2008 Election - Offseason

[Soup Nazi]

Wait, who is Senator Government?

[taters]

^I got 20-30. Word for word.

[Mustard]

Obama wins healthcare, hands down.

[heelsguy]

wow...mccain is doing great, IMHO.

barack is smiling so condescendingly it is off-putting.

[DjAg]

wow...mccain is doing great, IMHO.

barack is smiling so condescendingly it is off-putting.

Are you watching at all?

[Mustard]

Hmm... not a good idea to say "united states senate blow up".

Wait, maybe it isn't such a bad idea.............. nevermind.

[taters]

What the fuck does 'e-diology' mean?

[Nosebuckle]

Are you watching at all?

The smiles after McCain's answers are getting gay

[willydong]

whats with the tumor on mccains left jowl?

[willydong]

not that looks should be a prerequisite...

[heelsguy]

Are you watching at all?


obvisously you are with your obama glasses on.

here's an idea: try to be objective just for shits and giggles

[The Batman]

So, McCain would like a judge who is intelligent and qualified and its very important, but he wants a VP that is the exact opposite? Someone who passes the litmus test?

[DjAg]

The smiles after McCain's answers are getting gay

Shit, I'd smile too if I was him. McCain is attacking points that Obama JUST GOT DONE explaining how that attack is fruitless.

[Pollo]

whats with the tumor on mccains left jowl?

so I'm not the only one that sees that bulge.

[Yelram]

So, McCain would like a judge who is intelligent and qualified and its very important, but he wants a VP that is the exact opposite? Someone who passes the litmus test?
If you dont know what he means by litmus test, you just started following politics this election, and that makes total sense.

[Stax]

obvisously you are with your obama glasses on.

here's an idea: try to be objective just for shits and giggles

Cmon now man. They're both repeating talking points, but McCain isn't even listening. On the damn healthcare 'fine' thing Obama answered his statement like an adult, then McCain just repeated what he said before.

[DjAg]

obvisously you are with your obama glasses on.

here's an idea: try to be objective just for shits and giggles

If you think McCain is doing well, maybe I am not the one who should be told to view it objectively. He's doing nothing new and choking because of it.

edit:: Kinda what he said ^

[Nosebuckle]

I love how no politician can talk straight up about abortion

[Soup Nazi]

I need a McCain eye-rolling count, and Obama laughing count on the screen while I am watching this.

[Mustard]

Somebody needs to put together a compilation video of McCain's reactions to Obama's statements.

[Pollo]

I need a McCain eye-rolling count, and Obama laughing count on the screen while I am watching this.

add the number of shoutouts/mentions of Joe the Plumber while you're at it.

[Yelram]

Cmon now man. They're both repeating talking points, but McCain isn't even listening. On the damn healthcare 'fine' thing Obama answered his statement like an adult, then McCain just repeated what he said before.
THATS BECAUSE HE'S LYING. You guys really buy his bullshit? Mccain is explaining things realistically, Obama is really good at pretending he's for all of the good aspects of an issue, and none of the bad, its totally nonsensical.

[Ace Rockola]

There is an extreme pro-abortion faction? Do they just go around the country demanding every woman get an abortion insted of giving birth?

[taters]

McCain should have come across as friendly and warm, but he went for the 'angry old man' look.

If they were alive, Id say ask Nixon how well that worked against Kennedy.

[willydong]

I love how no politician can talk straight up about abortion

i love how men know whats best for women regarding abortion

[Stax]

THATS BECAUSE HE'S LYING. You guys really buy his bullshit? Mccain is explaining things realistically, Obama is really good at pretending he's for all of the good aspects of an issue, and none of the bad, its totally nonsensical.

Yep. Obama and every single nonpartisan agency that reviewed his plan and said just that is lying. It's a big conspiracy, Yelram.

[Ace Rockola]

THATS BECAUSE HE'S LYING. You guys really buy his bullshit? Mccain is explaining things realistically, Obama is really good at pretending he's for all of the good aspects of an issue, and none of the bad, its totally nonsensical.

McCain is explaining things realistically? What debate are you watching?

[Nosebuckle]

McCain should have come across as friendly and warm, but he went for the 'angry old man' look.

If they were alive, Id say ask Nixon how well that worked against Kennedy.

We all know you think Kennedy and Obama are hot

[DjAg]

I remember now why I almost never respect Yelram's posts; they're just full of trolling and general stupidity.

[Mustard]

Uh oh... Obama wants parents to be more responsible with their kids and their education? Blasphemy!

[Fletch]

Education is the civil rights issue of the 21st century? Huh?

Edit: Did McCain just say that people should be able to go right from the military into teaching with no certification or anything?

[Ace Rockola]

Education is the civil rights issue of the 21st century? Huh?

He's trying to get the black teacher vote.

[willydong]

Education is the civil rights issue of the 21st century? Huh?

Edit: Did McCain just say that people should be able to go right from the military into teaching with no certification or anything?

hell yeaH, dereg that shit, biatches

[Stax]

Education is the civil rights issue of the 21st century? Huh?

Edit: Did McCain just say that people should be able to go right from the military into teaching with no certification or anything?

Seemed a bit strange to me. The way he said "that they have in some states" maybe it's just some certification processes, but I dunno. I love soldiers for what they do, but that certainly doesn't automatically mean they'd be good teachers.

[Lone Wolf]

obvisously you are with your obama glasses on.

here's an idea: try to be objective just for shits and giggles

Did you watch the whole segment on how they were running their campains? That was embarrassing to watch and I don't even support McCain, but I used to be okay with him.

[Nosebuckle]

Except for the part about soldiers becoming teachers, McCain is doing quite well on education

[Mustard]

I did not know John McCain was a southpaw.

[willydong]

mccain just imitated heath ledgers joker...

[Fletch]

That laugh by McCain at the end was frightening.

[willydong]

I did not know John McCain was a southpaw.

wasnt bubba a lefty?

[DjAg]

did McCain just snort?

[Stax]

That's the kind of shit that makes me not understand how anyone can think McCain is winning. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING OBAMA SAYS McCain interrupts with snarky little things. It's like a damn high school debate strategy from his side. It worked for the first 5 minutes a bit as Obama was a bit less together right at the start, but almost immediately it just started looking sad.

[Ace Rockola]

I bet SNL sends the McCain camp a fruit basket with a note that says 'Thank you for Joe Six Pack, Joe The Plumber, and of course Sarah Palin'

[heelsguy]

THATS BECAUSE HE'S LYING. You guys really buy his bullshit? Mccain is explaining things realistically, Obama is really good at pretending he's for all of the good aspects of an issue, and none of the bad, its totally nonsensical.

EXACTLY. if I was 22 I would be buying obama's BS too, I suppose

[willydong]

EXACTLY. if I was 22 I would be buying obama's BS too, I suppose

im not and i did and i feel better

[Lone Wolf]

I thought this was by far the best moderated debate

[taters]

Cindy McCains drapes matched the carpet.

[willydong]

Cindy McCains drapes matched the carpet.

lol, so does her vagina

[Ace Rockola]

EXACTLY. if I was 22 I would be buying obama's BS too, I suppose

Seriously, what debates are you guys watching?

[heelsguy]

who the hell is "undecided" at this point...I mean besides attention-seekers?

[Mustard]

The government does need fundamental change, and I trust Barack Obama to bring those fundamental changes better, more thoroughly, and more responsibly than John McCain will. From the two debates I watched, and the one I read about, I am more convinced than ever that this is the correct decision, and that is to end and reverse the damage the Bush Administration has wrought on this country, and our world that we all inhabit.

That is all I have to say for now.

[Stax]

who the hell is "undecided" at this point...I mean besides attention-seekers?

You just answered your own question. About 90% of the people CNN had talking as 'undecideds' were pretty clearly in one camp or the other.

[taters]

Obama played it too nice. He practically held one hand behind his back.

Repubs are already claiming McCain won...again, without cause and against the majority of viewers.

[chipsahoy]

Seriously, what debates are you guys watching?


The Red state Texas Debate

[vasili denisov]

This debate was like an occasionally annoying mix tape.

New voices uber Ayers / I'll put shorties in stocks who short stocks *DJ JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE THE PLUMBER*

[freegood]

I did not know John McCain was a southpaw.

They both are.

[Stax]

Obama played it too nice. He practically held one hand behind his back.

Repubs are already claiming McCain won...again, without cause and against the majority of viewers.

So? Either candidate could literally take out a gun and shoot themselves in the book and either party would use it as an example of how they won the debate.

[Debo]

For those for you that claim that B.O. wants to cuts taxes for 95% of society. Please explain this quote to me: "It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. Where I come from, this is called income redistribution...a.k.a. socialism.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

Obama says that he doesn't want to punish this man's success, yet he is still going to raise taxes on him. He wants to do this because he wants to give other people the opportunity to grow their business. He says this, despite the facts that 7 out of 10 new businesses fail. He wants to make successful business worse off in hopes that 7 out of 10 somehow becomes 5 out of 10.


If Obama truly wanted to increase the entrepreneurial spirit of the American worker, he would not boast of a "New green energy plan" that plays favorites to certain types of energy. By picking who qualifies for these tax credits, he is picking and choosing which form of alternative energy receives a competitive advantage from the government. Instead, he should cut taxes, eliminate capital gains taxes and let the primal entrepreneurial spirit of the American capitalist handle the problem. They have a better track record at solving problems than the government does.

Obama's energy plan is here.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy


Finally, spreading the wealth around is income redistribution. The wealthy are typically those workers that have specialized in a trade and turned it into a business(.e.g., Joe the plumber, Jim the carpenter, Sally the Avon Lady, etc.), those with advanced degrees or industry certifications (e.g., CPAs, CFAs, M.D.s, Phds, MSCE, etc.) or those that can sell (there are a number of other ways to make money. I am just listing some examples). In contrast, the poor are usually the uneducated, the young, recent immigrants that do not posses job skills that demand high wages and (this is going to sound bad) the lazy (There is a number of other ways to be poor. I am just listing some examples). Why should a 24 year old high school dropout receive a portion of my paycheck via the government? Why should he bear the fruits of my labor?

Instead of playing Robin Hood, Obama should focus on income mobility and education reform (namely school vouchers. F the teachers union). If he focused on income mobility, he would notice that as workers get older, they move up the income ladder. Yes, people do bounced between the income quintiles but there are a number of reasons for that. In my case, I went from making about $40,000 a year before I enrolled in grad school to making $12,000 a year as an intern in grad school. So I dropped into the lowest income qunitile and I stayed there for two years. Then, I moved from the bottom quintile to the middle quintile. Amazingly, I did not receive any help from the government in my rise from the bottom.


The Treasury Department did a study on income mobility. The link is below.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp673.htm

[willydong]

i agree, obama won hands down

[BIG PIZZLE]

CNN is so on Obama's cock.

[Stax]

Debo: Way to repeat McCain's quote and ignore the substance of what Obama said. Which was that the taxation on Joe the Plumber up to 250k would remain the same, and it was just that bit above that would see rates changed slightly.

[taters]

JOE PLUMBER HAS TIES TO TERRORISTS! I hear that he has historically not only supported the Alaskan succession party, but the puerto rican independence party, the republic of texas, and the flat earth society.

Thats right, you heard it from from taters.

[mongo]

Originally posted by some other website that i can't fucking remember
you wanna know how to win the presidency? i'll tell you how. during the debate, while your opponent is bashing you and your policies, politely nod and smile. when your turn is up, remove box from under your chair. walk up to the middle of the floor. remove box top. take out osama's freshly removed, still bleeding head. hold up for all to see. walk directly into the white house.

[vasili denisov]

QGzfYOp34d8

[Debo]

Debo: Way to repeat McCain's quote and ignore the substance of what Obama said. Which was that the taxation on Joe the Plumber up to 250k would remain the same, and it was just that bit above that would see rates changed slightly.

Tax rates are marginal. What is your point? He still wants to take from the few and give to the many. No?

[vasili denisov]

Hello everyone, I'm Rush Limbaugh. My dick is broken, and so is my brain.

rINTuGofGT0

At 2:30 in the clip.


We thought that it was just liberal welfare policies and all that that kept blacks from progressing while other minorities grew and prospered, but no, it is these wackos from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright to other anti-American Afrocentric black liberation theologists with ACORN, and Barack Obama is smack dab in the middle of it, they have been training young black kids to hate, hate, hate this country, and they trained their parents before that to hate, hate, hate this country. It was a movement. It was a Bill Ayers, anti-capitalist, anti-American educational movement. ACORN is how it was implemented, right under our noses. They're doing far more, folks, than just cheating when it comes to elections and registration. They are in deep in this mortgage crisis. ACORN and Obama and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the Democrat Party, have their fingerprints all over the subprime mortgage crisis. The whole concept of affordable housing was people that can't afford a mortgage are going to get one, because America is unfair.

[VoxAngelikus]

I'm voting for the black guy. Just so the blacks in my neighborhood don't think I'm a racist.

[Morfin]

Hello everyone, I'm Rush Limbaugh. My dick is broken, and so is my brain.

rINTuGofGT0

At 2:30 in the clip.

It's like I am listening to Yelram. "It's all a grand conspiracy to bring down America. It's so obvious. Why won't people listen? Why don't people understand? Why are so many people too stupid to realize that these people are evil?"

[chipsahoy]

they have been training young black kids to hate, hate, hate this country, and they trained their parents before that to hate, hate, hate this country. It was a movement. It was a Bill Ayers, anti-capitalist, anti-American educational movement


So its worked better then our educational system in public schools?

[Archangel]

It's like I am listening to Yelram. "It's all a grand conspiracy to bring down America. It's so obvious. Why won't people listen? Why don't people understand? Why are so many people too stupid to realize that these people are evil?"

It's funny, right? I love how the fact that some illiterate redneck believing that Obama is a terr'st implies that he actually knows better than everybody else. Rush obviously serves that audience, and Yelram is obviously paranoid, but the idea of some supermarket clerk thinking that he knows something that 90% of the world, not to mention the entire DNC, do not...

It's just very amusing.

Also, Americans should not be allowed to use the word "socialist" because they obviously have no idea what the fuck it means. Fausto Bertinotti is a socialist. Gregor Gysi is a socialist. Barack Obama is, whatever else he might be, NOT A MOTHER FUCKING SOCIALIST.

[Desperado]

Barack Obama is, whatever else he might be, NOT A MOTHER FUCKING SOCIALIST.


George Bush... Socialist!!!!

[VoxAngelikus]

Hello everyone, I'm Rush Limbaugh. My dick is broken, and so is my brain.

rINTuGofGT0

At 2:30 in the clip.


Yet if I put on a radio program all about the "conspiracy" on 9/11, and how the Republican Bush government did it just to get us into war, I'd be laughed at by this fat, pompous windbag.

Maybe he's gotten so deaf he can no longer hear what he's saying?

[Archangel]

Yeah, like right wing pundits have any grasp of the concept of hypocrisy.

[Deadhead Derek]

After watching the news feeds this am, I sent out an email to the daily show offering to debate joe the plumber in the first blue collar debates. just sitting by the phone now....waiting....




'course you guys could flood the daily show asking for such a debate....

[halfabubbleoff]

The Halfabubbleoff Debate Review:

I am happy to say that this was probably the best of the three. They really did end the series with a bang.

On another happy note. "Hall of Presidents McCain" was not in attendance. He seemed very animated tonight and offered much more eye contact to the camera and the other people at the table.

Obama was a cucumber the entire debate. I am beginning to think someone will have to actually punch him to get a rise out of the guy. He took a lot of verbal shots from McCain and kept his voice calm, even and collected.

Both candidates got a lot of information out, and (generally) kept to the topic at hand. They didn't always answer the direct question, but no one expected them to anyway.

As for the moderation this time. I have to say, this was handled perfectly. He let them run long when things were getting good, but shut them down when the topic was getting played out, or strayed too far afield.

Now, to the bad points.

I think McCain came across as too angry. He seemed to be on the verge of bursting a few times, and barley kept himself in check. At some points I could understand his anger (falsely accused of racism for one). Other times it was completely out of place. He even snorted/huffed when Obama declaimed the racism jab and stated that apologies had been made. I also thought McCain took some cheap shots that were not necessary or even unproven. In his defense, he seemed uncomfortable doing it. I think he was told to throw out that red meat, or he would lose his base completely.

Obama was too relaxed at some points. There were several times when he would chuckle or smirk at a comment or point made by McCain. It makes him seem arrogant and dismissive. That is not a trait you want when sitting opposite Putin (for instance). He did play his answers too safe most of the night, so he was light on substance or knockout punches. My wife wants me to remark on the habit he has for the long pauses when he speaks and the frequent use of "uh" and "uhmm". Oh, and how many other people saw Obama catch himself from defending gun rights when he was answering the judicial question? He will protect the First Amendment for free speech and...... moving on... Or was I the only one who read that into that pregnant pause.

One question did stick out in my mind, that I have not seen beaten to a pulp in the board today. When asked if they would repeat the "negative" campaign statements to each other, both danced around the issue. Not surprising. What did bother me was McCain implying that it was all because Obama would not agree to multiple town halls. My wife (who is undecided but leans Right), looked at me in shock at that one. The other point of who has gone more negative bothers me as well. Yes, Obama is running a TON of adds bashing McCain policies and a few in the "out of touch" vein. I have to say, almost all of the adds I have heard form McCain in the past few weeks are attacking Obama personally. McCain seemed genuinely surprised to hear that.

In my view, attacking policies and someone's stand on an issue is fair game, if not encouraged. Attacking the person is going too far, though. Palin is openly questioning Obama's loyalty to the country and reinforcing a lot of the false information out there. Obama has enough holes in his policy proposals to use as targets for these attacks. Feeding the "Obama the terrorist" line is just disgraceful in my opinion. I don't think that is something McCain is behind or fully supports. He has been the target of those attacks himself, and his body language last night spoke to how uncomfortable he was with the whole thing.

Just to tie things off. I have a running statement that I want to keep going. I miss McCain2000. I honestly think this would be a much closer and more fruitful campaign if that John McCain were the one running. McCain08 seems like a fine, purebred dog on a very short leash, being held by the Republican leadership. I have seen him make statements that I know he is cringing at and I feel truly sad to see a great asset and Statesman put in that position. If the McCain of 2000 was the one running, I would be touting the dream ticket of McCain/Obama 08. I think the two of them would have made a great, moderate team in teh White House. Unfortunately, both men have had to swing farther to the extremes in their parties to get where they are now.

Ok, that is the recap this time. I need to get back to work.

[smahoo]

From fivethirtyeight.com today, election projections:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ov-pT1x-W8Y/SPZoJLff6PI/AAAAAAAAC_g/LrS5ebdCap4/S1600-R/1015_mainchart.png

[Rover]

Senator Governmet?That was hilarious.

Just a side note on the Ayers thing.....

He's a convicted Terrorist, right...that's why this is such a big deal.

Oh wait, the U.S. couldn't convict him (he was charged but not convicted) because they had to drop charges against him because of the FBI's methods.

So we are getting so upset about Obama knowing this guy, (or at least the Republicans are trying to get us upset), but the U.S. government couldn't even convict him.Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country.Bill Ayers is a domestic terrorist. He admits it. I think it's okay to believe that someone is a domestic terrorist if they admit to it. Both his wife and him admit to it.

Obama also making his healthcare pitch very nicely. People can buy into Federal gov't healthcare sounds pretty attractive, if you don't have any healthcare.

McCain talks about walk in clinics and obesity, citing employers reward employees who join health clubs? Interesting.

Drinking game for Joe the Plumber?Except Obama's lying. There is a fine to employers that don't provide health care to their employees. There has to be a fine to prevent employers from dumping their employees onto the government health care system.

Education is the civil rights issue of the 21st century? Huh?

Edit: Did McCain just say that people should be able to go right from the military into teaching with no certification or anything?You'd understand why it's the civil rights issue if you were aware that blacks have access to schools, but the education provided there is pathetic.

who the hell is "undecided" at this point...I mean besides attention-seekers?And idiots.

Debo: Way to repeat McCain's quote and ignore the substance of what Obama said. Which was that the taxation on Joe the Plumber up to 250k would remain the same, and it was just that bit above that would see rates changed slightly.Again, Obama is lying about his tax plan. Most small businesses make more than $250K. They have to. They employ people. How many people can you employ on $250K? Three? Maybe.

Some small businesses make up to $30 million dollars a year. I know you think that isn't small, but when you start including employees and other expenses, it starts to add up.

Small businesses employ most of the people in this country. Obama wants to tax them and force them to cut jobs.

Here's the SBA guidelines for small businesses.

500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries
100 employees for all wholesale trade industries
$7.0 million for most retail and service industries
$33.5 million for most general & heavy construction industries
$14.0 million for all special trade contractors
$0.75 million for most agricultural industries
http://www.sba.gov/services/contractingopportunities/sizestandardstopics/faqs/index.html
So, Obama says that any small business that doesn't make more than $250K isn't going to get his taxes raised. Great. The guy that runs a babershop out of his garage will be fine. But the company that employs 800 people and does $30 million in Construction is going to get shafted.

[RedBEARD]

Where's the Michael Bloomberg option?

[smahoo]

Rover, you're completely missing the boat on the small business tax rate issue. Obama'a plan is not based on small business revenue, its based on income. Please tell me you understand the difference.

I am a partner in what fits into the small business category as defined by the SBA. Our business generates well over 6 million in annual revenues, but our taxable income (after expenses such as payroll, SS contributions, unemployment insurance, workmans, cost of goods, etc) is just over 180,000.

This is exactly the deception the McCain campaign banks on. The McCain campaign assumes that most Americans either don't understand the difference between income and revenue, or that they're just too stupid to know. You have proven the latter with your statements.

Care to retract now??

[Rover]

Actually, Obama has never addressed whether it is on net income or gross revenue.

EDIT: He uses the ambiguous word 'make' to define his $250K limit.

[Desperado]

Facts hurt my eyes!!!! Scroll to the bottom if you dont want to read it all...


http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbusiness/small_biz_taxes_factcheck.smb/index.htm

Fact check: Plumber Joe's taxes

McCain has entrepreneurs spooked about tax hikes, but fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama's plan.



By Stacy Cowley (smallbiz@cnnmoney.com)
Last Updated: October 16, 2008: 12:30 PM ET



(CNNMoney.com) -- In speech after speech, presidential candidate John McCain hammers on the claim that his rival Barack Obama will raise taxes on many small businesses.
At the debate on Wednesday night, McCain said, "The small businesses that we're talking about would receive an increase in their taxes right now."
More typically he has said: "What [Obama] hasn't told you is that he would tax half of the income of small businesses in America," a line used in La Crosse, Wisc., last week.
Should small business owners fear for their wallets if Obama is elected? Not the vast majority, business and tax experts say.
To make its claim, according to a McCain spokesman, the campaign counts as a small-business owner any taxpayer who files a Schedule C, E or F - the forms used to report gains and losses from business ventures and farms.
Using that definition and citing IRS data, the campaign notes that "56.8% of total small business income is earned by businesses in the top two rates, which Barack Obama has pledged to raise."
It's true that Obama has proposed raising taxes on the top two income rates.
But there are three main problems with McCain's charge.
What is a small business?
First, it relies on a broad definition of what counts as a small business, including everyone who files a Schedule C, E and F.
But most people who file those forms don't run a business for a living: Those forms are also used to report income from freelance and consulting work, real-estate rentals, and most other non-salary sources.
For example, McCain and Obama both file Schedule C returns, thanks to their book royalties - but they hardly should be considered small business owners.
In 2005, there were 21.5 million Schedule C returns (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05solep.pdf) filed, according to the IRS.
A more realistic definition of small businesses turns up far fewer firms. The Small Business Administration estimates that there were 6 million small businesses in 2005 (http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us88_05.pdf), as measured by those with fewer than 500 employees and with staff on the payroll other than the owner.
Who pays?
Second, even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise.

That's because the lion's share of taxable income comes from a small number of wealthy businesses. Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.
That includes Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, whom McCain invoked nearly two dozen times at the debate Wednesday night to illustrate the plight of the average worker and small business owner.
"Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years ... he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes," McCain said.
In an interview afterward with WTOL (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/16/bts.joe.plumber.reax.wtol), Wurzelbacher acknowledged that he'd still like to eventually buy the plumbing company he works for but that he wouldn't yet be hit by higher taxes.
"I want to set the record straight: Currently I would not fall into Barack Obama's $250,000-plus," he said. "But if I'm lucky in business and taxes don't go up then maybe I can grow the business and be in that tax bracket - well, let me rephrase it. Hopefully, that tax won't be there."
Few owners are that lucky in business. In a member survey conducted late last year, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that only 14% of respondents said they had $200,000 or more in annual income.
As Tax Policy Center fellow Len Berman recently told (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/03/smallbusiness/mccain_obama_taxes.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2008090809) Fortune Small Business: "Most owners of small businesses have small incomes."

What gets taxed?
Third, even if you're one of the rare business owners making enough money to be affected by Obama's proposed tax increases, you still won't see a big hike in your tax bill.
McCain's claim that Obama "will increase taxes on 50% of small business revenue" - the line he used in the second presidential debate - is incorrect because of how income is taxed.
If a business owner falls into the top bracket, that doesn't mean that all of his or her income is taxed at the highest level.
For example: If a small-business owner makes $210,000 in taxable income, he edges into the 33% bracket, one of the two top tax rates that Obama would like to raise.
But he would pay the higher tax only on the amount that exceeds the cutoff - in 2007, the two top tax rates applied to single filers with income of $160,850 or more and joint filers with income of at least $195,850. As a single filer, this business owner would see his federal taxes increase $1,475 under Obama's plan, which calls for raising the 33% tax rate to 36%.
"While Obama does favor raising the top two rates, the quote is not true because not all the small business income of those in the top two rates is taxed at the 33% and 35% rates," said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

The bottom line: McCain's claim only works by using an overly broad definition of what counts as a "small business" - and even with that definition, fewer than 2% of business owners would be hit by Obama's proposed rate increase. For those who are affected, the increase would be levied only on a part of their earnings, not all of them.

[taters]

Im still surprised that people can be surprised at all the wild, pointless, whackjob racist and hateful things Rush Limbaugh can say.

I may bet money he claims the sky is falling on November 5th, and at least half his idiot listeners go out and buy ducktape and umbrellas.

[machwa]

Facts are terrorists. Don't let them win.

[Rover]

How about these facts?


Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year—the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*). Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America. This is the answer to the Obama campaign’s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small—the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike.
Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level. This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses—sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms
The tax rate on the lion’s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent. Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com/))

This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office)

America’s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 116 million employees (Source: Census Bureau). When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.
http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/oct/101508pr-sbtop5.html

[smahoo]

Rover, I just read your reply and, again I'm amazed at your complete lack of understanding.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever filed a federal income tax return? If so, you based that filing on a statement filed by your employer that indicated how much you earned for that tax year. In other words, your taxable revenue gained from the performance of your job showing your contributions to FICA, SS and Medicare.

As you then file your return, you then declared certain deductions from that taxable revenue to determine a total taxable income from which you then either paid additional tax or received a refund from the federal government because your FICA contributions exceeded your tax liability.

What makes you think filing a business tax return is so fundamentally different from an individual return that it would preclude a business from claiming similar deductions?

Just say I'm right and stop proving how out of touch you are, OK. Maybe you can still salvage some semblence of respect that way.

[Desperado]

How about these facts?


The tax rate on the lion’s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent. Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com/))

This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double
Wow great quote here... maybe you should go back and read the article I posted, as it has the specifics showing which of these business would hit these marks... Instead of the vauge "Lions Share", it seems the best this quote could do is say "could reach".

[Rover]

Lost in all this argument in whose "facts" are correct is that Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which raises everyone's taxes, including small businesses.

[smahoo]

way to not answer the point rover....what's next, joe the plumber??

[halfabubbleoff]

Actually, Obama has never addressed whether it is on net income or gross revenue.

EDIT: He uses the ambiguous word 'make' to define his $250K limit.


Actually, the posted tax plan states that it takes the $250K limit from the owner's Personal Tax return. Obama is referencing many small businesses that claim the company income/profits under their personal returns and do not fill out a separate business tax form. The numbers change (go up) for business tax filings.

Found it on Fact check a while back. Just wanted to add that as I was heading out the door.

[taters]

Here is a hint that would GUARENTEE McCain to win if he took it into consideration

[b]TAXES ARE NOT THE MAIN CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS AND THE CAUSE FOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICA

Republicans seem to no longer have ANYTHING to discuss, their only answer to ALL problems is 'Cut Taxes' and 'Ban Abortion'.

Surplus = Cut taxes
Good economy = Cut Taxes
Job Loss = Cut Taxes
War = Cut Taxes
Lack of Regulation in market = Cut Taxes
Economy failing = Cut Taxes
No WMD's = Ban abortion and gay marriage

Seriously, republicans have fallen so far out of touch they are starting to look not only ridiculous, but like a legion of dangerous retards.

[vasili denisov]

I'm related to Keating, it's dazzling / My dad was in jail for embezzling *DJ JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE THE PLUMBER*

Huffington. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/john-mccain-and-the-joe-t_b_135319.html)

My plumbing is factless / Like Blade, I don't pay my damn taxes *DJ JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE THE PLUMBING SUPPLIES OWNER OR SOMETHING*

Times. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp)

[Rover]

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever filed a federal income tax return? Yes.

What makes you think filing a business tax return is so fundamentally different from an individual return that it would preclude a business from claiming similar deductions?Nothing.
way to not answer the point rover....what's next, joe the plumber??There, I've answered the 2 questions you asked.

Now, explain how eliminating the Bush tax cuts, which raises the taxes for everyone, isn't a tax raise. Because the way I understand Obama's plan is that he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (raising everyone's taxes), and after that happens he will do his "95%" tax cut. Lost in this plan is that 95% of Americans don't pay income tax and about half of the "95%" are going to just get an "wealth redistribution check" from the government. Should people who don't pay income tax receive a welfare check from the government?
Actually, the posted tax plan states that it takes the $250K limit from the owner's Personal Tax return. Obama is referencing many small businesses that claim the company income/profits under their personal returns and do not fill out a separate business tax form. The numbers change (go up) for business tax filings.

Found it on Fact check a while back. Just wanted to add that as I was heading out the door.I actually believe it is impossible to know the truth about anyones' plans. Politicians are masters at half truths and full lies. Then the misinformation just spreads from their supporters. The only way you can hope to guess the truth about what a politician is going to do is to look at their record.

McCain's record is primarily cutting taxes.
Obama's record is primarily raising taxes.

Those are the only real facts. For me, hearing a liberal like Obama say he is going to cut taxes would be like listening to McCain talk about how he wants to cut Defense spending.

[Claibo]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2948036312_9645384dba.jpg?v=0

[Claibo]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/2947179935_e64bc6118a_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28939428@N04/2947179935/)


LOL

[Mustard]

I'm related to Keating, it's dazzling / My dad was in jail for embezzling *DJ JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE THE PLUMBER*

Huffington. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/john-mccain-and-the-joe-t_b_135319.html)

My plumbing is factless / Like Blade, I don't pay my damn taxes *DJ JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOE THE PLUMBING SUPPLIES OWNER OR SOMETHING*

Times. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp)
Lollerskates... Joe teh Plumber is a fraud-ish.

[Soup Nazi]

As a side note to this entire thread, I hope everyone understands the difference between Revenue and Income.

That is all.

[BIG PIZZLE]

His name isnt even Joe.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=885575

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.nationalpost.com/news/885576.bin?size=404x272
J.D. Pooley/Getty

ImagesPlumber Joe Wurzelbacher speaks to the media. Wurzelbacher was thrust into the national spotlight after being brought up more than two dozen times during the final presidential debate.

"Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber.

He's an unlicensed and unregistered employee of a small plumbing and heating company in suburban Toledo, Ohio, who was mentioned 26 times during the 90-minute presidential debate, while the war in Iraq received only six mentions.

Before the debate was even finished, three local television stations had parked live satellite trucks outside Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher's home on Shrewsbury Street in Holland, Ohio, and the networks were rushing to interview him.

Overnight, Joe the Plumber became a national celebrity and a proxy for working people in an election dominated by the financial fears of ordinary Americans.

Only Mr. Wurzelbacher is a 34-year-old plumber's assistant and a registered Republican who thinks Barack Obama "can tap dance - almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr."

On Sunday, he was playing football with his 13-year-old son outside his home, when Mr. Obama suddenly showed up to campaign in his neighbourhood.

As Mr. Wurzelbacher watched his neighbours fawn over the candidate, he fumed.

"I didn't think they were asking him tough enough questions," he said on Thursday.

"So, I thought, you know, I'll go over there. I've always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them."

He shook hands with Mr. Obama and told him he wants to buy the business he works for, adding its income -- $250,000 to $280,000 a year -- would qualify for a tax hike under the Democratic candidate's election proposals.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" he asked. Mr. Obama told him, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you - that they've got a chance at success, too."

"Because you're successful, you have to pay more than everybody else?" Mr. Wurzelbacher said on Thursday. "That's a socialist view and it's incredibly wrong."

But he also acknowledged he earns substantially less than $250,000, which would make him eligible under Mr. Obama's plan for a tax cut.

And if Mr. Wurzelbacher bought his plumbing business and began earning more than $250,000, Mr. Obama's campaign said he would get a 50% tax credit to pay for his employees' health care and have a zero per cent capital gains rate.

During Wednesday's debate, the Republican candidate John McCain lashed out at Mr. Obama for fomenting "class warfare" against Joe the Plumber.

That unleashed clashes over taxation, health care and economic policy, in which both candidates appealed directly to Joe the Plumber.

"It's pretty surreal, man, my name being mentioned in a presidential campaign," Mr. Wurzelbacher said on Thursday.

But that was just the beginning.

When he went to a gym on Thursday morning he returned home to find 21 reporters camped out in his driveway, and newspaper columnists and Internet bloggers across the country earnestly debating the impact Joe the Plumber will have on the Nov. 4 election.

An Internet company CafePress.com was already selling Joe the Plumber T-shirts, baseball caps, buttons and yard signs.

Conservative blogger Fausta Wertz declared, "Joe probably has a great deal more knowledge and experience in real-life business and economics than most pundits ... possibly more than Ben [Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve]."
But the spotlight was also glaring.

Mr. Obama's campaign took advantage of Mr. Wurzelbacher's sudden popularity to buy a Google search ad linking Internet users to a Joe The Plumber's Tax Cut Web site, which has a calculator they can use to work out their tax cuts under an Obama administration.

After the Washington Post reported it was unable to find a listing for Mr. Wurzelbacher in the database of the Ohio Construction Industry Licensing Board, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, reported Joe the Plumber is an unlicensed employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating.

He is not registered to work as a plumber in Ohio.

The newspaper also reported Mr. Wurzelbacher had a lien against him by the Ohio Department of Taxation in January, 2007, for failing to pay $1,183 in property taxes.

When the president of the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors National Association in Washington issued a press release applauding Joe the Plumber for helping small business owners play a role in the debate on the nation's economic future, the business manager of the Toledo local of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters & Service Mechanics issued a statement complaining Joe the Plumber hadn't even undergone apprenticeship training. "When you have guys going out there with no training whatsoever, it's a little disreputable to start with," union boss Tom Joseph told the Toledo Blade.

"We're the real Joe the Plumber," he added, noting his union backs Mr. Obama.

"I'm kind of like Britney Spears having a headache," Mr. Wurzelbacher said on Thursday.

"Everybody wants to know about it."

National Post, with files from Sheldon Alberts

[freegood]

If I employed the same utterly bankrupt guilt by association tactics that Rush used, I'd say it's clear that McCain is trying to steal the election; that his friendship with G. Gordon Liddy, a man involved in trying to cover up illegalities in Nixon's re-election certifies it. That John Singlaub, the head of the World Anti-Communist League on which McCain served, is trying to install the first junta in the US, after which elections will be suspended.

I'm not making those allegations because though there seem to be very aggressive attempts in several states to get voters off lists and intimidate registration groups, there's no indication that it's coming from McCain's campaign, that past "associations" indicate ongoing involvment in a person's life or activities, and to make these kinds of allegations without foundation is beneath most people, though not beneath Rush.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/mccain-to-letterman-i-screwed-up/


Asked by Mr. Letterman whether Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was his “first choice” for vice president, Mr. McCain said “absolutely.” He added: “I didn’t know her well at all. I knew her reputation.”

Mr. Letterman pressed Mr. McCain on Ms. Palin’s preparation for the office of president, and asked whether she was “the woman to lead us through the next 9/11 attack.”

“Absolutely” she is, Mr. McCain said. “She has inspired Americans. That’s the thing we need.”

Mr. Letterman also asked if Ms. Palin had said that Senator Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists.” Mr. McCain started to say he didn’t know, then said “Yes. And he did.”

Then Mr. Letterman raised Mr. McCain’s relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. “I’ve met him,” Mr. McCain said. After a segment break, he followed up: “I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt, he went to prison, he paid his debt.”



I included the first bit because it's funny as hell, but the bolded part....does anyone else think Letterman gave McCain rope and John tied a triple knot noose? (whoever said a dead horse can't be beaten enough?)

First, there's now national mention of liddy.

Second, Liddy had a commuted sentence, certainly not "paying a debt" the justice system thought was fair.

Third, the entire hypocrisy of the matter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/ayers-and-the-mccain-g-go_b_134256.html) will give independents enough consideration while making Obama appear above the fray.

McCain-Palin will continue to play with fire, but the stakes of the game for John is starting to veer beyond losing a presidency. How he'll be remembered is coming into play.

[Pollo]

did anyone happen to watch the opening segment on O'Reilly's show today? I could of fucking swore he was actually defending Obama for being reliable and trustworthy. I still can't believe what he said while Laura Ingraham looked shocked in disgust.

I'll try to find the video of this, but I think it would catch anyone offguard knowing how O'Reilly typically is.

edit: found the video. enjoy.

0YsNsIZTD7c

[taters]

did anyone happen to watch the opening segment on O'Reilly's show today? I could of fucking swore he was actually defending Obama for being reliable and trustworthy. I still can't believe what he said while Laura Ingraham looked shocked in disgust.

I'll try to find the video of this, but I think it would catch anyone offguard knowing how O'Reilly typically is.

edit: found the video. enjoy.



Yikes! That bitches head was about to fucking explode. She was so caught up in her right wing extremist rants and threats that when O Reilly tried to get to her to speak reasonably (he wasnt defending Obama clearly, he was stating that he felt Obama is straight forward with moving the country away from the far right), she damn near blew a gasket.

I thought for a second she was going to call O Reilly by the N Word from the look of hate in her eyes. Damn.

[Archangel]

Dude, your quoting skills leave a lot to be desired.

[Archangel]

But seeing someone try to shout down and out-Republican O'Reilly was rather precious.

[heelsguy]

what your saw on that clip is what I have been preaching: O'reilly's show is actually LESS PARTISAN than most. He has his opinion--for sure--but he is far and away fairer and (dare I say?) balanced than MSNBC. He calls BS as he sees it, no matter elephant or donkey.

[DjAg]

what your saw on that clip is what I have been preaching: O'reilly's show is actually LESS PARTISAN than most. He has his opinion--for sure--but he is far and away fairer and (dare I say?) balanced than MSNBC. He calls BS as he sees it, no matter elephant or donkey.

You could argue that to a very slim extent, I'd say. Even in doing so, you'd have to allow that he's at least significantly more republican/conservative than he will EVER be considered democrat/liberal.

Regardless, he's still a douchebag that needs to die and/or shut the fuck up.

[Axel]

did anyone happen to watch the opening segment on O'Reilly's show today? I could of fucking swore he was actually defending Obama for being reliable and trustworthy. I still can't believe what he said while Laura Ingraham looked shocked in disgust.Take care what you’re swearing on Pollo: O'Reilly couldn't even finish his thought since he was constantly barked at while trying to address tactical mistakes at McCain approach. The fact that McCain is currently losing the run by a waste majority of polls suggests that he might have done few of them.

I haven’t heard O’Reilly claiming that Obama is “trustworthy”, but that he’s "consistent", while she was acting like a rabid bitch.

[Morfin]

Give me a break. Listening to that video. I don't watch O'Reilly or any shows like that, nor do I listen to any talk radio.

This video clip is a great indication of what is wrong with all these partisan (both sides) commentators. Ingraham would not even acknowledge any point about Obama, not even that he has been consistently upfront about, as O'Reilly said, that he is all for income redistribution and shifting to the left.

She was just so rabid about everything Obama being bad or a lie that she is blind to everything else. She is the type of person that you can never argue with because if you agree with her, you are smart, if you disagree with her, you are blind or stupid -- there is no category in her mind that reasonable minds may differ.

Say what you will about O'Reilly and his politics and bully pulpit, but he sure sounded like he was willing, in this clip at least, to discuss the matter maturely.

[Morfin]

I think McCain is running a textbook campaign on how to lose an election:

McCain discovers plumber no ordinary Joe

After making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, McCain learned 3 key facts -- Joe owes back taxes, isn't licensed and Obama's plan would cut Joe's taxes.

NEW YORK – John McCain hung his final presidential debate performance on an Ohio plumber who campaign aides never vetted.

A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber’s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president.

McCain likes to say that he isn’t George W. Bush – and in this case of bungled public relations, it is clear he is not. The famously-disciplined Bush campaign operation would likely have found the perfect anonymous citizen to illustrate a policy proposal, rather than spontaneously wrap itself around an unknown entity with so many asterisks.

While the arc of Wurzelbacher’s breakneck trip through the news cycle – from private citizen to insta-celebrity to political target – offers a curious insight into the political media culture, it also appears to offer a glimpse into the McCain campaign’s on-the-fly decisionmaking style. Link (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14652.html)

[Mr. Brown]

hahahah

[Le Goat]

I refuse to look over the board to see if this was posted, but we need a vbookie up to see who wrote the speech, Colbert or Stewart

v5SWQJWm6Tg

[smahoo]

watched this last night on Rachel Maddow's show...to give credit to both sides, McCain's speech was pretty funny too

[VoxAngelikus]

did anyone happen to watch the opening segment on O'Reilly's show today? I could of fucking swore he was actually defending Obama for being reliable and trustworthy. I still can't believe what he said while Laura Ingraham looked shocked in disgust.

I'll try to find the video of this, but I think it would catch anyone offguard knowing how O'Reilly typically is.

edit: found the video. enjoy.

0YsNsIZTD7c


Laura Ingraham is almost as bad as Anne Coulter. They both have that transsexual look that probably tightens conservative crotches across the U.S.A.

[kareyn01]

Two big pieces of news:

1) John McCain has already pulled out of Michigan, and the RNC has pulled ads off the airwaves in Wisconsin. Now the NRSC has announced that they are pulling out of Washington and Colorado. (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/nrsc_pulling_out_of_co.php) That's horrible news for McCain, because if Obama wins Colorado, he doesn't need Virginia, or North Carolina, or Ohio or Florida. He could lose all of them and still be at 272 EVs. I realize that this is the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not the RNC, but it gives a strong indication of where the race actually stands in Colorado.

2) The Supreme Court overruled a decision made by the Ohio Supreme Court that would have stricken 200,000 new voters (including Joe the Plummer!) from the rolls in Ohio unless a system for correcting the clerical errors had been put in place by today. This now gives the Secretary of State time to implement a verification plan before election day. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1851384,00.html)

[Morfin]

Oh, those wacky local Republicans. They're at it again. But don't worry, this isn't racist.

ssAmDNmNw68

[Rover]

The lengths that the Democrats are taking to try to discredit a question from a voter is somewhat alarming. Let's see if we can try to stop voters from asking questions by digging through the questioner's background and see what dirt we can dig up.

Typical, holier-than-thou Democrats. I guess the only people who are qualified to ask questions are people with pure backgrounds and certainly no tax liens. However, it is perfectly acceptable that a Democrat guilty of tax fraud be in charge of tax policy in the Congress.

Obama is on the verge of waking up the silent majority.

[Mustard]

Oh, those wacky local Republicans. They're at it again. But don't worry, this isn't racist.

ssAmDNmNw68
"aren't you aware that fried chicken, kool-aid, watermelon, and ribs are african-american stereotypes?"

"no, who says that?"

Um, gee, I don't know... How about EVERYBODY!?!?

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

[Desperado]

Obama is on the verge of waking up the silent majority.


I bet that silent majority is hidden somewhere in pro-America areas!!!

[kareyn01]

The lengths that the Democrats are taking to try to discredit a question from a voter is somewhat alarming. Let's see if we can try to stop voters from asking questions by digging through the questioner's background and see what dirt we can dig up.

Typical, holier-than-thou Democrats. I guess the only people who are qualified to ask questions are people with pure backgrounds and certainly no tax liens. However, it is perfectly acceptable that a Democrat guilty of tax fraud be in charge of tax policy in the Congress.

Obama is on the verge of waking up the silent majority.

Last I checked it was the media, fueled by John McCain referring to "Joe the Plumber" 21 times during the debate. And I haven't noticed anyone from the Obama campaign standing in the dude's front yard like the dumbasses from local TV news stations. I also didn't see Obama refuse to answer the man's questions or belittle him in his answer.

[Rover]

I bet that silent majority is hidden somewhere in pro-America areas!!!Yes. Though you might not understand what Palin meant, millions of Americans do. Being anti-American is what Congressmen are when they accuse soldiers of just killing innocent civilians and acting like barbarians.

AP/Yahoo
Obama: 44
McCain: 42

Democrats were 57% of the poll. Republicans 42%.
-------
Gallup
Obama: 49
McCain: 47

[taters]

Rover - Dont forget that all of those polls do not count young people, minorities and people without landlines (they are classified as 'unlikely voters'), the latter 2 groups are set to come out in record breaking numbers for obama.

Its the reason why states like North Dakota, Georgia, and Colorado, which were deep in the red the last 2 elections, are now at worst purple and at best toss ups.


Oh, those wacky local Republicans. They're at it again. But don't worry, this isn't racist.

ssAmDNmNw68

"My mother was married to my father, who is mexican. SO how does that make her racist?"

Um maybe because MEXICAN isnt BLACK. What is she, fucking retarded? If youre married to a mexican, you cant be racist against blacks?


Reporter: "Those are black stereotypes...how can you not find that racist?"

Husband: "We dont dont see it as racist, so its not racist."


WTF?

[Desperado]

AP/Yahoo
Obama: 44
McCain: 42

Democrats were 57% of the poll. Republicans 42%.
-------
Gallup
Obama: 49
McCain: 47

Wow... thats the first time awhile someone has bragged about a poll in favor of mccain.

[Desperado]

Looks like McCains stuggling to keep even the red states, is that a good sign?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/17/red.states/index.html

McCain-Palin on defense in must-win red states

<LI class=cnnHiliteHeader _extended="true">Story Highlights <LI _extended="true">Sen. McCain, Gov. Palin stumping in states that traditionally back Republicans
<LI _extended="true">Sen. Obama challenging Republicans in Virginia, North Carolina
McCain forced to shore up GOP support instead of focusing on battleground states

By Alexander Mooney
CNN

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain and his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin are on a mad dash to blunt Sen. Barack Obama's surging momentum and hold the states that have traditionally voted for Republicans.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/10/17/red.states/art.mccain.pa.gi.jpg Sen. John McCain and wife Cindy campaign in Thorndale, Pennsylvania, on Thursday.


http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


As Obama seeks to expand his electoral playing field in hopes of racking up a decisive win, McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin headed south to states President Bush carried handily in 2004 and ones that haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in more than four decades.
McCain (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/john.mccain.html) is set to spend part of Friday crisscrossing Florida, a state that has a history of flirting with both parties during presidential campaigns, but one that has usually ended up in the Republican column come Election Day.
He then heads to North Carolina, a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in decades, but one where recent polls suggest the race is a dead heat.

"Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to win the White House. He never saw a map that looked anything like this, especially this close to Election Day," CNN chief national correspondent John King said.
According to CNN's latest analysis of the electoral map, only six states are up for grabs (Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida) and they were all won by President Bush in 2004. That means even if McCain were to go 6-for-6 in the current tossup states, he would still fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the White House.
So as McCain fights to hold on to states President Bush won in 2004, he needs to peel off states that currently appear to clearly be in Obama's column.
But with limited time and resources, a state-by-state offensive appears no longer possible for the Republican presidential candidate.
"He has to change the big fundamental, he can no longer do this state by state," King said.
But while McCain has largely been absent from several of these traditionally red states all summer, the Obama campaign has aggressively built ground organizations in many of these states, outspent its GOP rival considerably on staff and television commercials, and worked to register tens of thousands of new voters.
McCain has particularly been badly outcampaigned in North Carolina and Virginia, a key reason Republicans are scrambling to defend those territories.


According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the Democratic ticket has made nine visits to Virginia and seven stops in North Carolina since June. That compares to just one visit in Virginia and two in North Carolina on the Republican side.
And Obama continues to focus on the states once unfriendly to Democratic candidates, planning stops in Virginia on Friday and North Carolina on Saturday.
It appears Obama's strategy is not just to win, but to win decisively, CNN senior political analyst David Gergen said.
"It does seem to me his goal should be two things, to run up the score so he gets a convincing victory, not just a small victory, but a major convincing victory. And try to define what he needs to do as president so he can say the day after the election, I have a mandate," Gergen said.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation/Time magazine poll out of North Carolina showed the race tied there, while a new CNN poll of polls in Virginia shows Obama with a slight lead. President Bush won both states handily in 2004.
But it's not only the nation's flagging economy that is helping tilt them toward Obama. In addition to the Illinois senator's considerable money advantage, each state has undergone significant demographic shifts over the last two decades that have made Democrats steadily more competitive.
"The North Carolina and Virginia of today are far more diverse than they were 20 or even 10 years ago," CNN senior political researcher Alan Silverleib said. "The states' changing economy has attracted thousands of new voters willing to pull the lever for a Democratic nominee."
Then there's the unknown variable of an anticipated increase in turnout in the African-American community. In 2006, that voting bloc made up 26 percent of North Carolina's electorate and 21 percent of the Virginia electorate. Obama will likely win a higher percentage of the black vote this cycle in both states than John Kerry's 87 percent, and unprecedented turnout is expected.





Add to that the trouble McCain faces out west as he loses his grip on Colorado and Nevada, two other states with changing demographics that are helping the Democratic ticket. Each has seen an influx in Hispanic voters in recent years, a voting bloc that had been friendly to President Bush but is overwhelmingly supporting Obama this year.
"Increasingly Republicans are trying to figure out where to spend money and resources, and they are frustrated trying to find a blue state they have a good chance to turn red," King said.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Obama lost the New Hampshire primary despite a huge lead in the polls.

[Desperado]

Obama lost the New Hampshire primary despite a huge lead in the polls.


Its funny you say that... polls are really good for campaigns to get idea where they stand. But thinking they're an exact science is obviously crazy, although they have really dictated where McCain campaigns and spends most of his money(Michigan).


Obama to supporters: Don’t get ‘cocky’ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/obama-to-supporters-don%e2%80%99t-get-%e2%80%98cocky%e2%80%99/)
Posted: 11:23 AM ET

From CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-senior-political-producer-sasha-johnson/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/16/obama1.jpg Obama does not want his supporters to get too comfortable with his recent lead in the polls.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

NEW YORK (CNN) – He may hold the edge in most polls with just 19 days to go, but Barack Obama can’t relax, pointing to the ghosts of election nights past.
“For those of you who are feeling giddy or cocky and think this is all set, I just say one word — I guess it’s two words for you — New Hampshire,” Obama told a high-dollar fundraiser crowd in Manhattan, referencing his loss to Hillary Clinton in January’s primary. “I’ve been in these positions before where we are favored and the press starts getting carried away and we end up getting spanked … and so we want to make sure we are closing strong, right through the tape.”

[Mustard]

Yep, Obama's right on the money again. Its not over until some fat girl sings to you.

[kareyn01]

Yes. Though you might not understand what Palin meant, millions of Americans do. Being anti-American is what Congressmen are when they accuse soldiers of just killing innocent civilians and acting like barbarians.

AP/Yahoo
Obama: 44
McCain: 42

Democrats were 57% of the poll. Republicans 42%.
-------
Gallup
Obama: 49
McCain: 47

First of all, the AP/Yahoo poll is an internet poll from TWO WEEKS AGO. It came out on October 3. Second, the Gallup poll is one of three models that Gallup produced in their latest round. One is a registered voter poll, which shows Obama up 6. The one you posted is a likely voter poll that assumes the same electorate as 2004. The third is a likely voter poll that reflects expected turnout, which also has Obama up 6.

Other than the fact that you basically just copied and pasted from the Drudge Report, McCain is still in trouble whether the race is indeed tightening at the national level. He would have to win every one of the 10 states listed as battlegrounds, while Obama would only have to win one. That's trouble considering Obama is currently up 6 in Colorado, 2 in Nevada, 1 in Missouri, 2.5 in Ohio, 6.5 in Virginia, 6 in New Hampshire, and 2 in North Carolina. Obama's even ahead now in North Dakota by 2 and even in West Virginia, which aren't even considered toss-ups. (All numbers are pollster.com averages)

I understand that the race is far from over, but the national average right now is still +7 Obama, so you're going to have to do more than cherry pick two polls (one of which isn't even current) to show that McCain is in a dead heat. When even Matt Drudge can only say "we're not getting beaten as badly as we thought", that shows you where the race really stands.

[taters]

I have a feeling that as the election draws closer, and probably on election day as well, the far right kooks and extremist are going to come out and make more and more drastic/racist/pointless claims to the point of screaming their heads off.

The smell of republican fear is thick in the air.

Yes. Though you might not understand what Palin meant, millions of Americans do. Being anti-American is what Congressmen are when they accuse soldiers of just killing innocent civilians and acting like barbarians.


Funny, I thought holding your nation to a higher standard and respecting others rights was the most american thing congress and the people of this nation can do.

So you think killing and raping arabs and muslims is A-O-K? Is it because they arent american that makes it ok?

[DjAg]

The smell of republican fear is thick in the air.

It smells like a mixture of depends and cheap beer, does it not?

[Mustard]

It smells like a mixture of depends and cheap beer, does it not?
I was going to go with a smell akin to Hamm's, gun cleaner, and unwashed ass...

but yeah, that works too.

[taters]

I was going to go with a smell akin to Hamm's, gun cleaner, and unwashed ass...

but yeah, that works too.


All of the above, with an addition of the septic 'old folks home' smell and used chewing tobacco.

[Mustard]

Well I think we all should just self-congratulate one another on a job well done this election. So lets all meet up at a Starbucks, (I'll be the one in the professional attire sipping a mimosa) and we can all discuss how great our lives are, disparage the flaws of America, make light of our troops progress and successes in the recent times, and discuss how much we pity the poor and downtrodden, and why they aren't as good as us. Then, we can go take in an opera (La Boheme?) to enrich our cultural needs, and then maybe finish the evening with a cappuccino and a discussion about the values of Marxism.

Yes, yes... I believe this will be perfect!

[machwa]

Yes. Though you might not understand what Palin meant, millions of Americans do. Being anti-American is what Congressmen are when they accuse soldiers of just killing innocent civilians and acting like barbarians.

AP/Yahoo
Obama: 44
McCain: 42

Democrats were 57% of the poll. Republicans 42%.
-------
Gallup
Obama: 49
McCain: 47


Alright, first of all some US soldiers have killed innocent civilians and that's not debatable. When you do something that horrific someone has to take responsibility for it. Stating a fact doesn't make you unamerican and since republicans refuse to place the blame on Bush why not blame the people who actually committed the crime?

This idea that American's can do anything, no matter how wrong, and never apologize is why the rest of the world thinks we're idiots.

[Morfin]

Well I think we all should just self-congratulate one another on a job well done this election. So lets all meet up at a Starbucks, (I'll be the one in the professional attire sipping a mimosa) and we can all discuss how great our lives are, disparage the flaws of America, make light of our troops progress and successes in the recent times, and discuss how much we pity the poor and downtrodden, and why they aren't as good as us. Then, we can go take in an opera (La Boheme?) to enrich our cultural needs, and then maybe finish the evening with a cappuccino and a discussion about the values of Marxism.

Yes, yes... I believe this will be perfect!

You, sir, are a Eurofag disguised as an American. And that makes you someone who is not pro-American. Sarah said so. Nyah.

[Rover]

First of all, the AP/Yahoo poll is an internet poll from TWO WEEKS AGO. It came out on October 3. Second, the Gallup poll is one of three models that Gallup produced in their latest round. One is a registered voter poll, which shows Obama up 6. The one you posted is a likely voter poll that assumes the same electorate as 2004. The third is a likely voter poll that reflects expected turnout, which also has Obama up 6.

Other than the fact that you basically just copied and pasted from the Drudge Report, McCain is still in trouble whether the race is indeed tightening at the national level. He would have to win every one of the 10 states listed as battlegrounds, while Obama would only have to win one. That's trouble considering Obama is currently up 6 in Colorado, 2 in Nevada, 1 in Missouri, 2.5 in Ohio, 6.5 in Virginia, 6 in New Hampshire, and 2 in North Carolina. Obama's even ahead now in North Dakota by 2 and even in West Virginia, which aren't even considered toss-ups. (All numbers are pollster.com averages)

I understand that the race is far from over, but the national average right now is still +7 Obama, so you're going to have to do more than cherry pick two polls (one of which isn't even current) to show that McCain is in a dead heat. When even Matt Drudge can only say "we're not getting beaten as badly as we thought", that shows you where the race really stands. Wait, does Drudge have access to polls that aren't available to anyone?

Christ, the 3 Gallup polls are posted on Gallups frontpage. And, yes, the Gallup poll I posted is modelled after elections that have already happened. Unlike, the other models, which are guessing at what might happen if Democrat turnout is heavy and unprecedented.

And the AP/Yahoo poll is not 2 weeks old. Do you really think I'd be interested in a poll that is 2 weeks old? The data was collected from October 3rd through the 13th, which was Monday, and it was released today.

And it's not an "internet poll" in the sense that you show up and click a button. Here read the release. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS1Bmf1oFNTmx3ohfp7uHXmjM47AD93S74QG0)

Finally, state polls lag national polls in reflecting voter opinion.
I have a feeling that as the election draws closer, and probably on election day as well, the far right kooks and extremist are going to come out and make more and more drastic/racist/pointless claims to the point of screaming their heads off.

The smell of republican fear is thick in the air.Only Tater could segue a discussion about the racist claims of the far right, into his own far left racist claims.
Funny, I thought holding your nation to a higher standard and respecting others rights was the most american thing congress and the people of this nation can do.

So you think killing and raping arabs and muslims is A-O-K? Is it because they arent american that makes it ok?
No. I do not approve of soldiers who rape and murder civilians, but I also don't believe that they are doing that with wanton abandonment.

[Mustard]

You, sir, are a Eurofag disguised as an American. And that makes you someone who is not pro-American. Sarah said so. Nyah.
*Eurosnob. Never did I make mention of cornholing.

[Morfin]

I stand corrected.

[Mustard]

Obama Continues to Lead in the National Polls

The National polls are now starting to get some post-debate data. Obama has a lead in all of them, with the average being 6.3%. By Monday we should know how much the third debate changed the national picture.
- Battleground (Obama +6)
- Diageo (Obama + 8)
- Gallup (Obama +6)
- IBD (Obama +3)
- Rasmussen (Obama +4)
- Research 2000 (Obama +11)
- Zogby (Obama +6)

So, while looking for some no-bullshit polling, I found these poll numbers that are current from www.electoral-vote.com. Personally, I think nat'l polling is pretty much a waste of time considering we use the electoral college, but it does tend to give a representative view of where the country stands, which I guess is nice in a way. State polling, on the other hand, I would give far more credibility to, if the polls fall outside of the margin of error which is typically between 3 and 5 percent.

[taters]

No. I do not approve of soldiers who rape and murder civilians, but I also don't believe that they are doing that with wanton abandonment.

Um...Im sorry but I gotta ask, how do you rape someone or someones and/or murder innocent people and not do it with wanton abandonment?

Do you sit around and civilly explain to your victims how you plan on raping and/or murdering them, then civilly whip your dick out and shove it into them before shooting them? I dont understand how such behavior can be termed as 'not falling within the relms of 'wanton abandon'.

[Da Raider]

"Barack out with your cock out!"
"Your Mama Luvs Obama!"

[Debo]

I think McCain is running a textbook campaign on how to lose an election:

Link (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14652.html)

The WSJ does a better job at reporting the news than politico.com ever will.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122425690170244659.html

Isn't it telling that the media is going after some guy that dared to question "The One" about his tax policies? I hope that their treatment of him pissed off a bunch of people and that it ends up costing Obama the election.

[Desperado]

Very telling about how well the McCain campaign is doing... Some Q&A with Palin regarding what the hell they're doing in traditionally Red States instead of battleground states.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/17/palin-speaks-to-reporters-about-ayers-wright-state-of-the-race/#more-25278


QUESTION: It's unusual for a Republican campaign to be campaigning in North Carolina and Indiana halfway through October in an election year, are you concerned you are spending resources in states and places you shouldn't be?
A: I think it's wise not to take anything for granted and assume that any state is a lock for either ticket, so if there were more hours in the day and more availabilities I would hope that we can be in even more states, even those that maybe we're down in, maybe those that we assume are a lock. I don't want to take anything for granted, and my input has been: let us get out there to as many states as we have time for.

once again pageant girl comes out!


QUESTION: Last night at the fundraiser you made a comment about the area being a pro-America area of the country. I was wondering if you could explain that a little bit more, what you meant by pro-America?
A: Every area, every area across this great country where we're stopping and where also the other ticket is stopping and getting to speak at these rallies and speak with the good Americans, it's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not, not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others.

[taters]

Speaking of extremist coming out of the woodwork

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/730636.html

Death threat, vandalism hit ACORN after accusations
BY GREG GORDON
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- An ACORN community organizer received a death threat and the liberal-leaning voter registration group's Boston and Seattle offices were vandalized Thursday, reflecting mounting tensions over its role in registering 1.3 million mostly poor and minority Americans to vote next month.

Attorneys for the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now were notifying the FBI and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division of the incidents, said Brian Kettenring, a Florida-based spokesman for the group.

Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain, have verbally attacked the group repeatedly in recent days, alleging a widespread vote-fraud scheme, although they've provided little proof. It was disclosed Thursday that the FBI is examining whether thousands of fraudulent voter-registration applications submitted by some ACORN workers were part of a systematic effort or isolated incidents.

Kettenring said that a senior ACORN staffer in Cleveland, after appearing on television this week, got an e-mail that said she "is going to have her life ended."

A female staffer in Providence, R.I., got a threatening call from someone who said words to the effect of "We know you get off work at 9," then uttered racial epithets, he said.

McClatchy Newspapers is withholding the women's names because of the threats.

Separately, vandals broke into the group's Boston and Seattle offices and stole computers, Kettenring said.

The incidents came the day after McCain charged in the final presidential debate that ACORN's voter-registration drive "may be perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history" and may be "destroying the fabric of democracy."

McCain's comments provoked a response from ACORN.

"I would not say that Senator McCain is inciting violence," Kettenring said, "but I would say that his statements about the role of this manufactured scandal were totally outlandish. We would call on Senator McCain to tamp down the fringe elements in his party."

McCain's campaign didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kettenring said that ACORN had received growing amounts of hate mail in recent weeks, but "the campaign debate sort of tipped it over to a scary point, where raising allegations of voter fraud went from a cynical campaign ploy to really inciting racial violence."

Since McCain's remarks, ACORN's 87 offices across the country have received hundreds of hostile e-mails, many of them containing racial slurs, Kettenring said. "We believe that these are specifically McCain supporters" sending the messages, he said.

The e-mail to the Cleveland employee was traced to a Facebook Web page in the name of a Baltimore man. It featured a photo of a McCain-Palin sign.

Kettenring said that the bulk of the e-mails had been either "flat-out racist" or had racial overtones. Most of the group's 400 members and about 80 percent of the 13,000 voter-registration canvassers are African-American or Latino.

It's unclear whether the alleged threats violated federal law, but Jonah Goldman, the director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit legal organization that battles discrimination, argued that the Voting Rights Act should apply.

"A real concern is the impact that these terrible acts have on the people who registered through these registration drives," Goldman said. "Legitimate, eligible voters who sign up through these registration drives may be understandably intimidated and choose not to show up at the polls, and the Voting Rights Act prevents voter intimidation."


First theyll do the death threats, next, mark my words, we'll see McCain supporters Bombing places and flat out attacking people, if not worst.

[Gary_Busey]

Every side has it's extremists. Someone should start an extremist group that does whatever extremists do, but does it to the extremists.


I'm gonna ride up to the election office downtown tomorrow and do early voting.

[DjAg]

an anti-extremist extremist?

[Mustard]

Every side has it's extremists. Someone should start an extremist group that does whatever extremists do, but does it to the extremists.


I'm gonna ride up to the election office downtown tomorrow and do early voting.

an anti-extremist extremist?
Damn... Thats not a half bad idea.

[taters]

Wasnt that already tried, with the weathermen, who are now deemed 'extremist terrorist'?

Left wing extremist:

Guys who bomb police stations in protest of brutality and inequality
Protestor in black ski masks who throws objects at cops
Hippies that tie themselves to trees
Folks who go let out test animals

Right wing extremist:

Guys who bomb abortion clinics
Protest Iraqi war veteran funerals
Guys who bomb black churches and voter sites in protest against equality
Guys who Lynch people
Guys who bomb federal buildings
Guys who shoot up jewish community centers
Protest in the street with bald heads, confederate flags and swastikas

Both bad, one is clearly worst. (The right wing one)

[Mustard]

I don't think so. An anti-extremist extremist would target extermists on both sides of the extreme. So clearly to combat this there would also need to be an anti-anti-extremist extremist who would target anti-extremist extremists who act in an extremist fashion.

[DjAg]

I don't think so. An anti-extremist extremist would target extermists on both sides of the extreme. So clearly to combat this there would also need to be an anti-anti-extremist extremist who would target anti-extremist extremists who act in an extremist fashion.

would that just be an extremist extremist, or are my double-negative senses failing worse than John McCain?

[Mustard]

No no, I think I got it right.

Its simple really. Don't look at them as an anti-anti extremist-extremist, look at them as anti-anti-extremist extremists.

[Kerjack]

Wasnt that already tried, with the weathermen, who are now deemed 'extremist terrorist'?

Left wing extremist:

Guys who bomb police stations in protest of brutality and inequality - no
Protestor in black ski masks who throws objects at cops -no
Hippies that tie themselves to trees* -A think spiking trees is worth mentioning. You know since it maims/kills people. Might need to add ELF too
Folks who go let out test animals * Iffy

Right wing extremist:

Guys who bomb abortion clinics
Protest Iraqi war veteran funerals - Not Right wing, Religious Extremists
Guys who bomb black churches and voter sites in protest against equality no.
Guys who Lynch people -How is this right wing?
Guys who bomb federal buildings
Guys who shoot up jewish community centers Again, how is this right wing?
Protest in the street with bald heads, confederate flags and swastikas Swastikas and bald heads no, not even close. Confederates... maybe...

Both bad, one is clearly worst. (The right wing one)

God you fail.

Being racist is in no way a Republican ideal BTW.

[Mustard]

Is Colin Powell going to endorse the terrorist sympathizer Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama this Sunday on Meet the Press?

[taters]

God you fail.

Being racist is in no way a Republican ideal BTW.

Conservative/Right wing does not = Republican. Could be Democrat or Republican. I never said anything about republicans being the ones who commit those acts, just right wing extremist.

Seriously, I cant believe you need a history lesson in this, but oh well.

So right wing extremist didnt bomb black churches?
http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/16thstreetbaptistchurch/a/16streetbombing.htm
http://www.useekufind.com/peace/articles.htm#CHURCH_BURNINGS

How is lynchings right wing? Perhaps I should have clarified myself. I meant lynchings by southern right wingers during and before the civil rights period, often by the klan. Yes, the klan is right wing.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O63-KuKluxKlan.html
"Ku Klux Klan KKK an extremist right-wing secret society in the United States. "

I dont suppose I need to do the same to explain how the Nazi's are also right wing? If I do, let me know.

Tree spiking does kill. You are right in that, Ill give it to you.

Swastikas and bald heads protesting. No, you say?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14534144/


Either you are out of touch, or extremely confused about what 'right' and 'left' wings are (or at least are considered in current mainstream american society)


---Or I am totally missing the sarcasm here.

[Gary_Busey]

There are Right Wing Democrats?

[taters]

There are Right Wing Democrats?


Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton (at least she was for the primaries), Mark Penn, The so called 'blue dogs', Zuel Miller, and a many others.

[Gary_Busey]

Hm, go figure.

[Debo]

Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton (at least she was for the primaries), Mark Penn, The so called 'blue dogs', Zuel Miller, and a many others.

Hillary Clinton is a right-wing Democrat? Are you serious? How?

And while you are at it, explain to me how Byrd is a conservative.

Zell, not Zuel, Miller retired in 2004. He isn't even a politician any more.

[Kerjack]

(or at least are considered in current mainstream american society)



Modern U.S. use of the terms

These terms are widely used in the modern United States, but as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect which is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum). "Left" and "right" in the U.S. are associated with "liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_liberalism)" and "conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States)," respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals) and left-wingers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing) and conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) and right-wingers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing) as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms "left" and "right" than understood the terms "liberal" and "conservative".[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics#cite_note-21)
The contemporary left in the United States is usually understood as a category including New Deal liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_liberalism), Rawlsian liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls), social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats), and civil libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism), and is generally identified with the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29). Due to the extensive pejorative use of the term liberal, some parts of the American left decided in the 1980s to begin using the term "progressive" instead. In general, left implies a commitment to egalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism), support for a 'liberal' social policy and multiculturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism). The contemporary left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce, and industry; protection of fundamental rights (especially freedom of speech and separation of church and state); and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities) and the poor.
The contemporary right in the United States is understood to mainly include Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) and religious conservatives. Although often in disagreement with religious conservatives, some classical liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberals) and libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians) define themselves as part of the right, and separate themselves from modern-day liberalism; libertarian David Kelley states that classical liberals had "a concept of freedom that is entirely at odds with the modern liberal conception".[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics#cite_note-Kelley-22) However, many libertarians insist that libertarianism does not fit anywhere on the left-right spectrum, and people who tend to divide everything into those two categories are thinking in archaic terms. The American right is broadly defined by upholding a traditionalist understanding of constitutional law, protection of fundamental rights, opposition to governmental regulation of the economy and income redistribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_redistribution), immigration control, and opposition to "reverse discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination)". These stances are motivated by traditional values (conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism)), protection of freedom and the rights of private individuals (libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)), or doubts about the benefits or efficacy of governmental regulation of the economy.


Ok now that we have the definition of the 'Modern U.S. use of the terms' Maybe you could make a quick check list again and explain why each fall in their respective category

[Morfin]

The WSJ does a better job at reporting the news than politico.com ever will.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122425690170244659.html

Isn't it telling that the media is going after some guy that dared to question "The One" about his tax policies? I hope that their treatment of him pissed off a bunch of people and that it ends up costing Obama the election.

The WSJ does a better job at reporting the FINANCIAL NEWS. As to politics, they are as biased as the NY Times.

What is going on with Joe the Plumber has nothing to do with whether he "dared to question 'The One.'" If Obama had used him as an example and focused as much attention on him as McCain did in the last debate, the media still would have descended on him. That is what the media does to someone unintentionally thrust into the limelight: they dig up everything on him.

Don't you remember (maybe you are too young) when the woman, I think Sarah Jane Moore, took a shot at President Ford and Ford was saved by a man standing next to the shooter, who saw the gun and knocked her arm so that the bullet went astray? What happened to him? The media descended on him. Turned out he was gay, but had kept it quiet from his friends and family. The media spread the news far and wide, destroying the man's privacy, with no regard or sensitivity. That is what the media does.

If you believe that the WSJ and other right-leaning media wouldn't dig everything up on Joe if the shoe was on the other foot, then you are not as smart as I believe you to be.

[Deadhead Derek]

damn, you're old, morphin.

[Morfin]

damn, you're old, morphin.

As I admitted yesterday, I just turned 48. But pedophilia keeps me feelin' young.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Hillary Clinton is a right-wing Democrat? Are you serious? How?

And while you are at it, explain to me how Byrd is a conservative.

Zell, not Zuel, Miller retired in 2004. He isn't even a politician any more.
THERE IS NO MILLER, ONLY ZUEL

I suppose Lieberman counts as a right-wing democrat.

[Debo]

The WSJ does a better job at reporting the FINANCIAL NEWS. As to politics, they are as biased as the NY Times.

What is going on with Joe the Plumber has nothing to do with whether he "dared to question 'The One.'" If Obama had used him as an example and focused as much attention on him as McCain did in the last debate, the media still would have descended on him. That is what the media does to someone unintentionally thrust into the limelight: they dig up everything on him.

Don't you remember (maybe you are too young) when the woman, I think Sarah Jane Moore, took a shot at President Ford and Ford was saved by a man standing next to the shooter, who saw the gun and knocked her arm so that the bullet went astray? What happened to him? The media descended on him. Turned out he was gay, but had kept it quiet from his friends and family. The media spread the news far and wide, destroying the man's privacy, with no regard or sensitivity. That is what the media does.

If you believe that the WSJ and other right-leaning media wouldn't dig everything up on Joe if the shoe was on the other foot, then you are not as smart as I believe you to be.

The op-ed page is very one-sided. But the rest of the paper is all over the place. It has been riding the populist wave lately (much to my disappointment). But, I only stated that they did a better job reporting on the issue because they got the facts right. Joe the plumber never said that he makes 250K a year, yet politico reported that he did.

My main problem is that they are trying to shoot the messenger. Obama came to this guy's neighborhood and Joe asked him a fair and direct question. The media should be focused on the shit show that is Obama's tax plan, not whether or not Joe has a plumbers license.

I found the entire exchange pleasing because it showed a politician talking directly to the person standing in front of him (I discuss what I think of Obama's answer here (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=176813&postcount=2559)) as opposed to them reciting talking points at a camera. But, running anyone that questions a politician in public through the ringer is going to scare others away from doing what we should encourage voters to do: question the people that are running for office about their intentions if elected.

I guess that I just hate to see this guy get the third degree because he asked a simply question. I know that he has been doing a lot of media in the last 24 hours. But that is no reason to treat him like he is running for office (I also think that we hold our politicians to ridiculous standards).

I was born in 1977, I missed the Ford years (thankfully). Ironically, as a child I always had a soft spot for Carter because he was from GA (I was born there) and he was President when I was born. Funny how my opinion changed by the end of the Reagan Administration.

I am sure that the right would try to do the same (e.g., Cindy Sheehan). I just don't think that they have the ponies in the MSM to do it. In talk radio, yes. But not the MSM (outside of Fox).

[freegood]

WSJ's reporting is pretty liberal. Their op/ed is distortingly conservative. I guess Rupert can make it worse by making the reporting con as well.

As for Joe...the guy showed up for a lot of interviews. Some of the quotes in the WSJ op/ed are reactions from subsequent interviews after Obama. Something tells me that he isn't shy for attention.

The deeply personal stuff I'd consider off limits or tasteless, but questions about his plumbing job or how much he makes are legitimate territory for the media when he's repeating the same points in his interviews. It helps to know when the McCain picked symbol of America makes points and stories that are full of shit.

[heelsguy]

obama came in Joe's neighborhood...not the other way around. just as obama went into ayers' neighborhood once-upon-a-time.

what I want to know is why no "media-camped-out-on-the-front-lawn" has happened in Ayers' neighborhood. why have no stories been done about it? none that I recall..certainly not in the time since mccain/palin have been pushing it. the only stories have been related to how mean-spirited bringing that terrorist up is.

[Gary_Busey]

Because it's a non-story?

[taters]

Hillary Clinton is a right-wing Democrat? Are you serious? How?

And while you are at it, explain to me how Byrd is a conservative.

Zell, not Zuel, Miller retired in 2004. He isn't even a politician any more.

Yaaaawn:

All of a sudden she forgot all of her prior (elected) beliefs of pushing for social equality, economic reform and support for poverty to become a 'born again-blue collar, white working, christian tax cutter'. Ala standard conservativism.

Whatever Zells name was, he was (and is, even though he is not in office, he isnt dead) a conservative democrat.

Robert Byrd? Serious? Anti-Tax, anti civil rights and pro-gun Robert Byrd not a conservative?


Kerjack, as a fairly regular frequenter and arguer of several wiki boards, I have to say, its kinda weak to cite wikipedia definitions. They reflect the most disingeniune of claims, definitions, and the most 2 dimensional, non-explanatory and often biased claims as 'source'. Go to any fox news related forum and search the discussion and corrections boards to see what I speak of.

[Kerjack]

Yaaaawn:
Kerjack, as a fairly regular frequenter and arguer of several wiki boards, I have to say, its kinda weak to cite wikipedia definitions. They reflect the most disingeniune of claims, definitions, and the most 2 dimensional, non-explanatory and often biased claims as 'source'. Go to any fox news related forum and search the discussion and corrections boards to see what I speak of.


Alright, then what is YOUR definition of each?

[taters]

Alright, then what is YOUR definition of each?

left wing-ism and right wingism , or left wing extremist and right wing extremist?

edited

[vasili denisov]

what I want to know is why no "media-camped-out-on-the-front-lawn" has happened in Ayers' neighborhood. why have no stories been done about it?
The thing about Joe is he's a plumber. The thing about Ayers is he's a former terrorist. What are the media camped out in front of his house going to uncover that'll be worse than that? "It's Day Eight of Ayers Watch, and so far we've discovered a bunch of soda rings on his lawn, some rather garish curtain choices, and that the former Weatherman thinks "Friends" is hilarious. Will these new details shift the election? That'll hinge on two questions. Do americans still think "Friends" is funny? And, are they utterly fucking insane? Back to you, Jim."

[Yelram]

Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton (at least she was for the primaries), Mark Penn, The so called 'blue dogs', Zuel Miller, and a many others.

You think your stereotypes are what define left and right, and somehow "racism" is something you seem to attribute primarily to the right. I find many of the leftist social programs racist, because they take skin color into account for the paying out of government money.

[Debo]

The thing about Joe is he's a plumber. The thing about Ayers is he's a former terrorist. What are the media camped out in front of his house going to uncover that'll be worse than that? "It's Day Eight of Ayers Watch, and so far we've discovered a bunch of soda rings on his lawn, some rather garish curtain choices, and that the former Weatherman thinks "Friends" is hilarious. Will these new details shift the election? That'll hinge on two questions. Do americans still think "Friends" is funny? And, are they utterly fucking insane? Back to you, Jim."

I don't think that people care about what Ayers is doing right now. What they care about is Obama's dealing with him in the past.

You must admit that Obama has been associated with a number of questionable figures in his past. And he has been quick, or not so quick, to dump them when being associated with them started to hurt his chances of winning.

[Pox]

I just want to know what the practical consequences of the association could even be. Bush is best buddies with the Saudi Royal family, and he hasn't tried to convert us to Wahabbism. (yet)

[Claydon]

I just want to know what the practical consequences of the association could even be. Bush is best buddies with the Saudi Royal family, and he hasn't tried to convert us to Wahabbism. (yet)

I seem to remember Clinton and Carter paling it up with the Saudi's as well.

[Pox]

Yea, they were all secret muslim terrorists

[Rover]

I just want to know what the practical consequences of the association could even be. Bush is best buddies with the Saudi Royal family, and he hasn't tried to convert us to Wahabbism. (yet)Bill Ayers was a violent Marxist-Leninst revolutionary. Today, he isn't violent. Although, he wished he had been more violent back when he was violent. So today, Ayers is a Marxist revolutionary, who wants to overthrow the government by indoctrinating schools with Marxism. To accomplish this he's given away millions of dollars to radicalize students in schools. Obama and him were on the board of the foundation that gave away money to fund these radical programs.

So the practical consequences of this association would be that the school system becomes filled with radical Socialists/Marxists/Leninists that slowly begin to chip away at the fundamental beliefs that form the foundation of the country.

Read anything Ayers has written about the Education system in this country. He got his doctorate in Education because he saw it as a path to accomplish his goals (a government based on Marxism).

[Soup Nazi]

Weren't their conservatives and heads of universities on the same board as well? If I remember correctly, I wouldn't really label that board as a neo-marxist education board ready to destroy "traditional American educational values". But I could be wrong, for all I know the Chicago school system is a hotbed of neo-marxist young students ready to overthrow American democracy.

But it is nice to hear hyperbole from a conservative that rivals Tater.

[Rover]

Weren't their conservatives and heads of universities on the same board as well? If I remember correctly, I wouldn't really label that board as a neo-marxist education board ready to destroy "traditional American educational values". But I could be wrong, for all I know the Chicago school system is a hotbed of neo-marxist young students ready to overthrow American democracy.

But it is nice to hear hyperbole from a conservative that rivals Tater.It's not hyperbole. I realize that you don't hear about this in the media and assume it all bullshit, but the media is more focused on Joe the Plumber's background than Obama's background and the people he surrounds himself with.

For example, Mike Klonsky is a colleague of Ayers. Klonsky used to have a blog on Obama's website and advise Obama 'unofficially' on education policy. Then everyone became aware that Klonsky was in the SDS with Ayers in the 60's and used to be the president of the Communist Party of America. And then the blog was removed from Obama's website.

Ayers gave money to Klonsky for education programs in Chicago. I wonder what kind of education programs result when a Marxist collaborates with a Maoist.

Here's an article that outlines Ayers educational philosophy and what he hopes will happen. It's quite long, quite detailed, and written by a conservative, so I guess that means it's all hyperbole and misinformed. It was also written in 2006.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/

[Debo]

I just want to know what the practical consequences of the association could even be. Bush is best buddies with the Saudi Royal family, and he hasn't tried to convert us to Wahabbism. (yet)

The explanation above is better than what I was going to say.

RE: THe Saudis. Every President since FDR has been cozy with the Saudi family. Bush is not unique in this regard. Your point is moot.

[Soup Nazi]

It's not hyperbole. I realize that you don't hear about this in the media and assume it all bullshit, but the media is more focused on Joe the Plumber's background than Obama's background and the people he surrounds himself with.

For example, Mike Klonsky is a colleague of Ayers. Klonsky used to have a blog on Obama's website and advise Obama 'unofficially' on education policy. Then everyone became aware that Klonsky was in the SDS with Ayers in the 60's and used to be the president of the Communist Party of America. And then the blog was removed from Obama's website.

Ayers gave money to Klonsky for education programs in Chicago. I wonder what kind of education programs result when a Marxist collaborates with a Maoist.

Here's an article that outlines Ayers educational philosophy and what he hopes will happen. It's quite long, quite detailed, and written by a conservative, so I guess that means it's all hyperbole and misinformed. It was also written in 2006.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/

I would never state that you are misinformed, or that this guy is misinformed. In fact, I think you are one of the more informed posters on this forum. What I disagreed with, and beleive was an overreaction/hyperbole was your practical application of Ayers link to Obama. I understand that Obama has links to socialist members in the city of Chicago, I completely understand that. What I disagree with is that because of these links, he automatically A) Beleives the same thing, and B) Would promote these ideas from the Executive branch. To use a counter-example, if I were to say:

John McCain has during this campaign spoke at right-wing religious universities, and has accepted support from people that just 8 years ago he stated as being "Agents of Intolerance". Because of this support or "palling around" I beleive that John McCain beleives the same as these individuals AND will promote/implement values such as Creationism and Abstinence-only education when he is president.Now what would the majority of people with common sense say? Probably something like "Soup, your grasping at straws here, your overreacting to the extreme. Go back to the dailykos and sip your chai latte". I think that would be a fair statement. I personally don't beleive that everyone who has a link to another, automatically agrees with what they beleive (I also don't beleive that Obama has plans to anytime soon bomb the Pentagon). Politics are dirty, and to advance you often have to associate with shady characters (Obama with neo-socialists, McCain with "agents of intolerance"), thus why I don't buy into any of these character assassination ploys.

[Axel]

The alleged Obama-Ayers connection is nothing esle but a pathetic grasping at straws.

The fact is that Obama was 8 yro when Ayer was a Weatherman. The facts is that nowadays a distinguished professor at a major University has contributed $200 to the Obama re-election fund and being a board member of some public welfare organization at the same time as Obama.

All the rest is a feeble pre-election smearing, while this…

vmYqRfp6-x8

Dudes, you must be joking, right?

[Mustard]

I don't think that people care about what Ayers is doing right now. What they care about is Obama's dealing with him in the past.

You must admit that Obama has been associated with a number of questionable figures in his past. And he has been quick, or not so quick, to dump them when being associated with them started to hurt his chances of winning.
Well sure, they're politicians. I'd be a little bit more worried if they didn't have a few skeletons in their respective closets. Anyone else feel that way? I mean, we're all human, and we make mistakes. Its how you learn from those mistakes that differentiates people, right?

So with that said, should I bring up McCain's past dealings with Charles Keating and G. Gordon Liddy? Or can we just put all of this stuff behind us, foucs on the issues at hand, or is that too much to ask?

[Debo]

Well sure, they're politicians. I'd be a little bit more worried if they didn't have a few skeletons in their respective closets. Anyone else feel that way? I mean, we're all human, and we make mistakes. Its how you learn from those mistakes that differentiates people, right?

So with that said, should I bring up McCain's past dealings with Charles Keating and G. Gordon Liddy? Or can we just put all of this stuff behind us, foucs on the issues at hand, or is that too much to ask?

You can bring up whatever you want to. It is up to the voters to decide what is important and what isn't.

If you want to talk about B.O.'s welfare plan, just scroll back a couple of pages. I wrote a post about it there.

[Mustard]

Well, unfortunately the voters are in need of real discussion, instead of talking about William Ayers, or G Gordon Liddy. At least thats how I feel anyway. I dunno, maybe people just don't care enough and want to talk about stupid crap?

Meh.

[Debo]

Well, unfortunately the voters are in need of real discussion, instead of talking about William Ayers, or G Gordon Liddy. At least thats how I feel anyway. I dunno, maybe people just don't care enough and want to talk about stupid crap?

Meh.

Does the character of the person running for office matter to you?

If you want to talk policies, here is my post about his tax conversation with Joe the plumber.
http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=176813&postcount=2559

[freegood]

Ayers is such a bad red herring. I'm glad Obama doesn't respond back with McCain pallin around with G Gordon "I have public fantasies of shooting Presidents" Liddy

[Debo]

Ayers is such a bad red herring. I'm glad Obama doesn't respond back with McCain pallin around with G Gordon "I have public fantasies of shooting Presidents" Liddy

Hey, you guys are the ones that want to talk about policies. Yet none of you have even attempted to explain to me how his plan doesn't reek of socialism.

[freegood]

Who cares? Your candidate is the "non-socialist" one.


Or is he...


?

[Claydon]

Who cares? Your candidate is the "non-socialist" one.


Or is he...


?

I'm Barack Obama and I approve that message.

[taters]

If Obamas a socialist, McCain is a damned fascist.


There, I said it.

[Claydon]

If Obamas a socialist, McCain is a damned fascist.


There, I said it.


No dear, you are confusing facist with a decent upstanding war hero.

there, i said it.

[Soup Nazi]

Did you really just say "dear"? Are you really an old woman Claydon? You can be honest with us.

[freegood]

I'm Barack Obama and I approve that message.

Just saying how ridiculous the claims of socialism are being thrown around when the US already has it in different forms. Where were the cries when Bush passed the Republican Congresses' costly medical prescription bill for seniors? If there were cries, they were pathetic and non consequential.

The snail mail you receive is a product of socialism.

The parks you goto and the roads you drive on to get there is a product of socialism.

The tap water you drink...GASP!!! SOCIALISM!!!

[Debo]

Just saying how ridiculous the claims of socialism are being thrown around when the US already has it in different forms. Where were the cries when Bush passed the Republican Congresses' costly medical prescription bill for seniors? If there were cries, they were pathetic and non consequential.

The snail mail you receive is a product of socialism.

The parks you goto and the roads you drive on to get there is a product of socialism.

The tap water you drink...GASP!!! SOCIALISM!!!

Can we call it income redistribution? Does that work for you?

You can call it whatever you want to. Just tell me how taking money from 5% of the country and giving it to the other 95% is economically justifiable.

The snail mail that we receive is a product of a government imposed monopoly. The Western Union and The Pony Express were kicking the shit out of the USPS, so the Federal Government made it illegal for anyone else to deliver First Class Mail. FDX, UPS and DHL call their deliveries overnight packages or something to avoid the law.

Water being subsidized is a problem too. It leads to people trying to grow crows in the middle of the desert in CA. If they had to pay market rates for water, they would move their farms to better land. This would save millions of gallons of water.

Finally, the Medicare Part D plan is hated by fiscal conservatives.

From wiki:

Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_J._Istook,_Jr.) (R-OK-5), changed his vote to "present" upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.W._Bill_Young) (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted "aye" if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_Otter) (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Ann_Emerson) (MO-8) switched their vote to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.Please do not try to tell me that the GOP has been the party of fiscal restraint over the past seven years. I would like to see the party breakdown of who voted for it in the house and the senate. I am willing to bet that more Dems voted for it than Reps.

[freegood]

Can we call it income redistribution? Does that work for you?

You can call it whatever you want to. Just tell me how taking money from 5% of the country and giving it to the other 95% is economically justifiable.


What do you mean by economically justifiable?


Water being subsidized is a problem too. It leads to people trying to grow crows in the middle of the desert in CA. If they had to pay market rates for water, they would move their farms to better land. This would save millions of gallons of water.

I agree, but the aggy lobby disagrees with us... What do you think about the government subsidizing oil prices?


Finally, the Medicare Part D plan is hated by fiscal conservatives.

From wiki:

Please do not try to tell me that the GOP has been the party of fiscal restraint over the past seven years. I would like to see the party breakdown of who voted for it in the house and the senate. I am willing to bet that more Dems voted for it than Reps.

I'm not. That's my point. They championed under that guise for too long and gave handouts to their constituents while running up our balance sheet. All while maintaining a war that the President won't let Americans feel it's true cost and sacrifice.

[heelsguy]

what gets me about the "95% tax reduction" is that those top 5% already pay 60% of all taxes. I can check, but how many of the 95% currently pay no damned taxes anyway? so we are talking about making that top 5% pay even a greater % of the total?

[freegood]

Payroll taxes

[Debo]

What do you mean by economically justifiable?

Since you don't think that it is either income redistribution or some variation of socialism. If figured that you might be able to justify the economics of it. Dr. Mankiw does it here (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/10/rorschach-test.html).

I agree, but the aggy lobby disagrees with us... What do you think about the government subsidizing oil prices?I don't think that the government should subsidize anything. Subsidies only fuck up the market.

I'm not. That's my point. They championed under that guise for too long and gave handouts to their constituents while running up our balance sheet. All while maintaining a war that the President won't let Americans feel it's true cost and sacrifice.Bush sold his soul to gain support for the war. The problem is that the big tent strategy by the GOP brought in a lot of politicians that wanted to spend pork to get re-elected and Tom DeLay was more than happy to let it happen.

There was a failure at the top of the GOP. Right now, the GOP needs more guys like Jeff Flake and less like Ted Stevens.

Payroll taxes

The top 50% of federal income tax filers pay almost 97% of total federal income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

[taters]

It's not hyperbole. I realize that you don't hear about this in the media and assume it all bullshit, but the media is more focused on Joe the Plumber's background than Obama's background and the people he surrounds himself with.

For example, Mike Klonsky is a colleague of Ayers. Klonsky used to have a blog on Obama's website and advise Obama 'unofficially' on education policy. Then everyone became aware that Klonsky was in the SDS with Ayers in the 60's and used to be the president of the Communist Party of America. And then the blog was removed from Obama's website.

Ayers gave money to Klonsky for education programs in Chicago. I wonder what kind of education programs result when a Marxist collaborates with a Maoist.

Here's an article that outlines Ayers educational philosophy and what he hopes will happen. It's quite long, quite detailed, and written by a conservative, so I guess that means it's all hyperbole and misinformed. It was also written in 2006.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html/



Did soup nazi just call me 'conservative'? I wont jump in on this fairly misguided argument you too have here, but it kinda sounds like he just called me a conservative of sorts, in ideological sectioning at least.


That being said, do you, or soup, or anyone here know the first thing about Marxism? Have you read any marx? If you did, you would know that not only was all of the weathermen claims of the 60s not nearly marxist (for the most part...so to speak), but nothing ANY current american politician claims or believes in or even is asserted to believing in by his or her wildest opponents comes close to Marxism, as described in the Kommunist Manifesto.

Anyone whos actually read that entire document will know know the obvious 'why'. Anyones whos read Das Kapital whill know 'how'.

The conservative mccarthyist 'witch hunt' never ceases to amaze me. Such innate claimed hatred and rage over the preception of something you obviously dont recognize, or you would be terming it something else (same thing with calling 'socialism' 'communism' and vice versa).

[Soup Nazi]

Did soup nazi just call me 'conservative'? I wont jump in on this fairly misguided argument you too have here, but it kinda sounds like he just called me a conservative of sorts, in ideological sectioning at least.


That being said, do you, or soup, or anyone here know the first thing about Marxism? Have you read any marx? If you did, you would know that not only was all of the weathermen claims of the 60s not nearly marxist (for the most part...so to speak), but nothing ANY current american politician claims or believes in or even is asserted to believing in by his or her wildest opponents comes close to Marxism, as described in the Kommunist Manifesto.

Anyone whos actually read that entire document will know know the obvious 'why'. Anyones whos read Das Kapital whill know 'how'.

The conservative mccarthyist 'witch hunt' never ceases to amaze me. Such innate claimed hatred and rage over the preception of something you obviously dont recognize, or you would be terming it something else (same thing with calling 'socialism' 'communism' and vice versa).

Ok one of two things need to happen here. 1) You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, or 2) I need to make myself clearer, and work on potentially misleading grammar errors.

My statement was that Rover was a conservative, whose statement I considered a hyperbole (or an overreaction, whatever you want to hear). I considered it such an overreaction, that I would compare it to the way I beleive you overreact (You are a good frame of reference, because this is GMF and you are a well known liberal). Thus a comparison was completed between overreactions across the political spectrum.

As for Marxism, personally I don't give two flying fucks about it. I don't give two flying fucks about Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Socialism, or Communism, because outside of interesting theories to discuss I find them completely and utterly irrelevant to the American Political Process (or hell for that matter outside of isolated regions of South America and Asia). I don't beleive that any fabricated or concrete, flimsy or strong link from any members of these organizations will effect Obama policy, the same way I don't beleive members of certain far-right organizations would effect McCain policy. Thats it.

[URFloorMatt]

Bill Ayers was a violent Marxist-Leninst revolutionary. Today, he isn't violent. Although, he wished he had been more violent back when he was violent. So today, Ayers is a Marxist revolutionary, who wants to overthrow the government by indoctrinating schools with Marxism. To accomplish this he's given away millions of dollars to radicalize students in schools. Obama and him were on the board of the foundation that gave away money to fund these radical programs.

So the practical consequences of this association would be that the school system becomes filled with radical Socialists/Marxists/Leninists that slowly begin to chip away at the fundamental beliefs that form the foundation of the country.

Read anything Ayers has written about the Education system in this country. He got his doctorate in Education because he saw it as a path to accomplish his goals (a government based on Marxism).

Let's stop with the abstractions and distortions. Here's the board Obama served on with Ayers: http://www.woodsfund.org/.

If you think it's socialist, then I've got news for you: there's a socialist organization or two (or twenty) masquerading as an anti-poverty, youth-education oriented philanthropy in every urban center in America... and they're coming to take all your moneyzzz!

Honestly, I just don't get it. The Secretary of the Treasury is unilaterally nationalizing banks, but this tenuous connection that Barrack Obama has to some no-name professor of the Fighting Illini is what gets your blood boiling?

[taters]

My statement was that Rover was a conservative, whose statement I considered a hyperbole (or an overreaction, whatever you want to hear). I considered it such an overreaction, that I would compare it to the way I beleive you overreact (You are a good frame of reference, because this is GMF and you are a well known liberal). Thus a comparison was completed between overreactions across the political spectrum.

Since I am a well known liberal, I am deemed to over react? Well, C'est La vie.

As for Marxism, personally I don't give two flying fucks about it.

Cool enough. I never claimed you did, but you threw out the word, whether in lighthearted speech or not. My comment on Marxism was a more a comment to everyone, or at least so-called liberals, moderates and conservatives, who make reference to the above mentioned ideoloogies without knowing a flying fuck about them.

At least you admit you dont give a flying fuck, and I assume know the same, about them. Dont take any of this as a personal attack on you, but Im just tired of hearing the 'Obama is marxist' bs from the right, when they dont know what marxism is.

Before it gets said, I toss around 'fascist' a lot, but I have also read the translated Mein Kampf, which is fairly close to fascism, at least in basis enough to make some comparison.

[Debo]

Honestly, I just don't get it. The Secretary of the Treasury is unilaterally nationalizing banks, but this tenuous connection that Barrack Obama has to some no-name professor of the Fighting Illini is what gets your blood boiling?

Paulson ins't unilaterally doing anything. Congress gave him the authority to do what he is currently doing. And he, in combination with the Fed, is working with central banks around the world to inject capital into the global banking system.

And they aren't nationalizing anything. They are taking temporary non-voting pfd equity positions in the banks to shore up their capital base.

Here is a good interview on the subject.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428279231046053.html

That being said, do you, or soup, or anyone here know the first thing about Marxism? Have you read any marx?

I wrote a paper on The Communist Manifesto when I was in college. Do you want me to post it? It is about 10 pages long (I will need to dig it up first).

[Archangel]

Ah, hypocrisy. I love how the guys who voted for a bloke who's buddies with the bin Laden family (and who appointed a SecDef who sold poison gas to Saddam Hussein) have the fucking audacity to vilify someone who may or may not have spoken to someone who, in the great scheme of things, lit some bloody firecrackers.

[Archangel]

*cue the chants of "that's something completely different!"*


Yeah, it always is with you people.

[Deadhead Derek]

Colin Powell just stepped up. all over for Johnny now

[Feng]

It would seem McCain keeps repeating "My Friends" because he is hoping somebody will respond... I don't think he has any friends anymore.

[freegood]

Ah, hypocrisy. I love how the guys who voted for a bloke who's buddies with the bin Laden family (and who appointed a SecDef who sold poison gas to Saddam Hussein) have the fucking audacity to vilify someone who may or may not have spoken to someone who, in the great scheme of things, lit some bloody firecrackers.

Here's why.


Race to the Bottom (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

If you're thinking to yourself that there's little more than two weeks before election day and Obama has a solid lead in the polls, don't be so sure.

Yes, it looks good for the Democrats. But you need to play close attention to the McCain campaign's final weeks' strategy under and just above the radar. McCain's final strategy relies on two pillars. The first is aggressively playing to voters' fears of electing a black president. Make no mistake: not just his campaign in a general sense, but McCain himself and his top handful of advisers, are banking on the residual racism in a changing America to get them over the finish line. The second is an aggressive use of innuendo to convince casual voters that Obama is in league with Islamic terrorists bent on killing Americans.

Many people have asked whether enough Americans really care any more about the cultural convulsions of the 1960s. The answer? It doesn't matter. For the McCain campaign, Bill Ayers has nothing to do with 60s radicalism. Ayers is nothing more than a tool that permits McCain, Palin and all their surrogates to use the noun "terrorist" in polite company in the same sentence as "Obama," over and over and over again. It allows them to cobble together a 'respectable' version of those Obama smear emails they can push in commercials and robocalls and surrogate talking points every hour of every day.

Stripped down to its components McCain's message to voters is this: "Don't forget. He's definitely black. And he may be a terrorist." That's the message. The nuts and bolts is a concerted effort to keep Democrats from voting -- through intimidation, by striking new voters from the rolls, which is going to happen to lots of them, clogging polling stations to create delays that keep late day (predominantly) Obama voters from voting altogether. Smears in the air and voter suppression on the ground.

Many people say, well ... all this stuff just hasn't worked. But the truth is that the really corrupt and vicious part of McCain's effort only comes now because it's only in the last couple weeks that you can pull stuff that the press won't get to call you on before election day -- after which it doesn't matter. Will it take Obama down? So far McCain's gutter campaign has hurt him more than helped. But there's no reason to be sure it will continue that way. And many Obama supporters, sure the election is basically wrapped up, appear ready to slack in the stretch and let McCain smear and cheat his way into office.

[Rover]

I hope that part of the McCain strategy involves huge ad buys during the last week of nothing but Rev. Wright preaching. Hopefully, the ads can bookend Obama's 1/2 hour network time on the 29th.

[Debo]

Post

Yes, because if you don't vote for The One you must be a racist. It has nothing to do with his ass backwards policies.

[freegood]

Since you don't think that it is either income redistribution or some variation of socialism. If figured that you might be able to justify the economics of it. Dr. Mankiw does it here (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/10/rorschach-test.html).


First off. I don't have to justify anything to you. I don't work for Obama's campaign. If Obama can't convince you of your vote, you know who to look for. We know each other's position fairly well. You think spending cuts in the form of killing entitlements like Medicaire and Social Security will be necessary. I disagree and would rather have nationalized healthcare that doesn't discriminate against the poor and aging while taking the profit incentive out of healthcare. You think it's a mistake, and I can respect that. But Republicans have a knack for beating around the Bush to that truth. You know why? Americans want affordable insurance. The system as it is now doesn't allow that.

The idea that bringing back tax levels seen since the Clinton era is socialism is a new type of spin. Fine then, progressive taxation is socialism. Whoop dee doo. Let's see how many Americans agree with you or McCain now that that Cold War word is seen in a different light. Let's see how 100 million Americans will see it as a tax cut rather than the connotation of a handout. Those 100 million Americans do not have the means to hire accountants to wriggle their way out of the tax code and pay little to nothing.

I didn't figure you for a flat tax guy. Boy, I bet you and Mankiw were ANGRY during the HW Bush and Clinton years. We were teh d00m3d under Bubba.


I don't think that the government should subsidize anything. Subsidies only fuck up the market.

See I don't think Obama's plan is perfect, and I never said it was. You think McCain has a better plan? He wants to keep the Bush tax cuts AND maintain his claim of balancing the budget by the end of his term. Earmarks to his economic speeches as Maverick to Palin's. He's still boosting his gas tax holiday.

You know why those aren't issues?

NO ONE is taking his economic policy seriously.

NONE of his commercials talk about it in detail. The content of McCain's commercials was what this was originally about, right?


Bush sold his soul to gain support for the war. The problem is that the big tent strategy by the GOP brought in a lot of politicians that wanted to spend pork to get re-elected and Tom DeLay was more than happy to let it happen.


And McCain sold his soul voting for Bush's tax cuts after rejecting them previously.

Yes, I do share your concern in a semblance of a balanced national budget. Bush did not. His supporters did not object loudly enough. Maybe they were too busy taking advantage of Bush driven subsidies to care.


There was a failure at the top of the GOP. Right now, the GOP needs more guys like Jeff Flake and less like Ted Stevens.


So what do you think of McCain taking in Bush's aides and staff? Do you think they should still be working inside the highest office in the world... That they deserve to be REWARDED for their "failure at the top"?

Are you confident McCain has the mettle to understand sound economic policy versus ideologically conforming economic policy? The man has retained the likes of Phil Graham, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Donald Lushkin, and Kevin Hassett.

Is your boy Mankiw advising Sen. McCain?

Well I guess you had to choose the lessor the two evils...

Justify... LOL It's not even convince or persuade anymore.

[DjAg]

Yes, because if you don't vote for The One you must be a racist. It has nothing to do with his ass backwards policies.

That is not at all what he said, try again.

Ugh, why can't anyone on either side of the dichotomy listen to the other without a sense of ridiculous bias? Everything has to be interpreted as negatively as possible in attempt to belittle the opposition so your side comes out on top rather than trying to have a civil conversation. Nobody cares about what is right or wrong; they care about winning.

People who follow politics to a significant extent typically come out as politicians rather than just politically involved citizens, and it's truly disgusting.

[Mr. Brown]

Colin Powell was really good on Meet the Press. I liked more that he pointed out that not all Muslims are evil and the story about the solider who died in Iraq more than the endorsement of Obama

[freegood]

^

T_NMZv6Vfh8

[Mr. Brown]

Could Mike Ditka have derailed Barack Obama's ascendancy?

Barack Obama's easy win in the 2004 Illinois Senate race catapulted him to national fame and set him on his current path toward the White House. It was a convincing victory that is now but a footnote in the career of the Democratic presidential nominee. But that victory wasn't as assured as it appears in retrospect. For a few days in the summer of '04 there was the very real possibility that the Republican opponent in Obama's first major election battle race would be Chicago Bears coaching legend Mike Ditka.

Jack Ryan had won the Republican primary that year, but dropped out of the race after the release of embarrassing papers from his high-profile divorce with actress Jeri Ryan. The vacancy left GOP leaders in the state scrambling to find a replacement. With fears that the election was all but lost, Republicans wanted a major name to turn the tide. Ditka was that name.

For days the press played up the "will he or won't he" stories about Ditka's possible candidacy. The Drudge Report even said that Ditka would declare his entry into the race. But, in the end, Ditka rebuffed the offer, saying he didn't want to go through the rigors of a campaign or give up his lucrative jobs as an NFL analyst at ESPN or as an endorser of a casino and car dealership.

There's no way to know whether Ditka would have won but, remember, Obama was still a virtual unknown in Illinois in June of '04. Had Ditka run and won, Obama most-assuredly wouldn't be running for president today. Either way, the Hall of Famer almost certainly would have received more than the 27% of votes that eventual nominee Alan Keyes garnered in November. And you know he'd have locked up the endorsements of these three potential voters.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Could-Mike-Ditka-have-derailed-Barack-Obama-s-as?urn=nfl,115837

[Debo]

That is not at all what he said, try again.

Ugh, why can't anyone on either side of the dichotomy listen to the other without a sense of ridiculous bias? Everything has to be interpreted as negatively as possible in attempt to belittle the opposition so your side comes out on top rather than trying to have a civil conversation. Nobody cares about what is right or wrong; they care about winning.

People who follow politics to a significant extent typically come out as politicians rather than just politically involved citizens, and it's truly disgusting.

Not in so many words. But forgive me if I think that the left sees the color of his skin as being the only reason that he can lose the election. I don't know where I could have gotten the idea from:
http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1229105,CST-NWS-mitch19.article
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/22/2008-09-22_poll_barack_obama_could_lose_six_percent.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/liberals_warnings_about_obama.html
http://www.nj.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/08/democratic_convention_speakers.html

[freegood]

::yawn::

The McCain campaign is telegraphing that the only way they can win is if he targets the racists in the battleground states like Florida or Virginia with robocalls and specious association with terrorist(S).

Do you dispute that, or are the poll numbers totally off?

[Pharon]

For days the press played up the "will he or won't he" stories about Ditka's possible candidacy. The Drudge Report even said that Ditka would declare his entry into the race. But, in the end, Ditka rebuffed the offer, saying he didn't want to go through the rigors of a campaign or give up his lucrative jobs as an NFL analyst at ESPN or as an endorser of a casino and car dealership.
Smartest decision Ditka ever made.

[freegood]

I'm not making this shit up. Took a screenshot (http://img18.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=58145_powell_122_734lo.jpg)to believe it.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/15/colin-powell-fuels-speculation-possible-endorsement/
Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama


Photos (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/15/colin-powell-fuels-speculation-possible-endorsement/#)

http://elections.foxnews.com/img/101508_powell.jpg
Colin Powell showed off his hip-hop moves at an 'Africa Rising' celebration in London Tuesday, fueling speculation that the former secretary of state is about to endorse Barack Obama for president.

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell dances at an African-American festival inside London's Royal Albert Hall

Colin Powell has his dancing shoes on, fueling speculation that he's gearing up to do the Obama Two-Step.

The normally staid former U.S. secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff performed an impromptu hip-hop dance alongside well-known rap stars Tuesday following a speech at a festival in London celebrating African-American music and fashion.

Click here to see photos. (http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,5345,00.html)

His address at the "Africa Rising" celebration inside London's Royal Albert Hall fueled speculation that an endorsement of Barack Obama is imminent.

Powell -- who has yet to back a candidate -- told the audience: "I stand before you as an African-American. Many people have said to me you became secretary of state of the USA, is it still necessary to say that you are an African American or that you are black? And I say yes, so that we can remind our children."

"It took a lot of people struggling to bring me to this point in history," Powell told the audience. "I didn't just drop out of the sky. People came from my continent in chains."

Powell has said in the past that he has been hesitant to make an endorsement until he hears more from both candidates.

Political pundits have speculated that his endorsement might come shortly after Wednesday night's presidential debate at Hofstra University, during which both Obama and John McCain will square off on domestic issues.

Many political analysts -- including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Novak and William Kristol -- have predicted that Powell, who was secretary of state under President Bush, will back the Democrat in the race.

After Powell's address to the audience, he took center stage -- dressed in a suit and tie -- to show off his hip-hop dance moves.

[Pharon]

Why is Colin Powell all of a sudden pretending to be black?

[Mr. Brown]

b/c he wants an invite to the inauguration parties

[Debo]

::yawn::

The McCain campaign is telegraphing that the only way they can win is if he targets the racists in the battleground states like Florida or Virginia with robocalls and specious association with terrorist(S).

Do you dispute that, or are the poll numbers totally off?

Yawn indeed.

I don't deny that racism exists or that it will even play a factor in this race or future races. Just as it has in the past. But how is race different than religion (e.g., not voting for a Catholic)? Or how is voting against Obama because he is black different than voting for him because he is black?

Last weekend my entire family was at my brother's house for my mom's birthday. My younger brother, the token liberal of the family, said to my mom that she isn't voting for Obama because he is black. Mind you, my mother has voted straight party line for the GOP since 1982 (Yes, she voted for Carter in 1980. For shame).

It works both ways.

And the polls are all overweighting the Democratic vote. They are doing this because they expect a higher than average turnout of young voters and new Dems. Nobody knows if these variables are true or not. Don't be surprised if the polls are way off of the actual results.

[freegood]

It's not just that Obama's black, but rather the innuendo that he's an un-American, possibly Muslim (because it's a bad thing), Black man who could be a terrorist... with emphasis on the Hussein.

[Claydon]

So can we expect that IF obama were to lose that there will be cries of racisim rebounding through the gaping maw of the media? Can we expect that if say I vote mccain I will be considered a racist?

[Pharon]

YES WE CAN!

[Claydon]

YES WE CAN!


Seriously, is that what we can expect? I and other McCain supporters, or more specifically non obama supporters will be labeled as racist?

[Pharon]

Racist, douchebag, flaming wine-guzzling homosexual -- yes, all of the above.

[Claydon]

Racist, douchebag, flaming wine-guzzling homosexual -- yes, all of the above.

you forgot scotch swilling you sexless wonder.

[Pax Britannia]

Gentlemen please. Lets get a little more class in this thread....

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/waqa6u.gif

[taters]

So can we expect that IF obama were to lose that there will be cries of racisim rebounding through the gaping maw of the media? Can we expect that if say I vote mccain I will be considered a racist?

A white guy vote for McCain does not make ANYONE racist (in and of itself) anymore than a black guy vote for obama.

A white guy whos a democrat or republican but 'doesnt trust obama because hes an 'arab' " or "doesnt like black people", or shouts that someone shout 'kill him' or 'lynch him' who votes McCain very much is a racist.

That being said, Its amazing how republicans only defense to every incident of them being caught doing something racist or saying something racist is 'hey, (fill in the blank...usually the race they attacked) make racist comments too, so its ok when I do it!' The fact they have to try so hard to excuse or re-direct blame only makes them look more racist. When they get attacky or outright denial (I dont think its racist, so its not), it makes them look like liars or idiots, things that flow along with racism.

[IdiotBrain]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa42/Idiotbrain/whitehouse.jpg

[Debo]

It's not just that Obama's black, but rather the innuendo that he's an un-American, possibly Muslim (because it's a bad thing), Black man who could be a terrorist... with emphasis on the Hussein.

I have said from the beginning that using his middle name is just dumb. But I am not in charge, so...

Do you agree that racism can work both ways in the election? Do you agree that other factors besides the color of his skin can affect how someone votes?

I just find the guilt trip that the media is trying to lay on everyone not voting for Obama to be obnoxious. I really hope that the combination of their guilt trip and their hatchet job on Joe the plumber costs Obama the election. I would like nothing more than to see the look on the face of every liberal asshole here in NYC if McCain pulls out a win (a monster win would be even sweeter, but all the more unlikely).

[heelsguy]

It works both ways.

And the polls are all overweighting the Democratic vote. They are doing this because they expect a higher than average turnout of young voters and new Dems. Nobody knows if these variables are true or not. Don't be surprised if the polls are way off of the actual results.

I agree. one thing obama could get screwed by is all the young dems not voting because they are so sure it is going to to be an easy obama victory.

if mccain wins this people will be saying repubs stole it no matter HOW it happens.

[freegood]

I have said from the beginning that using his middle name is just dumb. But I am not in charge, so...

Do you agree that racism can work both ways in the election? Do you agree that other factors besides the color of his skin can affect how someone votes?


Sure. I think it'd be ridiculous if Hillary got nominated and people called others sexist for not voting for her.

Again, my bone and the article I posted was about McCain's final inning tactics of stoking terrorist innuendo (who is the REAL Obama... WTF) instead of talking about his issues and why it's better than Obama's shitty plans.


I just find the guilt trip that the media is trying to lay on everyone not voting for Obama to be obnoxious. I really hope that the combination of their guilt trip and their hatchet job on Joe the plumber costs Obama the election. I would like nothing more than to see the look on the face of every liberal asshole here in NYC if McCain pulls out a win (a monster win would be even sweeter, but all the more unlikely).

You feel sorry for Joe when he made at least 10 interviews with the media? I don't know man. I respect the guy for asking Obama legitimate questions, but it became apparent that he was nowhere near the 250k threshold and would have a hard time buying a business that can earn 250k because of that whole thing of not having a plumber's license.

He started off cool, but ended up being a phony interview after interview when it became clear that had a bone to pick with Obama and it didn't have anything to do with his personal situation.

As for the media, they're giving McCain a free pass on Ayers and the robo calls. It's in their interest to report conflict and drama. They would win if the election were close.

The Ayers deal is bullshit and you know it. Powell and other Republicans are calling McCain out on it.

[URFloorMatt]

So can we expect that IF obama were to lose that there will be cries of racisim rebounding through the gaping maw of the media? Can we expect that if say I vote mccain I will be considered a racist?

Depends. Do you live in Ohio? Ohio is absolutely going McCain, perhaps only by the thinnest of hairs. But it's going purely on racism, and no one in Ohio will ever bother to deny it.

If Obama loses Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, or Montana, I wouldn't blame racism, and few others would either. But in Ohio I will, and the media will, and lots of people (on both sides of the ballot box) in Ohio will openly as well.

[Debo]

First off. I don't have to justify anything to you. I don't work for Obama's campaign. If Obama can't convince you of your vote, you know who to look for. We know each other's position fairly well. You think spending cuts in the form of killing entitlements like Medicaire and Social Security will be necessary. I disagree and would rather have nationalized healthcare that doesn't discriminate against the poor and aging while taking the profit incentive out of healthcare. You think it's a mistake, and I can respect that. But Republicans have a knack for beating around the Bush to that truth. You know why? Americans want affordable insurance. The system as it is now doesn't allow that.

The idea that bringing back tax levels seen since the Clinton era is socialism is a new type of spin. Fine then, progressive taxation is socialism. Whoop dee doo. Let's see how many Americans agree with you or McCain now that that Cold War word is seen in a different light. Let's see how 100 million Americans will see it as a tax cut rather than the connotation of a handout. Those 100 million Americans do not have the means to hire accountants to wriggle their way out of the tax code and pay little to nothing.

Since I already understand the economics of income redistribution (I will admit that his "trickle up economics" line is not something that I was ever taught about. Suppy-side: Yes. Demand-side: Yes. Trickle-up: No), I was hoping that you could justify his plan on some other level.

Simply saying "we had these tax rates in the 90s and everything was great" ignores the fact that there are other factors that have an effect on the economy. Clinton balanced the budget because Gingrich and Armey held a firm line on spending and because Clinton gutted the military budget after the Cold War ended (I believe that he called it a peacetime dividend). He was also helped out by a massive surge productivity thanks to the internet. Tax receipts increased during the late 90s because: A.) the dividend and capital gains tax cuts in 1997 (tax cuts. Oh my!) and B.) Capital gains taxes generated by the tech bubble. Clinton was also a staunch free trader (sometimes that Obama isn't).

I doubt that Pelosi and Co. are going to be as fiscally conservative as Gingrich and Armey were in the 1990s.


I didn't figure you for a flat tax guy. Boy, I bet you and Mankiw were ANGRY during the HW Bush and Clinton years. We were teh d00m3d under Bubba. I have stated my preference for a flat-tax many times on this board. I do not think that the government should use the tax code to play favorites like it does.

See I don't think Obama's plan is perfect, and I never said it was. You think McCain has a better plan? He wants to keep the Bush tax cuts AND maintain his claim of balancing the budget by the end of his term. Earmarks to his economic speeches as Maverick to Palin's. He's still boosting his gas tax holiday.

You know why those aren't issues?

NO ONE is taking his economic policy seriously.

NONE of his commercials talk about it in detail. The content of McCain's commercials was what this was originally about, right?

What is wrong with the Bush tax cuts? Are you opposed to the 2001 cuts or the 2003 cuts? If so, why?

Balancing the budget is easy. You just need to fix the entitlement programs. I understand that this is easier said than done. But congress needs to stop punting the problem down the road and act like adults pretty soon or we are all going to be fucked. See the two charts below. As the charts show, spending on the entitlements programs is growing at an unsustainable rate. Something needs to be done.

Chart One (http://perotcharts.com/category/federal-budget-charts/page/4/).
Chart Two (http://Chart%20Two).

How many people actually understand the basic principals of economics? How much do you really think that he is going to get across in a 30 second commercial? All of his plans are easy to find. Besides, the less that these guys do the better off we are. Cutting taxes, expanding free trade, keeping inflation low and enforcing a strong rule of law (contract law in particular) are the most important things that a politician can do. The rest is usually them pandering to some special interest group.


And McCain sold his soul voting for Bush's tax cuts after rejecting them previously.

Yes, I do share your concern in a semblance of a balanced national budget. Bush did not. His supporters did not object loudly enough. Maybe they were too busy taking advantage of Bush driven subsidies to care.

He rejected them because he wanted spending cuts included in the bill. I guess that you left that part out on accident.

The GOP's big tent definitley came back to bite them in the ass on the spending front. Nobody denies this.

Do you think that the Dems are going to spend less once they gain full control of the government? I sure as hell don't.

So what do you think of McCain taking in Bush's aides and staff? Do you think they should still be working inside the highest office in the world... That they deserve to be REWARDED for their "failure at the top"?

I see both sides of the equation. You want some people on your staff with expierence. But you also want a competent staff. Our unrealistic standards scare a lot of people away from working for the government (not to mention it pays like shit). If you have eight years of experience in the Justice Department under the Bush administration, you are going to have a tough time landing a job at certain law firms. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice everything that they have worked for to work in a low paying government job. I won't even mention what the media does to people that work in public office.

Are you concerned that Obama has former Clinton staff members working for him?

Are you confident McCain has the mettle to understand sound economic policy versus ideologically conforming economic policy? The man has retained the likes of Phil Graham, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Donald Lushkin, and Kevin Hassett.

Is your boy Mankiw advising Sen. McCain?

Well I guess you had to choose the lessor the two evils...

Justify... LOL It's not even convince or persuade anymore.

It depends on the ideology. I drink the supply-side kool-aid so I am a bit biased.

I have no idea what Dr. Mankiw's plans are. I doubt that he is going to leave his job at Harvard for another round in D.C.

[URFloorMatt]

Our unrealistic standards scare a lot of people away from working for the government (not to mention it pays like shit). If you have eight years of experience in the Justice Department under the Bush administration, you are going to have a tough time landing a job at certain law firms.

Correction: If you have eight years of experience in the Justice Department under the Bush administration and you have a sham law degree from Liberty University or Regent University that was the sole reason you landed the job, you are going to have a tough time landing a a job at any law firm.

Most people who work in the Justice Department for eight years have their pick of the litter when it comes to legal jobs when they're ready to depart. The Justice Department isn't generally a partisan entity, since they're just enforcing the laws on the books regardless of who's in the White House. Gonzales couldn't find a job because the hearings revealed he was totally incompetent--it has nothing to do with him being a Bush Republican.

[Debo]

Correction: If you have eight years of experience in the Justice Department under the Bush administration and you have a sham law degree from Liberty University or Regent University that was the sole reason you landed the job, you are going to have a tough time landing a a job at any law firm.

Most people who work in the Justice Department for eight years have their pick of the litter when it comes to legal jobs when they're ready to depart. The Justice Department isn't generally a partisan entity, since they're just enforcing the laws on the books regardless of who's in the White House. Gonzales couldn't find a job because the hearings revealed he was totally incompetent--it has nothing to do with him being a Bush Republican.

I was using that as an example, not as the rule. Your posts doesn't disprove that qualified people will not take jobs in the government for a number of reasons.

[Deadhead Derek]

I like Colin Powell. I respect him, and would have voted for him regardless of party.

[kid_vidrio]

He was also helped out by a massive surge productivity thanks to the internet. Tax receipts increased during the late 90s because: A.) the dividend and capital gains tax cuts in 1997 (tax cuts. Oh my!) and B.) Capital gains taxes generated by the tech bubble.
You can't have a 'massive surge in productivity thanks to the Internet' and a 'tech bubble' at the same time without shenanigans.

I would also like to point out that the 'tech bubble' encouraged the credit bubble. It was started as a bipartisan project of greed and wealth, and when it should have burst completely it was propped up by cuts in interest ultimately creating the housing bubble. All of the tools that were day traders in 1998 were real estate speculators in 2004 and now they are waiters and bartenders again.
Hopefully the bubble and its causes are truly eradicated and we are ideally approaching market levels that should have occurred in 2000/2001.

I don't believe either candidate's economic plan will substantially change the economy of the US. I do believe that confidence and hard work will produce the income needed to dig us out and those things will occur under an inspirational leader, something John McCain is not.

[Morfin]

Here we go again.

It wasn't "pro-America" this time, though, ... (He even gave her a chance to correct herself.)

yzeGtPeQZbs

Those pesky darkies. I mean, those pesky "Democrats" moving down from DC.

[freegood]

Hahahaha, she forgot she was talking to a black anchor.

Pfotenhauer is another supposed economic advisor to McCain...

[fuldstændigamok]

Hahahaha, she forgot she was talking to a black anchor.

Pfotenhauer is another supposed economic advisor to McCain...

Isn't she the stupid bitch who went on a rant about journalists being sexist toward Palin, completly contradicting her previous comments regarding Hilary?

[freegood]

Yep. Her fundamentals are strong.

[freegood]

Debo, you're dodging and weaving, and it's making me impatient. You probably get that feeling too. It's nothing personal. My partisan biases spill into my logic too. It's not about right or wrong, just different.

Since I already understand the economics of income redistribution (I will admit that his "trickle up economics" line is not something that I was ever taught about. Suppy-side: Yes. Demand-side: Yes. Trickle-up: No), I was hoping that you could justify his plan on some other level.


I consider Trickle-down the Golden shower upon the majority of taxpayers. The yacht industry might love it though...Those cute catchphrases are common and patronizing.

Demand side relief will help at a time when wage levels have stagnated and a consumer economy devastated from frozen and hard to obtain credit.


Simply saying "we had these tax rates in the 90s and everything was great" ignores the fact that there are other factors that have an effect on the economy. Clinton balanced the budget because Gingrich and Armey held a firm line on spending and because Clinton gutted the military budget after the Cold War ended (I believe that he called it a peacetime dividend). He was also helped out by a massive surge productivity thanks to the internet. Tax receipts increased during the late 90s because: A.) the dividend and capital gains tax cuts in 1997 (tax cuts. Oh my!) and B.) Capital gains taxes generated by the tech bubble. Clinton was also a staunch free trader (sometimes that Obama isn't).

2. I doubt that Pelosi and Co. are going to be as fiscally conservative as Gingrich and Armey were in the 1990s.

And there will be other factors upon the future economy. You'd be hard pressed to find a candidate that can foretell the future. Let's just conveniently forget about all the promises Dubya made when we was candidate.

None of McCain's advisors strike confidence in me. Volker, Jeff Liebman, or Austan Goolsbee do. Does that mean they could predict the future as well? Likely not.

2. Pendulum shifted hard right from 2000-2006. You know it could suck for you in the coming years politically, but it sucked hard core for many Americans that didn't get wage increases and inflated their living standards through imaginary credit or abstract (to them) home equity who now have to pay the piper.

I don't know if Obama is going to be a centrist or whether he'll shift it back hard left. Maybe he'll have a "[This catastrophe] changed everything" moment. But he has shown the intellectual curiosity to weigh the issues and make an informed decision.

Compare this with McCain's gut rush to judgement ranging from Strong Fundamentals (of the American worker...) to his rush to help Congress pass TARP.



1. What is wrong with the Bush tax cuts? Are you opposed to the 2001 cuts or the 2003 cuts? If so, why?

2. Balancing the budget is easy. You just need to fix the entitlement programs. I understand that this is easier said than done. But congress needs to stop punting the problem down the road and act like adults pretty soon or we are all going to be fucked. See the two charts below. As the charts show, spending on the entitlements programs is growing at an unsustainable rate. Something needs to be done.

3. Chart One (http://perotcharts.com/category/federal-budget-charts/page/4/).
Chart Two (http://Chart%20Two).


1. It doesn't take a genius to realize that you can't fund two wars that rack up in the trillions while giving away trillion dollar tax cuts.

2. You might get the feeling that I'm dodging the national debt issue, but I can't trust your party for reducing it when Bush has increased discretionary spending, both domestic and military (http://www.slate.com/id/2095237/) every year in office. You know it's not easy. Well, the first step is to police your own party! People have a general idea what they're getting into electing Democrats, especially with Fox News. Do you know what you're getting into?

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html)

How the fuck did that happen? It's like that 500lb. fat dude that's trapped in his own room. And Republicans have the gall to claim that Democrats will spend more... Have heart that the debt is at a crushing level where if they did spend more, it'd debase the dollar and leave us in the risk of defaulting on our obligations.

3. Do you honestly think McCain can balance the budget by the end of his first term? Will McCain even run another one? This is crucial because no one will take a lame duck president seriously. No one will believe in a candidate who let his own party and advisors dictate the terms of what type of campaign to run or what Vice Presidential candidate to select.

The data Perotcharts is a very very real statistic. Neither candidate addresses it. Maybe Bob Barr. Bringing it up won't make people vote for McCain instead of Obama though....

How many people actually understand the basic principals of economics? How much do you really think that he is going to get across in a 30 second commercial?

Yeah...just how many people understand basic principles of econ?

I thought your party is about rational actors and people being smart enough to make these big and important decisions on their own. Ownership society and all that. Cramer sez, "Get in the stock market for that pension fund!" Rich dad poor dad dude sez, "Buy that house! It's price never falls!"

As Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and Greenspan has shown us, the government can game the system hardcore. Nothing they have done recently has been consistent with any of their party dogma. Well they did let Lehman declare bankruptcy in order to draw that proverbial line in the sand.


All of his plans are easy to find. Besides, the less that these guys do the better off we are. Cutting taxes, expanding free trade, keeping inflation low and enforcing a strong rule of law (contract law in particular) are the most important things that a politician can do. The rest is usually them pandering to some special interest group.


Everyone is a special interest group.

When people lose jobs and traders win on abstractions of those lost jobs, sure you could say the "market wins". But those workers will become an "interest group". Those traders sure as hell are.

If you can't control your own party on aggy subsidies or steel tariffs or the Ted Stevens types, then it will be a political zero-sum-game for that pork barrel landgrab. It fuels the populist sentiment that traders and rich elites profitted from the Bush era, and now it's the "people's turn".

When you vote for Conservative politicians who say one thing about reducing spending but will include ridiculous amounts of pork, no liberal will have to justify their choice about "income redistribution". At least Obama is upfront about it.



It depends on the ideology. I drink the supply-side kool-aid so I am a bit biased.

I have no idea what Dr. Mankiw's plans are. I doubt that he is going to leave his job at Harvard for another round in D.C.

Do you know who McCain's econ advisors are, and what they generally represent?

Neither candidate is talking about the numbers perotcharts and the crippling debt we're facing.

Ron Paul could be your guy. If only he was openly friendly to the financial bank industry...

[taters]

I was using that as an example, not as the rule. Your posts doesn't disprove that qualified people will not take jobs in the government for a number of reasons.

They sure as hell cant take them if they arent offered. If they arent staunchly conservative, or if they are black, gay, or have ever done any social justice of public policy nonprofit work, the Justice Department aint hiring them.

Though the incidences of this in the Federal System is whats getting attention, the instances in state governments is MUCH worst. Texas and Florida in particular.

You would not believe the horror stories Ive heard with this shit. I cant believe republicans are trying to defend this shit, while at the same time arguing against Affirmative Action (your quotas are good, but other quotas are bad).

[Smokestack]

The Washington Post endorses Obama today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html) running his overall endorsement advantage to 112-38 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230). For those "media bias" ninnies out there, his haul includes the Salt Lake Tribune, the Chicago Tribune and quite a few more that traditionally go conservative.

[Morfin]

Goddamn liberal Mormons.

[Smokestack]

Goddamn liberal Mormons.

True. Not so incredibly, Palin is cited as a primary reason for many of these conservative endorsements going for Obama. She is and will go down as one of the all-time worst campaign decisions ever.

[Yelram]

True. Not so incredibly, Palin is cited as a primary reason for many of these conservative endorsements going for Obama. She is and will go down as one of the all-time worst campaign decisions ever.
Only because Mccains on the top of the Ticket. You cant take a far left leaning republican, and try to balance the ticket with a standard conservative. It just looks fishy. I'd rather have a Romney-Palin ticket, or hell a Paul-Palin ticket. I'd rather have a Palin-Mccain ticket even.

[taters]

Only because Mccains on the top of the Ticket. You cant take a far left leaning republican, and try to balance the ticket with a standard conservative. It just looks fishy. I'd rather have a Romney-Palin ticket, or hell a Paul-Palin ticket. I'd rather have a Palin-Mccain ticket even.

Isnt Palin the far right candidate who was picked to balance out McCains center right ticket?

Everyone wanted to see Paul on the ballot, and Republicans had their chance with him, but ridiculed him and stamped him out as a contender.

Honestly, if it were a McCain Paul ticket, many of the current Obama supporters (probably 1/3 at most) and independents would be voting red. Ah well.

That being said, if Obama would have picked Paul (which would have been weird), the polls would be flowing even more to his side.

[vasili denisov]

Swiftjews for Truth. (http://www.236.com/video/2008/swiftjews_for_truth_obama_9597.php)