| 0 |
Subject: The Real Obama - Part 2
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- [37838313] Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 16:42
Part 1 was approaching 600 posts. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 528 | Building 7
ID: 174591519
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 22:10
|
Bush isn't blameless in this. If the Republicans hadn't put a sunset provision in the tax-cuts, Obama wouldn't have been able to get away with this double-speak.
I don't recall the sunset provision as being a Republican idea. If they put it in there, it was only because that's the only way some dems would vote for it. The Repubs have been trying to get the sunset provision eliminated for years.
|
| 529 | Madman
ID: 7538321
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 23:10
|
B7 -- As I understand it, it was in there for two reasons. Firstly, they wanted to limit the size of the impact to the budget. This is why they took so long to phase in the tax cuts. Secondly, they argued that it would be good politics to have this debate again 8 years later. The first argument is a budget gimmick, and the second is a political gimmick.
But maybe an effective one. You guys remember Bill Foster, one of the three special-election Dems that portend a Democratic landslide in the fall? He's breaking ranks with his party and opposing the Democratic Budget. link. Why? Because they are going to raise taxes on those in the lowest tax bracket ... increasing it from a 10% marginal rate to a 15% one.
I really didn't believe PD and bili at first. But I'm now convinced. The Dems have really bought into their rhetoric on the Bush tax cuts. And as bili notes, its not like they are getting a ton of revenue by milking the poor. I guess every $ counts.
|
| 530 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 23:55
|
I don't think there is a shred of evidence that Obama will abandon the few good parts of the Bush tax cuts by letting that mess die the good death it deserves. Obama clearly believes he can do a better job of setting tax policy than Bush and given the mess the Bush policies have given us overall there is no reason to think he won't, in fact, do a better job despite some grumbling that Obama isn't as specific as some would-be critics like at this point.
|
| 531 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:15
|
From the WSJ.
The Audacity of Death
By DANIEL ALLOTT
June 5, 2008
According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.
Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.
Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.
Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."
* * *
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.
When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."
"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."
He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."
Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.
To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.
Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?
* * *
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?
Worst of all are Mr. Obama's accusations against antiabortion advocates. He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn.
In his campaign book, Mr. Obama accuses "most anti-abortion activists" of secretly desiring more partial-birth abortions "because the image the procedure evokes in the mind of the public has helped them win converts to their position."
All this explains why the National Abortion Rights Action League voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, as did abortion activist Frances Kissling, who called Mrs. Clinton "not radical enough on abortion."
It's surprising that 18- to 30-year-olds, the most pro-life demographic in a generation, are the same voting bloc from which Barack Obama, the most antilife presidential candidate ever, draws his most ardent supporters.
What's not surprising is that Gianna Jessen, who turned 31 last month, plans not to support Obama.
In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.
Mr. Allott is senior writer at American Values, a Washington-area public policy organization.
|
| 532 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:52
|
I don't think there is a shred of evidence that Obama will abandon the few good parts of the Bush tax cuts by letting that mess die the good death it deserves.
I thought you argued that he was going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then establish his own new regime.
On his website, one of the linch-pins of his tax plan is to exempt all seniors who earn less than $50k. This includes some of the wealthiest people in our country. How is that better?
More to the point, will Obama fight off Congressional Democrats who want to raise taxes on those earning less than $100k, but who are in denial that this is what they are doing when they let the bulk of the Bush tax cuts expire?
|
| 533 | Perm Dude
ID: 43545118
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 10:10
|
On his website, one of the linch-pins of his tax plan is to exempt all seniors who earn less than $50k. This includes some of the wealthiest people in our country.
If you are parsing out "wealth" and "income" then I agree with you. But the non-income wealth (such as homes, etc) are often taxed locally, so no real change there.
I've pointed out above, I think, that the big question mark (that should probably be exploited by McCain) is whether old time Dems like Murtha will really get behind Obama, who threatens to take away some of their trough-producing.
|
| 534 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 10:33
|
PD -- yes, that's what I'm doing. The disconnect between wealth and income is large within the senior population. I'm flabbergasted that Obama would propose a blanket elimination of taxation on seniors earning up to $50k regardless of their asset accumulation, while at the same time proposing to raise taxes on workers earning $50k.
Obama picks Furman. I endorse that choice. Furman is quite the bright fellow, and about as divorced from the partisan-left-wing as he could probably pick. He's also sufficiently divorced from that partisan clap-trap that I think he could be quite effective.
Just as I'm happy about the selection, many Democrats, according to the article, are less satisfied.
|
| 535 | Perm Dude
ID: 43545118
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 10:43
|
Don't know much about Furman. If he's removed from the far left then I'm happy.
As for the wealth vs income argument, the federal government, for the most part, taxes income. I don't think that a "wealth test," particularly when many of the assets of the elderly are tied up in their primary home (and accompanying possessions) is even desireable, let alone workable.
|
| 536 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:10
|
Here is another matter wise people would have resolved beyond all shadow of doubt before someone was nominated. Or is Hillary's last straw?
MITH's staged shock and outrage that anyone would dare ask doesn't really substitute for complete verification.
|
| 537 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:30
|
John McCain was not born in the United States. Barack Obama was, no matter what rumors you choose to listen to from Hannity and Malkin.
|
| 538 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:32
|
LOL. Interesting but it doesn't look like it'll go anywhere. It would be a shame if such a technicality halted his inauguration.
I'll note that McCain has a similar 'natural born' issue. That I similarly hope does not become a talking point in the public discussion.
|
| 539 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:32
|
Interestingly, the Hawaiian independence movement is pulling out all sorts of constitutional issues to say he's a citizen of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Can we spend our time on useful and enlightening shiznet, Baldy?
|
| 540 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:37
|
It's gonna be a factor and it didn't need to be one in the general election season. Tsk, tsk. Since it's gonna be a factor it's worth hashing out. There you go, actually thinking sneering is gonna work. Let me know how that works out with the undecided and the uneasy.
|
| 541 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:00
|
Yikes, what a messed up article. Typical smear tactic of passive voice beginning, citing, well, nobody. Just "bloggers." Then a quick transition into some "experticy" with some law citations which actually miss the mark. No matter--smears need only have the sheen of legitimacy in the law, nothing more than skin deep.
This issue isn't going to be a factor (since McCain has the same "problem") but what will be a factor is "OMG" type slams. Bring them on--sometimes you have to turn the rocks over to get the insects into the open.
|
| 542 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 13:01
|
It is in Barack's best tactical interest to not release his birth certificate. Get the opposition inflamed about something that won't swing moderate voters. I'll let the lawyers sort it out.
PD 535 -- As for the wealth vs income argument, the federal government, for the most part, taxes income. I don't think that a "wealth test," particularly when many of the assets of the elderly are tied up in their primary home (and accompanying possessions) is even desireable, let alone workable.
I'm not proposing a wealth criteria. I'm simply opposed to Obama's decision to give a income-tax exemption to a group of people who are relatively wealthy -- seniors -- and taxing a group of people who are less wealthy -- the working age stiffs. Pandering of the worst sort. I believe Yglesias has called it ugly, as well, although I can't find the link (I believe it was last fall when Obama came up with this flying pig).
|
| 543 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 13:12
|
I'm not proposing a wealth criteria. I'm simply opposed to Obama's decision to give a income-tax exemption to a group of people who are relatively wealthy -- seniors -- and taxing a group of people who are less wealthy -- the working age stiffs. Pandering of the worst sort.
Here, here!
|
| 544 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 13:58
|
No doubt. Old people suck.
Means test.
How does it work when they pull money out of retirement accounts? Is that considered income, or just capital gains? That would be a solution. Drop income taxes and jack capital gains taxes.
|
| 545 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:22
|
This issue isn't going to be a factor (since McCain has the same "problem") - PD
Ah, but McCain has fully addressed 'his' eligibility question. Keep leaning 100% on the sneer defense, PD. That'll work with the swing voters. Suuure it will.
There actually are an undetirmined number of Republicans highly disenchanted with McCain and personally reachable by Obama's charm. I myself find the knuckle-bump quite charming! [Prolly a sure sign it's passe among the young trend setters...lol] Those are the people you need to convince with answers to deal-breaker objections to Obama's suitability and I don't think sneering evasions are gonna do the trick. I don't think these people will be unduly hard to convince but waving off the question dismissively...well that's a mistake.
|
| 546 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:34
|
Sneer? You've been hanging out in the right-wing blogosphere too long.
The citizenship question will be as much a factor as the gold standard. That is, for some rabid wingers it'll be extremely important, but none of those people will be voting for Obama (and many, like yourself, won't be voting at all).
Hard to say it'll be a "factor" when it'll have no change in voting habits.
There are some genuine policy disagreements between the two candidates (mostly, McCain pumping up Bush successes to ride his coattail while Obama emphasizing failures to bring about change). But this is not one of them, IMO.
|
| 547 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:39
|
FWIW, my reading of the "two parents as citizens" law is that it applies to children born outside the United States.
Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i.
|
| 548 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:45
|
PD,
The claim is that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not the US. Actually it's more of a "what if" than a claim, since there is not one shred of evidence to support the notion.
|
| 549 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:47
|
Ugh. Didn't catch that--it is hard to keep the smears straight sometimes. And I suppose they claim he's a closet Muslim?
|
| 550 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:49
|
I find the Hawaiian independence folk's claim's much more compelling!
Some Native Hawaiians think Hawai'i-born Barack Obama can't be president of the United States because he was born in an independent sovereign nation: the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
A few independence advocates claim that Hawai'i legally remains a country today, making Obama and hundreds of thousands of others born in the Islands over the past 50 years not "natural-born" citizens or eligible to be president.
[...]
"Obama was born in the Hawaiian kingdom," said Leon Siu, a Native Hawaiian and musician who brought up the issue in a column he wrote on a news Web site. "Not only was the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom illegal, it was admitted to be illegal by the United States."
Siu was referring to the "apology resolution" passed by Congress in 1993 acknowledging wrongdoing in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy 100 years before and recognizing the inherent sovereignty of the indigenous Islanders over their land.
Who knew?!?!
|
| 551 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:57
|
Actually is asking him to produce a birth certificate such an outrageous request? Is a requirement for being issued an auto license more strenuous than for becoming president?
|
| 552 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:01
|
Obama can't drive?!? Or vote either, I bet!
Now that's the real scandal. What's more anti-American than not being able to drive.
Not voting, on the other hand, is probably thought pretty patriotic, given how hard the GOP works to stop people from voting.
|
| 553 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:03
|
according to wiki:
In a response to the State of Hawai'i Appeal of the Arakaki Decision, the plaintiffs offered this information regarding the usage of the Apology Resolution whereas clauses:
Legislative statements in a preamble may help a court interpret the operative clauses of a particular statute by clarifying the legislative intent, but they do not legislate facts or confer rights. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction, §20.03 (5th ed. 1993). The Apology Resolution has no legally operative provisions. Indeed, it expressly settles no claims. 107 Stat. 1510 §3.,b. The committee report says that the Resolution has no regulatory impact and does not change any law. S. Rep. 123-126. Its sponsor assured the Senate that it is only “a simple resolution of apology” and that it “has nothing to do” with “the status of Native Hawaiians.” 139 Congressional Record S14477, S14482 (October 27, 1993), SER 14. The Supreme Court in Rice demonstrated how to deal with the Apology Resolution: the Court cited it but decided the case based on the facts in the record.
In testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 17, 2002, Professor of Law Mr. Michael Glennon makes clear the fact that whereas clauses in general can have "no binding legal effect":
Under traditional principles of statutory construction, these provisions have no binding legal effect. Only material that comes after the so-called “resolving clause”—“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled”—can have any operative effect. Material set out in a whereas clause is purely precatory. It may be relevant for the purpose of clarifying ambiguities in a statute’s legally operative terms, but in and of itself such a provision can confer no legal right or obligation.
Would seem to settle it for me. It wasn't a whole lot different from any of a myriad of non-binding resolutions. A gesture, devoid of practical impact outside of the gesture itself.
|
| 554 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:04
|
wiki link
sorry...forgot the link
|
| 555 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:09
|
Uh... thanks, Sarge.
And here I was making an appointment to get my passport photo for my trip to Kauai in January. ;)
|
| 556 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:22
|
werent for your benefit bili. I know you arent gullible enough to fall for that crappola. Twas for some of our 'other' posters enlightenment. ;)
|
| 557 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:46
|
Jim Johnson must not have been the Vice Presidential Search Committee Member that Obama once knew.
Jim Johnson Steps Down
"Jim Johnson's resignation raises serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment," writes McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "Selecting the vice presidential nominee is the most important decision a presidential candidate can make and one even Barack Obama has said will 'signal how I want to operate my presidency.' By entrusting this process to a man who has now been forced to step down because of questionable loans, the American people have reason to question the judgment of a candidate who has shown he will only make the right call when under pressure from the news media. America can't afford a president who flip-flops on key questions in the course of 24 hours. That's not change we can believe in."
|
| 558 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:53
|
What does "questionable loans" mean?
|
| 559 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:55
|
Nevermind. He got a good rate from Countrywide when chairing Fannie Mae.
|
| 560 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 20:49
|
X raises serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment...
This is the McCain gameplan, it appears. They will either win with it or look like Chicken Little. Given McCain's factual difficulties and his own trouble with people associated with him I guess they are trying the Rovian plan of attacking their enemy's strength despite their own weakness in that very area.
I suspect they will look like Chicken Little if they continue with rhetoric like "flip-flops on key questions" for very minor acts like this.
|
| 561 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 21:09
|
Obama just does nothing but s#it golden eggs for you doesn't he Perm Dude? You are beyond an apologist.
|
| 562 | Building 7
ID: 174591519
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 21:32
|
Dick Cheney was the head of Bush's Vice-Presidential search committee.
|
| 563 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 21:49
|
My post is an apologist post, Box? In what wayu, exactly?
B7: Yeah, I've always pictured Cheney looking aroung and saying "Hmmmm. Me! I'm the man for the job!"
|
| 564 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 07:01
|
He uses that word an awful lot...
|
| 565 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:07
|
A cool comparison of the candidates' tax plans, such as they exist.
This is probably as good as can be done. Unfortunately, they aren't careful about which assumptions come from the campaigns and which come from their own guesses.
The most important thing as far as I'm concerned is Obama's perspectives on extending the Bush tax cut provisions for Americans earning under $250k. Their interpretation is that he *will* fight for an extension of those tax cuts, and that his publicly stated tax proposals are in *addition* to fighting for the aforementioned extension.
This is a solution I'd be pretty cool with. I'm just not sure I trust him to do it. It means he'd have to have a death-match fight with Congressional Democrats. It also means that he's got to find a trillion dollars (2009-2018) in revenue, in addition to closing our current fiscal gap, in addition to paying for any new proposals.
Given the debate in this thread, it's also important to note the box on page 12, where the Obama campaign is reported to assert that there *is no plan to raise taxes on anyone* to help Social Security. Again, I support that too. This promise seems more credible.
|
| 566 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 12:18
|
Obama launches online campaign against 'smears'
Fight The Smears
|
| 567 | walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 12:20
|
NYT, Friedman: Obama
A very good view, from outside America...a big reason why I am a big supporter.
|
| 568 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:19
|
Re Baldwin's #536
From the linked WND article:Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that. Here you go.
|
| 569 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:21
|
Kos got hold of McCain's birth certificate as well.
|
| 570 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:35
|
roflmao priceless
|
| 571 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 15:00
|
[begin Hillary support] MITH 569 -- OMG. I didn't realize his name was Barack Hussein Obama II. On the ballot in AR -- I kid you not -- there was no Barack Hussein Obama II on the ballot, only Barack Obama-D. All of his Arkansas votes must therefore be invalid. This increases Hillary's popular vote total lead, and suggests she is the only remaining viable candidate for the Democratic nomination. [end Hillary support]
|
| 572 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Oct 21, 2012, 09:10
|
BUTT for posts 425 to about 500.
|
| 573 | Boldwin
ID: 579242119
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 03:46
|
For the record, Baldwin has not shown a shred of evidence that Odinga leads "a new front on the world-wide campaign of global Islamic jihad" or "is committed to creating Muslim Sharia courts in every district in Kenya". - MITH@42?
His cousin has now given the upper hand to the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the sunni muslim world. Too late to stop it now, too late to listen to me, but there is all the evidence you ever could need to prove my point. Even I didn't realize back then that Obama's career from day one had been funded by a wahabi saudi prince.
|
| 574 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 05:13
|
You forgot the quotes. "Cousin" is better. See #434.
|
| 575 | Boldwin
ID: 579242119
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 06:34
|
Like that makes a diff.
|
| 576 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 06:50
|
there is all the evidence you ever could need to prove my point.
As always, lurkers are welcome to peruse the provided material and come to whatever conclusions they will about exactly what the evidence does or doesn't prove.
|
| 577 | Tree
ID: 57842011
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 10:05
|
Like that makes a diff.
and, once again, truth and honestly prove to not be important to you. no longer shocking, just sad.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: The Real Obama - Part 2
|