Slap MessageBoards
General Discussion => WHATEVER => Topic started by: Gatoraids on August 29, 2008, 10:31:15 AM
-
Thoughts?
-
(http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2008-08/41940673.jpg)
id fuck her good... you know that her tight little republican pussy isnt getting the love it needs.
-
Jesus! Obama's having a hard enough time winning over the Hillary supporters, now this? fuuuuuck.
-
mccain trying to get the female and boner vote, that sneaky bastard
-
Thoughts?
This is just an over obvious ploy for Hillary supporters. The sad part is people are stupid enough to be blind to it and vote for this douchebag.
-
mccain trying to get the female and boner vote, that sneaky bastard
seriously though, right?
how is this lady qualified? except that her husband works for BP and she supports off-shore drilling, and drilling in protected lands in her homestate of Alaska?
anyone all political like care to explain why he chose her?
-
i'm watching her speach right now it's ripe with contradictions
"i've been fighting big oil"
followed by
"when oil revenues hit an all time high, i gave some of that revunue back to the people"
"i helped pass a bill that got one of the biggest pipelines ever approaved"
but i can't help but think that the silver lining too mccain winning would be if this chic ended up blowing an intern in the white house for the raddest political scandal of all time and luckiest intern
-
apparently she loves 'mooseburgers' and is into viking gangbangs
(http://homepage.mac.com/mpattavina/SarahPalinVikings.jpg)
-
I think he just picked her because shes a girl and Obamas black. Hockey mom two years ago to this.... Fuck you McCain.
-
It makes no sense why McCain would pick her. His only arguement against Obama is that Obama has no experience as commander and chief. She only makes that arguement void. McCains old ass is just a heart attack away from us having the least experienced president in our history. She was the mayor of a town of 9000 people. Thats her experience.
-
She's the real life "White She-Devil" from Undercover Brother. Just trying to tantalize Obama with Mayo and Sorels.
(http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper950/stills/3d1b85e727c5d-33-1.jpg)
-
McCains old ass is just a heart attack away from us having the least experienced president in our history. She was the mayor of a town of 9000 people. Thats her experience.
EDIT:
Also, we'll be seeing this clip for weeks to come
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtilB1teksc
-
Expand Quote
McCains old ass is just a heart attack away from us having the least experienced president in our history. She was the mayor of a town of 9000 people. Thats her experience.
EDIT:
Also, we'll be seeing this clip for weeks to come
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtilB1teksc
God that is ridiculously horrific. She's a person.
-
Okay, so she has been the Govenor of Alaska for just under 2 years. I looked it up and Alaska has a population of alittle under 700,000.
Where I live, in Jacksonville, FL (not a major city) has alittle over a million people in it. That would mean my Mayor is more qualified than this lady.
-
...
wow. this is fucked. what the fuck.
-
The states are fucked up
-
it seems like the republicans are throwing this election on purpose so the democrats can get in and get the economy back on track so they can fuck it up again in the next term.
-
not at all, too many kooks are going to go along with this and mccain will win because half of america is bigots.
it fucking sucks.
-
Well, he threw me for a total loop and I'm on record as being 100000% wrong thinking that he's choose Romney, which he probably should have done. Even Biden, with his sometimes uncontrollable vocal chords, could demolish her in a debate... not to mention, Biden's got an international track record aaaaand has more Senatorial experience than McCain himself.
Going for her, she is articulate when she needs to be, she looks good (it's a plus), and she's a governor. Hell, this is the first time in ages that both Presidential nominees are from the Senate. Usually governors get it because it's already an administrative job. He could have done a lot worse (Huckabee), but she's far from the strongest candidate he could have picked.
He'll get those 12 or 20 PUMA (http://pumaparty.com/) votes for sure!
-
When Obama was running for the democratic party leader a lot of people on here said that the type of people would not vote for a black man, would also not vote for a women do you think mccain will lose any votes from this choice?
-
As partisan as the climate is right now, McCain could have tapped a bag of urine as VP and it wouldn't have lost him any votes.
If she has any effect at all, it might be based on her performance at the VP debates, but even then, the effect will probably be microscopic.
-
Expand Quote
mccain trying to get the female and boner vote, that sneaky bastard
Sorry ho, but unfortunately you picked the grossest way to attack her out of everyone in this thread. I'm not going to waste too much time educating those too stupid enough to research things for themselves, but I will give you this one little bit:
Her husband is essentially a common oil field laborer. He's also only employed seasonally. There is no "big oil" connection in her husband's job. I'd also like to point out that Joe Biden's father was an executive at American Oil Co.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
mccain trying to get the female and boner vote, that sneaky bastard
Sorry ho, but unfortunately you picked the grossest way to attack her out of everyone in this thread. I'm not going to waste too much time educating those too stupid enough to research things for themselves, but I will give you this one little bit:
Her husband is essentially a common oil field laborer. He's also only employed seasonally. There is no "big oil" connection in her husband's job. I'd also like to point out that Joe Biden's father was an executive at American Oil Co.
BP= big oil. Working for BP= big oil connection. You fucking mark.
Hopefully she will pull as many votes as Geraldine Ferraro.
Grim- I think Romney would have been the choice if the whole "it takes making $5 million a year to be better than middle class" and "I don't know how many houses" shit hadn't happened. Romney probably doesn't know how many houses he has either- it looks too elite.
It seems like John McCain just fucked himself. After Obama gives what has been reviewed as an EPIC speech, McCain comes out with this the next day? IT seems so foolish, but I don't know who this chick is- I want to see for sure.
-
There is no "big oil" connection in her husband's job.
Collecting a paycheck from big oil would be a connection. It's not a huge connection but enough to think she'd be more sympathetic to big oil than others with no connection at all.
I don't know what to think at this point. Does anyone know where she stands on social issues? Abortion/gay marriage? Where's she stand with the religious right?
-
i cannot take a aposition about her, even if i read 2 essays about her in the last minutes, but i really hope that she fails.
-
Ah, fuck! McCain cheated...
-
i tried to make myself believe this was a joke when i first heard about it, now i just think its a last act of desperation by mccain that i hope fails.
-
She is pro life (such a subjective term) and that's enough for me to say, "TOKEN" and be done.
-
She looks like Tina Fey doing a weekend update. I don't think this will work to get Hilary votes because I'm pretty sure Obama got them all last night after he finished that speech. I don't know what kind of votes this could get.
-
She looks like Tina Fey doing a weekend update. I don't think this will work to get Hilary votes because I'm pretty sure Obama got them all last night after he finished that speech. I don't know what kind of votes this could get.
We already said Boner votes. I'm trying to fend one off right now.
-
(http://www.usmagazine.com/files/palin-miss-alaska-b.jpg)
Miss Alaska Beauty pageant runner up
-
All I can say is Saturday Night Live is going to eat her alive! Her 1960 prom hairdo, black business suit and toting a rifle hahah
-
fuck it, i'd smash.
-
I wonder if this is like a 2 step play. First they get an incredibly underqualified woman to start to lure disaffected Hillary supporters. Then the press is dismissive towards her, and they scream sexism and really reignite the angry women.
-
(http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/ctrl-v/2008/08/29/bg/who-is-john-mccain.jpg) (http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/ctrl-v/2008/08/29/bg/_44970617_palin_afp226b.jpg)
(http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/ctrl-v/assets_c/2008/08/0000046862_20080228140827-thumb-350x466.jpg) (http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/ctrl-v/2008/08/29/bg/biopicroslinak7.jpg)
-
Of course it had to be a woman from Alaska.
like bonny and clyde...
get those female votes y'all!
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
mccain trying to get the female and boner vote, that sneaky bastard
Sorry ho, but unfortunately you picked the grossest way to attack her out of everyone in this thread. I'm not going to waste too much time educating those too stupid enough to research things for themselves, but I will give you this one little bit:
Her husband is essentially a common oil field laborer. He's also only employed seasonally. There is no "big oil" connection in her husband's job. I'd also like to point out that Joe Biden's father was an executive at American Oil Co.
HAHA, ridiculous. He knows it's stupid, yet he continues to try to argue. There is about as much of a connection here as there would be in trying to connect the janitor who cleans your government classroom every afternoon to the governor of California.
If you're really looking for a big oil connection in this race, Joe Biden's grandfather was an executive at American Oil Co. American Oil Co.=Big Oil. Executive=serious connection. A response, or will this little tidbit of information be conveniently ignored again?
-
My father works in a glass factory. I have no connection to that place and,actually, I despise it. So, using your own comparison, I might come to the conclusion that Biden hates big oil.
-
she's mayor of fucking alaska, of course she's connected to oil and fishing.
-
My father works in a glass factory. I have no connection to that place and,actually, I despise it. So, using your own comparison, I might come to the conclusion that Biden hates big oil.
Right. Now, using this exact same comparison, we can also come to the conclusion that McCain's vice presidential candidate also hates oil fields.
-
All I can say is Saturday Night Live is going to eat her alive! Her 1960 prom hairdo, black business suit and toting a rifle hahah
And when SNL gets funny again, there will only be one govt.
-
Expand Quote
My father works in a glass factory. I have no connection to that place and,actually, I despise it. So, using your own comparison, I might come to the conclusion that Biden hates big oil.
Right. Now, using this exact same comparison, we can also come to the conclusion that McCain's vice presidential candidate also hates oil fields.
If it weren't for her support for more drilling in Alaska, one could come to that conclusion.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/665002.html
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My father works in a glass factory. I have no connection to that place and,actually, I despise it. So, using your own comparison, I might come to the conclusion that Biden hates big oil.
Right. Now, using this exact same comparison, we can also come to the conclusion that McCain's vice presidential candidate also hates oil fields.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/665002.html
Actually, a large majority of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR, including every governor, senator, representative, and legislature for the past twenty-five years. My point is that if you are going to connect her to "big oil" based on her husband's seasonal employment as an oil field worker -- probably one of the lowest positions in "big oil," then why not make that same connection with Joe Biden? Hell, he could be lying for all we know.
-
I see your point. Biden is clearly not a supporter of big oil companies, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dfj52L9SEk&eurl
-
I see your point. Biden is clearly not a supporter of big oil companies, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dfj52L9SEk&eurl
I'm not disagreeing. I'm not even debating for or against oil drilling in Alaska. (Obviously offshore drilling will increase oil supplies more than tire pressure will.) I just think it's funny that when a Republican picks a vice president with a no-name husband who works seasonally in an oil field, it's concrete, rock solid proof of a John McCain/big oil conspiracy. I have actually heard "husband works at BP" more times today than I have heard "Sarah Palin." At the same time, when Barack Obama chooses a vice presidential candidate who's grandfather was a big oil executive, the only ones mentioning it are Ann Coulter and the Baltimore Sun. See for yourself:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=joe+biden+american+oil+co.&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=sarah+palin+husband+bp&spell=1
-
Grandfather? Biden's grandfather by my estimation has been dead a long time. It's hard for me to believe that Biden runs in his grandfather's circle of influence or collects any of his oil money. My grandfather worked at the Dupont Paint factory in Philly and I'd say there's absolutely zero connection between that and my decision making. My wife's profession on the other time, even though she only works part time influences how I see the world.
And there's no "McCain/big oil" conspiracy. McCain/Pallin aren't pushing for government oversight of big oil and want to give them more land to drill. It's on the table, there's nothing underhanded.
Pallin was a ballsy choice, I've got to respect that. McCain was able to hijack the media with his choice and Pallin might draw a lot of female support. I was listening to talk radio all day at work and a lot of women called in connecting with her and her having children with disabilities.
-
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
-
Today Palin said in an interview on NBC that she doesn't even know what a vice-president's job is exactly. This makes me question not only her ability, but also her PR skills. You just dont say shit like that when you're trying to make an impression to people that you're ready to be 2nd in command.
-
Nader/Gonzales '08
-
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
-
Nader/Gonzales '08
NOOOOO!!!!
-
you guys do realise that bitching about politics is going to get you nothing but frustrated, right?
-
NOOOOO!!!!
yessssssssss. anyone who doubts the dems (more specifically biden) should check out this transcript from NPR:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/28/ralph_nader_on_the_democrats_corporate
-
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/ak_gov_says_staffer_pressed_for_troopers_firing.php (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/ak_gov_says_staffer_pressed_for_troopers_firing.php)
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/palins_post-scandal_appointee_served_just_two_weeks.php (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/palins_post-scandal_appointee_served_just_two_weeks.php)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/19444/2791/260/579432 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/19444/2791/260/579432)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/12229/8720/501/580208 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/12229/8720/501/580208)
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-stevens-veco/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-stevens-veco/)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008146486_webpalintimes29m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008146486_webpalintimes29m.html)
-
Expand Quote
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
Stop reading the Republicans talking points, take some time and read up on Obama's policy it is well documented on his website. I will post the link for you.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)
-
Expand Quote
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
His DNC speech was pretty damn specific (lucid).
-
they're all nazis you sheep
-
FYI
This is what MoveOn.org is sending to their members:
Dear MoveOn member,
Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.
Huh?
Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.
Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.
She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.
This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.
We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:
She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK
She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK
As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK
Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one erson feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK
She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK
I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK
So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.
In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.
In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.
Thanks for all you do.
-
What exactly is wrong with drilling in Alaska and foreign oil independence?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
Stop reading the Republicans talking points, take some time and read up on Obama's policy it is well documented on his website. I will post the link for you.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)
The guys has only passed one bill in the entirety of his senate career. He has used the most tax payer money traveling than any other member of the senate. He's done nothing to warrant the approbation he's recieved. He's a great public speaker, he's running a historical campaign, and he has a crap load of charisma, but other than that he is impotent.
P.S. I'm not a Republican and I think that it is silly of you to say that while repeating the same recycled tripe his supporters are spewing out with very little thought.
-
if McCain weren't so old I'd suspect he's been giving it to her in the butt.
-
^^ Well, he's certainly been checking out the goods.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU
I mean she is some serious VPILF materal.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
Stop reading the Republicans talking points, take some time and read up on Obama's policy it is well documented on his website. I will post the link for you.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)
The guys has only passed one bill in the entirety of his senate career. He has used the most tax payer money traveling than any other member of the senate. He's done nothing to warrant the approbation he's recieved. He's a great public speaker, he's running a historical campaign, and he has a crap load of charisma, but other than that he is impotent.
P.S. I'm not a Republican and I think that it is silly of you to say that while repeating the same recycled tripe his supporters are spewing out with very little thought.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/29/us/politics/30obama.GRAPHIC.gif)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html)
So before he was in the US Senate he spent 8 years in the Illinois senate here is his record:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php)
So as I said please stop posting Republican talking points, not saying you are a Republican but what you are saying is Republican b.s.
-
Palin is currently under investigation for trying to get a state trooper who divorced her sister fired. She seems like a complete bitch.
-
On FOX news Steve Doocy explains that Palin actually does have experience in Foreign relations. ;)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IwWGS73v4_k
-
Palin is currently under investigation for trying to get a state trooper who divorced her sister fired. She seems like a complete bitch.
On page two one of the links I posted was a story about this and it has excepts from the taped phone calls.
-
Newton- you are a fucking idiot. You said "She has no link to big oil." I simply pointed out that she did, independent of who or what Joe Biden is connected to.
Palin may have done something illegal with the scandal, but she didn't fire the guy who divorced her sister. She fired the guy who wouldn't fire a state trooper who was married to her sister, was abusive towards her, and used a tazer on her 11 year old son. Can you really criticize her for it? I don't really.
What I can criticize her for is having basically no politcal experience. Most of her experience was as mayor of a town of 6,000. Basically, the mayor of the crappy suburban town I was raised in has FAR more political experience than she does. What do you decide as a mayor of a town of 6,000? What day trash day is? Do they make sure the one stop sign in town is still in tact? Certainly different than being president. Then her only big political experience is 2 years as the governor of the 47th most populous state, with a population of 670,000. Also, it is the largest in geogrphical area, meaning that it is the least densely populated, and again, you don't have to do a damn thing to govern it. Alaskans don't want to deal with government and actually stick by it- Unlike people like Newton who rally against the government all day, but will then take their scholarships because his family can't succeed enough in the free market to just send him to college, because his parents are losers. Forget foreign relations, this woman has no experience with any serious politics at all.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
Stop reading the Republicans talking points, take some time and read up on Obama's policy it is well documented on his website. I will post the link for you.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)
The guys has only passed one bill in the entirety of his senate career. He has used the most tax payer money traveling than any other member of the senate. He's done nothing to warrant the approbation he's recieved. He's a great public speaker, he's running a historical campaign, and he has a crap load of charisma, but other than that he is impotent.
P.S. I'm not a Republican and I think that it is silly of you to say that while repeating the same recycled tripe his supporters are spewing out with very little thought.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/29/us/politics/30obama.GRAPHIC.gif)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html)
So before he was in the US Senate he spent 8 years in the Illinois senate here is his record:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php)
So as I said please stop posting Republican talking points, not saying you are a Republican but what you are saying is Republican b.s.
Stop being a partisan hack. Not all dialogue can be reduced to republican or democratic propaganda. These are not Republican talking points; these are the same points used by his party when they were competing for the nomination. I'm discontinuing this conversation because life is just too god damn short.
-
Wasilla is kind of crappy.
-
What about her baby with down's syndrome? All evidence I have seen points to the kid actually being her 17 year old daughter's. Kind of ironic for someone who advocates abstinence only education
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
Stop reading the Republicans talking points, take some time and read up on Obama's policy it is well documented on his website. I will post the link for you.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)
The guys has only passed one bill in the entirety of his senate career. He has used the most tax payer money traveling than any other member of the senate. He's done nothing to warrant the approbation he's recieved. He's a great public speaker, he's running a historical campaign, and he has a crap load of charisma, but other than that he is impotent.
P.S. I'm not a Republican and I think that it is silly of you to say that while repeating the same recycled tripe his supporters are spewing out with very little thought.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/29/us/politics/30obama.GRAPHIC.gif)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html)
So before he was in the US Senate he spent 8 years in the Illinois senate here is his record:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php)
So as I said please stop posting Republican talking points, not saying you are a Republican but what you are saying is Republican b.s.
Stop being a partisan hack. Not all dialogue can be reduced to republican or democratic propaganda. These are not Republican talking points; these are the same points used by his party when they were competing for the nomination. I'm discontinuing this conversation because life is just too god damn short.
You kept saying he only passed one bill while in the senate, you didn't say US or Illinois, I showed you that in his 8 years in the Illinois senate he did a lot of good work and past a lot of bills. Now you can once again resort to name calling or you can man up and admit you are wrong, noting how must of the people act on this board you will just resort to name calling.
-
What about her baby with down's syndrome? All evidence I have seen points to the kid actually being her 17 year old daughter's. Kind of ironic for someone who advocates abstinence only education
On page two one of the stories I posted talks about this. There are no photos of her pregnant with this child, her "water broke" while in Texas and she flew back to Alaska to have the kid, having been in this situation with the water breaking (my first daughter), it is considered an emergency and no sane doctor would allow a women to fly that far and late in a pregnancy (7th months) with the water broke and the baby being premature.
-
shes pro-life and anti same sex rights, there is no way those assholes are getting my vote.
this guy rulez.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZK1ST-hcfTI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZK1ST-hcfTI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
-
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
-
i wonder how many republicans are letting out a big sigh relief that gwb and his sidekick cheney wont be showing up at the big nominating convention?
-
I don't see how some one could vote for McCain.....
-
this whole baby situation is pretty interesting.
1. she lied about it and DAMN thats going to be big.
2. she had a fucking kid 4 months ago, is she really ready to be the vice president? worst mom ever.
-
Newton- you are a fucking idiot. You said "She has no link to big oil."
HAHA, where did I say this exactly? If I'm not mistaken, all I said was that her husband being a seasonal oil field worker was not a really valid link.
It seems like you've been nothing but butt-hurt and emotional ever since I made fun of government schools, just like a scorned wife.
-
gwb and his sidekick cheney wont be showing up at the big nominating convention?
the real mark of the beast.
-
so i guess palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant. abstinence only education works!
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
its pretty bad that this election has come down to do you wanna vote for the black dude or the white dude. then the white dudes like if you vote for me your also voting for women. does no one see how horrible of a president mcCain would be?
its a good thing that obama being black is also accompanied by him being revolutionary. Every time i hear one of his speechs its as if in a couple years people will be talking about them in history class or something. dude is gonna do some good in the white house.
It's only come down to that because you are so fixated on race and sex. Some people actually vote on the issues. Also their is nothing revolutionary about Obama's politics. He doesn't even have lucid platform, he just talks about change.
Stop reading the Republicans talking points, take some time and read up on Obama's policy it is well documented on his website. I will post the link for you.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)
The guys has only passed one bill in the entirety of his senate career. He has used the most tax payer money traveling than any other member of the senate. He's done nothing to warrant the approbation he's recieved. He's a great public speaker, he's running a historical campaign, and he has a crap load of charisma, but other than that he is impotent.
P.S. I'm not a Republican and I think that it is silly of you to say that while repeating the same recycled tripe his supporters are spewing out with very little thought.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/29/us/politics/30obama.GRAPHIC.gif)
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html)
So before he was in the US Senate he spent 8 years in the Illinois senate here is his record:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php)
So as I said please stop posting Republican talking points, not saying you are a Republican but what you are saying is Republican b.s.
Stop being a partisan hack. Not all dialogue can be reduced to republican or democratic propaganda. These are not Republican talking points; these are the same points used by his party when they were competing for the nomination. I'm discontinuing this conversation because life is just too god damn short.
You kept saying he only passed one bill while in the senate, you didn't say US or Illinois, I showed you that in his 8 years in the Illinois senate he did a lot of good work and past a lot of bills. Now you can once again resort to name calling or you can man up and admit you are wrong, noting how must of the people act on this board you will just resort to name calling.
I am trying my best to sort through the bastion of stupidity that is this post. It was obvious that I was referring to the US senate because that is the senate he has only passed one bill in. That is a widely known fact. So tell me, what exactly am I incorrect about? Sort through my post and tell me which of my statements was wrong.
As for the name calling, this is coming from someone whose entire argument was insinuating that I am some stupid republican lapdog and then posting a link to Obama’s website. I also find it hilarious how you have completely ignored all of my points except for this one and the argument you posed against it was laughable at best. So I’m going to ask you one more time.
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
-
I like you Novella.
-
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/George-W-Bush.jpeg/453px-George-W-Bush.jpeg)
I like you Novella.
I like Novella also, even if I disagree with him at least he can have a decent discussion without insulting me.
-
^= (http://www.funstuffonly.com/brhs/pres_cand/images/sen-john-mccain.jpg)
We don't need another 4 years of this bullshit. US economy going in the shitter, soldiers coming home with burns down to the skull and no legs/arms.... depriving innocent Iraqi's of their family and friends. Essentially destroying an entire country.
Isn't that enough reason to vote for Obama? McCain is going to do the same thing Bush/Cheney did.
-
In case you didn't know...... Palin has a 17 year old daughter who is currently 5 months pregnant.
-
is she hot?
-
I swear I've been in NJ/Philly/NYC for the last 6 months.
-
I'd smash her just to get her pregnant for the third time
(http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_v01.jpg)
-
With a mom that conservative you know she's a little hellcat.
And I'm waiting for all the slap dudes who hate flabby arms to jump in here.
-
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/01/us/01bristol190.jpg)
I had wondered why at the VP announcement the daughter had been carrying her mother's youngest child but now I have a theory. Yeah, Mccain knew her daughter that was 5 months pregnant but today he finally decided to make it public. She may have been carrying the child to hide her pregnant belly.
(http://media.heraldonline.com/smedia/2008/09/01/16/McCain_2008_Palin_Daughter.sff.standalone.prod_affiliate.6.jpg)
-
wait, her hsuband has a fucking GOATEE??! im sorry, but theres no way that shit can be vice-presidential material...
-
How is this anymore relevant than Obama's pastor. If you really want to attack the McCain campaign personally you should point out that he failed his Navy Schooling and recieved better treatment as a POW because of his connections.
-
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
You moron. All those issues you just mentioned are peripheral issues. You know why to vote for Obama?
(http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/carville.jpg)
"Its the economy stupid!"
Look what 8 years of republican economic policy has done to this nation. A more liberal approach is needed in times like these, and of the two major candidates, Obama is the one that offers this. McCain offers more conservative economic bullshit, like special favors to the rich and powerful, that led our economy down the shitter.
Another side issue- The War in Iraq- right now, not even Bush wants to stay much longer. Its clearly wrapping up and there is no good reason to want to stay, but McCain wants it anyway.
Also, if we want to base this on judgment- Obama risked his political career to say Iraq was a mistake when it took a lot of balls to say that. He turned out to be right. Its a profile in courage. He said the right thing when it was unpopular to do so and was proven right. McCain was wrong, and made the stupid, crazy, and/or cowardly position.
What possible reason would you vote for an old man who wants to continue with policies that have led this country into ruin? Maybe you aren't, but you seem to think McCain is some sort of clear choice the way you challenge Obama voters.
And Newton- you attack me personally, I attack you personally right back. I have a whole laundry list of ways to make you look and feel like nothing but a naive little kid.
-
i'd hit her, and her pregnant daughter.
and the baby?
fuck it.
-
How is this anymore relevant than Obama's pastor. If you really want to attack the McCain campaign personally you should point out that he failed his Navy Schooling and recieved better treatment as a POW because of his connections.
Alright. Enough talk about Palin's daughter. You don't even want me to get started on McCain's daughters.
(http://johnsonphotography.net/images/Old_Ladies.jpg)
-
Stewart and Colbert talking about her
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWdzZor_c0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWdzZor_c0)
-
Expand Quote
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
Expand Quote
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
You moron. All those issues you just mentioned are peripheral issues. You know why to vote for Obama?
(http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/carville.jpg)
"Its the economy stupid!"
Look what 8 years of republican economic policy has done to this nation. A more liberal approach is needed in times like these, and of the two major candidates, Obama is the one that offers this. McCain offers more conservative economic bullshit, like special favors to the rich and powerful, that led our economy down the shitter.
Another side issue- The War in Iraq- right now, not even Bush wants to stay much longer. Its clearly wrapping up and there is no good reason to want to stay, but McCain wants it anyway.
Also, if we want to base this on judgment- Obama risked his political career to say Iraq was a mistake when it took a lot of balls to say that. He turned out to be right. Its a profile in courage. He said the right thing when it was unpopular to do so and was proven right. McCain was wrong, and made the stupid, crazy, and/or cowardly position.
What possible reason would you vote for an old man who wants to continue with policies that have led this country into ruin? Maybe you aren't, but you seem to think McCain is some sort of clear choice the way you challenge Obama voters.
And Newton- you attack me personally, I attack you personally right back. I have a whole laundry list of ways to make you look and feel like nothing but a naive little kid.
Wait. So a candidate’s complete lack of administrative experience is peripheral when he is being considered for the highest administrative office. (Something which you criticized Pallin you fucking hypocrite) A candidate’s unethical use of taxpayer’s dollars is peripheral when he is immersed in a profession that is known for corruption? A candidate’s refusal to perform his duties is a peripheral issue? Who’s the moron here exactly?
The rest of this argument is just ridiculous. Explain to me in your own words how Obama’s economic policy is good. Please highlight at any text I have typed that is indicative of supporting McCain.
-
I wish people cared so much about Canada's leaders
-
From the NYT article about this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html
At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.
Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.
But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.
With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain’s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.
“They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.”
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
Expand Quote
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
You moron. All those issues you just mentioned are peripheral issues. You know why to vote for Obama?
(http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/carville.jpg)
"Its the economy stupid!"
Look what 8 years of republican economic policy has done to this nation. A more liberal approach is needed in times like these, and of the two major candidates, Obama is the one that offers this. McCain offers more conservative economic bullshit, like special favors to the rich and powerful, that led our economy down the shitter.
Another side issue- The War in Iraq- right now, not even Bush wants to stay much longer. Its clearly wrapping up and there is no good reason to want to stay, but McCain wants it anyway.
Also, if we want to base this on judgment- Obama risked his political career to say Iraq was a mistake when it took a lot of balls to say that. He turned out to be right. Its a profile in courage. He said the right thing when it was unpopular to do so and was proven right. McCain was wrong, and made the stupid, crazy, and/or cowardly position.
What possible reason would you vote for an old man who wants to continue with policies that have led this country into ruin? Maybe you aren't, but you seem to think McCain is some sort of clear choice the way you challenge Obama voters.
And Newton- you attack me personally, I attack you personally right back. I have a whole laundry list of ways to make you look and feel like nothing but a naive little kid.
Wait. So a candidate’s complete lack of administrative experience is peripheral when he is being considered for the highest administrative office. (Something which you criticized Pallin you fucking hypocrite) A candidate’s unethical use of taxpayer’s dollars is peripheral when he is immersed in a profession that is known for corruption? A candidate’s refusal to perform his duties is a peripheral issue? Put in bold to point out the way you reframed the experience question as well as the wording of the rest of your questions Who’s the moron here exactly?
The rest of this argument is just ridiculous. Explain to me in your own words how Obama’s economic policy is good. Please highlight at any text I have typed that is indicative of supporting McCain.
I clearly wrote that it appears that you support McCain- you have defended him consistently, You are defending his choice of Palin right now and your name calling shows that what I say bothers you.* Also, you question people who support Obama as to why they do. You don't have to say in exact words "I support John McCain," to clearly be siding with him. Maybe its a devil's advocate position-- but I don't know you so I can't know that, and you are defending him. You even use Republican talking points.
As for you calling me a hypocrit. Sarah Palin has no experience in Washington D.C. Obama Does. Sarah Palin has no experience in international relations, Obama does. Sarah Palin, as governor, is responsible for less people than Barack OBama was as a STATE senator in Illinois, and has held her position for less time than he held his state positions, and has been in statewide politics for less time that Barack Obama has been in national politics. If the only experience that counts is administrative or in the executive role, then John McCain has no experience either. Obviously Senatorial experience does count, and because it does, Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin who still has never even been responsible for even a million people. So no, its not hypocritical for me to say somebody with less than two years of experience in statewide politics isn't ready for prime time while Obama is.
As far as those questions, I don't find him traveling a lot to be corrupt, he does handle a very large constituency, and has obviously been getting involved in a lot of fact finding missions recently while running for president that make him a more effective Senator and better ready to be president. Some trips, including the most recent fact finding mission to Iraq, when Maliki endorsed Obama's plan, he was challenged by McCain to go on. The fact that he hasn't made many votes or been to many meetings in the past year is pretty easy to explain- he's been kind of busy doing this thing called running for president. I can get passed your angry accusations, and bet that during high campaigning time McCain, Clinton and Obama all have missed a lot of time in the senate. Still, I can vote for Obama over that bumbling old man.
My argument is not ridiculous at all. I know its easy to refute an argument by calling it ridiculous and not giving any explaination to its flaws, but please don't do that anymore. Conservative economic policies result in what we are seeing today and what we saw in the great depression as well as the 1890's. There is a total lack of government oversight of large business right now. Every time a president comes into office that lets big business do whatever they want, the big businesses get rich off of exploitation at first, then the bottom comes crashing out. Its exactly what happened in the past year or so. Traditionally, more liberal presidents have done a far better job of reigning in big business and of making sure oversight occurs. Both Roosevelts did- even though Teddy was a republican, his domestic policies resemble what you would call a liberal. Clinton helped reign in economic problems that were starting to show themselves after Bush and Reagan left office. You could point out that often times things go too far to the left, stifling growth, and it takes a republican to reallign things. However at the current time I trust the guy who has more liberal tendencies because our current economic problems have resulted from conservative economic principals. I feel a more liberal economic policy would be a good solution, because you know, I looked back into us history and found that it tends to work that way time after time. Also, Obama's tax policy gives a better tax rate to 95% of Americans and according to independent studies that factor in the military budget, Obama's budget is tighter, and McCain's huge military budget would tip his budget into deficits. I think it counts as an answer to your "One good reason" question.
*In bold in case you challenge me on it
-
(http://i37.tinypic.com/s5v5w9.jpg)
-
(http://i37.tinypic.com/s5v5w9.jpg)
fucking fantastic
-
What exactly is wrong with drilling in Alaska and foreign oil independence?
-
Expand Quote
What exactly is wrong with drilling in Alaska and foreign oil independence?
Drilling in Alaska won't create foreign oiil independence. It would take years and a lot of money and work to be invested, and in the end, that oil won't solve all of our needs and would probably only drop oil prices by a few cents a gallon.. Also, it destroys some of the last unspoiled land in America. Its a wildlife reserve- and part of the deal with that is that you can't develop that land. So basically, it would be a slow, small fix that would permanently ruin part fo the environment. It would extend our reliance on Oil, and probably would help give more power to middle eastern Oil powers. Also, there is a huge amount of land that is reserved for oil drilling already, it seems stupid to skip that land to go for the wildlife refuge. What we need to do is focus on alternative energy sources and figuring out how to get the infrastructure for them, drill in areas that we already have approved for drilling, and ween ourselves off of oil entirely. Also, drilling in ANWR won't stop the global warming problems.
-
Expand Quote
What exactly is wrong with drilling in Alaska and foreign oil independence?
it would take around 10 years for that oil to have any effect. they would need to build more refinery's and upgrade those that already exist (most are in pretty bad shape, anyway). plus everything gipper said. finding alternatives that aren't ethanol based should be the main focus.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
What exactly is wrong with drilling in Alaska and foreign oil independence?
I agree that finding other sources of energy would be the best solution, but how far away is that from reality? Both drilling in ANWR and funding an alternative energy source in the billions are some pretty big risks. Only 8% (I realize a percentage like that still means over a million acres of land) of The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is being looked at for oil. I think if we could discipline ourselves by cutting down on driving a ton while exploring segregated parts of ANWR and drilling offshore with limitations, but at the same time testing alternative energy sources we could break our ties with foreign oil and oil all together. I also realize there may not be as much oil as anticipated, and we could have another Iraq-esque situation to deal with. That's why there should be strict limitations.
I wish Nikla Tesla was around today, he could fix all of this garbage.
-
i highly recommend listening to this program about oil from npr
http://www.whyy.org/rameta/RT/2008/RT20080721_20.ram
-
I hope that the us just doesn't claim that Canada has weapons of WMD after Iraq is done
-
i highly recommend listening to this program about oil from npr
http://www.whyy.org/rameta/RT/2008/RT20080721_20.ram
would you happen to have that in another format?
my shitty windows 2000 computer doesn't support realplayer.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg)
From another message board Ah, the beauty of raw feeds and hot mics. Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and former McCain adviser Mike Murphy let slip how they really feel about Palin (starts about 20 seconds in):
-
i highly recommend listening to this program about oil from npr
http://www.whyy.org/rameta/RT/2008/RT20080721_20.ram
hopefully this is the story where they talk about the price of oil compared to the real value of money (adjusted for inflation). in that piece they talk about how before the price of oil started going up after we invaded Iraq, the price of oil was equivalent to what it had be in something like 1913. basically, oil was long over due for an increase in price as a commodity.
on the other hand, it's long over due on obsolescence for a lot of it's uses if you take into account things like the environment and cost. the bright side of this oil crisis is that it's giving us a second chance to learn our lessons that we should have learned after the oil crisis in the 70s. how does it make sense as a nation for us to be shipping all our money overseas, making other nations rich to sustain one industry in our nation at the expense of other emerging industries that could be based on technology's that use industry's that we are currently subsidizing, namely farming. These new industries would make us a world leader in newer, cheaper, cleaner sources of energy's and the main provider of the resource that this technology uses. Imagine how much money OPEC will get from China alone in the next 50 years; why not get a piece of that while at the same time pulling our on piece out of their pie?
ethanol bitches, that's where it's at. Obama's down with it and here's an article with a Texas Oil billionaire who discusses why we should move away from oil and too ethanol: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html?page=0%2C2 (note: if we made the switch this fool would be one of the biggest players in ethanol and Obama also has ties but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.)
-
it mainly talks about why drilling offshore and in alaska will not create any more independence, but a number of other things are discussed, too.
ethanol is pretty awful. it's production is energy intensive, it damages engines in older cars and crops that should be used for food are instead used to create ethanol because farmers can make more money selling it for fuel.
-
arent agricultural exports (rice, corn, wheat, and soya for food) one of the only things that helps keep america's balance of trade borderline respectable? if that all gets used for oil substitution, what would happen to food prices?
a friend recently argued that today's americans are more dependent on corn than the aztecs or mayans were. time to start worshipping the sun gods!
-
I've been too busy to post for a while but holy shit I cannot BELIEVE that they picked this woman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiOIEGM7XEs
-
arent agricultural exports (rice, corn, wheat, and soya for food) one of the only things that helps keep america's balance of trade borderline respectable? if that all gets used for oil substitution, what would happen to food prices?
a friend recently argued that today's americans are more dependent on corn than the aztecs or mayans were. time to start worshipping the sun gods!
i'd love to see some data backing that but i seriously doubt it. otherwise why would we need to subsidize the farming industry so heavily and why wouldn't more people be getting into farming? if the demand was as you describe it, it'd be a self-sustained industry that would be rapidly growing and not need bailouts.
anyone remember farm aid?
(http://blogs.timesunion.com/tablehopping/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/farm-aid-logo.gif)
that's not the kind of thing that happens in a highly demanded commodity market.
ethanol is pretty awful. it's production is energy intensive,
could be bad, but "energy intensive" is relative. got any data to back that?
it damages engines in older cars
i'm pretty sure most alternatives would require completely new vehicles and also there's "bad" for middle income or lower consumers in the short term and then good for everyone in the long term. if switching to ethanol meant a huge savings in fuel expense and the cars that run well are mainly made in the USA, is that bad? not too me. i'd buy a new car that's save me 200 a month in gas and revitalize american auto making and farming at the same time.
and crops that should be used for food are instead used to create ethanol because farmers can make more money selling it for fuel.
who says they should be used for food? who said we couldn't match the production? and how is farmers making more money a bad deal? also, organic is good for food but probably not an issue for ethanol. so who's to say we couldn't industrialize it with hydroponic technology? and how's anyone not back the dro?
-
Expand Quote
ethanol is pretty awful. it's production is energy intensive,
it's everywhere. one of the first hits in google:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/ethanol042005.cfm
Making ethanol from corn uses up to six times more energy than it produces because of all of the fossil fuel required, according to Tad Patzek, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. "It destroys an ecosystem that could sustain itself, but now cannot do so," he said.
Patzek said that Brazil, which relies heavily on ethanol produced from industrially grown sugar cane, is rapidly depleting its soil.
-
Hydrogen. IMO.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/19/zimbabwe.inflation/index.html
And apparently bio fuel caused that^^^^
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
ethanol is pretty awful. it's production is energy intensive,
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/ethanol042005.cfm
Making ethanol from corn uses up to six times more energy than it produces because of all of the fossil fuel required, according to Tad Patzek, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. "It destroys an ecosystem that could sustain itself, but now cannot do so," he said.
Patzek said that Brazil, which relies heavily on ethanol produced from industrially grown sugar cane, is rapidly depleting its soil.
but corn's only one source, sugar cane or cellulosic crops such as switchgrass produce good ratios. switchgrass also wouldn't suffer from the "but it's food angle". and if farmers can still make more money off corn, cool. doesn't really matter where it comes from, as long as it's home grown.
It is disputed whether corn ethanol as an automotive fuel results in a net energy gain or loss. As reported in "The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update,"[48] the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn in the U.S. is 1.34 (it yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it). Input energy includes natural gas based fertilizers, farm equipment, transformation from corn or other materials, and transportation. However, other researchers report that the production of ethanol consumes more energy than it yields.[49][50] In comparison, sugar cane ethanol EROEI is at around 8 (it yields 8 joules for each joule used to produce it).[citation needed] Recent research suggests that cellulosic crops such as switchgrass provide a much better net energy production than corn, producing over five times as much energy as the total used to produce the crop and convert it to fuel.[51] If this research is confirmed, cellulosic crops will most likely displace corn as the main fuel crop for producing bioethanol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Food_versus_fuel_debate
so assuming that it'd mainly be switchgrass and that we'd have too buy a newer vehicle too benifit from the newer fuel (both reasonable assumptions), do you still see compelling arguements against it? surely it's not horrible, especially compared to oil which that oil billionare i linked too above projected would be 6-8 bucks a gallon in 5 years.
-
Hydrogen. IMO.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/19/zimbabwe.inflation/index.html
And apparently bio fuel caused that^^^^
and hydrogen doesn't provide as much of an economic side effect verticle industires as ethanol would. also if food prices soar, then farmers all over the world will start growing more as it will create more demand so i think it would stabalize even if ethanol did cause inflation at first.
"Electric cars—and plug-in hybrid cars—have an enormous advantage over hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in utilizing low-carbon electricity. That is because of the inherent inefficiency of the entire hydrogen fueling process, from generating the hydrogen with that electricity to transporting this diffuse gas long distances, getting the hydrogen in the car, and then running it through a fuel cell—all for the purpose of converting the hydrogen back into electricity to drive the same exact electric motor you'll find in an electric car
i'd vote electric over hydrogen. the only down side to electric seems to be the chore of having too plug in each night. and if you did run out of charge, then what? just stuck?
-
Ethanol is a terrible idea.
Hydrogen or electric could easily happen, people gotta demand it, and stop buying SUVs, and gas if they want prices to come down temporarily.
Drilling and fucking up the earth everywhere will not result in any new fuel for 10 years.
I CANT STOP WATCHING THIS CLIP
HOW COULD THEY PICK THIS WOMAN?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiOIEGM7XEs
-
so assuming that it'd mainly be switchgrass and that we'd have too buy a newer vehicle too benifit from the newer fuel (both reasonable assumptions), do you still see compelling arguements against it? surely it's not horrible, especially compared to oil which that oil billionare i linked too above projected would be 6-8 bucks a gallon in 5 years.
it just means that soil will be stripped of nutrients and more land cleared for crops, no matter what they are.
electric is only good when used in tandem with a fuel system.
-
The thing about electric though, is that you still gotta get that energy from somewhere, do you plug into an electrical grid with clean power? Maybe, maybe not.
I know ethanol is very costly in terms of how much corn is needed, but what would happen if we dropped farm subsidies and told them all to grow us some corn!
-
ethanol is the dumbest shit ever the production uses more fuel than it produces
it's a scam, very similar to farm subsidies
regular on many levels
lets get off of oil,
AND not be regular.
-
Hemp would be a great crop to grow for fuel. *
*Ironically this is my 420 post :)
-
She's not down with skateboarders. So any skater that votes for McCain is a traitor.
-
I normally don't get into internet politics arguments, because I already know who im voting for, but since Palin got involved, it took a new personal level for me. I used to work for the Defenders of Wildlife. I used to be trained to curse her name every chance I got, because she pays money for people killing wolves. This is a total democrat "the world is perfect" viewpoint. Those people I worked for never realized that those wolves are fucking abundant. So people like to hunt, so what. She has no less experience than anyone just because she governs a small amount of people. A state is a state. And even if I wasn't already voting for McCain, I'd vote for him to cancel out the crack smoking shitheads next door.
-
She has no less experience than anyone just because she governs a small amount of people.
The number obviously does make a difference, it relates to the size of the economy, the state's budget and the scope of the issues facing the state. The Mayor of Chicago has bigger responsibilities than the Governor of Alaska. Why? Because Chicago is bigger and deals with more problems. And yes, she has less experience than everybody on every ticket, regardless of whether the state was Alaska or California, she would still have the least amount of experience in government. he fact that her tiny amount of experience is in the least densely populated state just makes her tiny amount of experience even more laughable.
Why are you voting for her? Just to spite coworkers? Crackheads usually don't vote btw. But really? You would be down with our economy continuing to crumble, for us to get into more debt by staying in Iraq, and with not hunting down Osama in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border just because you like that she is down for killing wolves? This is the problem with American politics. Dumbass dipshits voted for Bush because they could have a beer with him, now dumbass dipshits are going to vote for McCain because they like killing wolves. The republican party tricks people into paying attention to dumb shit, and they vote about non-issues. The world hates America for a reason.
Expand Quote
Hemp would be a great crop to grow for fuel. *
* Ironically this is my 420 post :)
You need to look up irony in the dictionary before you open your stupid fucking mouth.
That was kind of unnecessarily harsh...
-
The thing about electric though, is that you still gotta get that energy from somewhere, do you plug into an electrical grid with clean power? Maybe, maybe not.
I know ethanol is very costly in terms of how much corn is needed, but what would happen if we dropped farm subsidies and told them all to grow us some corn!
the truth, except you can also make ethanol out of sugar cane and switchgrass which both have good energy in too energy out ratio's so the corn arguments (bad ratio and food for energy) are both moot points.
ethanol is the dumbest shit ever the production uses more fuel than it produces
it's a scam, very similar to farm subsidies
regular on many levels
lets get off of oil,
AND not be regular.
please elaborate how using switch grass or sugar cane too produce ethanol is regular. i know you got a good arguement there, put it up.
-
Disregard my comments, I was talking about ethanol in terms of corn production, which seems to be the direction people are pushing in-which is a horrible idea.
Ethanol production involving switchgrass or sugarcane is something I don't know much about.
-
PUMA's react to Palin's speech. (http://blog.pumapac.org/2008/09/03/live-blogging-sarah-palin/#comments)
seems so next -door neighborly, very down-to-earth, but quite composed and at ease…
i’m doing a happy dance right now…pretending it is SOB’s Political Grave…
She’s a POWER HOUSE and can hold her own…Biden better keep drinking so he can sleep through his thrasing…
WHOOP there it is just told off MSm!
oooo…she is obviously a student of hillary…spicy…a fighter..articulate and all around wonderful!!!!!!
I am laughing my ass off. I can’t help it. What were the Dems thinking by dissing HC? The Clintons handed them the presidency on a silver platter and they said NO. Oh well.
Glass ceiling ? Sara palin isn’t going to shatter it - she’s gonna shoot it like it’s a f***n MOOSE !
LET EM’HAVE IT SARAH!!!!!!!
I think Sarah is a SMART, ARTICULATE, EXPERIENCED, showing she is TOUGH and what a BEAUTIFUL Mom!!!
I feel, for me my father gives amazing blowjobs, American will be safer with McCain~ I know I won’t be afraid to sleep at night & that we won’t be sold out!
There it is folks she is no dummy she went straight after BO she knows he may not be the one saying things about her and her family but as we all know he has his minions do it and he sits back and watching. Don’t mess with her family Barrack.
i absolutely LOVE HILLARY!!!!! and I cant wait to see her in 2012! right now we have to focuse on getting cupcaked off a cliff! and what better way than to have another woman Palin give him the final kick he deserves!
Compare Sarah’s warm face and poise with BO’s hard-set angry-mask-like face during his speech last week.
she is hitting him with everything hillary couldn’t.
he thought he brushed them bitches off his shoulders.
guess not.
I'm a faggoth…i love my female pitbulls!!!!!! hillary number one pitbull! and palin number 2!!!! can u imagine if they both joined forces….? yikes!!!!!!!!!
btw…no offense…im a pitbull myself…I'm a faggoth!
Beat up on barack night………
she brought him to his knees… but not in a mean way… just told the truth.
All men on PBS discussing Palin.
man, they will never get it.
Black commentator saying teh speech was designed to appeal to white women voters. Jesus…it’s enouygh already with superficial arguesments based on complexion. christalmighty.
What is your problem? Don’t you realize that Sarah Palin can help pave the way for Hillary to have an easier go at it in 2012? If she is a competent and strong leader, as she seems to be, Hillary can only benefit from it when she runs again.
Of course, she could very well be facing Palin. That would be a hell of a campaign.
I know she is a Republican, but I have to give credit where it is due. She was incredible. An advocate for special needs children…that means a lot to me. She skewered Barack for his bombastic speechifying and grandstanding…and did very little finger pointing, unlike Barack who points so much my shoulder has sympathetic pains. Barack may be eloquent for the elite, but she has more eloquence and poise in her pointer finger, than Barack has studiously created for himself.
she was freakin awesum
the party elite should be shittin their pants now
they definitly have my vote
stick it to the dnc for screwing us !!!!
i bet the pelosi dean and brazile nut wish they nominated hillary now
I cannot wait for the VP debate now. She’s gonna destroy O’Biden. He’ll start stuttering and say some terrible offensive gaffe then he’ll lose his mind and start chanting Barack America, uh, yes we can’t?
I love this woman! She tore Obama apart with a smile! Can’t wait til she is up against Biden she will tear him apart. Got Obama Camp running scared way to go Sarah!
Hillary 2012
Sarah Palin was a total success! I hope Hillary does not come out to try to get me to vote for the Zero. Somehow I think she will not. And even though I don’t agree with many of Palin’s positions, I admire her character enormously, and I trust she will not sell out the country, say, to the Saudis. If Hillary were running, she would get my vote. And because I am against sexism in the media, I will vote for Sarah Palin, so that the good-old-boys will never call a woman “shrill” again.
I heard that she did not use a teleprompter. She spoke from her heart. She had some notes to give her topics so she did not miss things. She is a good speaker.
There also were some males asking who wrote her speech implying they would destroy her without a speech writer. But it was coming from her apparently.
I think she will win the debates. Obama would have a hard time with her. Joe Biden does not have a chance. I can hardly wait to see her crush Biden.
-
to continue what i was saying before i went to bed. the energy in energy out issue with ethanol isn't the only one.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119621238761706021.html?mod=hps_us_pageone
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/01/23/more-bad-news-for-ethanol/
-
Why the media should apologize LOL:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html
-
Disregard my comments, I was talking about ethanol in terms of corn production, which seems to be the direction people are pushing in-which is a horrible idea.
Ethanol production involving switchgrass or sugarcane is something I don't know much about.
Obama is going to of course not be against corn production as his state is a corn producing state but making ethanol doesn't seem like it has too be all or none and as I've pionted out, there are much better ways than corn of doing this. If a farmer can still turn a better buck on corn though as an outcome of this, I say good on em.
I normally don't get into internet politics arguments, because I already know who im voting for, but since Palin got involved, it took a new personal level for me. I used to work for the Defenders of Wildlife. I used to be trained to curse her name every chance I got, because she pays money for people killing wolves. This is a total democrat "the world is perfect" viewpoint. Those people I worked for never realized that those wolves are fucking abundant. So people like to hunt, so what. She has no less experience than anyone just because she governs a small amount of people. A state is a state. And even if I wasn't already voting for McCain, I'd vote for him to cancel out the crack smoking shitheads next door.
i find this post really sad and this is in no way an attack on you but just seeing the reality of the team sport politics in america always kind of bums me out. i know sports are fun, i know cheering for your team is fun, i know debating politics and critical thinking about issues isn't that much fun, but god damn, please give it a try.
she was obviously not selected for her credentials and was selected to pander to rednecks, pro lifers, women, evangelicals, hilary's base, etc... it's a shallow and shitty move that just makes me feel the republicans are making more of a mockery of the system than they have in the last 8 years (and i'm not republican basher, i voted for both bush on his first term). do you really think that anyone that lives outside of this country takes her appointment serious? do you really think they'd take her serious in the event of Mccain killing over? do you think she could assemble a crowd of 200,000 in berlin and deliver an inspiring, historic speach? do you think the rest of the world will take us serious after fucking up so bad the last 8 years, having a real candidate as an option but then letting team sports win out again and electing a party puppet with furniture comercial steez and some redneck bimbo who doesn't even know what a VP is?
and what makes you think that crackheads vote and why do you think they'd be democrats?
and why are you so happy with the policy's of the last 8 years? what's one thing that's gone right? it's cleary time for a new approach and the republicans just aren't putting one on the table. they are actually putting a worst choice than bush, at least he can half ass give a speach. if the dems had run shit into the ground this bad, i'd vote republican in a heartbeat. who cares what party it is, they both give away the t-shirts and stickers.
come on man, take some more pride in our freedoms than that...
-
I haven't been genuinely surprised by anything in American politics in years, but choosing such a supremely, unqualified woman, who confessed recently that "she doesn't even know what VP does," is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen.
I have to assume there is some Karl Rove genius here that I'm missing, something like "well if pick her, then when Biden destroys her in the debates women and others will feel sorry for her and like he's attacking her( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html ).
Not to mention all the scandals:
-Wooten
-Alaska Milk (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/3/9330/95523/364/584429)
-Pregnancy
And that video of her as a sportscaster is probably the best thing i've ever seen.
I've watched it at least 30 times now.
-
And even if I wasn't already voting for McCain, I'd vote for him to cancel out the crack smoking shitheads next door.
...damn
-
I agree completely Sleazy: Palin for VP is a crass, manipulative choice that shows how hollow this campaign is.
how the fuck they going to compare Obama to Britney and then put this chic up as VP?
-
Fact checking Palin's speech:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php
-
I've been too busy to post for a while but holy shit I cannot BELIEVE that they picked this woman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiOIEGM7XEs
"winnipeg's killin' toronto, seven to three..."
-
Fact checking Palin's speech:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php
Yeah, she doesn't seem ready for primetime at all. The bridge to nowhere thing has already been exposed, but she still proudly brought it up. Also, despite what she says, I feel like a community organizer in Chicago does way more than the mayor of some tiny backwater town in Alaska. This woman is used to local politics with an ignorant base- most Americans are more perceptive than she gives them credit for..
Also, if you don't want the fact that your daughter got knocked up to be a campaign issue, is it fair to brag about the rest of your kids? She said "Track" is about to ship off to Iraq and she couldn't be prouder. She isn't talking about the fact that while she pushes abstinence only sex education her daughter is a fucking cum dumpster. Whenever it is mentioned people say to leave her children out of this.
Oh, and since people seem to be affected by stupid shit like this- did anybody else find her squeeky ass voice and stupid accent unbearable? I figure that is why she never made it to Sportscenter.
And Nick, those puma posts are ridiculous. These people are going to put women's rights back 50 years. Still though, I think PUMAs for the most part are Republican plants trying to convince actual Hillary supporters that its ok to vote McCain. I think real Hillary supporters know Clinton isn't done for good, but that her base going to the right would end her career.
-
Expand Quote
Hemp would be a great crop to grow for fuel. *
* Ironically this is my 420 post :)
You need to look up irony in the dictionary before you open your stupid fucking mouth.
blah blah blah blah sorry I made a mistake, sue me you fucking piece of shit.
-
I feel like a community organizer in Chicago does way more than the mayor of some tiny backwater town in Alaska. This woman is used to local politics with an ignorant base
?!
so is a community organizer in a truly important city like los angeles or new york even more important than the mayor of a backwater like chicago?
-
I normally don't get into internet politics arguments, because I already know who im voting for, but since Palin got involved, it took a new personal level for me. I used to work for the Defenders of Wildlife. I used to be trained to curse her name every chance I got, because she pays money for people killing wolves. This is a total democrat "the world is perfect" viewpoint. Those people I worked for never realized that those wolves are fucking abundant. So people like to hunt, so what. She has no less experience than anyone just because she governs a small amount of people. A state is a state. And even if I wasn't already voting for McCain, I'd vote for him to cancel out the crack smoking shitheads next door.
Anyone who hunts from a fucking helicopter is a fucking piece of shit. The people of Alaska have voted twice to make this kind of hunting illegal. And anyone voting for Mcsame is a fucking traitor to the USA!
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hemp would be a great crop to grow for fuel. *
* Ironically this is my 420 post :)
You need to look up irony in the dictionary before you open your stupid fucking mouth.
blah blah blah blah sorry I made a mistake, sue me you fucking piece of shit.
"an incongruity between what is said and what is meant; or between an understanding of reality, or an expectation of a reality, and what actually happens."
i think it qualifies as irony because most would feel a bit of suprise when seeing that their post about weed is their 420th post.
i think people are way too trigger happy about calling out irony after "isn't it ironic" got such a huge backlash.
-
Yeah, she doesn't seem ready for primetime at all. The bridge to nowhere thing has already been exposed, but she still proudly brought it up. Also, despite what she says, I feel like a community organizer in Chicago does way more than the mayor of some tiny backwater town in Alaska. This woman is used to local politics with an ignorant base- most Americans are more perceptive than she gives them credit for..
By all accounts shes the worst person imaginable. Manipulative, inexperienced, ignorant, and another empty suit that holds others to standards she refuses to apply to herself. HOW IN 2008 CAN SOMEONE WHO PUSHED FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BE ALLOWED TO GET UP AND SAY "I SAID NO! TO THAT BRIDGE!"
Oh, and since people seem to be affected by stupid shit like this- did anybody else find her squeeky ass voice and stupid accent unbearable? I figure that is why she never made it to Sportscenter.
Yeah, I half expected her to stop mid-speech and investigate Jerry Lundegaard.
And Nick, those puma posts are ridiculous. These people are going to put women's rights back 50 years. Still though, I think PUMAs for the most part are Republican plants trying to convince actual Hillary supporters that its ok to vote McCain. I think real Hillary supporters know Clinton isn't done for good, but that her base going to the right would end her career.
Yeah, I think some of it is(check out the Fox news interview with the woman who did the Hillary supporters for Mccain ad-she admitts the republican party financed her trip to the DNC). I think the repiglicans are hoping it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hemp would be a great crop to grow for fuel. *
* Ironically this is my 420 post :)
You need to look up irony in the dictionary before you open your stupid fucking mouth.
blah blah blah blah sorry I made a mistake, sue me you fucking piece of shit.
"an incongruity between what is said and what is meant; or between an understanding of reality, or an expectation of a reality, and what actually happens."
i think it qualifies as irony because most would feel a bit of suprise when seeing that their post about weed is their 420th post.
i think people are way too trigger happy about calling out irony after "isn't it ironic" got such a huge backlash.
thanks
-
"Irony" is probably the most misused word. I blame Alanis Morissette.
-
you guys are ruining the thread! ::)
-
Did anyone else see the signs that people where holding at the RNC that said "country first?" That is one of the first rules of fascism, scary times we live in.
-
you guys are ruining the thread! ::)
isn't it ironic?
-
Expand Quote
I feel like a community organizer in Chicago does way more than the mayor of some tiny backwater town in Alaska. This woman is used to local politics with an ignorant base
?!
so is a community organizer in a truly important city like los angeles or new york even more important than the mayor of a backwater like chicago?
Even when comparing it to New York and LA, Chicago still isn't a backwater town. The city has comparable problems to those two cities, as well as similar influence in the world. Chicago is the home to the most not for profit organizations in America. More than LA, more than New York. To imply that because LA is a little bigger and has more exposure on tv than Chicago doesn't put it in another league. We are comparing a fortune 500 company to a corner liquor store here. Is it better to be in charge of the liquor store, or to be an influential voice in the fortune 500 company? Chicago is LITERALLY 500 times the size of the small town she was mayor of (population of a city of 3,000,000/ population of a city of 6000= 500). What issues do you face as the mayor of a town that small? Basically none. Make sure the stoplight still works and that the one police officer gets paid on time. A community organizer needs to recognize some real problems, crime, violence, oppression, widespread unemployment, problems with the schools and more, and needs to organize and work with way more people. Your metaphor just doesn't work.
I stand by my word. More responsibility as a community organizer in the third biggest city in America than as the mayor of a small town. OF course it goes without saying that being the Illinois state senator from Hyde Park has way more responsibilities than the mayor of a tiny town. Obviously, Senator too. It might be important to note that despite Obama being in the Senate longer than Palin was governor- he still hasn't been investigated on an ethics violation- Palin is teetering on being impeached.
Hey Dagger- you seem to be actually pretty indpendent- you've talked shit on both sides. You know who your going to support?
Did anyone else see the signs that people where holding at the RNC that said "country first?" That is one of the first rules of fascism, scary times we live in.
I think its just classic republican motto. They think pride in America is more important than recognizing and fixing its problems
-
you guys are ruining the thread! ::)
It's like rain on your wedding day
-
Did anyone else see the signs that people where holding at the RNC that said "country first?" That is one of the first rules of fascism, scary times we live in.
I think its just classic republican motto. They think pride in America is more important than recognizing and fixing its problems
Yeah I know but it still scares me.
-
Shes' good at speling to.
(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff19/briden108/1220532172362.jpg)
-
*prays for nudes. please god let there be nudes!*
-
*prays for nudes. please god let there be nudes!*
or better yet a sex tape
-
Shes' good at speling to.
(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff19/briden108/1220532172362.jpg)
is that really her? it seems to me that everyone who was a young adult in the 80's has aged in a positive manner..
-
hahahahaha
Two conservative commentators on MSNBC, after they're off the air, say what they really think about the veep choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg
and then Stewart putting it too Carl Rove, this clip is amazing
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html
-
Shes' good at speling to.
(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff19/briden108/1220532172362.jpg)
thank you.... new desktop background at work.
-
hahahahaha
Expand Quote
Two conservative commentators on MSNBC, after they're off the air, say what they really think about the veep choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg
and then Stewart putting it to Carl Rove, this clip is amazing
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html
fixed
Don't mean to be all nit picky and grammar naziish, but I've seen you do it too many times.
-
Rumor has it she had an affair with her husbands business partner.
-
Rumor has it she had an affair with her husbands business partner.
Not one, but TWO baseless accusations now coming from the left.
-
Expand Quote
Rumor has it she had an affair with her husbands business partner.
Not one, but TWO baseless accusations now coming from the left.
Funny that this is coming from the same people who exposed Edwards affair. ;D
-
Anyone seen this long expose from one of her hometown peers?
The lady was around her for years, challenging doubters to google her name for proof:
I have long believed in the importance of being an informed
voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting
programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska)
you will find references to my participation in local government,
education, and PTA/parent organizations.
She's also mentioned in this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?hp
What follows is an exhaustive account by Anne Kilkenny, an actively involved resident of Sarah Palin's hometown. She has first-hand knowledge that utterly contradicts the version of Palin that's being sold by the Republicans. While I can't corroborate the piece's accuracy, Kilkenny cites specifics and seems to me very credible. This is terrifying stuff, particularly since Palin's gender, public persona, faith, and 'family values' are energizing a large sector of the electorate.
Circulating this kind of thing tends simply to inspire fear and rage in like-minded people (i.e. just more preaching to the choir), but this is so passionate and detailed that I'm sending it out broadly, hoping for a ripple effect - a wake-up call to all of us to be as active in this presidential campaign as we are able. Not that I wasn't already worried about McCain, but this Veep pick makes it even more desperately important that Obama wins the election.
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the
last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .
Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common:
their gender and their good looks. :)
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts
with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on
any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .
Thanks, Anne
ABOUT SARAH PALIN
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992.
Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a
first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her
father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first
name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City
Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the
residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl
in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote
for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a
"babe".
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She
kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents
for seven months.
She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby.
There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out
there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a
champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly
sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work
schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in
summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major
source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of
native Alaskans.
Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
She's smart.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000
(at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about
670,000 residents.
During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running
this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed
to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten
herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise
to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6
years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over
33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City
increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002).
She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales
tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited
large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration
weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed
money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it
with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage
the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said
she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new
library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use
sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property
that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in
litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The
sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge
money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also
supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in
5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office
redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.
As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus
in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make
us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed
distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she
recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she
proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus,
borrow for needs.
She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas
or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her
or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis
of who proposed them.
While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected
City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from
the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied
to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at
out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her
termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian
are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for
Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin
fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as
Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people,
creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally
grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power
to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the
case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated"
her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top
cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and
she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an
important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't
fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for
abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts
were made between her staff and family to the person that she later
fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to
replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded
for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her
support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in
help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town
introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council
became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She
abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like
the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got
the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one
of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no
background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job
which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high
salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured
hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission
(who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in
unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly
cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems
in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of
media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter
against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this
man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from
Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics
and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere"
after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget
guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing
projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative
action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply
because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant
she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork".
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party
leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated
them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a
fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They
call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and
predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories
circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point
guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a
highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran
for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package
of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to
the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global
warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state
initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from
pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the
state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State's
lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears
as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a
heartbeat away from being President.
There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
knowledgeable and experienced than she.
However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are
regretting it.
CLAIM VS FACT *
* "Hockey mom": true for a few years
* "PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary
school, not since
* "NRA supporter": absolutely true
* social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill
that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships
(said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
* pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to
promote it.
* "Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT
declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life
legislation
* "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has
residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No
legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on
supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city
administrator to run town of about 5,000.
* political maverick: not at all
* gutsy: absolutely!
* open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at
explaining actions.
* has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
* "a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and
disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
* fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
* pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city
without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets
to early 20th century standards.
* pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on
residents
* pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city
government in Wasilla's history.
* pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't
make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is
pro-labor/pro-union.
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed
voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting
programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska),
you will find references to my participation in local government,
education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen
when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because
few have gone to as many City Council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of.
I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool;
she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me
somehow in the future: that's life.
Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100
or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's
attempt at censorship.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to
say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in
spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor)
from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of
Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust
for inflation? for population increases?
Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of
City Hall -- they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.
You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the
population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The
day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the
current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was
5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to
2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.
Anne Kilkenny
[email protected]
August 31, 2008
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Rumor has it she had an affair with her husbands business partner.
Not one, but TWO baseless accusations now coming from the left.
Funny that this is coming from the same people who exposed Edwards affair. ;D
Funnier than that is that it's a goddamned tabloid.
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee270/celebritybodygossip/CelebrityBodyGossip/olsen-twins-national-enquirer-cover.jpg)
Look at this! Obama wants to destroy all white people!
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Rumor has it she had an affair with her husbands business partner.
Not one, but TWO baseless accusations now coming from the left.
Funny that this is coming from the same people who exposed Edwards affair. ;D
Funnier than that is that it's a goddamned tabloid.
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee270/celebritybodygossip/CelebrityBodyGossip/olsen-twins-national-enquirer-cover.jpg)
Look at this! Obama wants to destroy all white people!
They where not wrong about Edward's affair..... and they are not "the left"
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Rumor has it she had an affair with her husbands business partner.
Not one, but TWO baseless accusations now coming from the left.
Funny that this is coming from the same people who exposed Edwards affair. ;D
Funnier than that is that it's a goddamned tabloid.
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee270/celebritybodygossip/CelebrityBodyGossip/olsen-twins-national-enquirer-cover.jpg)
Look at this! Obama wants to destroy all white people!
I was going to use something like this- the cute secret muslim terrorist Obama rumor- as an example of the fact that stupid unsubstantiated rumors come from both sides equally.
-
Actually, the right probably does it more.
That letter might be legit too, I was just looking at the Obama campaign rebuttal which talks about a lot of the stuff in there, the sports complex, the city going into major deficits, and more. Check it out:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php
-
Expand Quote
hahahahaha
Expand Quote
Two conservative commentators on MSNBC, after they're off the air, say what they really think about the veep choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg
and then Stewart putting it to Carl Rove, this clip is amazing
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html
Don't mean to be all nit picky and grammar naziish, but I've seen you do it too many times.
grammer's definitely my weakest area of study so thanks for that. i had always thought it was supposed to be used for transitions but apparently it's for "also" or "in excess"
-
The divorce records of Palin's husband's friend, who the National Enquirer alleges Palin had an affair with. Note recent developments.
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?68762762
-
In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."
-
I wonder if they even vetted her. I worry that they did.
-
Expand Quote
In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."
what the fuck...this is 2008 isn't it?
-
Goddamnit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAA_xw4v1nM
-
be tighter if they streaked
-
Goddamnit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAA_xw4v1nM
They sure showed him!
What did they hope would happen from doing that?
All that resulted was him giving a clever off the cuff remark.
-
oops
the god damnit was meant for this, mccain's advisors(wisely) arent allowing er to do any interviews with tough questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhgUvX_8Joo&feature=related
she really is a fucking idiot
-
did that bitch even watch the speach?
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL
McCain's best speech.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCJPVyMHLa8&feature=related
code pink is like the westboro baptist church of the left.
-
They where not wrong about Edward's affair..... and they are not "the left"
I was talking about YOU. You are the left, and you are propagating a stupid, baseless rumor from a trash tabloid. A paper being correct about one thing does not make it a legitimate news source, and until someone with some credibility reports it, that's what I will assume that it is: trash. You probably consider me to be a member of the "right." The right is the one cooking up an equal amount or more lies? You won't find instance of me making such a baseless claim, no matter how far back you go in my posts.
What I am noticing is that there have been endless lies, distortions, and misstatements cooked up about Sarah Palin, but none that I can think of about Joe Biden. She tried to fire a state trooper that tasered a 10 year old kid. This is the huge scandal surrounding her, LOL. Oh, and her husband got a DUI in 1986. Kind of funny that this is a big deal considering the fact that Barack Obama has admitted to felony drug use.
-
Look Newton, Palin is running for vice president, and it's not an attack to simply ask what her history is and to look at the facts..you know just like we do for every other candidate.
Here are some things that we know so far:
-She campaigns and repeatidly mentions "saying no" to the bridge to nowhere and other pork barrell projects, all of which she actually supported for years.
-She constantly mentions her family to further her campaign, but asking questions, like why would someone campaign saying that she understands the needs of special needs children better when she cut funding by 60% in her state?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1aRWM2xbhg
-She claims to be a feminist for life, whose central goal is to make it easier for young mothers to not choose abortion. So what does she do in her state? She cuts funding for houses that specifically helped those kinds of mothers, for girls in similar situations as her own daughter, without the money.
-She admitted two months ago TO NOT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE JOB OF THE VICE PRESIDENT ENTAILS. And Mccain's campaign refuses to let her do almost any interview indicates that this woman really doesn't know much, and is gonna get destroyed by Biden in the debates.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/no-questions-palin-wont-t_n_124256.html
Palin Will Not Do Unfriendly Press Interviews
-She campaigns as a reformer, when in actuality she was more entrenched with corporations, specifically oil and gas corporations than probably any other governor in the nation, and rewarded them with gigantic contracts. That's not reform.
-Aside from being mayor of a town of 6000, and governor of a state with less than a third the population of chicago for a few years, she also has the very relevant experience of being a sports anchor!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiOIEGM7XEs
(http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/1760/palinpc8.png)
Now read this quote about 50 times and ask yourself:
In June 2008, Palin spoke at her former church. On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that "there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." In regards to a proposed natural-gas pipeline she said, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built."
DO YOU REALLY WANT MORE PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR 8 MORE YEARS!?!?!??!?!
And there is no "left wing media" Newton, or right wing for that matter. There is corporate media. As Chomsky points out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cceC3DeFcY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8fzQ6ZnNu0
-
Perfect metaphors for the Republican, disingenuous, ignorant, and incompetent:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/school_raps_mccain_for_using_i.php
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/5/153224/4904/749/588112
-
fuck I read all 7 pages of this shit so ima make it count
dnewt stfu!
*you brought up biden's grandfather in the oil business somehow "tying him to it" as much as palin ignoring the fact that his grandfather's executive title was essentially gone (and they're wealth reversed) by the time his father had grown up, hence his being raised in middle america
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-biden0825,0,2533927.story
BITCH1!!!
*do you honsestly support this woman?
DO YOU HONESTLY THINK SHE WOULD BE A BETTER PICK OVER OBAMA WHO, GRANTED ISN'T THE GREATEST.
(Mccain WILL be incapacitated within 8 years)
offshore drilling
I'm sure your stupid and stuborned ass has heard the evidence against offshore drilling and just choose to ignore it but just in case heres a refresher course for yo ol sophmore in high school bitchass
The crude oil market is globally determined. Oil companies do not sell just in the United States of America. Crude oil and gasoline is a product shipped globally. Therefore, the price of crude barrel oil is established by global supply and demand. Lets say, 3 million additional barrels a day could be extruded from lands and seabeds of the United States. Compare that to the 90 million barrels now produced around the world. So thats what 6% of the total? In the best of circumstances, thats no difference to the American consumer.
Second, Crude Barrel Oil isn’t just waiting there to be pumped out of the earth. Exploration takes time. Erecting drilling equipment takes time. Getting the oil out takes time. Turning crude into various oil products takes time. There'd be no significant impact on domestic crude and natural gas production until 2030. Thats well after the administration and possibly life expectancy of John McCain, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, but not myself or my nieces and nephews and your children and grandchildren and yourself.
Finally, the big oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on Federal Lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored. Why then would they seek more drilling rights? Because they want more leases now, when Bush & Cheney are still in office.
Ownership of these parcels would serve to to pump up their balance sheets even if no oil is pumped.
So don't buy this strategy. Like WMD's....this is just another scheme by the administration and party that brought you the Iraqi War. Theres no exit strategy for this either
back to that bitch(from now on sarah palin will be reffered to as that bitch)
firing of the state trooper, call it justified call it w/e you want, there were a million other ways she could have handled that AS GOVENOR, and look at the specifics, you cant tell me all of that is true and you can't tell me it irrelevant it shows a disturbing willingness to use her power as a means for personal gain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
your ignorant ass isn't going probablly will remain ignorant but fuck it.
-
^That was pretty good.
Dagger is so amazing at always bringing it back around to Chomsky.
-
LOL, I am sensing some real hostility toward Sarah Palin -- this is starting to lead me to believe that John McCain selected a real winner.
On the "affair," her "lying about having a child," her "having five children making her an incapable leader," etc. etc. -- this is all just garbage. Two of these are lies, and one is just an absolute joke.
Offshore drilling: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.html -- if we had listened to Pat Buchanan in 2002, we'd be fine in just four years by your own god damned statistics.
McCain being incapacitated within eight years: His mother turned the age he is now during the Ronald Reagan administration, and is still alive. It's really a non-issue. They called Ronald Reagan "old" too -- he lived to see three more presidents, and had a serious illness through two of those.
State Trooper: The guy tased a fucking ten year old kid. I knew that as soon as Palin was nominated and I checked the Wikipedia article on her. It raised an eyebrow for me at first, but then I realized that there were legitimate reasons to fire this guy. How many of you wanted that cop fired after he choked a 13 year old skateboarder? Well this guy tased someone three years younger than that.
-
I think republicans like you are getting confused about the "hostility towards Palin." The reason people are hostile towards her is because she is an inexperienced right wing nutjob who won't even do a legitimate interview. People think its quite obvious she should not be president. Its easy to talk about how fucked up she is. Just like we used to say about Bush, when people said this "Washington Outsider" was going to shake things up. He did, by fucking up the entire country with his ignorance, ridiculous ideology, and stubbornness. So recently, when the left has said that somebody is a nutcase and needs to be kept out of the white house, we have been totally right.
Also, I don't know what thread I put it in, but I predicted the right would do this. They picked a totally underqualified woman, waited for people to point out the fact that she in no way has any business being VP at this point, and then screamed sexism in a pathetic attempt to win over Hillary supporters. I predicted it somewhere on here I know, and BOOM! The whole right, including Newton, did exactly what I said.
I'll admit that the "she should be at home with her downs syndrome baby" argument is lame, and wouldn't be used against a man. BUt the fact that she is an amateur, selected, not elected, to be on the presidential ticket and has, as recently as two months ago, joked about the fact that she didn't even know what the Vice President does- essentially making her less qualified than a high school student who got an "A" in civics.
This sunday 3 out of the 4 candidates on the presidential tickets will hit the traditional "sunday morning talk shows." Harding hitting interview news shows like "Meet the Press," where they will make their cases to tough interviewers. Who isn't going? Palin. They won't allow her to do tough interviews. What does that say about her knowledge? There obviously is no depth- she just parrots McCain and tells stories of shooting Moose and being a hockey mom. It also tells me that she can't think on her feet. Its pathetic, he is claiming she is ready to be a heartbeat from president when she can't even deal with Tom Brokaw? Fuck that.
And Reagan was younger than McCain when elected, and his health was an issue too. He lived through 2 more presidents- though he had such extreme allzheimers that he stopped making public appearances during the Clinton Era. To claim John McCain's health is a non-issue because Reagan was able to survive is not a legitimate argument. Could McCain survive the term? Of course. Is it possible he will die during his term? 8 years from now he would be 80, and have spent the last decade in a job that ages people at like 5 times the rate of anybody else, so to say he could be dead is not too outrageous of a claim.
-
Its pathetic, he is claiming she is ready to be a heartbeat from president when she can't even deal with Tom Brokaw? Fuck that.
-
because these alaskan rednecks asked for him to. ill play out the scenario
10 year old: im no mommas boy
Palin's daughter: ya you is
10 year old:daddy get da taser, ima show you bristol!
In a September 2008 newspaper interview Wooten denied making the death threat and said that he "deeply regretted" the Taser incident.[17] He said that he set the Taser to "test" mode, meaning that it was on low power. Wooten claimed that that he attached clips to the child rather than firing darts from a gun, that he turned on the power for less than one second, and that afterwards his stepson "thought it was great and wanted to do it all over again". He claimed that "everyone laughed about" the incident at the time.[17] He also said that he "would like to put this behind me and get on with my life", and wished Palin and her family good luck.[17]
-
Gipper - I don't think the argument for Palin to drop out to family issues is lame. She has a 5 month old child with special needs and a teen daughter with child, if that doesn't scream family emergency I don't know what does. And I would be saying the same thing if it was a man, I would say what a horrible father taking all this time away from his kids and putting the brunt of it all on his wife, but in this case it is nannies taking the brunt of it.
We need to refocus this election on Mcbush and not Palin, she is just a distraction.
-
Gipper - I don't think the argument for Palin to drop out to family issues is lame. She has a 5 month old child with special needs and a teen daughter with child, if that doesn't scream family emergency I don't know what does. And I would be saying the same thing if it was a man, I would say what a horrible father taking all this time away from his kids and putting the brunt of it all on his wife, but in this case it is nannies taking the brunt of it.
We need to refocus this election on Mcbush and not Palin, she is just a distraction.
I don't know. People didn't give Edwards too much shit for campaigning right after his wife was diagnosed with cancer- and that is certainly a family emergency. The thing is- there are so many other flaws of hers that its stupid to focus on something that is not related to her policy or experience.
-
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/#more-954 (http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/#more-954)
Surprisingly she is also openly racist. Expand Quote
Gipper - I don't think the argument for Palin to drop out to family issues is lame. She has a 5 month old child with special needs and a teen daughter with child, if that doesn't scream family emergency I don't know what does. And I would be saying the same thing if it was a man, I would say what a horrible father taking all this time away from his kids and putting the brunt of it all on his wife, but in this case it is nannies taking the brunt of it.
We need to refocus this election on Mcbush and not Palin, she is just a distraction.
I didn't think he should have kept in the race, but it turns out he didn't care much about his wife any way having an affair and all....
-
for canadians, its amusing how much you guys focus on personalities down there. and i dont mean "who is cool, who is creepy, " or "who is the better parent / husband / warrior / whatever," or even "whose got bigger balls?" i mean that so much of the discourse is centred around "the president" rather than the party and its platform of policies...
-
^Obama made a joke about that. He said he thinks his personality is pretty good, but that he would rather people vote on issues like the economy and healthcare.
I guess the "open" thing is surprising about her racism. I assume any person with extreme views like hers at least hates gays and arabs, and thinks black people are scary.
-
LOL, I am sensing some real hostility toward Sarah Palin -- this is starting to lead me to believe that John McCain selected a real winner.
On the "affair," her "lying about having a child," her "having five children making her an incapable leader," etc. etc. -- this is all just garbage. Two of these are lies, and one is just an absolute joke.
Offshore drilling: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.html -- if we had listened to Pat Buchanan in 2002, we'd be fine in just four years by your own god damned statistics.
McCain being incapacitated within eight years: His mother turned the age he is now during the Ronald Reagan administration, and is still alive. It's really a non-issue. They called Ronald Reagan "old" too -- he lived to see three more presidents, and had a serious illness through two of those.
State Trooper: The guy tased a fucking ten year old kid. I knew that as soon as Palin was nominated and I checked the Wikipedia article on her. It raised an eyebrow for me at first, but then I realized that there were legitimate reasons to fire this guy. How many of you wanted that cop fired after he choked a 13 year old skateboarder? Well this guy tased someone three years younger than that.
you just never stop being an idiot
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
science might be a little advance for you so heres a breakdown
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605300001
its hardley if at all cost effective, it would take more than 4 years from now had we listened to pat buchanen(i cant belive you said that dumb shit) and it would be exhausted within a couple of years (being generous)
In 2007, the United States consumed a total of 7.5 billion barrels of oil. The latest preliminary data show that the United States consumed around 24% of world total oil used in 2006.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp#barrels_consume_year
just GTFO NEWT!
-
for canadians, its amusing how much you guys focus on personalities down there. and i dont mean "who is cool, who is creepy, " or "who is the better parent / husband / warrior / whatever," or even "whose got bigger balls?" i mean that so much of the discourse is centred around "the president" rather than the party and its platform of policies...
We Americans suck, care to host my family so we can immigrate up north :)
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
Expand Quote
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
You moron. All those issues you just mentioned are peripheral issues. You know why to vote for Obama?
(http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/carville.jpg)
"Its the economy stupid!"
Look what 8 years of republican economic policy has done to this nation. A more liberal approach is needed in times like these, and of the two major candidates, Obama is the one that offers this. McCain offers more conservative economic bullshit, like special favors to the rich and powerful, that led our economy down the shitter.
Another side issue- The War in Iraq- right now, not even Bush wants to stay much longer. Its clearly wrapping up and there is no good reason to want to stay, but McCain wants it anyway.
Also, if we want to base this on judgment- Obama risked his political career to say Iraq was a mistake when it took a lot of balls to say that. He turned out to be right. Its a profile in courage. He said the right thing when it was unpopular to do so and was proven right. McCain was wrong, and made the stupid, crazy, and/or cowardly position.
What possible reason would you vote for an old man who wants to continue with policies that have led this country into ruin? Maybe you aren't, but you seem to think McCain is some sort of clear choice the way you challenge Obama voters.
And Newton- you attack me personally, I attack you personally right back. I have a whole laundry list of ways to make you look and feel like nothing but a naive little kid.
Wait. So a candidate’s complete lack of administrative experience is peripheral when he is being considered for the highest administrative office. (Something which you criticized Pallin you fucking hypocrite) A candidate’s unethical use of taxpayer’s dollars is peripheral when he is immersed in a profession that is known for corruption? A candidate’s refusal to perform his duties is a peripheral issue? Put in bold to point out the way you reframed the experience question as well as the wording of the rest of your questions Who’s the moron here exactly?
The rest of this argument is just ridiculous. Explain to me in your own words how Obama’s economic policy is good. Please highlight at any text I have typed that is indicative of supporting McCain.
As for you calling me a hypocrit. Sarah Palin has no experience in Washington D.C. Obama Does. Sarah Palin has no experience in international relations, Obama does. Sarah Palin, as governor, is responsible for less people than Barack OBama was as a STATE senator in Illinois, and has held her position for less time than he held his state positions, and has been in statewide politics for less time that Barack Obama has been in national politics. If the only experience that counts is administrative or in the executive role, then John McCain has no experience either. Obviously Senatorial experience does count, and because it does, Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin who still has never even been responsible for even a million people. So no, its not hypocritical for me to say somebody with less than two years of experience in statewide politics isn't ready for prime time while Obama is.
As far as those questions, I don't find him traveling a lot to be corrupt, he does handle a very large constituency, and has obviously been getting involved in a lot of fact finding missions recently while running for president that make him a more effective Senator and better ready to be president. Some trips, including the most recent fact finding mission to Iraq, when Maliki endorsed Obama's plan, he was challenged by McCain to go on. The fact that he hasn't made many votes or been to many meetings in the past year is pretty easy to explain- he's been kind of busy doing this thing called running for president. I can get passed your angry accusations, and bet that during high campaigning time McCain, Clinton and Obama all have missed a lot of time in the senate. Still, I can vote for Obama over that bumbling old man.
My argument is not ridiculous at all. I know its easy to refute an argument by calling it ridiculous and not giving any explaination to its flaws, but please don't do that anymore. Conservative economic policies result in what we are seeing today and what we saw in the great depression as well as the 1890's. There is a total lack of government oversight of large business right now. Every time a president comes into office that lets big business do whatever they want, the big businesses get rich off of exploitation at first, then the bottom comes crashing out. Its exactly what happened in the past year or so. Traditionally, more liberal presidents have done a far better job of reigning in big business and of making sure oversight occurs. Both Roosevelts did- even though Teddy was a republican, his domestic policies resemble what you would call a liberal. Clinton helped reign in economic problems that were starting to show themselves after Bush and Reagan left office. You could point out that often times things go too far to the left, stifling growth, and it takes a republican to reallign things. However at the current time I trust the guy who has more liberal tendencies because our current economic problems have resulted from conservative economic principals. I feel a more liberal economic policy would be a good solution, because you know, I looked back into us history and found that it tends to work that way time after time. Also, Obama's tax policy gives a better tax rate to 95% of Americans and according to independent studies that factor in the military budget, Obama's budget is tighter, and McCain's huge military budget would tip his budget into deficits. I think it counts as an answer to your "One good reason" question.
*In bold in case you challenge me on it
Wrap it the fuck up or at least put some space between your points. I honestly only read the first part which was just nutty seeing as I had attacked McCain just a few posts before this one.
-
for canadians, its amusing how much you guys focus on personalities down there. and i dont mean "who is cool, who is creepy, " or "who is the better parent / husband / warrior / whatever," or even "whose got bigger balls?" i mean that so much of the discourse is centred around "the president" rather than the party and its platform of policies...
For Americans in general your criticism is spot on(although we are by no means unique in this), although on here we've had some relatively in depth policy and political philosophy discussions.
-
LOL, I am sensing some real hostility toward Sarah Palin -- this is starting to lead me to believe that John McCain selected a real winner.
On the "affair," her "lying about having a child," her "having five children making her an incapable leader," etc. etc. -- this is all just garbage. Two of these are lies, and one is just an absolute joke.
Offshore drilling: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.html -- if we had listened to Pat Buchanan in 2002, we'd be fine in just four years by your own god damned statistics.
McCain being incapacitated within eight years: His mother turned the age he is now during the Ronald Reagan administration, and is still alive. It's really a non-issue. They called Ronald Reagan "old" too -- he lived to see three more presidents, and had a serious illness through two of those.
State Trooper: The guy tased a fucking ten year old kid. I knew that as soon as Palin was nominated and I checked the Wikipedia article on her. It raised an eyebrow for me at first, but then I realized that there were legitimate reasons to fire this guy. How many of you wanted that cop fired after he choked a 13 year old skateboarder? Well this guy tased someone three years younger than that.
Look Newton. I don't really give a shit that it appears she had an affair on her husband. I don't give a shit that she either is pretending that her daughters baby is hers or is a horrible mother. I do care that she's a beauty queen with no basic skills or knowledge of the vice presidency or apparently much of anything at all. You should be insulted by that too.
Now it's arguable that it dosen't really matter, when corporations run the show now anyway. And its now (literally)just another face to fill the office why they push their legislation through. But they could have at least picked someone slightly competent. They didn't.
She just fucking sucks dude.
-
One of the protesters during Mccain's speech, a Ron Paul supporter, and members of Iraq Veterans against the War.
In other words a REAL PINKO!
I think Mccain is a real Maverick in how he gets elected on his heroic service, then immediately votes to cut veterans benefits and give no-bood contracts to shitty corporations.
10 billion a month in iraq is so cool!
A message the repuclicans are never ever going to understand:
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/6149/cantwinoccupationsp1ct2.jpg)
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
Expand Quote
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
You moron. All those issues you just mentioned are peripheral issues. You know why to vote for Obama?
(http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/carville.jpg)
"Its the economy stupid!"
Look what 8 years of republican economic policy has done to this nation. A more liberal approach is needed in times like these, and of the two major candidates, Obama is the one that offers this. McCain offers more conservative economic bullshit, like special favors to the rich and powerful, that led our economy down the shitter.
Another side issue- The War in Iraq- right now, not even Bush wants to stay much longer. Its clearly wrapping up and there is no good reason to want to stay, but McCain wants it anyway.
Also, if we want to base this on judgment- Obama risked his political career to say Iraq was a mistake when it took a lot of balls to say that. He turned out to be right. Its a profile in courage. He said the right thing when it was unpopular to do so and was proven right. McCain was wrong, and made the stupid, crazy, and/or cowardly position.
What possible reason would you vote for an old man who wants to continue with policies that have led this country into ruin? Maybe you aren't, but you seem to think McCain is some sort of clear choice the way you challenge Obama voters.
And Newton- you attack me personally, I attack you personally right back. I have a whole laundry list of ways to make you look and feel like nothing but a naive little kid.
Wait. So a candidate’s complete lack of administrative experience is peripheral when he is being considered for the highest administrative office. (Something which you criticized Pallin you fucking hypocrite) A candidate’s unethical use of taxpayer’s dollars is peripheral when he is immersed in a profession that is known for corruption? A candidate’s refusal to perform his duties is a peripheral issue? Put in bold to point out the way you reframed the experience question as well as the wording of the rest of your questions Who’s the moron here exactly?
The rest of this argument is just ridiculous. Explain to me in your own words how Obama’s economic policy is good. Please highlight at any text I have typed that is indicative of supporting McCain.
As for you calling me a hypocrit. Sarah Palin has no experience in Washington D.C. Obama Does. Sarah Palin has no experience in international relations, Obama does. Sarah Palin, as governor, is responsible for less people than Barack OBama was as a STATE senator in Illinois, and has held her position for less time than he held his state positions, and has been in statewide politics for less time that Barack Obama has been in national politics. If the only experience that counts is administrative or in the executive role, then John McCain has no experience either. Obviously Senatorial experience does count, and because it does, Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin who still has never even been responsible for even a million people. So no, its not hypocritical for me to say somebody with less than two years of experience in statewide politics isn't ready for prime time while Obama is.
As far as those questions, I don't find him traveling a lot to be corrupt, he does handle a very large constituency, and has obviously been getting involved in a lot of fact finding missions recently while running for president that make him a more effective Senator and better ready to be president. Some trips, including the most recent fact finding mission to Iraq, when Maliki endorsed Obama's plan, he was challenged by McCain to go on. The fact that he hasn't made many votes or been to many meetings in the past year is pretty easy to explain- he's been kind of busy doing this thing called running for president. I can get passed your angry accusations, and bet that during high campaigning time McCain, Clinton and Obama all have missed a lot of time in the senate. Still, I can vote for Obama over that bumbling old man.
My argument is not ridiculous at all. I know its easy to refute an argument by calling it ridiculous and not giving any explaination to its flaws, but please don't do that anymore. Conservative economic policies result in what we are seeing today and what we saw in the great depression as well as the 1890's. There is a total lack of government oversight of large business right now. Every time a president comes into office that lets big business do whatever they want, the big businesses get rich off of exploitation at first, then the bottom comes crashing out. Its exactly what happened in the past year or so. Traditionally, more liberal presidents have done a far better job of reigning in big business and of making sure oversight occurs. Both Roosevelts did- even though Teddy was a republican, his domestic policies resemble what you would call a liberal. Clinton helped reign in economic problems that were starting to show themselves after Bush and Reagan left office. You could point out that often times things go too far to the left, stifling growth, and it takes a republican to reallign things. However at the current time I trust the guy who has more liberal tendencies because our current economic problems have resulted from conservative economic principals. I feel a more liberal economic policy would be a good solution, because you know, I looked back into us history and found that it tends to work that way time after time. Also, Obama's tax policy gives a better tax rate to 95% of Americans and according to independent studies that factor in the military budget, Obama's budget is tighter, and McCain's huge military budget would tip his budget into deficits. I think it counts as an answer to your "One good reason" question.
*In bold in case you challenge me on it
Wrap it the fuck up or at least put some space between your points. I honestly only read the first part which was just nutty seeing as I had attacked McCain just a few posts before this one.
Read it. I don't talk to illiterate fucks who want me to dumb shit down for them. You want to act like some arrogant, smarter than everybody guy, you better be able to read 3 paragraphs. Either that or read the comments afterwards that point out that you got smoked.
I need somebody smarter to argue with than you. At least maybe I'd learn something instead of hearing shallow parroting of right wing pundits.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
How can you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the US senate?
How can you support someone who has wasted the most taxpayer’s money on travel?
How do you justify the fact that he ahs been the head of the European Affairs Sub-committee for a little over a year now and has yet to call a meeting?
Hell, can you even give me one good reason why you support this candidate?
Expand Quote
Keep voting on peripheral issues.
You moron. All those issues you just mentioned are peripheral issues. You know why to vote for Obama?
(http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/carville.jpg)
"Its the economy stupid!"
Look what 8 years of republican economic policy has done to this nation. A more liberal approach is needed in times like these, and of the two major candidates, Obama is the one that offers this. McCain offers more conservative economic bullshit, like special favors to the rich and powerful, that led our economy down the shitter.
Another side issue- The War in Iraq- right now, not even Bush wants to stay much longer. Its clearly wrapping up and there is no good reason to want to stay, but McCain wants it anyway.
Also, if we want to base this on judgment- Obama risked his political career to say Iraq was a mistake when it took a lot of balls to say that. He turned out to be right. Its a profile in courage. He said the right thing when it was unpopular to do so and was proven right. McCain was wrong, and made the stupid, crazy, and/or cowardly position.
What possible reason would you vote for an old man who wants to continue with policies that have led this country into ruin? Maybe you aren't, but you seem to think McCain is some sort of clear choice the way you challenge Obama voters.
And Newton- you attack me personally, I attack you personally right back. I have a whole laundry list of ways to make you look and feel like nothing but a naive little kid.
Wait. So a candidate’s complete lack of administrative experience is peripheral when he is being considered for the highest administrative office. (Something which you criticized Pallin you fucking hypocrite) A candidate’s unethical use of taxpayer’s dollars is peripheral when he is immersed in a profession that is known for corruption? A candidate’s refusal to perform his duties is a peripheral issue? Put in bold to point out the way you reframed the experience question as well as the wording of the rest of your questions Who’s the moron here exactly?
The rest of this argument is just ridiculous. Explain to me in your own words how Obama’s economic policy is good. Please highlight at any text I have typed that is indicative of supporting McCain.
As for you calling me a hypocrit. Sarah Palin has no experience in Washington D.C. Obama Does. Sarah Palin has no experience in international relations, Obama does. Sarah Palin, as governor, is responsible for less people than Barack OBama was as a STATE senator in Illinois, and has held her position for less time than he held his state positions, and has been in statewide politics for less time that Barack Obama has been in national politics. If the only experience that counts is administrative or in the executive role, then John McCain has no experience either. Obviously Senatorial experience does count, and because it does, Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin who still has never even been responsible for even a million people. So no, its not hypocritical for me to say somebody with less than two years of experience in statewide politics isn't ready for prime time while Obama is.
As far as those questions, I don't find him traveling a lot to be corrupt, he does handle a very large constituency, and has obviously been getting involved in a lot of fact finding missions recently while running for president that make him a more effective Senator and better ready to be president. Some trips, including the most recent fact finding mission to Iraq, when Maliki endorsed Obama's plan, he was challenged by McCain to go on. The fact that he hasn't made many votes or been to many meetings in the past year is pretty easy to explain- he's been kind of busy doing this thing called running for president. I can get passed your angry accusations, and bet that during high campaigning time McCain, Clinton and Obama all have missed a lot of time in the senate. Still, I can vote for Obama over that bumbling old man.
My argument is not ridiculous at all. I know its easy to refute an argument by calling it ridiculous and not giving any explaination to its flaws, but please don't do that anymore. Conservative economic policies result in what we are seeing today and what we saw in the great depression as well as the 1890's. There is a total lack of government oversight of large business right now. Every time a president comes into office that lets big business do whatever they want, the big businesses get rich off of exploitation at first, then the bottom comes crashing out. Its exactly what happened in the past year or so. Traditionally, more liberal presidents have done a far better job of reigning in big business and of making sure oversight occurs. Both Roosevelts did- even though Teddy was a republican, his domestic policies resemble what you would call a liberal. Clinton helped reign in economic problems that were starting to show themselves after Bush and Reagan left office. You could point out that often times things go too far to the left, stifling growth, and it takes a republican to reallign things. However at the current time I trust the guy who has more liberal tendencies because our current economic problems have resulted from conservative economic principals. I feel a more liberal economic policy would be a good solution, because you know, I looked back into us history and found that it tends to work that way time after time. Also, Obama's tax policy gives a better tax rate to 95% of Americans and according to independent studies that factor in the military budget, Obama's budget is tighter, and McCain's huge military budget would tip his budget into deficits. I think it counts as an answer to your "One good reason" question.
*In bold in case you challenge me on it
Wrap it the fuck up or at least put some space between your points. I honestly only read the first part which was just nutty seeing as I had attacked McCain just a few posts before this one.
I need somebody smarter to argue with than you. At least maybe I'd learn something instead of hearing shallow parroting of right wing pundits.
Um, having bad eyes and not having the desire to read a wall of small, poorly punctuated text does not make you illiterate, especially when I asked you be concise. Thinking some one who has attacked someone is a supporter of that very same person is highly indicative of being illiterate though. It is also a logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Populey, to say because people agree with you that you are correct. The last part is hilarious, the person who lacks basic reading comprehension says he needs smart people to argue with. I get the feeling that you have never met someone smart enough to argue with because you define intelligence as strict adherence to everything you say, which makes you by definition the annoying asshole that you calim to hate so much.
How is this anymore relevant than Obama's pastor. If you really want to attack the McCain campaign personally you should point out that he failed his Navy Schooling and received better treatment as a POW because of his connections.
Yeah this post was a few posts above the one where you initially accused me of supporting McCain. How are those extra chromosomes working out for you?
-
My cousin's grandfather worked in the Nixon cabinet and still works in Washington D.C. was telling me that Bush and Cheney plan on attacking Iran during October.
-
My cousin's grandfather worked in the Nixon cabinet and still works in Washington D.C. was telling me that Bush and Cheney plan on attacking Iran during October.
October surprise, wouldn't doubt it for a moment.
-
Expand Quote
My cousin's grandfather worked in the Nixon cabinet and still works in Washington D.C. was telling me that Bush and Cheney plan on attacking Iran during October.
October surprise, wouldn't doubt it for a moment.
I'm not so sure. It seems like it would really dick over the Republican party.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My cousin's grandfather worked in the Nixon cabinet and still works in Washington D.C. was telling me that Bush and Cheney plan on attacking Iran during October.
October surprise, wouldn't doubt it for a moment.
I'm not so sure. It seems like it would really dick over the Republican party.
I think it would energize the redneck base, they want to kill more muslims
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
My cousin's grandfather worked in the Nixon cabinet and still works in Washington D.C. was telling me that Bush and Cheney plan on attacking Iran during October.
October surprise, wouldn't doubt it for a moment.
I'm not so sure. It seems like it would really dick over the Republican party.
I think it would energize the redneck base, they want to kill more muslims
...and marginalize the rest of the country. Why the hell would they essentially throwaway millions of supporters in an attempt to pander to a group of people that were going to vote for them anyways?
-
It doesn't have anything to do with pandering to red necks.
It really wouldn't surprise me at all. I guess we'll see in another month....
-
unfortunately, the lesson every 'bad guy' country around the world learned with the iraq invasion is that it makes sense to get nuclear weapons so you can defend yourself from the self-appointed 'worlds policeman'. you either make peace quickly like libya did, or you go the way of iran, syria, pakistan, north korea...
-
Look Newton. I don't really give a shit that it appears she had an affair on her husband. I don't give a shit that she either is pretending that her daughters baby is hers or is a horrible mother. I do care that she's a beauty queen with no basic skills or knowledge of the vice presidency or apparently much of anything at all. You should be insulted by that too.
Now it's arguable that it dosen't really matter, when corporations run the show now anyway. And its now (literally)just another face to fill the office why they push their legislation through. But they could have at least picked someone slightly competent. They didn't.
She just fucking sucks dude.
See, you keep going on and on with these out of context quotes; it's gotten to the point that I'm no longer convinced that you know what the vice president does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Duties
Formally, the vice president does two things:
1. Acts as a tie-breaker in the event of a deadlocked Senate vote
2. Certifies electoral votes
Neither of these two things are "day to day" activities. The last time Dick Cheney had to act as a tie breaker in the Senate was seven years ago. The last time he had to certify an electoral vote was about four years ago. Now, we can both agree that neither of these two things are "day to day," right?
Okay, now that we have a consensus there, let's examine the quote again:
As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.
See there? Doesn't it make a lot more sense in that context? She's essentially saying that the job is a do-nothing government slot -- which it is. She's saying that she's not interested in it unless she gets more informal roles -- the number of informal roles a VP gets varies from administration to administration.
"OMFG NEWTTON SHE DOES NOT WANTTO BE VP!!!1 SHE JUST SAYS IT RIGHT THERE!!!11"
Well, if you believe that, I guess this will even you out some:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM&eurl=http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/06/14/barack-obama-admits-hes-not-qualified-to-be-president/
-
Stop Newton.
They nominated a fucking beauty queen.
If you can't admit that's shitty and cynical then you need to take a look in the mirror-and probably a shower.
-
unfortunately, the lesson every 'bad guy' country around the world learned with the iraq invasion is that it makes sense to get nuclear weapons so you can defend yourself from the self-appointed 'worlds policeman'. you either make peace quickly like libya did, or you go the way of iran, syria, pakistan, north korea...
This is very true and very scary.
The Bush administration's strategy of preemption has given real incentive to countries all over the world to possess nuclear weapons-just as their strategy on supposedly combating terrorism is sure to increase terrorism all over the world. Some liberal pnko group named the CIA has confirmed this.
Not that anyone really cares.
Where were we?
Oh yeah. Palin. Shes awesome. Hockey mom.
-
Stop Newton.
They nominated a fucking beauty queen.
If you can't admit that's shitty and cynical then you need to take a look in the mirror-and probably a shower.
HAHA. I guess Chomsky didn't have a video to educate you about the roles of the vice president....
Did he have one about the logical fallacies you are continuously employing?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
-
If McCain wins, and he dies then we have Palin as a president and the most powerful person in the world........ THE GOVERNOR OF FUCKING ALASKA WOULD BE THE LEADER OF AMERICA
-
If McCain wins, and he dies then we have Palin as a president and the most powerful person in the world........ THE GOVERNOR OF FUCKING ALASKA WOULD BE THE LEADER OF AMERICA
Versus "A SENATOR FROM FUCKING ILLINOIS"?
Experience as governor of a state is more valuable than experience as a legislator. Executives can't vote "present."
John McCain's mother was also the age he is now during the Reagan administration.... she is still alive. The whole point that he could "die in office" based solely on his age is kind of a moot point.
-
There are more ways to die than old age newton....
-
I’ve decided to go ahead and respond to your post because I don’t want this to turn into a name calling match.
I clearly wrote that it appears that you support McCain- you have defended him consistently, You are defending his choice of Palin right now and your name calling shows that what I say bothers you.* Also, you question people who support Obama as to why they do. You don't have to say in exact words "I support John McCain," to clearly be siding with him. Maybe its a devil's advocate position-- but I don't know you so I can't know that, and you are defending him. You even use Republican talking points.
How is this anymore relevant than Obama's pastor. If you really want to attack the McCain campaign personally you should point out that he failed his Navy Schooling and recieved better treatment as a POW because of his connections.
I rest my case.
As for you calling me a hypocrit. Sarah Palin has no experience in Washington D.C. Obama Does. Sarah Palin has no experience in international relations, Obama does. Sarah Palin, as governor, is responsible for less people than Barack OBama was as a STATE senator in Illinois, and has held her position for less time than he held his state positions, and has been in statewide politics for less time that Barack Obama has been in national politics. If the only experience that counts is administrative or in the executive role, then John McCain has no experience either. Obviously Senatorial experience does count, and because it does, Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin who still has never even been responsible for even a million people. So no, its not hypocritical for me to say somebody with less than two years of experience in statewide politics isn't ready for prime time while Obama is.
I’m going to have to disagree; you’re trying to hold a vice-presidential candidate to the same standards as a presidential one. One is an important position the other is essentially a worthless figure head.
Also Obama by no means has adequate foreign policy experience. That was one of the main reasons he picked Joe Biden. Who exactly was Obama responsible for? Pallin definitely had a much more tangible effect on the people of Alaska as governor than Obama did as 1 of 59 senators. Keep in mind most nominees are usually govenors as it is an administrative position. This year is an exception.
Yes, it is definitely hypocritical to criticize someone for being inexperienced and impotent when you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the senate.
As far as those questions, I don't find him traveling a lot to be corrupt, he does handle a very large constituency, and has obviously been getting involved in a lot of fact finding missions recently while running for president that make him a more effective Senator and better ready to be president. Some trips, including the most recent fact finding mission to Iraq, when Maliki endorsed Obama's plan, he was challenged by McCain to go on.
I really am having trouble comprehending this point. Is he the only senator running for president? Is not using tax-payer’s money for personal use not corrupt? Your stance on this issue would be very different if it were John McCain.
The fact that he hasn't made many votes or been to many meetings in the past year is pretty easy to explain- he's been kind of busy doing this thing called running for president. I can get passed your angry accusations, and bet that during high campaigning time McCain, Clinton and Obama all have missed a lot of time in the senate. Still, I can vote for Obama over that bumbling old man.
What are you talking about? It’s not just this past year, it’s his entire senatorial career, The running for president argument isn’t valid because Clinton and McCain like them or not at least achieved something during their stay in the senate, before their grabs at the presidency.
My argument is not ridiculous at all. I know its easy to refute an argument by calling it ridiculous and not giving any explanation to its flaws, but please don't do that anymore. Conservative economic policies result in what we are seeing today and what we saw in the great depression as well as the 1890's. There is a total lack of government oversight of large business right now. Every time a president comes into office that lets big business do whatever they want, the big businesses get rich off of exploitation at first, then the bottom comes crashing out. Its exactly what happened in the past year or so. Traditionally, more liberal presidents have done a far better job of reigning in big business and of making sure oversight occurs. Both Roosevelts did- even though Teddy was a republican, his domestic policies resemble what you would call a liberal. Clinton helped reign in economic problems that were starting to show themselves after Bush and Reagan left office. You could point out that often times things go too far to the left, stifling growth, and it takes a republican to reallign things. However at the current time I trust the guy who has more liberal tendencies because our current economic problems have resulted from conservative economic principals. I feel a more liberal economic policy would be a good solution, because you know, I looked back into us history and found that it tends to work that way time after time. Also, Obama's tax policy gives a better tax rate to 95% of Americans and according to independent studies that factor in the military budget, Obama's budget is tighter, and McCain's huge military budget would tip his budget into deficits. I think it counts as an answer to your "One good reason" question.
*In bold in case you challenge me on it
Um, with all the subsidies, government bailouts, and the general marriage of big government and big business it’d be straight nutty to suggest that the government does not have a large hand in business.
Um. Obama’s economic plan is in no way feasible. He wants to heavily increase taxes and government spending.
-
Expand Quote
Stop Newton.
They nominated a fucking beauty queen.
If you can't admit that's shitty and cynical then you need to take a look in the mirror-and probably a shower.
HAHA. I guess Chomsky didn't have a video to educate you about the roles of the vice president....
Did he have one about the logical fallacies you are continuously employing?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Stop. You're embarrassing yourself with this one.
-
I’m going to have to disagree; you’re trying to hold a vice-presidential candidate to the same standards as a presidential one. One is an important position the other is essentially a worthless figure head.
Also Obama by no means has adequate foreign policy experience. That was one of the main reasons he picked Joe Biden. Who exactly was Obama responsible for? Pallin definitely had a much more tangible effect on the people of Alaska as governor than Obama did as 1 of 59 senators. Keep in mind most nominees are usually govenors as it is an administrative position. This year is an exception.
Yes, it is definitely hypocritical to criticize someone for being inexperienced and impotent when you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the senate.
Listen, any vice presidential candidate needs to be ready to lead the nation. Assuming Mccain doesn't have a bought of cancer that pops u, or a heart attack(his multiple traumatic experiences as a pilot lead many to believe that a heart attack around this age is very probable)--he could still get assassinated. Hatred for America thanks to our history and most recently Bush's policies are arguably at a all time high. So you need a vice president with a lot of expierence that knows as Mccain likes to put it "how to lead on day one"
Going by the VERY CRITERIA that the Mccain campaign uses and douchebags like you repeat SARAH PALIN IS NOT READY TO LEAD ON DAY ONE. How many times has she actually been to the continential united states? Maybe when she went to six colleges in six years? Perhaps her incredible stint as a sports reporter? Maybe as her reign as mayor of a town with 6,000 people? Or was it when she was govenor for the blink of an eye of a state with one third the population of Chicago.
Either your own criteria for the job is bullshit, or Sarah Palin is a bullshit cheap, cynical pick to gain the votes of cultural conservatives(of which Mccain is not) or possibly based on the sexist belief that women must be so stupid that they will vote for any ticket where one is.
You tell me.
What are you talking about? It’s not just this past year, it’s his entire senatorial career, The running for president argument isn’t valid because Clinton and McCain like them or not at least achieved something during their stay in the senate, before their grabs at the presidency.
Ugh, enough with this nonsense. Sarah Palin isn't qualified because she isn't a competent human being in general. Obama, Biden, and even Mccain at least understand the basic institutions. Let's talk about what's actually important here, proposed policies of each administration.
Um, with all the subsidies, government bailouts, and the general marriage of big government and big business it’d be straight nutty to suggest that the government does not have a large hand in business.
I don't think he suggested anything but that, and just how they do that is a huge part of the problem. Corporate lobbyist actually authored a lot of the legislation that was passed during the Bush Administration, no-bid contracts, Blackwater mercenaries getting paid and treated 10 times better than our soilder while their actions are unaccounted for, massive bailouts and tax incentives for corporations that send their jobs overseas....
I'd really like to hear anyone defend ANY of that. And theres plenty more.[/quote]
Um. Obama’s economic plan is in no way feasible. He wants to heavily increase taxes and government spending.
Wrong on both accounts. If you look at Obama's economic plan on his website, he has proposed to immediately cut taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, and send each American a check to deal with rising energy costs. It would be hard to imagine any government spending more than the current republican administration has been able to. Economists have estimated that within a few years the total cost of the war is going to reach 3 trillion dollars. 3 fucking trillion. And lingering costs of veterans receiving the bare minimum medical treatments throughout their lives, thanks to people like Mccain, the costs will continue to go up indefinitely. But at least we killed all the terrorists in Iraq. Also fun fact about the mass murderer Saddam. Check out the dates when he was actually doing the mass murdering, this is of particular interest because guess who was his friend and giving him weapons during this time? Here's a hint. Us.
Oops! Maybe we need to bomb ourselves!
Or just never talk about that. And just keep invading countries and pretending that terrorists attacks and animosity towards us throughout the world come from thin air.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEvv9G846mo
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa20q2s2BRs
-
To Nick Dagger:
(http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x94/fairys89/good-grief-charlie-brown.jpg)
-
I’ve decided to go ahead and respond to your post because I don’t want this to turn into a name calling match.
Expand Quote
I clearly wrote that it appears that you support McCain- you have defended him consistently, You are defending his choice of Palin right now and your name calling shows that what I say bothers you.* Also, you question people who support Obama as to why they do. You don't have to say in exact words "I support John McCain," to clearly be siding with him. Maybe its a devil's advocate position-- but I don't know you so I can't know that, and you are defending him. You even use Republican talking points.
Expand Quote
How is this anymore relevant than Obama's pastor. If you really want to attack the McCain campaign personally you should point out that he failed his Navy Schooling and recieved better treatment as a POW because of his connections.
I rest my case.
Yeah, and Fox is "fair and balanced." You pointed out that none of the criticisms against him matter. You have consistently argued against Obama and challenged those who support him. When people point out they don't like MCCain you cry foul and say you never said you supported McCain. Its a two horse race, and a lot of people look at it in the sense of "who do you prefer?" Your arguments have consistently backed up the right. So whether you support him or not, if you defend him and attack Obama, you will get people explaining why McCain is worse.
Expand Quote
As for you calling me a hypocrit. Sarah Palin has no experience in Washington D.C. Obama Does. Sarah Palin has no experience in international relations, Obama does. Sarah Palin, as governor, is responsible for less people than Barack OBama was as a STATE senator in Illinois, and has held her position for less time than he held his state positions, and has been in statewide politics for less time that Barack Obama has been in national politics. If the only experience that counts is administrative or in the executive role, then John McCain has no experience either. Obviously Senatorial experience does count, and because it does, Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin who still has never even been responsible for even a million people. So no, its not hypocritical for me to say somebody with less than two years of experience in statewide politics isn't ready for prime time while Obama is.
I’m going to have to disagree; you’re trying to hold a vice-presidential candidate to the same standards as a presidential one. One is an important position the other is essentially a worthless figure head.
Also Obama by no means has adequate foreign policy experience. That was one of the main reasons he picked Joe Biden. Who exactly was Obama responsible for? Pallin definitely had a much more tangible effect on the people of Alaska as governor than Obama did as 1 of 59 senators. Keep in mind most nominees are usually govenors as it is an administrative position. This year is an exception.
Yes, it is definitely hypocritical to criticize someone for being inexperienced and impotent when you support someone who has done essentially nothing in the senate.
You are a fucking idiot. You are learning as you go along, and you don't fully understand the concepts. Though Newton is right, and that there are only two outlined responsibilities for the vice-president while he/she is in office- the role is far from a figure head. They do very little aside from advise the president, but they need to be ready to go. The vice-president is famously "one heartbeat from the presidency," and especially with an aging president (healthy or not, old people do tend to die) the vice president must be held to the same standard.
As far as a tangible effect on "the people of Alaska" it may be true, but there are less than a million Alaskans, and there are over 3 million people in the city of Chicago alone. Not only that, Obama has been a National Senator for longer than Palin has been a Governor. As far as that goes he is one of 100 people responsible for over 300 million. He's been in the spotlight, he's been vetted.
I would be a hypocrit if he had just been elected governor of a small state and was selected as a political ploy, but he DOES have more experience, and seems to understand washington better.
Also, Head of the Harvard Law Review vs. B.S. in communications journalism from University of Idaho.
Which would you assume is the smarter, quicker learner?
Basically, I don't have to think Obama isn't ready just because I don't think Palin is. The world is full of shades of gray.
As far as those questions, I don't find him traveling a lot to be corrupt, he does handle a very large constituency, and has obviously been getting involved in a lot of fact finding missions recently while running for president that make him a more effective Senator and better ready to be president. Some trips, including the most recent fact finding mission to Iraq, when Maliki endorsed Obama's plan, he was challenged by McCain to go on.
I really am having trouble comprehending this point. Is he the only senator running for president? Is not using tax-payer’s money for personal use not corrupt? Your stance on this issue would be very different if it were John McCain.
[/quote]
Its not personal use. I don't think I would be angry if it were McCain. IF its a dealbreaker for you, that's fine. Its just not for me. I explained why.
The fact that he hasn't made many votes or been to many meetings in the past year is pretty easy to explain- he's been kind of busy doing this thing called running for president. I can get passed your angry accusations, and bet that during high campaigning time McCain, Clinton and Obama all have missed a lot of time in the senate. Still, I can vote for Obama over that bumbling old man.
What are you talking about? It’s not just this past year, it’s his entire senatorial career, The running for president argument isn’t valid because Clinton and McCain like them or not at least achieved something during their stay in the senate, before their grabs at the presidency.
[/quote]
Your question revolved around the past year, so did my answer. I responded to what was alleged, no more, no less.
My argument is not ridiculous at all. I know its easy to refute an argument by calling it ridiculous and not giving any explanation to its flaws, but please don't do that anymore. Conservative economic policies result in what we are seeing today and what we saw in the great depression as well as the 1890's. There is a total lack of government oversight of large business right now. Every time a president comes into office that lets big business do whatever they want, the big businesses get rich off of exploitation at first, then the bottom comes crashing out. Its exactly what happened in the past year or so. Traditionally, more liberal presidents have done a far better job of reigning in big business and of making sure oversight occurs. Both Roosevelts did- even though Teddy was a republican, his domestic policies resemble what you would call a liberal. Clinton helped reign in economic problems that were starting to show themselves after Bush and Reagan left office. You could point out that often times things go too far to the left, stifling growth, and it takes a republican to reallign things. However at the current time I trust the guy who has more liberal tendencies because our current economic problems have resulted from conservative economic principals. I feel a more liberal economic policy would be a good solution, because you know, I looked back into us history and found that it tends to work that way time after time. Also, Obama's tax policy gives a better tax rate to 95% of Americans and according to independent studies that factor in the military budget, Obama's budget is tighter, and McCain's huge military budget would tip his budget into deficits. I think it counts as an answer to your "One good reason" question.
*In bold in case you challenge me on it
Um, with all the subsidies, government bailouts, and the general marriage of big government and big business it’d be straight nutty to suggest that the government does not have a large hand in business. [/quote]Do you know anything about Teddy Roosevelt?
Ok, government involvement in business can go two ways. You talk about all of the ways government is supporting business and allowing it to fuck up, while giving corporate welfare bailouts. Doing anything to allow business to keep growing no matter what. Its what McKinley did, ITs what Hoover did, its what Bush has done
I am talking about putting a fucking leash and muzzle on business. Regulating them and make sure we the people control business instead of the other way around. It hasn't been done at all the past 8 years and it needs to be done. Obama is far more likely to do this than McCain.
In the history of the United States, when Presidents have put more restrictions on business after they have been allowed to run free, there has been economic recovery. I am basing my opinion off of FACTS. I am basing it off of similar situations that have already taken place. Read up on some history- it'll tell you exactly what I am telling you.
Unless these were just crazy coincidences, I figure, it'll work again, so I throw my support to Obama.
Um. Obama’s economic plan is in no way feasible. He wants to heavily increase taxes and government spending.
No, he wants to let the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy expire. You know, the tax policy currently in place, you know, the one that led to the crisis? The one McCain supports, despite claiming to be a "maverick."
Also, Obama wants to CUT TAXES FOR 95% OF AMERICANS, and McCain doesn't. Given McCain's intended gigantic military budget, McCain would cause more defiicits than Obama.
Basically, if you don't want higher taxes or deficits- don't vote McCain.
But it doesn't really matter. Herbert Hoover, the last conservative we let near the white house until Ronald Reagan and the Bushes slimed their way back in, attempted to balance the budget in an attempt to solve the great depression. You know what happened? Shit got worse.
-
Reading all of these novels and taking away nothing from them is really starting to make me realize how stupid discussing politics on the internet is.
As a peace offering, I'd like to present you all with this message I received on MySpace today from the girl that is ranked #1 in our graduating class. Let's call a truce and all be friends.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: stupid bitch
Date: Sep 7, 2008 11:35 PM
umm recycling is not for pussies and you should do everything you can to save the environment for your kids and their kids and their kids.
and im starting young democrats so it'd be great if you did't join just to give everyone a hard time.
-
You don't need to listen to my opinion on Palin, just watch all the in-depth interviews shes had since her historic VP nomination.
-
Dnewts, wtf did i say GTFO!
and why are you friends with your school's valedicktorian
-
Another classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64nFVc-GEAQ
Also, Gipper you're on some kind of drugs if you think Bush is a conservative.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2OUJ8ZUTiI
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRXsJR1C9Ug
-
I mean, I try and I try and I try, but nothing I ever say will cause you to get a firm grip on reality. You are living in a hypothetical Noam Chomsky world where "corporations" are causing all of society's ills. What can I say or do? You're absolutely lost. I don't even think you understand the concept of a corporation, what it is, what it does, or who profits from it. This all stems from North Carolina government schooling and a serious lack of economic training in the classroom. I'm going to let you learn it on your own. Go out in November, and vote for Barack Obama. Watch as he raises taxes on this nation's largest employer -- small business (the ones that are really paying 33%), and then spends it on dysfunctional government programs. I'll be in college for those four years. I really do not care what happens to the economy during that time.
Neal Boortz > Noam Chomsky
http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?showid=351
and why are you friends with your school's valedicktorian
When you're in so many classes with the same person year after year you have to be cordial with them at least. The high achieving kids in my school really do work there asses off though -- there is a ton of competition, and most of them are quality people despite whatever disagreements we might have politically or whatever.
-
Oh corporations?
If you're at all serious about the free market/true conservatism/libertarianism, you should be against them, considering they were created through government intervention into the market.
Here's some history on them if you are at all interested, I doubt you are:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=192012118972057552&ei=lqzESIKwN4m6rQKRgsm3BQ&q=the+corporation
-
Also you didn't try very hard considering you didn't respond to a single claim I made. And why should you? They're true. Or anything Chomsky has said for that matter. And why would you? They're true. Just pull a Tom Wolfe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ai7BCNEnvI&feature=related
Also Neal Boortz is a a joke, if you're going that route go with someone from the Murray Rothbard school of thought.
-
Also I am probably going to vote for Obama, I have many, many reservations about him, both domestically and foreign. Across the board there are many issues in which Obama is just as bad or only slightly better than Mccain. But as Chomsky points out, small differences in powerful societies can lead to significant changes-and this is most true in the lives of the poor and working in America and throughout the world who will be effected nost. Realistically either he or Mccain will be elected in November. A small summary of the ways I think Obama will be an improvement are listed below.
Most of the same corporations will still run the show, and obviously this is conjecture but some potential immediate benefits, along with the potential policies proposed on http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ we can guess that:
-Increased focus on domestic issues, I think a lot of what he has proposed in his economic plan sounds good, i.e. sending us all money,immediate tax breaks for 95% of americans, with more to follow, ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas, making taxes and shit like that easier, an immediate 50 billion to the states to help with their economies(that's near half-year Iraq-amounts!), and just you know, not fucking everything up as much.
-The policies set by presidential appointees across the board effect education, transportation, and energy. With Obama you can expect increased competence and increased funding. Wether or not you think it's the governments responsibility to handle any of this, NO ONE benefits when our bridges are collapsing and our states can't even afford to pay our teachers are for gas. Remember there is PLENTY of money, but we're too busy nearly spending as much as the rest of the world combined on military to pay our teachers enough to make a living. The reality is, neither Mccain nor Obama will radically change any of these departments-in other words they will still exist whether you or I want them to. But you can rest assured Obama and Biden will run them more competently than that 70 year old guy and the beauty queen.
-Supreme court appointments, as discussed, potentially vastly importance.
-Obama's health care plan, doesn't make you change anything if your happy with yours, offers everyone else an affordable plan similar to what congress receives.
-More competent appointees across the board, presumably fewer Michael Browns at federal organizations.
-Withdrawing from Iraq. You know that thing that costs us:
* $4,681 per household.
* $1,721 per person.
* $341.4 million per day
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
-Mccain thinks it would be fine to stay for a hundred years, mainly because he is an idiot and doesn't know anything about occupations, terrorism, or war-other than how to crash an airplane and not give veterans the benefits they deserve. While giving no-bid gigantic contracts to Haliburton, Blackwater, and other scum. Fucking over the taxpayers, that you say you care about... All while increasing the threat of terrorism and animosity towards America throughout the world. FUCK YEAH BRAH! I mean you'll be in college though so it dosen't matter. And plus it's probably just something crazy Chomsky said right, oh yeah and some other liberal pinko named Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer) said the same thing. But he probably wouldn't know much about terrorism...
-If Biden's talk about Darfur actually results in America ending the genocide there and making the situation better. That would be good.
-Fewer Rovian-like actions(see firing of U.S. Attorneys, etc).
-Torture, you know that thing that happened to Mccain, that no republican is allowed to say was torture now because we use the same techniques?
-Electing black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama, who declares to end torture and pursue diplomacy(regardless of how legitimate these claims are)-could potentially do wonders for our image around the world. And obviously having a black president who talks about poverty might give, dare I say "hope" to the black community. It may sound rhetoric, but such a historic could have real positive consequences in the minds of many who have long since given up on their country and the electoral process.
There are more, and many more if you compare each issue and the proposals from Obama with the proposals of Mccain-the proposals from Obama are often at least somewhat better, and often may have real consequences, especially to working people. On many issues Obama just isn't as bad as Mccain.
If you can make a serious case on how a Mccain presidency will be more favorable, please do.
When I was your age I was a lot like you Newton, but you need to have the courage to look at reality. Which is a very, very hard thing for us to do. You have a real advantage over most people your age, you're already at least reading and starting to maybe think about these issues. It takes a lot of work to look at reality, I know posting videos to prove a point can get old, but I really recommend you watch the two I posted above.
I think you'll get there.
-
I mean, I try and I try and I try, but nothing I ever say will cause you to get a firm grip on reality. You are living in a hypothetical Noam Chomsky world where "corporations" are causing all of society's ills. What can I say or do? You're absolutely lost. I don't even think you understand the concept of a corporation, what it is, what it does, or who profits from it. This all stems from North Carolina government schooling and a serious lack of economic training in the classroom. I'm going to let you learn it on your own. Go out in November, and vote for Barack Obama. Watch as he raises taxes on this nation's largest employer -- small business (the ones that are really paying 33%), and then spends it on dysfunctional government programs. I'll be in college for those four years. I really do not care what happens to the economy during that time.
Neal Boortz > Noam Chomsky
http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?showid=351
Expand Quote
and why are you friends with your school's valedicktorian
When you're in so many classes with the same person year after year you have to be cordial with them at least. The high achieving kids in my school really do work there asses off though -- there is a ton of competition, and most of them are quality people despite whatever disagreements we might have politically or whatever.
if you don't care why are you commenting on this so much.
-
Gipper:
"Yeah, and Fox is "fair and balanced." You pointed out that none of the criticisms against him matter. You have consistently argued against Obama and challenged those who support him. When people point out they don't like MCCain you cry foul and say you never said you supported McCain. Its a two horse race, and a lot of people look at it in the sense of "who do you prefer?" Your arguments have consistently backed up the right. So whether you support him or not, if you defend him and attack Obama, you will get people explaining why McCain is worse."
You are absolutely ridiculous. Your attempts to tie me in with the republican party, McCain, and now Fox News despite the fact that I have attcked him in this very thread are simply stupid. Are you really that afraid to admit that you were wrong?
My arguments have been backed up by the left. Were they not the same ones his running mate were using just a few months ago? Or was that forgotten for the convenience of your argument.
"You are a fucking idiot. You are learning as you go along, and you don't fully understand the concepts. Though Newton is right, and that there are only two outlined responsibilities for the vice-president while he/she is in office- the role is far from a figure head. They do very little aside from advise the president, but they need to be ready to go. The vice-president is famously "one heartbeat from the presidency," and especially with an aging president (healthy or not, old people do tend to die) the vice president must be held to the same standard.
As far as a tangible effect on "the people of Alaska" it may be true, but there are less than a million Alaskans, and there are over 3 million people in the city of Chicago alone. Not only that, Obama has been a National Senator for longer than Palin has been a Governor. As far as that goes he is one of 100 people responsible for over 300 million. He's been in the spotlight, he's been vetted.
I would be a hypocrit if he had just been elected governor of a small state and was selected as a political ploy, but he DOES have more experience, and seems to understand washington better.
Also, Head of the Harvard Law Review vs. B.S. in communications journalism from University of Idaho.
Which would you assume is the smarter, quicker learner?
Basically, I don't have to think Obama isn't ready just because I don't think Palin is. The world is full of shades of gray."
Boy you are getting mad. I really don't get it. All of the arguments you use to attck Pallin's inexperience can be used to attack Obama's. All the points used to defend Obama can easily be used to defend Pallin. If you learn as you go along, why can't Pallin learn as she goes along. If Pallin needs to be able to take the lead from the get go, then Obama needs to be able to take the lead from the get go.
How exactly is legislative experience more important than executive experience? Why does it matter if she has not been govenor as long if her job matches the job description better? The rest of this quote is just a giant irrelevant personal attack on Pallin. Just like pretty much every single argument being posed agains all candidates.
"Its not personal use. I don't think I would be angry if it were McCain. IF its a dealbreaker for you, that's fine. Its just not for me. I explained why."
Fair enough.
"Your question revolved around the past year, so did my answer. I responded to what was alleged, no more, no less."
I can see that argument being posed about the European Affairs sub-commitee, but it doesn't excuse his complete lack of action during his time in the senate.
"I am talking about putting a fucking leash and muzzle on business. Regulating them and make sure we the people control business instead of the other way around. It hasn't been done at all the past 8 years and it needs to be done. Obama is far more likely to do this than McCain.
In the history of the United States, when Presidents have put more restrictions on business after they have been allowed to run free, there has been economic recovery. I am basing my opinion off of FACTS. I am basing it off of similar situations that have already taken place. Read up on some history- it'll tell you exactly what I am telling you.
Unless these were just crazy coincidences, I figure, it'll work again, so I throw my support to Obama."
Sorry, but no. The freest markets have the strongest econnomies, that is an irrefutable fact. No amount of Michael Moore movies will change that.
"No, he wants to let the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy expire. You know, the tax policy currently in place, you know, the one that led to the crisis? The one McCain supports, despite claiming to be a "maverick."
Also, Obama wants to CUT TAXES FOR 95% OF AMERICANS, and McCain doesn't. Given McCain's intended gigantic military budget, McCain would cause more defiicits than Obama.
Basically, if you don't want higher taxes or deficits- don't vote McCain.
But it doesn't really matter. Herbert Hoover, the last conservative we let near the white house until Ronald Reagan and the Bushes slimed their way back in, attempted to balance the budget in an attempt to solve the great depression. You know what happened? Shit got worse."
I'm sorry, but in terms of the economy, I 'm goping to say that Obama is absolutely terrible. I know they probably don't matter much to you but here are the facts:
Fact: Obama is going to raise taxes on the largest employers.
Fact: The amount of spending Obama wants cannot be paid for by tax increases on the rich. Ex.(150 billion on a green energy plan, expanding health insurance by $65 billion, regulating profits of drug companies, and he wants to establish a mortgage interest tax credit)
Fact: Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore says, "Obama will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax."
Fact: Redistribution of wealth, which is what Obama wants to due, without fail brings economic ruin.
-
Mark my words... Whether Obama or McCain gets elected, it's going to be more of the same. Promises, promises, promises...
This election initially had somebody running that I felt compelled to vote for and that was RON PAUL. He's one of the few people working in government today that really knows what's been happening to this country in the last 50 years and that could well be described as an open conspiracy. I was suprised he got as far as he did despite actions taken by the controlled corporate mainstream media to exclude him and his message. Ironicly, the ownership of media is also representative of our flawed "democratic" system. I may be off one but I think currently two corporations own the majority of media and therefore ultimately influence what we see & hear.
Back and forth. Keep the show going. We're chained to this democracy-for-show two-party paradigm system where the people are so systematically dumbed down they think they really have a big choice to make to choose the lesser of two assholes on strings. Most of the time, these people are tools directly groomed by the elite establishment like our current puppet president George W. Bush. One of the richest men on the planet, David Rockefeller, of the same international banking family dynasty who openly supports and works towards a one world government system helped create the so called "think tank" organization called the TC - THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION to covertly push his elitist agenda. He also had a part in the establishment of the CFR - COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS & BB- BILDERBERG, two other low/no profile "think tanks" comprised of the worlds' elite movers and shakers that support one world government. McCain & Obama are both CFR members. Doesn't matter who wins because they've got both bases covered. These same groups that most of the American public don't know exist just happen to dominate the membership cabinets of every U.S. president (republican & democrat) of the last 50 years! They're using the hegelian dialect approach. Progress in the Hegelian State is through contrived conflict: the clash of opposites makes for progress. If you can control the opposites, you dominate the nature of the outcome. The international banking cartels that helped start these groups used the same process by financing the world wars throughout history to gain their stranglehold. They use it to predict elections, wars, etc... Now you have to ask yourself why...
This isn't even the tip of the iceberg. There's a method to their madness. Nothing happens by accident. The late Stanton Professor Antony Sutton saw it coming early on...
(http://www.wingtv.net/images/wallstreethitler.jpg)
Professor Sutton on WALL STREET & THE RISE OF HITLER
http://www.youtube.com/v/3sCpsq55uic&hl=en&fs
(http://pixhost.eu/avaxhome/avaxhome/2007-08-31/51TFD_837.jpg)
Professor Sutton on AMERICA'S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT long before any member of the Bush family became president.
http://www.youtube.com/v/KRzPOL9wGBk&hl=en&fs
(http://www.womensgroup.org/book_photos/trilaterals_over_america_thumbnail.jpg)
EXPOSING THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
http://www.youtube.com/v/Tcgd67Sxvzo&hl=en&fs
THE SECRET GOVERNMENT : THE SHOCKING BILL MOYERS 1987 DOCUMENTARY
http://www.youtube.com/v/0oKLD59ajVU&hl=en&fs
(http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/media-ownership.gif)
-
Gipper:
"Yeah, and Fox is "fair and balanced." You pointed out that none of the criticisms against him matter. You have consistently argued against Obama and challenged those who support him. When people point out they don't like MCCain you cry foul and say you never said you supported McCain. Its a two horse race, and a lot of people look at it in the sense of "who do you prefer?" Your arguments have consistently backed up the right. So whether you support him or not, if you defend him and attack Obama, you will get people explaining why McCain is worse."
You are absolutely ridiculous. Your attempts to tie me in with the republican party, McCain, and now Fox News despite the fact that I have attcked him in this very thread are simply stupid. Are you really that afraid to admit that you were wrong?
My arguments have been backed up by the left. Were they not the same ones his running mate were using just a few months ago? Or was that forgotten for the convenience of your argument.
"You are a fucking idiot. You are learning as you go along, and you don't fully understand the concepts. Though Newton is right, and that there are only two outlined responsibilities for the vice-president while he/she is in office- the role is far from a figure head. They do very little aside from advise the president, but they need to be ready to go. The vice-president is famously "one heartbeat from the presidency," and especially with an aging president (healthy or not, old people do tend to die) the vice president must be held to the same standard.
As far as a tangible effect on "the people of Alaska" it may be true, but there are less than a million Alaskans, and there are over 3 million people in the city of Chicago alone. Not only that, Obama has been a National Senator for longer than Palin has been a Governor. As far as that goes he is one of 100 people responsible for over 300 million. He's been in the spotlight, he's been vetted.
I would be a hypocrit if he had just been elected governor of a small state and was selected as a political ploy, but he DOES have more experience, and seems to understand washington better.
Also, Head of the Harvard Law Review vs. B.S. in communications journalism from University of Idaho.
Which would you assume is the smarter, quicker learner?
Basically, I don't have to think Obama isn't ready just because I don't think Palin is. The world is full of shades of gray."
Boy you are getting mad. I really don't get it. All of the arguments you use to attck Pallin's inexperience can be used to attack Obama's. All the points used to defend Obama can easily be used to defend Pallin. If you learn as you go along, why can't Pallin learn as she goes along. If Pallin needs to be able to take the lead from the get go, then Obama needs to be able to take the lead from the get go.
How exactly is legislative experience more important than executive experience? Why does it matter if she has not been govenor as long if her job matches the job description better? The rest of this quote is just a giant irrelevant personal attack on Pallin. Just like pretty much every single argument being posed agains all candidates.
"Its not personal use. I don't think I would be angry if it were McCain. IF its a dealbreaker for you, that's fine. Its just not for me. I explained why."
Fair enough.
"Your question revolved around the past year, so did my answer. I responded to what was alleged, no more, no less."
I can see that argument being posed about the European Affairs sub-commitee, but it doesn't excuse his complete lack of action during his time in the senate.
"I am talking about putting a fucking leash and muzzle on business. Regulating them and make sure we the people control business instead of the other way around. It hasn't been done at all the past 8 years and it needs to be done. Obama is far more likely to do this than McCain.
In the history of the United States, when Presidents have put more restrictions on business after they have been allowed to run free, there has been economic recovery. I am basing my opinion off of FACTS. I am basing it off of similar situations that have already taken place. Read up on some history- it'll tell you exactly what I am telling you.
Unless these were just crazy coincidences, I figure, it'll work again, so I throw my support to Obama."
Sorry, but no. The freest markets have the strongest econnomies, that is an irrefutable fact. No amount of Michael Moore movies will change that.
"No, he wants to let the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy expire. You know, the tax policy currently in place, you know, the one that led to the crisis? The one McCain supports, despite claiming to be a "maverick."
Also, Obama wants to CUT TAXES FOR 95% OF AMERICANS, and McCain doesn't. Given McCain's intended gigantic military budget, McCain would cause more defiicits than Obama.
Basically, if you don't want higher taxes or deficits- don't vote McCain.
But it doesn't really matter. Herbert Hoover, the last conservative we let near the white house until Ronald Reagan and the Bushes slimed their way back in, attempted to balance the budget in an attempt to solve the great depression. You know what happened? Shit got worse."
I'm sorry, but in terms of the economy, I 'm goping to say that Obama is absolutely terrible. I know they probably don't matter much to you but here are the facts:
Fact: Obama is going to raise taxes on the largest employers.
Fact: The amount of spending Obama wants cannot be paid for by tax increases on the rich. Ex.(150 billion on a green energy plan, expanding health insurance by $65 billion, regulating profits of drug companies, and he wants to establish a mortgage interest tax credit)
Fact: Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore says, "Obama will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax."
Fact: Redistribution of wealth, which is what Obama wants to due, without fail brings economic ruin.
wrong Obama's already changed things more than Mccain ever could or would. Obama has already changed the game by being nominated as the first black presidental candidate without taking money from lobbyiest. This precedent will undoubtibly continue in american politics and has changed the game.
i seriously doubt that he'd get in office and start playing by the rules all of a sudden.
-
Novella.
Stop.
Listen.
In the 80s and 90s Obama was busy being the president of The Harvard Law Review and learning/teaching constitutional Law, being a community organizer(elitist!), then he was in the Illinois state legislature from 1996-2004, then becoming a Senator in congress.
Compare that with Sarah Palin, who in the same time period was busy being trained as a beauty queen, then a sports anchor and then mayor of a town of 7,000 people, then was governor of a state with less than a third the population of Chicago for the blink of an eye.
I mean you either get that or not.
To AsburyPark: I love Ron Paul, but come off it. There are substantial differences in what would come from the small differences between a Obama and Mccain presidency. I presented them, and considering we know it will be one or the other in office-those differences are worth considering.
-
Sorry, but no. The freest markets have the strongest econnomies, that is an irrefutable fact. No amount of Michael Moore movies will change that.
So you're against Government intervention and regulation in the free market? Awesome. So that means you're against corporations, which were created by government action, you're against the gigantic bailouts that the Bush administration has handed out to Fannie May and others right? You should be against the massive subsidies that the Bush administration has given to oil companies and others that already have billion dollar profits right? You should be against the incentives for corporations to ship jobs overseas right? Come to think of it, you should be against just about everything done over the past 8 years and everything Mccain has proposed....right?
Fact: Obama is going to raise taxes on the largest employers.
Who, Wal-Mart?
As I explained, most(95%) Americans will get a tax DECREASE. And that top 5%....I think they're doing okay:
(http://www.cafrman.com/images/WealthDistribution.GIF)
Fact: Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore says, "Obama will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax."
LoL wat? To who? That article assumed that we continue the current occupation of Iraq that I ASSUME you support.
If you're against being taxed, lets look where we can cut:
(http://www.barryhermanson.org/home/pie.gif)
Hmmm.... this is a tough one. Well Mccain is for cutting Veterans benefits, so he will free up money that way.
But if you're against big government spending, you should be against the Military Industrial Complex most of all.
I assume you are not.
Fact: Redistribution of wealth, which is what Obama wants to due, without fail brings economic ruin.
Again, look at the chart, under the Bush administration we had a LOT of redistribution of wealth. Mainly from the bottom up. We have more billionaires than ever. We have some Gigantic corporations, that control a lot of what goes on in the world. We also have had more jobs shipped overseas, more subsidies for these billion dollar corporations, and more tax breaks for the rich.
Yes I certainly agree that Wealth is being redistributed.
You should be furious!
-
NickDagger kicking all kinds of ass in this thread
-
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child’s favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won’t vote for her can’t quit smiling when talking about her because she is a “babe”.
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months. She is “pro-life”. She recently gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby. She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn’t take positions; she just “puts things out there” and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit. Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans. Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters. She’s smart.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents. During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later–to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once. These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city. As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today’s surplus, borrow for needs.
She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideasor compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of “old boys”. Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal–loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska’s top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it’s pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job.
In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects–which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance–but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah.
They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah’s mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked toglobal warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she. However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.
CLAIM VS FACT
•“Hockey mom”: true for a few years
•“PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
•“NRA supporter”: absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
•“Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
•“Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I’ve always operated in the belief that “Bad things happen when good people stay silent”. Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don’t have a job she can bump me out of. I don’t belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.
Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can’t recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall–they are swamped. So I can’t verify my numbers.
You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my “about 5,000″, up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.
Anne Kilkenny
August 31 2008
-
There are substantial differences in what would come from the small differences between a Obama and Mccain presidency. I presented them, and considering we know it will be one or the other in office-those differences are worth considering.
I wasn't addressing anyone personally with that delicious turd I dropped in the punchbowl but since we're on the subject... I agree with your views here and those of Chomsky about 98% of the time (with his views on 9/11 being the major exception).
"It's the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and the private sector." Noamsky said it all right there.
Like you, I would also pick Obama over McCain on paper but I probably have more of a chance of catching the Jersey Devil by his hoof here in the Pine Barrens than ever seeing Obama live up to half of what he's claiming, especially the Iraq scenario.
Carry on.
-
I certainly agree, it's all rhetoric, and both will serve the same corporate interests.
Just basic institutions are likely to function better under Obama than Mccain.
Also, his VP isn't a beauty queen.
-
Hey Nick,
Could you give a source/reference for those pie charts?
-
I certainly agree, it's all rhetoric, and both will serve the same corporate interests.
why do you believe that?
-
Expand Quote
I certainly agree, it's all rhetoric, and both will serve the same corporate interests.
why do you believe that?
I'm guessing because of the mutual CFR connections?
-
Expand Quote
I certainly agree, it's all rhetoric, and both will serve the same corporate interests.
why do you believe that?
A firm grip on reality, and a list of their corporate contributers.
This is a good article on that matter:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22210615/candidates_for_sale
Obama'a recent vote on FISA is a good early indicator on what you can expect.
That aside, as I pointed out, the small differences between McCain and Obama, are certainly worth considering. I'm voting for Obama.
-
Hey Nick,
Could you give a source/reference for those pie charts?
I knew the facts so I just grabbed the first ones I knew were accurate at random, but:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Is a fantastic website.
(http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/discr08prop.gif)
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I certainly agree, it's all rhetoric, and both will serve the same corporate interests.
why do you believe that?
A firm grip on reality, and a list of their corporate contributers.
This is a good article on that matter:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22210615/candidates_for_sale
Obama'a recent vote on FISA is a good early indicator on what you can expect.
That aside, as I pointed out, the small differences between McCain and Obama, are certainly worth considering. I'm voting for Obama.
so i've done some research on this and apparently the candidates are using a technique called bundling to get corporate cash and it looks like obama is dipping deep: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638
nick what you got on money that he's getting form lobbyist?
-
Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.
Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain's running mate.
Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
"
Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
Palin's address, much of which was spent reflecting on the work of the church in which she grew up and was baptized, underscores the notion that her world view is deeply impacted by religion.
In turn, her remarks raise important questions: mainly, what is Palin's faith and how exactly has it influenced her policies?
A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin's longtime spiritual home.
The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode.
"
It is impossible to determine how much Wasilla Assembly of God has shaped Palin's thinking. She was baptized there at the age of 12 and attended the church for most of her adult life. When Palin was inaugurated as governor, the founding pastor of the church delivered the invocation. In 2002, Palin moved her family to a nondenominational church, but she continues to worship at a related Assembly of God church in Juneau.
Moreover, she "has maintained a friendship with Wasilla Assembly of God and has attended various conferences and special meetings here," Kalnins' office said in a statement. "As for her personal beliefs," the statement added, "Governor Palin is well able to speak for herself on those issues.
"
Clearly, however, Palin views the church as the source of an important, if sometimes politically explosive, message. "Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place," she told the congregation in June. "What comes from this church I think has great destiny.
"
And if the political storm over Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright is any indication, Palin may face some political fallout over the more controversial teachings of Wasilla Assembly of God.
If the church had a political alignment, it would almost surely be conservative. In his sermons, Kalnins did not hide his affections for certain national politicians.
During the 2004 election season, he praised President Bush's performance during a debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his personal candidate preferences. "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry." Kalnins added: "If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.
"
Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government's handling of Hurricane Katrina. "I hate criticisms towards the President," he said, "because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you.
"
Much of his support for the current administration has come in the realm of foreign affairs. Kalnins has preached that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a "world war" over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.
"What you see in a terrorist -- that's called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. ... Jesus called us to die. You're worried about getting hurt? He's called us to die. Listen, you know we can't even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. ... I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say "war mode." Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he's like the good shepherd, he's loving all the time and he's kind all the time. Oh yes he is -- but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war.
"
As for his former congregant and current vice presidential candidate, Kalnins has asserted that Palin's election as governor was the result of a "prophetic call" by another pastor at the church who prayed for her victory. "[He made] a prophetic declaration and then unfolds the kingdom of God, you know.
"
Even Palin expressed surprise at that pastor's advocacy for her candidacy. "He was praying over me," she said in June. "He's praying, 'Lord make a way, Lord make a way...' And I'm thinking, this guy's really bold, he doesn't even know what I'm gonna do, he doesn't know what my plans are, and he's praying not, 'Oh Lord, if it be your will may she become governor,' or whatever. No, he just prayed for it. He said, 'Lord, make a way, and let her do this next step.' And that's exactly what happened. So, again, very very powerful coming from this church.
"
In his sermons, Pastor Kalnins has also expressed beliefs that, while not directly political, lie outside of mainstream Christian thought.
He preaches repeatedly about the "end times" or "last days," an apocalyptic prophesy held by a small but vocal group of Christian leaders. During his appearance with Palin in June, he declared, "I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them.
"
He also claims to have received direct "words of knowledge" from God, providing him information about past events in other people's lives. During one sermon, he described being paired with a complete stranger during a golf outing. "I said, I'm a minister from Alaska and I want you to know that your wife left you -- you know that your wife left you and that the Lord is gonna defend you in a very short time, and it wasn't your fault. And the man drops his clubs, he literally was about to tee off and he dropped his clubs, and he says, 'Who the blank are you?' And I says, 'well, I'm a minister.' He says, 'how do you know about my life? What do you know?' And I started giving him more of the word of knowledge to his life and he was freaked out.
"
Kalnins has, of course, preached on a bevy of topics ranging from humility to "overcoming bitterness." But the more controversial remarks reported above were not out of the norm, appearing in numerous sermons spanning the four years of available recordings.
As for Palin, her views on these topics is more opaque. In the wake of the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, a debate has raged about whether political figures should be held responsible for the comments of their religious guiders. Clearly, however, Kalnins, like many national conservative religious leaders, sees Alaska's governor as one of his own. "Gov. Sarah Palin is the real deal," he told his church this past summer. "You know, some people put on a show...but she's the real deal."
-
OK, I did some more research and it looks like Obama isn't taking money registred federal lobbyist but he has taken money from MoveOn.org and is taking money from state and city lobbyist. He's also taking money from large corporations through bundling but i also found this:
"Obama's campaign figures show that 94 percent of the money going to Obama comes from people writing checks for $200 or less."
which seems promising too me.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/29/lobbyists/
-
So you're against Government intervention and regulation in the free market? Awesome. So that means you're against corporations, which were created by government action, you're against the gigantic bailouts that the Bush administration has handed out to Fannie May and others right?
I didn't even read your other post (it was very long and I do not have a lot of time for internet debating tonight), and I know I said that I was over internet arguing about the election, but I just wanted to point one thing out:
Logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Being in favor of a "free market" does not necessarily mean you are against corporations. Despite Adam Smith's reservations about joint-stock companies, a lot of capitalists have amended there own personal economic philosophies to accept the role of corporations. It also does not necessarily mean you are against bail outs either (although I am). In fact, most capitalists (except anarcho-capitalists) agree that the government should oversee the economy to some extent -- this means doing things like encouraging competition and prevention of monopolies, as Adam Smith suggested, as well as insuring that a 401k investor in Indiana is not liable for the things that Nike does in Indonesia. This is the whole concept behind what a corporation does, and it makes a world of sense to most people....
-
Novella.
Stop.
Listen.
In the 80s and 90s Obama was busy being the president of The Harvard Law Review and learning/teaching constitutional Law, being a community organizer(elitist!), then he was in the Illinois state legislature from 1996-2004, then becoming a Senator in congress.
Compare that with Sarah Palin, who in the same time period was busy being trained as a beauty queen, then a sports anchor and then mayor of a town of 7,000 people, then was governor of a state with less than a third the population of Chicago for the blink of an eye.
I mean you either get that or not.
To AsburyPark: I love Ron Paul, but come off it. There are substantial differences in what would come from the small differences between a Obama and Mccain presidency. I presented them, and considering we know it will be one or the other in office-those differences are worth considering.
These irrelevant personal attacks are getting ridiculous. Sarah Pallin, a woman, who has achieved vast amounts of political success is an incapable person right? Which school a candidate graduated from is more important than the issues?
You're a joke.
I perused through your uninformed pontifications about the economy it has become evident to me that having a discussion with you will get me no where. You make unreasonable assumptions left and right, extend my arguments to the point of absurdity, and purposely misinterpret my points.
-
Expand Quote
So you're against Government intervention and regulation in the free market? Awesome. So that means you're against corporations, which were created by government action, you're against the gigantic bailouts that the Bush administration has handed out to Fannie May and others right?
I didn't even read your other post (it was very long and I do not have a lot of time for internet debating tonight), and I know I said that I was over internet arguing about the election, but I just wanted to point one thing out:
Logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Being in favor of a "free market" does not necessarily mean you are against corporations. Despite Adam Smith's reservations about joint-stock companies, a lot of capitalists have amended there own personal economic philosophies to accept the role of corporations. It also does not necessarily mean you are against bail outs either (although I am). In fact, most capitalists (except anarcho-capitalists) agree that the government should oversee the economy to some extent -- this means doing things like encouraging competition and prevention of monopolies, as Adam Smith suggested, as well as insuring that a 401k investor in Indiana is not liable for the things that Nike does in Indonesia. This is the whole concept behind what a corporation does, and it makes a world of sense to most people....
WHAT I SAY NEWT! GTFO
nah but that was your only legit post in a while
-
Novella - If you think Palin is a good choice you have been had. She is a hack and only got the nod because Mcbush's advisers knew American's are stupid enough to vote for someone based on looks. Our country in trouble and I am scared for the future.
-
Novella - If you think Palin is a good choice you have been had. She is a hack and only got the nod because Mcbush's advisers knew American's are stupid enough to vote for someone based on looks. Our country in trouble and I am scared for the future.
The future holds the truth.
-
Expand Quote
So you're against Government intervention and regulation in the free market? Awesome. So that means you're against corporations, which were created by government action, you're against the gigantic bailouts that the Bush administration has handed out to Fannie May and others right?
I didn't even read your other post (it was very long and I do not have a lot of time for internet debating tonight), and I know I said that I was over internet arguing about the election, but I just wanted to point one thing out:
Logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Being in favor of a "free market" does not necessarily mean you are against corporations. Despite Adam Smith's reservations about joint-stock companies, a lot of capitalists have amended there own personal economic philosophies to accept the role of corporations. It also does not necessarily mean you are against bail outs either (although I am). In fact, most capitalists (except anarcho-capitalists) agree that the government should oversee the economy to some extent -- this means doing things like encouraging competition and prevention of monopolies, as Adam Smith suggested, as well as insuring that a 401k investor in Indiana is not liable for the things that Nike does in Indonesia. This is the whole concept behind what a corporation does, and it makes a world of sense to most people....
Except to those workers in Indonesia and the people that used to have the well paying jobs in America, you dumb fuck.
Corporations are not the friend of the free market. I am really astonished that you could talk about being for the government encouraging competition and preventing monopolies in the same breath in which you give your support to corporations.
Watch the documentary. Nothing presented is controversial, it just shows how they came to be, what the structure of a corporation necessarily leads to, and shows inside factory's, and shit that I'm sure you don't give a fuck about, but if you really want to talk about corporations smugly, you might as well at least learn about them and their effects around the world:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=192012118972057552&ei=lqzESIKwN4m6rQKRgsm3BQ&q=the+corporation
-
Expand Quote
Novella.
Stop.
Listen.
In the 80s and 90s Obama was busy being the president of The Harvard Law Review and learning/teaching constitutional Law, being a community organizer(elitist!), then he was in the Illinois state legislature from 1996-2004, then becoming a Senator in congress.
Compare that with Sarah Palin, who in the same time period was busy being trained as a beauty queen, then a sports anchor and then mayor of a town of 7,000 people, then was governor of a state with less than a third the population of Chicago for the blink of an eye.
I mean you either get that or not.
To AsburyPark: I love Ron Paul, but come off it. There are substantial differences in what would come from the small differences between a Obama and Mccain presidency. I presented them, and considering we know it will be one or the other in office-those differences are worth considering.
These irrelevant personal attacks are getting ridiculous. Sarah Pallin, a woman, who has achieved vast amounts of political success is an incapable person right? Which school a candidate graduated from is more important than the issues?
You're a joke.
I perused through your uninformed pontifications about the economy it has become evident to me that having a discussion with you will get me no where. You make unreasonable assumptions left and right, extend my arguments to the point of absurdity, and purposely misinterpret my points.
What personal attacks?
I said she is a beauty queen. She is.
I said she was a sports anchor. She was.
I said she was the mayor of a town of less than 7,000. She was.
I said the biggest post she had was a brief stint as governor of a state with a population one third the population of Chicago. She was.
I said she flip-flopped on the bridge to nowhere, and now triumphantly lies and acts like she wasn't just put a stop to it when everyone else was pushing for it. She did
I said she refuses to give any serious interviews, unlike the other three candidates on the two major party tickets. She does.
I mean yeah, she just seems unqualified, incompetent, and just a cynical pick BASED ON THE FACTS.
I also compared Obama's record of being editor of the Harvard Law Review, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, being in the state legislature of Illonis for 8 years, and then being a Senator as favoarable to:
Palin's record of switching schools 5 times in 6 years, being a beauty queen, being a sports reporter, being a mayor of a tiny town and then very briefly being governor of state with a very small population.
But you know I guess those are all just PERSONAL attacks right?
Jesus fucking christ.
You know who had a lot of "political success?"
George Bush.
I bet you wish you could vote for him again don't you?
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Novella.
Stop.
Listen.
In the 80s and 90s Obama was busy being the president of The Harvard Law Review and learning/teaching constitutional Law, being a community organizer(elitist!), then he was in the Illinois state legislature from 1996-2004, then becoming a Senator in congress.
Compare that with Sarah Palin, who in the same time period was busy being trained as a beauty queen, then a sports anchor and then mayor of a town of 7,000 people, then was governor of a state with less than a third the population of Chicago for the blink of an eye.
I mean you either get that or not.
To AsburyPark: I love Ron Paul, but come off it. There are substantial differences in what would come from the small differences between a Obama and Mccain presidency. I presented them, and considering we know it will be one or the other in office-those differences are worth considering.
These irrelevant personal attacks are getting ridiculous. Sarah Pallin, a woman, who has achieved vast amounts of political success is an incapable person right? Which school a candidate graduated from is more important than the issues?
You're a joke.
I perused through your uninformed pontifications about the economy it has become evident to me that having a discussion with you will get me no where. You make unreasonable assumptions left and right, extend my arguments to the point of absurdity, and purposely misinterpret my points.
What personal attacks?
I said she is a beauty queen. She is.
I said she was a sports anchor. She was.
I said she was the mayor of a town of less than 7,000. She was.
I said the biggest post she had was a brief stint as governor of a state with a population one third the population of Chicago. She was.
I said she flip-flopped on the bridge to nowhere, and now triumphantly lies and acts like she wasn't just put a stop to it when everyone else was pushing for it. She did
I said she refuses to give any serious interviews, unlike the other three candidates on the two major party tickets. She does.
I mean yeah, she just seems unqualified, incompetent, and just a cynical pick BASED ON THE FACTS.
I also compared Obama's record of being editor of the Harvard Law Review, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, being in the state legislature of Illonis for 8 years, and then being a Senator as favoarable to:
Palin's record of switching schools 5 times in 6 years, being a beauty queen, being a sports reporter, being a mayor of a tiny town and then very briefly being governor of state with a very small population.
But you know I guess those are all just PERSONAL attacks right?
Jesus fucking christ.
You know who had a lot of "political success?"
George Bush.
I bet you wish you could vote for him again don't you?
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
A personal attack is bringing out someone's personal life to attack them. You would probably flip your shit if I listed Obama's muslim father as a reason for disliking him, or suggesting that he was mentally unstable because he was raised by a single mother.
Also learn to read. I have alreday explained to you rmorons I do not support Bush, the republican party, or McCain. Do you live in an insane fantasy world where everyone who disagrees with you is either a fanatical republican or is the head of an evil corporation?
Keep getting your ideas from documentaries which are more respected for their entertainment qualities than their educational ones.
Novella - If you think Palin is a good choice you have been had. She is a hack and only got the nod because Mcbush's advisers knew American's are stupid enough to vote for someone based on looks. Our country in trouble and I am scared for the future.
Really, you morons are starting to lose it. How many times have I said I'm not supporting either candidate? Several throughout this thread. Get off it you illiterate fucks.
-
Novella is on par with Alaska.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
So you're against Government intervention and regulation in the free market? Awesome. So that means you're against corporations, which were created by government action, you're against the gigantic bailouts that the Bush administration has handed out to Fannie May and others right?
I didn't even read your other post (it was very long and I do not have a lot of time for internet debating tonight), and I know I said that I was over internet arguing about the election, but I just wanted to point one thing out:
Logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Being in favor of a "free market" does not necessarily mean you are against corporations. Despite Adam Smith's reservations about joint-stock companies, a lot of capitalists have amended there own personal economic philosophies to accept the role of corporations. It also does not necessarily mean you are against bail outs either (although I am). In fact, most capitalists (except anarcho-capitalists) agree that the government should oversee the economy to some extent -- this means doing things like encouraging competition and prevention of monopolies, as Adam Smith suggested, as well as insuring that a 401k investor in Indiana is not liable for the things that Nike does in Indonesia. This is the whole concept behind what a corporation does, and it makes a world of sense to most people....
Except to those workers in Indonesia and the people that used to have the well paying jobs in America, you dumb fuck.
Corporations are not the friend of the free market. I am really astonished that you could talk about being for the government encouraging competition and preventing monopolies in the same breath in which you give your support to corporations.
Watch the documentary. Nothing presented is controversial, it just shows how they came to be, what the structure of a corporation necessarily leads to, and shows inside factory's, and shit that I'm sure you don't give a fuck about, but if you really want to talk about corporations smugly, you might as well at least learn about them and their effects around the world:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=192012118972057552&ei=lqzESIKwN4m6rQKRgsm3BQ&q=the+corporation
the fact that every company i work for is driven by blind greed is a terrible thing that needs to be addressed. I've seen it time and time again where C level managers (CEO, CFO, CIO, etc...) come in and then are only at the company for maybe 5 years and in that time all they do is get it ready for selling by doing things like laying off the employees. They then sell the company, resulting in more employees getting laid off and them making millions. They will take what are fantasitic companies too work at that provide jobs for thousands and turn them into shitholes for their own gain. No one but maybe 5 people benifit. It should be illegal, we need more regulation because the natural evil nature of corporations is dangerous and will only be less evil if we force them to.
-
so dont work for a corporation.... or stop bitching. you do have a choice. me, i work for a family owned construction company that gives bonuses to every employee, gives amazing benefits, and is honestly interested in what the employees have to say about working for them. i took a 10000 a year pay cut to work for them, but it was worth it to me.
oh, and palin could get it.
-
actually, i rather take the serverance, find another job quickly for another corporation with 10% pay increase and call it a raise and bonus but unfortunately, a lot of other americans out ther aren't in a booming industry and aren't capable of making lemonaid out of lemons in the same way that i've been able too. just because this situation works out good for me doesn't mean that i don't think it's wrong and needs too be stopped.
your mistaking my desire to fix problems that effect others for bitching about my own life which is not the case. i'm doing just fine and eventhough i'll likely buy a house in the next 8 years and my family could pass onto the side of the wealth line that is going to get more heavy taxation under Obama, i'm still backing him. and eventhough the corporate situation works out well for me i still find it a disgusting practice, i think it needs regulation and i just hope i'm lucky enough to run into one of the C managers one day so that i can punk them out like the little bitches they are.
congratulations on having a good job and the ability that that gives you too ignore the problems of others. i wish it was that easy for me but when discussing politics i tend to be more selfless in the causes i back.
-
ignore the problems of others? like what? explain this.
-
so dont work for a corporation.... or stop bitching.
your saying that instead of putting out there that there is this problem with corporations, i should just ignore it. i'm glad that works for you, but for me, i'm going to call foul on things that are unethical, explotive and bad for the economy regardless of if i benifit from them and regardless of if i could ignore them.
you choose to simple say "i've got a job that isn't affected so i don't care and you shouldn't either." i think is a shit attitude too have because one day your job could be gone and you might not find another one that is as good and may end up taking a job at a corporation. you never know where life will lead you. a corporation could buy out your owner tomorrow and then you wouldn't be able to ignore this problem anymore.
-
im not saying ignore it... im saying DO SOMETHING. dont just bitch about it and keep working your corporate job. to use an analogy you might know something about, it would be like skating in nikes and bitching about how they are going to take over skateboarding. if you really care that much, then make it show in your actions, not just your words.
-
working for a start up is still working for a corporation, your still working for the VC company that's backing it. i guess you might not understand fully how the software industry works, but basically it'd be like saying i'm not going to work for a corporate skate company and then go get on a "start up company." well if the start-up is funded by a big distribution company then what's the difference?
care to explain how me not working for a corporation would help, especially if i'm silent about why? also care to explain how not sharing the shitty practices of corporations with others isn't helping? i had no idea that corporations worked in this way before working in them and if i raise awareness with others who are ignorant of the problems as i was by talking about it in political forums, hows that not helping?
-
no, go ahead and talk about it... it fine... i really dont feel like getting into a deep political argument here. all i am asking is why even put yourself in the position if you dislike it so much?
im also not saying to be silent and not work for them... i was saying if youre vocal, yet still working for them, then you are still helping them attain their goals, which i assume is to make more money for themselves and the shareholders at your expense. please, keep speaking out if thats what you feel you need to do, but think about how more of your time is spent helping them than working against them
-
Hey that was a cheep-shot.
Get it.
Anyways everyone who can accurately identify and is willing to talk about what corporations are doing to America should. That's doing something in and of itself. Telling someone they should find another job if they aren't happy is childish considering the state of our economy. A gigantic proportion of our well paying jobs have left the country thanks to the corporations Newton is stoked on(sweet stock prices brah!!! yahoo) and gone to countries where they can literally pay workers 3 cents a day to work in WORSE than slavery conditions, to make expensive items to be sold in America to people who now have to work for a corporation, usually a terrible one in the service industry to afford the shitty shit.
Awesome brahhh.
Although I should say that if you're suggesting people start buying from companies who use american/ethical means of production to make their products, then I certainly agree with any popular movement in that direction. Considering the stranglehold corporations have on our government, I don't see much changes happening, but I hope I'm wrong. People like Newt's ironic stokedness on corporations certainly doesn't give me much hope.
-
people should look out for thier familys and communities first. if you NEED to work for a corperation to pay your bills and keep food on the table, then do it, and speak out aginst what you feel is wrong... but at the same time I feel that if YOU feel so strongly, then you should make it a goal to eventually get yourself in a position that lets you not have to work for them.
i also feel that we are much to reliant on imports... the downfall of our economy started when we started transforming from a maunfacturing based nation to a service based nation.
-
I agree on both points.
-
my wife and i have developed a business plan for a retail shop we are planning to open in austin when we move there in the next year. we've been approved for funding because she busted her ass for 6 months putting together a great business plan after i had encouraged her to do so. the whole point is to get her out of the corporate world first because her salary is half mine and my skills are in much higher demand and come with jobs with great benifits which we need because we have a child.
we are moving to austin in an effort for me to be able to transition my job away from the conservative corporate shitholes that i've worked for here in Houston like Stewart Title, in hopes of finding more liberal minded corporations\start ups to work for in Austin. i actually told my wife i'd only be willing to have a child if she'd be willing to move to austin because i didn't want to get stuck working for these souless, conservative shitholes. i've also been learning a skill set at my current job that could lead to good independent contracting opportunities for me in a difficult and highly specialized testing role for software, although i'm not willing to travel so might be unrealistic unless austin's tech bed is big enough too support it. i also earlier this year threw my hat in the independent web consulting ring, southsides skateparks web site was one of the ones i built but i quickly figured out that it wasn't for me and decided to try something else.
so your assuption about me only talking about and not being about it is just wrong. i'm not that kind of person but i'd assume that your surronded by them considering that you were so quick to make that assuption that someone you don't know is like that.
these corporations and there shitty practices are what's ruining this country and i'm doing everything within reason that doesn't distract from my higher family obligations to do what i can to minimize my dependence on them and politically to go agaisnt them by supporting candidates like barack who have tax policies (example below) that address the very problems of outsourcing and mergers and acquisitions that i'm concerned about.
Cutting Corporate Tax Rates for Firms that Create Jobs in America. Barack Obama will repeal tax
breaks and loopholes that reward corporations that retain their earnings overseas, and will use those savings
to lower corporate tax rates for companies that expand or start operations in the United States.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
not everyone who talks about politics is a whiner, sorry to disappoint you
-
my wife and i have developed a business plan for a retail shop we are planning to open in austin when we move there in the next year. we've been approved for funding because she busted her ass for 6 months putting together a great business plan after i had encouraged her to do so. the whole point is to get her out of the corporate world first because her salary is half mine and my skills are in much higher demand and come with jobs with great benifits which we need because we have a child.
we are moving to austin in an effort for me to be able to transition my job away from the conservative corporate shitholes that i've worked for here in Houston like Stewart Title, in hopes of finding more liberal minded corporations\start ups to work for in Austin. i actually told my wife i'd only be willing to have a child if she'd be willing to move to austin because i didn't want to get stuck working for these souless, conservative shitholes. i've also been learning a skill set at my current job that could lead to good independent contracting opportunities for me in a difficult and highly specialized testing role for software, although i'm not willing to travel so might be unrealistic unless austin's tech bed is big enough too support it. i also earlier this year threw my hat in the independent web consulting ring, southsides skateparks web site was one of the ones i built but i quickly figured out that it wasn't for me and decided to try something else.
so your assuption about me only talking about and not being about it is just wrong. i'm not that kind of person but i'd assume that your surronded by them considering that you were so quick to make that assuption that someone you don't know is like that.
these corporations and there shitty practices are what's ruining this country and i'm doing everything within reason that doesn't distract from my higher family obligations to do what i can to minimize my dependence on them and politically to go agaisnt them by supporting candidates like barack who have tax policies (example below) that address the very problems of outsourcing and mergers and acquisitions that i'm concerned about.
Expand Quote
Cutting Corporate Tax Rates for Firms that Create Jobs in America. Barack Obama will repeal tax
breaks and loopholes that reward corporations that retain their earnings overseas, and will use those savings
to lower corporate tax rates for companies that expand or start operations in the United States.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
not everyone who talks about politics is a whiner, sorry to disappoint you
now see... if i had know that, or if you had said something to the effect that you were working to get yourself into that position, id have never posted what i did. respect on having the plan, and i hope you can make it happen.
-
also, the company that i was "bitching about" earlier was a very progressive company that built an indoor park where that had pool tables, ping pong tables, dart boards and wooden decks with swings on them on the top floor of the building for the employees too use to unwind during the day. they provided all kinds of snacks for the employees, had a coffe bar with a designer coffe machine on each floor and had antique ice cream and pop corn machines that they kept stocked and everything was free. they had the office laid out so that cubes were up against the windows with low walls and lots of space and offices were on the interior with french windows in a way that allowed all employees to have natural light, not just the people with offices. they had fitness contest too encourage people to get healthier. they were very much an employee first progressive type company like google, eventhough the were corporate. but a larger fish came along and swallowed them up because a few corrupt assholes where willing to whore out their coworkers for their own gain. that shit should be against the law, it's just rediculous.
it's something i take personal issue with and i'll definitely step to any of those assholes if i am ever lucky enough see them valeting their porches at the same restaraunt i happen to be at.
the same thing recently happend at my wifes company and her boss who had only been there for 6 months made somewhere around 1/2 a million dollars and still refused to give her a raise eventhough he knew the company was being sold and it wouldn't have impacted him in anyway. and because of this asshole and the rest of the C managers, all the employees who actually do all the work ended up loosing their jobs.
it's horrible, it's disgusting and it needs to be stopped and the only thing that will stop it is making this kind of behavior illegal and putting these C managers in jail for trying to pull this kind of shit.
-
I haven't really been keeping up with this thread but I saw this video and figured I'd drop it off here.
It's Sarah Palin practically endorsing Obama before she was picked for the VP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO6dmBm1SFw
-
DUDE so bummed that McCain is taking over Obama in the polls. Although I know polls are not really indicative of final results it's still disheartening to think that Americans are gonna elect him. I wonder about the sanity of middle america. I wonder what it's like to live there, like Missouri or Nebraska or something. Any pals live out there and want to give me some real insight as to what it's like to live in a town of total ignorant people? I mean I lived in Baton Rouge most of my life, I don't anymore, but even there it can be sort of liberal with the college there and everything. Maybe I'm just good at shielding myself from people whose views are so polar opposite from mine.
-
DUDE so bummed that McCain is taking over Obama in the polls. Although I know polls are not really indicative of final results it's still disheartening to think that Americans are gonna elect him. I wonder about the sanity of middle america. I wonder what it's like to live there, like Missouri or Nebraska or something. Any pals live out there and want to give me some real insight as to what it's like to live in a town of total ignorant people? I mean I lived in Baton Rouge most of my life, I don't anymore, but even there it can be sort of liberal with the college there and everything. Maybe I'm just good at shielding myself from people whose views are so polar opposite from mine.
See, the fundamental problem with the members of this board is basically cast into plain site with posts like this one. "I can't understand! They are ignorant!" Is it not ironic that you consider others to be ignorant, yet it's yourself who cannot grasp the basic concepts of another argument? One of the fundamentals of logical argument is understanding and refuting the other side's positions. Can you even define the word ignorant?
-
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
-
DUDE so bummed that McCain is taking over Obama in the polls. Although I know polls are not really indicative of final results it's still disheartening to think that Americans are gonna elect him. I wonder about the sanity of middle america. I wonder what it's like to live there, like Missouri or Nebraska or something. Any pals live out there and want to give me some real insight as to what it's like to live in a town of total ignorant people? I mean I lived in Baton Rouge most of my life, I don't anymore, but even there it can be sort of liberal with the college there and everything. Maybe I'm just good at shielding myself from people whose views are so polar opposite from mine.
I grew up in a real white conservative republican rural area. Cornfields and trailer parks. I could go on for awhile with stories about it, but don't know how to put the bullshit into a short anecdote.
I guess one little thing to give you an idea of what it was like, every year for halloween a group of kids would dress up as klansmen, and they wouldn't get their asses kicked. Many teachers would openly endorse conservative candidates and issues. Lots of pickup trucks with confederate flags on them in the school parking lot, driven by dudes wearing cowboy boots. Fucking hated every second of it, but part of me wishes I still lived there just so I could see peoples reactions to the fact that a blackman might become president.
But now I live in the other extreme which is pretty annoying too. Literally half the houses in my neighborhood have either an obama sign out front or a prius in the driveway, and are way too proud about both. There's nothing wrong with either of those things, just peoples attitudes annoy me, reminds me of what I think san francisco is like, except I've never been so I dunno how apt the comparison is. I'm just gonna be glad when this september 11th anniversary is over, so I'll be able to walk the three blocks to the store without having to deal with the 9/11 truthers.
-
DUDE so bummed that McCain is taking over Obama in the polls. Although I know polls are not really indicative of final results it's still disheartening to think that Americans are gonna elect him. I wonder about the sanity of middle america. I wonder what it's like to live there, like Missouri or Nebraska or something. Any pals live out there and want to give me some real insight as to what it's like to live in a town of total ignorant people? I mean I lived in Baton Rouge most of my life, I don't anymore, but even there it can be sort of liberal with the college there and everything. Maybe I'm just good at shielding myself from people whose views are so polar opposite from mine.
I live in Lincoln, NE. I don't pay attention to the politics because I know everyone votes Repub. The only thing you need to worry your pretty little head about is wether the Huskers won or not. That can make or break a whole weekend depending on how the fans react.
-
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
Hari bol...
When you really think about it...
Most people aren't straight ignorant, just severely conditioned from birth to react or believe in a certain way given their race, location, sex, etc... It's up to the individual to break through the programming (or "maya" if you're krsna conscious). I used to shake my head in disbelief and wish great bodily harm on those "ignorant stereotypes here" during recent elections as I watched Bush and his neocons slither their way into power but it's just got to the point where I almost feel bad for these people now. No personal offense to anyone present doing so but it must suck to be that brainwashed that you would actually make an effort to elect somebody that is continuing the policies of Bush in any way what so ever.
-
But even if they are conditioned, they are still uninformed, which is the definition of ignorant.
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
-
Sorry, but no. The freest markets have the strongest econnomies, that is an irrefutable fact. No amount of Michael Moore movies will change that.
I am only going to cover this, because the rest is just dumb and won't lead anywhere.
First of all, it is obviously quite refutable. People have been refuting it for a while now, and there still is no solid consensus.
Now, I just want to point out the fact that you said the above quote, and then ask you if you know who was president when the stock market crashed in 1929. Who oversaw the greatest economic failure in the history of the United States of America? What were his economic policies?
Who was president during the ascension out of this period of economic hardship, and what were his policies?
Can anybody answer these? The answers are in EVERY U.S. History book to cover the issue. Not just Michael Moore movies.
I didn't quote an expert, or bring in theory. I talked about actual real events that occurred indisputably. I don't know what else to present to you besides historical instances where you are proven the opposite of correct in every sense of the word.
Obviously your mind is just closed to facts which dispute your very strongly held beliefs, this isn't an intellectual debate. Its a screaming match, and its dumb. READ what is written, and respond to that, don't just shoot back the same points over and over once they have been refuted. I'm done going back to what I said before.
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
Rural people tend to feel less direct effects of government programs and still have to pay as much for them. The only thing they think can fuck with their way of life is some terrorist or other country blowing up the country. Hence, rural areas tend to be more conservative. They also tend to feel more threatened by minorities because less minorities live in rural areas. Still. in this election, I don't even understand why, aside from being programmed like novella, anybody would vote McCain this election.
I'm not disheartened about polls. If its like this after the debates I'll be bummed.
-
Nader/Gonzales '08
-
being a Obama supporter for a little over a year now has sure been an emotional rollercoaster for me. He was an underdog then he was neck and neck with Hillary. Next was the Rev Wright contraversy, the secret tape and Hillary not dropping out of the race. The Convention came and we weren't even sure if he'd get an endorcement by the Clintons. Now we've got McCain winning in the polls since he got that sexy librarian as a VP..... sigh!!! I need a Zanax
-
But even if they are conditioned, they are still uninformed, which is the definition of ignorant.
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
i think part of the problem is people voting on behalf of polerizing social issues without considering anything else but the bigger problem in my eyes is education. lets face it, a lot of americans are just plain stupid. most would probably have a hard time understanding eletoral college vs popular vote. i think one of the biggest problems that needs to be addressed in the country besides corporate influence is education. in the US the poorer kids get such a shit education that when they become adults they aren't even capable of objectively analyzing issues. apart from all the obvious benifits of having a better educated population, i think having a smarter voting pool is definitely a big motive. we really need to provide a better education i the US. in the 8th grade i went to a public school in a small town in La and the only math class that was available was struggling with long form addition and subtraction. i can't even imagine how it's possible that 8th graders haven't learned the most basic math skill besides counting in 8 years. it was pathetic but it wasn't the kids fault, it was the systems.
-
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
But it's you that admits to being "uninformed" about conservative positions -- YOU are the one that is ignorant. Hell, it's ignorant to just assume that all McCain voters are voting on personalities.
-
I'm not ignorant about conservative positions. I said they were opposite from mine. I said I was ignorant on what it felt like to be surrounded by them. Dont put words in my mouth Newton, instead put a dick in yours.
-
Expand Quote
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
But it's you that admits to being "uninformed" about conservative positions -- YOU are the one that is ignorant. Hell, it's ignorant to just assume that all McCain voters are voting on personalities.
of course they aren't all uniformed but it's hard to deny that a big part of their base is "uniformed" about economic issues and foriegn policy if you define "uniformed" as voting against your own interest and not being able to articulate your stance.
the rich base of the republican party are certainly informed as they party caters too them. no mystery there.
for the non-rich voters you have group that only cares about polerizing social issues (evangelicals and rednecks) and whether it's a matter of political priority for these people or actual ignorance, the fact that they continually vote against their own economic interest, that they don't give coherent well thought out answers about policy and don't seem to notice that they are being taken advantage of by the republican party who never changes any of the policies surronding these social issues that they care so much about makes that base seem uninformed. they also seem to be illogical because they are motivated by bigotry on a lot of their stances which is something that you can't talk about these days and when asked about these issues they of course have a hard time articulating their stance because it's not PC to talk about their motives. all of this makes them seem uniformed.
so then it becomes a situation where even if they are informed, how's anyone too know? i'd guess that they are actually uninformed based on my time in small towns though, eventhough my post is diplomatically giving them the benifit of the doubt.
-
it was pathetic but it wasn't the kids fault, it was the systems.
pretty much agree with you, but what about the parent's role in education?
granted uneducated parents tend to raise uneducated kids, but I'm just saying.
-
thanks to all of you in this thread, I've learned alot from most of you. gnars all around everyday, I might have even shot you one Newton.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
But it's you that admits to being "uninformed" about conservative positions -- YOU are the one that is ignorant. Hell, it's ignorant to just assume that all McCain voters are voting on personalities.
of course they aren't all uniformed but it's hard to deny that a big part of their base is "uniformed" about economic issues and foriegn policy if you define "uniformed" as voting against your own interest and not being able to articulate your stance.
the rich base of the republican party are certainly informed as they party caters too them. no mystery there.
for the non-rich voters you have group that only cares about polerizing social issues (evangelicals and rednecks) and whether it's a matter of political priority for these people or actual ignorance, the fact that they continually vote against their own economic interest, that they don't give coherent well thought out answers about policy and don't seem to notice that they are being taken advantage of by the republican party who never changes any of the policies surronding these social issues that they care so much about makes that base seem uninformed. they also seem to be illogical because they are motivated by bigotry on a lot of their stances which is something that you can't talk about these days and when asked about these issues they of course have a hard time articulating their stance because it's not PC to talk about their motives. all of this makes them seem uniformed.
so then it becomes a situation where even if they are informed, how's anyone too know? i'd guess that they are actually uninformed based on my time in small towns though, eventhough my post is diplomatically giving them the benifit of the doubt.
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
-
sorry, I take back that gnar.
-
sorry, I take back that gnar.
No! Please stop! I cannot have my reputation on the SLAP message board dragged through the mud like this!
-
hey, keep up the good work my man
-
To all of those claiming that Republicans are ignorant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Voter_base
Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees. The trends for the years 1955 through 2004 are shown by gender in the graphs below
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG/375px-Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG/360px-Fig_58_women_with_4-yr_college_degs.JPG)
-
Dr.Newton the majority of people who get welfare are white southern women in rural areas, places where people are most likely to vote republican.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
But it's you that admits to being "uninformed" about conservative positions -- YOU are the one that is ignorant. Hell, it's ignorant to just assume that all McCain voters are voting on personalities.
of course they aren't all uniformed but it's hard to deny that a big part of their base is "uniformed" about economic issues and foriegn policy if you define "uniformed" as voting against your own interest and not being able to articulate your stance.
the rich base of the republican party are certainly informed as they party caters too them. no mystery there.
for the non-rich voters you have group that only cares about polerizing social issues (evangelicals and rednecks) and whether it's a matter of political priority for these people or actual ignorance, the fact that they continually vote against their own economic interest, that they don't give coherent well thought out answers about policy and don't seem to notice that they are being taken advantage of by the republican party who never changes any of the policies surronding these social issues that they care so much about makes that base seem uninformed. they also seem to be illogical because they are motivated by bigotry on a lot of their stances which is something that you can't talk about these days and when asked about these issues they of course have a hard time articulating their stance because it's not PC to talk about their motives. all of this makes them seem uniformed.
so then it becomes a situation where even if they are informed, how's anyone too know? i'd guess that they are actually uninformed based on my time in small towns though, eventhough my post is diplomatically giving them the benifit of the doubt.
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
of course there are uninformed people on the democrate side and even more dangerous there are people who think they are informed but are simply just not smart enough to handle the issues they represent, like those pink bitches.
but when you look at each party, it's pretty quicly obvious that the republican side has a much larger base that votes on social issues and is low on the educaction\informed specturm when it comes to things like macro economics and foriegn policy.
Expand Quote
it was pathetic but it wasn't the kids fault, it was the systems.
pretty much agree with you, but what about the parent's role in education?
granted uneducated parents tend to raise uneducated kids, but I'm just saying.
that's a good point but in my case study, there was no alternative. they had kids at that school who had potential and who were intellectually curious, just like at any school but they didn't have any classes to take that'd allow them to learn. we need to provide a minimal education for all our citizens. kids need to finish school with a solid understand of elementary math (through trig\geo), an understanding of at least US history, basic reading, comprehension and grammar. and that's just not available.
if you look to europe, i've also attended public schools in australia and private european schools and education is miles ahead. i put a hurting on my college macro economics teacher with what i had learned in year 10 in australia. and the high school civic's teacher (civic's is where you learn economics at my school) who was a football coach, haha, oh lord, that fool told me i didn't need to come back to class after the first day because i "obviously know this stuff way better" than him.
i'm not running ahead of the curve, i just went to some good schools where the emphasis was on education and not on dick ridding the football team (pep o ralleys, seriously??? homecoming, prom, etc...). i was actually a medicore student in european schools but rocked the house in the US because i was so far ahead of the curve.
there's some internation kids that chat on here, i'm sure the can vouch for how pathetic public education tends to be in the us when compared to european schools, especially in the south. socializing good public schools pays for itself and this is something that china is fully aware of and currently kicking our ass at.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
But it's you that admits to being "uninformed" about conservative positions -- YOU are the one that is ignorant. Hell, it's ignorant to just assume that all McCain voters are voting on personalities.
of course they aren't all uniformed but it's hard to deny that a big part of their base is "uniformed" about economic issues and foriegn policy if you define "uniformed" as voting against your own interest and not being able to articulate your stance.
the rich base of the republican party are certainly informed as they party caters too them. no mystery there.
for the non-rich voters you have group that only cares about polerizing social issues (evangelicals and rednecks) and whether it's a matter of political priority for these people or actual ignorance, the fact that they continually vote against their own economic interest, that they don't give coherent well thought out answers about policy and don't seem to notice that they are being taken advantage of by the republican party who never changes any of the policies surronding these social issues that they care so much about makes that base seem uninformed. they also seem to be illogical because they are motivated by bigotry on a lot of their stances which is something that you can't talk about these days and when asked about these issues they of course have a hard time articulating their stance because it's not PC to talk about their motives. all of this makes them seem uniformed.
so then it becomes a situation where even if they are informed, how's anyone too know? i'd guess that they are actually uninformed based on my time in small towns though, eventhough my post is diplomatically giving them the benifit of the doubt.
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
Please stop posting.
-
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
I reject very much the idea that Bush or Mccain are conservative, but I accept your description here, and it is what is accepted now in America as conservative. A shame.
-
Expand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
I reject very much the idea that Bush or Mccain are conservative, but I accept your description here, and it is what is accepted now in America as conservative. A shame.
well there's social conservatisExpand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
I reject very much the idea that Bush or Mccain are conservative, but I accept your description here, and it is what is accepted now in America as conservative. A shame.
what do you think represent conservatism best? goldwater?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
I reject very much the idea that Bush or Mccain are conservative, but I accept your description here, and it is what is accepted now in America as conservative. A shame.
well there's social conservatisExpand Quote
Expand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
I reject very much the idea that Bush or Mccain are conservative, but I accept your description here, and it is what is accepted now in America as conservative. A shame.
what do you think represent conservatism best? goldwater?
I'd say so. Coincidentally, his last name makes me think of urine.
-
I like this strand:
Lysander Spooner->Murray Rothbard->Ron Paul
(Austrian economics, Libertarianism, etc)
and this strand:
Adam Smith->Bertrand Russell->Noam Chomsky
(Libertarian socialism, anarchism, etc)
The Goldwater movement in the Republican party and the McGovern movement in the Democratic party both represent high moments for their respective parties.
Both ended quickly.
-
Goldwater was a nutcase. Reagan was like a milder version of Goldwater.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
But it's you that admits to being "uninformed" about conservative positions -- YOU are the one that is ignorant. Hell, it's ignorant to just assume that all McCain voters are voting on personalities.
of course they aren't all uniformed but it's hard to deny that a big part of their base is "uniformed" about economic issues and foriegn policy if you define "uniformed" as voting against your own interest and not being able to articulate your stance.
the rich base of the republican party are certainly informed as they party caters too them. no mystery there.
for the non-rich voters you have group that only cares about polerizing social issues (evangelicals and rednecks) and whether it's a matter of political priority for these people or actual ignorance, the fact that they continually vote against their own economic interest, that they don't give coherent well thought out answers about policy and don't seem to notice that they are being taken advantage of by the republican party who never changes any of the policies surronding these social issues that they care so much about makes that base seem uninformed. they also seem to be illogical because they are motivated by bigotry on a lot of their stances which is something that you can't talk about these days and when asked about these issues they of course have a hard time articulating their stance because it's not PC to talk about their motives. all of this makes them seem uniformed.
so then it becomes a situation where even if they are informed, how's anyone too know? i'd guess that they are actually uninformed based on my time in small towns though, eventhough my post is diplomatically giving them the benifit of the doubt.
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
You just said this so people would say "that's such an ignorant thing to say, and there is absolutely no proof to back up what you are saying." And then you could respond by saying "now you understand why I find it ignorant that you call all republicans ignorant hicks!" Right?
If not we got some hardcore hypocrisy.
-
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
youve pretty much written the definition of liberalism... ie: you are free to do as you please when it comes to making money, so long as you dont hurt anyone else. competition, innovation, unfettered trade, individualism -- that is all liberalism. no interference from the church or the king or the great landholders or the holders of royal charters (monopolies). those who support these latter interests would be termed conservatives.
-
small gov. small taxes
-
Expand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
youve pretty much written the definition of liberalism... ie: you are free to do as you please when it comes to making money, so long as you dont hurt anyone else. competition, innovation, unfettered trade, individualism -- that is all liberalism. no interference from the church or the king or the great landholders or the holders of royal charters (monopolies). those who support these latter interests would be termed conservatives.
I respectfully disagree. NOt necessarily with your definition- though I did earlier say that the meaning of political words shifts over time. I just don't think you analyzed what I wrote correctly. When did I say "so long as you don't hurt anyone else?" Hurting others is ok and even encouraged in Bush's policies based on the idea of "social darwinism." Basically, yeah, exploit them, kill them and give them nothing in return, because some people are losers and need to be killed off for the benefit of the winners, and fuck 'em for letting themselves be exploited. That is what Bush's policies represent. A modern liberal would do what they could back then to limit the role of the landowners. Bush's policies would do what is necessary to give landowners as much power as they need to maintain or increase their power over the land. Funny thing is-there are modern landowners, we call them mortgage banks. Under Bush they became far more powerful and exploitative.
Funny thing about the government's role in industry, is it tends to force powerful elites not to interfere with the rights of those working below them. Also, in the liberal sense- the government of a democratic-republic is a representation of the will of the people. In that sense, it is the government's job to stand up for the people it represents when they are upset about how they are being treated as consumers or workers.
-
Goldwater was a nutcase. Reagan was like a milder version of Goldwater.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I know who ignorant people are. People who align themselves with McCain when McCain's campaign manager himself says, "The election is not about issues, it's about personalities." People who would vote for a candidate because they would rather have a beer with x rather than y candidate is an ignorant way to vote because they dont CHOOSE to find about the issues.
But it's you that admits to being "uninformed" about conservative positions -- YOU are the one that is ignorant. Hell, it's ignorant to just assume that all McCain voters are voting on personalities.
of course they aren't all uniformed but it's hard to deny that a big part of their base is "uniformed" about economic issues and foriegn policy if you define "uniformed" as voting against your own interest and not being able to articulate your stance.
the rich base of the republican party are certainly informed as they party caters too them. no mystery there.
for the non-rich voters you have group that only cares about polerizing social issues (evangelicals and rednecks) and whether it's a matter of political priority for these people or actual ignorance, the fact that they continually vote against their own economic interest, that they don't give coherent well thought out answers about policy and don't seem to notice that they are being taken advantage of by the republican party who never changes any of the policies surronding these social issues that they care so much about makes that base seem uninformed. they also seem to be illogical because they are motivated by bigotry on a lot of their stances which is something that you can't talk about these days and when asked about these issues they of course have a hard time articulating their stance because it's not PC to talk about their motives. all of this makes them seem uniformed.
so then it becomes a situation where even if they are informed, how's anyone too know? i'd guess that they are actually uninformed based on my time in small towns though, eventhough my post is diplomatically giving them the benifit of the doubt.
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
You just said this so people would say "that's such an ignorant thing to say, and there is absolutely no proof to back up what you are saying." And then you could respond by saying "now you understand why I find it ignorant that you call all republicans ignorant hicks!" Right?
If not we got some hardcore hypocrisy.
Essentially, yes. While the GOP does love to flirt with the rural poor and the theocracy crowd, the DNC does the exact same thing with the equally ignorant urban poor. Both groups of voters often vote against there own self-interests, yet, for some reason, the party of college graduates, and the party that is overrepresented by those with post-graduate degrees is the one being cast down as the party of 'ignorance'?
-
Newton I'm curious, what political party do you affiliate with?
-
Expand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
youve pretty much written the definition of liberalism... ie: you are free to do as you please when it comes to making money, so long as you dont hurt anyone else. competition, innovation, unfettered trade, individualism -- that is all liberalism. no interference from the church or the king or the great landholders or the holders of royal charters (monopolies). those who support these latter interests would be termed conservatives.
America has different understood ideas behind the terms liberalism, libertarianism and conservative than most of the rest of the world.
-
He's too young to vote anyway.
-
Newton I'm curious, what political party do you affiliate with?
None. I'm a libertarian, but I don't even identify with the Libertarian Party.
-
He's too young to vote anyway.
Too young for what? Do you think that your "vote" actually matters, LOL?
-
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
If you can't back this statement up with some sort of research (preferably from an independent source [WikiPedia doesn't count]), I'm calling bullshit.
-
Expand Quote
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
If you can't back this statement up with some sort of research (preferably from an independent source [WikiPedia doesn't count]), I'm calling bullshit.
Here's a quote from a political scientist:
Susan McManus, political science professor at the University of South Florida, said blacks and younger voters primarily prefer Barack Obama to John McCain in Florida.
But, “since generic thought is many ex-cons have less income and maybe lower education, (all felons) will probably vote Democratic, since that’s the makeup of the party.”
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/NEWS01/80802024
I'll try to find some real statistics when I have more time.
-
I wouldn't regard that as independent. She's a Republican. Very smart woman but I wouldn't say she's independent.
Dr. MacManus headed up the Health Services Policy Transition Team for Florida Governor Jeb Bush and was appointed chair of the Florida Elections Commission by the Governor (1999-2003). The Governor also has appointed her to his Council of Economic Advisors.
from:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:CHpAfwBb4LsJ:www.cea.fiu.edu/documents/bios/BIO-macmanus.doc+susan+mcmanus+political+scientist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=safari
-
I wouldn't regard that as independent. She's a Republican. Very smart woman but I wouldn't say she's independent.
Dr. MacManus headed up the Health Services Policy Transition Team for Florida Governor Jeb Bush and was appointed chair of the Florida Elections Commission by the Governor (1999-2003). The Governor also has appointed her to his Council of Economic Advisors.
from:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:CHpAfwBb4LsJ:www.cea.fiu.edu/documents/bios/BIO-macmanus.doc+susan+mcmanus+political+scientist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=safari
So the source cannot have any political affiliation AND it cannot be Wikipedia? In that case, good luck finding it yourself. It's common knowledge that felons are more likely to favor Democratic candidates, along with the urban poor and people that drop out of high school. One of the party's largest blocks is African-Americans, who vote DNC 91% of the time. They're disproportionately a part of all three groups.
-
FUCK DR. NEWT YOU GOT ME TYPIN SO HARD IM FIXIN TO BREAK MY MACBOOK AIR!
GTFO HOW MANY TIMES I GOTTA TELL YOU
talk about issues ho like offshore drilling or the fact that his VP is an inexperienced bitch, stupid cunt stop arguing for the sake of arguing godammit & finish high school first cuz believe it or not all the info you'll need to seem sligtly educated isnt on wikipedia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCDxXJSucF4
see how dumb you look
-
Expand Quote
I wouldn't regard that as independent. She's a Republican. Very smart woman but I wouldn't say she's independent.
Dr. MacManus headed up the Health Services Policy Transition Team for Florida Governor Jeb Bush and was appointed chair of the Florida Elections Commission by the Governor (1999-2003). The Governor also has appointed her to his Council of Economic Advisors.
from:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:CHpAfwBb4LsJ:www.cea.fiu.edu/documents/bios/BIO-macmanus.doc+susan+mcmanus+political+scientist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=safari
So the source cannot have any political affiliation AND it cannot be Wikipedia? In that case, good luck finding it yourself. It's common knowledge that felons are more likely to favor Democratic candidates, along with the urban poor and people that drop out of high school. One of the party's largest blocks is African-Americans, who vote DNC 91% of the time. They're disproportionately a part of all three groups.
Um you know in most states felons lose the right to vote for years right? And in a few states, namely Kentucky and Virginia they lose the right to vote for life...you know this right?
So no, most of the democratic base are not armed BLACK felons.
Also, stop posting.
P.S. If you fancy yourself any sort of libertarian you should be against the drug war, right? You know the thing that causes many non-violent blacks to pick up felonies?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
youve pretty much written the definition of liberalism... ie: you are free to do as you please when it comes to making money, so long as you dont hurt anyone else. competition, innovation, unfettered trade, individualism -- that is all liberalism. no interference from the church or the king or the great landholders or the holders of royal charters (monopolies). those who support these latter interests would be termed conservatives.
laissez faire = liberalism. me right. look it up if you must. bush could be termed a social conservative, but theres no mistaking that he (and mccain, and obama, and clinton) are economic liberals. america has been the world's most hyper liberal economy (and perhaps society) in all history.
-
Expand Quote
I wouldn't regard that as independent. She's a Republican. Very smart woman but I wouldn't say she's independent.
Dr. MacManus headed up the Health Services Policy Transition Team for Florida Governor Jeb Bush and was appointed chair of the Florida Elections Commission by the Governor (1999-2003). The Governor also has appointed her to his Council of Economic Advisors.
from:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:CHpAfwBb4LsJ:www.cea.fiu.edu/documents/bios/BIO-macmanus.doc+susan+mcmanus+political+scientist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=safari
So the source cannot have any political affiliation AND it cannot be Wikipedia? In that case, good luck finding it yourself. It's common knowledge that felons are more likely to favor Democratic candidates, along with the urban poor and people that drop out of high school. One of the party's largest blocks is African-Americans, who vote DNC 91% of the time. They're disproportionately a part of all three groups.
There are independent sources and when you get to college, you'll have to find them. I don't know of any professor that will accept WikiPedia as a reference. Any jackass can post an article there and call it truth. "Common knowledge" won't cut it, either.
If you want to make claims such as those above, I would like to know you have some proof. Your argument could use some more fact and less belief. I can see where you're basing your opinion but that is certainly not factual.
PS- I'm seriously looking in to moving to Canada. I'm losing faith in America and it's proposed dream.
-
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [ie: property" vs. "peace, order, and good government"
-
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKt4CePAt-tJqdPld1mZxbC4nsXwD9342G2G2
Quote:
Gov't officials probed about illicit sex, gifts
By DINA CAPPIELLO – 8 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties improperly engaged in sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them, federal investigators said Wednesday.
The alleged transgressions involve 13 former and current Interior Department employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships with — and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from — oil company employees, according to three reports released Wednesday by the Interior Department's inspector general.
The investigations reveal a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by a small group of individuals "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards," wrote Inspector General Earl E. Devaney. Devaney's office spent more than two years and $5.3 million on the investigations.
The reports describe a fraternity house atmosphere inside the Denver Minerals Management Service office responsible for marketing the oil and gas that energy companies barter to the government instead of making cash royalty payments for drilling on federal lands. The government received $4.3 billion in such royalty-in-kind payments last year. The oil is then resold to energy companies or put in the nation's emergency stockpile.
Between 2002 and 2006, nearly a third of the 55-person staff in the Denver office received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies, including Chevron, Shell, Hess Corp. and Denver-based Gary-Williams Energy Corp. the investigators found. Two oil marketers who received gifts and gratuities on at least 135 occasions displayed no remorse when confronted with their activities, Devaney said. He singled out Chevron as refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
Don Campbell, a Chevron spokesman, said Wednesday that the company "produced all of the documents that the government requested months ago."
The reports also said former head of the Denver Royalty-in-Kind office, Gregory W. Smith, used cocaine and had sex with subordinates. The report said Smith also steered government contracts to a consulting business that was employing him part-time.
Smith, contacted by e-mail by The Associated Press, said he had not seen the report and could not respond. He and nine other employees in the Denver office are mentioned in the reports.
MMS Director Randall Luthi, in an interview with the AP, said the agency was taking the report "extremely seriously" and would review the allegations and weigh taking appropriate action in coming months. The Inspector General is recommending that current employees implicated be fired and be barred for life from working within the royalty program.
House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said "this whole IG report reads like a script from a television miniseries and one that cannot air during family viewing time. It is no wonder that the office was doing such a lousy job of overseeing the RIK program; clearly the employees had 'other' priorities in that office."
One of the employees named in the investigation, Jimmy Mayberry, has already pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Washington to violations of conflict-of-interest laws. The Justice Department declined to prosecute Smith and former Associate Director of the Minerals Revenue Management program Lucy Querques Denett, who the report says manipulated contracts to ensure they were awarded to former Interior employees.
The findings are the latest sign of trouble at the Minerals Management Service, which has already been accused of mismanaging the collection of fees from oil companies and writing faulty contracts for drilling on government land and offshore. The charges also come as lawmakers and both presidential candidates weigh giving oil companies more access to federal lands, which would bring in more money to the federal government.
"This all shows the oil industry holds shocking sway over the administration and even key federal employees," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. "This is why we must not allow Big Oil's agenda to be jammed through Congress."
While most government royalties for drilling on federal lands are paid in cash, the government in recent years has been receiving a greater share of its oil and gas royalties in the actual product. More of that oil is also being sold on the open market, versus being deposited in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the nation's emergency oil stockpile. Congress earlier this year passed a law halting deposits of oil to the reserve to alleviate high gasoline prices.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who was asked about the reports earlier in the day before they were given to him and congressional offices, said the investigation was prompted by a 2006 phone call from anemployee who said there were ethical lapses in the Denver office.
"I look forward to having the opportunity to review the inspector general's findings so we can take the appropriate actions," Kempthorne said.
http://thinkprogress.org/
-
Normally, both your asses would be dead as fucking fried chicken, but you happen to pull this shit while I'm in a transitional period so I don't wanna kill you, I wanna help you. But I can't give you this case, it don't belong to me. Besides, I've already been through too much shit this morning over this case to hand it over to your dumb ass.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dagger- I consider Bush conservative economically in the sense that he did very little in terms of regulating the market. The bail outs and all of that made him seem... I don't know how to say it. Very pro corporate. He stacked the deck for large corporations so they would be allowed to run wild, and I guess that is where it came from. In my head conservative means allow corporations to run wild. Traditionally this has been done with Laisse Faire economic policies, which tended to help those already in power. Bush took it even further by not only letting corporations run wild, but also by bailing them out every time they got fucked up from going wild. Its not traditionally "conservative," but the meaning of political affiliations shifts over time, and now "conservative" seems to becoming synonymous with the Bush style pro-corporate agenda.
youve pretty much written the definition of liberalism... ie: you are free to do as you please when it comes to making money, so long as you dont hurt anyone else. competition, innovation, unfettered trade, individualism -- that is all liberalism. no interference from the church or the king or the great landholders or the holders of royal charters (monopolies). those who support these latter interests would be termed conservatives.
laissez faire = liberalism. me right. look it up if you must. bush could be termed a social conservative, but theres no mistaking that he (and mccain, and obama, and clinton) are economic liberals. america has been the world's most hyper liberal economy (and perhaps society) in all history.
You guys are both correct-the terms meanings are unique in America-virtually everyone else uses the terms as you describe.
-
Dr.Newton the majority of people who get welfare are white southern women in rural areas, places where people are most likely to vote republican.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk
-
I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's the "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could be me up there on that show!
My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice president who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to "study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The returns are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near in agreement.
I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.
Five different schools in six years. What was that about?
And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in London, even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years later, I was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.
You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.
But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe, Asia, Africa, South America or Down Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to Harvard? Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen London, but most of them would probably love to, if they had the dough. And they'd be proud if one of their kids won a scholarship to Harvard.
I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yKL1NvDGt0
-
Why in the hell don't third parties win local elections before they try to become Presidents?
Also, I like Ralph (even gave him a vote once) and I like Dr. Paul, but they're not supporting a third party, they're both ensuring a Republican win... Ralph with the lefties, Ron with the centrists and privatize-everythingers. I'm glad they're telling people to vote, but really, a third party Presidential vote is nothing more than symbolism (or a waste of a perfectly fine vote should you look at things strategically).
Third parties:
Win city local seats, then win seats in State legislature. then on to the Feds, then go as high up as you can. Establish your parties and you won't be the "he's neat, but a novelty" candidate anymore.
-
^ Greens have had some SF supervisors and we almost elected one mayor, then they kind of faded off, probably too busy smoking weed to politic.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
If you can't back this statement up with some sort of research (preferably from an independent source [WikiPedia doesn't count]), I'm calling bullshit.
Here's a quote from a political scientist:
Expand Quote
Susan McManus, political science professor at the University of South Florida, said blacks and younger voters primarily prefer Barack Obama to John McCain in Florida.
But, “since generic thought is many ex-cons have less income and maybe lower education, (all felons) will probably vote Democratic, since that’s the makeup of the party.”
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/NEWS01/80802024
I'll try to find some real statistics when I have more time.
Still that doesn't mean a large portion of the democratic base are criminals, it means a lot of criminals are democrats, but criminals still make up only a small amount of society, and if they were a majority of the party, the democrats would only be a small party, not nearly half of the country.
Also, how is the democratic party against the interests of Urban minorities?
Sebastian- don't know about the rest of the world, but here in "merica laisse faire economics are tied incredibly tightly with conservatives, and are not at all to liberals. I have never heard this apparently foreign definition of the word, but since we are talking American politics, I'm going to have to declare myself right, and you wrong, since apparently its a contest. But Dagger probably is the closest to being totally right on this.
-
^ Greens have had some SF supervisors and we almost elected one mayor, then they kind of faded off, probably too busy smoking weed to politic.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I hate to break this to you, but a large portion of the DNC's voter base is uneducated, criminally active, and living off of the government.... are these people 'informed' somehow?
If you can't back this statement up with some sort of research (preferably from an independent source [WikiPedia doesn't count]), I'm calling bullshit.
Here's a quote from a political scientist:
Expand Quote
Susan McManus, political science professor at the University of South Florida, said blacks and younger voters primarily prefer Barack Obama to John McCain in Florida.
But, “since generic thought is many ex-cons have less income and maybe lower education, (all felons) will probably vote Democratic, since that’s the makeup of the party.”
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/NEWS01/80802024
I'll try to find some real statistics when I have more time.
Also, how is the democratic party against the interests of Urban minorities?
Sebastian- don't know about the rest of the world, but here in "merica laisse faire economics are tied incredibly tightly with conservatives, and are not at all to liberals. I have never heard this apparently foreign definition of the word, but since we are talking American politics, I'm going to have to declare myself right, and you wrong, since apparently its a contest. But Dagger probably is the closest to being totally right on this.
They're against school choice, small businesses that create the majority of American jobs, and handgun ownership. Being a government slave confined to welfare and government handouts is not in the interests of the urban poor -- advancement in society is.
-
Toombsie, besides healthcare, what are Canada's other major selling points? Is the economy robust enough for me to find some freelance graphic design work? Will fun-size's intellect be safe in the public school system's hands? Is Toronto really NYC North? So many questions.... Basically, some one sell me on Canada.
-
SWEETS: I hear there isn't too much low or mid-grade herb up there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yKL1NvDGt0
this is a great start, but third party candidates should really learn how to organize themselves behind one canadacy and stick with it if they want to get a serious chunk of the populate pie. I mean, I haden't even heard of the Constitutional Party before that clip, and still I came out completely clueless about him. They put Ralph and Ron on there because they're high-profile, but I'de like to see a level playing field where many candidates and express their issues.
-
I quit smoking weed awhile ago but, I guess it's good to know I won't have to smoke shwag if I pick the righteous smoke up again.
-
Expand Quote
Dr.Newton the majority of people who get welfare are white southern women in rural areas, places where people are most likely to vote republican.
Every time Newton lies and says that most welfare recipients are the "urban" poor I will quote this.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dr.Newton the majority of people who get welfare are white southern women in rural areas, places where people are most likely to vote republican.
Every time Newton lies and says that most welfare recipients are the "urban" poor I will quote this.
They are. That statistic is misleading for several reasons.
-
(http://i34.tinypic.com/2hod4cx.jpg)
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dr.Newton the majority of people who get welfare are white southern women in rural areas, places where people are most likely to vote republican.
Every time Newton lies and says that most welfare recipients are the "urban" poor I will quote this.
They are. That statistic is misleading for several reasons.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n2_v48/ai_12970819 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n2_v48/ai_12970819)
Who gets welfare? Despite prevailing stereotype, whites, not blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars
Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars
SAY the word "welfare" and immediately the image of the lazy Black wellare queen who breeds for profit surfaces in the minds of those who have come to believe the hideous stereotype. It is a myth that persists despite government figures and authoritative studies showing that Whites overwhelmingly reap the lion's share of the dole.
The image of the Black "welfare cheat," public aid advocates say, is based on misconceptions about poor minorities. The notion, they say, comes from society's resentment of seemingly ablebodied people getting paid for doing nothing.
"For some people, there is a need to believe that there are professional welfare recipients who are deliberately trying to get not only what they need to survive, but more," says Anne D. Hill, director of programs for the National Urban League. "People say to themselves: 'I work. How come this person who appears to be healthy isn't working?' We tend to equate our condition with others without fully knowing their circumstances."
Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.
The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as "direct benefit payments for individuals" by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.
Social Security is the nation's largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black. The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.
Welfare critics rarely search the Social Security rolls for "welfare cheats," but train their sights on people getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamps, the relief programs with the most Black clients. Yet government figures show that Whites not Blacks make up the bulk of clients on these public aid programs; a fact that dispels the notion that Blacks are scheming for a free lunch courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.
Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn't collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job.
But racism is at the heart of the standard-of-living gap between Blacks and Whites, welfare advocates argue. Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception.
"Public and congressional deliberations over... welfare reform in the last few years have been fueled by distortions and outright falsehoods about poverty," the National Urban League asserted in its 1988 report, Black Americans and Public Policy. "Welfare reform is not solely a Black issue, but one in need of immediate attention."
Turning welfare reform into a "Black issue" makes racial scapegoating easy and allows stereotypes, like the Reaganera "welfare queen," to go unchallenged, public aid supporters say. Rightwing reformers cast Whites as "deserving" clients who are legitimately unable to pay their own way through no fault of their own. Blacks are labeled "undeserving" recipients who are looking for the feds to subsidize their slothfulness.
Attaching a moral value to work is not a new convention; it is a philosophy deeply rooted in the religious beliefs and social welfare laws that Anglo-Saxon settlers brought to the New World. These values were imposed upon poor immigrants from other European countries who later perpetuated them after moving into mainstream society.
The Puritanical work ethic faced its greatest challenge following the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The nation was forced to re-think its social welfare conventions when it realized that economic forces--not misplaced values--could lead to financial disaster. President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal programs and the adoption of the Social Security Act of 1935 symbolized the country's commitment to protecting family and personal incomes. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society anti-poverty programs of the 1960s ushered in some of the programs of today's welfare system.
Ironically, the social welfare policies of three decades ago are under attack today by political conservatives who have placed the blame for the recent Los Angeles riots on the "failed social programs of the 1960s," That characterization has drawn fire from welfare advocates and sociologists as well as ordinary citizens,
"I think that the problems of South Central Los Angeles and other urban communities are far more complex than the simple kinds of characterizations we are getting from elected officials," says Evelyn K. Moore, executive director of the National Black Child Development Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy center. "We cannot criticize family values unless we are willing to support families."
Dr. Marcus Alexis, a Northwestern University economist and former acting chairman of the federal Interstate Commerce Commission agrees. "'Welfare' is the new code word thats being substituted for Willie Horton," Dr. Alexis points out. "It means that inner-city Blacks are viewed as chronically poor, heavily subsidized, irresponsible, highcost individuals. That's where the administration is coming from."
As a lingering recession and high unemployment drive more Whites onto relief rolls, welfare reformers are going to have to pin the blame on the economy and not "immoral" poor people in the nation's inner cities. They only need to look at the White families streaming into welfare offices in rural New Hampshire for proof that poverty has more to do with economics than race. The oncethriving state has seen an 88 percent jump in welfare cases since 1989, yet the states Black population is a meager 0.6 percent.
The economic slump has created a social welfare crisis: Some 13.5 million Americans are on welfare, 2.2 million more than two years ago. That means that one in seven American children is on relief with about 2,000 more joining their ranks every day.
Congress could not have anticipated a surge in welfare clients when it drafted The Family Support Act of 1988, hoping to end welfare dependency by providing educational programs and jobs for ablebodied people. These clients would eventually move into the work force and stave off the labor crunch. With flourishing local economies, states could afford to pick up part of the tab for participants' education, child care and Medicaid benefits with the balance paid by federal matching funds.
It didn't work that way. The economy ground to a near-halt in the late 1980s and many blue- and white-collar workers found themselves seeking public aid. Welfare clients took the biggest hit when state welfare officials upended their pencils and erased names from public aid mils.
Michigan welfare officials, for example, dumped 90,000 people from its general assistance program last year to save the state $250 million. Unfortunately, a majority of those clients, as is the case nationwide, are poor Black men living in urban areas with staggeringly high unemployment rates. Many of these men suffer from physical or mental disabilities. Without welfare benefits, they face a grim future.
The question of who gets welfare is one that society would do well to ponder. As it stands now, poor Black Families are up against the burdens of systematic racism, urban warfare and limited paths leading up and out of poverty. And many working class and middle class Black families are a paycheck away from joining their poorer brothers.
he welfare question goes to the heart of individual attitudes about race, class, values and beliefs. Those judgments, often made by the powerbrokers who shape public policy, rarely coincide with the sensibilities of the poor. How they decide who gets welfare can irrevocably alter the destinies of generations of impoverished people.
COPYRIGHT 1992 Johnson Publishing Co.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dr.Newton the majority of people who get welfare are white southern women in rural areas, places where people are most likely to vote republican.
Every time Newton lies and says that most welfare recipients are the "urban" poor I will quote this.
They are. That statistic is misleading for several reasons.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n2_v48/ai_12970819 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n2_v48/ai_12970819)
Expand Quote
Who gets welfare? Despite prevailing stereotype, whites, not blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars
Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars
SAY the word "welfare" and immediately the image of the lazy Black wellare queen who breeds for profit surfaces in the minds of those who have come to believe the hideous stereotype. It is a myth that persists despite government figures and authoritative studies showing that Whites overwhelmingly reap the lion's share of the dole.
The image of the Black "welfare cheat," public aid advocates say, is based on misconceptions about poor minorities. The notion, they say, comes from society's resentment of seemingly ablebodied people getting paid for doing nothing.
"For some people, there is a need to believe that there are professional welfare recipients who are deliberately trying to get not only what they need to survive, but more," says Anne D. Hill, director of programs for the National Urban League. "People say to themselves: 'I work. How come this person who appears to be healthy isn't working?' We tend to equate our condition with others without fully knowing their circumstances."
Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.
The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as "direct benefit payments for individuals" by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.
Social Security is the nation's largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black. The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.
Welfare critics rarely search the Social Security rolls for "welfare cheats," but train their sights on people getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamps, the relief programs with the most Black clients. Yet government figures show that Whites not Blacks make up the bulk of clients on these public aid programs; a fact that dispels the notion that Blacks are scheming for a free lunch courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.
Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn't collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job.
But racism is at the heart of the standard-of-living gap between Blacks and Whites, welfare advocates argue. Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception.
"Public and congressional deliberations over... welfare reform in the last few years have been fueled by distortions and outright falsehoods about poverty," the National Urban League asserted in its 1988 report, Black Americans and Public Policy. "Welfare reform is not solely a Black issue, but one in need of immediate attention."
Turning welfare reform into a "Black issue" makes racial scapegoating easy and allows stereotypes, like the Reaganera "welfare queen," to go unchallenged, public aid supporters say. Rightwing reformers cast Whites as "deserving" clients who are legitimately unable to pay their own way through no fault of their own. Blacks are labeled "undeserving" recipients who are looking for the feds to subsidize their slothfulness.
Attaching a moral value to work is not a new convention; it is a philosophy deeply rooted in the religious beliefs and social welfare laws that Anglo-Saxon settlers brought to the New World. These values were imposed upon poor immigrants from other European countries who later perpetuated them after moving into mainstream society.
The Puritanical work ethic faced its greatest challenge following the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The nation was forced to re-think its social welfare conventions when it realized that economic forces--not misplaced values--could lead to financial disaster. President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal programs and the adoption of the Social Security Act of 1935 symbolized the country's commitment to protecting family and personal incomes. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society anti-poverty programs of the 1960s ushered in some of the programs of today's welfare system.
Ironically, the social welfare policies of three decades ago are under attack today by political conservatives who have placed the blame for the recent Los Angeles riots on the "failed social programs of the 1960s," That characterization has drawn fire from welfare advocates and sociologists as well as ordinary citizens,
"I think that the problems of South Central Los Angeles and other urban communities are far more complex than the simple kinds of characterizations we are getting from elected officials," says Evelyn K. Moore, executive director of the National Black Child Development Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy center. "We cannot criticize family values unless we are willing to support families."
Dr. Marcus Alexis, a Northwestern University economist and former acting chairman of the federal Interstate Commerce Commission agrees. "'Welfare' is the new code word thats being substituted for Willie Horton," Dr. Alexis points out. "It means that inner-city Blacks are viewed as chronically poor, heavily subsidized, irresponsible, highcost individuals. That's where the administration is coming from."
As a lingering recession and high unemployment drive more Whites onto relief rolls, welfare reformers are going to have to pin the blame on the economy and not "immoral" poor people in the nation's inner cities. They only need to look at the White families streaming into welfare offices in rural New Hampshire for proof that poverty has more to do with economics than race. The oncethriving state has seen an 88 percent jump in welfare cases since 1989, yet the states Black population is a meager 0.6 percent.
The economic slump has created a social welfare crisis: Some 13.5 million Americans are on welfare, 2.2 million more than two years ago. That means that one in seven American children is on relief with about 2,000 more joining their ranks every day.
Congress could not have anticipated a surge in welfare clients when it drafted The Family Support Act of 1988, hoping to end welfare dependency by providing educational programs and jobs for ablebodied people. These clients would eventually move into the work force and stave off the labor crunch. With flourishing local economies, states could afford to pick up part of the tab for participants' education, child care and Medicaid benefits with the balance paid by federal matching funds.
It didn't work that way. The economy ground to a near-halt in the late 1980s and many blue- and white-collar workers found themselves seeking public aid. Welfare clients took the biggest hit when state welfare officials upended their pencils and erased names from public aid mils.
Michigan welfare officials, for example, dumped 90,000 people from its general assistance program last year to save the state $250 million. Unfortunately, a majority of those clients, as is the case nationwide, are poor Black men living in urban areas with staggeringly high unemployment rates. Many of these men suffer from physical or mental disabilities. Without welfare benefits, they face a grim future.
The question of who gets welfare is one that society would do well to ponder. As it stands now, poor Black Families are up against the burdens of systematic racism, urban warfare and limited paths leading up and out of poverty. And many working class and middle class Black families are a paycheck away from joining their poorer brothers.
he welfare question goes to the heart of individual attitudes about race, class, values and beliefs. Those judgments, often made by the powerbrokers who shape public policy, rarely coincide with the sensibilities of the poor. How they decide who gets welfare can irrevocably alter the destinies of generations of impoverished people.
COPYRIGHT 1992 Johnson Publishing Co.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
Please notice the word "overrepresented" in my previous post. Blacks make up 13% of the general population, but 33% of the welfare rolls according to your own statistics. Your argument is similar to saying "blacks and whites commit the same amount of crimes, because they are roughly equal in terms of prison population." No. Blacks are in prison more per capita -- it is the same scenario with the welfare system.
-
Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKSBYO6aiHU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKSBYO6aiHU&feature=related)
Mcbush favored by the "liberal" media
-
Expand Quote
Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument, Newton certainly doesn't.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument, Newton certainly doesn't.
;D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk
-
....can any of you define the word overrepresented?
-
Jason Bourne makes some good points.
-
....can any of you define the word overrepresented?
First you define and defend the drug war, which is the reason that many non-violent blacks are in prison, and also makes living near urban centers much more dangerous than it has to be, and strengthens and in fact is the cause of most organized crime. You know, just like with prohibition.
No really, justify the drug war.
Here's some libertarian(that thing you claimed to be) discussing it in greater detail:
Milton Friedman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyystXOfDqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37-zCyI6rmk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZNeZUROVM0
And Chomsky FTW!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmxonXaq9NY&feature=related
-
Once you consider how insane and hypocritical the drug war is, then you find out that whites make u the majority of drug users in the country, while blacks are convicted at much higher rates for similar crimes-then you do come to the conclusion that blacks are overrepresented in prisons.
But not for whatever dumbass reason you're implying, they're overrepresented because we have repressive drug laws and a lot of ignorant faggots like you.
Like I said Newton, if you have the courage to look at these issues honestly, and look for the facts you might get somewhere. Otherwise you're just gonna continue to be like every right wing hack in America.
We don't need any more of those.
-
Expand Quote
....can any of you define the word overrepresented?
First you define and defend the drug war, which is the reason that many non-violent blacks are in prison, and also makes living near urban centers much more dangerous than it has to be, and strengthens and in fact is the cause of most organized crime. You know, just like with prohibition.
No really, justify the drug war.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Where have I expressed any support for the drug war? I am fully in favor of legalizing heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and all other banned recreational drugs. If you want to swallow rat poison, I don't feel like the government should try to penalize you for it. I like to say things from time to time just to push certain member's buttons, but I doubt I would ever joke about this -- my views on the subject are too extreme.
-
Once you consider how insane and hypocritical the drug war is, then you find out that whites make u the majority of drug users in the country, while blacks are convicted at much higher rates for similar crimes-then you do come to the conclusion that blacks are overrepresented in prisons.
But not for whatever dumbass reason you're implying, they're overrepresented because we have repressive drug laws and a lot of ignorant faggots like you.
Like I said Newton, if you have the courage to look at these issues honestly, and look for the facts you might get somewhere. Otherwise you're just gonna continue to be like every right wing hack in America.
We don't need any more of those.
How they got that way is not my concern. You're missing my point altogether. The urban poor is an ignorant block of voters; they are bought by the Democratic Party, who promises them government handouts, and when they vote for that, they are voting against there own interests.
-
WOW.
So you don't care that blacks are convicted in the drug war you say is unjust?
Just feel lead to say that blacks are overrepresented in prison.
Having trouble connecting the dots huh you fucking idiot?
And then you complain when they can't get jobs(hey dumbass if you want blacks to have jobs, maybe it might be easier if you don't give them a felon for drug sale right?), and seek welfare-even with the cost of something like "defense" and these endless wars is much, much higher, and also prisons are a government cost we could greatly reduce if drug offenders were set free. Not to mention many of violent offenders are in prison because the drug war has made urban centers some of the most dangerous places on earth.
Awesome.
Fuck it lets just blame it on darky!
God damn facts!
argh!
p.s. die.
EDIT: also most of the blacks might be able to get off welfare and get jobs if the awesome corporations you are so stoked on didn't send all the well paying manufacturing jobs overseas to be done by child slave labor
I already mentioned that earlier though, faggot.
-
Expand Quote
Once you consider how insane and hypocritical the drug war is, then you find out that whites make u the majority of drug users in the country, while blacks are convicted at much higher rates for similar crimes-then you do come to the conclusion that blacks are overrepresented in prisons.
But not for whatever dumbass reason you're implying, they're overrepresented because we have repressive drug laws and a lot of ignorant faggots like you.
Like I said Newton, if you have the courage to look at these issues honestly, and look for the facts you might get somewhere. Otherwise you're just gonna continue to be like every right wing hack in America.
We don't need any more of those.
How they got that way is not my concern. You're missing my point altogether. The urban poor is an ignorant block of voters; they are bought by the Democratic Party, who promises them government handouts, and when they vote for that, they are voting against there own interests.
Yeah, but the effects of this are all just your opinion and it is all based on theory. You don't understand how social safety nets actually work and why they are necessary, because you haven't lived in society on your own, and apparently have never studied societies that don't have social safety nets. Also, scholarships= handouts. Pay for college and take out loans. If you do nothing with your degree you will go into debt, and that will be your "hidden hand" punishment for not using your degree and wasting the time and money of others to go to school unnecessarily.
Oh, and you know how you tried to single-handedly blame me for the drop out rates in Oakland? My school's graduation rate went up from 73% to 88% last year. I demand credit for this if I am also getting blame.
-
Also, if Urban black people take advantage of government programs disproportionately (I get what you are saying, 35% of accidents are alcohol related, but there are a lot less drunk drivers than sober ones), wouldn't they want to keep voting democratic so their shit won't get cut off? They probably want to maintain this fantasy lifestyle that you probably assume welfare gives them, so wouldn't this help them? I understand the argument that society would pay a price, and that we shouldn't pay for the laziness of others, but they are at least voting for short term benefits. I sincerely doubt most rural farmers benefit from programs which put farming in the hands of big Agri-business.
Also, fair or not, Lyndon Johnson traded guaranteed votes from the South for guaranteed votes from African-Americans when he signed the 1964 civil rights act into law. Not the most astute political trade, but it was the right thing to do.
-
WOW.
So you don't care that blacks are convicted in the drug war you say is unjust?
Just feel lead to say that blacks are overrepresented in prison.
Having trouble connecting the dots huh you fucking idiot?
And then you complain when they can't get jobs(hey dumbass if you want blacks to have jobs, maybe it might be easier if you don't give them a felon for drug sale right?), and seek welfare-even with the cost of something like "defense" and these endless wars is much, much higher, and also prisons are a government cost we could greatly reduce if drug offenders were set free. Not to mention many of violent offenders are in prison because the drug war has made urban centers some of the most dangerous places on earth.
Awesome.
Fuck it lets just blame it on darky!
God damn facts!
argh!
p.s. die.
EDIT: also most of the blacks might be able to get off welfare and get jobs if the awesome corporations you are so stoked on didn't send all the well paying manufacturing jobs overseas to be done by child slave labor
I already mentioned that earlier though, faggot.
You are on some other planet. The unemployment rate is at 6%. "All of the good jobs" are not overseas.There is nothing stopping blacks from getting the ones that exist either -- they are actually propelled in society by affirmative action programs.
I don't agree with the drug war at all. The thing is, since there are laws in place, I also do not participate in the drug trade. Like it or not, as a citizen of this country you have to follow it's laws. If some idiot goes out and breaks them and gets a felony, I don't feel one bit of pity for him or her -- you knew it was illegal, and you knew you'd go to jail. It's your fault. It's the same way with me too -- if I get caught vandalizing some shit while skating, I know I'm going to have to deal with the consequences from it. I don't bitch and moan about how "society" dealt me a bad hand. No one fucked me over in life but me.
Also, your boy Chomsky needs to explain to you that the people participating in the drug trade today are not "non-violent" do gooders who just want to smoke some crack. Drugs are in the hands of the criminal element at this point -- since drugs are illegal. If you don't think there is a lot of violence taking place, just walk down to Greyson over there in Charlotte and try to cop a few pills. You'll probably get beaten down, and/or robbed. The thing is, no one calls the police. Imagine how that would work. "I was trying to buy some heroin..... and this guy just jumped me out of nowhere!" You, a "libertarian" who is "well versed" in this sort of thing, should especially know that there is tons of unreported violence in the drug trade. This is one of the core arguments for legalizing them.
-
Also, if Urban black people take advantage of government programs disproportionately (I get what you are saying, 35% of accidents are alcohol related, but there are a lot less drunk drivers than sober ones), wouldn't they want to keep voting democratic so their shit won't get cut off? They probably want to maintain this fantasy lifestyle that you probably assume welfare gives them, so wouldn't this help them? I understand the argument that society would pay a price, and that we shouldn't pay for the laziness of others, but they are at least voting for short term benefits. I sincerely doubt most rural farmers benefit from programs which put farming in the hands of big Agri-business.
Also, fair or not, Lyndon Johnson traded guaranteed votes from the South for guaranteed votes from African-Americans when he signed the 1964 civil rights act into law. Not the most astute political trade, but it was the right thing to do.
Sure. A lot of them are voting in there short term interests. It's the same way with the theocracy crowd -- there interests just happen to be erecting statues on public property and changing the name of marriage for gays. Most of these people do not understand or care about what's really in there own self interest.
That's actually not very accurate. Republicans overwhelmingly owned the black vote prior to the Great Depression. It was actually created in part to free the slaves. Following that, they overwhelmingly became a block vote for the DNC thanks to Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal, which economically benefited minorities. We are still seeing this today.
-
..I can't see the black constituency carrying obama/biden all the way to the white house. it was the left-wing of the democrat party that won him the primary, and I think by november these two groups aren't gonna make it the whole nine yards for barack.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2315338564_c8ce52c1aa.jpg)
lol
-
she probably would have taken michigan too
but never would have gotten a vote from my immediate family!
-
You are on some other planet. The unemployment rate is at 6%. "All of the good jobs" are not overseas.There is nothing stopping blacks from getting the ones that exist either -- they are actually propelled in society by affirmative action programs.
Wait, unemloyment is only at 6%!? Wat about the huge chunk of lazy welfare criminal blacks that make up for most of the democratic voter base?!? But seriously if you're willing to work in fast food, or some other shitty corporate job, or are in a field they can't outsource, you might be okay-otherwise:
Since 2001, America has lost 3.1 million private-sector jobs. Where have all the jobs gone? Overseas, in many cases. In addition to cutting jobs to increase profitability, companies are looking overseas to save money in labor costs.
According to Forrester Research, over the next fifteen years over three million US service industry jobs and up to $136 billion in wages will move overseas to countries including India, Russia, China and the Philippines.
p.s. when you say things like it's easy to find a job, you show your age pretty bad. Get out there in the real world faggot. You don't know shit.
I don't agree with the drug war at all. The thing is, since there are laws in place, I also do not participate in the drug trade. Like it or not, as a citizen of this country you have to follow it's laws. If some idiot goes out and breaks them and gets a felony, I don't feel one bit of pity for him or her -- you knew it was illegal, and you knew you'd go to jail. It's your fault. It's the same way with me too -- if I get caught vandalizing some shit while skating, I know I'm going to have to deal with the consequences from it. I don't bitch and moan about how "society" dealt me a bad hand. No one fucked me over in life but me.
You don't do drugs?
In any case, you just said you don't agree with the drug war at all, yet you're blaming poor people who take part in it when their economic situation is dire. Study any similar situation throughout the world ever.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Also, your boy Chomsky needs to explain to you that the people participating in the drug trade today are not "non-violent" do gooders who just want to smoke some crack. Drugs are in the hands of the criminal element at this point -- since drugs are illegal. If you don't think there is a lot of violence taking place, just walk down to Greyson over there in Charlotte and try to cop a few pills. You'll probably get beaten down, and/or robbed. The thing is, no one calls the police. Imagine how that would work. "I was trying to buy some heroin..... and this guy just jumped me out of nowhere!" You, a "libertarian" who is "well versed" in this sort of thing, should especially know that there is tons of unreported violence in the drug trade. This is one of the core arguments for legalizing them.
YES JUST LIKE PROHIBITION FOR ALCOHOL YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER, PROHIBITION ENDED, NOW DO YOU HAVE VIOLENT BOOTLEGGERS?
OR DO WE HAVE SAFE TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL AT STORES, DELIVERED BY LEGITIMATE COMPANIES THAT GIVE SAFE JOBS TO THE COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF DUMBASS POINTLESS ALCOHOL WAR?!
GOD DUCKING DAMNIT HOW CAN YOU BE SO FUCKING STUPID
THE DRUG WAR MAKES EVERYONE UNSAFE LIKE THAT
UNDERSTAND YOU PIECE OF SHIT?!
-
could you edit this into the end of your post
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/LPG/50115~Legalize-It-Marijuana-Leaf-Posters.jpg)
-
No.
-
alright, alright, fine... we'll settle for this, bRo
(http://www.mehmetjan.com/myspace-marijuana-graphics/myspace-420-graphics/myspace-pot-graphics/myspace-cannabis-graphics/myspace-weed-graphics/myspace-420-comments-6.gif)
-
The drug war was invented by the right wing to destroy the climate of change in the 1960's and early 1970's. The FBI and CIA using COINTELPRO flooded urban areas with hard drugs getting people addicted to drugs and thus helping them lose focus on changing the country. After the drugs where flooded into the areas, they then arrested people sent them to prison and used them for prison labor, which just another form of slavery. You think it is a coincidence that the majority of drug crime takes place in urban and mostly black areas? It is not! The right wing couldn't stand the thought of black people standing up for their rights, they couldn't stand the youth wanting to change the government, having the guts to say the Vietnam war was fucking wrong.
The drug war is one of the worst things ever to happen in our country and it makes me ashamed to be an American that it still goes on to this day!
-
I can't deal with this shit anymore. Now you're pushing conspiracy theories as legitimate arguments and trying to factor welfare leeches into the unemployment rate.... if you can't recognize basic things, like the fact that people that NEVER work are not factored into unemployment rates, the fact that blacks are overrepresented on the welfare rolls, or the fact that only a certain type of person uses drugs today because they are a part of the criminal element, there is nothing I can do for you. You are the type of person that needs to support Barack Obama.
-
I can't deal with this shit anymore. Now you're pushing conspiracy theories as legitimate arguments and trying to factor welfare leeches into the unemployment rate.... if you can't recognize basic things, like the fact that people that NEVER work are not factored into unemployment rates, the fact that blacks are overrepresented on the welfare rolls, or the fact that only a certain type of person uses drugs today because they are a part of the criminal element, there is nothing I can do for you. You are the type of person that needs to support Barack Obama.
Dude do some fucking research, nothing I wrote isn't a historical fact, I know racist people like you want to think that blacks are "naturally" criminals, but they are not.
-
if you can't recognize basic things, like the fact that people that NEVER work are not factored into unemployment rates, the fact that blacks are overrepresented on the welfare rolls,
Well dumbass, the very simple reasons for the things you're stating here have been explained to you now at great length.
And stop for just a fucking second and think.
Okay?
Ask yourself, why do you care so much about these two issues?
I mean I'm fairly certain no one likes the idea of a welfare state(which is nothing close to what we have), or this idea of a huge amount of people laying around all day doing nothing, which is also baseless.
But look at these two things in the big picture.
I mean if you care about welfare, and taxes and spending like I do, then proportionally your anger and rage should be aimed toward the governments welfare in all it's various forms WAY before you even blink at something like welfare.
Corporate subsidies, incentives to companies that ship jobs overseas, no-bid contracts, the military industrial complex spending fucking dwarfs all of the social spending:
We are talking TRILLIONS of dollars here:
(http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/discr08prop.gif)
http://www.ipb.org/Military%20Spending%20Projections%202006-2011.pdf
http://www.epsusa.org/publications/factsheets/milexMDG.pdf
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/charts
or the fact that only a certain type of person uses drugs today because they are a part of the criminal element, there is nothing I can do for you.
This is a joke right? White people do the majority of the drugs in this country. George Bush has done cocaine.
Have you done drugs?
I actually haven't.
-
legalize yayo
-
Probably one of the greatest achievements by propagandists ever, getting people to get intensely angry over the mostly fabricated common thoughts regarding welfare for citizens, while SIMULTANEOUSLY handing out billion dollar corporate welfare constantly.
Right wing radio FTW!
-
Expand Quote
Also, your boy Chomsky needs to explain to you that the people participating in the drug trade today are not "non-violent" do gooders who just want to smoke some crack. Drugs are in the hands of the criminal element at this point -- since drugs are illegal. If you don't think there is a lot of violence taking place, just walk down to Greyson over there in Charlotte and try to cop a few pills. You'll probably get beaten down, and/or robbed. The thing is, no one calls the police. Imagine how that would work. "I was trying to buy some heroin..... and this guy just jumped me out of nowhere!" You, a "libertarian" who is "well versed" in this sort of thing, should especially know that there is tons of unreported violence in the drug trade. This is one of the core arguments for legalizing them.
YES JUST LIKE PROHIBITION FOR ALCOHOL YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER, PROHIBITION ENDED, NOW DO YOU HAVE VIOLENT BOOTLEGGERS?
OR DO WE HAVE SAFE TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL AT STORES, DELIVERED BY LEGITIMATE COMPANIES THAT GIVE SAFE JOBS TO THE COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF DUMBASS POINTLESS ALCOHOL WAR?!
GOD DUCKING DAMNIT HOW CAN YOU BE SO FUCKING STUPID
THE DRUG WAR MAKES EVERYONE UNSAFE LIKE THAT
UNDERSTAND YOU PIECE OF SHIT?!
aren't you yourself a bit stupid?
didn't newton, in the post you're quoting, said that stopping violence is a "core argument for legalizing drugs" and that there is a criminal element in drugs only because drugs are illegal
way to yell like a little child at a dude saying basically the same thing as you
-
I don't know what the fuck he's trying to say there.
I do know he's a faggot.
-
i was trying to say that you obviously failed to realize that newton is, like yourself, for the legalisation of drugs
you dumb fucking cunt
-
So he says, he also apparently thinks it's okay for people to be jailed for breaking what he says he believes are unjust laws. Because they're "stupid" for doing it. Also he believes that skateboarders should be locked up as well everytime they skate street or something awesome like that.
I think he was trying to say that a lot of the people that are in the drug trade at the moment are violent or something, and I already explained the reasons for this earlier at great length.
I assume the whole paragraph was based on a single phrase I used, "non-violent." You can usually tell when people spend that much time avoiding the issue and the points that others make, that they really don't know or care much about anything.
Also fuck you faggot.
-
Expand Quote
I can't deal with this shit anymore. Now you're pushing conspiracy theories as legitimate arguments and trying to factor welfare leeches into the unemployment rate.... if you can't recognize basic things, like the fact that people that NEVER work are not factored into unemployment rates, the fact that blacks are overrepresented on the welfare rolls, or the fact that only a certain type of person uses drugs today because they are a part of the criminal element, there is nothing I can do for you. You are the type of person that needs to support Barack Obama.
Dude do some fucking research, nothing I wrote isn't a historical fact, I know racist people like you want to think that blacks are "naturally" criminals, but they are not.
all republicans are racist. it's very obvious to anyone capable of even the slightest bit of critical thought.
-
That's actually not very accurate. Republicans overwhelmingly owned the black vote prior to the Great Depression. It was actually created in part to free the slaves. Following that, they overwhelmingly became a block vote for the DNC thanks to Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal, which economically benefited minorities. We are still seeing this today.
Its true republicans owned the black vote before the depression. HOwever, I have to disagree on FDR and the new deal solidifying them as part of the democratic base. FDR has been often criticized because although he seemed to be pro civil rights personally, it never really translated into policy. African Americans felt that the new deal put white people first for relief and that they were getting a raw deal on it- I can't remember many details but I read about it in a lot of different books on the new deal. Also, he did not push for anti-lynching laws, and never got one passed. '64 civil rights act really solidified it.
-
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/853c6b2733
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html)
Isn't it sad that the women of the View are some of the toughest interviewers in the "news".
-
those clips were gold, the media is in a sad state when the view is giving the toughest interviews
i'm really looking forward to seeing palin do some real interviews
-
http://www.hulu.com/watch/34465/saturday-night-live-palin--hillary-open (http://www.hulu.com/watch/34465/saturday-night-live-palin--hillary-open)
LOL
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZuHAqjI3CY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biyK7NgdCDA&feature=related
-
Obama:
Occidental College (Los Angeles) - 2 years studying Politics and Public Policy.
Columbia University (New York) - B.A. Political Science with Distinguished Major in International Relations.
Harvard Law School - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and a B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899.
Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester - Business Administration.
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - General Studies.
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - Journalism.
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester.
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Sports Journalism.
-
Obama:
Occidental College (Los Angeles) - 2 years studying Politics and Public Policy.
Columbia University (New York) - B.A. Political Science with Distinguished Major in International Relations.
Harvard Law School - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and a B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899.
Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester - Business Administration.
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - General Studies.
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - Journalism.
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester.
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Sports Journalism.
you forgot 'president of the harvard law review' for obama, which is far more impressive than anything else on that list.
-
More impressive than a B.A. in Sports Journalism from the University of Idaho?
-
i dont know if you guys have seen this but, WOW!
this broad can fucking die away from me!
http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm
-
makes you wanna skate in front of her house and cause mad fuckin' ruckus,
-
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/ (http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrgiKcqkm0k
(http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/intel/08/03/18_obama_lg.jpg)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation’s health insurance system?
These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.
A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.
There is nothing secret about Senator McCain’s far-reaching proposals, but they haven’t gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense — lipstick, celebrities and “Drill, baby, drill!”
For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.
“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.
According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”
The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”
Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.
While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That’s because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit — $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family — to be used “to help pay for your health care.”
You may think this is a good move or a bad one — but it’s a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?
The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)
Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It’s the beginning of the end.
When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.
That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.
The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: “I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.”
Yet another radical element of McCain’s plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.
In a refrain we’ve heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.
This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.
You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we’d be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even into the health care system.
But we’re not even paying much attention.
-
McCain Embraces Regulation After Many Years of Opposition (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html?hpid=topnews)
In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments. McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible, saying that "in an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand."
He said the misconduct was aided by "casual oversight by regulatory agencies in Washington," where he said oversight is "scattered, unfocused and ineffective."
-
So McCain has Greenspan and Phil Graham helping him formulate his economic policy and nobody even raises questions in the mainstream media about this. It boggles the mind. Anyone else notice how Phil Graham has those shifty, beady little eyes? He looks very diabolical and evil.
-
you guys are still talking about this? isnt the election over?
-
So McCain has Greenspan and Phil Graham helping him formulate his economic policy and nobody even raises questions in the mainstream media about this. It boggles the mind. Anyone else notice how Phil Graham has those shifty, beady little eyes? He looks very diabolical and evil.
That 2nd article that dagger linked is just from yesterday's Washington Post, I'm sure there will be more shit about it today and through the weekend.
The fact that the Wash.Post put that out there is pretty interesting.
But either way, just as McLame's chief advisor said -this election is not about the issues, its about the personalities of the candidates.
Shit is just getting really, really scary.
Populist, Millenarianistic, Fascism here we come!
-
stoked some gents hacked into palins yahoo email address... hope they nabbed some incriminating stuff before it all got shut down
-
So McCain has Greenspan and Phil Graham helping him formulate his economic policy and nobody even raises questions in the mainstream media about this. It boggles the mind. Anyone else notice how Phil Graham has those shifty, beady little eyes? He looks very diabolical and evil.
Greenspan (who I agree shares an assload of responsibility) was on the news this past week saying that this is the worst economic situation of his career... considering that the dude's been working since before dinosaurs, that's pretty fucked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO9idrZs30M
Privatized profit, socialized debt. I really don't understand how anyone that is against government oversight/regulation could ever utter the words "let the free market decide." There is no free market, just unchecked capitalism raping the economy and job market by a goddamned oligarchy.
Special thanks to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush for the fisting!
-
mhm.
Also if anyone's wondering what exactly is going on(I sure was), I found this helpful and hilarious:
http://100wordblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/subprime.pps
-
good find nick
-
good find nick
-
-
In early March 2007, she invited the state Senate's leaders to her office for a preview of the pipeline legislation. To the astonishment of the five senators and their aides, she barely said a word for the hour. As staff members explained her signature plan, the governor was preoccupied with her two BlackBerries.
"It was so bizarre. We all talked about it afterwards," said a legislative source, one of three participants in the meeting who recounted the governor's silence. "We all said, 'What was that? Was she even paying attention?' "
-
rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:57:22 No.85782652
Hello, /b/ as many of you might already know, last night sarah palin’s yahoo was “hacked” and caps were posted on /b/, i am the lurker who did it, and i would like to tell the story.
In the past couple days news had come to light about palin using a yahoo mail account, it was in news stories and such, a thread was started full of newfags trying to do something that would not get this off the ground, for the next 2 hours the acct was locked from password recovery presumably from all this bullshit spamming.
after the password recovery was reenabled, it took seriously 45 mins on wikipedia and google to find the info, Birthday? 15 seconds on wikipedia, zip code? well she had always been from wasilla, and it only has 2 zip codes (thanks online postal service!)
the second was somewhat harder, the question was “where did you meet your spouse?” did some research, and apparently she had eloped with mister palin after college, if youll look on some of the screenshits that I took and other fellow anon have so graciously put on photobucket you will see the google search for “palin eloped” or some such in one of the tabs.
I found out later though more research that they met at high school, so I did variations of that, high, high school, eventually hit on “Wasilla high” I promptly changed the password to popcorn and took a cold shower…
>> rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:58:04 No.85782727
this is all verifiable if some anal /b/tard wants to think Im a troll, and there isn’t any hard proof to the contrary, but anyone who had followed the thread from the beginning to the 404 will know I probably am not, the picture I posted this topic with is the same one as the original thread.
I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family
I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big
Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this shit ever got to the FBI I was fucked, I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to rapidshit all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state
Then the white knight fucker came along, and did it in for everyone, I trusted /b/ with that email password, I had gotten done what I could do well, then passed the torch , all to be let down by the douchebaggery, good job /b/, this is why we cant have nice things.
-
Fascinating piece on Mccain and POWs that were left behind in Vietnam, turns out he is one of the reasons many of POWs were never returned.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1
-
I thought of a funny retort:
Next time the douches from the RNC congratulate themselves because she has "executive experience" remember: so did Bush.
....and as we know, he continues to bankrupt every organization he touches.
So join my petition to:
Send W to Iran!
Send W to North Korea!
Send W to the Afghan-Pakistan border!
the man's a walking calamity, the 10 plagues combined into one, a natural disaster.
By the way, in order to shut any McCain supporters up just ask them who they voted for in 2004.
If they tell the truth (Bush): ask them why anyone should respect their political opinions and choices ever again.
If they lie (Kerry, or did not vote for anyone): then it must be because they disagreed with the bush doctorine, so why are they backing up his candidate now?
-
Expand Quote
So McCain has Greenspan and Phil Graham helping him formulate his economic policy and nobody even raises questions in the mainstream media about this. It boggles the mind. Anyone else notice how Phil Graham has those shifty, beady little eyes? He looks very diabolical and evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO9idrZs30M
Privatized profit, socialized debt. I really don't understand how anyone that is against government oversight/regulation could ever utter the words "let the free market decide." There is no free market, just unchecked capitalism raping the economy and job market by a goddamned oligarchy.
Special thanks to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush for the fisting!
ESPECIALLY REAGAN. FUCK HIS DEAD ASS. He was the guy who came up with the nutcase plan to deregulate industry, and made it become the party standard. The BUshes or Clinton wouldn't have gone this way if it wasn't for Reagan's popularization of the idea.
Hey, where are our let the market decide anti-regulation people?
Newton, you are one, right? I guess I can stop going backward to show the overwhelming evidence that big business, when unregulated, is predatory and destructive to the whole economy. Y'all gonna shut up about these idealistic situations that will never occur and face the fact that regulation is necessary yet?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WItI9It_Swc
-
rss feed: http://www.236.com/video/get_your_war_on.xml
http://www.236.com/video/2008/sarah_palin_to_the_nth_power_9002.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXG1VZVgRa0
-
FROM THE NYT:
Finger-Pointing in Financial Crisis Is Directed at Bush
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MARK LANDLER and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: September 19, 2008
WASHINGTON — For his entire presidency, George W. Bush has tried to avoid the fate of his father, brought low by a feeble economy. Now, as the financial crisis radiates far beyond Wall Street, Mr. Bush faces an even grimmer prospect: being blamed, at least in part, for an economic breakdown.
“There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem,” Mr. Bush said in the Rose Garden on Friday. “Now is the time to solve it.”
But in Washington, on Wall Street and on the presidential campaign trail, the debate has already begun.
Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, denounces what he calls the Bush administration’s “failed philosophy.”
Senator John McCain, the Republican, claimed Friday that “the administration did nothing” to rein in the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though the White House did push some reforms on Capitol Hill.
These experts, from both political parties, say Mr. Bush’s early personnel choices and overarching antipathy toward regulation created a climate, that, if it did not set off the turmoil, almost certainly aggravated it.
The president’s first two Treasury secretaries, for instance, lacked the kind of Wall Street expertise that might have helped them raise red flags about the use of complex financial instruments that are at the heart of the crisis.
(http://www.jdbucksavage.com/photos/buck_thumbs_up_small.jpg)
-
If Obama loses now, it should be clear we live in a racist country.
-
Sam Harris from Newsweek:
What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:
"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"
"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."
"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."
"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."
The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.
-
I've given up on you guys a long time ago, but I really am curious here. Does that guy not know the definition of "elitism" as it is being negatively applied to Barack Obama?
-
Newton, can you talk a bit about what policy's from Mccain that your backing and what ones from Obama that you dislike.
-
Newton, can you talk a bit about what policy's from Mccain that your backing and what ones from Obama that you dislike.
I have an intense hatred for Barack Obama, and I disagree with virtually everything he stands for economically -- higher taxes on the rich, wealth redistribution to the UN, "making government cooler," the fact that he won't drill ANWR, his spending programs that will increase this country's debt, the fact that his numbers do not add up when it comes to his ideas for social spending, etc. Socially I tend to agree with the Democrats, but I'm not even sold in that area. He's not talking about increasing social freedoms. Instead, he chose a running mate that has built a career partially on fighting the piece of shit drug war, and censoring rap CDs. Big government socially and economically.... no thank you. He also pulled this shit last week:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
That's right. The Chosen One is continuing the politicize a war for his own personal gain! Fuck Barack Obama.
-
Expand Quote
Newton, can you talk a bit about what policy's from Mccain that your backing and what ones from Obama that you dislike.
I have an intense hatred for Barack Obama, and I disagree with virtually everything he stands for economically -- higher taxes on the rich, wealth redistribution to the UN, "making government cooler," the fact that he won't drill ANWR, his spending programs that will increase this country's debt, the fact that his numbers do not add up when it comes to his ideas for social spending, etc. Socially I tend to agree with the Democrats, but I'm not even sold in that area. He's not talking about increasing social freedoms. Instead, he chose a running mate that has built a career partially on fighting the piece of shit drug war, and censoring rap CDs. Big government socially and economically.... no thank you. He also pulled this shit last week:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
That's right. The Chosen One is continuing the politicize a war for his own personal gain! Fuck Barack Obama.
ok.
you answered part of the question,
now for the first part - what Mccain policies are you backing?
or are you just going to go with their style of only answering the part of the questions that you want to say, and ignoring the other half of the question?
-
For each policy of Barak that you don't care for could you please explain what the Mccain plan is that addresses that issue and why it addresses it better. I'm not calling you out, I'll do the same below on why I support Obama. I find policies more important than politicians so I'll spare you all the obvious Mccain\Palin jabs.
I'm about as swing as you get when it comes to voters so making your case will mean more wind in your parties sail. I'm asking this not just because I want to hear your opinions on his policies, it's also because I have no idea about MCCains policies. I've tried researching it but they didn't have his policies on their site or anywhere that I could find them on the web last time I looked. (edit: I just looked and they have a new site that talks to his policies a bit. I read through them a bit but only in energy. I'll review them more as I have time).
I think talking about policies is the most productive way to convert people like myself so hopefully you feel the same and will step up to defend your choice.
Here's the big issues that concern me and how I feel Obama's stated policies address them:
Corporations Gone Wild
They've been shitting all over us for a long time, taking all they can and not putting anything back.
- Obama's tax plan calls for higher taxes for companys that do things that go against working Americans like outsourcing jobs. I personally have been laid off on average once a year from corporate jobs since graduating college. And I wasn't one of a few. Each time about 50% of the staff went and shops were setup overseas to lower cost.
Economy
Our current economic recession is very heavy in retail, manufacturing, transportation, etc... (consumer spending type industries)
- Obama's tax plan is the opposite of trickle down which is geared not only to give citizens who make under 250 tax breaks just for fun, this will also increase the disposable incomes of the majority of Americans who will turn around and spend that money on clothes, travel, applances, ect... which will revitalize those industries and help strengthen the economy. If you give more tax relief or even just continue the Bush tax relief to the super rich, then this will have no effect on consumer spending. I know this may be bad for your family out in the Hills but for 94% of Americans, it's a bad thing and eventhough my wife and I could realistically be effected by this tax increase one day, I fully back it.
Foriegn Policy and Iraq
The article you pasted seems in accurate to me. Apart from being obviously biased it also just this writers opinion on whether or not Obama's time table is accurate. He feels it's not accurate and his first assumption is that the Obama administration won't be able to start work on any of it's policies until febuary next year. Given that there is only 40 or so days left until the election is over and that this article is obviously coming from a biased source, I'd say this isn't very credible and I'd trust Obama's clearly stated plans over this.
- Obama has a time table for withdraw on the table. If you think he's not thinking about reelection your crazy so he will have to have troups out before the next election. Whether he's able to hit 16 month goal or if it ends up being 6 months before the next election, at least with him I know it'll be in the next four years. MCCain would just be more of the bush horizon and lies.
- He's willing to not "politicize" diplomacy, by not playing the good guys, bad guys game with other countrys like Iran, Venasula, etc... and to actually sit down and talk with these people.
Energy
He's put forth a detailed plan for taking us away from foriegn Oil dependence and is commited to preserving our coast lines and wildlife for future generations. I'd like to think I could take my grand kids to a nice beach without having to go to Asia and by that time we will surely be back in the same boat if we don't change to a different source of energy. While you may dissagree about what the next energy source should be, I think you'd be foolish to think that we don't need to move away from oil and Obama is the only candidate that has a policy that addresses this on the table.
Mccain is not only not moving us away from Oil, he's discouraging domestic production of ethonal and encouraging importing of it. He's actually creataing a situation we're we'd also be more likely to be dependent on foriegn ethanol if we made the switch but really he's just keeping the oil on top as would be expected.
John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of gasoline at the pump.
John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
Why would he do this? Surely his plan includes some way of addressing the oil situation and the inflation, recession and lower standard of living that accompanies it. Well here's his plan.
John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
Wow, who would of thought that would work. To bad Obama didn't think of simply telling them to lower prices, maybe he's not as smart as his degrees would suggest.
Mccain's answer to cheaper, cleaner energy
Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power.
I guess radoactive waste is technically clean???
Come on Newton, your smarter then this. Obviously this guy is looking out for oil\corporations and not trying to fix our real problems. If your down for chearing for your team, that's cool, but at least admidt that that's what your doing.
-
I'm about as swing as you get when it comes to voters so making your case will mean more wind in your parties sail. I'm asking this not just because I want to hear your opinions on his policies, it's also because I have no idea about MCCains policies. I've tried researching it but they didn't have his policies on their site or anywhere that I could find them on the web last time I looked. (edit: I just looked and they have a new site that talks to his policies a bit. I read through them a bit but only in energy. I'll review them more as I have time).
HAHA, you're a "swing voter".... have you voted for one non-DNC candidate in your life? I've heard nothing from you but liberal positions on ever issue you've discussed.
Here's the big issues that concern me and how I feel Obama's stated policies address them:
Corporations Gone Wild
They've been shitting all over us for a long time, taking all they can and not putting anything back.
- Obama's tax plan calls for higher taxes for companys that do things that go against working Americans like outsourcing jobs. I personally have been laid off on average once a year from corporate jobs since graduating college. And I wasn't one of a few. Each time about 50% of the staff went and shops were setup overseas to lower cost.
Corporations are going overseas.... and you think raising taxes is going to cause them to want to come back? Barack Obama cannot tax corporation's incomes that are made overseas to begin with. This punitive measure would probably just drive them from doing business within the United States at all. The top 10% of earners Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on provide about 80% of the US job market in the form of small to mid sized businesses. Only a tiny portion of these people are "fat cat CEOs" drawing huge corporate bonuses. Raising the costs of these businesses will lead to cutbacks in terms of the employment opportunities that they provide. I personally am in favor of implementing the FairTax to solve this problem, so I disagree with John McCain.
Economy
Our current economic recession is very heavy in retail, manufacturing, transportation, etc... (consumer spending type industries)
- Obama's tax plan is the opposite of trickle down which is geared not only to give citizens who make under 250 tax breaks just for fun, this will also increase the disposable incomes of the majority of Americans who will turn around and spend that money on clothes, travel, applances, ect... which will revitalize those industries and help strengthen the economy. If you give more tax relief or even just continue the Bush tax relief to the super rich, then this will have no effect on consumer spending. I know this may be bad for your family out in the Hills but for 94% of Americans, it's a bad thing and eventhough my wife and I could realistically be effected by this tax increase one day, I fully back it. I actually support a movement called the FairTax, which John McCain does not support.
http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home (http://http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home)
Foriegn Policy and Iraq
The article you pasted seems in accurate to me. Apart from being obviously biased it also just this writers opinion on whether or not Obama's time table is accurate. He feels it's not accurate and his first assumption is that the Obama administration won't be able to start work on any of it's policies until febuary next year. Given that there is only 40 or so days left until the election is over and that this article is obviously coming from a biased source, I'd say this isn't very credible and I'd trust Obama's clearly stated plans over this.
Pick out the facts from it if you want. I haven't seen it being covered in the mainstream media at all.
- Obama has a time table for withdraw on the table. If you think he's not thinking about reelection your crazy so he will have to have troups out before the next election. Whether he's able to hit 16 month goal or if it ends up being 6 months before the next election, at least with him I know it'll be in the next four years. MCCain would just be more of the bush horizon and lies.
- He's willing to not "politicize" diplomacy, by not playing the good guys, bad guys game with other countrys like Iran, Venasula, etc... and to actually sit down and talk with these people.
Troop with drawl has already started as of February of 2009. John McCain has expressed strong interest in troop with drawl from Iraq and the idea that he wouldn't have the troops out in four years is pretty absurd. He says he wants the troops out. If you're taking Obama's word for it, why not McCain's?
Energy
He's put forth a detailed plan for taking us away from foriegn Oil dependence and is commited to preserving our coast lines and wildlife for future generations. I'd like to think I could take my grand kids to a nice beach without having to go to Asia and by that time we will surely be back in the same boat if we don't change to a different source of energy. While you may dissagree about what the next energy source should be, I think you'd be foolish to think that we don't need to move away from oil and Obama is the only candidate that has a policy that addresses this on the table.
Mccain is not only not moving us away from Oil, he's discouraging domestic production of ethonal and encouraging importing of it. He's actually creataing a situation we're we'd also be more likely to be dependent on foriegn ethanol if we made the switch but really he's just keeping the oil on top as would be expected.
Expand Quote
John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of at the pump.
John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
In case you haven't noticed, ethanol has caused a crisis throughout the world.... food prices are soaring thanks to these idiotic mandates, and people across the world are literally starving to death. The government should not be controlling the factors of production to begin with, and if you disagree with that you need to vote for Barack Obama. The fact is that transitioning away from oil is not going to happen in five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty years -- most Americans need relief NOW. Hell, if cars ran on air tomorrow, there would still be oil dependence in America. How is every single person in the United States going to afford a new car? How is every single industry going to convert to new energy in just a few years? Investment in alternative energy does not solve these problems.
Why would he do this? Surely his plan includes some way of addressing the oil situation and the inflation, recession and lower standard of living that accompanies it. Well here's his plan.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
Wow, who would of thought that would work. To bad Obama didn't think of simply telling them to lower prices, maybe he's not as smart as his degrees would suggest.
Clear straw man argument....
Mccain's answer to cheaper, cleaner energy
Expand Quote
Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power.
I guess radoactive waste is technically clean???
Obama is extremely vague, but he says he would like to explore nuclear energy also. They're using it in Europe now, so to me it doesn't sound like much of a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE
-
Stop posting.
-
Expand Quote
I'm about as swing as you get when it comes to voters so making your case will mean more wind in your parties sail. I'm asking this not just because I want to hear your opinions on his policies, it's also because I have no idea about MCCains policies. I've tried researching it but they didn't have his policies on their site or anywhere that I could find them on the web last time I looked. (edit: I just looked and they have a new site that talks to his policies a bit. I read through them a bit but only in energy. I'll review them more as I have time).
HAHA, you're a "swing voter".... have you voted for one non-DNC candidate in your life? I've heard nothing from you but liberal positions on ever issue you've discussed.
I voted for bush on his first term and I was planning too vote republican this time because I wanted to ensure that neither party had too much power before I found out who the candidates were, which are both things I've talked about on here in the past. As far as "nothing but liberal positions from me" goes, you'd know better than I would, I don't keep up with political, idelogical classification as I feel it is for non-thinkers but I'm fairly certain that I'm not liberal on issues like capital punishment, imigration, rascism, etc...
Expand Quote
Here's the big issues that concern me and how I feel Obama's stated policies address them:
Corporations Gone Wild
They've been shitting all over us for a long time, taking all they can and not putting anything back.
- Obama's tax plan calls for higher taxes for companys that do things that go against working Americans like outsourcing jobs. I personally have been laid off on average once a year from corporate jobs since graduating college. And I wasn't one of a few. Each time about 50% of the staff went and shops were setup overseas to lower cost.
Corporations are going overseas.... and you think raising taxes is going to cause them to want to come back? Barack Obama cannot tax corporation's incomes that are made overseas to begin with. This punitive measure would probably just drive them from doing business within the United States at all. The top 10% of earners Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on provide about 80% of the US job market in the form of small to mid sized businesses. Only a tiny portion of these people are "fat cat CEOs" drawing huge corporate bonuses. Raising the costs of these businesses will lead to cutbacks in terms of the employment opportunities that they provide. I personally am in favor of implementing the FairTax to solve this problem, so I disagree with John McCain.
There not going overseas, there just shipping the jobs there. The C managers and board don't want to move overseas. American corporations will stay in America but the jobs they create wont unless we make it more profitable to do so.
Economy
Our current economic recession is very heavy in retail, manufacturing, transportation, etc... (consumer spending type industries)
- Obama's tax plan is the opposite of trickle down which is geared not only to give citizens who make under 250 tax breaks just for fun, this will also increase the disposable incomes of the majority of Americans who will turn around and spend that money on clothes, travel, applances, ect... which will revitalize those industries and help strengthen the economy. If you give more tax relief or even just continue the Bush tax relief to the super rich, then this will have no effect on consumer spending. I know this may be bad for your family out in the Hills but for 94% of Americans, it's a bad thing and eventhough my wife and I could realistically be effected by this tax increase one day, I fully back it. I actually support a movement called the FairTax, which John McCain does not support.
http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home (http://http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home)
There's more than one way to analyze equality and precentage of wealth is more fair in my opinion than a flat tax. I actually prefer a progressive tax. If your making over 250 a year then you need to give a little love back to the country that made that possible. Also, Barack's tax policies only restore the rich tax back to what it was under Regan, so he's not exactly raping them, just correcting the wrong that was done by Bush.
Expand Quote
- Obama has a time table for withdraw on the table. If you think he's not thinking about reelection your crazy so he will have to have troups out before the next election. Whether he's able to hit 16 month goal or if it ends up being 6 months before the next election, at least with him I know it'll be in the next four years. MCCain would just be more of the bush horizon and lies.
- He's willing to not "politicize" diplomacy, by not playing the good guys, bad guys game with other countrys like Iran, Venasula, etc... and to actually sit down and talk with these people.
Troop with drawl has already started as of February of 2009. John McCain has expressed strong interest in troop with drawl from Iraq and the idea that he wouldn't have the troops out in four years is pretty absurd. He says he wants the troops out. If you're taking Obama's word for it, why not McCain's?
Him not being willing to commit to a timetable makes me prefer and trust Obama's position more.
Expand Quote
Energy
He's put forth a detailed plan for taking us away from foriegn Oil dependence and is commited to preserving our coast lines and wildlife for future generations. I'd like to think I could take my grand kids to a nice beach without having to go to Asia and by that time we will surely be back in the same boat if we don't change to a different source of energy. While you may dissagree about what the next energy source should be, I think you'd be foolish to think that we don't need to move away from oil and Obama is the only candidate that has a policy that addresses this on the table.
Mccain is not only not moving us away from Oil, he's discouraging domestic production of ethonal and encouraging importing of it. He's actually creataing a situation we're we'd also be more likely to be dependent on foriegn ethanol if we made the switch but really he's just keeping the oil on top as would be expected.
Expand Quote
John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of at the pump.
John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
In case you haven't noticed, ethanol has caused a crisis throughout the world.... food prices are soaring thanks to these idiotic mandates, and people across the world are literally starving to death. The government should not be controlling the factors of production to begin with, and if you disagree with that you need to vote for Barack Obama. The fact is that transitioning away from oil is not going to happen in five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty years -- most Americans need relief NOW. Hell, if cars ran on air tomorrow, there would still be oil dependence in America. How is every single person in the United States going to afford a new car? How is every single industry going to convert to new energy in just a few years? Investment in alternative energy does not solve these problems.
It's long term planning over short term. Take any intro economics class and you'll learn the virtues of long term planning and why it should be prefered.
Expand Quote
Why would he do this? Surely his plan includes some way of addressing the oil situation and the inflation, recession and lower standard of living that accompanies it. Well here's his plan.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
Wow, who would of thought that would work. To bad Obama didn't think of simply telling them to lower prices, maybe he's not as smart as his degrees would suggest.
Clear straw man argument....
OK so then correctly interpret it for me. I pasted the text off his site, there's nothing missing there but if you think I missrepresented how shallow and absent his plan is, then please enlighten me.
Expand Quote
Mccain's answer to cheaper, cleaner energy
Expand Quote
Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power.
I guess radoactive waste is technically clean???
Obama is extremely vague, but he says he would like to explore nuclear energy also. They're using it in Europe now, so to me it doesn't sound like much of a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE
Obama also has a real clean energy plan on the table. He's not just a continuation of the current energy priorites and technologies, he wants to try something different. He's just open to more options than Mccain.
-
I'll just leave this here
-
So did anyone else hear about the changes in the vice president debate to make things easier for Mrs Palin? Talk about sexist, if a woman needs things made easier for her, isn't that sexist? I don't think women firefighters have someone carry their hoses? Do women doctors have men do all the diagnosing? And this woman is suppossed to be second in command? Anyone who votes for her and Mcbush needs to have their head examined.
-
source?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I'm about as swing as you get when it comes to voters so making your case will mean more wind in your parties sail. I'm asking this not just because I want to hear your opinions on his policies, it's also because I have no idea about MCCains policies. I've tried researching it but they didn't have his policies on their site or anywhere that I could find them on the web last time I looked. (edit: I just looked and they have a new site that talks to his policies a bit. I read through them a bit but only in energy. I'll review them more as I have time).
HAHA, you're a "swing voter".... have you voted for one non-DNC candidate in your life? I've heard nothing from you but liberal positions on ever issue you've discussed.
I voted for bush on his first term and I was planning too vote republican this time because I wanted to ensure that neither party had too much power before I found out who the candidates were, which are both things I've talked about on here in the past. As far as "nothing but liberal positions from me" goes, you'd know better than I would, I don't keep up with political, idelogical classification as I feel it is for non-thinkers but I'm fairly certain that I'm not liberal on issues like capital punishment, imigration, rascism, etc...
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Here's the big issues that concern me and how I feel Obama's stated policies address them:
Corporations Gone Wild
They've been shitting all over us for a long time, taking all they can and not putting anything back.
- Obama's tax plan calls for higher taxes for companys that do things that go against working Americans like outsourcing jobs. I personally have been laid off on average once a year from corporate jobs since graduating college. And I wasn't one of a few. Each time about 50% of the staff went and shops were setup overseas to lower cost.
Corporations are going overseas.... and you think raising taxes is going to cause them to want to come back? Barack Obama cannot tax corporation's incomes that are made overseas to begin with. This punitive measure would probably just drive them from doing business within the United States at all. The top 10% of earners Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on provide about 80% of the US job market in the form of small to mid sized businesses. Only a tiny portion of these people are "fat cat CEOs" drawing huge corporate bonuses. Raising the costs of these businesses will lead to cutbacks in terms of the employment opportunities that they provide. I personally am in favor of implementing the FairTax to solve this problem, so I disagree with John McCain.
There not going overseas, there just shipping the jobs there. The C managers and board don't want to move overseas. American corporations will stay in America but the jobs they create wont unless we make it more profitable to do so.
Expand Quote
Economy
Our current economic recession is very heavy in retail, manufacturing, transportation, etc... (consumer spending type industries)
- Obama's tax plan is the opposite of trickle down which is geared not only to give citizens who make under 250 tax breaks just for fun, this will also increase the disposable incomes of the majority of Americans who will turn around and spend that money on clothes, travel, applances, ect... which will revitalize those industries and help strengthen the economy. If you give more tax relief or even just continue the Bush tax relief to the super rich, then this will have no effect on consumer spending. I know this may be bad for your family out in the Hills but for 94% of Americans, it's a bad thing and eventhough my wife and I could realistically be effected by this tax increase one day, I fully back it. I actually support a movement called the FairTax, which John McCain does not support.
http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home (http://http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home)
There's more than one way to analyze equality and precentage of wealth is more fair in my opinion than a flat tax. I actually prefer a progressive tax. If your making over 250 a year then you need to give a little love back to the country that made that possible. Also, Barack's tax policies only restore the rich tax back to what it was under Regan, so he's not exactly raping them, just correcting the wrong that was done by Bush.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
- Obama has a time table for withdraw on the table. If you think he's not thinking about reelection your crazy so he will have to have troups out before the next election. Whether he's able to hit 16 month goal or if it ends up being 6 months before the next election, at least with him I know it'll be in the next four years. MCCain would just be more of the bush horizon and lies.
- He's willing to not "politicize" diplomacy, by not playing the good guys, bad guys game with other countrys like Iran, Venasula, etc... and to actually sit down and talk with these people.
Troop with drawl has already started as of February of 2009. John McCain has expressed strong interest in troop with drawl from Iraq and the idea that he wouldn't have the troops out in four years is pretty absurd. He says he wants the troops out. If you're taking Obama's word for it, why not McCain's?
Him not being willing to commit to a timetable makes me prefer and trust Obama's position more.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Energy
He's put forth a detailed plan for taking us away from foriegn Oil dependence and is commited to preserving our coast lines and wildlife for future generations. I'd like to think I could take my grand kids to a nice beach without having to go to Asia and by that time we will surely be back in the same boat if we don't change to a different source of energy. While you may dissagree about what the next energy source should be, I think you'd be foolish to think that we don't need to move away from oil and Obama is the only candidate that has a policy that addresses this on the table.
Mccain is not only not moving us away from Oil, he's discouraging domestic production of ethonal and encouraging importing of it. He's actually creataing a situation we're we'd also be more likely to be dependent on foriegn ethanol if we made the switch but really he's just keeping the oil on top as would be expected.
Expand Quote
John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of at the pump.
John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
In case you haven't noticed, ethanol has caused a crisis throughout the world.... food prices are soaring thanks to these idiotic mandates, and people across the world are literally starving to death. The government should not be controlling the factors of production to begin with, and if you disagree with that you need to vote for Barack Obama. The fact is that transitioning away from oil is not going to happen in five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty years -- most Americans need relief NOW. Hell, if cars ran on air tomorrow, there would still be oil dependence in America. How is every single person in the United States going to afford a new car? How is every single industry going to convert to new energy in just a few years? Investment in alternative energy does not solve these problems.
It's long term planning over short term. Take any intro economics class and you'll learn the virtues of long term planning and why it should be prefered.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Why would he do this? Surely his plan includes some way of addressing the oil situation and the inflation, recession and lower standard of living that accompanies it. Well here's his plan.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
Wow, who would of thought that would work. To bad Obama didn't think of simply telling them to lower prices, maybe he's not as smart as his degrees would suggest.
Clear straw man argument....
OK so then correctly interpret it for me. I pasted the text off his site, there's nothing missing there but if you think I missrepresented how shallow and absent his plan is, then please enlighten me.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Mccain's answer to cheaper, cleaner energy
Expand Quote
Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power.
I guess radoactive waste is technically clean???
Obama is extremely vague, but he says he would like to explore nuclear energy also. They're using it in Europe now, so to me it doesn't sound like much of a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE
Obama also has a real clean energy plan on the table. He's not just a continuation of the current energy priorites and technologies, he wants to try something different. He's just open to more options than Mccain.
Okay, well then vote for Barack Obama.
By the way, the FairTax is not a flat tax. You are commenting on a subject you know absolutely nothing about, once again.
-
McCain suspends campaign, does job as Senator:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-suspend-campaign-join-bailout/story.aspx?guid={64CBC327-308D-4EB3-B082-8D292B4E1A60}&dist=msr_1
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I'm about as swing as you get when it comes to voters so making your case will mean more wind in your parties sail. I'm asking this not just because I want to hear your opinions on his policies, it's also because I have no idea about MCCains policies. I've tried researching it but they didn't have his policies on their site or anywhere that I could find them on the web last time I looked. (edit: I just looked and they have a new site that talks to his policies a bit. I read through them a bit but only in energy. I'll review them more as I have time).
HAHA, you're a "swing voter".... have you voted for one non-DNC candidate in your life? I've heard nothing from you but liberal positions on ever issue you've discussed.
I voted for bush on his first term and I was planning too vote republican this time because I wanted to ensure that neither party had too much power before I found out who the candidates were, which are both things I've talked about on here in the past. As far as "nothing but liberal positions from me" goes, you'd know better than I would, I don't keep up with political, idelogical classification as I feel it is for non-thinkers but I'm fairly certain that I'm not liberal on issues like capital punishment, imigration, rascism, etc...
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Here's the big issues that concern me and how I feel Obama's stated policies address them:
Corporations Gone Wild
They've been shitting all over us for a long time, taking all they can and not putting anything back.
- Obama's tax plan calls for higher taxes for companys that do things that go against working Americans like outsourcing jobs. I personally have been laid off on average once a year from corporate jobs since graduating college. And I wasn't one of a few. Each time about 50% of the staff went and shops were setup overseas to lower cost.
Corporations are going overseas.... and you think raising taxes is going to cause them to want to come back? Barack Obama cannot tax corporation's incomes that are made overseas to begin with. This punitive measure would probably just drive them from doing business within the United States at all. The top 10% of earners Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on provide about 80% of the US job market in the form of small to mid sized businesses. Only a tiny portion of these people are "fat cat CEOs" drawing huge corporate bonuses. Raising the costs of these businesses will lead to cutbacks in terms of the employment opportunities that they provide. I personally am in favor of implementing the FairTax to solve this problem, so I disagree with John McCain.
There not going overseas, there just shipping the jobs there. The C managers and board don't want to move overseas. American corporations will stay in America but the jobs they create wont unless we make it more profitable to do so.
Expand Quote
Economy
Our current economic recession is very heavy in retail, manufacturing, transportation, etc... (consumer spending type industries)
- Obama's tax plan is the opposite of trickle down which is geared not only to give citizens who make under 250 tax breaks just for fun, this will also increase the disposable incomes of the majority of Americans who will turn around and spend that money on clothes, travel, applances, ect... which will revitalize those industries and help strengthen the economy. If you give more tax relief or even just continue the Bush tax relief to the super rich, then this will have no effect on consumer spending. I know this may be bad for your family out in the Hills but for 94% of Americans, it's a bad thing and eventhough my wife and I could realistically be effected by this tax increase one day, I fully back it. I actually support a movement called the FairTax, which John McCain does not support.
http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home (http://http:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home/www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mfg_home)
There's more than one way to analyze equality and precentage of wealth is more fair in my opinion than a flat tax. I actually prefer a progressive tax. If your making over 250 a year then you need to give a little love back to the country that made that possible. Also, Barack's tax policies only restore the rich tax back to what it was under Regan, so he's not exactly raping them, just correcting the wrong that was done by Bush.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
- Obama has a time table for withdraw on the table. If you think he's not thinking about reelection your crazy so he will have to have troups out before the next election. Whether he's able to hit 16 month goal or if it ends up being 6 months before the next election, at least with him I know it'll be in the next four years. MCCain would just be more of the bush horizon and lies.
- He's willing to not "politicize" diplomacy, by not playing the good guys, bad guys game with other countrys like Iran, Venasula, etc... and to actually sit down and talk with these people.
Troop with drawl has already started as of February of 2009. John McCain has expressed strong interest in troop with drawl from Iraq and the idea that he wouldn't have the troops out in four years is pretty absurd. He says he wants the troops out. If you're taking Obama's word for it, why not McCain's?
Him not being willing to commit to a timetable makes me prefer and trust Obama's position more.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Energy
He's put forth a detailed plan for taking us away from foriegn Oil dependence and is commited to preserving our coast lines and wildlife for future generations. I'd like to think I could take my grand kids to a nice beach without having to go to Asia and by that time we will surely be back in the same boat if we don't change to a different source of energy. While you may dissagree about what the next energy source should be, I think you'd be foolish to think that we don't need to move away from oil and Obama is the only candidate that has a policy that addresses this on the table.
Mccain is not only not moving us away from Oil, he's discouraging domestic production of ethonal and encouraging importing of it. He's actually creataing a situation we're we'd also be more likely to be dependent on foriegn ethanol if we made the switch but really he's just keeping the oil on top as would be expected.
Expand Quote
John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of at the pump.
John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
In case you haven't noticed, ethanol has caused a crisis throughout the world.... food prices are soaring thanks to these idiotic mandates, and people across the world are literally starving to death. The government should not be controlling the factors of production to begin with, and if you disagree with that you need to vote for Barack Obama. The fact is that transitioning away from oil is not going to happen in five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty years -- most Americans need relief NOW. Hell, if cars ran on air tomorrow, there would still be oil dependence in America. How is every single person in the United States going to afford a new car? How is every single industry going to convert to new energy in just a few years? Investment in alternative energy does not solve these problems.
It's long term planning over short term. Take any intro economics class and you'll learn the virtues of long term planning and why it should be prefered.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Why would he do this? Surely his plan includes some way of addressing the oil situation and the inflation, recession and lower standard of living that accompanies it. Well here's his plan.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/relief.htm
Wow, who would of thought that would work. To bad Obama didn't think of simply telling them to lower prices, maybe he's not as smart as his degrees would suggest.
Clear straw man argument....
OK so then correctly interpret it for me. I pasted the text off his site, there's nothing missing there but if you think I missrepresented how shallow and absent his plan is, then please enlighten me.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Mccain's answer to cheaper, cleaner energy
Expand Quote
Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power.
I guess radoactive waste is technically clean???
Obama is extremely vague, but he says he would like to explore nuclear energy also. They're using it in Europe now, so to me it doesn't sound like much of a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE
Obama also has a real clean energy plan on the table. He's not just a continuation of the current energy priorites and technologies, he wants to try something different. He's just open to more options than Mccain.
Okay, well then vote for Barack Obama.
By the way, the FairTax is not a flat tax. You are commenting on a subject you know absolutely nothing about, once again.
Giving up so soon? Come on now, you can do better than that to support the polices that you back.
Answer me this. Under "Fair" tax, if there are two people from opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum and they purchase the same item, do they pay the same tax or a different tax? If it's the same then I'm claiming it's a flat tax.
And note that excluding people under a certain income bracket is part of flat tax.
Flat taxes, implemented as well as proposed, usually exempt household income below a statutorily determined level that is a function of the type and size of the household.
Why is it that conservative types love to play semantic games...
-
source?
http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/have-they-just-dumbed-down-debate-for.html (http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/have-they-just-dumbed-down-debate-for.html)
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Have They Just Dumbed Down the Debate for Palin?
From the NYTimes:
The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin on Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.
At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.
The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.
Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the vice-presidential candidates. Last week, it rejected a proposal from advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, for few if any unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format.
There used to be a time where the burden of proving you were ready to be President was on the candidate him/herself. It seems now the burden is on the opposing candidate to do so while playing to the novice's rules.
Palin only talks in bullet points and repetitive phrases because she's cramming like a college student to be Vice President. This debate format allows her to continue to get away with a superficial knowledge of the world. Joe Biden, meanwhile, will not be allowed to show the full depth of his experience and knowledge on issues, foreign and domestic.
A lot of Americans like canned direct answers, even if it's bullshit and the candidate can't explain anything beyond them. The media loves them even more. Chris Matthews--the supposed "liberal"--was all smitten after Palin's RNC speech. All the talking heads will rave about Palin "exceeding expectations" by answering questions "directly" and "with conviction" (as if a projecting an air of false certitude is a good thing) while Biden "droned on and on" "like a professor" and "couldn't stay within the time format."
I'm not sure what the Obama-Biden people are doing by not protesting more to this more. Do they want to not show concern? Please. No one is paying attention to the rules right now. What matters is when the lights go on. I'd almost them rather pull out of the debate entirely than accept this.
I hope I'm wrong. But it seems Teh Stupid wins big in a format that rewards slogans for answers. Which means Quaylin may have just "won" the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1221944424-M80ol3HyyXHv4YOA0dtK0w&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1221944424-M80ol3HyyXHv4YOA0dtK0w&oref=slogin)
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: September 20, 2008
The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
The DebatesGraphic
The Debates
Related
Times Topics: Presidential Debates
Blog
The Caucus
The CaucusThe latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
* Election Guide | More Politics News
Enlarge This Image
Damon Winter/The New York Times
Mr. Obama, shown in Florida on Friday, won an agreement for the first debates to be about foreign policy and national security.
At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.
The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.
Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the two vice-presidential candidates. On Wednesday, the commission unanimously rejected a proposal sought by advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, to have the moderator ask questions and the candidates answer, with no time for unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format.
Both campaigns see the four debates as pivotal moments in a presidential race that is not only extraordinarily close but also drawing intense interest from voters; roughly 40 million viewers watched the major speeches at the two parties’ conventions. The upheaval in the financial markets has recast the race in recent days, moreover, which both sides believe will only heighten attention for the debates.
A commission member said that the new agreement on the vice-presidential debate was reached late Saturday morning. It calls for shorter blocks of candidate statements and open discussion than at the presidential debates.
McCain advisers said they were only somewhat concerned about Ms. Palin’s debating skills compared with those of Mr. Biden, who has served six terms in the Senate, or about his chances of tripping her up. Instead, they say, they wanted Ms. Palin to have opportunities to present Mr. McCain’s positions, rather than spending time talking about her experience or playing defense.
While the debates between presidential nominees are traditionally the main events in the fall election season, the public interest in Ms. Palin has proved extraordinary, and a large audience is expected for her national debate debut.
Indeed, both the McCain and Obama campaigns have similar concerns about the vice-presidential matchup in St. Louis: that Ms. Palin, of Alaska, as a new player in national politics, or Mr. Biden, of Delaware, as a loquacious and gaffe-prone speaker, could commit a momentum-changing misstep in their debate.
The negotiations for the three 90-minute debates between the men at the top of the tickets were largely free of brinksmanship. Neither side threatened to pull out, and concerns about camera angles and stagecraft were minor.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic nominee for president, and Mr. McCain did not intercede personally to settle any disputes. They agreed to one substantive change to the format originally proposed by the debate commission, giving them two minutes apiece to make a statement at the beginning of each segment on a new topic.
Mr. Obama successfully sought to flip the proposed topics for the first and third debates, so foreign policy is now coming first and economic and other domestic issues come last. There is a second debate, in the format of a town hall meeting, in which the candidates will sit on director’s chairs and take questions from the audience and Internet users on any topic.
The debate commission had proposed that the first debate be on economic issues and the third on foreign policy — in part, people involved in the process said, because the first debate is usually the most watched, and many voters rank the economy as their top concern.
Mr. Obama wanted foreign policy first to show viewers that he could provide depth, strength and intelligence on those issues, his advisers said, given that Mr. McCain consistently wins higher ratings in opinion polls as a potential commander in chief.
Mr. Obama wanted domestic issues to come last; advisers said that they believed even before the start of the financial crisis that the election was most likely to turn on the state of the economy and that he wanted the final televised exchange to focus on those concerns. He has argued that Mr. McCain would continue the economic policies of President Bush.
Mr. McCain also wanted foreign policy topics to come first in the debates, his aides said, in the hope of capitalizing on his positive reputation on national security issues across party lines.
He wanted limits on the original format for the first and third debates, which had been nine topics with nine minutes of free-flowing debate on each one. Mr. Obama went along, though his aides did insist that at least several minutes of open-ended debate occur in each block of questioning, because they believe he does well in that format.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Todd Heisler/The New York Times
Senator John McCain, at a speech in Wisconsin on Friday, will go to Mississippi this week for the first of three debates with Senator Barack Obama.
Multimedia
The DebatesGraphic
The Debates
Related
Times Topics: Presidential Debates
Blog
The Caucus
The CaucusThe latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
* Election Guide | More Politics News
Now the candidates will be asked a question, each will give an answer of two minutes or less, and then they will mix it up for five additional minutes before moving on to the next question in the same format.
Obama aides also agreed to use lecterns at the first event, which Mr. McCain preferred; at the third debate, the two men will be seated at a round table, in the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions, with the moderator at 6 o’clock.
McCain aides said that they were conscious of the fact that Mr. McCain has a prominent scar on one side of his face, and that they could not predict how prominent it would appear with the camera angles, lighting and make-up.
The debate formats were negotiated by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, representing the McCain campaign, and Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, for the Obama camp. A handful of aides from both camps were also involved, hammering out issues between themselves and then holding conference calls with members of the commission to reach final agreements, people involved in the process said.
Mr. Obama plans to begin debate camp on Tuesday with a tight circle of advisers at a site in the Tampa Bay area of Florida, his aides say, with a prominent Democratic lawyer, Greg Craig, playing the part of Mr. McCain in mock debates.
The Obama campaign has been studying Mr. McCain’s debate performances from the Republican primary as well as in his 2000 race for president. Each debate has been rated and scored, with briefing points and highlights sent to Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama’s advisers have been studying in particular Mr. McCain’s temperament and mood and looking for potential flash points of anger.
Mr. McCain, his advisers say, has yet to spend much time watching the dozens of primary debate performances of Mr. Obama over the last two years. But they said that a small staff of aides had been reviewing them and that Mr. McCain would see some highlights next week.
McCain aides refused to say when his debate camp would be or where, or who was playing Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden. (Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, Democrat of Michigan, is playing Ms. Palin for Mr. Biden’s preparations.)
Mr. Obama plans to sequester himself and a few advisers at his debate camp. The attendance is limited to a small group of foreign policy advisers, each rotating in for separate sessions with Mr. Obama and Mr. Craig.
The choice of Florida, particularly the politically critical region near Tampa, was selected with a dual purpose in mind. While Mr. Obama will have few public events from Tuesday through Friday, aides said, his presence could draw considerable local news media attention in a state where he hopes to fiercely challenge Mr. McCain.
While the intense portion of debate training begins on Tuesday, Mr. Obama has been preparing for weeks, in part by drawing upon his experience debating Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Democratic primaries. His aides have been studying those debate performances to address one of his biggest shortcomings: his ability to deliver a tight answer. Already, his campaign is trying to diminish expectations for Mr. Obama’s performance.
“Despite the fact that we got the chance to do this a lot during the primaries, these debates are not by any stretch of the imagination his strong suit,” said Robert Gibbs, a senior strategist to Mr. Obama. “He likes to talk about a problem, give some examples that addresses some solutions and oftentimes that doesn’t fit into the moderator’s allotted time.”
The campaigns had no say over the choice of moderators — Jim Lehrer of PBS, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Bob Schieffer of CBS for the presidential debates, and Gwen Ifill of PBS for the vice-presidential debate.
“Everything matters and issues can always come up, such as the size of podiums — like for Carter and Ford in 1976 — to the timer lights if the candidate doesn’t like them,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who advised Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. “There hasn’t really been a ‘debate about the debates’ this year, but that can change in a minute.”
-
Answer me this. Under "Fair" tax, if there are two people from opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum and they purchase the same item, do they pay the same tax or a different tax? If it's the same then I'm claiming it's a flat tax.
And note that excluding people under a certain income bracket is part of flat tax.
Expand Quote
Flat taxes, implemented as well as proposed, usually exempt household income below a statutorily determined level that is a function of the type and size of the household.
Why is it that conservative types love to play semantic games...
"Giving up"? I stated pages back that I didn't have the time or the willpower to constantly debate within this thread you stupid asshole. There are about 500 liberals on this website, but there is only one Dr. Newton.
Your comparison is invalid. The FairTax is a progressive tax on consumption, and is far different from the burdensome tax code of today. Under the FairTax, the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum -- those living in poverty, do not pay taxes. Everyone gets a rebate check for taxes paid up to the poverty level. Since these people are making below this level, they actually directly benefit from the FairTax. You know absolutely nothing about this subject, so please just stop trying to debate it. The FairTax is very progressive.
http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
-
Anyone notice that Bush's speeches sound like Sheckler's narration on his show?
-
There are about 500 liberals on this website, but there is only one Dr. Newton.
Thank god. I think there is a website though with more Dr. Newtons and less liberals. Maybe you should go there. Google NAMBLA or something and take it from there. Use your imagination Newton to find some other website more fitting of a boy like you and hang out there instead.
-
Expand Quote
Answer me this. Under "Fair" tax, if there are two people from opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum and they purchase the same item, do they pay the same tax or a different tax? If it's the same then I'm claiming it's a flat tax.
And note that excluding people under a certain income bracket is part of flat tax.
Expand Quote
Flat taxes, implemented as well as proposed, usually exempt household income below a statutorily determined level that is a function of the type and size of the household.
Why is it that conservative types love to play semantic games...
"Giving up"? I stated pages back that I didn't have the time or the willpower to constantly debate within this thread you stupid asshole. There are about 500 liberals on this website, but there is only one Dr. Newton.
Your comparison is invalid. The FairTax is a progressive tax on consumption, and is far different from the burdensome tax code of today. Under the FairTax, the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum -- those living in poverty, do not pay taxes. Everyone gets a rebate check for taxes paid up to the poverty level. Since these people are making below this level, they actually directly benefit from the FairTax. You know absolutely nothing about this subject, so please just stop trying to debate it. The FairTax is very progressive.
http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/WSJ%20Op%20Ed%203-7-05.pdf
You didn't read the quote I posted, excluding lower income people doesn't make it not a flat tax, what makes something a flat tax is when everyone pays the same amout of tax outside of that low income exclusion. This "fair tax" isn't fair and it's definitely flat.
Notice how I did that without calling you any names...
-
You didn't read the quote I posted, excluding lower income people doesn't make it not a flat tax, what makes something a flat tax is when everyone pays the same amout of tax outside of that low income exclusion. This "fair tax" isn't fair and it's definitely flat.
Notice how I did that without calling you any names...
No, you just condescendingly entered that little footnote about how "conservatives love to play semantic games." Don't try to hide behind that self-righteous bullshit.
RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE DO NOT PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX UNDER THE FAIRTAX. This is absolutely incorrect. Under a flat tax, everyone pays x-amount or x-percentage in taxes each year. Under the FairTax, people are taxed based on consumption. If you make $250,000 a year, you are paying more in taxes than a person making $25,000 a year, any way you slice it. In fact, a person making $25,000 a year is probably paying nothing in taxes. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. This is a consumption tax, yet you are treating it as an income tax.
Here are just a few differences between the two:
http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf
Here's a nice little quote I found that explains the matter pretty well, also:
So why do so many Democrats think the FairTax is regressive? Because they consider taxes relative to annual income rather than resources, and the former is a terrible proxy for the later. Bill Gates's income this year may be zero given what's happening to stocks. If so, a man with over $47 billion in resources will be classified, based on income, as no better off than the homeless. And since Gates's consumption is based on his resources, not his current income, the ratio of this "poor" person's FairTax payments to his income would be sky high. Measuring taxes relative to income will thus suggest regressivity with respect to consumption taxation where none exists.
Again, you know absolutely nothing about the FairTax. The world's greatest economic minds, millions of dollars, and decades worth of work have gone into developing an idea that eliminates the burdensome tax code, protects the privacy of millions of Americans who are victimized by the IRS each year, and does away with the tax burden altogether for the poorest Americans. It is an idea that is environmentally friendly, encourages the purchase of second-hand goods, and will also help to bring manufacturing and industrial jobs back to our country. There's nothing partisan about it -- I'm positive that even Shawn would get behind it if he fully understood it; that is, if he wanted America to be successful in the global landscape that is the economy of the 21st century.
-
**attention - a post that actually explaines something**
Fair Tax:
Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:
Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax. What is the tax rate? Obviously, it's 30% right? Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax). So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.
Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax. No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion.
-
Expand Quote
You didn't read the quote I posted, excluding lower income people doesn't make it not a flat tax, what makes something a flat tax is when everyone pays the same amout of tax outside of that low income exclusion. This "fair tax" isn't fair and it's definitely flat.
Notice how I did that without calling you any names...
No, you just condescendingly entered that little footnote about how "conservatives love to play semantic games." Don't try to hide behind that self-righteous bullshit.
RICH PEOPLE AND POOR PEOPLE DO NOT PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX UNDER THE FAIRTAX. This is absolutely incorrect. Under a flat tax, everyone pays x-amount or x-percentage in taxes each year. Under the FairTax, people are taxed based on consumption. If you make $250,000 a year, you are paying more in taxes than a person making $25,000 a year, any way you slice it. In fact, a person making $25,000 a year is probably paying nothing in taxes. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. This is a consumption tax, yet you are treating it as an income tax.
Here are just a few differences between the two:
http://www.pafairtax.org/resrcs/FlatTaxFairTaxComparison.pdf
Here's a nice little quote I found that explains the matter pretty well, also:
Expand Quote
So why do so many Democrats think the FairTax is regressive? Because they consider taxes relative to annual income rather than resources, and the former is a terrible proxy for the later. Bill Gates's income this year may be zero given what's happening to stocks. If so, a man with over $47 billion in resources will be classified, based on income, as no better off than the homeless. And since Gates's consumption is based on his resources, not his current income, the ratio of this "poor" person's FairTax payments to his income would be sky high. Measuring taxes relative to income will thus suggest regressivity with respect to consumption taxation where none exists.
Again, you know absolutely nothing about the FairTax. The world's greatest economic minds, millions of dollars, and decades worth of work have gone into developing an idea that eliminates the burdensome tax code, protects the privacy of millions of Americans who are victimized by the IRS each year, and does away with the tax burden altogether for the poorest Americans. It is an idea that is environmentally friendly, encourages the purchase of second-hand goods, and will also help to bring manufacturing and industrial jobs back to our country. There's nothing partisan about it -- I'm positive that even Shawn would get behind it if he fully understood it; that is, if he wanted America to be successful in the global landscape that is the economy of the 21st century.
More semantic bullshit, do you really think changing words to words without negative connotations has an effect on the under lying concepts? I mean do you really fall for that or are you just getting behind the propoganda?
If person A who's above poverty but on the lower end of the spectrum and person B who's wealthy have the same spending habbits they would pay the same tax and that's because the tax rate is the same for everyone and if you made a graph of what the tax rate was for all income levels it would infact be flat which regardless of what semantic bullshit you've been ingesting from conservative talk shows, that is a flat tax rate.
Flat graph = Flat rate
You think they call it flat because it's some kind of business slang or something? It's in reference to the flat graph that results from everyone paying the same percentage in tax. And it's always calcuated based on the precentage not the resulting total of income paid in taxes when applying that precentage. And if the tax rate is progressive based on spending but flat based on demographics, which this "fair" tax is, it's still flat because if you graph the rate accross demographics at each level, it's still flat.
That being said, if your idea is a good one then it doesn't matter if it's called flat, fair, or fubu tax rate. But it's definitely flat and I believe that flat tax is unfair.
-
McCain suspends campaign, does job as Senator:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-suspend-campaign-join-bailout/story.aspx?guid={64CBC327-308D-4EB3-B082-8D292B4E1A60}&dist=msr_1
Do not ever post again.
Ever.
-
Expand Quote
McCain suspends campaign, does job as Senator:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-suspend-campaign-join-bailout/story.aspx?guid={64CBC327-308D-4EB3-B082-8D292B4E1A60}&dist=msr_1
Do not ever post again.
Ever.
it's amazing that people really fall for this shit
guys a fucking pussy who knows that him and palin will get their asses handed to them in the debate. it just amazes me that no matter how little integrity these people show, people will still get behind them and regurgitate whatever the party speaking points are.
this is obviously a foreshadowing of the kind of shady, lies and bullshitting that we can expect to be continued by the republicans if we put them back in the office. they need to learn a lesson and i hope the american public is smart enough to deliver it.
-
Popular anger puts fat cat CEOs on the run (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080926123140.jvg3mysz&show_article=1&lst=1)
An angry US public and Congress are pushing to snip the rip cord on golden parachutes used by fat cat CEOs to escape Wall Street's mayhem.
Democrats in Congress -- set to resume emergency talks Friday with their Republican counterparts on a 700-billion-dollar (478-billion-euro) bailout for the financial industry -- insisted that any agreed package include restrictions on executive pay.
They caught the mood of a nation sickened at watching the titans of finance walk away from Wall Street disasters not only unscathed, but enriched.
"The wealthiest people, those... in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all," read a petition to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which by Thursday, after three days, had 32,600 signatures.
The petition, organized by independent Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, attacked what it described as the Treasury's attempt to let bungling executives "continue to make exorbitant salaries and bonuses."
Those gigantic pay checks, bonuses, and Midas-like farewells encapsulate what the public sees as Wall Street's greed-is-good philosophy.
For example, the CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, received total compensation of 71.9 million dollars in 2007, including stock, bonuses and other pay, according to a survey published by Forbes magazine.
Martin Sullivan, the chief executive of AIG, who left the insurance giant before it was rescued this month by the federal government, received 14 million dollars, a survey in USA Today said. He also quit with a severance package worth 47 million dollars.
Even punishment for those at the center of the chaos comes with a gold lining.
When the government took over collapsed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ousted bosses Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron were not allowed 12.59 million dollars worth in severance payments.
Yet they still got out the door with 9.43 million dollars in retirement benefits.
Public anger at such figures underlies skepticism about the entire government rescue.
"We'll never see that money again," said Mathew May, a 24-year-old economics student attending a small demonstration near the New York Stock Exchange. "They deregulated the markets and ran wild. Now we're bailing them out."
Arun Gupta, an editor of alternative New York newspaper The Indypendent, said there was "socialism for the rich and dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us."
"Think about it," Gupta wrote in an email that quickly circulated to thousands of activists and inspired the New York street protest. "They said providing healthcare for nine million children, perhaps costing six billion dollars a year, was too expensive, but there's evidently no sum of money large enough that will sate the Wall Street pigs."
And left-wingers are not the only ones speaking out.
Newt Gingrich, the fiercely conservative former speaker in the House of Representatives, wrote in the National Review that the bailouts, likely to top a trillion dollars, smack of "crony capitalism."
"Doesn't that mean that we're using the taxpayers' money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money?" he asked.
Forbes, the magazine for and about the rich, also said enough was enough.
"The compensation schemes for Wall Street CEOs should be capped to a small fixed amount," wrote national editor Robert Lenzner.
"The rest should be dependent on performance in a way that does not reward taking greater risk than is prudent. If CEOs don't perform, they should get nothing."
One worker in the New York finance sector, who asked not to be named, said his colleagues were as angry as the general public.
"A lot of people are very upset that managers in their own companies and captains of industry in other areas made some really, really bad decisions," he said.
"The most insulting thing is the golden parachutes where these jackals from Fannie and Freddie, having destroyed the company, walked away with millions.... It all comes down to greed."
-
**attention - a post that actually explaines something**
Fair Tax:
Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:
Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax. What is the tax rate? Obviously, it's 30% right? Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax). So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.
Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax. No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion.
You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.
Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income. The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.
-
Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.
-
Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.
I have a job and do pay taxes, you fucking person. Why don't you 'holla' at me when you can be a responsible parent to your children, or at least when you get off your ass and finally get a real job at 36 years old.
-
Expand Quote
Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.
I have a job and do pay taxes, you fucking person. Why don't you 'holla' at me when you can be a responsible parent to your children, or at least when you get off your ass and finally get a real job at 36 years old.
McDonald's doesn't count.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Newton you sure know a lot about taxes for someone who doesn't have to worry about them while living at home. Holla at me when you have worked a day in your lousy life and had to worry about taxes.
I have a job and do pay taxes, you fucking person. Why don't you 'holla' at me when you can be a responsible parent to your children, or at least when you get off your ass and finally get a real job at 36 years old.
McDonald's doesn't count.
Oh? And where the fuck is it that you are working?
-
Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.
-
Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.
I fully agree that the government is controlled primarily by special interests -- some of this control is held by corporations, along with voting blocks, the good "old boys network" within government, etc. Some policies are just a result of politicians pandering to the masses. But whose fault is that? The special interests for buying the votes, or the politicians for selling them? I blame the government. It was never intended to be so large that it could actually sell votes like it is doing now in the first place. The federal government was only intended to be about 5% of all government during times of peace originally.
I don't have any special love for corporations, but I do see them as having a legitimate niche within a capitalist society. It's true that Adam Smith was against joint-stock companies, but he did see some government intervention within the economy as being necessary (as I do to a very limited extent.) I believe that one of those functions is to shield the average citizen from liability when they invest a small amount of money into a business. Corporations are important because of the vast amounts of capital needed to support some of America's largest and most vital institutions. Today's reality is that we cannot shut this infrastructure down and rebuild it. It's too late in the game for that. If every investor is faced with unlimited liability for investing in a corporation, capital to support these institutions would be impossible to generate.
I'm not naive. Corporate greed is real. That's life. If you eliminate corporations, some of society's most vital infrastructure is gone, and still, nothing is solved. Other special interests will take the corporation's place -- organized religions, non-profit organizations, foreign countries, etc. There is a never-ending supply of people who want to control America. Hell, if you theoretically did away with the profit-motive altogether, there would just be inter-government greed and power hungry folks ready to take the money-seeker's place. This is why the only government that can be consistently successful is a small government limited by the Constitution. If there is nothing there, then it can't be sold, can it?
-
Expand Quote
**attention - a post that actually explaines something**
Fair Tax:
Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:
Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax. What is the tax rate? Obviously, it's 30% right? Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax). So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.
Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax. No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion.
You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.
Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income. The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.
everything in my post is accurate. did you read it? why did you put "rise in prices 32%" in quotes? where did i say that? i merely pointed out that the retail sales tax under the Fair Tax is really 30%, not 23%, and that to make up for the lost revenue from the income tax, corporate tax, etc., it would have to be higher.
(Note: the last line in previous post should read "40% retail sales tax...".
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
**attention - a post that actually explaines something**
Fair Tax:
Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:
Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax. What is the tax rate? Obviously, it's 30% right? Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax). So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.
Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax. No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion.
You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.
Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income. The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.
everything in my post is accurate. did you read it? why did you put "rise in prices 32%" in quotes? where did i say that? i merely pointed out that the retail sales tax under the Fair Tax is really 30%, not 23%, and that to make up for the lost revenue from the income tax, corporate tax, etc., it would have to be higher.
(Note: the last line in previous post should read "40% retail sales tax...".
No you didn't. You claimed that the price of a $100 good would be $130 under the "magical FairTax math." There is nothing magical about it. The hidden fees associated with the income tax are eliminated, dropping the price of the good considerably, and then the FairTax is added to it. Voila. The $100 good ends up still being about $100. The difference is that now workers have all of their paychecks, and people have a clear, very transparent view of what they are paying in taxes each and every day.
You can speculate all that you want. Again, several of the world's leading economists, decades of research, and millions of dollars have gone into building this thing, and working out it's kinks. One of it's major goals is to be a revenue neutral tax -- meaning the government collects the same amount of money that it would from collecting an illegal income tax. A lot has gone into determining what that 23% inclusive rate would be. You pulled this "40%" figure straight out of your asshole, not realizing that the 23% is revenue neutral and takes into account the elimination of all hidden income taxes that are factored into the prices of goods. As much as you want it to be, nothing you are saying is accurate here. I will send you a free audio copy of the FairTax Book if you would like. I'm up for any debate on the FairTax because it's an issue that is important to me, but I would at least like you for to have a clear understanding of what is being proposed before you keep propagating these myths about it.
-
http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-why-i-do-care-about-john-mccains-gay-chief-of-staff/851 (http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-why-i-do-care-about-john-mccains-gay-chief-of-staff/851)
[Greta Christina] Why I DO Care about John McCain’s Gay Chief of Staff
After last week’s Sarah Palin hullaballoo (thanks to everyone who commented!), you’d think I’d be sticking like glue to the “I don’t care about the sex lives of people who are attached to Presidential campaigns” line.
But this story, I care about.
Sort of.
Let me explain.
First, in case you haven’t seen the story yet: John McCain’s Chief of Staff, Mark Buse, is gay.
With a reported penchant for multiple partners, and a sling in his home to boot. (In, of all places, his closet. Sometimes the irony is just too obvious.) The story broke on the BlogActive site of the legendary Mike Rogers, who has given Buse the not so coveted Roy Cohn award “for working against the interests of the lesbian and gay community while living as a gay man.” And it’s corroborated by Michelangelo Signorile.
And I do, in fact, care. But I don’t care about Buse per se, or his ex life, or what it says about him and his character.
I care about what it says about McCain.
Because the point of this story is not, “McCain’s Chief of Staff is gay.”
The point is about McCain. It’s about McCain’s hypocrisy, and lack of integrity, and willingness to suck up to the hatefully homophobic far-right wing of the Republican party — in direct contradiction to what seem to be his own personal beliefs.
John McCain’s policy positions and voting records have been dismally homophobic. He has opposed every single gay rights measure of recent years. He opposes same-sex marriage, supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and — contrary to the “let the states decide” mantra of more moderate Republicans — has endorsed the California ballot initiative that would overturn the existing right for same-sex couples to marry. In fact, he’s even more extreme than that — he opposes any sort of recognition for same-sex partnerships, actively campaigning for a ban on them in his home state of Arizona. He is opposed to gays serving in the military — even in wartime, when recruiting is down and the military is desperately understaffed — and supports the discriminatory “don’t ask/ don’t tell” policy. He fought and voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have protected gays and lesbians from being fired for their sexual orientation.
And his campaign was heavily involved in writing the Republican Party platform — a right- wing extremist platform that, among other things, supports keeping gays out of the military, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and the right of federally- funded faith- based initiatives to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. His record on gay rights issues has been consistently pathetic.
Plus, let’s not forget the Sarah Palin nomination. His pick for Vice-President is a far- right- tip- of- the- right- wing extremist wackaloon, who not only opposes same- sex marriage, but supported banning gay books from a public library, and is an active member in a far- right- wing apocalyptic evangelical church that not only believes in demons and witchcraft, but believes you can pray the gay away.
And yet apparently, John McCain doesn’t have any actual problem with gay people in his personal and professional life.
According to the best information that we have at this time, McCain knows that his Chief of Staff is gay. Has known for some time. Buse was apparently only semi-closeted, in that special “all the insiders know but we just don’t talk about it in public” way that used to be standard in Hollywood and is now standard among D.C. Republicans. And according to reports, McCain definitely knows — either overtly, or in an “I’m not a complete idiot” way.
Yet Buse is John McCain’s chief of staff. And has been closely and loyally affiliated with McCain for many, many years.
So apparently, John McCain doesn’t have any actual problem with gay people in his personal and professional life.
So. Now. Let me sum up.
Either John McCain is genuinely opposed to gay rights in all its forms, but is willing to tolerate the presence of gay people in his life if they can help him in his career . . .
. . . or, as seems far more likely, he doesn’t have any real problems with gay people. He has a close, long-standing professional connection with at least one, a man who is one of his most trusted and high-ranking staffers. And yet he is perfectly happy to sell out the queers to the far right wing of the Republican Party, in a pattern of homophobic bigotry that is relentlessly consistent, in order to gain political advantage.
If you have any remaining illusions about John McCain as an independent, straight-talking maverick with deep personal integrity who’s willing to buck the political system, I suggest that you abandon them here and now. McCain’s “maverick” schtick is, as I have written elsewhere, one of the biggest snow jobs in the history of American politics. And the hypocrisy that is crawling all over the Mark Buse story is just one more shiny, snowy example of it.
If it weren’t for McCain’s hypocrisy, the Buse story would be no more than a mildly interesting bit of “Famous Person (X) Is Gay” gossip. Which is getting less and less interesting every day. (Was there anybody on this planet who was surprised by Clay Aiken?) And I have now seen so many stories about the gay Republican mafia in D.C. that I can’t even pretend to be shocked by them. I care almost not at all about Mark Buse’s sex life, and I care only marginally about Mark Buse’s hypocrisy, and lack of integrity, and willingness to gain personal political advantage by sucking up to the hatefully homophobic far-right wing of the Republican party.
But I do care — a great deal — about John McCain’s.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
**attention - a post that actually explaines something**
Fair Tax:
Looks like a retail sales tax (23%* rate) that is supposed to replace the corporate tax, income tax, estate tax (2% of americans ever pay any estate tax), etc., but looks can be deceptive...here's how it works:
Assume an item costs $100 and government collects $30 in tax. What is the tax rate? Obviously, it's 30% right? Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base, so $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax). So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.
Furthermore, you would need at least a 40% income tax to collect enough revenue to make up for income and corporate tax. No sales tax in any country is that high and it would lead to massive evasion.
You've been reading a lot of misinformation and/or propaganda. Under the FairTax plan, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other hidden fees and taxes on consumer goods associated with the income tax are abolished. This naturally drives the prices of goods down for the consumer, before the inclusive 23% FairTax is tacked onto the good. This means prices will remain stable on consumer goods -- nothing will "rise in prices 32%." American's buying power will actually increase -- they will get to keep ALL of their paychecks, while prices will remain at the levels they are at today.
Sleazy -- the tax rate is not "the same for everyone" under the FairTax. As I have pointed out several times, you are taking the standards of the illegal income tax of today, and incorrectly applying it to the totally new idea of a tax on consumption. Taxing consumption is naturally progressive because of the lifestyles and the standards of living among the rich versus those of the poor. There is nothing flat about this. I'd consider it to be more regressive to count people living off of past-earned wealth as having $0 as an income. The rate is further made progressive by completely untaxing the poor, and lowering the tax burden on most with the pre-bate check that would be paid to every American to avoid taxing citizens up to the federal poverty level. It is YOU that is playing semantic games.
everything in my post is accurate. did you read it? why did you put "rise in prices 32%" in quotes? where did i say that? i merely pointed out that the retail sales tax under the Fair Tax is really 30%, not 23%, and that to make up for the lost revenue from the income tax, corporate tax, etc., it would have to be higher.
(Note: the last line in previous post should read "40% retail sales tax...".
No you didn't. You claimed that the price of a $100 good would be $130 under the "magical FairTax math." There is nothing magical about it. The hidden fees associated with the income tax are eliminated, dropping the price of the good considerably, and then the FairTax is added to it. Voila. The $100 good ends up still being about $100. The difference is that now workers have all of their paychecks, and people have a clear, very transparent view of what they are paying in taxes each and every day.
You can speculate all that you want. Again, several of the world's leading economists, decades of research, and millions of dollars have gone into building this thing, and working out it's kinks. One of it's major goals is to be a revenue neutral tax -- meaning the government collects the same amount of money that it would from collecting an illegal income tax. A lot has gone into determining what that 23% inclusive rate would be. You pulled this "40%" figure straight out of your asshole, not realizing that the 23% is revenue neutral and takes into account the elimination of all hidden income taxes that are factored into the prices of goods. As much as you want it to be, nothing you are saying is accurate here. I will send you a free audio copy of the FairTax Book if you would like. I'm up for any debate on the FairTax because it's an issue that is important to me, but I would at least like you for to have a clear understanding of what is being proposed before you keep propagating these myths about it.
lol - i can see that you're very slow, so i'll try to explain it again. i never said that a good that costs $100 would cost $130 under the Fair Tax. i was explaining how they come up w/ that 23% number you like to throw around. i thought i was very clear, but you obviously don't know the first thing about tax law. do you understand what a tax-inclusive base means? it means they include the tax in the base before calculating the tax rate.. i don't know how to spell it out any more clearly for you. it is a very basic concept. here's essentially what i wrote in the previous post. read it again and i'm sure you'll figure it out:
Assume an item costs $100 and the government collects $30 in tax. What is the tax rate? Obviously, it's 30% (30$ is 30% of $100). Not so under magical Fair Tax math, which uses a tax-inclusive base i.e., Fair Tax retards (see Newton, Huckabee, other obese people that suck at life) include the $30 in taxes in the base (formerly $100) when calculating the tax rate. So, under the Fair Tax, that $30 tax = 23% of $130 ($100 cost of item + $30 tax). So, the rate is really 30% under the Fair Tax even though all its proponents claim the rate is 23%.
-
i never said that a good that costs $100 would cost $130 under the Fair Tax.
that $30 tax = 23% of $130.
....I guess I am just incredibly slow then. If you don't think that prices will increase, then what is the problem with the way the rate is calculated?
That $30 tax is actually 23% of $100 under a tax inclusive rate. You are completely talking out of your ass. That calculation is fully explained here:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#47
-
* Palin Supported Penalties for Using Skateboards on Public or Private Property in Wasilla.
'Beginning Oct. 15 - after the expected opening of the $233,000 Wasilla Skate Park - skaters will be breaking the law if they use their skateboards, in-line skates, bicycles, scooters (or any other recreational, non-motorized wheeled device) on public or private property where signs are posted forbidding their use.'
The Frontiersman added, 'In the ordinance approved Monday, the penalty for first-time violators of the ordinance is a written warning and the skate device may be confiscated for 10 calendar days. For a second offense, a $50 fine shall be paid and the skate device may be confiscated for 30 calendar days. A third-time offender will have to pay a $100 fine and will lose his or her skate device permanently.' [Frontiersman, 9/18/98]
-
"skate device"!
chortle
-
Expand Quote
i never said that a good that costs $100 would cost $130 under the Fair Tax.
Expand Quote
that $30 tax = 23% of $130.
....I guess I am just incredibly slow then. If you don't think that prices will increase, then what is the problem with the way the rate is calculated?
That $30 tax is actually 23% of $100 under a tax inclusive rate. You are completely talking out of your ass. That calculation is fully explained here:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#47
30 = 30% of 100.
23 = 23% of 100.
30 ≠ 23% of 100.
/
FairTax uses magical math, and tax-inclusive base = bullshit trick to give politicians a way to fool slow americans into buying the Fair Tax plan.
-
Crunk Juice I like your math.
-
The Supreme WAT!?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/latest-palin-gaffe-cant-n_n_130395.html
-
The Supreme WAT!?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/latest-palin-gaffe-cant-n_n_130395.html
What a sad person she is.
-
Expand Quote
Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.
Expand Quote
I fully agree that the government is controlled primarily by special interests -- some of this control is held by corporations, along with
Reality. You has no grasp. Both are obviously to blame. Politicians are basically forced to accept as much money from whoever will give it to them-as campaigns are just a public relations money race, and whoever can raise the most money to fund the most bullshit ads-usually wins.
There are solutions to this if you give a shit. For one example, something along the lines of Campaign finance reform-certainly doesn't have to be exactly that, as I think people usually should be able to contribute at a personal level, but Corporate influence into government in these giant contributions SHOULD be stopped.
I don't have any special love for corporations, but I do see them as having a legitimate niche within a capitalist society. It's true that Adam Smith was against joint-stock companies, but he did see some government intervention within the economy as being necessary (as I do to a very limited extent.) I believe that one of those functions is to shield the average citizen from liability when they invest a small amount of money into a business. Corporations are important because of the vast amounts of capital needed to support some of America's largest and most vital institutions. Today's reality is that we cannot shut this infrastructure down and rebuild it. It's too late in the game for that. If every investor is faced with unlimited liability for investing in a corporation, capital to support these institutions would be impossible to generate.
You make a bizarre jump here. First you admit that corporations aren't so great, then you state that you do see that the government can and does have at least some role in the market(the courts creating/granting personhood status to corporations was no small move in terms of government intervention in the markets). Then you immediately jump to stating that no drastic changes will be able to made to the structure of corporations-when one was never called for in the first place. Sure I think their creation and existence in their current form is a horrible disgrace, but all I'm, and most reasonable people are calling for is regulation and monitoring along with the most basic liability-really who could argue otherwise in light of the past few weeks events?
Only a fool.
I'm not naive. Corporate greed is real. That's life. If you eliminate corporations, some of society's most vital infrastructure is gone, and still, nothing is solved. Other special interests will take the corporation's place -- organized religions, non-profit organizations, foreign countries, etc. There is a never-ending supply of people who want to control America. Hell, if you theoretically did away with the profit-motive altogether, there would just be inter-government greed and power hungry folks ready to take the money-seeker's place. This is why the only government that can be consistently successful is a small government limited by the Constitution. If there is nothing there, then it can't be sold, can it?
Same problem with your argument here. The fact that companies called Shell/Wal-Mart/Exxon/Haliburton/etc exist and offer goods that we need aren't the problem. The fact that they have been able to get so intertwined into our government to the point where they actually often write the legislation that is passed in congress is the problem. Combine that with the startling media consolidation that has occurred over the past 25 years(monopolies = not good for a free market remember?).
And really, anyone who thinks we shouldn't tax the fuck out of the rich at this point is regular:
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6735/figure1mq1.gif)
How's that trickle down working out for the rest of you guys?
Really Newton you need to just watch The Corporation like I already suggested.
If you allow things to exist as they are now here's what will happen:
-More and more jobs will be lost in America to be sent over to countries where corporations can get away with charging 10 cents a day to children-those jobs will be replaced by awesome corporate jobs, like working the fry-o-later in mcdonalds.
-More and more wealth will continue to be transferred up, as people like you continue to press for ironic tax breaks for them, as most have great tax lawyers who avoid paying them anyway. And you know, like they're the only ones who can afford to. Plus when you give it to them they still fuck you over! Awesome brah!
-More wars will be fought, thus increasing taxes further(Iraq is predicted to cost us 3 trillion at least)-why will these wars be fought? For corporate interests, as has been documented heavily (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080708.htm). This will also make us less safe, and the more likely terrorist attacks that we suffer as a result will be to blame for our foreign policy controlled by these corporate interests.
-More banks that have been unregulated thanks to people like yours calling for will inevitably collapse as a result of the self destructive, but temporarily profitable for those running the show policies. We will then offer, one would assume more lucrative than the 700 billion dollar bailout(what a penalty!) to be paid for by you or I in taxes. As long as rich people don't have to pay more in taxes. Right?
The future....not so bright:
(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/922/figure7ui5sz7.jpg)
-
$700,000,000,000 / $500,000 = 1,400,000 people.
-
$700,000,000,000/$200,000 = $3,500,000
assuming the average cost of homes involved in subprime is 200,000, then why not just pay for the damn mortages with the money for those that can't afford it and resell the homes?
i don't get it
-
30 ≠ 23% of 100
This is a mathematical fallacy, and if you've even sat in a math classroom beyond high school you should know that. This is an internal versus and external calculation. I am not going to debate it anymore, because, quite frankly, there is no debate. Math is black and white. A 23% internal tax rate is equivalent to a 30% external tax rate. Taking a good that costs $100 under the FairTax, $23 of that goes towards paying the tax. The other $77 is associated with the cost of the good. It cannot be any more simple.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hey Newton, those corporations that you love would never allow for any kind of a better tax system, so even discussing the issue is pointless until you admit how shitty corporations are and how they've got a stranglehold on our government.
Expand Quote
I fully agree that the government is controlled primarily by special interests -- some of this control is held by corporations, along with
Reality. You has no grasp. Both are obviously to blame. Politicians are basically forced to accept as much money from whoever will give it to them-as campaigns are just a public relations money race, and whoever can raise the most money to fund the most bullshit ads-usually wins.
There are solutions to this if you give a shit. For one example, something along the lines of Campaign finance reform-certainly doesn't have to be exactly that, as I think people usually should be able to contribute at a personal level, but Corporate influence into government in these giant contributions SHOULD be stopped.
Expand Quote
I don't have any special love for corporations, but I do see them as having a legitimate niche within a capitalist society. It's true that Adam Smith was against joint-stock companies, but he did see some government intervention within the economy as being necessary (as I do to a very limited extent.) I believe that one of those functions is to shield the average citizen from liability when they invest a small amount of money into a business. Corporations are important because of the vast amounts of capital needed to support some of America's largest and most vital institutions. Today's reality is that we cannot shut this infrastructure down and rebuild it. It's too late in the game for that. If every investor is faced with unlimited liability for investing in a corporation, capital to support these institutions would be impossible to generate.
You make a bizarre jump here. First you admit that corporations aren't so great, then you state that you do see that the government can and does have at least some role in the market(the courts creating/granting personhood status to corporations was no small move in terms of government intervention in the markets). Then you immediately jump to stating that no drastic changes will be able to made to the structure of corporations-when one was never called for in the first place. Sure I think their creation and existence in their current form is a horrible disgrace, but all I'm, and most reasonable people are calling for is regulation and monitoring along with the most basic liability-really who could argue otherwise in light of the past few weeks events?
Only a fool.
Expand Quote
I'm not naive. Corporate greed is real. That's life. If you eliminate corporations, some of society's most vital infrastructure is gone, and still, nothing is solved. Other special interests will take the corporation's place -- organized religions, non-profit organizations, foreign countries, etc. There is a never-ending supply of people who want to control America. Hell, if you theoretically did away with the profit-motive altogether, there would just be inter-government greed and power hungry folks ready to take the money-seeker's place. This is why the only government that can be consistently successful is a small government limited by the Constitution. If there is nothing there, then it can't be sold, can it?
Same problem with your argument here. The fact that companies called Shell/Wal-Mart/Exxon/Haliburton/etc exist and offer goods that we need aren't the problem. The fact that they have been able to get so intertwined into our government to the point where they actually often write the legislation that is passed in congress is the problem. Combine that with the startling media consolidation that has occurred over the past 25 years(monopolies = not good for a free market remember?).
And really, anyone who thinks we shouldn't tax the fuck out of the rich at this point is regular:
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6735/figure1mq1.gif)
How's that trickle down working out for the rest of you guys?
Really Newton you need to just watch The Corporation like I already suggested.
If you allow things to exist as they are now here's what will happen:
-More and more jobs will be lost in America to be sent over to countries where corporations can get away with charging 10 cents a day to children-those jobs will be replaced by awesome corporate jobs, like working the fry-o-later in mcdonalds.
-More and more wealth will continue to be transferred up, as people like you continue to press for ironic tax breaks for them, as most have great tax lawyers who avoid paying them anyway. And you know, like they're the only ones who can afford to. Plus when you give it to them they still fuck you over! Awesome brah!
-More wars will be fought, thus increasing taxes further(Iraq is predicted to cost us 3 trillion at least)-why will these wars be fought? For corporate interests, as has been documented heavily (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080708.htm). This will also make us less safe, and the more likely terrorist attacks that we suffer as a result will be to blame for our foreign policy controlled by these corporate interests.
-More banks that have been unregulated thanks to people like yours calling for will inevitably collapse as a result of the self destructive, but temporarily profitable for those running the show policies. We will then offer, one would assume more lucrative than the 700 billion dollar bailout(what a penalty!) to be paid for by you or I in taxes. As long as rich people don't have to pay more in taxes. Right?
The future....not so bright:
(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/922/figure7ui5sz7.jpg)
I'm trying to work my way through this post, but all I see is insane ranting.
I'm going to give you a quiz:
1. What percent of the tax burden do the top 1% of income earners pay each year?
2. What percent of the tax burden do the top 20% of income earners pay each year?
3. What percent of the tax burden does the bottom 20% pay each year?
-
LoLz.
Remember when you posted the definition of ad hominem?
Should I post the definition of ironic?
Anyway, everything I said is factual, so respond to my post or get lost faggot.
If you have the courage to make the effort I might even explain to you how people who make the the top 1% are often smart enough to hire whole teams of lawyers to shuffle their money around in off shore bank accounts, among countless other awesome techniques. They can afford to do this because...you know, they got a third of the countries wealth. And tax rates are only one area of discussion of which I covered.
-
LoLz.
Remember when you posted the definition of ad hominem?
Should I post the definition of ironic?
Anyway, everything I said is factual, so respond to my post or get lost faggot.
If you have the courage to make the effort I might even explain to you how people who make the the top 1% are often smart enough to hire whole teams of lawyers to shuffle their money around in off shore bank accounts, among countless other awesome techniques. They can afford to do this because...you know, they got a third of the countries wealth. And tax rates are only one area of discussion of which I covered.
There's no personal attack here. Either you can look the answers up and post them, or I'll just post them for you and use them to further cement my argument. I'm not insulting your ignorance. I am sure you have access to Google.
Every year there is a top 1% of taxpayers who cannot afford to get out of this bracket, and every year this group takes on approximately 30% of all income taxes while earning only 14% of the wealth. You're right. These are not the richest people in America. Bill Gates reports NO income some years. These are people in the upper middle class, who, for whatever reason -- be it a bonus, a good year running a small to mid-size business, or possibly even a lucky lottery winning, ended up making the most income that year. CEOs make up a very small percentage of this group. Thanks to the fucked up idea that we should tax income instead of consumption, the real rich, who live off their wealth after aquiring so much of it and make no income most of the time, often pay nothing in income taxes.
The top 10% of earners are responsible for 70% of the income tax burden, while making only 40% of all income. Again, these are small to mid-size business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. This is the upper middle class. This is also the group employing 80% of this country.
The bottom 50% of income earners pay virtually nothing in income taxes. The average federal tax rate for most Americans is seriously 03%. A lot of them are literally paying nothing every year.
-
cant believe we might get stuck with peggy hill as our vice president
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
-
wow! I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if she had a nervous breakdown at the debate on Thursday. That lady has written a check that her brain just can't cash.
-
Expand Quote
LoLz.
Remember when you posted the definition of ad hominem?
Should I post the definition of ironic?
Anyway, everything I said is factual, so respond to my post or get lost faggot.
If you have the courage to make the effort I might even explain to you how people who make the the top 1% are often smart enough to hire whole teams of lawyers to shuffle their money around in off shore bank accounts, among countless other awesome techniques. They can afford to do this because...you know, they got a third of the countries wealth. And tax rates are only one area of discussion of which I covered.
There's no personal attack here. Either you can look the answers up and post them, or I'll just post them for you and use them to further cement my argument. I'm not insulting your ignorance. I am sure you have access to Google.
Every year there is a top 1% of taxpayers who cannot afford to get out of this bracket, and every year this group takes on approximately 30% of all income taxes while earning only 14% of the wealth. You're right. These are not the richest people in America. Bill Gates reports NO income some years. These are people in the upper middle class, who, for whatever reason -- be it a bonus, a good year running a small to mid-size business, or possibly even a lucky lottery winning, ended up making the most income that year. CEOs make up a very small percentage of this group. Thanks to the fucked up idea that we should tax income instead of consumption, the real rich, who live off their wealth after aquiring so much of it and make no income most of the time, often pay nothing in income taxes.
The top 10% of earners are responsible for 70% of the income tax burden, while making only 40% of all income. Again, these are small to mid-size business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. This is the upper middle class. This is also the group employing 80% of this country.
The bottom 50% of income earners pay virtually nothing in income taxes. The average federal tax rate for most Americans is seriously 03%. A lot of them are literally paying nothing every year.
Respond to the many claims in my post and then I'll destroy your little tax rate argument.
Also, die.