Palin. WTF?

[Limey]

The inside scoop and mock-debate footage from Biden's debate preparation.

[MusicMan]

"You look like a jack-o-lantern taking a difficult crap."

[Astroholic]

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.

[Limey]

"You look like a jack-o-lantern taking a difficult crap."

I enjoyed that one too.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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. 

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

Olbermann explains the MCA.

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Gizzmonic]

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.

[Bench]

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.

[Bench]

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? 

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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

[Bench]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Bench]

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?

[Jacksonian]

Are we talking about the Germans in China?

Cubs fans.

[Bench]

Cubs fans.

In that case, throw away the goddam key.

[Arky Vaughan]

"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.

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

So are b, c, and d why they're called terrorists and not subject to the conventions.

They're subject to military tribunals.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[tophfar]

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.

[Bench]

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?

[tophfar]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

What case is this?

Eisentrager.

[MusicMan]

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.

[Limey]

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.

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

You have a very poor understanding of the purpose of the Supreme Court then.

Kool aid's at the back, big boy.

[tophfar]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[HudsonHawk]

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.

[HudsonHawk]

"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.

[JimR]

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.

[Astroholic]

(7 of 9 of whom were Republican nominees)

That worked out well.

[Noe]

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?

[T. J.]

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.

[BudGirl]

you really think weiner dog discussions are going to work on the day of the VP debates???

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[phil]

"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."

[Arky Vaughan]

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!

[MusicMan]

Wieners?  Sexists.

[Limey]

Wieners?  Sexists.

If you can find a Vagina Dog, I'll talk about that.

[BudGirl]

If you can find a Vagina Dog, I'll talk about that.

nope, there are only pussy-cats.

[tophfar]

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

Full text of Majority Opinion

[Jacksonian]

If you can find a Vagina Dog, I'll talk about that.

Michael Barrett has a dog?

[geezerdonk]

so who wants to talk wiener dogs?

a more worthy topic by far

[HudsonHawk]

Even when it contains criticism of a Republican?

Yes.  Criticizing a Republican does not absolve you of your diversionary tactics.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Bench]

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!

[Arky Vaughan]

And it only took 78 pages to get here!

Yes, I'm slow.

[EasTexAstro]

Come on, guys. Who would you rather look at for the next 4 years: Palin or Biden? It is as simple as that.

[BudGirl]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

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...)

[Limey]

A sneak peak at tonight's VP debate?

[Lurch]

A sneak peak at tonight's VP debate?

Youtube blocked.  Something like this?

[otterjb]

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.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

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?

[otterjb]

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.

[pravata]

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.   

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Taras Bulba]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.  She'll be looking for any hint of pro-Obama/anti-McCain verbal and non-verbal communication.

[Gizzmonic]

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?

[Lurch]

If there's a Race for the Lid 2008 Election Edition, I take Obama/Biden 53%-47%, 311-227.

Excellent!  Do the math here

Obama 300-238

[pravata]

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.

[pravata]

I expect her, at least once, to go after the moderator.  She'll be looking for any hint of pro-Obama/anti-McCain verbal and non-verbal communication.

As the Spleen once said "Bigk MISHTAKE!"

[Jacksonian]

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.

[MusicMan]

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."

[Jacksonian]

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.

[otterjb]

McCain's just fine with it because it gives his supporters something to point to, no matter what.

[Noe]

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)!

[S.P. Rodriguez]

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.

[HudsonHawk]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[SaltyParker]

Biden looks stunned by Palin's performance.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Lurch]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[HudsonHawk]

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.

[pravata]

She's Yosemite Sam with dimples. 

[pravata]

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".

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[pravata]

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?

[Limey]

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.

[pravata]

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. 

[chuck]

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!

[jonbloozy]

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

[Ty in Tampa]

She's Yosemite Sam with dimples. 

That's gold, Jerry. Gold.

[Limey]

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.

[pravata]

I've been trying to find it, but it's not on ESPN or WGN.

TBS

[chuck]

TBS

I think Limey is making an ever-so-subtle point. You know, like he always does. Subtle.

[Limey]

TBS

Merci boucoup.

[Limey]

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.

[MusicMan]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

I would be curious to see this poll. Link?

Closest thing I could find is this:

"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."

[Jacksonian]

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.

[HudsonHawk]

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...

[jonbloozy]

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?

[Limey]

I would be curious to see this poll. Link?

Here's a clip from ABC 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.

[Arky Vaughan]

Here's a clip from ABC 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?

[Arky Vaughan]

And, by the way, is it your view that we should run wars according to polls?

[Arky Vaughan]

"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?"

2008 Jul 25-27

Plan for withdrawal with no timetable 50%
Plan for withdrawal with timetable 47%
No opinion 3%

[otterjb]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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, 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!"

[Taras Bulba]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

I got the number from my memory, which was informed by polls like this one, 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%.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[BudGirl]

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.

[BudGirl]

Nope.  Just that my dial wasn't going all the way to the top.

Isn't that what your dates usually say.

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

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. 

[Lurch]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Bench]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[geezerdonk]

"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.

[Bench]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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?

[Jacksonian]

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?

[tophfar]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[tophfar]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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?

[pravata]

How long after she took the baby did she get off stage?

It was awhile.  They stood up there for about 10 minutes.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[tophfar]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

Wow, if you use the Google and follow the first link, 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."

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

Thirst for power? Wow.

She talked about expanding the Consitutional role of the Vice President's office.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[Gizzmonic]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Lurch]

Party in Power recent history

(Just FYI, not in response to anything in particular)

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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 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.

[tophfar]

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.

[matadorph]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[matadorph]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[matadorph]

Which means what?

ETA: He's the President of the Senate, yet he has less power than the Majority and Minority Leaders.

[Limey]

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.

[Lurch]

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". 

[EasTexAstro]

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?

[Bench]

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.

[BudGirl]

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. 

[EasTexAstro]

I think I finally placed her voice....

Aunt Fanny from Robots?

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Ty in Tampa]

I think I finally placed her voice....

Aunt Fanny from Robots?

Ya!

[Lurch]

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.

[BudGirl]

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.

[BudGirl]

She's breastfeeding.

breast pump?

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

breast pump?

Why don't you write her and give her some parenting advice?

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

Why don't you write her and give her some parenting advice?

That wasn't necessary.

[BudGirl]

Why don't you write her and give her some parenting advice?

what's her address?

[BudGirl]

That wasn't necessary.

Arky doesn't like it when someone disagrees with Palin's actions.

[Arky Vaughan]

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 Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

what's her address?

Governor's Mansion
Juneau, Alaska
U.S.A.

[BudGirl]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[matadorph]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[matadorph]

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.

[jonbloozy]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[Ty in Tampa]

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.

[MusicMan]

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.

[matadorph]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

She pretended not to know them so she wouldn't have to answer questions about them? Interesting.

Possibly, yes. Pure guessing on my part.

[EasTexAstro]

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

[Ty in Tampa]

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"?

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[juliogotay]

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.

[JackAstro]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

What fucking ever. I'll try harder not to piss myself, Your Condescendingness.

Put on your Depends.

(http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepics2/DaddyDickCheney.jpg)

[Ty in Tampa]

Alright, now you've gone from annoying right-wing mouthpiece to troll. *PLONK*

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

Fuck the Cubs.

Then I think everyone agrees. All in favor? Aye?

AYE??!!!?!

[MusicMan]

Then I think everyone agrees. All in favor? Aye?

AYE??!!!?!

Nay.  I wouldn't fuck the Cubs with Ann Coulter's dick.

[JackAstro]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Limey]

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?

[MusicMan]

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?

[Limey]

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.

[JackAstro]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[JackAstro]

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.

[Trey]

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

[BudGirl]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.  (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.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[BudGirl]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Dobro]

Wow.  You need to watch it again.  (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.

[Lurch]

Good thing we're keeping this civil.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

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.

[BudGirl]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[BudGirl]

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.

[SaltyParker]

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.

[JaneDoe]

breast pump?

Horrible things, breast pumps.  Just freakin' horrible.

I would never tell anyone to use one. 

[chuck]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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.

[Lurch]

...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

[Greg M]

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...

[Greg M]

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. 

[UpTooLate]

$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.

[UpTooLate]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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.

[Greg M]

Now a comparison of Obama to Carter and Reagan?  Brilliant.  Your train of thought is almost as coherent as Palin's.

[Greg M]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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.

[otterjb]

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.

[pravata]

Wow.  You need to watch it again.  (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.

[Greg M]

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....

[chandler44]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[pravata]

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.

[otterjb]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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?

[pravata]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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!".

[austro]

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!"

[UpTooLate]

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.

[tophfar]

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 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?

[Bench]

If only Obama was subjected to half the scrutiny that an apparently more qualified Palin has been subjected to.

That comment simply astounds me. 

[MusicMan]

Give me 30 undisturbed minutes with Angelina Jolie and we'll be chain smoking by minute 2.  

FIFY

[UpTooLate]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

This thread has taken a bizarre turn for the worse.

[BizidyDizidy]

UpTooLate is certainly one of our most bizarre characters. I am eager to subscribe to his newsletter.

[juliogotay]

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]

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.

[Reuben]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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?

[Limey]

I don't want Obidon taking all my earnings.

Here's a comparison from the Washinton Post between the two candidate's tax plans.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

"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?"

[Arky Vaughan]

Here's a comparison from the Washinton Post between the two candidate's tax plans.

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[MusicMan]

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?

[JackAstro]

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.

[Lurch]

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?

[juliogotay]

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.

[Lurch]

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.

[MusicMan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[MusicMan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[JackAstro]

Who wrote that?

I wrote that. What are you talking about?

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

I wrote that. What are you talking about?

Never mind.

[JackAstro]

Never mind.

Victory!

[Taras Bulba]

Victory!

Yes, Victory Pilsner available at a Spec's near you.  Not bad stuff.

[MusicMan]

Yes, Victory Pilsner available at a Spec's near you.  Not bad stuff.

No, he means Victory!

[Lurch]

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).

[JackAstro]

Yes, Victory Pilsner available at a Spec's near you.  Not bad stuff.

I tried that last month, actually. That is one dry beer.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Lurch]

Obama plans to raise taxes on those who earn over ~$250,000.  Many of those are small business owners.  

As explained here.  Obama is proposing a tax increase of 4.5 to 12 points on two thirds of small business owners.

[Ty in Tampa]

As explained here.  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."

[Lurch]

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.

[Jacksonian]

As explained here.  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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[juliogotay]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

Victory!

Congratulations!

[juliogotay]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[chuck]

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

[Limey]

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).

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[JackAstro]

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

[BizidyDizidy]

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

[Lurch]

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?

[BudGirl]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[BizidyDizidy]

Scarlett Johansson and Jennifer Connelly also.

Young starlets in general - great add.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[JackAstro]

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.

[BudGirl]

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?

[JackAstro]

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.

[austro]

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.

[BudGirl]

Well, I am obviously not an expert on her.

I should have known better, she has all her teeth.

[MusicMan]

Some perspective on the election

[Lurch]

Some perspective on the election

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

Some perspective on the election

This is the best post in the entire thread.

[EasTexAstro]

This is the best post in the entire thread.

...and to think, this all started before the void hit. It could get better/worse....

[Lurch]

...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.

[Holly]

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.

[jonbloozy]

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

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[chuck]

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.

[Holly]

I'm not a mom (yet, fingers crossed) so I'll let someone else opine.  Warning: Huffington Post

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.

[Limey]

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.

[JackAstro]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Duman]

I'm not a mom (yet, fingers crossed) so I'll let someone else opine.  Warning: Huffington Post

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?  

[austro]

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.

[MusicMan]

 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.

[Ty in Tampa]

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.

[Jacksonian]

I beg to differ. I'd shoot at that like a moose stuck in the ice.

I take it you're not a hunter.

[Ty in Tampa]

I take it you're not a hunter.

Eh, no.

[Holly]

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.

[JackAstro]

Please understand if we're skeptical of any photo you might post.

(closes Photoshop)

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[BizidyDizidy]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Ty in Tampa]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[JackAstro]

If you know cockney rhyming slang, her knocked-up daughter being called "Bristol" is fucking hilarious.

Cockney rhyming slang absolutely baffles me.

[Holly]

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 (check out the one about placentas)

[jonbloozy]

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.

[Jacksonian]

That made me think of this:

I thought that joke was much older than Larry the Cable Guy?

[Holly]

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.

[Ty in Tampa]

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?

[jonbloozy]

I thought that joke was much older than Larry the Cable Guy?

I'm sure it is.  I just love his delivery.

[MusicMan]

I'm sure it is.  I just love his delivery.

I always knew there was something wrong with you.

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm sure it is.  I just love his delivery.

Him and that Dane Cook guy are hilarious. Golden age of comedy.

[jonbloozy]

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.

[BizidyDizidy]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

T-minus 130 posts.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[BizidyDizidy]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

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....

[BizidyDizidy]

I wouldn't mind reading more of StrosRays....

100% agreed, although not sure how I would define his area of expertise.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[Limey]

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"?

[MusicMan]

In a day of dealing with Dell customer support, I got the entire cast of Friends as my "contacts".

[JackAstro]

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."

[BizidyDizidy]

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.

[Taras Bulba]

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.  

[Holly]

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.

[Holly]

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.

[Limey]

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".

[Lurch]

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"

[jonbloozy]

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.

[Taras Bulba]

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." 

[MusicMan]

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.

[Taras Bulba]

OK, gotta go tell Mrs. MM that I've changed my mind on naming the next girl Sapphire.

Also stay away from Tiffany.

[MRaup]

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.

[Ty in Tampa]

Desireé

[MRaup]

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.

[chuck]

Boat race - face..."'Allo darlin'.  You wanna come on my boat?"

So "I'm prone to seasickness" is not the correct answer? Fuck.

[EasTexAstro]

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.

[jonbloozy]

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.

[UpTooLate]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[BatGirl]

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?

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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?

[MusicMan]

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.

[Trey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[MusicMan]

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.

[MusicMan]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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".

[austro]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[MusicMan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[phil]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

I agree entirely.  But this wasn't your original argument.

Level the playing field between businesses and individuals.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[MusicMan]

I agree entirely.  The code needs fixing.

Hell yes.

But I will laugh immediately at anyone believing that a flat tax can work, either.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

Hell yes.

But I will laugh immediately at anyone believing that a flat tax can work, either.

The code will outlive us all.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Limey]

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?"

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[MusicMan]

The first question to ask a flat-taxer is "what's deductible?"

Wrong.  "What's taxable?" or "what's income?"

[subnuclear]

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.   

[Holly]

Wrong.  "What's taxable?" or "what's income?"

Wrong. "Can you translate that from Lithuanian?"

[phil]

 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

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Limey]

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. 

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[JackAstro]

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.

[Limey]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

I'd like to be in the subgroup getting socked, I think.

You probably are and just don't know it yet.

[Arky Vaughan]

As it's very likely he'll win, I really want to hear more details.

Good luck with that.

[MusicMan]

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?

[Jacksonian]

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.

[Jacksonian]

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.

[JackAstro]

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?

[strosrays]

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"

[JackAstro]

"I will administer approximately two closed hand strikes to your facial area"

Now try it in Cockney rhyming slang - it's great.

[Limey]

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.

[JackAstro]

Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript:

"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

[Limey]

Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript:

"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

[Ty in Tampa]

Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript:

"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"?

[Bench]

Stats from last night's debate, per the transcript:

"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.

[Astroholic]

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).

[JackAstro]

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.

[Astroholic]

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.

[pravata]

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

[JackAstro]

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.

[Astroholic]

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.

[Astroholic]

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.

[JackAstro]

Nah, I am not asking you anything, just babbling.

I understand, I do that quite a bit.

[Astroholic]

I understand, I do that quite a bit.

How many for "that one" are there?

[JackAstro]

How many for "that one" are there?

Just that one. Two, actually.

[T. J.]

How many for "that one" are there?

You can already buy the button.

And this post gets us to 100 pages.

[JackAstro]

(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/palin-wtf-100.jpg)

[MusicMan]

Oh sure, but what will you do when 19 more posts bring us to 2000?

[Astroholic]

(http://www.spikesnstars.com/docs/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/palin-wtf-100.jpg)

Outstanding!

[Bench]

"Holy shit" indeed.

[JackAstro]

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)

[Astroholic]

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. 

[Limey]

And one "not you, Tom" which was pretty damn funny.

And one "That one!", but no "Get off my lawn!"s.

[Limey]

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.

[EasTexAstro]

http://www.zazzle.com/donuts_and_bacon_taste_we_can_believe_in_shirt-235372991307560445

[JackAstro]

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.

[JackAstro]

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)

[Lurch]

'Perfect storm' could give Dems 'magic 60' in Senate

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

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.

[Arky Vaughan]

'Perfect storm' could give Dems 'magic 60' in Senate

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.

[MusicMan]

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.

[MusicMan]

'Perfect storm' could give Dems 'magic 60' in Senate

fivethirtyeight.com, which is an outstanding resource for election polling, puts this at about a 20% likelihood.

[Jacksonian]

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?

[Arky Vaughan]

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.