Forum: pol
Page 3112
Subject: The 2008 Presidential Election - pt. 2


  Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall - Dude [01629107] Tue, May 13, 2008, 17:15

Pt. 1 is well past 500 posts.
 
1Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 17:16
WAPO: Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause
"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person,' " recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."

For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.

The contrast between the large, adoring crowds Obama draws at public events and the gritty street-level work to win votes is stark. The candidate is largely insulated from the mean-spiritedness that some of his foot soldiers deal with away from the media spotlight.

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

Documentary filmmaker Rory Kennedy, the daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy, said she, too, came across "a lot of racism" when campaigning for Obama in Pennsylvania. One Pittsburgh union organizer told her he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: "White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people."

Obama campaign officials say such incidents are isolated, that the experience of most volunteers and staffers has been overwhelmingly positive.

The campaign released this statement in response to questions about encounters with racism: "After campaigning for 15 months in nearly all 50 states, Barack Obama and our entire campaign have been nothing but impressed and encouraged by the core decency, kindness, and generosity of Americans from all walks of life. The last year has only reinforced Senator Obama's view that this country is not as divided as our politics suggest."

On Election Day in Kokomo, a group of black high school students were holding up Obama signs along U.S. 31, a major thoroughfare. As drivers cruised by, a number of them rolled down their windows and yelled out a common racial slur for African Americans, according to Obama campaign staffers.

In Vincennes, the Obama campaign office was vandalized at 2 a.m. on the eve of the primary, according to police. A large plate-glass window was smashed, an American flag stolen. Other windows were spray-painted with references to Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and other political messages: "Hamas votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns or religion. Goddamn Wright." ...

...When McCormick arrived at the office, about two hours before he was due out of bed to plant corn, he grabbed his camera and wanted to alert the media. "I thought, this is a big deal." But he was told Obama campaign officials didn't want to make a big deal of the incident. McCormick took photos anyway and distributed some.

Obama has not spoken much about racism during this campaign. He has sought to emphasize connections among Americans rather than divisions. He shrugged off safety concerns that led to early Secret Service protection and has told black senior citizens who worry that racists will do him harm: Don't fret. Earlier in the campaign, a 68-year-old woman in Carson City, Nev., voiced concern that the country was not ready to elect an African American president.

"Will there be some folks who probably won't vote for me because I am black? Of course," Obama said, "just like there may be somebody who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman or wouldn't vote for John Edwards because they don't like his accent. But the question is, 'Can we get a majority of the American people to give us a fair hearing?' "

In a letter to the editor published in a local paper, Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball explained his support of Hillary Clinton this way: "Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him.

"No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."

Karen Seifert, a volunteer from New York, was outside of the largest polling location in Lackawanna County, Pa., on primary day when she was pressed by a Clinton volunteer to explain her backing of Obama. "I trust him," Seifert replied. According to Seifert, the woman pointed to Obama's face on Seifert's T-shirt and said: "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?"

 
2Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 17:16
 
3Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 17:22
I've said I think Obama's skin color and background have been a net political advantage for him and I still think that's true, to this point. Going foward, I'm not so sure.
 
4Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 17:35
Herald-Leader
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's race and inflammatory racial remarks made by his former preacher negatively affect how likely voters view the candidate, according to a new Herald-Leader/WKYT Kentucky Poll.

More than one in five likely Democratic voters surveyed said being black hurts Obama's chances of winning an election in Kentucky, compared to 4 percent who said Obama's race helps him.

The telephone survey of 500 likely Democratic voters was conducted from May 7 through May 9 by Research 2000 of Olney, Md. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

"I'll be very blunt," said pollster Del Ali, president of Research 2000. "Even if there wasn't a Rev. Wright controversy, I think Obama would have a tough time in Kentucky, for obvious reasons."

The Bradley effect

The fact that 56 percent of interviewed voters said Obama's race was not important could be due to something called the Bradley effect, Ardrey said.

In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who was black, was predicted to win the governor's race by a comfortable margin but lost.

"It's not socially acceptable to say things about race and gender, but in the secrecy of the voting booth, they come out," Ardrey said. "That's why polls are not accurate when it comes to true feelings on race and gender, especially race."

Sandy Ross agrees that people won't always be truthful about why they vote a certain way. A math teacher at Menifee County Elementary School, she thinks her community has come a long way on issues like racial equality, but "frankly, we still have a ways to go."

"In Menifee County, race matters more than gender," Ross said. "People are more inclined to vote for a woman than a black person."

Ross likes many of Obama's ideas, but was definitely alienated by Wright's remarks, which many feel demonized white America.

And for her, gender is the main issue. "Mrs. Clinton is a woman, she has common sense and I think it's time," she said. "Men have made a royal mess of things."

Still, Obama's race and name are different enough for some people that they cannot support him.

Bill Donovan of Inez says he's not racist, and would love to support a black candidate like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

But he believes that Obama is a Muslim and therefore unsuited to be president. "He was born and reared a Muslim," Donovan said. "He can say whatever he wants to say but he is what he is. We're fighting a war on terror and we don't need a fox in the henhouse."

Obama spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a Muslim country. He is a Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.
 
5Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 17:56
Perm Dude linked this in the last post of part 1:
A press release from House Republican leader John Boehner asserts that Barack Obama told me that Israel is a "constant sore" that infects American foreign policy. "Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a `constant sore' as Barack Obama claims," Boehner's statement reads.

Mr. Boehner, I'm sure, is a terribly busy man, with many burdensome responsibilities, so I have to assume that he simply didn't have time to read the entire Obama interview, or even the entire paragraph, or even a single clause. If he had, of course, he would have seen that Obama was clearly calling the Middle East conflict, and not Israel, a sore. Why, there's no one who would disagree that the Middle East conflict is a "sore," is there?

I have no doubt that Mr. Boehner will issue a correction to his press release in which he states the obvious, which is that Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me.

If he doesn't, however, I would, sadly, have to agree with my colleague, the less-forgiving Andrew Sullivan, who called Boehner's statement a "flat-out lie." In fact, I would add to Andrew's post, by calling Boehner's statement mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I'll be happy to post the correction right here.
Transcript Here
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.
 
6Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, May 13, 2008, 18:14
Wow if every distortion or, (as in this case and in the case of Obama MIS"quoting" McCain on the economy being in good shape), every intentional misquote of the candidate between now and Novemeber is going to get double post treatment, we're going to need about 50 Election threads.

If this goes like the Obamanaics defense of the deliberate misquote of McCain, I expect 20 or 30 follow-up posts explaining how Boehner's obviosly deliberate misattribtion of the "sore" statement isn't really his fault.
 
7Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 18:29
Which misquote of McCain is that, MBJ?
 
8Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 18:51
Never mind I found it, the latest bull-danky from Obama. 20 or 30 follow-up posts explaining how [it] isn't really his fault. I count 3 posts from me and I think one from Perm Dude through a followup discussion that lasted all of 19 posts. Oh what a terrible scourge wrought upon the forum for those 23 hours between posts 161 and 180!
 
9J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 13, 2008, 20:09
biba- never said i hate obama, just stand for something and stick to it. pin or no pin, disavow or can't disavow, meet with leaders of terrorists states w/o conditions or with conditions, race matters or doesn't matter, all options on SS on the table or only some are on the table.

nc - let me see if i can wrap my simple redneck mind around your point -- anything in relation to obama that may be construed by anyone as negative cannot be expressed. since when did voters have to be well informed, educated, able to read, and speak english and if they are not their vote should not be courted (i think that would be against a democrat tenet). their vote equals the same as yours, mine, mccain's, and obama's.

i thought the whole point of competing was to win, if you feel that you have or see a weakness that will help that cause and it is not slanderous then it is fair game. just the same as this bush 3, 100 year war, and age rhetoric that has started is fair game. just make me a promise, that you will be as outraged as me with the headlines "America Not Ready For Black President" when McCain beats him 51 - 49 just like Bush beat the last two Dem candidates because that would be an extremely unfair assessment even to this simple minded redneck per nc.
 
10Perm Dude
ID: 35455139
Tue, May 13, 2008, 20:18
And what will you do when Obama whips McCain's ass? McCain is this year's Bob Dole.
 
11J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 13, 2008, 20:23
say congratulations and hope that i can afford the taxes
 
12J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 13, 2008, 20:23
so can i take that as your pledge pd
 
13Perm Dude
ID: 35455139
Tue, May 13, 2008, 20:32
Since Obama would raise taxes on the wealthy (back to pre-Bush levels) I don't believe I'll have to worry too much. Except for all those mandates "small goverment" Republicans put onto the state & local authorities, of course. The sooner we root out those fake conservatives the better.
 
14J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 13, 2008, 20:35
pledge???
 
15Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 20:43
anything in relation to obama that may be construed by anyone as negative cannot be expressed.

Assuming victimhood is the most pathetic straw man. No one here tells you what not to say. No one forbids your political points (including whatever political point it is you imply in denial when you use Obama's middle name). By all means, reserve and exercise the right to talk all you want about Rev Wright and Hamas endorsements and middle names and flag pins. And I'll reserve the right to expose them for the inanities that they are.
 
16J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 13, 2008, 21:01
if it is such an inanity then why does nc feel that it affects so many voters and makes him so fearful
 
17Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 21:07
#16 - You're talking about his middle name?
 
18J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 13, 2008, 21:48
should have said those inanities that pd referred to sorry
 
19Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 22:16
You mean that Obama is a Muslim and refuses to "salute the flag"?
 
20J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 13, 2008, 22:23
sorry again it was the litany that you referred to in 15. and i never said he was muslim or referenced him not saluting but nice try
 
21Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, May 13, 2008, 23:12
nice try
Again with the victimhood. For Pete's sake please show some self-respect. You and everyone reading this knows I didn't accuse you of anything. How I or anyone could hav eknown that when you said nc and then said pd that you were the whole time talking about me. I went to the posts that YOU directed me to. And, believing that it didn't look right and hoping that it wasn't what you meant, I ASKED rather than assumed. **But nice try**

.....................

Back to deciphering #16 and it's phamtom reference to an alleged inanity, which turned out to be the multiple inanities in post 15, the very post that #16 happened to be addressing at the time.

Anyway, you say that none of the things I list in post 15 (one of which, incidentially, is Obama's middle name, which you earlier said was not the alleged inanity to which you referred in #16) qualify as inanities because; "it affects so many voters and makes him so fearful"

Is that correct?

Assuming so, here's my response: The popularity of a topic or thing is not necessarily an indicator of it's importance.

.......................

Now, just so we're all clear, that I have exposed the argument in post 16 (version 1.3) as gelded does not mean that I claim the authority to prohibit you from reverting to it or any part of it or any other eunuchal contentions you care to venture.
 
22Perm Dude
ID: 35455139
Tue, May 13, 2008, 23:24
#14: What pledge would that be?

As a matter of policy, I don't take pledges regulating behavior that shouldn't be regulated through proper ethical behavior (which is why I'll probably never run for office). What is the point in agreeing, essentially, to not be a dick? Shouldn't one not be a dick anyway?
 
23walk
ID: 83171517
Wed, May 14, 2008, 06:20
I would get hit with higher taxes under Obama, and have no concerns. I am okay with paying more taxes to help out with social programs, such as our country's debt and budget (sarcastic but true) and others who need help. My taxes went UP anyway, way up, under Bush so don't kid yourself. Fcukin alt minium tax thing. We need to get this stuff sorted out. Those who make big bux can afford the increase.
 
24walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, May 14, 2008, 17:30
Edwards to Endorse Obama
 
25J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Wed, May 14, 2008, 21:52
mith- let me see if i can bring it together for you since the nc post from Part 1 did make the point that those things affected voters and should be refrained from. if these things are indeed meaningless then they would also be worthless and therefore not affect the electorate and therefore would not be so reviled as to state that they should not be uttered and that if you do you are somehow not playing fair. i still do not understand this victimhood that you keep referring to.

 
26Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, May 15, 2008, 08:59
I see (I think). You're saying that if a topic is important to the voters then it is relevent and therefore *not* meaningless.

So if McCain found himslef at a small campaign stop with no cameras in some place where racist sentiment is still the norm, he would be smart to play up the fact that they wouldn't want a black man in the Oval Office, right?
 
27Perm Dude
ID: 29481513
Thu, May 15, 2008, 15:36
Edwards threw support to Obama because of WV loss

Meanwhile, more superdelegates declare for Obama. KY and OR might very well cancel each other out on Tuesday (Clinton should win a larger share of KY's 60 delegates than Obama wins of OR, but it is all a wash it appears). But 60 or so delegates for Obama would give him under 100 to win the nomination.

 
29nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Thu, May 15, 2008, 18:40

NC anything in relation to obama that may be construed by anyone as negative cannot be expressed.

Sorry Jbar, I missed that in my post, could you cut and paste it here...I can't seem to find it.

In fact I wrote several negative posts on Obama suggesting we raise the cap on the social security tax..I guess if someone writes something negative and it doesn't involve a lapel flag you don't notice?

if you feel that you have or see a weakness that will help that cause and it is not slanderous then it is fair game

If that's the country you wish to live in, your choice. If you want the next leader of the country to be decided by whether or not he wears a flag on his lapel, or whether or not you like his middle name...I guess that is fair game.

It's pretty red neck though. You'll get the country you deserve.

I don't like the thought of higher taxes either. Thank George Bush and his multi trillion dollar war for that. The taxes have to be paid sometime. Why do you want to leave them for our children and grand children? Don't you honor your debts?

Is the real shame higher taxes or the highest deficit in our countries history?

just make me a promise, that you will be as outraged as me with the headlines "America Not Ready For Black President" when McCain beats him 51 - 49

It depends, if he loses because he gets swift boated, and Wrighted and Hussiened...I'll say America wasn't ready for a black President with a funny name.

If the race is all about the issues that's another story...but are the American people, and the media smart enough to ignore the swift boat and only elect on issues? Doubt it.

You are proof there are plenty of people out there who are more concerned with middle names then the price of oil.

You'll get the country you deserve...in fact, you already have it.

I assume you voted for Bush?



 
31Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, May 15, 2008, 18:45
You'll get the country you deserve...in fact, you already have it.

Well said.
 
32nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Thu, May 15, 2008, 18:45


let me see if i can bring it together for you since the nc post from Part 1 did make the point that those things affected voters and should be refrained from. if these things are indeed meaningless then they would also be worthless and therefore not affect the electorate and therefore would not be so reviled as to state that they should not be uttered and that if you do you are somehow not playing fair. i still do not understand this victimhood that you keep referring to.

I was going to respond to this, but I read it 4 or 5 times, had some trouble with the syntax, and finally thought...ahh why bother.

 
33J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Thu, May 15, 2008, 23:46
very proud of the country i live in. thank you

highest deficit hmm last figures i saw showed the deficit was at 161 billion for 2007 and being reduced at a faster pace than projected (even with a necessary multi-trillion dollar war).

i have said from the beginning that obama's policies and positions are too liberal for me and that he can't win because of it. i could care less what his middle name is or who is pastor is but apparently you feel that it is important as to call it off limits. this is one redneck (per nc) that is lhao.
 
34Perm Dude
ID: 29481513
Fri, May 16, 2008, 00:28
Chris Matthews gets tired of the hot air from the Right
 
35Perm Dude
ID: 29481513
Fri, May 16, 2008, 00:39
Total debt is a little more than that, J-Bar.

And I have to call it like it is: "being reduced at a faster pace than projected" is putting lipstick on a pig. It would have been better if you hadn't said anything--your comment just looks silly.



In February: The Bush administration sent its final budget request to Congress last week, projecting that the deficit for all of 2008 will total $410 billion, very close to the all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004.

The federal budget deficit is running at a pace that is more than double last year's imbalance through the first four months of the budget year.
 
36Wilmer McLean
ID: 224571422
Fri, May 16, 2008, 02:32
RE: 34

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Kevin, when you are gonna make a direct historical reference get it striaght. ... (6:41 in that video link)

Earlier:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wasn't the USS Cole under Bush? I mean, I don't know what I'm talking about here. (6:27 in that video link)


A good answer to Matthew's Chamberlain question would have been:

Chamberlain's priority was avoiding war over everything else, even national security.

Five months after Chamberlain said, "peace for our time," Britain declared war on Germany.
 
37Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, May 16, 2008, 09:40
that was outstanding, and a perfect example of what much popular political (left and right) talk radio is all about, as well as smear campaigns by groups like the Swift Boaters.

facts, aren't important. talking loudly and screaming the same (often misleading or flat out incorrect) mantra over and over again, are much more important than presenting the truth.

Good to see the smackdown layeth down, and Mark Green getting a shot in as well.

Kevin, when you're in a hole, quit digging

and Wilmer:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wasn't the USS Cole under Bush? I mean, I don't know what I'm talking about here. (6:27 in that video link)

that's not what he said. he said we're, not I'm.
 
38Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 16, 2008, 10:45
I've spoken many times (albeit very briefly every time) with Kevin James. He used to be a frequent live guest on the network I work for, usually discussing criminal law topics. I've never heard his radio show or seen him appear on another network before. Kind of shocking to see this rabid political side he burst out of the gate with on Matthews' show. Not anything like the temperment I'm familiar with.

BTW, anyone see the Daily Show Wed night? They're no fans of Matthews over there and they ran part of that clip with Matthews and James speaking over each other with 'dueling banjos' tracked over it, so that as they got more and more heated, the music's tempo increased in time. Very funny. Unfortunately they didn't put the clip online.
 
39J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Fri, May 16, 2008, 21:45
and some people know the difference between the debt and the deficit talk about silly
 
40Perm Dude
ID: 194141614
Fri, May 16, 2008, 23:47
Er, yes, they do. It appears you can't read very closely either, which explains many of your posts.
 
41J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Sun, May 18, 2008, 00:10
nc post 29 states highest deficit in countries history

jbar post 33 addresses that statement saying deficit of 161 billion for 2007

pd 35 titles his link total DEBT and links chart that shows deficits by year

which would make pd the first to use the word debt

and the projection is probably including 150 billion of rebates that most for some unknown reason supported.

and my lipstick on a pig statement was factual based on the deficit reduction from 2005 through 2007 which i did not include the projections because they are just that, projections.

 
42Perm Dude
ID: 524231723
Sun, May 18, 2008, 00:36
J-Bar, clearly you didn't click through to the link. Either one.

The deficit is a year by year amount we spend for which we borrow in order to do so. The total debt is the accumulation of all that. Since I have to spell it out for you:

-saying that the deficit is being reduced at a faster pace is an idiot statement when you look at the total debt. This is like saying that you are paying off a credit card faster than you expected, but you are still maxed out on 12 other cards. Lipstick on a pig.

-the chart, however (which is from a different place) is the "two" in the "one-two" combo which knocks out your point, by putting to the lie the idea that we are somehow turning things around on the deficit (it, in fact, charts the deficit rather than the total debt).

-my second link (below the chart) isn't a projection, but actual costs through the first four months of FY2008 (which started 10/1/07). Even Bush is projecting a near record deficit of $410 billion. A projection? Sure, but a projection by a guy who knowingly (and deceptively) tries to put spin on his budget numbers. It could be much worse, and the numbers so far are demonstrating that.

Care to bet on the final deficit numbers for FY2008? I'll even double your $161 billion and say it is going to be greater than $322 billion.
 
43J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Sun, May 18, 2008, 01:21
again you are spelling out what you in fact brought into the conversation. the 161 was the figure for 2007 never said it was 2008 but if you want to make a bet let's go with the election result because the dems can't win

oh by the way how is it that you can reduce the DEBT w/o first reducing the Deficit. please explain that to me oh wondrous PD for that knowledge i seek since you seem to have
 
44Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sun, May 18, 2008, 02:04
oh by the way how is it that you can reduce the DEBT w/o first reducing the Deficit. please explain that to me oh wondrous PD for that knowledge i seek since you seem to have

Who said this? You were the one who brought up a temporary reduction in the deficit (to a mere $161 billion). I was merely pointing out that even if Bush managed to balance his budget we still have a pile of debt to pay off from when Republican lawmakers decided to abandon their conservative credentials.

George Bush has three of the largest deficits in this country's history (soon to be four). He campaigned (and won) promising that he would not be Bill Cliton. Guess what? He wasn't.

Spell out the bet. Are you honestly under the impression that the Republicans will gain the White House or seats in the Senate or House? I know you have problems processing bad news for your Party but you are looking at historical defeat levels here.
 
45J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Mon, May 19, 2008, 22:42
you did with your lipstick on a pig statement above but at least your admitting that you brought debt into the conversation, that's a start.

same as i saw earlier is fine $50 for guru
 
46Perm Dude
ID: 6411911
Tue, May 20, 2008, 00:20
$50 for what? What are you betting will happen, exactly?
 
47Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Tue, May 20, 2008, 10:09


Thing is, I doubt anyone could afford meat if McCain is elected...
 
48Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, May 20, 2008, 10:23
interesting seeing that cartoon, as i just got done reading this article...

and those are probably tofu pups, SZ.
 
49nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Tue, May 20, 2008, 13:27

nc post 29 states highest deficit in countries history

jbar post 33 addresses that statement saying deficit of 161 billion for 2007


That's weird Jbar. I thought that Bush has been in power for the last 8 years. Several of those years did break deficit records. (See chart 2003, 2004) Especially when there was a Republican majority in congress.

Are you limiting the stats to only the years you want?

Lipstick indeed.



 
50J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 20, 2008, 21:59
deficits are usually a necessary evil when extraordinary circumstances warrant.

1. inherited recession

2. 9/11 - worst conus attack ever

3. decimated military that required massive build up quickly due to 9/11 and the contingencies that
were very close to unanimously supported and funded

4. katrina - worst conus natural disaster ever.

5. largest new entitlement program since the new deal in MEDICARE expansion - if you tell me that the Libs didn't want some form of this i may puke.

6. China and India increasing oil demand by leaps and bounds.

even with all that the deficit was reducing faster than projected and i used the last full year to show that

PD $50 to guru for what i have been saying all along that Obama will not be our next president. if you feel he will put it up or shut it down.
 
51Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Tue, May 20, 2008, 22:16
$50 it is.

The rest of your post neglects to take into account the massive discretionary spending increases by your beloved GOP, combined with cutting the taxes of those best able to afford it. Essentially, the GOP decided to spend more pork while asking middle class and poor taxpayers to foot the bill. Bob Barr doesn't mind telling it like it is. Why can't you?
 
52J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Tue, May 20, 2008, 22:46
so which one of these were the dems wanting to reduce before it was passed

Education is up 62 percent, or 10 percent annually; International affairs is up 74 percent, or 12 percent annually; Health research and regulation is up 57 percent, or 9 percent annually; Veterans’ benefits are up 46 percent, or 8 percent annually; Science and basic research is up 40 percent, or 7 percent annually. and Overall non-defense discretionary outlays are up 46 percent, or 7.8 percent annually.
 
53Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Tue, May 20, 2008, 22:58
The point isn't what Dems would have done if they had any power (which they didn't). It was enough to know that Dems wanted PAYGO re-introduced (which was allowed to expire in 2002 by the GOP in order for them to start rolling out the pork products).

The point is what the Republicans have actually done. The rebuttal to that isn't to speculate upon what Dems would have done if they had any political power at the time. When the American people are getting robbed, it is of no help to point out that you think Dems would have robbed them even more.
 
54J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Wed, May 21, 2008, 08:11
huh, if someone says vote for us because they are spending too much we can't try and derive what they would have spent based on their versions of the bills that they wanted. and if they wanted PAYGO so bad then why has it not been legislated and passed since the dems now have the legislature.
 
55Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 21, 2008, 08:16
if someone says vote for us because they are spending too much

I think what they are saying is more like, 'vote for us because they have proven they can't close a budget gap'.
 
56Pancho Villa
ID: 40421513
Wed, May 21, 2008, 10:19
decimated military that required massive build up

I can only conclude that J-Bar doesn't understand the definition of the word decimated.

From Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary:



Main Entry:
dec·i·mate Listen to the pronunciation of decimate
Pronunciation:
\ˈde-sə-ˌmāt\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
dec·i·mat·ed; dec·i·mat·ing
Etymology:
Latin decimatus, past participle of decimare, from decimus tenth, from decem ten
Date:
1660

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from 3 a: to reduce drastically especially in number b: to cause great destruction or harm to
— dec·i·ma·tion Listen to the pronunciation of decimation \ˌde-sə-ˈmā-shən\ noun


To claim that Bush inherited a decimated military is the height of irresponsible rhetoric. It's especially disingenuous when you consider that the responsible cut back in the defense budget was intiated by the Bush I administration and supported by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

To equate a mild reduction in a bloated defense budget as decimating our military isn't just a semantic exercise, it's full-blown propoganda.
 
57sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, May 21, 2008, 10:32
Any decimation which has occured, has been since our invasion of Iraq and the resultant loss of life and material.
 
58sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, May 21, 2008, 10:40
...and if they wanted PAYGO so bad then why has it not been legislated and passed since the dems now have the legislature.

Probably the single most intelligent question you've asked yet on this forum. And I can answer it for you...

Retribution. The party not in power, is more often than not going to take the stand that is truly the intelligent one. Why? Because it cant be gotten done, and thus they are safe. They then have that issue/period to point to during the next election cycle, tossing the ne'er-do-wells of the other side out of power and assuming the mantle themselves. Of course, now that THEY have the power, they dare not excercise the measures they previously called upon, because all of their pet projects have been underfunded, neglected, terminated and are now in dire need of immediate financial support.

You see it makes no difference who is "in power"...each side is going to t-totally f*** somebody. Sadly, its become the nature of American politics.
 
59Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, May 21, 2008, 10:46
we've still got a ways to go, but for now, it's looking like PD has made a good bet...

i'm also entertained by this statement:
3. decimated military that required massive build up quickly due to 9/11 and the contingencies that were very close to unanimously supported and funded

never mind the fact that "decimated" simply was the wrong word to use here, why exactly DID we need a massive military build up because of 9/11?

to attack a country that had nothing to do with it?

THAT is why our military is NOW decimated.

 
60Perm Dude
ID: 27433209
Wed, May 21, 2008, 11:04
Much of the "War on Terror" is off-budget. Meaning that much of its costs is not reflected in the current budget deficits.

As for PAYGO, J-Bar is again being coy, refusing to say why Republicans continued to not reign in their own spending habits or to curtail pork, instead continuing to pander by spending more and more money at the same time they were cutting revenue through tax cuts on the wealthy.

Dems have tried several times to re-institute PAYGO and have been rebuffed by Republicans (they need Republican support to make such changed veto-proof). But the change in the AMT (which apparently was never indexed for inflation and which was starting to affect middle class taxpayers) may have put the whole thing on hold, along with massive increases in military spending (including veteran care).

"A missed opportunity" is what historians will look back upon the early 2000s as being. On many levels, but particularly on the budget.
 
61walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, May 21, 2008, 11:35
NY Times: Obama & Hillary (satire)
 
62walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, May 21, 2008, 11:37
Mucho talk about Jim Webb being Obama's potential running mate. Thoughts? I like it...I like what Webb says and think it would help Obama in the areas of foreign affairs, perceived military cred, and some experience perceptions.
 
63Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, May 21, 2008, 12:40
i've been saying that to friends for awhile now.

in addition to what you said, he's also from VA *and* served under Reagan, which would play well to Obama's perceived "shortcomings"...
 
64Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, May 21, 2008, 18:43
Jim Webb would be awesome. He has a great ability to reach rural voters and if Obama is smart, he picks him and doesn't give him a short leash like Kerry gave Edwards.
 
65Perm Dude
ID: 154482114
Wed, May 21, 2008, 20:33
I'd rather not lose Webb in the Senate, but he'd be a good pick.

So would Wes Clark. Or, if we want to go dream team, I'm thinking Colin Powell will make this whole thing a slam dunk.

pd
 
66Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 21, 2008, 21:32
You'll forgive the UN Security Council speech?
 
67J-Bar
ID: 184302119
Wed, May 21, 2008, 21:42
pv-It's especially disingenuous when you consider that the responsible cut back in the defense budget was intiated by the Bush I administration and supported by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

i do not believe i placed blame

pv- mild reduction

Although the administration contends that the post-Cold War defense drawdown--a drawdown that has cut the nation's military by one-third since 1990--is nearly complete, the FY 1998 defense budget request reduces both the Navy and Air Force below the personnel levels mandated by law and below the levels called for by the national military strategy. While military forces are shrinking to dangerously low levels, the pace and duration of contingency operations are increasing. These conflicting trends are hurting military readiness, are eroding quality of life, and are certainly not conductive to maintaining a high quality, all-volunteer force in the long run.

3a of pv's definition sounds about right, maybe i should post the definition of mild for pv

if is was 1/3 of your income over 9 years would that be MILD
 
68Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 21, 2008, 22:16
John O'Sullivan on Webb for VP:

The principal value of a veep candidate, it seems to me, is that he shores up the weaknesses of whoever heads the ticket. In Obama’s case the candidate to do that most spectacularly is his Virginia Senate colleague, Jim Webb. Is Obama considered too dovish? Jim Webb was Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy and before that he fought in Vietnam. Are white workers the largest part of the Democratic coalition still suspicious of his bona fides? Jim Webb is the nearest thing in the Senate (and in today’s Democrat party) to the voice of America’s clue collar class. Has Jeremiah Wright put a question mark over Obama’s patriotism? Webb is the main upholder of the Jacksonian tradition in U.S. politics. He’s even written a history of the Scotch-Irish in America—that’s about as politically incorrect as you can get. In short Webb appeals to many of the blue-collar Reagan Democrats who would otherwise be bowled over by McCain who himself doesn’t need to sound patriotic since he’s the embodiment of patriotism


My guess: Webb would be be of much help in getting Obama elected, but would be a real wild-card in Office, often being at odds with Obama and unable to cloak his disagreements.
 
69Perm Dude
ID: 154482114
Thu, May 22, 2008, 00:14
#66: Powell, unlike the others in Bush's circle, owned up to the mistake. And he did so in 2004.

Besides, Powell's name still resonates among Republicans, and his military cred is beyond question. And as SecState, he probably has a pretty good head for diplomacy. I think a Powell as a VP candidate short circuits many of the ready-made arguments against Obama.
 
70Perm Dude
ID: 154482114
Thu, May 22, 2008, 00:22
BTW, I like Webb quite a bit. A miltary guy who has worked for Reagan, with a solid record of reaching across the aisle as well.
 
71Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Thu, May 22, 2008, 01:09
Webb would also help with white southerners, like the ones in Ky who didn't vote Obama.

I deeply distrust Webb myself. I forget the details but it was something between him and Ollie North If I remember correctly. This is a guy who will backstab you with one hand and pat himself on the back in praise of his own
utter innocence at the same time.
 
72Tree
ID: 38432225
Thu, May 22, 2008, 06:41
My guess: Webb would be be of much help in getting Obama elected, but would be a real wild-card in Office, often being at odds with Obama and unable to cloak his disagreements.

this, to me, is not a bad thing. it's a whole lot better than the VEEP who not only agrees with you, but gleefully skullf*cks anyone who disagrees.
 
73Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, May 22, 2008, 08:36
Clinton campaigns as attention wanders elsewhere

as someone who believe Clinton can still play a vital role in government and in congress, i'm starting to get worried about how foolish she'll start looking if she keeps this up.

hopefully, she'll back out in short order, lest she risk being Stassenated... (hmmm...if that's not a word, it probably oughta be...)
 
74Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, May 22, 2008, 08:40
According to Webb's Wiki page, he and North graduated together at Annapolis, where Webb lost a controversial boxing match to him.

Several other mentions of North on that page:
During the Reagan Administration, Webb served as the nation's first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984 to 1987. During his time as Assistant Secretary, Webb sought to reorganize the Marine Corps. He was gravely concerned with the disarray the Marines had fallen into post-Vietnam: drug use, racial infighting, and low morale within the Corps left him with the impression it was no longer America's premier fighting force. The Marine Corps was also rocked by two scandals during this time: the Clayton Lonetree espionage affair, where Lonetree became the first Marine convicted of espionage, and Marine Lt. Colonel Oliver North's central role in the Iran-Contra affair.
Presumably Baldwin's backstabbing story is somewhere in here:
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Webb wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today in which he, as a military veteran, evaluated the candidacies of John Kerry and George W. Bush. He criticized Kerry for the nature of his opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1970s while affiliated with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and accused Bush of using his father's connections to avoid service in Vietnam. Webb also wrote that Bush had "committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory" with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[12]

Webb endorsed incumbent Democrat Charles Robb for reelection to his Senate seat, over Webb's former Naval Academy classmate and fellow Marine Oliver North, in 1994.[13] Webb subsequently endorsed Republican George Allen over Robb in 2000,[14] and then ran against Allen himself in 2006.
 
75Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:27
Webb is definitely angling for VP

Webb, whose 2005 book Born Fighting looks at how the Scots-Irish have shaped America, said Wednesday that he bristles when it is suggested that racism is behind Obama's paltry performance among this group.

"When I hear people say this is racism, it gets my back up a little bit because that's my cultural group," said Webb. "This isn't Selma, 1965."

During his Wednesday interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Webb touted a 2004 op-ed he wrote for The Wall Street Journal in which he not only argued that diversity programs have had "an unequal impact" on white ethnic groups but also expressed his hope that an alliance could one day be forged with African Americans.

"The key thing," said Webb, is "if this cultural group could get at the same table with black America, you could really change American politics because they have so much in common in terms of what they need out of government."

Asked if an Obama-Webb ticket might be the way to bring those two groups to the same table, Webb's spokesperson played it coy.

"I'm not going to answer that question," said Smith.

 
76Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, May 22, 2008, 12:55
"The key thing," said Webb, is "if this cultural group could get at the same table with black America, you could really change American politics because they have so much in common in terms of what they need out of government."

that's what many of us leaning left have said for years. that poor white america and poor black america have everything in common, save for their skin color.

there was a lot to the whole "we just lost the South" when the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964.
 
77J-Bar
ID: 184302119
Thu, May 22, 2008, 22:40
tree- your use of the word poor is showing your liberal elite tendencies. poor america has voted more common than not it is working class america ($30000 - $65000) that has been the demographic more apt to swing. i hope the elitist verbiage keeps being spewed by the liberals in charge of the democratic party as this makes obama's task harder and pd's $50 to guru in the name of J-Bar more and more likely.
 
78Perm Dude
ID: 84462211
Fri, May 23, 2008, 00:12
Actually, it is $100. $50 with you, and $50 with MBJ. But who's counting? Not the conservatives...
 
79Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:17
that's what many of us leaning left.....

Leaning left? And I suppose the Titanic only took on a LITTLE water by comparison? ;)
 
80Tree
ID: 50434235
Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:49
tree- your use of the word poor is showing your liberal elite tendencies.

oh, screw off. you don't even know me. calling me liberal elite is about as damned funny as it gets. i'm lucky and blessed enough to have enough cash to put food on the table, a roof over my head, gas in my car (although for how much longer i'm not sure), the internet, and a subscription to netflix...

if it wasn't for the fact that i also have a strong family with several brothers, loving parents, and a whole mess of aunts, uncles, and cousins, i would be one pink slip away from living in a cardboard box.

poor america has voted more common than not it is working class america ($30000 - $65000) that has been the demographic more apt to swing. i hope the elitist verbiage keeps being spewed by the liberals in charge of the democratic party as this makes obama's task harder and pd's $50 to guru in the name of J-Bar more and more likely

as for the rest of your sentence, and no, i'm not picking on your grammar and punctuation, but i'm not really understanding what you're saying. it's like there is a period or a comma missing.

but i guess "liberal elite" is this year's mantra being put forth from the bully pulpt of conservative talk radio. every election season, there's a new phrase repeated time and time again by conservatives, and this is the one being thrown around the most.

if you want to rephrase the above, i'll be more than happy to respond.
 
81Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, May 23, 2008, 07:01
I don't know. The phrase "liberal elite" to me implies that one class of liberals is somehow better than the other; like choosing between cable television packages. Ohhhh, this one is the Elite. That one's got the good s#it on it. Most of them suck. There's 500 channels but none of them are good for anything.

The true liberal elites, again to me anyway, are the moderates that actually want to solve the problems and have good discussion instead of the loons that have hijacked the party and the power group in Congress that really hasn't done much of anything yet.
 
82Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 07:02
Considering how the military is all about 'team players' I just do not understand how Webb could have advanced as easily as he has. This guy will be a self-agrandizing backstabber sinking any boat foolish enuff to take him aboard.

Wesley Clark is even worse. Not an original brain cell of his own, he is the perfect meat puppet for whoever is paying his meal ticket this year. The perfect stalking horse considering the MSM love affair with that tool of a cipher but what does he bring to the table as VP? A uniform? As a VP he would be the mirror image of the yes-man. He'd be the guy at the table pretending to have 20/20 hindsight and he would have zigged whenever you zagged. Why would you even let him have a seat at the table?

I think that portion of the voting populace who actually appreciates the military can see thru that second-guesser and he doesn't help.
 
83Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 07:09
Yes Boxman, we can only pretend Tree hasn't sunk left.
 
84J-Bar
ID: 184302119
Fri, May 23, 2008, 08:28
tree - i didn't call you a liberal elite, i said you had liberal elite tendencies. the other part was hard to read let me help

poor america has voted more alike than not
working class america has been more apt to swing
 
85Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, May 23, 2008, 08:54
Boldwin: I just do not understand how Webb could have advanced as easily as he has. This guy will be a self-agrandizing backstabber sinking any boat foolish enuff to take him aboard.

I've been pondering who I'd like to have as The Great Leader's Veep in the most likely event of his nomination. I'm having a hard time coming up with names.

Biden? Lieberman (more likely not to accept the invite as he would probably support McCain)?

As a fellow Reagan lover like me, are there any Reagan democrat moderates that you think could stabilize an Obama ticket?
 
86Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:04
I'd be more concerned that they wouldn't be in a position to stabilize his policies.

Webb is a loose cannon but he does have a brain. Are there any Reagan dems who haven't already left the party that left them? None that Obama could countinence I wouldn't think. Can you imagine him and Zell Miller on the same campaign aircraft?
 
87Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:08
The true liberal elites, again to me anyway, are the moderates that actually want to solve the problems and have good discussion instead of the loons that have hijacked the party and the power group in Congress that really hasn't done much of anything yet.

what loons are those?

Considering how the military is all about 'team players' I just do not understand how Webb could have advanced as easily as he has. This guy will be a self-agrandizing backstabber sinking any boat foolish enuff to take him aboard.

typical fluff from the right. a guy who has the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts, and they'll smear him because he's not a "true" conservative robot.

his *ONLY* son is in the Marines, and served in Iraq, so he can't be accused of being one of those guys who will send someone else's son to war.

he's f*cking Chuck Norris in real life, as evidenced by the reasons for receiving the Navy Cross...

Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers.

He still believes Vietnam was justified, and has no problem saying Iraq isn't.

And I, you know, I’m one of these people who—there, there aren’t many of us—who can still justify for you the reasons that we went into Vietnam, however screwed up the strategy got, whereas I don’t think there were legitimate reasons for us to have taken this move into Iraq, again, with the situations that come—the other situations in the region that were a lot more..

he was right on when he predicted back in 2003 that an invasion of Iraq would likely result in guerrilla warfare.

you just don't like Webb because he's got the balls to stand up and follow his beliefs. he marches to his own drummer, and he's gone toe to toe with those he disgrees with. he's not a pandering twit who will gleefully sniff the butt of the head cheese in charge, and that chaps your hide.

Yes Boxman, we can only pretend Tree hasn't sunk left.

your insults only continue to make you look petty and childish. so, keep them coming.

poor america has voted more alike than not
working class america has been more apt to swing


and what's the difference? $30,000 in podunk, alabama, may make you working class. $30,000 in New York City makes you poor.
 
88Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:47
He isn't anything positive that Ollie North isn't twice as much.
 
89sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:50
Point being? Opinion or fact? Bearing on the discussion re the current Presidential Election?
 
90Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:56
Webb is twice the lawbreaker? He has two potted plants as lawyers?
 
91J-Bar
ID: 184302119
Fri, May 23, 2008, 23:13
let me spell it out again for you tree just like i had to for pd earlier in the thread

you said "that's what many of us leaning left have said for years. that poor white america and poor black america have everything in common, save for their skin color."

and i said "poor america has voted more alike than not
working class america has been more apt to swing"

And now you bring in geography as if color wasn't enough

poor is defined in this country and it is a clearly identified demographic if you do not agree then we could debate that at a different time. The working class ($30000 - $65000) has been more apt to swing, are you arguing that.
 
92Tree
ID: 22442249
Sat, May 24, 2008, 11:09
And now you bring in geography as if color wasn't enough

no, actually, the whole freakin' thing is about geography. Webb invoked Selma almost immediately.

i'm sorry that you don't understand that 30,000 bucks in NYC or LA or San Fran doesn't go anywhere near as far as it goes in Pensacola or Montgomery or Omaha.
 
93J-Bar
ID: 184302119
Sat, May 24, 2008, 11:45
so when we see the demographics displayed i will be looking for the asterisk for NYC, LA, SF, and Boston.

and i thought race was not a part of this election ho hum
 
94Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, May 24, 2008, 13:00
Yet another strawman? How many did you buy?
 
95Tree
ID: 324582411
Sat, May 24, 2008, 13:03
*smacks hand against head*

oy.
 
96J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Mon, May 26, 2008, 18:47
might need to smack yourself again, maybe it will help
 
97sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, May 26, 2008, 19:14
dont think smacking himself would help as much as smacking....aw hell...nevermind.
 
98walk
ID: 4952035
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 06:23
NYTimes, Herbert: Dems Hurting Themselves A Lot

NYTimes, Brooks: McCain & Obama have Electability Issues

Two good one's IMO. I think threads like this can start to take over as perhaps as soon as tonight, Obama will be the "presumptive nominee." Herbert is right about how Obama and Clinton have fcuked up the Dem odds in a big way. Idiots!!!
 
99Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 06:48
Why does 'Operation Chaos' get none of the credit?
 
100Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 11:41
Clinton set to concede delegate race to Obama

per the AP...
 
101Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 11:52
and now, followed up by this:

CBS: Clinton Will 'Acknowledge But Not Concede'

A senior Clinton campaign official confirmed to CBS News that Sen. Hillary Clinton will "acknowledge but not concede" the race tonight. The official says "she has no plans to concede the race tonight," despite a report from the Associated Press that she would be effectively ending her bid to become the first female president during her speech at Baruch College.
 
102walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 12:43
It's a "nuance," Tree...she's getting it.

;-)
 
103walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 12:48
More seriously, it is disturbing to me that Hillary won't concede. I wonder if she will EVER concede. The article indicates she wants to negotiate with Obama on policy issues (probably wants him to pay her campaign debt) and maybe consider her for a VP. It reads like ego-oriented blackmail. Maybe she will concede in time...Bizarro.
 
104biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 12:50
It really is bizarro. I think she must be angling to be offered the VP or some other position she would want, in exchange for concession. What a viper.
 
105walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 12:55
"I'm not dead yet...it's only a flesh wound."
 
106Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 13:15
definitely bothersome. and at this point, so detrimental to the party.

Hillary Clinton will continue to be a crucial member of congress. i hope she doesn't botch that by making some sort of odd power play now.
 
107Mith
ID: 34514315
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 16:14
As far as I'm concerned she should stick around as long as she wants.
 
108Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 56118297
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 18:29
I've been in the field this week and don't know to what, if any extent this has breached the news cycle. While getting ready in my hotel room early this morning I saw the following clip on FNC this morning (about 3:30 in):


This link claims that FNC has since dropped the story from it's site.

Googling michelle+obama+rumor yields this among other things. If true, he's done. If not (meaning no such video ever surfaces) welcome to the rabid right's favorite new unfounded rumor to repeatedly state as fact.
 
109Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 18:59
Where I think this is going. Read the top two posts.
 
110biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 19:05
I agree with you, Baldwin.

I'll give you one back you can agree with:

If Obama were fool enough to be coerced into taking Hillary as Veep, he's a dead man.
 
111Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 19:11
My guess is that right now Hillary is conferring with one super-delegate after another saying...'I could drop out now but you know this video is just gonna kill Obama sooner or the party later...so it's up to you super-delegates whichever fate you want'.
 
112biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 19:35
Geez. I give you a Clinton conspiracy to commit murder and you duck it! Sheesh.
 
113Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 21:03
Bili

Cross-posted...lol. Definately...the decision of rejecting her as VEEP runningmate is a life and death decision for him.

That is the worst possible outcome of this election. And IMO any one of the three winning is already seriously defective.

 
114Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 21:08
One pairing I'd like to see tho, is to drop Hillary and Nancy Grace into a container and see which one walks out. One compass point would be magically witch-free at least.
 
115Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 21:22
If that tape exists, why would he even run in the first place? He can't be dumb enough to think comments like that wouldn't surface.
 
116Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 56118297
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 21:37
If it does exist, I wouldn't be surprised if he simply didn't know about it. His opponents' line has been that he knows all about every last questionable thing that's been said at Trinity United but that really might not be the case at all. I haven't seen anything about how old this clip supposedly is.
 
117Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 21:58
These guys expect to be able to pick and chose if and when their family members are fair targets for the media. Further he prolly has unlimited faith in the race card which he can pull out to cover 'Trinity United', which in fairness he plays sparingly so there is still a lot of milage left on the card.
 
118Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 22:05
If he had any faith on the "race card" he would have used it several times by now. You really need to stop thinking Obama is another Jesse Jackson, Baldwin.

Not only do I not think he'll not play the card, I don't think he's got much respect for those that do.
 
119Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 22:54
I consider his whole defense of his 'TU' involvement to be 'playing the race card'.

To me it seems he wants us to all accept a shoulder shrug and an unspoken, 'that's just the way these black churches and that generation of blacks are...[and you better walk on eggshells when you criticize them]'.

PD, you know perfectly well a republican could not get away with membership in a church that had a racist catelog of rants like 'TU' has.
 
120Tree
ID: 19557322
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 00:02
PD, you know perfectly well a republican could not get away with membership in a church that had a racist catelog of rants like 'TU' has.

after the 2000 and 2004 elections, i'm pretty sure a republican could get away with murder and still be elected - in fact, nearly 4,000 of them.

but it's still amazing to me that there is so little "gotcha" stuff for Obama, that they'll go after his pastor, his church, his wife, the family dog, and the kid who once delivered the newspaper to him, in an effort to make him look bad.
 
121Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 00:10
Given the kinds of things that Republicans have been getting busted on, I tend to agree with you, Baldwin. Except I'm not exactly sure on what you mean by "get away with." You mean having the press harp on it until the candidate quits the church? To have his political opponents demonize the pastor to the point where the pastor's obvious self-promotion becomes an issue? Where the characterizations of the pastor is conflated with the candidate's?

What, exactly, did Barack Obama "get away with" in this case?
 
122walk
ID: 4952035
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 05:58
Hey, did you guys hear? Obama got the nomination last night! Whoo-hoo!
 
123Tree
ID: 1953145
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 06:36
i really like this column...

But (Clinton's) fighting words only increased the need for Obama to show that he can be strong, tough and in charge. Clinton’s unwillingness to recognize Obama as the victor only increased the need for Obama to act like a president and not like a doormat. And denying her a vice presidential slot may be a way of doing that.
 
124walk
ID: 4952035
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 07:19
I think there's a lot of "politics" going on with Clinton's refusal to concede last night, speculation about a VP role, etc.

Does she want him to help her pay her campaign debts?
Will she make her very strong endorsement of Obama conditional on a VP offer?
Will she accept a VP offer (or does she just want the honor of getting the offer)?
Ultimately, does she want him to win the nomination on HER terms?

These questions, and more, I think are all in play over the next few days as Obama decides what is more important: choosing a VP that is consistent with his message and platform and the best fit in terms of chemistry, rapport, ideology and such, or choosing a VP that will increase the odds of him winning the general election. I think Clinton could be perceived as someone who can galvanize the portion of the base that she so nicely separated from his base, and now put her in a position to be needed.

I hope he does not have her on his ticket. She does not represent his forward thinking ideas and is too partisan. She also lacks integrity and I think in the end will not make him more electable. However, I think she wants "deference." "I am a Clinton! You will bow down to me, even in victory."
 
125walk
ID: 4952035
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 07:29
RCP: It's all about Respect
 
126Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 08:59
What, exactly, did Barack Obama "get away with" in this case? - PD

Amazing.

A republican with a 20 year close relationship with a racist church would have been forced out of the race by the media.
 
127Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 09:04
A republican with a 20 year close relationship with a racist church would have been forced out of the race by the media.

yea, because we've never had senators - republican AND democrat - elected time and time and time again - despite racist pasts.
 
128walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 09:11
I disagree that the church is racist. You're buying into the hype. Unless you have been there or seen entire sermons, one cannot make this conclusion based on those excerpts...they are not unequivocal.
 
129Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 09:36
Both pervasive and unequivical. Did you see the rich selection of racist youtube examples the church itself promoted on their own website? Did you hear Wright's replacement launch immediately into racist rants ala Wright? Show me Wright equivocating on black liberation theology. The man is incapable of even attempting that for the strategic purpose of helping Obama.
 
130Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 56118297
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 10:28
Is that another claim that the media went easy on Obama over the events at TU?
 
131Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 10:36
A republican with a 20 year close relationship with a racist church...

More speculative nonsense, devoid of any of the anectdotal evidence of Republicans not only staying in races but winning them despite even bigger problems that a "racist" church.

Even putting aside the problem the Right has differentiating between the words "racist" and "racial" the thought that a Republican would run away from a race because the "media" attacked their church is laughable.
 
132Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 10:38
The republicsan wouldn't run away, he would be ridden out on a rail by the media.
 
133Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 10:43
Like Larry Craig, you mean? Or Don Young? Or many others who simply tucked their tails between their legs, grabbed their "honor" and went home?
 
134Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 10:58
Strom Thurmond. Robert Byrd. two guys who served (and, in Byrd's case, continues to serve, thank god) in politics for a long time, yet have some pretty checkered pasts in regards to race relations.

i mean hell, Thurmond's fillibuster against the Civil Rights act is probably the longest one in congressional history.
 
135Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 13:11
Byrd is the perfect example. It is impossible for there to have been a republican Robert Byrd last a month.
 
136biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 13:17
Baldwin - do you really think Obama is a racist?
 
137biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 13:20
Did you think Bush was a racist when he spoke at Bob "don't touch the white girls" Jones University?
 
138Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 13:52
Byrd is the perfect example. It is impossible for there to have been a republican Robert Byrd last a month.

because, of course, republican Strom Thurmond didn't last nearly 40 years.
 
139Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 14:26
Bili

Nah, I think he's a marxist but he'll play a very subtle race card like a racist when it suits him. He's had some expert training. I am actually more worried about his association with Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis which I think were more sincere relationships than what he had with Wright.
 
140Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 14:28
Perhaps you have a point with Thurman, Tree. What 'grand kleegle' sheet was in his closet again like the one in Byrd's?
 
141walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 14:43
President Obama. Amazing concept. It's okay, Baldwin, it's okay to have a bi-racial president.
 
142Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 15:14
What on earth makes you think I have a problem with a bi-racial president, Walk? You couldn't be more wrong.

Nominate Tiger Woods, why doncha?

Unapologetically marxist...well there I have a problem.
 
143Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 15:17
What 'grand kleegle' sheet was in his closet again like the one in Byrd's?

as i mentioned, longest filibuster ever, and it was against the Civil Rights Act.

he supported segregation laws.

he was a presidential candidate for a third party that supported segregation laws.

while running, he said the following "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

heck, that presidential campaign, and Trent Lott's praise for it, cost Lott his leadership position in the Senate.
 
144Perm Dude
ID: 35542411
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 15:21
Unapologetically marxist

Yeah, a guy who tells union workers that their job is to make sure that their companies make a profit is a marxist.

So begins the "Dance of Opposites."

Baldwin's problem isn't that Obama is biracial. It is that he is a Democrat.
 
145Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 16:07
Do you think he could have survived that on the national stage? Seems like he got 'grandfathered in'. Obviously Lott...a former Dem, btw, did not qualify for the media exemption.
 
146Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 16:58
so. regarding all this mucky muck of Hillary being the VP.

i mean, isn't it by and large a ceremonial position? wouldn't she better serve this country by remaining in the senate, or, possibly, as secretary of state?
 
147Perm Dude
ID: 35542411
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 17:02
She can best serve her party by starting to attack McCain on the issues, IMO. That's really the job of the Veep--to attack the other party's nominee. If she wants the job she's gotta start doing some work on it.

I certainly hope she does not get on the ticket, however.
 
148Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 18:02
Rezko convicted on a third of the counts he was on trial for today. This will impact Obama and Illinois politics. Even moreso if Rezko cuts a deal now. Prosecutors are aiming much more for Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, not so much for Obama.
 
149Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 18:14
For those staying ahead of this story...
 
150Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 18:25
ABC radio announces Hillary will appear Friday to concede.

Freudian slip...almost posted Killary. ( Just say no, Barrack)
 
151Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 18:37
Last night was the first time that I thought Sen. Clinton would make a good choice for VP. Here's why:

1. Obama has said he wants to end the "bickering" in DC, reach across the isle, etc... He could start by reaching across the divide in his own party.

2. Sen. Clinton already has a huge campaign in place. She has the name and numbers of millions of supporters in states where she won and he lost. It would be like adding a huge army. Sen. Clinton could simply continue to make all of her campaign stops, now urging voters to vote for "us", and bashing McCain, which is a lot easier to do.

3. Having Sen. Clinton on your ticket is like having two candidates running against one old man. Seriously, add up all of the primary votes for Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton and see how McCain stacks up against that. You could have two groups of campaign workers pounding the pavement in Ohio, knocking on doors saying, "Vote for Obama" to some people, "Vote for Hillary" to her supporters.

Someone on The News Hour last night contrasted this primary with the Reagan/Ford battle in 1976. Where in '76 the difference between Reagan (conservative) and Ford (centrist) was ideological, and could be addressed by making promises regarding policy, the difference between Obama and Clinton is demographic and cannot be addressed. Clinton appealed to blue collar whites, Hispanic, and the elderly. Obama got everyone else. Really, the only way for Obama to solve this problem is to pick a VP who solves this weakness. Someone who appeals to blue collar whites, Hispanic, and the elderly. Hmmm...

Who cares what she does after they are elected. You have to get elected first.

Hey, I've got an idea. Name her the chair of a special Executive committee to assess the nation's healthcare and make suggestions how to fix it :)

Seriously, she would be a fine VP. And the notion that Bill would "get in the way" is ridiculous.
 
152Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 18:57
4. Baldwin is against it so it must be good for Obama.
 
153Perm Dude
ID: 35542411
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 13:11
First Hillary Clinton has to concede. Then she has to say she will do all she can to elect Obama as President. Only then should she be considered as Vice President.

Personally I think she would bring down the ticket as VP with all the baggage (including all her fanatical supporters, who should be jettisoned instead of being rewarded). There was no one more divisive than Clinton in the race--if Obama ran to end the divisiveness he will be putting his own message off by picking her to carry his water.
 
154Tree
ID: 49516516
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 17:18
do we question her sincerity?

or is it a way for her to angle toward the VP by saying she DOESN'T want it?

Clinton disavows push to make her veep
 
155Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 11:18
Reporter asks Obama about the Michelle 'whitey' rumor, he calls it "dirt and lies".

David Weigel: the Cultivation of a Rumor (kudos to B for calling it early)
 
156Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 11:36
McCain, spying and executive power: A complete reversal in 6 months
The bulk of the Bush controversies over the last seven years are grounded in the Bush/Cheney view of executive power: that when it comes to national security, war and foreign policy (so broadly defined that it even includes what the Government does to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil), nothing can constrain what the President does -- not even laws enacted by the American people through their Congress. John McCain is now embracing those extremist theories in full. The only difficult question is to decide what's more disturbing: that McCain switches positions so quickly and completely on such fundamental questions, or that he is now espousing a view of presidential power that has fueled the radicalism and lawlessness of the last seven years?

UPDATE: It's also worth noting that these days, in order to please the self-proclaimed "small government" conservative movement, a candidate must now vow to spy on Americans with no warrants or oversight of any kind; reserve the right to torture; and even break the law -- ignore popular will as expressed through acts of Congress -- whenever such lawbreaking is deemed beneficial. Those are now defining planks in the limited-government "conservative" movement.
 
157Building 7
ID: 471052128
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 12:13
I don't believe those are positions of the Liberterian party.
 
158Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 12:19
Libertarian does not mean the same thing as conservative.
 
159Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:08
Interesting take on the campaign.
 
160Perm Dude
ID: 25857128
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 13:07
Ohio invalidates some absentee ballots. Apparently, some McCain campaign-printed ballots had an extra box.

This seems to be an incredibly narrow interpretation of the law. So, despite Democrats taking over the office from Ken Blackwell, petty politics seems to hold sway in that office still.
 
161Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 13:13
What kind of state allows private parties to send out absentee ballot applications? That's patently absurd!

This seems to be an incredibly narrow interpretation of the law.

Yeah, payback is a bitch.
 
162walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:25
Paul Reiser: I know you are but what am I?
 
163Perm Dude
ID: 25857128
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:28
Man, good stuff!

"I think the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different if Senator Obama had accepted my request for us to appear in town hall meetings all over America," the Senator from Arizona tells us.

Am I just losing my friggin' mind? Seriously. I keep looking around the room to see if I'm living in some suddenly altered state where everything we know is now called the opposite, and nobody notices. Or can stop it.
 
164Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:29
From PD's link: Brunner was elected in 2006 on a campaign encouraging fewer restrictions on voters and more improvements in the election process to make the system easier and more transparent following two presidential elections in which Ohio was riddled with problems involving punch-card ballots, touchscreen machines, long lines and registration snafus.

Brunner said state law does not require one standardized form to apply for an absentee ballot. While the Secretary of State prints its own application, the law says it need not be a particular form. A voter can merely send a letter with personal information that identifies him or her as a qualified elector to receive an absentee ballot, Brunner said


Oh the glory of the other guy's ox being gored...

Although I think the Ohio SOS likely loses this in Court, I agree with her action. Absentee apps sent out by private parties should very strictly comply with all statutes and regulations- it's already a situation very subject to mischief and manipultion by the parties.
 
165walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 14:37
Word, PD...#163. I watched that forum last night and that answer from McCain was worthy of Reiser's response. I mean, what is that then, negative campaigning as a punishment for Obama turning down a date with McCain...? He gave that answer at Columbia, too. I am sure the audience was not quite buying it.
 
166Boldwin
ID: 358331116
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 15:14
Why is that so hard to believe?

Both candidates have gone overboard in the past to denounce their own people when they went over the top and to call for a higher tone to the campaign.

Going toe to toe they would have been forced by their own words to display extra collegiality and one could logically predict their supporters to tend to follow their lead.
 
167walk
ID: 22854919
Fri, Sep 12, 2008, 19:19
Are the Netroots being Played by Rove?

Interesting comment by a Sullivan reader. I think he/she is on to something...tactics by the McCain campaign that the liberal side are enabling.
 
168walk
ID: 181472714
Mon, Sep 15, 2008, 11:08
4 Things Obama Must do to Win
 
169walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, Sep 25, 2008, 14:52
NYT, Gail Collins: Rubber Chicken

clever
 
170walk
ID: 5289245
Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 08:22
NYT, Dowd: Obama Could Have Been More Forceful in Debate
 
171Boldwin
ID: 58582413
Sun, Sep 28, 2008, 10:40
#147

There you go again.
 
172voter12
ID: 4493149
Sat, Oct 04, 2008, 10:31
Check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYnfhFlS6U8 it says it all. Everyone needs to vote no matter who you are voting for.
 
173Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 19:37
RE: post 164 and the Ohio SOS move to invalidate some GOP absentee ballots: as expected, the SOS move has been struck down and she must accept the ballots
 
174biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Oct 06, 2008, 23:10


Hat tip Kleiman.

There's an updated shot of the straight-talk express as well:

 
175Tree
ID: 13714198
Tue, Oct 07, 2008, 16:40
the polls (for what they're worth), are REALLY starting to show things swinging Obama's way...
 
176Perm Dude
ID: 57922710
Tue, Oct 07, 2008, 17:27
 
177Tree
ID: 10934719
Tue, Oct 07, 2008, 21:38
at this moment, Obama has such a "WTF are you talking about, you freakin' liar" look on his face...

convenient of McCain to lay the BS on thick when he knows the format doesn't allow Obama an immediate rebuttal.

 
178Seattle Zen
ID: 358591721
Tue, Oct 07, 2008, 22:46
It's the bottom of the ninth, friends, and Obama has a six run lead. It's not enough to have a draw in these debates, McCain has to knock a fewer homers and Obama needs to meltdown if the Senator from AZ stands a chance.

Don't hold your breath. Obama is dealing like he's KRod/Rivera/Eckersley/Gossage all in one and McCain is a spitting image of Duane Keipper with a comb over.

I thought to myself during McCain's signoff, where he waxed about all of the tough times he's suffered though, all of the dire circumstances he's weathered and thought: "so you are pretty familiar with what you are facing now."

Which is good as he won't be destroyed as a man come Nov. 4th.

How many of you Republicans or Independents now wish it was Mitt Romney out there? I've just have to believe that he would have made this much tighter.
 
179Perm Dude
ID: 57922710
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 00:48
 
180Boldwin
ID: 40850297
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 04:08
Charisma matters. It's a media circus. Why the establishment country club republicans think they can win with Dole's and McCain's is beyond me.

Which again does not speak well for democracy. Character and substance should matter if this made any sense.
 
181walk
ID: 5292522
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 06:22
I think Obama has character and substance...it's Palin who lacks that...and agreed that McCain lacks charisma. He's basically just well past his prime. He is indeed, as PD pointed out at the outset a long time ago, this cycle's Dole.
 
182Tree
ID: 13714198
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 08:46
Character and substance should matter if this made any sense.

yet you're still a proponent of McCain and Palin (the former with a total lack of character, the later with a total lack of substance) over Obama and Biden?
 
183Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 10:02
McCain and Palin (the former with a total lack of character,

McCain - a total lack of character? Where does that come from? Maybe you meant a total lack of charisma.
 
184Tree
ID: 13714198
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 10:20
McCain - a total lack of character? Where does that come from?

compare McCain of 2004 or even 2006 with McCain of 2008.

his shift to appease the the more christian conservative right wingers of his party exhibits a lack of character to me.
 
185Boldwin
ID: 40850297
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 10:29
Reagan instincts count as substance for me.
 
186bibA
ID: 16954615
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 10:56
Charisma matters - certainly seems to be true.

Got me thinking, and I can't remember a single presidential election since the 40s wherein the candidate with more charisma has lost, except in 64 when LBJ beat Goldwater.
 
187Perm Dude
ID: 493888
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 11:41
"Instinct" is more a measure of political ability. Reagan had it, but it is like saying a ballplayer has a lot of talent--you don't really see it unless he's already on the job doing it.
 
188Tree
ID: 13714198
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 13:00
Reagan instincts count as substance for me.

well, if you set the bar low enough, anything counts, and using Palin's "instincts" is setting the bar *really* low...
 
189walk
ID: 5292522
Wed, Oct 08, 2008, 21:35
Boozhy Quotes: McCain and Wacky Tobaccy

Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker has the Boozhy quote of the week. His quote describing the state of McCain's chances for victory is genius. From the New Yorker's weekly political podcast:

"I think McCain is down to seeds and stems."
 
190Boldwin
ID: 40850297
Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 00:04
If that writer meant to demoralize McCain supporters he prolly should have used an illustration they can identify with.
 
191Perm Dude
ID: 493888
Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 00:16
I think you need to stop kidding yourself that people write these things in order to demoralize your side. Most often, people write these things because it reflects what they see.

Not everything is some kind of media spin.
 
192Boldwin
ID: 40850297
Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 00:27
Tongue-in-cheek, PD.
 
193walk
ID: 5292522
Thu, Oct 09, 2008, 10:56
NYT, McCain Excites Crowds with Criticism of Obama

Mr. McCain has never been comfortable talking about the economy, and in these final weeks of his nearly two-year, second-time quest of the presidency, with polls showing him losing increasing ground to Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain and his advisers have made the calculation that negative attacks will move at least some voters. Certainly those attacks pump up crowds on the campaign trail, where it is the sharp criticism of Mr. Obama, rather than Mr. McCain’s once-over comments on the economy, that draw the biggest, loudest response from the conservative and almost all-white crowds that come to see Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin.

Not unusual in the waning weeks of the campaign trail, particulary for the trailing candidate, but still sorta pathetic given the incredibly dire circumstances of the economy. McCain's only substance is his proposal to have the government buy back individual homeowner's bad mortgages, which is the antithesis of republican governance, and very expensive.
 
194walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Oct 14, 2008, 10:57
Richard Cohen: Debate Qs for Wednesday, Oct. 15

Good one's, IMO.
 
195Boldwin
ID: 44916136
Tue, Oct 14, 2008, 14:52
Walk

Even worse is that if I am not mistaken he is even warming to the idea of arbitrarily reassigning new principle values.

That would take a major sales job to get me to wrap my mind around that one.
 
196James K Polk
ID: 509561413
Tue, Oct 14, 2008, 15:29
It's like I never left. I love it.
 
197Tree
ID: 13714198
Tue, Oct 14, 2008, 16:30
lol. MITH and JKP...on the same day?!?!?!?!

welcome back, even if just for a viewing.

and trust me JKP, it's way different. Baldwin's gone so far off the deep end, it's pretty damned entertaining. it's no longer maddening, just downright funny.
 
198Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Tue, Oct 14, 2008, 19:01
Baldwin's gone so far off the deep end

Not really. I'd say Baldwin is representative of a huge segment of conservatives who at one time praised Reagan as Ronald the Great. Then, after 8 years of Clinton, their hopes were dashed by a Republican who embarrassed himself and his party with a frightening lack of leadership.

Now, they're faced with the real possibility of having an extremely liberal Democratic President coupled with an extremely liberal Democratic Congress, especially the leadership.

To be honest, I would personally feel better about a President Obama if it weren't in conjunction with Pelosi and Reid, who I view to be two of the most polarizing and inefficient people in Congress.

So Baldwin isn't all that unique when you visit sites like FreeRepublic or Townhall. He's almost a moderate compared to the some of the voices you'll find there.
 
199Perm Dude
ID: 11935149
Wed, Oct 15, 2008, 01:00
Early voting stats from Georgia are huge.

A combination of the ease of voting by mail and large increases in registration make the number really jump off the page.

Typically, first time registered voters don't vote in huge numbers. But early voting (particularly by mail) seems to be easing the transition).

What this does in GA is anyone's guess. On the Presidential level it seems to be a help to Obama, since much of the strong tilt toward him comes from newly registered voters it seems, and those tilt strongly toward Obama. But IMO there is no way Obama wins GA.

So the Senate race (Martin v Chambliss) is a real question mark. This race has tightened considerably and seems to be within the margin of error on most polls, but most of the tightening has occured after early voting has begun.
 
200walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 10:36
Real Clear Politics average of all polls has Obama up 6.9; yesterday at this time it was 7.8. The more aggressive stance McCain took in the debate, the clearer distinctions he made at the outset between his tax policy and Obama's, I believe has resulted in this little bump. He started off well last night, but I think then derailed when the question about "say it my face" came up and then momentum continued towards Obama when the discussions were about healthcare and education. It's better to better at the beginning than at the end though, and this effort by McCain could have helped him some. Interesting.

At times last night, I liked the way McCain came across when he was sincere and trying to talk about how we wanted to help Americans. However, when he went on the attack, or demonstrated his clear impatience and disdain for Obama, he came across as old, resentful and very unpresidential.

I liked Obama's poise, and realize he wanted to maintain poise above all else, yet I did want him to get a little more intense when McCain had the gall to acuse Obama's campaign of being more negative than McCain. I felt that Obama took the higher road in this exchange, but that he needed to let loose a little and let McCain know that allowing Palin to muster up such hate in his rallies was inexcusable and far worse (and should be "repudiated," to use McCain's standard) than what Lewis said about McCain's campaign. Obama went there, but not far enough in saying how McCain's campaign has fostered more ill-will. He should have not let McCain get away with saying his supporters are the best and basically minimize that just a few bad apples have made these comments. It's not that, it's fostering a culture of animosity, and he's responsible for that. I wanted to hear Obama say something like that.
 
201walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 10:40
NY Post Debate Recap (not bad!)

For such a rag, this is a good recap...cos they had two pundits write it and not some in-house goober.
 
202Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 18:17
I see a very familiar pattern.

Everytime Democrats get the idea Republicans took unfair advantage of something, they come back later and use that tactic in massive ways [whether Republicans actually used those tactics or not].

The latest iteration of this is that since they think voter fraud stole the election from Gore, Dem's are perpetrating the most massive voter fraud this time. I'd estimate it at 30K fraudulent voters registrations per swing state.

Of course PD will tell you that's just acorn employing convicts who buy their take-home pay by bribing the homeless with cigarettes and making up names who will never vote, but as I've stated before, when the dead register to vote in Chicago they show up, and the fraud is way too massive and widespread to be policed in time.

I feel confident there will be enuff ghost voters in key states to at least win a race as close as Florida in 2004.

 
203Perm Dude
      ID: 41935169
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 19:00
Well, don't take my word for it. The prosecutors (that you laud for filing complaints in the first place) are saying exactly what I am saying.

There's no evidence that any fraudulent votes have been cast as a result of ACORN's many registration drives.
 
204J-Bar
      ID: 27935127
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 19:54
That's why pro-obama sec of state Brunner doesn't want to verify registrations, keep on keepin on.
 
205Perm Dude
      ID: 41935169
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 20:16
Again: There's no indication, from Ohio or anywhere, that illegal ballots have been cast.

The problems with ACORN have been uniform: The filing of fake voter registrations (cause by a lack of oversight by ACORN as well as a pay-by-registration setup which encourages fake registrations).

In nearly all cases, these registrations do not match up to actual people, let alone people who try to vote based upon those registrations and who should not.

If you are going to cry "fraud" it would be necessary, I think, to know the facts.

 
206J-Bar
      ID: 27935127
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 20:50
keep on keepin on

O’Brien told The Dispatch that he is investigating allegations that 13 out-of-state residents recently registered to vote, all claiming to live at 2885 Brownlee Rd.

The individuals apparently were in Columbus working for Vote From Home, a group working to increase young-voter turnout in Ohio and using the house as their base of operation, O’Brien said.

“None of the people who registered had prior contacts with Columbus and Franklin County,” O’Brien said. “You must be a resident of the state of Ohio in order to register and cast a ballot, and that’s the issue being examined - whether they were proper residents of Ohio.”

Two of the individuals voted in person at Veteran’s Memorial while a third returned a completed absentee ballot by mail, said Matt Damshroder, deputy director of the Franklin County Board of Elections.
 
207Perm Dude
      ID: 41935169
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 21:19
Survey USA has some already-voted results (kind of a rolling poll). Ohio has Obama up 57-39. Georgia has Obama up 52-46. Iowa has Obama up 65-31. New Mexico has Obama up 65-37%. North Carolina has Obama up 65-31.

We saw this 4 years ago as well, where early voters were strongly Democrat. Any theories as to why?
 
208J-Bar
      ID: 27935127
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 21:34
oh not the change the subject routine when presented with facts that illegally registered voters voted.

My theory is:

The lobby has been out to make early voting and voting in general easier so that fraud can come on into the picture.

Most homeless and lower socio economic people that could be persuaded by small incentives lean democrat anyway.

Groups such as Acorn are pro-democrat and have made a business of getting election laws changed so that it makes their job easier to recruit, register, and have the vote counted people that would not have voted without the incentive.

Just my theories
 
209Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 21:39
The Democrats will have the illegal votes vs. the Republican's illegal vote tabulations (Diebold). I'd rather have the hackers on my side.

 
210Perm Dude
      ID: 41935169
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 21:43
I was looking up that thread, not changing the subject. Idiot.

Link to your quotes. A search for ACORN turns up as empty as your point. Here's the web page for Vote From Home with pictures of the Brownlee Road home in question. Wanna bet the allegations against them are quietly tossed?

So your theory is that the early voters are more fraudelent. Any evidence, by any chance?
 
211J-Bar
      ID: 27935127
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 22:22
Thanks again for the unprovoked name calling.

Point is that an illegal ballot was cast to refute your point that it is just registering and really doesn't matter.

Now that they are being reviewed (by order of the SCOTUS) maybe there will be more evidence but the voters that voted in the previous point are some evidence since they would not have state issued id with the address of the district thaty live in if they showed at the polls.
 
212bibA
      ID: 479311318
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 23:24
J-Bar - are these persons you are citing people who were recruited by ACORN to unlawfully register and then vote via the unlawful registrations?
 
213bibA
      ID: 479311318
      Thu, Oct 16, 2008, 23:24
J-Bar - are these persons you are citing people who were recruited by ACORN to unlawfully register and then vote via the unlawful registrations?
 
214Perm Dude
      ID: 41935169
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 08:44
Point is that an illegal ballot was cast to refute your point that it is just registering and really doesn't matter.

My point was that no illegal ballots were cast as a result of ACORN's turning in fake registration forms. Your story is about an investigation into possible fraud which has nothing to do with ACORN and may not be fraud at all.

Apparently it is enough to you to say that there is fraud, and not enough to actually refute the point being made about ACORN.

Ohio law only requires a 30-day residency before both registration and voting. It doesn't require a driver's license for that address. Ohio voting rules.
 
215Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 09:45
I'd estimate it at 30K fraudulent voters registrations per swing state.

i'd estimate your idiocy at 100 percent.

come on. seriously. this is more of you pulling random stuff out of your ass - and considering how full of $hit you've been these last few months, there's a lot to be pulled out.

all you've done since Obama clinched the nod is throw every possible accusation possible at him, not really giving a damn if it's true.

i'm surprised you haven't accused him of raping half the white women in america, although i'm sure you've considered it.
 
216Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 10:21
The 30K figure came from Ohio specifically and from the impression I've gotten looking at what other officials sueing Acorn have been accusing them of.

If I found the actual numbers that the various state officials are accusing them of it wouldn't move you an iota because you are not interested in the truth.
 
217Perm Dude
      ID: 41935169
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 10:27
Estimates of the number of registrations they are looking at (typically, goaded by local GOP organizations) doesn't mean actual fraudulent registrations. And, more to the point, doesn't mean actual fraudulent votes.
 
218Perm Dude
      ID: 189181713
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 14:20
SCOTUS rejects GOP suit in Ohio

Decided on standing reasoning, it appears.

So ends another GOP fishing expedition, designed to distrupt the process just long enough to steal an election.
 
219Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 15:18
Now that Ken Blackwell is no longer the "man behind the curtain" doing Ohio GOP dirty work, they are terrified. They can no longer rely upon voter frustration in black urban centers as voters will no longer have to wait 5-6 hours to vote on Nov. 4th.

Hey, do these Republican cries of voter fraud sound somewhat familar?

Yeah, it's a political Old Faithful, it erupts every four years like clockwork, fed by tons of hot air.
 
220Boldwin
      ID: 44916136
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 15:38
Here's a related coincidence.
1. The Secretary of State of Ohio Jennifer Brunner filed a request in the Supreme Court relating to the underlying claim in her state that there has been voter registration fraud…with ties to the work of ACORN in registering voters.

2. A group — the Service Employees International Union [SEIU] — filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to rule with the Secretary of State of Ohio (and essentially asking for a ruling that would be favorable to ACORN in that it would “call off the dogs.”)

3. I thought it curious that SEIU would file an amicus brief for Brunner and did some quick research …and now I need more indepth research (which is where YOU come in.) According to my quick research..the same person who started ACORN, started SIEU. His name is Wade Rathke. So then I wondered, who is Wade Rathke?

4. I did some really quick research and learned that Rathke was a member of the anti war group SDS.
 
221walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 15:54
Is this a "here we go again" thing? I so hope Obama crushes McCain so this stuff is moot. I guess one can say the reverse, too, and I'll take it...I want this outcome to be one of the voters' will, and not another "contended" outcome.
 
222DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Oct 17, 2008, 16:25
I'm really sure you didn't need that level of research skil, but for humor value, here you go (I haven't bothered to read):

Wade Rathke's web site
 
223Tree
      ID: 51940199
      Sun, Oct 19, 2008, 10:50
Colin Powell on Meet the Press....

wow.
 
224walk
      ID: 559391320
      Mon, Oct 20, 2008, 06:13
NYT, Krugman

NYT, Kristol

Two different views on the party context around Joe the Plumber. I think Kristol should have read Krugman's before submitting.
 
225Perm Dude
      ID: 44912208
      Mon, Oct 20, 2008, 11:40
More unhinging of the Republican base: Attacking Colin Powell.

This is like a reverse Martin Niemöller poem.
 
226Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Oct 20, 2008, 11:55
wow. crazy comments there...i worry about Obama, and i worry about this nation with loons like this out there.
 
227Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Oct 20, 2008, 13:20
Don't fret. All of us said worse things about GW. Of course the rock ribbed are going to hate Obama, they hate reflexively anything they are not familiar with. People will stop listening to them soon enough.
 
228walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, Oct 21, 2008, 11:16
NYT, Herbert: The Real (Voting) Scandal (voter supression)

McCain Supporters Heckle Early Voters

Amazing McCain is comfy calling the ACORN registration mistakes a "threat to the fabric of our democracy," yet stuff like this is what's really happening and intentional.
 
229Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Tue, Oct 21, 2008, 11:58
i watched those videos, and i can't exactly figure out what they're protesting. then again, they're all of Baldwin's ilk, and i can't figure out what he's talking about most of the time either.
 
230Perm Dude
      ID: 5293228
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 14:45
 
231Perm Dude
      ID: 29152221
      Wed, Oct 22, 2008, 22:18
Move On's brilliant personalized ads. Here's mine.
 
232walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 13:53
NYT, Gail Collins: Campaign Calls
 
233walk
      ID: 559391320
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 21:40
NYT Endorsement of Obama

Very comprehensive.
 
234Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 22:08
I'm shocked. The New York Times is endorsing the Democrat candidate.

In another development, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times's credit rating to "BB-," or junk status.
 
235Astade
      ID: 29572120
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 22:13
Reading the endorsement before commenting on it would prove valuable.

Clearly from your set of comments, you didn't...

 
236Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Thu, Oct 23, 2008, 22:33
In another development, Standard & Poors said it was lowering the Times's credit rating to "BB-," or junk status.

Once again conservatives were well ahead of the curve.
 
237walk
      ID: 559391320
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 06:41
I know. The endorsement, whether the investment vehicle is stable or not, is very well-written, and covers separate themes. One may not agree with the conclusions but the endorsement is not as trivially written as several of the comments here.

BTW, NYT endorsed McCain for the republican primary and Clinton for the dem. The NYT endorsement explains why it has reversed course on its prior support for McCain. It's a valid explanation.
 
238Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 08:20
truly a well thought out endorsement that breaks it down to fine points....
 
239walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 09:02
Washington Post: (Krauthammer's) Endorsement for McCain

And to be a little more balanced, "to no surprise," the Washington Post's endorsement for McCain.

I would also invite comparisons to depth of analysis in each endorsement. I think it's interesting.
 
240walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 09:32
Gallup: If the world voted

There is a link to the metholodogy used to conduct this survey. Interesting results. I guess this means McCain will win.
 
241Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 09:39
If McCain is -5 in India, then I am the King of Siam.
 
242Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 12:14
The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is well-written. I don't plan on reading that either.

 
243bibA
      ID: 39412016
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 12:56
The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is well-written. I don't plan on reading that either.

One would hope that you would thus refrain from commenting on Gibbons idiosyncrasies re his use of footnotes, or of his comparisons of Diocletian with Charles V.
 
244bibA
      ID: 39412016
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 12:58
Or of anything the Times has to say in its endorsement. If one does not care to look at a situation from as many angles as possible, one should not expect to become educated on that subject.
 
245Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 13:03
One would hope that you would thus refrain from commenting on Gibbons idiosyncrasies re his use of footnotes, or of his comparisons of Diocletian with Charles V.

OK.

Or of anything the Times has to say in its endorsement. If one does not care to look at a situation from as many angles as possible, one should not expect to become educated on that subject.

One has to read the New York Times in order to vote for President?

 
246Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 13:53
One has to read the New York Times in order to vote for President?

no. but if youre going to comment on something written in the ny times, you should at least read what youre commenting on...
 
247Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 16:52
That last post by that poster fully supplies the comedic portion of this thread.
 
248Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 17:55
no doubt, you didn't read it.
 
249Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 20:19
I was commenting on the headline in post # 233. I read the entire headline.
 
250Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 20:31
enjoy your ignorant bliss...
 
251Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 20:40
Look up projection and Tree's photo is there.
 
252Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Fri, Oct 24, 2008, 22:44
i read the article. more than i can probably say about you, crazy man...
 
253Boldwin
      ID: 419402022
      Sat, Oct 25, 2008, 13:04
So you think you can dance?
 
254walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 08:03
NYT, Kristoff: Al Queda Group Endorses McCain

This is about McCain's approach being similar to Bush's and how that is better for extremist groups' recruitment efforts. Sad, but true. Another argument for a different approach.
 
255walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 08:11
NYT, Frank Rich: On Racism and the Election (not what you think)
 
256walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 08:13
NYT, Krugman: Seriousness Matters
 
257Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 12:38
If one does not read the New York Times, they are ignorant?
 
258walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 13:01
No. C'mon. I think there are well-written pieces that stimulate debate...you do not have to agree or read. They are posted here because I found them interesting, thought it would be okay to share, and hoped that reactions would help spur more discussion. It's okay if you choose not to read, IMO.
 
259Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 13:21
I was referring to Tree's post #250. It may have been directed at Baldwin, though.
 
260walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 13:29
Oh, sorry. thx.
 
261Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 13:55
Building 7 - you contributions to this thread are about as valuable as Building 7 itself in October 2001.

What of the "Bradley Effect"? Could McCain sneak up and whisk victory from the jaws of defeat because white Americans may not be answering poll questions honestly? Well, George Deukmejian's own pollster says "no" because not only has the country changed considerably from 1982, more importantly, there was no "Bradley Effect" in 1982, either!
Bradley Effect believers assume that there is an undetectable tendency in the behavior of some white voters who tell pollsters that they are "undecided" when in fact their true preference is to vote against the black candidate. This so-called effect suggests the power or advantage to alter an outcome - a pretty serious charge. This would render poll projections inaccurate (overstating both the number of undecided voters and the African-American candidate's margin over a white opponent) and create an unaccounted for different outcome. However, it is indeed a "theory in search of data." The hype surrounding the Bradley Effect has evolved to where some political pundits believe in 2008 that Obama must win in the national pre-election polls by 6-9 points before he can be assured a victory. That's absurd. There won't be a 6-9 point Bradley Effect -- there can't be, since few national polls show a large enough amount of undecided voters and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.

The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor's race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call.

Back in 1982, absentee balloting was still pretty new and the media was not prepared for how they can affect an election.
The Field Poll inaugurated the speculation that led to the baseless Bradley Effect theory when, after the 1982 election, Field said "race was a factor in the Bradley loss" (AP 11-4-82). Mervin Field cited no data, but only speculated that white conservative voters of both parties were more undecided and that he may have over-represented minority voters in his polling. Thus, the Bradley Effect was born amidst some major polling errors and a confusing array of mixed predictions, hardly a firm foundation to construct a theory.

Even later analysis of the 1982 election revealed the weakness in the Bradley Effect theory as Bradley actually won on election day turnout, but lost the absentee vote so badly that Deukmejian pulled ahead to win. That Bradley won the vote on Election Day would hardly seem to suggest a hidden or last minute anti-black backlash--on the contrary, it suggests how easy it would have been for weekend polls and Election Day exit polls to get it wrong, since the decisive group of voters had largely already voted before the final weekend and never showed up at the polls to answer the questions of exit pollsters.
 
262Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 14:04
And, walk, what's going on, are you getting paid by the NYT to spam us? How many articles have you linked to just today throughout our forum? Yeah, we get the point, there are articles in the Times worth reading. How about some of your insight?
 
263walk
      ID: 559391320
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 15:38
Hey SZ...my insight, sure thing...but I find it difficult to be more insightful than the writers to whom I linked today. Today, the Times unusually featured all of its opinion contributors, and I thought they'd be of interest...there's one more I forgot to include, Gail Collins, who is whip smart and insightful.

Collins. Blue State Blues

Our electoral process pretty much means that for all intensive purposes, the outcomes in most states is pretty much already determined. So, if that is the trend, how come we don't get rid of the electoral college already? I dunno.

Regarding my views, I feel that Frank Rich has a very thus far undiscussed view about racism in which maybe, just maybe, we are moving beyond racism and will see how the new generation, which is more color-blind votes...and determines the outcomes of an election.

How is that Palin gets nominated and Clinton is despised? What are the double standards for a successful national female political figure? Clinton is too aggressive and Palin is quite pandering and uninformed. How come more true republicans were not completely and immediately put off by her nomination?

Party first. My insights.
 
264Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 21:22
Building 7 - you contributions to this thread are about as valuable as Building 7 itself in October 2001.

Hey, the Chinese got some good scrap metal out of Building 7. Of course, it was illegally removed from the crime scene. And now we get this garbage final report from NIST based on no analysis of the remaining steel.

The main reason I didn't read the NYT endorsement is because I already voted. And it's too late to change my vote. Although hackers can change it since it was on an electronic voting machine with no paper trail.

I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican for President in a long time. They've screwed things up so bad that now the country is bankrupt ($70 Trillion in debt, minimum $1 Trillion deficit next year, multi-trillion dollar derivatives mess). And they blame each other. And people continue to vote for them. Not me. I know the Liberterian guy is not going to win, but I cannot vote for business as usual. The Democrat or Republican candidates are beholden to the lobbyists anyways and the public will only get some crums. Also, Obama supports the Democrat platform, so he's out. And McCane wrote the forward to the discredited Popular Mechanics book backing the official 911 story. So he was eliminated a long time ago.

I'm not voting for anybody that voted for that $800 billion bailout either. Obama, McCane, Senator Cornyn, and Congressman Chet Edwards. Two Rebublicans and two Democrats. And now we find that $70 Billion of the bailout is going to Wall Street banks in bonuses Shouldn't you have to do a good job to get a bonus?

And this "war on terror" will never, ever end as far as I can tell. Who wants to be at war forever. How do we know when we've won? How does the other side go about surrendering? They claim Al Queda is in 50 countries. How or when can they all be defeated? What does the end game scenerio look like? Two years of campaigning and none of these questions were asked or answered. Why don't they raise the reward for Bin Laden to $1 Billion dollars dead or alive. Hell, Paulson spends that in 10 minutes. Or $5 Billion. That's a slow Tuesday for Hank.

It's amazing that Congress has an 11% approval rating, yet 80-90% get re-elected. They must like the pork or something. One would think the voters would do something about it. I almost never vote for the incumbant in federal elections.

There's my thoughts on The 2008 Presidential Election. Put that in your pipe and smoke and it.
 
265Perm Dude
      ID: 0916267
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 21:36
Well, I won't say the thread will be poorer without you. But it'll be shorter!
 
266Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Sun, Oct 26, 2008, 23:59
Alaska's largest newspaper endorses.....

...Obama...
 
267walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Oct 27, 2008, 17:12
Holbrooke: Obama

The part of judgment, conciliatory vs. combative. We need the former. Enough going to wars alone.
 
268Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Oct 27, 2008, 22:21
Tree

Palin has an 80% favorable polling in Alaska. That the MSM in Alaska aren't in synch with the people and are in synch with the power elite power structure comes as no shock.
 
269Tree
      ID: 559491723
      Mon, Oct 27, 2008, 23:37
right. the power elite structure.

she's part of that power elite and being proven a crook and scumbag more and more each day.

keep drinking the kool aid, and thinking those sweet naughty thoughts of her you know you do...
 
270Perm Dude
      ID: 49910278
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 00:14
Palin has an 80% favorable polling in Alaska.

It is amazing how popular one can be in a job for which they are qualified.

Her stock takes a huge tumble when she overreaches.

Even in Alaska.
 
271Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 00:51
It is amazing how few governors are on a first name basis with the president of Kyrgyzstan and yet we keep nominating and electing state governors to the presidency.

The next thing you know some coke-headed sex addict and his shyster wife are acclaimed as the best presidents since the role was invented.
 
272Perm Dude
      ID: 49910278
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 01:09
It's all about the Clinton's, eh?
 
273Tree
      ID: 219262723
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 01:28
im starting to think baldwin is jealous he didnt get a hummer from monica...
 
274Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 09:38
They make a useful yardstick, PD.
 
275bibA
      ID: 229262715
      Tue, Oct 28, 2008, 12:27
The next thing you know some coke-headed sex addict and his shyster wife are acclaimed as the best presidents since the role was invented.

I didn't know W was a sex-addict and Laura was a shyster!
 
276Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 13:34
And playing the role of Ralph Nader in Montana this year - RON PAUL!
It’s been months since Paul officially left the race, and yet a series of circumstances has the Texas congressman right in the middle of the presidential race in Montana. Political observers say Paul, on the ballot as a third-party candidate, will likely draw some votes away from McCain. None of this would have been possible without Paul’s supporters, who put his name forward as the Constitution Party of Montana candidate. Paul later asked the secretary of state’s office to remove his name from the ballot, but state officials said they couldn’t.

Paul has not been campaigning in the state and has even asked supporters to write in Chuck Baldwin, the national Constitution Party candidate. Paul did not respond to requests for an interview. During the GOP primary, some of Paul’s strongest support came in Montana. He received about a quarter of the vote in the state’s June primary — even after it was clear McCain was the party’s presumptive nominee.

Now he could play spoiler to McCain, whose lead in the polls in Montana has diminished. A recent MSU-Billings poll had the presidential race within the margin of error, with Paul drawing 4 percent.

Democrat Barack Obama has been sinking money and resources into Montana in attempt to turn the traditionally red state blue. McCain has largely ignored the state, although the Republican National Committee will begin independently airing ads in Montana this week.

I'm feeling even better about my prediction that Sen. Obama will carry the Big Sky State.
 
277Perm Dude
      ID: 52943015
      Thu, Oct 30, 2008, 21:42
A ruthless pollster's rebuttal to the Republican talking point that the presidential race is closing.

The McCain campaign is like a football team that has just gained 5 yards but still faces 4th and long, deep in its own territory.
 
278walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 11:04
Voter Supression Allegations (real issue or not?)

I have several views on this and would like to hear others. On the one hand, I think that there's a decent amount of time on main stream media to discussion ("OMG-ness") about ACORN and voter registration fraud, and additional allegations that Obama is related to it. We have seen McCain and Palin talk about this mucho, including the last debate ("the very fabric of our democracy is at stake"). Yet, I hear nothing about voter supression on the MSM or from Obama and Biden. Yet, yet, it did seem to be allegations of voter supression, intimidation, disenfrachisement done by republicans to voters in dem districts in each of the last two districts.

To what extent is voter supression taking place? If it is taking place, why have we not heard about it on the MSM? I think I understand why Obama/Biden are not talking about this beforehand (it just escalates and spirals out of control and raises tensions in a big way), but am not sure...Ultimately, I don't know what is going on in terms of voter fraud or voter supression, and all I know is that their is little consensus that either takes place (but the anecdotal stories are numerous).

What's the real deal?
 
279boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 11:19
When you say voter suppression? how do you mean?
 
280walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 11:31
Hi boikin. Well, examples of voter supression are alleged in that article to which I linked. I just don't know the extent to which they are real and true stories. Otherwise, briefly:

- purging of voter registrations
- failing to mail out appropriate # of absentee ballots
- failure to have operational voting machines
voting machines that flip votes
- false mailers and phone calls giving voters misinformation about voting rules, dates and places

I have heard allegations about all of these methods, and some more, but do not know the extent to which they are true and the extent to which they are intentional efforts to supress voters of a certain bloc (e.g. dems).
 
281boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 11:59
whoops sorry, totally missed the link at the beginning of your post. I will say that i have heard of people losing voter registrations. though i think those cases there had no malintentions just user error, the side effect of using college kids to register people to vote. I think some of points made in the article were probably true but not relevant like the telling of college kids they could not register, i am sure they will quickly informed correctly. I am sure some the allegations of some the disenfranchising are probably true, but at the same time i think that swings both ways. the bigger concern is not working machines, that helps no one. despite what the article would imply i doubt that improper working machines only hurt democrats.

If i remember correctly was there not allegations of voter machine abuguties in New Hampshire primary when hillary won and how easy it was to hack some of the machines? Was any that answered? Do they still use the hackable machines?
 
282Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 12:27
I am surprised no one has discussed the much greater early voting. If you have a month to send out 350K activists bribing every homeless person and bum who can be bribed for a couple packs of cigarettes to vote, it could be huge that they have a month to work that plan. I don't have a link yet but that is what I am picking up in the details of many stories. If anyone finds a link I'd like to see it.

My gut feeling is that this is as big a new development this campaign as the one one in the previous presidential campaign where both sides [but predominantly Dems] went very very high-tech with hendheld computerized tracking of neighborhoods and people and trends in those areas to facilitate very focused efforts.
 
283walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:11
You don't have a link yet but that is what you are picking up...from where? I don't have a link but I am picking up that your gut feeling sounds awfully conspiracy theorish.
 
284sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:19
sounds to me, like sour grapes and early excuse making...
 
285Razor
      ID: 529382710
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:24
Anecdotally, I know a large number of people who have taken advantage of early voting. Surprisingly, most of them are not homeless.
 
286Perm Dude
      ID: 52943015
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:31
CNN early voting map

Some states don't break down the numbers by party, but there you go.

You're right sarge: It does sound like the excuse of the day by the Right. "McCain lost because homeless citizens voted for Obama!" I don't know of any other group of citizens who want change more than the homeless. Perhaps they can live in one of McCain's 6 other homes?

Early voters still need to register to vote. Are there some homeless people who were bribed to register, somehow did so without a fixed address through which their voting cars were mailed, then mailing in a ballot? Probably. It's a big country. But enough to swing the election? Bah.

Maybe Baldwin is advocating for the homeless to be stripped from their right to vote?
 
287Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:51
You don't have a link yet but that is what you are picking up...from where?

 
288walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:51
Haaaaaaaaaahahahaha
 
289boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 14:58
I saw someone dressed as that guy today for halloween...hahaha
 
290sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 15:29
WTF were you doing stalking in Baldwins neighborhood? ;)
 
291boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 15:38
I was just upset they took my costume idea.
 
292Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 15:45
Why does that guy have tin foil on his head?
 
293Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 15:49
B7 - Tin Foil Hat, in case you're serious...
 
294Razor
      ID: 529382710
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 15:49
The question is why don't we have tin foil on ours?
 
295Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 15:52
I was throwing you a hanging curveball. As I am deemed the resident conspiracy theorist. Next to baldwin, maybe. Thanks, anyways.
 
296Tree
      ID: 309263115
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 17:27
hence my "in case you're serious"...
 
297Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 17:45
Here it is. It is so much a trend tho uncommented upon virtually everywhere, that one in four votes this year is an early one, days and weeks earlier, not 'polls open 2 hours early for convenience' early.

This link makes more of the point that people might miss late breaking decision changing developments and only makes a one sentence passing attempt at suggesting the potential for fraudulent abuse. My point is that one side or the other can leverage this new development to unexpectedly tilt the playing field. If both sides know and expoit this feature then it wouldn't be problematic I guess. I really don't see republicans employing hundreds of thousands of radicals and paid ex-cons to be combing the alleys for McCain votes tho.

And if you want to find out about these things years after the fact instead of early, just drive away the guy who picks this stuff up early. I've got tuff skin but those insults were really uncalled for.
 
298sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 17:55
c'mon Baldy. The article opens with Texas and its 11-day time span.

This state wont vote blue unless the Republicans try to run a card carrying convicted member of NAMBLA.
 
299Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 18:28
Read the link again, and no thanks for the gratuitous uncalled for ugly post.

If you could or would read you would have learned that the entire country's absentee balloting went from 16% in 2000, 22% in 2004, and it's running @25% now with states like California at 30%...a trend accelerated by 'no cause' absentee voting.

Or instead you just glance at the first sentence, pretend you 'get it' more than I do, and make a gratuitous linkage in everyone's subconscious linking one party with nambla.

What would the board be without you?
 
300Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 18:33
ROTFL

The very next link I start reading begins, employed in a small municipal library of Buenos Aires where the oafishness of his colleagues made him weep with daily frustration!
 
301Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 18:38
And the second paragraph begins, Reading is an erratic craft.

Gotta love synchronicity.
 
303Razor
      ID: 529382710
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 18:41
Boldwin, do you know anyone who has voted early? I do. My parents, many coworkers and friends - none of whom had voted early in the past. I would say that a sizeable percentage of people I know who are voting are doing so early. So my point is, if my family and friends are representative of the rest of the country, and I am fairly certain that it is, then the surge in early voting numbers is merely a product of more Americans having the option now to vote early. If you want to make a big stink about it, prove it. If the only you've got is your assurance that there are 100,000 of thousands of paid ex-cons and radicals combing alleys for votes, then you deserve to be mocked.
 
304Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 19:06
No Razor, I am not attempting to prove that this election has already been stolen. Merely pointing out the potential for abuse.
 
305sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 19:40
re 299 are you indeed insane? I did NOT link the Rep party with NAMBLA. I said such a candidate is the only way this state would vote Dem. It wasnt a linkage, it was a statement re HOW red this state is. Paranoia getting the better of you of late?
 
306Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 19:58
Thus implanting in the subconscious...

You really gotta learn to read. Or post when you have the time, or something. Don't know what your problem is.
 
307sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Fri, Oct 31, 2008, 21:14
roflmao IOW Yes, your paranoia is in full bloom.
 
308Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:43
Adzbacker posted this in the predictions thread:

McCain 300, Obama 238
McCain wins popular vote by 1.5-2%
McCain 31 states, Obama 19


i'm curious - which 31 states is McCain going to win to get his 300 electoral votes? i mean, even on a very good day, i'm not sure he wins 25 states - and certainly not 300 Electoral Votes.

i mean, unless you have Ohio, PA, and Florida all going McCain's way - and right now, all are polling Obama's way and i think only one is even within the margin of era.

anyway - which states that are currently leaning Obama do you have McCain coming back and winning?
 
309Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 09:46
Obama's "I'll bankrupt coal" statement coming out sure aint gonna help him in PA, VA or Ohio - prolly too little, too late - but there's a lot of people in those states that don't have a sense of humor about that subject.
 
310Perm Dude
      ID: 50103337
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 10:38
Is that something new? I hadn't heard anything about it.
 
311Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 10:49
It's from a January interview with the SF Chronicle that they didn't report on:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=as.wTY1nJKPI&refer=home

``So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted,'' Obama told the newspaper, according to a video of the interview posted on the Web site youtube.com.

 
312Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 10:50
That's a helluva issue. Nice job by the SF Chronicle keeping it under wraps this long.
 
313Perm Dude
      ID: 43103310
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:04
What a strange thing for him to say. I thought Obama was for "clean coal technology" and cap-and-trade emissions standards.

I'll have to look at that thing closer.

You're right--Appalachia, in particular, would have some real problems with that.
 
314Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:11
He evidently mentioned his support for clean coal technology at another point in the 45 minute interview.
 
315Perm Dude
      ID: 43103310
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:12
Before it gets lost, I just wanted to point out post #50.
 
316Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:14
It's also strange that the McCain campaign waithed this long to "discover" that statement; although the Chronicle didn't report on the fact that Obama want's to bankrupt an entire industry that's critical to some of the biggest swing states in this election - I'm sure that McCain was aware of it long beore this "revelation" A miscalculation on McCain's part to wait this long.
 
317Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:15
...or within the same four-minute excerpt, even.

For anyone concerned with such trivialties as context:



Note that video has a scant 2000+ views, while the video which omits the context in Palin/Baldwin fashion has well over 100 times that. Both were added to Youtube yesterday.
 
318boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:16
i would have taken some of that action...
 
319Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:24
MITH - For anyone concerned with such trivialties as context:

I take it by your snarky lead in that you think his clean coal technology bone makes somehow changes the meaning of the offending statement. Why don't you explain the context to me (small words please) How will that make coal miners feel like Obama doesn't wan to "bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted"
 
320C1-NRB
      ID: 588421510
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:30
sarge33rdI said such a candidate is the only way this state would vote Dem. It wasnt a linkage, it was a statement re HOW red this state is.

You just made my case for skipping the first office on the ballot tomorrow. I won't be voting for President. I've already looked into CafePress items with the slogan "Don't blame me; I didn't vote"
 
321Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:35
More context: Obama in January:When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.
 
322Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:35
MBJ

It's interesting that you didn't take issue with post 313, in which Perm Dude had trouble reconciling the statement, as you posted it, with Obama's support for clean coal technology. In fact you even volunteered the missing context on your own.

The point is that the statement is part of a much more nuanced policy than described in the stand-alone context of the quote pasted into #311.

Am I to understand from your snarky response that the right's criticism of that statement is designed to be heard only by coal miners?
 
323Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 11:42
MBJ - More context

It's suddenly news that reducing in greenhouse gasses will be expensive to impliment?

Wouldn't the complete context of the quote in #321 include that the extra expense comes at the front-end and that he believes those expenses will be offset by savings down the road? You know, like he stated in the next paragraph:
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
 
324Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:01
MITH - Actively seeking to bankrupt new coal powered plants needs no context. That's means lots of people looking for work. A nod a clean coal technology doesn't mitigate this. I know you don't get this or you wouldn't think that mentioning something I already mentioned somehow "contextualizes" the whole 'I wanna bankrupt your employers' thing. I ask again: how does clean coal replace the jobs in the industry that Obama wants to bankrupt? Yawn....

Of course, it's always Obama out of context, isn't it.

 
325C1-NRB
      ID: 588421510
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:03
This doesn't necessarily apply to anyone here, but it shows what we're all up against.

5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters

The author was on C-SPAN Q&A last night and I found myself drawn in to his arguments and points. He was quite balanced in his skewering of both sides while blaming "us" for what "they" do.
 
326Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:04
And\

If you think that your expanded quote in 323 somewhere assuages the fears of paycheck to paycheck types about Obama's plan to make enenrgy costs "skyrocket" you're detached.
 
327Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:10
This is tiresome. Your contention is that the expanded quote doesn't matter to this group or that. I get it. I point out the expanded quotes to offer a more complete account of the policy he proposes.
 
328boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:18
Re 325, great link. I think in general that is common knowledge, just not admitted. I just saw another story talking about how most people vote based on emotions not facts.
 
329Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:38
My only problem with #325...it calls gridlock a problem.

When 'compassionate conservatives' and democrats are racing headlong downhill attempting to bankrupt America, gridlock is the only brake the voters have that works.
 
331Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:44
Of course, it's always Obama out of context, isn't it.

Of course not. Sometimes it's others (insofar as accompanying information with a deliberate and shameless lie is an out-of-context presentation of facts):

SF Gate:
Let's be very clear: the Chronicle did not, and has never, hidden any interview, audio or video, of Obama from its readers.

The truth: the paper's January editorial board session with Obama included comments about coal. The entire interview has been in the public domain, available on line to the public -- and to the McCain campaign -- since early January.

''How can anyone suggest that we hid an interview that we did, immediately put up on the web -- and advertised to our readers,'' said editorial page editor John Diaz Sunday, regarding his hosting of Obama at the session. ''We promoted it like like hell...and I'm sure the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign scrubbed it. You can still find the whole 48 minutes and 33 seconds on line."
And sometimes, MBJ, it's the McCain campaign that is taken out of context (insofar as presenting information about the opposition's policies in a manner that suggests that one would never think of proposing exactly the same thing):





As far as who would so take the McCain campaign out of context, well, I'll leave that to the lurkers to remind themselves of. Meanwhile, please, tell me again about how I'm the one who is detatched.
 
332Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:47
RE: MBJ/MITH

This puts me in mind of Illinois politics where all sides promise not to raise taxes and every ancillary tax the human mind can invent is used to expand the coffers without raising the income tax.

I hear Obama talking about penalties to all power production and I can see he's learned the lesson from Illinois. Promise them anything and invent new taxes/fees/penalties faster than they can fork it over.

The one thing our governor [who has the lowest popularity in recorded history] has going for him, what he hangs his hat on, is that he ordered public transit to give away free rides to the elderly [thus forcing a fare increase of course]. That is literally the only accomplishment he can even think of when he defends himself.

We in Illinois have a sneak peek.

'But I offered generous rebates to the elderly to offset the ruinous energy costs I imposed'.
 
333Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:49
post 309 -

Obama's "I'll bankrupt coal" statement coming out sure aint gonna help him

why was "i'll bankrupt coal" in quotes, as if attributed to Obama, when in fact, by your own post moments later, he said "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted..."

those are two entirely different statements, and you're very clearly taking it out of context with your misrepresentation of what Obama said. in fact, not only is out of context, you're basically inventing him saying something he didn't say...
 
334Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 12:49
And you wondered why George Soros backed both McCain and Obama of all the choices he had.
 
335Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:07
tree - Clearly, I was paraphrasing. I'm sure there's a better way to post a paraphrase of a quote, attribute it to it's owner, and not spend more than 15 seconds on the post (which is the most I will alot) without using "" (which I do pause at when I typed them); I just don't know it. Please enlighten me.

However "" don't always conotate a direct quote....oops, 15 seconds up -outta time.
 
336Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:23
Meanwhile, please, tell me again about how I'm the one who is detatched.

OK - you're detached. Particlarly if you think your video from the hate site DailyKos is some kind of "gotcha" response. It's not news that both McCain and Obama want to use govt to curb greenhouse emissions. That's a long ways from saying, like Obama did, that we're going to bankrupt any attempt at building new coal plants - a move that would, in fact, bankrupt the coal industry. The idea that those video are stick it to McCain is hilarious. Really.

Sometimes it's others (insofar as accompanying information with a deliberate and shameless lie is an out-of-context presentation of facts):

You like to "leave to the lurkers" to decide things, MITH. Maybe a lurkers can tell me what that sentence means before I respond to it.


 
337Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:32
MBJ

I am thinking the democrat problem with deconstructionism has made deeper inroads than previously realized. It strikes me that they really have lost the meaning of the word lie. No I mean really.
 
338Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:37
I mean in a profound way, in their mind the word 'lie' now merely means 'does not conform to my narative' and it has no other meaning that that to them. Their narative is secular religious received wisdom for them and therefore when what you say conflicts it doesn't matter if you have all the empirical evidence, logic, red-handed caught-in-the-act proof, videos of their candidate saying it with their own words...

If you say it and it doesn't conform to their personal narative as far as they are concerned you have just lied.
 
339Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:49
That's a long ways from saying, like Obama did, that we're going to bankrupt any attempt at building new coal plants

Do you even realize how you slip back and forth between the Palin talking points and the accurate position? No, he does not endeavor to bankrupt any attempt at building new coal plants. Whether a new coal plant will financially work under his policy depends on the effectiveness of clean coal technology, which incidentially, Governor Palin tells us is real and already here.

Now I don't know enough of the details of the McCain Lieberman bill to claim outright that it will make it any easier for new coal plants to operate than under Obama's proposal.

But I do know that, just like the Obama quotes you presented in post 321, McCain acknowledges that there will be a considerable additional energy costs passed on to consumers upfront. Why shouldn't that enduce the very same fears that paycheck to paycheck types might have about Obama's plan to make enenrgy costs "skyrocket", from which I'm supposedly so detached.

You like to "leave to the lurkers" to decide things, MITH.

Since we are having this discussion in public and since it doesn't seem likely that either of us will change the other's opinion, there's little point in continuing further except for the benefit of any readers.

Maybe a lurkers can tell me what that sentence means before I respond to it.

Drudge, FOX and the Palin/McCain campaign are apparently being dishonest in claiming that the Chronicle actively surpressed the video.
 
340Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:53
tree - Clearly, I was paraphrasing.

perhaps so - but the problem is you implied something Obama said, which he didn't, which goes back to the whole "out of context" thing...

putting "i'll" in quotes is making it seem that Obama himself would be bankrupting coal, when in reality, it would be laws and such that are passed by MANY people, would make it expensive to open and operate a coal plant.

they are very different things, and that's what i was calling you out on...i'm not being critical of your beliefs - that's fine. but they way you put it was definitely in a context to attribute to Obama something he never said, that's all.
 
341Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 13:54
Eureka!

The rabbit hole goes deeper.

The 'ministry of truth' has even erased the word 'truth'.

Truth if it is double-plus ungood is henceforth to be known as smears.

No truth harmful to Obama can attach because the concept has been erased.

It's like the tower of Babel. We've just been talking across an unbridgable cravass for months in different languages.
 
342Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:01
and since it doesn't seem likely that either of us will change the other's opinion

I'm not sure what opinion of mine you disagree with to start with. I supplied a quote from Obama and stated that it would hurt Obama in coal producing states. I then added that I found it strange that McCain was just now trotting the quote out now, a bit late in my opinion, since I believe McCain prolly had the quote for months. After you chided me on some kind of context quiz, I've responded that nothing else Obama says in that interview is going to mitigate his lousy quote with the relevant voters (clearly, at the time Obama was vying for SF green Dems voting in the primary there - thus his over the top "bankrupt" and "Skyrocket" )

The rest is between you and those lying liars who nefariously accuse Obama of saying things that he said.


tree - I implied that Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry. Obama said he would bankrupt new coal powered plants -which would bankrupt the coal industry. Maybe you and Obama don't understand that - but that doesn't make it any less true.
 
343Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:07
If you say it and it doesn't conform to their personal narative as far as they are concerned you have just lied.

This is comedy.

The SF Chronicle didn't report on their January interview with Barack Obama... is a lie.

Now, to be specific, I'm not necessarily accusing MBJ of lying, but of perpetuating a lie through some combination of laziness and eagerness to advance negative propaganda about Obama which trumps his own regard for questioning the bold claims of politicians and biased media sources.
 
344Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:14
MBJ

After you chided me on some kind of context quiz

For the record, my anyone concerned with such trivialties as context in #317 was a shot at Baldwin and the McCain camp, not you. I believe I made that clear enough at the bottom of that post.
 
345Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:15
MITH - Now who's missing the context?

The Chronicle certainly did not report on the quote. Go back read the question that PD asked for the "context" of what "its" refers to. If you find a single place where the "bankrupt" quote was reported on then I stand corrected. Otherwise, I'd sugeest using words like "lie" advisedly, else you live down to Baldwin's characterization of you. I take the accusation of lying that you have made seriously
 
346Perm Dude
      ID: 161040312
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:22
Are we going to have a dance off?
 
347Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:26
heh
 
348Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 14:34
Now who's missing the context?

The Chronicle certainly did not report on the quote.


Look back at what you wrote: It's from a January interview with the SF Chronicle that they didn't report on.

If what you really meant was that it was the quote and not the interview that wasn't reported on, so be it. But I have to question the standard you insist on here. Looking through the Chronicle's archive from the time of the interview, it's not like they reported on very many of the specifics discussed in that interview. Yes, they did cherrypick a couple of excerpts to highlight but the interview was an hour long. I'm sure there were numerous weighty policy statements, especially considering that it took place at the beginning of the primary season, when candidates are pandering more to their base. For the most part, the Chronicle simply let the interview stand on it's own.
 
349Perm Dude
      ID: 161040312
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 15:57
From the "Getting Ahead of Ourselves" file:

Impeach Obama!

FT: Ben Smith
 
350walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:03
My buddy is the editor of the Chronicle politics section. I will ask him if he wants to chime in here. At the least, I'll get an email reply.
 
351Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:11
For the record my discovery of why so many cold hard obvious facts get called lies and smears, was a discovery explaining the entire Obama campaign and the defense that his side raised. It satisfactiorily explains his teflon. He has managed to declare the words lies and truth null and void in the zeitgeist by erasing them and calling them automatically synonymous. The truth is now automatically a lie and a smear if it is directed at the untouchable one.
 
352Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:16
If Obama, Ayers, Alinsky and Gramsci were siamese quadruplets it would be like a scene from Monty Python in here.

'He's a marxist'.

'No he's not'

'But he clearly is.'

'Liar'

'It's irrefutable'

'Do you receive these smears via your tin hat?'

 
353Perm Dude
      ID: 161040312
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:19
You haven't got anything upon which to base the "marxist" claim except to substitute your own belief in what will happen for all actual evidence.

I think it would be a Monty Python skit all right. But your view would, in the end, get eaten by a giant walrus.
 
354walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:20
Blah blah blah...
 
355walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:24
Not sure if this is the same link that MITH referenced in #331, but this is what the editor of the poli desk for the SF Chron sent me:

Here's the tape. it comes with about 23 minutes left.

SF Chron Interview
 
356Boldwin
      ID: 2962619
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:26
Walk confirms the 'Tower of Babel' analogy. Back to your blue state, you alien and take your babble with you.
 
357walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Nov 03, 2008, 16:38
Better than tin hat on planet claire.
 
358azdbacker
      ID: 13945242
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:33
Tree: i'm curious - which 31 states is McCain going to win to get his 300 electoral votes? i mean, even on a very good day, i'm not sure he wins 25 states - and certainly not 300 Electoral Votes.

i mean, unless you have Ohio, PA, and Florida all going McCain's way - and right now, all are polling Obama's way and i think only one is even within the margin of era.


I have all of those going McCain. Along with Colorado and Nevada. A couple others, possibly including Michigan. I didn't save it and don't have the time to do it over again.

I simply don't buy the polls. McCain supporters believe the media is in the tank. They get a phone call from a pollster and they either tell them to get laid or lie to them, or say they are undecided. "Undecideds" will break for McCain 5:1 + in my opinion.

Also, the polls are weighting Dems above the rate ofg the '06 midterms. That's fantasy land. Republican voters were at their lowest at that time in terms of morale. I didn't even vote in that one. In some of the swing states we also have anywhere from 1-2% of the population who registered falsely as Dems to vote Hillary per Op Chaos.

Until I see the real poll, I will not be fooled into believing the false ones.
 
359sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:36
"Undecideds" will break for McCain 5:1 + in my opinion.

Doesn't even qualify under wishful thinking. More along the line of delusional.
 
360Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:39
Well, one of is going to be proven grossly out of touch tonight because I'd say you are way off.
 
361azdbacker
      ID: 13945242
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:41
Razor, sarge, etc. - I'm well aware that that seems to be the conventional wisdom. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just believe I'm right. But I wish you all the best.
 
362azdbacker
      ID: 13945242
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:46
For the record, sarge, Dick Morris predicted nearly all undecideds would go to McCain. I don't recall him being called delusional when he was Clinton's pollster.
 
363sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:50
Then and now. Two different time frames. One can become delusional where one wasnt in the past.

I figure the undecideds will break pretty much along the lines of the general population, with a slight tilt toward McCain. Maybe 60-40 or 55-45 but that wont be anything close to enough for McCain to 'carry the day'.
 
364azdbacker
      ID: 13945242
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:52
Actually, Morris predicted that two days ago.
 
365sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:54
To expand a bit, I'm not suggesting the general population will vote McCain 55-45. More like 60-40 Obama. I think undecideds, will break 52 to 54 Obama and 40-42 McCain. The remainder of undecideds (5-6% of them) will break majority McCain.
 
366Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 13:55
Until I see the real poll, I will not be fooled into believing the false ones

So you feel the Fox News poll is a false one? You think McCain voters are going to either tell them to get laid or lie to them, or say they are undecided. And to the tune of 5 to 1?

I never use this little abbreviation, but ROFLMAO.
 
367azdbacker
      ID: 13945242
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 14:10
I think Fox News will be one of the closest to correct. Yet, even it still over-representing Democrats, in my opinion.
 
368Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 14:39
azdbacker, I am sure that any information and knowledge you have is also accessible to the McCain campaign. So why then did they pull out of Michigan? Why would they do that in a state you think they might be able to pick up.

I think you underestimate how many people are not Republicans in this country. Aside from Democrats, there is a huge number of independents who do not share the same disdain for the media, polling and Obama that you do.
 
369Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 15:28
I have all of those going McCain. Along with Colorado and Nevada.

while Ohio and Florida are certainly going to be close, PA, Colo, and NV are all leaning Obama's way by more than 5 percentage points.

i suppose you're entitled to not believe in any polls. there are also people who think the earth is flat.

"Undecideds" will break for McCain 5:1 + in my opinion.

and that is...just such a wow. i mean, i'm willing to go as far as saying "ok, maybe the undecideds will break McCain's way. there is a slight, very remote chance of that."

but 5 to 1? not unless you're suppressing the vote, dropping acid, or seriously, seriously off your rocker. and i don't mean that to be insulting, but it's just such an impossible scenario i can't believe anyone would present it seriously.



 
370Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 16:05
I've been watching CNBC. Big day for the market on election day, which is a rarity, 1984 being the last time.

Fear has been that an Obama victory would scare the market, but I heard lots of talk today that Obama surrounding himself with economic advisers like Buffet and Volker has lessened most of those fears.

Additionally, many believe that most of Obama's aggressive spending programs will be delayed until the financial crisis eases.
 
371boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 16:08
I do not know if this falls into possible voter cheating but i recieved this email today:

A number of University of Florida students have reported receiving a text
message today claiming that voting has been extended until Wednesday. This
message is NOT legitimate and it should be ignored. Voting concludes today
-- Tuesday, Nov. 4 -- and polls close at 7 p.m.

If you have any questions, please call the Alachua County Supervisor of
Elections office at 352-374-5252.


Patricia Telles-Irvin
Vice President for Student Affairs
 
372Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 16:26
Considering the source I'd believe that was more likely an attempt to outrage and mobilize the kids.
 
373Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 16:27
Reminds me of that phony call in about the mysterious large gold coin giver to Salvation Army pots that surfaces every year.
 
374walk
      ID: 139332920
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 23:10
azd...so wrong.
 
375Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 23:15
post 358 - on hindsight, did you honestly believe all that you typed there??
 
376Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 23:27
Great concession speech by McCain.
 
377Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Tue, Nov 04, 2008, 23:51
When I saw those radicals in the 60's invading and trashing college administration buildings and the administrations subsequently caving like sissies I knew nothing good could come of it.

Today we know one of those things that would come of it.
 
378Tree
      ID: 51011420
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 00:36
we do indeed, Baldwin.

a country attempting to re-unite itself. you're more than welcome to be part of that...
 
379biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 00:37
Well you were wrong then, Baldwin. At least one good thing DID come of it.

You really have to start living in the present. Your pent-up fear and hatred you've built over 50 years has to be a massive albatross.
 
380Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 01:28
Anyone who was alive in the 20th century and doesn't fear marxism is an idiot.
 
381Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 01:31
I don't fear Marxism. I was 9 when the Berlin Wall fell. There are what, 5 communist countries on Earth? Communism will never come here. Ever.
 
382Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 01:32
I hear N Korea has an opening for a marxist leader. What is Barack's position on exportation?
 
383Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 06:33
Communism will never come here. Ever. - Not Sharp As A

The globalists are marxists. Oh they dress it up in new names like 'the third way' and communitarianism, but it's still marxism and it's coming to a globe near you briefly. Soon.
 
384tastethewaste
      ID: 361039411
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 06:34
good god, give it a rest already.
 
385scoobies
      ID: 16929306
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 07:20
You're just so sad Baldwin. I mean, what a way to go through life.
 
386J-Bar
      ID: 13103156
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 07:50
Congratulations to Obama. I hope all works out but as the saying goes 'Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it.'

I guess now, that I disagree with just about every policy stance of the new president, our roles have changed and i will now be a part of the everything is bad all the time crowd and will have to point out every misspoke word. I am unsure that I can be that petty but I will try so that the board can continue on it's normal course.

PD-- What is the best way to send the donation to Guru?
 
387tastethewaste
      ID: 361039411
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 08:43
j bar, sounds like youre getting close to petty. good luck
 
388Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 09:11
J-Bar: Donation page

I appreciate your doing it, but I'm sure Guru will thank you even more.
 
389Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 09:41
I think my bet was with PD, right?

$50.00 merrily on its way to Guru in the name of the Perm Dude
 
390walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 09:52
Onion (via Sullivan) Calls It
 
391Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:15
follow up the Palin as President clicky page i linked to in one of the threads...

Obama as president...
 
392Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:28
Rep. Rahm Emanuel has been offered a Chief of Staff job

As if a marxist as president wasn't bad enuff, he'll be guided by someone with a vicious Napoleon complex.

I'll give Obama one thing. I don't believe he will need the specific skills that guided Clinton thru the Monica episode, a task which was assigned to Rahm for some reason.
 
393Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:36
Minnesota Senate race still in the air--recount coming.
 
394Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 11:24
Powerline is always good.
 
395Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 11:48


Awesome!
 
396sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 12:00
indeed SZ it is. As disappointed in the American voter as I was in 2004, I am equally proud of them in 2008.
 
397biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 04:01
Some cool maps.





I guess Baldwin should be happy. Still increasing divisiveness.
 
398Razor
      ID: 141049220
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:01
That is the Anti-Black Man Map. Excluding Alaska and Arizona, of course. Or perhaps the loads of millionaires throughout Appalachia and into the South were really voting against a tax increase.
 
399boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:16
Is there link for the second map?
 
400Perm Dude
      ID: 56105866
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:23
Originally in the NYT, I believe. I've seen it a couple of places, including here.
 
401Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:31
Utah is no longer the reddest state, having been surpassed by Oklahoma and Wyoming.

Some of that stems from the anti-Mormon campaign against Romney in the primaries.
 
402Perm Dude
      ID: 56105866
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:36
The map doesn't really reflect the reddest states. If Idaho, for example, is already deeply red then it'll be tough for it to get 20% redder.
 
403biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:39


 
404Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 10:41
SL Trib story

For four years, Utah conservatives have proudly proclaimed they lived in the reddest state in the nation.
But no longer.
That mantle now belongs to Oklahoma and Wyoming, where Republican John McCain scored bigger victories in Tuesday's historic election of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.
"I think we are a little less red - maybe we are on our way to pink," said David Magleby, a political scientist from Brigham Young University.
In 2004, President Bush beat Democrat John Kerry by a massive 45.5 percentage points in Utah, his largest margin of victory in any state.
But on Tuesday, McCain beat Obama in Utah by a much smaller 29 percentage points.
McCain had slightly bigger wins in Oklahoma (66 percent to 34 percent) and in Wyoming (65 percent to 33 percent), knocking Utah down to the third-most-Republican state.


 
405wolfer
      ID: 25521311
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 15:10
re 393 / update


OOPS!

 
406walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 16:08
NYT says Obama now wins North Carolina. He now has 364 electoral votes.

Obama Wins NC
 
407Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 16:31
In case you had any doubt the Catholic Church was dead
He won Catholics back.

Early exit polls indicate he won 54% of the Catholic vote compared with 45% for Sen. McCain. Mr. Bush won the Catholic vote 52%-46%. Most of those gains came from Catholics who don’t attend Mass weekly.

He also attracted a a greater portion of vote among white Catholics, according to the early exit polls. Mr. Bush got 56%-43% of the Catholic vote, while Sen. McCain lead by just 51%-49%. This was despite an aggressive push by more than 50 Catholic bishops to encourage Catholics to focus on abortion as the election’s central issue.
No significant influence in the lives of 'their flock'.

 
408DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 16:37
That's what happens when you betray the principles that gave you credibility in the first place.
 
409Perm Dude
      ID: 56105866
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 16:41
Many Catholics realize that McCain being against abortion wasn't enough. Catholic teaching is far more than just being anti-abortion, and the numbers are showing that.

A Witness proclaiming that the "Catholic Church is dead" is a joke. This is like a Jew declaring "I don't believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah."

pd
 
410Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 16:48
Cafeteria, there are blogs and psychobabblers who have more influence in their lives and their values now.
 
411Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 23:53
U.S. stocks slid, sending the market to its biggest two-day slump since 1987. Over the past two days, the Dow is down 9.7 percent, the S&P 500 index is off 10 percent and the Nasdaq is down 9.6 percent.

The market does not appear to like the election results so far.

 
412Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 00:22
No offense, but are you serious? The stock market does work like that. It incorporates predictions into pricing, which is why a company can increase earnings tremendously but still lose share price if it does not mean earnings targets.

There may just be one or two other factors at play in the markets slide the last two days - jobless claims, retail sales, a dismal economic forecast. Come on, man, you don't have to look too hard.
 
413Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:31
i, for one, am ok with the markets sliding. with 20 years to go until i can cash in my 401K, as the prices go lower, i am able to buy more and more.

works for me.
 
414walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:33
Building 7: The markets are not reacting to the election results. I work in an investment bank. This is an erroneous conclusion not backed up by current financial news and analysis.
 
415Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 09:54
Walk: There is merit to B7s claim. While the market dropoff is nowhere near Obama's fault as there are many other factors at play. I have heard many analysts on CNBC and Bloomberg radio state that some hedge funds, pension funds, and private investors are incrementally selling long term positions that are still profitable before the capital gains tax rate and dividend tax rates are increased as a result of an Obama victory.

So no, Obama is not the bonfire but he isn't exactly a canister of CO2 either.
 
416Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 10:04
I assumed any tax changes wouldn't happen until the fiscal year beginning after inauguration day, which would be 2010.
 
417Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 10:05
Maybe. But such increases would be many months into the future, if at all. And where is that money going? Capital gains taxes would apply to virtually everywhere that money would flow, making the possibility of a capital gains tax increase mostly a wash.
 
418Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 10:18
Boxman, the market has anticipated an Obama victory for some time. The market has been aware of Obama's policies and impending victory for some time and any asset has already incorporated that into its pricing. Any fund manager making moves now based on an Obama victory is either clueless, very late to the game or just making reasons up.

This would be a good time to point out how fallacious your early argument about oil prices being connected to a McCain victory turned out to be.
 
419Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 13:28
I assumed any tax changes wouldn't happen until the fiscal year beginning after inauguration day, which would be 2010.

While true, don't forget the key phrase incrementally selling. We're talking about billions in holdlings. They're too smart to just dump all that stock at one time if they don't have to. Selling in piecemeal out of a position is usually the best selling strategy.

And where is that money going?

Into cash, specifically dollars. According to the latest issue of Forbes there are trillions just sitting in dollars on the sidelines right now. This is one of the contributing factors to the dollar getting stronger even though the cost of money (interest rates) is cheaper.

This would be a good time to point out how fallacious your early argument about oil prices being connected to a McCain victory turned out to be.

Got a link?
 
420Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 13:38
I just can't see money not being put into the market because profits might be taxed at a higher rate two years from now. Profits realized now would be covered under the lower tax rate. All other things being equal, there is an advantage to investing now rather than waiting because your profits will be taxed at a lower rate.

In fact, if investers were worried about an increased capital gains tax as a result of the election, we'd be seeing money pouring into the market to take advantage of the tax laws on the books now before the law is changed (if, indeed, that is the worry).

But as we know, there are plenty of other reasons not to invest in the market right now to ascribe the Obama Administration to be any real factor.
 
421Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 16:48
They aren't charged capitol gains when they put money in, PD.
 
422Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:00
But what investors really are thinking.
It seems that Dolphins Owner, Wayne Huizinga, is already reacting to what he feels will be a Barack Obama victory. He is selling the Dolphins now, to avoid the Coming Obama Tax.

Huizenga wants to sell Ross another 45 percent of the team by Dec. 30, the source told The Palm Beach Post. Huizenga is believed to be motivated by his belief that Barack Obama will win the presidency and help implement tax policies that would take a bigger chunk of Huizenga’s revenues from a sale.

The NFL agreed Tuesday to let Huizenga sell up to 45 percent more of the team to Ross - but only to Ross, the source said. Because of the economic downturn, Ross - whose current share is worth more than $500 million - might not have the cash to buy almost all of Huizenga’s stake, the source said.


Has Wayne Huizinga gone John Galt?
Yup
"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him." Huizenga said. "If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes."
 
423Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:03
Right. Who said they were? WND?

Boxman's point was that people are pulling cash from the stock market and sitting on it partially as a result of anticipated capital gains tax increases. My counterpoint to that is that capital gains tax rates are advantageous now, making a cash pull unlikely to be because of later capital gains tax rate increases.

In other words, all other things being equal, grabbing profit now rather than later is better.

Of course, the Dow rising today puts the lie to the point that the drop was a result of the election as well.
 
424Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:06
Love has made you blind, PD. Get a seeing eye dog. This may last a bit longer for you.
 
425Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:10
Must be the new math, where 20% is double 15%, eh? Baldwin's motto: "Another fact-free post"
 
426Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:19
Ask Huizenga. I trust his accountant more than you.
 
427Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:28
Yeah, businessmen and their accountants never make mistakes, do they?

 
428DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:29
There is a definite element of truth to the capital gains issue, truth be told. It's not that people would be unwilling to BUY now--as noted, there are no capital gains taxes when you buy, only when you sell--but that those that desperately want to sell now might be willing to take a lower price to lock in the lower cap gains rate.

One other reason to sell now, if I understand things right, would be to take those capital gains in a year when there are also no doubt a great number of capital losses to offset them against.

We have a client looking to sell roughly a $8 million apartment building. He did the math and, based on his basis for buying the property many years ago, he figures that an increase from 15% to 20% would cost him roughly $250K. Which means that he'd do better, basically, to sell for $7.8M now than $8M two months from now--IF cap gains go up in 2009. (Assuming of course he doesn't take advantage of one of a zillion loopholes and avoid cap gains taxes entirely. Don't get me started.)


Which is of course not to say that that thought is causing all, most, or even a significant part of the reason for the recent drops (and I note that nobody has stopped buy to praise Obama for the 250 point gain today)--but the effect IS there. Things like this 240,000 jobs lost in October probably have a slightly larger effect.
 
429Perm Dude
      ID: 35103878
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:32
I'll certainly offer up that businessmen are very skittish right now, and bad news (even if untrue), often has a self-fulfilling prophecy element to it.
 
430Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:33
I give the Onion credit, passing marks for at least trying to cut both ways.
 
431Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 17:38
Now that report is what explains the last 48 hours. Anticipating worse than originally expected unemployment figures drove the market down and then people got back in at the new low. I'm sure glad I'm not the one gambling on finding the floor.
 
432Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 18:30
and I note that nobody has stopped buy to praise Obama for the 250 point gain today

Wake me up when the market approaches it's high again and we get out of bear territory and I will.
 
433Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 18:31
DWetzel: You can't seriously believe one day of +250 negates trends that last months do you?
 
434dwetzel on BB
      ID: 559392915
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:15
Of course not. That would be silly. The point was that it was equally silly to pin the losses of Wednesday and Thursday on him. Intellectual consistency and basic logic demands that one do both or neither.
 
435Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:35
The point was that it was equally silly to pin the losses of Wednesday and Thursday on him.

Do you invest in stocks or watch the market? I've been doing it for a decade and I like to think I've learned a lot. There's certainly more I need to learn, but I have been around the block and back.

Part of the market pullback Weds and Thurs was because of the official election results. Part of the overall downturn was the pricing in of an Obama presidency as far as his capital gains and dividend taxation policies are concerned.

Are you familiar with the concept of value investing? On a day where the unemployment numbers were staggeringly bad, the market went up? Why? Obama didn't give his press conference today until after the close so there is no Obama card to play today. What happens is that as stocks get to certain low price points, value driven mutual funds, pension funds, and large private investors start buying for whatever reason.

The value investing folks are a different breed of people than the stereotypical hedge fund guy that shorts the beejezus out of a stock just to make money or buys stocks for the 2-3 year timespan (if that). Those are usually your buy and hold types (where 90% of my personal portfolio can be classified BTW).

Look at the past few months. You'll see some losing days in a row and then we're up 200 points or so. It's the value guys stepping in. They don't care who is President because they're in it for the very long haul.

They see a Pfizer with an 8% yield and go "Damn, all I gotta do is hold on to that and I get 8%. (As Pfizer increases the dividend, the yield on those specific shares increases. The true beauty of buying and holding dividend stocks.) Even if the thing only earns 1-2% per year I'll come extremely close to outperforming the market every single year without even trying."
 
436DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:40
"Look at the past few months. You'll see some losing days in a row and then we're up 200 points or so. It's the value guys stepping in. They don't care who is President because they're in it for the very long haul."

Yup. I agree. And those are the smart guys.

But I think the whole "projected capital gains = mass selloff" idea is wildly overblown. As you note, the "buy and hold" people are just, well, holding (and possibly buying more for value in downturns). The hedge fund guys don't have any capital gains left, so they aren't really relevant to the conversation.
 
437DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:43
I'd add that most of this is in the context of post 411, which seemed to put pretty much all the blame for that particular market drop on Obama's election. As you astutely noted, trends lasting months (or years) are bigger than that.
 
438Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:49
But I think the whole "projected capital gains = mass selloff" idea is wildly overblown.

Watch a market show like CNBC or listen to Bloomberg radio often enough and you'll know how wrong that is.
 
439Perm Dude
      ID: 171049717
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 19:58
If we listened to CNBC we'd be hearing speculation in action. Seriously--these people got the market credit freeze and bank failures completely wrong. They have zero credibility.

Now apparently they are saying that people are pulling money out of the market to sit on the cash.
 
440Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 20:11
I just watched Mad Money a little while ago.

I love Jim Cramer. He's one of the most entertaining guys on TV. Wouldn't take his advice on stocks, though.
 
441Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 22:36
Boxman, the market has anticipated an Obama victory for some time. The market has been aware of Obama's policies and impending victory for some time and any asset has already incorporated that into its pricing.

6/5/08 Clinton concedes, Obama wins nomination

S&P 500.....1404

11/4/08 Day before election day

S&P 500....1006

11/7/08 Today

S&P 500....931
 
442Perm Dude
      ID: 171049717
      Fri, Nov 07, 2008, 22:55
Now, show that the change is causal.
 
443nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 5047110
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 01:22

MITH I assumed any tax changes wouldn't happen until the fiscal year beginning after inauguration day, which would be 2010.

I'm not going to say this is an incorrect statement, but I wouldn't "assume" anything right now. Not just because Obama is gun ho to raise taxes (Which he has made clear ad-nauseum) but because he will have both Senate and Republican majority.

There is nothing stopping them from passing a law tat is retroactive to the start of that tax year (2009). I would be somewhat surprised if something doesn't happen for 2009.

A retroactive tax was signed by Clinton in 1993 and by Ford in 1976. Those are just 2 examples.

They can use the seriousness of the current crisis to justify immediate action.

 
444Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 01:59
You will be amazed how much they can collect when they take the 401K's.
 
445Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 06:39
You will be amazed how much they can collect when they take the 401K's.

This is really where Obama shows that he's desperate for revenue, doesn't give a damn about your savings, and has the same short minded mindset of the "I want it now" Generation.

People shouldn't be allowed to early withdrawal for their 401(k) accept for the existing legal reasons which make sense. Obama enabling or encouraging further withdrawals is only going to exacerabate a problem of people having zero real assets and will cost the taxpayers millions or billions in capital gains that will never occur over the natural life of a working career.

He is either willfully ignorant about the power of 401(k)s or he wants people to rely even more heavily on a system that is most likely going BK. I'll hang up and listen for my answer.

Can we retard the retirement security of Americans? YES WE CAN!
 
446Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 06:41
Now, show that the change is causal.

Instead of peppering others for homework assignments, why don't YOU show that it's not?
 
447Perm Dude
      ID: 171049717
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 09:35
Er, because it isn't my assertion that he is. Why should I go about proving your assertion?

My own belief (as noted above) is that the pending Obama presidency is at best a tiny reason for the drop in the stock market. Event such as a global credit crunch, the failure of large companies (such as AIG and some banks), home mortgage failures spreading, and other stictly financial events have taken hold of the marketplace.

Indeed, as you've already shown, the drop in the stock market has been going on for some time.

You are confusing causality and co-relational events, Boxman.

My own belief is that the largest of many factors is that there is less credit going around, forcing companies and others in need of cash to sell stocks (which are more liquid than other instruments) to finance operations. The credit cruch is well known but boring, and so probably not worth my own show on CNBC. Maybe if I yell like Cramer and have some spectacularly wrong on-air predictions they'll give it to me.
 
448DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 09:37
441:

Look, I can toss numbers out too to prove a point:

November 3, 1992 S&P (Clinton elected): 419.92

November 7, 2000 (Bush elected): 1431.87

November 4, 2008 (Obama elected): 1005.75


I think my numbers mean a lot more than your numbers.
 
449sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:09
I'm getting the biggest kick out of all this. The rightwingbuts are 'blaming' anything and everything except the root cause; for Obama's victory. Then, they are trying to project future negatives, and blame those on Obama, when he hasnt even been sworn in yet.

Articles yesterday, said the RNC is blaming "moderate Republicans" for the Obama victory.

Today on msn.com, is a video link to some clown blaming "slackers", for Obama's victory.

ummmm, why aren't they even entertaining the notion, that it is/was failed rightwing policy; which ultimately led to Obama's victory?
 
450walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:46
#446: Right Box. That's not statistically valid. You don't assume correlation equals causation. It's a classic tenet of inferential stats (of which I have a fair amount of knowledge). The burden is on the one making the hpothesis, in any research, to disprove the opposite (null hypothesis), and to show the relationship proposed does not exist by chance factors is could be mitigated by other intervening factors. It is complete methodological consensus that the burden is on showing evidence supporting the one proposing the relationship between two sets of variables.
 
451walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:49
Pardon: typo: "...and to show the relationship proposed does not exist by chance factors is and is not mitigated by other intervening factors.
 
452Perm Dude
      ID: 171049717
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 16:51
If we all fixed our typos, the threads would be twice as long.

:)
 
453Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 17:06
Walk, if all economic conditions could be explained via statistics or pure numbers we'd all be billionaires. Try something other than the NYT. If you don't believe me, turn on CNBC or Bloomberg radio for a few days and listen.
 
454Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 17:16
Books have been written on the cause of the 1929 stock market crash. You want me to do the same thing for post #441. I'll get right on it. Check this thread repeatedly for results.

MITH I assumed any tax changes wouldn't happen until the fiscal year beginning after inauguration day, which would be 2010.

The federal fiscal year begins Oct. 1. I doubt we'll be required to calculate taxes thru Sept under one set of rules/rates and another after 10/1. Nerveclinic is correct. Clinton and the Democrat Congress made taxes retroactive, you may remember the phrase "Clinton raised taxes on dead people." I do.

November , 1994 (Republican House elected):S&P 500....462

November 6, 2006 (Democrat House elected):S&P 500 ....1380

November 7 , 2008 (Today):S&P 500......931

We could go on, but I'm done. I see where nobody is damanding DWetzel to show the change is causal.
 
455WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 17:45
B7 - this is amusing. I think we all agree that the stock market crash can be attributed to the housing crisis. You blame the housing crisis on Clinton (which had a GOP house). Then you point to Dems taking the house in 2006 as the begining. So was it the Dem house in 2006 that caused the crash ? Clinton ? GOP house during Clinton years ?
 
456DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 18:16
The point, B7, is that you came on here and made an asinine "the market is crashing because of Obama" crack right out of the Limbaugh playbook, which I called you on because it was bullshit. Do you think the 250 point gain had jack squat to do with Obama being elected? I'm sure you don't. And on that point we agree.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just MAYBE, part of the reason the housing crisis became such a crisis (with so many homes in foreclosure) is that middle class incomes have actually DECLINED compared to inflation over the past eight years? Why, pray tell, do you suppose that is? Oh wait, I know, it's probably Obama's fault too.

Did you ever stop to think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the housing crisis was brought to an absolute head because people who already (wrongly) stretched their budgets got hammered by the spike in gas prices (for which there is PLENTY of blame to go around on all sides, but I'm sure you think it's all Clinton's fault) and suddenly went into foreclosure instead of squeaking by?
 
457Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 19:11
We know exactly how it happened. Everyone all of a sudden realized everyone else was using Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae bundles of crap as their Tier 1 capital.

Bundles carefully wrapped by people like recent Fannie Mae CEO Rahm Emanuel.
 
458Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 19:34
It was just a matter of time for the insults and the cussing. Normal times on the Political Boards. Where did I make this statement "the market is crashing because of Obama" ?

 
459DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 19:51
411 Building 7
ID: 1103028
Thu, Nov 06, 2008, 23:53

"U.S. stocks slid, sending the market to its biggest two-day slump since 1987. Over the past two days, the Dow is down 9.7 percent, the S&P 500 index is off 10 percent and the Nasdaq is down 9.6 percent.

The market does not appear to like the election results so far."

What, precisely, did you mean by this if NOT "the market is crashing because of Obama?" I mean, duh.
 
460DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:00
And here on Planet Earth, Emanuel was on the board of directors (not the CEO) of Freddie Mac (not Fannie Mae) from 2000-2001.

At least if the dreaded Wikipedia is to be trusted. I haven't the Google energy to chase it much further.

But I'm sure that minor details like that don't matter when you're in full America-hating slander mode.
 
461DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:03
And the saddest irony of it is that there is much genuinely to dislike about the Democrats. But when you start throwing every single piece of mud (and worse) against the wall in hopes that something sticks, it's hard to tell what might be legitimate. Peter and the Wolf, to say the least.

(And the reverse applies as well--if you blindly defend a side--either side--simply because of WHO it is, as opposed to the ideas--you lose most of your credibility very quickly. I'm honestly trying not to do that, but it's hard.)
 
462Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:22
The markets get hammered for two days. One looks to see what happened two days ago....wow, it was election day. Many elections besides just Obama. Thus the statement:

The market does not appear to like the election results so far.

I stand by that statement. That seems like a reasonable statement to make. That statement is far from definitive. It could also be a coincidence that it crashed after the Democrat sweep of the elections. It is not the same as..... you came on here and made an asinine "the market is crashing because of Obama" crack.

 
463DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:35
Then what was the point of it, if not that?
 
464Perm Dude
      ID: 541010817
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:35
It is cherry picking, B7. On a co-relational event.

If you are willing to make the statement you did, then you have to give credit that, after Obama's first presser, suddenly the markets picked up as a result, closing up nearly 3% across the boards.

[The point is that there is no hard day-to-day relationship.]
 
465DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 20:41
Actually, now that I think of it, the most unexpected thing that happened in the elections (Obama winning wasn't a shock at all) was that the Democrats picked up a bit less than expected in the House and Senate.

Therefore, I am going to make the observation that the markets crashed because the Dems didn't get a filibuster-proof Senate and more seats in the House, and because the people of Alaska (where something less than 20% of our nation's energy reserves are located!) decided electing a convicted felon was in their best interests. That must be what you meant.


(It's not--and this would be a silly observation too--but it's just as valid.)
 
466DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 21:08
On a lighter note... this is some funny stuff right here:

McCain's Concession Speech... well, not quite
 
467Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Sat, Nov 08, 2008, 22:00
I just noticed this message from guru about dealing with abusive messages:

(3) Users who post profane or disruptive messages will be blocked from the ability to post new messages. If you engage an abuser in a profane exchange, you risk losing your privileges as well.
As we all know, the world is full of jerks who crave attention and who don't know how to conduct themselves in public.

I'm not allowed to respond to you. Thanks for getting me in trouble.

Who are these moderators guru talks about? I've been insulted and cussed at over 200 times, and these moderators have never done anything.
 
468walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 07:53
Box, thanks. I have plenty of sources for my financial info, including talking to folks where I work who are experts by definition. I've worked in banks for 20 yeas, IB's for 14. I have plenty of exposure. They are just not on TV or radio.

My point is the simple stat tenet that correlation does not equal causation. One cannot put up some #s and dates and conclude causality. It's not valid. Need more causal data...not statistics, data.
 
469walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 08:01
NYT, Frank Rich: The Year we Reclaimed our Country

Very thoughtful essay.
 
470walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 08:52
NYT, Kristoff: The War on Brains

Another interesting piece. Kristoff concludes that the record is not so strong for the success of "intellectual" leaders, but there's reason for hope. Our leaders should embrace ideas, and know nuance, and be comfortable with complexity. While when speaking to the masses, leaders to be able to distill complex issues in ways that everyone can understand, they also need to set for the tone for citizens to realize the importance of learning, appreciating other cultures, recognizing that we may not have all of the answers, and that might is not always (and nearly often) the right way to approach problems.

What's very troubling is how many folks have said "Obama is elite" or embraced leaders like Palin or Bush cos "they are someone I can have a beer with." Leaders of big organizations should be smart and knowledgeable, amongst many other things. It's a prerequisite, a core criterion, a must. Another reason I voted for and am glad Obama won. He needs to do many other things than merely be smart and knowledgeable, but I'm glad we have a leader who is at least that, for starters.
 
471Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 12:21
11-4-08....Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

"The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution."

"Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans"

I'm just posting an article I found dated 11-4-08. Try to hold the insults, homework assignments, and accusations to a minimum.
 
472Perm Dude
      SuperDude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 12:56
The premise doesn't match the story.

That story is taking what one witness (Teresa Ghilarducci) said about her idea during the course of a hearing a month ago and suddenly inflating that to be not only what the Congress wants to do but Says that the Congress is actually doing it. This is nonsense. Witnesses say a lot of things during fact-finding investigations by Congress--it doesn't mean Congress will take up the most wacky one.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

This was taken up elsewhere, and completely takes out of context the remarks that Obama made. Obama was actually saying the opposite of what was implied, that the left has been far too dependent upon the courts to enact social change.

All in all, a poor article.
 
473Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 13:07
re post 471

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits. Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said.

The article mentioned some pretty radical ideas, but the idea I highlighted is neither new nor radical, it's just sound, progressive tax policy that is overdue.

Seattle Zen - insult free since this morning!
 
474jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 15:35
Well, I have been lurking here for a number of months, reading
the back and forth and quite honestly, scared to post anything.
But reading these last posts, I had to just say something. From
the above article:

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the
government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said.
“There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or
people who do not file income taxes should get smaller
incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

Why should people who pay no taxes get money from the
government? I just don't understand that concept at all.

Telling people they are not smart enough to make their own
investment decisions just sits wrong with me. Whatever
happened to personal responsibility?

I made some stupid decisions in my business the last couple
years that have cost me a lot of money. Where do I go for my
bailout money? I have to work my way through it and face the
consequences.


 
475Seattle Zen
      ID: 358591721
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 16:40
Why should people who pay no taxes get money from the government? I just don't understand that concept at all.

Have you heard of the Earned Income Credit? It's a very effective incentive to get low to no income people work.

And no one who works even just one day pays "no" taxes, everyone pays FICA, but there are people who do not make enough to start paying income taxes.
 
476Building 7
      ID: 1103028
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 16:53
Seattle Zen - insult free since this morning!

It may be a new record.

jedman: Why would you be scared to post anything?
 
477Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 17:25
Yeah really jedman. Don't be afraid of these people and their pumped up sense of selves. I just stopped posting here because for true objective conversation it's a waste of time like Nerveclinic says. This board is the true lifeblood of quite a few people here I'm convinced.

If Guru actually enforced his own rules, the political board would be a wasteland; absent of any life or signs of activity. You would then see the rate of suicide amongst Guru patrons skyrocket 5000% as Zen, Tree, Sarge, Perm Dude, and who knows who else all hang themselves by their own mouse cords.

Sarge even challenged me to a fight one time because I called him a liar, which he is. Big deal.
 
478Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 18:35
Why would you be scared to post anything? - B7

The swineherd ganging up of the liberal majority here is not to be faced without a thick skin and a flinty face. And you have to swim thru the liberal trolls just to get there.
 
479walk
      ID: 139332920
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:08
Eeeeeeeeeesh, well I guess these kinda posts would reinforce why someone would not want to post here. Maybe we can show a better side?
 
480jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 20:38
Exactly walk. In all my reading through this forum, I see a lot of
very smart people who are very passionate about their political
beliefs and generally present well thought out and well
researched opinions. Most of those I do not agree with. I
generally do not discuss politics with people because I am not
an argumentative type of person and do not like to debate. I see
this forum as a place for those who like to debate and obviously
discuss politics. My experience is that unless you are very good
friends with somebody, opposing views can tend to get blown
out of proportion and bring out the worst in people. It is even
more so in faceless cyberspace. I don't think much of what is
posted here that is personally negative towards others would
ever be said face to face.
I walked in support of Prop 8 here in California and did not have
one person call me names are get into an argument with me.
Those who disagreed were very congenial and many actually
complimented me for being out there in support of something I
believed in.
Yet after the election, friends of mine had their Yes on 8 sign
spray painted with swastikas and a Hmong family I know had
their house broken into and spray painted all inside. People
opposed to 8 had their signs switched and I'm sure other things
happen. It is people like that that sicken me and keep me away
from political discussion.
I voted for McCain, more as a vote against Obama. I'm not sure
the Republicans could have run anybody this year and won with
the economy and Bush being so unpopular. I think Obama will
raise my taxes personally and as a business and that inheritance
taxes will eventually rise as well. I hope I am wrong. I hope
Obama turns out to be the greatest President ever. I am sincerely
praying for him. We need somebody who can change things. I
just don't believe he will.
I am incensed at the housing debacle. When did it become a
right to own a house? Let everybody own a house, even if they
can't afford it. Create loans that are too hard for the average
person to understand the fine print. Did anybody ever tell those
people what negative amortization is? There is so much blame
to go around it's not fair to pick any one person. The main
problem was greed. Let's finance my house that's gone up
$200,000 and buy 2 more, the payments are only $100 per
month and I'll sell it before the real payment kicks in. Everybody
knows that houses go up forever. Then let Wall Street package
these lousy loans and sell them as prime investments. I could
go on, but the whole thing was so forseeable. Now we're in the
mess we're in and who knows if we will get out of it.
I think government is so big now that I'm not sure if it can be
fixed. I would love somebody to go in and ax all the
government agencies that are totally unnecessary. When you or
I hit hard times, the cable goes, the second car goes, the dinners
out with friends go. I let people go at my business because I
can't afford to keep them. In a dream world, government would
do the same thing, but I'm skeptical it will ever happen.
Sorry for the long post, but it just sort of all came out today.

 
481jedman
      Dude
      ID: 315192219
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 21:15
SZ, back to your post. Good point on the EITC.

If we already have the EITC, what more is needed? Is Obama's
plan going to give money on top of that?

At what point do the wealthy pay enough of the total tax
burden? 50% rate, 60% rate? How about massive spending cuts
and reducing the size of government.




 
482Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:00
Ask Obama's dad. He had no problem with 100% taxation and said so.
 
483Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 22:01
That would be the famous, 'Dreams of My Father', for those who do not follow along.
 
484Perm Dude
      SuperDude
      ID: 030792616
      Sun, Nov 09, 2008, 23:34
And, for those unable to distinguish, Obama is going nowhere near 100%. He's going to tax the wealthy at a rate Newt Gingrich agreed to.

The horrors!
 
485Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:29
Count all receipts, PD.

And hold on to your 401K's with both hands.
 
486Tree
      ID: 121035316
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:34
PD - my dad keeps kosher. i must keep kosher too. my dad goes to synagogue every saturday. i must go to. my dad used to smoke 4 packs a day. i must have done the same.

everything my father does, i do. apparently.

so sayeth our very own Reverend Bubba Flavel...
 
487sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 09:34
re 477...No Box, I'm not a liar. You're just not able to see the truth when its standing right in front of you.

and concern yourself not at all with my 'suicide'. That would be granting you FAR too much power.
 
488James K Polk
      ID: 521051615
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 17:23
When I was in college, most of my fellow students would have told you it's a sin to vote Democrat. Apparently the past 8 years have opened up some WWJD eyes.

Obama Made Gains Among Younger Evangelical Voters, Data Show

The payoff was both generational and geographic. Mr. Obama doubled his support among young white evangelicals (those ages 18 to 29) compared with Mr. Kerry. The increase was almost the same for white evangelicals ages 30 to 44.

“There is definitely a generational division,” said David P. Gushee, professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University and author of “The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center.”

“Young evangelicals,” Dr. Gushee said, are “attracted to a broader agenda” beyond abortion and homosexuality, that includes the environment, poverty, human rights and torture.
 
489Baldwin
      ID: 201045320
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 18:06
The question is 'how much of that is research and reporting, and how much of that is a project the college left is working at'?
 
490biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 20:47
Mr. Prez is in the house!