.
That doesn't mean it's not a sound reason for someone to have supported the war. Nor is it an unsound reason to criticize someone for opposing the war.
-
Where I think McCain keeps missing an opportunity: They begin to speak about genocide, right after how 'bad' the Iraq war is/was. I can't figure out for the life of me why S. Hussein is not mentioned as one whom committed massive genocide against his people, thus a pretty good reason for invasion (Though not the reason given by the CIA/Bush).
McCain is a spent force. The time to discuss Ayers, if it was ever very relevant, was months ago when Jeremiah Wright and the other aspects of Obama's background were discussed. Raising it now is pure desperation, particularly when McCain refuses to vigorously engage Obama on the issues where it might do some good.
If McCain wins this election, I hereby pledge to donate $500 to a tax-deductible cause of Limey's choice.
-
'Perfect storm' could give Dems 'magic 60' in Senate (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/senate.election/index.html)
Any chance there is a political version of the BBGs?
Yes. It happened when Carter was given a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and it happened when Clinton was elected and spent his first two years with a heavily Democratic Congress. See, e.g., the 1980 elections for the Senate and the 1994 elections for the Senate and the House.
And then see what the GOP did to piss both of those away.
-
During the debate last night, it occurred to me that I really feel bad for McCain.
I voted for him in the 200 primaries. I occasionally think of how things would have gone differently had he gone up against Gore when he was still genuinely driving the "straight Talk Express".
This is not the same man. There is no joy in this process for him. He's been told by people that he doesn't really like, but can't win without, that the only way for him to win is to say things that he can't believe are coming out of his own mouth. And I think he genuinely dislikes Obama at this point, which is understandable, I suppose - I can't remember the last time 2 candidates came out with clear respect for each other. I suppose Bush and Clinton reached that point, but it took years.
I am happy to see that Obama will likely win, because I think he's the better choice at this point, but I take no joy in McCain's loss. He is a genuine American hero, and he deserved a better end than this.
-
'Perfect storm' could give Dems 'magic 60' in Senate (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/senate.election/index.html)
fivethirtyeight.com, which is an outstanding resource for election polling, puts this at about a 20% likelihood.
-
I voted for him in the 200 primaries.
I thought that was Jim. Didn't know you were that old. What did he think of Zephyrinus?
-
I thought that was Jim. Didn't know you were that old. What did he think of Zephyrinus?
We should be careful not to draw coach's ire in this thread.
-
During the debate last night, it occurred to me that I really feel bad for McCain.
I voted for him in the 200 primaries. I occasionally think of how things would have gone differently had he gone up against Gore when he was still genuinely driving the "straight Talk Express".
This is not the same man. There is no joy in this process for him. He's been told by people that he doesn't really like, but can't win without, that the only way for him to win is to say things that he can't believe are coming out of his own mouth. And I think he genuinely dislikes Obama at this point, which is understandable, I suppose - I can't remember the last time 2 candidates came out with clear respect for each other. I suppose Bush and Clinton reached that point, but it took years.
I am happy to see that Obama will likely win, because I think he's the better choice at this point, but I take no joy in McCain's loss. He is a genuine American hero, and he deserved a better end than this.
The problem is that McCain doesn't really fit into either party particularly well. Many people would argue that that's not so much a problem with McCain as it is a problem with the parties.
-
That doesn't mean it's not a sound reason for someone to have supported the war. Nor is it an unsound reason to criticize someone for opposing the war.
Whether or not that's the case, I was responding to the question of why McCain wouldn't take that approach. I personally believe that offering justifications for the war at this point would have either no net effect or a negative net effect on undecided voters. "We need to win" would seem to be the better message than "here's why we were right to do it", and that's the approach I've generally seen from McCain's campaign.
-
fivethirtyeight.com, which is an outstanding resource for election polling, puts this at about a 20% likelihood.
I think most are counting Lieberman and Jeffords in the mix for 60, and those two guys, for certain issues, would still probably be willing to join a filibuster.
-
Whether or not that's the case, I was responding to the question of why McCain wouldn't take that approach. I personally believe that offering justifications for the war at this point would have either no net effect or a negative net effect on undecided voters. "We need to win" would seem to be the better message than "here's why we were right to do it", and that's the approach I've generally seen from McCain's campaign.
I agree with this.
-
Good point. Come January, Lieberman is likely to find himself persona con gratin in the Dem caucus.
-
I think most are counting Lieberman and Jeffords in the mix for 60, and those two guys, for certain issues, would still probably be willing to join a filibuster.
The numbers look bad for the GOP in 2010 too, as far as number of seats at risk. That shifts dramatically in 2012 against the Democrats. Of course, by then, things will depend on what President Obama has done with his first term.
-
Good point. Come January, Lieberman is likely to find himself persona con gratin in the Dem caucus.
Hey, that sounds good. I like Joe Lieberman and cheese.
-
fivethirtyeight.com, which is an outstanding resource for election polling, puts this at about a 20% likelihood.
Full circle, baby: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver
Nathaniel Read Silver (b. 1978, East Lansing, Michigan; now residing in Chicago, Illinois) is Managing Partner of Baseball Prospectus. He is best known for inventing PECOTA, a system for forecasting the performance and career development of Major League Baseball players. In 2007 he began to publish analyses and predictions of U.S. presidential primaries and the general election, initially under the pseudonym "Poblano" and later under his own name.[1] In March 2008 he created a blog, FiveThirtyEight.com. By summer he began to appear as an electoral and political analyst in national print, online, and electronic media.
-
Well I'll be damned. I had never put the two together.
-
Good point. Come January, Lieberman is likely to find himself persona con gratin in the Dem caucus.
I keep thinking he's got more riding on this election than McCain. McCain will (probably) exit this election a well respected senator and could continue his career respected by both Dems and Repubs. Lieberman has pissed of most of his "own" party. I can't imagine that he'll hold his chairmanship come the new Congress, and I doubt the Republicans are going to move someone out of the way for him.
-
fivethirtyeight.com, which is an outstanding resource for election polling, puts this at about a 20% likelihood.
I agree that fivethirtyeight.com is a tremendous resource, but you should fully disclaim that is largely the work of Nate Silver, who - among other things - is responsible for this analytical catastrophe (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=99057.0). It would appear that his chart-making skills have improved dramatically.
-
That doesn't mean it's not a sound reason for someone to have supported the war. Nor is it an unsound reason to criticize someone for opposing the war.
It is if it's a justification they came up with after the event when their original justification went down the crapper.
-
Well I'll be damned. I had never put the two together.
I'd looked at that site, but not in a while. The name Nate Silver jumped out at me immediately. I thought he was a BP guys, but I kind of wondered if it was the same "Nate Silver". We should see if we can get this thread moved to the main board now.
-
I agree that fivethirtyeight.com is a tremendous resource, but you should fully disclaim that is largely the work of Nate Silver, who - among other things - is responsible for this analytical catastrophe (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=99057.0). It would appear that his chart-making skills have improved dramatically.
See my above note to Trey. I'll respond further after I shower.
-
I agree that fivethirtyeight.com is a tremendous resource, but you should fully disclaim that is largely the work of Nate Silver, who - among other things - is responsible for this analytical catastrophe (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=99057.0). It would appear that his chart-making skills have improved dramatically.
Seriously, how many Derek Bell baseball cards do I have to buy you to get you to quit bringing that thread up? I feel like 80% of Democratic Senators whenever the Iraq war vote is brought up.
-
I am happy to see that Obama will likely win, because I think he's the better choice at this point, but I take no joy in McCain's loss. He is a genuine American hero, and he deserved a better end than this.
His time was 2000, but Bush/Rove push-polled him over a cliff. Now it's all about trying to capture what was taken from him back then. And also about the parade of unelectable opponents he had in the primary.
-
I think most are counting Lieberman and Jeffords in the mix for 60, and those two guys, for certain issues, would still probably be willing to join a filibuster.
If the Dems get a decent majority, they will likely tell Lieberman to poke it.
-
Seriously, how many Derek Bell baseball cards do I have to buy you to get you to quit bringing that thread up? I feel like 80% of Democratic Senators whenever the Iraq war vote is brought up.
I thought it was "kind of interesting", too, in that way that astoundingly awesomely horrible things often are. You get a free pass for eternity, because none of us would ever have basked in its magnificence without you.
-
The numbers look bad for the GOP in 2010 too, as far as number of seats at risk. That shifts dramatically in 2012 against the Democrats. Of course, by then, things will depend on what President Obama has done with his first term.
'Tis the curse of a majority: you have more seats to lose.
-
Seriously, how many Derek Bell baseball cards do I have to buy you to get you to quit bringing that thread up? I feel like 80% of Democratic Senators whenever the Iraq war vote is brought up.
That thread is a top-10 all-timer, easily. Just be glad that you were able to throw the pitch that set up something so historic.
-
Well I'll be damned. I had never put the two together.
I've seen him on TV. He looks like he's spent years in a basement crunching numbers.
-
Seems like this might fit in on this thread OK.
Anyhow, in the breakroom, I found a copy of this NYT archived article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=fannie%20mae%20eases%20credit%20to%20aid%20mortage%20lending&st=cse) printed out, with various passages highlighted and underlined. No idea who left it there, but it's an interesting historical/foreshadowing read. (Check out the date, as well as the 3rd, 7th and 8th paragraphs, in particular)
-
I've seen him on TV. He looks like he's spent years in a basement crunching numbers.
Yes. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/140469)
-
I agree that fivethirtyeight.com is a tremendous resource, but you should fully disclaim that is largely the work of Nate Silver, who - among other things - is responsible for this analytical catastrophe (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=99057.0). It would appear that his chart-making skills have improved dramatically.
Damn, I love that thread.
-
Seems like this might fit in on this thread OK.
Anyhow, in the breakroom, I found a copy of this NYT archived article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=fannie%20mae%20eases%20credit%20to%20aid%20mortage%20lending&st=cse) printed out, with various passages highlighted and underlined. No idea who left it there, but it's an interesting historical/foreshadowing read. (Check out the date, as well as the 3rd, 7th and 8th paragraphs, in particular)
They glossed over this from para 4?
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
-
It is if it's a justification they came up with after the event when their original justification went down the crapper.
Who's "they?" Not everyone who supports the war did so solely or even primarily for the reasons cited by the administration.
-
That thread is a top-10 all-timer, easily. Just be glad that you were able to throw the pitch that set up something so historic.
Is the snack chart still posted in that thread?
-
Seems like this might fit in on this thread OK.
Anyhow, in the breakroom, I found a copy of this NYT archived article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=fannie%20mae%20eases%20credit%20to%20aid%20mortage%20lending&st=cse) printed out, with various passages highlighted and underlined. No idea who left it there, but it's an interesting historical/foreshadowing read. (Check out the date, as well as the 3rd, 7th and 8th paragraphs, in particular)
That's amazingly prescient, but it's fair to point out that while Freddie and Fannie screwed the pooch, they're not the true cause of this meltdown; the securitization of these bad loans, and the dodging of insurance regulations related to them, are what really sent things nuclear.
-
Is the snack chart still posted in that thread?
Of course. Like we would let that one die.
-
Of course. Like we would let that one die.
I can't get to it because it's blocked at work! What kind of evil blocking software would prevent someone from viewing the in-game snack diagram?
-
Who's "they?" Not everyone who supports the war did so solely or even primarily for the reasons cited by the administration.
I don't know who "they" are. I was just saying that a hypothetical person, who, hypothetically, supported the Bush administration's justifications for war, cannot now have a new set of justifications simply because the original ones are inconvenient.
Thus, McCain, Biden, Clinton etc. etc. cannot say something now that they didn't say then, without it being bullshit.
-
That's amazingly prescient, but it's fair to point out that while Freddie and Fannie screwed the pooch, they're not the true cause of this meltdown; the securitization of these bad loans, and the dodging of insurance regulations related to them, are what really sent things nuclear.
Followed by the covering up of the pile o' shit so that, instead of a slow decent into a stinky mess, it was an express elevator to hell. Going down!
-
That's amazingly prescient, but it's fair to point out that while Freddie and Fannie screwed the pooch, they're not the true cause of this meltdown; the securitization of these bad loans, and the dodging of insurance regulations related to them, are what really sent things nuclear.
Commodities Futures Modernization Act
-
Commodities Futures Modernization Act
Blew past 2000 like it was standing still. That is what I get for working.
-
I'm holding out hope that the forum software developers did not contemplate 100 pages. Our own little Y2K, if you will.
I've got a closet full of d batteries, spagettios and bottled water if anyone is interested.
-
Commodities Futures Modernization Act
One of our government's finer hours.
-
will this thread ever end?
-
will this thread ever end?
Maybe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_20)
-
I don't know who "they" are. I was just saying that a hypothetical person, who, hypothetically, supported the Bush administration's justifications for war, cannot now have a new set of justifications simply because the original ones are inconvenient.
Thus, McCain, Biden, Clinton etc. etc. cannot say something now that they didn't say then, without it being bullshit.
This is a sleight of hand. First, you substituted "supporting the Bush administration's justifications for war" in place of "supporting the war." These are two different things. Second, while these are two different things, they are not mutually exclusive. It is indeed possible to support the Bush administration's justifications for war as well as to support the war for other reasons.
In any event, while Saddam's human-rights abuses were not the Bush administration's only or even primary justifications for war, the assertion that they are "new" justifications is flat-out false. As Bush stated in the 2003 State of the Union:
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."
In addition to the threat Saddam posed to other countries, it was well documented at the time that his abuse of his own people was a contributing justification for his removal from power.
-
They glossed over this from para 4?
The breakroom's got a TV in it, which is always tuned to either CNN or the Travel Channel. I suspect the person who left it behind was using it as a visual aid in a political discussion, since the phrase "pressure from the Clinton Administration" was boldly underlined. They didn't mark up paragraph 4, for reasons that shall just remain a mystery. I'm trying desperately to insert an Alice's Restaraunt reset here, but can't think of how to fit circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of the printout, explaining what each one was, to be used as evidence against my co-worker, into a post, without it being totally gratuitous.
-
I can't get to it because it's blocked at work! What kind of evil blocking software would prevent someone from viewing the in-game snack diagram?
(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/in-game-snack-spectrum.jpg)
-
Many, many, many thanks. My day is complete now.
-
This page references that NYT article, and also another from 2003. Interesting, at least.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp
-
(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/in-game-snack-spectrum.jpg)
The In-Game Snack Spectrum...in sense-shattering "3-D"!
Instaclassic.
-
This page references that NYT article, and also another from 2003. Interesting, at least.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp
I thought it was already well known that Barney Frank is an idiot.
-
I thought it was already well known that Barney Frank is an idiot.
No less than Alec Baldwin unloaded on him the other day.
-
No less than Alec Baldwin unloaded on him the other day.
In that regard, I guess Barney Frank is no different than anyone else.
-
In that regard, I guess Barney Frank is no different than anyone else other than Bush.
FIFY
You know there's a special place of hate in his heart for W even though Alec didn't leave the country.
-
This is a sleight of hand. First, you substituted "supporting the Bush administration's justifications for war" in place of "supporting the war." These are two different things. Second, while these are two different things, they are not mutually exclusive. It is indeed possible to support the Bush administration's justifications for war as well as to support the war for other reasons.
Wow! You really do see demons around every corner, don't you.
In any event, while Saddam's human-rights abuses were not the Bush administration's only or even primary justifications for war, the assertion that they are "new" justifications is flat-out false. As Bush stated in the 2003 State of the Union:
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."
In addition to the threat Saddam posed to other countries, it was well documented at the time that his abuse of his own people was a contributing justification for his removal from power.
Thanks for your input and clarification on something I never said. An example of the changing justifications I meant was like Biden saying that the authorisation to use force was given with the intention that force would not be used, which is just silly.
-
You know there's a special place of hate in his heart for W even though Alec didn't leave the country.
If there is anything I can't stand, it is somebody who goes back on their word.
Sincerely,
Robert Altman
-
a. Raising taxes on the top 1% provides a whole lot more effect than cutting the bottom 95%.
b. He's proposed cutting other programs, but has been very nebulous about this.
c. The "messiah" crap is really childish.
Obama referred to today as "The Messiah" by Farrakhan. A supporter.
-
Obama referred to today as "The Messiah" by Farrakhan. A supporter.
Hopefully, it'll be as overused as maverick...
-
Hopefully, it'll be as overused as maverick...
I still haven't heard what he has to say about Goose
-
I still haven't heard what he has to say about Goose
take me to bed or lose me forever?
-
If there were ever a reason to kill a thread, Top Gun quotes would be it.
-
Arky's lost that loving feeling.
-
I'll have what he's having. Hemlock is it?
-
Arky's lost that loving feeling.
You've gotta let him go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekXxi9IKZSA&feature=related).
-
Obama referred to today as "The Messiah" by Farrakhan. A supporter.
Please tell me you're not referring to Farrakhan as someone who participates in meaningful, mature dialogue.
-
Please tell me you're not referring to Farrakhan as someone who participates in meaningful, mature dialogue.
OJ is black too, and look what he did. Here's Bill Maher on why one shouldn't judge a candidate by the colour of his skin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3METtGx6U) (about 2 mins in).
-
If there were ever a reason to kill a thread, Top Gun quotes would be it.
This has now become a test of Godwin's law.
-
OJ is black too, and look what he did. Here's Bill Maher on why one shouldn't judge a candidate by the colour of his skin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3METtGx6U) (about 2 mins in).
Oh God, when will learn?
-
I find Maher an insufferable prick, but "Yes, I shit in the woods" was pretty funny.
-
You've gotta let him go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekXxi9IKZSA&feature=related).
Did someone create his own Top Gun trailer and upload it to YouTube?
-
This has now become a test of Godwin's law.
Days of Thunder quotes would be the nail in the coffin.
-
Days of Thunder quotes would be the nail in the coffin.
We ended up looking like a monkey fucking a football out there. [/daysofthunder'd]
*** THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED ***
-
"Did you see that? That! Just! Happened!!" [rickybobby'd]
-
*** THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED ***
"Did you see that? That! Just! Happened!!" [rickybobby'd]
NHFY
-
I agree that fivethirtyeight.com is a tremendous resource, but you should fully disclaim that is largely the work of Nate Silver, who - among other things - is responsible for this analytical catastrophe (http://www.spikesnstars.com/forums/index.php?topic=99057.0). It would appear that his chart-making skills have improved dramatically.
Nate Silver on Colbert this week:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/187343/october-07-2008/nate-silver
SC: "Describe the election in baseball terms."
NS: "Bottom of the 9th, McCain's down by two, and Sarah Palin just got picked off first."
-
So, not only is Sarah a mouthbreathing idiot and a political streetwalker, but she's also a small town bully. I think we already knew that, though. Darn right.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/11/palin-abused-powers-report-says/
-
So, not only is Sarah a mouthbreathing idiot and a political streetwalker, but she's also a small town bully. I think we already knew that, though. Darn right.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/11/palin-abused-powers-report-says/
But she does have executive experience (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMocEINn-E8).
-
So, not only is Sarah a mouthbreathing idiot and a political streetwalker, but she's also a small town bully. I think we already knew that, though. Darn right.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/11/palin-abused-powers-report-says/
Mouth breathing idiot? Ummm....ok. I suppose all are entitled to baseless opinions. Political streetwalker? C'mon, where does that come from? You are in the middle of moose gutting and you get a cell call inviting you to be the fucking V.P. and your reply of "yes" makes you a whore? Please give some substance that would back up allegations that she ''whored" herself into the nomination. BFE Governor bully would be a more appropriate term than small town bully. Her approval ratings in that state are through the roof. Bully's don't tend to get high ratings. If that shit bag ex-bro in law did to my nephew what he is accused of doing, I'd also have an axe to grind. If I had power to make his life miserable, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. What makes Alaska a backwards ass state is that piece of shit still being employed (as a state trooper).
Quit reading the wrong Washington newspaper. I found a better article for you.
Link: ww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101003167.html?nav=hcmodule
The Republican report said the Palins had "good reason" to raise concerns about Wooten because he has a "long history of unstable and erratic behavior, including drinking beer in his squad car, killing moose illegally, using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson and threatening to kill a member of the Palin family," as well as "claims of being above the law due to his trooper status."
"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads
-
Mouth breathing idiot? Ummm....ok. I suppose all are entitled to baseless opinions. Political streetwalker? C'mon, where does that come from? You are in the middle of moose gutting and you get a cell call inviting you to be the fucking V.P. and your reply of "yes" makes you a whore? Please give some substance that would back up allegations that she ''whored" herself into the nomination.
Let's face it...she's as dumb as the day is long. She was picked because she's very good looking, and horny middle aged men think that if they vote for her, they'll find her naked in their bed in the morning. She winked at the camera during a policy debate, fer crissakes. That's the only bullet in her gun, and she fires it at every chance.
-
Her approval ratings in that state are through the roof. Bully's don't tend to get high ratings.
I didn't realize that Alaska was a make or break state in the Presidential election. Nationally, her approval ratings aren't all that hot and keep on falling...
-
I didn't realize that Alaska was a make or break state in the Presidential election. Nationally, her approval ratings aren't all that hot and keep on falling...
And dropping in Alaska as well.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003856855
-
I didn't realize that Alaska was a make or break state in the Presidential election. Nationally, her approval ratings aren't all that hot and keep on falling...
Alaska is a very red state. The committee that authorised the "TrooperGate" investigation was 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
-
Let's face it...she's as dumb as the day is long. She was picked because she's very good looking, and horny middle aged men think that if they vote for her, they'll find her naked in their bed in the morning. She winked at the camera during a policy debate, fer crissakes. That's the only bullet in her gun, and she fires it at every chance.
I still don't get the basis on which the assertion is made that she is dumb. She flubbed a few interviews after cramming on McCain issues and stances. Most of us would probably slip up under the same circumstances. I blame the bad interviews on her handlers that wanted her to be the know-everything-person. Instead, they should have just let her be herself, i.e. the person that gave the killer acceptance speech in Ohio. The lady just isn't stupid.
Now for the reasons she got picked, there are at least four. 1) She was a total unknown to the Obama camp, so they had no prep material on her. 2) She is a hard core conservative that appeals to the conservative base (people go to ever dwindling campaign rally's to see HER). 3) She is a woman with a proven anti-abortion position, furthermore making her appealing to the base. 4) She had taken on members of her own party in Alaska and kicked their asses, thus fitting in well with McCain's "maveric" persona.
I do agree with the winking thing. Once is cute/spunky. More than once is too much. Middle age men might find her hot, but her selection was intended to entice the disenfranchised Hillary crowd.
It has been sad to watch the train wreck that is the McCain/Palin campaign. They should be kicking Obama's ass handily. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Reszco, Bill Aires, ACORN, Obama's socialist leanings, etc. But they are not. McCain telling a crowd at his own campaign rally: "Obama is a decent man and would make a fine President" was stupid X 100 IMHO. McCain's failure to bring up Obama's shady past personal associations in the debate was mind boggling. McCain should have been hammering away at that months ago. If he does it now, it smells of desperation. Playing Mr. Nice Guy in the blood sport of politics does not win you elections. There are still three weeks left. Maybe Obama will get caught in bed with a farm animal or something of the sort, but short of that, this deal is probably in the tank. I hope that I am wrong.
-
McCain telling a crowd at his own campaign rally: "Obama is a decent man and would make a fine President" was stupid X 100 IMHO.
Did he say that he'd be a fine president? Honestly, don't remember. But, McCain had to do something to quell the anger of ignorance. Identifying with those two nitwits wouldn't have looked good.
McCain's failure to bring up Obama's shady past personal associations in the debate was mind boggling.
McCain would have come of as more of an ass and alienated himself even more from independents. Obama would have held his ground in any such direct attacks. Obama's a hundred times more articulate and quick on his feet than that one...err...his opponent. It'll be interesting to see if these points come up in the final debate.
If he does it now, it smells of desperation.
Everything he and his campaign are doing now reeks of desperation.
-
I still don't get the basis on which the assertion is made that she is dumb. She flubbed a few interviews after cramming on McCain issues and stances. Most of us would probably slip up under the same circumstances. I blame the bad interviews on her handlers that wanted her to be the know-everything-person. Instead, they should have just let her be herself, i.e. the person that gave the killer acceptance speech in Ohio. The lady just isn't stupid.
she may have a gift for public speaking and the various intelligences that go into that, but as far as her understanding of the economic and social issues that affect an enormously complex population like the united states, she has yet to demonstrate anything that would lead me to believe that behind her veneer she is anything but kind-of dumb. several of our intellectual superiors on this board like craig the bastard and jim r would put her to shame in a discussion of any issue from the weather to foreign policy to even probably hockey and moose baiting.
-
Did he say that he'd be a fine president? Honestly, don't remember. But, McCain had to do something to quell the anger of ignorance. Identifying with those two nitwits wouldn't have looked good.
He may have said "a good president". Regardless it looked damn bad in the 20 second sound bite. I agree that he had to distance himself from the dimwits putting out racist rants. However, the end result was the networks being able to cut down to the one money shot sentence.
McCain would have come of as more of an ass and alienated himself even more from independents. Obama would have held his ground in any such direct attacks. Obama's a hundred times more articulate and quick on his feet than that one...err...his opponent. It'll be interesting to see if these points come up in the final debate.
He had to do something. McCain need not do the dirty work. Think Swiftboats. There are plenty of organizations that will roll in the mud for the candidate while he stands back and tsk tsk. McCain, honorable nice guy wouldn't allow those goons to pull the trigger. That is all on McCain. Back to the basic question: Do you want to win or not? Unfortunately, honor and nice don't cut it in modern elections. Sadly so.
Everything he and his campaign are doing now reeks of desperation.
Agree 100%. Sad to watch.
-
I heard that palin got an 850 on the SAT - any confirmation on that?
-
I heard that palin got an 850 on the SAT - any confirmation on that?
Point?
-
Point?
SAT scores correlate highly with IQ.
-
I just heard it and am curious - an 850 is around the bottom 20 percent of all test takers. I would guess even GWB did significantly better than that.
-
A hoax apparently :
http://gawker.com/5061283/sarah-palins-high+school-grades?t=8243229#c8243229
-
Kind of figured - why would an sat score get out.
-
Kind of figured - why would an sat score get out.
For the same reason someone would hack into her personal e-mail account.
-
A hoax apparently :
http://gawker.com/5061283/sarah-palins-high+school-grades?t=8243229#c8243229
I wouldn't say "apparently". There is discussion about it being a hoax, but nothing more from what I can see. And an 850 in 1981 or so would not have been in the bottom 20%ile, I don't believe. It may be today, because they've changed the scoring methodology since then, but back then an 850 would have gotten you into pretty much any state university.
-
I still don't get the basis on which the assertion is made that she is dumb. She flubbed a few interviews after cramming on McCain issues and stances. Most of us would probably slip up under the same circumstances. I blame the bad interviews on her handlers that wanted her to be the know-everything-person. Instead, they should have just let her be herself, i.e. the person that gave the killer acceptance speech in Ohio. The lady just isn't stupid.
Her handlers purposely hid her from the media because they knew she was an airhead. Her acceptance speech...she read a prepared speech to her staunchest supporters, of course it sounded good.
Now for the reasons she got picked, there are at least four. 1) She was a total unknown to the Obama camp, so they had no prep material on her.
She was a total unknown to the McCain camp too.
2) She is a hard core conservative that appeals to the conservative base (people go to ever dwindling campaign rally's to see HER).
She is a right-wing nutjob who plays to the lowest common denominator "Joe Sixpack", an anti-intellectual who is actually the polar opposite of everything the Conservative movement stands for.
3) She is a woman with a proven anti-abortion position, furthermore making her appealing to the base.
By base, you mean "other right-wing nut jobs". I agree, she appeals to them.
4) She had taken on members of her own party in Alaska and kicked their asses, thus fitting in well with McCain's "maveric" persona.
She has played well against the almost third-world like corruption that was Alaska politics. I'll give her that.
It has been sad to watch the train wreck that is the McCain/Palin campaign. They should be kicking Obama's ass handily. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Reszco, Bill Aires, ACORN, Obama's socialist leanings, etc. But they are not. McCain telling a crowd at his own campaign rally: "Obama is a decent man and would make a fine President" was stupid X 100 IMHO. McCain's failure to bring up Obama's shady past personal associations in the debate was mind boggling. McCain should have been hammering away at that months ago.
The train wreck is exactly *because* McCain has tried to paint Obama as a shady character instead of focusing on the issues. The sleazy campaign run by McCain is despicable, and he should be ashamed of it. I'm sure he is, which is why he's asking them to tone it down. A little too late, probably.
The problem I have with the Republican Party today is that it left Conservatism many years ago. The party of thinkers, who believed in ideas and man's ability to govern himself, is long gone. It has become a party of witch-hunting, fearmongering, slack-jawed yahoos who think patriotism is born on a bumper sticker and being ignorant is a feather in their cap.
-
I wouldn't say "apparently". There is discussion about it being a hoax, but nothing more from what I can see. And an 850 in 1981 or so would not have been in the bottom 20%ile, I don't believe. It may be today, because they've changed the scoring methodology since then, but back then an 850 would have gotten you into pretty much any state university.
They re-centered the difficulty of the SAT so that the median score would be near 1000. Effectively, they made it easier because tons more people take the SAT than did in 1981. If she scored 850, she would of been in the bottom 20% of people who took the exam, but that pool of people would of had higher verbal/math skills than the bottom 20% today.
-
They re-centered the difficulty of the SAT so that the median score would be near 1000. Effectively, they made it easier because tons more people take the SAT than did in 1981. If she scored 850, she would of been in the bottom 20% of people who took the exam, but that pool of people would of had higher verbal/math skills than the bottom 20% today.
Maybe so. And I know the percentile varies from year to year. I just remember when I took it in 1984, I think, a score in the 800's wasn't *that* bad, closer to average than the bottom I thought. Either way, Palin was not known as a real scholar.
-
A person with an 850 would of been average for a freshman at UH-Hilo in 1995 :
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rrobison/sat-verb.htm
Here's a description of Gov. Palin's college career if you missed it :
http://www.slate.com/id/2201332/
By the way, the Washington Post was able to get Gore and Bush's SATs and college scores and I believe Kerry's too. I don't believe Obama has released his.
-
she may have a gift for public speaking and the various intelligences that go into that, but as far as her understanding of the economic and social issues that affect an enormously complex population like the united states, she has yet to demonstrate anything that would lead me to believe that behind her veneer she is anything but kind-of dumb. several of our intellectual superiors on this board like craig the bastard and jim r would put her to shame in a discussion of any issue from the weather to foreign policy to even probably hockey and moose baiting.
Which social or economic issues does she not understand?
-
Let's face it...she's as dumb as the day is long. She was picked because she's very good looking, and horny middle aged men think that if they vote for her, they'll find her naked in their bed in the morning. She winked at the camera during a policy debate, fer crissakes. That's the only bullet in her gun, and she fires it at every chance.
Her positions on conservative issues didn't have anything to do with it?
-
Her handlers purposely hid her from the media because they knew she was an airhead. Her acceptance speech...she read a prepared speech to her staunchest supporters, of course it sounded good. She was a total unknown to the McCain camp too.
The McCain camp took a gamble. It failed. Their failure to vet her better was typical of this campaign and its bumbling. But that initial speech appealed to more than just her staunchest supporters at the time. It was her subsequent inability to match it with substance that diminished her popularity. Of course, I'm not sure McCain would be doing any better with Mitt Romney at this point, but Romney would likely have been able to make the arguments on behalf of McCain better than Palin.
She is a right-wing nutjob who plays to the lowest common denominator "Joe Sixpack", an anti-intellectual who is actually the polar opposite of everything the Conservative movement stands for. By base, you mean "other right-wing nut jobs". I agree, she appeals to them.
Like it or not, "other right-wing nut jobs" are a voting block just like left-wing net roots are. McCain can't win without them. At this point, he doesn't look like he can win with them either, though.
The train wreck is exactly *because* McCain has tried to paint Obama as a shady character instead of focusing on the issues. The sleazy campaign run by McCain is despicable, and he should be ashamed of it. I'm sure he is, which is why he's asking them to tone it down. A little too late, probably.
Oh, bullshit. None of those issues -- Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, ACORN -- are below the belt by any historical standards for a presidential race. They don't have as much to do with Obama being a shady character as they do with (1) Obama's judgment in who he associates with and (2) whether Obama really is the bipartisanship-building centrist he pretends to be. Obama has no record of that whatsoever. The rhetoric and the media narrative don't fit the facts.
But the problem is that strategically you can't build a campaign around those kinds of issues if you can't present the substantive reasons why you're a viable alternative, which McCain has failed to do. And you can't introduce those kinds of issues with three weeks left in the campaign and expect people to take them seriously. The time to define Obama with all that stuff was three or four months ago, when somebody might have cared, and not when you're six or eight points down in the polls because you got hung out to dry on the financial crisis and the bailout.
What if McCain had a relationship with an unrepentant abortion clinic/black church bomber who got off on a technicality akin to the relationship Obama had with Bill Ayers? McCain would never have gotten the nomination, because the media would have sniffed that out and ensured he was jettisoned from the race months ago. Nobody would deny that it was relevant or newsworthy.
The problem I have with the Republican Party today is that it left Conservatism many years ago. The party of thinkers, who believed in ideas and man's ability to govern himself, is long gone. It has become a party of witch-hunting, fearmongering, slack-jawed yahoos who think patriotism is born on a bumper sticker and being ignorant is a feather in their cap.
This has more than a grain of truth in it. But what does what does that leave a conservative to do, vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr? Vote for Obama? Perhaps the best thing that could happen for the GOP is that McCain and the congressional Republicans get drubbed, Obama and the Democrats overreach and conservatives figure out how to become a viable electoral alternative again, which they have presently ceased to be. So does that mean conservatives should vote for Obama too? Wouldn't that be rather cynical?
-
McCain told listeners that Obama is a 'decent family man,' and that 'you don't have to be scared of Senator Obama as President.'
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2008/10/mccain-reassures-supporters-no-need-to.html
I was impressed in a wholly positive dimension with these remarks. In fact, they are among the very few indications I have received that he could possibly have the temperament and wherewithal to perform successfully any facet of the job he seeks.
-
McCain told listeners that Obama is a 'decent family man,' and that 'you don't have to be scared of Senator Obama as President.'
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2008/10/mccain-reassures-supporters-no-need-to.html
I was impressed in a wholly positive dimension with these remarks. In fact, they are among the very few indications I have received that he could possibly have the temperament and wherewithal to perform successfully any facet of the job he seeks.
He booed by his own crowd when he said it. He sewed the wind...
-
This has more than a grain of truth in it. But what does what does that leave a conservative to do, vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr? Vote for Obama? Perhaps the best thing that could happen for the GOP is that McCain and the congressional Republicans get drubbed, Obama and the Democrats overreach and conservatives figure out how to become a viable electoral alternative again, which they have presently ceased to be. So does that mean conservatives should vote for Obama too? Wouldn't that be rather cynical?
True conservatives have put themselves in a predicament by allowing their party to be co-opted by idiot talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity speaking on their behalf, then electing idiot leaders like George W. Bush, allowing them to whirl their ideals straight down the johnnyflusher. As for what they should do, they should vote for the man they feel would best lead the nation, irrespective of his party affiliation or stance on any one-particular "hot-button" issue. That would go a long way towards re-establishing their foundation. Bottom line is, as long as Republicans continue kowtowing to the simple minded and religious extremists, they will continue the spiral downwards and will find themselves going the way of the Whigs.
-
True conservatives have put themselves in a predicament by allowing their party to be co-opted by idiot talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity speaking on their behalf
Speaking of Hannity, check out this youtube video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RV_XTRLoyo That is some funny shit. And repubs are accused of being mouth breathing knuckle draggers???
Here is another good one from His Majesty himself:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbFTjQdUibs
And here is one that features a hot babe talking about something (i was too distracted):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6CyvgHqXk Nice break from politics. Bonus for Limey in that there is a cricket reference.
-
Perhaps the best thing that could happen for the GOP is that McCain and the congressional Republicans get drubbed, Obama and the Democrats overreach and conservatives figure out how to become a viable electoral alternative again, which they have presently ceased to be. So does that mean conservatives should vote for Obama too? Wouldn't that be rather cynical?
You so nailed it <golf clap>! Conservatism in it's truest Ronald Reagan/Bill Buckley form has been dead for years. Bush is better than Gore/Kerry, but he isn't a true conservative, thus explaining many of his failures. Republicans while in control of both House/Senate screwed themselves for years to come under terrible leadership. They clearly deserved what they got for straying from the base. Newt Gingrich is one of the few clear voices of what conservatism is, where the movement is at, and what they should do. Damned shame that he was so successfully destroyed.
McCain was low on my preferred list of candidates, but he's better than Obama. Palin gave me a spark of hope as I believe that she is the real deal. Maybe she hasn't carried the water as well as Romney might have, but with some seasoning, I think she has a bright future.
Until the conservative movement finds its way out of the wilderness, then the repubs are going to suffer. Why the repubs feel the need to soothe the other side is mind boggling. The majority of this country is already in their corner and they don't know it. This was evidenced by the tide of excitement when Palin was introduced. People said, hey, there's one of us! What is happening to McCain is just proof of the infighting within the repub party between the conservatives and the blue blood moderates. It's sad that McCain is the best the party could produce. We should soooo should be kicking Obamas ass right now, but no, they had to let the old guy have his turn. Did they not learn that lesson with Dole?
Say what you want about Limbaugh, but his observations on moderates is dead on. Paraphrasing: "You can stand on either side of the road and be fine, but if you stand in the middle of the road, you're gonna get your ass run over". See: John "Can't we all just get along?" McCain.
-
True conservatives have put themselves in a predicament by allowing their party to be co-opted by idiot talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity speaking on their behalf, then electing idiot leaders like George W. Bush, allowing them to whirl their ideals straight down the johnnyflusher. As for what they should do, they should vote for the man they feel would best lead the nation, irrespective of his party affiliation or stance on any one-particular "hot-button" issue. That would go a long way towards re-establishing their foundation. Bottom line is, as long as Republicans continue kowtowing to the simple minded and religious extremists, they will continue the spiral downwards and will find themselves going the way of the Whigs.
I love it when the opposition tells us what we should do. I think all of us will vote for who we think will best lead the nation. I suspect very few of those votes will be cast for Obama. I envision the nation returning to conservatism in four years after Carter revisited.
I agree with one thing you've written and that is that Republicans need to get back to being a party of ideas. But both parties have extremists and there is much more hatred being spewed from your side of the aisle. Imagine the firestorm in the media if McCain had a relationship with say a KKK member for the last 20 years.
-
Finally!!! The money shot I've been waiting for. The highly esteemed Senator from Illinois tells you what he's all about:
www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
If that does not describe socialism, then I don't know what does? That a politician would make that quote is slightly surprising, that a PRESIDENTIAL candidate would say that is unfuckingbelievable. Wow. I don't even imagine JFK saying something like that. Johnson maybe, but not JFK. Carter? Oh yeah! Thus back to my original comparison between our worst President and soon to be worser.
-
Finally!!! The money shot I've been waiting for. The highly esteemed Senator from Illinois tells you what he's all about:
www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
If that does not describe socialism, then I don't know what does? That a politician would make that quote is slightly surprising, that a PRESIDENTIAL candidate would say that is unfuckingbelievable. Wow. I don't even imagine JFK saying something like that. Johnson maybe, but not JFK. Carter? Oh yeah! Thus back to my original comparison between our worst President and soon to be worser.
What tax policy doesn't revolve around the issue of "spreading the wealth around"? Whether or not it's a "trickle-down" or "bottom-up" policy, the whole point is the distribution of wealth. I don't see your point other than that having any taxes whatsoever is "socialist."
-
What tax policy doesn't revolve around the issue of "spreading the wealth around"? Whether or not it's a "trickle-down" or "bottom-up" policy, the whole point is the distribution of wealth. I don't see your point other than that having any taxes whatsoever is "socialist."
Warren Buffett, when asked if there was class war going on said, "of course, and my side won". First rule of warfare is to convince the other side not to fight.
[eta] “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
-
I love it when the opposition tells us what we should do. I think all of us will vote for who we think will best lead the nation. I suspect very few of those votes will be cast for Obama. I envision the nation returning to conservatism in four years after Carter revisited.
I agree with one thing you've written and that is that Republicans need to get back to being a party of ideas. But both parties have extremists and there is much more hatred being spewed from your side of the aisle. Imagine the firestorm in the media if McCain had a relationship with say a KKK member for the last 20 years.
Obama had a 'relationship' with Ayers in the 70's when Obama was 8 years old? Or did they sit on the same board and meet with each other perfunctorily several years ago? Where exactly is the evidence that Ayers and Obama had any more relationship than sitting on the same board of directors? I'd love to hear it.
-
Obama had a 'relationship' with Ayers in the 70's when Obama was 8 years old? Or did they sit on the same board and meet with each other perfunctorily several years ago? Where exactly is the evidence that Ayers and Obama had any more relationship than sitting on the same board of directors? I'd love to hear it.
Ayers threw a campaign rally for Obama when he first ran for state senate. In addition to the work on education reform, that's about it for the "palling around with terrorist(s)" (Why does Sarah always make it plural?)
-
What tax policy doesn't revolve around the issue of "spreading the wealth around"? Whether or not it's a "trickle-down" or "bottom-up" policy, the whole point is the distribution of wealth. I don't see your point other than that having any taxes whatsoever is "socialist."
I've never viewed that as the role of tax policy. Taxes are to pay for the public's shared services: defense, infrastructure, law enforcement. Not to enforce some sort of ideological goal of equality in wealth. "Trickle down" or "bottom up" policies are to stimulate the economy, not to increase the wealth of any individual or class.
To me "redistribute the wealth" is a scary proposition. Let's create opportunities for those that want to increase their wealth (though hard work, investments, education of themselves, entreprenurialship, etc. all of which is enabled by a solid economy) not simply bring down one class to give handouts to another.
-
This is the foundation that Obama chaired,
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/Challenge/about/about.html
the one with all the terrorists.
The founding Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as announced in 1995 were:[39][40]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
A 23-member group of Chicago parents, teachers, activists, funders, administrators, local school council members and academics who were involved in school reform, called the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, was chosen to design the initial Request for Proposals (RFPs), help publicize the Challenge and hold informational sessions for potential grantees, screen and rate the initial letters of intent, aid the Board of Directors in selecting an executive director, and work with the project's staff.[19][35] Twenty of the 23 members of the Collaborative were elected by all Working Group members who had attended two or more of the drafting sessions during the first ten months of 1994 for the winning $49.2 million grant proposal; the other three members of the Collaborative were appointed representatives of the Office of the Mayor, the Chicago Public Schools administration, and the Chicago Teachers Union.[19][35]
The founding members of Chicago School Reform Collaborative announced in 1995 were:[39]
William Ayers and 22 others.
-
I've never viewed that as the role of tax policy. Taxes are to pay for the public's shared services: defense, infrastructure, law enforcement. Not to enforce some sort of ideological goal of equality in wealth. "Trickle down" or "bottom up" policies are to stimulate the economy, not to increase the wealth of any individual or class.
To me "redistribute the wealth" is a scary proposition. Let's create opportunities for those that want to increase their wealth (though hard work, investments, education of themselves, entreprenurialship, etc. all of which is enabled by a solid economy) not simply bring down one class to give handouts to another.
I'm with you, so long as I never have to hear about how we need to give large corporations or wealthy individuals tax breaks because their money stimulates the economy. Let's also get rid of feds using highway funding as a stick to enforce their preferred alcohol policies, etc. And religious people jacking up taxes on alcohol and strip clubs, because they're immoral.
And once all that happens, maybe we can enact some legislation to do something about all those flying pigs.
-
What tax policy doesn't revolve around the issue of "spreading the wealth around"? Whether or not it's a "trickle-down" or "bottom-up" policy, the whole point is the distribution of wealth. I don't see your point other than that having any taxes whatsoever is "socialist."
That's bullshit. Taxation for public works and services is not a "redistribution" of wealth. Taxes that contribute to serviecs that are enjoed by all are fine by me, whether this be roads or public health standards or schools.
I do not work to pay for someone else's welfare check. I do not work for someone else's lazy ass to take out a mortgage that they cannot pay.
This idea that all taxation is a redistribution of wealth is crackpot.
-
That's bullshit. Taxation for public works and services is not a "redistribution" of wealth. Taxes that contribute to serviecs that are enjoed by all are fine by me, whether this be roads or public health standards or schools.
I do not work to pay for someone else's welfare check. I do not work for someone else's lazy ass to take out a mortgage that they cannot pay.
This idea that all taxation is a redistribution of wealth is crackpot.
Why did we, along with most other nations, establish a progressive income tax?
-
I'm with you, so long as I never have to hear about how we need to give large corporations or wealthy individuals tax breaks because their money stimulates the economy. Let's also get rid of feds using highway funding as a stick to enforce their preferred alcohol policies, etc. And religious people jacking up taxes on alcohol and strip clubs, because they're immoral.
And once all that happens, maybe we can enact some legislation to do something about all those flying pigs.
I have no problem with tax policy being used as a carrot and/or stick, so long as it's not redistribution of wealth. Penalizing the wealthy because they are wealthy is not sound tax policy.
-
True conservatives have put themselves in a predicament by allowing their party to be co-opted by idiot talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity speaking on their behalf, then electing idiot leaders like George W. Bush, allowing them to whirl their ideals straight down the johnnyflusher. As for what they should do, they should vote for the man they feel would best lead the nation, irrespective of his party affiliation or stance on any one-particular "hot-button" issue. That would go a long way towards re-establishing their foundation. Bottom line is, as long as Republicans continue kowtowing to the simple minded and religious extremists, they will continue the spiral downwards and will find themselves going the way of the Whigs.
What's amusing is that this very paragraph has been said about the Democratic party for the past decade (if not longer) as well. And yet here they still are. To say that the Repubilcans are going the way of the Whig's may be a bit premature.
-
Obama had a 'relationship' with Ayers in the 70's when Obama was 8 years old? Or did they sit on the same board and meet with each other perfunctorily several years ago? Where exactly is the evidence that Ayers and Obama had any more relationship than sitting on the same board of directors? I'd love to hear it.
You brought up Ayers. I was thinking of Rev Wright and his race-baiting comments which is why I asked about McCain and the KKK.
-
Why did we, along with most other nations, establish a progressive income tax?
Because we're a democracy and it sells well to the masses
-
Why did we, along with most other nations, establish a progressive income tax?
I'm not arguing implementation of the tax, although there are plenty of arguments to be made against the socialist nature of a progressive income tax.
The argument being made is the uses behind the tax. Build/improve roads? Fine. Fund schools. Fine. National Security? Fine.
Taking my money to pay for something they couldn't afford to begin with? Not Fine.
-
So tax code fairness is an issue?
Why not a flat tax then?
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba136.html
or if you're feeling a little libertarian today:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.html
There's alot of good articles on the subject. Here are a couple for your enjoyment:
Pro
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006352
Con
http://www.ctj.org/html/tjmjec.htm
I should warn, these articles all come from "archives", the most recent being 3yrs old I believe.
-
Taking my money to pay for something they couldn't afford to begin with? Not Fine.
What sort of things are you referring to?
-
What sort of things are you referring to?
Home mortgages is top of mind
-
Why did we, along with most other nations, establish a progressive income tax?
1. Diminishing Marginal Utility.
2. No other way to pay for the pork you need to get re-elected.
-
Bush is better than Gore/KerryBush... isn't a true conservative, thus explaining many of his failures... Newt Gingrich is...where the movement is at, and what they should do.
Palin...is the real deal...I think she has a bright future.
highly debatable claims you're making here:
--the president who presided over the near destruction of the economy, etc. is a better president to you than the two people he defeated would have been.
--bush isn't a true conservative? i know he spent beyond the nation's means, but aside from that it seems like every decision he makes is in the interest of conservatism (consolidation of homeland security, no child left behind, social security and health care privitization plans, etc.)
--from my perspective, it seems like one of the big problems of the republican party is that it clings too much to successful leaders from the past like reagan and gingrich while ignoring the need to evolve the party's ideology so that it fits with the time. mccain, despite his age and set-in-his-ways demeanor, is a step in the right direction because he seems to have an aversion to the strict partisanship that is the flaw of the post-gingrich republicans, and he suggests a certain kind of tolerance and desire to concilliate, the lack of which was the flaw of the gingrich republicans, all while promoting conservative principles like strong defense and streamlined government.
--Palin represents exactly the crux of the recent republican failures; overreliance on figureheads who have a paper profile that gels with the ten years ago values of a rapidly evolving rural and suburban constituency.
Why the repubs feel the need to soothe the other side is mind boggling.
uh, because the country doesn't all think the same way. why the repubs so insult the opinions and experiences of entire metropolitan areas is to me mind boggling. "oh those crazy new yorkers are at it again." "that's just san francisco values." "typical chicago politics."
The majority of this country is already in their corner and they don't know it.
This was evidenced by the tide of excitement when Palin was introduced. People said, hey, there's one of us!
51% of the country voted for bush against kerry, and he lost the popular vote to gore. republicans are starting to lose congressional seats even in what were once rural and suburban strongholds. virginia is becoming a full-on democrat state, and not just in northern virginia. the "tide of excitement" for Palin was curiosity mixed with election year mania. maybe some people said "hey, there's one of us!" but most people said, "let's follow her every move in the same way that we follow britney spears' every move."
We should soooo should be kicking Obamas ass right now, but no, they had to let the old guy have his turn.
republicans trotted out everybody and anybody looking for somebody else: "hey what about that fred what's-his-name? he's a tv actor. you know, RONALD REAGAN was an actor." giuliani, fred, romney-- it wouldn't even be close with these guys, they'd be all out with their viciousness and surlyness and obama would be up by 20 points. i loved those debates where one after another everybody stood up there and tried outdo each other about what they're going to do to the immigrants ("i'm going to deport them all" "oh yeah, well i'm going to deport them all and implant microchips in their brains so i can detect them if they ever come back." "oh yeah, well i'm going to put a laser line across the border that will make the microchips explode if any microchip-implanted immigrant tries to cross.")
Say what you want about Limbaugh, but his observations on moderates is dead on. Paraphrasing: "You can stand on either side of the road and be fine, but if you stand in the middle of the road, you're gonna get your ass run over". See: John "Can't we all just get along?" McCain.
how about the dr. seuss' story of zax and prax: "Neither Zax would budge in the prairie of Prax, not an inch to the east, not an inch to the west." neither dude would move from his position and so the world went on around them, while they just stood there like a bunch of assholes.
or how about the analogy of these factions in Iraq who are so stubbornly sticking to thousand year-old positions that they would rather kill each other than moderate in any significant way?
-
how about the dr. seuss' story of zax and prax: "Neither Zax would budge in the prairie of Prax, not an inch to the east, not an inch to the west." neither dude would move from his position and so the world went on around them, while they just stood there like a bunch of assholes.
The politics of Seuss. Now we're talkin'.
-
I have no problem with tax policy being used as a carrot and/or stick, so long as it's not redistribution of wealth. Penalizing the wealthy because they are wealthy is not sound tax policy.
The wealthy shoulder a far higher chunk of the overall tax burden in pure dollar figures. However, on a proportional basis, they pay a far, far lower tax rate than the low paid. Income tax is progressive, but payroll taxes are regressive, as are capital gains taxes and taxes paid on stock dividends (because lower income families don't have any capital gains or stock dividends so they cannot enjoy the tax breaks given to those sources of income).
So, when it comes to increasing taxes on the wealthy, what's really being proposed is that they pay more taxes but still a hell of a lot less on a proportional basis than the vast majority of the population.
Also, tax cuts are a really bad way of stimulating job growth, which is the argument made here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA) by Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (please try to ignore the noisy hair dryer sitting next to him). The Bush tax cuts didn't exactly do much for job creation, and the last ten months have each seen a net loss of jobs, which is a stretch going back far ahead of the credit implosion.
-
So, when it comes to increasing taxes on the wealthy, what's really being proposed is that they pay more taxes but still a hell of a lot less on a proportional basis than the vast majority of the population.
Need to find a source, but I believe I've heard that 1/3rd of US citizens that submitted a tax return last year did not pay ANY tax at all. If true, the wealthy, therefor, could not possibly pay less proportionally than the vast majority of the population.
-
Need to find a source, but I believe I've heard that 1/3rd of US citizens that submitted a tax return last year did not pay ANY tax at all. If true, the wealthy, therefor, could not possibly pay less proportionally than the vast majority of the population.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
-
Need to find a source, but I believe I've heard that 1/3rd of US citizens that submitted a tax return last year did not pay ANY tax at all. If true, the wealthy, therefor, could not possibly pay less proportionally than the vast majority of the population.
Limey can correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but I think he's referring to total taxes paid out over the course of a year, from withholdings, and NOT just what is paid above and beyond that to meet any liabilities that arise when it comes time to file. Saying that the vast majority of citizens who filed paid no taxes is wrong. They didn't pay any MORE than what had already been withheld.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
Fuck me.
-
Limey can correct me if I'm reading him wrong, but I think he's referring to total taxes paid out over the course of a year, from withholdings, and NOT just what is paid above and beyond that to meet any liabilities that arise when it comes time to file. Saying that the vast majority of citizens who filed paid no taxes is wrong. They didn't pay any MORE than what had already been withheld.
That is not my understanding. Any federal taxes withheld, they're getting back in a refund.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html
-
Why did we, along with most other nations, establish a progressive income tax?
To fight large aggregations of wealth. The same people also got the Constitution amended to provide for women's suffrage and direct election of Senators. But then they also foisted prohibition on the nation, so their track record isn't exactly perfect.
-
That is not my understanding. Any federal taxes withheld, they're getting back in a refund.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html
Getting back a refund isn't the same as paying zero taxes. It just means they "overpaid" -- had too much withheld. There's a big difference between not owing additional taxes or getting a refund back, and paying in zero taxes. Anywhere in that article they reference liabilities (whether "zero" liability, or "negative" liability), it's talking about filing a tax return -- which happens AFTER withholdings. The only ways I can think of to actually pay no federal income taxes are:
1. have zero withheld and know that you have sufficient credits/deductions to cover what would have been withheld
2. get a refund for exactly what you had withheld
If I had $10,000 withheld throughout the year, and when I filed my tax liability came to $8,000, sure I'm getting a $2,000 refund check, but that doesn't mean I paid no taxes. I still "paid" that $8,000.
-
So tax code fairness is an issue?
Why not a flat tax then?
Because the only countries where it works are not dependent on an income tax, but on revenues from petrodollars.
-
Ayers threw a campaign rally for Obama when he first ran for state senate. In addition to the work on education reform, that's about it for the "palling around with terrorist(s)" (Why does Sarah always make it plural?)
If McCain had started his political career with a rally in the home of someone so extreme as an unrepentant abortion clinic/black church bomber who got off on a technicality, McCain would never have reached the position he is in now.
I don't think Obama agrees with what Ayers did, and I don't think Obama buys into Ayers' radical teachings. Just as I don't think Obama believed the filth preached by Wright. But I question his judgment in having more than just a casual relationship with these men.
-
Getting back a refund isn't the same as paying zero taxes. It just means they "overpaid" -- had too much withheld. There's a big difference between not owing additional taxes or getting a refund back, and paying in zero taxes. Anywhere in that article they reference liabilities (whether "zero" liability, or "negative" liability), it's talking about filing a tax return -- which happens AFTER withholdings. The only ways I can think of to actually pay no federal income taxes are:
1. have zero withheld and know that you have sufficient credits/deductions to cover what would have been withheld
2. get a refund for exactly what you had withheld
If I had $10,000 withheld throughout the year, and when I filed my tax liability came to $8,000, sure I'm getting a $2,000 refund check, but that doesn't mean I paid no taxes. I still "paid" that $8,000.
One of us is misunderstanding my link (and I think it's you!) ...
My understanding is that these filers had $0 liability. So yes, you paid $8000 and thus you're not in that 33% who pay no taxes. These are people who either pay no withholdings or get every cent they did pay back. Furthermore, the link Biz provided suggests that Obama's credits will payout regardless of liability. So, if they had $1 deducted, they they get their $1 back AND a $4000 check for their college tuition, a check worth 10% of their mortgate interest, $3000 for childcare expenses, etc. This is not tax credits, it is wellfare.
-
Can't look it up right now, but a surprisingly huge portion of the population has a negative effective tax rate - Obama's plan will grow that.
-
Because the only countries where it works are not dependent on an income tax, but on revenues from petrodollars.
Alaska?
-
The wealthy shoulder a far higher chunk of the overall tax burden in pure dollar figures. However, on a proportional basis, they pay a far, far lower tax rate than the low paid. Income tax is progressive, but payroll taxes are regressive, as are capital gains taxes and taxes paid on stock dividends (because lower income families don't have any capital gains or stock dividends so they cannot enjoy the tax breaks given to those sources of income).
So, when it comes to increasing taxes on the wealthy, what's really being proposed is that they pay more taxes but still a hell of a lot less on a proportional basis than the vast majority of the population.
Also, tax cuts are a really bad way of stimulating job growth, which is the argument made here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA) by Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (please try to ignore the noisy hair dryer sitting next to him). The Bush tax cuts didn't exactly do much for job creation, and the last ten months have each seen a net loss of jobs, which is a stretch going back far ahead of the credit implosion.
The payroll tax discrepancy is a byproduct of the antiquated and mendacious notion that Social Security is a trust fund that workers and their employers are paying into and earning a return on so that the government can pay out benefits after retirement. If you are going to remove the cap so that Social Security contributions are unlimited, then for the system to work "honestly," higher-income earners should get unlimited escalation of their benefits. Much better would be to abandon the sacred New Deal smoke and mirrors, put it all into income tax rates, and guarantee everyone a minimum amount out of general revenues rather than pretend there really is a lock box full of anything other than IOUs from the government. But the Democrats would scare all hell out of old people if the GOP proposed this.
It's hypocritical to say on the one hand these aren't really taxes but retirement contributions, but then on the other hand to treat them like taxes for purposes of raising general revenues and making the tax system more "progressive."
-
If McCain had started his political career with a rally in the home of someone so extreme as an unrepentant abortion clinic/black church bomber who got off on a technicality, McCain would never have reached the position he is in now.
I don't think Obama agrees with what Ayers did, and I don't think Obama buys into Ayers' radical teachings. Just as I don't think Obama believed the filth preached by Wright. But I question his judgment in having more than just a casual relationship with these men.
McCain hung out with Charles Keating, who cost tax payers billions of dollars in the repair of a massive credit fuck up and for whom McCain lobbied to have an investigation quashed. He also staffs his campaign, including most of the top jobs within it, with lobbyists, who he decries as one of the causes of greed and excess in Washington. His campaign manager is a founder and equity owner of a major Washington lobbying firm that was taking money from Freddie Mac as recently as August of this year.
Which is more important? Serving on a charity board and having a passing, and passed, acquaintance with a douchebag who did some disgusting stuff decades prior to such acquaintance, or "palling around" with your second set of corporate socialists who trouser tax-payers' money as they torpedo the US economy?
And let's also not forget that what Ayers did, dispicable as it was, is now being viewed through the prism of 9/11, which "changed everything".
-
Need to find a source, but I believe I've heard that 1/3rd of US citizens that submitted a tax return last year did not pay ANY tax at all. If true, the wealthy, therefor, could not possibly pay less proportionally than the vast majority of the population.
You are presuming that wealth is evenly distributed throught the population. It isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States).
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
I am looking for tax distribution figures, but haven't found them in an easily digestible form. However, there's no way that the top 1% paid 38% of the taxes. As soon as I find the proportions, I'll post it.
-
The payroll tax discrepancy is a byproduct of the antiquated and mendacious notion that Social Security is a trust fund that workers and their employers are paying into and earning a return on so that the government can pay out benefits after retirement. If you are going to remove the cap so that Social Security contributions are unlimited, then for the system to work "honestly," higher-income earners should get unlimited escalation of their benefits. Much better would be to abandon the sacred New Deal smoke and mirrors, put it all into income tax rates, and guarantee everyone a minimum amount out of general revenues rather than pretend there really is a lock box full of anything other than IOUs from the government. But the Democrats would scare all hell out of old people if the GOP proposed this.
It's hypocritical to say on the one hand these aren't really taxes but retirement contributions, but then on the other hand to treat them like taxes for purposes of raising general revenues and making the tax system more "progressive."
What has any of this got to do with what I posted? When did I suggest removing the cap on payroll taxes?
-
What sort of things are you referring to?
Oh things like this.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
credit to Biz for providing the link.
-
You are presuming that wealth is evenly distributed throught the population. It isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States).
I am looking for tax distribution figures, but haven't found them in an easily digestible form. However, there's no way that the top 1% paid 38% of the taxes. As soon as I find the proportions, I'll post it.
I think I see where you're going, but keep in mind as you do that wealth and income are different in a tax conversation (I think)
-
I think I see where you're going, but keep in mind as you do that wealth and income are different in a tax conversation (I think)
Agreed in that the figures I have seen - when talking about income - puts the proportion of income earned much closer to the proportion of tax paid (but still slanted in favour of the higher income earners). However, this doesn't factor in sales taxes, which are another regressive form of taxation in that low income earners spend a higher proportion of their income than do high income earners.
-
Major news regarding the McCain campaign (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/scott_bakula_jumps_into?utm_source=onion_rss_daily)!!!
-
One of us is misunderstanding my link (and I think it's you!) ...
It could be, but if this is indicative of what you are basing "never paid in" on:
the growing number of Americans who pay zero federal income tax after taking advantage of deductions and credits.
Then you could be off. That sentence (<Worrell>right there, that one right there</Worrell>) is referring to paying in zero additional taxes after deductions and credits which are part of the income tax form filing process -- ie: after you've gone through the year, having taxes withheld (for W2-flavored workers).
My understanding is that these filers had $0 liability.
The word liability is key here. "Tax liability" is what you'd expect to owe to the government on top of what you paid already through withholdings or quarterly tax payments. Having zero liability is not interchangable with paying zero taxes.
So yes, you paid $8000 and thus you're not in that 33% who pay no taxes. These are people who either pay no withholdings or get every cent they did pay back.
That second sentence falls into the category of not paying taxes (the first example being absolutely not never paid in, and the second being a "wash" at the end of the year), but the article you posted refers to zero liability, which covers both those two scenarios AND those whose withholdings matched or exceeded their taxes owed. And, per my first quote from the article above, it seems to me they are addressing the liability which refers the amount owed/refunded AFTER paying in some amount. Basically, I take "zero tax liability" to mean not "never give the feds any income taxes" but rather "don't give the feds any MORE income taxes, come April 15th." Apparently, YMMV.
Furthermore, the link Biz provided suggests that Obama's credits will payout regardless of liability. So, if they had $1 deducted, they they get their $1 back AND a $4000 check for their college tuition, a check worth 10% of their mortgate interest, $3000 for childcare expenses, etc. This is not tax credits, it is wellfare.
Pretty unpalatable, IMO. Oh wait... he could just have the treasury print up more bills, right?
-
It could be, but if this is indicative of what you are basing "never paid in" on:
the growing number of Americans who pay zero federal income tax after taking advantage of deductions and credits.
Then you could be off. That sentence (<Worrell>right there, that one right there</Worrell>) is referring to paying in zero additional taxes after deductions and credits which are part of the income tax form filing process -- ie: after you've gone through the year, having taxes withheld (for W2-flavored workers).
The word liability is key here. "Tax liability" is what you'd expect to owe to the government on top of what you paid already through withholdings or quarterly tax payments. Having zero liability is not interchangable with paying zero taxes.
That second sentence falls into the category of not paying taxes (the first example being absolutely not never paid in, and the second being a "wash" at the end of the year), but the article you posted refers to zero liability, which covers both those two scenarios AND those whose withholdings matched or exceeded their taxes owed. And, per my first quote from the article above, it seems to me they are addressing the liability which refers the amount owed/refunded AFTER paying in some amount. Basically, I take "zero tax liability" to mean not "never give the feds any income taxes" but rather "don't give the feds any MORE income taxes, come April 15th." Apparently, YMMV.
Pretty unpalatable, IMO. Oh wait... he could just have the treasury print up more bills, right?
Alright, we need an arbitrator. I'm pretty sure liability has no relation to withholdings. Those with $0 liability either paid nothing in withholdings and owe nothing, or paid something and will get 100% of it back in a tax return.
-
Alright, we need an arbitrator. I'm pretty sure liability has no relation to withholdings. Those with $0 liability either paid nothing in withholdings and owe nothing, or paid something and will get 100% of it back in a tax return.
Heh. Zero liability just means you owe nothing. Period. Just like a credit card. I could have a current zero balance, but that doesn't mean I never paid anything on it during the year. Withholdings reduce your liability (just like your payments reduce your credit card liability), so they are related. It does include those who paid during the year, which is my point :)
-
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf
The top 20% (avg income $214k) pay 85% of Federal Income Tax (top 1% pay 37%, top 5% pay 59%, top 10% pay 71%)
The next 20% (avg income $85k) pay 14% of Federal Income Tax
The middle 20% (avg income $58k) pay 5% of Federal Income Tax
The next 20% (avg income $37k) have a 1% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
The bottom 20% (avg income $16k) have a 3% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
**Note, these are households, so a dual income family with each bringing in $45k is in the 2nd to top tier
That suggests at least 40% have a negative liability as of 2005. They pay nothing in Federal Income Tax. $0. Nada. Meanwhile, the top 40% pay 99% of it.
-
Heh. Zero liability just means you owe nothing. Period. Just like a credit card. I could have a current zero balance, but that doesn't mean I never paid anything on it during the year. Withholdings reduce your liability (just like your payments reduce your credit card liability), so they are related. It does include those who paid during the year, which is my point :)
I'm 99% certain you're wrong. Withholdings are nothing but pre-payments (no different than putting it in your mattress, except the government doesnt trust you to do that so they say, "hey, let us hold on to that for you until April 15 so you don't waste it first") on your anticipated tax liability for the year, since it can't be calculated until the year is complete. These documents can care less who is pre-paying or not.
-
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf
The top 20% (avg income $214k) pay 85% of Federal Income Tax (top 1% pay 37%, top 5% pay 59%, top 10% pay 71%)
The next 20% (avg income $85k) pay 14% of Federal Income Tax
The middle 20% (avg income $58k) pay 5% of Federal Income Tax
The next 20% (avg income $37k) have a 1% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
The bottom 20% (avg income $16k) have a 3% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
**Note, these are households, so a dual income family with each bringing in $45k is in the 2nd to top tier
That suggests at least 40% have a negative liability as of 2005. They pay nothing in Federal Income Tax. $0. Nada. Meanwhile, the top 40% pay 99% of it.
So you're of the belief that someone making $37,000 a year does not pay taxes? Please explain.
-
So you're of the belief that someone making $37,000 a year does not pay taxes? Please explain.
Federal income tax, specifically. Understand previous points about sales tax
I'm open to hearing a counter argument. That's how I read the document from cbo.gov. Do you see it differently?
-
So you're of the belief that someone making $37,000 a year does not pay taxes? Please explain.
It doesnt say anything about an individual making that specific dollar amount. It does say that bracket of individuals that has a median income of that level as a whole has a negative tax liability.
-
McCain hung out with Charles Keating, who cost tax payers billions of dollars in the repair of a massive credit fuck up and for whom McCain lobbied to have an investigation quashed. He also staffs his campaign, including most of the top jobs within it, with lobbyists, who he decries as one of the causes of greed and excess in Washington. His campaign manager is a founder and equity owner of a major Washington lobbying firm that was taking money from Freddie Mac as recently as August of this year.
Which is more important? Serving on a charity board and having a passing, and passed, acquaintance with a douchebag who did some disgusting stuff decades prior to such acquaintance, or "palling around" with your second set of corporate socialists who trouser tax-payers' money as they torpedo the US economy?
And let's also not forget that what Ayers did, dispicable as it was, is now being viewed through the prism of 9/11, which "changed everything".
Which is more important? having a campaign manager that took money from Freddie Mac or being the party nominee who took more combined $$ from Freddie/Fannie than any congressman not named Chris Dodd?
-
Federal income tax, specifically. Understand previous points about sales tax
I'm open to hearing a counter argument. That's how I read the document from cbo.gov. Do you see it differently?
It doesnt say anything about an individual making that specific dollar amount. It does say that bracket of individuals that has a median income of that level as a whole has a negative tax liability.
I'm just trying to reconcile all of what's being said here. So far, I've read that 33% of all filers pay absolutely no federal income tax whatsoever, and that a $37,000 filing falls into the middle of a range that is not expected to pay any taxes. Neither of those sound valid to me, but I'm certainly willing to understand. Personally, I'm not that many years removed from earning less than that median income, and I distinctly recall paying income taxes on it.
-
I'm just trying to reconcile all of what's being said here. So far, I've read that 33% of all filers pay absolutely no federal income tax whatsoever, and that a $37,000 filing falls into the middle of a range that is not expected to pay any taxes. Neither of those sound valid to me, but I'm certainly willing to understand. Personally, I'm not that many years removed from earning less than that median income, and I distinctly recall paying income taxes on it.
I'm guessing here, but you probably didn't have child and mortgage interest credits. While you may have paid taxes, the average of those in your bracket apparently did not. Feeling more patriotic?
-
I'm just trying to reconcile all of what's being said here. So far, I've read that 33% of all filers pay absolutely no federal income tax whatsoever, and that a $37,000 filing falls into the middle of a range that is not expected to pay any taxes. Neither of those sound valid to me, but I'm certainly willing to understand. Personally, I'm not that many years removed from earning less than that median income, and I distinctly recall paying income taxes on it.
It basically means that while a single male with no dependents making 37,000 might pay his ~28%, a 5-child family making $37,000 with tax credits might actually get money back from the gov't over and above what they put into withholding.
-
I'm just trying to reconcile all of what's being said here. So far, I've read that 33% of all filers pay absolutely no federal income tax whatsoever, and that a $37,000 filing falls into the middle of a range that is not expected to pay any taxes. Neither of those sound valid to me, but I'm certainly willing to understand. Personally, I'm not that many years removed from earning less than that median income, and I distinctly recall paying income taxes on it.
Givens:
the list is broken up into 5ths. 1/5 = 20%.
Bottom 40% have negative tax liability.
2nd 5th has a median income of 37k (pre tax).
Hypothesis:
1/3 (33%) of all filers pay no taxes.
Solution:
Since the Quintiles are collections of large numbers of filing households, over a range of income levels, it can be safely assumed that the tax liability of said Quintile will not be the same for each and every household within that set of filing households.
The resulting differences, in amalgamation of that Quintile, can then lead to a negative number for that Quintile as a whole.
How does that change or affect the supposition that 33% of all filers do not pay taxes? It doesn't.
Because we don't know how many of those in that particular set ended the fiscal year with no liability, or how many within that year ended with a positive fiscal liability, or how many ended with a negative fiscal liability. Nor do we in particular know exactly what range constituted that particular set that resulted in a mean average of 37K.
It could have been a top heavy range that upped the mean value, whereas the mode of that set could have been more along the lines of 25k. Resulting in a small negative liability as the majority of the taxpayers in that quintile did not pay, and was marginally offset by the top end of that bracket that did in fact pay.
And given that uncertainty, it would take a mere 50% of that bracket to fall into the negative or 0 tax liability group, to bring our original starting 20% to 30%+ of individuals with no tax liability.
Conclusion: None of that would be invalidated by individuals making 35K+ a year and paying taxes, who would be included in that second quintile.
it would be more interesting to see the original data and break it down into different precentiles, 10ths and thirds would be most helpful in regards to this discussion.
-
I'm guessing here, but you probably didn't have child and mortgage interest credits. While you may have paid taxes, the average of those in your bracket apparently did not. Feeling more patriotic?
Let me throw one out there. Someone is married, filing jointly in Texas. They have a household income of only $25,000 and 3 kids - this is a tick above the poverty line. They take the standard deduction (mortgage interest is a deduction not a credit, and not likely to crest the standard deduction for a low-income family, if they even have a mortgage). Turbotax tells me that they'll be paying $710 in federal income taxes when they file a return in 2008.
-
I love it when the opposition tells us what we should do.
I got news for you...I'm not the "opposition". I'm an American, same as you. We're on the same team. It's this kind of "us vs. them" thinking that is driving this country towards ruin.
-
it would be more interesting to see the original data and break it down into different precentiles, 10ths and thirds would be most helpful in regards to this discussion.
This is certainly true. Hell, I'd settle for actually seeing the data for the assertion that 33% of filers don't pay taxes. I may have missed the link here, but I can't find anything in the IRS data.
-
If McCain had started his political career with a rally in the home of someone so extreme as an unrepentant abortion clinic/black church bomber who got off on a technicality, McCain would never have reached the position he is in now.
I don't think Obama agrees with what Ayers did, and I don't think Obama buys into Ayers' radical teachings. Just as I don't think Obama believed the filth preached by Wright. But I question his judgment in having more than just a casual relationship with these men.
Excellent analogy and you are dead-on. An abortion bomber relationship would have torpedoed McCain. I question more than Obama's judgement in his associations with these clowns. I question his motives because there is a repeating pattern of radicalism througout his career. He is the biggest lefty to be nominated and he's posing as something he isn't.
-
Flat tax, national sales tax, and luxury tax. Those are fair taxing methods. Everybody pays as they go.
Joey T! When has the Hollywood crowd and the NY elites ever reached out to understand "our values"? They don't. They believe in what they believe in and everybody else can go fuck themselves. No biggie. Conservatives are the same way. Not necessarily a bad thing.
Moderation is for pussies. Oh yeah. Reagan may be dead, but his belief system is not outdated. Neither Bush was a Reagan. Neither is Gulliani. Neither is Thompson. Neither is McCain. Republican does not equal conservative. All of those are "moderates", some just more than others. When this country has suffered enough (say by 2012), then a true conservative will rise up and the country will support him/her.
-
Let me throw one out there. Someone is married, filing jointly in Texas. They have a household income of only $25,000 and 3 kids - this is a tick above the poverty line. They take the standard deduction (mortgage interest is a deduction not a credit, and not likely to crest the standard deduction for a low-income family, if they even have a mortgage). Turbotax tells me that they'll be paying $710 in federal income taxes when they file a return in 2008.
I'll start digging. What happens when you drop income to $24k? Something magical happens at around $25. I'm not sure what though. See figures 1a, 2 and 4 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23724.html)
-
Let me throw one out there. Someone is married, filing jointly in Texas. They have a household income of only $25,000 and 3 kids - this is a tick above the poverty line. They take the standard deduction (mortgage interest is a deduction not a credit, and not likely to crest the standard deduction for a low-income family, if they even have a mortgage). Turbotax tells me that they'll be paying $710 in federal income taxes when they file a return in 2008.
I can tell you from personal experience, that's wrong. Did you include the Earned Income Credit? Child Tax Credit? Additional Child Tax Credit?
-
Excellent analogy and you are dead-on. An abortion bomber relationship would have torpedoed McCain. I question more than Obama's judgement in his associations with these clowns. I question his motives because there is a repeating pattern of radicalism througout his career. He is the biggest lefty to be nominated and he's posing as something he isn't.
What association did Obama have with an "abortion bomber"?
-
This is certainly true. Hell, I'd settle for actually seeing the data for the assertion that 33% of filers don't pay taxes. I may have missed the link here, but I can't find anything in the IRS data.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23631.html
I'm shocked, frankly. I had no idea this was the case. A full third of us pay nothing into a system, yet effectivly vote on how that system should spend its money.
-
What association did Obama have with an "abortion bomber"?
It's the same tired tripe about Ayers. They think he is the moral equivalent of an abortion bomber.
-
It's the same tired tripe about Ayers. They think he is the moral equivalent of an abortion bomber.
I know. I'm asking what is the nature of the relationship Obama has with Ayres.
-
I got news for you...I'm not the "opposition". I'm an American, same as you. We're on the same team. It's this kind of "us vs. them" thinking that is driving this country towards ruin.
Yea, right. Politics is like baseball. If there was just one team we wouldn't keep score.
-
Yea, right. Politics is like baseball. If there was just one team we wouldn't keep score.
Continue to "play politics" with the future of our nation and see where that gets us. I'm not sure why you'd want to be so cavalier.
-
Continue to "play politics" with the future of our nation and see where that gets us. I'm not sure why you'd want to be so cavalier.
Vote for McCain then. He has shown a genuine willingness to cross party lines to vote. Obama has not.
-
Vote for McCain then. He has shown a genuine willingness to cross party lines to vote. Obama has not.
You misunderstand. My disatisfaction is not with Obama, it's with people like you who think it's a game.
-
Continue to "play politics" with the future of our nation and see where that gets us. I'm not sure why you'd want to be so cavalier.
Us against Them has been in full play since day 1 of this country and just as nasty as today if not more so.
-
Us against Them has been in full play since day 1 of this country and just as nasty as today if not more so.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Still, that's no reason to condone it, let alone encourage it.
-
Let me throw one out there. Someone is married, filing jointly in Texas. They have a household income of only $25,000 and 3 kids - this is a tick above the poverty line. They take the standard deduction (mortgage interest is a deduction not a credit, and not likely to crest the standard deduction for a low-income family, if they even have a mortgage). Turbotax tells me that they'll be paying $710 in federal income taxes when they file a return in 2008.
You're missing the Earned Income Tax Credit. Calculator (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eitc2007/Return_To_Start.do)
That alone is worth $3100 for this family. Since the basic tax table suggested the tax for $25k would be $3358 ($7825@10% + $17175@15%) once you deduct child credits then the EITC, this person would have actually received a check from the IRS
-
I wholeheartedly disagree. Still, that's no reason to condone it, let alone encourage it.
The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists in Washington's administration were constantly at each other's throats. Part of Washington's greatness was his ability to keep a balance of sorts and keep the country together. A lesser man would have let the country fall apart, literally.
Too, Alexander Hamilton disagrees with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr#Duel_with_Alexander_Hamilton)
An editor of a newspaper opposing Jackson's election falsely accused his wife of being a prosititute and madame.
I agree it shouldn't be condoned or encouraged. But to deny the depth of its existence in history is foolish.
-
Joey T! When has the Hollywood crowd and the NY elites ever reached out to understand "our values"? They don't. They believe in what they believe in and everybody else can go fuck themselves. No biggie. Conservatives are the same way. Not necessarily a bad thing.
it's a horrible thing, and it's ruining our country. republicans continuously insult and undercut the credibility of big city people, and democrats pretend like rural and suburban people are stupid or don't exist. one of the main purposes of government is to protect the interests of the minority, not to fuck them in the ear because they lost 51% of the vote. inner city d.c. has a problem with violence and gangs? well bob out here in the heartland needs his guns and since his people are 5-4 on the supreme court, d.c. gets screwed. gays want family rights? shit, they're not even 10% of the population, and they all vote democrat anyway. let's let bill and sally, a baptist couple from the south who aren't gay and have never really known any gay people, decide what they can and can't do.
Moderation is for pussies. Oh yeah. Reagan may be dead, but his belief system is not outdated. Neither Bush was a Reagan. Neither is Gulliani. Neither is Thompson. Neither is McCain. Republican does not equal conservative. All of those are "moderates", some just more than others. When this country has suffered enough (say by 2012), then a true conservative will rise up and the country will support him/her.
all hail king reagan! 1985 forever!
-
But to deny the depth of its existence in history is foolish.
I'm not denying it existed, I'm saying I don't think it's ever been destructive to an end like it is today.
-
I'm not denying it existed, I'm saying I don't think it's ever been destructive to an end like it is today.
We are talking about the Us against Them mentality, right?
-
it's a horrible thing, and it's ruining our country. republicans continuously insult and undercut the credibility of big city people, and democrats pretend like rural and suburban people are stupid or don't exist. one of the main purposes of government is to protect the interests of the minority, not to fuck them in the ear because they lost 51% of the vote. inner city d.c. has a problem with violence and gangs? well bob out here in the heartland needs his guns and since his people are 5-4 on the supreme court, d.c. gets screwed. gays want family rights? shit, they're not even 10% of the population, and they all vote democrat anyway. let's let bill and sally, a baptist couple from the south who aren't gay and have never really known any gay people, decide what they can and can't do.
Ok Joey, I'll concede to you that my answer was extreme and you seem the decent sort. I wasn't trying to call you out per se, I just wanted to address your earlier comments in the same post as the taxes.
I believe in honest disagreement over various policies and laws. Disagreement over those policies/laws and addressing them at the ballot box is a GOOD thing. This would include immigration, taxation, abortion rights, gay marriage, size of government and the role that it takes in peoples lives. All of that is fair game. Racial slurs, cross burnings, and Whoopie Goldberg rants at the Oscars are plain stupid. An amazing thing about this country, is it's ability to come together in times of crisis (i.e. WW2. 9/11). Unfortunately this is diminishing as both sides view catastrophic events as political opportunities. I suppose that to be a product of the 24 hour news cycle. IMHO that's not conservatism or liberalism, that's just being a shit bag. I don't mind liberals if they know what they believe in and why. There are strong arguments for liberalism, I just disagree with them. It's just an opinion that the "moderates" and "undecided" are either uninformed or gutless.
-
I can tell you from personal experience, that's wrong. Did you include the Earned Income Credit? Child Tax Credit? Additional Child Tax Credit?
Yes, it's just a standard filing for 2007 taxes, with the parameters listed, all credits considered. Beats me if it's right or wrong - but that's what Turbotax thinks at the moment.
I'll start digging. What happens when you drop income to $24k? Something magical happens at around $25. I'm not sure what though. See figures 1a, 2 and 4 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23724.html)
I noticed that, too. My only was that the poverty line is (I believe) just under $25K for a family of 5. That may be total coincidence, I dunno.
-
All hail President Reagan! The ideals and principals set forth by President Regan live on forever!
FIFY. Other than that, POTW.
-
Yes, it's just a standard filing for 2007 taxes, with the parameters listed, all credits considered. Beats me if it's right or wrong - but that's what Turbotax thinks at the moment.
I am 100% sure that's wrong. I have a 2007 return in my hand. $38,000+ AGI, standard deduction, married filing jointly, 2 kids, tax is 1400+, had withheld ~$90 more than that, EIC, CTC, and ACTC = $2400 refund. IOW got back all tax plus ~$950 more than taxed.
-
Let me throw one out there. Someone is married, filing jointly in Texas. They have a household income of only $25,000 and 3 kids - this is a tick above the poverty line. They take the standard deduction (mortgage interest is a deduction not a credit, and not likely to crest the standard deduction for a low-income family, if they even have a mortgage). Turbotax tells me that they'll be paying $710 in federal income taxes when they file a return in 2008.
You have an input error.
AGI: $25,000
Standard deduction: <$10,900>
Personal exemptions: <$17,500>
Taxable income: $0
In fact, they would potentially have a $3,000 refund (of the child tax credit - I'm not even accounting for Earned Income Credit) even if they had no federal taxes withheld.
They would, however, be paying $1,912.50 in payroll taxes.
-
They would, however, be paying $1,912.50 in payroll taxes.
Well, their employer would, right? That's not money they ever see or even know about.
-
Well, their employer would, right? That's not money they ever see or even know about.
Wrong. Both employer and employee are responsible for FICA (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%).
-
Wrong. Both employer and employee are responsible for FICA (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%).
Ok, my mistake. I thought you were talking about something else.
-
I believe in honest disagreement over various policies and laws. Disagreement over those policies/laws and addressing them at the ballot box is a GOOD thing. This would include immigration, taxation, abortion rights, gay marriage, size of government and the role that it takes in peoples lives.
i'm with you on honest disagreement and that's what we're having here, but you can't address everything at the ballot box because then you fall into the trap where the group on the wrong end of the vote gets screwed in a major way, especially on social issues. again to my point earlier, why should a straight, church-going couple in sugarland decide the rights of a gay couple in montrose simply because there are more of the sugarland church-going types in texas than gay people?
Racial slurs, cross burnings, and Whoopie Goldberg rants at the Oscars are plain stupid. An amazing thing about this country, is it's ability to come together in times of crisis (i.e. WW2. 9/11). Unfortunately this is diminishing as both sides view catastrophic events as political opportunities. I suppose that to be a product of the 24 hour news cycle. IMHO that's not conservatism or liberalism, that's just being a shit bag. I don't mind liberals if they know what they believe in and why. There are strong arguments for liberalism, I just disagree with them. It's just an opinion that the "moderates" and "undecided" are either uninformed or gutless.
well said, except for your slam of moderates and undecideds. i know what you're getting at about wishy-washy decision-making, but you know, it seems that most problems people face in their lives, from what to cook for dinner on up, rarely has two clear-cut sides and the solution pretty much never fits in with one extreme or the other, it's always somewhere in between. maybe the current definition of moderate denotes a certain type of timid post-clinton politician, but to me the ability to intelligently moderate one's views to fit with the realities of a situation is a major virtue.
-
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf
The top 20% (avg income $214k) pay 85% of Federal Income Tax (top 1% pay 37%, top 5% pay 59%, top 10% pay 71%)
The next 20% (avg income $85k) pay 14% of Federal Income Tax
The middle 20% (avg income $58k) pay 5% of Federal Income Tax
The next 20% (avg income $37k) have a 1% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
The bottom 20% (avg income $16k) have a 3% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
**Note, these are households, so a dual income family with each bringing in $45k is in the 2nd to top tier
That suggests at least 40% have a negative liability as of 2005. They pay nothing in Federal Income Tax. $0. Nada. Meanwhile, the top 40% pay 99% of it.
What this doesn't tell you is what proportion of the overall income pool was earned in each quintile.
-
It basically means that while a single male with no dependents making 37,000 might pay his ~28%, a 5-child family making $37,000 with tax credits might actually get money back from the gov't over and above what they put into withholding.
What it actually means is that tax brackets by fifths is an arbitrary way to look at it without showing the salary range. In the figures Lurch posted, the top 20% paid 85% of the tax burden on a median income of $214k. That's unfair, right? Well, the top 1% (no median income given) paid 38%, which means that 1/20th of the top 20% paid nearly half the tax that fell in that wider bracket.
One presumes that it is the same in the bottom 20%, where the median income is $37,000 but I bet there's a shit load of people making much less than that and paying little or no tax as a result. So it's not that they've figured out how to game the system, there's just a shit load of people making fuck all and paying fuck all taxes as a result.
-
Well, McCain can take ACORN off the list of associations with which to hammer Obama. Turns out, he's was a fan before he wasn't (http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm).
-
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf
The top 20% (avg income $214k) pay 85% of Federal Income Tax (top 1% pay 37%, top 5% pay 59%, top 10% pay 71%)
The next 20% (avg income $85k) pay 14% of Federal Income Tax
The middle 20% (avg income $58k) pay 5% of Federal Income Tax
The next 20% (avg income $37k) have a 1% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
The bottom 20% (avg income $16k) have a 3% negative liability for Federal Income Tax
**Note, these are households, so a dual income family with each bringing in $45k is in the 2nd to top tier
That suggests at least 40% have a negative liability as of 2005. They pay nothing in Federal Income Tax. $0. Nada. Meanwhile, the top 40% pay 99% of it.
It doesn't mean that exactly. It means the sum of the people in the last two brackets have a negative liability, but it varies from household to household, some pay and some don't. For instance, when I was in graduate school I paid about 10% taxes (and state taxes and FICA on top of that) even though I was making < $18k a year, because I was a single guy without kids or a mortgage.
-
Yup. I'm a grad student making a whopping $17k a year and I'm taxed on a reasonable percentage of my income. Drop that to $14-$15k with state taxes and it's a challenge to pay all of the bills, especially with minimal health care coverage. Another thing that affects me from the Republican side is the lack of funding for science. It's the lowest it's ever been in generations. Would be nice if my advisers and I, as well as the rest of the scientific community, could get a little more grant funding.
-
i'm with you on honest disagreement and that's what we're having here, but you can't address everything at the ballot box because then you fall into the trap where the group on the wrong end of the vote gets screwed in a major way, especially on social issues. again to my point earlier, why should a straight, church-going couple in sugarland decide the rights of a gay couple in montrose simply because there are more of the sugarland church-going types in texas than gay people?
Yep, that's a tough one, most especially the gay/lesbian issues. While being fiscally conservative, I could care less about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms in Montrose.
well said, except for your slam of moderates and undecideds. i know what you're getting at about wishy-washy decision-making, but you know, it seems that most problems people face in their lives, from what to cook for dinner on up, rarely has two clear-cut sides and the solution pretty much never fits in with one extreme or the other, it's always somewhere in between. maybe the current definition of moderate denotes a certain type of timid post-clinton politician, but to me the ability to intelligently moderate one's views to fit with the realities of a situation is a major virtue.
At some point you have to pick a team that most agrees with your values and run with it. I've repeatedly said in this thread how imperfect McCain/Palin are, but I'll take them over the other guys any day. We all probably wish there was a better choice out there. It's slim pickin's this election cycle. Maybe that's why this monster thread has run 110 pages.
-
What this doesn't tell you is what proportion of the overall income pool was earned in each quintile.
Why don't you tell us?
-
I think it can be figured out with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
-
Which is more important? having a campaign manager that took money from Freddie Mac or being the party nominee who took more combined $$ from Freddie/Fannie than any congressman not named Chris Dodd?
I'm sure they bought a ton of sway with all that money. Especially given that ZERO of it came directly from the company, a whopping $6K came from their PAC and the rest came from individuals. http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/19/freddie-fannie-and-barack-%E2%80%94-corrected/
-
I'm trying to see if Limey can back up his rhetoric with data.
-
Why don't you tell us?
Because I can't find it. I can only find stuff similar to what Lurch posted, and that doesn't shed any light on the matter.
-
I think it can be figured out with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
So, it looks like only 2.5% of households in the US make more than the $214k median income figure enjoyed by the top 20%. This is what skews the numbers in the original table you posted, as that study uses brackets that are too broad.
-
You're missing the Earned Income Tax Credit. Calculator (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eitc2007/Return_To_Start.do)
That alone is worth $3100 for this family. Since the basic tax table suggested the tax for $25k would be $3358 ($7825@10% + $17175@15%) once you deduct child credits then the EITC, this person would have actually received a check from the IRS
And I bet they had withholdings going into the filing deadline. Those withholdings would affect the amount refunded (it's line 64 on the most recent 1040, which affects the calculation of line 73 for a refund [negative liability], or line 76 for amounts still owed [liability]). Withholdings DO affect the year-end liability, just like I said, in the credit card analogy earlier.
One problem also with that breakdown by earning ranges is that the homogeneity among the groups is far from guaranteed. Obviously not everyone or even necessarily a majority of folks in a given quintile has the right to the same credits or deductions, and that will result in far different year-end liabilities, even though earnings are the same.
-
So, it looks like only 2.5% of households in the US make more than the $214k median income figure enjoyed by the top 20%. This is what skews the numbers in the original table you posted, as that study uses brackets that are too broad.
The top quintile of households earns 48% of the total income, according to the census bureau. That number fluctuates from year to year, of course.
And either wikipedia's numbers are wrong, or somebody don't know what "median" means. If $214k is the median for the top quintile, half of that quintile or 10% of all households makes more than that, by definition. Maybe they meant to say "mean".
-
And I bet they had withholdings going into the filing deadline. Those withholdings would affect the amount refunded (it's line 64 on the most recent 1040, which affects the calculation of line 73 for a refund [negative liability], or line 76 for amounts still owed [liability]). Withholdings DO affect the year-end liability, just like I said, in the credit card analogy earlier.
One problem also with that breakdown by earning ranges is that the homogeneity among the groups is far from guaranteed. Obviously not everyone or even necessarily a majority of folks in a given quintile has the right to the same credits or deductions, and that will result in far different year-end liabilities, even though earnings are the same.
Sorry, but you're still wrong. This has nothing to do with "year-end" liability. This is liability for the year. Completely different.
-
And either wikipedia's numbers are wrong, or somebody don't know what "median" means. If $214k is the median for the top quintile, half of that quintile or 10% of all households makes more than that, by definition. Maybe they meant to say "mean".
"Median" is the middle value of the range, not the mid-point between the lowest and the highest and not the mean. To illustrate:
$100,000
$100,000
$214,000
$500,000
$20,000,000
The median is $214,000
The mean is $4,182,800
And, for shits 'n' giggles, the mode is $100,000
-
"Median" is the middle value of the range, not the mid-point between the lowest and the highest and not the mean. To illustrate:
$100,000
$100,000
$214,000
$500,000
$20,000,000
The median is $214,000
The mean is $4,182,800
And, for shits 'n' giggles, the mode is $100,000
Do you think you typed something different than what Phil said?
-
Do you think you typed something different than what Phil said?
Nope. Just wanted to point out that the median does not reflect the distribution of value above and below the median point. Realise that there was redundancy in what I wrote following phil's post.
-
Nope. Just wanted to point out that the median does not reflect the distribution of value above and below the median point. Realise that there was redundancy in why I wrote following phil's post.
Okay - couldn't tell if you were disagreeing or not.
-
Sorry, but you're still wrong. This has nothing to do with "year-end" liability. This is liability for the year. Completely different.
Well then I don't know what you're defending against me anymore, because I'm talking about that article at the Tax Foundation website, which is focussing on zero or negative liabilities at filing time, which is year-end. If you want, feel to explain what you perceive as the difference between "year-end liability" and "liability for the year." The first (which I'm talking about) is a snapshot term, and go up or down depending on when you take the snapshop (ie: balance sheet account). The second, I suspect you mean, is a cumulative term, and can really only go up, over the course of the year (ie: income statement account... an expense, not a liability). Those, indeed, are different terms and mean different things.
-
Well then I don't know what you're defending against me anymore, because I'm talking about that article at the Tax Foundation website, which is focussing on zero or negative liabilities at filing time, which is year-end. If you want, feel to explain what you perceive as the difference between "year-end liability" and "liability for the year." The first (which I'm talking about) is a snapshot term, and go up or down depending on when you take the snapshop (ie: balance sheet account). The second, I suspect you mean, is a cumulative term, and can really only go up, over the course of the year (ie: income statement account... an expense, not a liability). Those, indeed, are different terms and mean different things.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
Where do you get "at filing time"? I've not seen that anywhere.
-
Where do you get "at filing time"? I've not seen that anywhere.
Well, right here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html):
the growing number of Americans who pay zero federal income tax after taking advantage of deductions and credits.
Taking advantage of credits and deductions is a filing-time activity. "After", to me, suggests the authors are looking at the year-end liability. The wording in the article is a bit lazy with the use of "liability" IMO. Sentences like this:
Why do many single filers face zero tax liability?
SHOULD be talking about "owing" nothing at the end of the year (ie: a true liability discussion) but it's in the midst of discussing not having to pay anything in over the course of the year (ie: a cumulative expense discussion). I think that's the difference in what you and I are back-and-forth over.
-
Well, right here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html):
the growing number of Americans who pay zero federal income tax after taking advantage of deductions and credits.
Taking advantage of credits and deductions is a filing-time activity. "After", to me, suggests the authors are looking at the year-end liability. The wording in the article is a bit lazy with the use of "liability" IMO. Sentences like this:
Why do many single filers face zero tax liability?
SHOULD be talking about "owing" nothing at the end of the year (ie: a true liability discussion) but it's in the midst of discussing not having to pay anything in over the course of the year (ie: a cumulative expense discussion). I think that's the difference in what you and I are back-and-forth over.
So you agree that the point is $30-40M have no cumulative expense for their annual taxes? That's all I'm surprised about. I can care less when someone makes their tax payments (through payroll withholdings, quarterly payments, etc.) ... this group owes nothing at all, ever.
-
So you agree that the point is $30-40M have no cumulative expense for their annual taxes? That's all I'm surprised about. I can care less when someone makes their tax payments (through payroll withholdings, quarterly payments, etc.) ... this group owes nothing at all, ever.
No, I don't agree with that. I have been in that tax group, and owed taxes and PAID them through withholdings, throughout the year. My Mom is below that group, and owes and pays throughout the year. There's not enough information there to make a broad statement, because so much more than only what your gross earnings are, goes into determining income taxes.
-
The Gov on SNL:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/
-
The Gov on SNL:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/
They basically used her as a prop. Just like John McCain.
-
The Gov on SNL:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/
And the cold open (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/gov-palin-cold-open/773761/?loc=interstitialskip).
-
And the cold open (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/gov-palin-cold-open/773761/?loc=interstitialskip).
For both skits, Palin just showed up and said virtually nothing while the SNL crew made funny around her. They even got to the point (during the cold open) of bringing in Marky Mark for an unrelated gag in which he didn't even acknowldge the Governor. The Palins, real and fake, never got to interact with each other (outside of the darkest corners of my mind, anyway).
-
For both skits, Palin just showed up and said virtually nothing while the SNL crew made funny around her. They even got to the point (during the cold open) of bringing in Marky Mark for an unrelated gag in which he didn't even acknowldge the Governor. The Palins, real and fake, never got to interact with each other (outside of the darkest corners of my mind, anyway).
Your right, it would have been much better if she smacked Baldwin (liberal commie who was suppose to move to Canada) upside the head.
-
Your right, it would have been much better if she smacked Baldwin (liberal commie who was suppose to move to Canada) upside the head.
Right. Something...anything...would've been better than her simply hanging around. I was surprised that she didn't do anything while Baldwin was going off on her; she just waited until his rant was over and then walked off stage after his punchline. I guess we'll never know if this was a lack of ideas on the part of the SNL writers, or an unwillingness on the part of the candidate to engage in the foolishness. Maybe Poehler doing the Palin Rap was their way of showing that it was the latter.
-
Right. Something...anything...would've been better than her simply hanging around. I was surprised that she didn't do anything while Baldwin was going off on her; she just waited until his rant was over and then walked off stage after his punchline. I guess we'll never know if this was a lack of ideas on the part of the SNL writers, or an unwillingness on the part of the candidate to engage in the foolishness. Maybe Poehler doing the Palin Rap was their way of showing that it was the latter.
I'm sorry but did you see Obama dancing on Ellen Degeneres' show? Sometimes I wish politicians would spare us their attempts at entertainment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4
-
I'm sorry but did you see Obama dancing on Ellen Degeneres' show? Sometimes I wish politicians would spare us their attempts at entertainment.
Here we go again with the "Yeah but the other guy did this!" knee-jerk.
-
I'm sorry but did you see Obama dancing on Ellen Degeneres' show? Sometimes I wish politicians would spare us their attempts at entertainment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4
Was he tap danc...no that is just wrong nevermind.
-
I'm sorry but did you see Obama dancing on Ellen Degeneres' show? Sometimes I wish politicians would spare us their attempts at entertainment.
Some politicians have skills at entertaining things. I believe Mike Huckabee is a better than average bass player.
SNL wanted to screw Palin so she had to play defense. I expected her to have at least more than one or so good lines (the Steven Baldwin remark...and it wasn't that funny).
The rap was funny. Damned glad she left the heavy lifting to the pro's. "All the plumbers in the house pull your pants up!".
Palin at least "caused no harm" by her appearance on SNL.
-
Here we go again with the "Yeah but the other guy did this!" knee-jerk.
Get over it. They were both lame, that was my point.
-
Was he tap danc...no that is just wrong nevermind.
He was Barack-Rolling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4).
-
Get over it. They were both lame, that was my point.
What's irritating is that such deflections and distractions are (a) inevitable; and (ii) based on the presumption that all things are the same. So when McCain dodges questions about death threats to Obama being shouted at his and his running mate's rallies by saying that he's heard of hurtful things being shouted at Obama's rallies and that every large gathering has "fringe elements", he's bullshitting because insults and death threats are not equal.
So, at the other end of the spectrum, Obama joining in with Ellen in her motif dance is an attempt to woo Ellen's voters and is lame, but at least he was joining in with the gag. Palin going on SNL and standing there while being either ignored or insulted, offering one less-than-punchy punchline, having no screen time with Fey and then returning to be lampooned with the Palin Rap was lame, but was also a failed attempt to show good humour because she showed no real humour/personality at all. These two things are not equal, especially giving the timing: the Ellen appearance was ages ago during the primaries while the Palin appearance was with less than three weeks to go to the general election.
I had to have wasted my time and everybody else's going into the relative demerits of the two TV appearances, but I did so solely to point out why the "Yeah but..." response got under my skin. I shall now go back to scowering YouTube for extreme faceplanting.
-
So when McCain dodges questions about death threats to Obama being shouted at his and his running mate's rallies by saying that he's heard of hurtful things being shouted at Obama's rallies and that every large gathering has "fringe elements", he's bullshitting because insults and death threats are not equal.
Just curious, did you watch any of the Democratic National Convention? There's wackos on both sides.
-
I had to have wasted my time and everybody else's
yes.
-
I shall now go back to scowering YouTube for extreme faceplanting.
In the arena of faceplant videos, Break.com > Youtube.
-
Just curious, did you watch any of the Democratic National Convention? There's wackos on both sides.
See my original post.
-
What's irritating is that such deflections and distractions are (a) inevitable; and (ii) based on the presumption that all things are the same. So when McCain dodges questions about death threats to Obama being shouted at his and his running mate's rallies by saying that he's heard of hurtful things being shouted at Obama's rallies and that every large gathering has "fringe elements", he's bullshitting because insults and death threats are not equal.
So, at the other end of the spectrum, Obama joining in with Ellen in her motif dance is an attempt to woo Ellen's voters and is lame, but at least he was joining in with the gag. Palin going on SNL and standing there while being either ignored or insulted, offering one less-than-punchy punchline, having no screen time with Fey and then returning to be lampooned with the Palin Rap was lame, but was also a failed attempt to show good humour because she showed no real humour/personality at all. These two things are not equal, especially giving the timing: the Ellen appearance was ages ago during the primaries while the Palin appearance was with less than three weeks to go to the general election.
I had to have wasted my time and everybody else's going into the relative demerits of the two TV appearances, but I did so solely to point out why the "Yeah but..." response got under my skin. I shall now go back to scowering YouTube for extreme faceplanting.
You rail against McCain and Palin for the same or similar things that your preferred candidates are guilty of. Then when someone points it out, you accuse them of being kneejerk. Sheer hypocrisy.
By the way, the supposed death threat to Obama seems not to be corroborated by others at the rally in Scranton:
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2008/10/16/news/sc_times_trib.20081016.a.pg11.tt16newsecret_s1.2018812_top8.txt
-
Just curious, did you watch any of the Democratic National Convention? There's wackos on both sides.
Limey is apparently blind in his left eye.
-
Limey is apparently blind in his left eye.
So if the two of you get together, you can combine to achieve depth perception?
WOCKA WOCKA
-
So if the two of you get together, you can combine to achieve depth perception?
WOCKA WOCKA
Much better than the response I had. I was simply going to ask Limey if he'd like some lube to help with that raging man-crush he has going?
-
You rail against McCain and Palin for the same or similar things that your preferred candidates are guilty of. Then when someone points it out, you accuse them of being kneejerk. Sheer hypocrisy.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. You're just affirming my contention with this.
-
I shall now go back to scowering YouTube for extreme faceplanting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm6cqpJvsT4
-
Best Man/Wedding Fail. This makes me cringe, badly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mP3FqUUAAw&eurl=http://failblog.org/
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm6cqpJvsT4
I'm not sure how this relates to faceplanting, but as a failure, it was certainly epic. I love how, in all these cases, the cameraman sticks dutifully to his job of filming.
-
I'm not sure how this relates to faceplanting, but as a failure, it was certainly epic. I love how, in all these cases, the cameraman sticks dutifully to his job of filming.
First rule of journalism: never make yourself part of the story.
-
First rule of journalism: never make yourself part of the story.
"Huh??" - R. Justice
-
First rule of journalism: never make yourself part of the story.
"Don't get high off your own supply."
-
Best Man/Wedding Fail. This makes me cringe, badly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mP3FqUUAAw&eurl=http://failblog.org/
I saw this on CBS This Morning and immediately thought it was a staged pratt fall. I'm not convinced this wasn't some sort of staged production because it's just too clean of a prat fall to have really happened. Except now that I see and HEAR the actual fall, I'm not on the fence as to it being real. The "OMG, OMG!" and the "Oh shit" sound like real enough panic to make me think that perhaps it's not a fake.
-
I saw this on CBS This Morning and immediately thought it was a staged pratt fall. I'm not convinced this wasn't some sort of staged production because it's just too clean of a prat fall to have really happened. Except now that I see and HEAR the actual fall, I'm not on the fence as to it being real. The "OMG, OMG!" and the "Oh shit" sound like real enough panic to make me think that perhaps it's not a fake.
Yeah, who knows on that one. I hope it wasn't real.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Ph8msKo0w
*cleavage in link*
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Ph8msKo0w
*cleavage in link*
I bet those two Russians turn a DP.
-
I bet those two Russians turn a DP.
Yeah, but Palin does hers unassisted. That's the American way.
-
I bet those two Russians turn a DP.
Not all predictions require a crystal ball!
-
Not all predictions require a crystal ball!
The "My tank has a flat" intro has to be a first, though.
-
"Can we use your phone..."
"Sorry fellas, I don't speak Russian"
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Ph8msKo0w
*cleavage in link*
Looks like she's been slipping in the polls.
I'll show myself out.
-
Zing of the Day!™
Looks like she's been slipping in the polls.
I'll show myself out.
-
Looks like she's been slipping in the polls.
I'll show myself out.
In the end, perhaps only this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT4AxEEEwTo) knows how she feels.
-
In the end, perhaps only this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT4AxEEEwTo) knows how she feels.
I thought for sure that your link was going to be this massive pole facial. (http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/7/News-reporter-runs-into-pole-329276.html)
-
I thought for sure that your link was going to be this massive pole facial. (http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/7/News-reporter-runs-into-pole-329276.html)
Pole? But they were Russians...
-
I bet those two Russians turn a DP.
Mabry for VP? (http://houston.astros.mlb.com/media/player/mp_tpl_3_1.jsp?w_id=455474&w=2005/open/topplays/archive10/05nlcs_gm4_slnhou_hou_gw_dp_350.wmv&pid=mlb_tp&gid=2005/10/16/slnmlb-houmlb-1&cid=mlb&fid=mlb_tp350&v=2)
-
Meanwhile, back in the "real" world, the "real" Gov. Palin has been giving Alaskan and American taxpayers (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_FAMILY_TRAVEL?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) a little of what the fake Gov. got from that Russian tank crew.
-
Meanwhile, back in the "real" world, the "real" Gov. Palin has been giving Alaskan and American taxpayers (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_FAMILY_TRAVEL?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) a little of what the fake Gov. got from that Russian tank crew.
...and spending $18,000 a week (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html) from the RNC's campaign coffers on clothes from the likes of Sak's and Needless Markup. And getting the constitutional role of the Vice President wrong (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-says-vice.html)...again...for about the fourth time. And she is to be deposed over TooperGate (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD93V6DD00) on Friday. And the latest NBC poll shows her as a bigger drag on the McCain campaign (http://www.counton2.com/cbd/news/national/national_govtpolitics/article/poll_shows_palin_a_liability/15902/) than George W. Bush.
-
Limey, with affection and respect, shut the fuck up. are you eligible to vote in this country?
-
Limey, with affection and respect, shut the fuck up. are you eligible to vote in this country?
Nope, but I pay the same taxes as everyone else, and the citizenship's coming down the pipe (just not in time for this go around). I'll STFU on this subject, though, as, at this point, it's flogging a dead moose.
-
Nope, but I pay the same taxes as everyone else, and the citizenship's coming down the pipe (just not in time for this go around). I'll STFU on this subject, though, as, at this point, it's flogging a dead moose.
The whole spectacle has been worth it for two lines, the often repeated, "conservatives' favorite dress-up doll" and Jon Stewart remarking that the Palins seem like "a family of grifters".
-
The whole spectacle has been worth it for two lines, the often repeated, "conservatives' favorite dress-up doll" and Jon Stewart remarking that the Palins seem like "a family of grifters".
On a serious note, this entire campaign has been a great learning tool for my 7 year old.
-
Nope, but I pay the same taxes as everyone else, and the citizenship's coming down the pipe (just not in time for this go around). I'll STFU on this subject, though, as, at this point, it's flogging a dead moose.
my comment has nothing to do with your choice. i am a Democrat. it is just that this horse died in early September, and you insist on riding it all day.
-
In other election/baseball news... the Phillies are attempting to become the first NL team to win in a presidential election year since the 88 Dodgers.
-
my comment has nothing to do with your choice. i am a Democrat. it is just that this horse died in early September, and you insist on riding it all day.
It's like watching the Cubs fuck up (http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/failedview.jpg). To some, it never gets old.
-
It's like watching the Cubs fuck up (http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/failedview.jpg). To some, it never gets old.
you simply cannot be quiet, can you? ok, fine.
-
you simply cannot be quiet, can you? ok, fine.
Let's see ... 17,412 to 14,929 at last count. Worse than a cricket score.
-
Let's see ... 17,412 to 14,929 at last count. Worse than a cricket score.
Did you say cricket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRXmPe8I7QQ)?
-
Did you say cricket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRXmPe8I7QQ)?
That first Yorker was a bit scary.
I'm just back from the far side of the world where I watched quite a bit of the first Aussie/India test. at ~400 runs per inning, it's like they were batting against the Rangers.
-
Did you say cricket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRXmPe8I7QQ)?
Man, a couple of those sixes were absolutely crushed.
-
Man, a couple of those sixes were absolutely crushed.
The camera angle for the first one, off the roof, was fantastic.
-
That first Yorker was a bit scary.
If you're talking about the very first bit of action, that was no yorker, that was a full-bloodied, throat-high bouncer. The sequence of tumbling stumps was mostly yorkers, which are fast deliveries pitched right on the batman's toes. If it's a good one, it requires some nifty footwork and a quick bat to stop the fucker from demolishing your wicket.
I'm just back from the far side of the world where I watched quite a bit of the first Aussie/India test. at ~400 runs per inning, it's like they were batting against the Rangers.
I'm sure it was some spirited stuff. There's no love lost between Australia and [insert name of other cricket-playing country here].
-
my comment has nothing to do with your choice. i am a Democrat. it is just that this horse died in early September, and you insist on riding it all day.
This halfwit nutjob is very possibly going to run for President in 2012. It is quite relevant to continue to remark on her failings as a public figure.
-
This halfwit nutjob is very possibly going to run for President in 2012. It is quite relevant to continue to remark on her failings as a public figure.
16 more years...
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b65472_will_ferrell_tina_fey_bushwhack_john.html?sid=rss_topstories&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories
-
From the comments:
Sarah Palin is attractive, Tina Fey is not; Sarah Palin is intelligent in the important issues of the country, Tina Fey is a comedic writer...WOW!
Commenter took the golden sombrero on that one, but the most egregious is #2; Tina Fey is all kinds of hot.
-
Tina Fey is all kinds of hot.
SNILF?
-
This halfwit nutjob is very possibly going to run for President in 2012. It is quite relevant to continue to remark on her failings as a public figure.
It will be a campaign that will make Visigoths weep.
-
Juvenile headline of the day:
Sarah Palin Draws Large Crowd in Beaver (http://kdka.com/[email protected])
-
Not sure if anyone posted this, but it is funny.
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
-
Just a few days to go, and Sarah "The Gift" Palin keeps breaking out the hits. Having shown that she's ignorant about some elements of the Constitution, this time it's the First Amendment that gets the Palin treatment (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html). Apparently, the media criticising her campaign tactics is an attempt to abridge her right to free speech. Umm...what?!
-
Just a few days to go, and Sarah "The Gift" Palin keeps breaking out the hits. Having shown that she's ignorant about some elements of the Constitution, this time it's the First Amendment that gets the Palin treatment (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html). Apparently, the media criticising her campaign tactics is an attempt to abridge her right to free speech. Umm...what?!
Wow. Not only ignorant but fantastically arrogant as well.
-
Some people never can make the distinction - there is a difference between being plain spoken and calling things as one sees them, and just saying whatever comes into one's head.
-
Wow. Not only ignorant but fantastically arrogant as well.
Why does that sound familiar...?
-
Wow. Not only ignorant but fantastically arrogant as well.
Thank God O'bama and Biden are not arrogant. Thankfully they would not be vindicative to oppossing voices. They would never deny access to media that does not endorse them or agree with them or asks them questions they do not like. You Obama supporters are sounding alot like Cubs fans.
-
You Obama supporters are sounding alot like Cubs fans.
Now that was uncalled for.
-
Now that was uncalled for.
I knew the Cubs crack would get under some skin.
-
Thank God O'bama and Biden are not arrogant. Thankfully they would not be vindicative to oppossing voices. They would never deny access to media that does not endorse them or agree with them or asks them questions they do not like. You Obama supporters are sounding alot like Cubs fans.
If you think the issue with Palin's latest gaff over her complaining about the media, then you're missing the point. She has now demonstrated on numerous occasions throughout the campaign, right up until the end, that she doesn't know what the Constitution of the United States of America means. A cynic might think that it's because she comes from a remote State and is in bed with with secessionists...
-
If you think the issue with Palin's latest gaff over her complaining about the media, then you're missing the point. She has now demonstrated on numerous occasions throughout the campaign, right up until the end, that she doesn't know what the Constitution of the United States of America means. A cynic might think that it's because she comes from a remote State and is in bed with with secessionists...
It's almost as insane as someone thinking that Judicial Review is somehow revocable.
-
It's almost as insane as someone thinking that Judicial Review is somehow revocable.
And if I ever run for Vice President of the United States, this will become relevant.
-
And if I ever run for Vice President of the United States, this will become relevant.
Glass houses, that sort of thing.
-
Glass houses, that sort of thing.
Ridiculous. You are implying that a comment made by me in an internet chat room has the same weight as one made by a candidate for the Vice Presidency. This is yet another example of the false equivalency defense discussed previously in this thread.
-
Ridiculous. You are implying that a comment made by me in an internet chat room has the same weight as one made by a candidate for the Vice Presidency. This is yet another example of the false equivalency defense discussed previously in this thread.
No, what I am saying is that it is generally assumed that you should have some inkling of a clue as to what you are talking about before screaming that the sky is falling.
It has also been said in this thread, that there is a general attitude and movement against intellectualism, education and being in gerenal, informed. But apparently the example of such is rattling off hair brained claims about how you invented the question mark and accusing chestnuts of being lazy.
It is railed about on this forum about how stupid beat writers are, and columnists who cannot take the ten seconds to fact check their articles or blogs, and then can ignore everything that they've previously said as they move on to the next article.
And yet you couldnt take the ten seconds to google a law that NO LONGER EXISTED. Before ranting and raving and telling me to stick my attitude up my arse. But are very quick to judge and impugn the knowledge and conclusions of others, when you are completely ignorant of the topics in which you are discussing.
It's not about false equivalency, its about flat hypocrisy and ignorance and arrogance.
And if I ever run for Vice President of the United States, this will become relevant.
And not only that, but this is such a bullshit lazy fucking copout that it makes me angry to go back and re read it. The excuse, the justification for to be an ill informed ranting and raving lunatic, is that you are not running for vice president?
The fact that you WANT to be able to be able to vote and can claim no more moral responsibility to actually KNOW something is that you aren't running for office?
By sitting around and listening to pundits tell you what to think?
This is the greatness of the anti-redneck educated elite?
"I dont have to know shit because I'm not a candidate in the election therefore I am free from all criticism for anything that might come out of my mouth".
Fucking beautiful.
-
No, what I am saying is that it is generally assumed that you should have some inkling of a clue as to what you are talking about before screaming that the sky is falling.
It has also been said in this thread, that there is a general attitude and movement against intellectualism, education and being in gerenal, informed. But apparently the example of such is rattling off hair brained claims about how you invented the question mark and accusing chestnuts of being lazy.
It is railed about on this forum about how stupid beat writers are, and columnists who cannot take the ten seconds to fact check their articles or blogs, and then can ignore everything that they've previously said as they move on to the next article.
And yet you couldnt take the ten seconds to google a law that NO LONGER EXISTED. Before ranting and raving and telling me to stick my attitude up my arse. But are very quick to judge and impugn the knowledge and conclusions of others, when you are completely ignorant of the topics in which you are discussing.
It's not about false equivalency, its about flat hypocrisy and ignorance and arrogance.
And not only that, but this is such a bullshit lazy fucking copout that it makes me angry to go back and re read it. The excuse, the justification for to be an ill informed ranting and raving lunatic, is that you are not running for vice president?
The fact that you WANT to be able to be able to vote and can claim no more moral responsibility to actually KNOW something is that you aren't running for office?
By sitting around and listening to pundits tell you what to think?
This is the greatness of the anti-redneck educated elite?
"I dont have to know shit because I'm not a candidate in the election therefore I am free from all criticism for anything that might come out of my mouth".
Fucking beautiful.
You disagreed with what I said before and that's fine. You didn't disagree with what I said now, you simply referenced that old, dead disagreement. That's what's ridiculous, because it's a spurious non-sequitur.
-
You disagreed with what I said before and that's fine. You didn't disagree with what I said now, you simply referenced that old, dead disagreement. That's what's ridiculous, because it's a spurious non-sequitur.
No, its not about disagreement.
Its about the fact that the person criticizing a person's lack of understanding of the Constitution of the United States, has such a flawed, incomplete and factually incorrect understanding of the Constitution of the United States, that it just might mean that they have no real grounds to making said criticism since they have no idea whether or not that criticism has any basis in reality.
And I would also conclude that this person, who thinks that being shown where the Supreme Court did in fact issue a decision on the very law that this person said that they absolutely could not do so, and in fact in every point of the scenario described by this individual as impossible, not only was possible, but in fact came to pass over the past 12 months, would not count as a mere "disagreement", but would simply be Exhibit A, B and C, of this fundamental lack of understanding.
But the fact that this is characterized, as a "opinion" where we can "agree to disagree" shows an ever further lack of intellectual honesty, casting even more doubt on that individuals ability to levy an accurate judgment of someone else's ability to interpret a document, which they themselves obviously have barely a passing affiliation with.
And the fact that sports writers are held up to a higher standard of fact and objectivity and analytical reasoning than their own in regards to something as important as electing the head of the Executive Branch of this country, is mind boggling to me.
Whatever is said that fits whatever preconceived notion of these topics in your head, you will parrot, no matter how wrong they may or may not be, with no compulsion to ever find out. Just post a link and crow about it in self satisfied elitist euphoria.
-
Its about the fact that the person criticizing a person's lack of understanding of the Constitution of the United States, has such a flawed, incomplete and factually incorrect understanding of the Constitution of the United States, that it just might mean that they have no real grounds to making said criticism since they have no idea whether or not that criticism has any basis in reality.
Are you talking about me or Sarah Palin? Because I'm not the one who is campaigning for the job which requires one to swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Tough to defend and uphold something when you don't know what it says.
You're still trying to make the issue of Palin's lack of understanding about me. That's pointless. And if my understanding of the Military Commissions Act is in the forefront of your mind on the eve of the election, then it is you that has a bigger problem than I.
-
Congratulations to Barack Obama for running an incredibly disciplined campaign, for overcoming the formidable Clinton machine in the primaries and then for achieving what many of us likely never thought we would see in our lifetimes. I wish his grandmother had lived to see this historic occasion.
-
Congratulations to Barack Obama for running an incredibly disciplined campaign, for overcoming the formidable Clinton machine in the primaries and then for achieving what many of us likely never thought we would see in our lifetimes. I wish his grandmother had lived to see this historic occasion.
Historic election and all, but something inside me just wants this thread to die. Congrats to Obama and Limey.
-
Historic election and all, but something inside me just wants this thread to die.
Hurry up, please ... it's time.
-
Historic election and all, but something inside me just wants this thread to die. Congrats to Obama and Limey.
No congrats due to me, I didn't do nuthin'. By way of congratulations to Obama, here's a video tribute that proves, while we may not agree about red or blue, we can all agree on Scarlett (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY).
-
No congrats due to me, I didn't do nuthin'. By way of congratulations to Obama, here's a video tribute that proves, while we may not agree about red or blue, we can all agree on Scarlett (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY).
Speaking of, did anyone else see the interview with the "hologram" of will.i.am on CNN last night? That was just an astounding moment, on many levels. Between that, the Capitol building on a table, and NBC's green screen stage of what appeared to be Mt. Olympus circa Zeus, it was a big, big night for Things That Aren't Actually There.
-
Speaking of, did anyone else see the interview with the "hologram" of will.i.am on CNN last night?
I was astounded. Rather than discuss the election they seem to feel like they need to keep the audience interested with some Obi-Wan Kenobi bullshit. I guess they know their audience.
Who the fuck is will.i.am anyway and why should I care what he has to say?
-
I was astounded. Rather than discuss the election they seem to feel like they need to keep the audience interested with some Obi-Wan Kenobi bullshit. I guess they know their audience.
Who the fuck is will.i.am anyway and why should I care what he has to say?
He's a music legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will.i.am).
(sarcasm)
-
Who the fuck is will.i.am anyway and why should I care what he has to say?
I don't think they covered that. I may have missed it when I turned to my wife and asked, "is this actually happening?" I'm really glad to hear that you saw it, too, because I thought she might have slipped some hallucinogens in my beer.
-
I was pleasantly surprised that he seemed more cogent and lucid than your average musician / rapper / entertainment 'star.'
-
I was pleasantly surprised that he seemed more cogent and lucid than your average musician / rapper / entertainment 'star.'
But was he more or less cogent than the average hologram? Time will tell.
-
The hologram was definitely cool. I heard about it but thought it would be a let down. Then I was wondering why EVERYONE wasn't a hologram.
-
Hank Steinbrenner just traded 5 prospects for the hologram.
-
Historic election and all, but something inside me just wants this thread to die.
Not so fast. Apparently, we're going to be witness to a complete hanging, drawing and quartering of Sarah Palin over the next few days (weeks?). Here's Fox being fast out of the box (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc), accusing her of throwing temper tantrums, not knowing which countries are party to NAFTA, thinking Africa was a country, not a continent and refusing to be prepped for the infamous Couric and Gibson interviews.
Also, I've heard reports that the shopping spree was notably more costly than the $150k previously reported, and one anonymous campaign staffer has described the Palins as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast".
-
Also, I've heard reports that the shopping spree was notably more costly than the $150k previously reported, and one anonymous campaign staffer has described the Palins as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast".
I also hear that's the name of Levi Johnson's new rap album.
-
. . . not knowing which countries are party to NAFTA, thinking Africa was a country, not a continent . . .
I like the part of the report where the anchor asked "why wasn't this done in the vetting process?" Well, who would think a likely candidate for the nation's second highest office would need a fourth grade geography quiz?
-
Well, who would think a likely candidate for the nation's second highest office would need a fourth grade geography quiz?
Well, anyone who realized that the candidate in question is a US American and a product of its public school system, for one. Two, anyone who had ever met Bible Spice and had a five minute conversation with her.
-
After a battle, some soldiers will give a drink to a wounded adversary. Others like to poke a bayonet into them. Lots of bayonet poking around here.
-
After a battle, some soldiers will give a drink to a wounded adversary. Others like to poke a bayonet into them. Lots of bayonet poking around here.
This is fragging.
-
Watch out for land mines under those bodies.
-
After a battle, some soldiers will give a drink to a wounded adversary. Others like to poke a bayonet into them. Lots of bayonet poking around here.
She is going to run for President. If she promises not to run for President I'll give her a steaming hot mug of whatever speaking-in-tongues eliciting elixir she likes.
-
Bible Spice. I like that very much.
-
She is going to run for President. If she promises not to run for President I'll give her a steaming hot mug of whatever speaking-in-tongues eliciting elixir she likes.
Seconded!!
- Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Jon Stewart etc. etc.
-
Seconded!!
- Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Jon Stewart etc. etc.
Oh, no. They want her to run. Their livelihood is comedy.
-
Oh, no. They want her to run. Their livelihood is comedy.
I thought that was the point of chuck's post.
-
Why, oh why won't this thread DIE??
-
Why, oh why won't this thread DIE??
I thought that when the election was over I would have peace.
I thought that when Uncle Rico became VeePee-elect I could rest. I thought that the stake would be driven through her black fundamentalist heart, the silver bullet would have destroyed her tiny reactionary brain and I would be tormented no more. But still, when there is silence I hear that voice; when I close my eyes I see that face, those glasses; when my mind wanders I imagine her kneeling in her hillbilly church cradling her afflicted infant. She is like a worm boring its way through my brain from one side to the other and crisscrossing back again. Only when I post does the agony subside. She's shallow. She's vain. She's stupid. She goes to church - oh yes, yes, yes she goes to church. Let's see, let's see - the clothes, the obscenely expensive clothes; the trooper, the wrongfully discharged trooper; the bridge, big bridge, bad bridge, she was for it. What else, what else - oh yeah, the teenager; the pregnant teenager; the colleges, four colleges, five colleges, six colleges who knows? And I almost forgot about the caribou, yes, yes, yes the goddam caribou - and the musk oxen and the whales and the tundra. The tundra. Do you understand? The tundra. Did I mention that she's greedy? Very very greedy.
This is confidential - but there is a report coming out soon - very soon - that she cheated on some of her Girl Scout merit badges. I can't wait to see what lies she tells to get out of that one. There are a million peccadilloes, small and large. I can post indefinitely. I must post indefinitely - or else … I can't think about it. She must be obliterated. She will be obliterated. And then I rest, sweet, serene rest.
OK, OK - beauty contest … uh … moose hunting … volleyball …
-
I thought that was the point of chuck's post.
I have a reading comprehension problem. I'd say I Palin'd it. But I actually read the Post.
-
I have a reading comprehension problem. I'd say I Palin'd it. But I actually read the Post.
You read the Houston Post?? Try reading something that wasn't printed 20 years ago.
-
I thought that when the election was over I would have peace.
I thought that when Uncle Rico became VeePee-elect I could rest. I thought that the stake would be driven through her black fundamentalist heart, the silver bullet would have destroyed her tiny reactionary brain and I would be tormented no more. But still, when there is silence I hear that voice; when I close my eyes I see that face, those glasses; when my mind wanders I imagine her kneeling in her hillbilly church cradling her afflicted infant. She is like a worm boring its way through my brain from one side to the other and crisscrossing back again. Only when I post does the agony subside. She's shallow. She's vain. She's stupid. She goes to church - oh yes, yes, yes she goes to church. Let's see, let's see - the clothes, the obscenely expensive clothes; the trooper, the wrongfully discharged trooper; the bridge, big bridge, bad bridge, she was for it. What else, what else - oh yeah, the teenager; the pregnant teenager; the colleges, four colleges, five colleges, six colleges who knows? And I almost forgot about the caribou, yes, yes, yes the goddam caribou - and the musk oxen and the whales and the tundra. The tundra. Do you understand? The tundra. Did I mention that she's greedy? Very very greedy.
This is confidential - but there is a report coming out soon - very soon - that she cheated on some of her Girl Scout merit badges. I can't wait to see what lies she tells to get out of that one. There are a million peccadilloes, small and large. I can post indefinitely. I must post indefinitely - or else … I can't think about it. She must be obliterated. She will be obliterated. And then I rest, sweet, serene rest.
OK, OK - beauty contest … uh … moose hunting … volleyball …
Wow. Kerouacian...nice.
-
Why, oh why won't this thread DIE??
And there is another reason why I won't let this thread die.
Care to venture a guess as to what it is?
Its the penguins. Yes, the penguins. Nobody ever thinks about the penguins (except other penguins, I suppose).
But I'm losing my train of thought. OK - focus.
Missy You-Know-Who has been the avatar of pro-pollution. Her anti-environment policies represent a terrible threat to Alaska's beleaguered penguin population. Intercepted private emails from her continually refer to penguins and a "final solution" in the same context. She must be stopped.
-
And there is another reason why I won't let this thread die.
Care to venture a guess as to what it is?
Its the penguins. Yes, the penguins. Nobody ever thinks about the penguins (except other penguins, I suppose).
But I'm losing my train of thought. OK - focus.
Missy You-Know-Who has been the avatar of pro-pollution. Her anti-environment policies represent a terrible threat to Alaska's beleaguered penguin population. Intercepted private emails from her continually refer to penguins and a "final solution" in the same context. She must be stopped.
Dude, she wiped out the penguin population in the northern hemisphere long before you and I were born. No one has seen them there....ever.
Is this now the Beer, Queso, and Palin forum?
-
And there is another reason why I won't let this thread die.
The news that Joe "I Don't Like the Idea of Someone Taking My Money and Giving It to Other People" the Plumber, has been on welfare twice in his life?
-
I know what it is. Limey will not have closure until we let him vote. Limey, please check only one:
__ McCain / Palin
__ Obama / Biden
__ Other (specify):_________________________
-
I am writing in Milano/Alba.
-
The news that Joe "I Don't Like the Idea of Someone Taking My Money and Giving It to Other People" the Plumber, has been on welfare twice in his life?
So does that invalidate his criticism of the tax plan?
It would almost be the same as someone not knowing anything about the Constitution continually harping on someone else's lack of knowledge.
What? Oh.
When he is running for President, I suppose that will matter then right?
Or is there a nuance there that I'm missing?
-
__ McCain / Palin
__ Obama / Biden
_x_ Other (specify):___Lord Palmerston__________
-
So does that invalidate his criticism of the tax plan?
His criticism? Yes. He railed against the idea of money being taken out of his pocket and given to others, but was ready and willing to have money taken out of other people's pocket and given to him.
It would almost be the same as someone not knowing anything about the Constitution continually harping on someone else's lack of knowledge.
What? Oh.
If you'd like, I could make this my signature line to save you the bother of posting it in response to anything and everything I say.
When he is running for President, I suppose that will matter then right?
Or is there a nuance there that I'm missing?
Joe is milking his 15 minutes of fame, and will espouse his views to anyone with a camera and/or microphone. He chooses to put his opinions out there, it's entirely reasonable to discuss them. Just the same as my opinions expressed in here are fair game. Just as are yours.
-
If you'd like, I could make this my signature line to save you the bother of posting it in response to anything and everything I say.
Says the man who just can't let any of it go even after the election which he did not participate in is over, and the side that he backed won.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
-
tophfar,
I don't know your background, but I think it's reasonable to point out that some day Limey's going to have to pass a civics test that a pretty significant number of our citizens would fail utterly... so I wouldn't get on too high a horse about his knowledge of the Constitution.
-
Says the man who just can't let any of it go even after the election which he did not participate in is over, and the side that he backed won.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I participated alright, I just wasn't allowed to fill out an actual ballot.
-
So does that invalidate his criticism of the tax plan?
...
Being completely wrong does.
-
Being completely wrong does.
Not according to Limey.
And if I ever run for Vice President of the United States, this will become relevant.
-
tophfar,
I don't know your background, but I think it's reasonable to point out that some day Limey's going to have to pass a civics test that a pretty significant number of our citizens would fail utterly... so I wouldn't get on too high a horse about his knowledge of the Constitution.
That's irrelevant to the mistakes that have been made here in this thread.
-
No according to Limey.
But anything I say is invalid (see multiple posts above) so this rebuttal of pravata's rebuttal is invalid.
-
Dude, she wiped out the penguin population in the northern hemisphere long before you and I were born. No one has seen them there....ever.
Exactly my point.
I know there are no penguins in Alaska.
You know there are no penguins in Alaska.
But SHE doesn't know there are no penguins in Alaska.
Don't you see, that's what makes her plan of pan-Alaskan penguinicide so insidious, so ingenious and so diabolical, all at the same time?
Say ... wait a minute -
By any chance are you being intentionally obtuse?
-
(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/palin-stfu.jpg)
-
Her hair has really nice highlights.
-
Exactly my point.
I know there are no penguins in Alaska.
You know there are no penguins in Alaska.
But SHE doesn't know there are no penguins in Alaska.
Don't you see, that's what makes her plan of pan-Alaskan penguinicide so insidious, so ingenious and so diabolical, all at the same time?
Say ... wait a minute -
By any chance are you being intentionally obtuse?
Her plan was so good, she destroyed all evidence of them being there....ever. She isn't even actually an American born citizen....she is from another world, come to feed on our children. Sure, ask her about the constitution and she might not answer as you think appropriate, but ask her how to navigate the universe using whale blubber and moose livers and you will be astounded.
-
__ McCain / Palin
__ Obama / Biden
_x_ Other (specify):___Lord Palmerston__________
... PITT THE ELDER!
-
accusing her of throwing temper tantrums, not knowing which countries are party to NAFTA, thinking Africa was a country, not a continent
actually, Africa is a mixture of continents and vowels
-
Exactly my point.
I know there are no penguins in Alaska.
You know there are no penguins in Alaska.
But SHE doesn't know there are no penguins in Alaska.
Don't you see, that's what makes her plan of pan-Alaskan penguinicide so insidious, so ingenious and so diabolical, all at the same time?
Say ... wait a minute -
By any chance are you being intentionally obtuse?
But Russia has penguins, and she can see them from her house.
-
Says the man who just can't let any of it go even after the election which he did not participate in is over, and the side that he backed won.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I really don't understand the criticism that because Limey couldn't vote, he somehow has a diminished right to comment. If anything, I think that not being allowed to vote enhances one's right to comment and criticize, because that's about all he's got.
-
Not so fast. Apparently, we're going to be witness to a complete hanging, drawing and quartering of Sarah Palin over the next few days (weeks?). Here's Fox being fast out of the box (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc), accusing her of throwing temper tantrums, not knowing which countries are party to NAFTA, thinking Africa was a country, not a continent and refusing to be prepped for the infamous Couric and Gibson interviews.
Also, I've heard reports that the shopping spree was notably more costly than the $150k previously reported, and one anonymous campaign staffer has described the Palins as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast".
why is this necessary or relevant AFTER THE FUCKING ELECTION IS OVER?
-
why is this necessary or relevant AFTER THE FUCKING ELECTION IS OVER?
There's another one coming down the pike you know, in 2012.
-
There's another one coming down the pike you know, in 2012.
Great! If this last election cycle wasn't long enough, now we're going to start 2 days after the preceding one. I'm going to become a ludite, so I don't have to watch stupid shit presented as news.
-
I'm going to become a ludite, so I don't have to watch stupid shit presented as news.
I HIGHLY recommend this.
-
I have nominated JA's latest artwork for a mihoba.
-
I have nominated JA's latest artwork for a mihoba.
so have i.
-
JackAstro 2008
"A Vote for Me is a Vote for Shutting the Fuck Up"
-
Can someone please kill this thread?
-
Nate Silver says John McCain's campaign was the 2008 Houston Astros, and pegs Palin's VORP at -10. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/081107)
-
I liked fivethirtyeight and read it a lot, despite it being Silver's child, but he can stick those Astro remarks right up his ass.
-
Nice updates on the Japan series.
Is there any place online where you can watch it for free?
-
According to his website, Obama will eliminate capital gains tax for investments in small businesses / start-ups, and give a 50% healthcare tax credit for small businesses.
The Missing Obama Tax Cut: He promised to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423581545466605.html)
-
This thread has more lives than the "Friday the 13th" movie franchise.
-
The Missing Obama Tax Cut: He promised to eliminate the capital-gains tax for small businesses. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423581545466605.html)
I, too, would like to know the answer. Perhaps this could've been asked instead of the A-Fraud question, the HuffPo question or that idiot who tried (and partially succeeded) to get Obama to admit that Biden has a motor-mouth.
-
I, too, would like to know the answer. Perhaps this could've been asked instead of the A-Fraud question, the HuffPo question or that idiot who tried (and partially succeeded) to get Obama to admit that Biden has a motor-mouth.
Did somebody really ask the President of the United States about A-Rod during a press conference on the deteriorating state of the economy?
-
Did somebody really ask the President of the United States about A-Rod during a press conference on the deteriorating state of the economy?
Yep. At least the fuckwit who asked it didn't get to ask a follow up about Phelps.
Obama has promised the most transparent administration in history; it's up to the press to push him on that all the way. Unfortunately, most of them need to be taken outside and beaten with wet towels.
-
it's up to the press to push him on that all the way. Unfortunately, most of them need to be taken outside and beaten with wet towels.
Or a cold shower
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/sometimes-a-president-is-just-a-president/
-
Or a cold shower
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/sometimes-a-president-is-just-a-president/
Oh shit. I don't know what's worse: that someone would write that or that an editor would run it.
-
Oh shit. I don't know what's worse: that someone would write that or that an editor would run it.
What's wrong with it? Warner is a first-class satirist, and I found this piece as funny as most of her stuff.
-
Yep. At least the fuckwit who asked it didn't get to ask a follow up about Phelps.
Obama has promised the most transparent administration in history; it's up to the press to push him on that all the way. Unfortunately, most of them need to be taken outside and beaten with wet towels.
Lightning strikes twice, as we are again in 100% agreement. Watertoweling is an acceptable form of punishment in this case.
-
"Space Station, this is Front Line Observation Post One. You are a go on nuking from orbit... Yes, I agree. It's the only way to be sure. FLOP1 out. See you on the other side, boys."
-
I can't wait till 2012. Spack for President.
-
I can't wait till 2012. Spack for President.
His PCs would be a sight to see..
"STFU. Next question...STFU. Next question..."
-
His PCs would be a sight to see..
"STFU. Next question...STFU. Next question..."
Spleen to be served at all state dinners.
-
Spleen to be served at all state dinners.
Reporter: Mr. President, concerning the economy...
Spack: You're banned.
-
Reporter: Mr. President, concerning the economy...
Spack: You're banned.
Just for the record...Spack doesn't ban anyone. He cracks the skulls around here, but he considers banning to be an administrative task, more suited to accountants and hairdressers.
-
Just for the record...Spack doesn't ban anyone. He cracks the skulls around here, but he considers banning to be an administrative task, more suited to accountants and hairdressers.
>rummages through the admin profiles to discover which one is a hairdresser<
-
>rummages through the admin profiles to discover which one is a hairdresser<
I'm not gonna throw anyone under the bus, but.....have you seen Andyzipp? No man his age should have a head of hair like that.
-
I'm not gonna throw anyone under the bus, but.....have you seen Andyzipp? No man his age should have a head of hair like that.
It's all starting to make sense now....
-
Just for the record...Spack doesn't ban anyone. He cracks the skulls around here, but he considers banning to be an administrative task, more suited to accountants and hairdressers.
Wow. Not only did I get smacked with this, but I STILL don't have the power to ban anyone.
-
Looks like Sarah's
15 minutes 7 years of fame are finally up (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397238/sarah-palin-slips-self-parody-charles-c-w-cooke).
Palin should leave the field to those who are in possession of genuine political aspirations, and she should refrain from treating the Republican party as if it were a little more than a convenient vehicle for her private ambition. In the meantime, conservatives who are finally cottoning on to the ruse should recognize that this Iowa sojourn was not an aberration or a blip, but the foreordained culmination of a slow and unseemly descent into farce.
-
Looks like Sarah's 15 minutes 7 years of fame are finally up (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397238/sarah-palin-slips-self-parody-charles-c-w-cooke).
From the article:
So Sarah Palin has become Amy Winehouse? Of course she has. How else exactly was this going to end?
That's really unfair to Amy Winehouse.
-
That's really unfair to Amy Winehouse.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.
There was a lot to disagree with in that article - for example, the comment that her decent into farce was "slow" when it, in fact, occurred instantly when she "went rogue" in the midst of the 2008 campaign. However, I thought it was worth sharing (and resurrecting a 5-year old thread to do so) because (a) it brings the topic (hopefully) to a close and (2) the thread title applies today more than ever.
-
The fact that there remain some that are now "finally cottoning on" to the fact that Palin is not a serious contributor to American politics is in itself a poetic ode to the perspicacity of the modern conservative.
-
Looks like Sarah's 15 minutes 7 years of fame are finally up (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397238/sarah-palin-slips-self-parody-charles-c-w-cooke).
Damn you for digging this thread up.
-
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.
There was a lot to disagree with in that article - for example, the comment that her decent into farce was "slow" when it, in fact, occurred instantly when she "went rogue" in the midst of the 2008 campaign. However, I thought it was worth sharing (and resurrecting a 5-year old thread to do so) because (a) it brings the topic (hopefully) to a close and (2) the thread title applies today more than ever.
I thought the peice was reasoned and well-written.
"The Right will likely never agree on how best it should move forward, but we might at least unite against the belief that there exist superheroes who are able to save the country from itself; against the idea that any one person can be the official standard bearer of a whole ideological or demographic group; and against the presumption that conservatism will gain anything much at all from the promotion and advancement of its most erratic champions."
This passage stood out for me. I am a non-consevative, and sometimes I forget the right isn't entirely made up of wingnuts like Palin, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. It is nice to be reminded there are thoughtful aspects, as well.
And I want to thank Cooke personally for "pasquinade."
I learned something new today, if nothing else.
-
I am a non-consevative, and sometimes I forget the right isn't entirely made up of wingnuts like Palin, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. It is nice to be reminded there are thoughtful aspects, as well.
From someone who generally would be considered conservative -- and who agrees that everyone you named here is crazy -- thank you.
-
The fact that there remain some that are now "finally cottoning on" to the fact that Palin is not a serious contributor to American politics is in itself a poetic ode to the perspicacity of the modern conservative.
It was really amazing/sad how many folks actually took her seriously.
-
What the hell are you people doing?
-
From someone who generally would be considered conservative -- and who agrees that everyone you named here is crazy -- thank you.
this. Word for word.
-
When I read about the free verse and the dada laden resentment along with primal-screaming, I thought she sounded more like Courtney Love than Amy Winehouse.
-
This passage stood out for me. I am a non-consevative, and sometimes I forget the right isn't entirely made up of wingnuts like Palin, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. It is nice to be reminded there are thoughtful aspects, as well.
Which one of these is not like the others? Ron Paul is easily the most thoughtful person in politics today whereas the other three are media whores.
-
Which one of these is not like the others? Ron Paul is easily the most thoughtful person in politics today whereas the other three are media whores.
I can't tell if this post will completely revive this thread or be its final bullet.
-
I can't tell if this post will completely revive this thread or be its final bullet.
I've been spraying 3-in-1 oil on my sarcometer all morning, in hopes it will come back to life here, and I can again sleep peacefully.
-
BTW, Trump will be in town Saturday. I have a friend who is involved in organizing the event, and I could probably get fairly close, if anyone has anything they'd like me to pass on to him.
Just FYI.
-
BTW, Trump will be in town Saturday. I have a friend who is involved in organizing the event, and I could probably get fairly close, if anyone has anything they'd like me to pass on to him.
What do you give the man who has everything?
-
BTW, Trump will be in town Saturday. I have a friend who is involved in organizing the event, and I could probably get fairly close, if anyone has anything they'd like me to pass on to him.
Just FYI.
Can you give him herpes?
-
Can you give him herpes?
You don't think he already has that? At different times he has lived in the same building as Jeter and A-Rod. They must be hazmat sites by now.